Tracking "differences" prevents operation of America's "Melting Pot" heritage

Our Government, at every level, has stopped America from continuing to operate as what we used to refer to as "the great melting pot."  When our country was "discovered" by the Italians, the Scandinavians and the Irish, among many others, as holding out the opportunity for attaining success, they ran into opposition.  Much of it was oriented around Race and discrimination.  But over time, that passed and today they and their offspring are seen as "American" as anyone else.

Today, we have arguments about "racism" all to often, regarding Color of Skin, and Religion...and there seems little hope that it will be resolved anytime soon.

Why did the first groups go beyond it in relatively short order while others cannot seem to get beyond the perceived challenge?

I hear comments that America has a problem with "white" privilege, that a significant portion of our residents are racist and act punitively against anyone who is not considered "white."  Others posit that skin color never fades and is always a sign that is interpreted as being "different."  And the argument regarding religious practices and beliefs adds fuel to the flame of perceived negativity.  All of these positions are offered as reasons (or excuses) for the failure of groups being assimilated into American Life.

These reasons (or "excuses") don't hold up to close scrutiny.

Those who came to this country voluntarily wanted to become Americans.  They had not found opportunity in the country of their birth and wanted the chance to attain more.  They knew there was no guarantee of success, or even of survival, but they appreciated that America provided opportunity to try to achieve something more than was afforded them in their birth country.  Many failed.  Significant numbers died.  But those who survived became full-fledged Americans thankful for the opportunity to succeed or fail on the basis of their own abilities, rather than a caste or other system in the country of their birth that denied them the chance to prove themselves.  They saw the obstacles, including the racial opinions of those already here and established, as challenges to be overcome.  There were no guarantees or gifts of success, but they accepted that as only fair.

African-Americans did not come by choice.  And until freed by the Emancipation Proclamation few had the chance to succeed on their own abilities and merits.  But freed they were, and declared to be citizens of the United States of America.  Did they have challenges due to lack of education?  Yes...but so did those who came from the Mediterranean and Asian countries.  Did they face organized resistance and fear from those already established?  Of course they did, just as did the other groups that had chosen to come here.  The big difference was not the color of their skin; those of Mediterranean and Asian Heritage had the same obstacles. Their big difference was choice!   What was the solution to that challenge?   They could have actively petitioned for funds to travel back to their home country.  Of course, history tends to ignore the fact that African-Americans were sold into slavery by their own countrymen for profit and to eliminate competition for power. Going back to those countries would allow them to look the same as others of their race, but they were unlikely to survive for long...and they had become used to living in America.  So the clear choice for the vast majority was to stay here and strive for a successful free life.

And that struggle was severe in the Southern States of America due to the ingrained attitude of non-African-Americans to see African-Americans as less than equal.  And the North, despite their self-serving claims, wasn't much better;  they simply hid their opinions a bit more effectively.  The Civil Rights Laws passed in the mid-twentieth century as well as the Supreme Court decisions of that ere were needed to provide legal protection for some semblance of equal treatment.  But equal treatment in America as well as throughout the world has always been an illusion rather than a reality.  It hasn't, doesn't and never will exist.  America tries harder than most, but it is an impossible goal because the human race is not equal at all.  We all have different abilities and traits and no one and no government can or should promise equality of anything.  All that can be promised is to allow each person the right to take a chance.  No guarantees of success or any level of result.  People don't grow up equally.  Someone born to well-educated and financially secure parents has a better shot at success than someone born in poverty to parents with no appreciable education.  That is the way of life.  But even a casual study of achievements reveal that a fair number of children born in poverty achieve greater success than those born into wealth and privilege.

The reason that a perception of racism remains so strong today is that our governments' decisions to trace and classify Americans today by Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation and Religion tells us that such differences are important.  It says that even if you are a third generation American, the background of your great grandparents matters...officially.

It shouldn't.  Yes, the laws of this country can provide a legal remedy if one is discriminated against...and they do.  But that should be a private action by one citizen against another...not a basis for tracking by and the interest of the entire Federal Government.  Leaving the government out of tracking such differences would send the clear signal to all of us that such differences do not matter, that we are all Americans and we have that common identity.

Every immigrant group that has come to America has had to comply with the requirements of our immigration laws, has had to adjust to American Society.  In most cases, those coming here would gravitate to hold to themselves for emotional and financial security, even as they encouraged their children to learn English and become "American."  Later generations increasingly became assimilated with the enthusiastic encouragement of the first arrivals...the "melting pot" worked.

Currently there are only two groups where this hasn't taken place;  African-Americans, and those of the Islamic faith.

African-Americans that have failed to escape poverty can look to the Federal Government as the real cause.  By taking the attitude that there needs to be virtually eternal financial support in a variety of forms, the Federal Government has essentially declared that African-Americans cannot succeed on their own efforts and merit.  By so doing they invite and encourage all but the most dedicated and inspired member of that community to just take the offerings of the Federal Government and remain dependent thereon.  They take it...but they are not stupid and do recognize that they are being disrespected and ultimately resent it mightily...and quite correctly start to "cop and attitude."  Any human being would. Want to see a happy community? Provide limits to government support, but provide plenty of job training and guidance.

The other group that has not assimilated is that of the Islamic Faith.  They show no sign of wanting to assimilate.  Apparently, they want to re-create their country of origin here in America.  That includes Sharia Law and a way of living that is contrary to the inherent freedoms of American culture.  Such "separateness" should not be permitted...certainly not the legal attitude.  In America, American Law applies and no area of the United States should be allowed to apply any other standards.  If immigrants fail to follow our laws, they should be deported back to their country of origin.  If already a citizen, they need to be prosecuted and jailed.

But our Federal Government would go a long way to recognizing the equality of every American by applying the policy of benign neglect to any and all attempts to track any racial, gender, ethnic or religious elements of its citizens.  As the populace realizes that it isn't important to the government, they will cease to see it as important to them.

Perhaps now is the time for "THE TEN SUGGESTIONS"!

During the course of the last century the United States has slowly, but most certainly, ceased to be a Christian country.  Oh, our roots are in a Judeo-Christian heritage.  But a majority of our citizens and residents no longer hold that heritage as central in their personal, business or spiritual lives.

Moreover, the Government, including the courts, of the United States no longer hold in any reverence the symbols of Judeo-Christian beliefs.  They have decided that freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion, and the majority of Americans seem quite content with that.

I think that is a mistake.  But in order to correct a mistake, it is first necessary to admit that there has been a mistake.  Currently there are folks who do not think that the battle has been lost.  They ignore the constant attitude of the courts, the politically correct vision of life that is contrary to Judeo-Christian tenets that permeates the entertainment industry, the failure on all sides to see the Ten Commandments as being tantamount to Law.

It is time to admit the loss of the battle, and in so doing bring to the forefront of every American's mind and soul the reality of what has been allowed to take place.

In every public square, every courthouse, every school...everywhere it appears...it is time to relabel the Ten Commandments as "The Ten Suggestions!"

This would have a number of benefits: First, it would acknowledge that the ten rules for living life are no longer law or revered as a matter of civilized behavior; Second, that it would eliminate the legitimacy of efforts to remove them from public life as being religious in nature; and Third, it would save communities huge sums of money that they might otherwise need to appropriate to defend the presence of the "commandments" in their communities public areas.

The most important benefit would be that it would made America once again an honest nation.  No longer would anyone feel bad about the failure to rush to the aid of prosecuted Christians around the globe, or to feel that defending other religions but not Christianity was some failure on our part to honor our heritage; that antisemitism could be now viewed as simply a choice made by the majority rather that a failure to abide by the precepts of civilized behavior.  It would make our claimed positions on what life should be consistent with our actions, and that would make it possible to consciously consider if we want to continue this slide...or stop and even reverse it.

And THAT would be a good conversation to have in every public square.

Islam: Peaceful, or a threat to the West?

Have you noticed how the great majority of terrorist acts recently have been perpetrated by those who uttered words, or left written evidence, that indicated they were acting as Muslims in the service of God?  And have you also noticed that almost every politician, with the two exceptions of the current President of Egypt and the French Defense Minister, has refused to even use the word "Islam" in anyway when referencing the terrorist acts?  Does that seem as strange to you as it does to me?

After multiple readings of English translations of the Qu'ran, it would seem that the answer to the question posed by my title is...both.

The two major publications that we look upon as the basis for Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the Qu'ran and the Bible.  According to Muslims, the Qu'ran was written by the Prophet, Mohammad.  We know the Bible was written years after the Jesus lived, not by him.  The Bible in the Old Testament is largely historical and allegorical; it provides tenets for living a live oriented to God, and provides specific instruction as to how to live one's life.  The New Testament is the story of Jesus' life and the message of redemption through faith in Jesus with the promise of rewards in Heaven.  The Old Testament in particular describes historical events when God instructed his "people" to conquer other lands, but nowhere contains any instruction for present day readers to take on any such political activity, even in defense of the religion.  The same is true of the New Testament.  Such actions have been undertaken in the name of Christianity in the past...the Crusades and the Inquisition come readily to mind...but they were movements driven by men who claimed to interpret or receive guidance from God, not from written direction in the Bible.  All religions speak to a higher existence that disdains violence in this life with rewards to come in the next life...except for one:  Islam!

Islam in the west seems to be a religion of Peace.  Yet we are aware that in nations where Muslims are in the majority, or have political control, they have absolutely no respect for any religion other than Islam; they require all to obey Sharia Law and any who are not converted take on "dhimmi" status, a second-class level of existence...or are killed.  To westerners, this is problematic...a conundrum that they apparently have no interest in understanding and definitely no interest in discussing publicly.  Why do you suppose that is?

To understand, one first must read the Qu'ran and understand not only its contents but also its authority.  As I wrote earlier, the Qu'ran was authored by Muslims Prophet, Mohammad while alive, not some historical remembering of him or things he said.  As such, it has absolute authority for devout Muslims...Mohammad spoke for God, and through the Qu'ran continues to speak for him.  There are no accommodations, no interpretations, no bargaining...if it is written, so it is and shall remain.  There is no room for asking what "is" is!

With that in mind, know that the Qu'ran commands that Muslims respect all religions so long as Muslims are in the minority.  They are to live a devout life, but honor others' beliefs and remain peaceful.  If and when Muslims become equal in power or equally influential in political circles, the Qu'ran then commands that Muslims require that Islam be given equal respect with other beliefs, and honor given to those that worship Allah.  So far, all this fits in with the western view of freedom of religion...live and let live, right?  Absolutely.  However it is the next step that means trouble.

The Qu'ran goes on to instruct the devout that should numerical or political superiority be achieved in a country, region or nation, the faithful shall impose Sharia Law and command all to convert to Islam.  If they refuse, or do not abide by Sharia Law, they either become "dhimmi" or are slain.

Some of you about now are thinking that that is ridiculous.  Really?  Consider the governance of Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal.  Not enough?  How about: Sierra Leone,  Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, and Uganda.  Shall I go on to the Americas?  Consider: Guyana and Suriname.  In Asia, as just a sampling, we have: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh...well, you get the picture.  In each of these cases, Islam rules and all are answerable to Sharia.  Lashings, beheading and stoning to death are not unusual.  Remember the spate of honor killings here a number of years ago? In lands ruled by Sharia, those don't even make the news, much less be other than proper responses by the heads of house holds.

Many have told me that this kind of thing cannot happen in America...or even in most western countries.  Really?!  How do you know.  Those Muslims who denounce the terrorists do so for one of two reasons.  The one that we wish to be true is that they do not agree with the terrorists in any part of their beliefs.  But there is a very real possibility that some of "our" Muslims are devout, and as such do not try to rush the acquisition of numerical or political superiority...which they think that the terrorists are doing wrongly.  The devout are content to await their ascension to political power and then will, in accordance with their devoutly held beliefs, happily establish Sharia Islamic rule and require all to convert to Islam or take the degrading status of dhimmi while not in any way granting immunity from the application of Sharia law and its punishments.  Western women who like fashion, men or women who like alcohol, unrelated sex, or belong to the LGBT community will find no comfort if that happens.  But meanwhile, devout Muslims...those we could correctly call "fundamentalists"...will continue to get a head start on destroying the West they see as a threat to true Islam...and they will include any Islamic groups they see as no conforming to their vision of what true Islam is...

Anyone can see the politically correct conundrum that these facts would put on today's western diplomats, office holders, militarists should they be required to acknowledge them.  Their cowardice in the face of such a large potential problem is totally understandable...even as it is nonetheless inexcusable.

Happy Easter!...Thoughts and Ruminations...

It has been a long, long time since I was a "practicing" anything...so I guess for most people that would make me a CINO in current acronym parlance (Christian in name only).  I am not sure if that is factual, but perceptually I cannot disagree with that moniker.  I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, but the idealism of what was taught clashed with the apparent hypocrisy of how people actually lived their lives resulted in disillusionment. The resulting search and study of most of the known religions of the world for "the Truth"  revealed scads of pretenders to that throne, not all of them religious.  But there was one constant theme: do what we say and your life will be better, either here or in the hereafter.  And Islam was downright threatening with it's instruction to convert or kill non-believers; there was no element of invitation or choice there.

This "obedience" thing was and is a non-starter for me.  My mother named me for the eighth disciple of Jesus...Thomas...often known as "Doubting Thomas."  I have no idea what moved my mother to that choice, but I have no question that it was accurate...and I have been both blessed and cursed with that attitude most of my life.  Now I just embrace it as a characteristic like having blue eyes or black hair...neither good nor bad, but a fact.

But, returning to the point, this obedience thing usually involves money, and doing as I am told.  It also involves not questioning either the ultimate destination of that money or the purpose behind the commands...at least not beyond getting generalities, like "helping the poor or deserving" or "to insure your being blessed by God" or the infamous "we know better than you" which occurs most often in political ideologies and is uttered by those in or vying for public office.

So I have turned my back on all organizations, both religious and secular, because when man gets involved in any group activity it inevitably becomes most concerned with controlling others for the benefit of the leadership, ultimately abandoning all but lip service to it's original reason for creation.

What does this have to do with Easter?  Well, it gets back to the instincts within us that exist without indoctrination, training or learning; it involves that "gut" feeling that we all experience when coming across something or someone for the very first time.  When that happens, I always get one of two feelings: either a "wow, that is great", or a "Whoa...I don't like that much."  Of course, we then spend  hours...or days, weeks or years...trying to get our brains to agree, or trying to convince our gut that it was wrong.  But the end result most of the time is that if we follow our gut, we turn out OK.  To me, that is God (or whatever higher power of any kind that you are comfortable with) trying to guide us.

And this morning, my gut turned my attention to the part of the scripture that dealt with God knocking on the door and waiting to be invited in.  And the part of offering...but not ordering... needing to be invited, resonated within me.  It was not obedience to commands as much as it was an offer to reveal choices from which I would have to select that was important...it was that I   was also free to not "answer" the door.

That "aha moment" was, for me, the granting of the ultimate personal freedom simultaneously with the offer of knowledge and guidance beyond the scope of personal experience. No strings attached. No contract. No hypocrisy...well, except for my own.

I learned a lot of things during my search for the "truth" and I have been blessed with much because of it...but in terms of what I thought I was specifically looking for, I did waste a lot of effort and time.  For me only (I am sharing, not proselytizing) the answer was within me, and the only requirement was that I stop and both "listen" and "feel" instead of being so "busy".

One final note on organizations. People should band together to accomplish certain things...but their "organizations" should disband once the initial need is achieved.  If a secondary "need" is seen, form a new organization...do not continue the old one.  Keeping "standing" anything...committees, governments, religions...leads to power struggles and loss of individual freedoms that have little or nothing to do with the original purpose.

Evangelical Atheists?

Read an interesting article recently where the author was declaring his contempt for evangelical atheists...sort of poking fun as well as annoyance at their actions which parallel some community-based religious activities.  It started me thinking (always a danger)...

First, I must disagree with the use of the word, "evangelize", as it is specific to attempting to convert non- or un-believers to faith in the gospels. It has no logical application to his description of some atheists' actions; certainly they are doing just the contrary. The word that seems most appropriate is "proselytize." And Athiests, and believers in all faiths attempt that all the time.

There is a difference between "informing" and "proselytizing." If I am in a conversation with another and an act of mine is based on religious belief, I may explain that portion of my belief as an explanation of my act or actions. That is informing, and if the other individual asks more questions, my answers continue to be informative, not proselytizing.

On the other hand, if I or any other person injects or creates the subject of religion into a conversation and puts forth his or her religion as necessary for a good life and a successful "hereafter," if he or she tries to "convert" me (as evangelical Christians, Muslims, and proselytizing atheists do) then I do get annoyed. On the edge of unacceptability is the one time declaration of one's faith. I have known some who do that and then do not raise the subject again. I find that to be actually quite informative...about the person as well as their faith...even though they might have chosen a more appropriate time to broach the subject.

But...and here is the main point...it is not just atheists who are guilty of proselytizing...it is all religions. And, if you want to think broadly about it, the same goes for political ideologies, nutritional advocates (read: vegetarians, organic, etc.), and recyclists...and I am sure there are many others.

Proselytizing is annoying. And it often becomes a harassing fanaticism that is more than objectionable. Those who take part are to be avoided and ignored...not for their persons but for their attitude that they and only they are qualified to command all others in the path by whatever name. Some, like the Islamists, are to be feared and watched; others, like the vegetarians and food police, are to be defended against in the name of personal freedom; and atheists and religious groups are to be asked nicely to either go away, or excuses made to leave the group being assailed. But contempt is a word that carries an aura of personal distaste, and my annoyance is with behavior, not with judging the person.

Economics is the new "religion"

Beginning in the later part of the Nineteenth Century, and continuing to the present, Progressives (which morphed into liberals, then back again, and include Socialists and Liberal Democrats) have successfully fomented the notion that mankind does not need God, that God is passe.  Their efforts to remove God from public life has been singularly successful, as has their effort to sell the populace on the the idea that Mankind can raise itself up and create it's own Utopia...self-governing it to increasingly improve both Mankind and life on this earth.

There is, however, a small problem.

Whether consciously or sub-consciously, mankind knows that it doesn't have all the answers and needs reassurance that it is doing the "right" thing.  Other humans cannot meet that need...after all, if you don't have the answer there is no reason to believe that any other human being on the planet, no matter how smart and gifted they claim to be, has the requisite authoritarian position.  So...what to do.

Having already denigrated and dismissed religion of any sort, that path is now closed, but...perhaps by another name?

Consider that success for the past Century plus has been defined, not by moral happiness, but by acquisition of money and all that it can buy.  How automatic has it become for us to gage how well we are doing by the level of our bank account, our savings or our investments...breathing a sigh of relief if the balance looks "healthy."  Gone are the days that even if you had little money, you considered yourself successful if you had a house over your head (rented or owned) weren't going hungry, your family was reasonably clothed and MOST IMPORTANTLY, you had a happy family that loved each other.  No mention of money in that sentence, right.  Money was seen as a necessary evil,  not the gauge of happiness.

Then, God out, self-improvement in.  No longer is morality or contentment the signal evidence of a good life...now it is "stuff" and "wealth."  But...there is that aforementioned doubt and desire for affirmation from a higher source.

Enter the development and standing of "Economics."  A "Science", an authoritative statement and means of judging success.  And, of course, a new High Priesthood...Economists.  Not the same as Priests, to be sure, because they were talking about "Science" and using their authority to protect your ability to "succeed."  But their status gave their utterances a higher consideration, a higher authority (like priests, speaking for God?).

Just how, pray tell, is this any different (other than nomenclature)  from religion.  And there are competing Economic theories, just as there are different Churches. Instead of Churches, there are buildings and Colleges dedicated to the study of Economics.  I will admit that, with one exception, there isn't a 100% parallel (but it is very close).  The only completely parallel comparison is with Islam.  Both Economic Theory and Islamic belief call for taking political power so as to create, protect, and defend the coming Utopia for the people of the world...continued rising wealth for all people in the case of economics, and paradise both here and the hereafter for Muslims.

So that will be the future battle for world domination...Islam versus Secular Economic Wealth as a measure of success. One heck of a choice.  I predict a bloody future, whichever wins.