Sunday, September 30, 2012

TRIAL OF POPE'S BUTLER BEGINS...stay tuned...



The trial of Pope Benedict’s former butler started Saturday.

This is the butler (Paolo Gabriele) that is charged with stealing the pope’s confidential papers and passing them to an Italian journalist.

When asked why he did it, Gabriele said that he saw evil and corruption everywhere in the church and felt it was his sacred duty to expose all this as a way bringing the church back on the right track.

Let us see how the Vatican handles this one…



Enhanced by Zemanta

Muslim protests here in Canton, Michigan...




We have all heard about the film “Innocence of Muslims” put on the Internet by some shady Egyptian American Christian which supposedly puts Islam and the prophet Muhammad in a bad light. I have not seen the short film and cannot comment on the content of the film but I can comment on the worldwide violent and deadly Muslim reaction to the film around the world and now, even in my own community of Canton, Michigan.

In Canton, the rally was small and peaceful as were other rallies in the Detroit Metro area which is home to a growing Muslim population.

Speakers at these rallies decried the ever growing” Islamophobia” in the U.S. but were quick to point out how peaceful their protests were when compared to those outside of the U.S.

My concern here is why protest at all and what do the protestors want?

Here in the United States we have a very strong freedom of speech principle that as the First Amendment is enshrined in our constitution; we may not agree with all that people say but we will defend their right to say it…to the death.

In the U.S. no subject is off limits and all subjects are ridiculed by someone at some point in time; we ignore most attacks and get pissed at some and if the attacks are illegal, we sue… like unjust defamation of character, etc.

Religion as a subject or religious personages as subjects of criticism or ridicule are not protected subjects as they are in other countries, mostly Muslim countries where you can be hung for speaking ill of Islam…

And here lies the problem…

One of the protestors said that the film hurt him and asked why are people trying to hurt my religion, my beliefs. Another protester held a sign that read “Freedom of speech is not freedom of blasphemy”. Other signs said “My prophet is my honor” and “We love our prophet” and “The film defames our beloved prophet”.

A protester said that we love our religion and we want everyone to respect our religion and others thought that our freedom of speech principle should be amended to prohibit offending Islam as well as other religions.

To me the thought that a short film shown on YouTube could cause a worldwide protest that has killed many, is patently absurd and is truly a clash of cultures.

Here in my community, the fact that educated Muslims would take to the streets to protest an obscure movie that if ignored, would have never seen the light of day is disturbing and disheartening.

In protesting, Muslims apparently want something done against attacks on their religion as in prohibiting attacks on their religion and that is something that can never be done, at least in this country and so the only things that CAN change is THEIR attitude towards attacks or criticism of their religion and their prophet, etc.
Religions cannot be hurt by words but they can be hurt by the actions of the people within that religion and the worldwide protests over a stupid movie does not show Muslims in a positive light but accentuates the actions of seemingly uncivilized and adolescent men and women unused to living in a tolerant and diverse modern society.

Sure, unkind words and pictures can sting and injure one’s feelings but that is life and you cannot pass laws forbidding those words and pictures because those are fundamental rights we all enjoy in this country for better or worst.

American Muslims cannot demand respect for themselves and their religion, they must earn the respect through their actions as Americans as countless other immigrants of various religious persuasions have done through the ages.






















Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, September 28, 2012

JESUS MARRIED???



A recent story about a discovery of an ancient papyrus fragment that seemed to indicate that Jesus was married caught my eye as well as the interest of the general public; all news media carried the story.

Biblical archaeology is my bag and maybe my passion so all stories dealing with the subject will get my attention.

The Vatican was quick to declare the ancient document a “fake” as they always do with ancient documents that do not agree with what the Vatican believes and teaches.

The belief that Jesus was married (to Mary Magdalene) goes back centuries and the fact that people are still surprised by that hypothesis proves again that Christians know very little about the history of their religion if anything at all.

What many Christians do not know is that there are and were “many” gospels in existence beside the ones in their bible; the ones in the bible were picked from hundreds of gospels floating around at that time in history and therefore are considered ”canonical” gospels since they are part of the “canon” that makes up the “accepted” bible.

St. Paul of Tarsus, the inventor of Christianity, did not know Jesus and knew very little about Jesus so he did not say much about the actual Jesus and his life and based his religion on the death and resurrection of Jesus and not on Jesus himself, what he did and what he taught.

The gospels in our bible came after the writings of St. Paul and are not meant as biographies of Jesus as in the history of Jesus but are mainly works of theology and deal with what they believe are the teachings and acts of Jesus; they do not mention if Jesus was married.

In those ancient times, most men Jesus’ age were married and so it is not a stretch to think that Jesus was married but the belief would play havoc with the Vatican’s celibacy argument.

Biblical historians also point to the fact that Mary Magdalene plays a pretty important role in the Jesus story. The fact that Mary Magdalene was the first to hear (from an angel) that Jesus has risen from the dead instead of Peter or any of the other apostles, places her in a high position ahead of the other apostles and suggests that she may have been the “first” or the “highest in rank” apostle because she was his sponsor (money) and his wife.

As the world turned patriarchal (or was it always that way), women sank lower and lower on the food chain and even though the first Christian bishops were women who allowed their homes to be used as churches, men eventually put the women in their place (kitchen) and told them to shut up as seen in later Pauline Epistles (pseudo).

It is quite possible that as women were marginalized through history, the gospel writers just followed the trend and diminished the role of Mary Magdalene in Jesus’ life. To this day, Catholics were and are severely criticized for their “worship” of the Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus by Protestant sects because after all, she was just a woman.

Biblical scholars are already arguing if the tiny piece of ancient papyrus is “authentic” but we must always remind ourselves that anybody could have written a “gospel” and in this case it was a “Coptic” gospel (Egyptian sect of Christianity) which belongs to a group of Christians that to this day, is not lock and step with Western Christianity and never were.

Gospels are not based on historic fact but some may have a modicum of fact as gleaned from oral histories passed down for centuries but the fact remains that no one and I mean no one including the Vatican, has any idea if Jesus was married or not since Jesus did not write (illiterate as most men at that age were) and his apostles did not write anything down either (Gospels in the Bible were not written by Jesus’ apostles who died many years before they were written).

Even though the point of Jesus’ marital status is only conjecture and can only be conjecture, it still amazes me how much hubbub a discovery like this causes and that is because no one likes to see their very strongly held beliefs dashed by a chance discovery…especially the old guys in the Vatican.











Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, September 27, 2012

MI PROPOSAL 2: Not in our best interest only best for special interest...unions!



I cannot believe the money that unions are spending to promote Proposal 2 here in Michigan, which would assure, on a constitutional basis, union collective bargaining rights from any and all challenges by voters as well as politicians; they will be considered “sacred” if the proposal passes.

Many do not know that passage of Proposal 2 will “invalidate” any and all “past, present and future laws” that will somehow limit union power…read that again if you did not get it the first time.

The commercials are coming at us fast and furious and they are all designed to LIE AS WELL AS BEND THE TRUTH.

The proposal WILL NOT PROTECT MICHIGAN JOBS; it will only protect UNION JOBS which are in a steep decline.

The proposal will PROHIBIT VOTERS FROM EVER VOTING AGAINST UNION ISSUES; as I said, unionism will become “sacred”.

The proposal will prohibit Michigan from ever becoming a “right-to-work” state like many other states that want their economies to grow and attract manufacturers; manufacturers do not build in union only states.

I really resent the lying-ass commercials that use police and firefighters and nurses and teachers, etc. saying that somehow Proposal 2 will protect the public (that means us the voters) and that is so much BULLSHIT because it is all about their jobs and their wages and their benefits that WE THE TAXPAYERS WILL BE FORCED TO PAY WITHOUT EVEN A SINGLE VOTE…

Since the UNIONS have everything to gain from this proposal, they are pulling out all the stops and spending millions on their campaign of deception…we the people who will be harmed by Proposal 2 have no one to pick up our cause and spend money to point out how the unions are distorting the truth but I did see an ad today…

I do not know who is paying for the ad against Proposal 2 but it obviously hit a nerve since the unions are screaming that the ad is not fair…really?

The ad says that we as parents of school kids will not be protected from teachers that may have criminal records or bus drivers with criminal records and that is a FACT since no one will be able to challenge unions and unions have been known to protect their own no matter how bad those people may be…

Well this may be interesting in the last few weeks of the campaign…stay tuned but remember…

VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 2…It is NOT in our best interest but only best for “special interest”…unions!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

DETROIT: Stealth Juror or One Angry Juror





I am still stuck on the juror issue subject; the lone, black female juror holdout against conviction even with overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Even though I have noticed this phenomenon for some time now, only recently has it become a much talked about issue when a mistrial was declared in an open and shut case against Bobby Ferguson for rigging city bids.

Now both the defense and the prosecution are aware of what they have called the “stealth juror”; a juror that lies to get on the jury for the express purpose of causing a mistrial or I suppose, a conviction but that would only apply to a juror that causes a mistrial by maintaining a guilty verdict opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence for innocence (acquittal)…which I have never heard of.

Anyhow, jurors are usually asked if they have been involved in litigation, a crime and an investigation or have been crime victims; all yeses to these questions can indicate potential bias and therefore you are usually removed from the jury pool.

In the case of the lone holdout in the Ferguson jury, when asked the usual questions; she remained silent and in essence therefore, she lied. Today, we know she was part of an investigation into licensing violations in her child care center, her husband was convicted of a drug offence and she and her husband had declared bankruptcy…if the judge or lawyers knew her history, she would have been sent home immediately.

What motivated her to lie under oath to get on a jury to cause a mistrial in an obviously open and shut case of guilt? Some say that because she has been on the wrong side of the law on various occasions or our legal system found her on the wrong side of the law; she may have felt a grievance against the law and a connection to the defendant who broke the law and therefore felt obligated to “stick it to the man”.

OK, I am starting to get a feel for why these jurors do what they do and it may be considered a “cultural thing” between people that have been “against” the law together; kindred spirits.

OK, how to prevent this from happening again; send her ass to jail for a couple of years for perjury and other jurors with similar intentions will have a lesson to be learned before them…

The jury in the Kilpatrick, et. al. racketeering trial has been picked (50% minority jurors so he would have no reason to appeal). In this case the jurors were questioned at length and had to fill our extensive questionnaires…so let’s see what happens…

Note: If you get a chance to see the 50s black & white movie, TWELVE ANGRY MEN, see it, it is a classic and quite remarkable. Not to spoil it but 11 men were convinced of guilt and one, lonely holdout was not AND SO he convinced the other 11 of the defendant’s innocence.










Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, September 16, 2012

PROPOSAL 6: Need a new bridge...



PROPOSAL 6:    INTERNATIONAL CROSSINGS APPROVAL

Recently I was downtown on the river visiting a naval ship. I could see the Ambassador Bridge to Canada and the trucks lined up to slowly cross the bridge. I thought, wouldn’t it be great if we had another bridge to Canada to make crossing easier and faster?

Well the owner of the Ambassador Bridge doesn’t think so because he would lose money; being the only game in town is a monopoly and very profitable, if not efficient for the general public.

Our governor thinks that building another bridge to Canada is something the state needs, would create a lot of construction jobs and maybe even increase the flow of our exports to Canada PLUS the Canadian government would finance most of the construction…sounds like a great deal to me.

But obviously not to Matty Maroun, the old owner of the Ambassador Bridge.

He has spent millions on trying to prevent a new bridge from being built and now has spent enough to get a proposal on the ballot that would alter our constitution to prohibit our governor or legislature from making a decision to build a bridge; only the people can make that decision and he is counting on influencing the people with his millions to vote his way.

This proposal is very stupid and a very clear attempt by the owner of the existing bridge to prevent competition but will the people see it as that?

Please think about it and vote NO on this very stupid and self-serving proposal that would not benefit the people of Michigan in the least!


Enhanced by Zemanta

CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS: Stay or Go...

Another subject that I feel needs some clarification because it is so divisive among us is the issue of Confederate Monuments, why they ...