About Angels

I'm reprising a popular blog of mine from back in 2011 on Angels.

Although I've made no secret of my Buddhist orientation at this point in my life, I was raised Catholic. I've always been fascinated by Angels. In my own way. I love the series films with Christopher Walken called, "The Prophesy". I've always found Angels as badasses. Great  not religious, but sci fi fodder.

Powerful, frightening, entertaining, but righteous in their dedication to what is right. Rr what they think their God wants. Or more interestingly, what they think may be right, even when they're wrong. It's a paradigm ripe for drama and intensity.

I have used them at least twice in my writings. Once in my book, "Death of heaven" where they are both a central force in the story and yet not there at all. I also used them in my novella, "The Unwritten" (as yet unpublished). In the latter story, I had no clue they were to be characters until nearly the end of the story and then, they became a powerful force and locus of the novella. It was fun to write. Pure weirdness. Both are, even if I say so myself, fascinating stories.

Christian mythology is fun. Vampires are afraid of a Crucifix, where Holy Water affects them and protects the poor Mortals. Push-button resolutions against terrifying odds.

I'm writing a novel where there is a character that has a relationship with an Angel. So I had to do some research. There is a thriving industry of commerce, in the world, on the internet. People claiming to speak for the Angels, selling online and in books and video, aspects of myth and information filling that void some people have in their lives for some connection to their Supreme Being, their God. Some even worship the Angels, but why you would want to worship anything other than the top dog, sorry, Top God, is beyond me.

Demons and Angels even come from the same beginning. The words for Demon and Angel have similar origins, and one can assume many of the demons mentioned were originally Angels Fallen Angels. And that is a consideration fascinating enough in itself and has been the focus of many interesting tales. What is an Angel's morality? Are they above it? Aside from it?

Here is what I found. There are many ways to interpret the literature, and so, this is my interpretation of what I found.

"ASSUMPTION of the VIRGIN" by Francesco Botticini showing the choirs of angels in the three Spheres.

There are three levels of Angels. The Top Choir, is the highest rank of Angels. They attend to God directly. They are his Holy Servants. Ezekial talks about Cherubin carrying God and his chariot. They were the defenders of God. Cherubin stand outside the Garden of Eden so Adam and Eve can't get back in. A Cherub is not a cute baby with wings, that thought came up in the Renaissance, they are not somebody to meet on a dark lane, as they could turn rather nasty. Don't screw with a Cherubin. This top tier includes the Seraphim, Cherubin, and Thrones.

Saraphim are always depicted in red, symbolizing Devine Love; Cherubin are always depicted in blue, representing Wisdom. According to Christy Kenneally, host of the Smithsonian Channel show, "Decoding Christianity": "Cherubs as cute babies are a Baroque and Renaissance fabrication. Angels didn't have wings in the beginning, because of possible confusion with the ancient Gods, like Mercury who also had wings. Artists had gotten things pretty close to correct up till then, when they kind of went off the deep end.

Once Humans started to become "enlightened" they lost their inner eye for that of science and began to lose their connection for that of speculation. There are no such thing as baby Angels. Cherubs were then reduced to the lowest level of the Angelic ladder. But they are one of the three most powerful and fearsome of all Angels."

The Second Choir are those in charge of the Universe. The Overseers of Nature and Fate and are: The Dominions, the Powers, and the Virtues.

The Third Choir are the Human intermediaries who deal with us mere mortals. They are our first and initial connection to God, going first through them, then through the rest of the hierarchy. These include: The Principalities, the Archangels, and the Angels.

By Gustave Doré - Alighieri, Dante; Cary, Henry Francis (ed) (1892) "Canto XXXI" in The Divine Comedy by Dante, Illustrated, Complete, London, Paris & Melbourne: Cassell & Company Retrieved on 13 July 2009., Public Domain

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a book on Angels because there were so many questions during his lifetime about them. Do they eat, do they procreate, do they wear clothing? Do they have gender?

Rafael will blow the trumpet that heralds judgment day and of the end of the World to Muslims. To Jews and Christians, he is the Angel of Healing.

Gabriel is God's Messenger. To Jews he destroyed the city of Sodom. In Islam he brings the Koran to Mohammad.

Michael, is the most powerful Angel of all. To Jews he is the guardian Angel of Israel. In Islam he brought thunder and lightning to earth. In Christianity, he flung Satan and his army of rebel Angels into Hell.

Angels appear to a person as their greatest embodiment of their expectations, therefore, in the past they were always male angels, but now people are not so entrenched in a patriarchal society and angels can appear as male or female, but always as the greatest beauty in expectation of that individual's beliefs.

Michael's name means "he who is most like God". When Lucifer said, "I am like unto God." Michael merely responds with his own name, saying: "Michael (Who is like God?)." And at that moment, the war between the Angels begins. It is a spiritual warfare, a spiritual struggle.

Lucifer is then cast into Hell and named Satan. He is depicted as the Dragon, the beast. But Satan has a history that comes to us from preChristian origins. He gets his horns, his cloven hooves and some of his character from Pan. Pan the bisexual. For Christians, Satan represents the evil of paganism. In defeating a Pan-like Satan, Michael can also be seen as defeating the old Gods.

Michael, had a pagan ancestor too, the Roman God, Mercury. Monuments and churches dedicated to the Archangel Michael were almost always built on high places, and almost always on the ruins of the of temples dedicated to the God Mercury. Like Mercury, Michael always watched over commerce, communication and has healing powers.

In the 6th century, there was a plague. Pope Gregory prayed for help and there was a vision of Michael at what is now, Castle St. Angelo, on a site that was once a temple to Mercury. It was then that they began to call him "Saint Michael", or "Sant Angelo" ("Sainted Angel"). It seems to me an odd concept to Saint an Angel.

It was in the 5th Century, that St. Jerome expressed the concept of each and every person alive having their own "Guardian Angel" when he said: "how great the dignity of the soul, since each one has from his birth an angel commissioned to guard it." (Comm. in Matt., xviii, lib. II).

I personally see that as somewhat limiting in an Angel's scope and power, but hey, it makes people feel better. The concept of intermediaries between we poor mortals and the Supreme Being, kind of makes sense. But one has to consider whether these are separate entities or simply minor manifestations of that Supreme Being.

When you consider according to Christian doctrine that God split himself in two, or three, being that also of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, why couldn't this "Supreme" Being split up in millions of ways? Even unto condensing elements into individual mortals such as we are?

It's an interesting consideration. Not only this, but all of the Angel concept. And it makes for great storytelling. Which I will soon be adding to, once I have completed this new novel. I can only hope that the fun in reading it will come through from the fun I'm having in writing it.

What "Merry Christmas" Really Is To All Of America

Merry Christmas! It seems like a fairly innocuous greeting. Right? I'm sharing now last year's Christmas blog, for a reason, in these our such divisive times.

Do you find this offensive? Some do.

It has inherent goodwill intended. Which confuses some.

Because we live in a diverse world, a diverse multicultural, multitheistic country and environment, we merely need to be aware of that in our thoughts, speech, and actions.

No, it's not asking that much of us. For myself, I was raised Catholic, old Slovak Catholic. I went through stages of seeking God and found how humankind invented all this thousands upon thousands of years ago.

I have in my search for what is truth in religion, or "God" in a supreme intelligence, or whatever you wish to refer to it as been through many stages. I see using the gender of "Him" (or "Her") as questionable in ascribing a kind of anthropomorphism to an entity far beyond our understanding and why ethereal beings need gender is quite beyond us, though not really).

From my childhood and deep into my 20s, I have experienced being a "born again Christian" in my late teens. Then in my research and studies to "find God", an agnostic, an atheist, an agnostic again and finally a follower of reality as best it can be defined, through science, through the Buddha Dharma when lent itself to the Christian form of restructuring Judaism, and also Aikido, "the Art of Peace".

I was surprised to find how much "Buddhist" beliefs fit into Christianity and general psychology orientations during my university years of study toward my degree in psychology, and in Phenomenology, and physics.

That being said, I don't just have a problem with Christmas and below I'll explain why.

IF one cannot function appropriately and positively in that kind of life, one in America's "tossed salad" citizenry and community, one of diversity, of inclusion, of acceptance and fellowship, then one is of limited mental, emotional and cultural capacities.

Do you find this offensive? Some do.

So before you start ranting about the ludicrous immature belief in a "war on Christmas", of which there is none, but is rather an opening of awareness of others besides one's self or one's culture or religion, or in some cases, one's "bubble", do consider you are merely extending that well-intentioned greeting to other to whom it may have no meaning to them.

Not everything is as we believe. 

• December 25th is understood to not be the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth. 
• The song Jingle Bells was originally intended for Thanksgiving, and was titled, "One Horse Open Sleigh" 
• December 25th was originally a pagan festival day but the Catholic church absorbed it in order to compromise and assimilate pagan cultures when they were moving into.their region. 
• Christmas now has transcended the Christian faith and spread out in a secular fashion to those of other cultures and religions. How is that a bad thing? The underlying principles are still there and if Jesus were alive to see this, he just might be okay with it. Because what he preached was the reality and not the dogma, not the diction, not the rules. But the people. And compassion for one another. 
• The Golden Rule is based on the principle Jesus Christ taught in Matthew 7:12: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them,” adding, “for this is the Law and the Prophets.” The significance of Jesus "Christ’s" statement here is huge. What we call the Golden Rule is the summation of God’s entire view on the way of life.

So much of Christmas is about peace and love, make it so!

What we believe to be is different originally than we thought to begin with. So there is really no need to be zero tolerant, or uncompromising, or to believe in a war on something merely because of a call for greater awareness and understanding of other's different cultures or religions. Essentially...

It's Okay! We need either greater awareness and compassion for one another or have more wars and cultural friction and misunderstanding of one another. Especially during a season that calls out for greater compassion and caring, help and sacrifice for others, it truly is, okay.

So why would you offer it to them? It is obviously out of ignorance either in an understanding of our country or specifically in another person, you do not know very well and perhaps should take the time to consider and address them appropriately in a way they can understand what you mean and intend.

To wish them goodwill and happiness this season. Christians, many of them, like to point out the original intent and meaning of "Christmas" is all about Jesus. But as was pointed out above, that is at very least disingenuous and even, ignorant.

It really just means we have to give some thought to something we may never have given much thought TO. Which is actually the original intent of that greeting. to wit, if you are NOT giving it enough though, in the first place. You are actually, in the bigger picture of things, going counter to what you are trying to do and say. In trying to point out to others that there is or was a war on Christmas, you are the one missing the point in coming from Christians who cannot actually give the greeting enough thought and feeling, in order to share it in the most appropriate and productive ways.

Even if that means using another greeting.

This really isn't all about you after all.

What we all really need more than anything else in this world, is simply to all get along.

Because that is in the end, the Thought...that is in the end, what counts. Isn't it?

So with all that being said, I really have to end here with this...

Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays, whatever you believe and practice!

Allow The God Fearing to Rule the Day?

First off, Happy Labor Day! For more on that, see the link from my 2014 blog article on Labor Day.

Now, let's get to it!


Through the course of human endeavors,
before there was God there were Gods.
Before there were Gods there was Heaven.
Before there was Heaven there was the Sun.
Before there was the Sun there was darkness.
In that darkness there was no language.
There was no way to store and convey information
to any, to all.
But then there was language, then there was writing,
then there was, reading. But only to the few.
The few who had seen a book, who had a book, who learned to read.
This was magical. Words were magical.
It was unbelievable. It was powerful. It was Holy.
It was sacred. it was God like.
The Word became God.
Those who held the Word, became God like.
God has power. God IS power.
Those who serve God, have power.
To protect themselves from those they read to, the had to say they served.
Those who the servers served, they ruled over.
The servers became the served.
Their word becomes the Word.
Those who now serve Them, find themselves believing things.
Things not originally intended.
Things not currently intended.
Things that were never intended.
Those who believed, altered the Word of those who once served
and are now being served.
Then the nothing became the something.
And so the word was broken.

This is the problem in treating the modern day extremist God Fearing respectfully. Just as it is with the other extremists (and some even not so extreme) of the right wing politically conservative and Republican crowd. We should treat people respectfully to be sure, though not so much their beliefs, if respect for those beliefs are reasonably undeserved.

The trouble is in showing them respect, and therefore their beliefs, respect in discourse and debate tends also to lend a respectability overall. One they simply do not deserve. Religion has a lot of pretty (and not so pretty) words.

The trouble is, every religion breaks down because no philosophy answers all questions in every instance. A closed system such as any religion is, cannot answer all things in an ever changing universe. Which gives us a clue. ANY religion that seems to have ALL the answers, is a broken religion, a defective form of deity worship with a set of rules designed to subvert reality. Because there is no such thing as a philosophy that can answer all questions all the time.

It's like any form of government, not pure form is fully functional, only hybrids. It's why in part, Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

It's an uneven playing field right from the start. Which explains so much of the current situation in our dealing with true God Fearers. Both those politically in general as well as in Congress. If one treats them as derisively as they may well deserve, then it becomes the rational people who are seen as rude and illegitimate. Rather than simply taking an appropriate stand against utter silliness. Dangerous, silliness.

If on the other hand they are treated with respect, they receive a perceived legitimacy they have failed to prove deserving of. Other than a general respectful right to believe in any delusion they choose to come up with. Delusions that are typically supported by some ancient book of "wisdom" recorded over time, founded in antiquity and conjecture, based on imperfect observations, conflated histories and your basic magical thinking.

Such is our world today. It will change though. It has to.

Not because it's wanted, rather because in the end the Truth typically wins out. It is nature's course. It's the balance in history that sooner or later incorrect but accepted beliefs will be superseded from improperly recorded histories. Reality tends to win out in the end. Something that is becoming more and more prevalent as technology allows us anymore to record nearly everything, nearly anywhere.

The question as usual is, will these more accurate public appraisals of history happen within our lifetime?

As a friend once said to me in reply to this question:

"But who is the arbiter of silliness? To a devout evangelical, my atheism is just as silly."

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not so much what is on their side of the equation that is at issue. Some might even say that is a lost cause anyway. It is on our side, the side of those of us who might put up with it all, to ignore, to allow delusions to continue unabated. Out of good manners, ill conceived political correctness.

As a general rule we must all agree upon at very least a general baseline of belief. And in America it is and always has been through a government without religion. While now that seems to many load voices to be the outlier position. Something that grew out of fear that back in the origins of the post WWII cold war. A belief we allowed insidiously to creep into our national mindset, even into our pledge of allegiance, and onto our money.

It is not "In God We Trust" that we need to proclaim on a national basis, but "In Ourselves". To do what is right regardless of God, or whoever's God, or whatever religion, or even...no religion at all.

Our option needs to be government devoid of deity, and a government's belief based in Science. Reality as best our minds can fathom to use in our decision making. Since we cannot choose one religion over all others in a country where all religions are welcome (anyway those who don't go out and kill people over religion or some antiquated medieval view of God), then we simply have to choose... no religion.

To find order in no religion requires science. It's not a big leap in logic. Science that we need to be protected from through our government and if you will, moderated by our mindsets of Liberté, égalité, fraternité ("liberty, equality, fraternity"). Moderated by an individual's own beliefs even in religion and through ethics and morals.

The Grammarist defines Morals as the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based. Ethics are principles of right conduct. So the two nouns are closely related and are often interchangeable.

The main difference is that morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based, while ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.

We need more of the practical and less of the ethereal.

In order to govern people, we need beliefs founded in what is real and functional. If prayer worked every time, I'd say fine, we can use that. But it is not fine, it does not work every time, if it even works at all, ever. And I'd argue that it never works. It merely buffers our reality. It is simply coincidental on any real results from its use and is pretty dysfunctional in any kind of way in governing people.

Here's the really important thing... to all theists, all believers, all religious types. In order to have all religions for all people, none must govern.

It is on us all to stop this madness. To allow those who wish to continue to believe in the ethereal as real, is fine in their personal lives, just not in their public lives. Especially if it affects others. including those of the rest of us who use the rational and real in our own daily lives.

Allowing the God Fearing to Rule the day couldn't be a bigger mistake. Shying away form this fact is only going to make everything worse. We need to speak up, speak out, stand our ground, Politely but firmly state our case and if necessary, bulldoze our public ways right over top of them if not straight through them if need be.

For our protection. For their own protection. For all of our protection. 

Scientology, a study in theistic nature and evil

Scientology. Dianetics. L. Ron Hubbard. Church, Religion. Cult. Interesting words, interesting guy, interesting organization. But not for the reasons they specify. Let me say at the top of these words, Scientology is stupid. End of story. It was made up by a science fiction writer using pop psychology to make money and avoid taxes. Now, let's talk about that....

There was a recent documentary released: "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief " (2015) Preview.

But I kid Tom Cruz. Speaking of him, why is he such an advocate? Because he found some of the pop psych teachings useful as they would be, even without Scientology. Also because of their "auditing" where the individuals bares their soul, opening them up for a kind of emotional blackmail. And it's been reported by those who should know, that his audit info went straight to the top of the chain.

There have been plenty making fun of it's ridiculousness, including as recent as the April 4, 2015 Saturday Night Live show where they made a pseudo 1990 music video by the "Church of Neurotology" ("Neurotology Music Video - SNL"), an obvious spoof of Scientology.

I do seriously hope someone is studying Scientology and Dianetics for its theistic relevance.

It was an attempt superficially to produce a scientific religion. And for that I give it praise in the premise. Except, that wasn't the original intent. The original intent was to make money, to avoid taxes, to gain protections that so called "true" religions have, as if there is a true religion or a religion based in truth and not fantasy and conjecture, hearsay and wish fulfillment. But hey, that's another blog for another time.

Eventually, L. Ron Hubbard started to believe his own nonsense. That was when things started to deteriorate. Then he died and pretty much Satan personified took over the faux religion, and given religious status by the US Government after its employees were litigiously bullied into it.

When I was a kid back in the 1960s, I loved science fiction. I read everything I could get my hands on. I read some Hubbard too, but more Heinlein, more Asimov, more Bradbury. The better writers. Years later I read Isaac Asimov's first autobiography, "In Memory, Yet Green" which I titled my first sold short horror\sci fi story after as "In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear" published in 1990.

Now consider, you've known this guy, this science fiction writer for years. Then he comes up with a concept, "Dianetics" where he states that when you are a fetus, well, in Asimov's 1979 autobiography he says this about Hubbard's jaunt into Dianetics and religion:

"On April 6, I received the news from L. Sprague de Camp that Campbell and his wife had separated and that Dona had moved in with George O. Smith. Apparently Campbells overwhelming involvement with dianetics had been the last straw for Dona."
"On the thirteenth, Sprague and I went over the new May 1950, Astounding [magazine], which, with great fanfare, ran L. Ron Hubbard's 16,000-word article "Dianetics"."
"Apparently, Hubbard was maintaining that all human beings had their thinking mechanisms distorted by impressions received in the fetal stage. The fetus could hear, be aware, and misunderstand all that took place, and these misunderstandings produced all the wrongheadedness that plagued the human species. If each individual could be taken back, mentally, to the fetal stage by having "auditors" question them, and if all the misinterpreted impressions were erased, that individual would become "clear" and a very superior human being. Neight Sprague nor I were in the least impressed. I considered it gibberish."
"Then back to New York, and on April 14, I visited Campbell. He would talk of nothing by dianetics. I didn't argue much; I just remained impervious and said I didn't believe it. Finally Campbell said, half in anger half in jest, "Damn it, Asimov, you have a built in doubter." "Thank goodness I do, Mr. Campbell," I said."
Pages 586-7.

"Hubert Rogers, the illustrator, was with us and he amused me enormously by telling Campbell calmly that he thought Hubbard' was a faker and that dianetics was nonsense. I kept my mouth shut, since Rogers clearly needed no help." August 29, 1950, page 602.

"Campbell also told me that he had broken with Hubbard and was out of the dianetics movement. That didn't surprise me, really. I knew Campbell and I knew Hubbard, and no movement can have two Messiahs." May 28, 1951, page 625.

Certainly not proof of anything, but definitely gives insight to how the people who knew Hubbard all the way back in the 1950s viewed him and how they seemed to come to believe that Dianetics, the foundation for Scientology, was complete and utter nonsense. Not to mention, these "friends" of his, fellow writers anyway, were just idiots. Some of them, like Asimov, had brains the size of basketballs, metaphorically speaking. If he thought dianetics was nonsense, we really should listen to him..

In 1985 I was walking through downtown Tacoma. A nicely dressed, nice looking young guy and girl had clipboards in front of a place that said Dianetics on its large glass windows. They were stopping people to talk to them. The girl wanted to talk to me about Dianetics but I said, "No thanks, I know what you are doing and what this is about. I recently graduated with a university degree in psychology."

She smiled, pleased and said, "Oh, then you know exactly what we're doing!" I chuckled and said, "Oh yes, I know exactly what's going on with all this." She gave me an odd sideways look, as if I knew something and she didn't. And I did. And, she didn't. I was in a hurry or I might have chatted her up about it though I'm pretty sure it would have been useless in trying to turn the advocate of what was essentially a cult.

I had massive experience in that with the early 70s "Jesus Freaks". "Can I give you my Testament about how I found Our Lord Jesus Christ." Uh, no... thanks. After about a hundred of those, they got pretty tiring and all sounded pretty much the same.

First of all. who joins a "church" invented by an ex science fiction writer? Aren't you kind of asking for it at that point? Do you even have a brain?

That included an ignorant and young John Travolta, before "Welcome back Kotter". Well, he was a smart and talented guy. But he didn't need Dianetics. He just needed confidence and a clear vision of attaining his goals. After getting involved with Dianetics, and some basic pop psychology, he was off. But he was talented and had charisma and was going to make it regardless.

Getting back to my thoughts on someone studying all this.

Basically, L. Ron Hubbard (called by followers, "LRH") figured religion out. He reduced and synthesized it into Scientology. As ridiculous as it is, people bought into it. As ridiculous as Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, and so on are, as ridiculous as all of those are, people still buy into the grand nonsense and people still find something in it that helps them through. But the theistic elements aren't really necessary at all.

When I was getting my degree in psychology we had to study group therapy. Everyone had to do it in order to get their degree. I was against it. But we were told you had to go through it to get your degree. So, I gritted my teeth and persevered through it. , and I'm glad I did. The interesting and useful thing as it turns out, about group therapy is that in a group, people simply sharing and monitoring the discussion and talking about themselves and their issues, itself has a therapeutic, healing effect. You don't even need a leader, or a trained therapist.

Think about that for a minute. And think about all the money wasted in therapy and the time wasted in things like EST or Dianetics and Scientology. Or religion for that matter. Most of religion is people's attraction to the familiar and ritual. See, we're all a little OCD. It's in our nature and is a protective mechanism. People who have extreme cases of it, have simply got caught in a loop they have trouble breaking out of.

Now that isn't to say that some people don't need a lot of help by a professional therapist at times. But for most people with general issues or even worse issues, up to a certain point, simply getting into a group and sharing with others who will focus on your issue, and give you their best and honest help, sharing similar issues with you, will itself alone actually help you out.

Think about it for a minute longer. What is "community" all about?

People getting together and being... together. It has a therapeutic, healing effect. Focus on trouble issues and it helps with that. Have a little more knowledge about it and some basic therapeutic psychological tools and you can help someone who is really having trouble. Get a degree in it and some "practice", and you can help someone with serious issues.

So why wouldn't something like Scientology work? How could it not? Even if much of it is insane. Because Hubbard most surely was insane in one sense or another, at one time or another and certainly toward the end.

You can tell just by watching the guy (Hubbard) in videos he made, that he was a slippery, kind of sleazy character. A story teller and in the end, a charismatic charlatan. Asimov noted how charismatic he was in his book and how Hubbard spoke eloquently and engagingly. Just want a cult follower needs.

Now that doesn't mean that Scientologists who spent their entire life in it, didn't get help from being in it. That's part of the insidious thing about it which also crosses over into issues related to a fear of leaving it. But they could have gotten that same help in some other form, where people had even a little knowledge of some basic tools in psychology.

Add to that, Scientology's efforts against you if you do leave, to discredit you, cut you off from loved ones who are still on the inside and allegedly according to some personal testimonies, kill you or simply make you "disappear".

Or how they will hound you with their insidious "Squirrel Buster" squads (a name they give to those who leave). They harass you until you can't take it and if you do anything against them, as in the case of at lesat one person, YOU are the one to go to jail for it. Again, they now have the protection of being a (faux) religious organization, something that should never have happened.

And so that also points out the same actually about at least some (if not all) religions, doesn't it?

I do believe by studying the mechanisms and processes of Scientology, we could all possibly learn a lot about the dynamics of religious and magical thinking. Is Scientology really that more ridiculous than Mohammed being teleported to another city in the ancient desert? Or Jesus rising from the dead or himself having raised the dead, or turned water into fine wine, or having walked on water? Or Moses parting the Red Sea with a wave of his hand?

Or that idiot, confidence artist, Joseph Smith's Mormon religion which was at least based on a religion albeit a subversion of it. To be fair, Mormon's at least have some useful beliefs, like storing food for emergencies. But they have so many other ridiculous beliefs, they almost counter Scientology for which is the most ridiculous system. I'd give it to Scientology on this one however.

Scientology is a prime example we can use to study and better understand religion in general without the garb of historical and metaphysical baggage. Hubbard was a kind of genius and if we would only devalue Scientology and remove its religious status, studying it as we dismantle it,, humankind could learn a lot of useful things and then further and more quickly see the dismantling of religions overall simply through the course of the evolution of modern thought.

I've seen several documentaries and news reports on Scientology, Dianetics and the great grand loon, L. Ron Hubbard himself. Like BBCs John Sweeney's "Panorama". Or an actor's video on YouTube,  "Scientology: Jason Beghe Interview". But the best one I've seen is 2015's "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief".  There is also an article on Huffington Post about it. Back in 2007 had an interesting piece on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Obermann.

The evidence is overwhelming and why it's not in the courts to dismantle Scientology, well, up to this point that has been an exercise in futility.

Watch the documentary.

You'll see what I'm talking about, and hopefully, what I'm referring to about the whittled down version of religion we see in Scientology. No they are not the same and I'm sure this may offend the religious as their religion isn't some fake new age nonsense. However....

Really?

Anyway, be careful if you do watch the documentary.

I've just really been discussing one thing here. We need to study Scientology for how it relates to religions, cults and the mind sets of people believing in things that no one should rationally be believing in. Especially when there are better and more tested methods based in science out there, available and proven.

The trouble with that is the community element is usually missing, along with the other things churches have that therapy does not. But there are now new "churches", available. That is to say, new communities of atheists who may be the ones in the end to finally fix what is wrong with religions and the tax free church system of fraud on the American tax payer. This was recently explored in a CNN report on atheism.

By the way, did you catch my reference above to Scientology having actually co-opted the American governmental department of the Internal Revenue Service.

Who EVER gets the best of the IRS? Obviously, Scientology did in forcing them into giving them religious tax exempt status, something that should never have happened, gave them extensive protections, helped to legitimize them worldwide and was a travesty perpetrated upon the American people and the people of the entire world.

Scientology in the end has turned into a scary entity.

If it can kowtow the IRS to giving it tax exempt church status, only because IRS agents were sued personally into being afraid, what else can it do? Ex members are afraid, some fearing for their very lives.

Scientology was founded and based upon a desire to make money off of people who don't know any better and therefore it has grown into an insane clown chorus of abuse and fraud.

How could it have ever been otherwise?

I didn't really want to get into the ugly, evil aspects of Scientology or its leader after LRH, David Miscavige (who sounds like one scary SOB), but we need the US Government to rescind Scientology's tax exempt and religious status and then label it as the scary $3+ billion multi-national abusive company that it really is.

Watch the documentary. It will unnerve you to know what has and is really going on.

#Scientology #SillySoCalledReligions

Voting for all? Should we limit who votes? Maybe?

Did you know that originally only Land Owners were allowed to vote in America? I've known this for a while but here's a reference for those who need verification.

According to InfoPlease.com:

"When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier."

That has bugged me for a while now. Why? Well, why do you think that was how it was originally set up? There MUST have been a reason, right? Elitism? Just, elitism? The Founding Fathers were smart guys. Right? I mean, what they had set up has been doing pretty well overall and has been a shining light for equality the world over for a very long time now.

Why then, would they found a country where many were not allowed to vote? I think I have the answer and finally, closure to what has been bugging me more and more over these recent turbulent times. Obviously their justification for not allowing slaves and women to vote, and in many cases, non-land owners, made sense (to them) at the time.

Slaves either didn't understand (lack of education), would do what their owners wanted, or would challenge the concept of slavery in many ways (reasonable assumption and action on the slaves' part). Women would tend to vote their husband's vote (reasonable fear). Non land owners tended to be uneducated and without "stake" in what they would frequently be voting for. All seemed reasonable back then.

I would also argue that had they allowed voting, in time that would all have changed and voters would have become more savvy and interested over time. Especially back then.

Have you heard the nonsense that has been going on in America lately? Voters have been made to have a hard time voting, on purpose. Groups have made it difficult, mostly for certain types of voters, to vote more easily. Something I see as contrary to how it should be. Voting should be getting easier and easier, not harder and harder. Right? But then workers days and hours should also be getting lesser and lesser and they're not.

So what's up?

Have you heard some of the nonsense being touted in the media and our government, mostly from the extreme elements in politics? Why is that, you think?

It is because they want what they want and damn the constituents, what the citizens want, or what is good for the country. Because what is important is only these fringe group's desires and ideals. Mostly issues contrary to public freedoms and based upon religious purposes and agendas.

Not infrequently, ideas have been twisted and raised in such a way as to have people voting against their own best interests and desires. At times elections have been lost, when really they had been won. Gerrymandering has skewed states to one side or the other when really that state was the opposite majority for party. The whole gerrymandering thing has been going on for a very long time and it is, in some situations a good thing, but not when it is abused which it has been and we've been fighting against its misuse from the beginning.

The issue I'm seeing has to do with people realizing they can achieve their own selfish aims if they only push for things that benefit them. This is a format that has always proved to fail in the long term, even for those who push for it. Dictators usually find it doesn't work out so well for them in the end, and we're seeing more and more of that today with instant media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) because it empowers the people.

On the other hand corporate instant media (like Fox News for instance, even MSNBC in some cases and CNN has turned into a mess), has been working against the people.

Now aside from that, we are seeing more and more people having a voice in the media who should never be talking to anyone outside of their own home. There is a level of ignorance and foolishness in our population that is staggering. Do we really want people like that voting? But it's a Right, you say. How come prisoners can't vote then? Corporations are people and have a right to what, a vote? One vote? How many? Where is THAT headed?

Why aren't people making level headed decisions, casting votes for people and laws who work for them and not against them? Why would women vote for a party that only seems to have their worst interests at heart?

Why are stupid people doing stupid things so much today?

Here, let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Take a look at this article:

"This Is What Doctors Have To Deal With."

Okay now, do we really need those people voting? Hang on, hang on. Yeah, I know it's a right and all. (Again, can prisoners vote? Why not, if it's a right?)

My point here is things are really screwed up and there's a reason for it. We HAVE to ask ourselves, why? And we have to do something about it. But what?

When you have a group making decisions, and that group fails, what do you do? Change the group, get them better information, acquire subject matter experts.

Do we do that for this? No. Why? Because voting is a "Right" (in quotes because again, prisoners can't vote as well as some others; and well, there's pros and cons to it).

"In 2008 over 5.3 million people in the United States were denied the right to vote because of felony disfranchisement." - Wikipedia

So if they want to vote to make horrible conditions better, they can't. Sounds fair, right?

"Felony disfranchisement was a topic of debate during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Rick Santorum argued for the restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders." - Wikipedia

So even after you're not a prisoner you may not be allowed to vote. Quite a "Right", right?

So we already restrict people from voting. The question is, do we give them back the vote (yes) or do we eliminate others from voting (probably not, though it runs counter to my argument here, but hey, I'm not stupid). 

My point to sum up as quickly as possible is this... There are too many people who don't know what the hell they are doing who are voting for the wrong things. People are working hard to limit people voting who now have a right to vote.

I have a university degree and sometimes I can't figure out what it is I"m trying to vote for in elections because of how things are worded. Essentially, worded on purpose to make people think that voting one way for something is in reality voting the opposite of what they think they are voting. Nuts, right?

So what do I do? I read, do very little necessary research and just figure it out. 

But we obviously have some very serious problems here. 

People are voting for things and don't know what the hell they are voting for. They are being mislead. They are voting against they own best interests. They do not have a vested interest in some things they are voting for (which is why only land owners used to be allowed to vote). 

Look, I'm not asking for us to start cutting voters. But I am asking for something. Real commissions to look into things like gerrymandering and vetting that one party isn't being set up to win, with due and appropriate considerations of surrounding issues to give the nation and not just the party a fair shake. 

We need to give prisoners they vote back.If it's a right, everyone votes, right? Why is that any kind of question?

We need to make it easy for EVERYONE to vote. I haven't been to a voting booth in more years than I can remember but I vote in every election. 

We need to give serious thought to allowing people to vote who have no clue what they are voting for and we need to be sure they can even understand what voting is about and what they are doing. 

Maybe we need some kind of vetting process so that you are allowed to vote, if you at least have the fundamentals of what the hell you are doing and if not, you don't vote that year. I think it would be burdensome to test for each election. 

Testing isn't ridiculous. They test us for driver's licenses (but not for a concealed weapons permit, don't get me started on that one, but hey, it's a "Right", right?). Tell me that voting isn't as dangerous as driving a car. The danger in driving a car is just more immediate and only affects the number of people you can plow down. But voting affects every citizen and even citizens yet to be form; for the long term and sometimes it kills; sometimes, a lot of people (consider ending abortions, gun laws, etc.). 

We have a lot of stupid politics going on, polarizing politics that has frozen Washington DC politics. A republican party that is useless. A democratic party that always seems to be unsure what to do or afraid to do anything serious. Are they gun shy, or what?

These are serious issues that we need to deal with. Because the longer we put of making some hard changes, it's only going to get worse.

Vote. If you can. But know what you are really voting for. Vote those who are bad for America out of office and KNOW what is bad for America. Because that seems to be a thing too hard for many to comprehend now a days. 

To quote a Time magazine article by Reynolds Holding: 

"We should be finding ways to get more voters to the polls, not looking for excuses to keep them away. So instead of prohibiting felons from voting, let's require them to do it. That way, they will continue to repay their debt to society, long after they walk out of prison."

So, what do I really think? What could we do to fix these things?

Everyone should be allowed to vote, if they have at least at a minimum level of understanding, restricted not for who they are but what they can understand; going to jail shouldn't take away your right to vote; nor should being poor, or uneducated; everyone should be REQUIRED to vote who is allowed to vote.

Finally, it should be painlessly easy for all voters to vote.

People need to understand what the hell it means to vote. They need to understand what it means each time in casting that vote. It needs to be made clear to them, what they are voting for, not obfuscating what they are voting for. This trick of trying to confuse voting, so that vote one way is really voting against your wishes, needs to be made illegal. They should, if they have the ability to understand what they are doing, be required to vote, if they are to be an American citizen.

We need as many people as possible, voting. We need to make it cool, a mandatory thing, so that our country is governed by those who know what they are asking for, and will get what they vote for. We need those who vote, to understand what they are voting for. We need to make voting as easy as possible so they don't find it a burden to vote.

We don't need people voting who have no clue what they are doing, either because they are incapable, have no perceived, vested interest, or no resources to make clear to them what they are voting on. Sound expensive? Sound difficult? Isn't what we are seeing today difficult, and costing us massive amounts of money because of big money taking and not giving back; because of our political leaders entrenched in money problems to maintain their positions, in the back pocket of big money; because of the little guys being stepped on, feeling disenfranchised, jailed within their own lifestyles, while others globetrot on the heads of the bulk of what  and who America is?

Is it the American way to run away from a challenge? A conflict? A danger? How about when the conflict is internal, danger is at home, is our own people, our own ignorant masses? What about reasonableness, rationality, honesty, fairness, honor, clarity, education and intelligence? We need to adjust our priorities and be sure that the most sane, most comprehending, are the ones making the decisions and pushing forward our best foot for the most people and not just the privileged few who hedge their bets on the pain of the People.

We need our most educated but not if they only push agendas only for them. We need our least educated but not if they have no clue what they are doing and are acting against their own best interests, much like the poor who vote the rich elite's agendas. We can fix this.

How about we fix this?