Space Math and the Beginning & End of Race & Religion in 2120 milliseconds

Space Math:

Today, Friday 25 Aug 2017, the day will last 86,400.0004578 seconds. Based on averages, in 2117 this same day will be 2.4 ms (milliseconds) longer or 86,400.0028578 seconds. In 1907 it was 2.4 ms shorter: 86399.9980578 seconds.

According to NASA the math works out as:

 m = (y2 - y1 )/ (x2 - x1) = 6 hours / 900 million years or 0.0067 hours/million years. Since there are 3,600 seconds/ hour and 10,000 centuries in 1 million years (Myr), this unit conversion yields 0.0067 hr/Myr x (3600 sec/hr) x (1 Myr / 10,000 centuries) = 0.0024 seconds/century. This is normally cited as 2.4 milliseconds per century. 

In the Cryogenian period (900 million years ago) the days would have been six hours shorter – which also means there would have been 486 days in the year.  As the earth continues to slow in rotation, 900 million years in the future, the days will be 30 hours long, with only 292 days in the year.  i.e. the year will end in mid-October.

The Beginning of Race & Religion:

“There is only one race, the human race.”  While this statement means well, it is simply false.  Race is defined as distinctive physical traits and culture within interbreeding groups of a species.  Thus, a correct account is “There is only human species, with many races.”

If we consider the time between generations to be 25 years; then ~2800 generations ago** humans began to migrate out of Africa; then the days would have been closer to 2 seconds shorter than they are today. **the actual number of generations would be higher, as 25 years between generations is a modern number, as we go further back in time the generation time gap will drop to 20y, 15y, etc..

When the days were 23:58:00 long the statement “only one race” would have been true, however, this was a fleeting moment in human evolution.  As groups grew, separated and migrated around the globe, gene pools became isolated.  Language developed independently.  Animal worship (animism) evolved into sun and star worship, which in turn developed into thousands of deities.  Then in a relatively short period respectably, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc. progressed into form from the older gods.  The length of the day by the time Judaism was created was 24 hours less ~28 ms.

After, once the Earth's slowing spin added an additional 240 ms; Rome destroyed the Jewish temple, provoking a sect of Jews to promote Paul’s comic Jesus into a historical figure.  Hence forward for the most part, even with another 480 ms in the day, we, humans have kept interbreeding in isolated groups -  Guarding our cultures, religion, and separate races.  Providing unification within these groups thru the fictional character myths of individuals such as King Arthur, Buddha, Krishna, Odysseus, Thor, Jesus, and in American culture even Betty Crocker.

The End of Race & Religion:

Getting back to the modern, near 24 hour, day – Today I was in an all-day workshop; there were 17 of us, broken down as follows:

·         5 people from the Indian subcontinent

·         5 of Northern European background

·         3 Asian

·         1 of Southern European background (born in South America)

·         1 African

·         1 Polynesian

·         1 Mesoamerican

All of these people are now American, all living in the U.S..  To unify us today, we don’t need a god.  We are a team.  Working for the same company with a common goal; 'for our project to be successful.' 

As the generations move forward, and a child with parents from one side of the globe grows up next door to kids with links from another side of the world, nature will take hold.  Our breeding gene pool will change in a blink of an eye from a single region to the globe.  Essentially in x generations, we will f*ck our way back to one race, removing the need for religion along with it.  And we may only need to add 120 ms to the day to do it, or 2120 ms since the last time humans were one race.  

Reversing Direction

The U.S. and China are passing each other in opposite directions in a U-turn from traditional 20th century scientific/educational expenditure models.

Last week Beijing released an experimental venture and educational plan to be the world leader in A.I. by 2030.  Ref Southern China Morning Post.

While in Washington yet another scientific appointment will be free from anyone with a science background.  The President has proposed removing a scientist from the Department of Agriculture’s chief scientist position; to be replaced by a talk radio host (Sam Clovis) who has self-proclaimed anti-science viewpoints.

A quote from Modern Farmer Magazine considering the talk radio host for this position:  [Established back in 1994, the position, according to the language in the bill, “shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.”]

When one reads the description of the position, one realizes when the media proclaims  “Trump’s war on Science,”  this is not hyperbole, it is the reality.   At the same time, we must accept that Trumpism is a belief system based on faith.  Thus, the religion of Trump cannot be counter-balanced by logic; meaning the description of the position posted by Modern Farmer will not be relevant to a person who has accepted Trumpism.

How can we reverse the anti-science and anti-educational U-turn Trumpism is taking us? Promoting good old competition within the STEM fields in the areas of the country where Trumpism has dug in the deepest is one place to start.

For me personally, following a few trips, over the past decade, to the cities of Shenzhen and Beijing; contemplating how fast China is adopting scientific practices (while at the same time how quickly Washington is accelerating away from science and education); I wonder if China 2050 will have the same technological dominance over the U.S., as the U.S. had over China in 1950.

Intentional Effects: How Trump’s pick for Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, will Spark a Return to American Manufacturing Leadership.

Is it worth giving up on the dream of real equal access to education?

The Trump campaign ran on an education policy grounded in re-routing federal education funds from public to private schools.  The Trump educational problem statement was this: "How do we spend less on public education and improve student test scores simultaneously?"  The President-Elect is following through and answering that question by selecting billionaire Betsy DeVosof Michigan for Education Secretary.   Betsy DeVos has been a leader in the anti-public school funding movement; she has the experience and the contacts to alter the flow of federal funds away from public schools (which focus on normalization of educational standards) to private schools allowing for differentiation in educational strategies for students of various locals.  The taxpayer and the American manufacturing sector can, and many are betting will;  benefit from this change.  But to what ends?

Here are two examples of how this change may affect two distinct student bodies:

1) The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD)-Arizona - SUSD boasts some of the highest ranked public schools in the nation.  They have well received academic, sports, and arts programs.   The population in this district also have a relatively high percentage of students from affluent families attending even higher ranking private schools.   When the new program (of DeVos) is enacted, and SUSD loses much of its federal funding, the community will step in to pick up the cost locally as it is a wealthy tax base.   A second effect is federal dollars will now be flowing into the local Scottsdale high-end private schools – allowing a higher percentage of local students to attend schools aimed at preparing students for elite universities - all very good for the Scottsdale area. The new program will not harm, but overall benefit the Scottsdale community.

2) The second example is a rural Arizona school district.  Arizona rural school districts rank toward the lower end of the national spectrum.  These are districts which have cut their arts programs to keep academics afloat and fund some of the most ‘important sports’ such as High School Football.  The students in these areas have a relatively low percentage of students attending private schools.  When the new program (of DeVos) is enacted, and the rural schools lose much of their federal funding, the community will not have a tax base to step in to save their public schools. These schools that are currently receiving Cs and Ds when ranked nationally will drop to Ds and Fs.  There are little to no private schools located in the economically challenged areas to help.  However, now DeVos will have the funding to open new “Trump” style private Elementary schools, Jr. High, and High Schools.   Trump has already told us what these new schools will focus on “Test Scores.”   The schools will de-emphasize STEM and the arts; these programs are too expensive and quite frankly there are already enough college bound students from wealthy school districts such as SUSD that focus on STEM and the arts to hold up the economic growth in these areas.   These new rural ‘Trump’ schools will train our new American blue collar working class, quickly and efficiently.   Programs such as band, and history are not feasible, in the spirit of thrift, for the rural kids.   Rather our economic future requires a large group of students to focus on level 1 and 2 math, computer usage skills, proper language and communication. The Trump economy requires a base of workers to be proficient in plugging a number into an algebraic expression, convert fractions to decimals and finding the average or arithmetic mean.   However, this same economic growth does not require funding the base worker to study chemistry, physics, biology, self-awareness, or master a violin and study the math of harmonics.

The Trump/DeVos educational system will work to improve manufacturing productivity in America– it is designed to do this.  The plan, if enacted by Congress,  may create a well-trained blue collar workforce; returning America to the global manufacturing leader.   But is it worth giving up on the dream of real equal access to education?   To accept DeVos; is to accept government-sponsored class based education programming – labeling it with the euphemism of ‘school choice.'

Mapping 1st and 2nd-Century Jewish politics and the excommunication of the “Followers of the Way” from the Synagogues - To the evolution of the Synoptic Gospels and with the 4th Gospel John.

My thesis, at this moment, will be based on the following assumptions (meaning I won’t argue them but accept them to be true):

• The Christian dating system (BC/AD) did not exist before 525 AD.   What we call today 1st century Israel was contemporarily dated from the Roman AUC. 
• The Roman prefect-procurator Pontius Pilate served in Judaea from  311 to 321 AUC.   The best historical guess of the year of the crucifixion, was based on Pontius Pilate’s service dates by those who have devoted the most study to this issue, is 317 AUC; midway thru Pontius Pilate’s tenure in Judaea.
• Paul set the stage for Christianity when he wrote between the years of 336 AUC to 349 (51/64 CE).
• Mark, the 1st-Gospel was written ~42 years later in 359 AUC.   This is 2.8 generations after the crucifixion assuming a 15 year generation gab at this time.
• Matthew, the 2nd-Gospel was written in 369 AUC.
• The Scholarship on the writing of Luke, the 3rd-Gospel, is anywhere from 365 to 425 AUC.  This thesis will place the writing of Luke at 373 AUC.
• John, the 4th-Gospel was written no sooner than 385 AUC but before 425 AUC.  Between 5 and 6 generations after the crucifixion.

One may argue any of the points above, but this is the best scholarship we have at the moment.   These are not my arguments; I am however using the above positions as a baseline in my research.   Here is a current outline, which I’ll turn into a abstract before February.

I will provide evidence in my research either for or against the following main ideas.   I don’t know whether it will be for or against yet because I suspect it will take two years of research to complete.

• Mark was written during the time that one sect of Jews had an audacious political goal to add Jesus as a disciple/prophet in the Jewish tradition.   They were bold and pushed a Gentile-friendly argument.  This political force was approximately 18 years before the Jewish Orthodox excommunicated the “Followers of the way.”   The Roman destruction of the Second Temple happened the same year as Mark was authored (what we now refer to as 70 CE).  The destruction of the Temple rendered the “Followers of the Way” to be willing to take on this dauntless charge of change.
• Matthew rewrote Mark ten years later not only to fix and improve on it but also to reverse its too-Gentile-friendly argument.  Unlike Mark, which favors a brand of Christianity developed by Paul (in which Torah observance was an option), the author of Matthew comes from a community of Torah-observant Jewish scholars.   The change in tone from Mark to Mathew is a result of the changing political environment.  It was realized that the push of Mark to canonize Jesus in the Jewish tradition would not happen without the support of Torah observance.
• The political change in Matthew was not enough to stop the excommunication.  When diplomacy broke down, and it was realized the split (between the “Followers of the Way” and the Jewish Orthodox) was inevitable; Luke was written.  Neither Mark or Matthew contained history in the writings, there is no sense or focus on incorporating current secular events into the books which would allow historical dating or past interactions.
• Luke, in a response to a newly found Christian independence, was the first Gospel to represent itself as history overtly.   Luke writes like a historian, adding superficial historical details as local color to bring legitimacy to the newly formed cult.  (the word cult is used to describe a relatively small group of people outside the Orthodox.  It is not utilized for a negative connotation as it is sometimes used today.)   Luke creates a resurrection narrative that is engineered to answer skeptics of Matthew’s account.  In 2016 history is still void of material of the crucifixion and resurrection from the contemporary time of the events.  Luke, written approximately four generations after the resurrection would not have had access to original material either, nor did anyone else at the time.  Thus, Luke was free to create a narrative to fit his currently found political arena.
• John, written four to five generations after the crucifixion and at least two generations after the split; is a free redaction of the previous Gospels.  John, written by multiple authors, leveraged Mark, Matthew, and Luke to aim a rebut to a theme common to them all:  that ‘no sign shall be given’ that Jesus is the Messiah.   Mark was written before miracles had been imagined for Jesus.  The ideas suggesting that Jesus was pre-existent, that he was of one substance with God, are introduced by John in the late tenth decade; politically driven by the new idea contained in John, that Jesus is the new Moses.  
• The political stage for the next millennium was set; Christians were no longer attempting to reconcile with Judaism; rather they were directly competing with Judaism; Christian antisemitism was engendered by these competing ideas for the future of the "True Faith".  .
• Christianity was a developing story from the year 336 AUC (51CE) to the completion of the 4th-Gospel of John ~90 years later.  During this century-long journey, Christianity had many a sojourn driven by multiple political realities in which the faith was required to adjust with to survive.  Not only did Christianity survive these political struggles, but within two hundred yeas Rome had outlawed all other forms of Religions (some exceptions were made for  Jewish tradition). 
• Christianity within two centuries was vaulted to the largest, most dominant religion, and force of the common era.

Masters of Religions Studies thesis

Idea 1:

My thesis, at this moment, will be based on the following assumptions (meaning I won’t argue them but accept them to be true):

• ·         The Christian dating system (BC/AD) did not exist before 525 AD.   What we call today 1^st century Israel was contemporarily dated via Rome’s AUC.
• ·         The Roman prefect-procurator Pontius Pilate served in Judaea from  311 to 321 AUC.   The best historical guess of the year of the crucifixion, was based on Pontius Pilate’s service dates by those who have devoted the most study to this issue, is 317 AUC.  Midway thru Pontius Pilate’s tenure in Judaea.
• ·         Paul set the stage for Christianity when he wrote between the years of 336 AUC to 349 (51/64 CE).
• ·         Mark, the 1^st-Gospel was written ~42 years later in 359 AUC.   This is 2.8 generations after the crucifixion assuming a 15 year generation gab at this time.
• ·         Matthew, the 2^nd-Gospel was written in 369 AUC.
• ·         The Scholarship on the writing of Luke, the 3^rd-Gospel, is anywhere from 365 to 425 AUC.  This thesis will place the writing of Luke at 373 AUC.
• ·         John, the 4^th-Gospel was written no sooner than 385 AUC but before 425 AUC.  Between 5 and 6 generations after the crucifixion.

One may argue any the points above, but this is the best scholarship we have at the moment.   These are not my arguments; I am however using the above positions as a baseline in my research.   Here is a current outline, which I’ll turn into a abstract before February.

I will provide evidence in my research either for or against the following main ideas.   I don’t know whether it will be for or against yet because I suspect it will take two years of research to complete.

• ·         Mark was written during the time that one sect of Jews had an audacious political goal to add Jesus as a disciple/prophet in the Jewish tradition.   They were bold and pushed a Gentile-friendly argument.  This political force was approximately 18 years before the Jewish Orthodox excommunicated the “Followers of the way.”   The Roman destruction of the Second Temple happened the same year as Mark was authored (what we now refer to as 70 CE).  The destruction of the Temple rendered the “Followers of the Way” to be willing to take on this dauntless charge of change.
• ·         Matthew rewrote Mark ten years later not only to fix and improve on it but also to reverse its too-Gentile-friendly argument.  Unlike Mark, which favors a brand of Christianity developed by Paul (in which Torah observance was an option), the author of Matthew comes from a community of Torah-observant Christians.   The change in tone from Mark to Mathew is a result of the changing environment.  It was realized that the push of Mark to canonize Jesus in the Jewish tradition would not happen without the support of Torah observation.
• ·         The political change in Matthew was not enough to stop the excommunication.  When diplomacy broke down, and it was realized the split (between the “Followers of the Way” and the Jewish Orthodox) was inevitable; Luke was written.  Neither Mark or Mathew contained history in the writings, there no sense or focus on incorporating current secular invents into the books which would allow historical dating or past interactions.
• ·         Luke, in a response to a newly found Christian independence, was the first Gospel to represent itself as history overtly.   Luke writes like a historian, adding superficial historical details as local color to bring legitimacy to the newly formed cult.  (the word cult is used to describe a relatively small group of people outside the Orthodox.  It is not utilized for a negative connotation as it is sometimes used today.)   Luke creates a resurrection narrative that is engineered to answer skeptics of Matthew’s account.  In 2016 history is still void of material of the crucifixion and resurrection from the contemporary time of the events.  Luke, written approximately four generations after the resurrection would not have had access to original material either, nor did anyone else at the time.  Thus, Luke was free to create a narrative to fit his currently found political arena.
• ·         John, written four to five generations after the crucifixion and at least two generations after the split; is a free redaction of the previous Gospels.  John, written by multiple authors, leveraged Mark, Mathew, and Luke to aim a rebut to a theme common to them all:  that ‘no sign shall be given’ that Jesus is the Messiah.   Mark was written before miracles had been imagined for Jesus.  The ideas suggesting that Jesus was pre-existent, that he was of one substance with God, are introduced by John in the late tenth decade; politically driven by the new idea contained in John, that Jesus is the new Moses. 
• ·         The political stage for the next millennium was set; Christians were no longer attempting to reconcile with Judaism; rather they were directly competing with it and with that Christian antisemitism was born.
• ·         Christianity was a developing story from the year 336 AUC (51CE) to the competition of the 4^th-Gospel of John ~90 years later.  During this century-long journey, Christianity had many a sojourn driven by multiple political realities in which the faith was required to adjust with to survive.  Not only did Christianity survive these political struggles, but within two hundred yeas Rome had outlawed all other forms of Religions (some exceptions were made for  Jewish tradition).  Christianity within two centuries was vaulted to the largest, most dominant religion, and force of the common era.

Idea 2:

The Gospels of Mark, and Matthew, were written (at least started) by Jewish authors in the synagogue during the eight and ninth decades, before the excommunication of the Jewish sect called “Followers of the Way” in the year 841 AUC (what we now call 88 CE). These books go back and forth on the idea of what a Gentile is. Luke may have been written in 841 AUC creating a catalyst for the excommunication, or more likely as an attempt to repair the new divide, but that is a fluid idea either way. The fourth Gospel, John, was started in the late tenth decade; it was the only one of these four books without scholarly disagreement clearly originating after the excommunication. The post-excommunication fourth Gospel is where the ideas of Jesus as pre-existent, one with God, the Trinity, etc. began to evolve; along with it antisemitic ideas also began to take hold. The beginning of the 2nd-century was a time of political struggle as the new cult (the word cult is used to describe a relatively small group of people outside the orthodox religion), now separated from the synagogue grappling to remain relevant. The fourth Gospel reflects the struggle in the changing of the Jesus narrative as the next Moses. John is a political statement to the orthodox that "I am" part of the Jewish tradition. But the attempts to rejoin the orthodox failed. Christian antisemitism is a direct result of the excommunication; it has nothing to do with the crucifixion story, as this took place in time about 52 years before the split. This gap represented three and 1/2 generations in 1st century Israel. Thus, the concept of Christianity, and therefore Christian antisemitism did not exist until more than three generations after the crucifixion story as dated by the recall of Pontius Pilate to Rome in 789 AUC. Christian antisemitism took hold with the writing of John in the 2nd-century but was unable to progress beyond a small group until Constantine raised Christianity to the status of “legal” in the fourth century. Later that century Constantius II outlawed other religions and race discrimination exploded in Europe from this moment forward. Antisemitism continued to flourish in western society for more than a millennium but took a major blow in 1791 with the writing of the First Amendment of the United States, which declared adoption of a state religion as illegal; challenging 1400 years of Christian governmental rule. Antisemitism wasn’t crushed by any means and still grew in Europe until reaching a zenith during the Holocaust. Galileo remained convicted of heresy until 1992, but the Church did not expel a single leader of the Third Reich. Therefore, no matter how sickening the majority of modern people now viewed race prejudice, the measure was still active in the church during the 20th-century. A pursuit that started within the 2nd-century writing of the book of John, driven by the excommunication of the sect, and empowered by the Romans has been with us since. As Christian America continues to lose members, the surviving population is growing more fundamental as the number of churchgoers continues to decline; 40% of American millennials now consider themselves as non-religious. In 1970 90% of Americans identified as Christian, this number is expected to drop below 50% by the end of the 2020s. Percentages of Christians in the west will slump to a level not known since before the fall of Rome. Will this second excommunication, a fall from mainstream relevance, create a social structure for a return of an antisemitic dominance within the church by 2030?

Idea 3:

How do we promote 1st century Christian scholarship? Our best scholarship places Paul’s writings between the years 51 CE and 64 CE. In so Paul would have written I Thessalonians, Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Romans, Philemon and Philippians. Epistles such as Hebrews were not attributed to Paul until the King James translation in 1611, such stories are political, that’s all – they are not historical - , if you could connect your story with Paul, you had political power! . . . . Miracles dint’ show up until the 8th decade with Mark. And all the “Drink my blood/Eat my Flesh” ideas didn’t come into play up until the tenth decade in the 4th Gospel after the Messianic Jews were excommunicated. People were writing these stories, but we only talk about the stories written. Behind the writings, from the 5th to the 14th decade, there are stories - stories of people, people writing of their God (people waiting on their God).

Promoting a Productive Mind in an Era of Disjointed Political Directions

This is one of my shorter blogs as the method of promoting a productive mind in an era of disjointed political directions, is well, rather simple; When watching election coverage or reading a post from a Facebook friend, identify the material as associated with a conspiracy.  I don’t mean propaganda in the traditional sense, I mean mustache twirling conspiracies.

Eric R. Weinstein, an American mathematician, and economist wrote on conspiracy theory: “All smart people are conspiracy theorists.”   Before taking this out of context, using Weinstein’s words to promote the idea that the Bush family and Margaret Thatcher are shape-shifting alien reptiles, hear the stipulation connected to this claim:

Take the position of saying, even if just to yourself; this is what I really think is true; that Margaret Thatcher is an alien reptile.  Now put on a different hat and steelman the counter argument on plausibility.  Develop enough self-authorship of your mind to explore things that might be nutty and then do the editing to see whether or not you achieved something in the nutty state.   And then go back and forth.  Camp and decamp.

When you don’t camp and decamp, your mind is not solving problems.  The tension between these modules in the mind creates productive thinking.  Temporary suspension of rationality is sometimes needed to achieve mental progress.

Now apply the method to contemporary events concerning possible political outcomes, example: Sean Hannity recently said:  “If in 96 days Trump loses this election, I am pointing the finger directly at people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and John McCain.”

1.       The initial reaction to that statement would be; False, if in 96 days Trump loses he has no one to blame but his own odd behavior.
2.             Embrace the statement (a.k.a conspiracy to use Weinstein’s terms).  If I think like a hyperpartisan political contributor; it makes perfect logic to voice this statement.  Because if everyone in the party unified behind Trump, this re-assurance will pull undecided voters over. 
3.       Third, look at our own nutty mind from step two, self-edit and ask did we achieve any new knowledge?  I’ll conclude that yes we did achieve new knowledge; that it is perfectly rational for Hannity to make this statement.  However, in our editing, it is hard not to think of the children’s tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”  Without Paul Ryan and John McCain, who will tell the Emperor he has no clothes?

Thoughts of Freedom on Independence Day Weekend.

A common family tradition at Thanksgiving is for everyone at the table to tell everyone else what they are thankful for; this is not so common of families on the 4^th of July.  We are more caught up in BBQ, parades, and nationalism.  We rarely hear sediments connected to the Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Preamble is about welfare for all people, protected by justice, tranquility, and common defense.

 

Looking at the news, the week leading up to the 4^th of July weekend, there were many stories that show how special interests are constantly a threat to justice, tranquility, and welfare for all - here are three:

1       . Ralph’s Thriftway v. State of Washington Department of Health

2       . Opposition to SB 1146

3       . iPhones versus seer stones

 

The first story, Ralph’s Thriftway v. State of Washington Department of Health, starts on a common theme today, but then takes a bizarre twist.  The short description of this case is; Washington State passed a law on the distribution of pharmaceuticals.  The state was then taken to court as Ralph’s Thriftway requested a second law be created for Christian pharmacists.

One may agree or disagree with the either of the purposed laws; it doesn’t matter which law one supports.  The important focus is, that to protect justice and tranquility; all American’s must be subject to one law.  Further, the first sentence of the Bill of Rights reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Thus, it is against American’s founding to create a special law for Christians.  And therefore, Ralph’s Thriftway case lost.  But oddly the case made it all the way to the consideration of the Supreme Court last week, however, then as expected the SCOTUS

did not grant certiorari.  So what is the bizarre twist?  The curious writing is Justice Alito’s dissent, posted @  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-862_2c8f.pdf.   In the short 15-page dissent Justice Alito asked multiple times -  if pharmaceutical laws can be secular based, why not have religious based laws too?  This is an extraordinary question as the law the land, that we cannot have religious laws, was put into place by the Founders to protect justice and tranquility for all.  The Justice knows this, and therefore it is peculiar as why he would promote allowing us to open the slippery slope back to the tyranny of religious law.  Luckily the other Justices were not confused, but it still reminds us that even those at the top of the American judicial system can lose focus, and our freedoms are not guaranteed.

Last week the opposition to California SB 1146 also began to grow.   http://www.opposesb1146.com/    The bill states that post-secondary schools which receive public funding cannot practice discrimination.  The bill does not mention religion, but the right wing is fighting SB 1146 to allow religious discrimination to remain in place and for it to be publicly funded.   There are two simple takeaways from this; one don’t discriminate, but if you do don’t be a whiny little bitch when taxpayers do not support you.  This is an example of freedom the Constitution goes not grant, and one that should never be expected.

 

The third story this week which reminded me of the delicate freedoms we have, may not immediately seem on the subject.  I will connect the relevance back in - in the next few paragraphs.  The story is a post by Dieter F Uchtdorf, who is a senior representative of the LDS church.  Before I move forward with this third example I must disclose that some of the greatest people I know (like my father and my brother) are LDS, I grew up LDS, and my family is still LDS; 99% of LDS members I know are good, kind, caring people.  But this does not grant immunity to the LDS leaders that they can write or say anything they like without being held accountable for their actions.

Last Tuesday Mr. Uchtdorf posted on his Facebook page that stones can translate ancient languages to English, comparing stones to iPhones “My mobile phone is like a “seer stone.” I can get the collected knowledge of the world through a few little inputs. I can take a photo or a video with my phone and share it with family on the other side of our planet. I can even translate anything into or from many different languages! ” Our freedoms allow us to post and say anything we wish, and adults are free to believe what they want, and have their opinions.  However, those in an influential position must be held accountable for what they say.  This is especially true when children are involved.

Why is this danger to our freedom?  First, let us establish that religion does not and cannot claim invariance, That is to say, if one scientist in Utah finds a new method, this method is then tested and eventually a proof is found that is also true in New Jersey, South America, Europe, Mars, and Jupiter and outside our solar system.  If we ever did meet alien life, the same laws of physics would apply to both them and us.  And this is how we as humans normalize our ideas and judge how things are true or not true, by the scientific method.

If we teach children to believe ideas which do not have invariance, we are teaching them it is okay to believe anything authority tells you without applying the “bull shit detector” of the scientific method.  

Rocks do not translate language any more than talking snakes slither around hoodwinking unsuspecting victims.  The danger to our freedoms is that if one teaches children to forgo skeptical thinking, then these children could grow up believing anything.  Which is a danger to us all.

This last week also brought deaths of hundreds of people due to religious ideology.  A terrorist in a Bangladesh café was quoted as saying “God wants you to die.”   If you can convince a kid that rocks translate language, it isn’t much of a stretch to move to “God wants you to die." taking all of the freedoms from people that the 4^th of July represents.