Ethical Universe

Topigraphical view of human psyche

Of all the changes and additions I’ve made to this website over the last year, the one that has generated the most interest is by far the ethical quiz.  I make this observation based on the comments left by readers; the vast majority of them have been on this posting. Shortly after adding this as a separate web page, I did two things that may well have confused some folks: first I expanded the character evaluation to include a section on determining the direction of extremism indicated in addition to calculating the magnitude of the extremism. The second thing I decided to do simultaneously (and herein lies the rub, I think) was to make the new section of the quiz a separate post in addition to updating the separate page for the quiz. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. I later deleted the separate posting because it seemed redundant; but, there still appeared to be some confusion for some people. So, in an attempt to further explain the quiz concept and also respond to some reader’s call for more info on this subject, I decided to talk a little more about the quiz.

There were a couple of reader comments that indicated the writer was motivated to fake an illness as an excuse to skip a day of school and/or work in order to work on the quiz. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but, I’m not at all sure this is a good idea. First of all, let me reiterate that the quiz was never intended to be a detailed psychological evaluation. It therefore should not be taken all that seriously. I even suggested that it be thought of as a parlor game to convey this message to everyone. Secondly, I never dreamed that the quiz would be seen as complicated enough to warrant spending all day on it. To my way of thinking, the most difficult part of the quiz is the self-evaluation that must precede running the numbers, so to speak. Unless someone is suffering from a great deal of personal angst or has some serious unresolved conflicts in their life, this self-evaluation should not take all that long. I would also say that I see nothing wrong with experimenting a bit with possible character scenarios for you. This basically amounts to playing a few “What if” sessions before deciding on the one that probably fits your true character structure best. Please understand that I am not talking about stacking the deck to insure a favorable outcome – there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by falsifying the input numbers. But, nevertheless, I have seen cases where people were simply being too harsh a critic of themselves – this of course, can lead to someone feeling unduly demoralized. This is definitely not my intention. I would much prefer the experience to be insightful and uplifting. I believe the underlying message should be that we are more in charge of our character structure and therefore future than many previously thought. There is no real mystery to what makes up human character structure and it can be changed; not easily perhaps, but it can be done with some determination.

By contrast, there have also been several readers that reported having an epiphany as a result of reading and playing around with the quiz. I myself can relate to this kind of feeling. I certainly went through something of this sort upon discovering the tenants underlying the quiz; but, this took place over a period of years and after all, the ethical quiz is really the essence of the whole ethical system being presented. In fact, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the ethical quiz is really Ethical Universe applied.  I must say that hearing these reports is very flattering to me as the author; but frankly they also give me pause. It’s a bit worrisome to think that some people might be so taken by the quiz and what it implies that they might feel blown away to the point of making a rash life-altering decision of some kind. My sober advice to these people is take a while to digest what they are feeling. Then talk it over with a trusted advisor that knows them very well who can also assess any plans they might be contemplating before acting on them. There is certainly nothing wrong with spontaneity and acting on some of our impulses; but foolhardiness is something else again, especially when major life decisions are at stake.

Let us now switch gears and talk about the quiz itself a little more. But first, I want to make a general point. No matter how much I write about the quiz, short of republishing the book piecemeal, I will not be able to cover all the details and background material that is contained in the book. This is especially true of all the graphics in the book used to explain the concepts being presented. I can, however, feel for the readers that want more information. So, I’ll try to expand on the info as much as practical; but, if people really want the full picture, they should plan on buying the book. The ebook version is currently selling for $9.99.  As with most, if no all, ebooks, there is no index in this version, but an electronic book does permit one to search for material which is a really nice feature I use all the time even though I wrote the book! Nevertheless, some people will be happier with the traditional hard copy available from the publisher and all major retailers including Amazon.com. Another general point that needs to be made is that the whole concept underlying the Ethical Universe should be considered as being based on Freudian Psychodynamics modified to some extent. I am tempted to call it neoFreudian. However, since the book is more closely based on the work of Dr. Erich Fromm, the renowned social theorist, philosopher and psychoanalyst, it would be more appropriately called neoFrommian. I feel roughly the same way about Erich Fromm as Fromm himself felt about Sigmund Freud. He was a brilliant theoretical thinker and innovator in the social science arena. But given all that he tried to accomplish, it would have been impossible for him to get everything right the first time. So, I wound up accepting what I felt was the best contributions made by both Freud and Fromm and left the rest. I was also greatly influenced by the work of Aristotle, Carl Jung and especially Frederich Nietzsche, the often bombastic and iconoclastic German philosopher of the late 19th century. Nietzsche had a tremendous impact on 20th century thought, much of which we still live with today; but, again he did not get it all right either. I spend a lot of time discussing these great men’s work in the book and attempt to interweave their theories into a rational whole.

Now back to the quiz itself. I saw no reason whatsoever to reject Freud’s fundamental topography of the human psyche. The drawing at the beginning of this article is Figure 8 in the book, which is a slightly modified version of the one Freud himself used in several books describing Psychoanalysis. Probably the biggest departure from Freudian concepts (or those of the other thinkers mentioned) is adding the notion that human passions must be treated like vectors. This admittedly is a big step. Therefore, I spend a great deal of time in the book justifying this concept. In summary, the justification goes somewhat as follows: All forces in nature are considered by science to be vectors with magnitude and direction. Since human passions are part of nature and are, of course, forces in the psyche, they also must be treated like vectors. In order to make any sense, vectors must be displayed in a coordinate system of some kind. The system I chose to use is a Cartesian coordinate system. Here, when basic vectors are plotted along the 3 dimensions, (x, y and z axes), and added together like vectors (i.e., using Pathagoran’s Theorem) we get a resultant vector that will indicate any of an infinite number of possible points in a sphere, or globe if one prefers. Vectors are really no more mysterious or esoteric than this.

In the Ethical Universe, the axes are assigned values describing the ego, id and superego consistent with Freud’s topography.  When we add these values as the vectors they are, we get a resultant vector that characterizes the entire psyche. If one accepts that the ego, id and superego is all there is in the human psyche, then this seems like an entirely reasonable way to treat human passions and also says that representing the psyche as a sphere which contains all possible ethical positions is equally valid.

Now to depict the ego, I basically use Freud’s Theory of Narcissism. In it’s most simplistic form, this turns out to be the difference in magnitude between our love for ourselves and our love for mankind in general (not just our lover or significant other). This part of Psychodynamics was anticipated by Frederich Nietzsche – only he called it the “Inversion of Man.” What this theory basically says is that any love that is directed outwards to other people that is not accepted or otherwise rejected gets reflected back to the person’s own self or ego.  When this process is carried to an extreme we have the essence of narcissism, a very serious mental disorder.  If for any reason no feelings of love for self exists, we have what we call the “Herd-Instinct.”  This is an equally debilitating mental condition where a person simply follows the pack that can take the form of parental worship, complete dedication to a group (secular or religious) or simply public opinion or common knowledge or customs etc..

In the case of the id, I basically use Freud’s Theory of Aggression. This theory was also covered by Nietzsche’s “Inversion of Man.” Here we have any feelings of external aggression towards others that is twarthed for whatever reason can and usually does get reflected back to the individual self. This results in all kinds of bad feelings for one’s own person and taken to an extreme can result in self-destructive behavior and even suicide. If no feelings of external aggression ever are reflected back and are allowed to progress and fester, the result is what we call “Blood-Thirsty.” Now we are probably talking about homicidal killers, stalkers and child molesters etc.

The depiction of the superego in the Ethical Universe is decidedly the least Freudian of all the concepts presented. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Freud was definitely not a moralist by choice. In fact he had mostly contempt for philosophy in general. Freud made a conscious decision to take this stand and much preferred to consider himself a man of science. Unfortunately, Freud did not strictly abide by his own rule; he often took excursions into old legends that bordered on fantasy at times. Erich Fromm severely criticized his hero for not taking advantage of a “Golden Opportunity” to advance the study of ethics which is after all the proper subject matter of the human psyche. Fromm also accused Freud of contributing to the erroneous notion of social relativism to which he (Fromm) was staunchly opposed. Fromm firmly believed, and I agree, that a proper “Science-of-Man” definitely does not lead to social relativism.  The best way I can think of to characterize the superego in the Ethical Universe is by calling it a confluence of Aristotle’s Golden Means doctrine, Erich Fromm’s social and psychoanalytical philosophy and Fredrich Nietzsche’s moral philosophy.  It, of course, took a lot of study and deep introspection to arrive at this position.

What I wound up doing was presenting the superego axis as basically where we look for moral and ethical guidance; or more succinctly where we place our feelings of devotion. So, at one extreme we have what I call the ‘literal’ position. This is where people do no moral thinking for themselves, but rather fully accept ethical precepts from an external source unquestioningly. This is a very scary position where we find absolutists of all stripes and even suicide-bombers etc.  The other extreme is what I call pernicious relativity. This is also a scary position that is very close to what Nietzsche called nihilism, what he thought was the opposite of the Ascetic Ideal and the scourge of 19th century Europe – hence the famous (or infamous) quote, GOD IS DEAD! At this position there are no absolutes of any kind, all moral positions are a matter of taste and we all live in a meaningless world – we definitely see too much of this kind of thinking in modern America today, perhaps  in all of Western civilization.

In general, all positions in the Ethical Universe conform to the basic idea behind Aristotle’s Golden Means. In essence, this doctrine says that all virtues are framed between two ‘sins.’ This notion also agrees with Nietzsche’s concept of “too much of one thing and not enough of another is not good by definition.”

I am going to cut this discussion off at this point for fear of it getting too long. I will plan on picking back up on this subject matter in a future post. Thanks for reading. John McAlister

Image from NYDailyNews

I think it is fair to say that the ‘Juice’ really got squeezed as his luck ran out in Las Vegas last week. An all-white jury found him guilty of all 13 counts this past Friday – they had deliberated for 13 hours. Judge Jackie Glass appeared to be unmoved by Simpson’s 5 minute apology and plead for leniency when she characterized the charges against him, “a very violent event.”  The Judge sentenced Simpson to 9 to 33 years, which should make him eligible for parole in 9 years.  The charges against Simpson included armed robbery and kidnapping, serious felonies for sure. Simpson and co-defendant Clarence Stewart are both appealing conviction on 2 of the counts, assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping. They could possibly be set free temporarily while the appeal case goes forward, but that has not yet been decided by a 3-member panel of judges.

As serious as these charges are against Simpson, they pale by comparison to the double homicide charges he faced in the 1994 brutal murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and friend Ron Goldman. I doubt there is anyone on the planet who does not know Simpson was acquitted of those charges. It’s also pretty widely known that 72% of Americans still believe he was guilty of the murders and dodged a bullet with the help of the ‘Dream Team, orchestrating the ‘Trial of The Century.’

As if to prove the adages, ‘the truth is stranger than fiction’ and history often repeats itself,’ there is an ironic twist to this sorted tale of a fallen hero, sunk to the depths of ignominy. One of the pieces of O.J. Simpson items presented at trial, as an example of the memorabilia being contested by the parties was a picture of O.J. with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Now, most adults will remember that Hoover and his team were hard after the notorious mobster, Al Capone back in the 1930s. They could not make a murder charge stick on this wily criminal and wound up settling for an Income Tax evasion charge. They made that stick and sent Capone to prison for 8 years or so on the lesser charge. As it turned out Capone had contracted syphilis at some earlier point and later died a horrible death from it after being released from prison.

I feel very confident that the Brown and Goldman families would not shed a tear to see the parallel rounded out by having O. J. contract an incurable disease (like say AIDS) while in prison and suffer the same fate as Al Capone!  This outcome would not, of course, prove that crime doesn’t pay; but it would go a long way towards restoring some people’s including my faith that our criminal justice system is not completely broken beyond repair. John W. McAlister

image from Google

I have commented on Tiger Woods’ situation several times on this blog, most notably back in March of this year, prior to the 2010 Masters. I said at that time, and I still believe that Tiger will find it exceedingly difficult to rise to the level of greatness he enjoyed for years. With his well documented penchant for being an almost unbeatable front-runner, if Tiger can’t win after leading the field by 4 shots going into the final round, when can he win? From Tiger’s perspective, this was as important an event as a major championship because losing meant going all year without a tour victory. Make no mistake about it, Tiger Woods is still a phenomenal player and a constant threat to break out his slump and have everyone chasing him again. Tiger Woods is still a top-notch player and a very dangerous opponent. The simple fact that he could shoot the first 3 rounds in the 60’s and tie for the lead after the final round speaks volumes about this uncommonly competitive man. But most of the kudos this time have to go to Graeme McDowell for coming from behind and tying the score in regulation – his 2 clutch putts on the 18th hole for birdie, the first one in regulation and the 2nd in the playoff for the win were something to behold. This is the stuff of legend; only this time it was not Tiger pulling off another miracle. I truly believe other players on the tour have become emboldened against Tiger and really think they can beat him. We’ll have to wait, however, for the first major of next year to know whether Tiger is ready to (or even can) resume his assault on Jack Nicklaus’s record of 19 major championships. I used to say Tiger was a shoo-in to overtake Jack; but, now, I believe the odds are much longer. I personally do not think he is up to the challenge; he has done so much damage to his own psyche that he will probably beat himself rather than by other players heroics.

Image from Google

Not only does this bill suffer from an image problem that will most probably put it on hold; it brings back some painful memories for this writer which I will discuss in a following post.

First, the bill itself: The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act is not a brand new idea. It has long been recognized, on both sides of the aisle in the US Congress, that some alien minors have been caught in a vicious cycle, or trap if you prefer, that they personally had no control over; many of these kids were brought here illegally (usually by their parents) prior to their 16th birthday had little or no say in the decision – they were simply doing what their parents told them to do.  Even though many of these young people were extraordinarily motivated to do well in school (which is not unusual for alien minors), they are handicapped by undocumented status. Therefore they are unable to compete for financial aid, on a level playing field, to continue their education; in fact, they have to maintain a low profile for fear of being exposed and possibly deported. Consequently, these kids are more or less excluded from the traditional American ‘Dream’ of succeeding by hard work and becoming the best they can be.

I called this a bi-partisan bill because Orrin Hatch, Republican Senator from Utah, is considered by many to be the pioneer of this legislation because he first sponsored the original bill in the Senate back in 2003 but it failed to pass. The current version of the bill is being sponsored by Republican Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois and co-sponsored by Republican Senator Charles Hagel from Nebraska and Republican Senator Richard Lugar from Indiana. Interestingly, the Republicans in the senate are also considered to be the main obstacle of the bill’s passage – a new twist on Grid-Lock in Washington, perhaps?

NOTE: While writing this post, we have some breaking news from the US Senate. On Thursday, Dec 9, Democratic Leader, Harry Reid has blocked debate on the bill thereby essentially putting it on hold in this session of the Senate. It will presumably come up again in the next session. Reid apparently knew that he did not have the votes to push the bill through in this lame-duck session.

Let us now focus on the image problem I mentioned in the title. The single biggest roadblock for this otherwise humanitarian bill is the perception by many thinking and caring people in this country (especially amongst Republicans) that this is an amnesty bill. In my view, this part of the problem goes far beyond mere politics as usual. I say that because, the bill clearly is a form of amnesty! Even though it appropriately attempts to ease some of the ‘sins’ of the parents being visited on their innocent children, the bill seeks to forgive young people who have worked hard and kept their nose’s clean so to speak, it is still amnesty for having broken our laws. At a time of wide spread economic hardship throughout our country, many people sincerely believe this is not the right time for forgiveness, especially at the possible expense of law-abiding citizens that are being stretched to the limit due to no fault of their own either. The only kind of ‘dream’ legislation that I believe will receive wide support throughout the country, are plans putting the American ‘Dream’ back within the reach of ordinary citizens – those who are in danger of losing their businesses, homes and, of course, the opportunity to send their own kids to college.

Another part of the image problem I see is the simple fact that the bill’s name is an acronym; and not just another acronym, but one with a similar name as a rather infamous catch phrase (though not an acronym itself) from a few years ago.  In general, I believe that people have come to distrust acronyms as clever word play (which, of course, they are). I further believe that many times, in an attempt to make the label a riveting sound-bite, some important sub-issues are glossed over, thereby misleading people intentionally or not. The particular catch phrase with the toxic association is, of course, the multi-million dollar ‘Dream Team’ lawyer group that was assembled by O.J. Simpson that successfully defended him against what seemed like an air-tight case of double homicide back in 1995.  The Team’s masterful use of the race card and impugning the honor and integrity of the entire LAPD put the wrong people on trial in front of the whole world.  And speaking of catch phrases that should make a rap star envious, who can forget the mantra, “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit?” This debacle will no doubt go down as one of the most racially polarizing issues in American Jurisprudence in recent memory; and 10 years is not nearly long enough to heal this wound on our national psyche – not only did it severely harm our collective faith in American Justice, it set race relations back years, especially in the minds of white voters.

Judge Ito’s circus is certainly not the biggest obstacle to passage of the Dream Act; but, it is a factor nonetheless. If I were a legislative aide with the leadership’s ear, I would definitely recommend a change of names for this worthy cause.

Before moving on, let me also mention another negative point of view, voiced by several Republicans in the Senate that should be addressed: This stand-alone bill says nothing about bringing under control the flood of illegal immigrants coming across our borders on a daily basis.  A comprehensive overhaul of our immigration policy veritably cries out for attention. Arizona has been left swinging in the wind in its attempt to address part of the problem. The real issue needs to be recognized for what it is – a North American problem.  Since the vast majority of illegal immigrants are coming from Mexico and Central America, these countries must be part of the discussion and therefore the solution; we must not, of course, leave out our neighbors to the north, Canada – a multi-national dialogue is definitely called for here.

I personally believe that any attempt at reforming our immigration policies should be combined with a direct assault on another huge losing proposition, the war on drugs. This is another North American problem. As I have said before, to call the current flood of illegal drugs coming from Mexico along with the attendant bloody massacres down south, a Mexican problem is hypocrisy on a massive scale. After all, the vast majority of cash and ammunition fueling this insurrection (correctly called as such by Secretary-of-State, Clinton) are coming from the USA. Let us admit our culpability in this messy affair and join forces with our neighbors to finally bring it to an end – legalizing pot in the USA would be an excellent place to start. Country singer Willie Nelson is absolutely correct on this issue – see the post back in Sept of this year for more details.

Image of Roman Senate from www.lifeinthefastlane.ca

When I started this blog about a year ago, I was very anxious to receive comments – I was practically begging people to leave them. They were and still are the best way I know to find out whether you are getting through to people and what they like and dislike about the site. I have received enough now to realize that they can be a double-edged sword. So, I felt it was time to elaborate on the policy I am using to decide whether to approve comments or not. So here goes:

In general, I still very much encourage people to share their thoughts with me and, of course, the other readers. I would also like to see more examples of mini-debates on the issues presented in the posts. Below are a few guidelines I would like everyone to consider before leaving a comment.

First, the comment must be relevant to the website as a whole or specific to a particular post or other comment. I receive many comments that where most probably not written by a human. My marketing advisor tells me there are internet bots out there that do nothing but search for sites that allow comments without registration, which I made a conscious decision to do and still do. These bots are written in a way that leaves vaguely worded comments of a general nature that could usually be said about any site. These comments are also usually of a positive nature being designed to increase the chance of being approved. At first, I wasn’t being careful enough and approved most of these comments. My position now is that the comment must appear to be written by a human being, not a robot.

Another thing I was being too lax on was paying attention to the website that was listing the comment. I have learned that the whole purpose of these robot programs is to generate as many backlinks as possible which in turn can raise the importance of the site in the view of the search engines like Google, Yahoo and Bing etc – the more backlinks, the better. One of the most egregious cases of this type of abuse occurred when I approved a positive comment that turned out to be from a hard-core porn site! I’m sure I don’t have to tell that I was not amused by the irony of a porn site having a backlink on a website dedicated to ethical behavior! I am eternally grateful to my marketing coach for spotting this before it was out there too long. I’ve since been much more careful about the listed sites for a comment. There have been at least a dozen cases of porn sites attempting to get a backlink on Ethical-Universe.com in this way – my Google Page Rank of ‘1’ apparently is important to these programs.

I would also like to make it clear that a comment does not have to agree with me in order to be accepted. However, it also appears that most people do not use a valid email address – I almost always get a delivery error message when trying to send a communication to a commenter explaining why I rejected their comment. I am not going to approve a comment just so I get the opportunity to state why I don’t want to publish it!

As I said earlier, debate that is lively but civil is very much welcome on the site. I most certainly do not expect that everyone will agree with my point of view; so, please do not be bashful about writing rebuttals to my posts or other people’s remarks. I just ask that any disagreement be civil and definitely not personal attacks on someone’s character or hate messages of any kind. AND, please try to stay on point – a rambling response is not helpful to anybody and will most probably not be approved. Let me also say that any comment must reference the site in general or a particular post or comment – pure advertisements for some product or site will not be accepted – I will limit comments to relevant ethical issues.

Finally, I want to say a word or two about the purpose of the site. I most certainly want it be a forum on ethical issues of the day; a place where honest debate is encouraged. A secondary purpose is for me to promote my book Ethical Universe, either in ebook or hardcopy form. I have had quite a lot of comments asking me to elaborate on some point. I do not wish to be crass, but I do wish to make two points here:

1) In a lot of cases, it would require a great deal of work and space to supply all the details that are naturally contained in a 360 page book.

2) I would like to sell more books because it costs money to run the website and it would be nice to cover my expenses; I doubt seriously I will ever recover all my expenses in writing, publishing and promoting the website and the book. I still want to continue supplying thought provoking posts as long as possible; but I can not do that indefinitely without support from book sales. I’ve told a couple of people that if they want more details on a topic, they should consider spending a few bucks and order the book.

Thank you all for your support of the site and I hope these guidelines will be useful to you.

John W. McAlister

image from New York Daily News

Sadism is always as bizarre as it is hideous. But, I can not for the life of me understand why Sparkle Daniel wasn’t convicted of felony-murder (1st degree murder) and sentenced to death. There is no doubt that this was a sadistic act. One of the gruesome hallmarks of sadism is the intense desire of the sadist to watch the victim suffer in pain and agony up close and personal – if Sparkle and her accomplice had a shred of compassion they would knocked the helpless 91-year old, beloved grandmother, Nellie Hocutt, unconscious before performing their hideous cover-up acts, if that’s what they truly were.

The Bronx DA has one more chance to get it right, when the alleged accomplice goes to trial. May justice be served this time! John W. McAlister

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals okays police to plant GPS tracking devices on vehicles parked in one’s driveway! This group needs to get a real job because they are not doing the one they have.

I left a comment at ComputerWorld.com that goes something like this:

“I think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be put out of business. This is one of the most (if not the most) liberal circuits in the country and I do not trust any decision coming from this Orwellian trio. This is the same court that is scheduled to review the overturning of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages in California, by Federal Judge Vaughn Walker, beginning in December of this year. Walker’s ruling will most probably get a rubber stamp of approval.

Concerning GPS devices, no one should be able to legally plant a tracking device on anybody’s vehicle without court supervision. Police have no way of knowing who is actually driving the vehicle while it is being tracked – it could be stolen or even a neighbor could have borrowed the vehicle for goodness sake! Any judges voting to allow this unlawful behavior should be disbarred immediately and sentenced to community service for a few years.

John W. McAlister”

This sorry episode simply proves that our Judicial system is broke!

Original image by bilerico.com

Federal judge Vaughn Walker’s reversal of proposition 8 (which banned same-sex marriages) in California was a momentous event, to say the least. This smoking-hot public issue will, however, not end here. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments beginning in December of this year. Since this appellate court is considered by many to be one of the most (if not most) liberal in the country, many pundits are predicting that Walker’s ruling will be upheld. Then it’s off to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States). Based on the past performance of SCOTUS, it seems highly unlikely that they will make a definitive ruling on a sweeping case that has not been thoroughly debated at the state level.  So, the point here is that this fierce debate is just getting started and will most probably go on for years.  

The importance of this single issue for the cultural war in America can scarcely be over-stated. Nevertheless, one thing makes this case doubly important; that is one of the premises Judge Walker used in arriving at his ruling has the potential to affect many other areas of law. This main premise goes something like this: ethical norms, widely held moral beliefs or just plain tradition alone can not justify a law. The law must also have a ‘rational basis’ beyond these societal perferences before it can pass muster. Judge Walker ruled that banning same-sex marriages had no rational basis and denied equal protection under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution making the law unconstitutional in his view.

The use of this premise naturally raises the question of how many other areas of the law are simply based on ethical norms, widely held moral principles or tradition, but without a clearly stated rational basis? From this layman’s point of view, there may be many such areas like pornography, drug laws, prostitution and many so-called Blue-Laws (some of which are so anachronistic as to make them laughable).

So, owing to the on-going nature and potentially wide ramifications of Judge Walker’s ruling, I have decided to create a new website dedicated solely to this issue: www.prop8-judgewalkers-pandorasbox.info. I ask the reader to check out the new website and by all means join the discussion by leaving appropriate comments – not being a lawyer, I also need help adding to the list of other areas of the law that might be potentially affected.  Thanks for reading.

John McAlister 

On arriving in Edinburgh Scotland, Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech to the Queen and her entourage and guests. In his address, the Pope appears to equate atheism to Nazism and Hitlerism:

“Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.”

Richard Dawkins, the most well known atheist in the United Kingdom, perhaps the whole world, was obviously displeased (more like outraged) at this characterization. Dawkins also pointed out in his video that Hitler was no atheist, he further said that Hitler was baptized as a Roman Catholic and made many references to God in his speeches. Dawkins did not talk about it his video, but, he strongly supported the radical call to have the Pope arrested in England and hauled before an international tribunal formally charged with crimes against humanity for his complicity in the rape of so many innocent children committed by the Catholic clergy.

In Mein Kampf, the Nazi Bible, Hitler makes no reference to the eradication of God. He even pointed with pride to National Socialist Party (Nazi) meetings where devout Catholics and devout Protestant believers could set side by side working in great harmony for a common Fatherland. Hitler even stated that given the deeply spiritual needs of the German people, wiping out a religion was a bigger deal than wiping out the state itself.

Of course, what Hitler did want to eradicate from all of Europe was Judaism, and more particularly, all the Jewish people. Over and over again Hitler accuses the Jews of an international conspiracy to rule the world and felt strongly, to say the least, that they should be exterminated and driven from all of Europe. Hitler’s biggest concern regarding religion in Germany is that the Jews would use their ‘poisonous’ message to drive a wedge between the different Christian denominations and get them squabbling amongst themselves thereby diverting attention from the real problem – the Jews themselves.

So, I find myself agreeing with Richard Dawkins on at least one thing: Adolf Hitler was a monster, but, he was not an atheist.  He seems to have greatly feared and hated Marxism (that treats religion as an evil crutch and opiate of the people). Hitler fought very hard against communism in any form and believed this dangerous ideology was being pushed by international Judaism and should be banished from Europe along with its perpetrators.

Just in general terms, atheism was in no way compatible with the Fascistic mind of the Fuhrer of Germany. Rather than eradicating religion, Hitler seemed hell-bent on using his people’s addiction to Christianity to control them. He certainly understood the great power of symbolism and avidly supported and ostensibly worshiped distorted images of Christianity – like the swastika – which is a literally twisted version of the Cross, a false idol to be sure of the holy Trinity – to inspire and strike awe in the hearts of his countrymen.

Given all the serious gaffs and missteps lately, it seems to this writer that if the Pope is to survive the current dissatisfaction with the Roman Church, he desperately needs to clean house at Vatican City. He should start by firing all his speech writers and replace them with people that possess a clearer understanding of history. He also should surround himself with advisers that will encourage him to fess up for his sins of omission and commission regarding the cover-up of the ugly reality of pedophile priests being protected by the Church hierarchy – an apology or two is not going to suffice to put the Church back on track; some priests and Bishops richly deserve to be defrocked and sent to jail over this tragedy. Another thing this Pope should do is ease the staunch resistance to women in the priesthood! Females represent a tremendously rich resource that the Church should tap into in addition to them being mother figures in the form of nuns.