 
Philosophical Works 2015

by Gregory Coffin

Other titles include:

Sterling Honor

The Gospel of Reason

A Social Carol

The Justified Trilogy  
Philosophical Works 2010-2014

The following is a collection of works that I have written that address a wide range of topics, including politics, economics, and morality; though in 2015 there was more of an emphasis on politics, religion/faith and abortion. I've placed the works in chronological order, but have included a Table of Contents with categories and links to make it easier to find specific topics of interest.

The links provided with bring you to different websites where updates on my work can be seen.

Main: www.GDX1776.com

Blog: <http://gdx1776.blogspot.com/>  
Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/GregoryCoffinauthor>  
Twitter: @GDX1776

Table of Contents

Politics and Economics

Chris Kyle: A War Hero Who Did Not Fight For Our Freedom - A Brief Review

Killing Democracy... Or How I Learned To Stop Falling For Statism And Love Liberty

Common Good, Common Need and a Common Cost [healthcare costs, a brief review]

Sometimes, Violence is the Answer and a Weapon may be the Punctuation

Dear Members of Law Enforcement, Your Good Intentions are Irrelevant...

Dear Members of the Military, Your Good Intentions are Irrelevant...

Psychology and Philosophy

How Do We Know What We Know

In Defense of Offensive Speech: Maybe Your Mother is a Bitch, or your God is Evil

The Structure of Your Mind

Religion and Science

A Rhetorical Evaluation of the Concept of Life

What is important is not what your Holy Book actually says, as what it says to you in how to act

The Bible didn't change; you're breaking Biblical Law

If abortion is actually killing children... or is it?

How Do We Know What We Know

[Originally posted January 14, 2015]

[Hu]mankind is not the rational animal; he is the potentially rational animal. He can be every bit as reactionary and mindless as any other animal; however, man has the capability to reason which takes more effort, or can just react which is easier. Whether through reason or some non-reasoning method, we can claim knowledge, rightly or wrongly.

The way by which we gain knowledge comes in one of three different ways: by revelation; by experience; by authority. These each have their respective place in the accumulation of knowledge, but that does not mean they have equal value. They differ in where the origination of knowledge comes and from where it is understood.

Revelation is the formulation of an idea without empirical input; it is generally sudden and taken as divinely inspired. or a 'gut feeling'. Most often, this is embraced through the emotional experience that one 'felt' the presence of God, and therefore how correct is the knowledge. There is a second kind of revelation that is not actually revelation, though it gets attributed the same - that type will be addressed later.

Experience is based in empiricism, and expanded to concept formation through processing and contemplation (i.e. reasoning), that can again be affected by empirical findings. Things are expected to be and act in accordance to how our experience of them says they should be, with the expectation that things of a similar nature will act in a similar way unless there are other factors to understand before a different expectation can be expected: e.g. we know that water will freeze at a certain temperature and know that all liquids will also freeze, unless there is something else to change the results, such as a sufficient amount of alcohol to prevent freezing of the liquid.

Authority is the taking of knowledge as granted by another, because they said so. A minimum degree of _ethos_ is granted to whomever, and from that we take their word that what they say is true because their _ethos_ grants them that status. For example, if the question was regarding the nature of volcanoes, a vulcanologist would be best, though because of the nature of scientific inquiry and the related aspects of the fields, a geologist's advice would (should) be more valuable than the advice of one whose specialty is in medieval literature. It is expected that whoever is talking, knows their field well enough to be able to speak from and about it.

Revelation is by itself in that it can be wholly subjective. There does not need to be any reference to empirical validation in any way as the verification of the knowledge through revelation is the emotional sensation that accompanies it. Experience necessarily is objectively based as it is empirical, for one experienced a thing or event and takes the learned information through sensory organs to store for processing and later retrieval. Though the interpretation may have subjective elements, it is based upon an objective event in order to be interpreted. Authority is the deferment of either revelation or experience, granting the knowledge to a third party as a valid source to speak on behalf of actually having the revelation or the experience.

Most of the knowledge we have is based upon authority. Believe that the Koran or Bible is the word of God?-that is based upon authority. If one believes they actually existed according to their respective texts, no one is alive today who spoke to Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, or witnessed any of the acts or 'miracles' they are purported to have done (one reading this definitely did not see them), so authority is granted to those who told the believer: that would be the messengers of today, and the long line of authors who transcribed and 'spread the word' ultimately to the authors themselves. Each has to be granted authority to believe what is read is actually real. Believe in the theory of evolution?-unless you are a scientist working on the theory, your belief in evolution is based upon authority. If you did not conduct the experiments, you grant authority to those who did perform the experiments; authority would still be granted to others in one's field of study. But whether this is from another's revelation or experience, as a deferment the issue remains that the one who originated that which is taken as knowledge either did so based upon their subjectively or objectively-based perception of reality.

This brings up the crucial distinction between revelation and experience, whether one's own or deferred through authority: it is the difference between that which is verifiable and that which isn't. Experience is that which any may have and come up with similar results – the more similar the variables, the more similar the results. For example, if different people take a certain amount of water with the same composition and apply the same heat to it in the same environment, it will turn to vapor in nearly the exact same manner; however, if some variable changes through different attempts, such as the environment in elevation then there will be a change in the results by some degree. The more variables that are introduced, the greater the variability in results, such as different chemical makeup, heat source and the like. Anybody can take the same events and variables and come to the same conclusions. The issue in life is finding the appropriate variables, and reading them properly.

Revelation is not tied to experience of the world, but of a feeling of something inside oneself. There is no way to confirm it, for it is wholly subjective; there is nothing that anyone else can do to verify one's revelation, for by the nature of revelation it is granting authority to one who said they had it. There is no way to externally verify it. Revelation is actually a claim to come to knowledge from an outside source, but without experience of any means of accumulating or transmitting said knowledge; it is to be a direct inspiration from God or another divine source directly into one's mind/soul. How can an individual attest to that the revelation was correct?-he 'feels' it, but how does he know that feeling is correct? There is nothing outside of that feeling. If they point to an external source, then it is experience and subject to interpretation.

This brings us to our last point: regardless of whether it is through revelation, experience or authority, each method of accumulating and processing knowledge is done through our mental makeup from our biology, evolution, society, education and more: the base from which we make our understanding of what we take as knowledge. For experience, it is the reason why we know nature is not playing tricks upon us when we see a bent stick when it is partially submerged in water; for revelation, it is the reason why remote and primitive tribes who never heard of Christianity or Islam don't attribute their revelations to Jesus, Muhammad or other Abahamic figures, but to their own interpretations of divinity – the reverse is true with why Christians and Muslims don't attribute their revelations to the deities of those remote and primitive tribesmen.

Each level has its potential for contributing to knowledge in its own way: experience is limited to what we have done ourselves; authority is letting the expertise that another has earned contribute to our knowledge; revelation, on the other hand, is valid in one way that is not true revelation but how it can actually come about and that is as any knowledge gained is based and filtered through our mental maps (schemata) what is taken as revelation is the subconscious connections that exist within our minds – not actually 'divine inspiration' but the attempts at making connections that haven't been made yet. Newton's realization of gravity from the apple falling is such an example – it wasn't a wholly new idea, but the culmination of ideas he had been reviewing beforehand that got the last piece added to complete the picture's organization.

This is important for any level may be improperly attributed, leading to invalid conclusions and false knowledge. This is most readily apparent with revelation – especially divinely inspired – for there is no way that it can be verified. One says he felt the hand of God – how can that be proven or disproven? Equally, I can say I felt that his feeling was actually a gremlin making him believe it was God's presence to try and trick him – how could I prove what I said, or be disproven? For both claims, as Hitchens quipped: what is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This does not mean that experience and authority are immune to error. Science is never fully settled, and phrenology is an example of what was scientific at one point, but found to be erroneous at a later time. Where revelation cannot be reviewed; experience through science can be amended.

It is up to us to recognize how we get knowledge and where that knowledge comes from. This is especially the case granting authority for the one relaying knowledge does so based upon their understanding, in addition to their bias and interest in the world. Just as we each have our cognitive maps through which we interpret things, so do any we grant authority – where did they get their knowledge they are trying to persuade us to accept?-are they trying to 'sell' us something?

Are we to believe the worldview of those who limit themselves to the information gathered from their culture only, in a dogmatic way that it was given to them from an original source of revelation meaning that it cannot be verified in any way?-are we to believe the politician who has a vested interest in us believing his side of an issue?-are we to believe the scientist speaking in his field of expertise? It is the difference between an illiterate tribesman from millenia ago as contrasted to Dawkins' and Hawking's findings in evolution and cosmology telling us how life and the universe came to be. Revelation or 'gut feelings' may coincide with truth, but to verify we go beyond. Being mindful does not involve thinking with one's gut.

Ultimately, it comes down to the distinction: know reality from reality or from those who say what is reality through a means not tied to reality. It is through this uncritical review where man can repeat like a parrot, or bark upon command, but not actually reason to come to the truth of a claim. This is why mankind is the potentially rational animal for though he can reason, he also has the greater sin in not living up to his potential - acting as humans are capable.

Posted by GDX at  11:33 PM

In Defense of Offensive Speech: Maybe Your Mother is a Bitch, or your God is Evil

[Originally posted January 18, 2015]

Much has been said as of late regarding offensive speech, with various calls to shut down speakers or fine places that engage in 'hate speech', and blame those who are victims of people who act upon their anger at being offended. Recent examples range from Bill Maher, All Coulter, Ayaan Hirsi Ali who each have had calls by protesters to prevent speeches that were arranged at various schools, to the murders of Theo Van Gogh and the staff at Charlie Hebdo. In each case, the aggrieved party's status of being offended by the authors' words was sufficient base in the [self-created] victim's eyes as well as others who want to seen as doing something positive in the community.

What is advanced by them is that there are some things of which one should not discuss, not talk about in any critical evaluation. This is especially the case with anything that is based upon religion; however, the essence of not being able to criticize religion is based upon the belief that there is something so sacred, so beloved, that to criticize it is to assail the highest in life, and one so lowly as a person, in particular a person who is not a member of and 'doesn't properly understand' the true beauty of one's religion.

Though speaking authoritatively from a point of ignorance is not good, for by definition it is making a positive assertion about what one doesn't know, there is also the point where one knows enough to be able to review what they do know, make inquiries about it and from what they learn, make judgments about it. With this, there is nothing so sacred that it cannot be reviewed and properly criticized. Denying criticism negates our rational faculties to make our own judgments, robbing us of the freedom to learn the truth about a thing of contention. If we don't properly understand, how are we to come to understand? In such a case what is to replace understanding is obedience.

Denying this review is intellectual robbery on multiple levels: 1) it robs the one seeking inquiry (or offering an opposing viewpoint) for they are denied the ability to pursue that which they are curious; 2) it denies the audience who may be curious about the issue to be reviewed; 3) it denies the authoritarian a reasoned base of defense of his own beliefs. In denying each party a review to truth, what is taken for truth is nothing but a dogmatic stamp to be imprinted upon everyone's forehead. It matters not whether this is at a personal-relationship level, or at a philosophical-religious level.

At a personal level, if I were to use the pejorative 'bitch' about your mother, you may feel insulted and come to your mother's defense (or not depending on your relationship with her, for you could also say 'you are so correct', though your sibling may disagree). You may be angry, berate me and defend your mother. But through this defense, you are using words: giving examples as to why my statement is incorrect and if not try to convince me to change my mind, to convince others that my statement is incorrect. If, however, you simply responded by proceeding to physically attack me then words are not used and the attack is an attempt to stamp a dogmatic belief into my head, and be a threat for those who watch. Lost in the physical attack is the possibility of explanation that justified (rightly or wrongly) my judgment as to why your mother is a bitch. When we were children, she may have been an angel to you, but to me she broke my toys, had her dog chase me and routinely berated me. All of the past happening to me would be lost – denied to me my own experience, denied to others as to what her real past included so they do not form a proper image as to who she was... possibly still is. Or, I could be entirely incorrect and who I thought was your mother was actually your aunt, who we both agree was a bitch, while who I thought was your aunt but was actually your mother, was good. Not reviewing that, we'd never learn that it was a faulty understanding.

At a philosophical-religious level, if I was to say your God (Yahweh, Allah, etc.) was an evil entity, and I was attacked for blasphemy to get me to stop talking, then the same issues remain. My understanding of the text and base for the religion is being denied, as is the ability of others to come to a greater understanding, and yourself for you are not coming to a better understanding of the belief – to verify you actually believe what you purport to believe. Lost will be the review of why I said your God was evil. Instead of a review to look at contextual understanding or just to verify that I was not misinterpreting the text, so that each person could come to a better understanding, we are denied and are just to obey the dogmatic teachings. (there is no contextual way of literally understanding Moses' treatment of the Midianites as 'good'; metaphoric understanding is by its nature up to review). In a similar vein, if I say one's religious texts are foolish in their interpretation of the nature of the universe, denying my criticism doesn't take away the reasoning for the criticism: moon splitting, stars falling from skies, sun stopping in the sky at noon. It all could be that I misunderstood; it could be that you do. Maybe you are the one who focusing on certain verses, forgetting some others... or do not consider the context that the words were used. For example, the original law given to the 'chosen people' was not 'thou shalt not kill', but thou shalt not murder'... was it referring to all, or just to other members of the chosen people?

Without reviewing anything that is held sacred or beloved, we hold that cherished item as a truth that overrides reality. However, reality is not outdone by our wishes. If your mother was a bitch – if not to you, at least to me – then denying that will not change her treatment to me, or others. Similarly, just saying God is good, and not taking the time to review the reasons why I say God is evil, doesn't take away the reasoning why I made my assertion: e.g. Moses' treatment of the Midianites (Moses being a prominent figure in the three main monotheistic faiths), or foolish, e.g. sun stopping in the middle of the sky.

As John Stuart Mill advised, let the competing ideas clash, for the truer of the two will win out and the beneficiaries will be all those who learn the truth. This can only be done when we can critically review any and all beliefs. After all, your mother may be a bitch and your God may be evil, or they may not... but they just might.

Let us review.

Posted by GDX at  6:42 PM

Chris Kyle: A War Hero Who Did Not Fight For Our Freedom - A Brief Review

[Originally posted January 28, 2015]

Much has been said about Chris Kyle and _American Sniper_. Criticism and praise have run the gamut between calling him a mass murderer and a coward, to an American Hero who died fighting for our freedom. Those who decry Kyle use his own words, and those who laud him do so with the jingoism of patriotism. However, the truth is rarely at an extreme and this is an example.

Examples given of Kyle's words used to show he was a murderer who liked to kill Iraqis, include: calling them 'savages', that he'd 'like to shoot people with a Koran, though he doesn't', that he 'wished he had killed more' and that 'he didn't fight for and didn't care about the Iraqis.' Let us put him in context, with the base of understanding that he was a soldier who was a member of an elite force [SEALs] and from that wanted to be active, as well as having a problem with bureaucracy in the government and military, as well as the press; Chris Kyle was also a staunch Christian. Regarding the savages comment, he was not talking about all Iraqis but those militants who fought Americans and also other Iraqis (for example Iraqi 'Johnny Walker' was a teammate and esteemed highly by Kyle); about shooting people with a Koran, he was under investigation for an improper kill (of which he was cleared), but being kept out of a fight and protecting other American soldiers, he mocked the investigators, upper command and press for lambasting actions he took to defend fellow soldiers; as an American soldier, his first priority was to protect other soldiers. Chris was a killer - that is what he was trained to do; however, he was not a murderer as murder brings with it a context that is incorrect for what Chris had done. He was a soldier, a highly-trained warrior who enjoyed a good fight and killing 'bad guys' was part of that.

At an even broader context, Iraq has a geographic boundary delineated by the British early 20th century; however, that boundary was put upon the people there who are not unified. Iraq has an ethnic division of Arabs and Kurds (largest two), with religious divisions of Sunni and Shia Muslims (largest two). With the ethnic and religious divisions, many of the people there consider the foreign delineated borders as a secondary concern to religious (and by extension, political) ties. This division has claimed the lives and caused suffering of thousands yearly as those opposing factions battle each other. In addition, as religion and ethnic ties are prepotent over country borderlines, members of religious sects cross those geographic borders to assist their religious brothers: they come from Iran, Syria, etc. From the warring of people against others there, based upon animosity held over centuries, various groups were already inflicting great harm against one another. Additionally, and especially with the more fundamentalist groups who push religiously-based laws upon the rest, many end up acting in ways that would be labeled 'savage', including stoning adulterers, beheading apostates, hanging gays and lashing rape victims, among other punishments.

This was the world into which the 'American Sniper' was sent - him, along with thousands of American soldiers who fought, killed and died in foreign lands. It is a land of civil war on different levels. With that, Chris Kyle did not fight for the freedom of Americans. He served four tours as he earned his 160+ confirmed kills. These kills were against people who were not engaged in a war against the United States; they were people who were engaged in a religious and civil war in their own lands. The people fighting in those streets wanted to lay claim to the lands they lived on, but were not any imminent threat to cross the oceans to lay claim upon American soil. The ones who are threats to American freedom were ones Chris Kyle had contempt for, but not the ones he actually fought.

As a soldier, shielded with his own religion, he was doubly-blind to the cause, though he had some semblance of an issue which if he removed those two blinds would have revealed to him the true threat to American freedom: politics and religion. In his own words "The rules are drawn up by lawyers who are trying to protect the admirals and generals from the politicians; they're not written by people who are worried about the guys on the ground getting shot." Chris repeatedly chastised one commander he had that Chris considered a coward, refusing to send Chris and his team out on missions, and praised another commander who was a 'badass' (an estimable trait to Chris) and sent out the team on numerous missions; the cowardly commander was promoted, while the other was not. Chris saw [others'] religious devotion causing harm upon the people, but didn't review his religious fervor. He saw the attacks upon American citizens and soldiers, prompting him to want to 'fight the enemy' but didn't review that the same actions he was doing as well as the overall 'War on Terror' - directed by politicians - would be creating people like him, but on the other side. Sure there were those who would be fulfilling his definition of 'savages', but how many were regular citizens who saw too many of their friends get killed, and decided to pick up a gun?-there isn't a way to verify that number. 'They hate us for our freedom' is a diversionary statement by politicians trying to sell us something, in the same vein that we were ferreting out weapons of mass destruction.

A final point regarding criticism toward him, and that is regarding 'just following orders' mentality, with comparisons to Nazi's killing of Jews and the like: there is a difference that makes the base not equal. People should be free to follow the paths and systems they want; however, if the system by its nature does not allow freedom of people to choose, any free man may oppose it. Nazi extermination of Jews for being Jews is not equivalent to American soldiers killing combatants for the goals of their organizations are different. It is the difference between Charles Whitman's killing of 14 people and people killing Charles Whitman. Free men have the right, though don't have the obligation, to find those who are violating another's rights and stop the aggression appropriately. Regarding whether or not Chris and his fellow soldiers should have been in Iraq and elsewhere in the first place, that is a problem politicians created, and religionists entrenched.

To conclude (as this is to be a brief review), Chris Kyle was a 'badass' and served his country proudly, but his uncritical review of his place in the war and what he was doing did not help protect our freedoms. He was a war hero protecting his fellow soldiers and was conflicted when he wasn't with them in action as he felt they were in harm's way without his overwatch. But killing members of different factions in a civil war in another country is not an example of protecting American Freedom.

Posted by GDX at  1:21 AM

A Rhetorical Evaluation of the Concept of Life

[Originally posted February 6, 2015]

[This was originally a work for a class in Rhetoric in 2005, though it has received a couple of 'tweaks']

What is 'Life?' Some would consider it a silly question; a question which is obvious in answer. But is it really? The concept of, and term life is used in many ways and in many arenas; a couple of which are from the most important discourses in human history, and especially to we Americans. One of Thomas Jefferson's most important writings, _The Declaration of Independence_ has written in it "... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are _Life_ , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness... [emphasis added]" Patrick Henry's famous "... give me liberty or give me death!" speech had before that conclusion "Is _life_ so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! [emphasis added]"

Those two uses of the term life seem to be quite similar; both were about individuals in the colonies forming an independent, fledgling nation by breaking the bonds of a tyrannical parent [king] who denied them [the colonists] the ability [political liberty] to act according to how they thought best. But there are other uses of the word life. President George W. Bush fosters a 'culture of life' and seeks to expand the definition of life (Fletcher, 2005). With that alone we can see that what is life is not so simple to define if some, especially those in charge of the government, are attempting to change the definition.

Some of the procedures and regulations advanced by President Bush to support life and individual rights are the same ideas to which Richard Parker [MD] states are counter to life and individual rights (2002). Is this a disagreement of definition? – or something lesser, such as a miscommunication. What about not allowing [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh "... to take one more life... and "...deny him this final killing." As Bruce Friedrich of PETA said about not letting an animal be killed (i.e. lose its life) to provide a meal for the convicted mass-murderer. Joanne Lauck in her book refers to Lewis Carroll's _Through the Looking Glass_ and compares the world where the gnat existed to Alice's, saying the gnat's world "... celebrated all life forms..." including its kind, i.e. other insects (2002). How far, or to what degree, and in what area, should the term life be extended?

The above uses of the term life are, if not wholly incompatible, quite differentiated. What must be done is an evaluation of what life is – a denotative clarification. The concept must be separated from false connotations, i.e. that which it is wholly incorrectly used, from that where it is in some degree synonymous with another word (but not identical to) and that which it is truly representative. What are the differentiations among the synonyms? Not only must those distinctions be made, but they must be applied to the various areas where life was viewed as being: after what is life, what has life? – if it does not have life, then what does it have? What are the implications, and what are the consequences of those differences?

The term life has been invoked in multifarious manners. Philosophers and ideologues, good men and bad men both speak of life. Life has been used ambiguously by most and from the ambiguity and uncertainty in the public, ideologues use it and prevaricate the term life to that which helps them control the masses; they [the ideologues] flip the definition that was never clearly made in the first place, to that which suits them best toward their goal only to flip again when a challenge is made which will counter what they have advanced to that point – to flip again later. The manipulators of the term have a clear meaning to themselves of what they mean, but they speak enthymematically and we fill in [syllogistically] what was left out; they give us the form but we provide the filling. We fill in the form as we have to make sense of what they allude.

As we have our own definitions, either fully consciously, partially or unconsciously held, they feast on it while they talk all day but say nothing definitive. In its different meanings life can be something quite inconsequential and unremarkable, or it can be something which if it be not the most important, it is one of the most important concepts of man – the life that Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry fought so vociferously for having. That _life_ is our focus.

Let us first look at what is said about what has life.

A commonly accepted idea of what life, or that which is coming to life, is, is being or growing according to one's nature. That seems to be a good, general description, but is it enough? For what was stated by Jefferson and Henry, surly it is not. The 'one' would have to be addressed firstly, and that will lead to the obvious problems of the overly general description.

To take the above description would include that which is not alive by any other definition; things which are said to have life when they act (not in themselves) according to how the viewer thinks it would act had it the choice, e.g. a volcano, a bull stock market, a storm or the engine of a car. Each of these can be said to act, but as though the word act might have connotative value, it is wrong denotatively and our purpose here is clarification of the word life which will not be possible if other words are left unclear in meaning; words here must be specified as much as possible.

A volcano does not choose to store magma to a point and then erupt; it is the result of physical forces outside itself forcing the magma into the volcanic chambers through cracks in tectonic plates. The storm bringing rain, wind or whatever else physical, is just like the engine of a car, which is in turn just like the volcano – a result of physical forces; a bull stock market, too, does not choose to exist, but is only a symbol, a representation of outside forces from the buying and selling of shares. None of the aforementioned materially caused forces are from within the thing, none of them bring about the continuation of their own existence – they do not act - they are just the continuation of various kinds of forces. As Kenneth Burke observed, they have motion but no action.

The ability to try and preserve oneself, therefore, would be a proper addition to the definition of life. But let us look at that idea. What would be included with that idea? – practically everything that is not mineral. And some have agreed. Some have said, and say, that _all life_ is to be respected and that the killing of anything which has life is immoral - examples given earlier. These people would take the words "... unalienable rights..." and extend it to all things which exhibit life. But is this not absurd? One does not need to be a follower of Heraclitus when he said (2001):

That which always was,

and is, will be everliving fire,

the same for all, the cosmos,

made neither by god nor man,

replenishes in measure

as it burns away.

One can see that Nature has balanced counterparts: life and death; both are necessary. The only living entities which could exist without killing of some prey, would be plants, and not even all plants as some make insects their prey, e.g. Venus fly-trap, bladderworts and pitcher plants. With this as a definition, the bodies of living organisms, including our own, are killing machines as whatever microbial organism gets into a creature's system, such as ours, the immune system attacks the invader and kills it; the microbial organism behaved according to its nature and toward its self-preservation, as did the body that was invaded by the microorganism – it is unavoidable, it is inherent in Nature.

For all things which have a nutritive base would be considered to have life. From the lowly Sarcodina (amoebae) to plants, to lower animals to humans, each has nutritive faculties and the ability to grow or maintain its existence. Now, as the concept of life which has been promulgated in _The Declaration of Independence_ is clearly not what has been described thus far in our evaluation, it would be wise to say that cells and plants do not have life; but what shall we call that which they have? We should keep in mind the form of the word life in this context, which is purely biological – nothing more than merely 'being alive.' So, being alive may be life in a biologist's point-of-view, but it will not suffice for ours – the nutritive and growth properties of an organism shall best be described as it being alive.

What about organisms other than microorganisms, insects and plants: the reptiles, fish, birds and mammals (other than humans)? What could be said of the latter that could not be said of the former? Is it the capability to suffer, as Bruce Friedrich of PETA also stated? The capacity to suffer is dependent on a number of things, such as neurological development. Not all animals can suffer while some can, but the capacity to suffer is not the base for rights or for life which is beyond being alive. We will touch more on this later.

It cannot be said a higher cognitive ability, for if any animals have such abilities, it is quite limited. Some species of animals are identical to plants in that they have neither head nor brain, e.g. jelly fish and sea stars. Should fish be excluded from the rest of animals, as is done by some vegetarians (vegans will protest that exclusion)? Even if that exclusion is made, there is not much to be said of such generalization of 'higher' life to the remaining classes of animals, i.e. something in their characteristics to separate them from insects and plants. As proof of a form of cognition, some say that animals have language – that they communicate. Those who proclaim animal language cite the songs of birds, the howls of wolves and differing bark of dogs, the chirps and clicks of dolphins. It is true that animals communicate, but they do not have a language, grammar or anything else of the like.

All complex non-plant organisms communicate; life would stop short with a single generation if communication was not present, save by chance. The communication of any animal is its means of conveying its attempt of protecting its territory, for pack animals to coordinate a hunt or defend the herd, and most importantly, show that it is ready for mating. It is done both audibly and non-audibly, visually and non-visually, and through olfactory processes; as Kenneth Burke stated non-symbolically. That is the reason for barks, howls, shakes, postures, marking, pheromones and the songs which would be better described as chirping.

That which is supposedly separated from these classes of animals to the other classes, i.e. birds, reptiles, mammals from insects and fish is something which actually blends them, and humans all together, but humans have developed communication to a level which no other species has developed; we have language, which will be addressed later. Some of the most advanced pure communication systems in the animal kingdom belong to insects, e.g. the use of pheromones, buzzing and shaking of honey bees to relay the location of a flower.

Clearly, communication ability is not sufficient for us to include it among what constitutes life; it is not even sufficient for us to modify our attempt to define what life is. Further investigation is needed into our defining life, so let us continue.

As far as classes of organisms, only one remains for that which could be relevant to the concept of life as we are seeking for its definition: humans. What is it that separates humans from the rest of all organisms on Earth? Is it that the human brain is larger than any other animal brain? – no, for that is not true as the brain of blue whales is many times larger. In most areas, the human body is quite weaker than that of other animal counterparts, e.g. our strength pales in comparison to that of a lion, our eyesight pales in comparison to an eagle, our sense of smell pales in comparison to dogs, and in practically every other way, we are physically weaker in some aspect to most animals, so what differentiates us as greater is not physical.

That which does separate us from all other organisms is our rational faculty: our reason. Through our reasoning ability, our cognitive abilities, we can recognize the laws of Nature, use actual language (symbols) and, for what our discussion is about here, know ethics; we have a moral faculty, which comes from a broader field in that we can engage in philosophy, where all other fields flow from.

We will return to the importance of humanism to life later, but first, let us recount what has been said, and see what does not constitute life. Life is not just being, behaving or growing according to one's nature, for that would include that which is not alive. Life is not just possessing growth or nutritive faculties, for that would belong to all organisms, both simple and complex. Life would also not be nutritive faculties with communicational abilities, as those belong to almost all complex, non-plant organisms.

The aforementioned characteristics, save behaving according to one's nature alone, which have been used to describe life can really be reassessed and correctly be described at best as those various things being alive. We must remember to keep the distinction between what is said to have life biologically [being alive] from that which is said to have life politically, for life in the realm of our living together is our aim to define and from that we will be able to see what life should be as to fulfill what is in _The Declaration of Independence_.

Let us return to humanism (a human being). A full, detailed discussion of humanism would include more than what is needed here, so let us content ourselves with a concise summary of what it is that separates the human animal from any other animal or organism. Humans have mind. It matters not if one thinks the mind is separable from the body or that it is a part of the body.

Even if mind and body were separable, while one exists on Earth, they are together.

What is it to have mind? Mind is where action originates. Action, that is not materially caused like motion, such as the volcano, but originates in the mind, is based on the awareness of options, and that one is better than the others, i.e. value – the mind values. These values may be either explicit or implicit, conscious or unconscious, but they are. Not only does man value and act upon those values, but he also thinks, and can think philosophically; humans can deliberate on the practical and contemplate in the principle.

Philosophizing, and the various realms of philosophy, i.e. metaphysics, politics, aesthetics and ethics, are the key issues. Animals have no grasp of anything philosophical; they live in a materially caused world and are limited to that world. It takes philosophy to be able to pursue something beyond the immediate; animals only live in the immediate while humans can abstract beyond the concrete of the immediate. Humans also have true language – a complex symbolic system for communicating ideas/abstractions as well as those concretes, e.g. warning another of a vicious dog around a corner and what is a vicious dog.

As we can abstract, as we can see each other as self-directed, self-motivated, selfish creatures (selfishness being concerned with oneself first, and non-parasitically as wanting others to live according to how we think is right is still based upon our view of what is right, whether or not it actually is), and that other humans each seek the same – their own interests. Ethics comes from our relations with other humans. This recognition of what separates humans from other beings that are alive, the ability to use symbolic-language, abstract, deal with others as political equals is what is the base of political life.

Since we have narrowed our definition for life to humanism, humanism will be our reference from now on. Is it enough to have the above abilities of symbol using and the rest? – this will be addressed last with respect to humanism. Must humanism actually be present or a probable potential? Does life belong to a single human, or is it something which belongs to a group of humans, whether it be family, State, ethnic group or the like? It is not clear yet so we must keep our investigation going to further clarify life.

Is the actual or the potential, or both to be classified with life? It is the actual alone which is to be classified as having life for our discussion. The potential, as its definition suggests, does not exist yet, and therefore, it cannot have life. There are two areas where this is most obvious: a fetus and the functionally brain-dead. Both of these exist as potentials for life; the fetus as a forming, attached organism to later become human and the functionally brain-dead for a potential recovery to some extent to become human once again. Both, in their states of development lack those characteristics for which life can be: a separately functioning entity and mind. A fetus exists only as an extension of its mother's flesh – it cannot live without it. The fetus, too, does not have mind as mind comes about from exposure to the world.

The functionally brain-dead exist as separate entities, but have no mind; even their existence as separate entities is quite limited as natural processes would be their death unless someone [an actual] intervened to keep the brain dead from wasting away through starvation, dehydration and exposure. Some disagree, such as, with respect to fetal development, Fritz Baumgarter, MD states that one has life from conception (2005), and with respect to the functionally brain-dead, John Stemberger of the Family Research Council stated that Terri Schiavo (a functionally-brain dead woman) was "...living and healthy..." and that she "...is able to see, hear and she is often alert... (2005)"

What do these two [fetuses and those who are functionally brain-dead] have? These two have what has been described as being biologically alive; they both are incapable of action and only respond in motion, from the materially caused.

It is the mind which is the key component here; without mind, humans lose the title of rational animal and become simply animal. A mind cannot exist without a body, but a body can exist without a mind. For Aristotle observed "...for he does it for the sake of the intellectual element in him, which is thought to be the man himself..." Acting as humans should is what our nature prescribes. And it matters not whether one believes that God designed man or that man evolved through natural selection, for with either one, man is man now.

It is ridiculous to think that either God or Nature created man, stating "Here you are, great creature of intellect. You have mind, now go live as a plant." It is not only ridiculous, but impossible. Even if humans tried to live as plants do, we would surely die as plants can live passively through photosynthesis while animals have to be active in their diet.

One that has been born is separate and now can continue toward its potential, albeit with parentage, but the fetus has neither mind nor is separate. However, if carried to term a fetus' potential is not necessarily going to be a healthy birth for there could be a miscarriage, or it could be still-born, born brain-dead, die of complications or it could be born with all physical health; after that it could either grow up to be a good or bad person; wickedness will be discussed later.

The functionally brain-dead is separate and can live separately for a short amount of time on its own; what is to be said of its potential? Medical science advances continuously and through it, one could be kept biologically alive, practically indefinitely. Various machines can function for weak muscles or organs or they can be replaced through transplant; technically, the body could live in such a state for decades, or with cryogenics, possibly centuries – but would it be life? Just like the fetus, it would be biologically alive, or cryogenically frozen, but it would be lacking the faculties to act. We must keep in our mind the difference between being human and that of having the flesh with the genetic make-up of _Homo sapiens_ : being biologically alive.

With that in mind, life is not mere survivability, but something more. Considerations of the potential will be concluded later.

Does life belong to the individual, or to the group? - family, city, state or country? Life belongs to the individual, and to the individual only. The simile of a man is to society as a cell, or organ, is to the body, is good, but as simile it is not identical. A cell or organ is motion, materially caused, and there is no such thing as a materially caused mind. There are ways to materially affect the mind: drugs, alcohol, injury to the brain, and such, but it does not make the sole determining factor of mind.

Mind is action, it values, and is the expression of all the traits we have mentioned earlier. Not only do humans have action, but they also can exist without society; they have the physical ability to survive isolated from other humans, although such existence would be dreadful, while cells or organs cannot survive outside the body. Any group is a collection of individuals, each of whom act upon their own desires; the group is said to move when the majority is in accord, but any majority is not all and complete unison is when all individuals choose the same thing. The individuals make the choice and their choice can keep them with the group or they can leave. But as Ayn Rand observed "...the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on Earth is the individual)" (1964).

We have further narrowed our definition of life from simply being biological _Homo sapiens_ to an actual human individual with mind, so does that mean that all humans have life, and the right to pursue it equally? No, not all have life equally or can pursue it equally. Human life is specific and, as Aristotle noted "The virtue of a thing is relative to its proper work." There are two areas where human life not being where it should be, can be seen. The first is that where one does not use that which makes man, man, i.e. does not use his mind.

As noted before about the ridiculousness of having God or Nature creating man to live as a plant, it is not only ridiculous, but shameful to have mind but refuse to use it. We do not say that the man who does not, and refuses to examine his life, while working the menial job that he hates only to come home to relax and lose himself in whatever amusements he can escape into, has the same level of life as the one who has examined and knows himself and goes out to improve himself while doing that which he enjoys and continues to engage his mind.

The same is true of children as we do not say they have the same level of life as their parents as the children do not have the experience or wisdom to think on such things. They do not have the same _level_ of life as the mentally and physically active man, but they can pursue their life as they see fit, even if it is a short-coming, that is not living to their potential as human, and to be blamed; however, children need guidance for their faculties are not developed enough to function properly.

Fools may pursue their life imprudently, but children cannot. Dependent on their developmental stage, we do not let infants or children have the same choices (if any) as an adult. Young children are not blamed to the same extent (if at all before correction) as an adult for misbehavior. Children, lacking experience and wisdom, need guidance and extra rules to develop their lives, such as we do not let a four-year-old drive a car, and if it did, we blame the parents, but as the child grows, more blame is placed on it until it has to take full responsibility for its actions; they are developing and cannot pursue life as an adult.

The other area where life is not being something for all equally, or having the right to pursue, is with wicked men; wicked men here referring to any man whose actions are to violate the rights of another man, and it is in these actions where he cannot pursue equally valid paths toward life. The wicked deceive the other and attempt to take from the life of that other – through fraud or force try to take that which is life, or is the means for the other to keep, or enjoy, his life. There is no right to violate the rights of others. The good man recognizes that he is himself a separate entity with desires, but he also recognizes that he is a member, not of a simple group like a state, but of a category – the category of human.

Through that recognition of being in that category of being human, and recognizing the right of each man to pursue "... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." the good man, being an actual, separate, symbolic and valuing organism, a rational animal, recognizing and respecting the rights to everyone and himself, we can say that is what life is. [The pursuit of] Life belongs to the good, not the wicked - to those who act in ways to honor rights, not violate rights.

There are times when one can proceed with forfeiture of life: the legal implications and consequences of life as defined. Life is forfeited by the wicked man by acts of wickedness; when one does not respect the right of others to live, there is to be no respect shown him as to his existence. An act of justice is both rewarding the good man for his actions (which is not our focus for forfeiture) and it is the process of righting an unjust act of a bad man relative to the virtue of an act or severity of the crime, e.g. assault is more of an unjust crime than petty theft, and murder is more unjust than assault.

The punishments range according to circumstance as in when one killed another, if it was accidental and manslaughter, or if it was premeditated with malice and murder, or if it was in self-defense of self and family and to be praised. In any case, the one who is violating the rights of another, by that violation of the other's rights, is saying that he does not recognize rights, or considers them unimportant, and his own are to be included; he may not say it explicitly, but his actions speak for him.

The only other time when life can be forfeited is when it is one's own. One's own life can be forfeited, properly, when life is no longer seen as being valuable living and there is no way of correcting it. Existence itself is a value based in context. There are potential times in life which prevent life as described, but allow for the continuation of biological life from minutes more to years more, but as has been said, mere survivability [being biologically alive] is not life.

Terminal illness, trapped by an inescapable slow death or by enslavement, life can be prevented. Granted some are more contestable than others, but it is up to the individual to choose on how to fight, if he wants to fight. It is up to the individual as he is the one shouldering the burden of his life and the consequences of its existence. If one was stuck with horrific pain which would not end until death as with some cancer, or one was trapped atop a skyscraper which was ablaze and the only choice was either burn slowly to death in flames or to jump and quickly die from striking the ground as was the case for some from the World Trade Center attack, or if one was a slave or prisoner and was subject to constant torture and abuse with no end in sight, then the people in each of these cases has lost the potential for life, in varying degrees, and has the choice whether to end it if the burden is seen as too great. For as General Stark proclaimed when commemorating his battles for the Continental Congress "Live free or die. Death is not the worst evil."

What about those potentials?

As we have already mentioned, potentials do not have life, so they have no legal right to life - there is no right to mere biological life for then we get into the aforementioned issues. Potentials are simply that, potentials, they are not guarantees; there is only one guarantee for any organism and that is death, but we do not go about treating each other as potential corpses. Or as Leonard Peikoff said to the claims of 'unborn child:'...we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students (2003).

It is the actual who has rights, is responsible for his own life, and it is up to him whether or not to take an extra burden. The mother has rights, the fetus does not; it is up to the mother whether or not to carry the burden as she is the one who has to - not the fetus, not the father, nor anybody else has to carry the burden. For those who are functionally brain-dead, they do not have life as that which makes them human or even animal, their intellect is gone, so as they cannot choose and fend for themselves; it is up to the man who takes the burden of the brain-dead's care, if he wants it.

Even if there was a guarantee, it would be up to the person taking the burden to choose to take it. Some consider it cruel to let an injured or sick animal suffer needlessly when it can no longer function as it could – we euthanize it to remove its pain. But one could, if they so choose, gather their resources, both financial and other, to raise the animal back to health; it is not demanded. Why is it considered by those who do not want the lower animals to suffer mercy to euthanize them, but consider it contextually good to let a human continue to suffer?

What would be the point of insisting on survivability of a biological organism versus the life, as we have described it, of a human? One point would be the pragmatism of governmental bureaucracy, of counting heads to justify their proposals, or by looking as stewards or parents to their constituent children, and make themselves look worthy of re-electing. Another reason is based on theology and that it, removing that biological life of potential human in the case of a fetus or brain-dead, is 'playing God' with the belief that humans are not to alter what has been set for 'God has a plan.'

But that is fatalism, and if to alter whatever has happened is playing God, then all medicine and technology in general is playing God, for none of the things that come from technology come from the simple motion, the material causation of Nature, but of man's manipulation of Nature, using Her laws. With the idea that all that happens in life is part of God's plan, then it could be, also, that God willed the actions of the others to bring about the abortion or euthanasia, for God 'works in mysterious ways' and has called on sacrifice many times to bring about His plan. Something else to consider: if we are acting against God's plan now with our actions, then we have the ability to act against them and if we do have such an ability, how are we to be sure that by using our technology as we are is violating it, too, e.g. keeping a feeding tube inserted in one who would die without it as keeping one from going to God as intended to God's plan.

The consequences of stating that which is potential human life is to have rights will now be examined. What is really being said when those in charge are asking for all life to be viewed as valuable? Is it really just their saying that life is good and to be preserved, or are they saying that the government should make sure that life is preserved? And one must keep in mind of the enthymematical nature of their talk, which is fine in normal talk, but they speak of policy - legal use of force - and just as we have a definition of life, so do they and they might not agree.

Rights are that which protect individuals' ability to pursue their goals. To pursue goals is to be active, and to be active is to be fully functional as an autonomous, valuing (human) unit, according to one's will. When one is not able to provide for himself, but it is deemed his or its 'right' to have that which he cannot acquire, then others must provide for that one. Making functional others provide for the needing one infringes upon their [the functional] own ability to pursue their own goals as they now would have the other's [the needing] goals to work toward; what would be expected of one when the other's becomes the others'?

It would entail more losing of rights of the one to provide for himself as he is now expected to provide for more, and more as it would be a precedent, a setting of a principle – it would not just be this specific situation but for those in these situations. Eventually, that would be extended to similar situations. He would become a slave to the other, as he would no longer be able to act according to his own will, but now, not to the will of the other who is seen as the one to be directly benefited, but the other who is in charge of the use of force, who has the firearm in hand, issuing a command.

From the ambiguous usage of a word, a law could be adapted and whether or not we wanted it, we would be subject to it at the barrel of a gun. That is the only way to enforce that which one does not wish to do, to use force to make them do it; for anything voluntary is not enslavement such as Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch had in his contract making himself a slave to his lover.

The proper course of action in law with respect to life is to protect the liberty of those who can act independently. It is the sphere of government to protect the general while it is up to the individual to work the particular – Aristotle realized this:

The reason is that all law is universal but about some things it is not possible to make a universal statement which shall be correct. In those cases, then, in which it is necessary to speak universally, but not possible to do so correctly, the law takes the usual case, though it is not ignorant of the possibility of error. And it is none the less correct; for the error is in the law nor in the legislator but in the nature of the thing, since the matter of practical affairs is of this kind from the start.

As life and its value is something perceptible in nature with respect to its context, it should be left to the individual to choose. Just as the individual is responsible for the choices and burdens of his own life, so is life's choices to be left to the actual who is to shoulder the burden of the other when the potential cannot make it; it is the actual who must alter his life to take the burden if so chosen, for if not, then one is a double-slave, one to the government and the other chance. That is the result: governmental enforced enslavement to chance, e.g. faulty contraception or a car accident, or worse, to wickedness, e.g. rape or assault.

What is to be done by us as a polity? The answer is deceptively simple: do not let ourselves, and do not let others, including those in charge, prevaricate (or get away with prevaricating) the word life. It is so simple, and the word so ubiquitous with each person having a somewhat similar and somewhat different definition, that it happens without notice, the prevarication. When anyone, especially the President of the United States says that they are 'pro-life' and want a 'culture of life' we agree for life is good according to how we see it. But we must make sure what is meant.

For if their ascription of life to that which is merely biological, which we have shown is not life but being alive, then it contradicts itself – it is untenable as some things must die for other things to survive. To be _truly Pro-Life_ , one would embrace the life of that which belongs to a human, while recognizing exactly what is meant by being human instead of being alive or surviving. The costs, though, are great indeed for our oversight; they include loss of finances, time and liberty.

This is not, however, a call for more abortions, or more euthanasia; it is a call for awareness for individuals to make sure they can be left alone to choose for themselves the best they can; if need be, they can choose help, but they are not forced by authorities. One must keep in mind that when those in charge of the government want to use government for their goals, it is not a question of morality, i.e. it is not whether a thing is good or bad; it is a question of the government enforcing a policy by threat of pain of fine, imprisonment or death. Those in the government are not in the situation, and it is not their place to be in the situation although they look down upon it from their ideological perspective. Politicians live in a self-elevated ivory tower so they can look down upon us, as that is how they see the relationship - a power imbalance that they get to rule over. We must be able to choose how to live our lives as humans, of good will.

References

Aristotle. (2000). "Nicomachean Ethics." The Internet Classics Archive.

Aristotle. (1958). "Nicomachean Ethics." The Pocket Aristotle. Trans. W. B. Ross. New York: Pocket Books.

Baumgartner, Fritz. (2005). _Life Begins at the Beginning (A Doctor Gives the Scientific Facts on When Life Begins)._ Pro-Life America. Retrieved 12 Apr. 2005

Burke, Kenneth. (unknown). _(Nonsymbolic) Motion/(Symbolic) Action._ Critical Inquiry.

Fletcher, Michael. (2005). _Bush Hails Progress Toward 'Culture of Life.'_ The Washington Post. 25 Jan. 2005

Friedrich, Bruce. (unknown). _PETA to Oklahoma City Bomber_. PETA Living

Heraclitus. (2001). _Fragments_. New York: Penguin Books.

Lauck, Joanne Elizabeth. (2002). _The Voice of the Infinite in the Small: Re-Visioning the Insect-Human Connection_. Boston: Shambhala Publications.

Parker, Richard. (2002). _A Physician Comments on Abortion and the Morning after Pill_ " _Capitalism Magazine_ Retrieved 2 Dec. 2002

Peikoff, Leonard. (2003). _Abortion Rights are Pro-Life._ Capitalism Magazine Retrieved 23 Jan. 2003

Rand, Ayn. (1964). _The Virtue of Selfishness_. New York: Penguin Books.

Sacher-Masoch, Leopold von. (2000). _Venus In Furs_. New York: Penguin Books, 2000.

Stark, John. (1999). _John Stark (1728-1822)_. Retrieved 28 Mar. 1999.

Stemberger, John. (2005). _The Terri Schiavo Controversy – Facts, Myths and Christian Perspectives._ Family Research Council.

Posted by GDX at  12:08 AM

Killing Democracy... Or How I Learned To Stop Falling For Statism And Love Liberty

[Originally posted February 22, 2015]

America is erroneously often called a democracy; erroneously as it is a Constitutional Republic. There is a reason why it was not made, and why the founders had a general contempt for democracy. Ben Franklin quipped that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. The base of democracy is composed of 2 parts: 1st, the etymology of the word being _demos_ and _kratia_ , meaning 'power to the people'; 2nd, majority rule. Though, today it heralded as a proper form of government and something that should be 'spread', we will see that it is at best a poor base from which to have a system of government. In its purest form democracy itself is not just a poor base of government it is actually - true to its name - tyranny of the majority.

What must be done first is a review of the components of democracy. If it is truly 'power to the people', who are the people? What is this power that is supposed to be wielded by 'the people'? What falls under and out of the purview of democratic power? What means of ensuring obedience can the majority place upon the minority? A State/government being a democracy includes its – whatever was decreed – infiltration into law, so what is 'willed by the people' comes with legal force.

By its nature, the deciding factor of democracy is amorphous: the people. The Classic Greeks who devised democracy did not grant to all individuals a right to vote, as it was only to males, and not just males but a certain class thereof. Practically every culture and religion has given men a superior position in moral and legal standing as compared to women. Additionally, various cultures have qualifications regarding race/ethnicity/religion, whereby some individuals are more morally and legally than others. Definitions are important, for though each may be an organism, there is a great difference between a wolf, a sheep, a tick and a man. The question remains: who is to be considered 'the people'?

For sake of argument in this, the fullest granting of 'the people' will skip superficial distinctions and will be given to include all adults who have attained majority: male/female, regardless of race, religion or socioeconomic status (SES), as long as the member of society is at least 18yrs of age. Granting this, in any practical manner, what difference does it make? Whether one was born with a different skin color, genitalia, adheres to a different or no God, or is in a different income bracket, the issue remains a larger group decides for all. Whether the dividing line is based upon a superficial characteristic, or a behavioral, it is the will of the masses pressing upon the will of the minority. Ayn Rand remarked that the smallest minority is the individual. By definition, there is not a whole unit that is less than 1.

Moreso during election years, but also outside of them, we see the results of polls regarding public opinion on a given topic whether it is abortion, legalization of drugs, gun control, prostitution, gambling, along with numerous other issues where individual liberty is placed against government control. Those who follow democratic principles and agree with the majority want to have their preferences made law, for 'it's the will of the people' and after an election 'to the victor go the spoils'. The minority of any number, especially the 1 be damned.

Let us briefly combine these points and see how ridiculous they are as a basis for governmental action. From what basis is public opinion to be used for what should be legal? Of this public opinion, how representative of the whole population is it who cast the vote? – the last election had the lowest turnout in decades, not even being 40% of the voting population. Of those who did vote, how many of them were knowledgeable of that which they were voting? Of those who thought they were being knowledgeable, how many were actually fooled by the promises of politicians who in trying to get elected said 'no new taxes', 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan' and 'we have to pass it for you to find out what is in it'? Regardless of mass manipulation or ignorance, all are to follow those results.

Politicians lie to get votes, and disregard those who gave them once received. George Carlin's quip is appropriate "Think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are stupider than that."

Opinions change, especially when people come to a better understanding. There are also other ways the majority may change through immigration and emigration (national and state borders), as well as birth and death rates. In addition, regardless of how a topic may be defined, if the precedent has been set it can be changed; a sword once forged can be handed to (or be taken away by) another. Which brings us to the next point: we don't really vote on much as we elect members to government and they are supposedly our 'representatives'. The same issues happen at the lower level (local as well as national) of electing representatives: only so many voted for each representative and of that only so many knowingly voted for what the representative truly represented.

Furthermore, at both levels, to go beyond those who vote against those who do not vote or vote unknowingly there are the special interests – those who have the ability to sway the vote or representative to push for specific legislation. These special interests can be through individuals, companies, corporations, unions or politicians themselves; these categories are not mutually exclusive. Kelo ruling, Uber being pushed out of areas, The PATRIOT Act, Affordable Care Act (ACA, AKA Obamacare) and any of the supposed 'Wars on' [Drugs, Poverty, Terror] are prime examples of public opinion, vague definitions and changing aspects around the precedent, to result in bad law that can get worse depending upon who is wielding it.

However, we all know that we don't get to vote upon the issues that really affect us most. Was there any vote offered to the people regarding going to war in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, about the drone programs, the NSA spying upon everyone, the militarization of the police, the general wars on 'terror', 'poverty' or 'drugs'? Was there a vote for the citizens to decide which firearms are allowable, what ammo and how much ammo is allowable, or about abortion being legal and at what point a fetus is deemed too developed to be aborted? Though there may have been polls asking about whether a change in healthcare was desirable, was there any vote that specifically Obamacare (ACA) should be made law? - though fear made it so The PATRIOT Act was something in a vague symbol that should be passed, how many voted for the components such as 'roving wiretaps', 'sneak and peak' warrants, an extension from giving material support to giving advice/assistance to those deemed terrorists – a definition made by those who have power, not those who vote. It is by design that those who will be chained to the law are not the ones who vote for it, or have the full costs revealed to them. Remember, the bills are thousands of pages and to be voted upon in a couple days... so we can 'find out what's in it.'

For all the bluster about power to the people, the people actually don't make the decisions; we have elected representatives, and from being elected they are to be the extension of the will of the people. However, whether it is for a program or for a representative the issue remains that there is to be a legal standard whereby those who do not want or agree with the results are to abide by them. We shall use a tool quite favored by politicians for the next point: polls. Even if we granted that our elected representatives do represent our interests – a literal impossibility for 'we the people' have diverging if not mutually exclusive interests – in the highest offices, those with the most power [congress and the president], have approval ratings where strongly approve and approve combine to be only around 40%. There have been times where strongly approve has remained in single digits.

A colloquialism which is quite apt in politics is: you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. Who gets to scratch what for who? Those who have something to trade, and in politics it is those who have legal influence and power to trade for gains of another type – not limited to, but most especially – contributions, trading amongst each other. Those who are not elected use non-election means to influence elections or skip them altogether by buying elected representatives. This can be done by corporations, companies and unions. Uber becoming a problematic competitor?-taxi companies try and get politicians to pass licensing requirements to eliminate Uber. Don't want your child to go to public school for education, the teacher's union tries to limit the availability of charter schools. For all its bluster about trying to give everyone lower-cost healthcare, Obamacare (ACA) doesn't actually control costs (for costs have increased), as it just covers those costs through State funding, all with the biggest supporters of the program being insurance companies who now have guaranteed clientele, and got them by contributions using lobbyists.

We're not done looking at the representatives yet. What is another thing these representatives have done with their power that is supposed to represent the people?-created various programs and organizations with appointed members who have been given legal authority. Though the agency wasn't created by a vote of the people, the EPA has the legal authority to prevent people from building on their own property, and fine them heavily if they do build without permission. Pick any agency, and the same pattern will follow – non-elected members of non-elected group holding legal authority over the lives of the people in some way. One of the biggest – and most damaging – examples is The Federal Reserve, as it follows the pattern of non-elected members of a non-elected group, however, its power is over monetary policy, and it presided during every great recession/depression in US history, as the value of the dollar decreased by more than 90%. Vote for the value of your money decreasing?

These issues are not limited to the present time. By what standard can one generation place debts and rules upon another generation? The very nature of the national debt is in one generation accruing expenses that the next will have to pay. Some level of debt has existed since the beginning of the country [US], and while the first century went to pay for the formation (war for independence, land purchases, etc), the national debt now is mostly going toward what is called 'national defense', including keeping thousands of troops on hundreds of bases across the planet, none of which was voted on in original set up or keeping there, and toward entitlements (individual e.g. taking out much more in social security than was paid in and corporate e.g. 'too big to fail' bailouts), and of course 'spreading democracy'. The national debt currently being passed down is more than $18 Trillion; include unfunded liabilities, and that skyrockets to more than $100 Trillion. Don't worry, the youth will clean it up... as designed. The thought is, as it has been, to 'kick the can down the road'; however, the road has to be built but the funds are out and the road will end.

These issues are not limited to the national level. By what standard can your state, county or city place restrictions upon you, or you place upon others based upon passing a legally recognized line of demarcation? Where at least in time, all currently existing should be affected by the law the same, this other type of groupthink does not mean all are affected the same. This ranges from the aforementioned categories to be pitted against each other in 'tax free zones' in New York State, where they are trying to get businesses to come; for those who are approved, they get the benefit, but for those who do not qualify (get approval from members of government) or for those already there, they have to pay full price; want to smoke pot, or even cigarettes, don't cross state lines for you can get arrested for the pot and be seen as selling black market if moving what has been deemed sufficient cigarettes from a low-tax area to a high-tax area; even supposedly nationally recognized rights (e.g. 2nd Amendment) have been made piecemeal, such as Shaneen Allen (legally owning a pistol in PA) volunteered that she carried a gun when pulled over for a traffic issue in NJ, and she was charged and faced up to three years in prison - Gordon van Gilder faced up to 10 years for having a flintlock pistol in his glovebox when he crossed NJ state lines.

Finally, the nature of democracy is that, in some form, might of numbers makes right. Whether it is from direct vote, or from the elected officials [often bought with lobbyists] who are to be the representatives, it makes no difference. The result is the same, as is the base: rights are granted by the State and those who make it, so rights can be taken away. Rights are not deemed inherent. We need look no farther than homosexuality, firearms and abortion (among countless other topics) - regardless of where one has a personal preference on these issues, does that preference change because a new numeric change tilted which side has the majority? Even if not outlawed outright, but nudging people to a behavior by having a 'sin' tax, the issue remains of others dictating your behavior, as Daniel Webster opined "The power to tax is the power to destroy". New York has more than $4 in taxes added to each pack of cigarettes - Eric Garner was assaulted in an arrest for selling untaxed cigarettes, for people wanted to smoke, but have trouble paying the tax; Eric Garner died from the assault.

Some more examples of laws that exist that you can get punished in one area, but not another (proposed, existing, or existed at one point): in MT if someone has any clothing that is too revealing they can get a fine and be imprisoned up to five years for repeat offenses; in CA it was illegal to play football or throw Frisbees on county beaches; in NY it is illegal for a group of two or more to wear masks or face coverings; in NJ you cannot pump your own gas. These examples touch on the principles set earlier. For the last one regarding pumping gas... who does that help and harm?-it makes sure that residents have to pay more for gas to pay for wages for employment as going back to 1949 a station who was charging less for people to pump their own gas angered full-service stations who lobbied the state to pass the law. Unions pushed for similar laws to ensure labor was paid even though it wasn't needed: an orchestra to be paid when a record was needed, a local driver to ride along with a driver who was coming into the city, etc.

Though the other examples seem innocuous, it is the same principle set that people can be treated differently legally, some behavior is legally acceptable, while others are not (when there is no victim) and the State can punish. Carry this principle over and it becomes what is acceptable speech, what is a 'sin' and how can we tax it, who can defend themselves and with what? More than a century ago Annette Kellerman was arrested for violating decency laws for wearing a form-fitting one-piece swimsuit - the same style laws that are coming back in MT; marijuana is legal at the state level in CO, but there are politicians trying to make sugar and transfat illegal in NY and elsewhere. With the principle set, it will include worse examples: telling everyone to turn in their gold, slavery and Japanese/German internment, just more examples of some people not being a sufficient majority to hold onto their rights. Again, the individual is the smallest minority.

The answer for us is simple: stop the 'laboratories of democracy' for what basis is there that by crossing some line of demarcation not related to private property, that one falls under new legal system and punishments? Additionally, stop following the idea that someone, anyone or any number can have a legal right to dictate, direct or restrict the right of an individual. Democracy is not the only [governmental] system that does this - any form of Statism follows the pattern that someone can make your decisions for you... at the barrel of a gun. In actuality, if the execution of a monarchy was that of the king following individual rights of the people as contrasted to a democracy that voted to confiscate or eliminate trouble-makers (see Socrates), who is living under a better system? If you desire and follow the majority because you happen to benefit now from the majority opinion, beware when that changes for the victims of old may have a grudge. The greatest evil is in assigning others the role that they are mere means to one's ends. Democracy enshrines this system. If we are to be free people, to be self-directed, it is first by recognizing the social ailment that we have and from that proceed with the proper course of action to kill that disease. If we do not, the disease will kill us.

Posted by GDX at  12:40 AM

Common Good, Common Need and a Common Cost [healthcare costs, a brief review]

[Originally posted March 24, 2015]

Healthcare is an important issue – also a misnomer as it is referring to medical care – that justifiably gets much attention. Politicians offer various plans that are supposed to fix the system – that was broken by earlier politicians – to varying degrees of the same principle: that the State can fix the problems in the system. Whether it is Romneycare or Obamacare, only degree differs, and both Republicans and Democrats want to get your support for their respective plans.

Healthcare is a good, and as everyone living is going to have some kind of a medical issue at some point, some say that healthcare is a right of the individual. As a right, it is something everyone should have and that making people pay according to various life factors is problematic. (In general) That women use more healthcare (child birth and longer life spans), that some are born with a predisposition or have a disease/sickness that was outside their control, or are making poor life choices that negatively affects their health are not to be considered. After all, it's 'sexism' to say that women should pay more for what they use more, not the fault of those who rolled 'snake eyes' with Nature's dice, or society's failing those who didn't learn to make better decisions.

An analogy, if you will, to something that is more important and pressing than healthcare: food. For we may not become greatly ill or ever get injured so our healthcare costs may be minimal, but there is no way that anyone can live long without eating regularly. Then we shall see how costs look.

Let us take a look at two people: a woman who is 5'1", around 110lbs, eats healthy with an occasional unhealthy treat and is fairly fit, though not working out every day, she does make it a point to exercise at least three times a week for at least 30 minutes each workout; a man who is 6'1", around 220lbs and working out six days a week, primarily lifting weights for at least one hour each day. Or, we can contrast the aforementioned woman who has a desk job against another man who builds houses, or we can contrast the first woman again against another who may not be obese, but is large as in 6'10".

Shall we make food a common good, as it is a common need and therefore a common cost? Shall we make it so that each person has to pay the same amount, even though there will be a great variation in how much each individual consumes based upon the context of his or her life? How much more should the 5'1" 110lbs woman who has the desk job pay for the 6'1" 220lbs man who spends extra time to increase his muscle mass?-or for the man to build houses?-or for the giant just for being big?

If there is to be a different amount paid by each individual based upon their life situations (activity and genetics), shall the condemnations of sexism (man-hating) or cruelty for not considering their situations (genetic 'snake eyes' or social system that 'led' to seeing being muscular as good) be used? Food is more important than healthcare, for though one may eventually 'walk it off' or a cold may pass, there is no way to get around the necessity of eating and replenishing nourishment – an aspect of true healthcare instead of just medical care. If people should pay based upon their life context for food, the same goes for healthcare – need to use it more, it costs more. Any political act, as has been the case ever since it was injected into the system, will serve to exacerbate the issue, not fix.

Posted by GDX at  12:45 AM

Sometimes, Violence is the Answer and a Weapon may be the Punctuation

[Originally posted may 6, 2015]

As long as more than one person exists, there will exist the potential for conflict. Most can resolve conflicts without drastic measures; however, some will resort to using violence. It is for these times that violence may be morally called for in response. It must be clarified, violence is not to be a tool used to _initiate_ a means to an end – not as a whip upon a slave. The violence I am referring to is in the preservation of life and liberty. This is not oxymoronic, and to falsely equate the immoral and moral uses of violence as the same because they are violent is moronic. It would be to equate and castigate the slave who pulled the whip from the slavemaster's hands in order to fight back, as morally equal as the slavemaster's whips upon the slave.

The whipped slave is not a scenario that people can relate to, so a different and unfortunate all-too-common scenario will be used: domestic violence. Lisa Skinner in Alabama had a protective order against her [estranged] husband, but being only a piece of paper, that did not stop him being armed with a gun and a knife, and coming after her; she shot back and defended herself. When a physical conflict emerges and there is a power differential, might has a strong advantage. If a 6ft and physically powerful man wants to rape and murder a 5ft petite woman, she is at a disadvantage.

Boko Haram kills and enslaves many, even kidnapping hundreds of schoolgirls at a time. Hundreds of girls have been released after assaults and raids against Boko Haram. Two attackers shot at people during a Draw Muhammad contest in Texas, and armed men killed the first shooters. A man who tried to shoot up a mall in Oregon was stopped by Nick Meli – who didn't even shoot – but his armed presence was enough to stop the one plotting the mass shooting. Each situation, violence (or the threat thereof) was used against those who initiated violent action.

When someone holds a religious conviction denying your humanity, calling you an enemy and the best way he can show his devotion is by attacking and killing you – how would you reason with him to change? When someone holds a feeling of hostility against you and no law, or restriction printed upon a piece of paper will dissuade him from trying to rape and murder you, what will you do?

Decry violence and ban guns?

James Holmes went into a movie theater that banned firearms, but he still brought guns to murder movie-goers. _Charlie Hebdo_ , a French satirical paper had multiple employees murdered by those who didn't appreciate the satire; France has strong gun control laws. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, most violent crimes don't even use weapons – of those that remain, firearms are just one type of weapon. Mr. Skinner was also carrying a knife when he came after his estranged wife.

Weapons are equalizers of force for when there was an initial imbalance. As the saying goes 'God made man; Sam Colt made them equal'.

To remove by law is to use legal force making the law-abiders hamstrung in the face of one who is already intent on breaking the law. Adam Lanza, Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold, Nidal Hasan and many others were already set to break the law by committing acts of murder. Was a piece of paper telling them they couldn't use a certain type of firearm, or ammo going to stop them? If we let our ability to defend be contextual in how, when and where we can carry we make ourselves vulnerable, and become Suzanna Hupp who to obey the law left her gun in her car and there it remained when George Hennard killed many in Luby's Cafeteria, including Hupp's parents.

Whether it is in individual defense, or group – Nick Meli against a single shooter, or a military force against Boko Harem – it is violence used as a counteraction against those who initiated the use of violence. Weapons are not 'evil' or killers themselves, but are tools and it is up to the wielder on how they are used. To say violence or that weapons should not be used – including guns – is to say that the suffering of the victim is a higher moral value than self-assertion and self-defense. To those who cannot be reasoned with, and you cannot defend yourself against, you can only be moral by being their victim, and letting others be victimized.

Lastly, it is hypocritical to say that weapons and violence are not needed and that we need laws to enforce these decrees. When seconds count, the police may be minutes away and when they arrive – they will be armed and ready to use violence to enforce the laws stating you are not to use violence and weapons to defend yourself. With a weapon a rapist may try and take a victim – he is already violating the law; disarm the victim and there is less of a chance of defense by obeying the law. The woman who shoots her would-be rapist, the shopkeepers holding a marauding mob at bay, the one carrying concealed who stops a robbery each use violence (or the threat) by using a weapon. To take away their defense would be to send others (police) with weapons to use violence – either way, the victims would be victims, but one would leave them as legal victims as a state of existence instead of situational.

Weapons exist, and sometimes violence is needed. When a fire starts, you can put it out with an extinguisher or call and wait for the fire department to arrive, while the fire consumes your property. In a worst-case scenario, such as any of the aforementioned examples – or worse, [e.g. your children being victimized] – will you take a fake moral high ground as you and yours are victimized, or fight back using what is necessary to not be victims?

It is that simple.

Posted by GDX at  1:41 AM

The Structure of Your Mind

Originally posted June 2, 2015]

Ever since you were born, you were in a non-stop phase of constructing your mind. As with any building, there are different components to its construction. The components for the base of your mind are: 1) biology; 2) biography; 3) society. With these added, you get a total that is greater than the sum of the parts: your mind. Your mind is complex and constantly changing. The earliest influence is our genetic predisposition, which interacts with our biology and that interacts with society. As we continue, we shall see that there is a commingling of deterministic and free will aspects of our lives.

After conception and our genetic predisposition, the primary contributor is biology. This is the initial blueprint of the structure that your mind will be based upon. It will also be one of the key contributors to further development throughout your life. It will be the basis for neural and overall physical development. If there are problems at this level (genetic, disease or accident), then future development of all kinds will be impaired if not impossible. For example, if there are not a sufficient number or type of cones in the eye, one will be colorblind to some extent and won't be able to know what 'red' is as compared to other colors. Equally, if born deaf one won't be able to hear voices and music, or speak phonetically articulately. Finally, if born without the sensation of touch, one won't be able to tell what 'hot' is as compared to cold. Biological abilities and limitations will affect future cognitive development.

The next level for contributing to our mind structure is biography. Biography is our experience and the processing of life events, including how we (if we) reflect upon those events. It is from this base that we see individual units as distinct from others and begin to conceptualize based upon that distinction. This is done in two phases; recognition of individual units and grouping into an individual concept. For example we see six identical units, we say we have six apples, but as there are other small, round sweet fruits we come up with the concept of apple as contrasted to the concept of orange; as they both share some characteristics while not other characteristics with each other and other types, we combine or exclude them from the greater category of fruit. This is a pre-social acceptance of a term, for what may be 'hraguhd' to the toddler who doesn't have language, will be changed to black in English-speaking societies, negro in Spanish-speaking societies, and so on.

Our experience of apples and oranges can be extended into ripeness, whether over or under, or even rotten. We contrast each type of fruit so we don't treat one different ones such as a banana to be as long-lasting as a walnut. Similarly, this same process of experience, we come to make friends, have food preferences, as well as music and all other appetitive preferences.

The final level for contributing factors to our mind's construction is society. Whether formally or informally, expectations and rules of how to act 'legally and ethically' as well as general behavior are defined and enforced by society. This includes everything from gods to worship or deny, gender norms, roles of the citizens and the State, professional roles and all else where individuals in society interact. This is a two-way street for it guides us toward what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. This begins as small as one's family in childhood to as large as one's country or religion.

These three levels interact to construct the base structure of your mind. When we combine the three levels, we can see the interaction. We are born with predispositions that direct us toward a preference for some things over others, such as authoritarianism/libertarianism, toward drinking alcohol or not, sexual preference and so on. From our experiences, we develop a penchant for specific parts of those broader preferences, such as when do we care to dictate or live free, or if we will pursue hetero-, homo- or bi-sexual interests. Society influences in whether those authoritative/libertarian acts are acceptably exercised: are you exhibiting authoritative acts by being a bully and a brute, or by being a coach and a guide; are you being libertarian by ignoring speed limits, or by ignoring property rights and stealing?

However, an empty building does not make a home. All buildings are more than just the physical structure. The biology states there will be specific rooms. Your biography states what kind of material the rooms will be built from and how big those rooms need to be. Lastly, social influences will state what should be placed inside those rooms. To visualize, we can picture an artist; that artist was born with genetic predispositions such as a higher sensitivity toward picking out details for art, say colors. These predispositions and potentials are then utilized in biography where enacting with the environment, the artist will come to prefer certain colors, textures and the like. Lastly, society will press upon the artist what subjects are appropriate or inappropriate to treat in artistic expression. The artistic room will be built of a better material, be larger and decorated more than other rooms; the artist who prefers to use white marble in smooth sculptures has his mind's home.

There is a final point to consider. As mentioned earlier, the mind is more than the sum of its parts. It is the self-directed aspect that is consciousness that completes the mind. As you grow, you fill the floors of your mind's structure.

Being that at our base we are animals, that is we have bodies, the body has its requirements for our mind to function. If we are starved, we are not as likely to be able to focus and ponder the nature of the universe or understand the text on a page as well as if our hunger was sated. The ground floor is where the body gets its base necessities taken care of: resources in and waste out, as in loading and unloading gates. Base bodily functions of all sorts begin here.

The next level up is the security center, where our sense of safety can emerge. It is the base from where our 'guards' reside, our walls and barriers are constructed for when they need to be deployed. Our bodies and minds are vulnerable to threats, and it is to this level that handles those threats, whether it may be a threat to employment, home, yourself or loved ones, it is handled by the security level.

The next level up is where our taking in and putting back out into society is based. Consider this equally the main living area where you get ready to go out into the world, interact with friends and family you invited to interact with you. This is where the general, pleasing aspects of life are shared.

The next level up is a more personal place. Those who you allow to enter here are more important to you. It is the difference between an acquaintance, a family member and your beloved; the acquaintance may not be invited at all, while the family member may get to visit this area at times, but your beloved and those you hold dearest visit the most. This is where you want and feel your best self with esteem gained from those you esteem. Want to be the best lover, partner, brother, sister, or whatever else and feel the appreciation of your being your best at what you do – it is at this level that it is done.

The first four levels are each dependent upon someone or something external. The final level is the highest level. Unfortunately, not all create this level. This is where you are truly you. This level is not based upon relationships – it is not tied to another. You may want to be the best lover from the level below, but when you are not actually being the lover and are on your own – who is that? Disagree with what society prescribes, it is here you emerge above the role handed down. This is the level of self-actualization, your highest achievement for this level will enable you to be better for the lower levels by advancing to your greatest potential. This highest level is where the total being more than the sum of the parts.

That these are in ascending levels does not mean that the prior level has to be fully sated before the next can be attained. You can – and generally do – have varying levels filled at any given time. However, achieving the higher levels enables the lower levels to be endured when having moments of trouble. For example, parents who will forego sating their own hunger to feed their children.

A final point to consider. From the moment we are born change is constant, and we are continually assuaged by external and internal factors – how society presses upon us, how our own biology presses upon us and how we integrate everything to then return it back into our world. Our experiences and our thoughts may change us, and from that we act in ways that can change our environment that in turn acts upon us once again. It is a combination of genetic predisposition from conception, environmental factors and biology, to social factors and finally self-direction and actualization – that is if you reach the highest points. This is your mind's structure, everso briefly summarized.

[Psych 101 level intro]

Posted by GDX at  12:57 AM

What is important is not what your Holy Book actually says, as what it says to you in how to act

[Originally posted October 14, 2015]

This is for those who follow the God of Abraham and use the Koran, Old Testament and/or New Testament – the texts that are to be the 'Word of God'. To those who defend those books, they are as beautiful as you say... in parts; to those who criticize those books, they are as wicked as you say... in parts. If isolated verses are looked at, they can be either beautiful or horrid; if we bring context, the stories will still be beautiful or horrid, though possibly in different ways and for different reasons.

'You who believe', is a sentiment oft repeated in both the Holy Bible and Koran (for example **Mark 11:23** & **Ephesians 1:13** , and **The Women 4:59** & **Iron 57:28** , among other examples for each). Who you are as an individual is not what is in the books; however, when you look at the books and their verses, individually and contextually, which parts you focus upon will show _how_ you believe to make you who you are. How you believe is a crucial question for we are not referring to a superficial level (not just taking the title of Christian of Muslim, for those terms are amorphous, having multiple schisms within Christianity and Islam, such as Protestant/Catholic & Sunni/Shia), but at your base where your daily actions and interpretations of life events, emerge from and actions are based. How do you live your life according to the Holy Book you hold?

This will be a non-exhaustive review – it will be enough to show the issue.

Verses taken individually:

[Bible] **1 John 4:7-8** _Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth God; for God is love_.

[Koran] **The Disbelievers 109:1-6** _Say, 'O Disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.'_

[Bible] **Luke 14:26** _If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple._

[Koran] **The Repentance 9:123** _O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous_.

Individual lines provide very little outside of being support for what one already believes – ways of 'preaching to the choir'. Lines without context are meaningless when the verses are to be critically reviewed. Context is crucial for without it, any sinner can sound a saint and any saint a sinner. What constitutes a saint and a sinner is a topic for another discussion, but for this point we'll just say they are dichotomous. A final point on context: what context are we referring to? There is the context within the work itself – how does the verse align or contrast to other verses within the same book; there is the context of the environment that the work was written – what was the socio-political situation that the author(s) was (were) living in at the time the work was written.

[Bible] **Matthew 5:21** _Ye have heard that it was said of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment_ (referring to the Commandment **Exodus 20:13** ).

[Koran] **The Table Spread 5:32** (a segment often gets quoted)... _whoever kills a soul unless for a soul of for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he has saved mankind entirely_.

Whether looking at a verse from the Bible or the Koran, both state – when viewed out of context – the prohibition of killing other people. However, books are more than just selected verses and more can be understood when verses in question are compared to other verses. When context is applied, definition of who constitutes a person that should not be killed emerges, as well as who _should_ be killed and for what reasons. Both the Bible and Koran were not using the prohibition against killing universally.

The admonition in biblical context: (leaving aside the textual criticism of whether it was 'thou shalt not kill any living thing, for all life is given to all by God...', or 'Thou shalt not kill', or 'Thou shalt not murder') will show that the application of the law was not universally held. Moses had killed every male and female who had known a man, when taking over the Midianites ( **Numbers 31: 17-18** ); **Joshua** was quite prolific ( **Chapters 12 & 13**) in the amount of killing done in service of God, for those people were not God's chosen people, and were in the lands 'God had given' to His people. Furthermore, even the chosen people could be killed if not acting appropriately – Jesus himself even said as much. When confronted by the Pharisees in **Matthew 15** about which is more important – following the law of men or of God – Jesus specifically references **Exodus 21:17** that children who are disrespectful to their parents are to be put to death ( **Matthew 15:4** ). Here Jesus not only stated that disrespectful children are to be killed – there is no rejection, but on the contrary it is an example of what is to be followed. There is also in Jesus' Parable of the 10 Minas, a call for those who worship improperly to be 'killed at his feet' ( **Luke 19:11-27** ).

Some may say that Jesus had two commandments ( **Matthew 22** ): 1) to love God with your whole heart, soul and mind; 2) love thy neighbor as thyself. However, these were to be summaries of the rest of the law, for the complexity of God's law cannot be so nicely succinct. Jesus was not changing the law: he was a Jew who knew Jewish law and scripture, and wanted to see it implemented properly. In **Matthew 5:17** he said _: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but fulfill_. To fulfill the old law of God means 'the others' [non-chosen people] could be killed, as could those who were not properly following the law. Some may reference **John 8** with the woman caught in adultery who was to be stoned, and Jesus' challenge of 'he who is without sin cast the first stone ( **8:7** ), to which no one casts a stone and Jesus says ' _Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more_ ' ( **11** ). The problem with this [delving into textual criticism briefly] is that this was a later addition to the gospel – was not originally in the bible; it still is in conflict with numerous other sections of the bible.

There is also in the biblical context the apostle [proselytizer] Paul who was instrumental in setting the early Christian traditions. In one of his letters Paul writes about improper worship, apostasy, homosexuality or false attribution of the divine to the profane ( **Romans 1:19-32** ) _'that they which commit such things are worthy of death...'_ This is just more of either not-the-chosen people or not acting appropriately and deserving death.

The admonition in the Koranic context, but first we should review the whole verse [ **The Table Spread 5:32** ] which reads: _Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul of for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he has saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors_.

Just by adding the full verse, the universality associated with the segment can be seen to be no longer valid. It is in fact no longer a poetic passage of peace among men seeking equality and justice, but quite the contrary: it is a warning. The warning is carried over through the following verse **5:33** where it says: _Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon the earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment_.

The full verse of **5:32** when paired with **5:33** is saying to the Jews [Children of Israel] not to 'cause corruption' [create apostates of the Islamic faith], for that is punishable by mutilation or death. That there are acceptable times to kill someone is echoed in **The Cow 2:217** where during the sacred month where there was to be no violence, Muhammad had followers conduct a raid whereby one man was killed; Muhammad had a revelation that even though the killing was during the sacred time where such violence was offensive, the greater offense was and is the interference with proper Islamic faith (including being a resource for the primary one who interferes), so even during the sacred time, murder was justified. Though in the order of the Koran, both **The Cow** and **The Table Spread** are toward the beginning, chronologically they are books from Muhammad's Medina [later] works.

In both books, there are also examples of how to treat women and equality. In the Bible, there is **Galatians 3:28** _There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: fore ye are all one in Christ Jesus_. While in the Koran there is **The Bee 16:97** _Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer – We will surely cause him to life a good life, and We will surely give them their reward [in the Hereafter] according to the best of what they used to do_.

However, there are verses in other parts in both books where such equality mentioned in one spot is contradicted. Such as in the Bible, **1 Corinthians 14:34-35** _Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church_. In **1 Corinthians Chapter 11** , Paul states that as Christ is the head of every man, so every man is the head of his wife. In **1 Corinthians 11:5** Paul wrote about equality with women praying and prophesizing, while still having it noted as not equal in verse **8** that women are still to be subservient _'For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.'_ Later in the New Testament **1 Timothy 2:11-12** _Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence_.

In the Koran, men have a higher degree of responsibility and authority over women in **The Cow 2:228** , which can be further exemplified later in the same book in **2:282** where the testimony of a woman is worth half the testimony of a man; the woman being worth (or deserving) half of a man is in **The Women 4:11** with respect to inheritance. To take the role of the woman to an even lower status, there is the wife who is to submit sexually whenever her husband wants sex for she is a 'field to plow' ( **The Cow 2:223** ) **,** and how absurd it is to believe sublime beings such as angels could have feminine names, according to **The Star 53:27**.

Both books treat women as lesser beings in that polygamy (multiple wives for a husband; not vice versa) is acceptable, as is taking female slaves [for sex]. The bible has numerous figures with multiple wives (and concubines): from a couple wives such as with Esau, Jacob, Gideon, all the way up to Solomon who had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines as stated in **1 Kings 11:3**. Moses, held up as an exemplar in all Abrahamic faiths, conquered, slaughtered the survivors and then took the female virgins as slaves for his soldiers in the book of **Numbers 31**. (some may argue that it was not as sex slaves, but slaves in general – then why only female virgins? – if the girls were to be slaves for manual labor, wouldn't males and experienced/older women be better?). In the Koran, there is **The Women 4:3** _And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses [slave]. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]_. (Muhammad was allowed to exceed the limit of four). In **The Prohibition 66:5** _Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you [all], would substitute for him wives better than you – submitting [to Allah], believing, devoutly obedient, repentant, worshipping, and traveling – [ones] previously married and virgins_.

These are just a few examples that both books have parts that are both beautiful and horrific. When looking at the work in full, just as when we review anything, judge anyone, we take the totality and balance it giving certain aspects or characteristics weights, and some parts weigh heavier than others. That a man was a loving father and donated spare time to entertain children, does that make John Wayne Gacy any less of a murderer? – the murderer aspect outweighs the others. It is the equivalent of saying 'outside of the lies, he's so honest'. There is also the time where we may separate the wheat from the chaff, and that is never more important than with books such as these.

Are the Bible and Koran books of beauty expressing spiritual ways of humanity coming together, or are they books justifying slaughter, oppression, division and tyranny? The answer is yes to both.

Biblically: Are we to love our enemies, not just those who love us back ( **Matthew 5:44-46** )? – or are we to forsake the nonbelievers, and to even wish them well in life is equated to committing their evil ( **2 John 1:9-11** )?

Are we to obey the government/State/King for members of the State are sent by God to direct punishment of evildoers ( **1 Peter 2:13-14** ; **Romans 13:1-4** )? – or are we to rebel against the government for not being aligned with God ( **Acts 5:29** ; end times with **Revelations 2** )? What is it exactly to 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's ( **Matthew 22:21** )?

Returning to the Koran, is there to no compulsion in religion ( **The Cow 2:256** )? – or are we all directed in our life paths (with or without the correct faith) as Allah 'guides whom He wills'. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you used to do ( **The Bee 16:93** )? (if we act how Allah wills, how can we be held accountable for what we used to do if we were not the agents of those actions?) Are we to see those of other faiths and let them continue on their paths (even if erroneous) for only God/Allah can judge and set proper punishment in the hereafter ( **The Cave 18:29; The Wind-Curved Sandhills 46:8-10** )? – or are disbelievers our sworn enemies, who should be made war with, strike off their heads for those who follow Muhammad are ruthless to the infidels ( **The Women 4:101; The Repentance 9:123; Muhammad 14:4; The Victory 48:29** )?

Whichever verse you use to justify your beliefs will make you correct and faithful to your Holy book. Whether you are trying to justify oppressing women or equality with them, you will find it in your Holy Book. Whether you are trying to justify condemning others or being tolerant toward whichever group constitutes the others, you will find it in your Holy Book. For as reviewed briefly here (for there is much more in both books), both books have beautiful and grotesque passages. It does take greater work with selective editing to focus on the beautiful parts than the grotesque, but it can be done and doing so leaves little wheat for all the chaff. This brings us to the final part: what is in the book versus what you take from your Holy Book.

Do you follow the laws put forth in the Bible and Koran? – not just the notable 10 Commandments and 5 Pillars, but the other laws and foundational aspects that though they do not get the same focus, are decrees from God/Allah nonetheless. If you say you follow the divinely handed down laws, then these nondescript laws are to be followed as well, for they were decreed. If you do not follow them, then you are either seeing them as invalid and not truly as divine laws which would have to place the same suspicion upon the foundational aspects, or just to recognize that you are breaking God's/Allah's laws.

[Bible] Returning to the law to be not changed until fulfilled, do you focus on the law of **Leviticus 24:20** of 'eye for an eye,' or follow **Matthew 5:39** and 'turn the other cheek'? [Koran] With women, is it two emerging from a single soul mentioned in **The Women 4:1** or are women to be kept hidden behind veils and cloaks as in **The Clans 33:50-59**? If you do not know the history of it all, you have to take the text as it is and this is what it says: spiritual ways of 'having your cake and eating it too'.

Do you stone homosexuals? – adulterers? Do you wear mixed fabrics? Do you keep near (or not remove yourself if you are the affected one) menstruating women, instead of keeping the required distance and cleaning all touched things appropriately? Do you behead apostates and smite the necks of infidels? Each one of these is a decree from God/Allah. If you are not killing the abominations, infidels, shunning 'dirty' women and following the other laws that are listed in the Old Testament and Koran, why not?

If your answer is 'I didn't know', well, now you do and ignorance is no longer an excuse.

For those who follow the Bible, do you see the nullification of the law as mentioned in **Ephesians 2:15** _Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace_. But that is a letter from Paul, a follower (one who converted years after Christ's crucifixion); Jesus Christ himself, as aforementioned, said in **Matthew 5:17** that he did not come to change the law, but more as he continued in **Matthew 5:18-19** _For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven_. What is the ultimate fulfillment of Christ? – Christ's return as is said in numerous places throughout the New Testament: **John 14:3** _And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also_ ; **Hebrews 9:28** _So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation; amount numerous other verses_. And you must take it at its [His] word for **1 Peter 1:20** _Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation_. Who would be the one that should be listened to more: the Son of God/Man, or a follower? – the Son said there would be no change 'till all be fulfilled' and there is more to come, so the law would not have changed.

For those who follow the Koran, along with some of the contradictions already mentioned, there is the issue of abrogation whereby an earlier verse is overridden by a later, updated verse. **The Cow 2:106** _We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?_ Similarly, **The Night Journey 17:86** _And if We willed, We could surely do away with that which We revealed to you. Then you would not find for yourself concerning it an advocate against Us_. Though there are some followers who say there are no abrogated verses, as the principle of what is said is not to have changed inasmuch the example used in different times had been changed to make the same point. Others say there is no abrogation within the Koran against the Koran, and the abrogation is referring to the Bible and Torah being abrogated by the Koran. The Old Testament with its patriarchs is also the inspired word of Allah, it is just in its current form modified from repeated copying. In any case – and regardless if there was an actual abrogation or not – there are verses that contradict one another between the Bible and the Koran, and within the Koran itself.

Jews and Christians are fellow 'people of the book' for they follow the Old Testament; Old Testament laws are still in effect, and Jesus as a prophet (not _the_ prophet and not the Son of God) provided inspired words of Allah. [Koran] **The Cow 2:87** _And We did certainly give Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it [not] that every time a messenger came to you, [O Children of Israel], with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you killed_.

In the Old Testament, the law of Moses had adulterers to be stoned to death ( **Leviticus 20:10** ; **Deuteronomy 22:22** ); however, in the New Testament, Jesus with the woman caught in adultery in **John 8** , called for the punishment not to be stoning to death, but forgiveness. In the Koran, Muhammad stated in **The Light 24:2** that adulterers are to be given each 100 lashes – without pity, and with witnesses. That is amongst the different Holy books that have been inspired by God/Allah. There are contradictions within the Koran itself. Contrary to the Bismillah [repeated saying throughout the Koran of Allah the most merciful and compassionate] and verses like **The Women 4:110** _And whoever does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of Allah will find Allah Forgiving and Merciful_ , but later on in the same book is **4:168** _Indeed, those who disbelieve and commit wrong [or injustice] – never will Allah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a path_. Additionally, in contradiction to do ( **The Bee 16:93** ) stating that all things are done according to how Allah wills, we have **The Romans 30:26** that states _And to Him belongs whoever is in the heavens and earth. All are to Him devoutly obedient_ , while **The Cow 2:34** states _And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees [Satan]. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers_.

The Koran, as the Old Testament [and implied in the New Testament for Jesus to not change but fulfill the law] states that homosexuals are to be executed. As following the same book of laws in these divinely inspired books, that means no mixed fabrics, shellfish. Furthermore, witchcraft and sorcery ( **Exodus 22:18** ; **Leviticus 20:27** ; **Deuteronomy 13:5** ; **1 Samuel 28:9** ) are reasons for executing someone, and unbelievers are to be killed ( **The Cow 2:216** ; **The Women 4:74** ; **The Spoils of War 8:39** , among many other verses). But do not be fooled into thinking that 'people of the book' are to be spared, for ultimately they are not; the Bible, written before the Koran is not recognized as the final word of God. Christians altogether follow a false god in deifying a prophet (equating Christ with God), while Muslims can find verses that reduce other people of the book as other nonbelievers who are to be killed, such as **The Repentance 9:30** _The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?_

One more point of contention regarding the 'Word of God' in the Holy Books: are they the inerrant word of God? Though Muhammad was to have received his revelations from the angel Gabriel, but as an illiterate, did Muhammad actually write the words? – he had scribes write his other documents, and there is no evidence he physically wrote the verses of the Koran. Were the words transcribed correctly? Even if it is granted that Muhammad wrote the actual words, in the **Hadith of Bukhari 1:2** , as stated by Muhammad's favorite wife Aisha _(the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Apostle "O Allah's Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Apostle replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." 'Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over)._ However, **The Heights 7:184** states that Muhammad is a 'clear warner.' This brings us to the Satanic Verses, where Muhammad first had a revelation in **The Star 53:18-23** where the worship of the three goddesses [the three birds] would be allowed; later this revelation was deemed to have been Satan giving a false revelation and a new revelation was given which rejected the three goddesses.

With the Koran we have an issue with who actually may have written the text, for it was likely not Muhammad. Even if it was granted that he did write the text, some revelations came with inspired words which were the 'hardest' and revealed like a ringing of a bell. Or, it could be instead, the words of Satan trying to deceive. With the Bible we have first and foremost no original documents to verify what is read today matches the source [original inspiration] material, which will never be found for the stories were originally relayed by oral tradition. As far as what we have today in Biblical texts, there are dozens of different versions of 'God's inerrant Word' and though some differences are minor, there are some such as **Exodus 32:14** where the difference is substantial, for did God _relent_ , as in ease up in his wrath ( **NIV** ), or did he _repent_ , as in show signs of contrition for acting wrongly ( **KJV** )? The difference is not insignificant. Both Holy Books (Bible and Koran) were affected by circumstances in which they are written – which would require books to review (some have been written, see Bart Ehrman, Karen Armstrong, Robert Spencer, among others).

So with all the aforementioned we again must ask: are you for stoning homosexuals, whipping adulterers (or stoning if not Muslim)? – do you see genocide as just, as long as your side wins? – is slavery acceptable? – killing apostates? Both the Bible and Koran condone each of these examples. Are you for letting each person follow their own life path? – forgiveness? – equality? Both the Bible and Koran embrace these facets – though you must be a little more selective and narrowing in getting these, but they are there.

Across the planet, across the centuries, those who carry their respective Holy Books from their Gods of Love, Mercy and Peace, have slaughtered those who had been deemed 'the other' as in 'not with my faith'; however, politics is also involved, but it also must be kept in mind that there is little to no distinction between church/mosque and State for those who use bloodshed to achieve their ends. To call a territory a Holy Land is to blend the spiritual favoritism with material acquisition – vesting one's interest both in spirit and in body. Holy books grant a final license to act against someone else by giving it not just a pragmatic base, but a moral one – it isn't just about resources, but good-vs-evil at a metaphysical level (even though they act the same, they do so to a different deity). People both slaughter others, and come to the defense of others, with an understanding it (persecution and protection) is said to come from their Holy books.

But they, as yourself for you who believe and yet do not stone, flog, or behead someone for not adhering to dogmas of faith – do you do it because your book says to act in a way (for it says to act in more ways than one) or when you see the verse that it's okay for a father to sell his daughter into slavery, and when a slave has children they become slaves as well [Bible] ( **Exodus 21:4-7** ) or beat a slave ( **Exodus 21:20** ) and that one way to free a slave is by one sharing the same faith and waiting for you to accidentally kill another believer [Koran] ( **The Women 4:92** )? And if you say 'that was the context of the time', how do you respond to: contextually it was acceptable then? Or do you have a sense brewing in you – if reason has not fully brought to awareness – that the punishments, the killing and slavery mentioned in both – though historically may have been accepted at the time committed – is not [ever] an actual moral way of acting? That these were really examples of primate and tribal man without any real understanding of life and not generally concerned about rights of others?

In one way or another, it does come down to rejecting part of your Holy Book. Which will it be? – the part which you hold and which you let go. Will you hold onto the sexism, homophobia, the genocidal unreason listed in the pages as you accept the dogma at face value, or will you see the text as primitive man's attempt to understand the world – and that the Holy Books are creations of man – his imperfect attempts to trying to find perfection through the limits of his understanding in the culture and world in which he lived.

How you read the books and live your life says more about who you are, not about the books you hold. Which one means more to you? How will you live your life according to what the books say? That is your belief (you as an individual) in action.

Posted by GDX at  7:30 AM

The Bible didn't change; you're breaking Biblical Law

[Originally posted October 16, 2015]

The thing about laws, they remain until they are repealed or the system is overthrown. This is for secular laws, for they are passed and repealed by men. Biblical laws are divinely inspired from God – they have not been overthrown, and have not been repealed. Laws of God are eternal.

There is not any line in the Bible that specifically states any one of the earlier laws – that were written by God or uttered by Jesus – have been repealed or replaced. There is a conflict between what the apostle Paul had written in his letters, and with what Jesus said during his ministry. If two people are saying not just different but dichotomous things, then you must decide to whom you will listen.

Who said what?

Paul in **Galatians 3** reviewed the place of the law in the Old Testament, and stated that 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us'. Later in the chapter, he adds that the law was not against the promises of God, but still that scripture had concluded all under sin through faith in Jesus Christ. The law was necessary until the sacrifice (crucifixion) of Jesus.

Jesus said in **Matthew 5** that he did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it. In fact he stated specifically that _till heaven and earth pass, not one iota (or tittle) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled_. What is his fulfillment? As stated in **John 14** , **Hebrews 9** and elsewhere, it is to return to Earth. The law is not going away, for when Jesus addresses the Pharisees about which is more important – law of man or of God – Jesus references **Exodus 21** , where disrespectful children 'are to be put to death'. Jesus did not say 'don't do that' or change the law, but reaffirmed it as God's command.

For you who hold your Bible, and especially call yourselves Christians, will you follow the words of a follower who converted years after Christ's crucifixion, or Christ himself? – they say different things.

There are multiple laws in the Bible, and many are deserving death: attacking or cursing a parent, witchcraft or sorcery, doing work on the Sabbath, adultery and homosexuality, blasphemy, as well as you are not to eat pork, shellfish, meat containing blood, among many other laws ( **Leviticus** , **Deuteronomy** , **Exodus** just for the aforementioned). These are laws that God handed down, and are if you believe in Christ more than Paul, are still laws of God and are to be followed until his return.

Following Christ over Paul, there are no qualifiers or conditions in the Bible that some laws that were given by God can be followed and others are not to be followed – laws of men are something else. If God's law is good, then all of His laws are good and are to be obeyed. If you are actually following biblical law, then make sure menstruating women are quarantined during that time, you don't mix fabrics, allow different livestock to graze in the same field, and that you are ready to kill people for violations as stated in the law ( **Leviticus** , **Deuteronomy** , **Exodus** ).

If you are not ready to kill someone for those violations because it is against the law of man, then which is more important – law of man or of God? If you're still not ready to kill someone for violating the biblical laws mentioned here, that is best. It is wrong to initiate force, even if it was supposedly 'divinely inspired'. But as such, do not hold the law of God up as a moral standard, for though the Bible may have lines such as **Matthew 5:21** _Ye have heard that it was said of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment_ , there is also **Romans 1:19-32** that lists a number of 'sins' (some of which are initiations of force such as murder, but others are not initiations of force such as being proud) ends with _Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them_.

Let us not fool ourselves that the 'law of God' is good.

Posted by GDX at  12:59 AM

If abortion is actually killing children... or is it?

[Originally posted October 20, 2015]

Abortion is murder! Abortion kills children and babies!

Such statements get thrown about by anti-abortionists (not pro-life, but anti-abortion) as they bewail the procedure and lambast those who think abortion should be legal. Proponents of abortion are not trying to push an agenda whereby women have to get abortions; opponents are trying to push an agenda whereby women are denied the option of an abortion if they decide they wanted one. Anti-abortionists are trying to block the ability of others to pursue a course of action; proponents are just trying to let women choose for themselves.

But what about the baby!?!?

Words are important for words reflect thought and if you control the words, you can influence thought. In a debate, if you control the terms, you control the debate. That is why anti-abortionists use terms like 'baby and child,' instead of fetus. They will make the claim: that is the same reason why the pro-choice use 'fetus'. However, just because both sides may make the same claim, both sides do not equally reflect the proper usage of the terms. One of the terms is appropriate, while the others are not.

Child and baby are references to a whole unit, a separate offspring that can survive on its own, though it is dependent any may take over care: mother, father, uncle, adoptive parent, etc. A fetus is a wholly subsumed and incomplete organism that cannot survive on its own and no one may take over its care until it has been born, i.e. is a separate entity – that is it has become a baby. Until then, it is a fetus.

But it is alive!

So are plants... any organism. What 'life' does a fetus have? It has the same life as any organism, which is nothing more than mere biological – there is no difference in the type of life of any organism at that state.

It has its own DNA!

That merely means it had two parents, and is not a clone of its parent. Most complex organisms have their own DNA, for most organisms have the biology of two parents.

But it will become a human!

Exactly... 'will become' means 'is not now', and potentials are not what we are dealing with. We all are potential corpses, but we do not treat each other as such. We are alive now as humans, our own separate entities with our own individual lives, and those are beyond the mere biological lives of all organisms.

The obvious key inference here is potential. However, no one takes two eggs, setting one on a nightstand and the other in a nest expecting the nightstand one to crow in the morning and the one in the nest to lay more eggs for the same reason that though the eggs are potential fowls, they are not actual fowls at the time. Similarly, no one takes a pine tree seed and says that tomorrow he are going to build a house with the wood, for the seed is potentially a tree that can produce wood.

Look at these pictures [of a developed or an aborted fetus]! – don't these stir you emotionally?

A picture of most mammalian fetuses within a certain number of weeks, look similar. Continue beyond those weeks and the types of animals that resemble each other diminishes; however, they still exist. The fetuses of other primates look similar to human fetuses for an extended period of time. Regarding the grisly pictures of aborted fetuses, the scenes of a surgery or an automobile accident with casualties both may look grisly, but neither of them – though they may stir an emotional reaction – is an argument in any way, shape or form.

But it's a baby! – someone's child!

This is where anti-abortionists do not actually follow through with their premises. If the premises are actually believed, then it is hypocrisy or cowardice to not follow them; however, at base I think it is a wiser realization breaking through. If you saw an actual baby out in someone's yard and someone else came up and was trying to kill that baby, you'd do something: try and stop the killing and save the [actual] baby. Anti-abortionists just want to picket? However, though through connotation the terms 'baby and child' are used, they are not actually believed or acted upon in practice. When the denotative [actual] woman is standing there in a point of her life already rife with emotion with the thoughts and feelings an abortion is needed, the connotative, potential child [actual fetus] is not given the same weight and value. Subjectivity may color what we see, but objectivity will stare us back in the face. This is as it should be; it is wrong to initiate force the the actual, the whole individual. The actual woman has a right to her life and choices, and the potential does not; similarly, the living human being pursues a life path, a corpse gets buried. Just because we are potential corpses, does not mean we bury someone ahead of their time.

There is the additional issue of if it is a full individual, then any and all accidental terminations (miscarriages) would have to be investigated as potential homicides (murder or manslaughter). This would include practically all women who have tried to give birth, for though there may have been a fertilized egg, a smaller percentage make it to term. If someone died, whether an adult or baby in the crib, any death gets investigated. Making a fetus as equivalent an individual would necessitate such investigations for potential intent or negligence.

But God gave it a soul!

If God did, why would you want to deny the soul within the fetus, the quickest and surest path to God as it would not had a chance to sin?

For the anti-abortionists, if you feel abortion is wrong, then just admit that it is your preference and not a logical base - not an objective stance. (religious revelation is not an objective stance). In the meantime, drop your connotations from argument for they are as pointless as trying to describe the color of 'invisible.' However, your pushing for moral condemnations to be put into legislation sets up legal punishments for not seeing the same shade of invisible.

Posted by GDX at  10:15 PM

Dear Members of Law Enforcement, Your Good Intentions are Irrelevant...

[Originally posted December 16, 2015]

As a police officer or a member of law enforcement, the idea granted to them is 'service' to the public. The slogan of the police used to be 'To Serve and Protect', but it has been changed to 'Community Commitment'. Being servants toward the safety of the people, the police are lauded for the acts they do to protect us. The praise is proper if the extent of law enforcement action was fulfilling the roles as they are viewed: protecting individuals from criminal activity, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating those who violated individual rights. However, what must be looked at is whether or not those assumed views about law enforcement are correct.

There are a list of 'crimes' that individuals have been targeted for prosecution by the police, resulting in fines, imprisonment or death; examples include: driving above the speed limit, selling raw milk, collecting rain water, feeding the homeless, sodomy, not wearing seat belts, selling single cigarettes, among other things. To the apologists who say 'those laws are not enforced regularly', we must state 'that these laws exist in the first place'. Even if these laws are not regularly enforced, they remain on the books as valid; that they are selectively enforced shows in itself that they are not held as true harmful actions insasmuch as actions that can be deemed punishable when wanted. Assault and battery gets charged almost every time, while not wearing a seat belt isn't sought as much. Law in such a case is a pragmatic tool to shape non-aggressive behavior. The lesson with such laws: do not perform an act, or are obligated perform an act, otherwise the legal use of force from the State will force compliance; even if you are not harming someone, you still better obey.

An extension of the issue regarding these laws' existence is how they are enforced. If you put yourself as an individual in society, what would be done If you are under suspicion of having a small amount of marijuana?— you could have a no-knock raid in the night where your family is terrorized by armed men who come in, kill your dog, restrain your family, potentially shoot you – all actions are rushed to ensure you didn't flush the drug; driving just fine, but had a single beer with dinner?—a drunk driving checkpoint catching all traffic will ensure your non-reckless driving continues to not harm anyone, and that you will be fined greatly to pay for all the harm you did not cause. The law, however, was broken.

Once in the system, if you cannot provide your own defense and are not an attorney yourself, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned. This individual, because of workload, will only be able to dedicate a few minutes to your case. In order to minimize punitive harm, that attorney may advise you to take a plea deal, as paying fines is less problematic than jail/prison time. Such a course of action is also easier and quicker for the public defender swamped with cases. Its affect upon you can be life-altering in how you could be fined, to having a loss of liberty or even life.

One may say 'I don't commit 'criminal acts' so I'm not affected'. (outside the fact that it is really a statement of ignorance of the full reach of the laws – see the list of punishable offenses aforementioned) You still feel the effect. Victimless crimes make victims of us all, more indirectly than directly.

A license is an allowance granted by the State to say you have permission to conduct an act. Have a stylist who you trust and have had no problems with? – if she didn't get the new license, then your history and trust with her is irrelevant. If you want to pay someone who is not associated with a taxi company for transportation, then there are companies for you, such as Uber or Lyft. However, there are those who block or want to block those non-State licensed services. Blocking the competition for rides, ensures that licensed taxis are the sole car transport. If the business/individual does not have the approved license, you do not have the option of associating/conducting business with those you deem worthy of your patronage.

Who pushes for licensing? – those vested interests, such as other, established stylists and taxi owners, for to make others have to pay that license fee, means that there is an extra cost of business to keep out competition – if there are licenses to still be granted, that the cap has not been reached. Who enforces licensing laws? – the police. Licensing laws by their nature prohibit individuals who are part of an exchange, from participating in the exchange; this is achieved by the legal use of force of the State.

Furthermore on victimless crimes that regularly get prosecuted, a brief look at prostitution and drugs. Any work is an exchange between individuals who agree to terms, and for the requested actions to be completed for one, the other will get paid. This is the same regardless if it is one with a strong back hired to dig a ditch, a surgeon to remove anything from a tumor to excess skin, or for a prostitute to commit a sex act. One pays the other for an act to be performed. To paraphrase George Carlin: selling's legal; having sex is legal; why isn't selling sex legal? The answer is because those in positions of authority did not want prostitution (and pornography during the 'social purity' movement during the late 1800s) legal, and used their authority to put legal restraints upon the options of individuals.

Why is the use of some drugs illegal? It began in the early 1900s with the racism against the Chinese, Mexicans and blacks; the Opium Exclusion Act of 1909 targeted the opium that was smoked by Chinese immigrants, but not the opium that was ate or injected – such as was done more by whites; marijuana was made illegal because the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics [forerunner to the DEA] said marijuana was smoked by 'negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians and entertainers whose satanic music seduced white women.' Prohibition [of alcohol] began with a desire for bettering human character, particularly with a religious fervor toward godliness; it was eventually repealed. The implementation of prohibition set the framework for criminal activity; the continued prohibition of other drugs is similarly increasing criminal activity. Instead of the mafia, there are drug cartels.

Some of the criminal activity is under the guise of legality: civil forfeiture is theft by the State, whereby an individual has to prove (at their cost) that what was taken by the State, was legally acquired. The State does not have the [moral] right to steal one's property; it grants itself the authority to steal legally. Companies who profit from drugs remaining illegal, and law enforcement whose budgets are heavily funded to fight 'the war on drugs' have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal. These vested interest in government and private organizations work together to use the force of the State to limit options and force participation – if it was not for the State being involved, any other group acting the same would be prosecuted for racketeering.

The slogan is 'Community Commitment' because of for the sake of the community, the individual is damned. This has even been legally formalized in cases such as _Warren v. District of Columbia_ "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...", and _Lynch v. N.C. Department of Justice_ "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."

However, you can be conscripted into helping the police. If you refuse when 'asked' you will be committing a crime and can be punished. This is currently limited to state law, but you can be arrested for not assisting the police – when 'requested' – in 46 of the 50 states.

When is the help needed (legally required)?—at the officer's discretion. In a similar manner of when some actions are deemed crimes and punishable by law for causing 'public harm', so too can inaction be deemed punishable by law. Why are some drugs illegal and others not?—that is at the legislator's discretion, including the discretion of those pushing racist agendas decades ago. Why are some sex acts illegal?—that, too, is at the legislator's discretion, including coupling religious interpretations regarding sex with law. Sodomy was a felony for much of United States history. The police enforce the laws.

That the members of the police seek to be 'good and dutiful' public servants is irrelevant, for good intentions are irrelevant. Though manslaughter is not as malevolent in intent as murder, the fact that another is killed (outside self-defense) remains the same. That the police officer signed up to protect individual rights is irrelevant when enforcing laws and prosecuting people for not violating another's rights.

Some people may have problems with the act of sex being exchanged for money, or for sex outside the goal of procreation. However, what concern of that third-party's opinion is it to the individuals who are directly involved (actually having sex)? – why should the beneficial exchange be denied because one not partaking the act, doesn't like the act? Similar questions remain of a third-party's interference dictating one's choice, when there are no acts of rights violations being committed. This includes drugs, alcohol, gambling and anything else that does not violate another's rights; entertainment was (as is) affected by regulations from back in the social purity movement to the FCC today.

Defenders of the prohibitions state the illegal acts are associated with actual rights-violations, such as theft to pay for a drug habit or human trafficking for prostitution. However, theft and slavery are the actual violations of rights, and would still be so if they were associated with other reasoning for the acts, such as a thief wanting the newest electronics or forced labor for textiles. There are no calls (properly so) to stop people from upgrading to the newest phone, or from purchasing new shirts because those intent on violating rights may do so to achieve their ends.

This is not up to majority opinion. Majorities change over time. If at one time a society mandates that acts cannot be allowed, then at another time the new-composition society can mandate that some acts must be committed. Shall we bring back the ruler's 'first night' right? Is it right to be required to refuse service, or legal requirement to serve a gay couple?—either way, free associate is still denied in the way a license denies the participating parties from pursuing their own choices. Is it the morality or legality that changes over time with respect to issues such as abortion, capital punishment, slavery and other issues? – the morality is unchanged, but the legality changed. There were laws mandating the return of escaped slaves. It was legal to be immoral and own slaves. Community commitment without individual rights is the embracing of the laws of the _status quo_ , and the _status quo_ was created by those pushing their opinions influenced with their prejudices toward others, toward acts, and to their own vested interests – with the force of the law.

If the police and law enforcement are truly wanting to protect individual rights, then it is by the act of not following many of the laws that have been put in place, and to work toward the repeal of these laws. Frederic Bastiat stated "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." Laws that go beyond protecting individual rights, are no more than opinion with a gun... and legal force. Those laws were created to institutionalize racist, religious and vested interests; should they be followed?

Whether you like it or not members of law enforcement, this is the situation you are in with us, the individuals in society: enforcing victimless crimes, making us individuals the victims of you.

Will you choose to be legally immoral, or morally illegal?

Posted by GDX at  3:04 PM

Dear Members of the Military, Your Good Intentions are Irrelevant...

[Originally posted December 31, 2015]

As members of the Military, the idea granted to them is 'service' to the country. The Oath of Office states "I, [one's name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." Being servants of the country, the military are lauded for protecting the country, and defending our freedom. However, what must be looked at is whether or not the assumed characteristics 'protectors of the country' and 'defenders of freedom' are correct.

According to the 2012 National Security Strategy, the [10] primary missions of the U.S. Armed Forces: 1) Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare. 2) Deter and Defeat Aggression. 3) Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges. 4) Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction. 5) Operate Effectively in Cyberspace and Space. 6) Maintain a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Deterrent. 7) Defend the Homeland and Provide Support to Civil Authorities. 8) Provide a Stabilizing Presence. 9) Conduct Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations. 10) Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief, and Other Operations.

Each of these missions is vague in itself, but The Department of Defense [DOD] provides details on each point. The essence of mission 1) keeping up military pressure against al-Qa'ida and other designated terrorist organizations, including "As U.S. forces draw down in Afghanistan, our global counter terrorism efforts will become more widely distributed... " & 'preventing from ever being a safe haven again'. 2) being able to deter an aggressor and this includes "... _secure territory and populations and facilitate a transition to stable governance on a small scale for a limited period using standing forces and, if necessary, for an extended period_..." (original emphasis). 3) ensure that there is an ability to project power in cyber warfare, undersea and space, as well as new and improved stealth and missile defenses (China and Iran specifically identified). 4) "...at preventing the proliferation and use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons" and "...planning and operations to locate, monitor, track, interdict and secure WMD and WMD-related components and the means and facilities to make them" as well as responding to actions should preventative measures fail (Iran specifically identified). 5) working with international and domestic allies to further capabilities. 6) have (through a potentially smaller, though still sufficient in size) nuclear arsenal, a deterrence effect from being attacked by one using nuclear weaponry. 7) starts with "...continue to defend U.S. territory from direct attack by state and non-state actors" but continues with assisting civil authorities in the case of failing to defend the homeland against an attack; if a catastrophic event occurs the armed forces can be relied to offer "...support to civil authorities [when they] require strong, steady–state force readiness." 8) succinctly explained "U.S. forces will conduct a sustainable pace of presence operations abroad, including rotational deployments and bilateral and multilateral training exercises." 9) though 'no longer sized for large-scale operations' the Armed Forces will still "...emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations" but "...will nevertheless be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required" which will all be ready to have terms redefined. 10) succinctly explained "U.S. forces possess rapidly deployable capabilities, including airlift and sealift, surveillance, medical evacuation and care, and communications that can be invaluable in supplementing lead relief agencies, by extending aid to victims of natural or man-made disasters, both at home and abroad."

In the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 has a list of powers, including the role of the 'militia', raising and supporting armies and to provide and maintain a navy. Like many parts of the Constitution, there are not specifics relating to the abilities or limitations of a given line, but the lines are addressing general principles. For example, the Second Amendment states "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". The amendment did not break the principle into the specifics of the time, detailing which weapons were acceptable: flintlock and/or matchlock, long rifles, short muzzle or pistols, bows or crossbows, sabres or tomahawks. The principle was set: there are weapons for defense, and the peoples' ability to meet force with force, shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment equally did not just state defend against the Indians, the British or for hunting, but for the [general] security of the people against all threats. Similarly, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." is not segmented into newspapers, brochures, pamphlets or campaign speeches, as the principle was set of free speech. (the two aforementioned amendments are principles, much to the chagrin of many a politician; much to the chagrin of free people, the amendments are being, or have been, segmented into specifics).

As the principles have been set forth, what must be looked at (for this is how we will see if the military is providing service to the country by protecting it) is do the acts of the military uphold the principles set forth in the Constitution? This is done in two steps: reviewing the pragmatic/practical steps being taken to see what principle is being implemented, and taking that principle to see how it matches the principles set forth in the Constitution. Upon reviewing the 10 Mission Statements from the Department of Defense, only one of them (7) is related to the actual defense of the country. The mission statements, though through their titles they sound like they are defense-oriented, through the art of newspeak what is actually subsumed in details under those titles are open-ended imperialism through 'securing territories and populations', 'facilitate a transition', 'projecting power' in multiple ways, by 'preventing the proliferation' of various types of weaponry, finding ways of furthering reach with international and domestic allies, civil authorities for major events that are man-caused or natural, maintain a 'sustainable pace of presence' throughout the world, be ready to act to stabilize (other areas) if needed, and help rebuild those suffering from man-made or natural disasters.

Any of that sound like protecting the country? It may be protecting the country in a modern-day _Pax Romana_ – Roman peace, achieved by the Roman Empire through conquering. Imposition of a different cultures' values will be resisted, and the more force is used to impose those new values, the quicker, stronger and more persistent will be the resistance against it. Even in 'democratic' nations (US is really a Republic – it's in the Constitution), there is great strife amongst opposing sides between the winners and losers of legislation passed (most laws are not actually voted upon, but those passing the laws were mostly voted in) on subjects like possession of firearms, healthcare and abortion. When the imposition is from overt force (unlike the implicit force of voting) the resistance will vary, but be present. Voting leads to [democratic] class war where each class wants to impose rules/regulations on those outside of one's own class – civil wars have erupted from class division lasting too long or too severely; examples for more similar cultures include Catholic versus Protestant adherents clashing in Ireland/Britain; crossing cultures to a greater extent and the result is the Indochina War where the French and British eventually saw it too costly to continue to their presence.

Losses are felt in a couple different ways, and one way is financial. In just one area [Egypt], according to the Congressional Research Service report July 2015 "Between 1948 and 2015, the United States provided Egypt with $76 billion in bilateral foreign aid (calculated in historical dollars—not adjusted for inflation), including $1.3 billion a year in military aid from 1987 to the present". Brown University totaled the US expenditures (spent already or promised – mostly through borrowing) at 4.4 trillion dollars. War, of course, is not just financial loss, but lives as well. Brown University also found 370,000 people were killed from war violence; 210,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting; 7.6 million have been displaced. These each are conservative estimates; Huffington Post reports almost half-a-million deaths from war in Iraq alone.

Three consequences of these _Pax-Americana_ actions: 1) spiraling debt, as aforementioned the estimated 4.4 trillion dollars spent is mostly borrowed and it will come with interest; paying the balance and the interest means less funds available for anything else in the country, including maintaining defense. This point of concern about the debt was made by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Admiral Mike Mullen, who both called the debt 'the greatest threat to national security'. With the DOD's mission statements, there is to be continuous and ever-present/ever-ready use of force when and where deemed needed, so the expenditure is not going to lessen substantially. Though there is a goal to reduce 'overall capacity' and the 'cost of business' as noted in the DOD report, there is also " _We will resist the temptation to sacrifice readiness in order to retain force structure, and will in fact rebuild readiness in areas that, by necessity, were deemphasized over the past decade._ "

The other two points are linked: 2) the financial costs of war are great, but debts can be paid back. What cannot be paid back is life; when it is taken, there is no return. September 11th was a rallying cry heard across the country and for a brief time, the normally contentious political divisions were lost; nearly everyone empathized with America. Nearly 3,000 civilians were killed during the attacks in America on 9/11; the conservative estimate of 210,000 civilians that have been killed since then in the Middle East equals SEVENTY 9/11s.

3) is the simple principle of 'Reap what you sow'. A few examples: Saddam Hussein was strengthened (during the 1980s) through armaments sold by the US, because of a shared enemy: Iran. Iran was in the previous decade (1970s), on friendly terms with American until the Shah became a shared enemy when he joined the other members of OPEC to increase oil prices; where a Westernized (friendlier to the US) leader had been, he was replaced by the religious dogmatists of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Osama bin Laden and the Mujaheddin (1980s) were supplied and trained by the United States in order to fight against the Soviets – from Pakistan into Afghanistan. That should sound familiar to United States Armed Forces. This is not to say any of the leaders who were ousted (some were killed/murdered) were good men, but they were practical for their areas and removing them (Saddam Hussein or Moammar Qaddafi) removed their hard hand holding down the religious and militant zealots, and like when the Shah was gone, religious dogmatists took over either portions of or the entire country.

Combine points 2 and 3 and the people who live in various countries have oppressive rulers, many with some form of American assistance which stoked resentment against the US for helping those oppressors. When those propped-up dictators were eventually removed (e.g. Hussein and Qaddafi, among others), their base and their resources remained to be picked up by the next tyrant-in-waiting; meet ISIS/ISIL. Sometimes, the devil you know is better than the god you don't.

With these factors combined, it is little surprise that the favorable opinion found by PEW Research ranged from a high of 49% down to only 17% favorable rating of the United States, from various demographic groups in the Middle East. How could there be a positive image when the peoples' direct exposure to the United States is through bombing for democracy, or indirectly through supporting the one who oppresses them? You may say 'what about the aid we give them?' If a group was using one hand to give you money, but another hand to shoot bullets at you, which would you focus upon? – would be more of a concern to you?

Even reviewing the DOD's own mission statements, we can see they are not consistently applied; other countries have nuclear weapons, and not all of them are friendly to the United States – why is Iran denied the ability to use nuclear power, let alone get a bomb. China and Iran are singled out for cyber concerns, but they are not the only countries that have hackers/crackers and the potential to cause damage through the internet. The goal is selectivity for we may always be at war with _1984_ 's Eurasia or Eastasia, one or the other – it makes no difference, for the other will replace the one.

George Washington warned that government is not reason, but force. When reason is not used to convince another, and force is used, then the same method of persuasion is implemented as by any small-time thug to genocidal dictator; act as a tyrant and be seen (and treated) as one. Liberty by force is an oxymoron. Cultures are not equal, but those in their own cultures equally have an opinion regarding the value of their own and others. Whether another nation has a majority that votes in a manner the United States does not like, it does not take away that it was their vote or leader, and to support one group over another is to take a side in a foreign conflict, or even a civil war; taking sides will gain temporary allies in one area, but increase enemies even more. Such alliances are as lasting as they are pragmatic, and when no longer seen as valid one side is likely to be bitten by the other: see the United States first and ending relations with the Shah, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. To get rid of bad leaders, those cultures need to go through their respective growing pains – even their own revolutionary war – in order to set up a new system; if the US Armed Forces are involved, then it is just another example of a foreign power flexing its might over the indigenous people, propping up one tyrant.

Interference with other countries' political affairs is reputational debt: there may be a boon for 'helping' in the short-term, but in the long-run that help gets paid back plus interest – the increasing negative views about the United States. This is why those who wrote and signed the Constitution warned against such actions. George Washington said in his farewell address in 1796 "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." Benjamin Franklin is famous for "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." James Madison said "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other..." Thomas Jefferson said in his inaugural address "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..."

Foreign entanglements are not the only problems that Armed Forces are involved. The Oath of Office specifically states that the Oath-taker will defend the Constitution – not to any individual, elected or appointed – from enemies, both foreign and domestic. What is it to be an 'enemy of the United States'? – the law has a definition of what constitutes an enemy of the United States and that is any individual or group that is engaged in hostilities with the United States. Treason is defined within the Constitution itself, and it states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

The last time Congress declared war [one of their Constitutional duties, as it is not to the President's discretion] was in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor; however, there have been more than 80 actions since WWII that the armed forces have been part of, ranging from what would otherwise be police actions on United States soil, such as actions in Detroit and Wounded Knee, choosing sides in national conflicts such as with Indonesia and Guatemala, to the ever-present 'War on Drugs' with raids on cocaine regions in Bolivia, among many, many other actions. The PATRIOT Act has been deemed (in part) unconstitutional; President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in _Ex Parte Merryman_ ; the US Supreme Court upheld FDR's internment of Japanese citizens in _Korematsu v US_ ; each of the aforementioned was at the time passed/ruled-upon by Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. The Constitution explicitly states in the Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The PATRIOT Act was passed with the Congress and President knowing that the Fourth would be violated, but passed the bill anyways. The Sixth Amendment specifically states that the accused has the right to confront his accusers, but the President Lincoln at the time did not believe the Sixth was valid. The majority opinion written by Hugo Black stated, in essence, concern about a potential crime outweighed individual rights – that is a suspicion (later to be found to be unsubstantiated) was enough to allow the imprisonment of free citizens. The principle of the amendments have been broken into segments according to political expediency. With the repeated support-of-tyrants script coming back to harm American interests, the US government continues to supply those deemed 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', who is the friend that will stab the US in the back.

What is in place are a series of bills that many who passed them into law, admit they did not read the bill before voting on it. There are non-defense related acts, such as land-grab deals in the NDAA (taking land from private owners to give to foreign investors), to go along with all the other unconstitutional aspects of the laws being passed. On top of all these various facets of unconstitutional behavior, there is the already set justification by the DOD "Our global responsibilities are significant; we cannot afford to fail." Manipulators use vague terms to justify prevarication as context sees fit. As Orwell warned in _1984_ , regardless of whether the enemy is Eurasia or Eastasia "...victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous." It is to be continuous with those comprising the State ensuring there is always the perception that they are needed to protect us, even though their actions direct the instigations and responses against us.

When Rome expanded, taking over vast lands and different cultures, it spread its military too thin, trying to enforce its rule over too many cultures (who didn't want to be ruled) over too vast an empire, losing resources and going in debt. The Republic changed to an Empire and the Empire fell. People do not want to be ruled, have their culture and society influenced/dictated by outside groups, and to impose such controls requires vast amounts of resources in both men and money; the loss of lives are felt on both sides (US Armed Forces/Rome and members of various countries). There is no practical reason to use the Armed Forces as the policeman of the world, and there are many reasons to not take that role. Simply flip the roles to see how you would respond: Iran or Israel were working on getting a member elected who would seek to help that country, even at the cost of the American electorate – they might even use force to remove opposition, or if Iraq had a base in an American National Park and began bombing Chicago to get rid of gang members there, and while doing so, killed civilians as well? Or again, looking at the conservative estimates from Brown University, how many people who would not have picked up armaments, will do so because of the seventy 9/11 strikes over a period of years?

When there are two or more warring parties, and one is supported which angers those who were not supported (and are oppressed with the extra power), and even the supported power turns and aggresses against the original supporter, and that pattern is continued numerous times with numerous groups over decades, would continuing that behavior be deemed a threat to the supporter? When someone takes out loans in your name, indebting you to years of payments that you have no choice to pay (otherwise face jail), would you consider that a treat to your freedom? When those who are supposed to protect individual rights by passing just laws, pass laws that they have not read, or mix in pet projects to benefit some third party, would that be considered a threat to the people under those laws? When people intentionally violate the rights listed in the document that forms the foundation of the American Republic, what would you call that?

What recourse do free people have when the defenders of the Constitution – those who took the oath to defend it – violate it? It is to the citizenry, and others who have taken the Oath of Office to ensure that those who also took the oath remain true to it – and to prosecute/punish those who do not honor, and especially violate, the Oath of Office. It is a simple choice: will you follow your oath to the Constitution or to an elected (or non-elected) member of the government? As a member of the military, you may ask: how am I supposed to act when there is a chain of command that tells me to follow orders? Remember your oath and follow the Constitution and the principles it sets forth. Question authority, for that is why your oath is to the Constitution and not to a member of the State.

Failing this, and you will be following Tennyson's 'Theirs not to reason why; Theirs but to do and die' which may be a needed tactic in the heat of battle, but outside of that, it is the rallying cry of one directing suicide bombers and the Gestapo. Will you follow the principles set forth in the Constitution, or be an extension of a tyrannical State whose members oppress the citizens who are to be protected under the Constitution you swore to protect?

Whether you like it or not members of the Armed Forces, this is the situation you are in: follow an official who directs you to act in ways that in ways that ultimately, and inevitably, bring harm back upon the country you are trying to protect. Wanting to defend freedom does not mean anything if in action, you work to oppress or put at risk those who the Constitution is set to protect.

Will you choose to honor the orders of those who violate the Constitution you swore an oath upon, or will you protect the Constitution against those who would violate it?

Posted by GDX at  10:18 PM

