The real scam & the scammers - Rev. J.T. Smith

Recently, I've come across two opinion pieces included in the daily AlterNet Top Stories  newsletter in my email that I'm subscribed to. The author of the pieces, John Stoehr, is of the opinion that third party Presidential candidates are all scammers because all third parties are a scam.

He didn't drink the Kool-aid.  Clearly, he guzzled and gargled with it.  He also assumes the only people who are attracted to third party candidates are those who solely vote during Presidential elections and take no other particular part in politics.  He claims those third parties are full of false promises, are in a sense demagogic, and are anti-democratic as a result.

Strange.  Every year, I see a smattering of third party candidates for positions up and down the ballot.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Bernie Sanders is not only currently a United States Senator representing Vermont, but he is also an Independent.  Strange.  (Obviously Sanders switched to the Democratic party from 2015 - 2016 and 2019 - 2020 in his run to be President, but the fact remains that he is now, once again, an Independent.  See my previous entries about his running as a Democrat.)

As a matter of fact, there are currently four Independent Senators: Bernie Sanders (VT) (2007 - present); Angus S. King Jr (ME) (2013 - present); Kyrsten Sienna (AZ) (2013 - present); and Joe Manchin  III (WV) (2013 - present).  And they are not the only Senators in American history that belonged to "Third or Minor Parties."  While there are no members of the House Of Representatives belonging to third or minor parties as of the writing of entry, there have still been many examples throughout American history.  To be fair, not all of those third and minority party members were originally elected as a third or minor party member.  Some changed parties and were still reelected, and some like Bernie Sanders were elected as a member of a third or minor party member.  And those examples are strictly referring to the federal government.  There are still more throughout state and local governments as well.

So while third party candidates are rare enough masse in American politics, they can and do still win.  And in winning they adjust the course of politics.

As I have noted previously, the corporate duopoly of American politics is the problem.  Alright,  technically it is a problem.  The two bigger problems which combine with the corporate duopoly are the real overall problem.  What are the two bigger problems?

First is the Electoral College.  I've already spoken about that travesty in previous entries.  The other relates to Duverger's law in political science.  America is a political system with single member districts, which means each district is represented by a single officeholder.  In contrast, systems with proportional representation usually have more representatives of minor parties in government.

Considering that America started with zero political parties, which George Washington would refer to factions and in fact Washington was strongly against because he felt that unity rather than division was necessary for a democratic republic to survive.

Ultimately the only reason third parties have yet to break through that wall is because enough people buy the lie that the only viable parties are the corporate duopoly, and fools like John Stoehr who think that we must do everything to make changes while maintaining that duopoly.

My father was a member of the Libertarian party.  His father wanted to name him Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but didn't know how to spell Delano.  My father, for reasons I neither understood nor really discussed with him, hated Roosevelt.  That was my personal introduction to politics aside from what was loosely taught in school.  Frankly I had no interest as it all stank of bovine defacation and held less than no interest in it for me.  Especially considering the President is not elected by the majority of Americans due to the Electoral College.

In November 2000, I wasn't registered to vote.  My personal take was that my vote doesn't count, and I pointed to the Presidential election as the prime reason for concluding that.  For clarification, in 2000 I was residing in Pennsylvania, a state that Al Gore, whom I would have voted for had I been registered to vote, won handily even without my vote.  Not only did Gore win Pennsylvania, he also won the Popular Vote.  We all know how that played out.

My first actual real involvement of any political kind was to add my voice to the chorus who stood against AT&T's intended buyout of T-Mobile as I was and am a T-Mobile customer and I don't want to be ripped off any more than I have to be.  And AT&T wants to charge me more for the same services I currently pay less for with T-Mobile.  I made calls and wrote letters to my local/federal government and signed every petition I could find to end that "merger".  When I learned the part those calls, letters, and petitions ultimately played , I started signing petitions and writing letters to elected officials involving the environment, ending the death penalty, government issues, and far more.  Feel free to check out my Pinterest page for a better understanding of where I stand.

I didn't get properly involved in "local politics" (which is how I see all human politics regardless of nationality) until 2012 when I registered to vote for the first time and I voted for Barack Obama because I saw the Mitt Romney's vision regarding women as a direct threat to all of my female friends, and who make up the majority of my friends.

While I have no interest nor intention of running for political office myself, my political activities haven't slowed.  Frankly, I loathe politics in general.  Unfortunately, I have to get involved to try to make change. 

As of January this year, the number of registered independent voters surpassed the number of registered Democrats and Republican voters.  Frankly, take that as a good sign. 

On a personal note, while I am registered as an independent, and with the exception of the times I briefly changed to Democrat simply to vote for Bernie Sanders in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries, and while I lean Democrat, I more closely align with the Green Party and the Working Families Party.  And for over a year now the Green Party is an official party that you can register to vote as in the state that I currently live in.

The movement to eliminate the Electoral College is growing.  Fighting the corporate stranglehold on American politics is ongoing.  If history teaches us anything, it is it can be done. Hopefully without a relative replay of the French Revolution.  Eliminating those will definitely help to allow third parties to be able to end the duopoly.  As will getting people to wake up to the fact that people should vote their conscience even when it's a third party candidate that most aligns with your conscience.

Voting for third parties is not a scam.  The scam is believing the only viable options are sticking with the corporate duopoly.

 

- Rev. J.T. Smith

 

 

Here We Go Again With Not Voting For X Is A Vote For Y - Rev. J.T. Smith

 

Every four years America is treated to the Presidential election when Americans are directed to vote for one of two wealthy (anymore it's more like obscenely wealthy) candidates to run the country.  And for many decades now, American politics has been subsumed by a corporate duopoly divided between the Democrats and Republicans.  That duopoly has literally become its own industry that claims to cares about its customers (you guessed it: us) but in practice only serves to enrich itself.  And for free advertising, bring in major media outlets that drown out every other potential candidate.  Just look what happened to Bernie Sanders in 2016.

I've been hearing the trope about voting for a third party for decades now, about how it's a thrown away vote, or it's a vote for such-and-such candidate, etc.  I am NOT a fan of Trump by any means, so I will not vote for him.

The reality is that America desperately needs to break free of the corporate duopoly of the two-party system; but, as long as people continue to buy into the fallacy that it is the only viable system, which is a lie that you've been spoon-fed since you were in grade school and fed to you by the corporate "elites" who effectively control both parties with their extremely deep pockets, as long as Americans buy that lie, and as long as the Electoral College is allowed to remain in place, then America is screwed by it.

The only ways that I'm aware of to break that cycle is: 1) Permanently end the Electoral College; and 2) to finally vote for someone else, someone who is not so beholden to American corporatocracy, for enough people to both be registered to vote (finally starting to see some small movement on that, albeit infinitesimal) and for them to stop automatically simply voting for only either Democrats or Republicans.  That Senator Bernie Sanders held that office as an Independent for as long as he has is an indicator it can be done.

Eliminating the Electoral College is not impossible.  For things to do to achieve this, there are many avenues.  There are a plethora of petitions dedicated to this.  Sign all of them.  You can even start your own if you're so inclined.  You can also contact your government representatives, both state and federal.  You have the right, utilize it.  Write to and call your Representative and Senators.  And not just once and done, but repeatedly.  Don't let them ignore you.  To magnify your voice, also join or start a local group for this purpose.  For perspective, "gun rights" adherents and groups are calling in nearly daily.  It's one of the reasons Congress has failed so miserably to actually do anything particularly to curb gun violence  in America.  You can do the same.  As always, be polite or you'll be working against yourself.

Frankly I still think that if he had run as an independent in 2016 rather than falling into the trap of running as a Democrat against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, then we might finally have seen a solid crack in the system.  Especially considering Sanders was bringing in more small money donations and larger turnouts at his campaign rallies than Clinton and Trump combined.  But he was a clear and present danger to the established order which is why, since he was running as a Democrat, the Democratic Party was able to quash him and hand the nomination to Clinton.  Frankly, I could never vote for her as she never met a war she didn't like.

Until that break from the corporate duopoly happens, every cycle there will be people screaming that a vote for someone other than the corporate chosen candidate is a vote for the other corporate chosen candidate.

Want to keep Trump out of office?  Then do everything you can to make certain that the protections of the 14th Amendment are enforced, and throw his arse in prison where it likely belongs. 

Impossible is for the lazy.  Nothing is impossible if people start thinking rather than merely reacting.  It takes a lot of hard work and time invested.  As a hemorrhagic stroke survivor who's ambulatory again (after being completely paralyzed from the neck down on my dominant side, I'm not fully recovered YET), I am here to tell you impossible is for the lazy.   According to the laws of aerodynamics it's impossible for a bumblebee to fly.  Screw impossible and just DO it.

- Rev. J.T. Smith

 

Gun Rights And The Second Amendment, The Reality Behind The Arguments Ignore - Rev. J.T. Smith

Am I the only one who finds it outrageous that any member of the American military and police forces must be fully trained in how to use and store any weapon before they're ever issued that weapon, yet a civilian can just buy any weapon they want without ever being trained or demonstrating that they've been trained first?  Am I the only one who thinks that everyone in America who even wants to purchase or even use a gun must be fully trained in how to properly use and store that weapon first? 

First things first, the Second Amendment of the American Constitution:

It would help to no end if Americans, especially those members of the NRA and their sycophantic followers, would actually learn the most important and opening words of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia".  Having enough money to pay for the gun and requisite ammunition as well as the patience to wait out any waiting period does NOT make a person a part of "a well regulated militia".

A bit of history which used to be taught in high school and probably still is but gets ignored or glossed over:

The United States began as the loose coalition of states, originally the 13 British colonies, that were brought together under the Constitution thus forming a central government that gave both unity and some cohesion to those states.  While there was a standing army (in this context, this term is simpler to use than "armed forces"), the Continental Army, that was controlled by the federal government, it was still necessary in time of war to augment it with militias that were formed, controlled, and maintained at the state level.  Militias were then what the National Guard is now.

This was the most expedient solution as those militias already existed and were the armed forces used to defeat the British army during the Revolutionary War.  What's more, it was believed that every able-bodied man (in this, yes, they were sexist) in a given age range as determined by the individual states would eventually serve in their local militia, and that they would maintain their own small arms equipment as needed.  Equipment that they would actually be trained thoroughly in how to properly use and maintain prior to being allowed to ever have such weapons.  Larger weapons, such as cannons and requisite ammunition, were stowed in the armoury when not in use.

It was specifically those very militias that are referenced in the Second Amendment.

[Related:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/06/its-time-democrats-stop-agreeing-second-amendment-protects-individuals-right-bear]

Next, guns themselves:
The sole purpose of a gun is to maim and/or kill at a distance quickly and efficiently.  Any argument of what physically does the killing demonstrates a distinct mental disconnect (not to mention a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion).

What's more, all a drawn gun demonstrates is two things:

First, whether it's drawn or holstered, empty or loaded, a gun simply demonstrates fear.  The fear felt by the person who's carrying and holding the gun.  This includes the American police and military.  Other nations (e.g. Great Britain) have police forces that are not constantly armed with a firearm and are further trained to do something Americans find unthinkable: they actually talk down the criminal with the gun and disarm them without firing a single shot or brandishing their own weapon.  They're not completely defenseless as they do have collapsible batons and tasers, but those are not their first used option.  Instead, they use a far more dangerous weapon: their BRAIN.

The second thing a drawn gun demonstrates is that you are immediately the prime target of anyone else with a loaded gun.  This obviously includes the police, who actually are properly trained in the proper use and storage of their weapons before they are ever issued their weapons.

I have an idea: Everyone in the NRA hierarchy and everyone who panders to them (including every politician who accepts any money from the NRA) should be shot, preferably embarrassingly and unexpectedly.  Note I said shot and not killed.  This way, they might learn from the experience.  Especially if it's done in such a way that even if they're armed themselves it wouldn't actually help them in the slightest.  Though I think the exercise would need to be repeated several times for each gun worshiper before they wake up to the outrageous danger their lust for guns puts everyone in.

Another suggestion would be to start heavily taxing ammunition.  People will definitely stop and think before firing a bullet that costs $1000 and can never be reused.

It is long past time that the carnage made so readily enacted by guns comes to an end.

by Rev. J.T. Smith 

2020 United States Presidential Election, My Choice - Rev. J.T. Smith

There is no perfect candidate for President.  Ever.  This is simply because perfection, aside from God, is purely subjective.

Of course, there will always be candidates that are better than others.  In 2016, I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary and hated the way the D.N.C. blew him off as viable candidate even though he was able to consistently draw more people to his rallies than any other candidate.  Go figure.

In 2016, I ultimately voted for Jill Stein because I couldn't in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump [see It's Neither A Spoiler Nor A Protest Vote! by Rev. J.T. Smith for full account of exactly why] as she was the best available candidate.

Once again, Bernie is running for President, and he is once again my choice for President.  My reasoning is thus: Bernie Sanders has been leading the fight since well before the 2016 elections, including steadfastly and consistently fighting for We The People and against the corruption and warmongering so prevalent in government.  And he's also the first to propose Medicare For All, which eliminates all deductibles and co-pays with the exception of elective non- medically procedures.  No one is perfect, but he's the best choice of candidate.

Voting for a person strictly because of their gender or sexuality is a mistake.  Yes, it is long past time for a woman or a member of the LGBT+ community to become president, there is no question of that; but as with any position of authority, it needs to be the right person, regardless of gender or sexuality, to be voted into power.  
While I find it commendable that Pete Buttigieg is open about his sexual orientation while running for President, I cannot vote for him simply because he's a corporate Democrat.  And corporate Democrats, which are nearly as bad as the Republicans currently in power are among the last things Americans need voted into office.
I cannot vote for Amy Klobuchar for simple reason she's effectively Hillary Clinton lite.  Still a corporate Democrat, even if not quite as deep into the pockets of Wall Street.

Tom Steyer, like Mike Bloomberg, is yet another billionaire running for President, and America definitely never needs another billionaire as president.  And like Steyer and Bloomberg, Joe Biden is yet another corporate Democrat.

To make it worse, Biden and Bloomberg are also notorious bigots.  And while Tulsi Gabbard seems to barely register in the polls compared to the others who're still running, I do like that she's Hindu and running against the endless wars, but she also has a history of bigotry and troubling past actions in terms of her foreign policy positions solidly working against her.

The only major issue I have with Warren is her relative inexperience compared to Sanders.

Frankly, my current dream ticket is Sanders/Warren with Sanders as president for eight years followed by Warren for the following eight years.  Though I would accept Warren as President with Sanders as VP for the same eight years followed by Sanders as President for eight years.

Ultimately, I am still not a liberal Democrat, I'm a progressive independent; and if a superior third-party contender runs for President, then I'll vote for them.  At present, that doesn't seem likely regardless of the party.

- Rev. J.T. Smith

Dealing With Offense (Updated) - Rev. J.T. Smith

I initially wrote the following in February 2015 as an article for the Wellspring Clubhouse's newsletter, which was published.  On December 4, 2016, upon starting this blog (which I admit I need to post to more often), I posted this article as the inaugural article, with a graphic attached so I could post it to my Pinterest page. 

Having attended a training regarding "recovery language" and the words/phrases that are now considered "offensive" on 11/22/19, it strikes me as apropos to share it with you, though updated slightly as a result of/response to that training.  [This article, with the exceptions of a direct quote used in the article and the graphics at the end, is solely me.  And the coarse language found in the primary quote is in fact a direct quote.  I do not expect anyone to agree with me.  As the title of my blog says, this is Food For Thought.]

--------

No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try for otherwise, either you will offend someone or they will offend you.  It’s simply a part of this thing we call life.  There is one thing to realize and remember: The only way you can be offended is if you choose to be offended.

Ultimately, the best way to deal with it is to surprise everyone and choose to not be offended.  Ask yourself why the person is in any way important to you specifically.  Also remember that others won’t necessarily share your viewpoint.  Sometimes, their view will be both negative to your way of thinking and will seem to be narrow-minded and inflexible.  Deciding to be offended will only succeed in giving you extra unneeded “baggage” that will only adversely affect *you*.  You do better to decide to not be offended, try to at least see where their point is coming from, explain your point of view (i.e. have something of a conversation about it), and if you can’t come to a consensus then at most mentally conclude that they’re an idiot and then just go on with your life.

Now there's a movement to change recovery language so as to be "patient first" in an attempt to thwart stigma.  On the surface this sounds noble as fighting and ending stigma is absolutely needed.  Unfortunately, it's focusing on the wrong problem in that it isn't the words "autistic," "autism," "drug addiction," "mental illness," or any of the other related words/terms that are the cause of or carry the stigma; it's the conditions themselves to which those words/terms refer.  Language is reflective of the culture that spawned it.  One anthropological fact is that language follows culture, not the other way around. 

The fact of the matter is that *any* word, phrase, or terminology can be turned into a pejorative regardless of how innocent that word, phrase, or terminology is, just as anything said can become sexualized even when the word/phrase isn't sexual in and of itself.

At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, it was decided to refer to people with various physical/mental health issues as "special" as it was considered a positive and affirming word.  We no longer say "special" because it quickly became a pejorative term.  And in an effort to thwart the use medical terms in the mental health realm, the terms have become more complex; the result has been an increase of the phrase "I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce" as an insult.

In another aspect regarding the fallacy of thinking being "offended" is a useful reaction, an example: While I was still a member of the Wellspring Clubhouse, I was in a conversation with a female friend, and while I don't recall the topic I do remember we were in agreement.  Shortly thereafter in the same day, I was in the library/computer room having a similar conversation with a male acquaintance about the same topic.  While I was describing the prior conversation (without identifying the woman I'd been speaking to due to my privacy protocols), with my lead-in being that I agreed with her, another female member came into the room on unrelated business whereupon she heard part of what I was saying.  Without bothering to learn the context of my remarks, she concluded that she was offended by what I was saying and came to the "defense" of my female friend.  The woman was further offended when I pointed out that, because she was coming into the middle of a conversation with no accurate reference points, she had no idea what she was talking about since I was in fact in agreement with my female friend.  Rather than utilizing logic, the woman who still thought she was defending my friend decided to let her emotions rule regardless of the facts.

[See my article: "Check Your -ism by Rev. J.T. Smith" for further examples.]

Regardless of whether it's in an individual setting or a more institutional one (e.g. job, official or professional situation, et al), being offended solves nothing and does not give you nor anyone else any special rights or privileges.  As Stephen Fry once said: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.'  As if that gives them certain rights.  It's actually nothing more . . . than a whine.  'I find that offensive.'  It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.  'I am offended by that.'  Well, so fucking what." [I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”

Getting and/or being offended solves nothing.  It won’t actually change anything.  Your viewpoints, no matter how well reasoned or even potentially innocent they may be, will still offend someone else.  That’s merely human nature.  Regardless of what far too many people will tell you, you always have a choice (you simply won’t always like the alternatives).  In terms of something, a statement or action that you don’t like for whatever reason, your choices are to be offended or not to be offended.  Make your life so much easier by always choosing to not be offended.

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Perhaps A Reason Why The Right Is So Willing To Push For Eliminating Contraception & Abortion Coverage? - Rev. J.T. Smith

I think I've figured out a large, though not consciously acknowledged reason why the Right is so willing to push for eliminating contraception and abortion coverage that has nothing to do with religious teachings even though those teachings provide a handy cover. We must remember that the mindset of slavers of old still exists, albeit in a new guise: Corporations. The wealthy few have found a new way to create a slave class in America, and the only way to make sure the money, which is invariably equated with power, keeps pouring in is to continually grow the worker base, which simultaneously grows the consumer base. And if the slaves, who also don't realize they're slaves, are allowed to have easily accessible and safe contraception and abortion, well that threatens the growth of that worker/consumer class. And allowing bigotry and misogyny at all levels has the added bonus of acting as a handy diversion from the reality that unless they're one of the wealthy few then they're also slaves. Amazingly, while they have more power than the peons, even the millionaires are slaves to the ultra-rich.

by Rev. J.T. Smith 

Dreaded Taxes [UPDATED] - by Rev. J.T. Smith

It's that season again: Tax season.  No one likes having to pay them.  And whenever we hear politicians promise to somehow cut or lower them, we instinctively love the idea.

Then again, we don't like having to pay for things like phone bills, car repairs, rent/mortgage, or any of the other bills that keep our needs met either.  Unfortunately, if you don't pay the phone bill, then no phone service for you.  Don't spend the money on the car repairs and maintenance?  Then you're out a working car.  (This becomes an even bigger issue if you live in a rural area with no available public transportation.)  Don't pay rent/mortgage?  Then you're either rich, living with very understanding friends/relatives, or you're homeless.

The problem is that the same concept also applies to taxes as they are in fact what pays for all of the services that are all too often taken for granted: Police/fire/emergency services, roads and their accouterments and maintenance, public schools, et al.  And the taxes are meant to ensure that all of us chip in, thus lowering the cost per individual.  As usual, we have politicians who are looking to privatize all those services in order to “lower taxes.”  The fact is that the wealthy want to lower their own taxes, at the expense of everyone else.  It's similar to the concept of “trickle-down economics.”  While it might sound good on the surface, the reality is quite different as history has demonstrated that those latter ideas simply don't work.  By privatizing what would otherwise be public services, we’re effectively paying more money for what amounts to less services as that is what allows the corporations to make more money, and the bottom line of profits will always matter far more to corporate America than people’s lives.  And the politicians who push for privatization are really in the pockets of those corporations and the exceptionally wealthy through the lobbyists who are metaphorically whispering in their ear.

This can be changed, it can be fixed.  Sadly, it won’t happen overnight; but, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.  We need people in every level of government who want and are willing to push for tax reforms that forces those who can afford it (e.g. earn/receive $300,000 per year or more) to pay more in taxes in that they have more available to pay, as opposed to always sticking the working poor with the bill as is done now.  Not only those wealthy people, but  corporations also need to pay their share.  “Each and every year, we lose $100 billion in revenue because large corporations and the wealthy are stashing their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other offshore tax havens.  That has got to stop.” [Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt)]  What's more, as Senator Sanders has also noted: “At a time when we now spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense, we can make judicious cuts in our armed forces without compromising our military capability.” 

Really, cutting America's military spending in half, which would still result in greater spending than the next top three countries combined, along with forcing corporations and the super-rich to pay their fair share of taxes including on all of the money they have tucked away in other countries, would easily cover the social safety net, the desperately needed infrastructure repairs, the salaries for emergency services, fully fund top notch public education as well as college tuition, and still have money available to lift everyone in this country out of poverty.

A very strong message that we must send to every level of government, especially to those politicians who constantly cry about government spending, is that the Government is not a for profit business but is rather a non-profit organization that is meant to serve ALL citizens regardless of age, biological gender, gender expression, transgender, skin colour, ethnic background, physical ability or disability, sexual orientation, or any other grouping of citizens we might think of that I've missed.

We can begin to bring about the changes needed by first making certain our voter registrations are up to date.  When election time comes around again (Presidential, Congressional, Gubernatorial, Mayoral, etc., et. al.), we vote in those who would push for and through the above mentioned changes in taxation practices.  In the interim between voting cycles, we can still band together and push for change.  Join local activist groups or start your own.  Write letters to the editor, write and sign petitions.  And follow the advice of Hillary Clinton when she said at National Partnership's 2012 Annual Luncheon on June 26, 2012, “Get organized, get involved, and don't let anyone tell you it can't be done.”

 

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Trumpcare explained

This Planet Is A Closed Environmental System, And The Capacity To Colonize Any Other World Is Still Too Far Off

A Challenge - Rev. J.T. Smith

I already know that I'm not likely to make any friends by this, but that doesn't really matter.

I constantly hear how "American troops are  protecting [my/our] freedoms."  Yet I never hear anything specific about just which freedoms are being directly threatened by foreign powers that are not the result of Americans curtailing their own freedoms.

I challenge any American soldier in any branch of the American armed forces to not only name me a single freedom that any country in the Middle East (or any other nation in the world for that matter) in the last 50 years [i.e. since 1967 as it's now 2017] that has ever been jeopardized, but to also explain IN DETAIL exactly how that freedom was jeopardized!

One thing, the answer must involve direct action(s) on the part of that foreign nation.

This is my challenge to any American soldier who can answer in detail since, other than the media, they're the most vociferous in this claim. 

- Rev. J.T. Smith 

Agreed

This won't make me popular, but I completely agree. - Rev. J.T. Smith

The Shortsightedness Of Blaming Religion - Rev. J.T. Smith

Obviously, not everyone shares the same religious beliefs.  Right and wrong, good and evil, those are subjective rather than objective terms and ideas.  What's right and good for some can be considered wrong and evil by others.  Everyone is the hero in their own life story.  An often overlooked example of perspective is that America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan purportedly to fight the terrorists, yet to the noncombatant Iraqis and Afghans it's Americans (who invaded their countries, drop bombs, and launch missiles from planes and drones that destroy their homes, culminating in the combination of the missiles, bombs, and soldiers that kill their children and families) who're the real terrorists.  There's the adage that “there's two sides to every coin,” the obverse and the reverse (heads and tails).  Coins have a third side that people either forget or completely ignore: the edge between the sides that you can spin the coin on.  And just like situations involving contention, there are three sides: You're side, their side, and reality.

Regardless of your faith leanings, even if you're an atheist, the reality is that the three largest religions practiced in the West (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all worship the same God.  The only difference between Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah is the same difference between Michael, Miguel, Mikail, et al.: Language.  Yahweh is the Hebrew name for God, Jehovah is one of the Christian names for God, and Allah is the Arabic name.  This matters because it's the perceived differences that are used as excuses by all sides for the current strife in the Middle East.

And there are those who will say that religion, regardless of its name, is nothing but superstition in the first place and science “provides all the answers,” and it's those superstitions that are the real cause for the various wars.  Yet they'll still proceed to use science as a tool and weapon and religion as an excuse to commit heinous acts of violence.

And because that excuse is usually stated both loudly and repeatedly regardless of the theatre of combat, both the targets and those who witness the senseless violence, killing, destruction, and overarching tragedy will typically have an overriding fear/anger response and blame the religion (especially if they're not practitioners of the blamed religion) of their enemy.  It's the easy answer.  The over-simplified and fails to look at the entire picture answer, but still the perceived easy answer.  And who doesn't like simple, easy answers that require little to no thought?

The thing is, while not only is there no religion safe from blame or being targeted, religion in and of itself is never the culprit.  The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were perpetrated by Christians and were just as violent (relative to available technology) as what ISIL is doing now in the name of Islam.

We, this means all of us regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs (including atheism), need to stop blaming religion for the actions of its purported followers and to stop accepting extremists' claims of following their religious beliefs when their actions demonstrate their real motivations are of feeling the need for perceived superiority and their evident desire to bully and dominate others.  Just because someone uses something as an excuse does not automatically make that excuse the cause for their actions.

Islam is not the enemy.

Judaism is not the enemy.

Christianity is not the enemy.

Religion, regardless of the flavour, is not the enemy.

Greed, intolerance, hatred, those are the enemy!

Even science and religion really can co-exist without being at odds with each other if people would just get over themselves.  Now if only the same could be said of humanity in general.

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Hey, President Trump,

Reality Check

Trump really can #MAGA

To All Republicans Who Insist On Banning Abortion . . .

Don't Confirm Tom Price!