Questions Related to the American Dream

     There are several questions that must be asked and answered before the American people can make in informed decision about the future of this country.

The guests on the various talk shows have opinions based on the economy they want to see in place and the people they want to benefit from that economy.

     When Mitt Romney and Romney supporters are asked questions such as:  What do you think should be done to create jobs?  The typical answer is something like, the American people need to elect a president who knows how to create jobs.  This is true.  But having created jobs incidental to making money is not the same as stimulating the economy to create enough jobs to put tens of billions people back to work with good-paying jobs.

      Speaker John Boehner is trying to convince voters who don't like Romney--or the kind of president he might become--to vote for him anyway just to get rid of Barack Obama.  I guess that means vote against Obama for whatever reason voters have not to like him--even if they belief the President was dealt a bad hand by President G. W. Bush and Republicans in Congress have limited his ability to play even that bad hand.  

     Talk show hosts need to ask questions that will give voters a chance to understand specifics of what the guests are talking about.  They should demand that guests answer questions or not come on the show.  Unfortunately, many will choose not to come.  

     One problem we have in our political and economic discourses is using terms such as socialism, communism and capitalism that have negative connotations.  What the words mean is often defined by the failed ways an economic system has been implemented in certain countries.  If we use that method of determining the merits of economic systems, democracy would be a bad word based on how it is beginning to be practiced in the United States.  Rather than labeling political and economic systems, we should be talking about what the system intends to do for the people.  That's more important than what the system is called.

     Karl Marx said that a society should expect from every person according to ability (that includes those near the lower end of the economic range) and provide to every person according to need.  Those words might easily have been spoken by Jesus.  Is it a concept whose practice is not limited to economic systems that are labeled communists?  Until recently, America taxed according to people's ability to pay and share the  wealth of the wealthy with less fortunate Americans according to needs.  Of course, there are those who say some of those in need are just lazy.   That is often true.  But should we punish all people who are in need and want jobs because some of them are just lazy?  (Come on churches, I need some help.)  What should be done with those who are lazy.  Now, let's not blame those who are in need because of the failure of schools.   Shouldn't there be some kind of second chances for them?

      I would like to hear or read political candidates' visions of America.  What do they want to see happening to, by and for the American people--all of us?  Can these things happen automatically? What must happen within the society to make sure these things happen?  Should people in the American democracy work as a team?  How can we do that?  What will be the evidence that the society is functioning as envisioned?  What would be evidence that an economic system is functioning properly?            

     Should a society provide jobs for every person who wants a job?  Businesses say they are not hiring because of uncertainty that people will buy their products.  But how can uncertainty be reduced if people don't have certainty about jobs that enable them to buy things?  I still don't understand why the work that does exist cannot be shared with the unemployed during recessions.  Why can't it be phased in over a time?  For every 15 workers that share one-half hour each day, a company could hire another worker for 7 1/2 hours per day.  Even promises to do it would get out more voters, and strengthen unions' ability to increase membership and negotiate fairer compensations for their labor. 

     A vision is needed of what an ideal America looks like in terms of what all Americans are doing; things such as being gainfully employed, being effectively educated, participating in the government and community affairs; what they have such as homes, stable families, secure retirements and health care; how they relate to each other in the workplace, within the home, within government, within and among organizations and institutions; and how they will seek, perpetuate and optimize the best of what is believed it should mean to be an American.    

     There does not seem to be anything conservative or liberal about these aspects of a vision of America.  I don't believe either liberals or conservatives want people to be poor and homeless.  Neither believes that only certain children should receive a quality education.  Neither believes that children should have parent who are too young or too poorly prepared to guide, protect, motivate and be good role models for them.  And neither believes that every American can be born a genius or have the talents, desires and opportunities to become wealthy.

     Conservative and liberal should practice their ideologies in determining how they will choose to love their individuals lives, who will be their friends, what organizations they will join, what religious faith they will follow, what political party they will support, where they will live, the kind of entertainment they enjoy, the kind of language they will use and other things they will choose to do.  But they should not seek to force their beliefs, behaviors and other choices on others.  What may be right and compatible with traditions and dispositions of one person or group may not fit well with other people.  

     Wanting to get more than one's fair share of a nation's wealth is neither liberal or conservative.  Both liberals and conservatives would like to be rich.  And there are poor people among both conservatives and liberals.  Our problem is getting from our present state in America to a mutually desired state.  And it requires the same kinds of thinking, attitudes and commitments that will be necessary to keep us there.  More questions and comments are needed that relate to these conclusions.

Jump Starting a Stalled Economy

     The hugh debt accumulation, which began under George W. Bush, continues to accumulate during the Obama presidency.  Bush started two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cut taxes under the notion that the surplus revenues accumulating as a result of Clinton policies were the people's money, not the government's.  The costs of those unfunded wars and tax cuts still contribute to contribute  to the deficit, but Obama did not cause them.  Obama could not stop the wars and end the tax cuts at the beginning of his term and start over. But the debt  growth did start over.   Obama's responsibility for the debt is the present debt minus that which continue because of Bush policies which were still costing American money.

     The downgrade of our nation debt rating was not caused because by the size of the national debt but because of Republicans' unwillingness to work with Democrats to structure a meaningful debt-reduction strategy that involved both spending cuts and tax increases.  That is what worked between Democrats and Republicans during the 1990s.  Democrats paid a price, though, during the next election because taxes were raised with only Democrats' support, while spending was pursued safely for Republicans, after the election.  

     Polls continue to show that the American people want that kind of compromising again.  But many members of Congress remember those consequence for Democrats.  Next time, it has to be a balanced package of both spending cuts and increased revenues, something that places both parties at risk.  Democrats are ready.  But progress is held up by elements within each party which insist that all deficit reduction come as a result of either spending cuts or raising taxes.  Neither of those will happen.

     However, the main thing holding up progress in debt- reduction is the false contention by Republicans that raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce the number of job created.  "The relationship between income tax (reduction) and addiction is like being on heroine, once you start the more you need."  That's a quote I came across while trying to gain some historical perspective on the relationship between tax increases and job creation.  Because economics is not mathematics, economists vary widely on the potential outcomes of various economy options.  But the conclusions are clear:  Raising taxes increases the number of jobs.

     The question is constantly and justifiably being asked by Democrats:  If low taxes on the wealthy and large corporation produce jobs, where are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts and their extensions?  Republicans won't answer.  But if lower taxes on the wealthy and large corporations produce jobs, zero taxes should reduce unemployment rate to near zero.  

     Let's pursue that idea that cutting taxes creates jobs, and extent that idea to the nth degree. That should produce an infinite number of jobs, which would be a win-win for everybody.  Enough jobs would be produced for every American who wants to work.  There would be more jobs than workers.  So businesses would have to become smaller and fewer.   But governments also would be small.  

     Government workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, mayors, governors, the president, member of legislatures, all would be either elected or selected volunteers who earn their income from other jobs.  Children would be home-schooled or taught after work or on weekends by qualified volunteer teachers.  The military would consist of volunteers who have other full-time jobs and train on weekends.  And Mitt Romney would help the working poor and middle class invest their tax savings so they, too, can move up the financial ladder.

     But seriously, there must be some points between 100% and zero tax rates that are fair levels for everyone.  But where are they?  Who should determine them?   And should there be ways to know and test whether they are the right points, even when there are needs to adjust them? There are certain things  within an economic system that are only possible when people don't perceive those with whom they sometimes disagree as being the enemy, but rather as people who, while pursuing the same goals, sometime have different ideas--not with evil intent--about how to reach them.  The best ideas are best determined when everybody knows who benefits most when particular options are pursued, and how everybody else will eventually benefit.  

     The character of the people eventually become the character of the country.  The integrity of government cannot exceed that of the people who elect it.  And the people can have no better character than are the teachings and practices of their religious faiths.      

     Let's look at our economy.  Businesses create and sell goods or services.  They hire people, who use some of their earnings to buy these goods and services and save the rest for retirement by investing in the businesses.  That cycle keeps the economic wheels turning.  But in an economic slow-down, when the engine either stalls or stops, which one of these must start the wheels turning?  The unemployed or underemployed cannot do it--they don't have the money with which to buy goods and services.   What certainty, then, is business waiting for?  They are the ones with the money.  In tough economic times, they are the batteries and starters of the U.S. economy.  

     But, if businesses are "uncertain," who else has either the money or access to the money (a power supply and set of cables, so to speak) that can be used to hire workers, promote spending, encourage employment and get the wheel turning?  The answer is a government that is big enough and respected enough to do it.  

 And who has the most to lose if the America's economic engine does not start or continues to stall?  The country does.  

     Just as individuals may have what they consider the right and good reasons to kill themselves,  Irrational members of Congress feel that they have both the right and good reason to assist in an American suicide--just so Obama becomes a one-term president.

     The polls continue to say that Americans want the parties to cooperate so the nation can survive.  But Irrational Republicans continue to say, "No."   And presidential polls suggest that Americans, in resignation, may be saying, "Okay, kill us."

    

Identifying Oneself in order to Be Identified

      If people do not have proper photo identifications so they can vote in November, what do they show--or whom do they bring with them--to prove to those who will provide the valid identification that they are who they say they are?  The proof that people are who they say they are can be no more conclusive than is the creditability of the proof they bring with them.  If whatever or whoever is used to confirm a person's identification is considered credible, why can't that basis of proof be sufficient identification at the polls?
     That's all for now.

The Chief Justice's Supreme Wisdom

 The Supreme Court  is the supreme decider on matters of constitutional legality.

When justices come to ideological conclusions after careful deliberation, that is what they are expected to do.  But when they reach conclusion on political basis, the Supreme Court decisions no longer reflect the wisdom but merely the prerogatives of the court.

     How does the "commerce clause" of the Constitution would impact the mandate within the Obamacare legislation? The various interpretations by former Supreme Court justices and legal experts who have offered opinions ever since the Constitution was ratified seem to preclude any certainty about what is permitted by the "commerce clause" other than it can mean whatever some "expert" in Constitutional law perceives it to mean, or what opponents of some legislation affirmed to be constitutional contend it does not mean.  Justice Roberts, realizing that there is no legal consensus nor any substantial precedence about what can or cannot be regulated by the "commerce clause," resolved the dilemma by calling the mandate a tax, which Congress can regulate.

     Justice Roberts also was right in pointing out that the job of the Supreme court was not to determine whether the Affordable Care Act was good policy--or even the moral thing to do--but to determine whether the legislation was legal based on the Constitution.  He substituted the word "tax" for "penalty" in order to remove any controversy about "commerce clause" implications.   By fixing the legislation rather than voting against it suggest that Roberts believed Obamacare was both good policy and good for the American people.  

     Conservatives are falsely claiming that Obamacare taxes will be the largest amount in history.    But William Shakespeare, speaking through Juliet, asks and answers the question:  "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell the same."  A penalty by any other name is still a penalty.  Calling the penalty a tax does not change what it is, which is defined by its purpose.  And the purpose is not to raise revenues.  Furthermore, if everybody who can afford insurance buys it, "penalaxes" will be zero.         

     You'll remember, Republicans objected to Obamacare as part of their strategy to make President Obama a "one-term president."  Making him look like a person who doesn't know what he is doing is part of the plan.  It didn't matter that his ideas were good for the American people--even rich people and those aspiring to become rich.  Most conservatives just want to believe that Barack Obama is the wrong person.  

     Republicans challenged Obamacare, at first, because of claims that their ideas were excluded.  Consequently, individual Republicans were afraid to acknowledge their contributions to Obamacare.  They refused to acknowledge secret compromises they offered in the formation of this still imperfect product.  They refused to acknowledge that the "mandate" was a Republican idea, that Mitt Romney implemented it as governor of  Massachusetts.  Even Romney won't take credit for instituting the successful health-care program.   Republicans also refused to accept the President's invitation to present malpractice options, choosing, instead, to criticize Obamacare later for not addressing their malpractice concerns.

     So they decided to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Presumably it was not only bad policy, it is illegal legislation.  Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court majority conceded that bad policy would not make it is not unconstitutional.  Now Republicans are back to their bad legislation argument.  But a health-care plan was not bad legislation in Massachusetts when Republican governor Romney presented it and and a bipartisan legislature passed it.        

     Despite objections by most Republicans, the Affordable Card Act that passed Congress was a legislative compromise that disappointed both liberals and conservatives.  Conservative claimed it was a bad plan, but they never submitted their own workable plan.  And if they couldn't come up with a plan during the time when health care was being debated, how can they come up with one now.  The fact is they didn't want a plan, certainly not before the November elections.

     Would there be a health-care plan developed under a Mitt Romney presidency.  It's possible.  The problem is not that Obama has been a poor president with a lot of bad ideas.  He has been a good president.  And if Mitt Romney is elected president, he likely would attempt many of the things Obama is being criticized for either having done or wanting to do.  

     But that was more likely before the Supreme Court made its decision.  The question still remains: Will most Americans trust effective health-care legislation, job creation, a quality education focus and chances for a robust economic recovery to the leadership of President Obama or a President Romney?         I have often referred to the words of former New York governor, Mario Cuomo, who when asked, after the 1988 election of George H. W. Bush, if he would seek the presidency in1992, responded, "I'm not sure.  I'll be pulling for President Bush to succeed."  This was Cuomo, hoping that the American people has made the right choice.  But Republicans don't want Obama for America even if he is the better choice.

     But Republicans are a poor choice for other reasons including their constant disparagement of Europe with words like not wanting "European-style health care" and "European-style Socialism" (and almost anything European).  These suggest that a Republican-led government would be increasingly anti-European, even if it means bringing the European economy down and the U.S. economy down with it.    They're now even trying to make one of their own champions, Chief Justice Roberts, down by trying to make him look like a flip-flopper.  

     I have seen deranged individuals before but never a deranged political party.  

Republicans are saying that the Supreme Court decision was a blessing in disguise.  Why, then, didn't they realize that before legally challenging Obamacare.  The logic of the Republican position suggests that, contrary to the impression they gave, they really were pulling for the Supreme Court to rule against them.  They are saying effectively that Roberts has given them reason to do what they have said they would do anyway.  "Repeal and replace"?  When have Washington Republicans ever attempted to pass health-care legislation to cover all Americans?  They wouldn't this time, either.

     They are becoming confused by their own nonsense, and are hoping confusion helps them with the American voters in November.

Rational Majorities Are Always Right

  In all effective democratic processes, the majority must be considered right--even when they may be wrong.   This is because, where the people on both sides of an issue make rational proposals and act reasonably in pursuit of the best options. even a united pursuit of the "wrong" position will yield better results when the status quo is not an option.

      But when smart and ethical people disagree on opposite sides in pursuit of the best options, there are several possibilities:  (1) Each option or position has the potential to be successful if proponents and opponents decide to cooperate to make the choice of the majority succeed.  (2) Both option can fail if those on the losing side commit to making the prevailing option fail.  But (3) it is also possible that neither option has the potential to succeed.  The solution may rest outside the box of perceived or permitted options.  In the most successful practices of democratic processes, the people in the group like each other.  (Otherwise, they likely would not be--or remain--part of the group.)  All join in to make the selected option succeed, with the same enthusiasm as had their preference prevailed.  The group acts as one body, much as single individuals do when having to choose from among several options, and must weigh the roads to success and the consequences of both success and failure.  Once all the options have been carefully considered and decisions made, individuals don't continually argue within themselves about the choice made.  The only debate is about how to best make the choice happen.  Therefore, when people within a group seek to sabotage the will of the majority, it is as if some aspect of an individual psyche is seeking to make the option, chosen after careful consideration, fail in order to direct attention to other rejected options.  This has been referred to as a house divided against itself, and It's bad if it happens in either individuals and groups.

    All groups and institutions work better together when members recognize and acknowledge good ideas that can contribute to the successful achievements of shared goals.  Most group goals have more than one route to success.  And most times success depends on the resources, skills, and knowledge of those who must lead the pursuit of those goals.  Unfortunately, too often, the debate is centered more on the process than on the desired outcomes.  Processes are easy to debate and criticize because there is nothing tangible to evaluate. Processes can only be evaluated based on whether or not the pursued goals have been achieved.

     What we need, therefore, is a vision for America which enables us to set goals for our economy and expectations of our politics that produce desired outcomes for the American people, outcome that are not beg achieved as increasing shares of the nation's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a fewer and fewer families.  More and more people, as a consequence, are having to live with less than they need.   

     According to objective experts, the income and wealth gap began in the 1980's during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.   Many attribute his attacks on unions as the beginning of the decline of union strength and influence.   But even before then union money and union member votes often went in opposite directions.  

     It was certainly a time when the American people's attitudes about helping the "least among us" began to change from attitudes born with the elections of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson two decades earlier.  It became all right During the Reagan years to be selfish.

      But what caused this wealth gap to widen over the past thirty years?  Powerful and smarter people have always had the ability to take advantage of the rest of us.  But why in the 1980s? Certainly weakened unions was a factor.  Has it been good for the American economy?  Will the trend end on its own?  If so, what will cause the gap to stop widening

      Smart people have opposing positions about the wealth gap, the economy and about the merits government size.  But I never hear a description of  government that is just right,  Why?  These people who are disagreeing among themselves are smart people whom we expect and hope are giving us their best, unbiased opinions on issues and options.  Of course, if some of these smart experts know that their arguments are flawed but espouse them for political reasons, then voters must make their decisions based on other sources of information.  But what and where will they get it?  Presently,  the people's watch dogs seem to have lost their freedoms of speech and press.

     The principle of the majority's being right usually holds within political parties but, in the present political climate, does not hold for decisions that require agreements between the parties.  Compromise, call it give and take or flipping a coin, is the only way to reach a "right" solution.  After Republicans have defined and described small government and how it best achieves the needs of all Americans and Democrats have done the same for big government, they then should be able to reach middle-ground that is not only "just right' for all Americans.

There is nothing sacred or honorable about economic or social ideologies that they would cause members of Congress to refuse to compromise.  The principles of integrity, truthfulness, trustworthiness, honesty and fairness are principles that should not be--and are not expected by most voters to be--compromised.  But these are not ideologies..

     We must always remember that despite people classifying themselves as liberals, moderates and conservatives or Democrats, Republican and independents, all of us are members of the one nation.  We are one body.  Consequently, most Americans want Republicans and Democrats to compromise, to assume that the majority is "right."  But big money, including those feeding at the upper end of the income gap, says, "NO."   

     In November, voters will determine if that is a winning strategy.

Teaching Students How to "Fish"

     There is a saying that, if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day.  (And you'll have to give him a fish everyday the rest of his life.)  But If you teach him to fish, he'll feed himself for the rest of his life.  Few people will argue with the truth of that statement.  Therefore, the implication by Republicans that our welfare system gives fishes to people who should be fishing has merit--if we were really committed to teaching them how to fish.

     Let's not fail to realize that there are Americans who must be given fish every day of their lives.  We know who they are and we should do it.  We have members of our American family who are mentally or physically challenged.  America is able to take care of them.  But we cannot do it adequately when money is being given to able-bodied people who have the capacity to provide for themselves but not the ability.

     The problem is that many able-bodied people also need help.  Able-bodied children who come from a non-inspiring, non-encouraging, non-challenging homes, and without proper role models can "learn to fish" if that child attends schools where teachers know how to teach them to fish.  And if there are teachers who cannot do it, there should be people within school systems who can teach the teachers how to teach students to fish.  If such people are not within the school system, there must be somebody somewhere where of both teachers and their superiors can go to learn how to teach children to fish.

     Unfortunately, there are too many people who believe that if students are given a fishing pole, some hooks and bait, and take them where the fish are that they have been provided opportunities to learn to fish.  Granted, some children may be able to learn to fish by watching other children fish.  But most teachers want student to "fish" independently, and most students are not in classes with the good "fisherman."  There is no doubt that students learn to "fish" much more easily when teachers teach them to fish.  

     Presently, too many colleges and universities are not enabling educational leaders in our school systems to help local educators teach children how to fish. many institutions which have staffs capable of challenging educators don't do so because local educators have options to attend other institutions where standards are lower.   Also, educator-training institutes with such highly qualified staffs likely must charge higher tuitions to pay the salaries of such staffs or lose them to the business.  

     Hence, the need for a government financed Education Academy with high academic standards.  Those who say this is another example of government being too big are wrong.  Government must be as small as it can be but as big as it needs to be, big enough to provide the nation's children with the kind of education both they and the nation need.

     The children themselves are factors in this equation.  And if children don't have the kinds of parents at home that schools think they should have, why aren't schools teaching students how to become better parents than than the ones they have.  Even teach those parents who are willing to learn.  These efforts could generate community-wide awareness, and efforts on the parts of those community institutions and organizations that can support these efforts and impact children lives within that community.  

     Secondly, schools should teach students how to be become better students by teaching them how to learn the subjects teachers teach.  Not all student know how to study and how to learn.  Many don't know when they don't understand or what it means to understand.  Conservatives are right:  People should know "how to fish."  But they are short on expressing the need to "teach them to fish."  Democrats, on the other hand want to feed them until they are taught how to fish, not just given hooks, bait and poles.  

     Conservatives act as if they don' t really want intellectually hungry children to be able to fish.  It's as if they would rather expand the welfare state to reduce the number of children prepared to compete for good jobs.  It's as if they would rather give them a fish every now and then or keep them fishing in shallow waters rather than prepare these children to go into the deep waters of academic achievement where they fish are bountiful and the opportunities for tremendous catches are great. 

      Some of that may have been true. 

      But, essentially, African American are now in control of their own destiny in educating black children.  But Black educational leaders cannot lead young people to levels of excellence in achievement and performance.that they themselves have not achieved.  I was always concerned as a teacher that my ability to challenge my students was limited by my knowledge of what was possible by my students.  I did not assign physics problems that I could not work without first referring to the teacher's manual.  One year, I assigned them and some students solved them.

Teachers of at-risk students have a very difficult task because "at risk" does not mean "can't learn."  And those needing to challenge children at the highest level have an even greater challenge because knowledge of the content to be taught is not the same as knowing how to enable students to learn that content at levels of challenge commensurate with the students abilities. 

     Consequently, schools should provide study halls specifically for science, mathematics, and language arts, where students can enroll as needed.  They would be manned by teachers who are inspiring and trained in remediation.  Some students, as a consequence, would take fewer courses per semester or per year and require one or two years longer to graduate but they would graduate ready to fish. 

     Even though this column has been a "fish" story or sorts, poor education is not the fault of children and parents who don't know what needs to be done to improve the condition.  It's the fault of those who do know what is wrong--or choose not to find out--but still get paid as if most graduates have learned to fish.

         

Many Religions but Only One God

     Through His teachings and example, Jesus attempted to add His own divine knowledge or revelations to the Biblical teachings of Judaism--as had many who spoke on behalf of God before Him.   Although, He was rejected by most Jews, He and his teachings laid foundations for what would become Christianity.

     I believe every holy book contains words that were either spoken or revealed by God.  They were spoken or revealed to people who were either inspired or predisposed to hear, remember and communicate them.   Each holy book is holy to those who believe in it, are inspired by it, and attempt to live their lives according to its teachings.   All of the great religious teachers throughout the ages may have been communicating with specific groups, but their messages had worldwide implications.  The actual messages from God reside in what all such messages, revelations, gospels, and commandments have in common--the Golden Rule being one otfthem.     

     Abraham was the father of the Muslim, Christian, Jewish faith, and likely many other religious faiths.  Different peoples either found or was found by God through  experiences that were unique to them, and through the words of men who claim to have communicated with The Creator.  But God is father--and likely mother--of all people.  How God reveals Himself to us and how our faith assimilates His presence into our lives may be unique to our individual or cultural nature and to our needs and circumstances.  Nevertheless, they are there. 

     When God revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses, He was not sending a message applicable only to Jews, with no thought of people in other parts of the world.  There was only one god, who is God.  So there is no such thing as Jews having their god, and other peoples having theirs. 

      Likewise, when Jesus told His disciples to "teach all nations…to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you."  He likely was not talking about expanding Judaism--or even the religion for which His teachings eventually would become the foundation: He was talking about spreading to all peoples God's formula for living together peacefully, productively and joyfully.   Jesus summed up all commandments up into two commandments:  Love the Lord our God with all our mind, body, soul and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves--love that is often beyond our ability to feel, but always within our ability to demonstrate. 

     Other people through the ages have made images to represent God, giving themselves something tangible to see, and maybe even to touch.  These people did not believe the images were God.  After all, they had made them or seen them made.  Likely, they simply believed (or perhaps hoped) that God would meet them at the images--and we have no way of knowing that He didn't.

     But there seems to be a need for some people to believe that everything which is like or associated with themselves must be better or superior to person, things or experiences that characterize others.  That kind of thinking makes it easy for some people to attribute to "radical Islam" terrorism by certain residents of countries where Islam is the dominant religion.  If a similar group of aggrieved or misled people from the United States carried out acts of terror in Europe--or even within the United States, the same people would not label the group as "radical Christianity."   The United States was attacked on 9/11 by Al Queda, not "radical Islam."  Credit or blame should be placed where it is due.  Just as not every person who attends or belongs to a church congregation is a Christian in thought and action, neither is everyone who bows at a mosque to the Muslim faith.  

     Jesus made it clear (regardless of the religion):  He said, "by their fruit you shall know them."  He said that because here are people in most religions who seek out within their holy books, not sources of truth and guidelines for living, but translations, impressions and interpretations that validate their desire to live and act counter to the basic teachings of the religion.   

     I don't know why it is that some people want God to care more about them than His other creations.  They want it so much that, if God doesn't show that He cares more for them, they will take matters into their own hands, and make it appear that He does:  Their accumulation of wealth at expense of others becomes, for them, examples of God's blessings.  They will break commandments and still be able to convince many people that wealth and political power are evidence of their being favored and more blessed by God.

     Religious tolerance is the ability to permit and live peacefully with those who practice religious faiths with which one disagrees.  Tolerance acknowledges the right of Americans to practice religion according to the dictates of their hearts so long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others.  Consequently, people can be tolerant of other religious and yet believe that their religion and holy book are connecting them with The Almighty.  The problem is when they believe on theirs connect with The Almighty.   Can we remain true to our own faiths and be more than just tolerant toward other religious faiths?  

     It seems that those of us in the pews tend to be more liberal in our acceptance of the legitimacy of other religious faiths than are the leaders of the various faiths.   Many of these leaders merely choose not to admit that other religions also may be litigate.  Jesus told his disciples that He had "other sheep who are not of this fold."   Who were these other sheep?  Jesus said these sheep know his voice and did whatsoever He commanded.  One might conclude that sheep anywhere who did as Jesus commanded--regardless of the holy book that contained the teachings--were His.  

     Sometimes people who are not religious leaders have been inspired with truth.   Long before Jesus lived, Confucius stated that we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto us".  And although they were contemporaries, neither did the philosopher Socrates ever meet the prophet Jeremiah--as some religious scholars suggest must have happened--to account for Socrates' profound faith in God and belief in life after death.

     Almighty God is creator and sustainer of both the realized and unrealized.