Shame in Colorado

That religious fanatics managed to hijack and nearly destroy the once-esteemed Republican Party became evident after the strange events that led up to and culminated in the US presidential election of 2000. Kept out of public media was any discussion of the undemocratic role played by the US Supreme Court, dominated by staunch Catholics, which overrode the popular vote to install an unstable man (and two-time felon) as President. The nation was then rapidly plunged into an illegal war, attacks on Constitutional rights, priority given to special interests, siphoning tax money into "faith based" schemes, illegal surveillances, and the authorization of a torture policy that sneered at international agreement against such inhumane practices.

Such corruption of government can be laid on the shoulders of religious fanaticism that seeks to gratify material lust by indulging in hate-filled agendas. Such is the case of the Colorado "conservatives" (read religious fanatics), sentators Dave Schultheis (R-Colorado Springs) and Scott Renfroe (R-Greeley) braying their ignorance and pompously displaying their lack of compassion for life.

Schultheis' dogmatic politics is underscored in his "Christian" (?) attitude: emergency rooms should allow victims of violence to die if they have not been to church in the past month: and he considers it a waste of money to run public service announcements in Spanish warning possible illegal immigrants to buckle their seatbelts. But most appalling of his self-righteous pronouncements has been his opposition to pregnant women being tested for HIV, a procedure that could catch the infection early enough to prevent it from spreading to the unborn child. Schulteis' judgment is that the mother should pass the deadly virus to the infants so that the suffering would remind society of the negative consequences of sexual promiscuity. Maybe then, he is quoted as saying, that unnecessary misery would show that "...they should adjust their behavior." Of course this shows that his own behavior is impeccable.

And Schultheis' dogmatic contemporary, Scott Renfroe, likes to quote Old Testament hate statements on the Senate floor. His personal obsession is gay life, and he has it from "revealed word" (as edited by 8th century BCE priests) that gays "have committed a detestable act and they shall surely be put to death." (Strange, isn't it, how often the rampaging religionists ignore the Commandment, Thou shalt not kill.) Renfroe then went on, after calling for death for consenting same-sex acts, to compare homosexuality with murder! Renfroe thus openly encourages attitudes of prejudice and supports violence upon life's diversity. But then again, that is what much of the OT is all about.

Crisis of Faith

Faith, the kind that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, is pretty much an inherited thing from parents and society, and it habitually lumbers under the mantle of some religion that has evolved while its promoters pursued worldly objectives. Unfortunately, that drive to prove to the world that some institutionalized belief system is the only way to storm an indifferent Heaven signals that the bottomline aimed for by that promotion system rests entirely in this world, not in a higher realm.

Pretending that mystical power aids them in exerting control over this material world becomes questionable when the omnipresent-omnipotent-omniscient deity that is alluded to apparently has to rely on militant actions of mere man to fulfill his wishes. Something just doesn't add up to the deity's claimed divine capabilities.

Reality--which is to say the everyday problems experienced in the material expression we call life--is not well served when believers are assured that natural laws can be set aside if you only believe a certain way--their way. The universe would implode if exceptions to bypass creation's laws were granted. That is wilfull ignorance of holy truth--the truth that each identity stands responsible for itself: the buck cannot be passed to a redeemer or savior, or patched over by rite and ritual. And Paradise cannot be gained by disrespect for other life forms or other life expressions.

In every man-conceived faith system--especially in the western world-- an uncomfortable feeling lurks in the heart of "believers," --a sense of disjunction with that which is presented as the Supreme Being. The claimed closeness to and the simultaneous feeling of alienation from that Being does not make for comfort in the inner self. The result is a confusion of "faith" that too often becomes the trigger that initiates an indulgence in senseless acts of violence and hatred toward others. What that "faith" has blinded them to is the fact that what one does to another leaves crippling scars within the self.

Evil does not lurk in the diverse expressions of life as hard-line bigots may rail, nor is one an "infidel" if their reverence for the Source of all things is expressed from one's heart rather than in programmed posturing. One's faith is in crisis when they are led into a conceit of spirit that leaves the world around them in shambles.

Fish or Cross

When the movement that was to grow into Christianity was being initiated out of Rome (not Palestine), the earth had only recently, c.60 BCE, entered the Age of Pisces. An "Age" is the period of time during which the Sun rises and traverses over a dominant constellation at the vernal equinox, a period of time that lasts some 2160 years. This slow shifting viewpoint of Earth's relationship with the cosmos is known as precession of the equinoxes.

Earth had just exited from the Age of Aries (c.2220 BCE to c. 60 BCE), during which the ram and lamb had played prominent roles in various religious movements of the world. Prior to that, in the Age of Taurus (c. 4380 BCE to c. 2220 BCE), the bull (and cow) had been focus of much of the world's religious attention.

In the early years of the Christian movement the symbol used by the cult as an indicator to other followers was of two arched lines that suggested a fish form. The arched symbol would be the standard for the struggling society well into the third century CE. (How, where and why this early symbol for the movement was replaced by the cross is given in detail in Time Frames and Taboo Data.) The cross as emblematic of Jesus' death, allegedly for world salvation, was not regarded to be symbolic of the instructive teachings of the master that were held central to the earlier emerging society.

Proof of the importance given to the fish symbol was uncovered not long ago at Megiddo Prison, Israel, where the remains of an early church were discovered under rubble being removed from a planned site of a new prison ward. There was much awe and excitement at finding two mosaics, one of which had as its central focus a depiction of two fishes, each facing opposite directions--acknowledgement of the new Age of Pisces.

Considerable hype was given to the ancient Christian symbol in the mosaic as predating the stark cross, and that the Greek writing used in inscriptions revealed that the money for the church and the mosaics were donated by a Roman officer and a woman named Aketous. The depiction of the two fish forms indicate that the church was active up to the fourth century--or just before Constantine, who recognized the political clout of the fanatical converts, legalized Christian observances across the Byzantine Empire.

After the fourth century CE, altars also began to be used in Christian churches for priestly theatrics, and focus was deliberately altered from the fish symbol to the cross to emphasize Jesus' sacrifice for the believers. With Jesus' death thus installed as the central theme of the movment, ritual and circumstance were made to overshadow all the early teaching that had once offered a means of experiencing inner peace.

Codes of Conduct

As far back in time as c. 2600 BCE a ruler of Sumer named Urukagina found so much immoral activity throughout his empire that it became necessary for him to enact prohibitions against the rampant corruptness. The long inscription erected by this ruler for the people to comply with is regarded as the first-ever record of social reform, and the code of conduct that was expected of the people was anchored on an ideal of freedom, equality and justice.

A few of the many injustices that Urukagina addressed included the unfair use of their powers by supervisors to take the best of collections for themselves; the abuse of one's official position; the practice of monopolistic groups to extort unbearable prices on needed goods--in short, the same practices that still taint the religio-politico in-crowd of today.

By c. 2300 BCE the Assyrian civilization had compounded out of the Babylonian and Hittie cultures, and the Akkadian leader named Sargon I had become the supreme ruler--under the designation as "regent of the god Assur"--his influence being over a broad territory that nonetheless remained dependent upon Babylon. Corruption, as usual, interfered with the ideal of keeping an element of balance in civil affairs. Thus around 2350 BCE laws were determined and recorded on clay tablets, laws that were declared to have been presented to King Urnammu under the authority of the god Nannar.

Approximately eight hundred and fifty years after the Sumerian code of Urukagina, and some five hundred years after the Assyrian laws (or c. 1758 BCE), a Babylonian king named Hammurabi decreed a similar code of justice and set up the means to enforce it. Hammurabi's code was engraved on a block of black diorite that stood nearly eight feet high, and the provisions set forth for the public to read and heed was an effort to protect the weak and the poor against injustices at the hands of the rich and powerful. Interestingly, a bas-relief under the 282 paragraphs of the civil code show King Hammurabi receiving the code from the god Shamash.

It is upon this code of conduct that the authors of the book of Exodus fashioned the abbreviated version of a code of conduct known as the Ten Commandments, and law (anchored in materiality and civil conduct) became enthroned as the soul and backbone of Judaism--as well as the grafted-on spine of Christianity. And of course the priest authors of Exodus writing in Jerusalem c. 800 BCE declared that the Ten Commandments had been written in stone and handed down to Moses by the god Yahweh.

There is a peculiar uncertainty of approach with the opening lines, for omnipotent power should not be anxious about a possibility of being upstaged. But the first three of the ten directives do imply the authority of the priest class. And conspicuously absent from this god-given list is any instruction or requirements on treating everyone fairly in all interactions. Could this possibly be why fundamentalists periodically campaign to have the Ten Commandments posted in all judicial buildings and other public places?

Embellishing the Inaugural Oath

Unlike many federal oaths of office, the oath taken by the incoming President of the US is not constitutionally required to embellish upon the oath with a public entreaty of "so help me god." Indeed the constitution agreed upon by the founding fathers mandated the exact language to be publicly recited as the oath of public office, which consisted of a mere thirty-five words.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

History revisionists love to insist that the United States was founded as "a Christian nation," but while most of the founding fathers acknowledged a higher power few of them could be termed as even remotely hardcore religionists. In fact the centuries of turmoil throughout Europe's Christian nations made them determined that separation of church and state was absolutely imperative if a fair and just government for all people was to be established.

A favorite ploy of revisionists is to claim that George Washington established the precedent of invoking the phrase "so help me god" into the first inaugural in 1789. But even though the Library of Congress Web site dutifully echoes this claim, such a public statement appealing to a deity would not have been characteristic of Washington. Much more likely, such a phrase would have been judged by him as something that could be mistaken for an endorsement of religious manipulation.

Washington's personal inclination in this regard can be ascertained in one incident. During the two years that New York City served as the national capital (1789-1790) Washington attended Trinity Church (Broadway), always in pew 60. But he always left the church before communion, a situation that irked the church shepherds to the extent that they chastised him for the habit. Because of this obvious attempt to impose upon his personal faith, Washington never again attended church on communion Sunday.1 This action does not inspire the concept that he would have jeopardized the integrity of office with an off the cuff addition "so help me god."

Furthermore, the men who framed the Constitution gave no reference to "god," and asserted that all men were created with the inalienable rights to live their lives in their own way--as long as it did not intrude upon the rights of others.

As an added note, the War of Independence with Britain was not over officially until twenty-one years after 1776 when, in 1797, the document of treaty was signed by both nation's representatives who met in Tripoli. There is bold declaration in that treaty to be found in Article 11--daring and important enough to merit bold type.

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

-------------------------------------------------

1 Around 146 years later (1935) this same church used Washington's words out of context from a 1783 letter addressed to governors of 13 states to forge a prayer attributed to Washington and the plaque was installed at pew 60. Details of this on page 377 in Time Frames and Taboo Data

Planning for Worldly Triumph

An earlier posting (October 2008) mulled over the rise of the faith market in the US after World War II and the utilization of the then-new technological wonder known as television. In the 1950s enterprising soul-savers still clutching their newly minted bible-mill diplomas, and sniffing the gold to be made through the far-reaching media, latched on to electronic ministry with holy lust. In those early days the divinely driven were complaining bitterly that the media ignored them, which was not exactly true for if it had not been for television few persons across the nation would have known that the array of moral champions existed at all. To garner attention one scheming servant of the sacred launched a "Coalition for Better Television," the real purpose of which was to impose upon the public the religious right's particular version of "moral code." Thus religious extremists embarked upon political waters in the name of religious devotion.

In 1961 an attention-grabbing faith-based, politically inspired group were parading under the banner of Moral Majority, which sponsored its first seminar on "Understanding Politics." The training session had nothing to do with making oneself spiritually worthy of god's blessing; rather the ideas being eagerly shared was on how to shove their particular version of religion into the workings of national government.

As is common among the faith-driven, other divinely inspired keepers of god's word were receiving slightly different instructions from heaven. Oddly, the governments of the world--especially the government of the US--seemed to trouble god much more than did the conduct of his strange array of messengers. And stranger still was the emphasis placed on the attainment of materiality for the sake of spiritual advancement! To advance this seemingly contrary means of attaining spiritual worthiness, various rightwing movements showered the faithful with an endless assortment of manuals and pamphlets. Titles of these always implied that only they held the keys of salvation. The advice, however, usually pivoted on take over of national management.

The movers and shakers of the religious right, although not exactly chummy with one another, sought to establish a modus operandi to achieve political power. Topping the list for achieving a power base was the necessity to recognize the givers and takers--meaning go after those who will donate cash. To impliment this they had to have a plan which would include: 1) have a candidate or [invent] issues; 2) be organized and keep it organized; 3) establish a means of keeping money flowing, which meant finding persons who would get personally involved in collecting money for the movement.

To effectively siphon money into the cause, the advice was: 1) project the income necessary for the operation and expansion; 2) define the levels of donations to be aimed for; 3) devise programs for attracting donations; 4) implement the plan. The advice on how to pursue collection of donations stressed the necessity of never emphasizing with a contributor: know all that you can find out about possible donors, but never emphasize with them. The reason for this was the fear that to emphasize with contact might allow the donation-seeker to decide whether a contact would or would not donate.

Always the mantra was think big, and that necessitated keeping the path open for people who might be inclined to give thousands of dollars. How should they pursue this? The most effective way and the least costly way to reach the most people and raise money was determined to be go direct response, which meant use the Postal Service. They then drew upon persons with writing talent to compose fund-raising letters, and the principle thing the authors had to remember was the basic psychological quirk that inspires people to let go of their money. That ignoble idiosyncrasy is that people tend always to be most willing to lend support against something than show willingness in support of something.

And that may be why religion and politics never seem to be capable of touching any semblance of genuine glory.

Sowing Holy Hatred

Noted in an earlier posting here (Secularism and Intellect, Oct. 2008), "In many ways the practice of organized religions is the practice of abuse--a crafted mask of benevolence that covers a paralyzed spirit and the twisted face of emotional/spiritual insecurity."

This personal observation is extended here in acknowledgement of notification from a reader that a new television hate propaganda program has been initiated by the so-called American Family Association (AFA), formerly known as the National Federation for Decency which had been founded by "Rev." Donald Wildmon in 1977 but reinvented a AFA in 1988. By the long and obscene attack list that this "association" has chalked up, they clearly have no concept of the true meaning of decency--and certainly no understanding of the unrestricted diversity of life which proclaims the true Omniscience (all-knowingness) that serves as the Creative Force.

In the AFA's self-defined promotional blurbs it is declared they are "...a Christian organization [non-profit 501(c)(3)] promoting biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media." With an annual budget of roughly $14 million and ownership (at last count) of some 180 radio stations in 28 states, the business of stirring up hatred is thriving and profitable. And ethics for them also includes heavy fundamentalist lobbying against whatever happens to deny their particular interpretations of "God's" prejudices--such as pro-choice, pornography, same-sex partnering, premarital sex, etc. The AFA remains so bent out of shape by the private concerns of others that it clearlly indicates that they are tantalized with sex thoughts more than they are interested in cultivating compassion, as Jesus suggested. Regardless what tragedies truly wrack the world, AFA profits go on multiplying by smothering humane ethics and charging ahead with business as usual through their wide-flung material empire.

These AFA masters of hate-mongering have misled their naive followers for over three decades, using the lowest of tactics and outright lies. In 2005, for example, they were heavily promoting a homophobic work by a "psychologist" that was discredited by the professional psychologist organizations and the author so admired by the AFA, Paul Cameron, was thrown out of the profession. Homophobia in one the AFA's pet means of self-gratification, which brings us to the reader who alerted the "Monkeywrench guy" about the AFA's most recent self-indulgence scam. The new AFA venture is a one hour national special television program aimed at stirring up hatred for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) persons. (Forget Jesus' rebuke about casting the first stone.)

The great irony in this expensive televised attack-exercise in radical propaganda rests in the assertion that there is "a radical homosexual agenda" being imposed upon America! The hateful program declaring this absurdity is "Speechless--Silencing the Christians." Satan must be double over in laughter. His buddies at AFA use the ancient scam tactic: accuse those who oppose you with the evil techniques that the scammers themselves routinely employ.

see earlier postings: Fear of Diversity; Sex, a Holy Mystery; God Forgot to Say

Allegiance to Democracy

The United States Constitution defines the crime of treason in somewhat broad terms in Article III Section 3, the main focus being on levying war against the U.S. or adhering to enemies of the U.S. by giving the nation's enemies aid or comfort. Even these charges had to be substantiated by the testimony of two witnesses or by the accused's confession in open court. The power to declare punishment for treason was invested in Congress.

Since this original definition of treason by the nation's fathers, Congress found it crucial at different times to add to the list of offenses that contribute to undermining of the national government or in regard to actions that threatened national security. Examples of passed statutes were the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, and in 1917 the Espionage Act. Neither of these revisions requires the testimonly of two witnesses, and acts of treason are defined more explictly than in Article III of the Constitution.

Democracy--equality for all--was the founding fathers' ideal, and in that intention the Constitution does not create the offense, choosing instead a loose definition of treason and authorizing Congress the duty of establishing the offenses to be prohibited through legislation by Congress.

There have been less than forty federal prosecutions for treason in the nation's two-hundred-thirty-years-plus history, and of those brought to trial for the charge only a small number were ever convicted. Even the 1807 treason trial of Aaron Burr, for example, resulted in acquittal. After the Civil War, although numerous Confederate leaders such as Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were indicted for treason they were granted amnesty in 1869 by out-going President Andrew Johnson to strengthen the relationship within the family of states. So treason has always carried a narrow characterization with national concern focusing primarily on acts of espionage. Thus has the United States sought to avoid the abuses of treason laws that those in power in other nations (most of them church dominated) used through the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

Still the term "treason" suggests any serious act of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Within Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983), part of the definition of treason includes the intention to "...seriously injure (one's parent nation)." With this in mind, how should we interpret the movements operating for decades in the United States under the banner of religion that loudly bray that they stand for "moral values" while openly seeking to dismantle the U.S. Constitution in hopes of establishing what they term "a government based on timeless biblical values"?

In other words, their holy mission is to undermine the existing democratic form of government by indulging in inappropriate actions in an attempt to establish a theocratic regime.

Design ex nihilo

If we are to believe those who claim to be divinely inspired, everything that we know as some part of Creation has been the result of some purposeful design that is being carved out of perpetual chaos--or out of nothingness. The fundamental desire underneath this perception of design is anchored in human ego that fears the unknown and seeks to find exception to the obvious impersonal "laws" that have governed creation for multi-billions of years.

"Design," of course, implies intellect capable of abstract thought and which also possesses emotional concern for that which it seeks to create. The manner in which Creation seems to have unfolded and evolved seems to indicate that there are actions that we think of as "laws" that prevail over the creation process. Unfortunately for those who champion the "design" theory, the "laws" through which creation activity occurs have always functioned in a totally impersonal manner. To set aside any natural "law" for some specific-effect purpose, as the notion of "miracles" suggest, would instantly thrust all Creation into oblivion.

The circumstances that are interpreted as due to "design" and credited to a being addressed as God or Allah or some other title implies a being that is itself a defined entity that stands responsible for all that makes up existence. The problem with that assertion is that anything that is even vaguely definable is rendered identifiable by a condition of limitations! The extended problems that then arise with the theory of an identifiable creator are the tendencies to theologically assess all that is accepted as reality in negative probabilities or outright absurdities.

Among the many questions in regard to an intelligent designer is the problem of an obvious lack of benevolence toward any dimension of conscious life. Much of life dies in agony, too much life perishes after only a brief chance, droughts and floods destroy capriciously, the constant violence induged in by man indicates that mental deragement is widespread, diseases run rampant, enslavement, ethnic murder--the list could go on too long to suggest that there is an omniscient, benevolent "designer" of all that has manifested as energy-matter and life. Even the bulk of the so-called "good book" pivots upon wars and violence and greed and treacheries that do not exactly support a notion that a benevolent being or personal creator regards all of creation's catastrophes as a beautiful design.

If there is any benevolence or moral potential in creation it has to issue out of the evolving qualities of life, not directly out of the impersonal energy-forces that provide only the substance for intelligent life to evolve. Everyone will gain in moral quality and personal contentment only when they learn that the labyrinth known as religion is made to gratify man's ego, and man himself is not made for religion.

Secrets of Enoch

Among the many books not included as the accepted "word of God" by Christian councils that chose their self-serving Gospels, was the book known as The Secrets of Enoch. Even though the book of Enoch was passed over as being unworthy of inclusion as "gospel," it nonetheless exerted unquestionable influence upon the numerous writers of the New Testament collection. In fact, many dark passages of the N.T. are virtually inexplicable without its edifying aid.

There are peculiarities of speech in the book of Enoch that the church fathers probably could not comprehend, and that was enough to convince them that such verses would lead the curious minds away from the church fathers' concept of what constituted "true faith." One such peculiar reference that pops up is in regard to the flood account; in the book of Enoch it states that Noah was "...born a bull and became a man." Elsewhere that account goes on to say "...and one of those four went to the white bull (referring to Noah) and instructed him in secret."

The Secrets of Enoch did indeed refer to knowledge that had been "lost," or more likely it had been deliberately concealed from the masses--knowledge that had once been given freely by using astronomical configurations (constellations) as focal points on lessons regarding the developmental processes of energy into matter forms (creation, cosmology).

In the Secrets of Enoch, Noah served to represent the Life Principle (which became personified as "God) at the fourth stage or energy dimension of development. This teaching had once been given with the constellation of Taurus as its focus, and therefore it was not confusing to say that Noah, personifying the Life Principle moving into energy-matter form, was riding the flood of life toward physical form, and could be said to have been "born a bull" or that he was the "bull...(that) became a man."

The ancient lessons that had been alluded to in the Secrets of Enoch were based on startlingly accurate scientific principles, and without the scientific/astronomical knowledge referred to in Enoch which could clarify the imagery used in that book, the Christian fathers preferred to embrace the speculative upon which to fashion a business machine.

It should be noted that the ancient lessons of creation processes given with Taurus--regarding the fourth stage or dimension of energy forming into matter form--also accounts for the four rivers said to have issued out of Eden in the book of Genesis. Thus in The Secrets of Enoch which says "...one of those four instructed Noah," i.e. the energies that are carried into matter-form.

Explainations of all prehistory Zodiac lessons can be found in the books: The Shiny Herd; Ancient Secrets Hidden in the Sky, ISBN: 1-56167-164-9, and in The Celestial Scriptures; Keys to the Suppressed Wisdom of the Ancients, ISBN: 0-595-20913-0.

Faith-Based Danger in Government

Generations of religions' pie-in-the-sky approach to everyday problems began to seriously swamp over the democratic form of government in the United States with the rise of television in the early 1950s. Those holy evangelicals found the blossoming technology to be a miraculous manner of profitably merchandising their interpretation of what god wants for the material world. By the mid-1980s the institution of religion became the single largest business group in the US, and under the guise of "spirit" and "divine guidance" these institutions that shamelessly peddled other-world advice became one of the greatest land holders in the nation, not to mention the nation's largest stock and bond owners.

By the 1990s the television Bible thumpers were eagerly lusting to take over control of a major political party and in that way planned to thrust upon the vast diversity of people a single mode--their man-invented way--of honoring a higher principle. Brutally enforced theocracy to which they aspired is, apparently, dearly loved by god if the holy discriptions of his Heaven are to be believed, for certainly democratic principles are not permitted there.

Along the way to capturing earthy power by using "faith" as its most powerful psychological conditioning tool, the god-inspired group pulled off some truly awesome and sinister con jobs on the citizen's representatives who were elected with the intention of keeping a level playing field for all citizens. Over the years as the religionists wormed their way into various political positions across the nation, the US was plunged--each time--into a staggering national debt and billions of dollars in trade deficitis.

In the 1990s into the early 2000s, with the religious right in control of the once secular Republican party, the nation was treated with the fundamentalists' continuing assault on such things as public education, women's rights, personal privacy, etc. The banner of religion led the way because that happens to be where the most money is being hoarded.

Such fanaticism is always a murderous indulgence. If we pay attention to genuine history, whenever religion ran rampant over all earthly activities the result was anything but delightful. The Middle Ages in Europe are commonly referred to as the Dark Ages for under merciless Church dominance with its homicidal "Inquisition" the general populace languished in despair for centuries. More recent history saw the resurgence of fundamentalism in the Muslim nation of Iran, and the injustices and horror that engulfed that nation cannot be said to be divinely inspired.

The frightening thing about holding blind certainty of what God or Allah decrees is that such pronouncements are issued out of the ego of self-proclaimed messengers, not from any provable divinity. To base a political ideology upon such grossly anti-intellectual propaganda is to destroy all gains in human potential that have been won. There are indeed unseen powers as work throughout the universe, but those powers indulge in no favoritism for mankind's politics or for those who imagine that some super being is managing everything.

The Myth of "Race"

The social definition of "race," from a scientific standpoint, is actually little more than a reference to an optical illusion. The habit of assigning groups of persons bearing various physical features such as skin color, facial features, texture of hair, and even skeletal build into categories came into use in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Unfortunately this method of classification brought with it the erroneous implication that such physical differences indicated that there could be no unifying factor

Not surprisingly, categorizing the human species in this manner became the standard by which self-absorbed people could indulge themselves with concepts of purity strains which allowed them to exclude those who did not mirror their imagined superiority. This, of course, stoked the fires of hatred, prejudice, discrimination, intolerance--i.e. all the ignoble practices that diminish the innate dignity of man.

Although convenient in various forms of study--forensic anthropology for example--the category method of study of the human species does not alter the fact that there is absolutely no genetic basis for racial classification. Indeed, public interest in tracing their personal ancestry has revealed through DNA research that race as a scientific view does not compute! Through DNA analysis scores of persons who had believed themselves to be one unblemished "race" were startled to discover that they embodied considerably more than appearance seemed to present.

DNA research has shown from samples obtained from indigenous groups worldwide that all peoples are, regardless of appearances, actually interrelated. In other words, ancestry is much more than perceptible biological indicators, for biological traits are amenable and adaptive. Everyone's background includes ancestors who at one time or another had to adapt to their environment and extreme climatic changes--all of which would have influenced gene modification.

There is much to left to learn about DNA and how genetics of a biological attribute may have evolved. There is such a miniscule portion of DNA that has produced all the morphological differences that account for our species' diversity that we speak of as the "races," and yet we all share within us a common active denominator.

Is it the quantity of quantum energy that reflects itself as diverse energy manifestations which people personifiy as some humanlike personality they address as "God"? If so, isn't science "his" messenger bearing genuine revealed wisdom?

Remembering Bush

George Dubya Bush, during his illustrious career as head of the most undemocratic administration ever, managed to chalk up at least 950 days avoiding work at the office. Even Ronald Reagan didn't have the guts to indulge himself in that much slacker-time.

Even so, Bush and his cohorts made indelible scars upon democracy almost from the start of their highly questionable acquisition of high office. By January 2001 Vice President Cheney was setting the tone of the nation's energy policy with the secret input of oil executives. Then poor Bush had to cut his month-long vaction short in March to listen to the annoying briefing that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the US. He snorted that the report was unimportant. But after the September attack Bush feigned indignation at the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, saying, "This crusade, this war on terrorism..." was going to take time. By December, even though the terroists were known to be working out of Afghanistan, the White House was fully immersed in plans for invading oil-rich Iraq!

In January 2002 Bush sneered that Geneva Conventions didn't apply to any war plans that he had, and stated that he was, to quote, "not that concerned with finding bin Laden." Filled with democratic zeal the Bush crowd then asked the NSA to begin warrantless wiretaps. By August Bush's lawyers in the Justice Department had drafted the "torture memo."

In the 2003 State of the Union message, Bush falsely declared that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, which an apologist later shrugged aside with the statement that Bush "is not a fact checker." And by March Bush got his "preemptive war" going by dangling the carrot of "missles of mass destruction" in Iraq before a doubting public, and Vice President Cheney's of company, Halliburton, was made recipient of a five year $7 billion NO BID contract in Iraq. As looting quickly became rampant in Bagdad, Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld shrugged it off with "stuff happens." By May, Bush theatrically declared "Mission Accomplished."

2004: as hundreds of US soldiers died in Bush's extended "mission accomplished" farce, the White House forced the news media to withhold all photos of flag-draped coffins of fallen service men being returned home. In May it was disclosed that the White House had created fake news reports in an attempt to privatize Medicare and link it with the stock market. And in June Dick Cheney was still publicly pretending that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were in cahoots.

2005 saw administration dealings kept well concealed. Useful in this was such "humane" illusions as Bush's much publicized "pro-life" move to keep Terri Schiavo on life support system. In June the reality of global warming was edited out of all reports by the White House Council on Environmental Quality. November of 2005 found Congress being lied to about all the secret meetings that oil executives continued to have with Cheney.

In January 2006 Bush blatantly lied "I don't know him" in reference to Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In February a top climate scientist was, in effect, barred from publicly explaining the dangers of climate chages. In April six retired generals publicly advised that Rumsfeld should resign. As hurricane Katrina roared toward New Orleans in August, the FEMA staff was actually ordered to stand down! Bush later tried to sidestep poor management of the disaster by saying that no one thought the levees protecting New Orleans would give way. However, videos later came to light that the Bush crowd had been warned about the possibility of levee collapse. As 2006 was closing (December), seven US Attorneys were illegally herded into resigning for not being "loyal Bushies."

In February of 2007 the public was shocked to learn that care for wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital included cockroaches, mouse droppings, and outright neglect. March saw the extent of Abramoff's dealings (whom Bush "didn't know") with with Department of Interior's number two man, J. Steven Griles, pleading guilty of related obstruction of justice tactics for Abramoff. In April, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress investigating the circumstances of the seven US Attorneys being illegally forced to resign that "I don't recall" for a total of 64 times. In June, Cheney sought to excuse himself from his covert dealing by claiming he was not part of the executive branch! In August it came to light that the CIA's secret prisons used torture methods that violated national and international law. By December all CIA waterboarding video tapes had been destroyed, and Congressional Democrats were demanding to know why.

March of 2008 found Bush whizzing through Afghanistan where he told the genuine defenders of democracy, "I'm a little envious of you." In May the Special Counsel office, the office supposedly established to protect federal whistleblowers, was raided by the FBI only to find that all files on whistleblowers had been erased. To show his great affinity with US service persons, Bush claimed that he hadn't golfed since August of 2003. He apparently forgot his October '03 golf game. June news revealed the eighty percent of "liberal" applicants considered for hire by the Department of Justice were illegally discriminated against. And in July it was disclosed by an ex-Environmental Protection Agency official that the public report on climate change had been edited by Cheney's office. Meanwhile, Karl Rove, Bush's strategist, thumbed his nose at the subpoena handed down by the House.

The last remaining days of Bush-league politics are sure to hold some more fancy footwork--especially in setting up of elaborate pardons to avoid the responsibility for the countless deceits and profiteering that this administration has spawned. Let us pray that true justice is at last served again once the Bush administration's corruption is swept out.

'Tis the Season

At this time of year, as the hours of daylight grow progressively less in the Northern Hemisphere, western religions (especially Christian) burst forth in lavish displays of belief that a one-time soul-saving event occurred just for them. In truth, that which is being celebrated is the celestial panorama and the season that has set the pace of life on Earth for many thousands of years

Astrological elements are the basis for most scriptural stories. For example, the seasonal change occurring with the winter solstice signals a time of new beginnings. That is the meaning behind the word solstice, which comes from the Latin solstium, from sol, meaning Sun, and sistere, past participle of stit, meaning "to stand." The illusion that the Sun moves periodically southward and northward is caused by the Earth's axial tilt as it orbits the Sun. For life in the Northern Hemisphere the Sun appears to reach its most southern point on December 21, and appears to remain stationary for three day's time, after which it appears to move northward again--on December 25.1 In pre-Christian Rome the 25th of this month was known as Natalis Solis Invict, meaning "birthday of the Sun."

With the approach of winter, the star Mizram (in Canis Major) rises upon the eastern horizon. The name Mizram is said to mean "The Announcer," for it precedes the arrival of the star Sirius, seeming to announce the greater light to come--just like the biblical John the Baptist is portrayed as announcing the coming of Jesus.

The month leading into the solstice carried great significance in ancient cultures, and it is from the Pagan study of astronomical movements that the observance of Advent was incorporated into Catholic formality--which allows four Sundays to make ready for the light (personified as Jesus) to come back in glory.

In Judaism, the festival of Hanukkah, meaning "dedication" (to light), is observed within the same seasonal period of the winter solstice, being celebrated from the 25th of Kislev to the first of Tebet of the Jewish calendar.

On the surface the connection of the Muslim fast of Ramadan to the winter solstice is less obvious--due to Mohammad's (or his scribe's) misunderstanding of Jewish/Christian myths that allowed for ceremonial observances of the winter solstice period. The Muslim celebration of Laylat-al-Qadr, meaning the "Night of Power," is held on the evening of the 27th day of the ninth month of the Muslim year. Although not as obviously related to recognition of the light phenomenon at the winter solstice, the fasting and rites are in reference of the feeble light after which light increases.

1 These points are covered in greater detail in my book The Celestial Scriptures; Keys to the Suppressed Wisdom of the Ancients. ISBN: 0-595-20913-0. Available through Barnes & Noble: Amazon: Borders, etc.

Runaway Fruitfulness

Back in 1942 the world population was calculated to be two billion. Today, in a mere sixty-seven years, the world population is hurtling toward seven billion!

For some head-in-the-sand reason, world overpopulation has been pretty much treated as a taboo subject for too long as a media concern. This avoidance is practiced in spite of the fact that global poverty and possible ecological catastrophe are directly tied to the explosive increase of human lives.

Once upon a time, of course, multiple children were valued as a resource for the parents in their declining years. Technology and science contributed toward healthier offspring and protection from diseases, so runaway fruitfulness was/is no longer necessary as a means of self-insurance.

The so-called sacred books of man's religions catered to this preservation tactic, and in addition almost universally indulged in the idea that exploiting the planet was their "divine right." The instruction for this was supposedly stated by god: Be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). At that particular point in the priest-written story, the "man" created in the image of god was something like a hermaphrodite. How "he" was to "replenish the earth and subdue it" hovers like a divine mystery: sexual reproduction could not have been an active issue until after the strategically placed "forbidden fruit" had been nibbled (chapter three of Genesis).

This "revealed wisdom" and instruction, unfortunately, implied that all entities are expected to become breeders for god! Leaders of most religious sects all subscribed to that teaching for the simple reason that it assured an increase in their followers. This is still the mindset of those seeped in the illogicality of religious storytelling and look upon bearing numerous children as an expression of god's love and abundance. This irrationality is so pronounced even today that various national leaders advocate childbirth bounties!

The present world population is ecologically unsustainable. History has shown clearly that in periods when human population increased up to sevenfold there followed disasters of unpresedented food shortages, escalating prices for essentials, followed by rampage and riots--even cannibalism. But still we have religious resistance to contraceptives, sexual information, and taugh aversion of same sex attraction--which well may be Nature's way of keeping resources and life forces in balance for a habitable planet.

"Charitable Choice"

During the drafting of the Welfare Reform Act in 1996, the then-Senator from Missouri, John David Ashcroft (R-MO) advanced the idea of "charitable choice." The reference-label was something of a misnomer, for the covert intention of the program was to provide a wedge for that would permit the government to fund religious groups and ministries.

Within weeks after George W. Bush swore upon two Bibles at his inauguration in 2001 to uphold the Constitution he was leading the charge in support of the "charitable choice" policy. And John Ashcroft was installed as his Attorney General. A self-proclaimed "Born Again Christian," Bush quickly sought to distribute federal tax money to ministries, ostensibly to provide social services that were already provided through secular grantees and government agencies. The policy sought to alter the existing laws in a manner that could utilize the power of the federal government to support Christian conversions--a move that is in direct opposition to the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Using tax dollars to fund churches and ministries to represent government social welfare is, in itself, unconstitutional. Add to this that "charitable choice," as attempted, intentionally avoided any protective safeguards that would prevent religious coercion and abuses. Incorporating religion into publicly funded programs had always been avoided by the government sometimes contracting separate entities of religious institutions and in that way established safeguards that protected the rights of the disadvantaged, the interests of all tax payers, and insured the integrity of the groups providing welfare.

Although charitable choice became part of the welfare law in 1996, the constitutional concerns caused democracy's representatives to hesitate in implementing the policy. Many saw it as a disguised way of forcing taxpayers to subsidize religion whether they believed in it or not--clearly a means of sabotaging the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

But Bush like to think of himself as a god-chosen leader, and seemed hell-bent on applying charitable choice to practically every aspect of government funding. The resultant and unending hoopla made democracy tremble, alarming civil rights and civil liberties groups, educational and social communities, and even the more rationally balanced religious communities.

Providing social service can be a noble endeavor for religious groups, but the faith-based initiative as attempted is a policy that is concerned with neither democratic principles nor relgious liberty.

Militant Faith

Disrespect by the US military for the First Amendment rights of soldiers--the rights of free speech as well as the rights of religious freedom, which include the freedom from religion--have been increasingly demonstrated by uniformed Chrisitan evangelical fanatics for decades. Those indulging in religious promotion and discrimination have ranged from Brigadier Generals down throught the ranks to staff sergeants who have actively endorsed and participated in evangelical promotions

A watchdog organization, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) investigated complaints of more than 5,000 active duty and retired soldiers through 2005 to 2007, many that served or were still serving in Iraq that had been pressured by their commanding officers to embrace evangelical Christianity. Complaints of similar holy harassment continue to this day.

As a result of this constitutionally impermissible promotion of a religious belief system throughout branches of the military, a flood of lawsuits were filed against the Pentagon. One example of the religious harassment is the case where an Army Major broke up a meeting of soldiers that shared atheist principles: the Major going so far as to threaten to block the principal organizer's reenlistment in the army if the group continued to meet. Clearly such action is a flagrant violation of the soldier's First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.

Other similar violations involve Department of Defense (DOD) officials who appeared in uniform while on active duty in a 2004 promotional video for a fundamental Christian organization that calls itself the Christian Embassy. This gave the deceitful impression that the officers spoke officially on behalf of the military.

The lame excuse for this unconstitutional promotion was that the Christian Embassy had become a quasi-Federal entity with the DOD endorsing the organization to General Officers for over twenty-five years! Indeed, Christian Embassy, which is affiliated with Campus Crusade for Christ, have been providing faith-tilted studies used in the Pentagon and which clearly seek influence over Congress, the Executive Branch, and over the diplomatic community.

It is certain that true democratic principles are NOT being served by those attempting an evangelical coup in the military branches and the three branches of national government. We remain free to ponder that if the God they embrace is forced to resort to such a deceitful manner to glorify himself can he truly be called omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)?

Fear of Diversity

The world today is troubled with societies and cultures that are influenced not by a passion for Truth but by man-conceived religious practices that attempt to herd everyone into servitude through indoctrinization, strict rituals, and rigid regimentation. The hallmarks of such religious posturing are seen in the heavy indulgence in faultfinding, finger-pointing, name-calling, and passing judgment upon anyone unlike themselves. Everyone is thus intimidated and discouraged from celebrating their personal unique perspective of life.

Along with this contrived approach to spirit, these faiths exhibit a shocking ignorance of our place and purpose in the universe, which has in turn encouraged a shameful disregard for nature and the welfare of our little planet.

Indeed, there has been displayed a deep contempt for nature in highly organized religions, and they continue to insist that there can be no deviation from their narrow man-conceived ideologies. These faith systems fail to acknowledge the respect that the universe has for diversity. Earth, the very planet that these institutionalized religions seek to constrain with their prejudices, is itself the example that disproves the hard-line notions that are used to manipulate people.

Consider: In the solar system family lineup, Earth is the unique one, the deviant one, the self-expressed rebel, and the refuge of intelligent life.

The real salvation of life--as we know it at least--is the one planet that is quite unlike all the rest of the planets in the solar system. This fact is glaringly at odds with the doctrines of organized hard-line religions that attempt to bludgeon everyone into cookie cutter sameness. What this attests to is that the intention, the necessity within creation is for diverse ways and life expressions that may develop with higher potential.

In short, diversity and variation should be recognized as the second law of Creation (the first being unlimited abundance), for any "salvation" of genuine spiritual value rests in the freedom to express uniqueness without shame.

Code of Life

The social definition of "race," from a scientific standpoint, is little more than a reference to an optical illusion. The habit of assigning groups of persons bearing various physical features such as skin color, facial features, texture of hair, and even skeletal build into categories came into scientific use in the late 18th and early 19th century. Unfortunately, this method of classification to the average person brought with it the erroneous implication that such differences indicated that there could be no unifying factor.

Not surprisingly, categorizing the human species in this manner became a standard by which self-absorbed people could indulge themselves with concepts of purity that allowed them to exclude those who did not mirror their imagined superiority. This, of course, stoked the fires of hatred, prejudice, discrimination, intoleranace--i.e. all the ignoble practices that diminish the innate dignity of man.

Although categorization has been convenient in various forms of study, forensic anthropology for example, the category method of study of the human species does not alter the fact that there is absolutely no genetic basis for racial classification. Indeed, public interest in tracing their personal ancestry has revealed through DNA research that race as a scientific classification does not compute! Through DNA analysis scores of persons who had believed themselves to be of one unblemished "race" were startled to discover that they embodied considerably more than appearance seemed to present.

DNA research has shown from samples obtained from indigenous groups worldwide that all peoples are, regardless of appearances, actually interrelated. In other words, ancestry is much more than perceptible biological indicators, for biological traits are amendable and adaptive. Everyone's background includes ancestors who at one time or another had to adapt to their environment and extreme climatic changes, all of which would have influenced gene modification.

There is much left to learn about DNA and how genetics of a biological attribute may have evolved. There is such a miniscule portion of DNA that has produced all the morphological differences that account for our species' diversity that we speak of as the "races," yet we all have within us a common active denominator.

Is that denominator what people fight over as the personality known as "God"? If so, isn't science his method of dispensing genuine revealed wisdom?

Faith 3X3X3

History has shown repeatedly that for any religion to gain followers it must embody at least one of three elements: if it contains all three it is a surefire winner. The necessary ingredients for establishment of a religion include: 1) a mythology; 2) a claim of miracles; 3) a difinite doctrine regarding the "hereafter."

Most people want a religion that is colored with mythology that also includes alleged miracles about which they may express awe and fear. Such seekers also generally feel a need for a limitless eternity that is nevertheless alluded to in measurements that imitate their own limited understanding of mortal life. That way they do not have to measure up too drastically in order to claim the promised reward for their chosen belief.

Braided into this recipe for an organized religion are three common restrictions that allegedly assure special favor from Heaven. These are: 1) submit to "the will of God"--which means followers must do whatever the mouthpiece says; 2) release self of personal desire--meaning much the same as the first; and 3) advance the "faith" through self-sacrifice--again meaning followers must be thoughtless, suffering slaves for God.

Basically these three restrictions produce believers that sometimes become emotionally destructive. Genuine history has further shown that if these fundamental cult-prescriptions are followed without question the ultimate result was destruction of social and intellectual progress.

If all the above mentioned elements and restrictions are met, the inevitable result for that corporate-style belief system is to slip into the trinity of deadly sins by which all hard-line religions are known: 1) literalism, 2) formalism, and 3) dogmatism. This trinity functions to crush any sense of personal communication with the universal essences that creates as the ultimate Cause.

What little spiritual content the belief system might have offered is then transfigured into material obsession because:

1) Literalism is the insistence upon taking self-serving accounts written by unknown authors--but which are always attributed to some divinely blessed person--as unquestionable truth. 2) Formalism is the excessive and often rigorous adherence to man-invented ceremonies concerned entirely with external, extraneous aspects of worship that supposedly attract divine attention. And 3) Dogmatism is the assertion that particular beliefs are authorative, and that their unproven and improvable principles presented as spiritual guidance must be accepted as absolute truth.

Initiating and preserving these schisms between rationality and faith does not serve in the best interest of humankind's higher potential.