Wednesday, July 1, 2009


For almost two weeks until the 30th there had been only a few sporadic postings by the political professionals. Except for a special meeting to approve a temporary budget or the city will grind to a halt. it is nearly two weeks before the next agenda session.

Well, there has been a change !JG finally posted about Plainfield and the Connolly mess. He states that he is being very active at the state level as well as locally to find solutions such as enforcement laws with teeth. Adrian Mapp reviews the ordinance about rental properties that was repealed in this Administration's initial year.

Meanwhile, I am still compiling material about the purse string holders and possible government plans.

While I am attempting to organize my thoughts about (A) Health Care, present and future availability, and (B) How to correct Plainfield's ills (C) Why my computer has a mind of its own; I ran across a letter I had written about 10 years ago to my niece in response to her questions about our extended family's various and conflicting religious commitments.

This is a good time to intersperse a non controversial subject such as religion. I am sure that sometime in their life every one has faced similar questions . I am also certain that some will find this repugnant. Never the less, because it is narrow mindedness that creates our ethnic and racial problems I am posting this in the hopes that all who read it will discard all thoughts of prejudice..

"Religion should be something that one is comfortable with.

We have no choice as children. However as rational entities we are free to choose the spiritual milieu that meets our dogma and ritual needs. Faith is a matter of indoctrination not genes. Unlike ethnic origins, people are not born Presbyterian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim etc. We have a life directing choice.

The important thing is to have a concept of a benevolent being, since being agnostic or atheist is a dead end. No one can explain materialistic scientific reasons for life. Even if existence just started as a chemical process, why?

The sad fact is that in all faiths of the monolithic religions, which are based in some form upon the teachings in the "old testament", breed religious fanatics, who consider all that do not agree with their specific beliefs as unworthy. These uncompromising individuals are humanity's greatest danger, for they abandon the basic teaching of "peace on earth and good will to all men" to incite murder and destruction.@

The other sad fact is that dogma rather than inner feelings tend to be the
driving force in all religions. I suspect that "man" requires organization, conformity, and stability which is why these "hate leaders" obtain their power.

Animosity even today exists within all religions: Christianity with the division between Catholics, and Protestants. Among the later i.e.: Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptist, Quakers etc; there have often been violent disagreements. Islam has two major antagonistic sects, which have waged war upon each other. Judaism has irreconcilable differences between Orthodoxy, and the Conservative, Reconstruction and Reformed movements.

The religious leaders in Israel from the founding of the state are Orthodox and although in the minority in population have tremendous political influence. There are also major differences in Orthodoxy between the Sephardic (Spanish) and Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewry. Among the Ashkenazi; the Hasidic and Lubevich sects with their blind devotion to their rabbi are not compatible with the rest of orthodoxy.

I would repeat that it is not what you chose that is important, but does your choice offer freedom of thought and consideration for those whose choice differs from yours?
If not both, I urge you to take a second look."

I hope you will express your opinion for posting and discussion.

S0me prime examples are the Taliban , or the Theocracy in Iran, The Inquisitions, the 100 Years' War, The destruction of pre-Spanish society in Central and South America., The Cathcart Crusade. etc.


  1. Since when is religion non-controversial? Richard Dawkins might have a lot to say about your statement below.

    ‘The important thing is to have a concept of a benevolent being, since being agnostic or atheist is a dead end. No one can explain materialistic scientific reasons for life. Even if existence just started as a chemical process, why?’

    If you believe there exists a little man in the sky who created everything, well who created the little man? The real truth is that man created God in his own image not the other way around. See Robert Wright’s ‘the Evolution of God.’

    The Taliban bare more than a striking resemblance to the Zealots. See Josephus ‘the War of the Jews.’

    The destruction of pre-Spanish society in Central and South America had more to do with the diseases that Europeans accidently introduced into societies without any immunity. See Charles C. Mann’s ‘1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.’
    The Cathcart Crusade? I think you meant Cathar Crusade. See Richard Rubinstein’s ‘Aristotle's Children: [How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Wisdom and Illuminated the Dark Ages].’
    You left out what I think is one of the first incidences of mass genocide; the destruction of Jericho by Joshua at he behest of that ‘little man in the sky.’

  2. Scippio. f course i meant CATHAR aka Albigensian Crusade with the notorious massacre of the population of Beziers after the town had surrendered. The church was not a sanctuary.

    One of the best histories of Christian religious strife is Michael Frassetto's " The Great Medieval Heretics" a good read.

    My statement about religion being 'non controversial" was of course weird humor. Ever since the first cognisant being worshipped agod of thunder etc to explain the unknown humans have been killing each other in the name of the true god(s). But sciences one unanswered question will always be why did a chemical reaction produce any life much less sentient.

    The destruction of native Americans was by disease, but their written records and artifacts were destroyed by religious zealots, the priests, as being anti-god just as the Taliban's destruction of the Bamyian Budhas-which fortunately I had the opportunity to visit.

  3. I enjoyed your writing in regard to religion, but I believe Judiasm is the only religion that a child is born into. As long as the mother is jewish then the child is jewish. I agree that the idea that "born-to" and believing are two different subjects but, unlike other religions, you will always be recognized as jewish.

  4. Great blog, Doc. I agree wholeheartedly. The basis of all beliefs should be love. Obviously, there are different interpretations of what that means.

    What was the outcome of the letter?

  5. ANONYMOUS7/1/10:58: No child can be born into a religion. Jewish tradition regarded that only a child born of a Jewish mother, irrespective of the father could be Jewish. The reason is simple; one can be sure who is the mother of a baby but never of the father.
    This is the religious falsehood that distorts facts.