FEATURE ARTICLES. THE SOCIOPATH- EVIL DOES NOT EQUAL MENTALLY ILL.

The Sociopath has often been labeled as mentally ill, or even insane.  As human beings, it is often difficult for us to judge extreme behavior.  Since we often cannot place ourselves in situations that would lead us to act as the Sociopath does, the result is defining such actions as a product of a diseased mind.  However, the Sociopath has no physical or chemical abnormalities.  They process information in a rational manner, and act on what they perceive to be in their best interest.  The difference is that most people consider the affect on other individuals and society as a whole to be of value to them physically and/or emotionally.  The Sociopath doesn't.

Don't get me wrong,  There are certain conditions that can cause an individual to act with great violence and cruelty, for which they cannot be held accountable either morally or legally. This is commonly called PSYCHOTIC BEHAVIOR.

Often, the Sociopath and the Psychopath are grouped together as being one and the same.  However, this is not true.  The person with a diagnosis of Psychosis has a real and identifiable condition, resulting from a physical abnormality and/or chemical imbalance within the brain. The Sociopath has no such problems.

Look for pt.3 in a future posting.

Date- 6/23/2013.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE SOCIOPATH- A DANGER ALL AROUND US. PT 1.

FEATURE ARTICLES.

THE SOCIOPATH-  A DANGER ALL AROUND US.  PT 1.

Look for what lies underneath the surface.When certain acts of violence are reported in the media, how often do we hear the following;

• "How could he do that to his best friend."
• "Why would a mother hurt her own children."
• "He's such a nice guy and a good family man, he can't be guilty."
• "The victims were so innocent, why would anyone want to hurt them." 

Of course there are numerous other examples I could use, but the point is clear.  Even after thousands of examples throughout the centuries, we are still caught off-guard by acts of seemingly senseless violence and brutality. However, we shouldn't be.  There is now, and perhaps has always been, a certain segment of Humanity that thrives on the misery they cause to others.THE SOCIOPATH.

I will define the Sociopath as; An individual with a fully developed and ingrained personality that;

• Uses others as tools to satisfy individual desires.
• Lacks remorse or empathy for the pain and suffering they cause to others.
• Has a Grandiose, Inflated self-image that makes them feel like they are the center of the universe.
• Enjoys Deceiving and Manipulating people, often for no other reason then a sense of power.
• Positive words such as Dignity, Honor and Duty or negative words such as Cruelty, Prejudice and Suffer are meaningless. They represent concepts foreign to the Sociopath.

To put it simply, the Sociopath represents a personality that most of us cannot comprehend or identify with. That is where the Danger lies.  They use this lack of knowledge to cultivate new victims who are unaware of their true nature.

See pt.2 in a future posting.

Date- 6/16/2013.

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT RELIGION? PT 2.(UPDATE)

In Part 1, I quoted Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. I pointed out that this section of the Constitution, along with the First Amendment, are the only two places that religion is referred to in the entire body of the document.   I will now quote from the Bill of Rights, the section that references religion.

First Amendment-  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There you have it.  These two passages make it clear what role religion would play in the development of the new republic, and at no time do they contradict each other. 

- Congress would not address the subject of religion in any way.

- There would be no religious test to hold public office.  One need only swear allegiance to the Constitution. 

However, Now we have JUDGES IMPOSING THEIR OWN PERSONAL CHRISTIAN BELIEFS ON DECIDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CERTAIN ISSUES. IN OTHER WORDS, IT MUST PASS THEIR "RELIGIOUS TEST." These are CHRISTIAN FASCISTS WHO ARE SEEKING TO UNDERMINE AND DESTROY THE CONCEPT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR ALL BY LEGALIZING THEIR OWN FAITH AND CRIMINALIZING OTHER FAITHS.

- Since Religious Freedom is considered a right that every American has, it cannot be taken away.  In other words, creating and passing legislation that removes this right is not possible.

For those who claim that the founding fathers had an agenda that would establish Christianity as an essential part of our legal system, and that it is justified within the body of the Constitution, ignore certain details.  None of the following appears within the ratified document;

• God.
• Jesus.
• Christian or Christianity.
• Prayer.
• Bible.
• Old or New Testament.
• Sin.
• Heaven or Hell.

In fact, the only word that could possibly be a reference to a Supreme Being is the use of the term "Lord".  However, this word is used only once in the following fragment; "...in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...".  This was a common way that dates and times were presented in print, and was not considered to be an expression of faith.

It's amazing that many of todays Lawmakers wish to regulate public policy according to the faiths and beliefs of certain segments of American society.  This completely ignores the obvious intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.  Why would they make it the law of the land to require no religious test to hold public office, and then seek to Legislate by Doctrines found in certain faiths?

(See PT.3 in a future posting.)

Date- 11/11/2013.

LOGIC. IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #3.

In the following two examples, we are faced with the same category of flawed reasoning.

A)  Statement-  "I think Same- Sex Couples should have the same Rights and Opportunities as Heterosexual Couples."

       

Answer-  "So I guess we have to allow Brothers and Sisters to get married, or let children get married no matter how old they are.  Even worse, such a thing as Bestiality must be legalized."

B)  Statement-  "Churches enjoy Tax Exempt Status, that is why they cannot endorse any Political Party, Candidate or Platform."

      

Answer-  "Really, Priests and Ministers can't be allowed to vote.  If they do, it would be illegal, and the State will shut them down."

The above are actual examples I took from talk radio, but this Logical Fallacy can be found all across the Media. They are both examples of STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS.

A Straw Man argument takes a proposition or assertion, and refutes it by misstating or misapplying what was said.  Often this is done by claiming to argue against something that was not part of the original content, and attempts to create a position that the opposing side never proposed, endorsed or even addressed.

In the first example, the initial statement only proposed that Same- Sex couples be given status equal to that of Heterosexual couples.  Since Heterosexual couples have restrictions that may or may not allow them to Legally Marry, ( i.e. Age, Bloodlines, Freedom of Choice without Coercion, Bigamy etc.), these would also apply to Same- Sex couples.  There is no reason to think that legalizing Homosexual Unions would exempt them from the guidelines already established for Heterosexual Couples.

The second example applies to Public Political Behavior that occurs at Church Sanctioned Activities, and behavior that is private in nature. Church officials can express their opinions freely, and legally comment on any part of the Election Process, as long as it is not done at an official event that acknowledges their Authority or Capacity within the Church.  Also, I am unaware of any Law that prevents a member of the Clergy from voting, apart from guidelines established for every citizen.

(ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON 5/22/2014)