Ercian.org: Respeto y Autonomía

La organización proligiosa Ercian.org no es como ninguna otra organización, empezando con el hecho que su estructura no es “organizada.” Yo Joseph Marchante, José Luis Marchante Rey para mis hermanos Maristas de Cuba, soy el único miembro o participante permanente en la “organización.” El día que yo muera, muere Ercian.org. Alguien pregunta “Bueno, si tú eres el único miembro, para qué sirve la “organización”? Cuál es tu propósito, o sea, el propósito de Ercian.org?

Tengo que explicar esto en varias partes. Yo quiero que Ercian.org sea un foro de discussion ética y de educación proligiosa. Ercian.org no va a tener miembros. Ercian.org va a acceptar como “invitados” a individuos de buena voluntad que quieran participar en el foro o discussion ética proligiosa. Estos invitados no se comprometen a nada sino solo a participar en el foro. Estos invitados no tendrán que pagar cuotas de membresía ni se colectara dinero durante los foros. Si va a acudir mucho publico y hay que alquilar algún local, se le avisará a los interesados antes de tiempo para que cada asistente pague a la entrada una cantidad razonable que cubra esos gastos. Cuando sea posible, nos reuniremos en grupos pequeños en mi casa o en la de algún voluntario participante. Así no se incurríran gastos. Yo no pienso haya necesidad de alquilar ningún local, al no ser que muchas personas deseen que conduzca un seminario durante el cual quieran hacerme todas las preguntas que deseen para “entender” mi filosofía proligiosa.

Quiero reiterar el punto más importante: todo aquel que asista a los foros proligiosos NO SE COMPROMETE A NADA. Ni son “miembros,” ni tienen que contribuir dinero aparte de gastos nominales que sean necesarios para llevar a cabo alguna reunion, ni tienen que aceptar ninguna doctrina, ni tienen que seguir algún rito religioso (o proligioso), ni tienen que rezar oraciones prescribidas. En otras palabras, en estas reuniones proligiosas serán enforzadas las reglas de RESPETO y AUTONOMíA. Qué quiere decir esto?

Es mi deseo reunir personas de buena voluntad tanto religiosas como no religiosas. Serán bienvenidos mis hermanos católicos, protestantes, judíos, musulmanes, budistas y, en corto, de todas religiones. No me importa cuál es su religion sino que sean personas de buena voluntad y personas civilizadas. No se aceptarán fanáticos que vayan a crear caos en las reuniones, personas extremadamente dogmáticas que no puedan llevar a cabo una discusión respetuosa y con decoro. También se aceptarán que asistan personas ateas, repito de nuevo, mientras sean personas de buena voluntad y civilizadas.

Cuando hablo de RESPETO, a qué me refiero? Me refiero del respeto a la persona asistente. Pensamos que todo el que está allí cree lo que cree de buena voluntad, porque así lo aprendió de niño o niña o ya de persona adulta. Pensamos que todo el que está ahí quiere un mundo mejor y para promover la hermandad humana desea compartir sus pensamientos y preocupaciones con aquellos presents. Aunque es deseable, no es requerido que hablen y den su opinión, pero por lo menos que escuchen lo que se discute.

Qué es lo que no se puede respetar? No se pueden respetar las ideas. Si nuestro objeto es encontrar la verdad en lo más posible, naturalmente aquel que tenga alguna idea nueva o algún conocimiento nuevo que contradiga lo creído por algún participante tiene que exponer esa idea o ese conocimiento enseñando el razonamiento o los argumentos que apoyan ese punto de vista. Toda persona asistente entenderá que el propósito del exponente de la idea no es el de faltarle el respeto a las personas que crean de manera diferente sino de derrumbar la idea o las ideas erróneas con la fuerza de la lógica y del sentido común. Para avanzar nuestros conocimientos, para evolucionar el ser humano, este proceso es absolutamente necesario. Si queremos honrar al Dios o al sistema natural que nos dió un cerebro, tenemos el deber de aceptar LA VERDAD sobre todas las otras cosas. Por qué? Porque estamos siendo sinceros y actuando de buena fe en nuestra busca de conocimientos mayores.

Las ideas no sangran. Los seres humanos sangramos. En vez de luchar y matarnos por ideas, vamos a dejar que las ideas luchen entre ellas y nosotros muy comodamente sentados vamos entonces a escoger aquellas ideas que son victoriosas porque contienen más verdad que las otras. Cada persona sera la que decida cuáles son las ideas victoriosas.

Ahora, para explicar la otra parte importante de las reglas de conducta y procedimiento de Ercian.org, les hablo acerca de la AUTONOMíA. Esto quiere decir que después de las reuniones y foros proligiosos todas las personas SON LIBRES para pensar y actuar de la manera que ellas piensen. Van a decidir pensar lo que les de la gana, creer lo que les de la gana, rezar como les de la gana (o no rezar), acudir a la iglesia, o el templo, o la mezquita, o al lugar religioso de costumbre, o no hacerlo así si son ateos o si son personas proligiosas que prefieren orar o hacer sus meditaciones en sus propias casas.

Yo quiero crear líderes no seguidores. La búsqueda de la verdad requiere que las personas sean libres para pensar, actuar y encontrar soluciones a problemas. Por eso no deseo que Ercian.org sea “organizada,” que tenga una estructura por la cuál todo el mundo piense lo mismo, reze lo mismo, y actúe de manera similar. Eso sería el golpe de muerte para el espíritu de innovación humano. Dios, o el sistema natural si así quieren pensar, nos creo en libertad. Entonces, por qué encadenarnos nosotros mismos? Rompan las cadenas y no tengan miedo. Lo peor que pueda pasar es que estén más cerca a todo aquello que sea verdad, a todo aquello que no sea mentira o fabricación de la imaginación humana.

There is no such thing as spiritual welfare. El welfare espiritual no existe. Cada alma es responsable por su propio destino. En un Juicio Final posible, no podrá nadie excusarse con “Bueno yo creí lo que decía ese libro,” o “Yo creí lo que me dijo mi líder religioso.” “Y que hicistes tú con el cerebro que poseístes?” sería mi pregunta si yo fuera el juez. No que todas personas tienen el tiempo para analizar cosas profundas, pero deben hacer el tiempo para escuchar a aquellos que sí han dedicado mucho tiempo y esfuerzo en la continua busca por la verdad y un mundo mejor.

Por esta quedan todos mis compañeros Maristas (incluyendo a antiguos maestros o hermanos que quieran asistir) a ponerse en contacto conmigo si quieren establecer una conversación proligiosa, en persona, por correo electronico, o por el teléfono, como puedan y deseen. Estoy aquí para servir.

Joseph Marchante José Luis Marchante Rey (Antiguo Alumno Marista, y a mucha honra).

WHY PEOPLE SHOULD FEEL FREE TO TALK ABOUT SEX, POLITICS OR RELIGION

The purpose of this essay is to expose the reasons why the topics of sex, politics or religion should be discussed in society. The common argument is that people end up in emotional arguments that could even escalate into fights, and in the end everyone keeps their own opinion anyway. No person changes his or her mind. Although that is true, it only applies to people who have lost control of their emotions and, consequently, their power to reason. It only applies to people who are blind followers, dogmatic, and afraid of the unknown. What part of the unknown do they fear the most? Above everything else they fear the truth, because if someone could prove to them through rational arguments that their views are partially or totally mistaken, they would have to spend time and effort changing their emotional psyche and reconstructing their worldview according to reality, not fantasy.

So, a lot of work needs to be done to convince those who are “fanatics,” to act more like human beings and keep an open mind. People “afraid” of the unknown, need to lose their fear. Given serious rational arguments, they need to think deeply about what could be true. Otherwise, reality may smack them right in the face in some unforeseen future. What is the worst that can happen? Is it a sin for a human being to change his or her mind following common sense and logic? Of course it is not a sin. On the contrary, if there is one thing you can be absolutely sure about is that the human brain you possess is a direct inheritance from our source of existence, God if I may use that word. The only way that mind is corrupted is when we believe something that is not true; something we read in a book, or something somebody said, or something we analyzed incorrectly. As long as a person is serious and sincere in the pursuit of the truth, it is a God-blessed activity, and so I say.

Now to briefly explain why society needs to talk openly (in the right venue and in the proper manner, of course) about sex is that perhaps we can find ways to educate and bring up the young so that when they become adults they act like normal sexual beings. Maybe we can reduce the number of sex offenders. Repressed sexual instincts are counterproductive. Although we are rational, we are animal still. If one does not feed the lion or beast inside us, that beast will turn against us and perhaps make us do something we should not be doing. That is why every now and then we find some pastor caught with a prostitute or, worst, some priest as a child abuser. The church is partly to blame for that, for requiring a vow of chastity from priests. Priests should be free to have sex with adult women in situations where there is consent and the same with men, if they happen to be gay. Of course, promiscuity should be out of the question, but a human being needs to find release of their normal sexual needs. On the other side of the spectrum, we have too many pregnant teens. Maybe we can educate the young to become responsible parents by not making the mistake of having unprotected sex in their early years.

I am extending myself too much, so I will try to cut it short. Regarding politics, if we do not discuss politics, to whom are we going to leave the burden of being good citizens? Before we vote, we need to know as much as possible about the candidates in order to vote for the right person. After we vote, we need to know when it is necessary to initiate a petition or complain to our representatives when they are not doing a good job. We have to reform our political parties so they act for our wellbeing and not for special interests. I have never truly understood why we need a Democratic Party who allegedly acts on behalf of the poor and a Republican Party who allegedly acts on behalf of the rich. Why not a political party that acts justly and impartially on behalf of all the citizens in our country.

Finally, we come to religion. Above all things, this is the most important theme of discussion. First, there are people who say they do not discuss religion because you cannot prove a thing one way or the other, that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, much less the existence of a particular type of God, the one of the Torah, of the Koran, or of the Christian Bible. This way of thinking is erroneous. It is my assertion that in my book Ercian Testament I prove the nature of our Infinite Source and Eternal God. I also give evidence for the existence of a direct personal God. This evidence comes in the form of my experiences with the number 444 and what I have come to call the Chart of Six. If I am mistaken, why do the entries “Jesus” and “Joshua” and “Y’shua” all come out to number 444 in the Chart? Why do the entry “Christian” (606) and the entry “Ercian” (300), together add up to 906, the same as the entry “Jesus Christ.”? That he is with me and supports my proligious work, there is no doubt in mind.

Who could be against Proligion, the idea of uniting the people of good will on Earth so that we as well as future generations can enjoy a more peaceful and prosperous world? Only the fanatics, only those who want to keep us divided with our petty religious differences. Does anybody really think a real God would want us fighting one another over things of faith that came to us from alleged prophets? Is knowledge not superior to faith? Of course it is. Then, let us not be tardy in our pursuit of knowledge. The fate of our souls may depend on how we think and act while here on earth. It is the responsibility of each individual.

Joseph Marchante (José Luis Marchante Rey, alumno Marista) March 14, 2011

EARLY VOTING IS GREAT

God willing, today, my wife and I will vote. That is right. It is more than a week before November 7, Election Day. However, opening up public libraries and other government outlets for early voting allows us to avoid the crowds and the crunch on that important day.

It will be nice. I already told my wife we have a date. We are going to the West Kendall Library at 10201 Hammocks Boulevard in Miami to do our duty. Yesterday I called. They said the library would be open today between the hours of 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. for us early birds. So we will vote, and then we will go to Longhorn’s Steakhouse for lunch. Last time I went there, I signed up to receive special offers through my e-mail address. Since my birthday was earlier this month, they sent me two coupons, one for a free appetizer and one for a free dessert. I appreciate it. Listen, we eat there often enough. As regular customers, we have earned those coupons.
I
Anyway, I have already done all my research for the election. The Miami-Dade County Elections Department mails all residents an official sample ballot. This is very helpful, because you become familiar with all the different races and the amendments or questions that will appear on the ballot. To make an educated decision, one has to read the newspaper, hear the radio, watch television, and listen to people’s opinions. Sometimes it is not easy to learn who is telling the truth. All the time, I find myself trying to separate fact from fiction.

Of all the media, I believe the local newspaper is one of the best sources of information, mainly because they have to publish each candidate’s platform, the result of debates, and everything else connected with the campaigns. When it comes to a newspaper’s editorials or their voting recommendations, I read what they have to say but make up my own mind. Why should I trust their advice? Most of the time, I make up my own mind based on all the information I gather. If I do not know the background of people running for office, as is the case with some judges, then I usually go along with the paper’s recommendation, unless I find better information from another source. When I vote following the paper’s suggestions, I do it because the media knows these people better than I do. When that is the case, I have no option but to trust their judgment.

Watch out for those amendments. I am voting NO on Amendment 3 in this election. Special interests must have come up with it. Instead of requiring just a majority of votes, it asks 60 percent of the voters must approve any amendment or revision to the State Constitution. In other words, they want to make it harder for the people to effect change when we are not satisfied.

Anyway, I hope we have a large turnout. People get frustrated with politicians to the extent some have stopped voting altogether. I know how you feel but do not give up. Inform yourself and make your choices. Punish those who did not represent you well, and reward those who did. Give newcomers a chance, if their background shows potential. That is it, not that I have divulged any secret voting formulas here. May we all choose wisely, and may the best candidates win! Good luck to all of us!

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part I, chapter 6 “The Art of Ethical Communication.”

PUBLIC DISSENT BY U.S. SOLDIERS IS WRONG

Ed Shearer of the Associated Press reports some U.S. service personnel are going public with their opposition to the war in Iraq. They want Congress to end the war and bring U.S. soldiers back home. From a human standpoint, I know things are rough in Iraq, and I understand why anyone would want to get out of that situation. However, I am opposed to soldiers using a public platform to pressure the government into acquiescing to their demands.

To criticize U.S. war policy privately (within proper channels) or to write letters to one’s congressperson is one thing. To protest in a way that embarrasses our Commander in Chief, our leaders, and those service personnel committed to fulfilling their obligations is another thing. In the enemy forces, you have suicide bombers and fighters sacrificing their lives unquestioningly. In our ranks, we have soldiers who want out. What does that do for morale? How does the world characterize such behavior?

One of those asking for redress is Jonathan Hutto, a Navy seaman. According to Shearer’s report, Hutto says he obeys orders because he took an oath to defend the country. However, he disagrees with some of those orders, and thinks U.S. forces should leave Iraq right away. Apparently, Mr. Hutto forgot some of his basic training. The most elemental direction a soldier must learn is to obey the orders issued by superior officers. Unless your leader wants you to massacre innocent people or somehow disregard proper and accepted rules of engagement, you have to follow orders and do your best.

There is even a website for service personnel who feel like Mr. Hutto. The address is http://www.appealforredress.org. In January 2007, on Martin Luther King Jr. day, the organizers plan to deliver the collected appeals to members of Congress. Some of the sponsoring organizations are Iraq Veterans against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and Veterans for Peace.

Here is how the website words the appeal: “As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.”

Whoever wrote the appeal expresses it as if the American people elected him or her to public office. There is no room for compromise or middle of the road solutions. Congress must support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq, not one quarter, one third, or one half, but all our forces. Close all bases too. Saying that “staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price” is a matter of judgment, and I do not think service personnel is in a position to make those kinds of policy decisions best. Certainly, we must leave those assessments to the people we elect to high office, and to the expert personnel advising them.

When joining our armed forces, our volunteer armed forces, service personnel sign a contract. They are to receive pay and benefits in return for the services they will render. In times of peace, nobody complains. In times of war, especially a difficult who-and-where-the-hell-is-the-enemy-and-what-are-they-doing kind of war, it is understandable for soldiers to want to get out. Let us get primitive here. Nobody wants to die or go home crippled, all patriotism aside. However, you cannot go back on your contract or your word. There is a conflict of interest in this situation. Does a soldier want the war to end because staying there is not good for our nation (a foreign policy decision) or because he or she does not want to die or go home crippled (a personal decision)?

Most our men and women have fought the enemy valiantly. A good number of them made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more must live the rest of their lives with serious handicaps. Among those who are still alive and well, all want to avoid becoming victims, I am sure. Some want to achieve that goal not by surviving combat duty, but by avoiding combat duty. I understand. It takes great courage and determination to witness and withstand the daily carnage in that country. Perhaps if I were there, I too would ask for the end of the war and the withdrawal of all troops.

I also feel empathy for the families of service personnel, the suffering and the uncertainty connected with having a loved one over there. However, let us remember we are fighting irrational and fanatical enemies. God forbid we ever find our nation in captivity to their kind. If that day ever comes, all is lost. That is the reason we must prevail. That is the reason we must front the enemy with strength. Any indecisiveness or show of weakness on our part only serves to fuel the ambition of our enemies. Therefore, U.S. soldier, if you must complain, please do so through private channels. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, and members of Congress, you all please listen and act decisively.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part I, chapter 1 “Ground Zero.”

PUBLIC DISSENT BY U.S. SOLDIERS IS WRONG

Ed Shearer of the Associated Press reports some U.S. service personnel are going public with their opposition to the war in Iraq. They want Congress to end the war and bring U.S. soldiers back home. From a human standpoint, I know things are rough in Iraq, and I understand why anyone would want to get out of that situation. However, I am opposed to soldiers using a public platform to pressure the government into acquiescing to their demands.

To criticize U.S. war policy privately (within proper channels) or to write letters to one’s congressperson is one thing. To protest in a way that embarrasses our Commander in Chief, our leaders, and those service personnel committed to fulfilling their obligations is another thing. In the enemy forces, you have suicide bombers and fighters sacrificing their lives unquestioningly. In our ranks, we have soldiers who want out. What does that do for morale? How does the world characterize such behavior?

One of those asking for redress is Jonathan Hutto, a Navy seaman. According to Shearer’s report, Hutto says he obeys orders because he took an oath to defend the country. However, he disagrees with some of those orders, and thinks U.S. forces should leave Iraq right away. Apparently, Mr. Hutto forgot some of his basic training. The most elemental direction a soldier must learn is to obey the orders issued by superior officers. Unless your leader wants you to massacre innocent people or somehow disregard proper and accepted rules of engagement, you have to follow orders and do your best.

There is even a website for service personnel who feel like Mr. Hutto. The address is http://www.appealforredress.org. In January 2007, on Martin Luther King Jr. day, the organizers plan to deliver the collected appeals to members of Congress. Some of the sponsoring organizations are Iraq Veterans against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and Veterans for Peace.

Here is how the website words the appeal: “As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.”

Whoever wrote the appeal expresses it as if the American people elected him or her to public office. There is no room for compromise or middle of the road solutions. Congress must support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq, not one quarter, one third, or one half, but all our forces. Close all bases too. Saying that “staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price” is a matter of judgment, and I do not think service personnel is in a position to make those kinds of policy decisions best. Certainly, we must leave those assessments to the people we elect to high office, and to the expert personnel advising them.

When joining our armed forces, our volunteer armed forces, service personnel sign a contract. They are to receive pay and benefits in return for the services they will render. In times of peace, nobody complains. In times of war, especially a difficult who-and-where-the-hell-is-the-enemy-and-what-are-they-doing kind of war, it is understandable for soldiers to want to get out. Let us get primitive here. Nobody wants to die or go home crippled, all patriotism aside. However, you cannot go back on your contract or your word. There is a conflict of interest in this situation. Does a soldier want the war to end because staying there is not good for our nation (a foreign policy decision) or because he or she does not want to die or go home crippled (a personal decision)?

Most our men and women have valiantly fought the enemy. A good number of them made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more must live the rest of their lives with serious handicaps. Among those who are still alive and well, all want to avoid becoming victims, I am sure. Some want to achieve that goal not by surviving combat duty, but by avoiding combat duty. I understand. It takes great courage and determination to witness and withstand the daily carnage in that country. Perhaps if I were there, I too would ask for the end of the war and the withdrawal of all troops.

I also feel empathy for the families of service personnel, the suffering and the uncertainty connected with having a loved one over there. However, let us remember we are fighting irrational and fanatical enemies. God forbid we ever find our nation in captivity to their kind. If that day ever comes, all is lost. That is the reason we must prevail. That is the reason we must front the enemy with strength. Any indecisiveness or show of weakness on our part only serves to fuel the ambition of our enemies. Therefore, U.S. soldier, if you must complain, please do so through private channels. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, and members of Congress, you all please listen and act decisively.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part I, chapter 1 “Ground Zero.”

PUBLIC DISSENT BY U.S. SOLDIERS IS WRONG

Ed Shearer of the Associated Press reports some U.S. service personnel are going public with their opposition to the war in Iraq. They want Congress to end the war and bring U.S. soldiers back home. From a human standpoint, I know things are rough in Iraq, and I understand why anyone would want to get out of that situation. However, I am opposed to soldiers using a public platform to pressure the government into acquiescing to their demands.

To criticize U.S. war policy privately (within proper channels) or to write letters to one’s congressperson is one thing. To protest in a way that embarrasses our Commander in Chief, our leaders, and those service personnel committed to fulfilling their obligations is another thing. In the enemy forces, you have suicide bombers and fighters sacrificing their lives unquestioningly. In our ranks, we have soldiers who want out. What does that do for morale? How does the world characterize such behavior?

One of those asking for redress is Jonathan Hutto, a Navy seaman. According to Shearer’s report, Hutto says he obeys orders because he took an oath to defend the country. However, he disagrees with some of those orders, and thinks U.S. forces should leave Iraq right away. Apparently, Mr. Hutto forgot some of his basic training. The most elemental direction a soldier must learn is to obey the orders issued by superior officers. Unless your leader wants you to massacre innocent people or somehow disregard proper and accepted rules of engagement, you have to follow orders and do your best.

There is even a website for service personnel who feel like Mr. Hutto. The address is http://www.appealforredress.org. In January 2007, on Martin Luther King Jr. day, the organizers plan to deliver the collected appeals to members of Congress. Some of the sponsoring organizations are Iraq Veterans against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and Veterans for Peace.

Here is how the website words the appeal: “As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.”

Whoever wrote the appeal expresses it as if the American people elected him or her to public office. There is no room for compromise or middle of the road solutions. Congress must support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq, not one quarter, one third, or one half, but all our forces. Close all bases too. Saying that “staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price” is a matter of judgment, and I do not think service personnel is in a position to make those kinds of policy decisions best. Certainly, we must leave those assessments to the people we elect to high office, and to the expert personnel advising them.

When joining our armed forces, our volunteer armed forces, service personnel sign a contract. They are to receive pay and benefits in return for the services they will render. In times of peace, nobody complains. In times of war, especially a difficult who-and-where-the-hell-is-the-enemy-and-what-are-they-doing kind of war, it is understandable for soldiers to want to get out. Let us get primitive here. Nobody wants to die or go home crippled, all patriotism aside. However, you cannot go back on your contract or your word. There is a conflict of interest in this situation. Does a soldier want the war to end because staying there is not good for our nation (a foreign policy decision) or because he or she does not want to die or go home crippled (a personal decision)?

Most our men and women have valiantly fought the enemy. A good number of them made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more must live the rest of their lives with serious handicaps. Among those who are still alive and well, all want to avoid becoming victims, I am sure. Some want to achieve that goal not by surviving combat duty, but by avoiding combat duty. I understand. It takes great courage and determination to witness and withstand the daily carnage in that country. Perhaps if I were there, I too would ask for the end of the war and the withdrawal of all troops.

I also feel empathy for the families of service personnel, the suffering and the uncertainty connected with having a loved one over there. However, let us remember we are fighting irrational and fanatical enemies. God forbid we ever find our nation in captivity to their kind. If that day ever comes, all is lost. That is the reason we must prevail. That is the reason we must front the enemy with strength. Any indecisiveness or show of weakness on our part only serves to fuel the ambition of our enemies. Therefore, U.S. soldier, if you must complain, please do so through private channels. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, and members of Congress, you all please listen and act decisively.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part I, chapter 1 “Ground Zero.”

PUBLIC DISSENT BY U.S. SOLDIERS IS WRONG

Ed Shearer of the Associated Press reports some U.S. service personnel are going public with their opposition to the war in Iraq. They want Congress to end the war and bring U.S. soldiers back home. From a human standpoint, I know things are rough in Iraq, and I understand why anyone would want to get out of that situation. However, I am opposed to soldiers using a public platform to pressure the government into acquiescing to their demands.

To criticize U.S. war policy privately (within proper channels) or to write letters to one’s congressperson is one thing. To protest in a way that embarrasses our Commander in Chief, our leaders, and those service personnel committed to fulfilling their obligations is another thing. In the enemy forces, you have suicide bombers and fighters sacrificing their lives unquestioningly. In our ranks, we have soldiers who want out. What does that do for morale? How does the world characterize such behavior?

One of those asking for redress is Jonathan Hutto, a Navy seaman. According to Shearer’s report, Hutto says he obeys orders because he took an oath to defend the country. However, he disagrees with some of those orders, and thinks U.S. forces should leave Iraq right away. Apparently, Mr. Hutto forgot some of his basic training. The most elemental direction a soldier must learn is to obey the orders issued by superior officers. Unless your leader wants you to massacre innocent people or somehow disregard proper and accepted rules of engagement, you have to follow orders and do your best.

There is even a website for service personnel who feel like Mr. Hutto. The address is http://www.appealforredress.org. In January 2007, on Martin Luther King Jr. day, the organizers plan to deliver the collected appeals to members of Congress. Some of the sponsoring organizations are Iraq Veterans against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and Veterans for Peace.

Here is how the website words the appeal: “As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.”

Whoever wrote the appeal expresses it as if the American people elected him or her to public office. There is no room for compromise or middle of the road solutions. Congress must support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq, not one quarter, one third, or one half, but all our forces. Close all bases too. Saying that “staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price” is a matter of judgment, and I do not think service personnel is in a position to make those kinds of policy decisions best. Certainly, we must leave those assessments to the people we elect to high office, and to the expert personnel advising them.

When joining our armed forces, our volunteer armed forces, service personnel sign a contract. They are to receive pay and benefits in return for the services they will render. In times of peace, nobody complains. In times of war, especially a difficult who-and-where-the-hell-is-the-enemy-and-what-are-they-doing kind of war, it is understandable for soldiers to want to get out. Let us get primitive here. Nobody wants to die or go home crippled, all patriotism aside. However, you cannot go back on your contract or your word. There is a conflict of interest in this situation. Does a soldier want the war to end because staying there is not good for our nation (a foreign policy decision) or because he or she does not want to die or go home crippled (a personal decision)?

Most our men and women have valiantly fought the enemy. A good number of them made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more must live the rest of their lives with serious handicaps. Among those who are still alive and well, all want to avoid becoming victims, I am sure. Some want to achieve that goal not by surviving combat duty, but by avoiding combat duty. I understand. It takes great courage and determination to witness and withstand the daily carnage in that country. Perhaps if I were there, I too would ask for the end of the war and the withdrawal of all troops.

I also feel empathy for the families of service personnel, the suffering and the uncertainty connected with having a loved one over there. However, let us remember we are fighting irrational and fanatical enemies. God forbid we ever find our nation in captivity to their kind. If that day ever comes, all is lost. That is the reason we must prevail. That is the reason we must front the enemy with strength. Any indecisiveness or show of weakness on our part only serves to fuel the ambition of our enemies. Therefore, U.S. soldier, if you must complain, please do so through private channels. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, and members of Congress, you all please listen and act decisively.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part I, chapter 1 “Ground Zero.”

JUSTICE SYSTEM TOO SOFT ON CRIMINALS

On Wednesday, October 25, the state of Florida executed Danny Rolling by lethal injection. Going to sleep is a very easy way to die for a serial killer that brutally butchered five college students in Gainesville. According to newspaper reports, the victims’ families felt he should have suffered much more before taking his lasts breaths. I agree.

Showing love and forgiveness to the likes of Danny Rolling is inconceivable to me. I do not understand people with those inclinations, those who protest against the death penalty. You have to be brainwashed, not to realize such behavior is a perversion or degeneration of human emotion. We are not cold-blooded reptiles. Hatred and punishment are the proper responses to the heinous acts of such monsters.

Vengeance, yes, vengeance is appropriate. Let us look at the definition of “vengeance.” It is “Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.” What is wrong with that when dealing with hardened criminals, oppressive dictators, or all the other vermin that inhabit our planet? There is nothing wrong with it. The desire for vengeance is a proper human emotion, and do not let anybody tell you any different. Do not ever feel ashamed for hating or wanting to give these bastards some of their own medicine.

Many people say “not vengeance, but justice.” Okay, in a civilized society we cannot have people taking the law into their own hands, not that I would mind family members of victims “taking care” of fiends like Danny Rolling, but I understand that many innocent people would be wrongly injured or executed if we allowed it. We do need trials to make sure juries find the right suspects guilty while the wrong suspects go free. However, in the way it sentences and punishes, the justice system must become more just. Danny Rolling committed those crimes back in 1990. It took the justice system SIXTEEN YEARS to kill this namuh* with (of all possible forms of execution) A LOUSY INJECTION.

The justice system should reflect the hurt, the anger, and the outrage of the victims’ families, by issuing physical punishment to criminals in equal or greater proportion to the pain and trauma they inflicted. It is only fair. If society does not want people taking the law into their own hands, then society must channel the rightful feelings of vengeance by the families of victims through the justice system.

We must not ask aggrieved mourners to subdue their emotions. We must ask the laws, the judges, and the juries to deliver sentences and punishment that satisfy those emotions. It is the right thing to do and, again, do not let pacifists or people who like to turn-the-other-cheek tell you any different. God gave us a whole range of emotions to react to different situations. Therefore, when somebody hurts one of your loved ones for no good reason whatsoever, do not be ashamed to ask for blood in return.

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

CUBA IS A PRISON

Why call Cuba a country? Call it what it is, a prison. Living there is hell. According to a report from Wilfredo Cancio Isla published in el Nuevo Herald today, October 26, almost 6,000 Cubans risked their lives at sea trying to get to the United States so far this year. Only a little more than 3,000 were successful. The Coast Guard intercepted the rest. They are back in Cuba. What the report cannot tell us is how many more perished making the voyage.

The direct sea route from Cuba to Florida is not the only way Cubans are fleeing the island. They go by sea to the Dominican Republic and from there try to cross the dangerous Canal de la Mona to Puerto Rico. They try going by sea to Honduras and Mexico. If successful, they cross the Mexican border to come to the United States. Cancio reports the unofficial figure crossing the border as around 6,000 in 2006 and more than 7,600 in 2005. Again, we do not know how many more Cubans died using these routes to freedom.

Obviously, Cuba is not a paradise for Cubans. Tourists enjoy goods and services out of reach for the natives. From what I hear, a form of apartheid prohibits Cuban nationals from entering certain establishments reserved for tourists. There is no freedom of information. Citizens have access only to government owned media. The indoctrination never stops. I am hopeful transmissions from a new TV Marti plane can get through to some of the population there. In the past, Castro has had success interfering with those signals. The World Wide Web is not for Cubans either. There is no access to the Internet, unless you are one of the privileged few working in the high government ranks. In other words, you can browse the Internet if you are one of the oppressors, not one of the oppressed.

The Cuban government wants to keep citizens in the Dark Ages. Not an ounce of truth, not a ray of light must reach the minds and eyes of the millions of prisoners living on the island. Even the health status of the beast is a big dark secret, a state secret they say. Are they afraid the inmates will rejoice and revolt upon hearing of Fidel Castro’s death? Contrary to outside speculation, perhaps the tyrant is healing. They do not want us to know how well (no pictures, no film, and no interviews for a month) to dramatize his comeback to office. As always, they love to portray this image of Castro as the invincible leader. This time, with great fanfare they would publicize his return to power, describing him as godlike, escaping death, resurrecting from oblivion. I hope and pray he is already dead or on his way to joining Lucifer in Hell soon. Those who know my theology can hope like me. Castro should receive the punishment he deserves in the land of the lakes of fire.

Regardless what happens with Fidel Castro, however, Cuba remains a prison until the day we depose that communist government from power. To make that possible, support the U.S. embargo against Cuba. Isolate the regime. Do not trade with them. Do not conduct cultural exchange programs with Cuba. Break diplomatic ties with the island. How can one be diplomatic with liars and criminals? Instead, cut off their oxygen gradually, until they can no longer breathe.

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

CUBAN DIPLOMAT TWISTS THE TRUTH

Dagoberto Rodríguez, a diplomat for the Cuban government in Washington, is the latest dramatist denouncing the U.S. embargo. According to him, this is “...the longest running and most ruthless blockade ever known to mankind...”

Looking up the word “blockade” in the dictionary yields the following: “The hostile isolation of a nation, city, or harbor so as to prevent traffic and commerce.” Does anybody see an armada of ships blockading the island of Cuba? No. Castro’s regime is free to do business with every other country in the world. At the same time, the U.S. has a right to do business only with those states that are compatible with our principles and our way of life. We did not trade with Hitler, and we do not trade with Castro. It is difficult for me to understand why there is opposition to the U. S. embargo against Cuba. Give Cubans back the freedom they lost 47 years ago, and the embargo will end. Simple enough, I think. The U.N. had no problem placing sanctions and fighting against the apartheid in South Africa. Why is the Cuban situation any different?

Cuba is free to engage in commerce with every other country except the United States. They do, although the inefficient communist economy earns them a very bad credit rating. Cuba owes billions to those states and businesses stupid and unethical enough to trade with Castro and his mercenaries. I personally hope those “merchants at the Temple” lose everything, starting with the ones coming from Spain. Castro is in debt to Spain for more than a billion dollars. Here she is, Cuba’s mother country prostituting itself for money. I guess it is probably resentment going back to the Cuban victory in the war of independence. Now, a good number of Spanish firms and tourists are helping Castro put the yoke back on the necks of those unfortunate enough to live on the island. The terms “marranos” and “puercos,” which mean “pigs,” fits them well, especially those who go to Cuba to have sex with underage teenagers.

Mr. Rodríguez likes to twist the truth, as do all those working for Castro. The U.S. has imposed an embargo on trade with Cuba, not a blockade. Here is the definition of the word "embargo": “A prohibition by a government on certain or all trade with a foreign nation.” Since certain kinds of food and medicine are exceptions, what we have is not even a full embargo. Therefore, Mr. Rodríguez and all the other propagandists in Castro’s payroll should cut out the whining and the misinformation. All of you get together, kiss Castro good night, and relinquish power. With or without your help, Cuba will be free and democratic once again. The day is near.

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