WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs Update 07/03/2026
Favorite
Websites--updated 07/03/2026'
My Stuff
On The Web, Updated 06/28/2026
Audio-Visual Updated: 07/30/2026
Favorite
Articles --
last updated 07/30/2026
This Month's Scripture Verse:

1 But false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their indecent behavior, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep..
II Peter 2:1-3

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Tuesday, August 4, 2026

Views From The Outside For August 4, 2026

Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language. 

So far, news sources include:

International

From Canada

From England

From France

From Germany

From Russian Source 

From Spain

From Switzerland

From Ukraine

<< Previous Views                                                        Next Views >>


 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, July 31, 2026

What's It Like To Live With A Perfect Person

I am occasionally in the position to give dating advice. I don't know why that is because, at my age, the only dating I do is decrepidating. And I do that quite well. But one piece of advice I always give is that when choosing to date a particular person, if that person does not freely admit to having faults and sins, then don't date them. Why? It is because once you are in a committed relationship, that person's failure to admit to having faults and sins will morph into making you one of their scapegoats. The person who refuses to admit to fauls and sins has proclaimed themselves to be perfect.

I grew up in a home where one of the family members was perfect because that person was too insecure to admit to having faults and sins. And therefore, some of the other members of my family served as scapegoats for that perfect person. Though I was not a recipient of those attacks, those attacks did have a significantly negative effect on myself. 

And so perhaps, just perhaps, we should apply that same rule to the people we elect. Why? It is for the same reason. When things go wrong, some of our politicians will always find whipping boys to blame instead of admitting to being wrong. We have to live with scapegoating others, or even perhaps ourselves, for at least their first term. And since most incumbants are continually reelected, we usually have to live with that abuse much longer than a person's single term.

The reluctance of family member to admit faults and sins was only part of what made my home life back then dysfunctional. But we should note, that trait alone can easily make any home dysfunctional. And so now let's return to the criteria we using in voting for candidates. 

Currently, we have a President who is too insecure to admit to doing something wrong or even making mistakes. And many of us have moments or situations in which we also feel insecure. So we should empathize with the President regarding that without condoning how he behaves. Because the President is scapegoating particular people and groups and even nations with his criticisms and worse, our nation has either become dysfunctional or is getting more dysfunctional. Here I am not saying that our democracy has become dysfunctional, the whole nation is.

That doesn't mean that the President is always wrong when he  criticizes others, but it does mean that he is not always right as well. And getting some of his most ardent followers to admit that he can be wrong is harder than for the Conclave to elect a conservative Protestant to be Pope.

At this point, we can now talk about how the whole nation has become dysfunctional. For the President is now reflecting what has become of America. In a past article, I talked about those who arrogantly believe that they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. What I am talking about now is the flip side of that coin. When we always blame others for the failures that our side has caused, we are proclaiming that our side is never wrong. We are proclaiming that our side is perfect. And we see that kind of approach being taken by  some  MAGA followers, some progressives, religiously consesrvative Christians with hubris, the oligarchy, to name a few. And so when one's side is wrong, one abuses everyone by either gaslighting or scapegoating others. And just as it is dysfunctional when a family member portrays themselves as perfect, it is even worse when a whole nation is divided by such behavior.

While the President likes to brag about how "hot" our nation has become under his leadership, the world looks at us in the same way that other members of a family look at the member who always blames others for their mistakes. Of course our nation isn't the only nation that practices such scapegoating. But there might be an interesting correlation here. The nations whose leaders scapegoat the most are the nations that are currently practicing the most physical violence against others. And whether one is exhibiting external or internal violence, with the latter being expressed by words, the resulting violence, along with the gaslighting, is abusive to all victims as well as all who have to see or listen.

Certainly perfect people, regardless of the location or context, can be angering. But if we are going to reach them, it is counterproductive to respond to them with anger because that will all too easily trigger their insecurities and make them defensive. We need to find ways to peacefully challenging their denial of faults and sins. I know that some will read those words and claim that I am singing, To Dream The Imp-ossible Dream. And that might be the case. But is it better to only let perfect people own their insecurities and abusive defensiveness, or is it better to act like perfect people ourselves when challenging them? Who wins if we choose the latter?





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

Views From The Outside For July 28, 2026

 Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language. 

So far, news sources include:

International

From Canada

From England

From France

From Germany

From Russian Source 

From Spain

From Switzerland

From Ukraine


<< Previous Views                                                        Next Views >>




Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, July 24, 2026

What Kind Of Wall Should Separate Church And State?

In examining the role of religion in politics, we need to acknowledge not just the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, we should also look at conversation between the Danbury Church and Thomas Jefferson, The Constitution, and a line from Jefferson's 1801 inaugural speech. We will look at the conversation first. In 2nd paragraph of its letter to Thomas Jefferson after he became President, the letter from the Danbury Church said the following (click here for the source):

'Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.'

The 2nd paragraph of Jefferson's response is most pertinent here (the link to the this source is the same as the above link):

'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.'

The Establishment clause from the 1st Amendment is displayed below (click here to see the source)

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

Before discussing the issue, we should note that the very end of the Danbury letter seems to be at least a little prophetic to what has been happening in America today. 

We should note that the Danbury letter expressed a concern that the  then current legislation seemed, to them, that one's ability to practice a  religion was relegated to be a 'favor' rather than an 'inalienable right.' This provides the context for Jefferson's response. 

Similar to what was expressed in the letter,  Jefferson acknowledged that the government can only target 'actions' and not 'opinions.' So we see that with both the Danbury letter and Jefferson's response government could address actions. But the question becomes what, or perhaps whose, criteria is the government using to determine when to intervene in human affairs. That is the question on which our government's past response to slavery and Jim Crow laws and practices was responding to. It is also the question on which government's duty to respond to abortion revolves around. And what or whose criteria is the question that the debate over Christian Nationalism is concerned with. 

At this point, enter the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and his SCLC. in the 1950s and 1960s. They spoke of and worked for equality for all people. And they did so from their religious beliefs. But it wasn't just political equality that they promoted; it was an equality in outcomes. That latter point was made by King in his 1967 interview with Xander Vanocur (click here to see that interview).

Now when we look back at those days, how many people complained about the Church influencing the government? The answer to that question is complicated because the American Church has always been divided about racial equality and was on both sides of the racial divide. But we should note that because King and the SCLC spoke and worked for equality rather than a privileged place for themselves and their religion, their work was not seen as a violation of the separation between Chuch and State

We should note that the mission of King and the SCLC is supported by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Thus, equality, that is 'equal protection of the laws,' became the measuring stick that the government could use to intervene or be prevented from acting was equality. So we should not just note, but emphasize too, that King and the SCLC were working for the welfare themselves and some other marginalized groups.

That brings us to today and the desire of many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to be the sole provider of rules that determine when the government can either intervene or be prevented from doing so. Many of those Christians are called Christian Nationalists. But there are also some Christians who are not Christian Nationalists who, to a lesser degree, want to provide rules to determine government intervention.

Christian Nationalists tend to argue that because they hold to the same faith that many of the founders had of America, they deserve a greater voice in determining what laws the government should pass. They also say that America was founded to be a Christian nation.  And so, again, they should have a greater, or perhaps the only, voice in determining the laws of the nation. And that brings up the question of whom the government should be representing. Should the government represent only Christians or Christians more than unbelievers or should the government represent all of its citizens?

The problem with the Christian Nationalist views is that citizenship in America is not defined by one's beliefs but by federal laws and The Constitution. Citizenship is determined by the location of one's birth, the citizenship of one's parents, or meeting requirements for becoming citizens. The Constitution gives no leeway for ranking American citizens except that only those born in the U.S. can become President.

Yes, Christians influenced the culture of America greatly during its early days. And many states, as stipulated in their state constitutions, favored Christian leadership over their states. But The Constitution did not do so. In fact, as can be ascertained from the Constitutional debates, religion played little to no role in the Constitutional definition of America. In fact, a deliberate distancing of the Federal government from religion was a feature both in The Constitution and in the debates that helped determine its contents.

But something else should be noted about America's early days that was heavily influenced by Christianity. That influence was determined by demographics. Because Christendom existed throughout America's early until around half of the 20th century, many people who saw themselves as being Christians though lifestyles or beliefs may not have confirmed that conviction. And so the biggest factor that determined America's past direction was demographics. Thus we have to ask why should Christians have the dominant voice over our government today when the demographics have changed. Should past demographics mean that those who  meet the legal definition of citizenship are not real citizens because they hold to different values and beliefs than our founders had?

Those who hold to Christian Nationalism would answer that last question with a firm 'yes.' And that is because, with their definition of what it means to be an American, the definition of America is fixed throughout time regardless of any changes in the values and beliefs of the people. And so those who do not hold to what Americans from the past hold to are not American enough to matter in terms of influencing the government.

What we have with the Christian Nationalist viewpoint is the tyranny of past demographics. According to them, it isn't what our founding documents said that defines us and determines our path, it is compliance with dominant religious views from the past.

We also need to pay attention to those non Christian Nationalists who use terms like 'moral law' or 'natural law' to obligate those in government to pass laws that are based on a unique Christian view. In particular, laws that would marginalize those from the LGBT community should be  based on the moral and natural laws. We should note here is that there are multiple versions of natural law. And so, to a lesser degree, we see the Church having undue influence on government's making of laws. And their justification for pursuing this undue influence is the view of the role of government officials that was held to in the past during Christendom.

And so we've seen two kinds of Christian influences on our government. One kind saw a Christian influence that advocated for the marginalized, others, as well as themselves. It attempted to lift up themselves and others to an equal place in society. The other kind of sees a Christian influence that is self-promoting while arguing for hierarchy. They want to lift themselves up above all others in society. And that brings us to our final quote. In his 1801 Inaugural Address, Thomas Jefferson said the following (click here for the source):

'All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression'

And so the one kind of Christian influence, which consists of Martin Luther King Jr. and the SCLC, was working for justice and the other kind while the current kind, of Christian influence, which consists of Christian Nationalists and some other authoritarian Christisns, is working for Jefferson's view of oppression. This latter influence is telling us that the State cannot properly function unless it is in control. Is it any wonder then that, today, many are arguing for a separation of Church and State in response to the latter kind's influence?





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Views From The Outside For July 21, 2026

 Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language. 

So far, news sources include:

International

From Canada

From England

From France

From Germany

From Russian Source 

From Spain

From Switzerland

From Ukraine


<< Previous Views                                                        Next Views >>


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)