Pelagius Was Right

   Sales of my book, "Pelagius Was Right" top the list of my writing efforts. It's a collection of essays dealing with the attempts by major religious institutions to condemn him as a heretic because he taught that people are basically good, and do bad things because they choose to do so.

   That compared to the view of his 4th Century contemporary, Augustine, who insisted that people are basically ungood and commit sin because they are controlled by a devil. Augustine's supporters won the debate, and Pelagius left Rome as invaders neared the city.

    Eventually Augustine was declared a saint, and Pelagius was labeled a heretic.

   By definition, a heretic is someone who disagrees with official "wisdom."

   Nevertheless, Pelagius was right.

   The book is available via Amazon.

Fraud

   The New York State attorney general has filed fraud charges against Donald Trump and the ex-president's family, alleging they manipulated real estate reports as a way of getting lower tax rates. The allegations list millions of dollars being involved.

   These are civil charges. Later, other charges alleging criminal behavior are expected. The defense may argue that a president is not liable in legal actions. But the issue now is whether this applies to a former president, and to his behavior before taking elective office.

Word Play

   Playing with words and their definitions often means the players are stalling because they know they're wrong.
   Donald Trump's lawyers say he did no wrong because the documents are no longer secret, because they were declassified.
   At the same time, they say he doesn't have to disclose them to the judge monitoring the dispute because the documents were classified.
   But if the documents are no longer "secret," there's no need to hide them, therefore they can be given to the monitor. Or even made public entirely.
   Unless, as the lawyers also imply, they may become part of a legal case, and therefore they can't be disclosed.
   But if they are part of a legal case over keeping documents that he shouldn't have taken home with him in the first place, that means even more trouble.
   That's playing both ends against the middle, as the saying goes. Which can mean you're wrong on both sides.

Legalized Bigotry

   No one is above the law.
   We have heard this said many times. Recent events and attitudes, however, indicate that some people believe their favorite politician is indeed above the law, untouchable by prosecutors for activities clearly against both federal and state laws.
   They cite the danger of prosecuting their favorite person, because the reaction from devoted followers would bring riots and mayhem. Therefore, the reasoning goes, let him do what he does because any attempt to stop him or punish him would be dangerous. That reasoning does not apply to so-called ordinary citizens, but only to the leader.
  This is how dictators rise to power.
  Historians can supply a long list of political leaders who rose to power by exploiting and magnifying the fears and prejudices of the many against the minority few.
  There are many alive today who survived the bigotry of the Holocaust.
  Bigotry has long been the cause of attempts to gain control of a government by targeting a minority few.
   It has happened in America numerous times, as some gained control and forced others into circumstances that endangered their health and safety.
   Here are some examples:
   -- The Trail of Tears, when Eastern native tribes were forced from their homes to regions in the West.
   -- World War Two, when Americans of Japanese heritage were forced from their homes in California to encampments in the West.
   -- In Eastern states, people of German and Italian background were closely watched and some even imprisoned.
   -- Even today, Americans of color are harassed and watched as they try to go about their everyday lives. This includes those whose ancestors were brought here as slaves several hundred years ago.
   America has long been a country of refuge for people escaping violence and poverty in other nations. Currently, many of these refugees are coming here from Latin America.
   The cause of their flight is little different from those in the past. Neither is the bigotry that greets them.
   America now faces the danger of a dictatorship set up by a man who insists that he is above the law; that historic practice and the Constitution do not apply to him and to his adherents.
   He has promised full pardons for those convicted during the rioting and rebellion of January 6, 2021.
   This assumes he again gains the presidency and escapes the Constitutional provision that those convicted of criminal activity cannot hold public office in America.
   Unless Congress as well as state and federal prosecutors decide not to prosecute because he is above the law.
   But is he?
   Is anyone?

Danger

   Americans would rebel if Donald Trump were indicted, said the ex-president.
   "If it happened, I think you'd have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we've never seen before," he said in a radio interview. "I don't think the people of the United States would stand for it."
   Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt then asked how Trump would answer if the news media said such comments would incite violence.
   "That's not inciting," Trump answered. "I'm just saying what my opinion is. I don't think the people of this country would stand for it."
   Listen up.
   When a major public figure offers an opinion, it is heard as ... pick a word: suggesting, encouraging, inciting, warning, threatening -- or any of several others.
   The danger is real. Claiming it is not only increases the danger.

Unity

   The change in monarchy dominates the news this week, raising the question of how long and whether the British association of nations will continue as it has for so many years.
   Already, there has been talk of some countries changing its association with Britain, and that talk has increased in recent days as the new king moves in.
   Britain has shown unity for several hundred years, since the death of the first Queen Elizabeth enabled her cousin, King James VI of Scotland, to add the English crown to his collection. A few years later, to satisfy the peoples of each nation, the two kingdoms were formally united, and adopted its current name. By calling itself "Great Britain," the kingdom avoided the hassle of having to choose which nation came first: Was it to be the United Kingdom of Scotland and England, or the United Kingdom of England and Scotland?
   The problem was solved when the phrase Great Britain was adopted. Even now, some broadcast journalists refer to the combined nations only by the one where the monarch spends most of her/his time -- England.
   This, of course, annoys the Scots greatly, plus the Welsh and the people of Northern Ireland. The rest of Ireland broke away and became a fully independent nation a hundred years ago.
   Meanwhile, the use of the term "united" was adopted by several of its colonies when they declared independence in 1776 and became the United States.
   Eventually, a similar rationale led to the formation of the United Nations in 1945, even as the union was less political but more brotherly.
   This brotherly attitude remained part of the United Kingdom even as its former colonies became more self-governing. But they retained the image of the monarch on their coins, and acknowledged the monarch as the chief of state.
   Head of government, however, was another issue. Even today, many nations, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several dozen others retain the monarch as their head of state even as they name a prime minister to lead their governments.
   Now many of those nations are considering again whether it is time to break that tie with the British monarchy and become fully independent even as they retain close ties with Great Britain.
   The American colonies declared their independence in 1776, but there remains a great sense of loyalty to Britain.
   Is it largely because many nations share the same language? Perhaps. Or is it a matter of maintaining an association to benefit the common weal?
   No, that's not a typo. The phrase is the root from which the term commonwealth is taken.
   This union is likely to remain, on a social and linguistic level, even as the political and governmental association is separated.

Behavior Rules

When we do it, it's education.
When they do it, it's indoctrination.

  There are four sets of rules for human behavior, and they differ by culture. The four sets are legal, moral, spiritual and religious.
   Some cultures combine the legal and moral, leaving the other two to personal preference. America is one example.
   Others combine the legal and religious, enabling its leaders to impose laws and punish those who do not conform to specific religious beliefs.
   Still others say spiritual behavior is an individual choice, and no group -- government or social -- can tell others how to approach or honor an Otherworld, or even to acknowledge that an Otherworld exists.
   A major problem arises, however, when one society imposes its guidelines and rules of religious behavior on other groups within that society.
   In some countries around the world, such a conflict leads to violence. And much as some would deny it, that same disagreement over how to behave and honor an Otherworld is becoming more common in America, resulting in violence, despite the Constitutional and legal prohibition on such behavior.
   It is long past time that those who support violence toward minority groups actually read the Constitution.
   "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." -- Article VI
   "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- Amendment I.