What to do with Ghislaine Maxwell

When all the furore is over, what is the legacy of the Maxwell trial and sentence. Nobody has been killed except the evil master of the drama, Jeffrey Epstein, at his own hand we are led to believe, many of the victims have been compensated and the master's moll has been sent to prison for what many think is her life.

Of course, the victims too must serve a life sentence as the memory of their mistreatment will probably not go away but does their wish for justice, justify locking up Maxwell for life? Do they hunger for revenge and wish to teach her a lesson? Do they want Maxwell to suffer and is this sentiment satisfied by imprisonment.  

Maxwell, too suffers this life sentence, since no one has suggested she is a psycopath; the knowledge that she caused so much damage to so many young girls, must weigh heavily on her conscience. Her reputation is ruined; she has brought shame on her already blighted family. She is surely no longer a danger to the community but her incarceration will cost all of them for board and lodgings over many years. What is the sense of this? Prisons should only be used for the violent and protect the public from the seriously anti-social such as robbers. Surely Ghislaine Maxwell can be dealt with differently. Her freedom can be restricted with a tag, passport and driving license removal. Perhaps access to cash can be restricted. There must be a better way of dealing with offenders such as Ghislaine Maxwell.

Antivaxxers and religious faith

 Have you noticed that the implacability of antivaxxers is remarkably similar to those of faith who despite having no proof persistently refuse to give up their belief in a supernatural 'god' that impinges on their life. This despite the evidence of the Holocaust, Aberfan, child cancer, religious wars and countless other examples of a cruel, heartless deity.

Here we are, at Christmas, piggybacking on a pagan midwinter festival, hoping for a better New Year as the days lengthen. It is almost 2022 and yet people persist in the belief in this heartless god and others with the same conviction maintain that to be vaccinated will be harmful despite evidence that it is largely safe and saves countless lives. What is it about the human condition that we follow our faith rather than face facts? 

Could it be a side effect of mankind's innate spirituality as described in my book: Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions. 

Is it nature's way of lifting the human spirit in the competitive  reality of the 'survival of the fittest' world. Antivaxxers feel a vulnerability best assuaged by denial, a deep seated faith that they are better off without, possibly accepting that if humans needed the vaccine then nature would have provided it.

What is 'unseen'.

 It's Christmas. Time to celebrate the birth of the 'Son of God'?  As the festival becomes ever more secular is it a manifestation of the world's population losing their faith.

If there is evidence for the existence of God then it would be rational to believe in God.

If there is no evidence for the existence of God then it is rational to not believe in God.

But what constitutes evidence? Does it need to be scientific evidence? If there is no scientific evidence then one must rely on faith as indicated in the scriptures.

In Hebrews 11.1 we have: 'now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see... By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command so that what is seen  was not made out of what was visible.'

This sentiment is also found in the Qu'ran. The sura known as 'The Cow'. 'The Qu'ran gives guidance to those mindful of God so that they may understand what is unseen and cannot be perceived.'

These pillars of religion acknowledge that they are sustained by faith. That despite all that is rational, God exists in that which is 'unseen'. To many, however, the 'unseen' can be perceived in those traits such as hope, love and charity (altruism). To Satan is attributed the opposites.

But can it be shown that these traits are merely the function of the human brain, not God, giving rise to the dichotomies we recognise such as love and hate and good and evil as mentioned in Ecclesiastes? That despite being recognised by the ancients they were wrong to dismiss the idea that it is man himself who is spiritual, preferring, instead, to trust in a supernatural being that consistently failed to protect from natural hazards?

My book, 'SPIRITUAL MAN: AN INTRODUCTION TO NEGATIVE DIMENSIONS' explains how brains function by working in the three dimensions of time giving rise the natural dichotomies and the 'unseen' traits we observe in individuals. By showing how our minds are responsible for such as love and charity, we can finally debunk the notion of useless deities.

As I have said before; whilst religions can be scrapped, we should keep alive the notion of churches wherein can be healed the spiritually ill in the same way that hospitals care for the physically sick.