Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 50 of Contemplating Life.

Happy New Year to all of you. It’s good to be back after my holiday break. We left off last year with a political rant on Christmas Eve and I have one more rant before we get back to our regularly scheduled topics.

I’ve been interacting with people online since before the Internet was invented. My life online dates back to CompuServe in 1981. I’ve been thrilled to see the explosion of the Internet since then and the way it has become such an integral part of nearly everyone’s life. I saw the potential for online interaction way back in the 80s. Even in those early days, it was the best of times and the worst of times. The opportunity for interaction with people around the world was phenomenal. I’ve made lifelong friends online some of whom I’ve never met in person. But I also have seen the worst of people come out protected by the semi-anonymity that comes with online interaction.

What we now call “social media” is merely a tool. It is a medium through which people interact. It has become a scapegoat for much of what’s wrong with public discourse these days. In the early days of the Internet, you had to be a computer geek to even get online in the first place. In those early days, someone wisely commented, “When the Internet is easy enough for any idiot to use then the Internet will be filled with idiots.” That prophecy has come true a thousandfold or more.

I’ve never felt that platforms like Twitter/X, Facebook, and others deserved so much of the blame for the evil that takes place online. I blame the users themselves. I blame the inability of huge numbers of people who are incapable of engaging in critical thinking. I blame a herd mentality that encourages its followers to mindlessly repost propaganda.

I blame our education system for failing to educate people on how to think critically. I blame them for not teaching social studies or civics as it was once called so that they understand how our government works and operates or at least how it was designed to operate. I blame science education for not giving people a basic understanding not of scientific facts but of an appreciation for how scientific exploration and scientific discourse work.

Blaming social media platforms is similar to blaming a road for a traffic accident. Now to be fair, some roads are poorly designed, and that leads to accidents. But it doesn’t account for every traffic accident. In the same way, there are design flaws in social media that are responsible in part for the evil that occurs. But there are many more “accidents” that are not attributable to design error whether it’s on the road or online.

I recently saw a post on my Facebook feed from a friend of a friend. It’s someone I barely know. I won’t identify them because I don’t want to single them out for ridicule. I cite this message merely as an example to illustrate how I believe social media is abused and the lack of responsibility shown by users who are too quick to repost a message without fully understanding the consequences of what they have done.

Here is the post exactly as I found it. I have not corrected any grammar or punctuation in my online transcript of this podcast. You can see the actual message with identifying portions redacted on the YouTube version of today’s podcast.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“Someone once told me you have to choose which hill you die on: Get ready to fill out your reports on me, ‘cause I’m going to vent here. Frankly I expect some “unfriending” to happen and that is fine too.

“I believe we all have the right to worship as we please, but I also know that our country, the United States of America, was founded on Christian principles. I believe we should be proud of our country. A quote is a quote. It should not be amended or watered down.

“The news media should not be afraid to use the “Love of Christ” part. Why they state, “Because, using the words Christ or God might offend someone!” Well, now it’s my turn to be offended!

“I’m offended that the news media would edit it out. Offended that Christians are being asked to tread lightly, so as not to offend someone of another religion. This man “Jesus,” God with us!! He loved us, loved the world, and gave his life for the sins of all people. Those who “believe in Him, and accept Him as their personal Savior, will have everlasting life!!!”

“This Founding Principle is actually embedded in our Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Why would the left lopsided media continue to edit this truth?!

“I hope every Christian or every person that believes in God who is NOT OFFENDED will copy this and paste it to their status…“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.” ~Ronald Reagan.

“*Before you say it, I already know that a lot of you will say I don’t know how to copy & paste.* It’s easy… hold your finger on this post when the word copy appears, just touch it, then go to your home page and where it says “what’s on your mind”, touch it and hold your finger where you would start writing your comment and touch “paste”.

“If we continue to do nothing as not to offend anyone else, we will eventually be offended out of the constitution and out of a country!”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Let me start by saying it took great willpower to not respond directly to that post. However, there is so much in it that is illustrative of what’s wrong with online media today that I cannot resist this comment podcast. Let’s take it one issue at a time. The opening paragraph states…

“Someone once told me you have to choose which hill you die on: Get ready to fill out your reports on me, ‘cause I’m going to vent here. Frankly I expect some “unfriending” to happen and that is fine too.”

That sounds like something I could write. If you’ve been following this podcast from the beginning, you’ve seen me take some rather controversial issues against the way the disability community fights ableism. Although I don’t particularly want to offend anyone, if someone is offended by the truth or by my expression of my opinions I’m not going to let that stop me. So the post starts off in a way that defends free speech and controversial opinions which is a topic that should resonate with most people. It’s drawing you in saying, “We believe in the same things.”

It goes on to say…

“I believe we all have the right to worship as we please, “

Again, a factual statement with which I hope most Americans would agree and embrace but that’s only the first half of the sentence. It continues…

“…but I also know that our country, the United States of America, was founded on Christian principles.”

Okay… If this was a court of law and I was a lawyer, I would object on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence.” That is an objection that I could make repeatedly throughout this analysis. If it is true that most if not all of our so-called Founding Fathers were indeed men of Christian backgrounds. Many such as George Washington believed that religion and morality go hand-in-hand and religious belief was a necessary component of moral decision-making. We can see some Christian values such as personal freedom, justice, and care for the common good embodied in our founding documents. But they are not exclusively Christian. Other religions believe in those same things.

However, I don’t recall any of our Founding Fathers specifically insisting on one particular set of beliefs. Quite the contrary. They did not intend the country to be a Christian theocracy. The First Amendment to the Constitution begins with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This principle is commonly referred to as “Separation of Church and State.” So when some respects, to say that we are a Christian nation is unconstitutional and arguably un-American.

I always thought it interesting that the First of the Ten Commandments prohibits us from worshiping false gods and the First Amendment to the Constitution protects us from being forced to worship other gods. Thus, freedom to worship or not worship as one chooses is fundamental to Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and to our political beliefs. So I suppose in some respects, that argues that we are based upon religious principles but not necessarily a specific religion.

The post then continues with an inarguable agreeable sentence, “I believe we should be proud of our country.” If you suppose that you can be proud of your country even when it doesn’t always behave in ways you wished it would, there is nothing objectionable there. But here’s where things go off the rail. It says…

“A quote is a quote. It should not be amended or watered down. The news media should not be afraid to use the ‘Love of Christ’ part. Why they state, ‘Because, using the words Christ or God might offend someone!’ Well, now it’s my turn to be offended!”

Oh boy… There are so many things wrong with that paragraph it’s going to take us a while to break them all down. Apparently, the original author of this post is objecting to some statement they saw in “the media” that they believe was edited to remove religious content. They never state what it was that was quoted or how it was misquoted. Note these are not the words of the person who posted the message. This message has been cut and pasted God knows how many times. Perhaps it was in reply to some other message that gave it some context. Perhaps there was a link to an article that described some form of censorship or editing to which the original author objected. Because it is a mindless cut-and-paste statement, we have no idea what the person is actually talking about.

While our Pledge of Allegiance, unfortunately, includes the words “under God” (which were added later by the way, and not part of the original text), and our money states “in God we trust” all of which is arguably unconstitutional, I don’t know anywhere that the phrase “Love of Christ” is routinely used in any otherwise arguably secular context. So we never know exactly what it is that this original author was objecting to. Exactly where, when, and how did this unnamed media horrifically edit out the words “Love of Christ”? We don’t know. The result is, that you cannot create any counterarguments to such a nonspecific claim. Nor can you agree with the claim should you choose to do so because the claim is so vague.

At one point in my life, I was seriously agnostic if not downright atheist so I understand the atheist perspective reasonably well. I’ve heard many speeches and seen videos of people who were radically atheists and who were offended by the promotion of religion. My favorite atheist is political comedian Bill Maher. As radically anti-religion as he is, I don’t think he reaches the level where he wants all religion purged from public discourse. He thinks that faith in a supernatural deity is irrationally ridiculous but the mere mention of God doesn’t particularly offend him.

For the most part, people who are opposed to religion typically believe that you can believe whatever you want to under two conditions. First, do no harm. Second, don’t try to impose your beliefs on anyone. Beyond that, you can believe whatever bat shit crazy things you want to believe.

This post is a typical expression of the concept that there is a war against religion going on in our country. While there are many people highly critical of religion as practiced today, the idea that there is a huge conspiracy that is anti-religious or anti-Christmas or anti-Easter or other such claims is based on extremely weak evidence. The war against faith is pretty much the creation of the religious right for whatever agenda they have God only knows. I suppose it’s because they know that they can feed on people’s fears.

There is a war against misinformation, denial of freedom, and against hypocrisy. When people of faith claim to be loving people who have concern for their fellow human beings but will espouse beliefs and policies that are harmful to others so as you do not respect their rights as human beings then we have a problem. If you do that in the name of religion, you’re going to get people bashing your religion. For me, I don’t care what your religious beliefs are. I care what you do to hurt other people in the name of religion.

One of the Ten Commandments says you should not use the name of the Lord in vain. While most people interpret that to mean a prohibition against swearing or using God as an expletive, for me it is always meant, “Don’t call yourself a Christian or a person of God and then behave otherwise.” Doing so harms the entire faith community and allows critics to say, “Well… if that’s what it means to be Christian or any other faith, then count me out.” Hypocrisy causes irreparable damage to the brand. There is no war against religion. There is a war against hypocrisy and the imposition of your will upon others in the name of religion.

Anyway, moving on what else does this crazy post have to say?

“I’m offended that the news media would edit it out.”

Yet again, we have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Who edited what? It continues…

“Offended that Christians are being asked to tread lightly, so as not to offend someone of another religion.”

Now we get somewhere. We are drawing the line between us and them. It’s not about suppressing religion in general. It’s really about my religion versus your religion. The author is complaining about religious intolerance. I could agree with that. That’s the seductive thing about such a post. You could agree with just about every other line. Pride in the country. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Religious tolerance. All things I could be on board with.

But in between those agreeable things are getting vague accusations of unfounded atrocities. Next, we get a statement of Christian belief. If one is Christian, there is nothing particularly objectionable about the following paragraph.

“This man ‘Jesus,’ God with us!! He loved us, loved the world, and gave his life for the sins of all people. Those who ‘believe in Him, and accept Him as their personal Savior, will have everlasting life!!!’”

It’s a valid expression of Christian theology and belief. Unless you are so religiously intolerant that someone would say such a thing or hold such a belief then there isn’t much to object to. There is an implication that anyone who is not Christian but is of some other faith is damned to hell so I suppose that could be objectionable.

Personally, I happen to believe salvation does come from the sacrifice of Christ but it is open to even those who do not believe assuming they live a decent, moral life. I think a lot of Christians are going to be surprised at the number of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and atheists who end up in heaven. To a certain extent, the Catholic Church agrees with me stating in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 846 and following, that decent people who, through no fault of their own, have not accepted the Gospel can be saved. I tend to interpret the phrase “through no fault of their own” quite loosely. If you are turned off by the hypocrisy of people of faith that’s not on you it’s on us. It’s our failure as a faith community to not accurately present the Gospel in a way that is attractive to others.

The phrase “accept Him as their personal Savior” is decidedly a Protestant phrase that a Catholic would be unlikely to use even though they believe in Jesus. We could get into a theological debate of faith versus works as a distinction between Protestant and Catholic theology. For our purposes, we will just say that it reveals a Protestant bias that could be considered anti-Catholic but only to the most sensitive person.

Now we come to a fun one. The post continues…

“This Founding Principle is actually embedded in our Declaration of Independence: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’”

Oh boy… Here we go. They have accurately quoted the Declaration of Independence. While it is one of our most cherished founding documents, it is not the Constitution nor is it a law. My issue with using this statement as an argument that we are a Christian nation or rather founded on Christian principles is I don’t see the word Jesus anywhere in that sentence.

What if you are Muslim and believe that you are created by Allah? What if you are Jewish and believe that you were created by Yahweh? Okay, Allah is simply the Arabic name for what others might call “God the Father” as is Yahweh the Hebrew name for that same deity. In Trinitarian Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. I have heard it argued that when Muslims worship Allah and Jews worship Yahweh they are unbeknownst to them worshiping Jesus because Yahweh, Allah, and God the Father are just different names the same thing, and Jesus is united with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It’s not a bad theological argument. Probably offensive to Muslims and Jews but I get their point.

So even if you are calling your “Creator” by a different name, you could be talking about the same thing but that does not equate to this being a uniquely Christian statement. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of other non-Abrahamic faiths to see how the word “Creator” could or could not tie into the Christian concept of God the Father.

But let’s look at atheists. Ask an atheist, “Who is your Creator? Or how were you created?” On a personal level, the obvious answer is their fuckin’ parents – literally. But if we’re going to talk about the creation of the human race as a whole, then you get into abiogenesis, evolution, natural selection, and a whole bunch other of science regarding the origin of all life.

Regardless of the atheists’ definition of Creator, from a strictly secular, nonreligious perspective the phrase “endowed by their Creator with… rights” simply means that as a human being these rights are birthrights. They are inherent in the human condition regardless of who or what created you by what means you were created. The word “inalienable” means that it is not a right of citizenship of a particular nation but it is a right that is inherent in all people.

So the supposition that our country was founded on the principle that we have inalienable birthrights does not in any way shape or form prove that we are a Christian nation or founded upon uniquely Christian principles. Quite the contrary, the concept of inalienable rights is decidedly non-religious. Even if you could argue that Thomas Jefferson who wrote the first draft of the Declaration, or the committee that edited his draft, or the Continental Congress who amended and ratified that document were primarily Christian that doesn’t make us necessarily founded on Christian principles. And then there is little question of how Christian was Thomas Jefferson considering that he owned slaves and fathered children by them. The same could be said about other of our founding fathers who were slaveholders, misogynists, and not exactly bastions of social justice for all particularly Native Americans. That’s a different issue we won’t explore.

I have no problem with one’s religious beliefs being the basis of their morality or the use of religious principles in guiding one’s politics given the caveats that I mentioned previously in that: 1) it doesn’t harm anyone and 2) you don’t force those beliefs upon anyone. However, there is a big difference between being guided by your faith and creating a Christian theocracy.

In the November 8, 2023, Republican presidential debate, candidate Tim Scott talked about the need to restore faith in God. He mentioned that Abraham Lincoln quoted Scripture when he said, “A house divided used itself cannot stand.” He noted that Ronald Reagan described America as “the city on the hill.” which was also scriptural. But these quotes were using scriptural phrases in a way that was more philosophical than theological. There isn’t anything uniquely Christian about the idea that internal division leads to destruction or that being an example to the world of how to live is an ideal to which we should aspire. I have no problem with either of those quotes.

Scott then went on to say and this is a direct quote…

“It’s restoring faith, restoring our Christian values that will help this nation once again become the ‘City on the Hill’. When Ronald Reagan talked about the ‘City on the Hill’, he was quoting Matthew 5. When Pres. Lincoln talked about ‘a house divided’ that was Mark. Our founding documents speak to the importance of a faith foundation.

“You don’t have to be a Christian for America to work for you but America does not work without a faith-filled Judeo-Christian foundation. I would be the president helps us restore faith in God, faith in each other, and faith in our future.

“Without that focus, none of the issues, the policies matter. We have to get back to being a nation that is in fact the city on the hill.”

In other words, I’m building a theocracy regardless of issues and policies. Heathens are welcome to live here but Christians rule. In this context, “city on the hill” doesn’t just mean a beacon of democracy or freedom… it means a Christian nation. It means a theocracy in which nonbelievers are tolerated yet marginalized.

Fortunately, Tim Scott dropped out of the race the day after that debate. Businessman candidate Vivek Ramaswamy also made strong statements about faith-based governance that were quite alarming. I’ve linked a video of the debate in the description and it is queued up to Senator Scott’s comments so you can see them in their complete context.

Let’s get back to our original post. In the same paragraph where they quoted the Declaration of Independence, they concluded…

“Why would the left lopsided media continue to edit this truth?!”

Sigh… We still don’t know what the fuck this entire rant is referring to. We now know it’s an alleged left-leaning media but that’s relative. Sure it could be MSNBC which is decidedly left. What about NBC itself or CNN which I would consider fairly centrist and reasonably unbiased? These days, there are extreme alt-right media outlets these days that are trying to outdo Fox News now that Fox is occasionally critical of Trump. Relative to those media sources and websites, Fox News could be considered left-lopsided. Again, we still don’t know what was edited that the author found objectionable.

Next comes the most insidious part of the whole thing. The thing that makes such a post viral. Let’s talk for a minute about the word “viral”. A virus is a nonliving biological entity that depends upon a host to reproduce it and pass it along. It infects the host and damages it in the process. I think the word “viral” is especially appropriate in describing such a post. We get a call to copy and paste the text verbatim. Specifically, it says…

“I hope every Christian or every person that believes in God who is NOT OFFENDED will copy this and paste this to their status.”

Okay, file that under, “That doesn’t mean what you think it means.” Or at least it’s vague which is par for the course in this post. If you believe in God you should repost. That’s simple enough but then it qualifies it by saying “Who is not offended”. It says specifically it should be reposted by “every person who believes in God who is not offended.” You mean you’re not offended by talking about God or you are not offended by the alleged censorship. It should say, “If you believe in God and ARE offended by censorship then repost.” Or at least I think that’s what they are trying to say. Who knows?

They then offer a quote from Ronald Reagan. I looked it up. He really did say this at an ecumenical prayer breakfast in Dallas Texas in 1984.

“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.”

I’ve linked a YouTube video of the speech in the description. He makes a reasonably well-researched case for the idea that we were founded by people who believed in God and that these men considered faith to be inextricably tied to morality and thus essential to moral governing. He is very specific however not preferring one faith over another. This is an ecumenical gathering of people from a variety of faiths and not necessarily exclusively Christian. He quite correctly accuses people who are adamant about religious tolerance of being intolerant themselves. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he had to say. He believed way back in 1984 that there was a war on religion. I still think it is a war against hypocrisy and against the imposition of beliefs on nonbelievers. I disagree with the idea that you cannot have morality without religion.

The author of the original post is so insistent that you repost this message verbatim that they give you explicit instructions on how to do so. It says…

“Before you say it, I already know that a lot of you will say I don’t know how to copy & paste. It’s easy… hold your finger on this post when the word copy appears, just touch it, then go to your home page and where it says ‘what’s on your mind’, touch it and hold your finger where you would start writing your comment and touch ‘paste’”.

Believe it or not, I have problems with that paragraph. It means that the author is specifically targeting people who are not technologically knowledgeable. It is exploiting people who are not tech-savvy and encouraging them to repost something without thinking about it too much. I don’t mean to imply that people who lack technical skills are necessarily ignorant or incapable of critical thought. I know some brilliant people who can’t operate a computer. But the converse might be true. If you are not skilled at critical thinking or logical arguments, it is more likely that you are not tech-savvy.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a Chris Young rant if we didn’t bring disability into the argument somewhere, right? The instructions on how to repost specifically presume you are using a touchscreen device and not using Facebook via a webpage. If I were physically capable of doing so, putting my finger on the screen of a non-touchscreen device does me no good whatsoever. It doesn’t tell me how to cut and paste using a mouse and keyboard. Many disabled people can’t operate a touchscreen device so the assumption that you’re using one and that you’re capable of putting your finger on one is inherently ablest!

Okay, I can’t say that with a straight face. I’m being nitpicky and accusing people of ableism where there probably isn’t any. I’m usually critical of that. But if I’m going to attack someone for an ignorant post, I’m going to give it to them with everything I’ve got in my arsenal… including ableism.

There are alternative ways to repost a message. You can click on “Share” and it will be posted to your timeline. But there’s a problem with that. That means that your readers can see the original author. It means that a reader could go back to that author and challenge their assertions or their sources. It would allow you to ask the author “What the fuck are you talking about?” By suggesting that you should cut and paste the message rather than simply share a link, it insulates the author from such feedback or criticism and it makes it look more like these are your words, not someone else’s.

In fact, unlike some such cut-and-paste requests, this one doesn’t say “I copied this from a friend and you should too.” It implies that the person I’m reading was the original author and they are asking me to cut and paste. If the original author really believes what they wrote, they shouldn’t be afraid to sign their name to it. They could still ask, “If you agree with me, Joe Smith, then feel free to forward this or quote me and give me credit for my brilliant statement with which you agree.” But that is not what happens. They want to remain anonymous and coerce you into cutting and pasting and making the words your own.

The final sentence is…

“If we continue to do nothing as not to offend anyone else, we will eventually be offended out of the constitution and out of a country!”

Again, I’m not sure if that sentence is completely clear or if it means what they think it means. It gets a little bit caught up in double negatives and questionable grammar.

In general, I agree with the sentiment that people are too easily offended these days. I was raised on the proverb, “Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.” An alternative version was, “Words can never hurt me.”

While I agree that words have power and that such power can do damage, in general, I think people are way too easily offended these days. If you lie about someone or try to discredit them or ruin their reputation or misrepresent their position in a way that is indeed harmful… that is something different. An excellent example of that is the election workers in Georgia who had their lives destroyed by lies that they rigged the election. Fortunately, a jury agreed that they had been harmed and awarded them $146 million in damages. But words that simply offend… such offense only has as much power as we allow it. If someone says something intended to offend me, I say, “Fuck ‘em. They don’t know what they’re talking about. I’m not going to waste my energy on them.”

I have no problems with social media. I follow people on Twitter/X who keep me up-to-date on space exploration. I follow a few of my favorite race drivers in both IndyCar and NASCAR. I’ve never engaged in political discourse on Twitter. I follow news sources that I trust on Twitter. I’ve never gotten a single argument.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family around the world some of whom I’ve never met in person. Some who I’ve known for more than 50 years and I have been able to reconnect via Facebook when I thought they were lost to me. I belong to nearly a dozen disability-related groups where I interact with other disabled people and we support one another with information and encouragement. I belong to four Facebook groups related to assistive technology. I take an online writing seminar and interact with other writers through Facebook. I belong to a Facebook group about science fiction where we engage in civil and thoughtful discussion about the genre. I subscribe to over 100 YouTube channels that provide me with information and entertainment.

Social media is what you make of it. You don’t have to engage in rancid arguments. You don’t have to be friends with anyone whose opinions you find abhorrent. There are mechanisms to block people that you don’t care to read.

Social media is blamed for being a venue for hate speech and incitement to violence. Would you blame the mailman for delivering such things in the mail? Would you blame the street corner if someone stood there and shouted such things? People say that social media has a responsibility to police its content. It is estimated that there are 2.9 billion active Facebook users. That is 36.7% of the population of Earth. It is physically impossible to monitor all of that content.

Who do you want to decide what is or is not acceptable? Zuckerberg? Musk? Trump? Besos? I refuse to hold social media companies accountable for the content that they don’t create. But you say, “They created the algorithms that promote such horrible speech.” But what drives the algorithms? You do. The algorithms are designed to give you the content that you have demonstrated you want to see. Does that reinforce the fact that many people live inside a bubble and are not open to alternate opinions? Yes, it does. But they choose to live in those bubbles. They choose to get their news from only one source. They choose to reject any criticism of their preconceived notions. They refuse to engage in critical thinking or are incapable of doing so. I have my favorite news sources but I don’t believe everything they say. I insist that they back up their claims and make reasoned, logical arguments. It’s not Facebook’s fault that some people don’t do that. I have my favorite politicians whose views closely match my own but I’m not afraid of speaking out when I disagree with them.

If you agree with me don’t cut-and-paste the transcript from this podcast. Share the link. Give me both the credit and the blame for what I wrote. Include comments on the parts that you agree or disagree with. Include a reasoned argument about where I’m wrong. Post links to your source information. Engage in civil discourse and critical thinking. Don’t take my word for anything. Think for yourself.

Haha… That reminds me of this scene from Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian”.

– – – – – – – –

Brian: No, no. Please. Please, please listen. I’ve got one or two things to say.

Crowd (in perfect unison during each sentence in the scene): Tell us! Tell us both of them!

Brian: Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You are all individuals.

Crowd in unison: Yes, we are all individuals!

Brian: You are all different.

Crowd in unison: Yes, we are all different!

Loan man in the crowd: I’m not.

Other man: Shhh.

Brian: You’ve all got to work in for yourselves.

Crowd in unison: Yes, we’ve got to work it out for ourselves!

Brian: Exactly.

Crowd in unison: Tell us more!

Brian: No! That’s the point! Don’t let anyone tell you what to do!

– – – –

Your creator, natural or supernatural, gave you a brain. Use it. You are capable of reason. You are capable of discerning truth from lies. And respect those who do the same. Speak out against hypocrisy and lies. Respect people of faith whether you have no faith or have a different faith. That is the American way.

As always, I like I say after one of my rants…

“Hey, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

Next week we return to our regularly scheduled podcasts.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. I can’t tell you how much it means to me but it shows how much you care. That means more than I could ever express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

Don’t cut and paste! Share the link. Blame me for my message. Don’t take it as your own.

I just want more people to be able to hear my stories in my opinions.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out. Please leave comments, criticisms, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.