DECISIONS, DECISIONS

Faced with a decision, human beings attempt to figure things out in their heads.

Classic mistake.

The human brain is chock full of defects that make it unusable for that sort of work. Furthermore, if you already have an inkling of what you'd like to do, the brain can only be of service in coming up with "plausible" reasons why it's okay to do what you want to do.

For instance, the Republican leaders of the Senate have said they will not consider anybody Obama might nominate for the opening in the Supreme Court. They say this decision is so important the American people need to weigh in on it.

They want to wait until after the election to consider any nomination. (Maybe they should just ask Hillary what she wants to do.)

Their position is almost plausible. But what they've apparently forgotten is that the American people have already weighed in on the subject. They elected Barack Obama to deal with this sort of thing.

Twice.

Why should the Court be forced to issue largely ineffectual rulings for a whole year just because Senate leaders are suffering from the delusion they're going to get a Republican in the White House?

If the makeup of the Senate doesn't change in November, I guess it's conceivable those guys would refuse to consider a Supreme Court nomination offered by any future Democratic president. Could they get away with that? Are they willing to try?

One legal matter currently being heard in the Court: The Little Sisters of the Poor are appealing a decision from a lower court requiring them to provide birth control to their secular employees. Turns out the Sisters could hand that responsibility to the Feds with a signature on a piece of paper, but they say they'd still feel complicit.

They maintain having to provide birth control under any circumstances is a violation of their religious freedom.

Chief Justice John Roberts is sympathetic, saying: "They think that that complicity is sinful."

So what?

How is it the responsibility of the federal government to assuage feelings of guilt in the populace? Anybody could make a claim they feel put upon as a result of bizarre notions fluttering through their noggin. If those notions are sufficiently twisted—and unverifiable by any conceivable means—that guy is free to label them religious. Now he's in business—with a Chief Justice on his side.

As an example, some folks think it's a sin to drive to work on the Sabbath. Should the government close the roads on those days to make sure no one is forced to feel uncomfortable? (There are three different Sabbaths to consider. That's a lot of road closures. Maybe they could put Chris Cristie in charge.)

A spokesperson for the Little Sisters says if her religious freedom can be compromised now, your religious freedom could be trampled next.

That's an odd position to take, because if somebody else's religious freedom included worshipping a different god, the Little Sisters would be compelled to go a lot further than ding that guy's freedom of religion. They'd be required (by explicit language in the Old Testament) to crush the life out of that person.

As well as the life of anybody who might stand in their way. Or who might refuse to help them do it.

That's the law, man. God's law.

(FYI, the phrase "put to death" occurs 54 times in the OT.)

As for those folks driving willy-nilly on our public roads on the Sabbath, headed in to work, they need to be put to death as well. Along with anyone who might refuse to pick up a stone and get busy.

(Seems to me Congress has from time to time been forced to work on Sunday to get some bit of legislation finished. According to the Bible, it should have been a raging bloodbath in there.)

Fortunately, even devout Jews and Christians are willing to look the other way when it comes to punishing people who violate the Ten Commandments (many of which carry the death penalty). And that's despite the fact "looking the other way" itself rates a death sentence.

If religious folk ever staged a job action called "work-to-rules," this country would be reduced to smoking ruins in a twinkling.

No need for ISIS to lift a finger.

And speaking of ISIS, following the attacks in Belgium, Donald Trump again called for the closing of our borders. But what about the threat coming from folks already here?

And don't forget, targeting inbound Muslims for rejection at the border would give jihadists a hook for radicalizing the Faithful here in America.

To be perfectly safe—which is always the goal, right?—closing the borders would not be enough. You'd need to expel Muslims already in the country. And maybe torture them, too, to make sure they don't have any information about upcoming attack plans.

But even that's not going far enough.

You'd really have to expel the Jews and the Christians as well. Their holy scripture contains specific threats against just about every one of us.

Sure, they seem pretty docile now, but what if the fervor of radicals outside our borders inspired the people of this country to become more religious themselves? What would keep the lethal stones from flying?

The only practical long-term solution to Jihadists is to persuade them to allow the same sort of tolerance most Jews and Christians are (currently) willing to show.

Simply put, they need to mellow out a bit.

The hard part is that Islam is absolutely pervasive in everyday life. Sharia law (God's law) covers all aspects of a Muslim's life. There is no separation of church and state. Under ideal conditions, Islam is the state.

A devout Muslim prays five time a day. The average Christian may hardly see the inside of a church on a day that happens not to be Christmas or Easter.

Islam plants itself in the face of the Faithful and stays there, twenty-four/seven. Laxity is simply not an option, the way it is (apparently) for the majority of Christians.

But if we can't get those guys to skip over many of the exhortations to action found in the Quran, Islam may be too dangerous to tolerate in the real world.

And it's not like those guys could just give up their faith. The penalty for apostasy is—you guessed it—death.

More stones, more blood.

As long as human beings know what they know (which is everything, including the unknowable), we're going to be living in grave danger.

In other words, we're boned. Get used to it.

Oh, and speaking of decisions: John Kasich should have decided to drop out of the primary races the night he beat Trump in Ohio. His place of honor in a contested convention was assured at that time; dropping out then would have been so much better.

But will he drop out, even now? Polls show him neck and neck with Trump in Pennsylvania, with Cruz trailing. Tantalizing for Kasich, no doubt. But the longer the anti-Trump vote is divided, the less likely it is the Republicans are going to end up with a brokered convention.

Decisions, decisions...

THE ORIGIN OF RIGHTS

Not that long ago I saw Ted Cruz on the news declaring to a group of evangelicals that all rights flow from God.

This is the sort of thing you need to say to get elected to high office in this country. All the presidential hopefuls—Republican and Democrat alike—have to curtsy to the Christian majority to curry favor.

(Except Bernie Sanders, I guess, certified Christ-killer in the eyes of conservative Christians. Maybe in the eyes of all Christians.)

As a nonbeliever, I can't look to God for my rights. In this country one often considers the Constitution as a foundry of rights. Evangelicals would probably say the Constitution was merely redistributing the rights granted to it during some very private ceremony between God and the Founding Fathers.

(Maybe the Masons were involved, who knows. We'd have to ask that guy from Sleepy Hollow.)

In a strange way, I concur with the evangelicals: Rights come from God, which means if there is no God then there are no rights.

See, I don't believe in rights at all, God-given or otherwise. In my view, there are no rights, only agreements.

Besides, if God hands you a portfolio of rights, he can just as easily grab them back again. Like the way a teenager could be grounded after dinging the fender on the family car.

Politicians have to face the reality of believing in God, or at least of looking like they believe in God. My guess is, most of them really do believe.

Which I find mighty troubling.

American presidents have at their fingertips enough nuclear-based power to end civilization. All they need is an excuse, reasonable or otherwise.

Ronald Reagan used to invite evangelicals to the White House, have them sit in on national security briefings. Reagan was vitally concerned with Israel and her biblical role in starting Armageddon.

As we know, some American evangelicals support Israel in hopes of getting that country to light the match on the fuse that brings Jesus Christ back to Earth.

(Maybe they're embarrassed it's taken Christ so damned long to fulfil his only promise.)

Personally, I want my president's eyes on this world, not the next.

Nevertheless, presidential hopefuls (especially those of the Republican persuasion) compete for the title of Most Christian and attack their opponents over their evangelical credentials.

There is probably no way around this potentially fatal nonsense. Sucks to be us, right?