'Twas the Night Before the Christmas of the Fall

 

 

 

'Twas the Night Before the Christmas of the Fall

T'was the night before Christmas. when all through the House

Not a creature was stirring, not even one louse.

The nation was hanging all their hopes on a hunch

That elephants and donkeys could agree just for once.

But, Congress went home to nestle snug in their beds

While pockets full of perks danced through their lax heads.

John Boehner was restless, thinking “What else could I do?”

Thought Grandma Pelosi, “Glad it's not me -- it's you.”



When out of the White House there came such a clatter

All arose from their dreams to see "what's a matter."

And over the airwaves the President did urge,

"Take these few days to think, drink eggnog and purge."



The nation hung tight onto the foul Fiscal Cliff,

As Reps held big galas and bought rich Christmas gifts.

When, what to all those skeptical eyes should appear

But Elf on the Shelf, Magical Scout of the Year.



The elf balanced the budget, cut taxes of the poor,

Making the millionaires scream and CEOs sore.

Then, he gave each sweet child all their wishes and toys

And reminded them all to be good girls and boys.



He used strong magic to call Congress in session,

Told them to take back all gifts to learn a main lesson.

“You're working through holidays and weekends next year.

It's so bad when you can't get along with your peers.”



The elf pointed his finger at all on the Hill,

And said, “Get busy and pass good, sensible bills.

And stop whining around like such  little spoiled kids

It makes Santa so angry; he's flipping his lid.”



“You followed instructions on just one thing I see

You did not pick me up and start bothering me.

Lawmakers find any promise so hard to hold

Since you're lazy, shiftless and don't do what you're told.”



The elf warned all the Washington crowd not to lie.

Then said, “Remember one more thing before I fly.

You forgot to name me so my magic will work.

I call myself Non Partisan for you big jerks.”



Frank R. Thompson
December 22, 2012

Should We Stand Our Public Ground and Blow 'Em Away?

 

 

On Sunday, December 16 2012, at a Little Caesars pizza restaurant 

in St. Petersburg, a man tried to use "stand your ground" legislation 

as justification for shooting another customer who was

yelling at workers because he wasn't getting his order fast enough.

The confrontation began when Randall White, 49, got mad about his service. For his outbreak, another man in line, Michael Jock, 52, of St. Petersburg admonished White.

That "prompted them to exchange words and it became a shoving match," said police spokesman Mike Puetz.

White raised a fist. Jock, a concealed-weapons permit holder, pulled out a .38 Taurus Ultralight Special Revolver. He fired one round, hitting White in the lower torso. The men grappled and the gun fired again, hitting White in roughly the same spot, police said.

One bullet lodged in a wall in the restaurant, which was occupied by at least two other people.

After the shooting, both men went outside and waited for police. Jock told officers the shooting was justified under "stand your ground," Puetz said.

"He felt he was in his rights," Puetz said. "He brought it up specifically and cited it to the officer."
He told officers he feared for his life. He mentioned that he thought White had an object in his hand, then backed off that when officers pressed him. Florida's "stand your ground law" says people are not required to retreat before using deadly force.

"We determined it did not reach a level where deadly force was required," Puetz said.

Police arrested Jock on charges of aggravated battery with a weapon and shooting within a building. He was released from jail on $20,000 bail.

Jock told the Tampa Bay Times he was meeting with a lawyer today, but declined further comment.

(Kameel Stanley and Stephen Nohlgren, "Man Shot at St. Pete Pizza Joint

Had Been Complaining About Slow Service," Tampa Bay Times, December 18 2012)

 
How Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law Comes Into Question in This Instance

A "stand your ground" law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations.

Sections of the Florida law that apply in the Little Caesars' shooting:
 

In any other place (besides his home) where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.  

Although in this case police determined the attack did not reach a level where "deadly force was required" to prevent "great bodily harm or death" to either Jock or employees of the restaurant, Jock claims the "object in White's hand" made him fear for his life. Therefore, he felt justified in shooting White and also endangering others inside the restaurant.

 

The Absurdity of Public Place "Stand Your Ground"

White survived but still had a bullet fragment in his back. "I got lucky," White said. "To me, that stand your ground rule … people are twisting it. He's twisting it. I walked in to get a pizza and I got shot … I'm hoping the law prevails. We'll see."

White said he got mad because his thin-crust vegetable pie was taking longer than the 10 minutes he was promised. White, who admitted he was tired and agitated, started talking about the service. That's when he said Jock "started chewing me out."

White said, "He was in my face and I pushed him. His life was not being threatened." According to
White, the gun came out quickly. A shot rang out, and he and Jock wrestled for the gun before the second shot was fired.

In my opinion, Jock first crossed a line when he decided, with a gun on his possession, to enter into an argument with a disgruntled customer. He could have refrained from saying or doing anything to inject his will.

If Jock felt something greatly injurious might occur because of White's comments, he should have sought the help of the manager or called the authorities. In fact, he could have left the premises before he reported his grave concerns to the police.

Maybe Mr. White wasn't a very pleasant man. Maybe his outburst was "past the bounds" of normal dissatisfaction -- full of anger and rage. Does that mean a Good Samaritan armed with a legally concealed weapon meant to be used for protection in the most dire circumstances should be entitled by law to make a dangerous judgment about whether to use the deadly weapon to "stand his ground" in a shoving match or in a fist fight?

The "stand your ground" law is very broad and open to far too much speculation as to the severity of circumstances that constitutes the use of legal gun protection. And, the law depends upon the trust that victims can make a "reasonable belief" of impending "great bodily harm" during states of extreme anger, duress, or any other significant emotional upheaval.

I believe, in this case, which is likely similar to many other "stand your ground" shootings in Florida, the reason Mr. Jock pulled out his gun and fired was to initiate severe bodily harm into the equation himself, harm that was grossly disproportionate to the threat posed in the circumstances. He, in fact, intended to "blow White away" in the confines of a peopled restaurant and feel justified by law in doing so.

Thankfully, the police decided Jock was wrong in using his weapon. But what are the odds that just because of Florida has a "stand your ground" provision for public places, many bloody miscarriages of justice have occurred and will continue to occur. People who possess concealed carry permits have been subject to minimal, mandatory training, but they lack the expertise of enforcement officers who receive intensive training with firearms and rules for employing deadly force.

My Take

In Florida, once self-defense is invoked, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the claim.
Most states have long allowed the use of reasonable force, sometimes including deadly force, to protect oneself inside one’s home — the so-called Castle Doctrine. I strongly believe in the Castle Doctrine and the right of a citizen to defend his home, his family, and his property.

But, outside the home, people generally still have a “duty to retreat” from an attacker, if possible, to avoid confrontation. In other words, if you can get away and you shoot anyway, you can be prosecuted. In Florida, there is no duty to retreat. You can “stand your ground” outside your home, too.

Did you know that Florida is not alone? Not by a long shot. (Excuse the pun.) Twenty-three other states now allow people to stand their ground. Most of these laws were passed after Florida’s. (A few states never had a duty to retreat to begin with.

The states other than Florida with "stand your ground" legislation: Alabama, Arizona ,Georgia, Idaho, Illinois (The law does not includes a duty to retreat, which courts have interpreted as a right to expansive self-defense.), Indiana Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon (Also does not include a duty to retreat.), South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington (Also does not include a duty to retreat.), West Virginia.

Reporter Cora Currier of Pro Publica says, "Many of the laws were originally advocated as a way to address domestic abuse cases — how could a battered wife retreat if she was attacked in her own home? Such legislation also has been recently pushed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups."

(Cora Currier, "23 States with "Stand Your Ground" Gun Laws Like the One

that Let Trayvon Martin's Killer Go Free Alter," Net.org, March 25 2012)

The number of justifiable homicides reported in Florida has skyrocketed since the law went into effect. In the five years before the law's approval, Florida averaged 12 justifiable homicides a year, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. In the six years since, the average is 33.

 

(Michael Pearson, "Florida Shooting Renews Debate Over

 'Stand Your Ground' Laws, CNN, updated March 20 2012)

 

The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, a national group, argues that Stand Your Ground is not just a technical expansion of the castle doctrine, the ancient legal concept that allows property owners to defend their home, but rather a barrier to prosecution of genuine criminals.

“It’s almost like we now have to prove a negative — that a person was not acting in self-defense, often on the basis of only one witness, the shooter,” said Steven Jansen, the group’s vice president.
The Tampa Bay Times has identified at least 130 cases in Florida in which shooters cited the Stand Your Ground law to defend their actions; in at least 50 of those cases, prosecutors decided against bringing any charges.

 

(Marc Fisher and Dan Eggen,"'Stand Your Ground’ Laws Coincide with Jump

in Justifiable-Homicide Cases, The Washington Post, April 8 2012)

 

50 of 130 cases -- that amounts to approximately 39% of Stand Your Ground charges have been dismissed by Florida authorities. 61% have been pursued as unjustifiable?

 

And, what about the Stand Your Ground charges that went to court in Florida?

 

* Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

         

* Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

 

* People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.

 

* Elsewhere in the state, drug dealers have successfully invoked "stand your ground" even though they were in the middle of a deal when the shooting started.

In Daytona Beach, for example, police Chief Mike Chitwood used the "stand your ground" law as the rationale for not filing charges in two drug deals that ended in deaths. He said he was prevented from going forward because the accused shooters had permits to carry concealed weapons and they claimed they were defending themselves at the time.

 

Even chasing and killing someone over a drug buy can be considered standing your ground. Anthony Gonzalez Jr. was part of a 2010 drug deal that went sour when someone threatened Gonzalez with a gun. Gonzalez chased the man down and killed him during a high-speed gun battle through Miami streets.

Before the "stand your ground'' law, Miami-Dade prosecutors would have had a strong murder case because Gonzalez could have retreated instead of chasing the other vehicle. But Gonzalez's lawyer argued he had a right to be in his car, was licensed to carry a gun and thought his life was in danger.

Soon after the filing of a "stand your ground'' motion, prosecutors agreed to a deal in which Gonzalez pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter and got three years in prison. 

 

* If there's one thing on which critics and supporters agree, it is that the "stand your ground'' law is being applied in a growing number of cases, including misdemeanors. That trend is reflected in the Times' database, with a five-fold increase in nonfatal cases from 2008 to 2011.

 

(Kris Hundley and Susan Taylor Martin, "Florida 'Stand Your Ground' Law Yields Some Shocking Outcomes Depending on How Law Is Applied, Tampa Bay Times, June 3 2012)

 

In the heat of passion, too many innocent people are being shot because of the doctrine. And, the law is being abused and turned upside down. I think the duty to retreat in public confrontations should be strictly enforced, and I fear that twenty-three other states are also ripping their fellow citizens with far too many unnecessary bullet holes.

 

Let me leave you with these quotes from the Hundley and Martin article:

 

"As 'stand your ground' claims have increased, so too has the number of Floridians with guns. Concealed weapons permits now stand at 1.1 million, three times as many as in 2005 when the law was passed.

"'I think the (stand your ground) law has an emboldening effect. All of a sudden, you're a tough guy and can be aggressive,' said George Kirkham, a professor emeritus at Florida State University who has worked as a police officer.

"Criminologists say that when people with guns get the message they have a right to stand and fight, rather than retreat, the threshold for using that gun goes down. All too often, Bruce Bartlett, chief assistant state attorney for Pinellas-Pasco counties, sees the result.

"'I see cases where I'll think, "This person didn't really need to kill that person but the law, as it is written, justifies their action," Bartlett said about incidents that his office decides not to prosecute due to 'stand your ground.' 'It may be legally within the boundaries. But at the end of the day, was it really necessary?'" 

 

(Kris Hundley and Susan Taylor Martin, "Florida 'Stand Your Ground' Law Yields Some Shocking Outcomes Depending on How Law Is Applied, Tampa Bay Times, June 3 2012)

 

 

"By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased

at will and fired at whim… we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes."

 -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Governor Rick Perry Says "Take Your Concealed Guns To School"

 

 

"Amid calls for tighter restrictions on guns

following last week's deadly rampage in Connecticut,

Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry said

 at a tea party event Monday

 that anyone with a concealed handgun license

 in the Lone Star State should be able

 to take guns on public property – including schools."

(Kevin Liptak, "Perry Says Concealed Handgun License Should Extend 'Anywhere.'"

CNN, December 18 2012)

"'In the state of Texas, with our concealed handgun license, if you have been duly backgrounded and trained and you are a concealed handgun license carrying individual, you should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,' said Perry, who later added a person has the right to prohibit guns on their private property."

Some supporters of concealed carry suggest that gun owners with concealed carry permits have a responsibility to keep their guns with them no matter where they are, even in elementary and high schools. They claim not doing so is the equivalent of having a fire extinguisher and storing it in the basement, rendering it useless in a situation where it’s needed.

Now, we mourn the unspeakable loss of life in Newtown, Connecticut. We are in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, and we all are searching for answers to stop the loss of life in the schools of America. I believe we must be very careful as we proceed to correct problems with school security. As a retired teacher, I am shocked at Governor Perry's beliefs.

Perry's comments should be viewed in the face of statistics that show that the actual risk of a school shooting is far lower than public perception. According to the National School Safety Center (2003), there were 93 incidents in which a student murdered someone at school during the ten years from the 1992-93 school year to the 2001-02 school year. That decade represents some of the worst years for student-perpetrated homicide in history.

Student-perpetrated Homicide

Considering that 93 incidents occurred in ten years, you can expect 9.3 incidents per year in the nation’s 119,000 schools. This means that the annual probability of any one school experiencing a student-perpetrated homicide is 9.3 ÷ 119,000, which is .0000781 or about 1 in 12,804. In other words, an educator can expect a student to commit a murder at his or her school once very 12,804 years.

("School Violence Myths," University of Virginia and the Curry School of Education, 2012)

I understand a student did not carry out the Newtown massacre. Yet, Adam Lanza was a 2010 graduate of Newtown High School with a link to Sandy Hook Elementary School. So, sometimes an intruder does come onto a school campus to kill students. Still, I find that far more students kill people (classmates, teachers, etc.) within their own schools.

Guns on campus legally? I cannot imagine people -- administrators, teachers, support staff such as cooks and bus drivers, substitute teachers, ex-students, parents, community coaches, relatives, friends, food and office supply employees, sporting goods representatives, media reporters, guest speakers, computer tech employees, on and on -- who must enter schools often, if not daily, stepping into these institutions of education with a concealed gun.

Let's face it, those who carry these weapons believe that a gun must be loaded to be immediately effective in stopping violence. What protection does an unloaded gun provide again arms like deadly assault weapons? Loaded guns in schools, I dread to think about the possibility.

Let's also face the fact that although some training is required to obtain a permit, these armed people on school campuses will not be law enforcement officers or security personnel with intense, thorough instruction and training in handling weapons and intervening in violence situations.

Won't allowed concealed carry also open the risk of a student (or students) overcoming an armed teacher and using that teacher's gun to inflict violence and death? Would some innocent bystanders be shot? And, how about the fact that some greedy, evil individuals will likely use their right to transport weapons into schools to sell guns to immature students and even gang members.

Imagine what might happen to combatants, teachers, and innocents in cases of student disagreements when easy gun access is as close as a pocket or a purse. Believe me, I taught high school for decades, and I can't tell you how many physical altercations between students I broke up or helped break up.

Certainly, many injurious fights occurred every year I taught -- some leaving permanent injuries to students and staff. Without good reasoning skills, teens often engage in fights over grades, steady dates, or just because of a rumor that another student supposedly "ran their mouth" about them. Blood already flows on the floors of our classrooms and high schools. I can't belief concealed carry will affect student violence.

Student fights often involve bullies or troubled students. Seldom does a student of large stature initiate a fight against someone their own size. Naturally, this increases the risk of injury to the smaller, less aggressive opponent who is often forced to stand up for his dignity. I have witnessed people sucker punched, kicked in the head with steel-toed shoes, slammed with various objects, head butted, and completely bloodied into submission.

To prevent massive injuries to the youngsters, teachers and other staff members step into these frays at their own personal risk. I have seen teachers and administrators injured and bloodied while breaking up these fights between students. The fights can be very violent and exceedingly emotional. They have the potential to be deadly, especially when two, young, strapping males are eager to damage each other. I cannot imagine introducing a gun into the mix. I have seen school halls, classrooms, and sidewalks littered with the aftermath of these fights -- blood, teeth, hair, and even flesh.

Normally, before these fights occur, news of the impending confrontation spreads like wildfire. Huge groups know when and where the combatants will face off, and these crowds run like hungry animals to witness any violence and bloodshed. The crowds actually cheer opponents on while encouraging them to draw blood. It is not rare to see a frenzied friend enter the fight to gang up on an opponent. Seldom does a witnessing student intervene and stop the bloodshed, and even if one does, he/she faces serious injury for being a good Samaritan.

Might I also mention that special education students are housed on most school campuses. Some of them tend to be very violent and most are not very sophisticated in settling personal disputes. Add to this the fact that a decent percentage of students are victims of violence and mistreatment at home. Many are medicated for specific mental health needs. Some enter school grounds without taking their necessary prescriptions.

Does Perry also consider adult-education programs that exist in some schools? Since a 21 year-old can legally possess a gun under conceal and carry, he/she could attend their own classes with weapons. A teacher may face a classroom of 20-30 students armed "to the teeth." This is not my idea of promoting education.

Why, may I ask, would Texas permit concealed carry in the following places as well as in the state's schools?

Texas now prohibits the following, but this would change if Perry has his way:

* In any (state) government court or office used by the court.

* On the premises of a racetrack.

* At any meeting of a government entity.

* On the premises of a correctional facility.

* Where a sporting event is taking place.

* In an amusement park.

* In a place that derives more than 51 percent of its income from the on-premises sale and consumption of alcohol (bars, taverns, clubs, etc.).

* On the premises of a polling place on election day or during early voting.

* On the premises of a hospital or nursing home (licensed by Texas).

I guess I could make the inference that Governor Perry wants to risk endangerment to judges, gamblers, politicians, government appointees, prison guards, amusement seekers, club goers, voters, the ill, and the aged as well as the children in his schools. But, I will leave that up to you, the readers of the post.

If you must, shoot 'em up, Rick! Lock and load. Let's see if that will bring down the violence and instill a less aggressive nature in Texas inhabitants. Rick, are you for public execution as well? Now, that would feed the bloodthirsty masses and raise deterrence, don't you think? Let's bring back the law of the gun and Old West justice. When you do, please, just do me a favor and keep your ideas and laws in Texas. I've got enough violence to worry about in Ohio.

Teachers, it is time to speak out again insane, mad propositions by prominent politicians and public officials. Complete freedom to concealed carry in schools? I vote "Hell, no!" If you don't make your opinion known now, in the wake of perhaps the most horrible school mass murder in American history, you will lose the opportunity to become an active voice in the proposed new gun legislation. Our children and grandchildren will suffer if we don't unite.

"When we got organized as a country,

[and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution,

with a radical Bill of Rights,

giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans,

it was assumed that Americans

who had that freedom would use it responsibly ....

 

"When personal freedom is being abused,

you have to move to limit it."

- Bill Clinton

Becoming Amoral: On the Road to Mass Murder

 

I believe that God created man with free will and that all humans commit sin.

The Bible contends that Adam's free will led him to sin and that his "original" or "ancestral" sin has had grave consequences for humanity even since. The human condition after the fall of Adam has been characterized in many ways. Many Christians believe even though humans are born with a general nature of goodness, they have a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin inherent in birth, referred to as a "sin nature."

Those who believe in "sin nature" see it as a result of one trespass that led to condemnation for all men. Romans 5:18 -- "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people."

Other people believe this Biblical explanation is wrong.  The founder of humanistic psychology, Abraham Maslow, said: “As far as I know we just don't have any intrinsic instincts for evil.” Agreeing with Maslow is noted psychologist Carl Rogers who stated, “I do not find that…evil is inherent in human nature.” Both Maslow and Rogers dismiss sin and instead say if a person is committing evil acts, then the "patient" is psychologically ill and must be brought back to mental sanity through medication and therapy.

What causes a human to become totally depraved and morally corrupt? Theories abound. The nature of evil is complex and highly speculative. It is also full of mystery. If we all are sinners, why can most of us use freewill to limit and control our sins while others cannot? While most believe a combination of factors from environment to mental illness contribute to corruption, we still struggle to understand what causes depravity.

So, today, I thought we might find a couple of points of common ground in our beliefs.

The first point is really a definition that is universally accepted, so allow me to merely state this:

1. "A psychopath is a person who is sane but amoral."

(Dr. Robert D. Hare, "What Is a Psychopath?" SciTechLab, December 4 2008)

Hervey Cleckley, a American psychiatrist, in his 1941 groundbreaking book, The Mask of Sanity, describes the psychopath as someone who has only a very superficial sense of beauty/ugliness and only the most elementary understanding of the basic concepts of goodness, evil, love, horror, and humor.

(Hervey M. Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity -- An Attempt to Reinterpret the So-called Psychopathic Personality, 1941)

Cleckley says the psychopath functions by mimicking the normal behavior of those around him hiding “a grossly disabled and irresponsible personality.” He, psychopathy is rare in women, is “brilliant and charming” and talks “entertainingly” all the while carrying “disaster lightly in each hand.”

Popular Misconceptions About Psychopaths

Despite substantial research over the past several decades, popular misconceptions surrounding psychopathy persist. Here, according to Scott Lilienfeld and Hal Arkwitz are three of them:

A. All psychopaths are violent.

"Research by psychologists such as Randall T. Salekin, now at the University of Alabama, indicates that psychopathy is a risk factor for future physical and sexual violence. Moreover, at least some serial killers—for example, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Dennis Rader, the infamous “BTK” (Bind, Torture, Kill) murderer—have manifested numerous psychopathic traits, including superficial charm and a profound absence of guilt and empathy.

"Nevertheless, most psychopaths are not violent, and most violent people are not psychopaths. In the days following the horrific Virginia Tech shootings of April 16, 2007, many newspaper commentators described the killer, Seung-Hui Cho, as “psychopathic.” Yet Cho exhibited few traits of psychopathy: those who knew him described him as markedly shy, withdrawn and peculiar.

"Regrettably, the current (fourth, revised) edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), published in 2000, only reinforces the confusion between psychopathy and violence. It describes a condition termed antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is characterized by a longstanding history of criminal and often physically aggressive behavior, referring to it as synonymous with psychopathy. Yet research demonstrates that measures of psychopathy and ASPD overlap only moderately."

B. All psychopaths are psychotic.

"In contrast to people with psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, who often lose contact with reality, psychopaths are almost always rational. They are well aware that their ill-advised or illegal actions are wrong in the eyes of society but shrug off these concerns with startling nonchalance.

"Some notorious serial killers referred to by the media as psychopathic, such as Charles Manson and David Berkowitz, have displayed pronounced features of psychosis rather than psychopathy. For example, Manson claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and Berkowitz believed he was receiving commands from his neighbor Sam Carr’s dog (hence his adopted nickname “Son of Sam”). In contrast, psychopaths are rarely psychotic."

C. Psychopathy is untreatable.

"Although psychopaths are often unmotivated to seek treatment, research by psychologist Jennifer Skeem of the University of California, Irvine, and her colleagues suggests that psychopaths may benefit as much as nonpsychopaths from psychological treatment. Even if the core personality traits of psychopaths are exceedingly difficult to change, their criminal behaviors may prove more amenable to treatment.

"Although psychopaths are often unmotivated to seek treatment, research by psychologist Jennifer Skeem of the University of California, Irvine, and her colleagues suggests that psychopaths may benefit as much as nonpsychopaths from psychological treatment. Even if the core personality traits of psychopaths are exceedingly difficult to change, their criminal behaviors may prove more amenable to treatment."

(Scott O. Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitz, "What 'Psychopath' Means,"

Scientific American, November 28 2007)

The second point of common agreement is one I've heard mentioned by ministers and those familiar with the value of ethics as they relate to sin and human existence.

The importance of ethical behavior is seen at the roots of human kind. It is the foundation of a civilization as ethical norms guide appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. As humans who sin, we are not capable of living by absolutism, but without rules, whether implicit or explicit, we have little protection from ourselves.  
     

(Cassandra Tuenge, "The Importance of Ethical Behavior and Its

Impact on Persuasion," A Perspective, November 11 2010)

 

Ethics may be defined as “characteristics of human nature that distinguish us from so-called lower forms of life, characteristics we can then use as standards for judging the ethics of persuasion. Among them are the capacity to reason, to create and use symbols, to achieve mutual appreciative understanding, and to make value judgments.”  My second point to seek common ground is the following:

 

2. One Sin Easily Leads to Another

"You can't stop birds from flying over your head, but you can

stop them from making a nest in your hair." - Martin Luther

New research from lead author Joshua Buckholtz, a graduate student in the department of psychology at Vanderbilt University, and his group of scientists have discovered the brains of psychopaths appear to be wired to keep seeking a reward at any cost.These researchers believe their findings open a new area of study for understanding what drives these psychopathic individuals.

“Psychopaths are often thought of as cold-blooded criminals who take what they want without thinking about consequences,” of the new study, says Buckholtz.

David Zald, associate professor of psychology and psychiatry and co-author of the study, says,“We found that a hyper-reactive dopamine reward system may be the foundation for some of the most problematic behaviors associated with psychopathy, such as violent crime, recidivism and substance abuse. There has been a long tradition of research on psychopathy that has focused on the lack of sensitivity to punishment and a lack of fear, but those traits are not particularly good predictors of violence or criminal behavior,” 

“Our data is suggesting that something might be happening on the other side of things. These individuals appear to have such a strong draw to reward—to the carrot—that it overwhelms the sense of risk or concern about the stick.”

 (Joshua W. Buckholtz, et al., "Mesolimbic Dopamine Reward System Hypersensitivity in Individuals With Psychopathic Traits," Nature Neuroscience 13, 2010)

“It may be that because of these exaggerated dopamine responses, once they focus on the chance to get a reward, psychopaths are unable to alter their attention until they get what they’re after,” Buckholtz said.

Added Zald, “It’s not just that they don’t appreciate the potential threat, but that the anticipation or motivation for reward overwhelms those concerns.”

Alcohol and drugs can further disrupt a psychopath's ability to put the brakes on aggressive, risky behavior. So finding some way to translate this data into targeted treatments could be hugely beneficial.

I think we understand that most sane people who have acquired at least some basic ethics meet their first temptations to commit sinful behaviors with fairly strong red flags. But, if they choose to cross the line, ignore the warning, and do something they know is wrong, the next time the temptation presents itself, they are more apt to sin. This is particularly true if the sinful behaviors are satisfying and rewarding.

Consider a spouse faced the opportunity to engage in infidelity. Let's assume that the spouse has a conscience and knows that cheating is wrong. Yet, the spouse possesses some significant motivation to engage in cheating: need for adventure, strong sex drive, extreme boredom, need for intimacy, etc. Sadly, the spouse's ethics break down once, and the spouse has a need that is pleasurably fulfilled. Then, it is often fertile ground for an affair to develop. I believe one sin often leads to another. 

Consider the actions of a young psychopath who doesn't consider any consequences for his actions and who feels an overwhelming desire to satisfy his needs. The psychopath has no reason to worry about any risks (and, possibly doesn't consider them). His only concern is to satisfy the drive to get his "carrots" at any cost.


Scientists believe that psychopathic children develop the ability to deceive around the age of three of four, and, believe it or not, they also acquire the ability to empathize. But researchers say, children with aggressive and antisocial personality disorders do not develop this ability, and therefore they age without a moral compass.

So soon, these psychopaths find lying and misbehaving as easy as telling the truth. In their case, one wrongdoing or sin merely leads to another if that behavior gives them their dopamine. They often develop an insatiable lust for this "fix." Any and all deception is OK as is any behavior that feeds their sick brains. Wouldn't they become well-practiced and convincing deceivers?

Also consider that some psychopaths grow up with nothing but traumatic experiences and a lack of contact with understanding adults. A lack of adults displaying empathy towards them as children means psychopaths will not learn from example, and they will develop extremely aggressive antisocial personality disorder. As they age, these psychopaths lack all feelings to empathize with others. They structure their own twisted, unethical adult environments of total disrespect.

And, if they have experienced gross sexual abuse or severe physical violence in childhood, they may grow up to be the "monsters" among us.

(Charles Q. Choi, "What Makes a Psychopath? Answers Remain Elusive,"

LiveScience, August 31 2009) 

 

 

My Take

I'm not trying to make excuses for psychopathic murderers. I am trying to find some common ground about these people who present a great threat to others. If we can find out what underlies their problems, we might be able to identify what kinds of interventions might be able to work for them.

In this blog, I hope I spread some light on these two areas: (a) how a sane person with the right tendencies can become amoral, and (b) how a single sin or wrongdoing often makes any human capable of committing many more offenses. To me, the combination of brain disorders, a lack of sufficient ethical foundation, and the overwhelming need for satisfaction can produce a horrible animal.

I think we should remember that not all psychopaths are violent or psychotic. It may be possible to treat this sick individuals. Also, if a psychopath becomes a killer - a murderer, a serial killer, or even a mass murderer - that person may come from any social or economic background. Their deception may be so good that no one can identify their "species."

Psychopaths are thought to make up as much as roughly 1 percent of the general populace and up to 25 percent of the prison population. In addition, some criminal psychopaths are about three times more likely to commit violence than other offenders and about two-and-a-half times more likely to commit other antisocial acts. 

Even if a psychopath is not violent, his kind of behavior is very destructive socially and hurts our trust of other people, yet you and I are likely incapable of judging who might be a psychopath. The belief that we can do this just might lead to us making terrible, wrong judgments about normal people who are not amoral but who are involved in some sinful behaviors. After all, we are all sinners, aren't we?

Feeding the Evil Newtown Wolf

The unthinkable happens again. The shock, the outrage, the public outcry -- the media bombards us with images, descriptions, and stories of yet another mass murder. And, of course, the officials begin their relentless analysis of the tragedy and continue until they uncover every speck of evidence that answers every conceivable question about the massacre except one: WHY?

As humans, we all feel responsible for understanding what motivates the actions of the species, so we are left to ponder this question until we finally find an answer sufficient to allow us to continue living with unpredictable monsters within our society. Social pressures, violent video games, unspeakable family environments, mental illnesses, psychopathic genes -- we find what seems to be the logical fit for evil, and we fulfill our need to attach a MOTIVE.

As accustomed to we are to murder, we should know better than to think any one specific motive exists. My favorite television detective, retired police lieutenant Joe Kenda of the investigative series "Homicide Hunter," was involved in 387 homicide investigations (92% solved). He claims he taught his detectives that "humans are simple" and "only three motives exist for murder: money, sex, revenge (or a combination of these)."

Yet, Kenda also understands another twisted truth. When he was nine years old, his parents took him and his brother to the Pittsburgh Zoo. While there, he saw a sign that read "Around this corner is the most dangerous animal on earth." He said he excitedly rushed around the corner to see a crowd standing in front of a mirror ceiling to floor. He was struck by that. Joe explains:

"Animals kill for need; humans kill for pleasure."

Here is a fact: we live in a murderous society. These killings are simply the worst examples. Do you need proof about the violent nature of our nation?

The United States has the highest homicide rate of any advanced democracy, nearly four times that of France and the United Kingdom. Guns are freely available. We believe in punishment. In fact, we, almost alone among the nations of the world, cling to the death penalty. Though its use is declining, since 1976 more than a thousand people have been executed. We incarcerate a larger percentage of our citizens than any nation in the world. And, for the last 70 years we have been in a state of continual war.

I would like you to read a brief biography for Dr. Gordon Livingston. I think you need to view the entire entry to appreciate the experience, the education, and the wisdom of the man.

"Gordon Livingston, M.D., was born in Memphis, TN and raised in upstate New York. He attended the U.S. Military Academy and upon graduation as an infantry officer was trained as a parachutist and an Army Ranger. He served for two years in the 82nd Airborne Division before attending medical school at Johns Hopkins from which he graduated in 1967.

"He interned at Walter Reed General Hospital before volunteering for Vietnam where he served as the Regimental Surgeon for the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. He was awarded the Bronze Star for valor.

"He trained in adult and child psychiatry at Johns Hopkins.

"He is a parent twice bereaved and his first book, Only Spring, described the death from leukemia of his six year old son. He is the author of the bestseller, Too Soon Old, Too Late Smart, which is now in its tenth printing and has been translated into 20 languages. He also wrote And Never Stop Dancing and How to Love. His latest book, The Thing you Think You Cannot Do, (April 12, 2012) has just been published.

"He has contributed to a variety of magazines and newspapers, including the Readers Digest, the San Francisco Examiner, the Washington Post, and the Baltimore Sun. He is on the part-time faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. He is the father of four grown children and lives with his wife Clare in Columbia, MD where he continues to practice psychiatry."

(Gordon S. Livingston, M.D., "A Murderous Society's Latest Outrage: Why Are

We Surprised by Yet Another Massacre?" Psychology Today, July 22 2012)

Livingston confirms that mass murder is not a uniquely American event, but this nation’s "long love affair with guns has allowed us to perfect it." Here is what Livingston says about mass murder after the events in Aurora, Colorado:

"We will be disappointed in our search for a moral to this awful story, an answer to the pointless question of 'Why?' that will allow us 'to make sure this does not happen again.' It will happen again. All manner of hatred is abroad in the land. Listen to the current political dialogue. All any of us can do in our own lives is to maintain respect and tolerance for those who disagree with us. The madmen and fanatics who populate the outer fringes of our world retain their random ability to hurt and horrify us.

"We are all hanging by a thread. Any of us could be a victim of inexplicable violence perpetrated by someone with a festering grievance who loves death more than life. We know that the current outpouring of shock and grief and concern for the victims is a temporary phenomenon. They will be soon forgotten as we move on to contemplate other horrors.

"We have not yet figured out how to construct a peaceful society or how to disarm the angry and alienated among us. Until we do, some of them will periodically kill as many of us as they can. The remarkable thing is not that these atrocities routinely occur but how little we appear to learn from them."

(Gordon S. Livingston, M.D., "A Murderous Society's Latest Outrage: Why Are

We Surprised by Yet Another Massacre?" Psychology Today, July 22 2012)

Why Do Humans Kill for Pleasure?

Do you understand the concept of evil? Can you fully explain how evil relates to conscious and deliberate wrongdoing? Of course, many people do not believe that evil implies powers of the supernatural or the workings of Satan. Yet, these same people freely use the term to describe someone who commits crimes so morally reprehensible that they cannot apply reason for the perpetrator's actions.

What is the true nature of someone who commits deeds beyond the scope of any humanitarian pity or sympathy? I believe the mass murderer does not kill out of bad character or bad conduct, but he kills because he is evil.

Whether the cause of evil is perceived by studying religious texts, psychiatric textbooks, or neurological studies, it never satisfies the curiosity of the human mind. Demon possession, mental health disorders, brain injuries -- all are called in question. Still, pure evil -- unconscionable, dark, psychopathic behavior -- is impossible to comprehend. I think, most of us believe that human nature is intrinsically good, so all we really understand about evil is that it is the opposite of good.

The famous Russian writer, dissident and activist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said, “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” The Native American parable of "Two Wolves" confirms the belief that we all have the potential to become evil:

An old Cherokee chief was teaching his grandson about life...

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.
"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves.

"One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego.

"The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.

"This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather,
"Which wolf will win?"

The old chief simply replied,
"The one you feed."

(Author unknown, Pearls of Wisdom, sapphyr.net)

 

What the Research Says

Some studies call Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School killer, a pseudocommando. This is a mass murderer who kills in public during the daytime, plans his offense well in advance, comes prepared with a powerful arsenal of weapons, has no escape planned, and expects to be killed during the incident.

Psychiatric research SUGGESTS a pseudocommando

* Is driven by strong feelings of anger and resentment flowing from beliefs about being persecuted or grossly mistreated,
 
* Views himself as carrying out a highly personal agenda of payback
 
* Usually takes special steps to send a final communication with little detail for actual analysis to the public or news media, and
 
* Usually uses language that may reveal important data about his state of mind, motivation, and psychopathology.

It is argued that revenge fantasies become the last refuge for the pseudocommando's mortally wounded self-esteem and ultimately enable him to commit mass murder-suicide.

(James L. Knoll IV,  "The 'Pseudocommando' Mass Murderer: Part I, The Psychology of Revenge and Obliteration," Journal of Am Acad Psychiatry Law 38, March 2010)

From a medical view, Michael Welner, founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel as well as an associate professor of psychiatry at New York University,  says, "There has never been a neuro-anatomical localization of mass shooting behavior."

Mos of the findings reveal the obvious. The medical research SUGGESTS
 
* 95 percent of mass killers are men,
 
* They tend to be loners,
 
* They feel alienated, and
 
* They look normal on the outside and are really, really angry inside.

(Neely Tucker, "Dark Matter: The Psychology Of Mass Murder,"

Washington Post, April 17 2007)

Mass killers use guns to kill as many people as possible. They're not looking for highs -- they're depressed, angry and humiliated. They tend to be rejected in some romantic relationship, or are sexually incompetent, are paranoid, and their resentment builds. And, they develop shooting fantasies for months or years, stockpiling dreams and ammunition.

The event that finally sets them off, Welner says, is usually anticlimactic -- an argument, a small personal loss that magnifies a sense of catastrophic failure. "But they don't 'snap,' as you so often hear people say," Welner says. "It's more like a hinge swings open, and all this anger comes out."

They plan everything about the killings, he says, except how to get away.

"It's about suicide," Welner says. "It's about tying one's masculinity to destruction."

 (M. Welner and T. Mastellon, "Defining Evil Through the Depravity

Standard and the Clinicians Inventory for the Everyday

Extreme and Outrageous (CIEEO)," Jl Social Sciences 1, 2011)

 

My Take

No one who can reason denies we live in a violence American society with relatively easy access to weapons. I do not argue against the right of the people to own guns for hunting and for protection. Still, I steadfastly believe our murderous society has a gun obsession. Right or wrong, we must admit that the evil Adam Lanza's among us take advantage of this Constitutional right. They have done so and they will continue to do so.

I do not know what evil is, nor do I know what causes it; however, I do believe all of us have a little "dark wolf" within us. Still, I know Adam Lanza kept feeding his ravenous evil "beast" until it took control of his life. The same can be said for other American mass murderers. I have to believe this because I do adhere to the philosophy that humans are inherently good.

I agree with Dr. Livingston:"We haven't figured out how to construct a peaceful society or how to disarm the angry and alienated among us." In the meantime, the massacres continue to occur as evil American males choose to take the lives of innocent souls, as Welner says, while "tying their masculinity to destruction."

Mass murderers kill with guns, often with assault weapons and large stashes of deadly ammunition. I see no need for society to continue to suffer at the hands of pseudocommandos who can buy these items of mass destruction for evil intent.  If I cannot satisfactorily identify the evil person before he accesses these weapons, I must, in the meantime, do my best to control the weapons at hand and to control the purchase of these firearms. The alternative is suffering more terrible, deadly consequences.

And, I understand that even with tighter control, evil men will commit mass murder. I wish to stop that too, but I think much more research must be done.  I want to stop the scale of violence first. So, in addition, I honestly believe we need to dedicate ourselves as a nation to stop taking such liberties with our attitude on violence. Nothing that contributes to violence is good. We cannot deny this.

Guns will never put an end to violence. Only love has that power. I'm not an ultra-liberal: I just know that today too many people are more than willing to embrace violent actions and raise their little wolf pups by exposing them to everything that influences evil "wolves." Anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego are overwhelming us. We must change or become savages.

Lieutenant Kenda did a lot of public speaking when he was working. He was often asked about the police department's position on gun control. His standard reply was: "The department doesn't have a position -- we enforce the law as it's written."

But during his public appearances, Kenda claims (and, these are his words) "some gun freak" would ask for his "personal opinion." Here Lieutenant Kenda gives his answer:

"So I said, ‘Picture yourself at Mile High [Stadium] in Denver during a Bronco game. You’re on the 50-yard line at halftime. You are surrounded by 74,000 emotional drunks. Behind you on a table are 74,000 guns. Would you give one to everybody there? Or would you try to be selective on who you gave one to?’

Then the crowd would laugh, and the guy who asked the question would sit down. Kenda continued...

"Nobody needs a gun. They all need a brain — but they don’t need a gun. We shouldn’t even let people drive, let alone people have guns. But they have cars, and they drive. But not guns — this society doesn’t need guns. But it’s too late. There are 150 million guns in private hands. I can’t tell you how many times I have investigated a death in a private home caused by a gun that was purchased to protect that same person — who is now dead from that gun, by accident; by suicide or by murder. So how did that purchase work out? Not very well."

I hope we can stop even one of those weapons of mass destruction from winding up in the hands of another evil individual. I pray we can learn from the latest atrocity. And, may God bless the souls of each Sandy Hook victim, their families, and their friends. Please, Father, keep them from further evil.

"Social justice cannot be attained by violence.

Violence kills what it intends to create."

-Pope John Paul II

No Sunshine at Sandy Hook: "Imminent Danger"

 

 

Imminent Danger

By Frank R. Thompson, December 15 2012

No love
Protects
Their precious souls.

No plans
Insure
Their lofty goals.

No door
Shuts out
Their deepest fears.

No lock
Prevents
Their frightened tears.

No guard
Secures
Their fragile dreams

No word
Placates
Their frightened screams.

No dad
Will hear
Their distant pleas.

No mom
Will fill
Their desperate needs.

No one
Will quell
Their gunman's hate.

No God
Impedes
Their leaden fate.

No plea
Completes
Their missing parts.

No prayer
Returns
Their beating hearts.

Today
We made
Them shield their eyes.
Tomorrow
We tell
How friends can die.

Today
We hoped
With every breath
Tomorrow
Explains
These senseless deaths.

Today
We learned
Worst thoughts come true.
Tomorrow
We'll keep
This vow to you.

Today
We pledged
To twenty graves
Tomorrow
We'll end
The Monster's reign.

Today
We held
Each pristine child.
Tomorrow
We look
Behind their smiles.

Today
We searched
For reasons why
Tomorrow
We risk
More souls to die.

Today
They learned
Through evil's hand
Tomorrow
They'll find
Dark hearts in Man.

"Now I know the full power of evil. It makes ugliness seem beautiful and goodness seem ugly and weak." --August Strindberg, The Dance of Death

A Governmental Lie: One Nation Under "God"

First of all let me say that I am a proud member of the Sons of the American Legion. I fully support the work the Legion does in the community, in the state, and in the nation. The Legion, the Sons, and the Ladies Auxiliary represent some of the most active, dedicated people in the area who work tirelessly to improve the lives of service members, past and present. In fact, the American Legion is the nation’s largest wartime veterans service organization, committed to mentoring youth and sponsorship of wholesome programs. The Legion continues to advocate patriotism and honor, promote strong national security, and pledge devotion to service members and veterans.

I also understand the Legion stands for "God and country." I respect this so much. I, too, believe in a Christian God. I do, however, understand that the message on this Legion sign carries deep connotations that are very disturbing to some veterans.

That being said, I do not care for the sign posted in the photo above. Some would argue that such slogans are patriotic and serve to unite and unify Americans. I feel the words cause detachment and division. In the blog today, I will consider the first phrase in the sign. Tomorrow, I will write about "Don't like it leave."

"One Nation Under God"

Who coined this phrase as it relates to American beliefs and understandings? To get a complete picture, it is necessary to trace the origin of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Do you know the original Pledge did not contain the words "under God"?

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist Utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas.

The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students.

Bellamy's Pledge read as follows:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

(Francis Bellamy,"The Story of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag,"

University of Rochester Library Bulletin, Vol. VIII, Winter 1953).

Then, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892, during Columbus Day observances organized to coincide with the opening of the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois.

Francis Bellamy's recalled the creation of the Pledge: "At the beginning of the nineties patriotism and national feeling was at a low ebb. The patriotic ardor of the Civil War was an old story...The time was ripe for a reawakening of simple Americanism and the leaders in the new movement rightly felt that patriotic education should begin in the public schools."

Louis A. Bowman (1872–1959), an attorney from Illinois, was actually the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. He added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge in 1948, and he convinced the Sons of the American Revolution (of which he was a member) and the Daughters of the American Revolution to adopt the new language. Although he is regarded as the father of the "under God" inclusion, Bowman's proposed change to the Pledge did not occur until many years later.

(John W. Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Revised History and Analysis, 1892-2007, 2007)

In 1951, the Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic fraternal service organization, also began including the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. This campaign led to several official attempts to back Louis Bowman and to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts failed.

("Knights of Columbus Fact Sheet," Knights of Columbus)

In 1952, Holger Christian Langmack, a Danish philosopher and educator who came to the United States in 1911, wrote a letter to President Truman suggesting the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. President Truman met with him along with several others to discuss the inclusion of "under God" and "love" just before "liberty and justice." At the suggestion of a correspondent, Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution to add the words "under God" to the Pledge in 1953. This resolution failed.

Prior to February 1954, no endeavor to get the Pledge officially amended succeeded. The final successful push came from George MacPherson Docherty. Some American presidents honored Lincoln's birthday by attending services at the church Lincoln attended, New York Avenue Presbyterian Church by sitting in Lincoln's pew on the Sunday nearest February 12. President Eisenhower followed this tradition.

On February 7, 1954, with President Eisenhower sitting in Lincoln's pew, the church's pastor, George MacPherson Docherty, delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address titled "A New Birth of Freedom." He argued that the nation's might lay not in arms but its spirit and higher purpose. He noted that the Pledge's sentiments could be those of any nation, that "there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life." He cited Lincoln's words "under God" as defining words that set the United States apart from other nations.

President Eisenhower responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.

The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942

Eisenhower stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. ... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

("God In America: God in the White House," PBS)

Many historians believe the inclusion of the "under God" phrase went in hand with the infamous Red Scare. In the 1950s, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles believed that the United States should oppose communism not because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime but because its leaders were atheists.

Legislators made other significant changes that referenced God during the Red Scare. For example, President Eisenhower inaugurated the prayer breakfast, and in 1955, he lent his support to adding "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956, Congress made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." During the perceived threat from the atheist regime, some legislators even introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

Dissent and Fallout

Requiring or promoting of the Pledge on the part of the government has drawn criticism and legal challenges on several grounds. Perhaps, like me, you can understand some of this criticism. Please remember the views relate to government and its role in religion, not to any specific denomination.

People continue to raise objections to the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge. Many critics contend that a government requiring or promoting this phrase violates protections against the establishment of religion guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. They think the addition of "under God" to the Pledge suggests an identification of the U.S. as an officially religious nation on the part of the government.

A particular objection states that a democratic republic built on freedom of dissent should not require its citizens to pledge allegiance to it.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects one's right to refrain from speaking or standing (also a form of speech). The use of the Pledge in public schools has been most controversial. Critics feel that the Pledge is incompatible with democracy and freedom, and suggest that pledges of allegiance are features of totalitarian states.

Another objection related to this lies in the fact that the people who are most likely to recite the Pledge every day, small children in schools, cannot really give their consent or even completely understand the Pledge they are taking.

In 1940 the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools, including the respondents in that case, Jehovah's Witnesses who considered the flag salute to be idolatry, could be compelled to swear the Pledge. A rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses followed the ruling.

In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that public school students are not required to say the Pledge, concluding that "compulsory unification of opinion" violates the First Amendment. In a later opinion, the Court held that students are also not required to stand for the Pledge.

(George Hodak, "Flag Day Reversal," ABA Journal, June 2008)

Despite the dissent, polls find an overwhelming majority of Americans (91% in some cases) are content with the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. And, as recent as 2002, about one-half of the states required the pledge as part of the school day and several others recommend it.

(Evelyn Nieves, "Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools, Citing 'Under God,'"

The New York Times, June 27 2002)

My Editorial

I do not find the reference to God personally offensive; however, I must also consider the entire American populace of 2012 in order to support my claim that the words can fuel feelings of detachment. I think the two phrases in the Legion sign, when combined, have a very combative message: "One nation under God. Don't like it, leave." I don't want to tell someone who served in the military this, and I wouldn't even consider it.

First of all, this is a classic "Either-Or" Fallacy or false dilemma. The words on the sign represent an example of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. False dilemma, as in this case, can arise intentionally when the fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as the assertion that "If you are not with us, you are against us").

The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation. What is a moderate view? I do not have to leave America simply because I disagree with the idea that the United States is "one nation under God." I can stay here and have the right to disagree or dissent -- more than two options do logically exist. If this were not true, the government would silence any citizen who criticizes the United States government.

A related phenomenon to the false dilemma is black-and-white thinking. Without significant regard, people routinely engage in the act of black-and-white thinking, an example of which is someone who labels other people as all good or all bad. Black-and-white thinking creates stereotyping and discourages cooperation and critical interaction. Besides that, the complete falsity of this type of reasoning is evident.

A good and loyal American citizen does not have to believe in God. I don't think you will find a stipulation in the Constitution that refers to mandatory deportation for atheists. In fact, most people falsely assume that it's required to swear “to God” to witness in an American court of law; however, witnesses have a right to just "affirm" that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No gods, Bibles, or anything else religious need to be involved.

Also, let's consider an argument that still rages today. Did the founding fathers intend religion to play a part in government? The answer is pretty unclear in some respects, yet the fathers were especially concerned about the separation of Church and State. Charles L. Cohen, PhD, Director of the Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions, wrote on July 18, 2006

"The Framers did consider religion an important source of social morality - but they also knew that religious broils could destabilize governments, and, more than almost anything else, many of them feared denominational conflict."

Allen Jayne, PhD, author of the 1998 book Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, and Theology, wrote in a 1999 article "Jefferson's Philosophical Wall of Separation" published in the Humanist:

"Since its inception, the United States has never had a religious war despite divisive sectarian differences. And in times of crisis, minority religions have supported the government because it has, for the most part, maintained a position of neutrality among its many religions and denominations. This is because the 'wall' or religious freedom law causes all religious groups to be seen and treated equally in the eyes of that law-or, as Jefferson put it, has the effect of 'putting all on equal footing'...

Like it or not, America demographics have changed considerably in its short history. Consider some current facts and trends in America, the land of the people:

* In 2007, the Pew Forum found that the percentage of non-religious Americans had doubled, up to 16 percent.

* In 2010, Putnam and Campbell's national survey put the percentage at 17 percent.

* In 2011, the General Social Survey reported it at 18 percent.

* This year, the Pew Forum bumped it up to 19 percent.

What "God"?

If the United States is a nation “under God,” what God is the nation currently "under"? The use of "under God" in the Pledge as referenced in the Legion sign clearly refers to a particular belief, monotheism, that many people -- not only atheists, but members of religions such as Buddhism -- do not share. This official reference to a single God may well strike nonbelievers as an act of exclusion. Many of these very people do now serve or have served in the United States military.

The U.S. military is making every attempt to meet the diverse spiritual needs of America's fighting forces, and it's no easy task. One only has to look at the history of armed service chaplains to see this.

A. Buddhists

In 1990 the Army made the decision to create an insignia for future Buddhist chaplains, and the Armed Forces Chaplains Board (the board made up of the three Chiefs of Chaplains and active-duty Deputy Chiefs of Chaplains for the Army, Navy, and Air Force) began working with the Army's Institute of Heraldry. The design was completed in August 1990, representing the dharmacakra (the "wheel of dharma" or sometimes, "wheel of law"), an eight-spoked wheel "representative of religious observances.

When Thomas Dyer went to Afghanistan in December, 2009, the former Marine and one-time Southern Baptist pastor didn't take a rifle with him. He didn't take a Bible, either. Instead, Dyer, a Tennessean National Guardsman from Memphis and the first Buddhist chaplain in the history of the U.S. Army, went there to bring serenity and calm, honed by months of intensive meditation. He brought spiritual care in the midst of a war zone.

(Bob Smietana, "Buddhist Chaplain is Army First," in USA Today

from The (Nashville) Tennessean, September 8 2009)

Buddhists? In the United States Military? Read on...

"Today there are more than 3,000 Buddhists serving in the U.S. armed forces, including some Buddhist chaplains. Today's Buddhist soldiers and sailors are not the first in the U.S. military. During World War II, approximately half of the troops in Japanese-American units such as the 100th Battalion and the 442nd Infantry were Buddhists."

(Barbara O'Brien, "War and Buddhism Buddhist Teachings on War," About.com, 2012)

B. Muslims

On December 14, 1992, the Army Chief of Chaplains requested that an insignia be created for future Muslim chaplains, and the design (a crescent) was completed January 8, 1993.

Contrary to the belief of many Americans, thousands of Muslims are serving honorably in the U.S. military. Out of the 1.4 million service men and women serving actively in the American military, an estimated 3,700 are Muslim, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

These Muslims fight to save foreign countries and to prevent the spread of terrorism -- a fight between a modern pluralistic democracy and intolerant murders who have hijacked one of the world's great faiths.

Listen to what Colonel Douglas Burpee, the highest ranking Muslim officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, has to say. Burpee is now in his 23rd year of military service, and he recently returned from flying helicopters in Afghanistan:

"These people who commit terrorism have just adopted the face of Islam - nothing they say or do have anything to do with Islam," he says. "The Taliban is a terrorist organization - they are bad people doing bad things and they've attached religion to it. They are ruthless when it comes to killing people, but that's how you move helpless people around - you use fear."

(John P. Avlon, "Muslims in the Military," The New York Sun, April 21 2006)

Just read this report to see that not all U.S. soldiers worship the same God:

"Each Friday, soldiers in battle-dress camouflage here (Fort Lee) remove their boots, face Mecca and prostrate themselves, heads bowed to the carpet in obedience to Allah. "In the military base's Islamic Chapel Center, they recite their Jumah prayers, following the lead of Capt. James Yee, a West Point graduate and a convert to Islam who is chaplain of Fort Lewis' largest battalion."

(Mike Barbe, "Muslims in the U.S. Military Are as Loyal as Any, Chaplain Says,"

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 19 2001)

C. Hindus

As of 2011, a Hindu faith community endorsing agency was approved by the Department of Defense and began to seek volunteers to serve as Hindu chaplains in the U.S. military.

Do Hindus, Sikhs, and Gurkhas serve in the U.S. armed services? Remember the population of people of the Indian origin is less than .003% of U.S. population. Take a look at some statistics from U.S. Joint Forces Data (2005-2006):

US Army: 1,200

US Navy: 3,500

US Air Force: 900

US Marines: 350

To me, the sender of the message "one nation under God" implies that God is a Christian God. I don't think people can honestly wriggle out of this connotation by saying, "The Legion sign could mean the United States under any god." Come on, now. Let's be honest.

I hope I have shown them in this post that many service personnel do not worship the same god. (And, how about those Native Americans who hold old spiritual beliefs?) These Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and others serve the nation with distinction.

Also, non-theists are a significant part of the U.S. military. The non-theistic, whether an atheist, humanist, agnostic, freethinker, or other secular minority, have a strong community that is pushing for its own chaplaincy in the Service. Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics.

Jason Torpy, a former Army captain who is president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, says, “Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews. It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.”

 

(James Dao, “Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the Military,” The New York Times, April 26 2011)

I assume that people who appreciate the Legion sign believe that those who don't believe in God are not worthy of citizenship, much for service or for active military duty.

Again, it is pretty stilted thinking to believe that people should "take God or leave America." As repulsive as Atheistic belief may be to many past and present service members, it is unfair to deny those who do not believe in a Higher Power their due respect, honor, and liberty. Our nation allows freedom of religion, the freedom to worship any religion or no religion.

We live in an American democracy and treasure our freedom of choice with the largest capital "F." Here, in my America, I do not have to agree with your philosophy to consider you an equal. Your FREEDOM must take precedence over my beliefs and over any oppressive matters of State.

 

“Persecution is not an original feature

in any religion; but it is always

the strongly marked feature

 of all religions established by law.”

 

 -Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason