Image by George Cassutto
Copyright 2012
Used with permission

Here we are in the 2012 presidential race, sandwiched between the Gingrich victory in the South Carolina primary and the President’s State of the Union address to Congress and the nation on Tuesday. As I listen to my pastor read Matthew 19, where Jesus tells the rich young man to sell all he has to the poor to follow him, I wonder to what extent our morality informs our politics. When I say “morality,” I don’t necessarily mean “religion.” The Constitution explicitly keeps government and religion separate through the opening words of the First Amendment, but government is the birthplace of our laws, and our laws are based on moral precepts that are founded and grounded on Judeo-Christian principles found in the Ten Commandments and the in the New Testament descriptions of the life of Jesus Christ. It is difficult to discern how morality determines the policies and decisions of our leaders. In turn, the electorate of this nation makes its decisions at the voting booth based on the moral tenets that they claim are at the center of their faith. The trouble is that personal morality is as diverse as the national populace, which makes political decision-making fraught with conflict and finger-pointing.

Newt Gingrich handily defeated apparent front runner Mitt Romney in South Carolina because Christian evangelicals abandoned Iowa winner Rick Santorum and shifted their support to Gingrich, in spite of his less than stellar past as a husband who cheated on his dying wife. Fiscal conservatives failed to come to Romney’s aid, even though Romney’s wealth and record as a businessman used to be a model for Republican values that call for a capitalist system unfettered by government regulation. Gingrich has asked the electorate for forgiveness for his personal mistakes, and it seems they have, putting his leadership qualities over Romney’s business acumen. But the South Carolina voters also seem to have forgiven and forgotten that Gingrich was fined $300,000 for ethics violations as Speaker of the House in the 1990s, and the fact that he was forced to resign from that position.

Mitt Romney’s squeaky clean appearance, commitment to family values, and Mormon faith come across as being morally pure in contrast to his closest rival in Gingrich. But Romney’s wealth and business philosophy invokes the image of the rich, young man that Jesus told to sell all he has to help the poor. Romney has withheld his tax returns to date, most likely to shield the public from his overwhelming wealth rather than hiding something nefarious in the numbers of his earnings. In a political climate where the Occupy Wall Street movement has eclipsed the Tea Party, one major issue of this election is income inequality. Claiming a moral upper hand in the name of economic fairness, President Obama has consistently called for the closing of tax loopholes for big corporations and an increase on taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Romney’s disproportionate personal wealth may be a disqualifying liability because Romney appears incapable of understanding the challenges facing middle and working class Americans. The immorality of income disparity outweighs the morality of wealth creation in the minds of many voters who are not part of the wealth-owning class. Only those who wish to protect the interests of the “1%” would gravitate towards a Romney candidacy.

In today’s 24-hour news cycle, “character” and “ethics” are code words for the importance of morality in the modern “body politick.” Morality competes with experience, personality, likeability, and leadership qualities in the minds of voters as they punch the card, click the lever, or push the key card in the voting booth. The presidential election in America is a quest to find a candidate who represents a balance between all of these competing characteristics.  Republicans use morality to claim the high road on social issues such as the fight against gay rights and against abortion (two staples of the Santorum campaign). Democrats claim the moral high road as they advocate a redistribution of wealth in order to stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit. Republicans say they are willing to give to the poor like Jesus commanded, but they just don’t want government forcing them to do so through what they see as a regressive tax structure. Democrats point fingers at the capitalist system and its Tea Party-Republican defenders, saying that they are only out to protect their own economic interests, leaving the middle and working classes to languish in a sea of federal debt, shrinking incomes, and economic stagnation. The 2012 field of candidates seems to be the embodiment of a growing polarization between all of these manifestations of American morality.

Integrity is made up of several words, meanings and synonyms. It consists of a lot of what can be described as ethical and moral values or civilised values.

1. Soundness:

This refers to how healthy an opinion, argument, reasoning or a research finding is, implying how free it is from flaw, defect or decay.

Also, how free is it from error, fallacy, or misapprehension; exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience; legally valid; logically valid and having true premises; agreeing with accepted views.

It also means solid, firm, stable and thorough; showing good sense or judgment based on valid information.

2. Completeness:

It means having all necessary parts, elements, or steps; highly proficient; totally, absolutely, thoroughly and fully carried out; including all possible parts.

3. Sincerity:

It means fairness and straightforwardness of conduct; adherence to the facts.

4. Honesty:

It implies a refusal to lie, steal, or deceive in any way.

5. Honor:

It suggests an active or anxious regard for the standards of one’s profession, calling, or position.

6. Probity:

It implies tried and proven honesty or truthfulness.

7. Incorruptibility:

It implies trustworthiness and truthfulness to a degree that one is incapable of being false to a trust, responsibility or pledge.

It also finally means being incapable of corruption; not subject to decay or dissolution; incapable of being bribed or morally corrupted.

8. Conclusion:

The question to be asked is where does a nation stand with regard to these principles of integrity; where does an organisation or political party stand and finally what is my individual position? This synonymous question can also be asked: How civilised are we?

9. Resources:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

10. The Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:

“Integrity is one of the most important and oft-cited of virtue terms. It is also perhaps the most puzzling. For example, while it is sometimes used virtually synonymously with ‘moral,’ we also at times distinguish acting morally from acting with integrity. Persons of integrity may in fact act immorally-though they would usually not know they are acting immorally. Thus one may acknowledge a person to have integrity even though that person may hold importantly mistaken moral views.

When used as a virtue term, ‘integrity’ refers to a quality of a person’s character; however, there are other uses of the term. One may speak of the integrity of a wilderness region or an ecosystem, a computerized database, a defense system, a work of art, and so on. When it is applied to objects, integrity refers to the wholeness, intactness or purity of a thing-meanings that are sometimes carried over when it is applied to people. A wilderness region has integrity when it has not been corrupted by development or by the side-effects of development, when it remains intact as wilderness. A database maintains its integrity as long as it remains uncorrupted by error; a defense system as long as it is not breached. A musical work might be said to have integrity when its musical structure has a certain completeness that is not intruded upon by uncoordinated, unrelated musical ideas; that is, when it possesses a kind of musical wholeness, intactness and purity.

Integrity is also attributed to various parts or aspects of a person’s life. We speak of attributes such as professional, intellectual and artistic integrity. However, the most philosophically important sense of the term ‘integrity’ relates to general character. Philosophers have been particularly concerned to understand what it is for a person to exhibit integrity throughout life. Acting with integrity on some particularly important occasion will, philosophically speaking, always be explained in terms of broader features of a person’s character and life.

What is it to be a person of integrity? Ordinary discourse about integrity involves two fundamental intuitions: first, that integrity is primarily a formal relation one has to oneself, or between parts or aspects of one’s self; and second, that integrity is connected in an important way to acting morally, in other words, there are some substantive or normative constraints on what it is to act with integrity. How these two intuitions can be incorporated into a consistent theory of integrity is not obvious, and most accounts of integrity tend to focus on one of these intuitions to the detriment of the other.

A number of accounts have been advanced, the most important of them being: (i) integrity as the integration of self; (ii) integrity as maintenance of identity; (iii) integrity as standing for something; (iv) integrity as moral purpose; and (v) integrity as a virtue. These accounts are reviewed below. We then examine several issues that have been of central concern to philosophers exploring the concept of integrity: the relations between types of integrity, integrity and moral theory, and integrity and social and political conditions.”

Businessman Bivuti Roy fled to India by not paying 6,00,00,000/- Taka and gone hiding. Then others have been following the path of Bivuti, some experts believe the macro economic situations also sometimes responsible, as import price found to be higher than the local market price, the buyers become unable to repay, so gone hiding not paying. The process is also responsible, as we know there are loopholes for the brokers of bulk buyers to do fraud or escape without paying.

As per Khatungonj Trade and industries Association’s report, although the first defaulter case happened in 1986, it turned out to an alarming level since 2000, since when in twelve years 44 incidents of frauds recorded affecting 300 business enterprises amounting to Taka 400,00000,000/- in total (Taka 1=75/-), in the hands of 45 frauds. In some cases, where defaulters are the victims of business failure, some settlements were arranged in mediation of the business association. And those defaulters have been back on business again. The fraud records are as follows:

-In 2000 =  08 frauds

-In 2004 = 06

-In 2004 = 06

-In 2007 = 04

-In 2008 = 07

-In 2009 = 01

-In 2010 = 03

-In 2011 = 09

In toto= 44 frauds occurred among that only seven accounts were settled down partly.

Now due to this bad events the classic ingredients of Khatungonj’s unique business process is in tatters. Untill the new process or fraud proof system is evolved, I would rather call this transition period as crazy period. In fear most of the transactions now a days happening is in cash, affecting the other genuine business enterprises staying back for want of hard cash. Stagnation in the total business is seem evident and it’s a reality now. Generally 15 – 60 days cheque clearance were accepted in paying the bill, but now even 15 days cheque are not being accepted by the importers.

Moreover, due to price fell in the local market (commodities like rice, wheat, sugar, edible oil etc.) importing goods became uncompetitive, so, the related parties incurred losses consequently. Once 80% now 40% of the total Bangladesh’s demand supplied by the Khatungonj merchants. Due to the misappropriation of business transactions a total of three thousand business enterprises affected badly.

To conclude- the following issues could be considered with due care:

-Government not yet has done anything to rectify the faults in business laws, which should be addressed in just ways;

-Secondly, the victims of the community should be compensated; mechanism has to be invented;

-Thirdly, new approaches of business process to be designed and core process re-engineering have to be adopted;

-All these functions must be done in an integrated way; all the stakeholders must have the full commitments in pursuing the measures under the government set up rules and framework.

Although all the players affected are private enterprises, and it’s a business-to-business concern- no one can off hook government regularity bodies in this regard for being a non-related parties.

            Ethical Egoism also aspires to seek personal interests which provide long-term gain rather than short-term, (Rachels, 69). Behaviors and actions which result in short-term benefits and long-term loss are frowned upon through Ethical Egoism.

            Ayn Rand provides the argument for Ethical Egoism with her main theory being that altruism, “leads to denial of the value of the individual,” (Rachels, 71). If one is to use their life working for the sole benefit of others rather than indulging in a better life for the self it devalues the individual’s life.

            Arguments for Ethical Egoism provide insight to Commonsense Morality, not to challenge the theory but to explain the benefits of providing for others in order to obtain your main objective. The examples Rachels give are we do not harm other because they may then harm us, we don’t lie because others would not trust us which could hinder our reputation and future business and we keep our promises so then others will be more apt to keep theirs (73-74). Although this argument is not sound, it provides the best argument for Ethical Egoism.

            One of the arguments against Ethical Egoism is that an egoist must seek out self-interest as well as allow others to seek out what is in their best interest, (Rachels, 75-77). In doing so, if both egoists are competing against one another what is in both of their interests becomes a contradiction. An egoist can not do what is in their best interest and not get in the way of what is in another’s best interest. Therefore the theory contradicts itself (Rachels, 75-77).

            Another argument against Ethical Egoism is that we separate ourselves from everyone else and seek self-interest without out plausible reasoning as to why we are held to a higher regard than everyone else (Rachels, 79). This proves that Ethical Egoism is arbitrary and violates the Principle of Equal Treatment, (Rachels, 79). Morally we should regard that the needs of others are comparable to our own and if we believe that our needs should be met, so should the needs of others.

Works Cited

Rachels, James. The Right Thing To Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 2010. Print.

I am tired of people blaming the politicians. I will keep elected officials feet to the fire. However, I know that in a democracy, the voter has the power.

Barack Hussein Obama did not elect himself. He was helped by 62 million Americans, some of which call themselves conservatives.

A man with no experience, no education, poor values, and poor moral character is now president of the United States of America. We all saw the democrats and Obama try every unscrupulous tactic to get Obama-care passed in the US congress. Obama in my opinion is a sleazy little politician, willing to say and do anything to get elected.

This is the same opinion I have of Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich. Today, I spent the whole day listening to Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and Shaun Hannity’s opinion of the the republican candidate’s debate on December 15, 2011. Ingraham was her typical insulting self. She made a derogatory comment about Bachmann and tried to cover her comment by stating that Bachmann looked pretty. Rush’s comment about it being a four person race I interpreted as fair. Hannity is stuck on the narrative that Romney and/or Gingrich are the only ones qualified to be president.

In my observation of the debate, I include irony. Am I to believe that the sins of our friends are not sins. In my opinion, it very evident that the reason for Romney and Gingrich’s flip-flops were and are motivated by money.

In a criticism of Donald Trump I heard a person attempt to explain that Mr. Trump “greased” the palms of democrats in order to get his developments built. This is unethical and immoral no matter who does it. Such immoral and unethical behavior is not undesirable of the a US president.

The question is being asked of the candidate’s if they will endorse the republican nominee. Let me say I will not endorse, Perry, Romney, and Gingrich because I will not have anything to do with people with poor morality and poor ethics.

When both of these men were swimming in the liberal pond, they knew exactly what they were doing it and why they were doing it. It was nothing more than personal ambition. I would like the president of the United States of America to be motivated by something more than personal ambition.

Furthermore, the ones on trial in this election are the American voters. This election is about who the American voter is in the present. People say to follow the money. I say observe the attitudes of the members of a society.

In my opinion, it is petty to support a candidate just for the sake of wanting to be right. In my last article and video essay on USTREAM, I went over the criteria I use to evaluate a candidate for US president and republican nominee. One of my criteria is moral character.

However, I find it hard to believe people want to pretend that Perry, Romney, and Gingrich’s past is not what is documented. Perry started as a democrat. Perry ran Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Perry supports in-state college tuition for “illegal aliens”. Perry thought it was a good idea to force medical procedures on teen girls.

Romney was for abortion. Romney is for a healthcare mandate. Romney stated he did not want to return to Reagan-Bush. Romney praised Obama’s stimulus and then criticized it. Romney praised TARP and then criticized it. Romney supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. Then he opposed it.

Gingrich did a commercial with a liberal, espousing global warming. Gingrich spoke in support of “cap and trade”. Gingrich took money to represent the values of Fannie and Freddie Mac to republicans in congress. Gingrich in 2010 supported the republican party’s candidate for senator over a true conservative.

I have no problem with personal ambition. I would like that people who will do anything to get elected, not be rewarded by conservatives.

One candidate was right last night when he said America has a crisis of confidence. Politicians have lied to Americans for a very long time. Liars, scam artist, and defrauders should not be president. However, lack of involvement by citizens is the reason many politicians think they can be two-faced.

Let us identify our goals. We want government spending to be greatly reduced. We want taxes to be lowered. We want unreasonable government regulation to stop. We want every enemy of Americans to be hunted down and stopped.

Now, what have been our obstacles to these goals. I am going to suggest that petty political games interfere with National Security. In fact petty ambitious politicians are obstacles to all these goals.

However, politicians only do what the citizens allow them to do in life. I am some what encouraged by the level of citizen involvement I have seen since the election of Barack Hussein Obama.

I am concerned about the emotionalism of some people in relation to politics. This is the only way I can explain the flirtations conservatives have had with Trump, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich. The inconsistencies of these candidates we have all known about since the beginning.

What is the difference today? Are we so afraid of Obama, we cannot think straight? I guess people are suffering from Obama-dementia; eradicate and unexplainable behavior due to fear of Barack Hussein Obama.

Look conservatives. A white and orange cat from my neighborhood froze to death while sleeping. No one has bothered to do anything with his corpse. I don’t even believe people are aware that he passed.

Well, that dead cat’s corpse could beat Obama in the next presidential election. Conservatives are done with Obama. Independents and cool-aid drinking liberals are also done with Obama.

Ninety five percent of Americans did not get a tax cut. He did not close the US prison in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. He did not give civil trials to terrorist. His one and a half trillion stimulus did not stimulate anything. Unemployment is at 8.6%. Unemployment dropped because people stopped looking for work. All Obama can say is tax the rich.

Therefore, I do not care how good Obama is at speaking. He will not be reelected.

The title of this article is Fighting the corruption of the Human Soul: A Review of a Debate. Today, we are inhuman. Some dark force if pushing us down the river of life and we are too traumatized to question it.

I cannot believe that the unreasonable and petty will choose America’s next leader. As much as I respect the efforts of many TEA party members. I have not and will not join a TEA party chapter.

We need to remember principles of honor and integrity. We need to remember that us, who are fortunate enough to be within America’s border, have the responsibility of the human race in our hands. If we elect another convenient politician, we are just as immoral and unethical as they are in life.

I know that when Perry, Romney, and Gingrich try to look me in the eye to tell me they have changed they are lying to me. My education and life experiences inform me of this fact. It is my opinion, that these gentleman’s change in values is just because they have presidential ambitions.

We have to be better than them. We have to uphold greater standards. We have to be aware that:

1. Find out how the 5 approaches to morality are applied by the characters of the movie (A Man for All Seasons) in their decision-making or reasoning and explain. Cite scenes/conversations.

• Thomas More, the protagonist in the film, applies the approach to morality which defines morality as ‘inner conviction’. It is simply the law inside us which dictates our actions. This is proven as More denies the request of King Henry VIII of helping him to file a divorce with Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn in spite of knowing that the king may be able to condemn him. He also did not take the Oath of Supremacy recognizing Henry VIII as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England making him charged for treason. At some point, More’s action could also be considered as an approach to morality which defines morality as social transformation for he aims for a social peace to his countrymen.

[Sir Thomas and the King are discussing the King's wish for a divorce from Katherine of Aragon, his brother's widow]
King Henry VIII: Oh, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas! Does a man need a Pope to tell him where he’s sinned? It was a sin. God’s punished me. I have no son. Son after son she’s borne me – all dead at birth or dead within the month. Never saw the hand of God so clear in anything. It’s my bounden duty to put away the Queen and all the popes back to Peter shall not come between me and my duty! How is it that you cannot see? Everyone else does.
Sir Thomas More: Then why does your Grace need my poor support?
King Henry VIII: Because you’re honest… and what is more to the purpose, you’re KNOWN to be honest. There are those like Norfolk who follow me because I wear the crown; and those like Master Cromwell who follow me because they are jackals with sharp teeth and I’m their tiger; there’s a mass that follows me because it follows anything that moves. And then there’s you…
Sir Thomas More: I am sick to think how much I must displease your Grace.
King Henry VIII: No, Thomas, I respect your sincerity. But respect… man, that’s water in the desert.

• The character of King Henry VIII applies the approach to morality which defines morality as ‘love’. According to this approach, others can be treated as ‘It’ (thing) or ‘Thou’ (person). King Henry VIII treated More as object when he pretend to be kind in order to gain benefit from More, But when More did not help him, the King condemned him to death. Not only More but also other people around him like his courtiers who are left to run through the mud and into the river to catch up as the King sails away and laughs hysterically at their predicament and his wife Catherine of Aragon whom he wants to file divorce due to a reason that she had produced no sons who survived infancy.

[King wants to get the favor of More so he compliments him]

King Henry VIII: Thomas. I chose the right man for chancellor!
Sir Thomas More: I should in fairness add that my taste in music is reputedly deplorable.
King Henry VIII: Your taste in music is excellent. It exactly coincides with my own!

• The character of Richard Rich applies the approach to morality which defines morality as ‘personal growth‘. This approach says that the ultimate goal of morality is the achievement of our purpose. Rich, in the film, turns to be selfish for he only thinks of himself. He changes side and backstabs Thomas more, the one who helped and protected him in times of his need. He accepts

bribes from the king and makes false accusations against More in exchange of wealth and power (a higher position in office – Attorney General for Wales).

[Rich summons to court to be used his words as evidence against More]

Richard Rich: He said: “Parliament had not the competence.” Or words to that effect,

Sir Thomas More: In good faith, Rich,I am sorrier for your perjury than my peril.

Court: Do you deny this?

Sir Thomas More: Yes! You know if I were a man who heeded not the taking of an oath…I need not be here. Now, I will take an oath. If what Master Rich has said is true…I pray I may never see God in the face. Which I would not say, were it otherwise, for anything on earth!

2. As a Christian (Catholic), what is the fundamental option of Thomas More? What is the influence of that fundamental option in his decisions, actions and life? Cite scenes/conversations.

The fundamental option of Thomas More is the option of ‘Faith’. This ‘Faith’ greatly influenced More’s decisions and actions. He denies the requests of King Henry VIII, resigns as the Chancellor and did not take the Oath of Supremacy recognizing Henry VIII as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. He did all this actions and never thinks twice of changing his mind because he has faith, because he believes that there is a God who judges people in the time of their death and punishes them in accordance to their sins. This conversation proves Thomas More’s faith in God:

Sir Thomas More: Listen, Meg, God made the angels to show Him splendor, as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If He suffers us to come to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand to our tackle as best we can, and, yes, Meg, then we can clamor like champions, if we have the spittle for it. But it’s God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to such a pass. Our natural business lies in escaping. If I can take the oath, I will.

The North and the South developed out of a united revolution against British rule based on a common principle that people should be able to establish the rules and government of the areas in which they live.  But from that united front, significant differences quickly appeared between two regional areas of the Union.  While both areas were originally agricultural, the North producing grains and the South producing cotton the economies of the two regions, along with the culture and the traditions of those areas evolved in very different ways.  The North moved towards industrialization while the south remained agricultural.  The regions took opposing views on issues such as temperance, nativism and slavery.  These different ways of thinking, exacerbated by the growing Union and the acquisition of new areas such as California and Texas, became increasingly contentious. 

One of the primary differences between the Northern and Southern territories was the way in which labor was done.  In the South, the cotton growing industry was made possible by large plantations staffed by slaves.  In contrast, the North had free but often underpaid and impoverished workers supporting its growing industrial economy.  There were many politicians and rabble raisers that sought to make slavery itself a central issue between the North and South.  Historical records suggest that early on it seems that the conflict was not really about the moral dilemma that slavery presented, but rather the fear that the North might try through the unified government to force its way of commerce/labor on to the South or vice versa.  That fear was in some ways true.

The North believed that their system of free-labor was superior to that of slavery and were concerned that the South would try to extend the influence of slavery; a concern highlighted as the country grew to include more territories and debates were staged as to whether those territories should be free or slave states.  The South, on the other hand, believed that slavery was a much more civilized system based on a master slave relationship that was more humane than the industrialized Northern treatment of workers.  This issue of slaves versus free labor raised a moral issue regarding the validity of slavery as a model, but also created a divide in how the cost of labor would impact the regional economies.

Politicians did nothing to calm the conflict brewing between the North and the South, from the “fire-eaters” representing the South in Congress threatening secession and the effective collapse of the bipartisan political system, tensions over which region would represent the values of the United States grew.  In 1857, there was an economic downturn that more adversely affected the North.  In addition, the Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott v. Stanford case that slaves were not citizens and thus not able to participate in the judicial system or take advantage of any other rights given to citizens.  Taken as a whole these conflicts rose to what was thought to be irreconcilable differences.

Some believed that war was the only answer to preserve the economic and social traditions of their regions.  Some believed that war was the only way to end the inhumane practice of slavery.  Others believed that war was the only answer to preserve the right to rule themselves.  As with all wars, those who decided to enter into the civil war would have to have considered all of these causes even if they only chose to speak to the one that suited their purposes at the time.

Often misconstrued as a war solely about the moral values of slavery, which was no doubt a battle cry of many at the time of the conflict, the Civil War was less of a referendum on slavery than it was on two critical issues:  (1) was the union going to find a way to stand together in finding common ground on economic/labor issues, including the extension of those economies to ever expanding territories and (2) were the people of two distinct regions willing to give up one of the essential underlying principles of the American Revolution, namely the right of individual to live with and be governed by the  people and traditions in their jurisdiction.

While I had no doubt that had I jumped into that croc’s favorite river, it would have had me for lunch without the slightest hesitation, being big enough to snack on a full grown zebra, it was shown nuzzling the man who had found it as an injured baby and had taken care of it. It was clear these two vastly different creatures had bonded. This is just the most extreme version of many incidents of interspecies bonding I have seen,  but it was dramatic enough to make me pause, consider the implications and even do a radio piece about.

 Obviously, there is a fundamental and probably instinctive moral code at work here, probably the foundation of all interactions between living things, a animal kingdom prime directive, as it were. I think it is best summed up as, “Don’t eat your friends.”  After all, there is plenty to eat out there, but no creature, big or small, has all the friends it can use.

 Besides not eating your friends, I suspect that an extension of this code would be not letting someone else eat your friends. If I were to attack that man in front of his croc, I imagine my life expectancy would be about three seconds. Your friends are not your food, nor are they anyone else’s. You don’t let someone else harm them. It’s a “thou shall not kill your friends” rule.

 We humans, being more complex creatures, extend our personal selves into our possessions. Our homes, autos and other stuff are extensions of who we are, so the basic principle also extends to “don’t eat your friends’ stuff,” or maybe to a “don’t eat your friends’ livelihood” rule, or “thou shall not steal.”

 Humans are social animals, so by extension your tribe becomes your friends, so we don’t let others eat or harm our tribe. With civilization, “tribe” becomes “community.”  We’ve been trying to extend this idea to “nation,” but that’s a hard sell, being that our nation is so big and diverse. Still, an attack by another country, causes masses of people to enlist in the armed services, as our people are more our friends than their people are. Since we have the notion of us and them, we have rules against killing “us,” but not against killing “them.”

 With very little effort and imagination, we can derive our entire moral and legal code from this simple, basic principle, one that even crocodiles fully understand: Don’t eat your friends. 

No matter what your age, or the stage you are in, your religious background, and your orientation, sex and religion issues have been  going on for  a long time.

How to reconcile your religious, spiritual, perspective on life, the trainings and teachings you have grown up. with?

The idea of being open and exploratory, in talking about Sex And Religion is to let yourself go.

How do  you reconcile the religious beliefs you have grown up with?

The traditional unchallenged perspective of sex,  it is dirty and save it for someone you love, which is kind of an oxymoron, a distortion of what the bible says, the alternative liberating, as said that sex is created by God therefore, is good  and everything that God has created is good.

Most of the world’s religious people have tried to find out the moral issues of sexuality in society and human interactions, and each religion has developed  moral codes to value sex morality in their own ways.

The following results of 2011

The Bible’s position on abortion

Note your choice of answer 

It is never mentioned

Forbidden

Condemnatory, except to save a life of a mother

The Bible’s suggestion of  marriage

A lifelong union with one partner

A man having  hundreds  of wives

Is an undesirable service to the lord

What the Bible says of homosexuality

A description of male sexual pairing as an abdomination

Lesbians are stoned at their father’s doorsteps

In the Bible, erotic writing  is understood as:

Is it forbidden to write erotic material?

Unmentioned

Divorce is  permitted after a long period of counselling, when a partner is unfaithful or never.

Among sexual behavior what is forbidden?

Is adultery, incest, or sex with angels forbidden?

The people of Sodom were condemned principally for which of the following?

Homosexuality,  blasphemy, or the lack of compassion for the poor and needy

During freshmen orientation at Penn State in 1964, before Joe Paterno became head coach, we were taught that the sky was blue and white because God was a Penn State fan and Happy Valley is His abode. That fall, unranked Penn State beat Ohio State, ranked number one in the polls. Within minutes, there was a lockdown of all the dorms but because this could not happen fast enough, thousands of students exited the dorms and went downtown and had a riot in celebration of this unexpected away game victory. Cars were overturned but there were no arrests and no student disciplinary action. All student inflicted damages were paid by Penn State. Football related riots at Penn State are not uncommon. The last one occurred the night Paterno was fired.

Over the years that followed everything good that happened at Penn State was attributed to Joe. The creamery served “peachy Paterno ice cream” and Sandusky blitz and we knew we were in Joe’s place. The Penn State alumni organization became the largest membership organization of its kind. The Penn State Phon became the largest student run charitable fund raising organization. Since 1977 the Phon has raised over $ 78 million for Children Hospital at the Hershey Medical Center. For more than 20 years, Joe and Sue have been actively involved in the Special Olympics summer program at Penn State. Paterno has contributed more than $ 4 million to Penn State academic programs and $ 1 million to Mount Nittany Medical Center in State College. Almost all of this money has been contributed since 1998. Bob Milley said if it is done for the wrong reasons it will never be blessed.

For many years I have been uncomfortable about the Penn State culture that had alternating slogans depending on how well the football team was doing: “The drinking school with a football problem” is one that I have not heard in a while. Lately the slogan has been “the football school with a drinking problem.”

When my son decided to go to Penn State I became a diehard football fan who believed that Paterno had earned the right to decide when he should retire. My son graduated from Penn State in 2007, 40 years after I graduated from Penn State. I was proud to be a Penn State fan. I had become a member of the cult.

Sometime over the years something changed. My son was involved in a minor fender bender automobile accident with Joe. My son’s friends told him no accident report, no insurance claim for damage to his car and that the accident was obviously his fault even though even then my son and his friends knew that Joe should not be driving.

By 2006, so many students wanted to attend the Penn State football games but there were not enough student seats so they had to hold a lottery for student tickets. My son lost the lottery. He was upset and told his then girlfriend who called her grandfather who talked to his friend and neighbor Joe who provided two tickets on the 50 yard line. My son was not the only one who believed Joe could do no wrong. Joe was so idolized he had become God. We did not know then but we can speculate that this fender bender happened about the time Joe was informed of the pending secret grand jury and that he would be called as a grand jury witness to testify about the Sandusky sex scandal.

In 1998 Sandusky was investigated by Children Protective Services but the District Attorney declined to prosecute. In 2002 a Penn State graduate assistant informed Paterno that he witnessed a Sandusky event. Paterno informed the Athletic Director and Vice President for Business affairs. The vice president was also in charge of Campus Police Department which since 1997 has the full status and all the police powers possessed by every municipal police department in Pennsylvania. The report which was made known to the President of the University resulted in no action. The Athletic Director and Vice President were both indicted for failure to report and perjury. Paterno was instrumental in selecting this Athletic Director. Other incidents involving Sandusky occurring off campus were reported to the local police but no charges resulted. One Sandusky incident involving two boys was reported to the state police but no charges were filed.

Everybody thought that Sandusky was forced out as defensive coordinator to provide a clear path for Jay Paterno to succeed his father as head coach. Sandusky was forced out to prevent him from becoming the next head coach. Paterno realized that man whose autobiography was titled “Touch” had become untouchable. He did not realize that he himself had become a cult figure.

In Acts of the Apostles, King Herod Agrippa held a royal audience where people following his speech shouted “this is the voice of God, not man. Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.”

During Watergate, many young attorneys working for Nixon ended up in jail for their activities covering up the Watergate burglary and lying to congressional committees and grand juries about their knowledge and involvement. The Nixon cult followers went too far and in many instances there is no indication that they were following orders. They were merely too zealous to the cult. They did what they thought Nixon would want them to do.

I suggest that probably the same type of mentality has inflected the cult people at Penn State. They did what they thought Paterno would want them to do to protect the reputation of Penn State. But Jesus told us to protect the little ones.

Following Watergate, the law changed and you may not believe it but attorneys are now required to take classes in legal ethics every year. The attorney who represented Penn State as its house counsel was also the attorney representing 2nd Mile, the charitable institution for children founded by Sandusky. All of the victims were receiving services from the 2nd Mile.

Some disturbing aspects of the problem have not yet become public. There is a significant homosexual community at Penn State so strong that it was able to forced the retirement of a good ladies basketball coach who had been coach for 20 years. She was vocally anti-gay. She had not changed with the times and her conduct probably violated the anti discrimination laws. This event three years ago revealed the presence of a strong gay and lesbian community that are big financial contributors not only to Penn State but also to 2nd Mile.

I do not have any answers. I do not even know what are the questions. They say speech writing is cathartic and that people prone to depression should become writers. I say detectives should engage in this cathartic exercise to ask the disturbing questions that no one want to hear.

They need to change the liturgy at Penn State, God is not a Penn State fan and Happy Valley is not his abode because this mindset easily results in a mentality that the cult can do no wrong. There is a cult at Penn State with many disturbing aspects. Removing the peachy Paterno and the Sandusky blitz does not begin to scratch the surface; such changes are superficial and should not even be made. They should remain to remind us what was the cult at Penn State.

What Penn State did was evil because they attempted to use the legal system to evade personal responsibility and as a result of their collective actions many innocent boys were terribly hurt.

They say ethics can not be taught. Ethics consists of knowing what we ought to do, and such knowledge can be taught. Attorneys have to take mandatory continuing education classes with ethic components. Obviously school administrators should also be taking continuing education courses with ethic components.  We may not be able to change Wall Street or Paternoville but we can teach our kids and our members what we ought to do.

There have been so many editorials, opinions, comments that I am starting to wonder if I could actually say anything new or profound about the scandal. That having been said, I think we need to recognize what the scandal says about ourselves as individuals in a society that has been high-jacked by what I would say is a rather liberal view of what is permissible sexuality and a demand for political correctness that overrides being theologically correct. Political correctness requires that we be diplomatic, that is to say, recognizing when we should say nothing. Many church people being very diplomatic, vote with their feet. I have been sitting in the pew wondering if I am still a Lutheran. We have been silence when we should have been shouting, something which admittedly is not Lutheran.

The irony is the Lutheran doctrine of Sola Scriptura has inevitably led to this liberalism sanctioned by a new interpretation of scripture which I deplore. Theology has changed to meet new circumstances, something that St. Luke recognized, even it those who made the change do not recognize it.

This liberalism has made it possible for someone to credibly say “I was horsing around with the boys.” I am hoping and praying that we recognize that this new liberalism and the defense which it has spawned is horse manure.

Copyrighted © 2011