DISLOYAL IRAQI TROOPS SHOULD BE REMOVED

The Miami Herald published an article last Monday September 25 by Antonio Castaneda of the Associated Press with the heading, “Iraqi troops’ loyalty in doubt.” American soldiers are complaining Iraqi troops are uncooperative and will not follow orders effectively and efficiently. This is not due to laziness or ignorance. It is a conscious attempt to support Shiite militias while undermining our efforts to bring stability to the country. The Iraqi soldiers’ loyalty seems to be to the militias rather than the nascent coalition government, unless one refers exclusively to the Shiite faction of the government.

According to the report, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, a Shiite, is not responsive to U.S. military leaders call for the disbandment of the militias. With all this as background, many wonder what will happen after U.S. forces leave. Can the government maintain law and order? Will democracy fail?

In my estimation, unless the Iraqi government sends out the clear message that it represents all its citizens and not a particular group such as the Shiites, democracy will fail. Iraqi soldiers and everyone else must perform their duties impartially and show loyalty to the united Iraqi nation not to their own group or religious sect. The Iraqi government should establish laws prohibiting the organization of militias by Shiite clerics, Sunnis, or anyone else. Existent militias should be disarmed, and their leaders jailed if they refuse to abide by the new laws. A decisive nationwide campaign to eliminate or capture terrorists and their helpers should accompany the new laws. The public at large should know that the face prison or worse if they collaborate with the enemy.

If Prime Minister al Maliki and other leaders in the government refuse to take these necessary steps, then we should consider replacing them with people who know what it will take to make Iraq a free democratic republic. We should not allow the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds or any other group to control the Iraqi government to the detriment of the rest. We do not want a theocracy or a dictatorship in Iraq. We want a democracy, not for our sake, but for the sake of the people there. Only corrupt leaders and ignorant or masochistic people would prefer a government that is the antithesis of democracy.

Now is not the time to abandon Iraq. There will come a time, however, when the U.S. President and our Congress must decide if our continued efforts there are fruitless. As the saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink it.” It is up to the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government backed by Iraqi soldiers, to bring about and maintain a full democracy in that country. If they are not willing to pay the price, then why should we?

Recommended reading: Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 24 “Ercian Values and Ideals.”

THE TALIBAN AND THEIR COLLABORATORS ARE NAMUH

What is a namuh? The name “namuh” is the inverse of the word “human.” A namuh is a being that inhabits a human body, but does not have a human soul. People without a conscience, people whose lives are committed to evil are namuh. The Taliban are Namuh. They fit the description perfectly. These are ignorant and irrational individuals murdering whoever stands on their way. Their aim is to reestablish the same repressive regime in Afghanistan that was there before the United States intervened, i.e., a theocratic society whose people live (and die) by rules decreed through a radical interpretation of Islam.

This past Monday, September 25, the Taliban murdered Safia Hama Jan, a Taliban critic and women’s rights advocate. In the southern Afghan province of Kandahar, she held the post of provincial director of the Afghan’s Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Taliban gunmen on a motorcycle carried out the crime as she was leaving home in a taxi. Her great offense was to run a school for women. The Taliban considers the education of women goes contrary to what Muhammad preached or the spirit of Islam. Obviously, equal rights for women are not on the Taliban’s agenda. Dogs probably fare better under a Taliban regime.

This incident is only the latest attack. Earlier this month, Taliban insurgents killed the governor of the Paktia province. Between last year and this year, there have been over three hundred acts of violence against educational establishments. To say that the good people of Afghanistan are unhappy with the current situation is an understatement. The majority rejects the Taliban. They want peace and growth for their country, not what the Taliban has to offer.

If the Taliban are Namuh, so are those who collaborate with them. Recently, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai stated the Taliban are receiving help and recruiting troops in Pakistan. They are conducting operations in Afghanistan using Pakistan as their base. Karzai thinks Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is allowing this situation to go unchecked, something Musharraf denied. If Karzai’s allegations are true, the United States should pressure Musharraf to conduct campaigns that effectively destroy whatever Taliban strongholds exist in Pakistan. If that means jailing Pakistani sympathizers of the Taliban, so be it. Anybody who supports the Namuh is namuh himself or herself. That accomplished, we should increase our efforts in Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban permanently.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 25 “Heaven for Humans, Hell for the Namuh.”

IMPOTENT U.N. ALLOWS DARFUR GENOCIDE TO CONTINUE

Sudanese President Omar El Bashir and his government are obstructing the deployment of a United Nations force to Darfur. Since February 2003, the Sudanese government has engaged in the systematic extermination of black tribes, bombing villages, destroying crops and poisoning the water supplies. Mass starvation threatens to decimate the remaining refugees. So far, some estimates calculate 400,000 people have died.

Arab Janjaweed militias have aided those in power do most of the dirty work. The government provides weapons and support for the militias. Sometimes, they conduct joint operations. Together, they raze villages where their poor victims live, murdering and raping at will. There are reports of men and boys who bleed to death after suffering castration. The repeated raping of women by numerous assailants is commonplace.

My question to the United Nations is, “What are you waiting for?” Do you need permission from El Bashir to prevent this genocide from continuing? Forget about sanctions. Invade the country. Just go in there and set things right. Otherwise, what are you good for, United Nations?

Many of you sitting there are intellectual and moral hypocrites who know nothing about leadership or justice. That is why you laughed along with Hugo Chávez as he insulted and made fun of President Bush last week. That is why you gave that swine Chávez a four-minute standing ovation. That is why your countries are underdeveloped third world countries, because people like you are not fit to govern; and you are not fit to govern because you are despicable lowlifes. Do you see the connections?

In Darfur, we have ethnic cleansing taking place. Arab Muslims are killing black Muslims. Yet, the Islamic world is silent for the most part. Why is that? I know the Jewish people are not involved in the conflict. If the Jews were doing to the Palestinians what the Sudanese government is doing to these tribes, the Islamic world would have gone to war with Israel. Therefore, the current status quo is not acceptable. Otherwise, we would have to assume Islam condones racism and genocide. Extremists who call for the destruction of the state of Israel obviously support the latter, but I hope most Muslims do not.

It is up to whatever real leadership we can find in the United Nations to put an end to this episode. My hope is they do so quickly. Four hundred thousand victims are much more than the modern human conscience should be willing to bear. I do not think genocide is a category in which we should want to see world records broken. After the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazis in World War II, humankind said never again. I guess we forgot it during the Rwanda conflict, when hundreds of thousands Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutus. Now this has been going on in Darfur for three years while we watch passively.

Let us do something about it. The world needs cleansing, but it is not ethnic cleansing. We need to get rid of the criminal rulers and despotic regimes in our world. The sooner we do it, the better our world will be. If we do not come to the aid of people suffering persecution and annihilation, we should not expect any help if we find ourselves in the same situation.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 27, “Proligion Revisited.”

IRAQ WAR IS NOT THE SOURCE OF THE TERROR THREAT

The recent report by the National Intelligence Council indicates Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists. David B. Low, a national intelligence officer, said those who live after the war will have the experience necessary to spread the threat of terrorism elsewhere. Instead of curtailing terrorist activity, the report suggests the Iraq war has fueled Islamic radicalism all over the globe.

That the Iraq war added fuel to the fire is true, but Islamic radicals hated America anyway. The war just gave them an opportunity to display more of that hate, the same hate that brought about Nine Eleven, and the same hate that prevented alleged peace-loving followers of Muhammad from publicly condemning that brutal terrorist act.

When hundreds of terrorists flocked to Iraq at the beginning of the war, they did not join the fight out of love for their Islamic brothers. The same goes for those that have gathered there since. Sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites proves that point. What seems to motivate Islamic radicals and terrorists is the hatred of western civilization and a fascination with bloodshed. Their blood, our blood, it does not matter. A morbid attraction to violence, death, and destruction is evident.

I am not a trained psychologist, but I believe radical ideas, terrorism, and mayhem appeals to many of these persons because—as some say in the west— they have no life. People who have a good education, a good source of income, a good family, and live in a good society do not normally become terrorists. Therefore, the governments who become the breeding ground for terrorists share part of the blame. Poverty and the nonexistent prospects of living a good and decent life, drives people to choose avenues that lead to self-destruction. Many probably figure they are better off dead than living under such conditions.

I also believe part of the hate they feel for us is due to envy, envy of our freedoms and the way we live. They may not say so, but I believe it is true. If I lived in one of those impoverished places, I too would be envious. Maybe that is why so many Muslims emigrate to Europe and America. There and here, they find opportunities not available in their own nations. They should return the favor by becoming productive citizens and supporting their adoptive countries.

On closer examination, the main source of the terror threat is anger. That anger was there before the Iraq war, and will continue to be there after it ends, unless there is an overall change of consciousness among Muslims. Many terrorists and Islamic radicals are victims of the indoctrination that takes place from the time they are little children. Islam is not a liberal, flexible, and open-minded religion. Muslims grow up in an environment of negations and prohibitions. Rules, rules, and more rules everywhere they turn. In my estimation, when they become adults, they have to be angry at the world for making their lives so miserable. Instead of discovering the true source of their anger—since that would make them infidels—they become fixated on a surrogate enemy. That enemy is the western civilization, the countries of the developed world.

Deep inside, I truly think followers of Islam would like to live as we live, but their religious commitments do not allow them to do so. In some Muslim states, I believe the death penalty applies to people who convert to another religion. Therefore, many Muslims find ways of adjusting to their inherited religion and tradition. Extremists, however, cannot cope with that situation. Therefore, they try to destroy that which they cannot have or enjoy, namely, our way of life. “Why should those people in Europe and America be so lucky?” they probably ask themselves. “If we cannot live like that, why should they?”

My advice to the Islamic world is to open up to the West. Become more liberal. Become more flexible. Analyze in depth your religion, your customs, and your traditions to weed out those things that imprison the human spirit. Be humble and honest in deciding what is true and good. We do not want to lose you. Without you, we are only two thirds of the world more or less—I do not have the exact figures. I for one would like the human race to go forward together into our unknown future. Renounce violence. Renounce terrorism. Recognize the right of all good nations and people to live in peace and enjoy freedom. If you do that, many of us in the West will help you (all your peoples) achieve the highest good life possible. If you do that, Muhammad, Jesus, and Abraham would be proud, for I have no doubt they second my motion. If you do that, God would bless you, I am sure. Think about it.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part One, chapter 3 “The Psychology of the Chain.”

ISLAM NEEDS TO EVOLVE

The Miami Herald published a couple of reports this past Saturday September 23 that caught my eye. The first one is a (page 1A) piece by Alexandra Alter titled “For Ramadan, Young Muslims’ Devotion Has Higher Meaning.” It is about a group of students that meet every day at the Islamic Foundation of South Florida for the sole purpose of memorizing the Koran.

Those who can accomplish the arduous task earn the title of “hafiz.” Apparently, it is a great honor to do so. I disapprove of the practice. Yes, perhaps it helps people improve their capacity to memorize facts in other subjects, but it goes against the main intellectual function of the human brain, namely to use the power of reason to gain understanding.

Memorizing things by rote is unnecessary. We have books and computer files we can use as reference when the need arises. As long as we know how to read, there is no problem. Religion is too important an issue to accept the claims and doctrines of the holy books at face value. Instead, students should question and debate their veracity and worth. We are human beings. We are not parrots. Whether practiced by Christians to quote the gospels, or Jews to quote the Torah, or Muslims to quote the Koran, the memorization of verses is not conducive to our intellectual evolution.

The second report came from Mark Brunswick of the McClatchy News Service. It appears on page 23A with the heading, “Chaos imperils women, religious sects.” The article explains how dangerous things are in Iraq due to the increasing violence from various sources. Particularly vulnerable are religious minorities and women. The systematic persecution of the former is reducing their numbers considerably. Some wind up dead. Some leave the country.

As regards women, it appears many have died because of alleged “fire accidents.” Some women’s rights activists have complained to the U.N. stating he perpetrators burn those bodies to cover up the deliberate murder of these victims. Who are the perpetrators? What were their motives? Those questions come to mind.

It turns out the suspected killers are members of these women’s own families. The murders are punishment for "having sex outside marriage or leaving home without permission." In Islam, such conduct brings dishonor to the family. Okay, but are those good enough reasons to murder a human being? Definitely not, those are irrational decisions and criminal actions. The authorities should conduct investigations and bring the killers to trial. The judges and juries should agree on giving those found guilty the death sentence.

For these and many other reasons, Islam needs to evolve. No, Islam is not the only religion who could use the fruits of positive evolutionary forces, but it is the most conspicuous.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament – Part One, chapter 4 “Proligion.”

GOOD EFFORT BY MAHMOUD ABBAS

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas continues negotiating with Hamas to create a national unity government. The terrorist Hamas party emerged victorious in the last election, but their refusal to abandon violence and recognize the state of Israel resulted in the cutoff of aid to Palestine.

After months of economic sanctions, Hamas is feeling the strain in its ability to govern. That is one good reason the militant group is willing to reach a compromise with the Fatah party led by Abbas. However, they have stopped short of issuing a renunciation of violence and recognition of the right of Israel to exist.

Because Israel and the PLO exchanged letters of recognition back in 1993, we could surmise that Hamas recognizes Israel by accepting to abide by the agreements of previous Palestinian governments. That was Abbas assumption after a deal reached in early September. Hamas disagrees, stating they only agreed to accept those commitments they consider favorable to the Palestinian cause.

Evidently, Hamas is playing with words and not ready to conduct serious negotiations with Abbas. Their only aim in forming a coalition government is to end the boycott and begin receiving much needed aid. We should commend Mahmoud Abbas for his good efforts, and hope he does not cave in to Hamas’ irrational demands. Ill will towards Israel on the part of Hamas dooms the possibility of any fruitful negotiations that could lead to peace in the area.

The West should stand firm and not ease up on the boycott of aid to Palestine until Hamas renounces violence, agrees to recognize the state of Israel, and promises to abide by the agreements made by previous Palestinian governments. Hamas must meet those three conditions before the free world agrees to let the money roll in again. Even then, we must make sure Hamas remains true to their word. If they go back on their word and violate their own agreement, the United Nations should take whatever actions are necessary to remove Hamas from power. Peace in the Middle East is too important an issue, to leave it hostage in the hands of people who do not negotiate in good faith.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 27 “Proligion Revisited.”

GOOD EFFORT BY MAHMOUD ABBAS

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas continues negotiating with Hamas to create a national unity government. The terrorist Hamas party emerged victorious in the last election, but their refusal to abandon violence and recognize the state of Israel resulted in the cutoff of aid to Palestine.

After months of economic sanctions, Hamas is feeling the strain in its ability to govern. That is one good reason the militant group is willing to reach a compromise with the Fatah party led by Abbas. However, they have stopped short of issuing a renunciation of violence and recognition of the right of Israel to exist.

Because Israel and the PLO exchanged letters of recognition back in 1993, we could surmise that Hamas recognizes Israel by accepting to abide by the agreements of previous Palestinian governments. That was Abbas assumption after a deal reached in early September. Hamas disagrees, stating they only agreed to accept those commitments they consider favorable to the Palestinian cause.

Evidently, Hamas is playing with words and not ready to conduct serious negotiations with Abbas. Their only aim in forming a coalition government is to end the boycott and begin receiving much needed aid. We should commend Mahmoud Abbas for his good efforts, and hope he does not cave in to Hamas’ irrational demands. Ill will towards Israel on the part of Hamas dooms the possibility of any fruitful negotiations that could lead to peace in the area.

The West should stand firm and not ease up on the boycott of aid to Palestine until Hamas renounces violence, agrees to recognize the state of Israel, and promises to abide by the agreements made by previous Palestinian governments. Hamas must meet those three conditions before the free world agrees to let the money roll in again. Even then, we must make sure Hamas remains true to their word. If they go back on their word and violate their own agreement, the United Nations should take whatever actions are necessary to remove Hamas from power. Peace in the Middle East is too important an issue, to leave it hostage in the hands of people who do not negotiate in good faith.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 27 “Proligion Revisited.”

GLOVER LOVES CHAVEZ

What is it with some of these Hollywood types? Last Thursday, September 21, Hugo Chávez visited the Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Harlem. Actor Danny Glover was all smiles. He embraced the on-his-way-to-becoming-a-dictator leader of Venezuela and called him “a very visionary man.” If I recall correctly, Mr. Glover and Harry Belafonte visited Venezuela this year to praise the virtues of socialism and bash President Bush. The way I read them, their antagonism goes deeper than a partisan-fueled dislike of our President’s work. Before they loved Castro, and now they love Chávez. It seems to me they prefer socialist or communist systems to our democratic way of government. If not true, I apologize, but that is my perception.

If a majority of Venezuelans are dumb enough to elect this brute as President in the upcoming elections, it will not be long before he turns the country into his own plantation, as Castro has done in Cuba. Chávez is slowly but surely dismantling the democratic institutions that usually check and balance the power of the government. Some Venezuelans feel the poor are worse off than before. Instead of money for health, housing, education, and social services, Chávez is using the country’s riches from petroleum to achieve his political aims.

Some of the money goes into subsidizing and keeping Castro and the Cuban economy afloat. He has made similar commitments to Evo Morales in Bolivia. Furthermore, Chávez is spending petroleum dollars to bribe other nations. He hopes to gain one of the two Latin American nonpermanent seats on the U.N. Security Council. If he succeeds, it will give him a global platform from which to augment his campaign against President Bush and the American way of life. Make no mistake about it. Chávez does not want us to elect another president. He wants us to become communists a la Castro’s Cuba. That is the reason he promotes all-the-way-to-the-left Noam Chomsky’s book Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.

Chávez talks about the medical attention his people are receiving from Cuban doctors, but he does not mention these so-called doctors are nothing but hired slaves. The Cuban government owes them. They get minimal pay and have to go where Castro tells them to go. To avoid mass defections, Castro does not allow them to travel with their families. As I said before, these dictators run their countries as if they were the owners of a plantation.

My question to people like Danny Glover is, what is it that attracts you to these characters? Is it nostalgia for the days of black slavery? I doubt it very much. Then, why are you so set against the country that gives you the freedom to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Here in America you became famous. Here in America you have made a great living. More importantly, you did not have to sell your soul to do so. Granted, we are not perfect, but we are much better off here than in many other countries. Some of the people that do not make it in America have nobody else to blame but themselves. A lack of initiative and effort is a good part of the problem. Others do their best, but a lack of opportunity, environmental deficiencies, and other factors prevent them from reaching their goals. These we need to help.

If some people in Harlem or anywhere else in America are willing to trade freedom for handouts (from oil or whatever), then this capitalist and democratic country is not for you. Abandon our country. Do not try to undermine our way of government. Leave those of us who love America alone. Move to Cuba. Move to Venezuela. Celebrities like Danny Glover will do well. Regimes like the ones in Cuba and Venezuela can sure use good public relation advocates, as the Viet Cong did with Jane Fonda back in the 60's. The common people, however, will not do so well. Let them live there for a while as commoners. Let them experience what the masses have to go through to make a living. Then, let them try to complain or protest against the government, and see what happens. God bless America, land of the free, home of the brave!

THE NECESSITY OF A DOUBLE MORAL STANDARD

We see people using double standards in our world all the time. For example, you have recently witnessed the indignation of Muslims because the Pope cited a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said Islam was evil and inhumane. In some places, the protestors even burned American flags, being that—as everyone is aware—the Pope represents America. It is odd we did not see the Muslim masses protesting the evil and inhumane behavior of terrorists on Nine Eleven. They did not burn a Saudi Arabian flag, the country of origin of those terrorists. They did not burn the flag of states that support terrorism either. This is an example of the kinds of “double standards” people should avoid.

On the other hand, there is a necessity for a double moral standard I think completely justified. There are good and bad people in the world. Certainly, there are degrees of difference in both categories, but for our purpose, it does not matter. We should all agree that common criminals who have long records are bad people. They have committed their lives to evil. We should also agree that terrorists are bad people. They do not fight fair. They do not wear uniforms to avoid identification. Forget about facing the enemy and fighting with dignity. Furthermore, they are mercenaries represent no country in particular. We could not negotiate peace with them, even if we wanted to, because we would not know whom to contact. Finally, their favorite method of operation is sneaking around to maim and kill innocent civilians. In other words ladies and gentlemen, as regards terrorists, we have hit the bottom of the barrel (or close) when identifying bad people.

Somebody once asked Confucius whether we should repay malice with kindness. He said something to the effect that if we do that, then we would have nothing appropriate with what to repay kindness. Therefore, what we should do is repay malice with justice, and kindness with kindness (Wei-ming, 1993, p.141). I agree wholeheartedly, but go further in the development of this concept. We should not use the same rules when treating or judging bad people as we use when treating or judging ordinary citizens. Ordinary citizens can make mistakes and break the law, but they do not have a record of being committed to evil. My brand of justice believes that cruel and unusual punishment is proper for those who are unusually cruel.

God be my witness, my first philosophy was and is Christian. I wish all the good people of the world the best, and I would treat them the same way. Their religion, nationality, ethnic group, etc. etc., makes not difference to me. If you are a good person, may God bless you and all those you love. May you enjoy the blessings of living under a good government, one that worries about your welfare! May you enjoy the fruits of a good education and a good job! May all your dreams come true! If you were here in front of me right now, I would give you a big embrace because I do love you. However, however, however, there are many in the world separating our kind, those of us who want to live in peace with one another, and those of us who want to build rather than destroy.

We have to break the barriers that separate us. Religion is one of those barriers. That is the reason I wrote Ercian Testament. Do I respect Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? The answer is twofold, yes and no. Yes, I respect the right of every human being to seek God, and that includes every Jew, Christian, and Muslim. No, I do not respect the claims of supremacy and direct authority from God whether in reference to the Jewish prophets, to Jesus as Messiah, or to Muhammad as God’s prophet. I do not respect those claims because they are the source of all the conflict among these religions. My suggestion is, believe what you want to believe as long as you are humble and honest enough to call it beliefs and not knowledge. Become proligious and open yourselves to love all good human beings. If you do so, the Earth will witness an era of prosperity never imagined.

Politics is another barrier. We need a democratic world. No human being should be condemned to live under a totalitarian regime. For forty-seven years, the people of my country of origin Cuba have suffered under a terrible dictatorship. When will it end and who will end it? There are no weapons on the island, except those in the hands of the tyrant and his army. Venezuela and Bolivia are copying Massa Castro, the owner of the plantation retaining the name of Cuba, the name it had when it was a free and sovereign country. Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales are making big promises, appealing mainly to the poor. Those who believe them are trading freedom for measly handouts, selling their souls to two crude, incompetent, and ignorant leaders.

Neither these buffoons nor any other head of a nation has the right to violate our inalienable rights. The time has come to end all the oppressive regimes in the world and replace them with democratic republics. Why democratic republics, someone may ask? They should be our choice because democratic republics are fair systems of government. Free elections give people a voice as to who governs them; and in principle, democratic republics watch out for the welfare of all citizens including minorities. To top it off, there is (guess what?) freedom, allowing people to live their lives and pursue their goals as they see fit, without the government intervening every two seconds.

If I lost you with my tangential thinking, I am sorry, but I had to show you what is at stake for the human race here. It is going to be either a free democratic world, or one governed by despots (includes theocrats), or one in which we will all suffer due to the continual fighting between the two sides. Therefore, those on the side of democracy have to be realistic and flexible with their moral principles. We do need a double moral standard.

Who would want to torture a good human being? Not another good human being, I am sure. However, when dealing with terrorists, we should use whatever methods are at our disposal to deny them the blood of our innocent. If the CIA obtain intelligence an attack is in the works and they have prisoners believed to have information about the plot, I give them the authority to torture or do whatever they have to do to prevent the butchering of the good people of my country. Even if the information obtained under such conditions turns out to be unreliable, at least we gave it our best shot, besides making somebody pay for supporting the uncivilized means and ends of terrorism.

What is torture? Was it not torture for those people in the World Trade Center? What was it like for those above the flames? Take your pick, choose between burning alive or hitting the concrete floor after throwing yourself from a window one hundred stories high. Was it not torture for their families watching this crime against humanity at home? Is it not torture for those families now, living without one or more loved ones? Knowing all this, there are still those who think we should treat terrorists as human beings. They are not human. They are namuh, the inverse of a human. So that you know the Ercian definition, the Namuh are beings with human bodies but without a human soul, in other words, beings without a conscience.

Since relationships in the world are like two-way streets, we cannot always do unto others, as we would have them do unto us. If there is no reciprocity, we should not continue following that Christian rule. That is the reason for my second philosophy, Ercian Philosophy, one that complements and supersedes my Christian philosophy. For my part, as an Ercian, not only am I willing to go down to their level (in my dealings with terrorists or Namuh in general, not with innocent people), I am willing to go below their level.

When someone threatens our families and our way of life, we should turn into Mother Bear. Let us inflict damage wherever we have to, in order to save our cubs. Yes, it is unfortunate we have soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we did not start this war. Terrorists started this war on Nine Eleven. We should fight them wherever we find them and wherever good intelligence tells us they could be hiding.

A good number of people feel we did not have to invade Iraq, but we did. Now, there is no turning back. Look at it this way: we are getting rid of a butchering dictator, Saddam Hussein, and we are trying to bring democracy to that country. If the experiment fails, it is not the fault of democracy as a system of government. We can lay the blame on the ignorance of those who choose authoritarianism over freedom, those who prefer a theocracy or some other repressive regime instead of our good and blessed system. May God not have mercy on their souls! Do not forgive them Father, just because they do not know what they are doing. You and Mother gave them brains. They should learn how to use them, or pay for their negligence.

Bibliography: Wei-ming, T. (1993). Confucianism. In Arvind Sharma (Ed.) Our Religions (pp.141-227). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

TERRORISTS AND THE GENEVA CONVENTION

Following much debate, President Bush lost the battle with Congressional Republicans in his effort to clarify our country’s responsibilities regarding detainees under the Geneva Convention. Former secretary of state Colin Powell and Senator John McCain formed part of the opposition.

President Bush wants the CIA to have wide latitude in the use of methods of interrogation with confirmed or suspected terrorists. The opposition cites a couple of reasons for maintaining our commitment to the Geneva Convention. First, extreme methods of interrogation go against American moral principles. The world will not support our war against terrorism, if we violate those principles. Second, our enemies will feel entitled to abuse our soldiers when captured. The risk of the use of torture on U.S. prisoners of war will be greater.

I am with President Bush on this issue. American moral principles must be pragmatic. The war against terrorism is unlike any previous wars. The rules are different. I have always said, "Cruel and unusual treatment is proper for those who are unusually cruel.” I do not believe in “Let us not go down to their level.” I believe in going below their level, so that they fear us instead of us fearing them. Whatever they do to terrify us, we should duplicate, as long as we are dealing with terrorists, and not with innocent civilians. Our first duty is to protect our people and our nation. Refined moral attitudes will not help us one bit, if we are conquered for failure to use due force. We will all be at the mercy of our invaders. If you do not think it can happen, read some history books.

Powell and McCain think that by being nice in our treatment of terrorists, our soldiers will fare better when captured. In some cases, maybe they are right. Perhaps our prisoners of war can come across a terrorist group with a conscience every now and then. However, you have seen the beheadings on TV. Do you think people with that kind of mentality abide by standards of fairness? Do you think they consult the articles of the Geneva Convention when treating prisoners?

Why should the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists? Those international agreements governing the treatment of prisoners of war came at a time when wars were different. The same rules should not apply.

First, in previous wars, soldiers wore uniforms identifying the country for which they were fighting. Terrorists do not wear uniforms. One cannot easily identify them. Thus, there are no “moral” or “fair” rules of engagement in terrorist manuals.

Second, because countries fought other countries, there was always the opportunity to negotiate and reach agreements with one’s adversary or adversaries. With whom can we negotiate as regards terrorists? There are states like Syria and Iran fomenting terrorism, but they will not acknowledge it. Therefore, unless we wipe out all the terrorist networks—an unlikely scenario right now—this war will never end. We do not have even the opportunity to talk with our enemies to try to end it.

Third, on previous wars, the fight was mainly among soldiers. Terrorists attack civilians. It is their preferred method of operation. They killed over three thousand of our people in one single blow on Nine Eleven. In dealing with these kinds of monsters, are we to be concerned with Article 3 of the Geneva Convention? Are we supposed to worry about their “personal dignity”? Where—if not in Hell—is that dignity? They do not flinch before sending our people to horrible deaths, but we should avoid conduct that is “humiliating or degrading.” Give me a break.

In summary, it is the first duty of the President and Congress to ensure our safety. Our lives and the health of our nation are at stake. Terrorists are Namuh*. They belong in Hell, while humans belong in Heaven. To give the CIA wide latitude in handling detainees is an act of self-defense. Those who think otherwise are wrong. They will not be able to help us when disaster strikes again. Therefore, let the strong-minded lead the way.

*Namuh: the word “namuh” is the inverse of the word “human.” A namuh is a being that has a human body but does not have a human soul, someone without a conscience.

Recommended reading: Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 25 “Heaven for Humans, Hell for the Namuh.”

THE HERALD FAILS TO APOLOGIZE FOR ABUSE OF POWER

On Sunday September 17, Jesús Díaz Jr., the publisher of the Miami Herald attempted to clarify the reasons behind the firing of Herald reporters who were receiving pay for working at TV and Radio Marti. He failed to address certain questions convincingly.

Mr. Díaz cited Miami Herald policy, in particular this statement: “We demonstrate our principles by operating with fairness, accuracy and independence, and by avoiding conflicts of interest, as well as the appearance of conflicts of interest. Our news operations will be diligent in their pursuit of the truth, without regard to special interests.”

That same day, Ana Menéndez, a Herald reporter accuses Cuban exiles of being melodramatic, this coming from someone who often adopts outlandish positions, perhaps just to be contentious and establish that kind of a reputation. I guess controversy helps sell newspapers. Menéndez feels we overreacted. “Anywhere else it might have been just a controversial personnel issue,” she writes. Well, Ms. Menéndez, if the Herald had addressed those personnel issues in-house and in private, we would not be having this discussion. If the Herald felt there was a duty to disclose the information to its readers, why did it have to go front page? Answer these questions Ana. Who is being melodramatic in this whole situation? Who started it all by making a mountain out of a molehill?

In any event, getting back to Mr. Díaz, let us talk about fairness, since the Herald's policy statement requires it. Was it fair to publish your findings in the front page? Was it fair to include in that report journalists that do not work for the Herald? Was it fair to link this case with the journalist who took $240,000 to promote the government’s agenda? Are they in any way similar cases? By your standard of accuracy, was that accurate reporting? Finally, was it fair to give the impression these journalists were engaging in some unlawful activity? Was it fair to try to ruin their reputations?

On the subject of conflicts of interest, I must quote Mr. Díaz again. He says, “Our decisions, painful as they were, reaffirm our commitment that reporters and editors at our newspapers are free of even the hint of a conflict of interest.” That will never happen, Mr. Díaz. The reason is the absence of financial gain does not guarantee the nonexistence of a conflict of interest. It seems to me conflicts of interest also exist for ideological reasons.

For example, a reporter who believes in communism and the censuring of the press could work within our free press system to try to weaken democracy and the stability of our government. An ideological bias would taint his or her opinions, infecting the public accordingly. Instead of moving to a communist or totalitarian country, he or she would choose to work here. Using our free press to try to destroy it, and our way of life, is a conflict of interest.

Suppose the Herald decides to hire people who worked for the government media in Cuba. If they espoused the government’s ideology then, what is to assure us they have changed their minds? If they only did it for the money, can we trust their integrity? Therefore, because of ideological biases, if not a lack of personal integrity, no newspaper can guarantee its reporters are objective and free of a conflict of interest. Somebody should inform the Journalism Board of Ethics about it. I am informing the Herald.

In an attempt to clarify the Herald’s position on a number of questions and rumors, Mr. Díaz states that the paper has no plans to open a bureau inside Cuba. Then, he goes on to say, “Cuba rejects or does not respond to our requests for visas for our reporters.” Well, Mr. Díaz, which is it? Do you want to have reporters working in Cuba or do you not? Anyone could think you wrote what you wrote, the way you wrote it, to please the Cuban government, so that they would not reject your requests for visas in the future.

The reason for all these rumors and questions is that you violated your own policy, giving the appearance that a conflict of interest exists. Otherwise, why would you use the front page and the accusatory tone of that article to discredit reputable Cuban-exile journalists? Because the appearance that a conflict of interest exists, people can also put in question the objectivity of those “undercover” staff reporters the Herald has in Cuba now.

As regards the Cuban television program Mesa Redonda, Mr. Díaz is confident no one at The Miami Herald is passing information to the Cuban government. How can he be so sure? Castro planted the spy Ana Belén Montes in the Pentagon. Does Mr. Díaz feel the Herald has a tighter security system, better than the one at the Pentagon?

When it comes to conflicts of interest, there is a difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. The accused journalists are ideologically transparent. Every one knows their history as supporters of democracy and the principles that make this country great. Communicating those same views at TV and Radio Marti confirms their integrity and objectivity. A conflict of interest would exist if they had received pay for giving different views in some leftist media outfit. As your policy statement states, they were “...diligent in the pursuit of the truth, without regard to special interests.” They told the truth as they saw it, beliefs they had appropriated many years before. The word “propaganda” has a negative connotation. When used by the Cuban government to promote their nefarious system, it is false information. When used by TV or Radio Marti, propaganda equals truth, since it promotes the values of our superior democratic system of government. Anyone who disagrees with that statement is ideologically tainted, someone who does not believe in the American way of life.

If we do not have a free press, Mr. Díaz worries about who will protect us from the abuses of power in government. Although the public still has minds to think and fight the government with, that is a point well taken, and I commend the Herald for its many successful investigations fighting corruption in our communities. However, I would like to go further and ask, “Who will protect us from the abuse of power in the media?”

In my opinion, to the detriment of those accused and to the detriment of the true and faithful Cuban exile community, the Miami Herald is guilty of abusing its power to communicate with the public in this situation. More perplexing is the realization an apology is not coming our way.

What have you accomplished Mr. Díaz? We will no longer benefit from the expert reporting of those you fired. Reporters of Cuban origin or otherwise will now decline working for TV or Radio Marti for fear of public humiliation. What—with his usual sarcasm—Carl Hiaasen calls charity pay, I call payment for professional work. Unlike most Americans, in the Herald’s criterion, I guess journalists should not aspire to bettering themselves and their families by doing some extra work in their chosen field.

Instead of supporting a free press, your actions help block and undermine the freedom of the press. The people in Cuba will suffer for it, and we here in Miami are suffering for it. In my name and in the name of the many who feel like me, Miami Herald, I hold you in contempt. Mr. Díaz, may God give you the wisdom to see the light and the courage to make amends.

Joseph Marchante

THE HERALD FAILS TO APOLOGIZE FOR ABUSE OF POWER

On Sunday September 17, Jesús Díaz Jr., the publisher of the Miami Herald attempted to clarify the reasons behind the firing of Herald reporters who were receiving pay for working at TV and Radio Marti. He failed to address certain questions convincingly.

Mr. Díaz cited Miami Herald policy, in particular this statement: “We demonstrate our principles by operating with fairness, accuracy and independence, and by avoiding conflicts of interest, as well as the appearance of conflicts of interest. Our news operations will be diligent in their pursuit of the truth, without regard to special interests.”

That same day, Ana Menéndez, a Herald reporter accuses Cuban exiles of being melodramatic, this coming from someone who often adopts outlandish positions, perhaps just to be contentious and establish that kind of a reputation. I guess controversy helps sell newspapers. Menéndez feels we overreacted. “Anywhere else it might have been just a controversial personnel issue,” she writes. Well, Ms. Menéndez, if the Herald had addressed those personnel issues in-house and in private, we would not be having this discussion. If the Herald felt there was a duty to disclose the information to its readers, why did it have to go front page? Answer these questions Ana. Who is being melodramatic in this whole situation? Who started it all by making a mountain out of a molehill?

In any event, getting back to Mr. Díaz, let us talk about fairness, since the Herald's policy statement requires it. Was it fair to publish your findings in the front page? Was it fair to include in that report journalists that do not work for the Herald? Was it fair to link this case with the journalist who took $240,000 to promote the government’s agenda? Are they in any way similar cases? By your standard of accuracy, was that accurate reporting? Finally, was it fair to give the impression these journalists were engaging in some unlawful activity? Was it fair to try to ruin their reputations?

On the subject of conflicts of interest, I must quote Mr. Díaz again. He says, “Our decisions, painful as they were, reaffirm our commitment that reporters and editors at our newspapers are free of even the hint of a conflict of interest.” That will never happen, Mr. Díaz. The reason is the absence of financial gain does not guarantee the nonexistence of a conflict of interest. It seems to me conflicts of interest also exist for ideological reasons.

For example, a reporter who believes in communism and the censuring of the press could work within our free press system to try to weaken democracy and the stability of our government. An ideological bias would taint his or her opinions, infecting the public accordingly. Instead of moving to a communist or totalitarian country, he or she would choose to work here. Using our free press to try to destroy it, and our way of life, is a conflict of interest.

Suppose the Herald decides to hire people who worked for the government media in Cuba. If they espoused the government’s ideology then, what is to assure us they have changed their minds? If they only did it for the money, can we trust their integrity? Therefore, because of ideological biases, if not a lack of personal integrity, no newspaper can guarantee its reporters are objective and free of a conflict of interest. Somebody should inform the Journalism Board of Ethics about it. I am informing the Herald.

In an attempt to clarify the Herald’s position on a number of questions and rumors, Mr. Díaz states that the paper has no plans to open a bureau inside Cuba. Then, he goes on to say, “Cuba rejects or does not respond to our requests for visas for our reporters.” Well, Mr. Díaz, which is it? Do you want to have reporters working in Cuba or do you not? Anyone could think you wrote what you wrote, the way you wrote it, to please the Cuban government, so that they would not reject your requests for visas in the future.

The reason for all these rumors and questions is that you violated your own policy, giving the appearance that a conflict of interest exists. Otherwise, why would you use the front page and the accusatory tone of that article to discredit reputable Cuban-exile journalists? Because the appearance that a conflict of interest exists, people can also put in question the objectivity of those “undercover” staff reporters the Herald has in Cuba now.

As regards the Cuban television program Mesa Redonda, Mr. Díaz is confident no one at The Miami Herald is passing information to the Cuban government. How can he be so sure? Castro planted the spy Ana Belén Montes in the Pentagon. Does Mr. Díaz feel the Herald has a tighter security system, better than the one at the Pentagon?

When it comes to conflicts of interest, there is a difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. The accused journalists are ideologically transparent. Every one knows their history as supporters of democracy and the principles that make this country great. Communicating those same views at TV and Radio Marti confirms their integrity and objectivity. A conflict of interest would exist if they had received pay for giving different views in some leftist media outfit. As your policy statement states, they were “...diligent in the pursuit of the truth, without regard to special interests.” They told the truth as they saw it, beliefs they had appropriated many years before. The word “propaganda” has a negative connotation. When used by the Cuban government to promote their nefarious system, it is false information. When used by TV or Radio Marti, propaganda equals truth, since it promotes the values of our superior democratic system of government. Anyone who disagrees with that statement is ideologically tainted, someone who does not believe in the American way of life.

If we do not have a free press, Mr. Díaz worries about who will protect us from the abuses of power in government. Although the public still has minds to think and fight the government with, that is a point well taken, and I commend the Herald for its many successful investigations fighting corruption in our communities. However, I would like to go further and ask, “Who will protect us from the abuse of power in the media?”

In my opinion, to the detriment of those accused and to the detriment of the true and faithful Cuban exile community, the Miami Herald is guilty of abusing its power to communicate with the public in this situation. More perplexing is the realization an apology is not coming our way.

What have you accomplished Mr. Díaz? We will no longer benefit from the expert reporting of those you fired. Reporters of Cuban origin or otherwise will now decline working for TV or Radio Marti for fear of public humiliation. What—with his usual sarcasm—Carl Hiaasen calls charity pay I call payment for professional work. Unlike most Americans, in the Herald’s criterion, I guess journalists should not aspire to bettering themselves and their families by doing some extra work in their chosen field.

Instead of supporting a free press, your actions help block and undermine it. The people in Cuba will suffer for it, and we here in Miami are suffering for it. In my name and in the name of the many who feel like me, Miami Herald, I hold you in contempt. Mr. Díaz, may God give you the wisdom to see the light and the courage to make amends.

Joseph Marchante

THE HERALD FAILS TO APOLOGIZE FOR ABUSE OF POWER

On Sunday September 17, Jesús Díaz Jr., the publisher of the Miami Herald attempted to clarify the reasons behind the firing of Herald reporters who were receiving pay for working at TV and Radio Marti. He failed to convince me.

Mr. Díaz cited Miami Herald policy, in particular this statement: “We demonstrate our principles by operating with fairness, accuracy and independence, and by avoiding conflicts of interest, as well as the appearance of conflicts of interest. Our news operations will be diligent in their pursuit of the truth, without regard to special interests.”

That same day, Ana Menéndez, a Herald reporter accuses Cuban exiles of being melodramatic, this coming from someone who often adopts outlandish positions, perhaps just to be contentious and establish that kind of a reputation. I guess controversy helps sell newspapers. Menéndez feels we overreacted. “Anywhere else it might have been just a controversial personnel issue,” she writes. Well, Ms. Menéndez, if the Herald had addressed those personnel issues in-house and in private, we would not be having this discussion. If the Herald felt there was a duty to disclose the information to its readers, why did it have to go front page? Answer these questions Ana. Who is being melodramatic in this whole situation? Who started it all by making a mountain out of a molehill?

In any event, getting back to Mr. Díaz, let us talk about fairness, since the Herald's policy statement requires it. Was it fair to publish your findings in the front page? Was it fair to include in that report journalists that do not work for the Herald? Was it fair to link this case with the journalist who took $240,000 to promote the government’s agenda? Are they in any way similar cases? By your standard of accuracy, was that accurate reporting? Finally, was it fair to give the impression these journalists were engaging in some unlawful activity? Was it fair to try to ruin their reputations?

On the subject of conflicts of interest, I must quote Mr. Díaz again. He says, “Our decisions, painful as they were, reaffirm our commitment that reporters and editors at our newspapers are free of even the hint of a conflict of interest.” That will never happen, Mr. Díaz. The reason is the absence of financial gain does not guarantee the nonexistence of a conflict of interest. It seems to me conflicts of interest also exist for ideological reasons.

For example, a reporter who believes in communism and the censuring of the press could work within our free press system to try to weaken democracy and the stability of our government. An ideological bias would taint his or her opinions, infecting the public accordingly. Instead of moving to a communist or totalitarian country, he or she would choose to work here. Using our free press to try to destroy it and our way of life is a conflict of interest.

Suppose the Herald decides to hire people who worked for the government media in Cuba. If they espoused the government’s ideology then, what is to assure us they have changed their minds? If they only did it for the money, can we trust their integrity? Therefore, because of ideological biases, if not a lack of persoal integrity, no newspaper can guarantee its reporters are objective and free of a conflict of interest. Somebody should inform the Board of Journalist Ethics about it.

In an attempt to clarify the Herald’s position on a number of questions and rumors, Mr. Díaz states that the paper has no plans to open a bureau inside Cuba. Then, he goes on to say, “Cuba rejects or does not respond to our requests for visas for our reporters.” Well, Mr. Díaz, which is it? Do you want to have reporters working in Cuba or do you not? Anyone could think you wrote what you wrote, the way you wrote it, to please the Cuban government, so that they would not reject your requests for visas in the future. The reason for all these rumors and questions is that you violated your own policy, giving the appearance that a conflict of interest exists. Otherwise, why would you use the front page and the accusatory tone of that article to discredit reputable Cuban-exile journalists? Because the appearance that a conflict of interest exists, people can also put in question the objectivity of those “undercover” staff reporters the Herald has in Cuba now.

As regards the Cuban television program Mesa Redonda, Mr. Díaz is confident no one at The Miami Herald is passing information to the Cuban government. How can he be so sure? Castro planted the spy Ana Belén Montes in the Pentagon. Does Mr. Díaz feel the Herald has a tighter security system, better than the one at the Pentagon?

When it comes to conflicts of interest, there is a difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. The accused journalists are ideologically transparent. Every one knows their history as supporters of democracy and the principles that make this country great. Communicating those same views at TV and Radio Marti confirms their integrity and objectivity. A conflict of interest would exist if they had received pay for giving different views in some leftist media outfit. As your policy statement states, they were “...diligent in the pursuit of the truth, without regard to special interests.” They told the truth as they saw it, beliefs they had appropriated many years before. The word “propaganda” has a negative connotation. When used by the Cuban government to promote their nefarious system, it is false information. When used by TV or Radio Marti, propaganda equals truth, since it promotes the values of our superior democratic system of government. Anyone who disagrees with that statement is ideologically tainted, someone who does not believe in the American way of life.

If we do not have a free press, Mr. Díaz worries about who will protect us from the abuses of power in government. Although the public still has minds to think and fight the government with, that is a point well taken, and I commend the Herald for its many successful investigations fighting corruption in our communities. However, I would like to go further and ask, “Who will protect us from the abuse of power in the media?”

In my opinion, to the detriment of those accused and to the detriment of the true and faithful Cuban exile community, the Miami Herald is guilty of abusing its power to communicate with the public in this situation. More perplexing is the realization an apology is not coming our way.

What have you accomplished Mr. Díaz? We will no longer benefit from the expert reporting of those you fired. Reporters of Cuban origin or otherwise will now decline working for TV or Radio Marti for fear of public humiliation. What—with his usual sarcasm—Carl Hiaasen calls charity pay I call payment for professional work. Unlike most Americans, in the Herald’s criterion, I guess journalists should not aspire to bettering themselves and their families by doing some extra work in their chosen field.

Instead of supporting a free press, your actions help undermine it. The people in Cuba will suffer for it, and we here in Miami are suffering for it. In my name and in the name of the many who feel like me, Miami Herald, I hold you in contempt. Mr. Díaz, may God give you the wisdom to see the light and the courage to make amends.

Joseph Marchante

WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN PAKISTAN

Last week President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan encountered strong opposition in his attempt to pass the Women’s Protection Bill. The Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, an alliance of religious parties, is fighting hard to derail the legislation. Some members of the coalition governing the country also oppose the measure.

The Women’s Protection Bill intends to minimize the wrongful treatment of women. Back in 1979, President Zia ul-Haq passed the Hudood Ordinance. Since then, the jailing of women accused of adultery is commonplace. The “justice” system there does not need much in the form of evidence to prosecute them. It favors the male accuser, even when the latter has an obvious ax to grind. That a disgruntled husband may initiate the inquiry does not seem to throw a red flag indicating the accusation may be false, and influencing the decision of the courts.

Married women who report a rape must prove they were the victims of rape. Otherwise, the system can jail them and prosecute them as adulterers. How does a woman prove she was the victim of rape? Four adult witnesses are necessary. Just think about that. How often does a rapist perform his crime in front of a witness, much less an audience of four?

Governments of the 21st century must adopt modern and sensible penal codes. There should be no Islamic states. Some aspects of the sharia (Islamic Law) go against reasonable standards of punishment for offenders. In addition, the violation of women’s rights must cease. Women are entitled to equality in the eyes of men and before God. The daughters of God should walk side by side with the sons of God, not behind them. That is what a good God would want. If Allah is a good God, then such is God’s will, regardless of what the Koran says or what Muhammad wrote. If Allah is not a good God, then we do not owe him obedience or allegiance. In either case, we must do what we know is right.

Suggested reading: Ercian Testament - Part Two, chapter 16 “Man-God Relationships.”

RELIGION OWES US AN APOLOGY

The latest uproar over Pope Benedict XVI’ comments on Islam, is proof that religion is a primary source of division and conflict in our world. Not all religions are guilty of professing doctrines claiming supremacy and direct authority from God. For example, most Eastern religions avoid such excesses. It is mainly in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism that we find the violation of that sacred value called Truth. As a result, over the centuries humankind has paid dearly. Millions have died and suffered due to religious wars or persecution. The Pope should apologize to humankind in general, not to Islam. Then, Islam, Judaism and any other religion that claims preeminence should follow suit.

The aforementioned religions are guilty of passing beliefs for knowledge. When they assert to be in possession of the Word of God, they set themselves over and above the rest of us.

First and most important, they have no proof or evidence backing their claims. Fantastic accounts of apparitions of God or angels do not meet reasonable standards. No legitimate court in the world would accept them as reliable or trustworthy.

Second, we should be able to question (openly and freely) anyone pretending to have authority from God. The reason is a fact no one can doubt: the real God gave us a mind of our own. Therefore, we have the ability to analyze the dogmas and claims of so-called “holy” books to determine whether they are true or false, beneficial or detrimental.

Finally, such arrogant positioning denies every human being ert* inalienable rights as a son or daughter of God. We are no less than any alleged prophet or messiah of the past. We have the same right to try to communicate with God, and the same right to pass on our spiritual insights to our brothers and sisters.

The time for religion to transform itself is here. Proligion** is the way of the future. Otherwise, there will never be peace on Earth. Truth must rule supreme.

What did Pope Benedict XVI do that was so wrong? He was relating a discussion that took place more than 600 years ago between a Persian scholar and Manuel II Paleologus, a Byzantine Christian emperor. The latter said, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Well, I do not know about all that was “new” in Muhammad’s preaching, but some of his teachings had to be an improvement over the barbaric customs of the time. Let us give credit where credit is due. Aside from that, the Byzantine emperor was right in condemning Muhammad’s command to use violence to spread Islam throughout the world. It is an evil and inhuman teaching, because no group has the right to impose their religious beliefs on any other group by force or otherwise.

This does not imply that Muhammad himself was evil and inhuman. Because he was human, he made a mistake in judgment. It is as simple as that. In his zeal to propagate his own beliefs, he called for the violation of the rights of others. If God exists and God is a good God, such command goes against God’s will. Clearly, Muhammad was not God’s prophet as the Koran claims, and the Pope was right in criticizing the hovering-ever-present Islamic call for violence or jihad (unholy war).

Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XVI has no right to criticize Islam if he is not willing to clean his own house. Just last week, he spoke about the much-needed dialogue between different religions. So far so good, but then he went on to exhort all Christians to stop being timid. Feel free to tell others, “Christ is the only God,” he said. Well, dear Pope, that is what you believe, not what you know. Unless you adopt a more humble position, you will not get far promoting a dialogue with other religions.

*ert is a gender-neutral article. Instead of saying “...such arrogant positioning denies every human being his or her inalienable rights as a son or daughter of God,” I say, “...such arrogant positioning denies every human being ert inalienable rights as a son or daughter of God.”

**Proligion: See Ercian Testament - Part One, chapter 4 “Proligion,” and chapter 7 “A Final Word on Proligion.” Also, see Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 27 “Proligion Revisited.”

CORRECTION TO ERCIAN TESTAMENT CHAPTER 21

In chapter 21 of my book Ercian Testament, “The Number 444, the Key,” on pages 150 through 152 a correction is necessary. In those pages, I relate a 444 incident that occurred back in April 1995 while working at the Sunset Branch post office in Miami. I will reproduce that account here, and make the correction after you read it.

BEGINNING OF QUOTATION:

I recorded this event about a month after it happened, but by that time, I was not sure of the exact date of dates. That is why I am only giving you the month and the year.

This event really starts in 1986. Back then, I had rented an office for a few months (I think it was four months before my savings ran out) to try to get people acquainted with some of my ideas. This was the year after I had finished writing my first manuscript The Eternal Testament and Station Earth. Anyway, my office was located at 14050 SW 84 Street Suite 202, Miami Florida 33183. I rented in that building because it was near home and less expensive than other places I had seen. The yearly rate was $8.50 a square foot.

One day in April 1995, I was sorting mail at the Sunset Branch, located at 7501 SW 117th Avenue. I had gotten a bid there as a distribution clerk. As I was working the mail, I came across a letter addressed to the ‘Campus Crusade for Christ’ located at the same address where my office was back in 1986. Something else in the address caught my eye right away, but I will keep you in suspense for now as to what it was. Anyway, I went to the letter carrier in charge of that mail route and asked him if the organization ‘Campus Crusade for Christ’ occupied Suite 202 (the particular office I had rented years before). He told me they occupied all of the office space in the second floor including suite 202.

What I am about to tell you now is the “eye-opener.” If I remember correctly, the Postal Service did not start the “Zip-plus-Four” campaign until sometime after 1986, because I do not remember using it in my address when I had the office. As you may know, the four digits that were added to the old five digit zip code allows the Postal Service to improve the automation and routing of mail, because it identifies a unique delivery unit. Now guess the four-digit code assigned to the building where I had my office back in 1986, the four-digit code added to the ‘33183’ I had used. The four-digit code for that building is “-4440.”

Out of all possible four-digit combinations for that delivery unit, the one assigned to it contains the sequence 444, the number sign I consider my connection to God-Conscious. Extremely weird and fantastic, do you not think so? I did and still do, on top of the fact that an organization crusading for 'Christ' was using the office I had occupied.

The next day after I had questioned Roberto L.(the route’s letter carrier), I brought with me and showed him a newspaper page, page 21 from the West Kendall Gazette dated August 7, 1986, where my advertisement appeared inviting the public to a free seminar at the address I have mentioned.

Roberto had inquired about my ‘444’ connection prior to this incident. He had asked what the ‘444’ on my baseball cap meant. Yes, I had a few of them printed back then. I was gung-ho about the number. Anyway, I wanted to show Roberto I was not lying about having rented that office space and, considering this 444 sighting, especially about having experienced very unusual coincidences with that number.”

END OF QUOTATION

The correction I need to make is this: the Postal Service atarted the Zip-plus-Four campaign back in 1983. How do I know that? I know it because a couple of days ago it occurred to me to use the Internet to find out for sure. I typed on the browser “Zip plus four inception date” and hit “Search.” I had never done that search before, because I thought I was right in assuming Zip + four took place after 1986.

Therefore, there you have it. The Zip plus Four year of inception was 1983 not 1986. Consequently, some people may question whether (as a postal worker) I had the opportunity to search for an address containing the 444 sequence before choosing a place to rent back in 1986. All I can tell you is I did not do that, as God is my witness. As I say in the book, I do not remember using Zip-plus-Four for that office address ever. Even for my own residential address, I cannot recall using it until some time in the 90’s.

Anyway, I just wanted to set the record straight. I hope publishing this article on my blog and on my website page, “The World According to Joseph” achieves that goal. Furthermore, to those who may put my integrity in question, I confess in my book that I am not a saint but a sinner like everyone else. However, the 444 incidents and everything else I relate in Ercian Testament is the truth as it happened. You have my word. Read Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 20 “My Testimony under Oath.”

Joseph Marchante

CONFUCIANISM AND THE FRIEND-FRIEND RELATIONSHIP

Previously, we have seen the importance of hierarchy in the Confucian system of ethics. In the friend-friend relationship, however, rank and age take a back seat to faith. What is important is for friends to trust each other. When a friend gives advice to another, the recipient should expect those opinions to be sincere. This is especially vital between teachers and students. The teaching of moral principles requires efficacious delivery, and such is mostly possible when the spirit of mutuality is present. Students are bound to listen to teachers they respect and admire. The latter earn that respect and admiration by having the best interests of students at heart (Wei-ming, 1993, p. 191).

The possession of virtue entitles a person to respect. Those who become knowledgeable and virtuous have earned the right to equality if not superiority in a relationship. Tseng Tzu, one of the most revered disciples of Confucius, would not accept a summons to the king’s court while addressed as a common subject. He demanded proper treatment before acceding to the request. If the king was willing to learn, then and only then, he was willing to teach, honestly and earnestly. Mencius conducted himself in similar fashion with the rulers he encountered. As an independent and courageous thinker, he would not hesitate to criticize the king or those around him for their moral shortcomings (Wei-ming, p.192).

For Mencius, being a friend meant a lot more than just sharing food or drink on certain occasions (Wei-ming, p. 192). A true friend is concerned with the material and spiritual welfare of other people. He or she wants to help others in the primary Confucian project of self-cultivation. Therefore, there is no shying away from teaching or criticizing fellow friends, as long as a person does it constructively and with good intentions. Friendship blooms under such conditions. It is a nice thing to see friends traveling together in this journey we call life.

I agree with Confucianism that a relationship based on trust must exist between good friends. I also agree that teaching and constructive criticism should form part of a friendship when there is true concern for each other. A question that needs answering is, “How do we determine who has more knowledge and virtue in a relationship?” In other words, “Who should teach whom?” In most instances, either the difference in intellectual and moral capacity is obvious and the prior questions have an easy answer, or both parties have similar capabilities. In the latter case, ert* who has more expertise in a given field or the best arguments should be the teacher. Thus, depending on the matter at hand and the arguments on the table, sometimes a person may perform as teacher and other times as student.

For our own protection, we should seek proficiency in those fields that are vital to our well-being. Religion, politics, and business come to mind. Ideally, we should be able to distinguish wisdom from foolishness when people open their mouths or put their thoughts down on paper. To do that, we need to become wise ourselves.

*ert is a gender-neutral article. Instead of saying, “he or she who has more expertise in a given field...,” I say “ert who has more expertise in a given field...”

Bibliography: Wei-ming, T. (1993). Confucianism. In Arvind Sharma (Ed.) Our Religions (pp.141-227). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Suggested Reading: Ercian Testament - Part Two, chapter 12 “Leaps of Knowledge.”

CONFUCIANISM AND THE OLD-YOUNG RELATIONSHIP

In Confucianism, the structuring of human relationships must take into account age as a factor. To Confucians, “Age is thus an ordering and sequencing principle. A distinctive feature of Confucian ethics is to accept seniority as a value in setting up social hierarchy.” (Wei-ming, 1993, p.190).

Accepting seniority as a value in determining the status of a person in a relationship does not preclude fairness. Confucians are very aware that virtue is necessary. Because self-cultivation is a primary goal, those who fail to succeed are not entitled to higher status. Thus, being old does not automatically entitle you to respect and preferential treatment. Confucius himself admonished Yüan Jang, an old man he knew, for being apathetic and failing to grow as a human being. Not only did Master Kung reproach Jang verbally, but proceeded to hit him in the leg with a shaft (Wei-ming, p. 190).

It is true that under normal circumstances, older people have more experience. They should be wiser. Therefore, as a matter of courtesy and for practical reasons, one should listen to what one’s elders have to say. Respect is a two-way street, however. Young should respect old, and vice versa. Ultimately, the worthiness of ideas should rule. Respect is due to the good ideas, whether they come from the mouth of seniors or from the mouth of babes. Thus, I agree with Confucius. People who procrastinate and fail to mature in knowledge and virtue do not deserve the same status as those who apply themselves.

To support the precedence of old over young, Confucian belief points to the bonds that exist in the family as well as in society. In both cases, a debt exists on the part of the young. The transfer of material and spiritual goods from elders contributes greatly to the growth and well-being of younger people. A younger sibling should show gratitude to parents and older siblings for their love and care. Likewise, the young are indebted to the elders in a society when the latter have shown competence and integrity in the performance of public duties (Wei-ming, p. 191).

Obviously, when love is nonexistent in a family and parents do not care about the welfare of their young, no respect or reverence is due this kind of elders. Likewise, we owe no respect or compliance to dictators and rulers who violate human rights and deny us liberty.

What goes for people goes also for traditions. We should reject authoritarian religions, if they are unwilling to transform themselves. No respect is due to any religion who does not respect our right to question the authority of its prophets or messengers. No respect is due to any religion who does not respect our right to question the veracity of claims that go contrary to common experience and common sense. No respect is due to any religion who does not respect the power of the minds God gave us, and our ability to gain new insights into the nature of God and the world. In the field of religion, listen to the young. The old are wise in some respects, but utterly ignorant in others. Otherwise, they would have already brought peace to this world. To prove their worth, we have given them hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of years. Is it not time to consider a different option?

Bibliography: Wei-ming, T. (1993). Confucianism. In Arvind Sharma (Ed.) Our Religions (pp.141-227). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Suggested Reading: Ercian Testament - Part One, chapter 4 “Proligion.”

CONFUCIANISM AND THE HUSBAND-WIFE RELATIONSHIP

In the Confucian tradition, gender establishes the roles husband and wife are to play. The execution of one’s duties takes precedence over romantic love, so much so that a daughter-in-law must attend to tasks regarding her father-in-law before taking care of her husband. Looking after the family children, if any, also take precedence over the needs of the husband (Wei-ming, 1993, p. 189). Nevertheless, this is a male-dominated society and the husband still rules.

The scholar Tu Wei-ming states, “...the value of distinction in governing the husband-wife relationship is also based on the principle of mutuality. The underlying spirit is not dominance but division of labor” (Wei-ming, p.189). In other words, the husband goes out to work and the wife stays home to do household chores. It is an effective and efficient system fitting the Confucian preoccupation with order and harmony. There is no room for confusion. Man and woman know their roles. No one can deny teamwork is necessary in raising a family, and there is nothing wrong with a wife staying home.

The drawback with this system is that the person going out into the world to earn a living sometimes underestimates the value of the person staying at home to take care of everything else. It happens with men and with women. Gender has nothing to do with it. In today’s world, because of economic pressures, many women have to get a job. If a wife is the main support for the family and the husband is staying home (for whatever reason) or making little money, there is a tendency for the woman to assume a dominating role in the relationship. This does not happen all the time, but it happens. The key to equality in the husband-wife relationship is fairness. Regardless of who stays home or who makes less of an income, it is the responsibility of both husband and wife to give equal effort. Marriage is a partnership. A lackadaisical attitude by one of the partners is bound to bring resentment and discord, threatening the stability and continued existence of the relationship.

According to Wei-ming, the husband-wife relationship must not be so intense that it disregards obligations to other family members, to the community, and to the state (Wei-ming, p.190). In other words, too much love between husband and wife may give rise to nepotism and the neglect of one’s duties to society. Frankly, this concept is confusing. I do not know if there can ever be enough love between man and wife, and I am not referring to physical love but to the spiritual bond that should exist.

If there is great love in a couple, however, why should that necessarily lead to nepotism or to social irresponsibility? Other things being equal, it is natural and ethical for a husband to favor the wife and vice versa, in whatever situation presents itself. On the other hand, if “other things are not equal,” then merit should be the standard used to determine worthiness. There is nothing wrong with preferentiality, as long as doing so does not break the ethical rules, laws, or moral norms of a wise society. Societal wisdom is a prerequisite. One should not have to follow the prescriptions of inept persons. People who have a greater intelligent-rational-moral capacity should be free to follow the dictates of their own conscience.

Viewing the great frequency of divorces in our society, there is something wrong with our general approach to the husband-wife relationship. First, too many people take marriage lightly. They hurry into that union without first spending sufficient time together to determine compatibility. Second, many marry for the wrong reasons. True love must be existent and constantly nurtured for the relationship to flourish. Third, when children enter the picture, their spiritual and material well-being should matter greatly. Contrary to what some people believe, I think the break-up of parents is a great shock to children. Therefore, whenever possible, couples with children should try to reconcile their differences before deciding to end a marriage.

Fourth, people do not take enough care to avoid hurting other people’s feelings. When a man who is married for many years leaves his good wife for some young woman—without the wife doing anything injurious to the marriage—it is wrong. Nothing is worth hurting a good wife’s feelings. Do not be selfish. Avoid lusting after youth. Be dutiful to your word and to your vows. As they say, “You made your bed. Now lie in it.” I am aware that temptation can be great, and the flesh is weak. Somehow, however, we must try hard to resist those natural impulses. Something of great value is at stake: the happiness of a good partner, the preservation of the family, and the stability of society itself. Naturally, what applies to men also applies to women. Do not leave your good husband for another man, just because you are confused, bored, or tired of the relationship. Try to transcend your own limitations.

Bibliography: Wei-ming, T. (1993). Confucianism. In Arvind Sharma (Ed.) Our Religions (pp.141-227). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Suggested Reading: Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 24 “Ercian Values and Ideals.”

CONFUCIANISM AND THE RULER-SUBJECT RELATIONSHIP

Yesterday I treated the relationship between father and son as one of the five relationships discussed by Mencius. Today I will deal with the relationship between ruler and subject.

Duty and righteousness should guide a ruler’s conscience, according to Mencius. When personal profit or other selfish motivations lead to the abuse of power, a ruler violates the sacred trust owed the public. Mencius believed in the division of labor. Some people, like farmers, work with their hands. Other people, like those in government, work with their minds. The work is different, but all should show dedication to their respective duties. Trouble ensues when those in power neglect their obligations to the people, instead using their tenure in office to enrich themselves or live the easy life (Wei-ming, 1993, pp.187-189).

Comparing the ruler-subject relationship to that between father and son, Mencius notes that the blood bonds are absent in the former. Therefore, the more reason rulers should foster a reciprocal association with their subjects. In other words, rulers are responsible for earning the respect and support of the people. Mutual affection between ruler and subject should prevail, as it should in the father-son relationship. The chain grows larger. From self-transformation to father-son to ruler-subject, Mencius system of ethics is an attempt to improve the individual, the family, and the state in a continuous rational sequence (Wei-ming, 1993, pp.188-189).

I agree with Mencius that those responsible for governing (including all government workers) must be conscientious persons. He does not mention that the governed should freely elect those who govern. In those days, I guess it was inconceivable. Either lineage or conquest decided who ruled. The people had no choice but to try to work with the latest occupant of the throne and his ministers.

It is a shame that in our world today, we still have tyrants, dictators, monarchs, theocratic, and communist states. Such repressive beings and entities stay in power by imposing their will on their poor subjects. The use of force, coercion, censorship, and the denial of other basic human rights allows them to maintain a tight grip on the reins of government. They are nothing but vermin infesting the corridors of palatial buildings where good will and justice should reign. Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea and China are some of those wickedl antihuman regimes. Venezuela and Bolivia are trying to join the nefarious group.

Those who think that China should not be included in that group, think again. Economic prosperity does not equal liberty and human rights. Politically, they are as backwards and dangerous as they were when the despot Mao ruled. The people are not free in China. They recently imposed stricter measures on foreign media, all in the name of national unity and social stability. Right, the Communist party there does not want the Chinese people to read or hear news that are critical of their omnipresent rule. They do not want anybody reminding the Chinese people they are not free. The name of that country is a total lie. There is no “People’s Republic of China.” Just ask those who were at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The country belongs to the Communist party and those who collaborate with the regime.

Wake up, democratic world! Know thyself and know thy enemies. Learn to oppose them wherever they show their ugly faces (Hugo Chávez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sure ain’t pretty, for example). Let them accuse us of being imperialists, hypocrites that they are, as if their goal were not to create an evil empire on Earth. If anyone should rule our planet, it should be the forces of democracy, not they. Under us, citizens have the guarantee of freedom, equality, and human rights. Under them, they never will.

Bibliography: Wei-ming, T. (1993). Confucianism. In Arvind Sharma (Ed.) Our Religions (pp.141-227). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Suggested Reading: Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 27 “Proligion Revisited.”

CONFUCIANISM AND THE FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP

After Confucius, the second best known sage of Confucianism is Mencius, the Latinized version of the name Meng-tzu. In accordance with the Confucian goal of self-cultivation, and to bring discipline, harmony, and order to society, he discussed the importance of five relationships: father-son, ruler-subject, husband-wife, old-young, and friend-friend. Today, I would like to talk about the father-son relationship.

When everyone knows his place and acts accordingly, order prevails. That applies at the familial level as well as at the societal level. There is no room left for confusion. If successive generations are able to teach individuals how to behave, then tradition takes over. The delineation of a person’s role in a particular relationship becomes unnecessary, because the rules have already been set.

Claiming the system degenerates into the blind acceptance of authoritarian behavior, critics of the five relationships argue against it. If son must always obey father, subject obey ruler, wife obey husband, young obey old, and poor obey rich, then it is true that fairness and justice are absent from those relationships, and authoritarianism rules. However, that is not what Mencius envisioned. For example, in the father-son relationship “Love between father and son is intended to show that the proper relationship between them is mutual affection rather than one-way obedience” (Wei-ming, 1993, p. 188).

Mencius believed that a son’s love for his mother was a natural by-product of that relationship, while love between father and son required cultivation. Although both fathers and mothers should teach children how to behave, the father figure is usually the stricter of the two. Therefore, when it is necessary to correct a son on serious issues, the father should do it. Doing so, however, can bring resentment and seriously affect the bond of love between father and son. A father may accuse the son of some fault, and the son may angrily turn around to bring up some deficiency in the father’s own behavior. To avoid these situations and to avoid the loss of parental love, Confucian families used to exchange sons for instruction. Let my neighbor admonish my son, and I will do the same while teaching his son (Wei-ming, 1993, p.188).

What do you think? From our modern and westernized point of view, can we learn from Mencius idea of the father-son relationship?

First, we are dealing with a male-chauvinistic society. Mencius does not bring up the father-daughter relationship at all, because he takes it for granted that the daughters are there to obey and serve the father. They do not have to go out into the world and make a living. They will take care of the household chores while they are young and after they are married—when the new boss will be their husbands.

Second, I do not want my neighbor teaching any of my children. The reason is, I do not know my neighbor’s values or principles. Why was it a good option in those times? It must be that Confucian families shared the same values or principles. Therefore, any adult male in the group was capable of imparting those ideas on the young.

It would be a good thing for America if we nurtured a core of values that we can teach all our children and that would become part of our tradition. The argument for the separation of church and state does not apply here. I am not considering the propagation of religious ideas. What I have in mind is the teaching of civic duties and responsibilities. We should all have a good idea what these are.

To teach proper conduct to our young would be also beneficial. There is much disrespect in our society on the part of young people. I know it is not all young people but still, a significant number. Just go out in public, to the streets, to the malls, and watch the rampant misbehavior of some little ones. Impudent behavior occurs not only toward parents, but also against anybody their elder. They do not respect parental authority, and they do not respect the wisdom accumulated by those older than they are.

It should be obvious to an impartial observer that our society is failing in this regard. Many of our schools and a significant number of parents are not doing a good job educating children. Call them ignorant or call them irresponsible, but some parents just do not care. Then, there is little or no discipline in most of our schools, especially public schools. The adoption of liberal policies is to blame. Laws or regulations that prevent teachers from exerting proper authority over their classes foment anarchism. When students engage in serious misbehavior, the punishment rarely fits the crime. The parents do not help either, when they fail to support the corrective measures good teachers undertake.

No, I do not favor spanking by teachers, but I think it is a proper last option for a father or a mother facing an unruly child. In the home, parents should teach children by example. Fathers and mothers should earn their children’s respect. However, if a child does not reciprocate correct behavior on the part of ert* parents, it is time to use grounding. It is time to take away privileges and whatever things he or she enjoys watching or doing.

In extreme cases, when a child is disrespectful by angrily confronting and yelling at a parent, and by failing to heed a couple of warnings to stop that behavior, then I believe ert* is due a good smack in the rear end. That is an acceptable form of teaching, and not child abuse. The government should not have any laws preventing parents from issuing discipline in that manner. Only when physical punishment becomes ubiquitous and obviously harmful to the child’s welfare, should the government step in.

I remember watching one of those nature programs on the Discovery channel. A lion was resting peacefully, probably half-sleep, when this cub approached him. The little one began to play with the big lion. It would climb over here, step down over there, lick here, place its paws there and, in short, would not let the lion rest. The big lion put up with this situation until he could take it no more. A blow with one paw and a big roar was all it took, for the cub to learn the lesson. Here, the cub was not behaving disrespectfully. It was just being playful. All the same, the teaching method worked. As human beings capable of communicating through language, we hope that is all we need to teach our young. When language and good intentions fail, however, that good smack in the rear end may do the job.

*ert is a gender-neutral article inclusive of both male and female subjects. Instead of saying, “...then I believe he or she is due a good smack in the rear end,” I say, “...then I believe ert is due a good smack in the rear end.”

Bibliography: Wei-ming, T. (1993). Confucianism. In Arvind Sharma (Ed.) Our Religions (pp.141-227). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.