Update no.1215

 Update from the Sunland

No.1215

21.4.25 – 27.4.25

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

The follow-up news items:

-- Well, unfortunately, CBS has apparently chosen not to take my counsel to resist the blatant effort to intimidate the CBS network and their “60 Minutes” news program—Trump v. CBS [Case 2:24-cv-00236-Z (2024)] [1214]. On Tuesday, “60 Minutes” Executive producer Bill Owens abruptly resigned, citing a loss of independence stemming from [no name]’s suit, seeking US$20B in compensatory damages. This is exactly what happens when a regime attempts to suppress freedom of the Press and freedom of Speech. The wannabe dictator does not like the reporting, so he takes aggressive action to suppress that criticism, as much as a warning shot to the Press in general beyond the direct action against CBS. Worse, CBS caved and submitted to the plaintiff’s intimidation via the courts. Now, we wait to see if CBS will attempt to settle this case our of court, or seek dismissal with prejudice outright, or proceed to trial to confront this threat. These are the times in which we live.

 

This humble forum will be very thin if it gets published at all for the next few weeks. I hope the sparse episode will be short, a couple of weeks perhaps. Please be patient, it will return. For operational security, I will not provide details until the event is done. Thank you very much for your understanding and support.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1214:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Felon filed his suit against CBS in Amarillo because he has a friendly Federal judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, there. See his Wikipedia entry for more information.

“Defendants often settle suits for reasons other than the merit of the case. Let’s hope CBS has the backbone to stand up for themselves.

“I’ll skip the Bible study, beyond noting again that the book is complex enough to be used for defending almost any position in any argument.

“I understand your legalistic focus in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, but remember that it’s only one facet of the regime’s disregard for law in general. Someone noted this morning that some of the DOGErs are recording living people as dead in Social Security files. Those minions should face one count of false reporting and one count of altering a Federal record for each instance of that crime.

“I’ll mention here that RFK, Jr. this week made a statement about autistic people that is highly offensive to everyone on the autism spectrum, including me.”

My response to the Blog:

We have a winner! Spot on! That is exactly why. The 5^th Circuit and Supreme Court are less dependable or predictable, but win or lose, he does not care since the appeals process adds substantial time for his chaos to persist.

True, but this is one that must be defeated. He cannot keep doing this schoolyard bully crap with impunity. There is always hope until there isn’t. We shall see.

I am not particularly interested in a theological interpretation debate either.

I agree with your assessment of the regime’s blatant disregard for the Constitution and the law in general. They act like they are above any trivial nuisance laws—the divine right of kings.

I had not heard that. I have not seen that in corroborated fact. Yet, I am not surprised, and it is consistent with other regime actions. Yes, they should face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, BUT they will not. AG Bondi is a demonstrated staunch loyalist to our self-anointed king.

RFK Jr. has made innumerable offensive, Ill-informed, foolish, and downright ignorant statements. He is well-suited to the current regime.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1214

 Update from the Sunland

No.1214

14.4.25 – 20.4.25

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

 

In October 2024, [no name] filed a civil suit against CBS Broadcasting, Inc., alleging “. . . partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion . . . .” He has asked for US$20B, that is billion with a ‘B,’ in compensatory damages. Trump v. CBS [Case 2:24-cv-00236-Z (2024)]

I will pause at this juncture to note that the plaintiff in this civil suit, who filed this complaint before the last election, identified himself as “President Donald J. Trump, an individual.” At the very best and farthest extension, he should have been listed as former president. Further, this is a civil suit, a private action, between him and CBS, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Office of the President. There should have been no title. From my perspective, the whole affair is intended to intimidate CBS and specifically “60 Minutes” into submission, to silence their voice.

Another side note here, are there any guesses as to why [no name] and his lawyers chose Amarillo, Texas, to file this suit between a Florida man and a New York corporation?

The media are awash in reports from one extreme that CBS may seek dismissal with prejudice and then to the other extreme that the company is considering settling the suit out of court. The suit is baseless, without merit, and should be dismissed outright. Attorney General Bondi has indicated that she intends to represent [no name] if the suit goes to a jury trial. We are left with the image . . . that this his promised retribution. The sad reality is, we have four more years of this despicable conduct.

I strongly urge CBS to take the high road, confront this frivolous civil suit, and defend freedom of the Press and our freedom of speech. To give into this blatant act of retribution, intimidation, and I will argue outright malfeasance would be a grievous injustice. The schoolyard bully must not succeed. He does not deserve a dime.

 

The religious thread opened in Update no.1213 continues this week. The thread resumes below with round two.

“I think we're off to a good start in this discussion. I'll keep my next reply short. Sometimes less is better. Biting off big chunks tends to cause the subject to go off on tangents.

“What do you think Genesis and Leviticus are about?

“That's it!”

My response to round two:

I shall strive to keep my response short.

To me, Genesis is the foundation, the background, for what is to follow. In simple terms, it is the statement of how we got here—the basis of the story.

In the same context, Leviticus is a framework of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts.’ Guidelines for living as God intends.

Both books were written well before the time Jesus of Nazareth walked Galilee, thus as you noted previously, the word represent of thinking of that bygone era.

How is that for a brief reply?

 . . . Round three:

“It is indeed a short reply. However, I'm afraid you are under some misconceptions as to the subject of Genesis & Leviticus. The book itself is quite clear on the subject of those books as well as the entire OT. In John 5:39 Jesus said,

“‘Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.’ [Emphasis is the contributor’s.]

“The OT, all of it, is about Jesus. In Genesis 3:15 God promised a seed, a descendant, that would crush the serpent's head (No, it wasn't a walking, talking snake. A figure of speech Jews would have totally understood). That was the first mention of the coming Messiah and the rest of the book is all about that. Somehow, everything in the entire OT is about Jesus. Israel would never have seen Genesis as an explanation of how we got here, nor Leviticus as a bunch of dos and don'ts. Those ideas come from reading into the text something that simply isn't there. It's reading the text through our modern Western tradition, which is very much diametrically opposed to the ancient Israeli tradition.

“I would think reading it as about anything else would be akin to reading A Tale of Two Cities and thinking it was about London and Berlin in WW2. It wouldn't make much sense.

“I guess this wasn't too long. :)”

 . . . my response to round three:

I appreciate that you disagree with my opinion and interpretations. Such is life in a free society. I understand your interpretation, but I cannot make that jump with you. The words are fact; they exist and have existed for millennia. However, the interpretations of those words have varied substantially over that span of time. Your interpretation is different from mine. You asked for my opinion. I gave my opinion. I make no claim of being correct. I am not a theological scholar.

BTW, you are apparently using a different Bible edition than mine. From my perspective, Genesis 3:15 reads:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, 

and between thy seed and her Seed; 

It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.”

To me, it has an entirely different meaning than you suggest. I am not capable to getting closer to the original text (Hebrew, Greek, Latin). I shall stick with the known text.

You can certainly attach whatever meaning you wish. That is your right—the magnificence of freedom of choice. However, your interpretation of the words does not make them “truth.”

One last relevant comment, if I may! Faith belongs in the private domain, i.e., what matters to you is how you interpret the words, what lessons you take from the words. The public domain must be based on facts [which is not to say our history has embraced that notion]. When faith (spirituality) enters the public domain, we are thrust into a debate about “truth,” which is reality in the interpretation of the words. As can be seen by this exchange, we disagree. That disagreement belongs in the private domain between you and me; it does not belong in the public domain (law).

“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

 . . . Round four:

“I'm not sure why you would say I'm voicing an opinion. So far, the gist of what I've said is:

“In John 17:17, Jesus, talking to his God said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

“Is that a fact or an opinion? Is there some interpretation that would make it say anything other than Jesus said God's word is truth? 

“In John 5:39, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

“Is there some way to interpret that in any other way that saying Jesus averred the scriptures were about him? Was Jesus stating a fact or an opinion?

“If Genesis 3:15 does not set up a drama between two different seeds, what does it do? Who are the two seeds? Well, God was talking to the serpent, so clearly that is one seed. Given that Jesus said the Bible is about him, I think it fair to see, he was the other seed. Genesis 3:15 sets up the protagonist and the antagonist. I admit it doesn't say that as clearly as the two verses I quoted in John, but all thing considered it'd be hard to see it any other way.

“I'd love to hear any specifics you might have on these three verses. I understand your general feelings, but so far you really haven't explained why you think I'm giving opinions as opposed to fact, nor are you saying anything as to what you think Jesus was saying in John, or what God was saying in Genesis 3:15. I'd think that would be essential to carry on further discussion. Or perhaps you are done with this. I'd understand.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Well, as I have publicly stated many times, you are entitled to believe what you wish for whatever reason you wish.

“Thy word is truth.” Interesting! John spoke those words, not God. That fact seems an awful lot like human observation. The words are not facts. We can call them John’s opinions, yes.

OK. We seem to be working our way to the root of this discussion. Was John speaking for God? Perhaps in his mind and thinking, but he was still a human being. We can debate whether Jesus of Nazareth was God on earth, but the fact remains, he was a human being. From my perspective, while the words of Jesus of Nazareth have considerable wisdom, value, and endurance, they are still words—not facts.

My words are not facts. I try to reflect upon facts, e.g., why did a transmission mount fail? My views of those facts are opinions and that is it. My words are not facts. As noted above, if you wish to view your words as facts, that is your right entirely. I have no objection. But, from my perspective, your words are still opinions, not facts. I am not going to get into a theological discussion or debate with anyone. It is truly an infinite endeavor since was not discussing facts. My opinion about Genesis 3:15 remains.

We can continue this exchange as you wish. 

 . . . Round five:

“I think we've pretty well wrung out the matter. It's a good stopping point.”

Thus ended this exchange.

 

The current administration was handed a couple of serious setbacks from the Judicial Branch in its on-going case regarding Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man legally in this country as a court-sanctioned refugee since 2019. The first decision came from the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling—Noem v. Garcia [604 U. S. ____ (2025)]. In October 2019, an immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia “withholding of removal” to El Salvador, which bars the government from deporting someone to a designed country, in this case El Salvador. The Court noted, “The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.” Although the Court chose not to observe that Abrego Garcia was not just removed to El Salvador, he was incarcerated without due process of law in Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) [Terrorism Confinement Center] is a maximum-security prison in Tecoluca, El Salvador. The Court concluded, “To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador.” While the Court did not explicitly affirm the district court’s order, they de facto did so. Of note is Justice Sotomayor opinion “respecting the Court’s disposition,” in which she concluded, “In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law.” Amen!

After the Court’s decision, President [no name] claimed via the Press Secretary and Attorney General that the Court has no authority to interfere in the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy, meaning the Court cannot demand Abrego Garcia returned to the United States. It is as if he is intentionally trying to provoke the Judiciary at multiple levels. And, there is one teeny-weeny little problem; the Court is not concerned with foreign relations, only due process of law, which is emphatically the Judiciary’s domain. Further, [no name] cannot hide behind his dominion over foreign relations to deny due process of law to anyone. Abducting a legal resident and sending him to a maximum-security prison in another country is NOT deportation; it is a federal felonious crime! To be clear, Abrego Garcia entered this country without a visa or permission 15 years ago. The immigration judge’s withholding of removal order changed his status in this country, granting him protection of the law. Since he has been in this country, Abrego Garcia has committed no crime(s). He has violated no laws. He married an American citizen, who bore three children with him and is pregnant with their fourth child.

Expelling anyone from this country is one thing. Forcefully sending an individual to a maximum-security mega-prison in another country without due process of law is altogether a monumentally different thing. A judge had repeatedly asked the government to produce the evidence that he qualified for expulsion by his alleged membership in a violent gang. They have refused to do so. To me, this is the definition of contempt and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for those involved.

A week later, a three-judge panel of the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scathing body slam to the Executive Branch in the persona of Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem—Garcia v. Noem [4CCA No. 25-1404 (2025); (8:25-cv-00951-PX)]. The government’s resistance of the various court orders to return Abrego Garcia to this country have centered on the Supreme Court’s use of the word ‘facilitation.

The circuit court noted, “’Facilitation’ does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. ‘Facilitation’ does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would ‘facilitate’ foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood.”

What the government did was NOT deportation. It was abduction and incarceration without due process of law—a felonious federal crime.

For the record, we are not at war (despite what [no name] says). The attempted invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in this instance is wrong in every possible way, not least of which is its unconstitutionality. I am NOT advocating for Abrego Garcia to be returned to the United States and granted citizenship. I am emphatically arguing that he be afforded due process of law in the adjudication of his asylum application. If he succeeds, he should be placed on the naturalized citizenship path. If he fails, he should be properly deported to his country of origin—not sent to a prison. This whole issue is about the law, not some emotional knee-jerk reaction or foreign policy.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1213:

Comment to the Blog:

“I share with your other commenter the absence of a distinction between the ‘natural’ and the ‘spiritual’ world. I get there via my love and respect for the whole Universe (as best I can). My faith is built on my experience.

“People like the other commenter need to understand that many of us don’t worship his God or the book attributed to Him. Thus, Bible-based arguments don’t persuade us. I see the Bible and the ‘sacred’ texts of other religions as attempts to pass down wisdom and priestly orders. Even if they were inspired directly by some god or other, they have passed through many imperfect human minds. I recommend Asimov’s Guide to the Bible as a good empirical study of that book. I find some bits of wisdom in the Bible, but also from many human sources. 

“RFK, Jr.’s legal career and his appointment as HHS Secretary rest on a single, long-discredited study published by then-Doctor Andrew Wakefield on vaccines and autism. Wakefield retracted the finding and lost his medical license. Others built careers on that same study, and RFK, Jr. continues cherry-picking dubious data about fluoride and whatever else builds his career.

“The Felon’s attempt to dispense with due process scares me. That would be the end of legal rights for anyone.”

My response:

Understood. I remained convinced there must be a distinction and a separation between the ‘natural’ and ‘spiritual’ spheres. Faith is a private matter. People can and often do share faith in multitudinous forms. The public should (I might also say ‘must’) confine itself to facts. Faith is meaning (interpretation) of words, and those interpretations are not facts. This assessment is precisely why I deeply believe that church and state must be separate, and each should confine themselves to the proper domain.

I find a lot of wisdom in the Bible as well as the Qu’ran, the Torah, and other religious texts, some bits are actually common to all those texts. That wisdom should govern our private lives. However, where I get crosswise with such endeavors is the imposition of those “interpretations” of faith into the public domain (law).

RFK Jr. is one of the prominent clowns in the current administration. He is a conspiracist who is apparently unable to assess fact from fiction. I find very little value in his opinions. ‘Nuf said.

[No name]’s action should scare all of us. He is intentionally and purposefully defying a direct U.S. Supreme Court directive. It does not get more serious than that. More ominous, I have no clue why he is so hardened against Abrego Garcia. That unfortunate man could be any one of us in a flash.

 . . . Round two:

“‘Faith,’ for me, is Merriam-Webster’s definition 2b(1), ‘firm belief in something for which there is no proof.’ For me, that has no direct relationship to the writings of humans, including their religions. I would like people to operate by something resembling scientific method (‘facts’), but evidence shows most of them working from feelings, often influenced by religious people’s interpretation of their beliefs or by politicians’ direct manipulation of their feelings.

“RFK, Jr. has an easy time believing conspiracy theories that further his career.

“The Felon is making an object lesson of Abrego Garcia. Garcia’s fate proves the Felon can attack anyone with no consequences to himself. Let’s hope someone disproves that.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I am not sure of your meaning with “no direct relationship to the writings of humans.” All religious texts are written by humans, and it is those texts that influence human beings to faith. Those texts have been used (interpreted) for many purposes, some good, some nefarious. Such is the nature of human beings.

I am not so sure this stint as SecHHS is furthering his “career,” but certainly possible. One thing for certain from my perspective is he is going to harm a lot of people and perhaps do irreparable damage.

I will definitely agree with your assessment of [no name]. He has not yet suffered any consequences for his crimes. And, he continues to commit crimes. There is always hope, until there isn’t.

 . . . Round three:

“Spirituality differs from religion. I arrived at faith by looking at my life history in a desperate moment and realizing that a “power greater than myself” had to have been keeping me alive. The odds against my living through my adventures by my wits and skill are impossibly long. I’ve never had to define and describe that power other than it’s greater than any one human. Religious writings and people mostly inhibited my process of finding faith by giving me pictures of mean/insecure Gods.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Yes, it does, but not by much, from my perspective. I have had my forms, and they still come. I refer to them as my “Good Lord” moments. Moments of disappointment (generally) when I feel the distinct sensation of the Good Lord reaching down and touching me on the shoulder with a gesture to take a different path despite my disappointment. We can call these moments by anyone of many names but they are spirituality, belief in something bigger than ourselves.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1213

 Update from the Sunland

No.1213

7.4.25 – 13.4.25

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

 

From a separate thread discussion, a topic that began as a derivative of the current administration’s abysmal offensive against transgender citizens morphed into a discussion of truth. The following contribution is rather long, and my response is long as well. I elected to include this exchange ‘as-is’ since I feel it is informative and thought-provoking within the purpose of this humble forum. I trust the reader will find the same stimulation.

The contributor’s submission:

“I'm glad you brought up the rising of the sun every 24 hours as well as making mention of religious texts. The two ideas serve as a good example of the wide gulf between the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East and that of the modern West. We in the West compartmentalize the two arenas of life, the natural and the spiritual. Of course, for many, there is no such thing as a spiritual world at all. But to those that do believe in a spiritual world, it is usually segregated from the natural world. The modern West make a distinction between the natural world and the spiritual world. There is science and there is religion. It’s easy to accept one and reject the other. To many, science is accepted as truth and religion as myth. Given our culture, it’s quite logical to come to that conclusion. After all, thanks to science we know that the sun rises every 24 hours because our globe rotates in space. But the earth being created in 6 days defies all science and is thus discounted as a fairy tale. 

“However, the people of the Ancient Near East made absolutely no distinction between the natural world and the spiritual world. The two were inextricably bound together. To even speak of a natural world and a spiritual world would make no sense whatsoever. The sun rose, not because the earth makes a complete rotation every 24 hours, but because that is what the power of the sun god made it do. Gullible? While easy to give a resounding “yes, of course, it’s a ridiculous idea!” I would suggest that had you lived 6,000 years ago, that is exactly what you would have thought.

“What are the concerns about the nature of life in the modern West when reading Genesis? The following offers some typical questions raised by many who read Genesis:

1.     How long is a day?

2.     How can a snake talk?

3.     Was the flood local or global?

4.     What about evolution?

5.     How did people live so long?

6.     Where is the original Tower of Babel?

Genesis offers no answers to those questions. Genesis is not a science book. 

Here’s a list of some of the concerns of those who lived in the Ancient Near East:

1.     How many gods are there?

2.     Which gods should we follow?

3.     What do the gods require from us?

4.     Will I have sons?

5.     Is idolatry OK?

6.     Is Marduk really the king of gods?

I’ll use Genesis chapter 1 & 2 as an example of how we should read the Bible, of what it is trying to communicate. Genesis is not about what the Modern West thinks, but about what the Ancient Near East thought. It does not purport to give a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. Was God supposed to explain the expanding universe to them? Was He supposed to delve into the intricacies of atoms, quarks, and leptons? No! Genesis, as well as the whole of scripture, addressed their concerns, not ours. The scriptures explain the spiritual world, how it affects the natural world (again, they really made no such distinction), and visa versa.

“Specifically, the creation account in Genesis explains that God created a safe place for people to dwell with Him. It explains how it went from an uninhabitable wilderness (Genesis 1:2) to a place that was, ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:27), a place where humans could thrive.

“The word ‘good’ deserves some attention. Our minds immediately go to something that is moral or ethical. But to the people to whom the scriptures were given, the word “good” means something that is functional, something that works as designed. Evil, on the other hand, meant something that was dysfunctional. Good was essential for an orderly and just society. Evil, dysfunction, destroyed the order and introduced chaos. Genesis said that as long as people trusted God’s idea of what worked and what didn’t work, what was functional and what was dysfunctional, they would be just fine. He also warned them that if they tried to determine what worked and what didn’t work for themselves, chaos would reign. I don’t think anybody can deny that we live, not in a orderly world, but one filled with chaos, thus giving credence to the real message of Genesis.

“The 7^th day, the day God ‘rested’ is usually glossed over as a mere added comment. But it was that day that the real purpose of the previous 6 days was given. While it is all too easy to assume that God resting meant He sat on a couch, eating popcorn, and watching Netflix. But that is another case of reading our mindset into the text instead of viewing it from an Ancient Near Eastern worldview. In the Ancient Near East a god rested in a temple. The temple was the center of all activity in a city. The people would go to the temple to present their petitions and receive answers from the god who dwelt in that temple. It was where the god worked to maintain justice and order within society. It was understood that if the people dissed the god in any way, that god would leave and the people would lose the protection offered by the god.

“A comparison between the Garden of Eden, the tabernacle, and later the temple will show that the Eden was the temple in which God dwelt and maintained order. Had Adam and Eve trusted in God’s idea of functionality, everything would have been fine. But they decided they themselves could determine what worked and what didn’t work. As a result Yahweh, like any other god, abandoned them to their own devices. As I said above, it didn’t work out very well for Adam, Eve, and all their descendants. So we are where we are today because of that. The upshot is that the 7^th day, far from being a mere postscript, was the key to the whole account. That is how the Ancient Near East would have seen things. It’s how the account was given. Genesis does not explain the nuts and bolts of the physical creation.

“A key element in the creation story is seen in Genesis in Genesis 1:22, where God told Adam & Eve to reproduce and fill the entire earth with people who would trust His ideas instead of their own. That was a major part of the “good” i.e. the proper functioning of society. It is quite obvious why homosexuality was dysfunctional. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce. Homosexuality is decidedly at cross purposes of filling the earth with people who lived in paradise. But then so is lying, stealing, cheating, adultery, etc. None of those things would lead to a just and equitable society (God’s idea of DEI is radically different than man’s idea). In that sense, homosexuality is really no different than lying, stealing, cheating, adultery, etc. All of them are at cross purposes with God’s desire to live in a world filled with humans.

“Today, man is hell bent on determining good and evil, what works and what doesn’t work. I think the state of our society speaks for itself. Man is utterly incapable of deciphering good from evil, functional from dysfunctional. It started with Adam & Eve wanting to be gods (Gen 3:5) and to this day, it hasn’t stopped one bit. Man wants to be God. Man wants to call the shots. Man wants to determine truth.

“I might also point out that God gave man dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26). Contrary to orthodox church doctrine, God is decidedly not in charge. Many blame the state of the world on God, but the world today is what man has made it. It is certainly not God’s idea of how society should be. Along with dominion, God gave man free will. He did not create robots. God would tell man what worked, but the man could believe Him or they could go their own way.

“That leads to the question of who defines good and evil? Who decides what works for an orderly society and what destroys it? This gets to the heart of the meaning of truth. Who decides truth? The modern West tends to let truth up to the individual (of course that leads to many truths, which makes the very definition of truth null and void). The scriptures say:

Ps 119:160:

Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever.

John 17:17:

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

There are countless other verses that make the same claim. Of course believing that the scriptures reveal the truth is purely optional. Genesis shows God giving Adam a choice of who to trust. It remains that way to this day. 

“Any thoughts on all of this, Cap?”

My response to the above contribution:

You asked, “Any thoughts on all of this [the above], Cap?” My answer is yes. I spent most of my life thinking about such things, since I began reading religious texts including the Bible. To be clear, I am not a theologian. I am only and just a curious citizen. Unfortunately, my reply will take a few days (due to other exigencies of life).

First and foremost, you (as well as any free person) are entitled to believe what you wish to believe for whatever reason you wish to believe. It is not my place to question or challenge your beliefs . . . as long as those beliefs remain personal and private to you. When those beliefs enter the public domain in the form of laws or other enforcement mechanisms, i.e., imposition on others, I shall object and resist.

To my knowledge, the Bible (Old and New Testaments) was written by human beings two millennia and more ago. I see many reasons why those human beings wrote the words. Humanity has had to translate those writings into various languages across those millennia.

It is interesting and intriguing that Christian scholars have pegged God’s creation of the universe circa 23.10.4004 BC [using the Gregorian calendar as a time metric]. Anthropologists marked recorded human history (writing) at roughly six millennia ago. Odd . . . the coincidence.

There are a lot of things I would have believed if I had lived six millennia ago. Most (if not all) of those beliefs would have been driven by the knowledge of the day, i.e., they had no way to understand physics, astrophysics, geology, anthropology, and such. Science has evolved our knowledge.

Let it suffice to say, I do not view Genesis in any different light than Leviticus. Both are the best they knew all those millennia ago.

Just so we are clear . . . to me, there is no better example of religion getting it wrong than the Church’s persecution of Galileo Galilei. [It took the Church three centuries to confess its mistake, a little late for Galileo and for the advancement of human knowledge.]

I do not see Genesis as “God’s word.” I see the text as human beings of those long past days attempting to explain their belief in God and His work. The Old Testament, in large measure, portrays a vengeful God, punishing humans for their transgressions. We can certainly argue the intention or purpose of that general portrayal, but as you have noted, the text was written millennia ago and represents the beliefs of the day. The New Testament takes a more humanistic portrayal in the form of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, proclaimed the Son of God and thus speaking for Him. The contrast between the Old and New Testaments is informative and instructive.

I have been accused (by more than a few) of cherry-picking religious texts for contemporary purposes. The implication (to me) being, I should accept the “word of God” in toto rather than selective usage. I would say, if I had a mind to do so, I stand guilty as charged. I see enduring, wise, and useful guidance in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that apply to contemporary life regardless of the religious source of those words or elapsed time. I cannot and do not see the same usefulness in the words of Leviticus; quite the contrary, I see Leviticus as injurious. Yes, there are pearls of value, but they are rare from my perspective.

This exchange began with a different topic but transitioned to ‘truth.’ My contention has been and remains that facts are truth. Faith is not truth since it is not based on facts. That does not lessen the importance or significance of faith, but non-factual assessments required considerably more thought to corroborate or build a clear(er) view of truth. I would be remiss if I did not say that the opinions of human beings including clergy are prone to all sorts of distraction, deflection, obfuscation, distortion, and outright malfeasance. I have too many instances of failed and flawed clergy. I also become immediate suspect when a ‘holy man’ who claims to speak for God; he wants us to believe because he says so. To me, that is a bridge too far. Some things, some principles, are not factual and we must choose to believe. So be it. I choose to seek facts.

I truly appreciate your generous contribution of time to articulate your beliefs. For that, I thank you. There is so much to discuss/debate in this topic, so I shall leave that choice to you.

 

I grew up in the 1950s. One of the huge societal issues of those days was the public use of low dose Fluoride in our drinking water to reduce dental problems. The conservatives of the day screamed that it was a communist plot to subjugate We, the People. I grew up drinking fluoridated water, and I do not believe I am subservient to anyone, and I still have all of my original teeth in fine shape; thank you very much. To be frank, I believe science dealt with this matter decades ago that is until President (no name) nominated, and the Senate confirmed Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., to be secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). He has directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop recommending the fluoridation of local water supplies. This is exactly regression, seeking ignorance over knowledge, defying long established science. I publicly and emphatically condemn the secretary’s action. He is wrong. He is harming a generation or more of our children and susceptible adult citizens, just as he has done with vaccines. The children of Texas are paying a terrible price for such ignorance.

 

We have the bozo-in-chief of this ridiculous clown show messaging the world within the chaos he has created all by himself . . . 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO. Don’t’ be Weak! Don’t be Stupid! Don’t be a PANICAN (A new party based on Weak and Stupid people) Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!

Apr 02, 2025, 8:59 AM

This whole sordid episode of the on-again, off-again, on-again-but-my-buddies-are exempt chaos is beginning to stink with the nauseating stench of market manipulation and  insider trading. If anyone else had been president, I probably would not be so suspicious, but President [no name] has a long and disgusting history as a con-man stealing from innocent people with impunity to enrich himself or his buddies. To be frank and blunt, what he did is dreadfully close to criminal conduct.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the president’s authority to detain and deport Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the U.S. State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization—Trump v. J.G.G. [604 U. S. ____ (2025)]. The Court vacated the district and appeals court rulings that granted a temporary restraining order (TSO), which in turn allows the administration to take such aggressive unilateral action. The 5-4 majority confined themselves to the administration of judicial review of Executive action and conveniently ignored the elephant in the room. The dissent did not. 

The president cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 [PL 5-II-066; 1 Stat. 577] as his authority to do what he is doing. As noted above, the majority chosen not to deal with that question. The first sentence of the Act says:

That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizen, denizens, or subject of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

The key element of the law the administration cites is a “declared war.” The last time I read the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Now, in this instance, the president has publicly declared that we are being invaded by TdA (and others) and thus he can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. He is clearly and emphatically wrong. There is no declaration of war against another nation or entity since Congress last properly passed a declaration of war that was signed by the president on 11.December.1941. Congress has not passed an authorization to use military force either. The majority’s 

Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, concluded, “The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this.” Justice Jackson also wrote a dissenting opinion and concluded, “With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.”

I am struck by the profound paucity of due process, and the Court’s monumental neglect of that fact as well as the lack of a proper war declaration. We already know of one green card holder was illegally sent to the notorious Cecot prison in El Salvador without so much as a how do you do, so which is precisely the kind of nefarious thing that happens without due process of the law. Why should we believe what he says in this case, or any case for that matter? He asks us to believe all of the deportees are or were members of TdA, and we know at least one was not (ever). Why should we believe his contention and declaration? [No name] directly and blatantly defied a valid court order, and the Supremes de facto sanctioned that defiance. The Court’s negligence is shocking and portends back things to come for exactly the reason provided by Justice Jackson.

 

A frequent and consistent contributor sent a short message and the URL for a very interesting article that I include below.

“Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription.

“Ideology May Not Be What You Think but How You’re Wired.

“In her new book, “The Ideological Brain,” the neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod outlines what makes some people prone to rigid thinking.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/08/science/ideology-neuroscience-politics-zmigord.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-U4.cTgz.yqHPWflAg4zX&smid=em-share

To which, I replied:

Excellent. It explains a lot. The salient question seems to be, how do we treat "rigid thinking."

I am an eternal guarded optimist. As such, I believe a solution is out there to break the intransigence of contemporary politics. While the calcified parochialism of the last ten years, and given our experience in the same time span, I cannot imagine finding that path forward as long as [the person who shall no longer be named] remains involved or influencing the political arena. We can only hope the MAGAts eventually see him for what he is and seek a new course to the future.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1212:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Felon loses popularity by the day, and Just Don’t Vance is faring pretty badly in that department as well. Felon’s surrounded by sycophants rather than the competent this time. Group-think with him at the helm is a recipe for disaster.

“A story making the rounds of the Internet says that the Felon’s motive for tariffs is to crash the economy so the very wealthy might buy up the injured companies cheaply. That happened during the Great Depression.

“The ‘intelligence’ community has sustained plenty of damage from Laura Loomer, but others are also harming them; the Secretary of Defense is one more.

“I’m sad the MAGAts came for the universities.

“Other commenter, again: teaching the reality of something doesn’t endorse it, whether that’s Fascism, sex and gender, or the evils of Christian history.

“The Christian Bible (any version) doesn’t strike me or the Founders of this country as a source of ultimate truth, if there is any such thing. There’s wisdom in spots, especially the Synoptic Gospels, but the Christian “Lord God” isn’t an entity I could work with if he exists.

“Transgender people are under attack, which is newsworthy.”

My response to the Blog:

Oh my, you got that right! When you are surrounded by yes-men telling you how great you are, this is the kind consequence we suffer. Unfortunately, [no name] does not care a twit about his popularity. He does not have to face the voters (and that unpopularity) again. I am quite concerned this is going to get much worse before we might hope for improvement.

Rumors are rumors. While the hypothesis is possible, it sounds more like a left-wing conspiracy theory. The wealthy have a far greater capacity to weather full-fledged economic depression. The working and middle classes do not enjoy that capacity. Again, there is no sign he cares even a smidgen about economic depression. This will be his “let them eat cake” moment.

Quite so. It is quite akin to poking us in the eye. They are blinding us. He wants the IC to give him the information he wants to see rather than the facts.

Me as well, my friend. Yet another tragedy we must endure.

Yes, exactly! Our future citizens must learn about the mistakes that have been made through history, including the mistakes of the United States. Pretending slavery did not exist is wrong in every possible way.

We do not have a plethora of writing by the Founders regarding religion and government. The only solid point is Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists [1.1.1802]. As a consequence, we must interpret the Founders/Framers intention or spirit. There is no doubt (zero) in my little pea-brain that the Founders/Framers de facto sought to separate church and state. Such a fundamental premise is logical and reasonable. Religion deals with the personal and private. The state must address the public domain, and thus religion must be removed from the public domain to avoid the appearance of favoring one religion over another. This has never been a Christian nation or any form of theocracy, despite the convulsions of the Christian nationalists.

 . . . Round two:

“I’ll note one of the Felon’s recent rants emphasized, ‘It’s a great time to get rich! Really rich!’ I’m sure he’s familiar with ‘bargain hunting’ on Wall Street, and he’d be the last person to have empathy with ordinary investors and retirees who might actually need their incomes. Plus, he probably has cash on hand from his recent crypto ventures and various bribes.

“I have no patience with those who quote the Bible, Quran, etc., as if they were information on anything but the religion involved. Let’s stick to reality.”

 . . . my response to round two:

That man has NEVER been known for empathy, understanding, or even a curiosity to learn. All the evidence we have available suggests we bear witness to our contemporary version of a “Nero” event or a “let them eat cake” moment. He simply does not care about the chaos he has created all by himself. And the trade war he induced is escalating rather fast. I am more and more convinced his paramount objective is the total isolation of the United States in every aspect of the world activities. He wants to alienate everyone.

Let’s us not be so quick to discard the societal value of religious texts. From my perspective, all religions have given us civilization. Yes, religion has probably caused more destruction than any other human motivation, but that damage does not lessen the value of other lessons. Yes, sticking to reality is a very good endeavor, but we need one essential trait, respect for the freedom of choice of others.

 . . . Round three:

“Guessing the motives of the insane is a difficult game. I doubt the Felon has objectives in our sense of the word; he just needs to attack everything and everyone. However, he's aware of how to make big money on others' suffering.

“The religious texts I’ve studied all have bits of wisdom. As a guide to governance, they’re out of place.”

 . . . my response to round three:

First, quite so. Second, perhaps not. I may be far too generous to the man. After all, he is an accomplished con-man, who sells a worthless snake-oil to millions of citizens. He continues to sell his shit with impunity; no one to stop him.

As I have been accused, I cherry-pick thoughts from religious texts that are time-tested and serve contemporary purposes. I have never seen religious texts as a means or guide for governance. We have a very good contemporary example of what happens with theocracy—the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). Christian nationalists in this country (and others) seek a Christian theocracy. If that state is ever attained, we will find yet another example of the oppression of theocracy. I have always seen religious texts as a personal guide, to define morality—how we act when no one is watching.

 . . . Round four:

“Reading ‘sacred’ texts is one way to find one's moral values, although I really don't recommend it. I have a friend who studies the Bible in depth, and she can give several texts to support any given position, then claim one as hers. I assume other texts are the same. My moral values are about benefit versus harm; usually that's a very simple code, but sometimes hard to live by.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Morals are taught, directly and indirectly, by parents and others who are in close association with a child. Religions have given us a body of morals, and if utilized properly, which can and should enhance and complement parental teaching. The -isms and many societal phobias are also taught primarily by the parents and close family. Hatred is born in infancy. I have a long exchange with another contributor that will appear in this week’s Update. More to follow.

Yes, it is a very simple code and well grounded. In different terms but the same thought, respect others as you wish to be respected.

Morals are said to be what governs human behavior when no one is watching. That seems a reasonable portrayal. What we must be watchful for are the signs, indicators, clues, and hints that a particular child is not developing proper moral values. I have long advocated for more aggressive interaction with parents especially with children who display signs of anti-social behavior, e.g., a schoolyard bully. Jeffrey Dahmer was created by his parents (predominantly his father) in early childhood. I will also note, comparably, [no name] was created by his parents (again, predominantly his father); there were so many clues that we missed or chose not to intercede or correct.

 . . . Round five:

“Your discussion of parental influence is oversimplified. There are biochemical and other neurological factors that appear to influence child development, as we have discussed elsewhere. On top of that, the parents have only their own backgrounds and development to work with. Religion can as easily be a malignant influence as a benevolent one, and society can’t succeed in assigning ‘proper’ moral values in a diverse nation.

“Schoolyard bullies typically don’t interact with authority figures in that aspect of their lives. A Jeffrey Dahmer typically goes undetected because the parents, for whatever reason, conceal the condition if they can.”

 . . . response to round five:

Quite so! Agreed! My simplification was for brevity and certainly not intended to discount or ignore the biological, physiological, and psychological factors. My apologies.

Yes, absolutely! Parents need access to more support assets. However, my point was, we, as citizens, must be vigilant and care enough about our society to look for the signs, and to adhere to, see something, do something.

Oh my, yes! History is replete with example of religion’s malignant influence. I will note that the underlying text has not changed. It is the interpretation and application of “religion” by flawed human beings that foster the malignancy. To the point is the case of Galileo. The priests who stood in judgment of his work sought power and control (adherence to “God’s word”) rather than knowledge or learning. If those priests had studied Galileo’s work without their religious bias, they would have learned. But alas, they did not. The destruction and injury of religion is the consequence of flawed human beings acting in the belief that they are doing so as “God’s will it”—Deus vult.

Again, quite so! No argument. I will also add the case of Adam Lanza. His mother, Nancy, knew her son was “troubled” and sought assistance from multiple places to no avail. She did not have the means to help her son. I will say, We, the People, did not care enough to help her with a disturbed, mentally ill, untreated son. The massacre of Sandy Hook was the consequence.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)