Memory lost and found

Memory Lost and Found

Have you ever forgotten where you put your car keys? How about people’s names? Now what if you lost your memory about what keys are? Or lost all memory about everyone you ever knew?

            That is what happened to a guy I met. He had a tumor in his brain and it had to be removed. Before they operated, the doctor warned him that he would lose his memory. As expected, once the surgery was completed he was a blank slate. When he woke, his wife, brothers and children were at his bedside and he knew none of them. He told me that even though their faces were familiar, but it was frightening when he couldn't remember their names—or even his own. In fact, he had to relearn reading, writing, walking…practically everything.

            The greatest fear he had when he awoke was whether he could trust the people around him. It was as if he was an alien being dropped down from another planet, without any clues to how things worked. After many months of physical therapy and reassurance from his family, he eventually came to trust them. Everything he knows now of the past is through the eyes of his wife, brothers, children, and friends.

            When we were talking he quoted his dad, “My dad always said if you don’t have time to do something right the first time, how can you find time to do it right the second time.”

            “How did you know your dad said that?” I asked.

            He replied, “I know it because my brothers told me.”

            His survival was something he was extremely grateful for, but starting from scratch seemed to me an almost insurmountable task. Not to know your own home, road, city, or even country, is a daily battle he fights. Figuring he had a fresh outlook on the world with his new mind, I asked him what he thought of the U.S. He said, “It’s the best country in the world.” That was good to hear. He seemed to have a positive and refreshing view. Going out was his week spot. He would get embarrassed that he didn’t know the people who knew him and he feared he might have done wrong to others and not know it. Coincidentally, two months earlier I had a dream that I lost my memory (Alzheimer’s) and I woke up in a panic. It wasn’t a pretty feeling, but it gave me a glimpse of what he may be going through. I tried to encourage him by saying he has a new start on life, but secretly I knew it would be agonizing for anyone to start over.

            He recently got his drivers license and I am sure the freedom and control will benefit him; even though at present he sticks fervently to the same route. One interesting side effect was his relationship with his wife of 40 years. He said he was having fun. I guess it was like a new romance. She must have been one dedicated woman to stick close to his side.

 It made me realize how important we are to each other. It is easy to take someone for granted when you see them day-in and day-out with set expectations. With the season of giving underway, it’s important that we remember to love one another and to make an effort to improve on those relationships that are strained or even broken. 

In the coming year we have a chance to start again. In some ways, I wish I could just press the reset button in my mind. To trust and appreciate others better…to see the freshness in those relationships before it’s too late. Try not to let that happen to you. We are only here a short term on Earth…make the best of that time.

Season’s greetings and blessing to you all!

Do You Have Religious Freedom?

Religious Liberty

Recently, there have seen some disturbing events, inside and outside the U.S. restricting religious freedom. My attention was first drawn to this when the movie “Noah” was announced. United Arab Emirates and Qatar banned the viewing—due to depictions of prophets…this is a no-no in the Muslim faith. Nevertheless, what about the Christians? The Jews? The Hindus? The agnostics? Don’t they have a say in movie watching? Not in these countries apparently. I believe the best governments in the world embrace religious liberty—and all religions. Governments that are run as a theocracy are hindered by what I call myopic control.

History has shown that when a government is in complete control of religion, dissent will follow. I said government, not society. Many societies operate just fine if they accept one religion to live by, but when leaders try to force religion upon its citizens that’s when it gets hairy. The reason for this is what’s called FREE WILL. It’s up to people to make up his/her own mind as to what religion (if any) is acceptable. Religion is a way of life, the outward practice of an inward faith. Faith and belief system varies according to how one views God

In America, the state does not promote religion; people are able to make up their own minds as to their belief system. Some would say that government must have morality to make good laws. And I agree. However, laws must be based on a common agreement by our citizens…a common thread that pulls us together, not push us apart. That is why it isn’t an issue (to the over 90% of faith) to have the 10 commandments posted all over government offices in the U.S. Virtually every religion can relate to it. In a nutshell, it says we should love God and respect others.

Our government has embraced all religions. But when a country decides to limit the choice, disappointment, hurt, and anger arise in its people…ultimately resulting in a revolt. This shouldn't happen in the U.S. because, as crass and debase small parts of our society may become, the rest of us have the freedom to choose and participate in the faith of our choice. Some have said that most wars are started because of religion—and there may be truth to that. But not in America. Disputes yes, war no. Why? Because we have no partiality to any one faith; therefore, war over religion is eliminated. It's my contention that it isn't religion that starts wars, it’s the exclusion of religion that starts wars.

I agree with Law Professor Carl Esbeck.  “When government uses religion as a tool to achieve its political goals, the danger to religion is that it becomes a courtier in the halls of State.”  As a U.S. citizen, it would seem crazy to have the government force a religion on me, or for that matter, forcing me not to believe. That is why (Thank you Thomas Jefferson and friends) our constitution allows us the freedom of religion. The founding fathers used God in many of their speeches, the name of God is minted into our coins, and even the IRS allows us to deduct our donations from taxes—proof of America’s approval of religion. It has worked very well for the last 300plus years and is, in my opinion (to be discussed at another time), why the U.S. has been so successful economically and otherwise.

The Constitution’s First Amendment specifically says it prohibits our country from making laws that don’t respect or allow the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and so on. Whether you have a strong or weak faith in God, you have the right to practice those beliefs.  Unlike some countries in the world, we cannot, and should not, force our own beliefs on others. Religious liberty and freedom of speech is a common link between us and key to what makes this country strong and the cornerstone of society.  That’s because everyone has a stake in this, even those who don’t have a faith in God. Faith is a journey of belief, not a destination.  If we prejudge how a person thinks, we become intolerant and take away their ability to continue in that journey of discovering their beliefs. Therefore, regardless of our differences in belief, we must safeguard not only the religious liberty for you, but the lives of all Americans.

In closing, it is my privilege and right to be able to say God Bless America!

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/09/town-of-greece-symposium-can-government-actively-favor-a-religious-practice/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx

Noah - The Movie Review

Noah Movie Review

My oh my…where do I begin?

For those that have not seen the movie –  spoiler alert!

First off, let me say that I’m not a movie reviewer. I have written, three books on Shem and Noah, and through the process of research have gained enough information to be a critic of the movie’s Biblical accuracy. I must remind everyone that both the movie and my books are the work of fiction. However, even in fiction, there are three basic elements that establish a credible expansion of a Bible story:

1 It must have correct Biblical information.

2 It should have good historical information. By history I mean past data from archaeology, geology, atmospheric, anthropology, etc.

3 It may have elements of fiction to expound on the story.

The movie had several fantastical components to it that stood out from the Biblical story. These are: 

The Watchers, Noah’s relatives, the occupants of the ark, the geography of the land, and annoying details.

The Watchers. The movie depicts them as disobedient angels that God turned into rock creatures. Watchers are briefly mentioned in the Bible’s Book of Daniel, but more likely come from the book of Enoch (another Jewish writing, outside the mainstream culture and written around 300 BC). The book of Enoch describes them as angels who copulated with human women and fathered the giants called the Nephilim...not rock beings. I’m assuming the rock creatures come from the script writer’s imagination…which makes for bad reality but great action Hollywood entertainment. More detailed information on watchers [B]

Noah’s relatives could have been many, but the movie chose to identify only Noah, his wife Namaah (her name comes from Jewish tradition - not the Bible), and their three sons.

At the beginning of the movie, when Noah was a child, his father Lamech was murdered, but his grandfather Methuselah still lived. Without getting into too many details, (if we take the years literally) the Bible did not have Lamech die until about 5 years before the flood. Whether or not he was murdered or not is up for grabs.

Methuselah died at the year of the flood, so the movie is in-line with the Bible’s strict chronology.

The movie indicated that Ila was Shem’s wife, but the Bible had no name for her. The Book of Jubilees (another Jewish writing about 200 BC) names Shem’s wife as Sedeqetelebab, Ham’s wife as  Ne'elatama'uk, and Japheth’s wife 'Adatanesesoch. In the movie, Shem’s wife had twins; however, even though it wasn't mentioned in the Bible, twins are common and could easily have happened.

The movie does a decent job at portraying the characters of Shem and Ham....but got their age order mixed up. The Bible indicates that Japheth was most likely he oldest, then Shem, with Ham being the youngest. [A]

The occupants on the Ark, in the movie, were Noah, his wife and sons, Shem’s wife, and a stowaway named Tuball-Cain, who was the king of the land. The Bible states that only Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives were on board. It never mentioned Tuball-Cain or anyone else. Another problem is that Noah was most likely born after the life of Tuball-Cain, which makes this guy even more out of place. Of course, the animals found their place on the Ark, which I presume was orchestrated by God’s direction.

The geography of the land was described as a barren wasteland in the movie, and that mankind had misused nature – cutting too many trees down and generally destroying the land and killing all types of animals with disregard. Noah is described as the guardian of nature. After Noah realized God was to wipe-out mankind with a flood, Methuselah gave Noah a seed from the Garden of Eden to help him build the Ark. Noah planted the seed and it sprouted a fountain of water that grew a forest within a day. Other than watching over the animals and land the Bible says only that man is evil, but nothing about the land or animals being misused or of sprouting forests.

Annoying details: The two main themes in the movie were that mankind should care for nature, and that God did miraculous things in magical ways. I believe, credibility in a Biblical story is diminished when it intentionally seeks to go beyond the elements of reality. The story could have held its own without the rock creatures and the instantaneous growing forest. This is where it moved from Biblical to something akin to the world of Elves and Hobbits.

First, I didn't like the idea of the movie showing the ark as a big block of wood. If there was technology to make iron tools, so too should there be advancements in shipbuilding. I believe Noah used not only his sons, but boat builders to help him design details within the parameters that God provided. [C] The boat could easily have had a keel and stabilizers to keep it from bobbing and getting tossed erratically by the winds. I also disliked the flat and irregular roof. With constant rain day after day, water would create pools between the roof log squares and leak down into the hull where the occupants lived. 

Second, the idea to put the animals asleep with special smoke was a fun trick for the movie but not based in reality. The most obvious problem is that the humans are animals too…and would fall asleep.

Third, the land gave no indication of flocks of sheep or fields of plants; so the question of how they made their clothing comes to mind.

Forth, Noah was given the dream about the flood to save his family and the animals…water being the method, because it cleanses. Yet, the movie story later decides to abandon women for Noah’s sons? The story is then stuck without a way to repopulate mankind. To resolve this, the writer depicts Noah as uncertain whether man should survive at all. Noah suddenly comes to the conclusion God only wants animals to survive. In other words, God gave Noah a dream to save his righteous family then reneges. At this stage, the writer is too clever by half. In the end, all this was superfluous, for the obvious solution is in Genesis 7:7. The Bible clearly states that Noah’s sons and their wives entered the ark.

Final note. The story was heavy on action and light on character development. I would have enjoyed more characters like Methuselah, the clever berry-loving Yoda like man who (if you'll allow me to mix my space lore) could put his great grandson to sleep with some sort of Vulcan mind touch. 

Lastly, I have to say that no one today has any proof about the movie's content. Therefore, any of it - as wild and crazy as it seemed - could have happened. In many ways it's strange enough to even discuss the reality of an ark and a flood. My objection is not that it wasn't a good action flick. My objection is that the movie included just the core of the Bible story, and strayed or even outright ignored scripture accuracy. Paramount said it wanted to make Aronofsky's film Noah "as Biblically accurate as possible." I and many other would say, only in Aronofsky's mind is it accurate.

[A] This link explains the ages of Noah's sons.

 http://www.garyriedl.com/2010/10/who-is-oldest-brother-japheth-shem-or.html

[B] Andrew Collins’ book, From The Ashes of Angels, ventures into minute detail regarding the sources of the Watchers. He speculates that other than a myth or actual angel beings, they also could have been a long lost race of people from our past.

[C] Tim Lovett’s book, Noah’s Ark, explains a practical and logical design of Noah’s ark. Here is a picture of what I think the ark could have looked like.  This ark in not unlike smaller vessels in ancient times.

Noah

Noah the movie is coming out soon. 

Don't miss my version of the The Flood, in my book, 

The First Apocalypse. 

Get a copy and compare. 

Go to Amazon.com & enter Gary L Riedl, 
Or press the picture at the "My Books" link on this website.

America - Party or No Party

America - Party or No Party

Our current two party political system would have been discouraged by the founding fathers. They did not like the idea of parties and the political battles created from them. In George Washington's Farewell Address, he warned that "factions" (parties) were likely "to become potent engines by which . . . unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government."  James Madison  said that parties were "much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."   Alexander Hamilton in the federalist papers said that " nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties."  Thomas Jefferson declared in 1789, "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." 

Based on the founders’ comments, I contend that the America of today can do much better without them.

History:

 In 1787, the Federalist Papers were published. Approved of by men like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, the federalist papers were written to advance the idea that the government should be broader and more powerful. The two main reasons were so that the states could protect themselves against foreign enemies and concentrate an efficient treasury into one spot to pay off old war debts. At that time the revolutionary war had seen its soldiers dispersed to their states, while debt was not being paid back, not to mention the confusion from many types of currency being circulated.

The mantle of "Federalist" was hung upon those in favor of the federalist papers, and thus the first party was born. The anti-federalists (like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry) feared an overreaching government. Patrick Henry wrote strongly against the federalist view. The concern was that individual rights would be trampled upon - religious liberty, property rights, etc.

With the two groups and their views circulating through the states, it was determined that congress should amend the articles of confederation into a new constitution. In 1787, to create this new constitution, a summer-long event in Philadelphia consisted of private (and lively) meetings between delegates from each state. 

The federalists went over each issue point by point and ruled the day, ultimately persuading the majority of skeptics to adopt and sign the constitution. It had to be sent back to the states for ratification and was ultimately approved...with the assurance that a Bill of Rights would be forthcoming to satisfy the anti-federalists. 

The evolution of parties: 

(See the link below for a visual chart.)

The Federalists and Anti-federalist eventually merged after the war of 1812 into the Democratic Republican party...a period known as the "Era of Good Feelings". Those "good feelings" vanished around 1824 and split into two different groups. First, an emerging National Republican party, which never fully gained ground until it, the Federalists, and the short lived Anti-masonic party formed into the Whig party. Second was the Democratic Republican party, which Andrew Jackson originally ran on, but opted for the new name Democratic party.

The Whigs was a term borrowed from the English who abhorred royal tyranny and used to represent their displeasure of Jackson's authoritarian presidency. In the 1840's the Whigs saw their party intruded upon by the Liberty party (later Free-soil party), and the Know Nothing party (later American party). By the late 1850's, Slavery and expansion into western territories split apart both the abolitionist Democrats and northern Whigs into the Republican party. There was a brief moment for the Democratic party to join with the Liberal Republican party in 1872, but for the most part the Democratic and Republican party stayed separate until today. In 1875 the Greenback party was created but dissolved into the Populist party, which lasted until the election of 1908. The Prohibition party and socialist party ran through the 1920's and 1930's respectively. In the 1970's the Libertarian party came to life, along with the Green and Reform parties in the 1990's, but the two remaining major political groups today are the Republican and Democratic parties. 

Today:

1 Current polls show the lowest approval rating of our representatives in history. Time and again there are procedural blocks or an all or nothing approach to governing. It seems that Madison was correct to say that the common good is less important than a party's own self interests.

2 The efficiency of finding a candidate using parties is functional but with flaws. Although political parties are effective at finding a particular candidate, there are limits to the prospects of other choice candidates. In other words, there are many more qualified people available that cannot become viable candidates.

3 Campaign finance reforms were put into law to reduce corruption through influence via money. But without going into an additional article, it can be safely said that mischievous funding has continued to find its way regardless of these reforms.

4 The party system may be effective in mobilizing voters, but this mobilization also creates an affiliation that is difficult to cross. There have been numerous times that a person in one party may disagree with colleagues and yet is forced to stay the party line.

In essence, political parties today have become burdensome, self focused, and at times corrupt. And in the end a huge majority of the population is dissatisfied with the results. It's no wonder that the founders had good reason to be skeptical of parties, thus never mentioning them in the constitution.

Solution:

The simple answer is to eliminate parties altogether. Many would say that it would be too complicated to find a candidate and organize politics, but I disagree. Just because we have something doesn't mean we have to keep it...especially something inferior.

Finding a politician is as easy as looking out your front door. Millions of good men and women stand ready to answer the call if only they were recognized. With technology at our fingertips, we no longer have to send letters and notices at a snail's pace.

Voting can be conducted quickly on a local level through the internet to find the best possible candidate. 

The first stage would be the use of the internet to hold a primary for a slotted number of people for state offices. Next would be a Secondary, to allow a select number of candidates from each state for national offices. Finally, a Tertiary level would be the last step in selection of the president of the United States. 

 As a rule, the higher the office, the longer the process. But as the candidates move up through the primaries, the process becomes less intense, because candidates will be weaned out by the time they reach the national level. A limit of a few candidates could be determined for each stage. And without parties, Americans can decide on the merits of the individual rather than the party affiliation.

There will still be special interest groups, all vying for a place with the candidates. But in the long run, Americans will be able to choose the candidates with the greatest representation of values and ideals that match their own.

Sub-groups called caucuses in congress will continue to be harboring special interests. But they will be made up of moral and intellectual concepts of the districts rather than party affiliation. Fore example, rural interests in New York may agree with rural interests in Texas. These sub-groups of congress will have to work together not as a party but as members truly representing the desires of the people that elected them.

In the end, this is a case where zero is greater than any sum. A no party system keeps social conformity (also known as groupthink) out of politics and allows members free to speak their minds for the good of those they represent. This means that "We The People" have a larger voice in government and ultimately a better representation for the American people. 

Political Parties

http://www.davidwalbert.com/2011/07/01/timeline-of-u-s-political-parties/