Has the Republican Party Become the Anti-fact Party? The Birth of Lie-based Initiatives!

Like many others, I have taken my shot at explaining Donald Trump's appeal to Republican voters.  In this matter I have a great advantage over the mainstream media; I do not have to avoid explanations that paint a less than  flattering portrait of the voters who, in turn, are the customers of that same mainstream media.  How many people would stop patronizing a media outlet that came to the conclusion that Donald Trump's appeal to his party was based on the willful ignorance, bigotry or the irrational fear of many millions of Americans, the very people that a media outlet needs to appeal to in order to stay in business?

Yet the evidence is overwhelming; Trump's initial appeal was to birthers.  About 50% of the Republican Party was on board with the idea that Pres. Obama was not born in the U.S.  A small minority of Republicans believed that Ted Cruz was not born in the U.S. when, in fact, he was
NOT born in the U.S.  Neither fact is a secret, but this is what they believe anyway.

Start adding up the other things that a majority of Republican voters believe that are contrary to the facts as best as we can know them; many believe in Creationism, and Young Earth Creationism at that; most deny that Global Climate change is a result of human activity as if the effects of Greenhouse Gases is debatable.   But now you can add an impressive new list of willfully ignorant items or outright lies that Republican voters are willing to accept, overlook or even embrace.  What about the total lack of negative push-back by voters when Trump re-tweeted a

fictitious, false, inflammatory and racist chart (see above);  or when he implied that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK; or when he accused Hillary Clinton of abusing women who had affairs with her husband; or when he suggests that former Clinton aide Vince Foster did not commit suicide but may have been murdered with Clinton involvement; or when he said that John McCain was not a war hero; or that he saw thousands of Muslims on rooftops on TV celebrating 9-11 in New Jersey; or when he calls Bernie Sanders a communist...  I am sure I've missed dozens of whopping big lies.  (Go to http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien .)

The one common thread in all this is that what Trump supporters like about Trump is precisely his dislike of fact; facts have become "politically correct" and possess what Colbert has described as a "liberal bias."  Of course facts really do not have such a bias but yes indeed many people now oppose "facts" because it is "politically incorrect" to oppose facts and being "politically incorrect" is a good thing!

That is why Trump can lie about other Republicans as well as Democrats, Conservatives as well as Liberals, because it is the opposition to fact that his supporters adore.  Do not get me wrong on this - I am not saying that left leaning ideologues do not do the same thing - they do, such as in those who believed that Bush and Cheney somehow were in on 9-11 and "allowed" it to happen.  It's just that those leftist ideologues have not quite taken over the Democrat Party.  The ideologues/believers and anti-fact yahoos have taken over the Republican Party and their main goal is to oppose all kinds of facts that contradict their beliefs.

This is the mess that Republican leaders have created with their years, if not decades of pandering to the willfully ignorant in their ranks.  By promoting the "faith-based" initiatives the party has embraced in the past, not surprisingly the party members have evolved into demanding "lie-based' initiatives.  Trump is delivering.

You read that here first.

Is Ted Cruz OK with Executing Gays? Are Republican Voters?

Would you vote for a candidate for President that welcomes the endorsement of someone who openly advocates for the execution of homosexuals?  We're not simply talking about some candidate who merely opposes same-sex marriage but someone who was present when the killing of homosexuals was urged and then immediately afterwards accepted the endorsement of the person doing the urging and never protested or mentioned or admonished them for promoting the execution of gays.  Would you, under any circumstance, vote for this candidate?  You may get the opportunity.

The gay-execution advocate is Pastor (what a shock!) Kevin Swanson and you can hear his advocacy of gay executions here ( https://generationswithvision.com/broadcast/bob-jones-iii-apologizes-for-leviticus-20-application/ ) where he chastises Bob Jones III of the infamous Bob Jones University for apologizing last year for advocating executions of gays 35 years ago.

The candidate is Ted Cruz, and at an event in November 2015 accepted Pastor Swanson's endorsement shortly after Swanson railed against gays and thought that their execution was just because, well, God wants them executed and God is just!  That pretty much settles it.  Go to http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruzs-campaign-insists-hes-not-gay-basher-he-has-no-problem-embracing-those-who-are )

From RightWingWatch.org:  "From his radio program we learn that "As far as I know," Swanson said, "the Apostle Paul has not backtracked on Romans 1, in which he refers to the unnatural relation between males and males, females and females, and says such who does these things are worthy of death ... I'm going to be the last guy who stands up and says whatever Paul was saying when he said they're worthy of death, whatever Moses is saying in Leviticus 20:13 as communicated to God's people as the very law God, from the lips of God himself, I'm going to be the last person to say, well, God's law is unjust. And if anybody wants to say that, I'm going to be standing about 40 feet away, whatever the diameter of lightening is."

Later in that same broadcast, Swanson took issue with those who get outraged at the prospect of the government putting people to death for homosexuality, saying that it is no big deal when compared to the prospect of gay people spending eternity in Hell.

"When people focus on the civil penalty for the sin of homosexuality," he said, "they're diverting attention from the real issue, and that is the judgment of God upon that behavior ... Capital punishment? Execution at the hands of the state? Big deal! Big deal! That's nothing. That's nothing. In comparison with the judgment of God, the judgment of the civil courts, of the human courts, as compared to the judgement of Almighty God? No comparison!""

25% or more of Republicans prefer Ted Cruz as their first choice; 35% or more prefer Donald Trump, who has re-tweeted openly racist fraudulent libel against African Americans, painted Mexican undocumented immigrants with a broad brush as rapists and killers, insulted women, both generally and specifically for their appearances, wants to ban Muslims from entering the country based on nothing more than their religious beliefs, and has mocked a disabled person's disability. Oh, did we mention he was the leader of the Obama birther movement?

So 60% of the Republican Party either seeks to nominate someone who happily accepts without reservation the endorsement s of a would be gay executioner or someone who has basically viciously insulted pretty much every group aside from white non-Hispanic Christian males and has trouble drawing rational conclusions based on the evidence!

The problem, it would seem to me is not simply the candidates - it's the general public who seem to prefer viciousness, dogmatism and thoughtlessness instead of empathy, reason and thoughtfulness.  Correct me if I am wrong but there seems to be a strong correlation between anger, irrationality and ideological fervor.

What to do?  Although the media is reluctant to draw attention to the danger of religious dogma, the rational among us most continue to point out the danger inherent in all ideology, religious or secular and the threat that dogmatic political leaders pose to our country.

I wrote the article below in July of 2005 and it certainly could be updated with further instances of the late Justice Antonin Scalia's apparent arrogance and hypocrisy.  I think of the late Justice as one of the great rationalizers of all time and his great talent was no more than to artfully justify his very dogmatic religious and political beliefs.

There is no doubt in my mind that he would, on the one hand, use his great writing abilities in favor of some professed judicial principal such as "equal justice under the law" in a case such as Gore v. Bush, and then, in some other case, argue in the exact opposite direction and minimize that very same concept, such as in cases involving affirmative action or gay rights when it suited him ideologically.

I believe that what is missing from most commentary on Justice Scalia is that although he had a sharp intellect, he was so dogmatic and such an ideologue that ultimately he had a terribly negative influence on his country and fellow citizens.  It's just another example of how so many praise ideology and strong beliefs when they should, if they care about humanity's well being, instead be repulsed by dogmatism and arrogant certitude.

Gerry Dantone, 2/14/2016

 _____________________________________

Justice Scalia and Church-State Separation
By Gerry Dantone

Now that the elections are over, a primary question that many are asking is “what kind of Supreme Court will we have to look forward to?”  Keeping in mind that a number of the Court’s judges are elderly or infirm, it is a certainty that President Bush will have the opportunity to nominate a number of prospective new judges who will then serve – for life.

“In 1999, Fred Barnes asked Bush what kind of judge he'd select.  "I have great respect for Justice Scalia," he said, "for the strength of his mind, the consistency of his convictions, and the judicial philosophy he defends." There you have it.  Someone like Scalia, assuming all other qualifications are met, would be the best choice for the Court.”  (Weekly Standard, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/796mfykv.asp.)

So what does Justice Scalia have to say on Church-State separation, religion and secularism?  Plenty!
From the Positive Atheism website (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/scar_s.htm) and other sites are the following Antonin Scalia quotes:

* “Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society.  We are fools for Christ's sake.  We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world.”

-- Antonin Scalia, in a speech at the Mississippi College School of Law (April 9, 1996) (quoted from Dr. James Dobson, "Was America a Christian Nation?" 1996.)

* (Sarcastically) “It is a Constitution that morphs while you look at it like Plasticman... That is contrary to our whole tradition, to "in God we trust" on the coins, to Thanksgiving proclamations, to (Congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America.”

-- Scalia once again falsely linking some of these “traditions to the era of the Founders (in, Gina Holland, "Justice Discusses Church-State Separation," AP: January 12, 2003).

* “If critics of the Pledge of Allegiance persuaded the public it should be changed then we could eliminate under God from the Pledge of Allegiance, that could be democratically done.”

-- Anton Scalia said this knowing full well that the rights and interests of minorities are never obtained through democratic means.  Scalia suggested that decisions such as the Newdow “Pledge of Allegiance” case should be handled legislatively, by politicians who depend upon the popular vote for their livelihoods (from Gina Holland, "Justice Discusses Church-State Separation," AP: January 12, 2003)

* "Did it turn out that by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America?  I don't think so."

-- “Born in 1936, Scalia is old enough to remember the photographs that came out of Germany when he was a boy - they were all over the newspapers and news magazines at war's end.

The photos that can be seen, for instance, at www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm of the Catholic Bishops giving the collective Nazi salute at the annual April 20th celebration, declared by Pope Pius XII of Hitler's birthday; the belt buckles of the German army, which declared "Gott Mit Uns" ("God is with us"); the pictures of the 1933 investiture of Bishop Ludwig Müller, the official Bishop of the 1000-Years-Of-Peace Nazi Reich.  That... photo should be the most problematic for Scalia, because Hitler had done exactly what Scalia is recommending - he merged church and state.

For Scalia’s edification, Article 1 of the "Decree concerning the Constitution of the German Protestant Church, of 14 July 1933," signed by Adolf Hitler himself, merged the German Protestant Church into the Reich, and gave the Reich the legal authority to ordain priests.

Article Three provides absolute assurance to the new state church that the Reich will fund it, even if that requires going to Hitler's cabinet.  It opens: "Should the competent agencies of a State Church refuse to include assessments of the German Protestant Church in their budget, the appropriate State Government will cause the expenditures to be included in the budget upon request of the Reich Cabinet."

That new state-sponsored German church's constitution opens: "At a time in which our German people are experiencing a great historical new era through the grace of God," the new German state church "federates into a solemn league all denominations that stem from the Reformation and stand equally legitimately side by side, and thereby bears witness to: 'One Body and One Spirit, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of All of Us, who is Above All, and Through All, and In All.'"

Scalia made the comments about Jews being safer where Christians rule than in countries where Church is separated from state in the synagogue that is home to America's oldest Jewish congregation.  Scalia noted that in Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word God.”  (Go tohttp://www.commondreams.org/views04/1202-33.htm.  The Associated Press reported this on November 23, 2004.)

* So it is no accident, I think, that the modern view that the death penalty is immoral is centered in the West.  That has little to do with the fact that the West has a Christian tradition, and everything to do with the fact that the West is the home of democracy.  Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is the lesslikely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral.  Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post–Christian Europe, and has least support in the church–going United States.  I attribute that to the fact that, for the believing Christian, death is no big deal.  Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal: it is a grave sin, which causes one to lose his soul.  But losing this life, in exchange for the next?  The Christian attitude is reflected in the words Robert Bolt’s play has Thomas More saying to the headsman: “Friend, be not afraid of your office.  You send me to God.”  And when Cranmer asks whether he is sure of that, More replies, “He will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to Him.”  For the nonbeliever, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence. What a horrible act!

-- Scalia in “God’s Justice and Ours” in First Things available at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html.

In a recent Supreme Court decision, Scalia displayed not only his religiously oriented Constitutional point of view, but his enormous hypocrisy as well, arguing directly in opposition to his own previously stated views.

The Court decided, 5 to 4, to ban the death penalty for those under the age of 18.  Of course, killing someone, as Scalia has said before, is “no big deal” so he of course, supports executing minors.  Scalia, in his dissent said: “The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards…”

Yet the Constitution bans “cruel and unusual punishment.”  If Congress passed a law allowing a person to be cruelly tortured to death, would Scalia rule it Constitutional?  If the Supreme Court is not the arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution, who or what is?  Using Scalia’s “logic” consistently, he would have to rule that cruelly torturing someone to death was not “cruel” because the Court was not the arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards!

Yet, of course, when the issue suits him, he wants the Court to be precisely the moral arbiter in HIS way: By assuming the supremacy of HIS specific religious beliefs!

On June 26, 2003, the US Supreme Court stuck down a state ban on same-sex relations, and of course, Scalia dissented writing, “If, as the court asserts, the promotion of the majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest,” laws against “fornication, bigamy, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity” cannot survive the justices’ basis in their ruling…  If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution.”

Scalia is shameless in demanding that homosexuals be deprived of rights accorded others on a moral basis (based on his entirely religious morality devoid of concern for the common good) while lashing out at the Court for prohibiting the executions of minors for moral reasons!

* “St. Paul had this to say (I am quoting, as you might expect, the King James version): Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.  Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?  Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good.  But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1–5)

This is not the Old Testament, I emphasize, but St. Paul.  One can understand his words as referring only to lawfully constituted authority, or even only to lawfully constituted authority that rules justly.  But the core of his message is that government—however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God.  It is the “minister of God” with powers to “revenge,” to “execute wrath,” including even wrath by the sword.

-- Antonin Scalia in an article in First Things, May, 2002 declaring that government derives its moral authority from God – which of course is completely absent from the Constitution.  At the same time he believes in a “Dead Constitution,” one that must be interpreted in the context of the time in which it was written.  In other words, as he claims the authors meant it.

In hearings in early March 2005 on the legality of Ten Commandment displays in public facilities such as Courtrooms, Scalia disagreed that the Commandments were secular saying, "If that's what it means, it's idiotic.  I don't think anybody is going to interpret it that way.  You can't get the Declaration of Independence out of the Ten Commandments."  He believes that the officials who put up the displays were saying that "these basic principles that we're governed by come from God."
This is not a problem for Scalia.  "We're a tolerant society religiously," he said during the Texas argument, "but just as the majority has to be tolerant of minority views in matters of religion, it seems to me the minority has to be tolerant of the majority's ability to express its belief that government comes from God, which is what this is about.”  The Ten Commandments, Scalia says, are “a symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God.”

The combination of the idea that God is the moral authority of the government and that the Constitution is “dead” is Scalia’s method of introducing theocracy to the US.  If the bible demands it, and a law was on the books at the time the Constitution or Bill of Rights was written, then it allows him to interpret the law in concordance with the Old Testament.

If a law in the late 1700s allowed for a state religion, or a death penalty for gay sex, etc., Scalia would argue that such laws were Constitutional today.  A problem deliberately overlooked by Scalia would be the Bill of Rights applying to only the Federal Government until the application of the 14th Amendment.  Before the 14th Amendment, states could indeed enact some laws that would now be un-Constitutional.

The above quotes are pretty revealing and Scalia reiterated these ideas using many of the exact same phrases in a speech at a Red Mass, a tradition for Catholic lawyers in DuPage County, Illinois just recently in November 2004.

And what is a Red Mass?  According to John Swomley, Professor Emeritus of Social Ethics, St. Paul School of Theology” (http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/039/The%20Red%20Mass%20By%20John%20M.%20Swomley_039_26_.htm):

The Red Mass, a colorful religious ceremony of the Catholic Church, is celebrated in the United States before members of the Supreme Court, members of Congress, and other high government officials…

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is undoubtedly the More Society’s best-known spokesman. He not only attends national and some state Red Mass celebrations, but speaks on occasion to those lawyers who meet after the Mass.  In a formal address to a Catholic audience in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on October 14, 2001, following a Red Mass at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Scalia was reported by The National Catholic Register as saying, “We attorneys and intellectuals who don’t like to be regarded as unsophisticated can have no greater [role] model than St. Thomas More.”

Speaking of the beheaded advisor to King Henry VIII, the Register indicated that “the saint died because he refused to recognize a king’s authority as being higher than the Pope’s, and his conviction was rejected by society, friends, and ‘even his wife,’ Scalia said” (National Catholic Register, November 4, 2001). Scalia, in effect, was promoting the idea that papal policy is superior to the U.S. Constitution and secular government…

It is obvious that the purpose of the Red Mass and the St. Thomas More Society is not only to promote the Red Mass as a Catholic cultural event in the United States, but also make papal decisions influence the law of the land.  The chief resistance to such influence comes from progressive Catholics who oppose patriarchal rule and support women’s rights.  Most Protestant denominations are silent under the influence of the ecumenical discussions instituted by the Vatican.  (End of excerpt.)

Though there are no recordings of Scalia’s speech, nor a transcript, his point of view is clear.  Also clear is certain duplicity: Before a Jewish Congregation in Manhattan shortly after his Red Mass speech, he dropped references to Jesus and claimed that “There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality… The true goal is not neutrality between religiousness and non-religiousness; it is between denominations of religion” (reported by Errol Louis, NY Daily News).

The history of Scalia’s decisions is evidence that this is not true.  He has often shown a disdain for minority religions or beliefs, and his stated position that rights can be legislated away contrary to the protections offered to minorities in the Bill of Rights, would seem to back this up.  Indeed, Scalia has often shown that he is not interested in neutrality even between religions.

And there is something obviously dishonest about promoting only neutrality between religions and not promoting it between religion and non-religion as well.  Is Scalia actually claiming to support neutrality between Catholicism and Zeus-belief?  Or Catholicism and Scientology?  Or Catholicism and Ethical Culture?  Or Catholicism and Islam?  Or Catholicism and Buddism?  Absolutely not!

It seems probable that Scalia would not normally consider atheism or secular humanism a religion when he states that government should only be neutral between religious denominations.  However, you might consider betting the house that he’d reverse himself if considering atheism a religion furthered his purposes instead. Scalia’s infamously uneven use of the concept of “equal protection under the law” in the past is a revealing comparison.

Without ever presenting a compelling case for his belief system, Justice Scalia not only believes, he has made his supernatural beliefs – not the Constitution - his basis for his legal decisions at the nation’s highest court.

Would Justice Scalia prefer death to being made to recognize the authority of a President, Congress or even the Constitution over the authority of the Pope?  If we only would believe our ears: isn’t that exactly what Antonin Scalia is trying to tell us?

Surprise - Many Americans Have No Idea of What Religious Freedom Is!

Although it comes as no surprise to me, an Associated Press - NORC poll released in December 2015 indicates that many Americans see "Freedom of Religion" as something quite different than our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights intended and different from what Webster's Dictionary and ordinary common sense would lead you to conclude.

From the report: "Americans place a higher priority on preserving the religious freedom of Christians than for other faith groups, ranking Muslims as the least deserving of the protections, according to a new survey.  Solid majorities said it was extremely or very important for the U.S. to uphold religious freedom in general. However, the percentages varied dramatically when respondents were asked about specific faith traditions, according to a poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research."  Go to the web site linked above for details.

The problem as I have noticed for a very long time is that many persons confuse "Religious Freedom" with "Religious Privilege."  To many, they believe that their religious beliefs should override the rights of others, even including those who do not share their religious beliefs.  Many people actually think that the  rights of gay persons should be subject to their religious beliefs even if those gay persons do not share their religious beliefs.  How is this "religious freedom" to gay persons?  The answer is, of course, it is not Religious Freedom; it is Religious Privilege for those who want to dominate and impose their beliefs on others.  It is Freedom only if it is Freedom for all of us.

The media has difficulty in reporting this kind of news even though it explains a great deal.  The explanation is that  much of the General Public does not know what it is talking about - they are either stupid or ignorant, willfully or not, or just plain selfish.  There is no pleasant explanation.

This conflating of freedom and privilege for many explains how a Donald Trump can rise to the top of the polls while targeting Muslims (or Mexicans, the disabled or women) while at the same time promising that when he is President, everyone  will be saying "Merry Christmas" and not "Happy Holidays."  Yup, Religious Privilege is what so many crave, not Religious Freedom.

(Dear readers; this is the entire letter to the editor that Newsday severely edited when they printed it last week on Tuesday, November 24, 2015.)  

Although a military response to the Paris atrocity on 11/13/15 seems inevitable and probably necessary, I believe it alone will not stop the spread of the dangerous theology of ISIS or similar groups, and therefore not prevent future attacks.  We, the U.S. and its allies, are doing absolutely nothing to counter the ISIS theology effectively.   Some in public life even hesitate to call the ISIS ideology a religion or theology – this is only a form of denial.  This theology is really the only thing ISIS has to offer – in no way does ISIS have an economic program to offer its followers nor does it offer any other program peculiar to its theology that would make the lives of its followers better.  It only offers one thing; paradise after death, with the easiest path to paradise being martyrdom on the battlefield against infidels.

Many theologies offer salvation after death, including Christianity and Islam.  It is a problem for humanity as a whole when a believer then comes to the conclusion that perpetrating harm on others is the will of their god or a requirement of their religion.  Fortunately for humanity, the vast majority of the various forms religion do not concentrate on the benefits of martyrdom but many religions do allow for unethical behavior and thus causing harm if their god or scripture demands it.  The harm, for example, can consist of making the lives of gay persons miserable; and the harm they believe their religion requires can escalate to the point to where they can theologically justify the execution of non-believers.  Such executions have occurred within Christianity for centuries in the past such as during the Inquisition and apostasy is still the law of the land in a number of Islamic nations today.  This danger for humanity is multiplied if believers are also certain that what they believe is true, as if their opinions on the question of the existence of god and his requirements were infallible.  If someone then makes the claim that their god would never require them to do something that is wrong, do not be surprised when they come to believe that causing religiously justified harm and misery somehow is, to them, the “right” and “moral” thing to do.

The beginning of the battle against the ISIS theology must be the promotion of the idea that right and wrong depends on whether a behavior causes harm or well being and whether misery or happiness is the result of that behavior.  The argument against a harmful terrorist theology must also include the idea that we, as humans, are fallible and our opinions on the existence of god, and our knowledge of god’s intentions and requirements are our opinions of the facts and that our opinions are not facts themselves.  Let me summarize; causing harm is wrong, increasing well being is right, and we are not infallible in our opinions.

Why do we not do promote these ideas?  Why do politicians, public officials and religious leaders rarely, if ever, say these kinds of things?  The answer is because this argument against the terrorist theology of ISIS also discredits any belief system that assumes that “right” and “wrong” are determined by god, scripture or religion instead of whether a behavior harms others or increases the well being of others.  If right and wrong are not the province of god and religion, the need for god and religion no longer exists.  This conclusion, even though it is correct and even though religious morality can be replaced by a humanistic system of ethics, is a conclusion that the religious and fanatically ideological have not yet been able to accept.

Addendum, 12/4/15;

I wrote the above letter a couple of weeks ago, well before the atrocity in San Bernardino where it seems likely that a radical jihadist married couple decided it was the will of their god that they kill as many others, presumably infidels, as they could for no other reason than it was their god's will.  Since the victims were infidels, this was a moral act, they most likely believed.  The benefit to the now deceased married jihadists is that they would go to paradise for their obedience and martyrdom.

The husband was a member of the local mosque and was considered devout but other members of the mosque have expressed shock that he could be so murderous.  I believe that their shock is genuine but this shock leads to a troubling conclusion; he was not much different from a non-murderous religious person UNTIL he privately decided he could no longer compromise the word of his god and that he REALLY REALLY believed in a paradise after death and that he was certain of all these beliefs.

The thing that is troubling is that most believers, moderate or radical, believe in the afterlife, believe that obedience to scripture, god, their religious tenets or religious leaders is moral and that they are certain of their beliefs.  The thing that differentiates extremists from others is the extremist's unwillingness to compromise the word of their god.  Most believers do NOT completely comply with their religion's requirements and allow others, for the most part, and to varying degrees in various societies, to live and let live.  (However, please note how often the idea of not compromising one's ideology is seen as a virtue in the public square.)

The idea that one can be uncertain and willing to consider other ideas, actually, is the essence of secularism, which a form of public and governmental neutrality on matters of religious and other ideological belief.  Religious morality is replaced by an ethics in which allowable behaviors are those that make life better and behavior to be moderated are those behaviors that harm others.  Religious beliefs can carry no weight here since there is no way to reconcile them.  Secularism's goal is not to end religion - it's goal is to allow diverse peoples to live together and thrive together.

But you can see the problem; it is difficult if not impossible for many persons of faith to come to grips with the idea that the only way a world of diverse believers and non-believers can live happily together is to compromise their obedience to the word of their particular gods and embrace a secular society and government.  Although our Founding Fathers devised this brilliant system of secularism to separate ideology and government, and secular ethics has chipped away at religious excesses in many societies, secularism is still not fully accepted, and this is why the world continues to struggle in the battle against religious extremists of all kinds.

The War on Religious Freedom

Starbucks recently introduced their 2015 holiday coffee cup and it's a simple red cup with the usual Starbucks mermaid logo.  Some people are outraged, such as a former pastor, Joshua Feuerstein, who said Starbucks "removed" Christmas from the cups because they "hate Jesus."  Donald Trump apparently also thinks this is a problem that he, as president, would be able to "solve."

Never mind that Starbucks has not used the word "Christmas" on their cups in recent years and has typically used seasonal symbols, such as snowmen or snowflakes on the cups.  In reality they've "removed" nothing.  Never mind the facts; this is an election cycle and facts are irrelevant.

So here is what Mr. Trump said in regard to Starbucks' cup; "If I become president, we're all going to be saying, 'merry Christmas' again. That I can tell you."

Is this a threat by Mr. Trump to end religious freedom in the U.S. if he becomes president?  Exactly how will enforce this edict?  Will he put people in jail for failing to say Merry Christmas? And will he be putting people in jail for failing to wish Muslims a  Merry Ramadan or Jews a Merry Yom Kippur?  And what will he do to or for atheists?  Is Trump proposing to turn the U.S. into Iran?  Does anyone care that he is proposing the destruction of the First Amendment?

The First Step to Reducing Mass Gun Violence

This may sound random but the first step that must be taken in order to reduce the kind of mass gun violence such the crime perpetrated  recently in Roseberg, Oregon, and the ongoing everyday slaughter of Americans by guns is an obvious step and yet it is a step almost no one ever suggests when asked about the problem.  The step is - Campaign Finance Reform.

Right now I am sure many readers are nodding in recognition of this simple, obvious and never spoken of truth!

There is no chance anything can change if lobbying efforts and campaign donations continue to influence elected officials one way or the other on the issue of gun control and any other issue where billions and billions of dollars are at stake.  Gun control is not even remotely the issue that is most influenced by donations and lobbying; health care has that distinction, followed by the military industrial complex, and competes with numerous other lobbies, including agriculture, banks, union activists, anti-union activists and, well just about everything that involves profits or paychecks.  If  you want to know why the obvious never gets done in the U.S. despite the overwhelming desire of a vast majority of Americans, the explanation starts with the way we finance political campaigns.

The things that need to be done are pretty obvious; eliminate all donations over a modest dollar amount that almost any American could afford to donate and yet would be too small by itself or in total to influence an elected official.  That could be as low as $100 for a Senator or House Representative.  If a  candidate obtains a threshold number of donations they then qualify for public financing that would dwarf what they could raise privately $100 at a time, and that is all the would be allowed to spend, period.

All other donations would be considered attempted bribes, which in reality, is exactly what they are.

Independent fundraising PACs may not be possible to eliminate BUT they should be held accountable for mis-information and can be sued as an institution and the suit should extend to donors as well if a Court finds that they lied or libeled a candidate or lied about an issue.  Currently, as far as I know, PACs can accept donations privately and tell any lie they choose with impunity and face no consequences, or at least they have faced no consequences so far.  Perhaps criminal liability for someone within a PAC who interfered with an election by promoting false information to the Public would do the trick.  The difference from the  average citizen who ignorantly spread lies is money - the PAC was paid to spread the lies, an average voter was just expressing an incorrect opinion. The difference is the monetary motive.

In any other business, if a product causes damage or is defective, the producer of the product is liable.  If the producer of the product knowingly sold a defective or dangerous product, the producer is criminally liable, or should be.  PACs should be treated no differently.

The next thing to do would be to institute term limits at every level of government, generally 8 years for executives, 12 years for legislators and 20 years for judges.

Then we can outlaw gerrymandering and, instead, with computers we can draw electoral districts objectively.

Finally we can stop trying to pass laws restricting voting rights aimed at the voters of the opposition party.

ONLY at that point can the intractable problems of gun violence, health care, the deficit and so on can even be thought about.  My proof is the current state of affairs.