Issue 396 Crime: politicians punished double? August 7, 2014

Should a politician be punished double for the commitance of a crime?  Some people will be shouting yes!  However, I will say, NO!  Let's discuss the reasons why.

Those in favor of double:  The idea is simple, a politician or other government figure breaks a law, and as such they will pay a harsher punishment.  From this perspective the basic reason for doing a harsher punishment is that a government official who has been elected or appointed to a public office has broken the public trust.  Yes, a sacred trust that the politician or bureaucrat will uphold and protect the law.  That the individual in government will maintain that all are treated fairly under the law and that no one escapes.  Sound reasoning is it not, for a public official who breaks the law spits in the face of the people.

Those in favor of equal:  Well, while the public trust is sacred and extraordinarily important, that is no longer equal treatment under the law.  Basically, by making the political experience double the punishment, you are certifying that they are above the people that they are elected (or appointed) to serve.  Therefore, you make them the first among equals.  Here in the United States, we already have this culture in Washington where they think that they are above those who elect them.  Doing double the punishment will not solve this issue.  The law treats people as equals, it is not supposed to treat people as special, for it is the only place and concept that allows for equality which inherently does not exist in nature.

Conclusion:  So what do you think, are politicians supposed to be our equals, or be treated special?  My personal solution is simple, if you commit a violent crime, then you are barred from serving in all public offices for a set period of time depending on what form that violent crime comes in. In addition, enforce the law by punishing the politicians when they break it.  It should not matter if it is the lowest of the low on the scale of power, or the President him/herself.  All must be punished with equal measure.  So what do you think, can America finally enforce its own stupid laws to punish those who deserve to be?

Issue 395 Reincarnation and God? August 6, 2014

God is all powerful and all knowing.  Those with faith in God agree on this.  So is it out of the realm of possibility that God can allow for reincarnation?  Let's discuss.

What is reincarnation?:  This is the religious concept that a person who passes away can be reborn again in a new body.  Typically, the individual will not have memories of their past life, but aspects of one's past life can show through, such as a similar personality, body type and possibly personality, talent and physical attributes.  Some places have reincarnation of the individual being reborn for the sake of proving themselves worthy of the next life after failing in the previous one.  In some cases, the reincarnated can be reborn as animals as well, or even spirits.  However, the premise remains the same, you die and are then reborn.

Can God cause someone to be reincarnated?:  Seeing as God is all powerful and mighty, this is a possibility.  God could use reincarnation as a tool to further test his children who have yet to prove themselves worthy, or even sending them back for just a single moment in time to save a person from themselves.  It may even be used as a punishment as well rather than sending someone to hell.  Imagine the worst people in history being reborn as slugs just to be stepped on.  Some faiths don't believe animals have souls, or that at the moment of death the person’s soul is taken from their body.  Now imagine this, what if as the harshest punishment imaginable, that as the one soul is extracted, the soul of an evil person is inserted long enough to experience pain and suffering equal to what they caused on earth.  So going from God being all powerful this is all possible.

Another way to look at it:  Baptism actually has to do with being reborn.  It is not the forgiveness of original sin, but the rebirth of the individual into the Christian faith.  So this cleansing can take the form of reincarnation?  Perhaps, while we cannot know for sure, this definitely implies the possibility.

Conclusion:  Does any of this prove God can reincarnate people or has done so?  No.   However, it is a fun thought exercise to know that God may be capable of sending us somewhere else other than hell.  Enjoy pondering my readers on the question of reincarnation.

Issue 394 Why God?: Death August 5, 2014

Death is a factor of life.  It is inescapable.  But, why did God make it so that we are even capable of dying?

Limited life span:  On earth our time is limited. We know and understand this as unfortunate.  However, there may be a purpose to this.  As we all know, we are being tested by God for our worth to get into heaven.  So what we do with this limited life span as we slowly begin to find out ways to extend it, is part of Gods big test.  God wants to see what we do with ourselves and is routing for our success as he attempts to guide us on the right path.

Our life is not limited:  The fact that we even have a concept of an afterlife demonstrates that our death here on Earth is not the end.  In fact it is a new beginning.  Who knows what awaits us once we leave our physical bodies and ascend to becoming another state of being.  We believe heaven to be a paradise, while hell to be horrible, so which do we go to?  Do we know where we will end up?  Heck, do we even know if the next step after our deaths here on earth is heaven or hell?  These are things we do not know for only God knows.

Why some die before others:  Have you ever wondered why some people get sick and die so early in life?  I definitely have.  I believe this too is a part of the test that is placed before us as how we deal with grief is also another piece of the puzzle that God has laid out for us to solve.  I personally believe this, as unfair as it may seem to those who die early in life and to those left behind, that sorrow may be necessary for us.  Perhaps so that we can resist temptation and evil?  Maybe so that we ourselves if we should be granted power in the afterlife do not do anything beyond what we are allowed to do in the living world?  But we can only found out why when we finally meet God in person. 

Conclusion:  Our souls created by God are immortal and transcend understanding.  While we will never make it to the same level as God, we know that death while being inevitable is not the end, just another step in an endless journey.  Yes, we cry, and feel sorry for those that leave us behind, for this too is a test, but take heart in knowing that someday we'll all be reunited together once more.

Issue 393 Why God?: Helping themselves August 4, 2014

Why is it that God wants us to help ourselves?  God is all powerful, and yet he has us do all our own grunt work.  This is a question asked by many.  Well, I believe I know the reason, so let's discuss.

Why help ourselves:  God does not do our work for us.  He exists to guide us as the creator of us all.  In this effect he is like a parent who guides his children.  But that alone does not explain why we have to move to accomplish what we want from prayer or to accomplish what we want in everyday life.  The reason I believe is that we are also being tested as well.  By having us seek out the methods to accomplish what we want done, we prove our worth.  Hence why the ends do not justify the means.  The journey which is a part of this test is just as important for the sake of passing what tasks and hardships God lays before us.  While we are never truly alone, we also must be independent.  

Another perspective:  Another possibility is that God wants us not to have blind faith.  Would God be happy with people worshiping him like robots?  No of course not.  Robots are emotionless and lose heart.  Thus, there is no faith in blind faith.  Thomas Jefferson Said it best in the letter to his son: "Question with boldness, for surely God prefers inspired questions over blind faith."  In other parts of the Bible and even the Quran, God is negotiated with and even questioned by Jesus, Mohammad and even obscure members of God’s chosen like Honi the Circle maker.  So we can question or even negotiate with God, but how does this relate to helping ourselves?  It relates because by helping ourselves, we are exercising independent thought.  It demonstrates to God that we are capable of following his guidance, but at the same time showing that we are independent and able to decide how to follow that guidance.  Even not following that guidance is a test (but God will always try to lead us back on the right path).  Make no mistake, God is always with us in our hearts, we just don't always listen like typical children.

Conclusion:  We are children when it comes to God.  God wants to raise us good and proper for what limited time span we have here on Earth.  So we helping ourselves is proof that we think, feel and can act for ourselves even while following God.  This is how I see it, so how about you?  Do you see it in the same way?  Keep questioning because God wants our questions, not mindless drones.

Issue 392 War: The Endless Waltz August 1, 2014

There is now a dismissed school of thought that believed that war was an integral part of humanity and that we as a species cannot escape it.  But, I believe that as unfortunate as it may be, war is an inevitable part of not only our past history as human beings, but our future history as well.  Let's discuss.

War is endless:  Unfortunately, war is going to continue to keep slapping humanity in the face time and time again.  Reason being is that war is fought for a multitude of reasons.  The most justifiable is typically self-defense.  But that requires an attacker.  As such, why would another nation attack another?  Nazi Germany did so out of revenge and the concept of uniting the Germanic peoples to rule over the others they deemed genetically inferior.  Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda seek to rid the world of the infidels (non-Muslims) and unite the world into a Caliphate.  So you have anger, religion, and race all as reasons for starting a war.  Others like the ancient Trojan War was fought over a queen who left her husband to be with the king of Troy.  Many of these are in truth trivial reasons to go to war and do battle.  But, religion, ethnicity, race, revenge, and fear are all common throughout human history.  Even the American Revolution was fought in part because of simple anger over abuses by the British Crown.  Add onto that the desire for one's voice to be heard in government and you have a recipe for a revolution.  However, there is one other type of war, the war for resources and territory.  This occurs when a country's resources like metals and other natural resources dwindle.  It can also occur when there is economic trouble.  But, the most common reason which results in the former is that the country’s population has grown so large that the economy of the country cannot hope to keep up.  From there excuses that defame the neighboring countries and make their peoples look less human occur to justify war.  So these are, but not limited to, the reasons for war.  Conflict is inevitable, but how far we take it is up to us.

Conclusion:  You can see why it is dismissed by most current historians, for this view means that you would have to believe that humanity is inherently violent.  Although, I do believe we are a violent species due to the natural aggression we have, I personally believe that we can rise above such things. War of course is typically started by our world leaders, not the basic populace.  So if we really want to make war part of ancient history and stop this Endless Waltz of blood and terror, we need to be careful in whom we elect as world leaders.  Then and only then we may have a chance to avert war. 

Issue 391 2nd Amendment and Militias July 31, 2014

If you have read the second Amendment of the United States Constitution, you will know that it mentions militias.  But the right to bear arms is not dependent on the right to form a militia, but instead certifies our right to organize into militias to defend the nation.  So how do we reconcile that the 2nd Amendment mentions militias and what do militias actually have to do with the 2nd Amendment.  

First and Foremost The 2nd Amendment: 

A well regulated Militia, 

being necessary to the security of a free State, 

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 

shall not be infringed.

History:  As I understand, the mentioning of militias has to do with the States and localities and their right to organize militias.  The militias at the time were drawn up from the local population and could range in age (depending on what State or area you lived in) from as young as 15 to as old as 75.  However, the States, and especially local governments could not afford to secure equipment for these militias.  As such, it was up to the local population to secure their own guns and other weapons so that they could serve.

A militia man had many roles, they acted as a police force, a military force, hunting parties to kill dangerous wild animals and depending on the local government could act as fire fighters or in any capacity the locals needed.  However, local governments and State governments did set standards for equipment for the roles these militias had to play.  So it was up to the militia members to again gather and secure their own equipment.  But unlike today’s military, militias were not a standing army.  They could buy a gun for the short period of time needed to fight and then sell it.  They received only informal training at worst and but are not the equals to their full time counterparts (in terms of training and equipment).  So to think that militias are on the same terms with an organized military in nonsense and corrupts the purpose of a militia which is to simply fight and then disband as the need arose.

Rectifying the situation:  To say that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias is false.  But to say militias have the exclusive right to bear arms is utter nonsense.  States and local governments dictated the age and equipment levels needed to serve in a militia when people were called up.  It was a volunteer based system, but people could be compelled (drafted) if the situation dictated.  So, in order to ensure everyone at least had marginally the same equipment levels, people were essentially compelled to get a gun without actual force of law.  Also these militia members had to be ready to organize at any time.  So the right to bear arms is partially secured by the fact that people had to buy their own weapons in case they were called to fight.  So securing the right to bear arms allows people to form militias when and if needed.

Conclusion:  The people are allowed to fight for their country whether that enemy is foreign or domestic, a national government or a terrorist organization or other possible enemy.  Guns play a smaller role today than in the past where people needed them to hunt with and maintain a livelihood in many instances (though in some parts of the country this still holds true).  The idea that a person who volunteers or the potential to volunteer for a militia aids in the proof that we have the right to bear arms.  They had to buy their own guns and so even if they were not in an actual militia yet, they knew they may (by circumstances) be forced into one at some point in time.  As such they need the right to bear arms to be ready to take action.  

Issue 390 Advantages of hunting July 30, 2014

Hunting, a practice that I have yet to partake in save in the form of fishing (if that counts), has very distinct advantages over traditional store bought food.  It also aids us in everyday life.  Read on to find out how.

Chemical free:  Yes that is right, hunting for food means acquiring game without all the additives and chemicals.  So no hormones, antibiotics or any similar possibly negative chemicals.  As such, you have a more natural and arguably more organic meal.

Empowers women:  Women who hunt are supposedly more confident, and capable of handling stressful situations.  They, having a gun or other hunting tool, gives them the same power as that of a man holding a gun in effect equalizing them.  These women are also more independent as well.  This however, is not based on scientific study, but let the girls play too.

Learning:  Hunting imparts lessons in patience, discipline and teaches survival skills.  The survival skills aid in everyday life by making the person more self-aware and likely to look into their environment to seek the tools they need to accomplish whatever task is put before them.  Discipline comes from the fact the hunter must keep cool and maintain a level head even in the most stressful of situations.  And finally patience comes from the ability to wait for the target to come to them.  So every aspect of hunting in fact becomes a tool to further oneself.

Conclusion:  I may not be 100% right in my assessment.  In fact, I expect a few hunters to maybe yell at me for not getting this all correct or leaving something out.  However, despite my never having gone hunting in the woods, I recognize this activity (survival for some) as something unique and special.