Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Criminal Analysis & the Ten Commandments

Analysis seeks to understand human nature.  Although it is beyond our complete grasp, the greater our acceptance of it, the more accurate our analysis. 

Statement Analysis (deception detection) teaches that mankind is religious in nature. This means that everyone has a "religion" or belief system. 

Religion is classified as ideology

We then look to see if the subject is faithful or unfaithful to his ideology.  Therefore, we will always have examples of fine outstanding people and unjust, unlawful people without regard to the ideology. The claim of ideology is vital for understanding. 

Begin with the premise of no god in this exercise. Accept the contradiction of terms. 

This is no insult to people of faith. 

Western Civilization was founded upon the "Ten Commandments." The hundreds of laws written in antiquity found in Scripture are all based upon one or more of these laws. These 10 commandment were followed, long after, by the historically radical ideology of the Golden Rule: Do unto others...the law of reciprocity.  

Contradiction-- consider that there is no God, no afterlife, no reckoning, no justice, no reward, no punishment, etc.  Attempt to recognize your own prejudices in this.  You want to learn the impact of ideology upon human behavior. 

For example, if you were going to buy a house, and you choose between three houses, all the same price and value:

House A has neighbors who believe (ideology) that which they grew up with; the 10 commandments forbid them from entering your property, stealing your possessions and...from killing you, lest they receive justice in this life or the next. 

House B has neighbors who believe (ideology) that there is no creator, no afterlife, no eternal consequence for any actions and that the strongest survive by exploiting the weaknesses of others. 

House C has neighbors who believe (ideology) that they and their ancestors have long been victims of you (or your ancestors) and that as victims, they are entitled to redress these perceived wrongs at your expense. 

Which of the three equally valued homes just went up in value? 


In the interview we begin with the premise, not in the existence of a specific God or "god", but of the subject's own belief system. To whom (or where) does one appeal to the final arbitration of right from wrong, life and death and transcendence (or the lack thereof). 


It is due to human nature's apparent instinctive reaction towards guilt. 

A "conscience" is an informed decision.

If someone is raised with "thou shalt not steal", we note:

a. the rule of the negative in language tells us that which is stated in the negative is often more sensitive than that stated in the positive. The standing example I cite is the large sign on the plate glass window that reads, "Do Not Throw Rocks."

If you've raised a little boy, or was one yourself, you know the Rule of the Negative is provocative.  

B. "Thou shalt not steal" culturally, must be overcome by the thief. 

Q. How does he do it?

A.  Human Nature. 

Minimization, Rationalization and Justification. 

Analysts deliberately look for the thief to tell us he is not a thief. 

He will, almost intuitively, begin the brain processing that results in language that will deny what he has done, rationalize it, yet still minimize it. 

"Just 2 drinks, Officer."

The subject is thinking about more than 2 drinks and uses the dependent word "just" which indicates his comparison. 

Minimization is universally accepted in substance abuse, yet we find it in  all manner of guilt and we seek to understand, and perhaps for some skilled analysts, even measure the level or intensity of guilt, based upon the reference point of the subject's ideology. 

We say, "no one ever steals" in Statement Analysis. Can you spot the minimization, rationalization or justification?

They "reimburse" themselves. 

They "balance the accounts." 

They were "owed" by someone, somewhere. This is why employment analysis excludes anyone who sees himself or herself in the victim status. They are an exploitation looking for an event. 

"The company is going to just write it off, anyway." 

"Its not like anyone is going to miss it."

"I was fired unjustly."

"But I did not steal from this company.  It was the other."

"I have been ripped off many times, myself.

It is interesting to note that we can predict,  in general terms and descriptions, what may happen in the future based upon the process of desensitization. 

When someone breaks into a building and successfully steals, he is very likely to go from his initial vow to "never take this risk again", to reliving the thrill of success to boredom to his next attempted robbery. 

Success breeds repetition. 

We do have examples of those who apparently just "graduated" to higher levels of crime, but this is often misleading. 

I had a murder suspect of whom I said he was a known child abuser.  

The record search was unable to locate any allegations or even investigations into child abuse. 

Yet his language was clear. 

Collateral interviews with ex girlfriends later proved this to be true. 

The Ten Commandments summarized and with brief explanation will help careful readers to learn that the most revealing commandment is the first. Learn the first and you'll learn how the subject views numbers 2 through 9.  This is particularly of interest with regard to theft, homicide and how to conduct the interview. 

1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods. Everyone has a "god" that we should identify in our analysis/interview/investigation. 

2. You will not make graven images or monuments to these gods, nor obey them- why the person does what he does. To what esteem does the suspect hold his "god" up to?  Who are the "heroes of the faith" of the subject? (this addresses influences, including criminal and restraining influences, upon the subject). Can the "heroes" be wrong? Do they so admire celebrities that are even inspired by movies?  Copy cat crimes?

3. You shall not take (carry) the Name of the Lord, your God, in vain. This is where we seek to learn what impact hypocrisy has on language and especially contempt for others and lack of human empathy.   Being in error is not the same as knowing and deceiving. It is more dangerous to society than most realize. This is where cults are born, nurtured and even able to profit. 

4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy; no work--get rest-- what are the consequences  or results of...

rested bodies, rested minds? Is the subject a "balanced" person, or do we find obsession? Type A personality? Does the subject have elements of self loathing and possible high risk behaviors, "tempting fate"?  

Here the god of state, or government, intrudes upon our social or private lives and seeks to dictate how we should live, rest, eat, raise a family, retire, and so on.  

5. Honor your father and mother that your life will go well & long-- this is where we measure respect for coaches, teachers and, regrettably, the popular political contempt for law enforcement. When the lie "hands up; don't shoot" went main stream, consider young impressional black males who were taught that police were to be despised and feared. How many kids will end up incarcerated because they did not respect laws and law enforcement officials? How many cops have died from this ideology?

6. Do not commit murder--- does the subject respect life? 

Doe the subject burn with hatred? (few accept the power of actual hatred) 

Worse, did the subject burning with hatred experience recent humiliation? (a dangerous trigger for violent crime) 

What has the subject been taught about human life?
Does the subject have any working knowledge of history? This is essential in grasping crimes such as the mass shooting at the synagogue this past year. The ideology of national socialism was studied by America as she went to war with Germany in late 1941. 

Ideology has consequence: 
a good risk to not buy a house next door to someone who believes in Jihad against "infidels."

7. Do not commit adultery--- what was the suspect's childhood like?

Did he experience abuse?

Was it sexual abuse, with its added elements and destructive consequences? 

Does the subject practice self discipline? 

This is important for many professions: 

what does "best practice" in the social sciences mean?  

Statistically, what child is most at risk for 

a. substance abuse
b.  depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation
c. poor grades
d. poor education
e. incarceration 

"Best practice" was once studies or "literature" driven...before politicians entered the equation. 

8. Do not steal -- consider how dangerous it is for businesses when someone can claim "offense" at most anything, to receive a payoff rather than the scorn of bad publicity. Al Sharpton used this tactic to become fabulously wealthy while claiming moral superiority.  Payoffs are preferable to expensive court battles and bad publicity. Employment Analysis can spot the "professional victim" before a company (or law enforcement department) even interviews them. 

9. Do not bear false witness: when lying under oath is unpunished, it becomes tolerated and eventually acceptable to the point of being expected. When a nation has two tier justice, anger rages.  When anger rages long enough, even over decades, historically it can lead to war. 

10. Do not covet your neighbor's wife or possessions --

This is a chilling reminder of what institutionalized envy looks like:  Socialism. 

Note that instead of each of us paying our fair share (ex: 10% of whatever we make), the successful are being demonized by politicians to exploit the masses. 

How is this done? 

It is done by using morally charged language, as is my paying of 10% is "fair" but a far more successful person's "fair" share is 70% or 90%. The unnecessary language of being "fair" should catch the attention of the trained and untrained.

See French Revolution's "national razor"; the guillotine for reminder. 

In socialism, there is no single "issue" but a series of issues, ever changing, presented, not for the good of others, but for another reason. 

This is because the central element is the psychological need to control. 

 It is not freedom but it is, in its final essence, a violation of the first commandment. 

This must, if unchecked, lead to a violation of each following commandment, in both theory and practice. What appears to be morally or ethically strong will not require coercion.  Discernment is needed, even with seemingly compassionate or ethical ideas. 

Ask: does this politician plan on forcing us to...? 

Violation of the First Commandment becomes violation of all Ten Commandments upon society. 


In the interview process, context dependent, we want to know: who is the subject's "god" though we do not word the question in this manner. 

Who is the principle passion, binding arbitrator, or final source of judgement? 

What does this subject believe?

What kind of conscience does the subject have?  

Does he/she indicate remorse?



Almost non-existent?

The answer is their "god" in this sense. 

A subject's (or suspect's) god will tell you a lot about the subject; from the belief system to the conscience.  It can help you determine how likely a suspect is to confess (or admit) to the crime, and what strategy to take. It gives insight into dominant personality traits that we seek to obtain from the language, and used in the overall strategy of the interview.  (Tactically, we use the subject's own language in our questions)

For training in deception detection, please visit 

Please also review examples here and in the you tube videos prior to inquiring about training. 


Mike Dammann said...

I have noticed that many of the people who preach the most are the ones who had lived lives contradicting the commandments they preach. People who tended to live a life without crime are not as likely to preach Bible verses against committing crimes. I have met many religious people who would tell others not to do things that the people who told them never did in the first place, with or without faith. So I believe that the Bible can be a dangerous tools for those who wish to project in order to elevate themselves above others.

HS said...

Wow. Great article. I was brought up atheist. I need to do some thinking on this. Thank you.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Under fire for a damaging claim from her past, Sen. Elizabeth Warren repeatedly apologized Wednesday for claiming on a 1986 form to be 'American Indian,' saying she is not a citizen of any tribe.

Warren faced reporters after a bombshell report brought to light her state bar application form where she had made the claim. With her potential presidential campaign on the line and a looming swing through key states, Warren expressed repeated regret – but didn't rule out the possibility that there are more forms from that time period out there.

'This is who I grew up believing with my brothers,' said Warren, who was raised in Oklahoma.

'This is our family story. It's all consistent from that point in time. But as I said, it's important to note I'm not a tribal citizen and I should have been more mindful of the distinction with tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty.'

She referenced her previous apology call to a tribal chief about her earlier public release of a DNA test that showed a tiny fraction of native American blood. 'That's why I apologized to Chief Baker and why I made a very public apology about it,' she said.

Again and again, she said that only tribes can determine citizenship.

Asked why she filed out the form as she did, Warren said she made the decision long ago having heard family stories about a Native American ancestor.

'This was about 30 years ago. And I am not a tribal citizen. Only tribes determine citizenship,' she said. 'When I was growing up in Oklahoma, I learned about my family the same way most people do.'

'My brothers and I learned from our mom and our dad and our brothers and our sisters. They were family stories. But that said, there really is an important distinction of tribal citizenship. I'm not a member of a tribe. I have apologized for not being more sensitive to that. It's an important thing.'

She told reporters who staked out her Capitol office following a Washington Post report on her bar form: 'Understand, this is from the heart. This is about my family, my brothers and it's about an apology from the heart. An apology for not being more sensitive to tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty,' she said.

Asked if there could be other documents out there, Warren said: ' All I know is during this time period, this is consistent with what I did because it was based on my understanding from my family stories, but family stories are not the same as private citizenship.

She also referenced her personal apology by phone to Cherokee Nation Bill John Baker.

She continued: 'I am also sorry for not being more mindful of this decades ago. Tribes and only tribes determine tribal citizenship. I had a good conversation with Chief Baker who is very gracious. We continue to talk about issues and continue to work on issues that matter deeply to Indian country and continue to work on things that we both care a lot about.'

Warren is set to make an announcement Saturday in her home state and then begin a primary swing through early primary states.

WHDH, the ABC affiliate in Boston, reported that Warren didn't respond to a question about whether she would drop out of the race for president. She has an exploratory committee for a run.

When the news first surfaced, Warren has apologized for ever claiming Native American ethnicity, as she competes with a slew of Democrats in the presidential candidate field.

The 69-year-old Democrat responded after the emergence of a State Bar of Texas registration card showing she identified as 'American Indian' on April 18, 1986.

Tania Cadogan said...


She left the 'National Origin' and 'Physical Handicap if any' parts of the form blank however, possibly supporting the notion of critics like President Donald Trump who have claimed she used the idea of being part of a minority group to advance her career.

'I can't go back,' Warren told The Washington Post Tuesday. 'But I am sorry for furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted.'

While other typed up evidence has been presented showing Warren did identify as Native American in various jobs as a law professor, she hadn't confirmed whether she personally used the labels or whether information was filled out on her behalf.

But the unearthing of the yellow card that lists the address of the University of Texas law school in Austin, where she was working at the time, pinpoints that she did.

It's not clear how the labeling benefited Warren if it did.

A small typed note on the card reads: 'The following information is for statistical purposes only and will not be disclosed to any person or organization without the express written consent of the attorney.'

Donald Trump Jr. used the revelation to suggest it was purposely revealed on the same day as the State of the Union in order for it to go under the radar.

'Suspicious timing for this to come out,' he tweeted. 'It’s almost like Elizabeth Warren is trying to hide what I’ve said all along about taking advantage of her fake Native American heritage at the expense of real Native Americans and minorities.'

Her race identification for the Bar exam came the same year she was recorded as a minority for the Association of American Law Schools.

She listed herself as such annually until 1995, the year she started working at Harvard Law School.

Several months after starting there she put herself down as Native American and was part of the school's federal affirmative action records until 2004.

But it was noted in 1989 she switched from identifying as white at the University of Pennsylvania, bringing her race in line with the AALS record, two years after starting her Penn role.

Warren told the Post the apology on Tuesday applied to her records for Harvard, Penn and AALS.

'She is sorry that she was not more mindful of this earlier in her career,' Warren campaign spokeswoman Kristen Orthman, said.

On Monday it was revealed Warren apologized to the Cherokee Nation after releasing the results of a DNA test that showed a tiny sliver of her ancestry was Native American.

The liberal senator who is exploring a run for president 'reached out to us and has apologized to the tribe', said Cherokee Nation communications director Julie Hubbard.

'We are encouraged by this dialogue and understanding that being a Cherokee Nation tribal citizen is rooted in centuries of culture and laws not through DNA tests,' said Hubbard. 'We are encouraged by her action and hope that the slurs and mockery of tribal citizens and Indian history and heritage will now come to an end.'

Tania Cadogan said...


In apologizing, Warren took a course of action that her advisers had counseled after her release of the DNA test results drew criticism and mockery from rivals rather than put to rest her long-running spat with President Trump over her claim of having some Native ancestry.

Warren's DNA analysis, conducted by a privately hired scientist who is an expert on Native American genomics, showed that her Native American ancestry was between 0.09 percent and 1.5 percent.

The low end of that scale equates to 1/1,024th.

In addition to failing to silence Trump, Warren's release of the information drew complaints from some native groups, who stress cultural heritage rather than scientific testing for tribal affiliation.

At the time of the release, Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. blasted the move.

'Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong,' he said at the time, CNN reported. 'It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.' A Warren spokesperson didn't comment.

In December, on the eve of her campaign launch, it was revealed that Warren's advisors were counseling her to issue a forceful apology for the bungled release.

Democrats blasted Warren in October for drawing attention to her biggest political liability in the middle of a tense midterm election cycle where Democrats were desperate to retake control of the House and break the GOP's lock on government control – an effort that succeded.

A landmark study published in 2014 in the American Journal of Human Genetics found that, on average, European-Americans have 0.18 per cent Native American blood – twice as much.

The New York Times reported last month that Warren worries she damaged her standing with Native American groups and other liberal blocs, especially minority constituencies, by willingly releasing her DNA results.

She now must compete among a slew of Democrats in an increasingly crowded presidential field. Just this week, Sen. Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey launched presidential campaigns, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders – who ran in 2016 when Warren took a pass – is considering a run.

'I put it out there. It's on the internet for anybody to see,' she told the Times of her DNA test findings. 'People can make of it what they will.'

Warren is a leader on the Democratic Party's left edge and a fierce critic of Wall Street whose potential as a Trump-spearing 2020 White House contender forced the long-simmering issue of her family history to the surface.

President Donald Trump began calling Warren 'Pocahontas' in the spring of 2016 in order to blunt her attacks as she threatened to become a key surrogate for his presidential rival Hillary Clinton.

'Goofy Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas because she faked the fact she is native American, is a lowlife!' he tweeted as the Republican primary season wrapped up in May 2016.

Tania Cadogan said...


Her ultimate response in October 2018 as Trump continued to taunt her during public rallies made some Democrats raise questions about her political agility.

Critics say Warren used a hint of Indian background to justify classifying herself as a minority during her law school teaching career, in order to gain preferential hiring treatment.

Law schools at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania have disputed that claim.

Warren did, however, listed herself for 10 years as a minority in directories maintained by the Association of American Law Schools, beginning in 1986. That period of time stretched from the year before Penn hired her to the year after Harvard Law School lured her away.

She told reporters during her first Senate campaign in 2012 that, 'I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group, something that might happen with people who are like I am.'

Still, Trump has mocked her for years, calling her 'Pocahontas' and a 'fake Indian.'

The New England Historic Genealogical Society reported in 2012 that it had unearthed a 1894 document suggesting Warren's great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American.

It turned out the society had found a family newsletter that described a marriage license application, but hadn't seen that document.

The conservative Breitbart News website later tracked down the marriage license and certificate and found that a column on both marked 'race' was left blank.

Warren had de-emphasized her Cherokee lineage since winning her Senate seat in 2012, but the president's use of the issue to marginalize her was always expected to become a flashpoint if the two were to go head-to-head in 2020.

While Trump's rally crowds eagerly lap up his snarks about 'Pocahontas,' Trump has used the polarizing nickname in at least one cringe-worthy moment at the White House.

In November 2017 he slipped it into a speech during an event honoring Navajo 'Code Talkers' who had used their native language as an unbreakable secret code to protect American military communications during World War II.

Asked minutes later during a press briefing why the president would use 'offensive' language at such an event, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders shot back: 'I think what most people find offensive is Senator Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career.'

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Mike Dammann said...
I have noticed that many of the people who preach the most are the ones who had lived lives contradicting the commandments they preach. People who tended to live a life without crime are not as likely to preach Bible verses against committing crimes. I have met many religious people who would tell others not to do things that the people who told them never did in the first place, with or without faith. So I believe that the Bible can be a dangerous tools for those who wish to project in order to elevate themselves above others.
February 6, 2019 at 11:42 AM

Hence in Statement Analysis we view the ideology rather than individual persons.

Follow the logic:

It is the same argument given about peaceful Muslims. They abhor violence therefore Islam must be "the religion of peace." It is the ultimate self driven narrative that is precluded in analysis. It must lead to error.


Anonymous said...

Mike Dammann,
How many people are you referring to by the phrase, “many of the people”?
What do you mean by “preach”?
What do you mean by “preach the most”?
When you say “lived lives contradicting”, did you mean this in the past tense as used?
Thank you

Anonymous said...


I thought Islam abhors infidels.

What do you mean by self-driven narrative?

I don’t understand your use of precluded. Please forgive my ignorance… I did look it up (to prevent the occurrence of something, make impossible…)

I think what you are saying is that the argument a person (of Islam) will give is that they abhor violence and therefore you should believe that they are peaceful because Islam must be a peaceful religion – but if you understand the ideology then you understand the deception. Is this correct?

Is it possible that a Muslim can truly hate violence (not believing that part of their ideology)?

If a Christian hates sin, from your logic, does this always mean then that he will be the greatest sinner?

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying, which is probably obvious LOL. Thanks

ima.grandma said...

Wow Peter. I’ve been waiting for an article like this from you. Thank you. I will be studying this and learning.from your commenters.
Hi hobs.

Paul said...

Thanks, Peter. This was a very interesting article. I'm reflecting on how I can use this for sociolinguistic profiling.

Old testament theologian Walter C. Kaiser,jr. pointed out that the 10 Commandments can be broken into three sections by the positive and negative commands. The first command is a positive, the command for the Sabbath is a positive, and honor your father and mother is a positive. Each of these positive commands head different sections, commands referring to God, the Sabbath, and other human beings. He argues that the book of Deuteronomy is based on this outline.

Right now I'm trying to fit together the implications of what you and he wrote. Thanks again.

Tania Cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tania Cadogan said...

Order is important so it is god the first four(narcissist) then we have parents, killing adultery, theft, lies and covetousness.

Today surely killing should be the priority, theft adultery,parents covetousness,then possibly thinking about a narcissistic invisible man.
Times have changed.
Millennia ago people worshiped the sun. moon, rocks, rivers, volcanoes, earthquakes and they could see and feel their gods, they can do so today.
We think of them as primitive even though they can see their gods and yet civilized people worship an invisible man who can see and know everything, allows horrific things to happen, a man whop if he did exist would be an alien from a different galaxy in all likelihood.
If jesus was around today claiming what he did back then he would be deemed either a cult leader or locked up in some mental hospital along with all the other jesus's and napoleans and whoever and whatever elses.
Do unto others as you would expect them to do to you, do no harm wherever possible and be happy in yourself.

Don't do it because it is commanded of you by whichever god(s) yuou believe in or because you think you will go to a non existent place where you will face eternal punishment by a guy who also doesn't exist, do it because you want to, because it makes you feel good making someone else feel good, not for any reward here and now or in whatever hereafter you have been promised.
It is what you do now to others, how you treat others, how you impact others.
Your legacy will be how you treated others and how you are remembered for doing the right thing for others not what you did in order to be seen as a good godfearing whoever by others.
It is the little unremembered acts of kindness that will be you legacy.

Paul said...

tania cadogon, A few thoughts. As you're probably interested in the statement analysis, you might like the works of J. Warner Wallace. He was an atheist and a cold case detective who analyzed the Gospels using the same methods he would've for a cold case, including statement analysis. He came to the conclusion they were true, and became a Christian. His book and podcast are called "Cold Case Christianity."

I hope the following will help clarify the issue.

First, you're assuming that God doesn't exist. But if God really exists, that changes the game. Here are short presentations for the argument for the existence of God from the beginning of the universe and morality --

Second, from my studying, earliest religion wasn't worshiping things, but the creator God. Whether China's "Lord of Heaven", or missionaries asking tribes who they worshiped before the gods of the area, it's very common, even normative, for the first religion to be worshiping of the Creator.

Third, the 10 Commandments forbade worshiping the things you mentioned. The ancient Jewish prophets even mocked those who worshiped inanimate objects, for logically inanimate objects have no power, only persons do.

Fourth, if Jesus came today, he'd probably be treated the same way he was when he came two thousand years ago. He'll be called crazy, and/or demon possessed. The authorities and religious leaders would get him killed, for the same pragmatic reasons, using the same false argument that he was a terrorist/revolutionary.

TimA said...

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

The Man with Jussie Smollett the Night of Attack Speaks Out

Frank Gatson, the man who was with Jussie Smollett the night he was attacked in Chicago, is speaking out about the incident.

"Extra's" AJ Calloway caught up with Gatson, who is Jussie’s choreographer, at the amfAR New York Gala 2019.

"I was there with Jussie," he said. "I’m the one who called 911, I am the one who took him to the hospital, and it was so scary, man, that was a scary night — my stomach was numb."

Frank continued, "I’m just glad I was the old man at his apartment when he got there, I was responsible. I said, 'Let’s call the cops, let’s go to the hospital.' Shout out to Chicago police, especially the sergeant that came and got things together and made us feel comfortable."

Jussie performed at the Troubadour in L.A. over the weekend, and Gatson called the show "magical." Smollett is also reportedly back on the set of "Empire."

He asserted, "Jussie is a very strong guy."

The attack is being investigated as a hate crime. As for those who doubt what happened, Gatson said, "It is amazing to me how the white community really supports the LGBTQ community, but it’s amazing how some black families would rather their son be a murderer than be gay."

He added, "I hope that my community, the black community, understands it’s people’s business what their sexuality is. I just hope that one day the black community, the brown community, can wake up and support our brothers and sisters who are gay. The hateration is just unbelievable."

More in Vt below

Tania Cadogan said...

If there is a god and he created the earth, who created god?

He had to come from somewhere, he had to have a beginning, who were his parents ad infinitum?

Tania Cadogan said...

I wonder if Frank could be charged with filing a false police report?
Given what smollett says happened there should be plenty of bruising to indicate the assault.
Have any photos been released showing the 'rope'?

Anonymous said...

Given Jussie's (and Frank's) story I find it perplexing that Frank compliments the white community for being supportive of the LGBTQ community. Wasn't Jussie attacked by two "rednecks" who hurled racial and homophobic slurs at him? Didn't Jussie state that these types of attacks are happening to his sisters, brothers, etc. daily? Didn't Jussie receive an anonymous letter saying "SMOLLET JUSSIE You will die Black fag" including a drawing of (what seems to be) a lynching?

Also: why does Frank say "I was responsible."? I get the impression that he feels guilty for calling 911, etc. Why would it be a bad thing to call the cops given the alleged circumstances?

And: why does Frank describe himself as "the old man". Why did he add that.


Paul said...

tania cadogan, the principle of causality only says that which begins to exist needs a cause. The universe (All time, space, and matter) clearly began to exist, and an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Therefore, there was a first cause- an uncaused cause. As the universe is all time, space, and matter, this first cause would be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. This first cause would also have to be immensely powerful, able to make the universe. This first cause would also have to decide to make the universe, that is, be personal. Such a first cause fits the definition of what we call in English, God. So God would not need a cause.

William Lane Craig spells all of this out much better and in greater detail. He does this briefly in the video I linked to above. You can watch his debates on YouTube with virtually all the leading atheists. He also has videos on this subject and articles at a

John Mc Gowan said...

Joe Budden Admits Jussie Smollett Is A LIAR!

Interesting observations Taraji P. Henson's message re smollet support.

Caveat. Contains language (swearing and derogatory names) some may find upsetting.

The link i have provided will take you straight to his findings.


Taraji P. Henson's message.

Taraji P. Henson, who plays Smollett’s mom in “Empire,” took to Instagram on Wednesday to address the alleged hate crime inflicted on her co-star.

“I wish what happened to my baby was just one big bad joke but it wasn’t and we all feel his pain right now. @jussiesmollett is pure love to the bone AND THAT IS WHY SO MANY ARE FEELING HIS PAIN BECAUSE IT IS OUR PAIN!!!” she wrote while sharing a video of Jussie’s song, F.U.W. “I tell you one thing HATE WILL NOT WIN!!!! My baby is resilient and love still lives in him.”

She then encourages people to spread the message of love, resilience and acceptance.

“The devil and his minions are very busy right now but one thing is for sure and two things are for certain #GODIS and that is all I know. This song needs to be downloaded until it goes triple platinum because the message is NEEDED. #weareresilientpeople AND #weaintgoingnowhereuntillwearefinished.”

“The love so many have him just goes to show HE IS LOVE!!!! No matter how the press tries to spin the shit. I LOVE YOU MY BABY MY BABY!!! #LOVEWINSALWAYS.”

This link will take you straight to the part in Smollets video (she promotes) pointed out by the above.

A coincidence, well, you make up your mind.

Anonymous said...

The bible writers/translators spent a lot of time making sure that the Judeo-Christian "YHWH" was ONLY referenced as "THE" god and not "A" god.

Tania Cadogan said...

The universe arrived in a big bang and expanded and is still expanding.
the question therefore is what is it expanding into?

if there is a god, who created him.
He couldn't have come from nowhere, he had to come from somewhere, ie another universe or even dimension.
God would therefore be an alien.

Paul said...

tania cadogan, according to big bang cosmology, it's not expanding into anything; but time, space, and matter are all interrelated. So space is expanding with the big bang.

God is a necessary being. Necessary beings exist necessarily; they don't come into being. Therefore, they're not created.

Again, William Lane Craig does a great job of explaining these things.

Chris said...

oh,Nadine - why does heaven have an entry gate with a waiting list, huh?
Isn't heaven a nation of believers, with rules for entry?

Trigger said...


I love your examples of the belief system of homeowners. I prefer to live next door to people who don't have a need to punish, steal, or exploit their neighbors to make themselves feel good about their lives. Who wants all that anger, oppression, and drama living next door?

I feel comfortable with neighbors who believe the ten commandments are reasonable and promote good relationships in a community.

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi Paul, For something to expand, it has to expand into something, this is why they are now talking about multiverses.

God has to come from somewhere, he could not have created himself as he did not exist, Therefore someone/something had to create said god.
If he was, as you write, a necessary being, what made him necessary?
How could he come into being from nothing, again, he had to come from somewhere, either another universe or another dimension.
This would still make him an alien.

Everything is created and has to come from somewhere, it may not be this universe, it could be another universe, another dimension or another time.
For us the universe is huge, 14.7 billion years of expansion old.
To an amoeba a raindrop is big an ocean would be mindbogglingly huge, equivalent to our universe.
For all we know, we could be the equivalent of amoeba in the equivalent of a pint of water.

Why do people feel the need to believe in an intolerant, narcissistic invisible man who lives in a non existent place and threaten those who do not believe with another intolerant, narcissistic invisible man who lives in another nonexistent place?

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic.

Lawyers for Michael Herba - one of Chloe's alleged abductors - have slammed the CBB star's decision to 'post pictures semi-naked' in Milan while claiming 'she doesn't feel safe'

KIDNAPPED model Chloe Ayling posted a cheeky selfie of her bare bottom from Italian city Milan - despite saying she’s too ‘vulnerable’ to return to there to testify at the trial of the man accused of snatching her.

Wearing a towel and little else mum-of-one Chloe, 21, posted the picture of her bare bottom in Milan and captioned it ‘’weekend in one of my favourite cities’’ as she sat on a hotel bed.
The model Chloe Ayling revealed she was in Milan when she posted this saucy snap to Instagram - despite refusing to travel to the city to testify in the trial of one of her alleged abductors

Two years ago the Big Brother star said she was bundled into the back of a car by two men after she turned up for a bogus photoshoot and held hostage for six days in a farmhouse before being released.

Last July Brit based Polish labourer Lucas Herba was given 17 years for her kidnap - although some suspect it was a publicity stunt after she told the court they slept in the same bed and were spotted holding hands shopping.

Herba’s brother Michal is currently on trial in Milan accused of taking part in the abduction and Chloe has so far refused to testify and relive her ordeal, saying she feels ‘’too vulnerable’’.

His lawyer Simone Zancabi stormed:’’This is beyond a joke. Miss Ayling is clearly treating the Italian judicial system with contempt.

"She has been asked to testify and give evidence at the trial of a man she says kidnapped her but has so far refused all requests.

‘’She has told the prosecutor that she is too vulnerable and doesn’t feel safe in the city after what happened - yet at the same time she is quite happy to return to Milan and post pictures of herself semi naked on social media and then claim Milan is one of her favourite cities.

"My client is facing a long time in prison if convicted - his brother is already serving a lengthy sentence - and in the interests of justice it is only fair that she comes and gives an account of what she says happened to her although we have very serious doubts over her story and are not convinced.

“To see her say Milan is one of her favourite cities after what is supposed to have happened to her is very unusual but then again this whole case is very unusual.”

Last year The Sun on Sunday revealed Chloe’s Italian lawyer Francesco Pesce was chasing her over an unpaid £9,000 bill.

A prosecution source in Milan said: "We are trying to convince Chloe to testify but it’s very difficult.

"We are looking at a possible video link from London so she doesn’t have to travel but even that is proving hard to arrange.”

The Sun on Sunday tried to contact Chloe for comment but she did not respond.

Telling, me thinks.
By not answering the question, the subject answers the question.
Is she refusing to testify because she knows the truth would come out and prove her to be a liar?
Surely if she was a genuine victim she would be willing to testify and prove she was abducted as claimed?
How can she claim to be scared and feeling unsafe in Milan when asked to testify yet more than happy to get her kit off and post pictures from the self same city?
They have even offered to let her testify via video link and she still refuses.
What is she hiding?
If she is proven to have lied would the Italians seek her arrest, extradition and prosecute her?
Would the man currently doing time for a crime he would not have committed sue her as well as the man who is currently under trial?
As an aside i wonder if he has appealed as they have to go through an appeals court and then the supreme court for the verdict to be ratified as we learned in regards to amanda knox murdering Meredith Kercher?

Habundia said...

Habundia said...

"Don't do it because it is commanded of you by whichever god(s) yuou believe in or because you think you will go to a non existent place where you will face eternal punishment by a guy who also doesn't exist, do it because you want to, because it makes you feel good making someone else feel good, not for any reward here and now or in whatever hereafter you have been promised.
It is what you do now to others, how you treat others, how you impact others.
Your legacy will be how you treated others and how you are remembered for doing the right thing for others not what you did in order to be seen as a good godfearing whoever by others.
It is the little unremembered acts of kindness that will be you legacy."

If there would be 'nothing' (no punishment, no afterlife, no heaven, no god, no devil, no hell), what purpose other then 'it makes you feel good' (isn't that a form of narcisism?) would there be to 'treat others as you want them to treat you'?
It's not that when you treat others the way you want others to treat you the whole world will suddenly treat you the same way. So what would be the purpose? Except for self fullfilling needs/wants.

Paul said...

tania cadogan,

I'm giving scientific and philosophical arguments, but there's also a sideways way of looking at it --

The weird thing about modern physics is time, space, and matter are all interrelated. So with an expanding universe, we're not expanding into anything, space itself is expanding.

Only things that come into existence need a cause, a necessary being just exists. In the Bible God is called, "I Am." God just exist. And God is necessarily love, because God is Trinity.

Paul said...

Habundia Awareness,

You're right, those reasons would just be narcissistic. And the big problem is doing the right thing even when we don't feel like it or want to. Having an ideal model to follow, God, and a future, the afterlife, to take our mind off the present negative pressures, are great ways to help us do the right thing. After all, role models and future focus are just common sense, well actually, wisdom.

Anonymous said...

So a person – as described by Tania – who helps others not for a reward (now or in a hereafter) but for the simple fact that helping others is a pleasure shows narcissism? And a person who doesn’t feel like or want to do the right thing (or doesn’t find purpose in it) but does it to ensure a great afterlife for him-/herself does not?
And how would taking your mind off negative present pressures be helpful in doing the right thing? Better to focus on the pressures so that you can help alleviate them and thus try to make the future a little brighter.


Paul said...

Autumn, I was basing this on psychiatrist Viktor Frankl's Holocaust memoir, "Man's Search for Meaning." Doing the right thing can be very difficult sometimes. Getting through hard times can be difficult. Where to get the energy to continue on? Focusing on there is an end to it, there is an ultimate purpose, gives extra energy and vigor to do continue, and to do the right thing. There's a principal in sports psychology: when the game is going your way, focus on the moment. When the game is not going your way, focus on the big picture. Helping people can be very difficult, and often doesn't feel very good in the moment. That's when focusing on the big picture can help, if one wants to keep helping people.

By the way, it wasn't tania, it was Habundia Awareness. And even Habundia focused some on the future, a "legacy." The problem is, if heat death is the end of the universe, ultimately there is no legacy. Some people can live like this, but not everyone. (Note the title of Frankl's book. Also, when he got to the concentration camps, he was surprised how spiritually focused people were.) A good worldview would be one that everyone can live and do good and thrive with. Fortunately, the true one is such a worldview.

Anonymous said...

Paul, those were Tania's words. Habundia's first paragraph was a quote from Tania's comment of February 7, 2019 at 7:39 PM.
Given the choice between neighbors A, B and C as described by Peter, I would choose A. However, I think A would be even better if he/she followed certain principles not to avoid punishment but (also) because he/she feels it is intrinsically the right thing to do. That personal conviction would make A even more trustworthy and dependable. I assume most Christians have that conviction but so do many non-Christians.
Helping others is not always easy, I agree. Especially if we talk about actively helping. Following moral principles that require inaction, however, isn’t always that hard. At least to me it seems much easier to abide by a rule like “don’t kill” than to violate it.
Knowing that you make those around you happier or at least not unhappier by helping or not harming them can be a purpose in itself (apart from religious purposes) and a motivation to keep trying to do the right thing. It would make the world - here and now - a better place and if one could take this positive energy into a possible afterlife so much the better. I actually do feel people and animals continue to exist in some way/form after they die.


Paul said...

Autumn, thanks for the correction about the first paragraph. I missed that. I agree that it's massively better if someone feels it is intrinsically the right thing to do, too. I also agree that inaction is easier. But the biblical pattern is more than this. So for example, the apostle Paul says do not lie but tell the truth, don't steal but work. Implicit in the negatives is a positive we should do, the 10 Commandments are only a summary. I don't think someone could ignore abuse, and have the excuse that he/she didn't do anything actively. Also in many cases the option of inactivity isn't there. We either vote for good or evil or abstain. Each of these have a consequence.

Again, I agree that making those happy or at least not unhappy is an important motivation in and of itself, too. I probably should've stated all this in my response to Tania.

My concern is when people think that these are enough. There's a reason that societies have laws, because, when done right, they make things better. There's a reason that parents have rewards and punishments for their children. There's a reason that we set these up for ourselves, too, as motivators. From my experience from talking to a number of people who hold that just the pleasure of doing good or being a good person is enough, with a couple of exceptions, they don't engage the tough moral issues of the day. In fact, they're on the wrong side, because it emotionally feels easier and better to go with the flow, and not resist bad people with power. And people who do bad don't say they're doing bad, they always identify it as good, which makes it easier to go along with. Of course, they condemn the evils of previous ages that have already been solved. At least that's my experience, with one or two exceptions, from many conversations.

Anonymous said...

Paul, of course it is a very general statement to say that doing the right thing and making others happy/not unhappy is an important motivation in and of itself. The more interesting question is: what is the right thing to do in the given circumstances. A good starting point would be if people simply refrained from violating the law. In many cases this merely requires inaction. But indeed sometimes either the law or moral principles require action. You mention several examples/rules based on the Bible; I feel these rules are (also) innate. I would add that there is no rule without exception. Work, unless you are too handicapped or ill to work. In that case don’t steal, obviously, but ask others for help. Tell the truth unless it would be unnecessarily hurtful (e.g. when asked for your opinion about an ill-fitting outfit). In that case don’t lie but say something nice without lying (e.g.: “What a nice color.”). No moral principle is served by ignoring abuse.

I was thinking more of uncontroversial acts of kindness when I read Tania’s comment. Such as visiting an older relative or neighbor, doing groceries for them, do their garden, etc. Those things don’t get the spotlight and that’s fine because you do it to make that person happy which in turn makes you feel good. You mention people who do bad and are on the wrong side of a tough moral issue but claim to do good because it feels easier to go with the flow and not resist bad people with power. I would say these people simply don’t do the right thing even though they tell themselves otherwise. The question is: what is bad and what is good. I had to think of the border security issue in your country (assuming you’re in the US). Some people defend open borders/violation of immigration laws and help organize Central American migrant caravans. They think they do the right thing by helping poor people but, looking at the bigger picture, they do more harm than good. They feel morally superior and let others take the unpopular, difficult (but right) decisions. Anyway, that’s my opinion. Perhaps you think exactly the opposite.

I don’t know what you mean by “evils of previous ages that have already been solved”.


Anonymous said...

Anyone up for analysis on Brendan Dassey? I am late to this case but found this transcript of a police interview and noticed he always speaks in past tense. That is about my level of training on this.

Dassey: "He went to go pick up some stuff around the yard then after that we, he asked me to come in the house cuz he wanted to show me somethin'. And he showed me that she was laying on the bed, her hands were roped up to the bed and that her legs were cuffed. And then he told me to have sex with her and so I did because I thought I was not gonna get away from 'em cuz he was too strong, so I did what he said and then after that, he untied her and uncuffed her and then he brought her outside and before he went outside, he told me to grab her clothes and her shoes. So we went into the garage and before she went out, when before he took her outside, he had tied up her hands and feet and then was in the garage and he stabbed her and then he told me to.”

“And, after that he wanted to make sure she was dead or somethin' so he shot her five times, and while he was doing that I wasn't looking because I can't watch that stuff. So I was standing by the big door in the garage and then after that, he took her outside and we put her on the fire and we used her clothes to clean up the, some of the blood. And, when we put her in the fire, and her clothes, we were standing right by the garage, to wait for it to get down so we threw some of that stuff on it after it went down.”

Tania Cadogan said...

Laws are not brought about to make everyone go to heaven and hell, they are brought about that all may benefit and all are treated equal otherwise it would be chaos with each religion demanding laws be created according to their religious belioefs and anyone not of that religion be found guilty and thus condemned to hell.

God and gods/goddesses came about because primitive man needed an explanation as to why things happened, storms, earthquakes, eruptions, tsunamis, changes of season, diseases.

religion is a left over belief from terrified primitive man who didn't know what the hell was happening when their was a total solar eclipse.
Example being the Aztecs etc who merrily slaughtered slaves and prisoners in order to keep their god happy especially when the sun was eaten by whoever.
When the eclipse was over and the sun returned of course they are going to think their sacrificing worked and would continue to do so.
Religion is the same now as when man first saw something different and scared the crap out of him and they decided ooh this is scary i must do something to placate. end the scary.

Religion is responsible for billions of deaths and will continue to do so until mankind grows a pair and realizes there is no invisible men and/or women watching and using their non existent powers to rule the world.

Once that happens, everyone will be a lot happier and healthier.

Paul said...

Autumn, by the evils of previous ages I mean things like the slave trade in the west and the holocaust. It can be easy for us nowadays to say, how could they do that? But it's harder to look at the moral issues of our own day and ask, what will moral people in 100-200 years be looking back at us in horror about?

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger tania cadogan said...
Religion is responsible for billions of deaths

it isn't religion that is responsible for the deaths, it is man that is responsible.

Tania Cadogan said...

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger tania cadogan said...
Religion is responsible for billions of deaths

it isn't religion that is responsible for the deaths, it is man that is responsible.

Hi General P. Malaise, men in the name of their religion.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger tania cadogan said...

and if it wasn't religion it would be ideology like socialism. it is a tool. but it isn't the religion or the ideology that kills it is the flawed man. human nature is static, they would kill in any case. it is a fallacy to think it is the religion that kills anymore than a hammer a knife or a gun.

Anonymous said...

OT: preview of ABC interview with Jussie Smollett

ROBIN ROBERTS: “What is it that has you so angry? Is it the...attackers?”

JUSSIE SMOLLETT: "Attackers, but it's also the attacks. It's like, you know, at first, it was a thing of, like, 'Listen, if I tell the truth then that's it, 'cause it's the truth.’ Then it became a thing of like, 'Oh, how can you doubt that? Like, how do you-- how do you not believe that? It's the truth.' And then it became a thing of like, 'Oh, it's not necessarily that you don't believe that this is the truth, you don't even want to see the truth.'"

I wonder if Jussie studied this blog given that he repeatedly says “it’s the truth”. I feel he doesn’t quite get it right though. IF I tell the truth (…)”? Of course, IF Jussie tells the truth than he tells the truth because it’s the truth. However, that’s hypothetical. He doesn’t say that he actually told the truth in this case (at least not in this statement). Also: why not stop there? Why the need to elaborate? Why did it become another thing? And then yet another thing? Wasn’t it the truth after all? I feel that’s what he is telling us between the lines (see bold text). That we should doubt it. That we shouldn't believe it's the truth. His attackers are clearly not the main issue he is “pissed off” about (again, judging from this statement). It’s the attacks on his credibility that came afterwards that seem to anger him most. Also: why is he repeatedly calling it a thing ("a thing of like")?

I saw a snipped of the interview and I felt he was acting (unconvincingly).


Anonymous said...

^^ snipped = snippet


Peter Hyatt said...

Historical marker of paganism (religion) is infanticide.


Peter Hyatt said...

He qualifies, rather than confirms, the truth.

He’s lying.


John Mc Gowan said...

ROBIN ROBERTS: “What is it that has you so angry? Is it the...attackers?”

Terrible question. Always avoid compound questions.

He is asked the question “What is it that has you so angry?. They should have stopped there and let him answer with his own words. Instead the word "attackers" is introduced. He grabs onto this, not only reflecting it back but it gives himself time to think.

JUSSIE SMOLLETT: "Attackers, but it's also the attacks.

What follows the word "but" oftentimes is more important than what proceeded it.

Once he reflects back ("Attackers") the expected would then be to vilify the "attackers", worry that they are still out there and could "attack" again. Not just him but the community in general. he doesn't. Instead, he goes on to say "but it's also the attacks.. If he is referring to SM and MSM not believing him, this tells us he is more interested in saving face than the "attackers" being arrested. That one word ("but") tells us all we need to know.

Anonymous said...

OT: Jussie Smollett

I watched this clip from the ABC interview with Jussie Smollett. Notice how he gets a huge smile on his face (starting at 1:55) when he begins talking about the alleged attack. An attack that was supposedly very vicious and from which he says he is still recovering.

Jussie also says: "I have to acknowledge the lies, and the hate. And it feels like if I had said it was a Muslim, or a Mexican, or someone black, I feel like the doubters would have supported me much more. A lot more."

Isn’t “acknowledge” a word that you use for accepting your own actions rather than those of others? Also: why would he have to accept the alleged lies and hate of other people?
Interesting that he says: if I had said it was a Muslim, [etc.]”. Why not say: “if it had been a Muslim, etc.”? He seems to suggest he had a choice between saying it was a white Trump supporter and saying it was a Muslim, or a Mexican or someone black. He would have only had that choice if he made the story up or if his first priority wasn’t telling the truth about what actually happened. And why does he now imply there was only one attacker? “A” muslim, “a” Mexican, “someone” black.


Anonymous said...

OT: Jussie Smollett

Ebaylistentomusic placed the following comment under Peter's youtube analysis of Jussie's statements:

Brilliant as always Peter. One part of his "story" I find intriguing were his claims that they bit him. These have largely been completely ignored by the press but the biting is fascinating. It would be so personal an act to commit against someone you loathe and logistically extremely difficult. How do you bite someone through substantial winter clothing and when in sequence did it occur? Logic tells us they would not attempt to bite him after pouring a toxic liquid on him so it would have had to be early in the very brief attack.

So how is it that if they started out by biting him first or early on , he does not mention that at all in the interview?

This made me think of the following quote from Jussie's ABC interview (at 0:45):

JUSSIE SMOLLETT: “(…) but I smelled bleach. I know the smell of bleach. And I saw on my sweatshirt it had marks on it, like spots on it when you have a bad bleach job.”

When I heard that I thought: how could he have spots on his sweatshirt. Didn't he have a coat on in the freezing cold? And, I wondered, why does he say “bad bleach job”. Of course, you can use bleach while doing a cleaning job. And if you spill bleach it can leave stains. But do you call that a “bad bleach job”? So I looked bleach job up in the online urban dictionary. Turns out it is a synonym for “blow job”.

This, in its turn, made me think of the following statement (at 5:02)

ROBIN ROBERTS: “Why do you think you were targeted?”

JUSSIE SMOLLETT: “I can just assume, I mean, I come really, really hard against 45. I come really, really hard against his administration and I don’t hold my tongue.”

I previously thought it was all staged (including the anonymous letter) and there was no real attack, but now I’m starting to think this may have been a sexual encounter gone wrong (and president Trump gets the blame).


Anonymous said...

Peter said (on twitter):

The Interviewer sought to protect the subject from his own words. She knows he is lying but promoted his narrative of “love.” His “love” is to blame Trump, harm genuine victims & get two innocent men inprisoned: it’s “love” to him as he seeks attention as “public figure.”

She handled him with kid gloves. Just like she did with Amanda Knox. When she asked Jussie a somewhat tougher question (why was he outside at 2 in the morning) he played the race card.


Russell Hossain said...

Interesting developments in the Smollett case in just the past few hours ( involving two Nigerian Brothers who are acquainted with Smollett ).

I expect Smollett's lawyers are concocting a story to distance him from his two hoaxer companions in this type of fashion:

"Jussie is shocked and appalled to learn that his attackers are known to him, and two people he trusted and would have called friends. Jussie cannot understand why they would have attacked him ( perhaps jealously? ), or why they pretended to be white supremacists - likely to cause Jussie confusion and disgiuse their true identities."

I imagine Smollett's lawyers are at this moment, constructing such a story that will allow them to save their client and throw Smollett's alleged paid perpetrators/colluders under the bus.

CeriB said...

I don't believe in the Christian god or any other. I don't believe in the afterlife, in punishment or reward after death.

I acknowledge, though, that what I value is in the Judeo Christian tradition: respect for life, property, the rule of law, individual liberty, freedom of speech, humility, honesty, loving thy neighbour, charity, hard work, fidelity, community.

I have done a lot of rethinking of my politics since starting to study statement analysis. I have moved far enough to acknowledge that my values are Judeo Christian. I can't imagine moving far enough to believe that there could be a creator of the universe who answers prayers, punishes or rewards people after death, or spends any time worrying about the fate of nations.

I read more of the bible, and live out more Christian values than some of my devoutly Christian neighbours.

Of I could bring myself to believe in a good that answers prayers, or that I would see my dad relatives again, or that bad people would be punished in the next life if not in this one, I would do it.

CeriB said...

IF and GOD in the last paragraph, not OF and GOD. Darn auto correct