Aborted Understanding

               Thurston’s Thoughts

Supreme Miscarriage

Aborted Understanding

The Supreme Court was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 by Congress as a federal court system. It was intended to represent the will of the entirety according to the permanence of the Constitution superseding any legislative temporary will of a portion of the people. It emphasized all of the people’s greater good over some of the people’s will. Its purpose is to interpret and define the law constitutionally, not to create it. Thus, from the very beginning it has failed its primary purpose of judicial review rejecting impartiality as evidenced by sanctioning slavery and women’s suffrage.

The Supreme Court has catered to religion, social irregularities, and ideological biases under the glitches of judicial interpretations and political separation while ignoring over half the population. The departure from objectivity applied to constitutionality compromises the integrity and lofty esteem purported and afforded the court. Furthermore, lifetime appointments provide the comfortability of unaccountability amidst a veneer of impartiality. They are not the referee but the replay center to fairly adjudicate determinations.

Separation of church and state is implicit in the First Amendment to prevent restrictions of freedom of religion and expression. The vicarious reverberations of the high court’s decisions often conceals their motivations while revealing their partisan intent. Although inspired and directed by the British, European classism, and Christian Doctrines of Discovery, America was founded on conquest and not religion. A common misnomer is that America is or was founded as a Christian nation. It was NOT and is NOT.

Many of the Founding Fathers such as George Washington and a key framer Thomas Payne had very differing views of religion both personally and professionally. Most were unitarians at best, if not stone cold atheist. Thus, the freedom and separation of religion from government intervention or its intervention in government. Politics later begot religion with the Protestant influx of money and influence bringing in the sheep. Religion and morality are a social construct used to compromise the scope of legal clarifications narrowing or widening its interpretations to a designated outcome giving the assumption of impartiality.

This assumption of impartiality is not by the merits of the decisions rendered but the expectations of neutrality and detachment from them by the high court. America’s traditional patriarchal hierarchy devours any application not reflective of this peephole authoritative perspective. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator to validate these disproportional propositions. Women suffrage was a struggle for women’s codified autonomy beyond just the right to vote. It was a declaration of exercising an identity separate from a man’s authorization. A woman’s identity was breeding and caretaking under the guardianship and permission of men.

Many commonalities of the past are unconscionable to women of the present. Sanctioned beatings, no legal standing, and many more subjugations overcame only to find themselves locked in a groundhog day of patriarchal authority surrounding the abortion issue again. Could abortion be an expression of their religious freedom or personal reckoning of their religious or circumstantial expression? Similarly, is the death penalty our reckoning with our salvation? Accordingly, sanctity of life seemingly must have an age or rage limit. Whichever, the judgement would seem to be more religious than a legislative or judicial prerogative lacking consistency of conviction toward life. 

I am pro-life but pro-choice understanding that it is not within my quarry to dictate decisions regarding another’s rights or body, female or male, according to my projected ethics or conditioned predilections. It certainly is not a deliberation I feel any authority to dictate as a man imposing my morality on a woman. If a woman is the vessel for the portal of birth, bearing the preponderance of the burden after conception then these decisions should be left among them to decide.

I equate this to the most fundamental of constitutional rights. Freedom of expression, speech, and religious guidance are rights, not privileges. What a woman uses her body to facilitate is her personal choice. A driver’s license is a privilege and can be rescinded, suspended, or denied. A constitutional right is subject to neither and is inalienable. In addition, how can an anti-vaxxer refusing dictations of what they must subject their body to manage to be anti-pro-choice about another’s body? According to the government with vaxxes life was at stake, but for detractors so was freedom. Freedom won.

The dissonance is not what is being done but to who and what it is being done to, women and their body. So, that which exist is relegated by that which has yet to exist. Moreover, weigh the vax against forced full-term pregnancy, child birth, and child rearing obligations and tell me which one is more personal, restrictive, or intrusive. If the sanctity of your body is your right how can anyone else’s not be theirs. An unborn child is part of a woman’s body until it becomes an independent body of its own.

Since the unborn child cannot make the decision, the logic is it must be made to protect them. Then should you be vaccinated to protect others against your will discarding your rights concerning your body? Even if vaccinated, you still made the choice of what to do with your body. Your body should be your choice and not selective enforcement of this right and certainly not suppression of it. Aren’t we still in essence talking about bodies that are capable of making decisions instead of decisions made about a body.

Why are there so many children in social and government sanctioned and ran entities? What about the lack of adoptions given how many anti-abortion elements there are who could easily practice what they preach? Where is the assistance and relief by those who are comfortable with their situation unconcerned about the decisions force upon someone else? If you exercise your nonexistent right to infringe and impose your will, then where is your responsibility beyond that imposition? A more concerted effort must be made to sustain those who have been born.

There are even now insinuations of the government registering pregnancies to insure and monitor birth in a handmaiden tale of a human production line. Some even advocate criminal punishment for legal abortions. Given declining birth rates and increasing estrogen in men some form of persuasion, incentive, or voluntary sanctity of life perspective would prevail. The struggle to be brought forth as life is a successful journey every living person has conquered. I am not advocating abortion or child neglect just questioning the discord between mandates, others’ imposed religion or moralities, and the unintended consequences of having no choice.

It is not a state issue, it is a women’s issue. Roe v. Wade was a national issue and the Supreme Court’s mandate is to adjudicate national issues for conformity and constitutionality. Religion or politics should not interfere with an entity which should remain impervious to their influence or pressure. Otherwise, it is a corruption of their purpose to cower behind a disarray of state loopholes to evade their obligations. The Founding Father’s created the court in 1789 for just such an occasion. 

The law of the land should be made by the court of the land. It is their jurisdiction but imposing religious morals is not. Make the call since you blew the whistle. This supreme miscarriage of jurisdiction and jurisprudence is an aborted understanding of the high court’s existence. Otherwise, why does it exist? A choice must be made and a compromise found. The sanctity of life must be protected but so must freedom. We must find a better way to emphasize life while allowing freedom or find another Constitution. Otherwise, this one has undergone a late-term abortion.

God-Truth be Told

Choose Correctly

First, I wish my mom, affectionately known as Pudding, Happy Birthday on June Third. Second I would like to issue a disclaimer and indemnify myself from any judgment as I will make none or request none. Finally, I would like to offer ten questions for your consideration.

In the privacy of our own minds, it should not be taboo to contemplate perspectives that will strengthen and perhaps clarify our beliefs or explore other’s point of view against our own. It is more like a premise for debate or forgive the term but devil’s advocate.

The context for the premise in which the final answer is deemed correct according to whatever you choose is you cannot be wrong, at least by my standards and the design of the questions. Under this structure, I will pose ten questions, and you will answer them and be the judge of your answers to make whatever determinations you choose.

But first, riddle me this, you have an Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other religious denomination or designation you would like to substitute for these. The riddle at the end that has a correct answer is, what do they all have in common? Let us begin.

One. Many religions faithfully practiced now and in the past, which the followers have steadfastly proclaimed for their salvation and guidance. Complicating matters within these various religions, there are many more factions or sects with perhaps slightly different teachings and observances.

Most of them and their followers staunchly forbid the worship of another God before them or beside them as being false idols or false teachings. If this is true, then which of the many religions is worshipping the one God, and why are they correct and all others incorrect? Other than it being your religion, of course, but what is the reason why? Who is right?

Two. The God of these many different religions is worshipped according to that particular religion, beliefs, and traditions. So if there is one God, why are there so many different beliefs and faiths, or is it unlikely that everyone can’t be wrong with only one getting it right? Why are there so many saviors from God born of a virgin mother and crucified?

Examine the concept of God mysteriously entering a virgin’s bedroom in the midnight hour impregnating her. There was no indication of consent instead depicted as a mind-altered state not able to resist. Would God take liberties in a serial fashion? Imagine God shockingly appearing as a supernatural entity fornicating with virgins for a holy reason. This resembles incubus activity and deception, although for a holy cause.

Virgin mothers were allegedly impregnated by spirits, visions, the wind, white elephants, and other forms giving birth to saviors and messengers from God such as Jesus, Chrishna, Buddha, Mithras, and others allegedly long before Christ was conceived.

How authentic is the claim that other saviors have been crucified before Christ? How many virgins did God need to impregnate and messengers to be crucified? Would that make Jesus not the only begotten son but have many equally divine siblings? Was God promiscuous in spreading his holiness?

Three. Does the Priest, Ministers, Preachers, or Rabbis conduct resemble the teachings and doctrines they proclaim? Principles including discipline, obedience, celibacy, poverty, humility, compassion, or do they practice deviations from the word they were called to spread? Do they make allowances for others to deviate from the scriptures and accept clear violations of the word? Are they Christ-like, Prophet Muhammad-like, or Buddha-like, etc., in their actions?

Four. Are miracles divine acts, alchemy, magic, or some other godlike or extraterrestrial manifestation? Can the descriptions of these acts or miracles be characterized under interchangeable definitions from opposing beliefs to describe them?

Is God a way to conceptualize and quantify what we can’t explain or provide a structure where we can transfer responsibility for our actions or fate? Does God encourage our need to follow as opposed to our willingness to lead? Are we obedient because of fear or desire to do right? Do we crave the love of God or fear the wrath of being smitten?

Five. Suppose we believe divine acts which are beyond our understanding and defy logic, science, or explanation are attributed to “God” or a higher being with unlimited power to command wonders and blessing as well as wrath. Would it be too far-fetched to believe in an extraterrestrial being of superior knowledge and power that resides in the heavens? Is there a difference, and why or how?

Feats both that are unearthly or divine have to be attributed to some being or deity, but what about earthly and common acts? If favorable, God is responsible, but if unfavorable, is it nothing but the devil or the adversary at work? On the other hand, is God at work at all times, good and bad, to bless or punish with no rhyme or reason, just our acceptance of his divine will?

Six. Are our beliefs reflected in our actions, or are our actions a true reflection of our beliefs or thoughts? Is it do as I say not as I do or by our deeds so are we known? Are our beliefs are reflected in our actions or our free will to commit so many sinful acts? If we have the free will to sin or disobey, don’t we also have the will not to sin and be obedient? Perhaps, what you thinketh so are your actions, but does that make us flawed or hypocrites to our beliefs? Is falling short of the grace of God different from being disobedient?

Seven. Do we seek solace in the gift of the message or the skillful tongue of the messenger? Are they a crusader for their belief of the message or themselves as the messenger delivering the message? Are we? Remember, few are chosen. If the word is constantly coming from the same book, then why is the silver tongue of the purveyor of the word what we base our fellowship on? Is it entertaining our spirit, flesh, or something else that sometimes the messenger matters more than the message? Do you believe in religion or God, can you tell the difference?

Eight. If current practices are handed down from ancient times, what methods and manner of worship were determined to be a tradition or determined to be pagan rituals by who and why? Were some religious traditions discarded and some pagan rituals embraced and still practiced today?

 What of the many religious or biblical books that were not included in the Bible or religious teachings? Why not Enoch, who was said to have walked with God and had mysteries revealed to him? Who edited the accounts of God’s word? Was it Constantine? Like God gave his word directly to Moses, did he also give it directly to the many others who proclaim it is the word of God they present? Were they working on the honor system? Are we? 

Nine. Did you choose your religion, or was it chosen for you by inheritance from our family who embraced it before us and passed it down? Do we believe because we choose to believe or because we were taught to believe? Are we religious or spiritual, and is there a difference? Can they co-exist?

Would our beliefs still be the same if we were indoctrinated differently? If we switched religions, would our old belief have been wrong, even believing it wholeheartedly like our new belief?

Ten. Is God a deity or being, or could God be a place or destination? What if God is a destination, then what would that resemble? Is God a figment of our mind and imagination or truly omnipresent and everlasting? Either way, whatever we did, we would do in the literal presence of God, wouldn’t we?

Would God exist if humanity did not? Do other life forms or nature worship God somehow? Do we have to exist for God to exist because can something exist without knowledge of its existence? By that standard, how do we know that God exists without knowledge just on faith? If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there is no one to hear it? 

This makes me wonder if it is more important to believe or more important what you believe in. Have you seen a vehicle speeding and darting in and out of traffic only to end up at the same traffic light down the road as us? We arrive at the same destination but by different methods. 

Could it be that someone’s belief that guides them to a principled and fruitful life is just as valid as someone else’s belief that guides them to the same end? Could belief be a hidden bridge between the subconscious mind and the conscious mind?

Respect their belief as you respect yours because if we all have faith and believe in the abstract without concrete proof, who is wrong. That is why it is called faith because we believe not by sight or proof. So seek out your own confirmation knowing that no one can claim you chose the wrong belief for yourself.

With that said, let me ask you these questions. God was in the beginning, but what is the origin of God as a singular deity with unlimited powers, and how was that power amassed to have dominion? Also, how does the science of the big bang theory and single-cell organism’s evolution reconcile itself to the God version of creation?

Why does God demand to be worshipped and obeyed, ruling out God’s vanity, of course? Are there others, could there be universally speaking? Is that dominion over earth or all that exists in every universe and dimension which would indeed extend God’s power?

Wouldn’t God transcend gender or human form if this is the case, but what form would God be recognized as, or would it be by his word alone? Even as we worship faithfully, how will we recognize God if presented before us? Truth be told, what would we accept as proof?

The answer to the riddle about what the various believers have in common is they all believe in something, even if it is nothing in the atheist case.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz