EVAGELICALS VERSES CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY LAW

Evangelicals gave Cruz a victory in Iowa, which is a disaster You are getting close to the basics of politics. Politics represents the various views related to social organization. It has long been my contention that these views are innate and manifested in our feeble attempts to describe them. We have shaped and reduced these views into two groups under the simplistic label of two political parties. With that thought in mind, in addition I attempt to subdivide political parties. Although it gets a little complicated, all society is divided up by central or core beliefs. In addition top those core beliefs, we all understand that within each political party there are extremes. Everyone likes numbers. My guess is that those who are with the core belief make up 60% of the total while those on the extremes make up 20% each of the extremes. In one sense, the political parties form a continuum. The extreme of one end of the party are very much like the opposite extreme of the other party. For example, we use the term liberal republican to signify a Republican who tends to belief as a Democrat; thus, forming a political circle with a place for everyone. This may sound a bit strange to those who claim to be apolitical or to not to believe in either party, but one of the messages in this blog post is that no such person exists, short of being brain dead. That is what innate means. As their core belief, Republicans want to be in control to benefit themselves as individuals while Democrats want to be in control to benefit all the people, which we can describe as being altruistic. To be in control means something different to Republican from what it means to a Democrat. I know it is irrational for a person to think this way, but Republicans want all the benefits of society and want laws that everyone has to follow but them. On the other end of the spectrum, as a group, Democrats want to share the wealth so everything equally including power and wealth. History tells us that all governments based on these extremes have failed miserably. The innate sense is that of greed, which makes it awkward to discuss because to refer to someone as greedy is demeaning even though both Democrats and Republicans are greedy. What is being discussed is the degree to which a person greedy. An extreme Democrat will say they will sacrifice everything to help others, and under extremely rare circumstances, this may be the case. At the other extreme, there are those who demand control of all resources whether needed or not that is regardless of the needs of others. People who think this way do not consider other; others simply do not exist. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is a variant of this thinking. Nonetheless, because the extremes of either of these conflicting philosophies are so irrational, they are never part of open debate in this fundamental form. In democracy, we have a complicated scheme of government in which we learned to compromise between these two extremes. We often hear that people in Washington. Just as in political debate, we do not want to compromise; however, that is what people do everyday. The way we do this is to disguise the extremes in rhetoric; however nuanced the core beliefs might be, they are there. For example, when a friend posts on Facebook in the form of a challenge as follows; “my point is that the social agenda has come with a great price and the middle class is the victim. .7% [sic] growth is an inch away from a recession. On another point, I came across this quote, which I agree with. "Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." ~Hubert Humphrey But HHH's opinion is that both parties will listen, grow, and learn from one another. How are we doing with this Jerry?” I find this post greatly disturbing for a number of reasons. The principle reason is that his post was in retaliation to my condemning Evangelicals for wanting to replace the Constitution with Biblical Law. His use of the expression “social agenda” means the one who posted this intends to refer explicitly to handout to the lazy. This in his mind means Social Security, Affordable Care Act, food stamps, A For Dependent Children, and Children’s Health Insurance Program, (CHIP) and paying taxes are the “great price” people are paying for these things. The fact that he refers to paying taxes for something the people want and need makes them “victims”. This seems counter to what people tell me the New Testament says people want, although I must add; I have very little idea of what the bible says. I would like to remind the person who posted this challenge to me that my mother worked for Hubert H Humphrey and that I knew him and talked to him on several occasions. There is no question in my mind that Social Security, Affordable Care Act, food stamps, Aid For Dependent Children, and Children’s Health Insurance Program, (CHIP) are freedoms “ hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." In addition, the “Happy Warrior” was or would have been the man with the hammer standing at the anvil. My answer is that I am doing just find living under the constitutional and statuary law. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

DANGER IN IOWA CAUCUSES

The Iowa caucuses are dangerous in as much as evangelical Christians by sheer numbers dominate them. It isn’t so much what they seem to believe but the manner and fury with which they promote their beliefs. They treat the Bible as if it were a fundamental document they believe it word-for-word, which makes the Bible their constitution. Muslims majorities in some countries believe this same way about the Koran. The people cannot elect because God or Allah is that leader. Of course, the reality is that this puts the power in the hands of a few self-appointed religious leaders who rule by proclamation. The proclamations are what they say the Koran says and that just happens to be what the so-called leaders think. The entire world knows that one of their proclamations is that Christians are evil. Of course, you all know that Evangelicals say that all Muslims are evil. Does anyone doubt where this will lead if left unchecked? I lived next door to an Evangelical Christian Church, which means I heard every misguided sermon. A major theme was Catholics are idol worshipers. That is was a sin to marry someone who was not an evangelical Christian. In addition, they had the “God-given right” right to worship in a loud voice, which to them meant they could pound drums and yell and scream in microphones hooked up to loudspeakers; the Bible tells them so. Our constitution says we have the right to worship, or not to worship, as we please, free of government interference. The danger with Evangelicals is that they believe the Bible tells them they have the right to impose their anti-government dogma on us in an unwelcome and unfriendly way. To them, that is spreading what they believe as “the” Christian message. They are doing this one word or one action at a time; “in God we trust”, “one nation under God”, demand presidential candidates believe in God, open Congress with a prayer. Donald J. Trump can hold a Bible in the air and declare he is a Christian, and they will vote for him which gives them power and that is what makes them dangerous in Iowa. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

OUTLAW RELIGIOUS LAW

The recent shooting in Colorado is of great concern to me. Regarding magnitude, it was tragic but it was not a nation-shaking incident. However, I see it as a crack in the door that signals something ominous that is happening nationwide. In the military, people refer to something called mission creep. Mission creep is always there. Only occasionally does it flare up to the point where it is troublesome. The churches, like the military, are institutions we see as a group engaged in similar activities loosely and related by a uniting theme. In an ordered society, they are always there. Both the church and the military seek to gain dominance in the social order. Recently, the church has gained unprecedented political prominence. The people in our nation have a history filled with both peaceful mixtures of religions and some that were not so peaceful, but they always have held religion separate from secular government. Most people refer to the Constitution, which simply says the government cannot create or endorse a religion. In other words, it “keeps government out of religion” but says nothing about “keeping religion out of government”. We see the mission creep in many different ways such as on our money it says, “In God we trust” or Congress opens with a prayer. Recently, because of the turmoil in the Middle East, there seems to be more interest in the part religion plays in government. In a strange twisted way, this has led to a demand by the Christian community to be involved in politics. This what ISIS has as a goal. They want to create a situation where the Christian world stands against the Muslim world; two great armies standing face-to-face killing one another ostensibly based on which God you believe in but factually based on the human kinds innate lust for power. Firetree Publishing Company has published several articles on the blog spot; firetreepub.blogspot. com. The last was, “Christian Hypocrites Keep Refugees Out” and the latest was, “Church Soldier Kills in Colorado”. The Republican candidates for president make the most troubling trend obvious. The In essence, what has happened is that the Republican Party has sold its soul to the church. Ministers, priests, etcetera, especially those who head up mega churches, are given influence in exchange for votes. Every one of the presidential candidates, as well as many politicians, are taking the radical evangelical view of social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Abortion is no longer a medical decision but is a religion decision based on the concept that life is sacred. Life is precious and something we should protect, but it is not sacred and something we should preserve at all costs. Ministers and politicians have no idea of the medical and social circumstances in which women, families, and physicians have to make such decisions. They have no idea of the social consequences of what they are asking. In effect, church leaders are replacing secular law with the blind ignorance of Biblical Law. Sheira Law horrifies us just as the Biblical Law should horrify us. The ignorant minister stands in front of thousands of ignorant, short-sighted, church members and condemn abortion, euthanasia in medical extremes, the death penalty, divorce, etc. The proof of their ignorance, really is their double standards, is they are the ones calling for more troops in the Middle East to kill ISIS. These people of love and peace are getting us into a war in the Middle East just a surly as they are advocating killing abortion physicians. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

CHURCH SOLIDER KILLS IN COLORADO

Another Planned Parenthood Clinic killing has come and gone without one word said about the real cause of all this strife. How can it be that no one seems to appreciate the difference between believing life is precious versus life is scared? The difference is that quality of life enters the picture when we say life is precious, and we should treat it with care. What does it mean to say someone or something is brain dead. In that case, what, exactly is it that we treat with care? When we include suicide bombers and inspired religious wars in the discussion, we extend the confusion. Of course, these things make no sense if we treat life as being “precious no matter where we find it”. Do suicide bombers treat themselves as being brain dead? Do we treat the enemy in a religious was as being brain dead? My conclusion is that religion teaches about life in a distorted and twisted way. If we think life is sacred, as taught by the Church, it is OK to take life to preserve a “life”. Said another way, life is no longer precious if you are not a member of a certain group. As ugly as the results are, life is no longer a biological phenomenon but as the “Church” defines it. Suddenly, this argument broadens to include a wide-ranging discussion of “moral groups”. We all understand the biological concept of food. We certainly treat cattle as being in a moral group different from our moral group. We kill them with impunity. In a religious war, we treat those of one religion as a different moral group. Your life has no value if you are the enemy. For most, to include “moral groups” as a social concept in a discussion of life is a big leap, yet, we do it every day in many different ways. The Colorado shooting is one small example. Some see those who took those lives as heroes. The shooter sees himself as a soldier of the church. My point in this post is that if asked, the Church leader will deny any association with the killer. I listened all morning to the news, and the talking heads did not hear one word about Church leaders, who preach that abortion is murder, which will condemn the shooter. Am I way off base in saying that they caused this killer to believe that he was doing a good deed by killing people associated with abortion? The church remains silent. All the anti-abortion restriction imposed by elected lawmakers that cause misery for millions of women are enacted by those supported by churches or at least make that claim; yet, no one blames the church for causing all that misery. In their twisted minds, no matter the circumstances, they blame the victim. It would cause a firestorm to say the church is directly responsible for killing those people in Colorado yet, clearly, the church that is preaching that life is sacred when it is not sacred is responsible. The organic truth is that life is precious. We should accept that and move on to struggling with the question concerning how we can increase the quality of life for as many as possible. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

CHRISTIAN HYPOCRITES KEEP OUT REFUGEES

The response of people to the Syrian refugee crisis has provided real proof of the religious sincerity of people's beliefs. Most of us abhor any suggestion of the need for a religious test for anything. Donald Trump’s call for proof of religious affiliation of all Muslims in America met with an outcry of disgust. People of all lifestyles likened it to requiring a yellow lapel star required of Jews in Nazi Germany as an object of hate and discrimination or the internment of Japanese citizens during the Second World War for fear of sabotage. I was born and raised in this country. As a result, I am sensitive to the nuances of politics. One such nuance is that a person has to believe in “God” if people are to vote them into political office. This has so much force that we refuse to believe it is a religious test, but it is. Not only do they have to believe in a Judeo-Christian God, but also they have to prove it by regular church attendance. As happened with President Obama, that wasn’t enough. The incident over President Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright proved that the people had to agree with what the politician heard in his church. However, the intensity of this belief system works both ways. Potential candidates for public office suddenly become believers in God, which happens about the time they decide on a political career. Their campaigns publish pictures of them standing on Church steps, often with their wives or husbands dutifully at their sides: the American image. Of course, they are often hypocrites. They will proclaim loudly and publically their beliefs in church doctrine such as “love thy neighbor” and forgiveness of sins. Many of them extend this to their politics when they claim they are constitutional fundamentalists and adapt Church dogma in legislation they propose such as denial of same-sex marriage or abortion rights etc. as being biblical based. This they deduce from the belief that you have the freedom to worship as you choose; however, you must worship a Christian God. This is especially true of New Testament Christians. Obviously, Christians exclude Muslims, as they do to Jews to a certain extent. People of the Jewish faith have learned not to lie about their faith but not to confess their faith too loudly. All of this has resulted in the politically awkward situation we have today. This cluster of beliefs has grouped many of these people into the Republican Party, which has created a situation where religious beliefs conflict with their political beliefs. The fundamental Republican tenet is that of greed; what is mine is mine; I earned it I should be able to keep it, or I will only share when I am sure I have all I need. Of course, some people never have all they think they need. We apply this feeling to the territory as well as money, economic values, or power which in turn creates a sense of belonging. This is the same idea as moral groups, which is what a church is. You can go to heaven only if you belong to the right church. If you do not believe this, ask them. This has created a terrible dilemma for the Republican Party Christians. They have a strong sense of belonging and do not want to jeopardize the trust their Party puts in them. They are Christians so because of their “love they neighbor” beliefs they feel an obligation to help people in need such as the Syrian refugees. However, the Republican Party believes American territory is for Americans and others should stay out. This is where the rubber hits the road. All of the hypocrites, those who became Christians for political gain, are all on Facebook explaining why it is OK to exclude all Syrians using the excuse that one of them might be terrorists. Isn’t it strange that all those so-called Christians are taking the position that just happens to be the way Republicans and not Christians think. Their position proves they are Republicans before they are Christians. I look with pride at the position President Obama has taken; he has taken the Christian position. He has a heart. Some Republicans, especially the religious hypocrites, have the audacity “to act” outraged that our president is saying Republicans are acting against widows and orphans when they deny entry to ten thousand refugees because one of them just might be a terrorist. They are not acting against terrorist, rather they are acting out of territorial greed, this is their country, and they don’t want Syrians here any more than they want Latinos of Haitians, or anyone else. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

FREEDOM OF WORSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES

A commonplace occurrence is for some people to believe they are justified in forcing their religious beliefs onto people who do not believe as they do. An overzealous municipal clerk overcome with religious righteousness refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or the refusal of certain pharmacists to sell contraception to a customer on occasion makes front page news. However, in modern society it is becoming more and more common to have legislators try to pass laws taking religiously inspired positions dealing with pro-life issues or same-sex marriage. The shocking thing is that more and more of these legislatures are passing this type of legislation into enforceable law. Often, lawmakers formulated the laws in a way that removes the possibility of individual challenge. For example, the laws shutter clinic where physicians performed abortions as part of providing health care. You are no longer free to decide if you will or will not go to such a clinic if it does not exist. For me, I realized the shocking reality of all of the impact religious is having when a remote and hardworking farmer and his wife in northern Minnesota. He told me, after making it clear that they did not like Bush, that the voted for him after their Priest told him to vote for Bush even though he didn't like him. I shutter in fear for my country when I look at the 10,000-member megachurches in the South, which is one reason the South is politically such a different place. What is obvious is the Republican Party is using evangelical Christians, for example, to usurp the first amendment of the Constitution to gain political power. I listened to the rhetoric of the Pope during his recent visit and listened to the entire slate of GOP candidates for president and heard the same thing my hard working small farm relative tell me that he votes because of the way he is told to vote. Their “God” is telling them who to vote for and who not to vote for to represent “all” the people. Church leaders formulate their specific churches to be a moral group, which is a powerful thing. According to the members, you can only go to heaven is you are a member of that church, only that church, not some other church, which by their definition is a “fake” church. As a church member, you do what the leaders or leaders tell you or suffer “moral punishment”. Of course, the leaders relish the power this gives them. People in the church will ask you to leave if you do not comply with their wishes. In biblical language, you will be stoned. In political terms, this means, collectively, Christians would not elect you to political office if you do not believe in “God” and shows it by adhering to the addictions of the church leader. The one thing all churches have in common is that you must follow the leader, who just happens to be a stand-in for “God”. In other words, you have religious freedom until you step across the threshold of the church then you are no longer free to worship as you choose; yo are no longer in America. For example, the Priest, who told my relative to vote for Bush, even though he knew Bush was a bad man. If you do not agree, you would never dare to admit it other church members for fear of retribution; it would be against God’s will. Church leaders are the only one who speaks to “God”. I know that because they tell me it is so. Of course, “God” is always right and just happens to be precisely what the leader of the church tells you what they think Bible wants you to believe. What this means is the GOP tells the church leaders to tell you how to vote. This leaves open the question, who in America is free to worship as they choose? URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

MORAL GROUP BEHAVIOR IN POLTICS

What happens in Washington is important. One of the branches of government, the House of Representatives, is in serious jeopardy. The threat is is not because of something that happened yesterday when Kevin McCarthy withdrew his candidacy for the leadership post as Speaker of the House. Children learn the extreme importance of this position in civics classes in most public high schools; the holder of this position is the third from the presidency, which the most powerful position in the world. It is a matter of how our government functions or at least is supposed to function and not which political party is in charge. Something fundamental has gone terribly wrong with democracy. Still, few people seem excited about what has happened and why it happened. I listened to a parade of duly elected right-wing representatives, most from the uneducated district in the old plantation south where the church dominates life, and what I heard them explain their views was both shocking and interesting. They will destroy the entire government if Congress does not defund Planned Parenthood. The reason it doesn’t happen is that this right-wing group does not have sufficient numbers to accomplish their aims, which does not mean they will not fulfill their aims. If it not the Planned Parenthood issue, it would be some other equally narrow issue. We all remember the fight to destroy ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now that involved all kinds of nefarious activities by a minority. ACORN was an organization working to register minority voters. The group successfully destroyed ACORN. They slowly morphed their objective of suppressing votes, which is a majority view and installing their minority voters in the form of voter ID laws. These are seemingly small issues on the world stage, but they are fundamental and important to individuals. Their power does not make sense. However, the real question is what is it the causes them to remain as a tight, cohesive group. From the interviews, I mentioned above, they clearly know theirs is a minority view, they are equally sure they are correct, and they believe they are morally correct. Thinking about the sense of moral righteousness gave me the clue I think I needed to explain what is going on. In the above paragraph, I labeled this political group as right wing. They are not the usual greedy conservatives even if most of them lean in that direction enough to establish a home in the Republican Party. The truth is they are a small group of radicals driven by something other than conservatism. They use a sense of moral righteousness and use moral punishment to fear to leave the group but also to maintain their ranks. It is equivalent to the believing that if you do not believe in destroying Planned Parent Hood, you cannot go to heaven. What confused me at first is that did not make sense when it comes to voter suppression, which seems to a desire that has nothing to do with going to heaven or hell. For me, the uniting thought has to do with people belonging to a “moral group”. Authors have written about this as a broad category of groups ranging from all of society down to small families under such titles as, the Moral Arc written by Michael Shermer in 2015 and George Lakoff’s 1980 book Metaphors We Live By. What they missed is what should be an obvious fact; since the beginning of humankind, religious leaders base their entire teachings on this principle. Moral righteousness starts as a group agreement and has to with what is good for them. However, it soon proved to be a way to gain and hold power and convince people to do what some leader thinks is right. Most people in a group realize what the leaders tell them what to do may or may not be in their best interest. For two years in Belize, I watched as people living in abject poverty dutifully paraded miles over dirt roads to a “church” every Sunday. Once there, they gave their pennies to a minister who drove a nice truck and lived in a big house. He controlled them as a “moral group” by sermons with the reward of heaven for good church behavior or the punishment of hell if they did not behave. Only the minister knew how to read, but the minister told them and they sincerely believed they had to obey the nonsense in Bible. At the same time, it made sense to them judge and punished each other for not following the holy doctrine. Of course, good church behavior is regular attendance and, of course, the minister expects them to tithe if you are in the church. In House of Representatives, if you belong to the right “moral group”, the people in your district will reelect you. The moral group has gerrymandered the districts, and the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision has supplied the campaign money. Your tithe is your vote. You better behave, or else. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

PAPA PONCHO / FRANCIS

PAPA PONCHO Stories of the Pope have taken over the news. Everyone is enthralled by his presence and newscasters seem to want to treat him with both respect and familiarity. That being the case, what has surprised me is that no one has reported to using the Spanish name Poncho, the more endearing and familiar form of the name Francisco, or Francis for a first as well as a surname. It is true the name can be not too flattering name about a Spanish person. In some countries, the name Poncho might even mean stupid. However, for millions of people it is a nickname used in families and among friends. I listened to his speech to Congress. It was fascinating in many ways. I agreed with most of it by far. He seemed a bit frustrated apparently because to want to give deeper meaning to his words than he could convey in English. The loudest applause came with the line of life at any stage being sacred, which is as I expected. I would have liked to point out that life is precocious but not sacred when we allow family and friends or even the person or persons involved to suffer just to preserve medical signs of life. I believe there is such a thing as an appropriate and merciful end. Such phrase means to me that we have much soul searching to do when it comes to some of the most provocative questions we have to face as it relates to morality. Some are very superficial, such as we are all aware of our propensity to eat mean and where that meat comes from, which is why some of us are vegetarians. What do we do about killing to defend our families or in war? What do we do about capital punishment? How so we handle abortion to save the life of the mother, or rape, or incest. I am sure the Pope is aware of several books loaded with statistics that refute what he said about increasing violence. It is demonstrable decreasing around the world. The circle of our humanity is spreading from our bestial selves to our families, our tribes, and our nations. It is also becoming more inclusive with cruelty to animals being more and more include in our thinking. Almost everyone in the world abhors slavery of any kind. Some men treat their wives and women treat their children like animals in ancient times. Papa Poncho, you are wrong in your assessment of the course humanity is on. We are on an inborn path of biological morality related to self-preservation. Bestial survival of individuals is slowly becoming survival of humankind. I think you are mistaken in thinking religion is contributing to the trend in a positive way. I see various churches, Including the Catholic Church, as forming moral groups for the express purpose of excluding other people. You must belong to this or that church to go to heaven. Everyone knows it is a sin punishable by excommunication if a Catholic boy marries a Jewish girl or Jew boy marries a Catholic girl. It is not that long ago that stoning to death would have been appropriate. Papa Poncho, you are willing to sacrifice quality of life because you teach life is sacred without understanding that life is precious, but it is not an end in its self. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

WHICH CAME FIRST, RELIGION OR MORALITY

I have been arguing that morality is inborn. The implication is that religion is a product of that inborn tendency. Even more remarkable, our entire social structure, which includes our legal system, is also a product of that inborn morality. I intend the above statement to include humankind worldwide, which it must do if morality is truly inborn. The common basis for morality has to be the fundamental meaning we must find it where many do not think it belongs, for example, in the minds of animals. Beyond that, scientists must find evidence in behavior that even the most skeptical persons could consider morality in mindless situations. In my judgment, Darwin saw evidence in all living things, including single cell organisms and plants, which was the basis for his theories, which are now universally celebrated. In fact, nothing in biology would make sense without that understanding. Darwinism inspired “survival of the fittest” has become the archaic truism or social norm. All I am doing is extending these thoughts religion to morality, which I feel I can do because more and more modern man has fewer and fewer constraints. Darwin had to walk softly for fear of religious censure. Surprisingly, even modern scientists have to walk softly for fear of censure of fellow scientists as later as 1976, as happened to E. O. Wilson and other, when they introduced the concept of evolutionary psychology. Stephen Pinker and Michael Schermer celebrate this awakening in their books, especially Schermer’s book, The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom (2015). There should be the widespread criticism of this blog post because it is intended to be a direct challenge to the position taken by many to difficult social issues. The issues include the right to choose and other quality of life issues as well as the capital punishment as an issue dealing with self-preservation for society. In our legal system, self-defense is the only time killing is justified. If you choose, to criticize this blog post, please read that book first. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

RELIGIOUS MATURITY

What do all religious people think; what do they have in common, and not how they are different? What do all Abrahamic religions, Christians, Jews and Muslims, have in common? Then think about what Baptists, Catholics, etc. and all have in common. It isn’t until you get to the differences that it becomes ugly. “Only if you belong to my religion can you get to heaven.” Proof; ask yourself, can a Muslim go to heaven? The Muslims say yes, but they are the only ones. Christians say, no, Muslims are heathens. as the world society reached a point where religious people can start to mature? Can the rest of us look on and question what is happening. I see Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as all being in the process of maturing. All we what to do is look at the beginning of monotheism, which happened around 2000 years ago. Actually, we started to move out of bestiality perhaps 100,000 years earlier; however, the subject here is Abrahamic religion, so 2,000 years is fine. Morality is centered on self-preservation. The only time it is morally right to kill is in self-preservation, greed is necessary to feed me and my family, altruism is fine if it helps my tribe and me but foolish if it hurts my chances of survival. Religious leaders build their perception of morality around these ideas. Of course, self-preservation of their church, which is now their tribe, takes center stage. This is evident in all religious texts. The only way to get to heave is to believe in God but also to belong to that church. I chose to look at this through the lens of evolutionary psychology that is my self-constructed lens. Morality is bestial and in our being and we are refining it by what we refer to as humanization. We interpret our growing humanization as morality. Different religions and societies base their laws on our interpretation of that fundamental morality. Some cultures have divided the church and the state others have not. Unfortunately, different religions have interpreted the biological self-preservation in different ways in respect to government of society, marriage laws, place of women in society, family structured, what are crimes and the severity of different crimes, severity of punishment, etc. As we move more and more away from the bestial level, we consider ourselves as being more mature. We can look at this as individuals, as churches, as society, or as humankind as a whole. Michael Shermer, in his book, The Moral Arc, reviews the expanded concept in terms of our treatment of animals. He raised the issue of our growing concern about eating meat, etc. In this overall context, I see Islam as immature but growing in comparison to Judaism and Christianity; nevertheless, I see Christianity, Judaism and Islam all in need of a lot more maturation.

BURKA AND BIKINI ON A MOTORCYCLE

The Burka is a full body covering or a niqab is a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes clear. However, some women wear a niqab with an eye veil. In nay case, how should I interpret what I see? The simplest and most truthful is to say I see a Muslim woman—period. We sometimes defeat ourselves in arguments in such a subtle way that we do not realize what we are doing. For example, what if I were to say I saw a woman on a motorcycle wearing a hijab or a niqab that is a headscarf and veil often worn by Muslim women. Tough looking, leather-jacketed, “hog” riders would see that as being in conflict with the American or Canadian flag on their backs or sleeves or their patriot flag waving loyalty to their countries. They would not believe what I said I saw. What should I believe about them? They want to make themselves look like someone we should fear. The club names on their jackets have the same connotation. Should I believe they are tough guys who will beat us up if we dare to cross them or should I believe that they actually are well educated, sophisticated physicians and dentist who enjoy the freedom they feel from being on a motorcycle exposed to the elements. This is equivalent to a hijab or a niqab-wearing woman wearing a Bikini on the beach. The point I want to make is that we can believe what we want to believe when we see these conflicting things. Now I will ask the question again; how should I interpret what I see? When you ask me to ban burkas, or show pictures women immigrants wearing burkas, what are you asking me to see? When you show pictures of tough guys on motorcycles with the threatening challenge, “Don’t tread on Me” boldly emblazoned on their jackets, would you object to my asking the government to ban motorcycles. No creo que si. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

SYRIAN REFUGEES IN AMERICA

Someone made a significant comment on Facebook about the massive exodus of people from Syria. The comment made me think about our position in the world. What the person said was that when we had problems in our country we stayed and fought it out meaning the War of Independence and the Civil War the. He asked the question, “Why don’t the Syrians do the same thing?” We have spent millions of dollars in an attempt to train them as soldiers so they could fight for their rights and have failed miserably. We have attempted to help them form a government they could live with by finding support for those among them who would be loyal to the idea of independence from religious authority that is sweeping the Middle East under the title of ‘Arab Spring”. We vigorously supported that idea because the rebels proposed to build their government on the fundamental principle of “freedom to worship as they please”, which is the central principle of western democracy. Nothing worked. We see them refusing to go to Saudi Arabia, apparently because of differences in religious sects; however, it could be because they want to live a better life, and they do not see another Muslim country as offering that option. The success of the Western governments is obvious to all who are to look. Among the things, we in the west do, is offering a haven for those who find themselves in dire circumstances. As an American, I am proud of that. If I have gotten your attention, let me ask you, “Has Donald Trump and the other Republicans done with immigration demonstrated America values? Can we condemn the countries on the Mediterranean Sea for marking their border with razor wire when we have a political party who wants to do the same thing? Should we extend a hand to Syrians but tell the Mexicans and South Americans to go to hell. Does the acuteness of their crisis in Syria make their situation that different for the Latinos? Is the Zionist hate filled propaganda causing us to look at these people differently from others because they are Muslims? I see that hate expressed everyday on Facebook by both Americans and Canadians in the form of “band the burkas”. Is the number of people involved that different? The truth is that the Syrian crisis is a worldwide problem, and we should respond with that in mind. Especially we should respond because they are people just people like you and me. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

BAN BURKAS AS A TEACHING FAILURE

Someone reposted another “ban the burka” poster on Facebook. For some reason as a teacher, I took this as a personal failure. I have been teaching against this kind of hate inspiring nonsense for a long time but what I say does not seem to register in the minds of at least one of my Facebook friends. The greatest pleasure a teacher can have is to see the look of comprehension in the eyes of a student. The antithesis of this is that the greatest disappointment is to face with the realization that a student failed to understand, which leads me to question why I am such a failure. Am I wrong in what I have been teaching? Have I not been teaching it effective? The other alternative is the possibility that the people (person) are just not receptive to any other idea but the one they have. The first question to ask concerns the objective of the “Ban the burka” campaign in the United States and Canada. I think I have explained that burkas do no harm; therefore, it is not something like “ban drunk driving”, which obviously is intended to prevent damaging even fatal accidents. Some of the detractors claim covering the face hides personal identity. If that were valid then we should ban all of the social media; people can write or do what they please with impunity because we cannot easily identify them. The truth is that wearing burkas does no harm. Some will say wearing burkas is a religious symbol, implying we should not be displayed religious symbols in public, which too, is not only ridiculous but it is against the “freedom to worship” clause in the Constitution. I don’t know if Canada has the same clause in their founding documents. We all recognize that the “freedom to worship” clause separates religious laws from secular or civil law, which is so divisive in other parts of the world but especially in the Middle East. Others point out it is only women who must wear burkas; therefore, it is against their rights, which also is ridiculous but more importantly, it is something within their religion and has to do with religious freedom; it is not the business of others to interfere. The conclusion is that there is no reason to object to wearing burkas. I have repeated this explanation several different ways and in excruciating detail, still there is this post, “Ban Burkas”. Why? I found it hard to believe anyone would have the promotion of hate as a simple, unadorned objective. There is absolutely no reason to believe a mental disease is involved. In fact, the opposite is probably true. The person or persons involve probably have higher IQ than most, which tells me there is an objective to what they do. What can be the objective of “ban the burka” is it does no one harm or is the product of mental disease. The one area I have not mentioned is that what I am teaching is counter to innate or genetic belief. Not matter how when or why, we cannot teach what is counter to our genetic makeup, which is a subject we currently find in the news under an assortment of headings, especially gender or racial identity. It is almost impossible to teach a black person he or she is white, or white person he or she is black. Equally, it is impossible to teach a genetically endowed woman that she is a man or a man he is a woman. The Caitlin Jenner case and the Rachel Dolezal are headlines now. How can it be that we have something like “ban the burkas” genetically endowed? That makes no sense until you put it in the context of religion. Understanding religion is something I have been struggling with for years. I have concluded that humankind taught spirituality and religion since the inception of the mind; Abrahamic religions have been with us for 2000 years. The result is that Religion is innate. Classic geneticists treat this line of reasoning as nonsense. Regardless, the point is that no teacher can alter some people's thinking about their religion. For example, by banning burkas, you cannot teach Muslims that wearing a burka is no different from wearing a kippah (skullcap). The result is posting on Facebook a “ban the Burka” sign even when you know it is nonsense. Religious leaders have taught sectarianism for almost as long as there has been a religion. Once a Muslim you are always a Muslim, Once a Christian you are always a Christian. If you are a Jew or a Catholic, or a Baptist, Sunni, or Shia or whatever your religion taught you to believe something else will jeopardize your chances to live in heaven. In the present context, I have failed to teach some people something different from what religious teachers have buried in their genetics. It is as impossible for them to learn not to hate members of another religion as it is for Caitlin Jenner to learn how to be a man. “Ban the burkas” is a way of expressing what is in their genes. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

POLITICS, RELIGION, AND DARWIN

The oil and water of society are religion and politics; they do not mix. It took humankind centuries to figure that out, which they did when they first started the United States. The Constitution clearly makes that division. You can worship any why you want, but secular government rules. Using that criterion, several candidates for the presidency of the country have disqualified themselves. Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee are current examples, and in the past, Joe Lieberman and Jimmy Carter were clearly misfits. It is unfortunate that the power of religions is such that every candidate has to indicate he or she has religions of some sort. In the United States, it is more than a candidate believing in a God or not but is clearly one God, which is the Christian God. Can anyone imagine a candidate declaring he or she believed in Allah or saying the do not believe Jesus Christ was the son of God or something along those lines? Of course, the truth is that most of us in America do not believe in a God that rules everything as Muslims do. There are those who feel there is not such thing as a legitimately elected government; after all, no one can elect God to anything and conclude they will rule “in the name of God”, which brings us full circle back to people such as Huckabee and Santorum. The distortion is that to vote for them is to vote for God, which is clearly nonsense. Every body’s heaven is different, which means they make it up as they go along. Santorum and Huckabee, try to make us believe that there is no such thing as recreational sex. In fact, I would like to ask them to declare that they never engaged in that practice. All of these things such as sacredness of life, capital punishment, divorce, abortion, eugenics, population control, life support, treatment of terminal disease just to start the list of current political issue that have religious connotations. These real problems need solutions to which a majority of people agrees. Of course, religion will influence the mindset of some of us but as time goes on, we as a people are more and more reverting to good old Darwinian inspired survival of the fittest. I find it strange that in spite of all our sophistication, we are going back to where we started. Obviously, this is happening because we are shedding ourselves of the burden of religious leaders. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

GOVERNMENT IS A MUST NOT AN OPTION

During a recent conversation, the person made the blank statement, all politicians are crooked, and big money bought and pays them: they do not represent anyone but themselves, etc. There is enough truth to that statement to make it debatable. The thing about that conversation that made it interesting was because it made me realize there are people who just want to be disgusted with the government. At face value, that statement makes no sense until one realizes their real objective is to avoid thinking, about anything to do with government, apparently because solving problems is hard work. Along that line, I thought back to one of my best friend who often declared he was a libertarian. When asked why, his answer was enlightening; it was because he didn’t agree either Republican or Democrat, which I now realize means he did not have to make a decision about anything. I engaged in a debate concerning evolution with my physician. When we got to the big bang, his response was, “Yes, but who caused the big bag?” The second a person says he believes in “God”, that means we do not have to think about it anymore. God will do it. Doesn’t this mean that my physician does not have to make a decision about anything he doesn’t want to decide; God, will decide. These positions have one thing in common; they avoid the necessity of thinking further about government, politics, or any of life’s dilemmas. These positions are an expression of mental laziness. Government is not an option; it is necessary; therefore, it must be debated. Unfortunately, we often become involved in debates that over problems that have no solution. People are extremely clever in avoiding mental traps. They do this by avoid taking extreme positions, but the simple pursuit of issues can reveal the weaknesses in their arguments, which is a debate. For example, I have debated welfare with Republicans who are quick to declare the government should stop giving welfare because people cheat. However, when you present individual cases were giving welfare is justified; they agree this or that person should receive help. They then usually jump to what I call the Nancy Reagan position, which is individual giving should replace all government welfare programs. Her position means, that in contrast to government decision making, individual decision-making, is flawless, which is another tail-chasing exercise in logic, which brings us right back to the beginning, which is the government is there to do what individuals cannot afford to do. There is no spirit outside man to decide things, which means that you and I should spend as much time and effort to get what government does right and debate is part of getting things right. That takes a lot of work! URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

AYATOLLAH HUCKABEE

In one way, the lack of understanding what religion is, puzzles me. On the other hand, I understand how our innate qualities corrupt us. When it comes to religion, the quality I am talking about is peck-order. The most primitive biota assumes some order. It applies to bacteria just as well as it applies to a pack of wolves. It is the basis of Darwinian survival of the fittest. Humans are no different. However, there is an inherent conflict. We base government on the same innate quality. That being the case, there will always be a fundamental conflict between religion and government. The founding fathers established this country on the idea that the people collectively rule, which we refer to as democracy. AT the time, democracy was a radical new idea. Tribes have chieftains, religions have Priests ministers, leaders, countries have kings, etc. All of these leaders gain power based on some drive or personal strength. We elect a president and representatives, which means the power based on voters judgment of performance. The need to have someone to worship even in a democracy is so embedded in our psychic that some democratic countries have both kings and elected heads of government, but almost invariably the elected head of government has the power. Of course, this means we believe in our judgment in picking leaders when we have that option. In countries where religion dominates leadership, religious leaders select leaders; thus, a self-perpetuating system is established. Sometimes, such as happen in the Vatican, they use voting but it is highly restricted voting reminiscent of royal family ties in selecting kings. It takes drastic moves or even social revolution to upset or disrupt these chains of self-perpetuation. The founding fathers sidestepped religion in an ingenious way; they established in the constitution that people are free to worship any way they wish or not at all. They did this revolutionary change in a subtle way. It seems they knew it would be a terrible fight to make a big issue of it. In fact, it probably would have prevented them from reaching their prime goal, which was the formation of a federation of states. Leaders of each religious sect were lead to believe that they would be in charge. In the narrow world of that time, the options were one of a number of Christian sects versus no religion. The crusades were very real but far away; therefore, exotic and not worth mentioning. “Thus, in God We Trust” or calling ourselves a “Christian Nation” set well with everyone. It is confounding to me that educated people miss the wisdom found in the simplicity of the Constitution. How can people like Livingston, the owner/editor of the Personal Liberty Digest, for example, know the significance of separation of church and state if they do not understand the meaning of the words “freedom to worship”. It means an entirely secular government. Look at the Middle East to find out what it means to have religion involved in government. We tend to overlook the far-reaching nuances of that statement. The Middle East is not in turmoil because it is Christians fighting against Muslims. It means perpetual war because it involves individual dictatorships under the guise of Muslim religious fanatics. Muslims divide themselves into sects with each sect knowing they are right because they are led be “Allah” or “God”. We set back and feel content to group all the strife in that part of the world under the title of Islam and blame all the killing on Sharia Law. The truth is that the trouble comes not because it is Islamic Law but is because it is religious law, which a group of individual dictators in power maintain that power by cruelty and strife just as would happen in the United States if we were under biblical law led by a group of dictators and not under civil law. Huckabee is a preacher and not a politician. Huckabee and Livingston want Biblical Law, which would be just as bad as Sharia Law. All I can say is a pox on you if you feel the same way and end up electing Ayatollah Huckabee, who will follow the bible and not the Constitution. Everything he says is what God wants him to say, which just happens to be what he would say if he were God. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

GARLAND TEXAS DEFILES CONSTITUTION

Once again, the Constitution of the United States has been defiled again. This time the focus is on our constitutionally guaranteed right to “freedom of speech”. We have an element in the country that at first blush represents an educational failure; however, a closer look tells us that it is not ignorance but is intentional. Invariably, this group represents people who have mal intent. The problem centers on the misuse of that freedom. Freedom is like money; it is yours to use as you see fit but once it is spent, it is gone; you may never get it back. The classic example is someone is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater because the constitution says he or she can. People trample themselves to death in the rush to get out. The defense of the guilty party is simple; I didn’t tell them to trample each other. The person who yelled fire can ‘un-yell’, and the people who were hurt and died are still injured and dead. There was another shooting in Garland, Texas at a public event. It was not just any event. The justification for the event was that it would cause trouble just as the person who yelled fire in the theater. The justification for it is it was their constitutional right to free speech. Two people are dead, and a third man wounded. The guilty parties are the New York-based American Freedom Defense Initiative led by Pamela Geller and the Dutch Party for Freedom headed by Geert Wilders. Geller’s organization organized the event and centered it on an award of $10,000 for the best cartoon depicting Prophet Muhammad. In ordinary circumstances, a person religion should make no difference but in the current political environment, the fact that Geller is Jewish gives a clue as to her motive. Wilders was a featured speaker at the event and received several standing ovations. Garland Texas is not a hick town in rural Texas. It is part of the Dallas- Fort Worth metroplex. The scene becomes even more complex when we learn Geller and Wilders held the event in question at Curtis Culwell Center, which is public school property. I am sure the school board of that district will claim they had not idea of any problems that might occur from renting faculties to the American Freedom Defense Initiative, a know anti-Islamic Organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a hate group. They may say that they were upholding the Constitution just as they say they are defending the right of people to vote. As usual for Texas, the police act like idiots. First, a police spokesperson, Joe Hern by name, says they don’t know if the shootings were associated with the event, and then they claim credit for quick containment of the shooter because they had many armed policed attending the event in anticipation of trouble. The entire affair stinks from to top bottom. The Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, which our founding fathers clearly intended to protect people who chose to express political dissent. Not to protect idiots who yell fire or intentionally say things to provoke hate. By defending Geller and Wilders, the school board, and the Texas police, we will slowly lose our freedom of political descent. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

SUPPORT HIGH STAKES TESTING

To support high-stakes testing is the smart thing to do, even if it takes some corrects to the program. The high and growing numbers coming out of New York concerning the number of children opting out of what the detractors refer to as high stakes are troublesome. The political tie to Common Core program standards is unfortunate. In my state, North Carolina passed a law not to join the CC program. The legislatures, who wrote the law and voted for it, complained that the sovereignty of the state was at stake. These people said they would substitute their “state” own program. Of course, they do not have nor will they ever have a program. These same legislatures—mental giants to be sure—passed a law to outlaw Sharia Law, suppress minority voters, gerrymandered the state into grotesquely shaped districts, politicized school boards, and otherwise turn our state into a laughing stock by trying to conserve a pre-civil war mentality.

An educated person would be naive to think state sovereignty is what is behind the criticism of high stakes testing. The criticism is multifaceted. For one, the teachers unions bitterly object. The truth is that they object at their peril; people who want to destroy unions are rightly accused them of protecting bad teachers. Union leaders look at high stake testing as a way to evaluate teachers. They are right but that is not the objective of the tests but teacher evaluation is one of the benefits. Think about the implications of objecting to high stake testing on these grounds. What parent wants his child taught by an incompetent teacher? I hear politicians complain bitterly about how bad our public educational system is; the same ones who object to the basic standard established by Common Core, cut education budgets, complain about unions, etc.

True educators are concerned about “teaching to the test”, which is pure nonsense. If I am teaching a subject, I will devote my time teaching that subject the best I can, and the test will show the students learned that subject. If I do my job, the test will be a breeze for the students; it will show which students learned what. How can it be otherwise? Information I learn from testing is information I need to improve my teaching for each student. The problem seems to be that the test results are not available to the teachers in a timely fashion, a fault that administrators can correct. It will reveal to educational administrators how well prepared the students were when they came to my class. The crime in high stakes testing, if there is one, is that the tests are not comprehensive enough to cover all subjects being taught and, therefore, focuses a teacher's attention on a narrow range of subjects; thus, diverts a teacher's attention to those subject that are taught. Of course, to call for a broader range of testing is counter to the current rage against testing.

The last thing I want to mention is the pressure put on our public educational system by private schools. The motivations of private schools are clear; it is either to earn money or to capture the minds of young people for religious or political purposes. Of course, education for profit is wrong no matter how you look at it. I am familiar with church controlled schools and know many of them are not educating children. For example, a child in a Catholic or Evangelical grade school class, who says he or she does not believe in God, Allah, or gives whatever other indication of disbelief fails “religion” regardless of ability to learn reading writing and arithmetic fails the entire school year. In my mind, that is high stakes testing. To ask a child if he or she believes climate change or in evolution, when everything learned outside of school indicates otherwise, is high stake testing. Did you know we have museums in the Plantation South with dinosaurs, and Noah’s arc are in the same time frame?

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

IRAN NOT JUST A RELIGIOUS CONFLICT

The radical Iranian right-wing equivalent of John McCain, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Tom Cotton has spoken. The person they are, or at least would like to think they are equivalent to, is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, an Iranian revolutionary politician, and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the current President of Iran is Hassan Rouhani, who assumed office in 2013, after an election. He succeeded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the puppet of Khomeini. Of course, the Iranian government is still a caliphate or deeply religious government as are the people.

When Ayatollah Khomeini said that there would be no Iranian Nuclear treaty with the world, specifically the United States, that was assumed to end the pending treaty by the American media. They may be right but in my mind, there is still hope. My reasoning is that in Obama, we have a President, who really wants to put an end to the violence in the Middle East, and is willing to fight for that belief. He is fighting against the radical right wing empowered by a might military-industrial complex that has gathered the Republican Party hate machine under their wing. However, the great majority of the American people support him.

Where I see hope is in Iran. The people of Iran have recently elected Hassan Rouhani, a man who also wants peace. The people in Iran want to end the economic blockade and store their economy. To have or not to have an atomic bomb has no significance when compared to daily life and what they see happening in the world around them. Yes, they hate Jews. Yes, they want to “free Palestine” at the expense of Israel. Most of all, judging by the way the voted, the people of Iran want peace in the Middle East, which is what they have in common with the people of the United States, but also with Rouhani, and with President Obama. The people of Iran are in opposition to the religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, who is solely driven by hate for another religion. After thousand of years of people, killing one another in the name of some religious belief, is stupid but is that what is happening?

I have thought about this for a long time. There is something different about this conflict. It is not Muslims against Christians and Jews, as many people would like to make it seem. Ayatollah Khomeini and ISIS want a massive “religious” war just as some Republican in the evangelical South want a crusade type conflict. Benjamin Netanyahu wants all the strife reduced to a Jew versus Muslim conflict. However, when I look at John McNasty and hillbilly Tom Cotton, I do not see religion written into what they are saying. I only see lust for raw power driven by American greed in conflict with a desire for an end of all war. Most of us are above that level of bestiality. Maybe this time they will be powerful enough to lead us into a war again but we can only hope that some day the “angels of our nature” will conquer the animal within us.   

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

BATTLE FOR TERRITORY

It is nasty a nasty fight; God and Allah both claim the same territory.

The Washington Post story, For American Israelis, rift between Obama and Netanyahu is family affair (Apr. 2015) written by Ruth Eglash and William Booth, should be required reading for all those who comment on Facebook about the Israeli-American Relations. However, a huge omission in this story is the Palestinian side of it. The authors allude to but fail to mention the counter story, which would be the feelings of American Palestinians who live in Gaza and their relationship to the United States. It would be an easy story to write because no one does this. To explain why this is so, is ugly. It would be equivalent to asking why Germany Jews living in the United States did not move to Nazi Germany in 1941. The world shielded themselves in self-imposed ignorance by claiming they not to know of the unspeakable horrors taking place, but they did—we did. The mistreatment of Palestinians by Israeli is nowhere near the ghastliness of the way the common German people treated Jews in Nazi Germany; we know what is happening in Palestine, and it is not pretty. This article alludes to that segment of the Israeli population; more pointedly, to the Jewish American Citizen living in both countries.

Few books are more meaningful than, I Will Bear Witness 1933-1941: A Diary of the Nazi Years, (1999), Victor Klemperer. It is a difficult book to read from both an emotional point of view and because of the slow pace of it diary format. While the format made it difficult to read, it gave it a personal impression; much like a story told to family across a kitchen table. I am not aware of a similar book by a Palestinian author. However, I am sure if there were, it would be equally shocking in the sense of making us realize something inhuman is really happening.

Some of my Jewish friends are upset with my position of defending Palestinians and especially Hamas, which is a political group molded out of what had been a terrorist organization. They and the media find it easy to pick out all the horrible and eye catching things Hamas has done and said, while ignoring their objective, which is to counter the Israeli façade of righteous indignation while they attempt to gather to gather political and military forces to brutal suppress the Palestinian people. Gathering forces is the objective of their wide-scale and remarkably successful propaganda program to promote hate for Muslims no matter where you find them. All forms of media, including Facebook,  are satiated with examples, ban burkas in the United States, Canadian Judge will not hear case if the accused wears a head scarf, North Carolina legislature passes law to band Sharia Law, say no to building a mosque in New York near trade center. There are so many etceteras that the list seems endless. To make matters worse, some people intentionally create a storm by re-posting stories from one media format to multimedia formats.

Hamas was radical and still is but is now maturing, as most terrorist organizations do. However, unlike the one-sided, or half-truth coming out of Israel, to decipher what is happening politically in Palestine and the Arab world leads to a nightmare of confusion. Stripped of all the confusion, what is happening is simple. Once you get beyond the religious veneer; the tired old trope; “God” is on the side of the winner or was it “Allah” is on the side of the winner you find that the Middle East turmoil is perpetuated by the strong against the weak, in a fight for more territory—just as two neighborhood dogs mark territory; the problem is they are getting everyone's foot wet.  

 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated