Smart-Stupid Ben Carson

Presidential candidate Ben Carson epitomizes the "smart-stupid" person, a term I first heard used by Bill Maher to describe people who are extremely knowledgeable about something or very skilled at a specific task, but who are otherwise morons. And no one should be surprised that brilliant neurosurgeon Ben Carson is ignorant about public policy and is ill-equipped to speak on most political topics. In an extensive interview given in 2010, Ben Carson said that he was "always interested in medicine" and it was the "only thing" that interested him in his youth. He became the youngest ever chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins at 33. At one point, Ben Carson was performing over 500 surgeries a year. This was, according to him, "too much" and he had no time for "outside activities." At the time of the interview in 2010, he had slowed down to a mere "300 to 315" a year. He just officially retired in 2013, exactly 36 years after he began at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Carson's career alone explains his ignorance about all things he would be expected to know as President. He had no time by his own admission to do anything other than operate on brains.

The belief among Carson supporters must be that, being a super smart brain surgeon, he will just study hard and quickly catch up. But the evidence indicates otherwise. He's sounding as uncertain and uninformed now as he was in 2010. Maybe Ben Carson's brain is only programmed for being a brain surgeon. Maybe his brain is just not wired to be an expressive politician or a policy wonk. Maybe we should ask Ben... Oh that's right, he's a surgeon and this question belongs to an entirely different subfield of neuroscience. It would be malpractice for him to answer questions on topics outside his field of expertise.... 

Just as it would be malpractice on behalf of the American voter to support such a glaringly unqualified candidate for such an awesome job as the U.S. Presidency. The American President must be well-versed in military, diplomatic, economic and legal affairs, at a minimum. According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states...

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States,...

Yes, he has help from the Senate, presumably. But otherwise the U.S. Presidency is a pretty awesome job. The U.S. President must command the military and oversee state militias, make treaties and appoint ambassadors AND judges. 

A U.S. President decides with whom we fight and with whom we make peace.  A Presidential candidate's resume is not burnished by successful separation of conjoined twins. The Presidential job descriptions specifically calls for someone Ben Carson is not. Ben Carson barely understands rudimentary conservative philosophy. We should expect more from a candidate for President, regardless of party affiliation. 

Republican Party, Meet Yourself

Republicans will soon have a chance to nominate the conservative archetype: Donald John Trump Sr. He epitomizes the conservative worldview and expresses it more effectively than any other candidate. Thanks to Trump's triumphant early campaigning, the real Republican message is now loud and clear.

Conservatives see the world as a hierarchy: God created the universe and gave Man dominion over Women, Children and Nature. The conservative ruling-class archetype is the American "Founding Father:" white, male, property owner. Conservatives believe wealthy people deserve their wealth and poor people deserve their poverty. Anything that interferes with this "proper" order is bad. Welfare programs ("redistributing wealth"), Mexicans crossing U.S. borders and uppity female debate moderators challenge the proper order of society: Rich above poor; Whites/Americans above Browns/Mexicans; Men above Women. 

Understanding the conservative worldview helps us understand why Trump is still tweeting about Megyn Kelly's cross examination. He is not upset at being questioned toughly. He is upset because she questioned him toughly. A (pretty) female should be on display at one of his pageants, not challenging his political views on national television. While it appears juvenile and petty to some of us, Trump's reaction makes perfect sense when looking through the conservative lens. Without respect for the proper order, society might crumble into chaos. Megyn Kelly should know her place.

Maybe it's our Manifest Destiny. Maybe the name "Trump" is a divine pun: he certainly blows his rhetorical trumpet more boldly than any other candidate hitherto. Beyond doubt, no one better expresses the real Republican message:

  

We are the party of peace through strength. Professing American exceptionalism—the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history—... 

Thus begins the 2012 Republican Platform section aptly titled "American Exceptionalism." Therein you find both despair and bluster, akin to the main plot line of Old Testament scripture: We are a chosen nation/people, and that entails both a heavy responsibility as well as the promise of a brighter future:

Of course, all of the Republican candidates proudly proclaim that they will make America “great again,” but Trump’s just got that direct Trump-style that no other candidate can match:

The Republican Platform 2012: "Jefferson's vision of a 'wise and frugal government' must be restored." 

Donald Trump 2015: "Get smart U.S.A.!"

It's clear to me that Trump was born to be the Republican Party standard bearer. No one better exemplifies the conservative worldview and no one better expresses it. It's about time Republicans nominate someone who refuses to be "politically correct:"

Moral Vocabulary: Hebrew Scripture versus the New Testament

Jeb Bush got my attention with a recent tweet: 

Clipped from a speech at Liberty University, follow the embedded link jeb.cm/1hi3vyN  and you find some enlightening context: 

Remarks from Jeb’s Commencement Speech at Liberty University on May 9, 2015: 

There is no more powerful or liberating influence on this earth than the Christian conscience in action.
.
How strange, in our own time, to hear Christianity spoken of as some sort of backward and oppressive force.
.
It’s a depressing fact that when some people think of Christianity and of Judeo-Christian values, they think of something static, narrow, and outdated.  We can take this as unfair criticism, as it typically is, or we can take it as further challenge to show in our lives the most dynamic, inclusive, and joyful message that ever came into the world.
.
So it is not only untrue, but it’s also a little ungrateful, to dismiss the Christian faith as some obstacle to enlightened thought, some ancient, irrelevant creed wearing out its welcome in the modern world.  Whether or not we acknowledge the source, Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament still provide the moral vocabulary we all use in America – and may it always be so.

Liberty University is a Christian school founded by Jerry Falwell, so I want to believe the audience in attendance was fully aware of the fact that the main things virtually all people find as "static, narrow and outdated," such as stoning people to death for blasphemy or adultery, can be found as God-given rules in Hebrew Scripture.  The New Testament, by contrast, directly rebukes these barbaric Old Testament rules.  "Judeo-Christian values" are not one and the same.  The moral vocabulary found in Hebrew Scripture more closely resembles that which is found in the Qur'an.  Christians diminish Christianity when they fail to distinguish their more "dynamic, joyful, and inclusive" message over the "narrow, static, and outdated" moral vocabulary found in Hebrew & Islamic Scripture.  May it not always be so. 

 *    *    * 

Our moral vocabulary consists of those words we use when we discuss issues of right and wrong. Our moral vocabulary reveals our basic moral beliefs.  Hebrew and Christian moral vocabulary stand in stark opposition.

A common Hebrew Scriptural reference is the phrase "eye for an eye." A New Testament reference commonly heard is "turn the other cheek."  When we use the phrase, "eye for an eye," we are saying we believe vengeance is justified, that we have a right to seek revenge against those who have wronged us. When we use the phrase "turn the other cheek," we express the polar opposite view: we express a belief that it is God's domain to judge others and that we should eschew violence against our fellow man, even if it means we may get struck again on the other cheek. These commonly-used "moral vocabulary" words point to the fundamental differences between Hebrew and Christian morality.   

Hebrew Scripture offers a stern, uncompromising moral vocabulary.  Browse Leviticus and you'll get the idea:  
 10And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

The God of Hebrew Scripture often takes revenge to the point where it appears strangely sadistic, especially considering it is directed at His very own creations:
The Lord saw this and rejected them because he was angered by his sons and daughters.20“I will hide my face from them,” he said, “and see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful. 21They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding. 22For a fire will be kindled by my wrath, one that burns down to the realm of the dead below. It will devour the earth and its harvests and set afire the foundations of the mountains. 23“I will heap calamities on them and spend my arrows against them. 24I will send wasting famine against them, consuming pestilence and deadly plague; I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts, the venom of vipers that glide in the dust. 25In the street the sword will make them childless; in their homes terror will reign. The young men and young women will perish, the infants and those with gray hair. 26I said I would scatter them and erase their name from human memory, 27but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy, lest the adversary misunderstand and say, ‘Our hand has triumphed; the Lord has not done all this.’ ” (NIV)

Sometimes Hebrew Scripture speaks an oddly ritualistic moral vocabulary:

 4or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned.6As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering^a ; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. (NIV)

Whether "good or evil," the sin is violating your oath... and your absolution can be bought with a dead goat.  Of course, you can find the same or similar practices within groups who call themselves "Christian," but Christian Scripture explicitly challenges the moral vocabulary of Hebrew Scripture:  

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (KJV)

The Hebrew God demands his followers to seek vengeance.  The God of Christian Scripture implores his followers to practice forgiveness and compassion.  The Hebrew God orders man to harshly punish his fellow man for many (and sometimes minor) transgressions. The God of Christian Scripture reasons: 
 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.... (KJV)

Of course, the "New Testament" is not all love and happiness:
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (KJV)

But even this is an important departure from the moral vocabulary of Hebrew Scripture.  Jesus is not instructing us to pluck out the eye balls of adulterers, nor is he threatening that God will begin doing so imminently, as we would expect to find in Hebrew Scripture.

To be fair, Hebrew Scripture is not without positive moral messages.  Most cited are the so-called Ten Comandments:

3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbathto the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.11 For in six days the Lordmade the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Often cited as central to the formation of "Western values," this moral vocabulary was apparently an improvement over that of the surrounding  child-sacrificing polytheists.  Better to sacrifice goats than children.  But stoning blasphemers and adulterers is still so far behind the moral vocabulary of the New Testament as to almost make it hard to believe anyone can claim them to be about the same god.

American politicians are particularly prone to borrow from Hebrew and Christian "moral vocabulary." During his Presidential candidacy announcement, Jeb borrowed from both:


From the beginning, our president and his foreign-policy team have been so eager to be the history makers that they have failed to be the peacemakers.

With their phone-it-in foreign policy, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team is leaving a legacy of crises uncontained, violence unopposed, enemies unnamed, friends undefended, and alliances unraveling.

This supposedly risk-averse administration is also running us straight in the direction of the greatest risk of all - military inferiority. 

It will go on automatically until a president steps in to rebuild our armed forces and take care of our troops and our veterans.

They have my word – I will do it....

Bush chastises the Obama Administration for failing to heed Jesus' proclamation to be "peacemakers," a term found in the so-called "Beatitudes," one of the Christian Scriptures' most pacifistic sections.  Yet the vocabulary of the subsequent sentences could be pulled from any number of Hebrew Scriptural passages.  War and preparation for war, by and against Jews, is a major theme throughout Hebrew Scripture.  When warfare and violence is promoted by an American politician, they usually find their justification from the Hebrew God of violence and vengeance.

But we are inconsistent beings.  We often select our moral vocabulary based on the situation.  If we hate someone, we may demand an "eye for an eye" for their offenses.  'Throw the book at 'em!' But if you know and like someone, you may be more willing to "turn the other cheek" and excuse their transgressions against you. 

Jeb Bush, like many American politicians, sprinkles his speeches with moral vocabulary from both traditions, but his moral views, as seen above, appear to more closely resemble Hebrew Scripture morality than the pacifistic morality introduced in the New Testament.  So just claiming to be a Christian does not necessarily mean you hold New Testament/Christian morality. Conservative American politicians, especially those who make the most effort to publicize their faith, tend to follow a Hebrew Scripture morality. They are most likely to call for an "eye for an eye," to be the "law and order" hardliner.  The Liberal moral vocabulary, by contrast, more closely resembles that which is found in the New Testament.  Liberal American politicians often speak of helping the poor, of amnesty for citizens and for more lenient and compassionate law enforcement, for some examples.  

Now, as we move through the upcoming election cycle, we can better understand what our candidates really believe by understanding their choice of moral vocabulary. 

How We View Sandra Bland's Arrest is How We View the World

The video of the arrest of Sandra Bland makes Liberals scream police brutality.   Conservatives see a woman who got what she deserved.  Conservatives and Liberals view the arrest so differently because they view the world so differently.   These contrasting views pose a serious problem for our society because they spring from deeply held beliefs about how the world works.

Conservatives view the world from a hierarchical perspective: societal order can only be maintained by respecting the established traditional hierarchies.  The Police sit above most regular Citizens in this hierarchy, and especially above women of color in Texas.  From the Conservative perspective, Sandra Bland should have been deferential to the police officer: "Yes, Sir, how can I help you Sir?...."  Ms. Bland clearly did not display the "proper" amount of respect that an "Officer of the Peace" deserves.  In the eyes of the Conservative, the moment she stopped showing respect for her "superior," she lost all credibility.  At that point, nothing else mattered.  Her violation of the law was minor, but her refusal to recognize and respect the hierarchy was unacceptable.  Hierarchy provides order.  Without order, chaos ensues and society collapses.  So when you hear Conservatives say, "had she just been more polite...," they are saying her crime was not respecting the proper social order.  Even when Conservatives concede that the officer could have easily handled the situation entirely differently and avoided any problems--even when they concede he violated Police protocol and probably the law--they still side with the officer: "What would happen if no one respected authority?"  Society would descend into anarchy.  Order keeps us all safe and is the essential foundation for prosperity.  From the Conservative perspective, Sandra Bland was unquestionably wrong.

By contrast, Liberals generally believe in an egalitarian worldview, or at least one in which all citizens, police included, are seen as equal before the law, especially in the United States with our long tradition of anti-authoritarianism.  Liberals believe that police officers are public servants who serve with our permission, for our benefit: "to serve & protect."  The police officer should have approached Sandra Bland with deference and an appreciation of his role as a public servant.  As soon the officer was within hearing range of Ms. Bland, he should have uttered something to the effect: "So sorry Ma'am to have pulled you over. I'll be quick. I noticed that you didn't signal a while back. I know it's not a major infraction so I just wanted to give you a warning. [slides warning notice through window] Have a great day!"...  Police should always approach all citizens with respect, a presumption of innocence and they should take the least intrusive route to serving and protecting us.  From the Liberal perspective, the police officer was unquestionably wrong.

This great divide between how Conservatives and Liberals view the role of government is at the heart of the American story.  Thomas Jefferson wrote in the "Declaration of Independence:"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Liberals see the line, "Governments... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," as the fundamental message.  And "Men" (conceding that it wasn't believed to be so at the time by the author) refers to all of us: black, white; male, female; property owner or renter....

Conservatives argue these famous lines affirm their belief that the "Creator" authorized "Men" (meaning "men") to establish a "Government" which has authority to maintain "Safety and Happiness," which generally means enforcing an order based on the traditional hierarchy.  (Both sides claim their "Right" to "alter or to abolish... and to institute new Government... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive....")

The American Citzen Sandra Bland did not consent to be subjugated to the whims and moods of poorly trained government "Law Enforcement Agents" who see their role as defenders of the traditional hierarchy more than they see themselves as public servants in a society where no one is above the law and everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  She consented, like we all do, to allow police broad powers to effect our "Safety and Happiness."  But we only give these broad powers to police so that we may enjoy our "Right" to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," not so they can take it away.

American Cultural Triumph

American cultural influence around the world should be seen as the ultimate triumph of the American Experiment. John Adam's famously opined “I am a revolutionary so my son can be a farmer so his son can be a poet.” 239 years later, our popular culture and language are far away our greatest exports. The world is learning English, watching American movies and listening to American music. Despite bungling American foreign policy that has greatly damaged our government's reputation, the world still follows, emulates and is inspired by American culture.

Pope Frankie the Thug

I guess the hardscrabble streets of Argentina must produce similar individuals to the kind found in New Jersey: "Yo, insult my Mother again and I'll kick your ass! Nobody, I mean nobody insults my dear Momma!..." Well, his words don't need my poor effort at imitating Jersey-speak, so here's thug Pope Frankie himself: “One cannot react violently, but if [someone] says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected." Whoa! Didn't expect that one! And he continues: "There are a lot of people who speak badly about other religions. They make fun of them. What happens is what happens with my friend [who insults my mother]. There is a limit.” http://on.wsj.com/1G1Imn4 You know, "what happens is what happens!" You've been warned!

I don't know what to make of this quote and I sure wish I could have been a reporter on that flight because I think some follow up questions were in order. But, let's give the Pope the benefit of the doubt and say he was simply pointing out the "reality" that some people react violently when mocked, like little children or mentally challenged adults, for example. People who are too stupid to understand the difference between actual violence and words. People who have fragile egos. People who have little faith in their religion. So, he wasn't saying we should "limit" speech, he was just giving us a "dose of reality" that we should expect to get punched by dumb people occasionally, and that's the price of freedom...

Or was this a veiled threat? Mock us Catholics and you know what will happen! You see what will happen if you keep calling us misogynist pedophiles....

The truth is that people who really believe in their religion are not offended by mockery. If you want to see people who have faith, look no further than Mormons. Forget a small time cartoon mocking you. They have an award-winning Broadway-caliber play that travels the country brutally mocking them. Some have denounced the play and the Church has made efforts to "counter" the "misinformation" of the play, but no threats of violence, no acts of violence. They believe. They have faith. After all, what can mockery do to an all-powerful, all-knowing God who could wipe out all of civilization in one swipe?

Embrace Freedom Against ALL Enemies

Shooting people is easy. And when it is done in broad daylight against unsuspecting civilians by men wearing masks with old Russian rifles, one can hardly call it 'sophisticated.' Yet 'sophisticated' seems to be the go-to word whenever Americans or Europeans get attacked. I will concede it is more sophisticated than hitting someone in the head with a hammer, but sneaking guns across boarders to ambush cartoonists who had little security is not sophisticated. Learning to fly jumbo jets and coordinating multiple simultaneous plane hijackings is sophisticated. To execute the Paris ambush, the plotters needed three items: rifles (easily obtainable in this heavily militarized world and Paris is very close some hot regions I must remind my geographically challenged readers), a few unhappy people (not hard to find anywhere, but especially in the aforementioned hot regions) and some basic military training for the unhappy recruits (anyone heard of paint ball?).

While it clearly doesn't seem like we are describing things accurately when we ascribe "sophistication" to shooting at unarmed civilians, what seems apparent is that we are making the attackers out to be "larger than life" evil villains, rather than just ordinary, misguided and angry. We give them power and cede to their goals when we misrepresent them.

This misrepresentation has led us to start changing our rules of jurisprudence to deal with this supposedly completely "new threat" ("extraordinary rendition; Guantanamo; Drone Strikes...) even though sowing fear as a strategy (a.k.a. "terrorism") is as old as warfare itself!

Our reactions are understandable. When "terror" attacks occur, many people feel guilty and they say to themselves, "how could we let this happen? What did we do wrong?" Some people take the last sentence literally: they feel like they "sinned" and thus "deserve it." Other people just feel "dumb" and blame themselves for letting their "guard down." I remember the collective guilt following 9/11. No one could look in each other's eyes as they walked down the streets in the days following, but the anger was palpable, simmering underneath. Whatever form of guilt overtook us, we (almost) all gladly supported attacking... someone, anyone. We just need to attack back! The former because their "duty" is to fight "evil." The latter because "surely if we just redouble our efforts--buy more guns, attack more Muslims, etc.--we will have our justice!" Guilt and shame are the precursor to violence.

Don't get me wrong: I feel like I want to attack too! And I admit I probably would if I were in a position of power and had actionable intelligence.

But this is exactly the fight Muslims are expecting. One of the primary teachings of Islam is that they will be attacked by non-Muslims. So when we attack, we reinforce their belief and it becomes a self-sustaining cycle. From the Crusades onward, Muslims have been proven somewhat correct, which is why the cycle continues unabated... and around and around we go....

The primary missing ingredient to the West's anti-"terror" strategy is that they are still afraid to defend free speech with fearless and uncompromising diligence. We need police and military support in defense of free speech. We should not support countries like Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying we can force them to change, but at least we shouldn't in anyway enable them to continue their brutality to their people. We need coherence in our ideals. We all should be allowed to mock anyone or anything, including a person's religion, and we all should be willing to enforce this right even by force if necessary. We as a society need to vigorously protect this most fundamental freedom. We can't proclaim America to be "exceptional" unless it does something exceptional, like protect freedom when most of the world cowers.

The only people who fear freedom of speech are the ignorant and dictators.

Freedom is still a new concept for humankind. We can't know what was going on millennia ago, but it appears that France, England and U.S. are at the forefront of allowing true freedom of expression in human civilization. But they drift back and forth. Freedom waxes and wanes even in the "West." Do we need to be reminded that every year a significant numbers of US Congressmen vote for a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the "physical desecration" of the American Flag? And don't let all of this pro-freedom sentiment in Europe mislead you: the European high court recently forced Google to allow anyone in Europe to petition Google to remove from public access PUBLIC information if those people don't want it displayed! Yes, again, I am talking about public information like newspaper articles that my reference the person that you could search and find at your local library or in a stack of old newspapers..., but public stuff that Google went to great effort and to great public benefit to provide. And there is the ongoing battle fought by Ebay and others against French and Germany prohibitions against Nazi paraphernalia. Really, still trying to tell people that a symbol is "just too much" for our weak minds?

The Europeans clearly missed the important lesson of WWII: Instead of banning Nazi stuff, they should be vigorously defending everyone's right to "speech," free elections, accountable government and the fair application of the rule of law. They seem to have gotten the last three mostly right. And I'm very pleased by their seeming unity following the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Now it is time they step up and allow for all forms of "blasphemy."

The US has two big problems: a strong Old Testament tradition and a new-old religion I'll call "American Exceptionalism." Both generate the kind of violent anti-blasphemy sentiment, so they are equally dangerous. "New" because American Exceptionalism has lately gained great traction with the Republican control of Congress and "old" because American's have long seen themselves as special, since even before they declared their independence. American Exceptionalism leads to things such as the effort to ban flag "desecration," for example. The flag is "sacred" to some and so, by the force of law, you cannot disagree with this interpretation of this symbol... or at least that is the goal of the Exceptionalists. As it turns out the evils associated with religion are not confined to the traditional "religions."