A Letter From America to the U.S. Veteran

  A Letter from America to the US Veteran

Dear Veteran,

   I would like to take a moment to thank you for defending the very wonderful Freedoms that I present to my People. They have no grasp of what it is to be free, but I give them small doses of what I think it should be. This will suffice for now but the important thing is we have men and women like you to defend me, and that I am grateful for.

   I must say that I have changed over the years. When I first came about there were men who gathered in one of my cities to propose ways to allow the populace as a whole to exist in a land of plenty without the thought of tyranny from a Crown thousands of miles away. They were men of many faiths, and a few with no religion at all,  with recent memories of state ran religions and theocratic wars in the Mother countries in which they were descended from. In their great words they put on paper there was an appeal The Creator. This Providence which dictated through the likes of the Jews and early Christians the greatest way to bring prosperity to the greatest number. The grievances were Declared to the Crown, and the many brave took up arms from their own walls and gathered to defend my soon to be birth. When the tyrants of the old country were cast, they met again to uphold their promises of writing the social contract which would bind Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to the people who existed in the land. This Constitution made clear that the authors were just men and their faults of human nature would be kept in check and balance  by others worthy and virtuous enough to hold an adjacent office. 

   Over the years, tyrants rose again and I called on brave men like yourself to defend me. I even once asked you to go into terrible battle against your brother for the dignity of the slave and his right to be free as yourself. You were asked to cross the oceans more than once with no true promise of return and to carry my colors into the horror of war. Some of your brethren returned to a grateful People, and other still lie where they had fallen. 

   But, I who am America, am only as good as the People as it is them I am made up of. Liberty, that is the freedom to exist within the natural and moral code has new meaning to them. I have done away with the natural laws of Moses and his descendants to only replace them with relativism and arguments made from invented theories and doctrines. No longer will a man and woman marry to give my land more children, they will use medicines to stave off children and if they are created from natural action I have given them permission to take them from the womb before they exist. My land is filled with poor and " feeble-minded" so it is of no consequence that they are extinguished before their lives take hold in the world. The people who still do believe in the Creator will not appeal to Him or take up the cause of their Faiths to defend him, and the minority who do not acknowledge Him find power in my courts to suppress His laws in every public place. Their ideas of morality will be as scattered as the doctrines that they are written on. Now that the peoples idea of natural function is only for pleasure and there is no wrong I will gladly allow man and man, woman and woman, or a man with several wives to enjoy what they believe to be the fruits of marriage to be. 

Sincerely,

The United States of America

Healthy Tensions

        I recently started reading the Satires by Juvenal and so far what I can come up with is that the author was either very, very jaded and cynical or he actually knew what a great thing Rome was in the past and was watching it crumble before his eyes. Apparently the same sensational materialism along with licentious acts were the determining factor of a person’s worth when before it was virtue and being part of something greater that any one person by himself. If you are wondering who Juvenal is, think of the ‘bread and circuses’ quote said by many pundits. He is the one that first said it as far as calling out a society on there moral immaturity.

In this we can see the greatest propagator of mockery in a republic is the people, but I would like to place, at least half of the blame, on the elected leadership. Alexis de Tocqueville was amazed in 1831 when he saw that “people authored their own laws’, or in a sense had a very public discourse with the people they chose to represent them. Going further into this idea, Bastiat said that a person should vote for the whole society and not just for their own needs or personal desires. Taking those two great luminaries advice one can act and then come to the reality that it is often now futile to appeal elected leadership in this manner.

So a bowl of chips in from of the game console seems like the best possible solution  until a person would read more classical works, and in this case it would be the healthy tension of the mind Socrates speaks of and later on would appeal to the strategy of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. Calling out, in a civil and open dialogue, the problems that a person sees in the very present society or culture they live in, may not bring the intended results, but at the very least it may open the eyes and ears of the elected voices living on the taxpayer dime. It can be done and again if civility is used, it is perhaps a possibility that dialogue will be opened between the people and these officials between the voting seasons. Would that not be a grand concept in such a great Republic?

Now before I go on to identify the two, I have to say that one can never legislate morality, but they can legislate the conditions for immorality to run rampant. That being said I would like to identify Representative Bruce Cozart and Senator Bill Sample as the two who received  not only my vote, but a kind and well thought letter identifying simply that a public educator should not be allowed to pursue a relationship with a student  at their taxpayer funded schools. As far as I know, any parent would not appreciate their child going to school for any other main reason than to gain an education. Or at least what passes for one in this state. Representative Cozart actually was or is on a school board so I had assumed that he would at least be concerned.

Well, being that it struck me that this could now be a possibility in Arkansas I took my initiative as a concerned citizen and vote to address this matter. One may write to affirm themselves in some empty acknowledgement from these officials, but I honestly figured it is a moral duty to address these issues. I also wrongly assumed that I would at the very least get a post-it note back with “Letter Received” on it to let me know that my voice was worth a vote in the next election. Of course this is wishful thinking that only exists in a silly book like Democracy in America, since no one really cares about liberty and freedom in the correct sense.

For the readers interests, I am going to attach both of the letters to this incompetent writing. As for me, I am going to enjoy a loaf of bread before I stumble into the Barnum and Bailey tent for the show.


Dated 9 June, 2012




 Representative Cozart,

I am composing this letter which I consider utmost importance. As a concerned citizen and voter, I attempt to stay attuned to local, state and national politics as well as various court decisions that directly affect me or the people that I am concerned for. To wait for an event that is derogatory to me personally without any concern for the general welfare of others shows a true lack of charity and as Alexis de Tocqueville said it best, “…a true beginning to despotic rule.” 

With that being said, the matter I am referring to is the Arkansas Supreme Court vs. Paschal on the matters of a public educator pursuing a relationship with a student.  It is allowed without and criminal charges if the said student is above the age of eighteen. I have just composed a letter to Senator Sample as well as the Attorney’s General McDaniel in hopes of bringing this matter to the House and Senate floor for legislation as well as possible judicial action. Even though I claim to watch political activity, I must confess I am still ignorant on the rules and accords that pertain to Arkansas government and the manner in which new legislation is presented. I can believe however that when an evident injustice occurs or redress is required on laws that are written and revised that elected officials such as yourself are the persons to address in a respectful and frank tone. 

By not enacting laws that protect the students and children that are for a short time entrusted to the State’s care, we are heading down a path of complete demise. Even here in Hot Springs, we have had an educator that was fired and charged with an improper relationship with a young female student. The only difference between him and the above stated offender Paschal, is a couple of years difference in the student’s age. By not setting a tone that this type of behavior is wrong in every sense, we affirm those who lack the moral integrity to use their positions of influence for the greater good. We see in throughout the country on a daily basis of teachers seeking sexual relationships with students or in the worst cases outright assault.  

From your bio listed, like many other elected leaders, you fancy yourself in the best concerns for the welfare of students and children. Yet this problem I have addresses has received little attention and even when I have written leaders, there has been little response. Also our elected leaders are people of faith, that is to say that the attend a morally and spiritually sound congregation that admonishes the type of behavior discussed, and even yesterday in front of the State Capital building we had a religious freedom rally that some elected officials were more than apt to address the audience, and yet the very religious freedom that would allow solid moral clarity is not being put forth in the House or Senate; every law pertains to fiscal financial matters while modernism and relative beliefs seep into our state and culture.

I ask you to further pursue this matter in the best possible means that is accomplished within government procedures. Thank you for your time and I look forward to a timely response.

And we have Senator Bill Sample that actually got two, but for the purposes of this blog I will only post the the second letter.

Senator Sample,

As a concerned  registered voter, I decided to write you a letter two months ago referring to the Arkansas Supreme Court’s ruling on whether or not a public school educator is allowed to pursue a sexual relationship with a student given they are above the age of eighteen. Further follow up on social media, you replied that the issue regarding future legislation would be addressed at the next session. I understand that you are busy but the inability of a Senator to return correspondence to a concerned voter who addresses such a strong issue or actually truly cares about the community and state he lives in is the very reason many loose faith in the political process. Do we have to wait for election season for that particular person and discuss the concerning social issues as bumper stickers are being passed out or can we continue to rely on the fact that a representative democracy does work and that our voices will be heard?

Like I have stated, I follow the Senate sessions as much as possible, not for the issue I am addressing, but to keep a clear and concise notion that out elected leaders are doing their jobs. The measures and bills that are written in volume are nothing short of phenomenal and for this I applaud you. However, the current state of affairs with the economy lead the notion that everything revolves around state fiscal budgets, and to a degree it does, but the social issues are going to bring us down as a state and as a country. I am sure that you are aware of the ruling of Arkansas v Paschal  that determined that an educator can be found of no criminal charges if the student he or she is pursuing a relationship with is above the age of eighteen. It is still unclear if the state will seek a rehearing or that state legislature will pursue new laws against this kind of conduct. 

So as it stands now, a teacher that is paid by tax dollars, cannot be criminalized for pursuing a sexual relationship with a student entrusted to his or her care. You do not have to look far to understand or be aware of the power a person of authority has over an impressionable person. It seems the factor here is the age; even in my old high school a teacher was recently fired and charged with sexual relations , or the pursuit of relations, with a student. The only difference from him and Paschal is the age of the student. Again, it is the social issues that are going to break up. The show of Senate sessions leads me to believe that our elected leadership is out of touch with the wrongs that are happening on a public level. Just today there was a assembly of people in front of the capital expressing disdain of the HHS Mandate and the intrusion on religious liberty and some senators rightfully spoke at this event. However, the pursuit of universal morals that faith brings seems to be a far reaching endeavor of our leaders if it does not include favorable public opinion. 

I apologize if this letter seems over critical or that my ignorance may have led me to be haste on addressing such an issue. I have voted for you in the past and will continue to do so as long as you choose to remain in office. Thank you for your time and letting me voice my concerns as a citizen.

The Poor County in a Poorer State in a Broke Union

Every day we come across a story that at the very least makes us blink and loose what ever great thought we had at the particular moment. Sometimes they are profound that in our busy lives we assume that some action group will take up the banner to right the complete absurdity of a proposal, only to find that every one else thought the same way and did nothing. With the comments that follow, I had assumed The Garland County TEA Party would have went full charge, knocking down barricades and doors to scream at the issue and they might have had it been a Democrat suggesting such a liberal use of county funding.

The object in question is that Tommy Thompson, the long standing Garland County Tax assessor, requested $94,000 for the use of planes in photographing the county. Mr. Thompson, you probably already know this, unless your office is like most other elected offices in which the holders of them tend to forget what life for those around you is like, $94,000 is a pretty nice salary anywhere and maybe a high bracket here in this state. I imagine that around here that would easily split into two nice salaries. But I digress; if the county is that wealthy then spend away!

Back to what I am reading here. Mr. Thompson wishes to spend this money for a plane to photograph the whole county. Sir, Google Earth is free. We can even see the new looks of Pyong Yang every thirty days, not that it would change, but I am sure Garland County is covered in the small ole Google’s scope. Oh? It might take some work to assess and evaluate all of that? I am pretty sure someone out there in this economy can do it for say.. $94,000? I bet you can hire a whole team for that! But then again I am not smart enough to calculate the costs of fuel into that of someone getting paid to drive around and ask people to show what else they have that needs to be taxed. Maybe you could ask the Garland County Tea Party to volunteer since they seem to be fine with it?

The last thing is the odd forecasting that is done on this one. Maybe the Tax Assessor should turn on the news and see that maybe the three years he needs to recuperate the funds spent on flying over people’s property may not be a sure thing. We are running at full speed to run this county so far into the ground we will need the rubble of Greece to  level it back out. Is he assuming that people in Garland County is hiding such a great deal of property that these extraordinary measures need to be taken as so that they are not depriving the county of some enormous fortune?

I am not sure if Mr. Thompson got the requested funds, and it isn’t as if I could do anything about it. From what I can see he is an upstanding man with a great deal of education from a seminary. But this I am certain of Sir, when you are in office you can be either ignorant or you can be corrupt, but you can not be both at the same time.

The Fallacies of Threats and Frivolous Lawsuits Against Terry Elementary School and Agape Church

Premise

The letter sent to Terry Elementary School by Appignanni Humanist Legal Center (AHLC)on behalf of the Arkansas Freethinker Society (ASF) addresses the issue of whether or not the school, and therefore the state, is “forcing” the student or family in question to participate in a definite religious activity, that is to say a prayer or devotion to a specific faith or religion and in this case Christianity itself. This of course can be the foundation of a compulsory worship dictated by the state, but the question of the manner of which this was addressed is the question. AHLC referenced abstract legal jargon as well as court cases, both of which are applicable until closely referenced, seem to compel the what would have been the defendants to acquiesce to the needs of the minority, which oddly enough is anonymous. Nothing was considered about the direct philosophy and rhetoric that is openly posted by ASF and its member’s true ambitions were considered by Agape Church before their hastily decision to prostrate themselves before humanists who have no concern for the children but more so for advancing their cause.  The letter was sent, but the polarized fanfare it received compelled the pastor of the congregation to act hastily , and in my opinion without good cause. The fallacies of AHLC’s ultimatum to the school was not fully addressed and in this the intolerant tolerant gained a platform to speak from.

Any reference to these matters to ASF for open discussion into their views outside of the threat of a lawsuit is often met with ad hominem attacks with little substance, which negates any real discussion and reason that Freethinkers claim to embrace. A great deal of petty insults are made against people of faith, and with the idea of victory that they believe they have gained they will most certainly find motivation to apply their agenda to every appearance that there is some state “compulsion” in practicing a particular faith.

Before I state my views I have to acknowledge my personal stake in this ordeal: there is none outside of differing opinions of those I address. I am not a member of Agape Church, but I am a practicing Catholic. I have no children in any school district and none of my friends have children enrolled at Terry Elementary School. However what I observe is a growing trend of humanist and secular “Freethinkers” that pursue the idea that Separation of Church and State dictates that any observing of one’s personal faith should be within closed soundproof rooms as to  preventing offending one with an opposite view. In my Open Letter to the Society of Arkansas Free Thinkers I directly addressed the questions in a frank but respectful manner. The purpose, as with an open letter, was to open mature and honest dialogue with those within that group. Unfortunately, my words were met with jeers and intellectual attacks that brought no credit to ASF’s cause, but rather exposes the nature of who they are as a group, save for the Vice President Anne Orsi. I also believe that directly insulting a person or group brings no open dialogue and this group in question, if they desire this dialogue would perhaps discern there own responses and statements with more maturity. Even though Benjamin Franklin was disgusted by Age of Reason, he was still able to address Thomas Paine in a frank and compassionate manner. They did remain friends even after the work was finally published.

I would also like to state what I believe humanism is. It is peculiar that they had to recompose their manifesto after World War II after it was clear what the implications of following Darwin were. If humanism is a belief, and therefore a “religion” if you will, we are exposed to their “faith” on a daily basis. Their wishes for open abortion, divorce without cause, promiscuity and absolute diabolical views show we faithful are “forced” to experience their beliefs on a daily basis.  Those of  the Faith never force others to accept Christianity, though historical critics would disagree, for we understand that it must come from a sincere change of heart.

The Issues 

First would be the “enlistment” of APHC by ASF as a means “correcting violations of separation of church and state at Terry Elementary School in Little Rock”. First the complaint was made by a concerned “anonymous” parents and furthermore ones, according to the letter, with religious beliefs. Why is it, that a family with “religious beliefs” go to ASF, the very group that is against religion (read any of there dialogues or ideology and this is more than obvious) to receive help? Also the Vice President of ASF is more than militant with her disdain for anything faith based in or outside of a school and applies her knowledge as an attorney just to help this very oppressed family? She had never heard of APHC and sought out their assistance against this great injustice? They would have us to believe that their agenda does not exist, and all of this came together at this very moment to halt the “state mandated religion“.


What of the “anonymous” parents?  Are we to believe that the children would be “bullied or ostracized”? Basic human nature says that this is a possibility, but can it be said that the educators at this elementary school would allow this? If that is true then the school itself needs to be addressed in the manner that any bullying for any reason is not acceptable. As too often, the plaintiff in these cases “fear” for their safety as if the Salem Witch Trials would immerge as a method of dispelling one’s ability to choose a faith. It was the perfect moment for ASF to apply the methods of humanists being used everywhere here in Arkansas. Are we beyond the defendant knowing their accuser? Is the defendant the head of a criminal enterprise that has the power and lack of morality to apply force to those that may challenge their status? Would the revealing of the plaintiff’s identity cause such a social problem for a child that it would be better to remain anonymous? Is the superintendent, principal and teachers at this school so “close-minded”  that they would not allow a parent to address these concerns in a manner befitting compassionate adults?  No. As with any Agent of Invention, the lawyers and the small minded who support them with very little discernment, pervert the wisdom of the Founders along with the court cases that addressed something completely different to apply their agenda of humanist “religion“.




For reference, this is the letter posted by Central Arkansas Coalition on behalf of  The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers and Appignani Humanist Legal Center

More social justice thoughts....

The ability of a people to self govern must be beyond the sight of their own fortunes or pleasures and must be for the betterment of society as a whole. This is to say that he should not have to give up the fruits of his labor, happiness, or earnings but should see beyond the confines of his own success. Despotism is the mark of a society which no man will strive for the reasonable good of his brother and therefore allows tyranny to take hold creating the environment for disdain and revolution. Social justice then often becomes a tool of politicians who claim to correct the “wrongs” of society through abrasive laws that benefit the whole with less fortitude than the prior system. This ultimately benefits no one in the capacity a free society could.

With that, we have been given the tools by our Forefathers to govern ourselves in accordance with Divine Providence only through genuine education and knowledge for without it the laws given to us become ambiguous and without any pretext only open to interpretation by the select elite who may, through their own greed or pleasures, legislate laws the benefit the few over the whole of society.

This has been said by the slew of politicians to fill the polls since the forming of the country, that they will in fact by themselves at times, follow the written social contract called The Constitution for the betterment of society and to full fill any destiny given by the Almighty. The one thing that kept them in their given rolls was the equal knowledge and education of the people they served. Alexis de Tocqueville was astonished in 1835 when the majority of people he met in The New World was absolutely involved in authoring their own laws alongside the men they chose for public office. Today we might find ourselves agreeing with politicians or leaders of our liking but often fail to completely understand the history or value of why the said leaders take the podium in the first place. To be completely complacent as to why a politician would have motivations or agendas can be the greatest mistake of a society as it can give free reign for a leader to indulge in his own self interests apart from what is good for The People. Also, lack of personal understanding for what was common language of the period creates the ambiguity that is described earlier.

Older common language often used words such as “violence” and “force” without actually meaning the present form of physical manifestation. That is too suggest force without actually becoming violent, as words and language had a more profound meaning. A political leader’s lack or moral integrity that lead to his shortcomings could be in fact his end as far as career implications went, but when a politician is sly in forcing unjust laws, meaning that he “bends the language” to meet his own personal agenda or the values of the few, we find it more difficult to be disobedient since in all appearances no written law outside of a man’s faith was broken. Faith determines his facts, and therefore he believes in acting within certain interpretation of laws he is correct and any resistance is wrong or shortcoming of what he has decided to be right.

So in this all do we find leaders or ambitious politicians to be who would speak our own thoughts and beliefs in generalization incomplete discern why they have come to certain conclusions about rule of law and understand them completely from the beginning. Without doing so, we are slaves to the elite’s ambitions or self service living in a perpetual state of bondage. Not everyone strives to obtain public office, even more so is it unappealing with the negativity that now exists, but a true citizen should equal his intelligence of public affairs with the person he or she would vote for. This in itself would lesson the corruption that is profound in politics today. We deserve exactly what kind of leadership we get and to think otherwise is a folly that only leads to tyranny and self ruling despotism that only ends in revolution and ruin from the inside.

Inasmuch as it is needed to have the necessary knowledge to author our own laws, it is even more so to have the moral capacity and often times courage to enact them. That is to say that legislation and local statutes must be written but without enforcement to the whole body of citizenry, leader and follower alike, they merely become arbitrary and meaningless. The desire for profit or personal gain is relinquished to the few elite while the populace may suffer or become secondary to succeed. This is not limited to criminal justice or “black and white” laws, but holds true to social justice as well. This is not to develop comfort or luxuries but to promote the general welfare of society. Though parents are the primary providers of a child’s needs, including education, there must be an acknowledgement that a gulf exists between the rich and the poor. Moral leaders, writers, and theologians that realize this have the capacity to counter the revolutionary type of writings found in Morelly’s Code de Nature or Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”. Such ideas found in their works have proven that no just society can work on socialism and only creates a despotism that is totally implemented against any democratic thought found in republics.

This type of social justice is often time implied as material wealth and gains which in a faith-based sense should never be. It is passing of the knowledge to someone else to give them the necessary tools to succeed. To give absolute, means to create a class of people that will only envy and lust for more that develops into a thought of class warfare. This in itself also always leads to revolution or a decrepit society which itself is completely distinct from anything good. True prosperity is lost and in that we find what we have today: a class of poor that often turn to any criminal enterprise that will reward quick gratification through less than moral acts and the inability to see the difference between right and wrong since it then becomes relative of the situation. This is not to say that such acts do not exist in a higher income class of society, but often with the proletariat it shows in living conditions and social norms reflect what is come to be acceptable. Often it is described as “cultural distinctions” that follow no faith or set code. Here we find the “wrongs” looked down on with no real need to correct them with respect to the person or established culture.

So with establishing this and the need to educate the people as best as possible, it          becomes an absolute must to provide the means create an equality our Forefathers envisioned. It does not imply that all will be made equal through materials gains; that is accomplished after education, standards of work, and the initiative to follow them. Pursuit of happiness means just as it is written, that all men can achieve what they so desire out of moral integrity to achieve it and the moral capacity to sustain their earnings. This is to say that a form of taxation for education be imposed, as there is a separation between those who a capable and willing to educate their children, either from home or finding a good school whether is be public or private institutions. In lower class areas you will find lower class education that is often filled with angst or biased ideas of what knowledge is applicable to be passed on. Generally speaking, and I can say this in my own experience, that ideas or history itself is often taught from the easiest viewpoint leaving the student to become part of the class he or she would not later on wish to experience or be part of. The educator should not be held totally accountable for the raising of someone else’s children, but they also must respect the knowledge and power with impartiality to whom they pass it onto.


This is to say for certain that a man of devout faith and good character must pass on the general knowledge of morality and wisdom which he has been afforded to the younger generation. Else a despotic regime always develops and proves the theories of socialist writers to be true and often ends with destructive habits or in the worst cases amounts to bloody conflicts that takes a generation to right.

Faith Determines Facts

Faith determines facts. It is good to remember this when debating from a moral or religious standpoint to a person that has none or even a different set of reverent values. Even then you must understand that someone who holds no faith, as to say an atheist or agnostic belief, still has some even though it may not be of Divine Intelligence. An atheist follows the same set of codes as that of the Judeo-Christian faith though it may be seen in a different spectrum.

The first common in faith is a set belief that is followed with rigor and fortitude. Ultimately all beliefs rely on faith, which defines itself as trust is something that has no proof. Monotheistic religions accept the belief of God, which according to true and hard science of secular theory, has no hard proof. What can be known by senses or mathematical equations is only true to science gives atheists their beliefs that they are willing to defend rigorously, even at the cost of contradicting their said beliefs. Every theory towards the creation of the universe and human existence using only secular thought has been proven false or re-theorized to the point that all formulas and study are taught with equal value in college classrooms.

As stated, secular foundations of science, that is to say their faith, are rooted in arguable truths from certain perspectives only. Monotheistic religions have one value in common and that is to present a Final Judgment for transgressions at the very end of a person’s existence. Accountability for actions secular theorist and relativists explain as nothing more that atoms colliding or animalistic instincts. This gives reason to eugenics or homosexuality and a number of many other decisions, or what is reasoned to be sin from a faith based perspective. To argue for Intelligent Design would be to finally accept that humans have an immortal soul and thus proving religion and faith are correct. Very few scientists have argued the proof of God through science to the point that it is nonnegotionable, but if it were to happen it would cause a cataclysm through education that offers only real science proven by math alone.

Faith has the advantage of reasoning through its own design, but the beliefs the secular almost always contradicts itself with its own facts. Pain versus pleasure has been placed over right versus wrong by past philosophers, usually of the empirical disciplines bringing the human race to nothing more that an advanced species of mammal that evolved through the ages from amphibians or reptiles. Again, it is easier to accept that all pleasures can be indulged in without consequence than it is too accept accountability. These ideas are abstract and difficult to argue until you see the fruits of said beliefs. If humans are nothing more than mere mammals then Darwin must be right, and movements to apply eugenics, that is the “cleansing of the species”. When approached with this ever occurring ideology through our ages, the secular theorists tend to cringe and give the blame to men of Faith when it is in fact the very idea of evolution by Darwin that such systematic killing was allowed.

So, when arguing faith based opinions, it will do good to remember that the opposing side if secular, accepts their “faith” with the same rigor and reverence as those following the Judeo-Christian belief. To affront them in their own arguments, it will do well to hold them to their own set of values and standards which always tend to prove themselves wrong. Simplified logic always suffices in such matters. If systematic extermination is wrong, as any secularist would agree, how is it different from rinsing one’s mouth out? The slaughtering of livestock or even mowing a lawn? The would deduce it isn't as evil as killing a human, which in they see their own folly of belief structure and do either one of two things: argue illogically for their own belief or they reassess what they already know. This can carry on to the more serious social debates such as infanticide or euthanasia.

As for the matter of pain versus pleasure, again it can be argued by relativism; what is good for me may not be good for them or visa versa. The amount homosexuality that has happened in history is nonnegotiable  however with conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as Islam, it is identified as unarguably immoral with exact punishments in the Abrahamic faiths. Modern acceptance of such acts are made through ideas that there is a notable or unexplainable reason such a desire would happen. Sex causes extreme pleasure through orgasm, though the method it is achieved is relative according to anything but people of Faith. The empiricist view of pain versus pleasure finds foundation until, once again, it is presented with its own set of beliefs and values that unhinges it through practical dialogue. One of such stance would argue that same sex acts are nothing immoral. “Do what makes you feel good.” is the rallying cry of the homosexual movement and those that support them. While it is morally desirable to extend knowledge of Faith in hopes of producing the sight of folly in such acts, it is often without fruit since the lack of Faith in the person cannot compete with the physical feeling of committing such acts. For the case of debate though, logic will overturn and rightful argument on the part of the secularist opinion.

If it is good for a man to commit acts with another male or woman to female, through no other purpose than pleasure why is it wrong? It has no scientific value of procreation, nor does it equal even the modern norms of the majority, regardless of the amount of Faith a person has. It is a singular choice that has developed through thought, desire and experience which for secular reasons still evades modern science. No identifying “gay gene” has ever been found even though it is highly theorized. To produce these acts as the norm, be it for pleasure only, gives profound reason to other acts that are deemed repulsive in all cultures. Pedophilia is given right a way, since the it is considered a treatable sickness as opposed to choice and bestiality fortunately is still well hidden. These ideas exist, but when presented to a secularist will always be condemned as the acts they are. What is “pleasurable” now holds no proof, and the person who argues from that point of view again has the choice of acquiescence to Faith or they contradict their own logic by supporting immoral acts. Also it would be good to remember that if they accept not their own beliefs, that is to say such acts are acceptable in both cases of eugenics and homosexuality by relativism then they must have gotten their values somewhere else, which is the Judeo-Christian perspective they claim to take nothing from in the first place.

With the above said approach to arguing with the secular it is always important to allow them to contradict themselves wrong than to use a Faith that they do not believe in at that present moment, for such belief would have no taken them to their chosen set of values in the first place. As Christians we find our duty to instruct the ignorant and through proselytizing we bring the lost to Christ, but also we must understand the Almighty gave us a logical brain and to not use it in full capacity is a folly in itself.

The True Margaret Sanger

“There is the indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increases, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations-unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all the communities.” ~ Margaret Sanger,  Pivot of Civilization


If the above statement would have came from Mein Kampf, it would have been thrown aside as the ramblings of a former despot that paced his cell as he dictated his agenda to the closest and equally deranged follower. Its meaning would be lost except for few scattered para-ideological groups that cling to radical militant beliefs and are often only allowed to exist in a country due to their twisting of virtue minded laws of liberty. But as it seems the statement above originates from a woman who to this day still has her organization practicing eugenics and abortion while being hailed as a great liberator of women’s suffrage. The same broad mentality that created, supported or otherwise allowed regimes to develop doctrines resulting in humanity’s worst atrocities known to mankind- the killing of innocents for their mere existence- is also the same exact doctrine that created Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry.

Consider the outcry of many social rights organizations that express outrage, as they should no less, of liberal, political or even comical terminology concerning the Nazis and what they had ideologically stood for in World War II. Today if any group were to start collecting donations or apply for tax exemption as a philanthropic organization and choose a title that included Hitler, Pol Pot or any other tyrant, the social rights groups would waste little time in writing condemnation or lobbying for legislation regardless of  any effective charity the groups choosing these names would claim to give. Yet, when the same ideology, that which allows persons or groups to dictate a person’s worth without the benefit of trial by law or written code and ultimately terminate them based on the arbitrary idea of what worth is assessed. This ideology, the same that motivated large groups of people to destroy a group of people equal or larger in size,  is rehashed in more kind and euphemistic language with titles that confuse or redirect the undiscerning mind.

G.K. Chesterson explains in his argument against eugenics that lengthy or psychological fluff, even if it fools a person into accepting the wrong belief, does not negate the evil that is ultimately committed.

Open Letter to The Arkansas Society of Free Thinkers

                                             A Message to The Freethinkers of Arkansas

                                                                         Introduction

  This seems to be the time of year, outside of the madness that is called commercialism, where the bulk of Americans can in their own way reflect and  contemplate the message of the holidays. Some choose the time to vacation to warmer areas while others, given the region they reside in, enjoy the “White Christmas” and the magical change of season that it would seem to carry. Some families find the time to drive great distances to be with loved ones and there are those that may be fortunate enough to return from overseas as a reprieve to existing in very austere environments. There are those of us who are fortunate to have families, even with common dynamics and the unfortunate ones who only know poverty and broken homes or in the worst of cases have no homes.

Regardless, it gives many a chance to reflect on what The Season is and why it exists in this moment of time. The many “Zeitgeist” theories and beliefs many in the skeptical movement have shown a complete disregard for what most consider a premise of their chosen faith. The people who adhere to your beliefs have every right to do so; this is a free country. However, your militant approach to seeking every cause for a “free society” scrubbed of all religious matters does nothing but create disdain for your movement, and on the other hand intimidates those with good will through the use of law and courts.

In an age when violence and disregard for human life is extreme and furthermore  in an area which was the inspiration for a documentary on gang violence, that was worse per capital than that found in larger inner cities, you  find that all that is wrong with society is a Charlie Brown play at a local church. What are self evident truths to some of us, seem to completely escape the ideology and policies you would press to into the void created by removing faith based morality or even the possibility that it even exists. You would have us believe that this slight of a school was to be noticed by the many offended and not one who subscribes to the small minority of “skeptical thinkers” in the area. And yet it is the belief that they can encroach on others joy and seasonal happiness.

I wish to say now that it is not my attention to attack a person, or a group of people for their particular views. I will not do that, but I will address those views as I see as a growing trend to silence a very huge part of our culture, not only in this Nation but with the very area we live in. If there is personal offense taken, then examine why such an address of the matter is warranted.  There are many other Free Thinkers who suggests things affronting to my faith and values yet I know it is against my beliefs and not who I am as a person. It is my goal to dialogue in the same manner.

                                                                         The Issue



The issue, which is becoming more common during this time of year especially, is always centered around matters of faith: a cross on a roadway, a fifty year old statue of Christ at a veteran’s cemetery (paid for through private funding no less) and now the most horrible notion of young children watching a Charlie Brown play with a Christmas theme at a local church. It seems to begin the same way: an anonymous person was so offended by such an abomination of their 1st Amendment rights that they approached a small minority of Free Thinkers that before they nothing to do with or never known about for legal assistance. Are we to believe that this had never happened before? That the culmination of reason and science all of the sudden makes it clear to the enlightened that Charlie Brown celebrating a holiday in its intended form, is now archaic and outdated or will leave a citizen feeling like an outcast? Are we to believe that our democracy, and our public school system is so theocratic that they would chastise a parent and their child for refusing something as horrendous as a Christmas play? Dare I say that the local Free Thinker challenge of the issue is one of opportunity?

Anne Orsi, with the great education you posses, there is an understanding of the written code and what its true purpose is, but like many other students of jurisprudence, your agenda comes before the original meaning of the law. Are we to accept that you are unbiased, when it is you who are the Vice President of the local Free Thinker organization? We also must know the history of the law as well. The greatest thinkers, luminaries all, sat among themselves, many of different faiths and set upon making a social contract that would create the greatest common good for the greatest number. The recent history they knew was filled with those that would hail the Divine Right of Kings notion and then of course would state “whatever pleases the law, pleases the prince.” The rejection of this manner of ruling and tyranny had to end so than many of different faiths could sit at the table without the notion that a certain religion would dominate over the others. In all of my ignorance, I can be fairly certain that our Founders were not as concerned with children taking a day off to watch an innocent play as they were a king deciding who should burn at the stake for a particular heresy against a state mandated religion. Also, I can say with good faith, that it was and is not the intention of the church to proselytize the children over their parents wishes.

Mrs. Orsi, with all of the transgression of liberty and justice in our lands, you call on your many years of good study to pursue this and I am disappointed in not more of a loss of confidence for those in your profession. How often must we see the expenditure of good knowledge of the law used on such frivolous lawsuits?  I suppose it can be assumed that an atheist attorney believes that law came about from evolution and centuries of wrong action and thought before man was able to decide upon some natural law which they could adhere to, for in fact it was a very natural law that the Founders appealed to when authoring this social contract which now guides us.

You call the church’s good intentions of inviting children to a plat as an “alliance” and that they “..clearly over stepped their bounds..” Do you have children or relatives in this school? Have you taken part in the education of youth in the city? Have you volunteered your time outside of preaching the doctrines of Darwin and Hawkins? If you get your wish, what do you plan to do with that void that was allotted for cheerful fun and I might add a bit of charity on the part of the church?


                                                                              The Solution



One should never present a problem without also presenting a solution that can be debated for after all our Founders did this with their many different faiths, or in the case of Thomas Paine, hardly any at all.

    First: drop the charges and frivolous lawsuit against the school and the church. I can assumed that in this economy they are short of funding or donations and lack the resources to hire legal assistance which in turn is a common tactic of many atheists who sue. No apology would be needed on your part; we are speaking of a church and in its best design would not, openly at least, hold bad feelings towards you.

   Second: If you beliefs are so important that you would spend the time and energy to take a small denomination to court over a smaller issue, then ask for a public forum or debate in which the best of both atheist and theist in the area may dialogue what they believe. Is this not civility in it purest form?

                                                                       Conclusion

With the state of our Nation and our world we find a very odd predicament. Homes and families are broken more than ever. Drugs and promiscuity fill every void created by either some ignorance of morality or the ill defined reasoning to pursue instant gratification in the first place. Raising lack of employment along with idleness leads many to embrace this lifestyle of complete disregard for law, for which I might add is nothing more than and ordinance of reason. And it is reason that we must appeal, for what is a society have if not for faith and morality. What can the skeptics give that would replace it in this moment and not some “evolutionary agenda” that will take another eon to form into the desired utopia?