Issue 469 Are we really free to worship? November 25, 2014

Are we free to worship the religion we want?  This is an intriguing question as I believe it actually depends on who you ask.  Let us discuss.

Worship and the State:  If you ask the government, then they will say you are free to worship.  In fact the government makes special dispensation toward certain religions or subsets of religions for them to practice the way they want.  This includes ritual sacrifice of animals (regulated), use of drugs (not the kill yourself by trying it kind), and even the use of public property.  However, polygamy (having more than one wife/husband) is not allowed even though it is a variation of the religious practice of marriage.  We cannot pray in schools because it is seen as church and State mixing even if that is not the case.  So in truth, we have limited freedom of worship based on what the government regulates what they deem dangerous with respect to values and practices.

Worship and each other:  While the government generally lets people do what they want with their faith (with certain exceptions), it is the general public that are most intolerant to religious worship.  Some atheists, agnostics, or even people that have religion try to deter and suppress those who have a faith or a practice within a faith.  Reason being is because they feel that the mere display of say a Christmas tree is infringing upon their own rights.  How do they say this?  Simple, they think it is shoving a religion down other people’s throats.  However, despite these feelings being misplaced, the government, or a local community responds to those feelings so as to either avoid lawsuits, or just because they sympathize with the person claiming foul.  So even amongst each other, we do not have true freedom of worship.

Conclusion:  Which one of these counts more?  The being blocked by government, or by our fellow members of our community?  Truth is it is our government as they are the ones that are forbidden from stopping us from worshiping via our faith.  With respect to the community, while those claiming foul are the ones actually in the wrong, we must still live together.  As such, if a display is on public property, then fine, let it be removed for something else.  But, if it is on private property, then the person claiming foul should never have a say.  Reason being is that it is our own property, or a rented one from a private company to advertise religion, the person crying foul has but avert their eyes and thus religion is no longer being "forced down" their throats.  So, it is simple, government has to butt out a little more save for upholding the basic laws, and people have to learn to mind their own business.  

Issue 468 Can priests speak on politics? November 24, 2014

There is disagreement amongst modernists with respect to the current idea on whether priests may speak about anything related to politics.  But in the past, this was not the case.  So let us try to get to the true answer on if or if not a priest may speak about politics.

History:  Today, priests are not allowed to speak about politics.  They are actually under threat by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) if they do.  In this case despite it being unconstitutional via the 1st Amendment, the IRS would tax the churches if they even attempt to openly discuss politics in the churches themselves.  Mind you that if a priest is not in the church, but is talking outside of their official capacity it is ok, but it is seen in poor taste.  In the past however, it was the opposite.  A church was the official gathering place for the general public outside of the town square or a tavern.  So as a group, a priest was allowed as far back or even farther before the American revolution to speak on political issues at the time.  In fact, the British burned many churches when they came to crush the American Revolution because it was the priests who spread word of the idea of freedom, and separation from the British crown.  So why did this change?  Well I am not really sure.  It seems to me that we grew intolerant to religion and the power the priests have over their congregations.  Perhaps it is our dislike of hierarchies, or organized religion that caused this to change.  Or perhaps just the change in respecting authority figures.  I cannot say.  But the fact is, priests can say what they will at the pulpit, but people either don't want to hear it, or the government does not want it heard.

They have the right:  Historically speaking they have the right to speak about politics.  We got that down already.  It is unconstitutional to shut a priest up because the IRS has no right to tax a religious institution due to the first Amendment.  If the IRS did attempt to tax a church it would be seen as an attempt to suppress a religion or a religious congregation as taxation is an economic weapon.  So as I said it violates the freedom to worship clause.  So a priest can say what they want wherever they want.

Conclusion:  I personally think priests and other members of religious leadership are afraid to speak.  They know they may suffer for speaking out in some way shape or form.  They will be targeted by the government and thus harassed.  A priest also risks isolating him/herself from their congregation which means the church itself may suffer.  Priests are already under pressure and scrutiny every time they speak and act, but they lack the courage to speak their minds in our current society.  So there you have it, they have the right to speak, but not the courage to do so.

Issue 467 Ebola and Superstition November 21, 2014

Well we are still on the topic of Ebola.  Yes, it is still something to be concerned about even if the media is shifting its attention away from the situation.  In this case I will be talking about the role of superstition with respect to the spread of this disease.  (Thank the world health organization for actually looking into this aspect of this crises).  Let us begin.

Superstition:  In Africa, some of the native peoples do not believe that Ebola is a disease, but instead either demons, or a curse.  As such, they will not go see any doctors to get treated.  Instead they go to witch doctors, and similar spiritualists to try and exercise the curse or demons from them (which obviously does not work).  In addition, some of the African peoples look at the doctors with disdain as some feel that the doctors are either quacks, that they will never return from their clinics, or are just afraid.  As such, doctors over there are having a rough time just trying to get the more superstitious population who is ill into their treatment facilities for Ebola and other diseases.

Consequences:  As a result of this, many more people in Africa die from disease.  Also, it makes it more likely that these infected people will infect others as well.  Now we also have people from Africa in the United States (legal visitors, citizens, and illegal) who never lost their beliefs in witchcraft/shamanism or whatever you want to call it.  So if they are sick, they will not see a doctor, but instead a shaman here in the United States which delays treatment and increases the risks that others will be infected.  So superstition is making it harder for doctors to fight Ebola and other serious diseases here at home and in Africa.

Conclusion:  Well, while we have to respect people's beliefs, there is no reason to cause health risks to someone else.  So to handle the truly superstitious, you can just replace the word disease with the word curse, and sickness with possession.  Saying they can possibly spread a "curse" in this case is more effective than saying spreading disease for those who reject medical science.  This may be lying, but it helps to work your way through a faith or belief than try to overturn it.  So doctors can be called shamans instead and propped up as superior shamans to tribal ones so as to get these people into the clinics to treat diseases and prevent infections.  Heck, it may even help to make the treatments seem more mystical to get these people coming to get help.   On the other hand, preventing the spread of the disease at home is easy by simply cutting off the travel between the infected countries and us.  Then you isolate the people who want to come over for 21 days and if they are not infected, then they may come over.  It really is simple, we just have to stop being arrogant about it.

Issue 466 Ebola and Illegal migrants November 20, 2014

Ok, so we know that Ebola is a dangerous disease, and that people coming into the United States can catch it from other people.  But does this not mean that people entering the United States illegally from Africa now pose a risk to every person in the United States?  Let's discuss.

Illegals and Diseases:  Back when Ellis Island was still open, they had a building specifically to handle people who were sick so as to prevent the spread of possibly dangerous and infectious pathogens.  Face forward to today and we have no such facilities to protect us from the masses of illegal migrants entering the United States each and every day.  As such, we are subject to the spread of diseases like Ebola from West Africans, or people infected in other countries as well.  Not to mention diseases that are just as dangerous as Ebola are out there which we have an obvious interest in preventing them from coming into the United States.  Apparently, the first victim of Ebola in the United States may have been an illegal immigrant from Africa.  In addition, polio (a disease the United States originally eradicated in our shores) has made a small comeback in the United States due to legal and illegal migrants alike entering the country.  So we now have yet another reason to encourage legal immigration exclusively.  But this is not where the potential problems end.

If we come up with a real cure:  There is a worst case scenario if we develop a cure in the United States which will of course be mass produced.  In this case it may cause a massive influx of people sick with Ebola or similar diseases to swarm the United States looking to be cured.  This will result in further infection of the United States populace if these people who are actually sick come in unchecked.  So in this case the cure must be brought to Africa and other continents/countries as fast as possible to prevent this nightmare scenario.

Conclusion:  I hate to jump on the secure our border band wagon, but between the evidence of terrorist infiltrators, rumors that Ebola is being weaponized by enemies of the United States, and illegals who only want to be cured storming in, we have a recipe for disaster.  So it is my hope that we fix the immigration system in this country and create new Ellis Islands which can handle all the immigrants coming here legally, and helping to cure the sick/prevent the spread of diseases.  I want good people to come to the United States, but it must be done the right way, and the legal/safe way.

Issue 465 Political campaigns: Presidents on the campaign trail November 19, 2014

We looked at why some candidates would want the president to come down and help them succeed, but we have not looked into what a president gets out of this deal.  So let's discuss.

What a President wants:  Basically, the President wants power and authority.  He goes on campaign trails to aid in winning seats in the legislative arm of government that will give him the bills he wants to pass as laws based on the same ideology.  A President does not like compromise, for they want instead a legacy of success.  So a President will as I said try to help candidates win who share the same ideology as him/herself.  

When do they go:  Typically, a President does not just go and help out party members on a whim especially if the candidate they want to win is already winning.  But instead they go for several reasons. 

1) One is to curry favor to get some politicians to owe the President something.  Basically, you scratch my back, then I'll scratch yours later.  

2) The next reason is too sure up victories so that they maintain party leadership (usually the same party as the President) in the legislative branch of government or else they become a lame duck President.  

3) Presidents also go on the campaign trail to boost their popularity as interacting with the public show that the president is paying attention to them.  

4) If the president's popularity is fading and they become toxic, the campaign trail acts as a distraction from regular decision making which serves to shield the President for a short period of time while a strategy is worked out.  (Though some candidates may reject the President's offer of help unless they are in desperate straits or in a district where the President is still popular despite national opinion).

And there you have it.  It is all about power and getting favors from one another.

Conclusion:  I personally think the President should not bother with the campaign trail unless they have too.  But this is real politic we are talking about.  Where gaining and maintaining power is all there is to life.  A President can only do so much on their own and needs the other branches of government on his/her side.  And thus you have the President waving their hands, making speeches and kissing babies.  It is not whether they care about us or not, but about them getting and keeping power an influence so that they can show they care whether that is for good or for worse.

Issue 464 Political Campaigns: Need a President? November 18, 2014

What does it say about a candidate running for office when they need a presidents help to succeed?  Well, let's discuss.

Needing a presidents help:  It actually can say several things.  

1) For one, it can say that the other candidate is better at drawing a crowd or has more charisma.  So the candidate would need help communication wise (as such they are probably losing).

2) It can also say the candidate getting help is really not that good.  Basically, the candidate is not worth the public's time and thus despite a President's efforts will more than likely not be elected.

3) On a different note, it could just be a real close race and the president going out to help a candidate could mean the difference between victory and defeat.  

Between these three which do you think is the most common?  Trick question as any of these scenarios can occur during a single person’s campaign.  The whole point of getting a President involved is designed to prop up the candidate that is either losing or is tied neck and neck with the opponent.  But should this be necessary if the candidates were worthy of being in the role of representative or as a leader?  Well the answer is yes, for sometimes the less than likely person (the underdog if you will) is actually the better leader/representative of the people.  A President called in is not going to just show up to some losers campaign unless they themselves are desperate for some reason.  So despite some misgivings on a president going on the campaign trail to focus on things other than their job, it seems logical for a president to help out someone he wants to work with, with respect to Congressional votes and leadership.

Conclusion:  Politics is kind of like a game.  You get the best looking and best speaking candidate possible with views that match their constituents to win power and authority.  But, that is simplifying it.  Getting people into office is a tough business and requires lots of money and sometimes a president to draw people in to just get the people to listen to what the person running has to say.  Presidents on the campaign trail are there to draw a crowd and endorse the person he wants to win (usually from the president's own political party).  So in this case it is about getting some sort of advantage over the other candidate to try and ensure a win.

Issue 463 Jihadists: the death worshipers November 17, 2014

Today I talk about why I do not see Jihadists as Muslims.  The true Muslims I have met are in no way bent on killing me, and are in fact ultra-nice.  A real Muslim is willing to be friends with me, but a Jihadist will try and kill me as soon as they look at me.  Jihadists to me are not Muslims, but savages who want nothing but death.  Allow me to explain.

My thoughts:  Jihadists believe that if they die they will be rewarded by God (Allah) in heaven with a kind of paradise.  That is how strong their faith is, because they actually believe this to be true.  That they can be rewarded for killing others and dying in the process.  But, God does not reward murderers like those in ISIS/ISIL, or suicide bombers of any kind.  This is because they are breaking God's command of not killing others save when you are defending yourself, others or are at war.  And there are even rules to go along with those three exceptions.  But a Jihadist does not care.  They feel that the murdering of innocents is justified for they see all others that are not of like minds as not human.  And you know what?  This is frightening.  These people have killed men, women and children without warrant and have in some cases turned their own family members into suicide bombers as well.  These people are no longer human when you murder a child, and become monsters when they commit acts of genocide like they are doing now as part of ISIS/ISIL and as components of Al Qaeda.  

Conclusion:  To kill a monster, you must become one, and then slay the monster you created within yourself or be slayed by another monster.  We live in a world where genocide did not disappear, it merely changed faces with a newer monster.  I may be a libertarian who wishes to avoid war and be friendly with others, but there is no negotiation with monsters who rape women, murder children and torture living human beings.  I hate to say it as my nation is war weary, but the time to fight these Jihadists (not Muslims) seems to have come again, for this may be a battle we cannot avoid.