Machiavellian Denial of Jesus

picture of Machiavelli from National Geographic
Jesus from free art

 

Many people, subscribing to
a design of Machiavellian opportunism, will claim…

“Jesus was a nice guy, but his teaching just won’t work in today’s world.” They will then describe today’s world as filled with so many people without morals, shame, or any sense of social regard that turning the other cheek will invite not only a slap on that other cheek as well, but then also a lawsuit claiming those two cheeks instigated the squabble in the first place.

I assert that the culture in which Jesus delivered his teaching, and faithfully modeled it, was as much or worse for absence of morality.

In the midst of unscrupulous tax collectors taking advantage of people, the wealthy storing up yet more wealth in warehouses in disregard for others around them, men divorcing wives merely because they had outlived child-bearing age and were no longer useful, Jesus taught a code of ethics and morality that  insisted on charity, forgiveness, and restraint of self-serving actions. Jesus lived and modeled that teaching himself.

In the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 20) we receive this instruction: “ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

To claim Jesus with our lips as if it were some litmus test of patriotism, to attend church so that we can feel good about ourselves and appear to be of respectable reputation and then abandon the teaching of Jesus for its presumed impracticality is to deny Jesus himself.

I assert it is to deny Jesus.

Regarding an encounter the rich young ruler had with Jesus…

 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.   ( Matthew 19:21,22)

Authentic acceptance of Jesus requires some sacrifice, some cross carrying. Jesus never commanded his disciples to seek comfort, convenience, and accumulated wealth.

Appropriating a cliché, I say, in a world of Machiavellians…be a Jesus.

No Religous Test and Theodore Roosevelt's Description of Good Citizenship

 

 

photo from https://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/the_man_in_the_arena.htm

Upon accepting appointive office as a member of a County Tax Board, I am required to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. When I serve as a poll worker, I take such an oath upon that day as well.

Taking my oath seriously, I figure that I ought to be familiar with that Constitution I have sworn to defend.

I periodically read through the Constitution the way some read through the Bible or revisit novels they have previously enjoyed.

In doing so recently, I happened upon this gem of a Constitutional right. It rests within the third clause of Article VI…”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 or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States”.

That last part…” but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States”.

This right, embedded in the Constitution which was ratified June 21, 1788 (years before the ratification of the Bill of Rights; December 15, 1791), is the preeminent Constitutional right, relative to the Bill of Rights.

This right is explicit in language and without any conditions such as “provided that”, or “except in the case of”.

This right is unequivocal in its meaning and application; no religious Test shall ever be Required.

A good citizen will abide by this preeminent, explicit, and unequivocal Constitutional right.

Good citizenship was described by Theodore Roosevelt in his speech “Citizenship in a Republic” which he delivered in Paris, France on April 23, 1910. I provide a quote from that speech…

“The good citizen will demand liberty for himself, and as a matter of pride he will see to it that others receive liberty which he thus claims as his own. Probably the best test of true love of liberty in any country is the way in which minorities are treated in that country. Not only should there be complete liberty in matters of religion and opinion, but complete liberty for each man to lead his life as he desires, provided only that in so he does not wrong his neighbor.”

Theodore Roosevelt was a man of high intellect. He mastered the languages of French and German. He was also familiar with Latin and Italian. This former President, famous for his “gung ho” bravery and attitude, also modeled the importance of multilingualism.

Theodore Roosevelt was a man of positive regard for minorities of different faiths and different opinions. His only qualification was that “he does not wrong his neighbor”

I conclude that neither the text of the Constitution, nor the heart of Theodore Roosevelt views minorities, those of different faiths, opinions, or languages as a problem.

Domestic enemies are not those people who look different, speak differently, or worship differently.

Domestic enemies are those who would deny others the fullness of their Constitutional rights. Domestic enemies are those who would wrong their neighbors.

The good citizen will see to it that others receive liberty which he thus claims as his own.

The full Roosevelt speech “Citizenship in a Republic” can be read at the following link:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-sorbonne-paris-france-citizenship-republic

The quote I use is from paragraph thirty-one, if I have counted correctly.

God Cannot Be Manipulated Toward Apocalypse

 

Image from Library of Congress

From June 5 to June 10 of Nineteen Sixty-seven, almost fifty-nine years ago, Israel and Egypt were at war with each other. This war included some other Arab countries.

Much that I have read regarding this war indicates that the Soviet Union had helped arm the Arab countries and instigate them toward action against Israel.

This easily could have become a World War. In fact, in 1967, I remember hearing such fears on the news via television and radio.

Most problematic to me, I heard preachers proclaim that the apocalypse was near because these nations involved in this war represented Biblical geography. At the age of twelve, as a churchgoer, and reader of the Bible, especially the teachings of Jesus, I found that type of preaching to be egregiously irresponsible and insufficient of accurate Biblical information and purpose.

I don’t know if these preachers wanted to sell books, get more viewership, or just further sensationalize public fear.

Jesus taught love for enemies, peacemakers are blessed, and, as he spoke to Peter when he was being arrested, “Put the sword away!”

Regardless of the motivations of the fear-prompters, the 1967 “Six Day War” did not spark a World War nor did it trigger the apocalypse; nor will this current war in the area of Biblical geography manipulate God into premature, if ever, apocalyptic action.

Actually, I think the events reported in the Book of Revelation already took place, roughly two thousand years ago, but that is for a good Bible study session.

Pray for peace!

Put away the sword!

Much Ado About a Language Colonially Imposed Upon us by Kings James to George III

 

King George III from Royalisticism,blogspot.com

Thorvald (brother to Leif Eriksson) spoke Old Norse.

According to my eight-grade history book (The Free and the Brave by Henry F Graff), Thorvald, with his Viking adventurers, landed on the shores of North America hundreds of years before other Europeans or those folk from Great Britain.

And while it was the English language that sailed on the Mayflower to Plymouth rock (or elsewhere), the first prominent European language came over on the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa María, all carrying the Spanish flag.

Of course, early in the European adventures on the American continent Portugal and France also contributed language and other cultural attributes.

But, also, let’s be sure to recognize the indigenous languages already present here as those Europeans and Great Britains arrived.

Furthermore, recognize the languages forcibly brought over from Africa.

Assuredly, English is what most of us in the United States grew up learning, writing, and speaking.

Now consider this, those colonists who separated from Great Britain in 1776 did not create English as a language original to this continent. That language, even used to compose the Declaration of Independence, was imposed upon this continent by those same powers that the colonists were rejecting.

At this point, many may think “Well, they used English to write the Declaration merely as a matter of convenience.”

I agree. More to my point, I think all language is merely a matter of convenience rather than as an indicator of patriotism or nationhood.

Perhaps, if we are so invested in making a language which traveled from across the Atlantic centuries ago to be our nationally recognized language, we should all learn Old Norse as that was the first European language on this continent.

Those that insist that English is the only authentic language of the United States are willfully self-subjugating to the residual colonial effect of the Empire of Great Britain.

Far from rolling in his Royal grave at St. George’s Chapel in England, King George III is having quite a boisterous last laugh even as we approach our semi- quincentennial celebration.

A Judge's Role

In support of my continuing argument for the separation of Church and State, I invoke the wisdom of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

In her book Listening to the Law, she writes “ My office doesn’t entitle me to align the legal system with my moral or policy views. Swearing to apply the law means deciding each case based on what the law is. If I decide the case based on what I think the law should be, I’m cheating.” ( page 28)

She, just paragraphs earlier in the book, discussed her agreement that according to the law the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was legal even though her personal religious faith was contrary to the death penalty.

During a Notre Dame speaking event on September 12, 2025, Barrett said “ a judge’s role is to look at the law, not their own sense of what’s fair, sensible or moral.”

I assert that the Constitution is an amoral social contract, meaning that it was not designed to impose, endorse or declare what is “ fair, sensible or moral”. Neither was the Supreme Court, or any lower court charged with making “moral” decisions.

That assertion does not mean that governments cannot enact laws to improve the conditions of people. In fact, one of the charges given to government is expressed in the Preamble to the United States Constitution…”to promote the general welfare”.

Promoting the general welfare of our nation involves feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, educating those that lack sufficient knowledge and skill to thrive in society, making healthcare an absolute right, and other programs that improve the conditions of persons. These are practical and profitable pursuits for the common benefit aside from whatever religious or moral calculations may be involved.

Whatever we may think to be “fair, sensible, or moral” is the purview of the church, synagogue, temple, Mosque, philosopher and ethicist. But not any level of government which has a duty to provide to all persons the equal protection of the law.

I recommend Listening to the Law, regardless of whatever policy orientation you may hold. This book is helpful toward understanding the Court, the role of a Justice, and the Constitution.

Another good book is The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics by retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

I am convinced that an accurately informed citizenry will have better formation of public policy and make better decisions at the polls.

Praying for Victims of Violence

 

Greetings Sisters and Brothers, peacemakers in the Name of Jesus…

Today I bring an appeal for much prayer regarding violence in general and gun violence in particular.

I don’t know why people feel the need to express their fear, anger, hatred, confusion by exercise of violence, and I don’t excuse them of their responsibility. But I believe that something has gone wrong in their lives. Either they have experienced extreme trauma such as war, or perhaps have become otherwise mentally or emotionally troubled.

But the effects of such violence are devastating.

In the past few days there have been many shootings involving physical harm and death. These shootings have created much emotional trauma.

Imagine, your child or grandchild goes to church, school, or a movie, and never returns home.

I present four news reports of such shootings here in these news links. There are many more.

I request that you read one or more, they are short, and then say a prayer for those involved.

Those people are hurting emotionally and physically. Most shootings never gain the kind of national news coverage as did the Columbine shootings in 1999 or Uvalde in 2022

Most shootings never arouse the public swelling of compassion, leaving parents and others to think "doesn't America care about my child?"

My appeal is that we care enough to pray.

Please read these four news reports and pray.

 

These four just since September 28…

Highland Park, Michigan

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/quadruple-shooting-during-game-dice-highland-park-was-random-polices-say

 

Eagle Pass, Texas

https://www.wilsoncountynews.com/articles/suspect-in-eagle-pass-casino-shooting-arrested-in-stockdale/

 

New Orleans

https://wgno.com/news/crime/bourbon-street-shooting-leaves-one-dead-three-injured/

 

Grand Blanc, Michigan

https://www.ksl.com/article/51382044/gunman-killed-after-killing-1-injuring-9-at-latter-day-saint-church

 

Hoping and praying for Peace, Pastor Mike

Comments on Mexican Declaration of Independence 1821

 

Area of Mexico in 1821

While many folks in the United States celebrate Cinco De Mayo (victory over the Second French Intervention), I recognize September 28, 1821 as Mexican Independence Day, a victory over Spanish colonization.

It was on that day that the Mexican Declaration of Independence was signed and published.

As a student of national Declarations (mostly of North and South America) from colonial powers I submit a few comments of respect regarding this Mexican Declaration.

1. The Mexican Declaration, as with most I have read, became in effect only after the war was completed, treaty signed, or other sense of victory. The Declaration of the united* States was declared in the midst of conflict without surety of victory.

2. The Mexican Declaration presents no formal list of grievances as does the united States declaration, though three hundred years of oppression are mentioned.

3. The third paragraph of the Mexican Declaration provides homage to “heroic efforts of its sons”.

4. This Declaration provides for “First Chief of the Imperial Army of the Three Guarantees wisely established and which it will uphold at all costs and with all sacrifice of the means and lives of its members”; this statement resembles the pledge made in the united States Declaration…” we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

There are other similarities. I encourage the reader to compare and contrast this Declaration with the Declaration of the united States.

I present the text here as a sign of respect for our neighbor and ally, Mexico.

Declaration of the independence of the Mexican Empire, issued by its Sovereign Junta, assembled in the Capital on September 28, 1821.

The Mexican Nation, which for three hundred years had neither had its own will, nor free use of its voice, leaves today the oppression in which it has lived.

The heroic efforts of its sons have been crowned today, and consummated in an eternal and memorable enterprise, which a spirit superior to all admiration and praise, out of love and for the glory of its Country started in Iguala, continued, and brought to fruition, overcoming almost insurmountable obstacles.

Restored then this part of the North to the exercise of all the rights given by the Author of Nature and recognized as unalienable and sacred by the civilized nations of the Earth, in liberty to constitute itself in the manner which best suits its happiness and through representatives who can manifest its will and plans, it begins to make use of such precious gifts and solemnly declares by means of the Supreme Junta of the Empire that it is a Sovereign nation and independent of old Spain with which henceforth it will maintain no other union besides a close friendship in the terms prescribed by the treaties; that it will establish friendly relationships with other powers, executing regarding them whatever declarations the other sovereign nations can execute; that it will constitute itself in accordance to the bases which in the Plan of Iguala and the Treaty of Córdoba the First Chief of the Imperial Army of the Three Guarantees wisely established and which it will uphold at all costs and with all sacrifice of the means and lives of its members (if necessary); this solemn declaration, is made in the capital of the Empire on the twenty-eighth of September of the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one, first of Mexican Independence

Amen.

Congratulations Mexico, conquerors of colonial powers.

·       I use a lower case “u” in the word "united" because original copies of our Declaration do so...

From National Archives

"Let It Be" as a Phil Spector, rather than Beatles Project.

 

 

My early influences on writing are Charles Dickens, Rod Serling, Simon and Garfunkel lyrics, and this description on the back cover of the Beatles “Let It Be” album.

Here with this description, I learned that much impression can be influenced by a few well-chosen words.

I shall provide comment for each part of the description:

 

This is a new phase Beatles album…

 I think each and every Beatles album that followed a previous one was a “new phase” in their recording career. Beatles For Sale, Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and on, each of those were new phase in recording technique.

But what I learned from this statement on the back of the album was that merely saying so explicitly gave it a compelling air of uniqueness.

Essential to the content of the film, LET IT BE was that they performed live for many of the tracks;

 Perhaps what is referred to here is the roof-top performance which took place on January 30, 1969. But, for anyone who has watched the Let it Be/ Get Back sessions documentaries, one could describe all of the tracks as “live”. I consider the experiment a series of jam sessions which lack the precision of production under true recording studio conditions.

In comes the warmth and the freshness of a live performance;

I suppose I can concur as it relates to the roof top concert. But the “working” sessions, as viewed in the documentaries, left me with an “ok, let’s get on with it” impatience.

As reproduced for disk by Phil Spector

    The most conspicuous and relevant statement in the description identifies the legendary Phil Spector as having, not produced, rather, reproduced the material for disk, rather than film.

    Phil Spector had acquired such fame and acclaim as a producer that when a new album was released by Ronnie and the Ronettes, or other Spector-produced groups or material, it was often referred to as “the latest Phil Spector album”.

That is how I see “Let it Be”, as a Spector album with abandoned experimental Beatles material as his project.

    By the time the album was released it had become publicly known that the Beatles had broken up. The description on the back cover helped to sell the album by using words such as new phase, fresh, live.

 But most effectively by invoking the name of Phil Spector.

at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland Ohio

The "No Religious Test" Clause

 

photo from BBC

For all of us, especially those in military, public office, or otherwise, who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution…

Today I highlight and affirm a clause from the Constitution which provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office…”:

Article VI Clause 3

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 or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I further report excerpts from a Supreme Court Opinion June 19, 1961 affirming the right of “no religious test”.

This information can be found at Library of Congress website: https://www.loc.gov/resource/usrep.usrep367488/?pdfPage=1

 From the introduction:

“Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a  belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496”

From the conclusion:

“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. "Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

I continue to assert that religion and faith are the forum of the Church, Temple, Synagogue or Mosque, not to be imposed, declared, or preferred by any level of government.

America is a Nation of Shared Resources and Responsibilities

 

 

historyincharts,com I claim Fair Use

Well before Karl Marx was born (1818), yet longer before he published his Communist Manifesto (1848), the founders of the United States established, alongside other national attributes such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and “all men are created equally” the commitment to the idea of shared resources and responsibilities.

In conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, having articulated the justification for the separation from England, these founders also declared “ 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.”

We pledge to each other: This is not a declaration of “each to his own” individualism. At the very nascence of our national identity was established the idea of the common good.

Our lives: Long before the Revolutionary War was spun from the fabric of American idealism, William Shakespeare wrote in a narrative poem

“That one for all, or all for one we gage;
As life for honour in fell battle’s rage;”

I am convinced that these well-read men of noble cause had read these lines from the bard and found them to be worthy of personal and national subscription.

Our fortunes: And here we have a commitment to share in the area of financial resources. Though not an endorsement of socialism, which was not yet articulated by either Marx or Engels, it was definitely a stated allegiance to be of financial assistance one to each.

Our sacred honor: The use of the word “sacred” indicates that they considered their honor to be yet more cherished than even their fortunes or their lives. They were corporately binding together even their honor, their legacy, their place in posterity.

This was not a declaration of individualism.

It was one of corporate, shared, common good.

The ideals of shared resources and responsibilities are echoed in the Preamble to the Constitution, in which we read phrases like “We, the people”, “ a more perfect Union”, “provide for the common defence", “promote the general Welfare”, “ourselves and our Posterity”.

This same Constitution, ratified June 21, 1788, enabled an early act of “redistribution of debt” with the Funding Act of 1790. To abbreviate a complex act of Congress, August 4, 1790,  as the picture indicates, the federal government assumed the war debts of the various states, some of which had already paid their debts and so would be helping to pay the debts of other states. The first national redistribution of debt took place well before formal socialist ideology happened upon our national intellect.

My point is, the idea of nationally shared resources and responsibilities is as American as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

Encouraging United Methodist Clergy and Congregations to Engage the Social Principles.

 

   Are you, as clergy or laity of a United Methodist Church, looking for a way to transform the world?

I encourage teaching the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church.

While the Social Principles “are not church law”, meaning that a member is not obligated to subscribe to each and every position stated, neither are they to be brushed aside as irrelevant or unworthy of serious attention.

They are not merely incidental adjunct material with which the Conference chose to consume excess time. They are expressions of actions that have as their inspiration the social emphasis and personal example of John Wesley, and the teachings and example of Jesus himself.

They carry substantial General Conference approval as evidenced by the vote tallies on the various sections of the document…

                                                                        Yes                No               Percentage

Preface                                                           663                60                     92

Preamble                                                        667                54                     93

The Community of All Creation                   667                 54                     93

The Economic Community                           667                 54                     93

The Social Community                                 523                  161                  76

The Political Community                             671                   57                    92

 

A rough analogy may be: The Articles of Religion (changeable only by Amendment process), and other quadrennially legislated parts of the Book of Displine can be equated with an employee manual of a corporation or institution which becomes a contract when signed by the employee, the Social Principles may be equated with the Best Practices of the divisions of corporations.

Upon passage of the Social Principles at the 2024 General Conference Bishop Dyck commented “It is for Sunday school classes, preaching from the pulpit, for seminary classes and as a guide for all of us to use right now.”

And I provide the following suggestions:

*Sunday School classes: The teacher can approach the material in different ways. One way is merely to bring them to the attention of the students and encourage discussion. Another way is to advocate for their application. Yet another way to present the Social Principles would be as a forum to which you can invite the public as a way of “getting to know our United Methodist beliefs”.

*Preaching from the pulpit: Paragraph 403.d of the Book of Discipline states “The role of the bishop is to be a prophetic voice for justice in a suffering and conflicted world through the tradition of social holiness.” While that makes a charge to the Bishop, by extension it arrives to all clergy at the pulpit. I advocate for preaching the principles as practical illumination of the Gospel.

*Seminary: Develop information by which students and congregations can leverage their congregational resources to meet the challenge of taking broad, generalized statements in the Social Principles and Book of Resolutions and by them forming congregational goals.

*A guide for all: During Membership classes, they should be presented. One church member may be motivated to engage local government. Another may be inspired to advocate for solving homelessness. It is likely that there is a Social Principle that would move any member to action.

We acknowledge that the world, of which God has given us stewardship, is full of problems. The Social Principles, and the accompanying Book of Resolutions, offer means of practical divinity by which we may do more than merely “send thoughts and prayers” with our faith sequestered to our sanctuaries, but we may also affect positive, useful transformation of the world.

I encourage classes. There is a teaching guide at the end of the book.

The paperback version is available at cokesbury.com for $9.99

It is also available for free at this link:

https://www.umc.org/en/who-we-are/what-we-believe/our-social-positions

A report of the passage of the Social Principles can be viewed here:

https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/all-sections-of-the-revised-social-principles-officially-adopted

British Monarch Profession of Protestant Faith before Parliament in Contrast to US Constituion

 

 

Did you realize that the words “So help me God”, spoken by Presidents as they take the required oath or affirmation of office, are not required to be spoken, nor are they even present in the Constitution?

I acknowledge that most, if not all Presidents, have spoken those words. But they have done so as a point of personal choice, not requirement.

I present the Constitutional requirement here:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

These words are found in Article 2, section 1, last paragraph.

The link to the full transcript of the Constitution is provided at the bottom of this post.

I offer that bit of information merely as an appetizer of the Constitution before I move on to the very tasty entre which follows.

Queen Elizabeth II, addressing Parliament for the first time, November 4, 1952, began with the following paragraph…

"I, Elizabeth, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law."

This was not merely a point of personal choice for her. This profession, testimony, and declaration was necessary for her as she claimed the Throne.

There was at that time, and I believe still exists, the Act of Settlement and Protestant Succession, which was passed by Parliament in 1701. It requires the Monarch t be a member of the Church of England and to declare an oath to the Protestant faith.

Contrarily, here in the United States, there is no requirement that a person holding office of any level declare any religious faith.

In fact, Article VI, last paragraph concludes with the following provision…

“but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

It may be true that most people who lived in the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution were Christians of some stripe or another. I know that there were also Unitarians and Deists.

But this information regarding the Protestant Succession Act, which I am sure those educated framers of our government were aware of, tells us that if the framers had wanted to establish a Christian form of government, they had precedent and example to do so.

Yet they chose to go to great lengths to avoid establishing a religious government.

The Preamble of the Constitution has no religious language.

The 1^st Amendment provides that there shall be no establishment of religion by the government.

There is the aforementioned “no religious test” clause.

There are no stated prohibitions of religion, which they could, had they chosen, to include.

In stark and resolute contrast to the Protestant Succession Act of Parliament, 1701, The Constitution of the United States respects your conscience as being inviolate.

It is an exceptional trait provided to and by us. May it never be surrendered.

 

 

U S Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

 

Queen Elizabeth II speech: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1952/nov/04/the-queens-speech

 

Act of Settlement and Protestant Succession: https://archive.org/details/sn-00683-Parliamant/mode/2up

Brief Tribute to Ozzy Osbourne

 

I was not a Black Sabbath fan. I had heard of them and their recordings but such musical tone and subject matter of lyric seemed a bit harsh to me.

In 1971 a classmate of mine suggested that I try listening to a full album and reading the lyric sheet.

Having then done so, I acquiesced “OK, a legitimate rock band”. But still, I was not going to attend a concert.

Later on in life, having had a son who preferred rock of the metal persuasion, I wound up going to concerts such as Motor Head, Metallica, and, yes, Black Sabbath at the Palace, Auburn Hills, February 19, 2016.

What an experience!

Women of all ages dressed in Goth, many who had never met before, coordinated to line up in front of the stage to simultaneously curtsey before the Prince of Darkness.

During the show, Ozzy insulted the attendees, his fans. In response they cheered and clapped! He called them the biggest losers ever. All the more they cheered and clapped!

But it was all a show. A rock show. A time for like-minded people to take a sabbath from their day to day lives and experience a sense of camaraderie.

After the show, Ozzy provided the benediction “I love you, God bless you, drive carefully”.

As harsh and heavy as his rock vocal, as chest-rattling was the sound of drums, bass, and guitars, with the same intensity this benediction was delivered by the Prince of Darkness.

And so, years later, upon the passing of Ozzy, I found myself compelled to watch the funeral processional as it drove past a commemoration site in Birmingham England.

Much gratitude for Sharon and family to take the time to stop, emerge from the car and show loving respect for the fans at this fan site before moving on to the private funeral.

A Star-speckled Navy Blue Sky and Lightening Bugs with sister Vickie

 

   

My sister Vickie and I enjoyed attention.

Though autumn is my favorite season, summertime reminds me of my very young days when agility, energy, discovery, and humor were ever present and likewise was my personal mindset. Age five is a wondrous moment when neither the past nor the future inhibit the adventurous present nor even inhabit it cognitively very much at all.

   Such was the case one night circa nineteen sixty.

   It had been a very hot day in Lafollette Tennessee there on Rose Hill. I don’t remember the month, but I remember the moment quite vividly as if the evening and its orchestra of environmental and social features had been imprinted on my emotional self to reemerge periodically and in that moment of reemergence remind me of who I most am as a person.

    Indeed, it was a hot day. My sister, Vickie, and I had run around in the heat, humidity, and sun with no care as to how it was affecting our bodily comfort. The only indication of heat was the sweat running from our heads, which we, I at least, brushed away with the backs of our hands.

I remember gulping tap water from a glass, loaded with tastable minerals to which I had become accustomed.

I sit between my uncle Raymond and Jim Eckenrode. My sister's toy baby buggy is visible behind us.

Rose Hill, Lafollette, Tennessee

But it was the evening which held the boldest memory.

I lay under a tree, through which leaves and branches I could see stars interrupt the color of the sky which, though I did not know to describe at the time, I now report as “star-speckled navy blue”. I lay, with my hands behind my head, fingers intertwined, cradling that head, and wondered what indeed were “stars”.

Concurrent with that cognitive wondering was the feel of a cool breeze upon my skin which caused the leaves in the tree to briefly obscure those stars of wonder until they appeared once again and I wondered too about the origins of cool breezes.

In all of that glorious sedentary experience, I was soon disrupted by my sister Vickie, older than me by eighteen months, as she grasped me by my hand and pulled me to my feet. Into the other hand she pushed an empty canning jar and invited me to, along with her, catch lightening bugs.

As the gathered adults drank beer, whisky, and smoked cigarettes and cigars, and gossiped about the local townsfolk regarding affairs, divorces, and sundry other spicy social circumstances, Vickie and I chased the lightening bugs, tripped over exposed tree roots, bumped into each other, and attempted to outdo each other in our collection of bugs.

    Unfortunately, one cannot control much of our own personal histories or futures. 

My sister would pass away from a brain tumor about two years later.

I am happy that this memory survives as homage to her.

This memory also comforts me in my continuing attribute of discovery and inquisitiveness.

It reminds me too that, as much as we should anticipate and prepare for the future, while honoring the past, it is the present that eagerly orchestrates a lifelong memory to cherish.