Listening recently to friends talk about religion prompted me to reaffirm my own understanding of the subject, so I’ve done a little research and I hope this helps everyone understand the subject matter better.  What triggered my desire to define this clearly for them, was the statement one of them made that in effect said their good deeds, righteous living and Golden Rule ethics would be enough to insure salvation.  I don’t think so and here is why.

Grace is defined as the unmerited granting of mercy.  In other words “undeserving.”  The following Bible passage explains grace and faith perfectly.  Faith, in Christianity, is the belief that Jesus is the only Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary and was killed for the salvation of mankind’s sins, rising from the dead and ascended to Heaven.
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.  For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

The first sentence tells us that we have been saved, even though we do not deserve it, simply through our faith.  This salvation cannot be earned through our deeds, the passage says, “this is not from ourselves, it is a gift from God-not by works, so that no one can boast.”  In other words, our salvation has nothing to do with our ability to earn it, deserve it or create it by our actions, even going so far as to negate our ability to boast about it because we didn’t earn it to begin with.

So much for the old standard-bearer argument that says, “I just do good things and try to be a good person and don’t hurt anyone else and that is good enough to get me into heaven.”  That is NOT what I read in the Bible.

The second sentence is even more insightful and tantalizing, stating we are God’s handiwork, created to do good things which God prepared in advance for us to do.  So again, we can’t “earn it”, but God makes it clear that we are put upon this earth to do good things, which he has already prepared in advance for us to do.  I read this as an admonition to not sit back and rest on our laurels, simply because we believe God’s grace has saved us.  God is making it clear that He has a plan for us and it is not that plan that gets us to grace, but it is a plan of God’s design, nevertheless to be understood, obeyed, and pursued.

John 3, New International Version (NIV)

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. ²¹ But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

I read this passage as a clear warning:  If you know about Jesus and reject Him, you are condemned; this is plain language within the biblical text.  It seems clear that in this passage “light” is interchangeable with truth, Godliness and righteousness.

All in all the message in this case and for this subject is clear as crystal; we get to heaven only by God’s grace.  We can do nothing to earn or deserve God’s grace, we simply profess our faith in Him, worship Him and obey Him and our salvation is guaranteed.  If we come to know Him and reject Him, we are condemned to death without salvation.

I hope this helps.

A common question I hear that ultimately leads to debates is the issue of working on a criminal case where I either know or suspect that the client is guilty.  The argument goes like this; How can you sleep at night if you get someone off who is guilty of some terrible crime?  How is that just under a system of justice?

Because we don’t teach civics anymore, I think most people outside of that system misinterpret the job lawyers and investigators do.  We don’t “get them off” when cases go well for our clients.  When that happens, the prosecution has either done something wrong, failed to do their job, or someone involved with the arrest made a mistake sufficiently egregious to fail in proving guilt or otherwise violated constitutional rights, rules and regulations that are a necessary component to our legal systems integrity.  Just because a person is arrested for a crime they definitely committed does not in any way mean that the rules of justice and fairness in adjudicating the matter are somehow less important, relaxed, or to be dispensed with.

We begin with the premise that innocence is a given in the absence of PROOF to the contrary.  In other words, all people accused of crimes are innocent, that is the assumption from the start.  It is the duty of the state to PROVE guilt.  There is no obligation for the defendant to assist the state in making their case.  The defendant can remain silent during the entire process if he or she so chooses.  The burden is entirely on the state to prove guilt.

In doing so, the state has an obligation to act within the parameters of the law and the requirements of our constitution.  Serious deviations from those rules, laws or constitutional guarantees can result in otherwise guilty people being set free.  The reason this is so is to set such a high standard on the state in order to insure strict compliance with the letter of the law and the bounds of the constitution.  If serious breeches of the law were allowed, the system would have no incentives to preserve these rights.  The penalty for violating these provisions needs to be extraordinarily high in order to act as sufficient incentive for the state to use the utmost care in making criminal prosecutions.

When viewed through the lens of distortion that outlines a defendant that the public deems to be obviously guilty, these safeguards seem barriers to justice, simply slowing down an inevitable process.  When applied to others who may well be innocent of wrongdoing, or to you personally, those same safeguards and guarantees may well be your last resort to continued freedom.

Remember the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence which ushered in our Constitution.  “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

That doesn’t sound like a “technicality” to me.

When I first heard of the organization “Black Lives Matter.”, (BLM), it seemed like a truism.  Why would anyone challenge that?  Does that really need to be stated?  The name itself sounds like a lecture.  I’m insulted that BLM thinks it necessary to remind folks that they matter.  The statement is no different that “white lives matter”, or “tan lives matter”, or “fetuses lives matter”, all true, fill in the blank….  It certainly smacks of racism, singling out only black lives mattering, a message apparently targeting white people.  It assumes the need for validation yet the facts are not there.

The black community itself needs to be convinced that their own lives matter,  considering the following disturbing facts.

1. Black abortion rates are 4 times higher than that of whites.
2. Black on black murder in only 2 years exceeded by 1400 the total number of lynchings from 1882 until the 1960’s.
3. Black’s are 13% of the population yet commit over half of all murders.
4. Blacks commit a disproportional level of crimes, putting their lives at risk.
5. In a single 4-year span, black-on-black murder resulted in 4472 dead while in the same period police killings of blacks was 112.

When lecturing about black lives mattering, begin in the black community that seems suicidal by these statistics.

The BLM website states two primary goals, “working for the validity of black life.” and  …”working to rebuild the black liberation movement.”

I was stunned by the perceived need to validate black life.  I never thought of any life as being invalid.  It staggered me to learn that the leadership of this organization feels that black life is somehow invalid, the accusation of a collective inferiority complex.  I hope this does not represent the black community as a whole.

Rebuilding the black liberation movement goal had a familiar ring from the past.  With a little historical digging, it is clear that today’s Black Liberation Movement has its roots in the Black Worker Congress and the Black Panther Party of the 1960’s and 70’s.  These groups had a love for socialism and a hatred for what they deemed as inherently racist capitalism.

BLM is nothing more than a 60’s re-hash, brought back to life as a result of the Trevon Martin case in Florida and the Michael Brown death in Missouri.  Never mind that in both cases it was established that these were justifiable homicides, BLM shamelessly uses them anyway as proof of police misconduct, dismissive of the legal system unless it provides the outcomes they want.

The truth is that the BLM foundation is falsely built on the graves of two martyred felons and both occasions gave fellow thugs license to loot, destroy property and commit arson, all in the name of “validation.”

If black lives actually matter to the black community, they ought to start acting as if they believe that themselves before lecturing the majority of people that never thought otherwise.

Reason and logic are as necessary in making sound decisions as hydrogen and oxygen are required to form water.  The antithesis of reason and logic is emotion and hysteria.  Decision-making based on emotion is by definition devoid of logic and reason because an emotional response overrides logical possibilities.  Logic and hysteria cannot occupy the same space.

We witnessed the result of such hysteria last week when we watched the “sit-in” in the US House of Representatives.  Their gripe?  Losing four anti-gun votes.  The idea that an iconic United States Congressman with the stature of John Lewis would lend his hand in comparing this farce of a stunt with the importance of his past involvement with the civil rights movement is contemptible.  While facing down race discrimination was of the highest nobility, shutting down Congress simply because they didn’t get their way is a thoughtless response that is in no way comparable.

Four separate votes came up and were defeated, that is how the democratic system works.  There is nothing “noble” about having a temper tantrum in the well of the House of Representatives and then cry foul because the camera were turned off.  So much for the photo op to raise all of that money needed for re-election, a publicity stunt, nothing more.

At least two very important lessons should be learned by this.  First, the emotional and hysterical aspects of the mass murder in Orlando are driving the agenda of those politicians that took to the floor in protest.  If they actually had the strength of their convictions as profoundly as they would have us believe, based on their willingness to disrupt their own legislative body, it begs the question of where their collective outrage was in the days and weeks before the highly publicized mass killing.  Anyone as outraged as this it would seem would be making this topic their life’s work, but absent some sensational tragedy, these otherwise seemingly zealous advocates for a cause were all silent on the matter.  Considering this reality, one can only conclude that their shrill protest is a publicity and fund-raising scheme, unashamedly based on the deaths of innocent people, all in the name of money and the power to get re-elected.

Second, the advancement of liberal policy is often times driven by emotion and reaction, as evident in this case.  Because sound legislation is logically and thoughtfully created, a judicial system stacked with sympathetic jurists is required to over-ride the legislative will of the people.  Through judicial activism by legislating from the bench, the liberal agenda can be imposed on us in the name of newly found and freshly minted constitutional rights.

Our current Supreme Court is evenly divided, liberal and conservative.  Our next president will decide the future balance of that court and with that decision will rest the fate of a nation.  Do we live by representation, thoughtful legislation, and the resulting rule of law, or by stomping our feet, shouting down our rivals and screaming rhythmic slogans?

Today’s world consists of some 196 countries with 7.4 billion citizens.  Approximately 50 countries are predominantly Muslim, with over 1.6 billion adherents spread mainly from the top half of Africa and all of the Middle East to Turkey and most of Indonesia.

Christianity boasts some 2.4 billion followers spread throughout 126 countries including all of North and South America, Australia, the southern portions of Africa, most of Western Europe and portions of Northern Asia.

The history of the Christian world centers around faith in God, with the Bible as its holy book, and the teachings of Jesus Christ through which salvation, the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting are possible.  Jesus was the immaculately born Son of God who lived as an unmarried man for 32 years on the Earth.  He was crucified, was raised from the dead, and sanctified man’s sins with His sacrificial death and return.

The Muslim world is centered on a prophet named Muhammad who was born in 570AD.  He had 13 wives, one of which was reportedly 9 years of age, (Aisha.)  The religions holy book is the Quran, reportedly written by Muhammad himself and is reputed to be a literal transcription of Allah’s, (God’s) words.

The Bible is a compilation of 66 books authored by approximately 40 God-inspired writers spread over 1500 years.  The Old Testament books were all written before the birth of Jesus and the New Testament after His birth.

There are five tenets of faith in Islam, one being to pledge themselves to their faith and this is the point at which we see our cultures clashing.

Christians and Muslims see their faith much differently when it comes to everyday living.  The western norm of freedom of religion is not possible in the Muslim world.   It is impossible to separate the teachings of the Quran, the duty of the Muslims life and the legal system under Islam.  To be a proper Muslim, these things are not operable unless connected.  In the western world, matters of faith, religious practice, or even disbelief is left to the individual to determine personally.  In the Muslim world, you’re either a believer or an apostate.  Muslim societal norms dictate that women are subservient and submissive to men.  That punishments for many crimes are dire even life ending, without judicial review in any way compatible with western norms.

To be a proper Muslim, as defined by their own holy book, it is impossible to assimilate into the United States, or any western culture.  The base tenets of Islam directly and obtusely conflict with western values, laws and societal norms.  The goal of Islam is the domination of the world and you’re either an adherent or an apostate.  Any devote, practicing Muslim coming to the western world is doing so on a mission to convert that world to Islam, certainly not to assimilate because our cultures cannot co-exist when our values are so different.

The United States of America is today’s representation of western civilization.  Our traditions and norms are properly and proudly treasured and celebrated.  Somehow, along the way, the concept of celebrating the goodness and righteousness of our own heritage has been maligned by some as being too boastful or too proud.  We need to affirmatively reject that criticism whenever and wherever it surfaces.  While we are a tolerant people, that is not to be confused with condoning that anything goes.  There is a growing school of thought that any limit on the concept of tolerance is somehow un-American.  I argue that on the contrary, any conflicting values that undermine and contradict with our traditions and societal norms are not only to be rejected, but must be aggressively and assuredly defeated, in the name of preserving our great culture and society.

Our standards of toleration are properly limited to comport with and foster our founding principles, our moral values and our adherence to our unique and traditional western culture, forged throughout our history and honed into the state of our society today.

Virtually every society and every civilization has as its founding, religiously based parameters that define the limits of behavior and the rules for our interactions with each other.  Based on the rule of law and constantly refined by experience and amendment, the United States system of governance has created a society, born of a divinely inspired Constitution.  The totality of this unique experience is the first ever example of self-governance, creating the reality of American Exceptionalism.

Not exceptional people, or exceptional land, or wealth or knowledge, but exceptional providence to be created at precisely the right time in history, proving that people are created equal and destiny is not properly determined by birthright.  That kings and tyrants have no place in a free society of the self-determined citizen, endowed by his Creator with rights not divisible by mere man.

If the United States of America is to remain that “shining city on the hill,” President Ronald Reagan so proudly boasted of, then we need to re-affirm our loyalty to our culture and firmly reject all efforts to undercut our founding philosophy, especially when it is attempted under the false banner of conflicting philosophy disguised as tolerance.

Assimilation should be the base requirement of participation in American society.  For the first few hundred years and for the tens of millions of anxious immigrants that originally formed this nation, their transformation to becoming an American was a condition so universally accepted that it needed no affirmation, it was a given, a condition of acceptance, a gift.  No one gave up their heritage, but they happily accepted their new role as Americans first.

The same spirit that transformed our grandparents into patriots ought to now be outwardly focused on discerning between those who want to assimilate as Americans and those who don’t, forming sensible immigration policy that welcomes the former and rejects the latter.

The only certain truth one can learn from what happened in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on June 12th is that a lone homicidal maniac massacred 49 innocent people and wounded scores more.  His rants about ISIS and Islam add nothing to further our understanding.  His choice of weapons does not make a difference.  The social standing or sexual orientation of the victims make the tragedy no lesser or greater, lunacy is by definition not understandable in a logic sense.

Because the shooter was an adherent of Islam does not make Islam responsible for his act.  Because the majority of victims were Hispanic does not mean Hispanics everywhere should feel threatened.  Because the majority of victims were identified as having a variety of sexual orientations, it does not follow that all such folks need live in fear.  The firearms used in this atrocity could have been as readily used in defense had they been in other hands.

Tomorrow and every day, the overwhelming majority of Muslims will live their lives in quiet anonymity.  Hispanics everywhere will be unmolested, those with a variety of sexual orientations will go about their business and millions of firearms will remain holstered.

This is the act of a single, maniacal murderer.  His deranged state of mind limits our understanding because the rational of the peaceful, logical and ordered world for most of us is incapable of interpreting what we call crazy.

On average, 44 people are murdered in America every day.  Other than those families and loved one affected, we don’t ever learn their names or know their stories.  Every one of those murdered had a unique, single killer.  That means that 44 murderers reveal themselves every day as well.  Of those, about a third remain at-large which means every year in the US, over 5000 murderers remain free amongst us.

Omar Mateen was killed in the act of his horrific killing spree.  He can kill no more.  Every year, 5000 victims and their families have no such closure.  Their killers remain free amongst us and tomorrow another 44 victims and families will begin their mournful journey into the rest of their lives, all unknown to the rest of us.

To the degree that a solution is even possible, that solution must begin with identifying those amongst us that pose the greatest risk of crazy behavior.  In virtually every instance of mass murder, there were signs that those individuals were heading into the abyss of the insane and those who could have done something did nothing.

When reaction is the only response, the tragedy has already taken place.  Reaction solves nothing, addresses only our frustrations, and heightens our emotions when reason is the best remedy.

When I reflect on my life, especially when I’m speaking with a younger person, I often refer to my own moment of magic awakening, which for me came when I was 32.  At that age, I discovering a deep romantic love and from that a child about to be born which radically changed my life.  Finally, I felt like I was firing on all 8 cylinders, making good decisions and having a plan, or at least a notion of where my life was going.  For the first time in my life I felt in charge and confident of my choices.  My wife and I had another child in less than two years.  For me, that transformation could have only happened once I was in a position where other people were dependent on me.

Today, I have nearly doubled in age since that awakening.  The child that was about to be born 32 years ago is now himself a father and his sister is married and living in Colorado.  That deep romantic love that created those two kids is today a faded memory however, the original members of our family, that is the four of us, will meet soon as a group for a long weekend, together and all together for a reunion tour of sorts.  While that romance is gone, the reality and functionality of our roles as parents and a maturing, adult-based family grows and remains strong and we can all enjoy each other’s company.

I think that my 32 year old self couldn’t pull that off, yet at the time, I gave him high marks for maturity.  Maybe only a 63 year old can have the experience level necessary to understand and accept why maintaining relationships, even in otherwise broken homes is important.  I know many of my contemporaries can’t seem to understand it either, even given their advanced maturity levels, so it’s not a given that age alone causes enlightenment.

The longer I live, the more cognizant I become of the importance of history and the value of experience.  We all know “experience” as a common word, but “experience” as a life-force, as a stringing together of years, moments, memories and lessons to form for you a clearer path into the future, based upon your knowledge-based life, is simply something unattainable without the requisite years it takes to bake that conglomeration of activities into the story of what makes you you.

The best advice I can give younger people is to embrace and study history because it is the only vision of experience you can have in the absence of forming your own.  There is much to learn from others experiences, if you can learn to control your own ego.  If you fail to do this, by the time you have a strong level of experience, it may be too late to apply what you have learned to anything important.

I’m looking forward to learning what I’ll think at 73.

The recent Press & Sun-Bulletin Guest Viewpoint, “Should women consider gender when voting?” represents a great opportunity for a teachable moment.  The authors are identified as members of the Democratic Women of the Southern Tier and Finger Lakes, a 14-county organization that identifies, encourages and supports qualified women interested in running for political office.  Based on this alone, would anyone think it credible that these authors see politics any other way than through the prism of gender?

The title of their editorial poses a question that requires a yes or no answer, yet they fail to actually posit their conclusion, choosing instead to bemoan the fact that, according to their information, only 29% of office holders are women when they represent 51% of the population.  What would be a much more useful determinate of reality would be to know what percentage of elected offices fielded female candidates.  Undoubtedly that number is much higher that the 29% who were successfully elected as opposed to those who ran and were defeated.  Isn’t it fair for voters to decide that a candidate, even a woman, isn’t the right candidate?  The author’s data simply indicates women who won, not really useful information.

In an essay of less than 500 words, the authors use the term “woman” or “female” some 50 times.  Replace those terms with “black” or “Hispanic” and all of a sudden the tenor and tone of the subject matter changes dramatically; why, because we have been so brainwashed into a stupefied state of political correctness, we can scarcely see the reality of our thoughts and words until someone not affected by that fog of bigotry brings it to our attention.

Consider the title of the essay, substituting black for woman:

The new title:  “Should blacks consider race when voting?”

Here is just one other example, using exactly the same words as the authors, substituting the word woman or female with the word black.

“Obviously, blacks vote for blacks. If blacks never voted for black candidates, no black could win elections.  But why are some black voters hesitant about supporting blacks? All things being equal, why don’t black candidates get a bump from blacks?”

While the above paragraph might make most readers squirm, somehow when the authors say the exact same thing about women, no one notices.  I believe this is representative of the so-called soft bigotry of low expectations, ironically doled out in this case by the very group of woman supposedly opposed to and appalled by such attitudes.

Promoting a gender, a race, a religion, a nationality, all of it is bigotry, even when the practitioner thinks her cause noble.  We have to focus on the quality of the candidate, not using the scorecard of, do we have enough, blacks, Hispanics, women, etc.  What we need are high quality candidates and frankly, I don’t care in what color or gender that package is wrapped.

It is amazing how many schemes with good sounding intentions end up accomplishing exactly the opposite. The Iranian nuclear deal, Obama-care, gun control, minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, food stamps.   A fool’s dose of credulity is required to accept as accident consequences 180 degrees out of phase with advertised outcomes.  Today’s unfolding political realities are unmasking the truth that the intentions were never good; the actual results were planned and calculated.

The Iranian deal knocks the US down a peg, right where Obama wants us, stripped of the notion of “Super Power.”  Obama-care gains a larger control over people’s lives which gives massive power over to government.  Gun control legislation is a “feel good” reaction to things politicians can’t yet control.  The minimum wage buys liberal votes, fattens tax revenue and punishes business, again putting America in its place and shutting out sub-par workers, feeding the welfare state.  Male-female work equity assures that employers favor men for jobs and negates competition and finally, food stamps create a robust, underground cash economy, induces obesity without oversight and again, buys liberal votes.  While ads tell us 1 in 5 kids are starving, reality is that obesity is the biggest single health problem in the poorest communities.  Malnutrition is unheard of in the US, yet many believe whatever they are told, denying their own observations.

The campaigns of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders have pulled the covers off politics-as-usual.  As the back-room machinations of state’s methods for deciding delegates and supporting candidates becomes widely known, even more incredulity creeps into the American psyche.

Rene Descartes, famous 17th century philosopher said, (I think tongue-in-cheek), “Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that even those most difficult to please in all other matters do not commonly desire more of it than they already possess.”

I hope all of this is enlightening to voters.  Finally, we all have something in common, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, it matters not when we’re all being conned.  These members of the ruling class conspire with each other to get what they want while convincing their constituents they are fighting the good fight when in reality they are simply pretending to make changes while feathering their own nests.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote this about the US in the 1800’s, “In the United States . . . the pursuit of wealth generally diverts men of great talents and strong passions from the pursuit of [political] power; and it frequently happens that a man does not undertake to direct the fortunes of the state until he has shown himself incompetent to conduct his own. The vast number of very ordinary men who occupy public stations is quite as attributable to these causes as to the bad choice of democracy.”

One candidate has shown the “great talent and strong passion..” in the private sector.  Perhaps now, in public office, his final chapter is to set about the task of making America great once again, but is that what America wants?

This presidential election is being conducted on opposite ends of a scale that will tell us all whether or not the United States will embark upon a journey that celebrates who we are and where we came from, building on that glorious legacy, or if we will transform our nation into the homogeneous fabric of sameness and conformity so much of the world embraces today.

The vividness of the contrast is dizzying and the sad reality is that likely less than 7 in 10 eligible voters will decide the country’s fate.  Famed French philosopher Joseph de Maistre said, “Every country has the government it deserves.”

What do we deserve?