Long-term Jobless

          Reuters, a well-known news reporting organization, has reported today that President Obama will meet with the leaders of more than twenty large companies which have agreed not to discriminate in hiring against the long-term unemployed.

          Wonderful! I’m all for it. Over the years, and especially in current times, it has been reported that companies are refusing to even interview those who have been out of work for an extended period of time. Also, with one excuse after another, businesses are turning their backs on the hiring of older people. It seems that they just don’t quite fill the bill. They are over-qualified, under-qualified, too fat, too skinny, black, white, yellow, and not pretty enough–you get the picture.

Frankly, I don’t know how far our President is going to get with these companies. Keep in mind; these are some of the same companies that hire slave labor abroad at wages less than a dollar an hour. It sure is slave labor. Really! Everything is relative; and, as I have said many times, “A rose is a rose by any other name”. They may not consider (or admit) it is slave labor in the countries where it is being performed; but, relative to wages and conditions in our country, it is slave labor. Believe it! They even lock those poor people in at their work sites–all for the sake of excess profits. And, do you really think they pass all of their cost savings from using slave labor back to the consumer here in America? Their net profits are not only higher; but, so also, are their gross margin percentages. Look at how many people have been killed in these slave factories. Have you forgotten Bangladesh? I hope Walmart hasn’t. The families of these poor people need to be compensated for the loss of their loved ones.

It has been a while. Some of you may be too young to remember; but, perhaps others of you may recall. In 1970, Union Carbide India Limited, UCIL (51% owned by America’s Union Carbide Corporation, UCC), built a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. Subsequently, on December 3, 1984, a release of methyl isocyanate gas which immediately killed approximately 3,000 people and subsequently lead to the death of more than fifteen thousand. In February 1989, the Supreme Court of India directed UCC and UCIL to pay the equivalent of $470 million to settle all claims arising from the tragedy. Think about that–only $470 million for that many lives.

Let me make one last observation; and, then, I’ll quit for the day. You have been reading and hearing about the subsidization of fast food workers, other retail employees and low wage workers through welfare payments, i.e. food stamps, healthcare, and housing aid, as well as recommended increases in the minimum wage. Wouldn’t this same subsidization apply to our vast unemployed, out of work because of the outsourcing of labor to this foreign slave labor? Wouldn't it? It would seem to me that employment, i.e. jobs, would be better than subsidization by welfare.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net

Pre-K Education

          Mayor Bill de Blasio, the newly elected mayor of New York has hit the floor running, introducing a new and ambitious pre kindergarten plan which will “extend free, full-day, ‘high quality’ pre-K across the city in two years, eventually to reach more than 73,000 four year olds” with a separate after-school initiative for middle-schoolers. He proposes to pay for it by a “small, five-year income tax increase on those earning $500,000 a year or more”. Hooray for Mayor de Blasio! We should adopt a plan like (or better than) his throughout the nation immediately, if not sooner. Over the years of the future, it will surely pay for itself.

          We have a problem in this country, folks–a serious problem, an extremely serious problem. The world certainly isn’t going to come to an end, but life as we know it (and our government) cannot continue on its present path. I predict a crash is coming–a real crash, if we don’t change. You know that we can’t continue with half the country (Obviously, I’m talking in generality) supporting the other half. On the other hand, you also know we cannot abide being governed by a dictator or oligarchy reducing us to serfdom or slavery.

          I have said before, we have approximately forty-seven percent of our people living in poverty and receiving some type of welfare or support, including twenty million unemployed or under employed; and, as I have also said previously, we have another twenty million people in our prisons. That comes close to half, doesn’t it? Our inner-city ghettos are full; and, in a manner of speaking, effectively isolated from our suburbs, jobs, and opportunities. You may argue with that. With a full stomach and a pay-check, it is easy to do; but I believe what I have just said to be substantially true. I, also, believe that those in our “underclass”, based on current events, are growing in numbers and will soon outnumber the rest of us.

          We have been told the poor will always be with us, and I believe that; but, I also believe we should do our utmost to eliminate poverty to the fullest extent possible. To this end, we must eliminate the underclass in our country to an absolute minimum. We must instill values in our youth, eliminate gangs, eliminate crime and drugs, and eliminate dependence. Our people must be educated and develop job skills in order to be productive and, therefore, self sufficient and responsible citizens.  That’s what I propose; and education is the most essential component of any possible course of action we can take to achieve that end.

It is in the early years of life, our early childhood, when we learn the fastest and the most–when we form our attitudes and views of the world around us. Pre kindergarten is an excellent starting point to take advantage of this. It is imperative. I say again, kudos to Mayor de Blasio.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net

Jamie Dimon Gets a Raise

For those of you who haven’t heard, finally, at last, Jamie Dimon, an unsung hero and conscientious hard working and highly productive member of one of our nation’s most important and essential industries, has been awarded a raise in salary and benefits. For months, if not years (or maybe it has been years), Mr. Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, has successfully fought off law suit after law suit unfairly perpetrated upon his company for housing fraud, securities violations, and other minor and unimportant charges by the United States Government, receiving only minor fines and admonishments. I think one fine assessed against his company was only eighteen billion dollars or something like that. Maybe I’m mistaken; it may have been eleven billion. I’m not absolutely certain. Anyway, it’s only “peanuts”. I think, also, there may have been another rather small fine of one or two billion or so. I’m not sure. Anyway, in either event he sure deserves the seventy-four per cent increase he is being awarded for the year 2013. He has worked very hard to get where he is and achieve so much for his company. He deserves his twenty million dollar income. Besides that’ he needs the money. The eleven million dollar annual salary he received last year wasn’t even a livable wage. How sad. Again, I’m not certain, but he may have had to park his limousine under an overpass at night. Also, those four thousand dollar shower curtains in his bathroom need to be replaced.

I’m sure you realize at this point in my discussion that an element of sarcasm is involved in what I am saying. I refer you, therefore, to the New York Times January 24^th article, Big Raise for JPMorgan’s Dimon Despite a Rough Year, by Peter Eavis. You can pick it up on the internet at www.dealbook.nytimes.com.

It’s just an afterthought; but, looking at his picture in the article leads me to think. Anyone that young and obviously handsome–perhaps we should consider him as a candidate for the presidency in 2016, especially after he and his cohorts have done such a good job for our country in these past few years–You know, the rise of the markets in derivatives, the resulting bubble in the housing market, and its subsequent crash when the derivative markets caved in. Also, we must not forget the massive layoffs, consequential unemployment, home foreclosures, etc., etc. Oh well, you know. These are just minor details–What the hell? Put em in office. They've got a pretty face. On the other hand, however, perhaps they won't like the cut in pay.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net

The Right to Life

          “The Right to Life”, the title given to the very important issue of abortion prevention, seems to especially come to life at the beginning of every election cycle, used by certain politicians as a tool to arouse and exacerbate the emotions of the electorate in an effort to secure votes. In between election campaigns, it seems we hear very little about the issue. It only comes up when Joe Blow wants to run for office or be re-elected. I’m sorry, but this aggravates me to no end. This issue should not be politicized. Especially significant is that the most, if not greatest, support for this issue comes from the “Christian Right”.

Now, let’s be clear about this–let there be no doubt. Although, at times not a very good one, I am a Christian; and I firmly believe in the right to life. I am opposed to abortion, except in those cases when it is medically necessary, where the pregnancy is the result of incest, or, arguably, some other extenuating circumstance is involved. Babies can always be placed for adoption, for which, the Lord knows, there is always a continuous and raging market. As we speak, Black Market Profiteers are kidnapping babies, raiding nurseries in hospitals, and stealing them from wherever they can be found. There is especially no need to kill them when there are plenty of those who want them and will love and care for them. The right to the sanctity of life demands the right to life, as redundant as that may be sound.

Now, let us get back to the “Christian Right”. They are professed Christians, born again, just as I professed, above, for myself; but, let me tell you one thing about Christianity. You can’t profess one segment of Christ without, also, accepting the other beliefs that go along with the faith. You cannot. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe. To do otherwise is downright hypocritical. You can’t have one part without the other.

What am I talking about? I’ll get down to it. It’s this. When it comes time to go to the polls, many voters will vote for a politician based upon this one issue, or perhaps it might be another. I've used this issue, “The Right to Life” for a reason, but it is only as an example. The point is, there are others–other singular issues on which a voter may choose to focus. Too many of us don’t look at the “big” picture when we vote. We are very myopic in our views.

Back to my example–that politician who is so vigorously proclaiming the right to life in order to get your vote, is also supporting other issues on his platform which the voter simply chooses to ignore. On the one hand, he, the politician, will vote to support the saving of millions upon millions of lives from abortion; while, on the other, he will choose to ignore, in times like these, the plight of the forty-seven million of us living in poverty, with twenty million unemployed or underemployed, including an approximate million homeless women and children as well as men, sleeping on the streets, under bridges and/or in their automobiles. In these times when there are three people unemployed for every job opening and a job is extremely difficult to find (impossible for some), he will vote against the extension of emergency unemployment benefits; he will vote for the reduction, if not elimination, of the food stamp program (while, in the same instance, vote for "welfare" grants to millionaire farmers [some of whom are members of Congress] under the guise of subsidies); he will vote for the reduction of Medicaid; he votes against national healthcare. Also, just an afterthought, what would our nation’s condition be if the twenty million of us in the prisons (this is on top of the forty-seven million in poverty), were to come into the unemployment lines (Of course, not all, but the release of many prisoners is currently under consideration)?

I could go on and on, but I’m sure you understand what I am saying. This whole political process is broken. It makes no sense at all–and much of it, unfortunately, has been cast in the name of Christianity; which, Christianity it is not. Warfare is not Christianity. Torture is not Christianity. Lying, cheating, stealing, fraud, and deception are not Christianity–no matter how you cut it. Soon, we will once again have an opportunity to vote–our next election is just down the road. Look at and study the real issues. Be careful for whom you vote. What you think you see, might not be what you get.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net 

Why Do We Believe?

          Reading and listening to the many comments frequently expressed by people and the media when discussing the plight of the poor, our underclass, relative to the rich and well-off, the illustrious elite among us, I can’t help being struck by the tenor of some of the many critics: “Those lazy loafers–they don’t want to work; People like that think the world owes them a living; Anybody who really wants a job can find one–if he (or she) will only look; We’re creating a welfare society of misfits, losers, and dependents–Socialism, Communism; It’s their fault they have no money; If they sacrificed, saved, planned, and did the right things like I did, they wouldn’t be in their present predicament; They wouldn’t need social security, etc., etc.” And on and on it goes.

          Now I’m not a psychologist. Of course, I studied a course or two in college as many as some of you, most of which seemed more like a course in statistics; but, really, psychology is not my thing. In the course of my lifetime, however, I have seen a few streetcars go by–not to mention a few other matters; and there are a few things I have noticed about people.

First, almost (if not all) people are mentally lazy–they don’t like to think and will resist doing so to the fullest extent possible. Yes. You’re right. That includes me, too–I’m among the worst. The only difference is that some of us are more so than others (except, maybe, for someone exceedingly brilliant–Albert Einstein, perhaps). I have believed this for a long time, and told others, although I couldn't understand why. That is until I recently read a book, Thinking Fast and Slow, by Dr. Daniel Kahneman, winner of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. In his book, Dr. Kahneman tells us we have two types of thinking, Type 1(Thinking Fast) and Type 2 (Thinking Slow). In the Type 1 mode, the one which we use first and most always, we make quick and fast decision–reflex like. We use slowly (at times, not at all) the Type 2 mode for our reasoning and calculating. As a quick and simple example, if I ask you how much is 2 X 2, you will immediately answer 4, without even thinking–you will not go beyond Type 1 to answer. The answer is embedded within your memory. If, on the other hand, I ask you how much is 212 X 15, most probably, Type 1 doesn't have the answer (If it does, you are much smarter than I am). You will be forced to use Type 2. To the fullest extent possible, we will use Type 1 thinking, thinking fast, to make decisions and resist using our function of reason, Type 2, because it is more difficult and takes longer. The reason for this is that Type 1 is firmly embedded within our brain–it is a defense mechanism. If a bear is coming after you, there isn’t always time to think.

The reason I am telling you about all of this is that, for almost all of us, we don’t like to read, we don’t like to calculate, we dislike complexity, and we just don’t like to think in general–the results of which are that we are very ignorant about many things. Our decisions are based on the information stored in Type 1, consisting of life experience, what we have learned in school, misinformation based on the lies and propaganda constantly fed to us over time by the media and others, and our biases and prejudices. This goes not only for our political views but for everything else.

There is another factor which I have observed in human behavior. It, too, I believe, is one of our defense mechanisms firmly ingrained in our subconscious memory. It is a human tendency for us to compare, to judge, to measure, ourselves with one another on a regular basis. This is a subconscious defense mechanism because, in one way or another, more or less, we compete on a continuing basis. Is he (or she) bigger? Is he stronger? Is he better looking? Is he smarter? Does he have more wealth? Is he my type? Do I like him? Is he as good as me or in my class? We constantly evaluate one another–again, subconsciously. Now, let me propose a question for you. If you can think of the other person (maybe even your adversary) as “lesser” than or lower in status than you–if you “put him down” in your eyes and/or the eyes of others, what does that do for your ego? Doesn't that make you feel superior? Think about it.

What does all this have to do with the poor among us–the underclass? Does what and how we think affect our view of this problem? Does it affect the color of the lenses in our glasses through which we view things? How reliable is our viewpoint (in the above, in politics, or in anything else about which we may form an opinion) in light of the above?

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net

Corporate Irresponsibility

          I would like to call your attention in this posting, once again, to the social irresponsibility of big business to our people and our nation with just one more example, the tobacco industry.

 In yesterday’s edition of The New York Times (January 18, 2014) titled, “Smoking Is Worse Than You Imagined”, the “Times” reported that, in a Report of the Surgeon General issued last Friday, the estimated costs of smoking to our nation has increased to between $289 Billion and $333 Billion a year for medical care and lost productivity, up from a previous estimate of $193 Billion. Accordingly, deaths have increased from a previous estimate of 443,000 to 480,000 per year; and, also, smokers have a much higher risk for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD–You know what that is. You hear the term all the time–especially in pharmaceutical advertising) than smokers in 1964, despite smoking fewer cigarettes.

The report, also, tells us that they have now discovered that exposure to secondhand smoke can cause strokes; and that the risk of developing lung cancer has increased substantially because of changes in the design and composition of cigarettes, including ventilated filters that lead to more puffing of noxious materials and blended tobaccos, containing carcinogenic nitrosamines.

The government report says there is no doubt as to who is to blame. It is the tobacco industry. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration is about to begin regulating tobacco products, enact large tax increases, and spend huge amounts of money on ad campaigns–all because of the social irresponsibility and complete disregard for the well being of the people of our nation by another member of the corporatocracy. Are the tobacco companies really supplying a service to the people; or, on the other hand, is this just another day, another dollar at our nation’s expense? I say, “They don’t care who they kill as long as they make a buck”.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net

Where I am Coming From

As I post to this blog today, I want to try and “jell” some of the many thoughts on the several and varied economic, social, and political viewpoints which I have expressed in previous postings, beginning by saying, I certainly am not, God forbid, a Communist, and neither am I a Socialist. Let us get this behind us. History has shown us that both, in and of themselves, are self-destructing and an absolute failure in execution, so you can forget that. On the other hand, as events unfold in these times, neither do I believe in laissez-faire capitalism (Albeit from a different perspective, I discussed capitalism and socialism in some detail in my posting of November 11^th, last year. If you haven’t had a chance to read it as yet, you may want to scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on “Older Posts”. Continue to do this until the November 11^th subject of “Capitalism, Socialism, and Healthcare” appears).

The principals of capitalism are motivated solely by self-interests which can be a good thing if properly executed. Again, as I have said many times, the purpose of a business is to provide a product or service to its customers, the people whom it serves. That is its purpose, its only purpose, and should be its primary focus. The confusion is that most businesses think their primary purpose is to make a profit which is not so. Profit is absolutely necessary for a business to remain in business, but that is not its primary purpose. Making a profit is every bit as important as paying salaries; but, again, profit is just an expense just like rent, insurance, or the electric light bill. Profit is the expense incurred in the use of the money invested by its investors in the business. You may argue that profit is the purpose of investing–the investor; but, it is not the purpose of the business in which it, the investment, is invested. If the business does not take care of its primary purpose, provision of a product or service to its customers, it will not succeed and the investment will be lost. This may seem like splitting hairs; but it is reality. Anything else will ultimately result in a loss for most everybody all the way around. If you can’t see the truth of what I am saying in the events leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, I sincerely suggest you review the process again and look real hard. It’s where your heart, your primary focus, is that is of prime importance to success of a business.

A very dear friend, upon reading some of my postings to this blog, said to me before church Sunday, “You must be a Democrat”, to which I replied, to his utter surprise, “NOT”; and, even after being a registered Republican for many years, neither am I a Republican. If nothing else, the administration of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush cured me of that. So what am I? I could take the easy way out and declare myself to be an independent (That would be closer to the truth than Republican or Democrat), but I won’t. I’ll just tell you. First, above all else, my foremost loyalty is to God–I consider myself to be a Christian, as difficult as that is at times. I believe God gave this world, this land, and all the resources therein to all of us, to all mankind–not to just a relative handful of the elite, and certainly not to a corporatocracy.  Secondly, I am an American, a loyal citizen, my constructive criticism of its governance notwithstanding–a right guaranteed to you and me by our Constitution, the law of the land. I want to see the elimination of our Shadow Government by the Corporatocracy and Power Elite and the restoration of our country to that of a Democratic Republic governed by the people.  

Given what I have just said, I believe our economic systems, our government, and our laws, should support the common good and well being, of all the people. Not only does this mean life, liberty, equal opportunity, and justice for all; but, also, it means the social well-being of our people as well–from the bottom to the top and back again, a strong and secure nation for all the people. After all, a country or nation is no better than the sum total of its people. God tells us that as we do for the least of these, we do for Him (paraphrased). This would probably put me in the category of a populist. What I loathe is lying, cheating, stealing, fraud and deception, sloth, laziness, and the abuse of power. These kinds of behavior permeate all levels of our society from top to bottom–from the rich to the poor. There are those among us who consider these traits to be those of only the poor, but they neglect the sins and weaknesses of the rich. Believe me when I tell you that the poor among us do not have a monopoly on these things.

Now you know. After all this time, I have “come out”. These are my values. Your comments are welcome.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net

Government Spending

          I know this is one whale of a subject to cover in an essay of a few hundred words. I also know my knowledge of the subject is limited–limited for more reasons than one; but I get so angry the way our government carries out its responsibilities, I am compelled to discuss this matter. I cannot restrain myself.

          Surfing the internet today, my attention was drawn to an article from Reuters titled, “U.S. Waived Laws to Keep F-35 on Track with China-Made Parts”. Now that made me mad. The F-35, a $392 Billion state of the art fighter plane, billions upon billions of dollars over budget, and we are setting aside our national security to buy parts for it? I have just acknowledged my ignorance of this subject, but one thing I do know is the subject of accounting. I know, also, that our illustrious Department of Defense has been budgeting and spending over the past few years close to $750 Billion dollars per year (Almost Three Quarters of a Trillion Dollars, if you will), an amount greater than all the major powers of the earth combined. I know that our Department of Defense lost billions of dollars of currency (packaged on skids) in Iraq during the war which they never found. I know that our Department of Defense does not have an auditable accounting system–a complete set of books with integrated data bases. When he became head of the Department of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld said then that one of his first priorities would be to correct that, but it never happened. Supposedly, two wars and other priorities intervened (I don’t understand that either. Surely a top executive of the caliper to be head of the Department of Defense of a nation as large as ours can handle a routine matter such as that. Our major corporations do it every day.).

          Another practice of government which needs to and must be scrapped is the annual practice of “spending out” the prior year’s budget in order to justify the next year’s budget. Budgeting for next year should be based upon next year’s projected needs–not last year’s expenditures. We can track down “mad cows” to specific barnyards within specific states. We can spy on our people and the people of the world, but we don’t have the technology to produce a balanceable set of books in government? Jumping just briefly to immigration, we were told that of the estimated eleven million or so of illegal immigrants, the majority of them had overstayed their visas and just “turned up missing”, blending into and lost within the populace. We don’t know what, who, or where they are. Hellooooooo! With today’s computer technology, why was our government not on top of that problem within twenty-four hours?  I’ll tell you this. If they were in the business of loan sharking, they would have. If these illegals were pornography, they would have (reference the SEC incident reported a few years back).

          This is not a rant and rave to blow off steam. We have real financial problems in our nation. As I have said before, we have forty-seven million people in poverty, approximately twenty million of whom are either unemployed or underemployed, and millions more of whom are sleeping in cars, under bridges, or on the street. For that matter, we have another approximately twenty million persons holed up in our prisons. Goodness gracious! We only have three hundred seventeen million or so (give or take) in our whole country; and, what is worse, our leaders do not seem to even care. This is a game for them as they watch us writhe and suffer. One thing is certain. This is no game for those in pain.
       
        There is one more point. As much as our government might desire such, these down and out folks aren't going to go away. They aren't going to just disappear into the woodwork like a bunch of worms. History over the centuries tells us these problems will be solved–one way or the other; but, wouldn’t it make more sense to do it peacefully before the …. hits the fan?

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net     

Economic Inequality

I was reading a December 15, 2013 article from the New York Times by Dr. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, titled Why Inequality Matters, at the end of which was a letter to the editor from a reader commenting on the subject. I feel so strongly in agreement with the content of his letter, I am compelled to share it with you. I just don’t know how to express the commenters thoughts any better. The letter to the editor goes as follows:  

“Several years ago Elizabeth Warren noted: ‘There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own…You built a factory out there? … I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for….You built a factory and it turned into something terrific…? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.’

 No one expects everyone earns the same amount. But there is a social contract that says those who make your business possible deserve, yes deserve, to be compensated with a livable wage and benefits. Today greed attempts to shift the responsibility for supporting the community to blaming the community for economic problems. Shame on government when instead of supporting the community and protecting the worker from devastation, government supports greed.”

          The first part of the writer’s letter quoted Elizabeth Warren. You know who she is. She’s the Senator from Massachusetts and an expert on bankruptcy law and government. In fact, she wrote the Consumer Protection Act. She has, also, been suggested as a possible candidate for the presidency in 2016 and would make an excellent president, but she has said she doesn’t intend to run. I digress, but I just wanted to give you a “heads up” in the event you haven’t heard of her. This lady is first class by anyone’s definition–absolutely first class.

          Inequality of income and wealth in our nation is sinful to the point of abuse of our people. We are being raped. It has ruined and is continuing to ruin our economy and our way of life. Our Shadow Government must go. Our country must be restored to the people. Our Congress has the power; and they must get it done. Money must be taken out of politics completely. Our one vote means very little, if anything, when our representatives are selling themselves to the highest bidder. It’s up to you, the people, to eliminate inequity. Your consolidated vote is the key.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net

Religion and Government

          As I promised in a previous posting, in my posting today, I want to discuss religion as it might relate to government, i.e. the state, and its separation there from. As you might guess, I wasn’t here in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was written or in 1789 with the establishment of our Constitution; but, from my reading and study, my understanding is that the average immigrant, i.e. citizen, then was Catholic, Protestant, or Atheist. All other religions or beliefs were a small minority. Also, the values expressed in our Constitution reflect Judeo-Christian values of right and wrong, the sanctity of life, and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, including the value that all men are created equal–the basis of our law and values today. Obviously, as I have written in past postings, in reality, all men are not created equal physically, mentally, or status wise; but they are equal in the eyes of God and the law, and have the right to equal opportunity–a right all too often denied them (perhaps another discussion for another day).

          Currently, in our political discussions, many argue heatedly about the separation of church and state and secular government. This separation is not written as such in our Constitution, but it is inferred by a phrase, “wall of separation between church and state” used by Thomas Jefferson and others concerning the intent of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, used frequently by the Supreme Court. As you know, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Thus we have the concept of separation and a secular government.

          I am submitting to you my views on this matter. I’m sure you will have yours, and they may very well not be in agreement with mine; but, here goes anyway. I believe in God, the Creator of Heaven and earth. As a Christian, I also believe in Jesus, His Son. You may not believe–many, unfortunately, do not. You not only have that right, but the teachings of Jesus and the Bible specifically give you that right. God gave man free will; and, if you will recall the teachings of Jesus, he affirms that right. Neither God nor Jesus insists you believe. When Jesus was instructing his disciples to go out into the world and spread the Word, you will recall that He told them, regarding those who refused to accept their teaching, to shake the dust from their feet and move on. Who am I to force my Christian beliefs on anyone when neither God nor Jesus did so? You go to your church and I’ll go to mine. I’ll try to inform; I’ll invite you; I’ll urge you; but it ends there.

          At this point, I momentarily digress to make what I believe is an important point for all believers to keep in the forefront of their mind. If you really want to make believers out of non-believers, the best way to do that is to set an appropriate example that they may see your way of life as better than theirs. Any approach that “jams your beliefs down the throats’ of others will always be counterproductive in the long run. This is not easy as none of us are wired to comply with the teachings of Jesus. The Bible tells us that all of us, bar none, are sinners. All a Christian can do is believe and do his best to set an example. I say these things, not to preach, but to establish an understanding of the premises’ on which I stand–to establish a basis for the following.

          God created this world for all of us, those who believe and those who do not. All who have studied the history of Christianity and the Papacy can readily recall the conflict between church and state over the hundreds of years as control of one over the other seesawed back and forth, each striving for power of one over the other; and, I believe, in the final analysis, to the detriment of each. A strict requirement of the believer is that we love our neighbor as ourselves. We don’t have to like them, but we certainly have to love them. Plain and simple, it’s called AGAPE love (See First Corinthians, Chapter 13).

          This is why we must have a separation of church and state–a secular government. There must be room for all of us; we must get along; and, in the end, God must be the Judge. We have all we can do to live our own lives.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net