"Men Working" Signs

In an era that strives for political correctness as well as accuracy, both men as well as women do often take offense at titles that bear an inscription that is incorrectly labeled thereby making its perception be sex-exclusive.  When it comes to a sign such as "men working" you wouldn't necessarily think that many people would have a conniption fit that the sign which is labeled as men, is meant to be taken that only men, and never woman, are working at a given construction site, but from a literal and exclusive interpretation that would be a fair assessment of the sign, and it is what it says.  This means, that those signs have to be replaced, or are no longer appropriate, to which, there are many viable alternatives.

One way to replace the sign of "men working" is to get rid of the words completely and have a graphical image of a person working, such as a person shoveling or a person representing a flagman (flag-person).  The problem with a symbolic representation of a road repair person being shown, is that all graphical symbols have to be translated by the brain into words, so a picture isn't necessarily the best way to convey what needs to come across, in addition to the pictogram may not be the appropriate representation of the work being conducted, that is, the graphical symbol shows somebody shoveling dirt, but the real work is actually a person working on telephone lines or cutting limbs, or similar.  Another way to tackle the problem is to replace the word "men" with "people", while this is accurate, it is also requires three more letters in total, and seems sort of impersonal.  Then there is simply the dropping of the word "men" replaced with a sign just saying "workers", but in an era of more and more jobs going to robotics in the first place, that seems rather nebulous.  It seems that the two best words to replace "men" would be either "guys" which may still upset some people as being male-centric, even though the modern day usage of guys is commonly utilized by both sexes, although it may well also be considered too informal.  Still, there is a friendly tone to "guys working" that makes it very upbeat.  The other good word to replace "men" with would be "crew", which seems to do the job rather well, although again it isn't perfect, but overall conveys the message rather well.

The thing about life today is that people can always find all sorts of things that appear to be prejudicial, sexist, exclusive, wrong, and so forth, of which some of these things are worth battling about.  For instance, the whole point of a sign that says "men working" is not to focus on the fact or not that it is just men working, but that there is construction or repair work going on and that thereby someone that is traveling those roads should be more cautious and cognizant of that fact, the sign therefore is there as an informational aid, and really for nothing else other than that.  "Men working" signs should be replaced though to reflect the changing of the times as well as to eliminate one more flash point of contention in this mad, mad world.

So Many Religious Beliefs but there is but just one true God

America is considered to be a country founded along the lines of a Judeo-Christian heritage, of which the major religions that are true to this concept are Judaism, Christianity & Catholicism, and Islam, amongst all the other manifold denominations of these.  If you didn't know any better, you might well think that because all of these religions and denominations come from the same general root and thereby all believe that there is just one monotheistic God, that there would be an abiding harmony and toleration within these religions and denominations, one to another.  However, strange to say, some of the most vicious and blood thirsty fighting come from within a given religion, in which one denomination or sect attacks the other because of their differences in their respective beliefs and thereby each side believing that it alone, is legitimate, and thereby all others must be eradicated for polluting and harming their religion.

It is a sorry state of affairs, that rather than seeing the commonality of these religions, sects, and denominations in which the most central point is that there is just one God, who is omniscience, omnipotent, accessible and available to all, along with being the epitome of love, that professed believers get fixated on fighting over matters which often times come down to a corrupted belief which is if you don't believe in their particular tenets and faithfully adhere to them, than you are an infidel or nonbeliever, to which, by definition, those that fight with that particular understanding, have aggrandized unto themselves that they are fighting on behalf of God, and thereby all that they do has been sanctioned by God, no matter how extreme.

It is a shame that religious fights are almost exclusively political in nature, despite protests that they aren't, seldom for the true glory of God, but mainly so that one special people can put down all other peoples that don’t see things quite the same way, and thereby might triumphs over right.  The fact of the matter is that those that believe in one God, must, in order to bring a lasting peace to this good earth, recognize that all life starts and ends with the one God.  Each religion, sect, and denomination has its own prophets, saviors, and oracles, to which respect should be accorded to their wisdom, but blind obedience to those professing to interpret their words into action is never a wise idea.

There is one God, it is the exact, same God for everyone, to which this God is above all, knows all, and is all.  The very first thing that mankind should do in recognition of the great might and wisdom of this one God, is to understand that we cannot comprehend our God's greatness without first emptying from our self, the limitations that preclude us from seeing God in all of God's infinite glory.  The mistake that far too many people make is taking false prophets at their word, rather than recognizing that these so-called prophets are rife with inconsistencies, hatred, violence, duplicity, hypocrisy, and intolerance, which are not attributes of those that preach the Word, but of those that are its' very opposite.

Banks and their non-Customer Check Cashing Fees

Businesses like to come up with all sorts of creative ways to help their bottom line, that 'nickel and dime' their clients or visitors, without, in their opinion, making them squawk too much.  I guess you could say their objective is to fleece certain customers lightly enough, that though they might complain, they will ultimately bear it.  Checks are a form of payment that businesses and people accept all the time, to which, not every business or person has either the time, their own bank, or the inclination to deposit the check into their own checking account for a lot of reasons, such as their own bank may not credit them the money in a period of time that is acceptable, or they may need to turn that check into cash in order to have ready money, and so forth.  You would think that a fair runaround for this particular problem would be to take a given check to the issuer's bank and upon providing valid identification documents, as well as allowing the bank to verify that the client's account that the check is written on is good for the money, that subsequently the subject bank would simply cash the check for you.  Banks, for the most part, still do this, but the biggest banks, such as Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, are charging clients that bring in those checks a fee for doing so, along with mandating two forms of ID, and in some cases, three forms.

All of the above seems inherently unfair for the client, that shouldn't have to pay a fee in order to cash a check drawn upon the subject bank, irrespective of any other factors. While it is true that some banks don't impose the fee if the check is $50 or less, that is probably because they don't want to push the envelope too far, so as to not later suffer from governmental regulations which will take away their ability to charge the fee at all.  The banks that charge this fee, like to smile and suggest to the client, that if they would just open an account than they wouldn't charge the fee at all, but virtually no clients going into a bank to cash a check from that bank, go in with the intention of wanting to open up another account, or any account at all, for a lot of reasons, which would include: inconvenience, one more useless account, and time management.

It seems to me, if a bank insists upon all sorts of documentation to prove that you are who you claim to be, and that bank further has determined that there is enough money in the subject account to make good on the check, and have additionally either verified the signature or verified with the check issuer that all is well, than they should make good on the check, and if a fee be charged, than charge it to the client who is the actual issuer of the check, who is their client to begin with and not to the customer who is simply trying to get 100% of what is owed to him, into his hands, in an expeditious manner.

The bottom line is that banks charge these check cashing fees to people that do not have accounts with them, because it is an easy way for them to make money off of people that typically don't have the resources or wherewithal to effectively fight back.  The fees are sort of small enough, that many people, will just absorb them as being simply the cost of doing business, which is another reason why banks impose them.  It's an easy way for banks in aggregate to make good money upon the shoulders of those that are burdened enough, already.

The Erosion of our Religious Liberty

The First Amendment to our Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which until recent times was plainly understood to mean that Congress, that is the legislative arm of our government, could make no law establishing a national religion, such as in England and their Anglican church, which is the national and established church of England.  In addition, the free exercise of one's religious beliefs was an established citizen right of the First Amendment, indicating that each citizen within America had a free right of conscience in regards to their religious beliefs.  Unfortunately, our activist judicial branch of government, in their lust to establish a secular State, has determined that there should be a wall of separation of religion from the government, which has been further translated to mean, that religion has no place in the public square, such as in our public schools, or in governmental decrees, and so forth.  What our government has essentially mandated is that God and all his accouterments, must to the greatest extent possible, be excised from our public conscience, and thereby only remain in our own private spheres.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights, of which religious freedom is the very first right so listed, is that the Constitution as written, would not have passed the required amount of nine of the thirteen States without it being an integral part of the Constitution.  The debate and the wording of our religious liberty were important to all the delegates of the thirteen States, to which, New Hampshire proposed that: "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience."  Although, those words ended up not being the words used in our First Amendment, these words if they had been used, might well have pushed back the humanist wave of the 20th century which has subverted our religious liberty granted to us by our Constitution until the present day.  Not only that, the statement not to infringe the rights of conscience, is extremely powerful, powerful enough, that it would in a fair court of justice, permit each and every citizen to invoke such a right, if sincerely held, to be a conscientious objector so as to not be forcefully drafted or conscripted to fight in foreign wars of no purpose or point, especially ones that seem to serve only the purpose of empire, profit, or bloodlust.

The thing is though that the First Amendment which provides us with the free exercise of religion as we see it is in effect, on the same page as having the rights of conscience to do what we believe to be right by our God.  What our Founding Fathers knew then, and apparently what those at the highest forms of our governmental judicial system refuse to admit to today, is that there is a Court beyond all Courts, and that our most precious rights, our inalienable rights, do not come from governments, long established or not, but from our Creator, and it is only in recognition that there is a righteous God who governs the affairs of men, in which these menthereby derived their just powers from the consent of the governed, that brings greatness to a nation, and to take away the pillars of religious liberty from the people, willinevitably bring forth the terrible collapse of this once, great nation.

You cannot crucify the Christ

Just about everyone is familiar with the general story of Jesus the Christ and his physical death by crucifixion, followed by his resurrection, but whether they are believers or not, many, many people miss the most basic point in regards to the death of Christ, by mistakenly equating the physical body as the complete representation of Christ.     This then creates a situation in which some historians as well as religious doubters or critics, try to respond to what appears to be physically impossible, that is, the resurrection of a dead body, by theorizing that Christ felled into a swoon and was later revived, or somehow was able to trick the Romans into believing that he was dead, when he was not, and subsequently was rescued by his followers, and so forth, to which none of these theories hold any water whatsoever.  The fact of the matter is, the Romans were masters of crucifixion, they were proficient and quite lethal at it, in addition to the fact, that only because crucifixion is not part of modern day's lexicon in the manner that criminals are executed, could it even be conceivable that anyone would believe, that a man with nails driven through both his hands and feet could survive it, especially while having been previously badly scourged and fatigued, all this in front of public witnesses, and somehow still fool the Roman soldiers who verified Christ's death by piercing his side with a spear.  In point of fact, the Romans crucified Christ and His body did not survive it.

Of course, the second part of the story, that Jesus the Christ, was able to resurrect himself while in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb is the part that makes all sorts of critics, have to come up with all sorts of dubious theories, because everyone knows that a dead body cannot come back to life.  The thing is, though, that Jesus did, in fact, resurrect Himself, because Jesus the soul, immortal, could not ever be killed.  Additionally, the ministry of the Christ presaged His own resurrection, by demonstrating as written in the Bible, that He had the power to resurrect from death to physical life, having accomplished this for the widow's son at Nain, Jairus' daughter, as well as Lazarus.

This means that no matter how Jesus the Christ was put to death, in whatever age, through all the means at man's disposal and violent disposition, from beheading, to being drawn and quartered, shot, burnt, with ashes scattered to the winds, in each and every occurrence, Christ would rise again.  The very basic point that people are missing is that Christ is not the body; Christ is the immortal soul that is housed within the body as long as that body can properly serve Christ.  Man mistakenly believes that all is physical and all must therefore obey physical laws, but there is a dimension beyond the physical, to which those laws do not and cannot apply and it is this dimension to which the Christ came from, and it is this dimension that cannot ever be annihilated, although for the most part, per man's volition, it can be ignored.

What man needs to understand is that if one thousand times you crucify Christ, one thousand times He will resurrect Himself, and you, man, Rome, America, the world, cannot stop it, apparently can't explain it, and often misunderstand it.  Christ is not the body; He is the soul that cannot be destroyed, because it is the power beyond all power, because it is the love beyond all love, because it is one with He who is the One.   The message of the Christ comes in many, many forms: through our intuition, through great men of wisdom, through prophets, through quiet contemplation and meditation, through the innocence of little children, and it is here right now, it has always been here, and it will never leave. 

Too often man shuts his eyes, closes his mind, and holds his hands over his ears, all for naught.  The kingdom of God is within you, you only need to sincerely seek, stay still, and you will find the Christ within.

The Question of Suffering

While we might wish that each and every day of our life is full of bliss, life doesn't actually work that way.  For each of us, there will come to us, various challenges, that must be met and if we have the right mindset or wherewithal we will either overcome them or adjust to them.  There are many, many people that question why there is pain and suffering and hurt in this world, especially when presupposing that there is an all powerful and all loving God.  That question is easy to answer, as if we are automatons, this does indeed make no sense, but if we are gifted with free will than the world that we live in, is the world of good and bad, darkness and light, selfishness and selflessness, for these are the things that we bring with us into our material incarnation, and because of this conflict, there will invariably be pain and suffering.

So too the question must be asked, when is it, if ever, that we truly get down on our knees and cry out from the very depths of our soul to God above?  Is it when everything is going right, that we beseech God?  Is it when life is beautiful and we enjoy the wonders of this world?  Perhaps it is when we have our first child or some other momentous event.  While it is true, that when times are good for us, that we may very well honor our Father, the intensity of that emotion will be something less than our upmost.  The truth of the matter is, that our love for our Creator, should have the same intensity of a man who is desperate for air, or water, or of life itself, because it is only at that point that we truly recognize that we are not masters of our fate, that we are not the originators of this world, that we are not all powerful, omniscient, or invincible.

While there are many reasons for suffering, depending upon a whole slew of factors and conditions, one of the primary reasons for any suffering or pain, is to re-focus us on recognizing that we are not here alone, but are, in fact, children of the most High God.  If you were to picture yourself as separate from your mother and father, perhaps living in another city, with your own career, responsibilities, and family, you may have contact with your mother and father via phone or other means, from time-to-time, even daily, but you would seldom be in their presence, except perhaps for holidays or other special family events.  This would be your routine, and there wouldn't necessarily be anything wrong with it from your perspective, but should something tragic happen in your life or theirs, this unwelcomed event would often drive you back into the fold, not so much because bad events, bring us together, but because bad events vividly remind us of how fragile life is, and help to re-prioritize for us as what is or is not of real meaning and importance within our life.

If there was no suffering, few of us, would find that compelling reason to wish beyond all wishes for union again with God.  God does not want us to suffer, yet subconsciously there often is a need for those unwelcomed thorns in our flesh, to help prick our conscience that what we are truly after is not of this world, but a dimension beyond us, eternal, one in which there is neither heartbreak nor suffering, but only the infinite goodness and love of our Creator.

The Federal Reserve Bank is not owned by the Federal Government

The semantics of things often does make a big difference in their perception by the public, helped frequently by the press that has the capacity to spin stories in the desired way for those that operate big media companies, to which, a case in point, is the portrayal of our Federal Reserve.  To the general public they mainly see paper currency, as dollar bills, and are somewhat ignorant of why their money in their wallet, states on it, that it is a Federal Reserve Note, which almost seems like a contradiction, as never in your life, will you find one person asking to borrow from another, a $20 Federal Reserve Note, which probably would confuse the other person.  That is to say, why are our dollar bills, all noted as being Federal Reserve Notes?  They are noted as such, because our money is not backed by specie, or anything of material worth, other than the supposed full credit and faith of the United States Government, and thereby in order for there to be any value in the notes that are issued by the Federal Reserve, bonds are created and sold to various institutions, and the proceeds of these, form the basis of the money that is circulated to the general public, known as Federal Reserve Notes.

The most basic fundamental problem with Federal Reserve notes isn't the fact that the Federal Reserve is a consortium of privately held banks that the U.S. Government has to pay monetary interest to, on the basis of the bonds created, that result in monies being issued for circulation, but the fact that the U.S. Government, the greatest empire the world has ever known, is paying interest to private banking companies in order to create circulating money.  This might make sense, if America was a new nation, without credit, without resources, without much of anything, other than potential, but America is not that nation, its GDP is the highest of any nation in the world, and it is in aggregate the richest nation in the world, second to none.

This would imply strongly, that America should be able to create its own national money, prudently backed by something or value, such as gold, or silver, or oil, or land, or any of many different items or mixed goods, to which, money generated from these would be symbolic representations of these goods monetized.  This money, unlike our present money, would be both interest-free as well as debt-free, because in practicality, they would be mere representations of the goods themselves.  Not only would this eliminate the present Federal Reserve Bank it would also eliminate the current interest debt that the citizens and taxpayers have to pay to a consortium of private banking companies as tribute for the privilege of living in America.

It is absolutely senseless that billions upon billions of dollars are paid in monetary interest each and every year to the banking members of the Federal Reserve, as if America, its population and people, must bend their knees to these money-interests in order to exist.   Paper money as a medium of exchange has as its most basic purpose the enabling of free flow of goods, labor, and services conducted in a mutually beneficial way so as to not be bogged down into the minutiae of interminable bartering.  The United States doesn't need to pass a law eliminating the Federal Reserve, it only needs to circulate new money backed by a formulation of real goods, and to wit, good money will invariably drive out bad.

Public Education and its Purpose

Children go to school each and every school day in which in most circumstances, children are blithely unaware of the real purpose of school, nor are their parents much more knowledgeable about this.  The general feeling by the public is that the purpose of education is to educate children so that they will have the general skills to function at a literate and competent level in society, and if they are so inclined to want to pursue additional education, for reason of better employment prospects and degree achievements, they can henceforth go on to college. 

The real purpose of public education goes far beyond the mere educating of children, to which even the minimum qualifications of knowing how to read, write, and doing arithmetic, are superseded by the obligation that each one of us has to another, by virtue of the fact that we live in a society that is governed by a Constitution and that as citizens of the State, we have obligations not only to find the means and wherewithal to gainfully support ourselves but also an overriding obligation to be a full and functioning member of society that unites in its common belief, that we are all one people.

This means that one of the major purposes of school, is not simply education, but to build a foundational base consisting of moral and ethical codes in harmony with society, and that as good citizens, we have a duty to do the right thing as opposed to the wrong.  A practical understanding that decisions not only matter, but that your decisions should be sensible, thought out, and come from a common source of sage wisdom is imperative for all of our children.  If children are not taught the difference between right and wrong, and are not taught how to differentiate right from wrong actions, nor the importance of knowing right from wrong, than it becomes problematic that they will actively pursue the right thing when pressed to do wrong.

It is one thing for children to do the wrong thing, but knowing better, whereas it is an entirely different thing for children to do the wrong thing, not really knowing any better.  It is therefore a fundamental purpose of all education in conjunction with the actual learning and mastering of subject matter to bring up children in a manner that they will be able to know consciously right actions from wrong, and thereby be far more capable in forestalling the inevitable charlatans and evil-doers of this world.

So too, mere rote memory or subservience to authority isn't really education, it is, in fact, indoctrination.  Our children should be given the skills to learn how to think, to argue constructively, to stand upon their own two feet, and to have the confidence and the audacity to challenge and to question things that do not appear to add up right.  A child that has a strong moral code as well as underpinning of thinking for themselves will be far more able to withstand demagogues and the cheaters of this world.

Each generation must pass the baton on to the succeeding generation, to wit, each generation must understand that they are not an island unto themselves, that they live and must function in a society, as a mutual member of that society, with all its attendant duties, obligations and rules that help to support and sustain such a society.  An education that makes its abiding mission to bring up its children with the understanding that thoughts and actions have consequences, will endeavor to make sure that the children that they educate know right from wrong, behave accordingly, and that by so doing will make for a society set on the right path that it will not depart from.  

Crime and Punishment

The people's desire for safety and the government's desire to control the people, allow the clarion call for law and order to be made again and again and again.  While there is something to be said about law and order, like many, many things, which side of the fence that you are on, makes a massive difference as to how you see it.  For instance, if you are part of the law and order team, that is to say, in one way or another, you directly benefit or indirectly benefit from it, in the sense of employment, security, value and so forth, then of course, when you hear the call for more law and more order, you will support it, because it supports you in one form or another.  On the other hand, there is the mass of population, which on a generic basis prefers harmony over chaos, safety over fear, and hence understands the basic need for some sort of law and order, but often are blithely unaware of how pervasive and thereby what a dangerous master law and order can be, when activating its own particular governmental sanction of law and justice.

There are a multitude of reasons why crimes are committed, some justified, and some not, but the first thing to recognize when it comes to crime, is the recognition that man's definition of it, is at times, both arbitrary and unfair.  That is to say, if a small cadre of individuals make the laws, whether explicitly or implicitly so as to favor themselves at the expense of the people, then not only are these not good laws, they are, from an ethical perspective, no law at all.  However, even in the case when all law is equally applied to all, which, by the way never occurs in actuality, there will invariably still be, laws that favor certain segments of the population over the general mass of people, because those with property and power, do not have the same mindset or concerns than those without those attributes, so that in practicality, the law though equally applied, is still unjust, because certain privileged members of society with plenty, won't have to worry about laws that penalize those with nothing; while those with nothing are often wont to find that their hands are thereby compelled to do something, frequently outside of the law.

If a man has no or little means to provide for his family, what real options does that man have?  When a man hasn't been born into a fair deal to begin with, what is that man supposed to do?  Those that have the money, those that own the means of production, those that own the lands, need the labor of the impoverished man in order to further enrich themselves or to maintain their position in life, but in the recognition that they are significantly outnumbered, find that the most expeditious manner to keep the poor man down, and in his place, is to effectively utilize both the arms of justice as well as the sword of might to beat down those that would even consider rising up.

If you never have been afforded your day in court, if you never for even an instance, own any land, the very land that your feet must tread upon somewhere each and every day, if you never have been master and thereby controller of your own means of production and labor, then what you receive in return, fair or not, is what those that own these things, those that are the law makers, those that are the strong arm of government, determine, without your input,  to give you.  It is no surprise, therefore, that those that are denied the full measure of the very bread that they create through their sweat labor, must, from time-to-time,  go beyond mere appeals to the better angels in man's nature, and strike back at their oppressors, who call these actions, crimes, and enact therefore punishments.

Public citizens and Private Governmental Servants

The world that we live in is truly upside down, of which, few people are generally aware of it for a lot of reasons, to wit, probably the most pertinent one is that most people have lots of responsibilities and concerns that they need to address on an everyday basis, so that their knowledge of our government's civic duty to them as well as their civic duty to government is really not something that is front and center to them.  This means, that our individual right to live a life free of governmental interference, governmental tracking, and governmental oversight, has been trampled upon in recent years, as the government through the aegis of its high-technology police state has aggrandized unto itself, in return for something that they claim is safety, their need to know, see, and process everything about us, but they thereby can't divulge to its own citizens what they are up to, because by doing so, we will know for a certainty that this emperor has no clothes.

The greatness of America comes in virtually every case not from its government, nor from all its governmental agencies, but from the hard work, ingenuity, sacrifice, and dedication of its citizens.  Governments are instituted amongst men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and thereby governments are not created as something above its citizens, as something lording over its citizens, and certainly not something that isn't accountable to its citizens.  Yet, today, we live in a country in which those that work in government are afforded all the very tools of their very elaborate arsenal to not only suppress their citizenry but to keep their citizens on the defensive, because the government through its endless maze of laws upon laws which it selectively uses against enemies of the State, real or imagined, in addition to its sophisticated surveillance network that knows everything about you, keeps its subjects perpetually in fear.

In truth, we no longer have a government in which the governmental employees and all its apparatus are there as public servants to serve us, to which, we, as citizens are entitled to audit, investigate, and know all that they are up to, but a government that for its own protection, has created layer upon layer of bureaucracy that even they can't figure out, and has created layer upon layer of classified, secret, and top secret documents so that the public cannot ascertain what is or isn't being done in their name, in their own country, let alone the world.    On the other hand, the private citizens, have had their 4th Amendment rights to simply be left alone to be about their business, eviscerated, so that in effect, there are no private citizens in this country, anymore, whatsoever.

We now live in a world in which the private citizens are in essence, public citizens, with all of their medical, identity, nationality, employment, schooling, credit, family history, social contacts, conversations, computers, traveling, being tracked and duly noted by the government,  supposedly for their own good and benefit.   As for our previous public servants, they are like those Russian Matryoshka dolls, or nesting dolls, only no matter how diligent you are you won't ever get to the last Matryoshka doll, because when you get close enough you stumble into something out of Kafka's the Trial, where they know you, and you don't know anything about them, their purpose, why you are there, or what they want and you never will.

In today's world we are public citizens, monitored and surveilled by for all intents and purposes private governmental servants, who are servants not to the people, but to their ultimate masters, the military-industrial complex and the moneyed elite.

What is the Supreme Law of the Land?

Article VI of our Constitution states that "…. This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby…  …The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath …"  Therefore, this above clause makes two things very clear that first the supreme law of this country is the Constitution and secondly that all three branches of the government shall be bound by this supreme law of the land. 

The good news is that our Constitution doesn't equivocate, and the further good news is that our Constitution is a written document.  As for those that wrote and thereby approved the Constitution by affirming their signatures to the Constitution, none of them are still alive, so alas we are stuck with the present day judiciary, the supreme court of this fine land, as the ultimate arbiters of whether law made by the legislative branch and executed by the Executive branch are, indeed, consistent law with the Constitution. 

You might think that the Supreme Court of the United States would as a matter of principle, make it their life mission to know thoroughly the Constitution, the Amendments to said Constitution, as well as having an abiding interest in legal precedents previously set in conjunction with the Constitution.  In point of fact, what a Supreme Court judge does, depends upon the man or woman that is wearing the robe, to which, clearly some make it their duty to study carefully the actual text of the Constitution and thereby to adhere to it, some believe that they also need to interpret the intentions of those that drafted the Constitution to help to fill in the gaps of events never foreseen at the time of the founding of our Republic, and then for some there are judicial precedents which are carefully studied in conjunction with the reading of the Constitution, which help to tie everything together.

The above probably covers the way that all members of the Supreme Court use to look at Constitutional law, one hundred years ago, of which some still look at it in this format today, and then there is the other type of activist judge which exists at the present day.   Some members of today's Supreme Court, feel, that their overarching mission isn't to see the Constitution as omniscient and supreme, even though said Constitution clearly delineates means to amend it through the people and the legislature, instead, they believe since they are enlightened beings that the Constitution needs to be enlightened, updated, stretched, modernized, politicized, pulled, and so forth.  No doubt, too, these special and brilliant judges can site all sorts of cases to which because of their liberal reading of our Constitution, they were able to find law that was more accommodating, more understanding, and more democratic for the people.

The problem with those that believe that we must look outside the box of Constitutional law, is that by doing so, you have, by definition, opened up a Pandora's box, to which, laws are no longer held bound by the strong arm of Constitutional fiat, but are instead liberated by the Supreme Court of the land, that has aggrandized unto itself, that foundational laws, that natural laws, that Constitutional law, and previous precedents to those laws, can be overturned by unelected judges because they decide what law is or isn't depending upon their proclivities, to which you no longer have a nation of laws, but, in fact you have a nation of unelected judges who determine what law is or isn't, effectively usurping control of this government from the people and their elected representatives into their despotic hands.

Bring Latin Back to Middle and High Schools

America's long slow grind towards mediocrity for all has unnecessarily precluded certain subjects from commonly being taught in school.  For instance, the language skills for native born Americans are absolutely abysmal, in which, not only do many Americans know no other language other than English, that aren't even proficient at that. Fortunately, for Americans, English is the international language of business and because America is the largest economic force the world has ever known, the fact that Americans sort of know English makes them valuable, despite their limitation to just knowing the English language.

For many people, to even consider taking any time whatsoever to learn a "dead" language such as Latin, seems absolutely pointless, and it most definitely would be, if Latin had not been in its own time the language of the Roman empire which still has influence today in sports (i.e. Super bowl numbering), medicine, legal, religion (Catholicism), history, literature, mottos, and species names, to cite a few of their common day relevancies.  All of the above, would definitely signify, that at least at a minimum, Latin should be considered to be taught for motivated students in middle and/or high school, and it is, but at a far reduced effort,  in far fewer classes, in today's schools, of which many of these schools, do not offer any Latin courses, whatsoever.

One of the fundamental reasons for learning Latin and the structure of it, is that doing so, will invariably improve the grammar and linguistic skills of those speaking and writing English, because a significant amount of English words such as corpus, homo, finis, and so forth all have their roots in the Latin language, and thereby the learning of Latin will help significantly in comprehending English words at their most foundational root.  Additionally, if we do not challenge our youth to tackle languages outside of their own native language, they will, almost for a certainty, never fall in love with language and its variety, poetry, beauty, and harmony, nor will they ever be able to read, let alone comprehend, any of the classic literature in its own native language, as it was first written.

There has never been a better time to bring forth a renewed emphasis on learning Latin, because the teaching and learning of such can be augmented by computer programs written specifically to aid and validate the learning of Latin.  In an era in which so many have a strong desire for specific university placement, those that comprehend Latin have demonstrated time and time again superior SAT scores, most notably because their comprehension and usage of English has improved as a result of the solid foundation that Latin provides.

So too, the working knowledge of Latin, helps to separate the wheat from the chaff, those that are motivated and disciplined, from those that feel entitled by being born into this country into believing that having a somewhat working knowledge of English is somehow good enough.  For parents and for their children this is surely the time for a renewed emphasis on Latin being taught in the schools, so as to bring us out of darkness and be able to proclaim: fiat lux.

The Apparent Contradictions of the Four Gospels

In today's modern age, man likes to think that he is so much smarter than our more simple-minded credulous brothers of yesteryear.  Not only that, just with the fact that the New Testament is available so readily in every conceivable format, be it written or audio, computer or hard print, all at virtually no cost makes the scriptures truly democratic. Now, at man's leisure, the New Testament can be dissected, cross-checked, and chronologically rearranged, to such an extent, that clear and unequivocal contradictions will appear quite readily in numerous passages when compared to other gospels.

For instance, it seems disappointing to say the least, that John 19:14, has Jesus still on trial, " And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!"  Whereas, in Mark 15:25, Jesus is, in fact, already crucified, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him."  So that, it is fair to state, that if the gospel writers aren't even sure as to when Jesus' trial was, nor of the time of his crucifixion, how many other things do these gospel writers have factually wrong, and in truth, there are many such troubling contradictionscontained within the Bible, to which, some scholars, usually apologetics, go to great lengths and stretches to prove how, in fact, somehow these aren't contradictions at all, but that each can be explained by various circuitous reasoning means, some sensible and reasonable, while others are fairly far-fetched.

There is, however, another way at looking upon the gospels and the writers of them, which is, first of all, to recognize that the gospel writers are not historians, and thereby are not trying to write a history of Jesus, as that isn't the primary purpose of their respective gospels.  The primary purpose of their gospel is to successfully preach the message and the mission of the Christ, nothing more, and nothing less.  This means, that each of the gospel writers is going to have a different perspective of the Christ, because each of the gospel writers, is an individual who has a completely different background and personality than the other gospel writers, demonstrated by the fact that the gospels were written by: a tax collector (Matthew), a young man (Mark), a physician (Luke), and a fisherman (John).  Further to the point, if each of these writers were to write exactly the same story with exactly the same information, than three of these gospels would be redundant, but instead each of the gospels has its own perspective because the prism that these writers see the Messiah is different, because although each experienced our Messiah, their reflections and recollections will differ, just as each of us relates to our Creator in our own way, yet, He is changeless, although our experiences and interpretations of God are unique to ourselves.

So too, it is, that when we go a sporting event, or when we go to the theatre, yet, when we read a review of the event, none of us, will totally agree with that review, because each of us, has interpreted and seen the event through not only our own eyes, but have related to it with our own particular personality and upbringing, to which certain aspects of the event will be treated in significantly different ways by each individual, of which, none legitimately negates the validity of the other person's vision.

The gospels are not court documents, the gospels are not inerrant history, they are, though, the inspired word, events, teachings, and sayings of Jesus the Christ.  The writers, each of them, are witnesses to the Christ, to which each of them has an overarching mission to preach the message to the people, to which, each has done, in his own inspired way.  To get lost in the minutiae of the dates, times, places, and numbers, is to miss the big picture that this is the greatest story ever told, and told well, four separate times.

The Soda Sin Tax

Taxes are part of the American tableau, and aren't going away anytime soon, if ever.  The bottom line is that the government has to collect taxes from its population in order to, in theory, promote the general welfare of its citizens.  While there are all sorts of taxes in America, one of the more unique ones, is a tax on sin, things such as alcohol, cigarettes, and now, in a few select jurisdictions, soda. 

First things being first, in order for a new tax to be given the moniker of a "sin tax" the item being taxed must be fairly conclusively considered by experts to be harmful to the body and/or to the mind.  Soda is a product that has no nutritional value, and instead uses sugar, or sugar substitutes, amongst other flavorings and additives to give the drink a pleasing and satisfying taste to one's palate.  While soda may taste good, or why else would someone drink it, that doesn't mean that it is good for the body, and it certainly isn't necessary for the body.  The negatives of too much soda drinking have been strongly linked to obesity, tooth decay, bad cholesterol, and diabetes, mainly because sugar as used in soda, is unhealthy for the body.

However, just because soda is bad for you, doesn't mean that the government should tax it, as there are many other items that aren't good for one's body, either.  What makes soda a particularly good target to tax, though, is the fact that soda is quite easy to substitute with something far more beneficial, which is, both plentiful and healthy, and that substance is water. Basically, water is an essential ingredient for anybody's healthy body, and the access to good, clean water should be a fundamental priority of all communities and fortunately that is typically the case.

Currently, the soda sin tax is in its infancy, to which, the biggest purveyors of soda are fighting it tooth and nail, as is their wont.  As long as the soda sin tax, is limited to a few communities or cities, it is difficult to gauge the tax impact, good or bad, mainly because it is so easy to work around it, in the sense of finding supply outside of the areas in which the tax has been imposed.  This means, that the ultimate push on the soda sin tax, must not only be State wide, but also nationally imposed, and until such time as that is done, it really won't be known as to whether the imposing of such a tax has impacted the consumption of soda within America.

The bottom line in regards to sin taxes, is that the product, itself, will still be legal, and for those that thereby consume it, the product will still be there, with the only real significant difference, being that an additional tax has been imposed, to which the consumer need only make a very basic decision, as to whether that tax makes a big enough difference to them in regards to purchasing that item.  The impact to the consumer will be fairly minor, as there are plenty of valid substitutes to sugar drinks; it will also make a difference to governmental tax authorities, as the successful implementation of this new sin tax will provide a fairly easy and straightforward increase in tax revenues without an undue burden upon the population, and their free choice.

The Constitution and our Legislators

Our federal legislators have a duty to uphold the Constitution, and not therefore to go about their business as if the Constitution can be discarded, ignored, distorted, obliterated, or altered, for any law passed by the legislature that contradicts the Constitution is not legitimate law.  While legislators are entitled to debate Constitutional law, and if necessary to create legislation that will change Constitutional law, that law only comes into effect when a proposed constitutional Amendment is actually approved by a supermajority in both houses of congress, and then ratified by three-quarters of the States in a reasonable period of time.

Then there are those legislators that believe that we have a "living Constitution" which can be defined in a number of ways, to which by far the most damaging of these definitions, would be one, that stipulates that the Constitution and its meaning, changes over time, thereby properly adjusting to the changes and needs of the people over time, somewhat akin to modern knowledge, for instance, that scientists have proven to us that the center of the universe is not the earth, nor is it flat, thereby, in reality, as our knowledge and comprehension of this world, has become more comprehensive, our Constitution adjusts to this newfound wisdom.

The problem with taking any fixed and written document, and then attempting to sell the point that it changes with the times, effectively means that the document although written is not fixed, which in substance means that law is always in a flux, and law that changes with the prevailing winds of the time, is not only not good law, it really isn't law at all.  The fact of the matter is America has a Constitution, structured in such a manner that it can be amended, which it has been twenty-seven times, and thereby legislators that take office in this country, do not properly have the option of ignoring or altering the Constitution without going through the procedural steps as instructed by said Constitution.

Another very important point that legislators often fail to grasp, is that their sacred duty, is not to enact laws here and there per their own volition, but their foremost duty is actually to act on behalf of the people, specifically as their elected representatives, within the confines of the Constitution.  While there isn't anything wrong with desiring to effect change, if that be the people's will, to do so, within the structure of our government, necessitates, that certain steps be taken and adhere to, with always the foundation being that implementation of these changes must fall under the auspices of Constitutional structure.

If, instead, those that legislate, whether for their own power, or subversion of power, or to take power, or abuse power, or political power, look upon the Constitution as an instrument that can be stretched, bent, twisted, or re-interpreted so as to favor one's own desires, especially to the exclusion of the people and specifically the perversion of the Constitution, are no patriots to this country.  These legislators, are best seen as usurpers of the people's will, usurpers of the Constitution, that march only to the beat of their own avarice and believe as Kings did of old, that the rulers are above the law, above the Constitution, above the people, so that the great mass of citizens of this country are treated thereby as puppets to be controlled by their legislative puppeteers.

Natural Gas Deregulation

In some States of the Union, utilities, such as natural gas, have been deregulated, which to the uninitiated seems to represent something that could possibly save them money, but that isn't necessarily so.  The thing about natural gas that we need to understand is that an infrastructure has to be created in the first place, so in Georgia, for instance, the Atlanta Gas Light (AGL) is the company that previously had the monopoly on providing natural gas for consumers in Georgia, but after passage of a new State law, their monopoly ended and was replaced by a deregulated market, allowing a natural gas marketplace to which these companies interestedthen submitted financial particulars and plans to the commission and thereby upon approval became certifiedmarket providers of gas to consumers in Georgia.

The first hint that deregulation isn't the same as a free and open marketplace is the fact that the actual natural gas, the infrastructure that brings natural gas into your home, the pipeline maintenance of that gas, and the actual delivering of natural gas is still under the control as well as being the responsibility of the Atlanta Gas Light (AGL) company which for providing this service is allowed to charge for it via a State certified rate schedule with  “AGL Pass Through Charges" being shown on your monthly bill.  Again, think about it, the entire infrastructure of the natural gas going into your home is the responsibility of not your deregulated natural gas provider, but the responsibility of Atlanta Gas Light.  This being so, what exactly are these deregulated natural gas providers actually providing to consumers, since they have created none of the infrastructure nor are they responsible for any of that infrastructure, including importantly, the actual natural gas that is provided. The best that can be determined about what all these deregulated natural gas providers actually do, besides billing the customers for their agreed upon fixed rate, or variable rate plan, or whatever plan the customer has signed up for, is to purchase the natural gas on the commodity market and then re-market it to consumers, which signifies, that they are really marketers of natural gas and not producers of it.  While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, and perhaps that is the very definition of deregulation, however, it just seems rather deceptive that the natural gas provider that consumers have selected actually have little or nothing to do with the discovery, delivery or the extraction of the real natural gas product, and in actuality aren’t much more than being in the business of buying, negotiating, and procuring natural gas contracts.

Not too surprisingly, when you add a layer of marketing to the natural gas supply chain, you have added a layer of profit and infrastructure to the price of natural gas, and even though there appears to be plenty of competitors in the now deregulated market, those competitors have a distinct tendency to crowd out the inferior marketers, and hence over a period of time, to begin to act as an oligopoly that without enacting outright collusion are able to enact a gentleman's agreement that enables the marketing and smoothing of rates to be conducive to their bottom line, and passed on to the unsuspecting public as deregulated competitive rates, whereas in actuality, the consuming public has been effectively hoodwinked.

Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God

We read in John 3:3 that: "…Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," and further in response to Nicodemus' question as to how a man could possibly be born again, the Messiah replies, "…Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:5-6).  These wise words of Jesus are words that must be taken to heart, for it is these very words that should open our eyes as to the understanding and thereby the prime importance that the re-birth that Jesus mandates has nothing to do with our physical bodies but everything to do with our spirit.

While there are many people that are familiar with these words, and some that confess that they have been born again through having been baptized, or through some other religious experience or activity, that they have been thereby re-born, are often missing the very point of this particular scripture. The most important point, that Jesus makes very clear, is that a true re-birth that Jesus here refers to, necessitates a fundamental new perspective on life which indicates that you no longer suffer from the delusion that the body is all, nor even that your mind is all, but that spirit which is immortal, is your actual being and the recognition of this re-birth, is the recognition that the spirit, and not the flesh, is now the preeminent thing in your life and your actions thereby display this foundational belief.

A person, any person, that claims that they are actually re-born, will not, by definition, be the same person that he was in the past, he will have broken free from the chains of self-identifying with his flesh and will instead see himself as of the spirit, by the spirit, and for the spirit; recognizing that even before he was formed physically in his mother's womb, he was spirit, and henceforth when he is walking here on earth, he will recognize intuitively that he is indeed spirit, though encased in a body, but innately capable of being outside of the body, and thereby the master of that body.

The failure to understand that we are spirit in conjunction with believing that we are just the material body is catastrophic, because that failure hinders greatly in adhering to the straight and narrow path that will enable us to become a returning member of the kingdom of God.  Those that build their castles on this material plane, will truly reap what they have sow, for good or for bad, but in either event, they are bookended by their inevitable life followed by death, whereas those that are spiritually re-born will create treasure in heaven.

Those that recognize in their re-birth that we all are made, without exception, in the image of God, will find it far easier to see God in others, and by that attribute, will behave in their actions with a true reflection of this view.  To be re-born is to re-recognize as if for the first time, that we are co-heirs in the kingdom of God, a kingdom without beginning and a kingdom without end, to which our return will be seen as the re-arrival of the prodigal son, re-birth into the loving bosom of his God.

The Truth behind Valley Forge

America, isn't particularly known for learning or remembering its history, however, Valley Forge, and the remembrance of the bare-footed soldiers with bleeding feet, clothed in rags, disease ridden, suffering through the privations of shoddy shelter, lack of food and critical supplies, in the winter of 1777, is a story that most everyone is familiar with, or at least have seen the pictures of it depicted in various paintings.   Valley Forge certainly was a time that tried the very souls of the American Revolution, and as the general of that camp, stood Washington, who as the Commander in Chief was the man that the troops stood steadfastly by, despite the appalling conditions of that dreadful winter.

Not too surprisingly, those with only the most rudimentary grasp of history, chalked up the sufferings of our troops as just being one of those things that happened in times of war, or of bad weather, or of bad location, and of a rebellion that apparently was underfinanced in a country that was far poorer in material wealth and far less united than we are accustomed to today.  While there is a generic truth to this viewpoint, that isn't the whole truth, as in any war effort, the commissars, the supply chain, the logistics of procurement and distribution, the treasure chest, are all quite vital to the overall effectiveness of men at war.

This signifies then, that there were people authorized by Congressional authority, but typically far removed from Valley Forge, who were in charge of supplying Valley Forge with appropriate food, blankets, horses, and ammunition.  Unfortunately, times of war, can bring to those that have or are responsible for these above-mentioned items, a chance to profiteer from owning or controlling items that are in high demand, so that there was many a man that increased the pricing of his wares significantly so as to capture more profits for himself, and/or to sell his goods to the British side because they paid in gold specie, whereas the revolutionaries paid in Continental script.  To makes maters much worse, though, the commissary whose responsibility it was to fulfill the desperate and compelling needs of the Valley Forge soldiers, contained a combination of incompetency, corruption, duplicity, bureaucratic conflicts, inefficiency, selfishness, and powerless.

Washington and his soldiers were at the mercy of their own fellow revolutionary compatriots that failed in their ability to perform their supply duties in a competent and timely manner, which meant that far from their not being enough supplies to furnish Washington's soldiers with adequate food and shelter; instead the logistics in order to accomplish these tasks was abysmal or lacking, with the end result, being that soldiers fighting for the freedom of the revolutionaries sufferedwith their own lives and deprivations from this lack of supply.  

In times of war, things change, so that those that have cattle or other vital food stuffs, cannot sit on a fence and subsequently be held unaccountable, as those that do not either actively participate or provide labor or materials for a revolutionary effort are not deserving of the fruits of such a success, and as for those, that see war and conflict, as the opportunity to play one side against another, or to profiteer from the desperations of others, should suffer the long term consequences of their short term rapacity. 

The soldiers at Valley Forge, that suffered, and they did suffer, suffered primarily because those that could or should have provided that helping hand chose not to, and those that gained upon the sufferings of others, are neither patriots nor deserving of liberty to which nothing good ever comes without much cost and much commitment.

Doing and Doing for Others

America is known as a great charitable country, to wit, we provide humanitarian aid to nations big and small all over the world.  So too does America provide aid and a safety net to the impoverished here at home.  All of this is to the basic good, as anytime that you see in the face of your fellow man, a reflection of yourself, your treatment of that man, will be better for having seen the common humanity that all men are inherently endowed with.

There are however, situations that a man must do for himself rather than having others do this for them.  For instance, there comes a time, when your child has to go to pre-school or kindergarten or whatever, and not too surprisingly or too infrequently, the small child suffers from separation anxiety, but anxiety or not, the child needs to be amongst other children of its age, and the child needs the opportunity to engage in activities that will expand its field of knowledge and thereby to learn with its peers.  Additionally, when your child is in school at whatever stage of life, that child must take the tests that will demonstrate whether they have learned and comprehended certain knowledge or not, and thereby it would be self-defeating if said child cheated or if the tests were actually taken by somebody else.

In the workplace, no matter your job, how responsible it is or is not, there are some responsibilities that will be put onto your shoulders, so that, you as an employee, must do your part to perform those responsibilities in a competent and professional manner.  While there is something to be said about teamwork, working together, and collaboration, it is imperative that each member of that respective team contributes to it, as opposed to only a select few, pretty much doing all.

No doubt, there have been times in your life in which you have done something for another, wondering perhaps, or possibly knowing that, the other person probably could have done what you just did for them, without the actual need of your aid.  It is these times that truly separate, good actions, from actions while good, which would ideally be more appropriately filled by somebody else.  That is to say, it is difficult to criticize someone who out of the goodness of their heart helps another, however it must also be recognized that there are times, when that help probably should not have been offered, asserted itself, or have been accomplished. 

In actuality, the real purpose of a mentor to a student, a parent to a child, is to teach and engage the other, thereby providing the basis so that these individuals can one day think properly and to become self-reliant.  Any society in which a significant portion of the population becomes dependent upon the government or its substitutes for its daily subsistence, and does not make their own effort to wean themselves off of such a dependency, are creating at a minimum a two-tiered society, of those that do, and those that don't.

The fundamental problem with not doing for yourself, when you do have the innate capability of doing something for yourself, is that, because you are not self-sufficient nor self-reliant, you are almost for a certainty, not self-governmental, because you have failed to demonstrate that capacity, and therefore because you have ceded your sovereignty to another, your destiny is in another's hand, for better or for worse.

Religion and the Constitution

All oaths that office holders take in America, all follow the same basic format, which is to: "… solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."  There wouldn't be any point of taking such an oath, if the intention for those that did so, was to ignore the very thing that they have sworn to protect.  When it comes to religion in America, one would have a tendency to believe that following the Constitution would not only be paramount but would also be consistent from office holder to office holder, from year to year, but instead, the governmental religious rulings have changed significantly over the years, so much so, that a fairly strong argument could be made, that America, which initially was created as a vibrant and strong Christian nation, has morphed itself instead into what appears to be a secular State.

The thing is the Constitution is quite clear and specific about its intent in regards to religion, so that the very point of the 1st Amendment, which states in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" has been re-interpreted from its original intent and its original meaning that the Federal government through its Congress does not have the right to impose a National religion upon its population, to now become that that there should be a wall of separation between Church and State.

While some contemporary people, for whatever spurious reasons, are intent that America should be seen as a secular State, that is not consistent with the founding of America, nor is consistent with the Founding fathers and their beliefs, nor is it consistent with the Declaration of Independence, nor is it consistent with the Constitution, and it certainly is not consistent with the people that nobly advanced this country at that time.  There is not necessarily anything wrong with wanting or desiring or trying to make America a secular nation, as the people have implicitly the right to alter or abolish the nature of their government, however, doing so, properly, must be done not only through the people, by the people, and for the people, but also accomplished through the auspices of a new Declaration and thereby a new Constitution, as opposed to taking known and established Constitutional law and deliberately subverting it.

If America, insists that God cannot be in our classrooms, cannot be in our justice system, cannot be in the public square, and cannot be in the way that we conduct our everyday life, then we will certainly understand the futility of: "Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel," rather than " but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house." (Matthew 5:15).  America was founded as a Christian nation by Christians, however, this never did mean, nor does it mean presently, that the only religion permitted in America must be Christian or offshoots of Christianity, as the Constitution clearly states and our history of plurality has clearly shown that all Americans are entitled to the free exercise of their religious or irreligious beliefs.  In fact, in America, the Constitution makes it clear in Article VI that: "…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust…"

Today, modern man has reasoned itself into the cardinal error, of believing that through their mind and through their intelligence they now know all, see all, and are all, and thereby their government has no need for the interference and the inconvenience of belief in any sort of God.  The belief or disbelief in God or voluntary service to any particular religion is a free thinking man's prerogative, however, to preclude others from their own beliefs, or to actively close the door on the free exercise of worship by governmental decree, is an abomination to this Constitution and thereby to this country and to which it stands.