Coming Soon to the DarkNet Near You

Thoughtful and creative people should be able to benefit from their talent.

For Brainwashing

PIPA (Protect IP Act) and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) are two newly proposed bills whose purported aim is to protect copyrighted material, including movies,  music, and other forms of online content from abuse. On its face it seems like a good idea. And those promoting it say that it will protect jobs, and stop ruthless foreigners that benefit from ripping off talented people.

But the true impact of these bills will result in further extending the power of the powerful oligarchy that already controls Washington. It could easily become a system of censorship and thought control. As it is, the government has already been monitoring the online activity of its citizens. And unless you take special measures to browse anonymously the government is capable of finding out everything that you've posted, downloaded, or written in an e-mail.

If enacted, IP providers will be mandated to block all websites which are deemed to be in violation of this new law or be prosecuted themselves. These laws could shut down websites like the Gathering Spot, Youtube, and Facebook because they might be unable to comply with the new laws.   And even Google stands in opposition to these possible new regulations.

Most people who browse the web are probably unaware of the threat SOPA and PIPA will have in relation to their Internet-browsing freedom?

Those who are aware of the threat are generally people who work in the field of technology and those who want to protect the online freedom of expression that the Internet has provided.  Others are concerned with the underlying political consequences of such new laws.

There are those who have been working for years on technology to circumvent these overreaching forms of governmental spying and censorship.  Under the new laws ISPs will be required to block all requests to sites that have been known to provide access to copyrighted material.  However, if one types in a numerical IP into their browser they will be able to access the blocked sites.

The folks in Washington seem unaware of the existence of the DarkNet.  Short for dark Internet, in file sharing terminology, a darknet is an Internet or private network, where information and content are shared by darknet participants anonymously. Darknets are popular with users who share copy protected files as the service will let users send and receive files anonymously — that is, users cannot be traced, tracked or personally identified.  By using encryption technology packets of data circulate through the net without detection making attempts to shutdown file sharing impossible.

So, it is very unlikely these new laws will suppress file sharing for long.  But these laws do give the government an excuse to extend the reach of its spying and interfering in the online activity of citizens.

Is Gold Money?

What is money?

Cowry shells

Money can be any token of value that helps facilitate trade. It could be an IOU (just a promise to pay someone in exchange for something). It could be a piece of paper in the form of a US $20 bill (legal tender). It could be cowry shells (a form of money once commonly used across Europe and Asia). It could be large stone wheels (once actually used on the Pacific island of Yap), or it could even be gold.

Whatever the form of money may be, it use is always based on trust.

The stone money of Yap

It seems that whenever someone makes the observation that the US dollar may be losing its value people suggest there may be a need to return to a "sound" monetary system, perhaps like one adopted after the end of World War II called the Bretton Woods agreement.

Bretton Woods became operational in 1945. It obligated each member country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate by tying its currency to the U.S. dollar at a fixed agreed-upon rate.  Bretton Woods made the US dollar the global reserve currency. And it was backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government along with a promise to exchange, on demand, US dollars for gold at a fixed rate. It was through this mechanism that trade imbalances were corrected by gold reserve exchanges or by loans from the International Monetary Fund.

And it seemed to work well up until president Richard Nixon closed "the gold window" in 1971, officially taking the US off the so-called gold standard.

Gold vending machine

This refusal to honor the long-standing agreement was considered a form of default that broke the trust the international banking community had in the US dollar, even though the dollar continued to enjoy its privileged status. The closing of the gold window has subsequently became known as the Nixon Shock. It hardly seems coincidental that the US dollar has consistently lost its value in terms of real purchasing power since the Nixon shock.

The growth of US deficit spending along with the expansion of the money supply has begun to further erode confidence in the US political system and the US dollar. China, a big holder of US debt, has begun reducing its US treasury reserves. China has also suggested that an aggregate of currencies replaced the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

Some have now called the United States the new Italy because of its absurd monetary policy. The US, however, is not compelled to act in a responsible way because of its privileged status as the controller of the global reserve currency. Hence its installation of a helicopter dropper as Fed chairman who plays a lead role in bombarding the world economy with dollar emissions in what has come to be known as the "international currency war."

But the US is now being downgraded and alternatives are emerging. The dollar certainly is suspect as a store of value, "strong dollar" policy pronouncement evoke sneering hilarity. A particularly interesting new development now lies in the realm of futures trading.

It turns out that the largest US futures exchanges are now allowing the use of RMB for margin. As you know, the Chinese have been experimenting with internationalizing the use of its currency for currency exchange, trade settlement and other purposes in financial centres such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Not one to be left behind, London is lobbying PRC authorities to some extent for similar privileges as the PRC experiments with making its monies more readily available.

Gold has not been in common circulation since about 1933-34 when Congress and President Roosevelt implemented a series of Acts and Executive Orders which suspended the common circulation of gold except for foreign exchange, thus, revoking gold as universal legal tender for debts, and banned private ownership of significant amounts of gold coin. People were required to redeem their gold coins for silver backed legal tender at $20.67 per ounce.  Then under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 the value of the dollar was fixed at $35 per ounce. the gold was store in Fort Knox, Kentucky.  The possession of gold except as jewelry and collections of rare coins was outlawed.  And it wasn't until 1975 that Americans could again freely own and trade physical gold.

Many economists have pointed out that gold isn't viable alternative to a fiat currency that can expand and contract according to the demand of markets.  Although it is true that the amount of available gold cannot be expanded to match market demand for all forms of money, gold was never used in the manner that this observation suggests. Gold has never been the sole token of exchange in any economic system.

Although no one I know is suggesting that gold could ever be the sole token of exchange,  some people have suggested that gold, as a commodity, could never be viable alternative to a fiat currency because its price fluctuates too much.  This kind of statement demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how money markets function.  Anyone can open an account with one of the 200 or so companies that provide a means to trade in the various global currencies on the FOREX.  The price of money, as a commodity, also fluctuates.  Money is just another commodity it seems.

In these turbulent financial times, for individual investors, holding a commodity such as gold is very reasonable way of hedging against currency fluctuations, or worse the threat of another banking collapse or a bank holiday.

Who is holding gold reserves as a form of a monetary asset?

The US government holds the world's largest amount: some 8,133.5 tons of gold. see - Gold Reserves

Should the US return to its so-called "gold standard?"

This is the wrong question. The right question is how can the United States restore the trust it once held in the eyes of the international financial community.  This is not just a question of monetary policy. The US is in need of some fundamental political changes before any meaningful discussion of its monetary policy is even possible.

Nonsense? What are you talking about?

I need quite a bit of time to adequately rebut my little brother Dan regarding the excellent article he posted last week titled: Gold Standard? What Nonsense! I regret that I can't give it the effort it deserves right at this moment because today I have to hurry out to do some Christmas shopping. I will be exchanging some hard earned Federal Reserve Notes that the government has been so generous to leave me. 

There is no restraint of consequence on the government because our highly esteemed House of Representatives (along with the Fed of course) has access to our money before we do.They play a perpetual shell game with the public as to where the money goes. A gold standard would force them into honest accounting.

Would you leave management of your estate to that bunch of bungling con-artists expecting them to deliver it intact to your precious grandchildren when they are ready to retire? I hope not Danny because the inflating of the money supply causes its value to disappear before your very eyes when they get their printing presses rolling to make ends meet..The best way to "hold the presses" is to have some medium of exchange that cannot be inflated. Gold is the solution to that problem now and has been for the 2 thousand prior years. Why is that?

A Question of Character: Newt's Tainted Past

Newt Gingrich is a recent convert to Catholicism. Rather ironically, it seems that he converted in order to facilitate his marriage to his newest wife,Callista,after abandoning two previous wives . After converting he was subsequently invited to give a speech at this year’s National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. 

Did Newt Gingrich cheat on his first two wives for the benefit of America? He seems to think so.  Newt pressed his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.

He divorced his second wife, Marianne, for Callista, with whom he had an affair while she was his staffer on Capitol Hill. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network last month Newt explained his double spousal abandonment this way:

“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” - Newt Gingrich

What other inappropriate things has he done?

This video below explores yet another aspect of his tainted past.

Arrogant Thumb Suckers

Some people have faith in the God of their faith. Others seem to have faith in godlessness. And yet again, other onlookers  seem to be confused, not really knowing whether one position of the other makes more sense in any kind of absolute terms, and perhaps wondering why the discussion generates such passionate debates.

Those on both sides seem just a bit too certain and willing to cast aspersions on the moral character of those in the opposition. What has pride got to do with it?

There is there is, or there isn't a God. Our believing one way or the other doesn't alter the truth of the matter.

Believing in God doesn't make people somehow automatically good. Nor does disbelieving automatically make people bad. But clearly both sides are capable of being arrogant.

Having faith in the God of one's faith doesn't make a person deserving of righteous scorn, or ridicule. Nor does being an arrogant godless heathen make a person less human.

What's the point of belittling an arrogant thumb sucker who takes pride in sucking.

It seems that there are those on both sides of this issue who are arrogant thumb suckers. The discussion seems to always degenerate into a game of up-man-ship. The winner is the is the one who is better at smearing the opposition.

If there is a God, I wonder how many truly know him, or are simply self delusional. It seems to me those that truly know him would have no reason to argue about it.

In the story of the New Testament the one person that I most truly admire is St. Thomas. I admire him because of his personal honesty and respect for what it means to know something factually.  How does Jesus respond to Thomas?

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

In this passage, although Jesus chastises Thomas, he also confirms that seeing is believing. Thomas, perhaps, is not as good as other saints, but neither did Jesus curse him.  To me, personally, I prefer Thomas' honesty.  I cannot declare to believe in unseen or unknowable things even if that would make me somehow appear to be a better person in the eyes of people with faith in the God of their faith.

I simple want to be honest with myself about what I know to be true and what I do not know to be true.

In all cases, at all times the feeling of "deadly" certainty is potentially dangerous.  Those who are willing to die for a cause are often just as willing to kill for it.

If that results in me becoming the target of a smear campaign by those "blessed" with faith in the God of their faith, then so be it.

Proud to Have Faith

Reflecting upon an item I see on Street Articles called "Proud To Be A Faithless Heathen" , I can perceive a self-assured but sadly arrogant individualist. There is nothing wrong with logic per se, except when an individual, with a small range of subjectivity, begins to maintain that he or she has got the whole of it, along with, I presume, "The Truth." Logic should be our vade mecum but it should not cover over our hearts.

I deem Adolph Hitler as an example of an individual whose reliance on a specific (ill-founded) logic allowed his heart to be completely suppressed. Surely there is danger to encourage any and all individuals to abandon traditional faith and pursue their own brands of logic. No, people need a blueprint for ideals for behavior that can be provided by faithfulness.

One big trouble that the author of the article has recognized in the progress of history is the misuse of faith. Faith should not be invoked to trump logic any more than logic should be invoked to trump faith. But what is faith? Personally I see faith as largely misunderstood. Faith is not knowledge, but many will rely upon faith as if it were. This is the primary danger inherent in religions of all sorts. It is potentially a disaster of semantics. I am deeply hesitant to start any sentence with the words, "I believe..." This is because I want to be very careful about what I believe and what I need to have faith in. NO ONE can tell me with absolute certainty what I should have faith in--not a priest, not a preacher, not an imam, not an avatar, not a pope. But I should seek Truth, and perhaps in those places where those same authorities are pointing to.

Faith is a choice. I choose God. I do not choose to have the faith that there is no God, such as Nietzsche's belief. His beliefs set him free from the moralities ingrained in him during his very young years. His freedom led him to an early death due to venereal disease--not very logical at all. Humans have many natural tendencies that are very difficult to defer by logic, such as revenge, greed, and slothfulness. I can assure the reader that, in my many years of teaching, I have found few successes in using logical arguments against these vices that I have recognized in my students. Heart-felt arguments tend to work much better.

The author quoted the famous saying "God works in mysterious ways." Avoiding any logical argument for rejecting this statement, he simply shunts the words aside, saying "even a first-grader wouldn't fall for" [that explanation]. Funny, I must, I suppose, confess my stupidity because I fell for that explanation as a first-grader, and I fall for it now as a senior adult. Humans do have great capacities for huge depth of great understandings. But one person's mind cannot hold the entirety of truth and logic. We all need, and rely upon, the whole experience of civilizations that preceded us. Personally, I do not bother my little brain about whether God has a mind that can hold all that, I just accept that God does work in ways that are beyond a human's capacity. I find "heathen" irreverence akin to the shallow ethnocentrism of by-gone ages. It's a by-product of a dangerous combination of small-mindedness and overblown pride. (Talk about condescending!) Tradition does have something to offer (and, yes, some things to reject by logic). Individualists should stop presuming and accept their own personal limitations.

Responding to Newt the Nominee

It appears that Republicans will never be able to win an election without substantial help from the  Jackasses. Here we stand, at the starting gate for the presidential campaign with Iowa only a few weeks away and the GOP seems ready to throw in the towel. They have no agenda ready with well conceived ideas; they have no organization singing the praises of Capitalism; and they have no charismatic leader to rally the faithful. (Or if they do, they are hiding him among the corn stills in the backwoods of the Ozarks.) They only seem to have talent enough to throw stones at Obama, so they do that incessantly. It may be great fun but it won't put ballots in the boxes. What happened to the RESOLVE that was so common during the 20th century? 

Paul Samuelson Was Remarkable

Paul Samuelson – If any reader found themselves in college and enrolled in “Economics 101” (between 1948 and up to the present time) the chances are very good that the text book he would read for the course was Samuelson’s Economics: An Introductory Analysis which during the 1950’s became entitled simply Economics. He was and remains a giant figure in the world of economics education.He was the first American Economist to be awarded the Nobel Prize. He also won the Swedish Royal Academies prize in the 1950’s. And all his work and accolades came while working in the shadow of John Maynard Keynes, the most celebrated Economist of the 20^th century, and In fact it has been said that Samuelson was the first to be able to understand and present Keynes’ General Theory in laymen’s terms.   

Paul Samuelson

However, the most important thing to emerge from the theoretical kinship between Samuelson and Keynes is that Keynesian theory was disseminated university-by-university and class-by-class for over 50 years through Samuelson’s text book monopoly. The stagnation of thought caused by that fact has been staggering. 

Very few students outside those with an economics major have had any exposure to divergent thought on the matter.  

In 1999 Time magazine printed the following in an article about the influence of Keynes: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism." That statement is so comical that it could have come right out of John Stewart’s nightly dialogue, and that’s no joke.

A few years ago I read a compilation of articles by prominent economists titled Contemporary Economists and one of the contributors was Paul Samuelson. He summarized his article with (I am paraphrasing): "My goal has always been to help the common man."

He didn’t attempt to the find the truth, or to reveal some unknown gem of information, or to teach objectively. At heart he wanted to be a social worker but became confused along the way.  


The quantity of well meaning but misguided thought-cum-theory and the egotistical refusal to re-examine the fundamental premises on which he had built his work and written his text is immense, and the damage done is  in-calculable. 

The world would be a far better place had he aspired to follow in the footsteps of Mother Theresa than to have posed as a scientist.

Responding to Newt the Nominee

Whereas, Newt the Nominee rings rather plausible at this point, I recall having some significant doubts about citizen Cain's chances when his sudden surge came along. As it turns out, my wonderment about Cain's campaign was not misplaced. Now, after his disastrous start, we find Newt's star rising. But will it continue to rise? Again, I experience doubts in my expectations. Newt's earlier flubs were downright astoundingly huge. Will he avoid those tendencies from this point? Personally, I doubt it.

In my view, the GOP collective mindset is meandering about, looking for the various alternatives to the steadiest candidate so far, Mitt Romney. Will his religion stop him in his tracks? Can Newt shove him aside? Newt also has an issue on the religion-side: a twice-divorced now Catholic convert!

The pattern has favored having no front-runner and sudden surges from the lesser ranks of candidacy so far, and that probably indicates an unsettled polarization within the party as brought on by the Tea Party and Libertarian influences on this year's political campaigning.

Who's Offended Now?

Displaying tolerance in the face of bigotry is a trying if not impossible task.  Someone is always taking offense at something.  Recently, the Catholic Church has taken offense at an ad campaign started by the Italian fashion company, Benetton.  Their ad campaign shows various enemies kissing.  The fashion campaign is called UnHate.  The firm withdrew one faked image featuring Pope Benedict kissing Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb after the Vatican filed suit against Benetton. 


As a means of giving a little background to the following discussion of religious motivated bigotry, I want to clarify that I support the freedom of religion.

As a skeptic/non-believer, I want to support and protect the freedoms of religion and expression.  And I think the best protector of these freedoms is a secular government.

I agree that it isn't wise to provoke offense if you are trying to win over hearts and minds.  But you must also recognise that there are people who are dedicated enemies of the LGBT community.  And there is literally nothing gays could ever possibly do to win them over.  This fact, in part, explains the in-your-face attitude and the commonly seen slogan, "We're here, we're queer. Get used to it."  Part of reason gays "act out" is because people want them to feel ashamed of themselves.  In deed, it is perhaps the shamelessness of their behavior that makes it so offensive to some.  Liberating themselves means shedding the feeling of shame that has, for so long, kept them in the closet.

We never expect heterosexual people to feel ashamed of their sexual orientation nor apologize for their overt sexual behavior in public when it happens, but then again heterosexuals aren't persecuted because of their sexual orientation are they.

And like you, I think some LGBT activists go too far.  Homosexual nudity and displays of overt homosexual behavior should be kept in the privacy of a bedroom or perhaps, forgive me, a closet.  Those obnoxious activists should realize just how utterly offensive such overt behavior is to those who hate them.  Oh, yeah, I forgot.  They are aware.

Offense, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not saying that I think people should be allowed to act out sexually in public.  Little innocent kids, at least, should be protected form seeing it.  And there are existing laws against "lewd" behavior in public for just that reason.  And although, there is nothing inherently "wrong" in sexual behavior, I think it is right to enforce such laws to protect kids.

Atheists and the LGBT community actually have a lot in common.  They share a common enemy that is manifest in the ever so commonly encountered religious motivated bigotry.  Atheists also report having difficulties "coming out" to family and friends just like gays do.

There is a hazard in criticizing any particular belief system in an open forum.  I don't want to foster or spread religious bigotry.   When I criticize a particular religion in public I like to make sure that the criticism is as specific as possible.  It is easy to overgeneralize.  There always exceptions to  any generalization, so I try my best to narrow and qualify my statements.

My mentor in the area of skepticism is a virtual atheist named ZipZink, who has repeated warned me about labeling myself an atheist.  He says that the word is nearly always misunderstood and that it is almost always better to refer to oneself as an agnostic.  One of ZipZink's favorite saying is, "It is not what we believe but what we know that really matters."  He constantly warns me about overstating things especially when I approach a topic with feelings of certainty.   He's much wiser than I am.

If you are to believe the lies told by some "God fearing" Christians,  the gays are out to recruit your kids and Atheists have no morals because they hate and reject God.  Personally, I don't take offense at such expressions of ignorance but I do recognise how dangerous such nonsense can be.  I just hope that maintaining the freedom of speech will be enough to combat such stupidity.

Separate Isn't Equal

All arguments are inherently matters of semantics.  Sorry, but it is unavoidable.  Public perception and behavior do change over time, and not just because the courts make rulings on issues of justice.

Court rulings may at times lead and promote that change and at other times follow changes in cultural norms.  The recognition that blacks have the right of equal treatment under the law is a good example of how norms change.  One could semantically argue that racial differences make one race inferior to another, a belief that was, as you know, the norm in America when we were children.  And as you probably recall interracial marriages were not only considered immoral but were actually illegal at that time.

In the case of same sex orientation it is primarily religious beliefs about sexual orientation that makes "coming out" an act of courage.  And, by the way, although one might argue that all crime is "hateful," they aren't all motivated by hate.

During the 50s and 60s, in sympathy to blacks, and in recognition of a need to treat them more fairly, the segregationist principle was established called "separate but equal" under the Jim Crow laws of the time.  The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.  Labeling unions between same sex couples a "civil union" only complicates the legal and social climate in which we live.  And it allows people to maintain a perception that one form of sexual orientation is indeed inferior to another.

In my post that used the term "overlapping" I was referring to the overlapping domains inherent in marriage.  Religions define marriage differently than the state that issues the licence to marry.  Religions deny the right to divorce but civil law does.  So, whether or not one admits that cultural norms change over time and that our laws should reflect those changes seems moot.

Religious people who belief that marriage is a sacrament that joins a man and woman together forever by God are still free to do so, even though civil laws allow for divorce.  Divorce laws don't interfere with their religious freedom to believe that marriage is forever.

In the same way, civil laws could be easily expand to allow for people of all sexual orientations to marry under existing statutes, and in the process grant everyone equal protection under the law, not just heterosexuals.

More on Gay Issues

Pat: Why are you so obsessed with the semantics argument? We agreed in the original exchange on this issue that the effort to legislate public perception is ineffective. In order to win acceptance Gays need to tone down their confrontational posture.

Early in 2009 I watched a You Tube video of a demonstration in San Francisco by the GLBT because Prop 8 passed in the 2008 with a large majority. (Prop 8 stipulates that a marriage between one man and one woman is the only valid or recognized marriage in California).

In that video there were several offensive scenes of nudity, public masturbation, and even one man engaged in fellacio with (I assume) his lover, while onlookers watched and cheered them on. That is a far more offensive problem than the argument about which term they use for legal unions.

Recently the GLBT leadership has been trying arduously to lead their constituents away from such behavior because it is so destructive to their cause and I applaud those efforts. It has led to a strong movement within the Gay community to be openly gay but not intentionally offending others. That is a thoughtful and intelligent approach.

Re: Christians: Of course Christians think marriage is a Holy Sacrament; IT IS a Holy Sacrament in the Church. That’s what is taught and that is what they believe. Are you in favor of religious freedom or not? It seems as if you are determined to have full acceptance for atheism but you refuse to respect the beliefs of Christians.

By the way, why do you have such vociferous animosity toward Christians but not, apparently, for any other religious belief system?

Newt The Nominee

Surprising to me, the polls now show that Professor Newt Gingrich is far out ahead of his rivals in popularity among Republicans.  I really thought his campaign was dead in the water with his staff abandoning him and his lack of adequate campaign finances.  But it seems the dead can rise again.  Although many have asked whether he can ever live down his reputation of being the ultimate Washington insider he seems confident in himself.  And why not, I suppose, when one considers the other possible candidates.

And Gingrich himself seems to believe that he will be the Republican nominee for president.  And just as I was beginning to think that Ron Paul might really stand a chance of getting it, as other candidates seem to be self-destructing before our eyes.  


In this clip from a video interview below I don't see Newt knock on wood.  So, I guess his self confidence or perhaps more correctly his arrogance is genuine.

  

Don't Demonize the 1% - Peter Joseph

I think it is important that the 99% take some responsibility for the culture of systemic injustice that is inherent in our corrupted capitalist system.

Americans represent about 5% of the wold's population yet we consume approximately 25% of the wold's natural resources.  Whether we like to admit it or not we have all been the beneficiaries of the system as it is.  The majority have tacitly if not actively agreed to the assertion of American empire across the globe.

And now that the inevitable consequences of acquiescence have come home to roost, we want to blame the 1% who made it possible for us to all enjoy the cheap prices at WallMart.

In this video clip of an RT interview with Peter Joseph who is the creator of the film "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" and founder of The Zeitgeist Movement, warns us of the 99% that we should avoid demonizing the 1%.  If the coming chaos devolves into a class war we will not move forward to real solutions to our current global problems.  We need a way to redefine our common values and develop a shared vision of the problems we face in the future, not just as Americans but as global citizens who must confront the realities of global warming and the declining years of the Oil Era.

First - End Corporate Personhood - Jack Abramoff

The 99 percenters should listen closely to the advice given by Jack Abramoff, the former lobyist who was convicted of  mail fraud and conspiracy related to influence peddling in Washington back in 2008.  He once bragged that he owned a hundred congressmen.  Having now completed his sentence in federal prison, Abramoff has switched sides, so to speak, and now works to clean up the corruption in Washington.  Read More


This video interview with Thom Hartmann gives a stunningly clear assessment of what must be done if we ever hope to restore democracy in the US. 

What is Dominionism? - The Seven Mountains

This video gives a better description of Dominionism than I might be able to articulate.

The suggestion that the word "Dominionism" is not a legitimate one because it is used by bloggers, journalist and social scientist is rubbish. It quite accurately describes what those involved in this movement intend and hope to achieve. In this video, created by Dominionist themselves, the narrator says, "In every city of the world an unseen battle rages for dominion, for God's creation and the souls of people."  They are using the word themselves, and they don't make any secret about what they themselves mean by it.

Although dominionism is used in several distinct ways, most usage originates directly or indirectly from a specific passage in the King James Version of the Bible:
And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ] and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." —Genesis 1:28 (KJV) - Wikipedia

It is hard to gage the extent of the influence the Dominionists actually have in Washington. What is known with certainty is that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are politicians who have a direct connection to the Dominionist movement. Although it is clearly unlikely at this point that either of them will become the Republican nominee for president, it astounds me that they have gained as much influence as they have.


According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, there were about 40 faith-based lobby and advocacy groups in Washington in 1970. Today there are more than 200. These groups address domestic and international issues, among them the separation of church and state, abortion and marriage issues, and global poverty. They spend nearly 400 million dollars a year combined. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, spends the most, followed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

The GOP has actively sought to use the grassroots organizational structures that religious organizations provide them.  They have publish voter guides that have been distrubted through religious organizations across the country.  And it isn't just the wacko religious fundamentalists that have participated.

Churches enjoy  their tax exempt status with the priviso that they do not actively advocate for any particular political cause. But the law is blatantly ignored.

Overlapping Magisteria - The Gay Dilemma

A Response to Rebuttal on Gay Unions

This problem of "Gay Marriage" is not just a problem of nomenclature. It is not just about whether we should call it a "marriage" or a "civil union"  It is all about allowing or prohibiting an alteration in the public perception of homosexuality.  There is a segment of the population that deeply fear the consequences that they imagine will come about if homosexuality becomes as legitimate as heterosexuality.

Also one should consider that marriage is not just a secular term.  It also falls within the domain of religious authority. This overlap creates a disturbing confusion to some   Many Christians think of the word marriage as representing a holy sacrament.  The concept of what gays and lesbians do with each other disgusts some people.  They simply have a visceral gut reaction to their mental images.  And are offended by the idea that "abnormal" "sinful" people should have their union be blessed by God.

To call Gay unions anything else than marriage is simply a maneuver to prevent a change in the public perception of homosexuality.  Giving gay marriage a name of its own is intended to uphold the perception that gays and their lifestyle are anomalies and inferior.  You don't need to say it outright.  It is just inherent in the denial of giving equal status to gay and lesbian citizens.

Rebuttal on Gay Unions

A Response to The History of Marriage: Poly & Gay

I have accurately pointed out that the distinction “civil union” is more appropriate for the gay community and it provides parity without re-writing the definition of marriage. And the definition of marriage doesn’t change at all just because you can point out that history reveals abundant examples of polygamy and homosexuality.

By-the-way, I would like to know where I even inferred that the GLBT community was inferior in any way to mainstream society. What I did say was that Gays seem to get priorities out of order. What do they gain by having the traditional label of “marriage” and what do they lose by having their unions labeled under the emerging societal adjustments? Any middle-schooler would understand that the answer is: they lose nothing in either case.

No Walls Tumbling

A Response to The Wall is Tumbling Down

The "wall of separation between Church and State" is quite safe in our political system in the U.S., despite any secularists' worry about a rising "dominionism" sponsored by Tea Partiers and the like. Let's recall, for instance, a little bit of 19th century history that was inspired by White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism and flourished under a religious banner of "manifest destiny." (See the influence of Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., who was advocating a most ambitious brand of imperialism in the GOP at the turn of the 20th century.)

My point is that there is nothing new about radical posturing. It will have no effect on our long-cherished constitutional liberties, even though such liberties do suffer from periodic contractions when worries of sedition sweep the nation. Politicians who are clearly ignorant of our history with regards to civil liberties, such as Michelle Bachmann and others, will generally suffer from that ignorance.

Again, if the past is any measure, the GOP is not in any danger of succumbing to the current wave of radicalism, such as might be termed "dominionism." During our lifetime, the Republicans have been very much aware of the political danger of choosing the most conservative candidate for an election with a possible exception of 1964 when, by the way, the presidential election represented a dismal loss for them. The lesson was cinched by that experience.

The History of Marriage: Poly & Gay

A Response to: Right? Marriage? Whatever do you mean?


Duane, on hearing how sympathetic you feel toward gays at the start of your post on "Marriage Rights," I was beginning to confuse you with a bleeding heart liberal. Then I reached the "but" and read what followed. 

You sympathize with gays but you aren't in favor of allowing gays to have the right to marry.  Your expression of sympathy for gays doesn't make your denying them parity with the dominant collective of heterosexuals more reasonable or palatable. Coming from a person who enjoys the privileged status of being among a dominant majority makes an expression of sympathy sound very condescending.  One can afford to be tolerant of those who are of an "inferior" class of people, so long as they are denied true equality.


The gay rights issue really highlights the inconsistent way that conservatives apply the "principles" they say that they live by. And then we see your remarkably uninformed comment, about the definition of marriage.  
You wrote:

“Marriage” has had a significant and restrictive definition since before the dawn of recorded history (one man and one woman).

This "definition" of marriage argument is at heart an argument from tradition.  Because something might have been a tradition doesn't make it "right."  We might recall that slavery was the tradition until the adoption of the 14th amendment made blacks citizens.


And that still didn't put an end to the unequal treatment of blacks.  The phrase "Separate but Equal" as a legal concept continued the underclass status of blacks until the Civil Rights movement forced and affirmed the concept of equal protection.  The idea of having a separate but equal label for gay marriage, ie. "Civil Union" is just another way to deny a minority equal protection.


Referencing a few verses from the Bible should dispel the notion that marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman.

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."

Had you cared to do a little research, you would have found out that there is, in fact,  a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world, going back to ancient times. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece, Rome and in some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.  
Read More


So, you see our notions of what a marriage should be is purely a cultural construct.


Heterosexuals as a collective majority are not in the least hurt by allowing all individuals the right to marry the person of their choice. And I think all individuals should be able to decide on the significance of the issue. Does anyone have the right to tell another what is or should be significant to them.


Court decisions are a reflection of our culture, and occasioanally they help re-shape the legal framework in which we live.  But as we all know there are lots of laws that are still on the books but no one applies them, because people have moved on culturally.  The laws we care about are the ones that are actually enforced. 


And although you're right that the courts can't guarantee social equality, nor force people to change their minds about gays, the civil rights movement has accomplished what many thought was impossible. We no longer see blacks being forced to ride in the back of the bus, or to drink from a separate water fountain. And if you recall, it was the courts that forced the issue on those who were very reluctant to grant full equality and protection of  the law to blacks.


I think I should save a discussion of "affirmative action" and the concept of "hate crimes" for another post.


Just remember some of those rugged individuals that we admire as Americans are gay.

Rights? Marriage? Whatever do you mean?

I will get back to Pat’s “Tumbling Wall” a little later. First I want to address an issue that has been on my mind: Gay Rights and the issue of marriage.

My heart bleeds over the anguish many gays suffer for the simple (and courageous) act of declaring themselves to be homosexual. I despise the hateful ways in which gays are punished by society in general and religious communities in particular.

While I am sympathetic and supportive of gay rights I am not in favor of the right of gays to “marry”. During the last 25 years they have mostly won the same legal protections of mainstream society. The barriers to legally recognized civil unions have been removed. So why do some gays continue to fight for the additional “right” to the term “marriage” be attached to their unions? “Marriage” has had a significant and restrictive definition since before the dawn of recorded history (one man and one woman).  That fact alone overrides any of the current arguments to the contrary, I’m afraid.

Sometimes it seems to me that this struggle over marriage rights is simply a “movement of disruption” with no underlying significance.

The struggle now for the GLBT should be for social equality, the marriage issue having been resolved through the courts; but social equality can’t be achieved through the court system, it being by nature a struggle for the hearts and minds of the people.

Strange as it may seem I am not against adoption by gay couples in certain circumstances. I believe that children are best nurtured in a heterosexual environment, but if that isn’t possible for whatever reason, a loving home should take precedence over all other considerations including gender.

For the record I am against all “Special Rights” declared by the government. I don’t abide by distinctions such as “affirmative action”, or “hate crimes” (all crime being hateful) or all the other rights of so-called minorities. One of the greatest documents ever written is our Constitution and it has provisions to assure that “ALL men are created equal” as stated so eloquently by Martin Luther King. We don’t need more distinctions we need more adherence to the Constitution. 

The Wall is Tumbling Down

In the first amendment of the Constitution, there are two clauses that have traditionally been recognized as creating a "wall of separation between church and state".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion  -- read More

and

 ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...  read More

But  it was Jefferson who actually first used the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state." The phrase is now used as short-hand way of referring to the Establishment Clause.  read More


Jefferson himself admired the teachings of Jesus, but, as a man of the enlightenment, he couldn't stand the biblical references to miracles and supernatural events.  They bothered him so much that he wrote his own version of the New Testament.  read More

Jefferson apparently couldn't stand the overbearing demands to conform that permeated religious communities of his day.  He was, one might say, a free thinker.  He obviously preferred secular reasoning be used in matters of governance.


In the privacy of one's own mind, people should be free to "believe" as they want.  But no religiously motivated agenda from an outside source should be imposed on another against their will.


Nine of the original 13 colonies had official religions.  Though most of the founding fathers were deist, they worried that a religion might gain a disproportionate influence if religion were left unchecked in the wider public arena of governance. In their day, the word "secular" didn't carry the negative connotations that it does today.


Ironically, the true danger to our constitutionally guaranteed right to free thought (freedom of religion) doesn't come from the all inclusive secular community but from a more narrowly defined religious agenda.


No one can any longer believe that politicians are merely leveraging voters by wrapping themselves in a mantle of religiosity.  It is an all out cultural war.  And it is a war started by the religious right to defeat secular reason.  The history of this war goes back several decades and it may have, in fact, always been present here in America, perhaps from even before the Constitution was adopted.


And it is clear that the GOP backs the "Culture War" against our secular system of government.  read More