Faith

But it Says it in the Bible

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Of all the terrifying trends under the umbrella of Mr. Trump, the rise of Christian Nationalism is the most sinister and dangerous. It is a descent into the vortex of anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-enlightenment leading to a society run by dominant males and subservient females.

In a country of 300 million people with access to modern medicine, terabytes of data, and instant worldwide communication, a significant number still believe in signs, astrology, magic, angels, and Biblical abiogenesis.

These fundamentalists, preying on these dark ages beliefs, would drag us back into the era of witchcraft and demons with their medieval philosophies.

Their authority for such a philosophy resides in a book translated from ancient languages to Greek, Latin, German, and English, with hundreds of versions and conflicting translations of the text. And keep in mind that for most of the period since the first written versions of the Bible were translated into Latin, the lingua franca of the church, it was a sin punishable by death to translate it into a language anyone outside the clergy could read.

And when these Christian Nationalists offer Mr. Trump as the one to battle the rise of this mythical Anti-Christ, it goes beyond the hysterical to tragic.

Trump is the least likely of any to be an example of Christian piety or defender of the faith. Even if he had the good fortune to be around during the time of Jesus Christ and heard him speak, his only chance at entering heaven would be to ride one of the crosses in the back row. Redemption by way of good timing rather than a shining paragon of the faith.

Which leads me to wonder why people fail to see the contradiction in that story. If we assume the circumstances of the crucifixion to be accurate, those two criminals on the crosses in the back row didn’t need to seek redemption, didn’t need to repent, didn’t need to do anything but have the good/bad fortune to be crucified at the same time as Jesus. Hmm.

But putting Mr. Trump and other contradictions aside for the moment—oh, that I wish that to be possible—let’s look at this authority.

The version of the Bible most people are familiar with, the King James Version (KJV), was a product of, wait for it, political intrigue. James, the son of Mary Queen of Scots, needed to shore up his power with the ardent Scots, who hated the English Catholics, and with the other various factions.

Meanwhile, the Protestants created their own version in the Geneva Bible. And in an interesting side note to the history of the Bible in America, it was the Geneva Bible that accompanied the Pilgrims to America.

Here’s the same passage in the KJV and Geneva Bible.

Isaiah 7:14 1599 Geneva Bible
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

KJV
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Not a lot of difference, but how can the inerrant word of God be different depending on who is doing the translation?

Just for fun, here’s a version from the Orthodox Jewish Bible.

Yeshayah 7:14
14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (God is with us)

Here’s the same verse in the New Revised Edition Anglicized Catholic Edition

Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Now here is where it gets interesting. The whole virgin thing has a glitch. In the original Hebrew, the word in the verse is “alma” which means young woman. Other words represent “virgin” such as “betulah.” Why is “alma” translated as ‘virgin’ in most versions, you might ask? And why do we call him Jesus instead of Immanuel or Shmo Immanu El?

Again, the politics of power and control.

The Catholic Church in 451 A.D. was the dominant force in the known world. There were factions and disagreements, so a meeting was called to resolve and consolidate the faith into one doctrine. The Council of Chalcedon.

You may have heard about an earlier meeting, the Council of Nicaea, which resolved the issue of the dual nature of Jesus. At the time, some believed God to be eternal and Jesus to be created by God, also eternal but only from the point of his creation. The Council at Nicaea said nope. Jesus and God are the same; thus, the beginning of the Holy Trinity, or at least leading to more creative interpretations to concoct that myth.

By 451 A.D., more heretics began teaching conflicting doctrines, an intolerable situation to Rome, thus a more refined explanation arose from this new council.

1. God the Father almighty and in
2. Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord,
3. who was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.

“These three statements wreck the tricks of nearly every heretic. When God is believed to be both almighty and Father, the Son is clearly proved to be co-eternal with him, in no way different from the Father, since he was born God from God, almighty from the Almighty, co-eternal from the Eternal, not later in time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not distinct in being. The same eternal, only-begotten of the eternal begetter was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death. Overcoming the originator of sin and death would be beyond us, had not he whom sin could not defile, nor could death hold down, taken up our nature and made it his own. He was conceived from the holy Spirit inside the womb of the virgin mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him. ” The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

The reality of an eternal God and of Jesus —the key to everlasting life —was the source of the Church’s authority. John 14:6 (KJV) “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him.

The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

But some thought of Jesus and God as separate. The council put an end to this heresy. “Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time.” More illogical contortions to prove the impossible.

But that wasn’t enough to satisfy the needs of religious abhorrence of earthly pleasures. Jesus could not be tainted by such things.

“By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin’s womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man. … Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him. The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

And the subsequent translations of the Bible were molded to fit the doctrine.

If one wants to submit a document as evidence in court, one must prove both its origin and authenticity. We have hundreds of court cases trying to interpret the language of the Constitution, and that is in the original English.

Why would any modern nation, or world for that matter, choose to ignore science and enlightenment and base a society on a book of questionable origin, with myriad interpretations, and modified over the millennia by organizations with a stake in the results?

Because it’s in the Bible?

P.S. Another interesting tidbit. The American Standard Edition of 1952 used the words “young woman” instead of “Virgin.” It took the fundamentalists until 1978 to get it changed. Biblical politics? Who knew?

Right Wingnuts or Right Wing Nuts?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Free Speech in this country is apparently about as solid a concept as an ice cube in the desert.

The President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director of the FBI all said they will investigate groups based on the sole criteria of, in their determination, left-leaning organizations. They intend to scour websites, publications, social media, speeches, etc, looking for evidence that these groups encourage or support political violence.

Now to play Advocatus Diaboli, any organization that encourages or supports political violence should be investigated.

But this is the height of hypocrisy.

These are proud (dare I say Proud Boys?) supporters of the most recent organized and orchestrated attempt of a violent takeover of the government of the United States that happened on January 6, 2021.

But let’s use their logic in how they rationalize that event into something it was not.

On January 6, 2021, an assembly of American citizens joined together in solidarity to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by the exercise of their First Amendment-protected right to protest the government for a redress of grievances. A select portion of this group was exploited by a corrupt and weaponized government operation which entrapped, targeted, defamed, violently arrested, maliciously and falsely charged, fraudulently convicted, and unjustly punished and imprisoned them. (https://www.wearej6.com/the-story)

If that was an expression of their First Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, and to redress grievances, and does not rise to the level of encouraging political violence, let alone engaging in it, how does a monologue on late-night television foster something the federal government need investigate?

Or, more troubling, what argument does the government make that statements made by Jimmy Kimmel warrant government-imposed censorship?

Kimmel said “”We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trg to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”

When the government says it will investigate organizations based on the government’s determination of its political affiliation or policies, absent any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminality, i.e. probable cause, we should all be gravely concerned.

“…upon the death of a principal government figure or in the aftermath of a national tragedy.”

Let’s call this what it is. This involves using the power of the government to investigate and prosecute crimes and turning it into a means to suppress political opposition. If those who shouted from the mountaintops that prosecuting the J6 defendants was weaponizing the Justice system against “innocent” citizens, absent any actual proof of such, here it is in real time.

That any American sees this as a legitimate means to “Make America Great Again” is astounding. But if you need more evidence of this troubling government trend targeting those who do not support this president, here it is.

DOJ removed a study showing far-right extremists are responsible for higher levels of violence than far-left groups or Islamic Jihadists. (Deity of your choice) forbid we have information to base our opinions and actions on.

Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives,” the study said. “In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.

This is an image of the report from archive searches. Why conceal a report if one is interested in the truth? Because they’e not interested in the truth, they’re interested in suppressing dissent. And every American who doesn’t realize that dissent from government policy is the very foundation of our power over the government is suffering from delusions.

All this came about, or at least was brought into the light of day, with the murder of Mr. Kirk. The leadership of the FBI, the Justice Department, and political allies of the President have worked themselves into a frenzy trying to paint the suspect as a left-wing ideologue programmed by NPR, Sesame Street, and other “left-leaning organizations.

Which brings me to my final point. By what measure do we determine a situation requires the flag to be flown at half staff? From various organizations (none of them left-leaning if that gives you comfort) “The President of the United States can order the flag to be flown at half-staff. This happens upon the death of a principal government figure or in the aftermath of a national tragedy.”

Mr. Kirk was a controversial individual who made frequent and outrageous remarks that were homophobic, xenophobic, disparaging of individuals and groups, and promoted clearly false theories of election fraud and the great replacement concept.

And he had every right to do so under our principle of Free Speech.

However, to accord such an individual with the honor of flags being flown at half-staff, transportation on official government aircraft, and the trappings of an official state funeral is to sully the purpose of such honors.

Mr. Kirk’s death was a criminal act, tragic, unfortunate, and horrifying. But it was not a national tragedy any more than any other violent act. If the deaths on the same day of two young children in school who were also murdered aren’t even mentioned, how is that the appropriate use of this practice? Perhaps, if it were, the flag would never be flown at top staff again, and that might be too painful a reminder of our continued violent tendencies.

Having seen over the years how Mr. Trump treats those in his circle when they no longer suit his purpose, there is only one conclusion here. Mr. Kirk served the president well in his campaign, and now his death is a convenient way for Mr. Trump to foment more government control over those who would challenge him.

If that were not the case, none of this would be happening.

Mr. Kirk was not a saint or someone to be venerated any more than any other human being. Mr. Trump should not be empowered to target his enemies in such a manner. And those who are blind to this virus will come to regret it.

No One Should Die Because of Their Beliefs

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

No one should ever die over differences in belief. It is not the American way, or at least it never used to be the way we handled our disagreements.

Mr. Kirk was a lightning rod of right-wing rhetoric and often used inciting and bitter language about those he disagreed with and their policies.

But he did not deserve to be killed for it.

I can think of nothing I ever read or heard from Mr. Kirk that I agreed with him about. But this does not give someone the right to take a life. Whether I or anyone else agreed or disagreed is irrelevant; he had every right to speak and write about it.

Mr. Kirk is also not a martyr for any cause, to make him so clouds the bigger issue. His words have to be considered when one examines the man’s life. One cannot do such things in a vacuum. Words can and do have consequences.

“I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” Turning Point USA CEO and co-founder Charlie Kirk said of gun deaths on April 5, 2023,

And in the news avalanche after Mr. Kirk was shot, another school shooting happened, with young people killed. This was ignored. It’s not even a front-page story anymore. I wonder if Mr. Kirk visualized a shooting in a grammar school when he uttered that statement?

The shooting will be characterized as an “assassination” by the right instead of a “nut with a gun” as they characterize school shootings, and they will miss the point.

Perhaps Mr. Kirk’s untimely death will serve a greater purpose.

Perhaps it will open a dialog among Americans to confront our violence problem.

Perhaps it will serve as a catalyst for less antagonistic, winner-take-all political diatribes and foster open communications.

Mr. Kirk may have roused extreme responses from those with whom he disagreed, but he did not deserve to be killed for it. 

Mr. Kirk was a husband and father to two young children, and we should grieve that they live in a country where people resort to violence. Two young lives forever changed by the pull of a trigger, in this case and far too many others.

Sending thoughts and prayers, no matter how sincere, absent actual effort to change things, seems vacuous. Let’s hope we never find ourselves where we accept a few gun deaths as the price of our living in this country.

In Search of Hope

/ / 6 Comments

In what some would classify as my descent into agnosticism or atheism, I am troubled by the virulence and resentment by the hyper-religious into my questioning their beliefs. Some are fuming, some spiteful, some simply bewildered.

I find this confusing. What bearings do my beliefs, or lack thereof, have on anyone’s faith? Unless it is because I (and the Constitution) insist on your keeping your faith in your way and I in mine, then don’t bother reading on, nothing will change your perspective. If you’ve an open mind, carry on.

Why do some believe? Why embrace a practice I see as without a firm foundation in facts?

But then it occurred to me that the true progenitor of faith is hope. Hope that there is more than this brief life. Hope that there is something greater than what we experience here on this planet.

When Pandora opened the box, and all the evil, pestilence, diseases, and death infected the world, the last thing that arose was hope.

Some seem to believe that they have done something wrong (in Christianity they have a name for it, Original sin) and most spend their lifetime atoning for it. Would a loving God visit the sins of the father (or in Eve’s case, the mother) on their children?

I think when I argue against the existence of God (particularly in the Christian sense, since that is the dominate faith in this country) people who embrace the faith perceive it as someone trying to take away hope.

It would explain why people persist in praying absent one iota of evidence of its efficacy.

It would explain why people expound vociferously with passages from the Bible, as if they alone prove the point.

It would explain all the ceremony, pageantry, and emotional pleadings over Sunday services (and Saturday for those who cannot give up football on Sunday).

These all are reinforcing the power of Hope.

If I pray the right way.

If I live the right way.

If I express my faith for all to hear, I have hope of a better life after death.

Religion is not the only path to hope. At least not the concept of the Judeo-Christian tradition some believe dominant, and necessary, in this country.

There are other paths. Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Transcendental Meditation, Stoicism, and others all offer hope for peace and fulfillment in this life and something better later. Some recognize this may be all there is.

I would argue it is this insistence that America be a Christian based government that creates much of our problems. Our self-inflicted separation from those we don’t understand creates a sense of us vs. them. Of a need to purge the country of those who differ from us.

But if we really thought about it, we are all the same.

Just because I, and others, do not embrace any faith, does not mean we are stealing away hope. Think of it this way: if one person doubting the validity of faith can deny hope to the faithful, how certain is that faith?

I think wondering about what happens once we check out is natural. I think having hope there is some form of existence after we die is normal. No one wants it to end. But the flavor of one’s faith is irrelevant.

If there is a God, or Gods, capable of designing the universe, all the rules of physics, and all that it holds, of creating millions of species, of being the God who creates minds who can write things like,

Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye.
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

would they worry about being adored?

If there is such a being, they would not be in the least bit concerned with being worshipped or venerated by one tiny element of creation. In fact, it is more likely they’d be amused, or perhaps a bit annoyed, by the arrogance of such practice.

Or not notice it at all.

Want to worship the creator? Want to express the ultimate level of devotion to creation? Treat everyone you meet as you would have them treat you. Respect the dignity of every human, no matter the differences.

Then, on the off chance you find yourself in front of a being who will ask you what you did with this gift of life, you can say I lived every moment with regard for my fellow humans.

That might be a faith worth embracing.

My Mom and Her Determination

/ / 3 Comments

I tried to go to an Italian bakery today and could not figure out why it was so crowded. This reminded why…

(Here’s a re-posting of a piece I wrote some time ago. It’s the time of the year…but with all the uncertainty, I missed the actual date of March 19th. My mom has now been gone for 11 years, but the sentiment remains. Nevertheless, here it is…)

It has been almost 8 years since my mother died. Thoughts, sights, and sounds remind me of her almost daily.

Words she often turned into her own askew versions. Her penchant for reading EVERY street sign whenever she was in the car. Twinkies she hid in the freezer in violation of her diet. The one constant reminder is my white hair, undeniable genetic evidence that part of her remains with me.

These are memories of a special woman.

Each year, on a particular date, there is a poignant reminder of something she did for me.

I suspect she had similar traditions with my brother and sisters; she was that kind of a mom.

She had a way to make you feel special.

Nevertheless, this one was between us.

As many of you know from my writings, I do not share the faith that my mother did. She had absolute confidence in her beliefs. Despite all the things she experienced, the joys and the sorrows, she never once doubted them.

She made a valiant effort to share her faith. If there is any blame to go around for her failed attempt to instill that in me, the fault is mine.

What is the annual event that triggers such a memory?

St. Joseph’s day.

Every year, I would get a card from my mother. It came in the mail. It was not a text, an email, or a phone call. It would arrive in the days just before the 19th, more evidence of her careful consideration and purpose.

She took the time to select, address, and mail a card. Through a simple gesture, she preserved the dying art of thoughtfulness.

The card celebrated the Saint’s day of my (sort of) namesake. Her thoughtful gesture had a dual purpose, serving as a subtle reminder of her faith. I used to chuckle whenever I opened the card. Amused by my mother’s determination, yet touched by such a simple, caring act.

She never gave up.

Since her passing, I miss the card every year and her every day.

Mom, while you may not have succeeded in making me a Saint there is a good chance you made me less of a sinner.

Happy Saint Joseph’s Day.

K.I.S.S. Explanation of the Difference Between Truth and a Lie

/ / Leave a comment

Apparently those who remain blinded to the defeated former President still cannot differentiate between truth and a lie.

We are forced to use the Keep It Simple Stupid approach to explain this rather obvious yet critical difference.

The DFPOTUS (Defeated Former President of the United State) said this, which is an example of a lie,

“I will tell you they know who shot Ashli Babbitt. They’re protecting that person. I have heard also that it was the head of security for a certain high official, a Democrat. And we will see because it’s going to come out. It’s going to come out.” — on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Fox News

Here is the truth.

No, the officer who shot and killed Babbitt was not head of security for a Democratic official. He is a police lieutenant on the 2,000-member Capitol Police force that protects the buildings and grounds. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-stokes-jan-6-conspiracy-theories

Here’s another example of a lie from DFPOTUS on another Fox Show

“The defeated president’s comments come as he and many of his supporters recast the pro-Trump insurrection as a patriotic display of “spirit and faith and love,” as he put it Sunday on Fox News Channel.”

Fox News

“There must be some way outta here, said the Joker to the Thief”

All Along the Watchtower, Jimi Hendrix version (written by Bob Dylan)

Here are a couple of images from the Capitol that infamous day which illustrates the truth, unless your idea of “spirit, faith, and love” is quite different than most rational Americans.

NBC4 Washington Image

Image Rolling Stone Magazine

Here’s an image from EDM.com which shows a gathering of almost 400,000 Americans at a true celebration of America’s “spirit, faith, and love” as comparison.

Woodstock Image EDM.com

At Woodstock, there were less than a dozen police officers for the enormous crowd and none were injured.

On January 6th, where several officers died and hundreds were injured, the DFPOTUS would have you believe this was a celebration of “spirit, faith, and love” in the finest tradition of American patriotism.

From Woodstock we got the most memorable music and one rather crude but harmless chant.

“Gimme an F…Gimme a U…”

From January 6, 2021, we got this gem.

“Hang Mike Pence, Hang Mike Pence.”

I’ll leave it to you to choose which chant you want to recall with some sense of fondness, and which one comes closest to reflecting the worst of America.

The truly sad part about the DFPOTUS rants is that not one leader of the Republican Party called him for what he is, a liar.  Not Mitch McConnell, not Kevin McCarthy, none of the so-called Republican leadership has the courage or the sense of honor to call the DFPOTUS to task for his lies.

So, Mr. DFPOTUS, I have a new chant for you.

Gimme a S… Gimme a T…Gimme a F…GImme a U…”  What’s that spell? STFU! What’s that spell? STFU!

Please, Mr. DFPOTUS S.T.F.U. (Cue Jimi Hendrix “There must be some way out of here, said the Joker to the Thief”)

********************************************************************************************

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.

Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.

My Mom and Her Determination

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

(Here’s a re-posting of a piece I wrote some time ago. It’s the time of the year…but with all the uncertainty, I missed the actual date of March 19th. My mom has now been gone for 11 years, but the sentiment remains. Nevertheless, here it is…)

It has been almost 8 years since my mother died. Thoughts, sights, and sounds remind me of her almost daily.

Words she often turned into her own askew versions. Her penchant for reading EVERY street sign whenever she was in the car. Twinkies she hid in the freezer in violation of her diet. The one constant reminder is my white hair, undeniable genetic evidence that part of her remains with me.

These are memories of a special woman.

Each year, on a particular date, there is a poignant reminder of something she did for me.

I suspect she had similar traditions with my brother and sisters; she was that kind of a mom.

She had a way to make you feel special.

Nevertheless, this one was between us.

As many of you know from my writings, I do not share the faith that my mother did. She had absolute confidence in her beliefs. Despite all the things she experienced, the joys and the sorrows, she never once doubted them.

She made a valiant effort to share her faith. If there is any blame to go around for her failed attempt to instill that in me, the fault is mine.

What is the annual event that triggers such a memory?

St. Joseph’s day.

Every year, I would get a card from my mother. It came in the mail. It was not a text, an email, or a phone call. It would arrive in the days just before the 19th, more evidence of her careful consideration and purpose.

She took the time to select, address, and mail a card. Through a simple gesture, she preserved the dying art of thoughtfulness.

The card celebrated the Saint’s day of my (sort of) namesake. Her thoughtful gesture had a dual purpose, serving as a subtle reminder of her faith. I used to chuckle whenever I opened the card. Amused by my mother’s determination, yet touched by such a simple, caring act.

She never gave up.

Since her passing, I miss the card every year and her every day.

Mom, while you may not have succeeded in making me a Saint there is a good chance you made me less of a sinner.

Happy Saint Joseph’s Day.

Misplaced Tolerance: The Price of Practicality

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

There is a sad, yet well-established history in this country of aligning ourselves with groups and governments that are the antithesis of our cherished love of freedom.

During WWII, we allied ourselves with the Soviet Union for the greater good of defeating Nazi Germany

In Vietnam we supported, some would say orchestrated, a violent coup which overthrew one tyrannical government in favor of one more to our liking. We then supported this government in its battle against the communist north under Ho Chi Minh. Of course, we supported Ho Chi Minh prior to that when he fought against the Japanese. Yet we did not support Ho Chi Minh when they fought against French colonialism, after all, Vietnam does not fall under the umbrella of the Monroe doctrine.

We did it again in Kuwait, aligning ourselves with one dynastic, Islamic royalty against the country of Iraq. Among our allies, Saudi Arabia. The house of Saud is a theocratic dynastic royalty which embraces Sharia law.

Now our latest, supporting false democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These alliances make sense if one takes a practical approach to the world. However, practicality should have limitations.

The world needed to stop Hitler. His actions set in motion a war in which over 60 million people died. Three percent of the world’s population at the time.

Our alliance with Stalin brought about the defeat of Hitler. Under Stalin, an estimated 50 million people died “unnatural” deaths during the years 1924-1953. This number excludes wartime deaths.

In a practical world, aligning with Stalin to defeat Hitler made military and strategic sense. Moreover, one could argue Stalin killed fewer people. In a practical sense, he was the lesser of two evils.

The Soviet Union went on from WWII to support the North Vietnamese with weapons against our new allies in South Vietnam. Our Russian allies killed Americans because the practicalities of the world changed.

Practicality has a price.

Our path of practicality has come at a cost to our beliefs. I, for one, think it past the time that we put practical considerations aside and focus on doing the right thing.

Some will argue we have no right to impose our standards on others. I agree. We do not impose our standards on anyone. However, we also do not support those that would mistreat their own people under misguided 14th century concepts.

What we need is a qualifications checklist for receiving aid, military or otherwise, from this country. This country may not be perfect but our laws seek to protect everyone. The last time I checked our laws do not consider women to be property. Our laws do not permit discrimination based on race, ethnicity, skin color, or sexual orientation. Our laws are there to protect all of us.

Are there exceptions to these rules, of course there are. The sad fact is that many embrace similar archaic, mostly religious-based concepts of equality. Many consider women inferior to men and in need of male guidance. They cloak this control with claims of “protecting” women. Protecting them from what? My guess would be from the very ones controlling them.

Many consider certain races or ethnicities to be inferior. That is a symptom of their faulty upbringing or lack of education. While the reality of these idiotic, misogynistic and childish beliefs is unfortunate, it is not enshrined in our laws. Unlike many of the countries we support under the guise of practicality, we strive for the equality of all.

I think it long past the time when this country needs to be that “Shining City on the Hill” (in the secular sense.)

Time we stop ignoring civil rights abuses under the premise of “tolerance” for difference and start insisting on conditions for our support.

If the Saudi’s believe that Sharia law is more important than our strategic support that is their choice.

If Afghanistan permits the jailing of women based solely on the word of their husband or believes that some archaic social code that refuses women the right to self-determination is more important than our support that is their choice.

Practicality has limitations. Common sense tells us that all human beings are entitled to self-determination and the right to control their own destiny.

This experiment called the United States began with these words,

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; …

These were the words of Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Words later changed for the final document. I think these words capture his meaning in a much clearer sense.

Perhaps it is time we put these words at the top of every agreement, treaty, support, or assistance package we offer as a condition.

Our practicality needs a conscience.

Killing Christmas

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

We are, all of us, killing Christmas.

We are engaged in the destruction of fellowship, good will, and a wish for happiness for all by abandoning rationality, tolerance, and understanding.

This once uplifting time of the year fallen victim to our insistence on highlighting differences, rather than embracing them.

It is us versus them.

We are on the side of good; they are on the side of evil.

If you are not with us, you are against us.

Does it really matter if one says Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?

Of course not.

Yet some would have us believe respecting differences is in some way an abandonement of our own beliefs.

Or that making an effort to understand differences is a sign of weakness or surrender.

Nothing could be further from the truth or less in keeping with the spirit of Christmas.

The term Christmas may have originated in a particular religious philosophy, but the spirit it represents crosses all faiths and philosophies.

This world is at a crisis stage. Not because the threat facing us is any worse than others but because we face a choice of how we respond.

We can either move ahead as a race of intelligent, rational, and understanding beings or fall back into the violence of our past.

Differences make us better. Seeking to eliminate those differences diminishes us.

The Spirit of Christmas is universal. We do it a great disservice by ignoring that fact.

We are killing the true spirit of Christmas. We need to stop before it is too late for all of us.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Fröhliche Weihnachten, Giáng sinh vui vẻ, or Live Long and Prosper, does not really matter how you say it as long as you live it.