End of an Era

1 Comment

This is the last post I will be making at Poor Roger’s Almanac. Instead I will be posting articles at my new blog, The Gideon Project. http://christianusa.us/gideonproject/ My latest article, Self Defense and Christianity, can be seen there.

http://christianusa.us/gideonproject/self-defense-and-christianity/

My thanks go out to everyone who stopped here for a minute or two to read, perhaps to contribute. I am also grateful to George Rogers Clark, a persistent blogger on many sites, who has given me the opportunity and means to set up at http://christianusa.us/. His help, advice, and encouragement have been instrumental in making The Gideon Project possible and will not go unnoticed.

Lying, Indignation, and Crocodile Tears

3 Comments

In his press conference on Wednesday, January 15, President Barack Obama made certain statements about “gun control” and what he intends to do about it. Two of those stand out to me as hypocritical and personally damning. Gun control is the least of Obama’s problems. When he stands before God Almighty to account for his life, God isn’t even going to mention gun control. He will, however, ask Obama to account for his words.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” –John Adams (1770)

1. “Protecting our children from harm shouldn’t be divisive. … I asked Joe [Biden] to lead an effort along with members of my cabinet to come up with some concrete steps we can take right now to keep our children safe. … This is our first task as a society — keeping our children safe. If there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life we can save, we have an obligation to try it. … I think about how, when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now.” (Copied from an article on the Patriot Post, follow the link to see the entire post.)
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/16328

Mr. Obama’s hypocrisy is blatant. Every single day, more children are violently murdered in abortion (infanticide) mills than are ever killed by lunatics in schools. If he were completely consistent with his own rhetoric, he would immediately start pushing to eliminate the murders which happen because a “woman has the right to choose.” If even one unborn child’s life was saved because of his action, wouldn’t he have the obligation to try? According to what he said, he should act now to protect the most vulnerable among us.

The fact is that school children aren’t the most vulnerable among us, unborn children are. School children have buildings with lockable doors around them, unborn children only have wombs. School children have adults who can act on their behalf in the defense of their lives; unborn children have no such legal protection. School children have mothers and fathers who love them and want to see them come home, unborn children are not automatically guaranteed that.

Why doesn’t Obama mention this? Why doesn’t he clamor for the lives of 1.5 million unborn children who are viciously murdered each year in America? The silence is deafening. The obvious answer is that he doesn’t want to. There is no political traction for him by going down that road. In fact, if he did start to make noises to that effect, he would see his “support” vaporize like frost on a sunny morning.

2. In the press conference, Mr. Obama made it clear that he was going to move ahead on “gun control”, with or without Congress’ approval or assistance. He mentioned that he would push to vigorously prosecute those people who made false statements (lied) when applying for a background check prior to purchasing a firearm. Apparently, lying to the government is serious business. At least, it is when a person is trying to buy a gun.

My question is this. If lying (perjury, making false statements) is so bad that the federal government must come down hard on the perpetrator, then why don’t we see that action taken in other matters, for example, Eric Holder’s role in the Fast & Furious scandal? See here,
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html

and here, for potentially incriminating statements made by Holder.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/04/holder-less-than-candid-misled-on-fast-and-furious-at-hearing-members-say/

What about the President’s own sworn vow before God to uphold and defend the Constitution? What about his actions taken to murder American citizens without due process of law?

“In April 2010, …President Barack Obama placed al-Aulaqi on a list of people whom the (CIA) was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities. The “targeted killing” of an American citizen, sometimes described as an assassination order, was unprecedented…The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones)…to search for and kill him…succeeding…on September 30, 2011. Two weeks later, al-Aulaqi’s 16-year old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, a U.S citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Now, before you get your knickers in a knot, understand that I am not “terrorist” friendly and do not support violent actions for political gain. Instead, by using these examples, I want to point out the blatant hypocrisy in the President’s attack of fraudulent statements on background checks while turning a blind eye to his own and those surrounding him. According to Obama, truth-telling is relative to the situation and if he has anything to say about it, he will be the one to determine what is true and what isn’t.

If Mr. Obama was really serious about rooting out lying and perjury in the government, he would start with his own house. How likely is that to happen? My guess is that pigs will fly first.

Eventually lies catch up with you. Even if Obama never answers to an earthly court concerning his perjury, he will be haled in front of a heavenly one. Invoking the name of God in an oath is not laughing matter nor should it be taken lightly. He hasn’t learned that yet. Hopefully he will before he leaves this world behind.

Two Masters? Make up your Mind!

Leave a comment

Every person is subject to the issue of primary allegiance. Everyone believes in something which takes precedence over everything else in life. This allegiance shapes and informs the way a person lives and determines how he treats other people. The world would be a far better place to live if people would consider this question on a regular basis and answer it honestly in their own hearts. It is likely that most people either are dishonest about it or have never given it any thought at all.

I can’t condemn anyone for their refusal to think this through or their ignorance about it. I have only come to a full understanding of it recently and am still trying to sort out the implications in my own mind. However, what I do know beyond doubt is that there is a lot of stuff out of whack in our world and we’ve got to decide what we’re going to do about it.

One area this can be seen very plainly is in the socio-politico-economic realm. It is becoming clear to me that the rule of Jesus Christ and the rule of the humanist State are on a collision course. Sooner or later, the professing Christian is going to have to choose between these two governments. Is the Christian’s primary allegiance to Jesus Christ or to the State? Where does the Christian draw the line against the actions of the State? Should the Christian ever draw that line?

“No man can serve two masters. He will love the one and hate the other or he will despise the one and worship the other.” These words of Jesus Christ, loosely paraphrased, are as true today as they were two thousand years ago when they were spoken. His words were meant to contrast God’s salvation vs. the inordinate love of money, but there are many instances in history where people have lost everything, including their lives, because they refused to worship the ruling system. The Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians is a good example. Many thousands of people were literally slaughtered for one reason—they recognized that the rule of Jesus in their lives took precedence and authority over the rule of the emperor. They asserted that there was only one Lord and his name was not Vespasian, Titus, Nero, Trajan, or Domitian. This was viewed by the political rulers as treasonous insurrection and they acted as States always do when faced with opposition—use whatever means are necessary to eliminate and crush it.

Today America is becoming more humanistic, more socialist, more demanding, more brutal. There is virtually no place left in the United States that is not touched by the long, regulatory arm of the State. More than eighty thousand pages per year are added to the Federal Register, which have the force of law as soon as they are written. Wars are started and fought at the whim of the President who doesn’t even bother to ask permission any more. Special interests and lobbyists persuade Congress to write laws which will benefit them regardless of who it will harm. Police brutality is on the rise. Justice has given way to “law enforcement”. No one is exempt; everyone must pay and we pay dearly.

Can a person profess to be a Christian and still support the State system which is against many, if not most, of the principles of the Christian religion? Again, no person can serve two masters. This is where the rubber meets the road. Here is where self-conscious thought about what it means to be a Christian comes in because these two philosophies are at odds with each other and can never be reconciled. In order to avoid any misunderstanding on that statement let me rephrase it. The rule of Jesus Christ and the rule of a secular humanist State are in conflict with each other and every self-conscious, professing Christian has to make a decision as to which side he is going to serve. There is no straddling the fence, no playing both sides. It is one or the other, but not both.

There is one aspect of both these governments which is the same—each one seeks to bring all its constituents into total, unconditional surrender to its rule. Jesus demands that of his followers and so too does the State. This surrender is brought about over time and in history as individual people are converted, peacefully or violently, and assimilated into the realm. Both the Church (the visible representation of Christ’s rule on Earth) and the State (the highest representation of man’s rule on Earth) are engaged in this endeavor which can only be viewed accurately over extended periods of time.

It is important to understand one major difference between these two.

Jesus Christ extends His rule in the earth through love, kindness, compassion, generosity, self-control, humility, etc., and forgiveness of those who transgress the rules. This is completely non-violent and unforceful in nature. People come into the Church voluntarily and without coercion. People are set free by their willing adherence to the truth as they progressively allow the Holy Spirit to take over their lives. His way leads to life and liberty for the individual believer.

The State, on the other hand, extends its rule through the use of brute force, mandatory compulsion, directives, orders, legislation, etc., and punishment or retribution against those who are opposed to it. There is nothing voluntary about the State. It is “follow the rules, or else.” The State rules by violence or the threat of violence. As people are subsumed into its culture, they are increasingly bound, restricted, and enslaved by bureaucratic red tape at all levels of government, from federal to local. The end of the State is the death of freedom and slavery for most people.

Let me be perfectly frank. There is a war going on here, a spiritual war to be sure, but a war nevertheless. It is for the hearts and minds of men everywhere and there is no place on Earth which is left untouched by it. It has existed from the very beginning and will continue until the very end. Everyone is involved in it. Whether a person actively acknowledges it or not is irrelevant.

Many times in history this war has become physical. There are numerous instances when the State has “declared” war on the Church and engaged in violent, aggressive action to defeat and stamp out its enemy. This is increasingly the norm in America today. More and more the State is encroaching on territory which belongs to the Church. The State is demanding that the Church submit its authority to that of the State, even if that submission goes against what the Church stands for.

There may very well come a time in America when each Christian has to make a decision in this regard. Will I live for my King, Jesus the Christ, even if it costs me everything up to and possibly including my life? Will I throw in the towel on my professed beliefs and transfer my allegiance to the opposing side, the State? This is something which you must be prepared for beforehand. When the time arrives, if it hasn’t already, that the State tells you to act contrary to your stated beliefs, you must have already determined your course of action or else you will follow the State’s orders. Refusing to surrender your life to the rule of King Jesus means that you will surrender it to the rule of the State.

The words of Elijah (1 Kings 18:21) ring as true today as they did when he spoke them on Mount Carmel thousands of years ago. I have loosely paraphrased them. “How long will you waver between two opposing views? If the LORD is sovereign, follow Him. If the State is sovereign, follow it.” What’s interesting is the next sentence. “And the people did not answer him at all.” They were waiting to see who was going to win the battle before they made a choice. We cannot go down that road. The State is going down. Jesus is going to win this war. And the next one. And the next. There is only one possibility of ultimate victory. Choose wisely and, once you have chosen, do not back down.

Hezekiah Revisited

4 Comments

I don’t claim to be perfect. I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life and I know where my weaknesses are. There have been more than a few times where my actions have been in stark, vivid contrast to what I said I believed. However, over the last few years, I have been working on this and now make the self-conscious effort to operate under the principle that I should live in conformity to my stated philosophy, worldview, and creed. There are still times I slip, but they are fewer, farther apart, and easier to recover from.

Any American who can read the signs knows that this country is in some serious doo-doo. It would be easy to start listing the reasons why, but I really don’t have the time or space to hit every one. Besides, it’s a lot easier to hit a far-distant target with a rifle than it is with a shotgun. Therefore, I’m going to focus on one target and fire one bullet.

Can anyone say Republicans?

Before you start attacking me for being un-American, charging me with treason, or questioning my salvation, let me say that I don’t have any love for the Democrat Party. Or the Libertarian, Green, Communist, Nazi, and People’s. All of them are full of people who espouse one set of beliefs, but act another way when it’s convenient. And beneficial to them, I might add. For the record, my political views are most closely aligned with the libertarian viewpoint, but even within this so-called bastion of liberty and freedom, there is what I can honestly call rot. But that’s for another time.

Let’s get back to the Republicans. We are told over and over again that Republicans are the party of fiscal conservatism. They are the ones who are most concerned about government spending, the deficit, American debt, etc. We hear that they will restore the country to financial sanity if we just vote them into office and give them the power to work it out. Election cycle after election cycle, ad infinitum, until it makes us sick to hear about it one more time.

Right! And pigs fly too!!

There was a time where the acronym NIMBY (not in my back yard) was used frequently, most commonly with reference to building nuclear power plants. We don’t hear it much anymore, but the spirit of NIMBY is alive and well. This fits in well with the dominant attitude so prevalent in America today. Cut! Cut the deficit! Cut government spending! Don’t, however, even think about cutting my own special interest. Go ahead and cut somewhere else, but not in my back yard. You can protest as loudly as you want, but with respect to this topic, the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats.

Consider Chris Christie, for instance. Governor of New Jersey. Conservative. Republican. Sweet Darling of the Right. Presumed shoo-in for the Republican Party presidential nominee in 2016, 2020, or beyond if he should decide to run. Yet, how fiscally conservative is he anyway? Think about what he said and the way he acted because John Boehner (another fiscally conservative Republican) failed to expropriate sixty billion dollars to bailout all of the “victims” of Hurricane Sandy. You can read his comments here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57561665/christie-blasts-boehner-on-sandy-bill-shame-on-congress/

Let’s think about this for a moment. This country is in the worst financial position that most of us have ever seen, up to our eyeballs in debt with no end in sight. The deficit grows larger every minute. So does government spending. Economically speaking, any sane person would say that we really need to call a halt to it before it destroys us. Supposedly, the Republicans represent sanity, but that’s not what is being manifested. We have a “fiscal cliff” to avoid, yet one of the leaders of the Party of Fiscal Prudence and Budget Restraint screams bloody murder when his ox is gored. Surely, Mr. Christie, you can see the light here, can’t you? Or are you listening to your constituents who scream bloody murder because their ox has been gored. Perhaps Christie is looking ahead to the next election where he can “honestly” say that he brought home the pork, $60, 000, 000, 000 worth, to be exact. Perhaps the voters of New Jersey will be so grateful they will put him back into office for another term. Perhaps the country will be so enamored of his generosity that he will be compelled to run for President next time and save us all from our own disasters.

Perhaps it really won’t make any difference. After all, with budgets running four trillion dollars plus and growing, deficits in the range of sixteen trillion plus and growing, long-term entitlement commitments (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) estimated to range from $100- 200 trillion dollars, 60 billion is a drop in the bucket. The question is, however, where will it end and who (or what) will put an end to it? Certainly, if Chris Christie has anything to say about it, the end won’t come on his watch.

This reminds me of King Hezekiah. You can get the full story in Second Kings 20, but for our topic, the following quote is sufficient.

“Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord. The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your predecessors have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the Lord. And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood who will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”
“The word of the Lord you have spoken is good,” Hezekiah replied. For he thought, “Will there not be peace and security in my lifetime?”

Ah, yes, now we’re getting somewhere. Peace and security in my lifetime. Prosperity too. Who really cares what will happen when I’m dead. What difference does it make if my grandchildren have to pay through their noses so long as I get what I want? Life is too short to be painful. After all, as John Maynard Keynes so famously put it, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” For those who aren’t familiar with Keynes, he’s the fellow who convinced governments everywhere to start deficit spending. Today, he’s dead, but his legacy lives on, like the Hydra which can’t be killed and we’re all paying for it. Unfortunately, not all of us are going to die before the Babylonians roll into town.

I’m realistic enough to know that I’m not going to change Gov. Christie’s mind. I won’t be able to convince John Boehner to stand firm and refuse to write any more bad checks. I can’t persuade Paul Ryan to start producing budgets which actually work. But I can change how I think about the way I live and I can stand on my own feet without expecting that the taxpayers and citizens of this country will bail me out as soon as it gets uncomfortable. Furthermore, if I pull back my outstretched hand and convince enough others to do the same, it might be sufficient to make a difference. In the long run. In the short run, we’ve already gone off the “fiscal cliff.” That little blip of a show the other day was simply an outcrop we smashed into on the way down.

Whether we want to or not, we’re going to learn what it’s like to be taken off the teat. It’s past time to be weaned. It’s time to grow up.

Slander, Libel, and Professing Christians

11 Comments

It used to be that people spoke to each other respectfully and graciously, more or less. To be sure, there were times when the conversation reached lows which could only be considered repugnant and unworthy according to the moral character of the day, but they were not common nor preferred.

How far we have fallen!

If you follow blogs or news sites which promote any type of opinion, you will almost always find comments from followers which do not even attempt to debate the issue. Instead, these commentors post words which would have been considered off-limits only a few years ago. Maliciousness, name-calling, slander, and libel are now allowed as acceptable behavior, even on blogs which protest that, according to their Posting Policy, such things are not to be tolerated.

Below is a definition from Wikipedia (edited very slightly) which I think is a good description. I am posting it so that no one can mistake my intent when I declare that I will enforce my own posting policy on this blog. See the Comment Policy tab at the top of the page.

“Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander)

What bothers me about this whole affair is that people who claim and profess to be disciples of Jesus (Christians, in other words) engage in this exercise as much as those who are not Christian. (Don’t belive me? Go to any blog which is “conservative” and/or Republican in nature, pick an article, scroll down to the comments, and see for yourself. If you have trouble locating these, let me know. I will give you specific links.)

Generally speaking, the people who follow and subscribe to conservative, Republican blogs and news sites confess to be Christian. Many of these are proud to admit that they have been “disciples” for 20, 30, 40 years or more, yet they attack someone who shares an opinion which doesn’t fit well with their worldview and/or offends their sensiblilities. Why? Why do so many think that they have the freedom or right to air the vicious, mean, unloving comments they post? Do they talk this way to each other face to face? What do they hope to gain by this conduct? How do they think they are honoring and lifting up the Name of Jesus by the way they carry on?

Apparently, these people have never learned what the Bible has to say about this. Let me quote various scriptures.
1. Colossians 4:6–“Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.” (New American Standard Bible (©1995))
2. Proverbs 15:1–“A gentle response diverts anger, but a harsh statement incites fury.” (International Standard Version)
3. Proverbs 15:28–“The heart of the righteous weighs its answers,
but the mouth of the wicked gushes evil.” (NIV)
4. Ephesians 6:12–“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (English Standard Version)
5. Luke 6:45–“The upright (honorable, intrinsically good) man out of the good treasure [stored] in his heart produces what is upright (honorable and intrinsically good), and the evil man out of the evil storehouse brings forth that which is depraved (wicked and intrinsically evil); for out of the abundance (overflow) of the heart his mouth speaks.” (Amplified Bible)

Did you hear that? Out of the evil that a man stores up in his heart will come words from his mouth. There is only one logical conclusion to this–those who speak nasty, foul, demeaning words to others have evil stored up in their own hearts. It is inevitable that the people who think this way will speak in the same manner.

What really surprises me (it probably shouldn’t) is that these people express amazement and wonder when they are called to account. I do this on a fairly regular basis, not because I am any better than they are, but simply because I have learned what it means to vehemently hate this particular sin and am not afraid to say so. Occasionally someone will thank me for helping them see the error of their ways, but more often than not, I am either attacked myself or completely ignored.

What will it take to raise the tenor of the conversation? It’s quite simple, actually. As individuals, we have to admit that we are sinners and that we sometimes we say things we shouldn’t. In that case, we have to confess the sin and stop repeating it. Also, we must realize that we are representatives of Jesus the Christ and that, when we use derogatory, hurtful, unloving words against someone else, it is His Name, reputation, and kingdom which suffers. In addition, we need to come to the understanding that, again from the mouth of the Master, “…as you give, you will receive.” If we don’t want someone else speaking that way to us, we need to stop speaking that way to them.

There are laws which prohibit such speech and which have penalties against it. However, I am under no illusions as to the effectiveness of these laws. The legal system would be completely swamped if it started enforcing them. What would be far more effective is for the various blogs/news/Internet sites to police their own policies and simply refuse to post such comments. This probably won’t happen on a large scale, because a blog which did this would probably lose readership and revenue. The Almighty Dollar wins again!

No, the only way this is going to be substantially effected is for individuals to know what is right to say and to refuse to say anything that is wrong. Individual responsiblity before God is still the primary vehicle for positive change in society. I have committed to this course and am looking for others to follow suit. Are you in or out?

Travesty of Justice Continued

Leave a comment

See “Travesty of Justice” below for background.

I missed a point in my earlier post which I want to bring out. This is quite important.

It concerns a statement near the end of the article in question (link to the original report here)

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_71e52318-35e5-11e2-a347-0019bb2963f4.html

which says that “(Ravalli County Justice) Bailey voiced hesitation for releasing Lowry on his own recognizance.” The reason for his hesitation was this. “I worship that flag…” “I put my life on it.”

Now wait just a doggone minute. Bailey was reluctant to release Lowry on his own recognizance because he…was a potential flight risk? Swore that he’d finish what he had started? Represented some possible danger to himself, his neighbor, Stevensville, Ravalli County? No, on the contrary, Bailey expressed hesitation because Lowry had attacked and tried to destroy the flag which Bailey worships.

This is completely out of line for a county judge and he should be called on it. If the article in question is written to accurately reflect the truth of the matter, then it seems that “Justice” Bailey allowed his own personal feelings, emotions, and beliefs to overrule his duty to administer the law. The only thing he should have considered in deciding whether to release Lowry before trial were these two things. Was Lowry a danger or menace to anyone within the community? Would Lowry have bolted if he were turned loose? If the answer to either of these questions was “Yes”, then Bailey should have immediately ordered him held in jail until the hearing. However, if it could be determined that Lowry was neither a danger or flight risk, then there was no reason not to turn him loose on bail or his own recognizance . There should have been no hesitation at all. Mr. Bailey’s viewpoint concerning the flag should not have even entered the conversation.

One definition of a tyrant is that he rules by fiat in complete disregard for the law or his subjects. Do I need to say anything more?

Travesty of Justice

5 Comments

A month or so ago, I wrote a Letter to the Editor concerning an article in the Ravalli Republic (Ravalli County, Montana). The full text of my letter can be seen below. The link will take you to the original article. Since I was allowed only 300 words, I couldn’t respond to the full extent I thought necessary. I will try to do that here.

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_71e52318-35e5-11e2-a347-0019bb2963f4.html

    (Beginning of letter)

The article at the top of the Nov. 24 issue of the Ravalli Republic reported that Larry Dan Lowry, Stevensville, was sentenced to 29 days in jail and 100 hours community service for burning his neighbor’s flag.

There are a number of things wrong with this whole incident, but I want to mention only one. Keep in mind that I am making my case according to the way the article is written. There may be other relevant facts of which I am not aware.

Nowhere is mention made of any kind of restitution awarded to the owner of the flag in question. Was Lowry ordered to pay compensation for the damage done to his neighbor’s property? He should have been. The neighbor was the one who suffered loss. He was the one Lowry acted aggressively against.

We live in a perverted culture. A man can destroy something owned by another, be incarcerated for 29 days, and have his “debt to society” paid. Yet, Lowry did not commit a crime against some nebulous construct known as society, he committed a crime against a man, his neighbor. Lowry does not “owe” society anything, he owes his neighbor everything. Unfortunately, the victim, his other neighbors, and all the taxpayers of Ravalli County, will now be required to pay to keep a known criminal alive, well fed, and housed for the next month. Where is the justice in that?

Our criminal punishment system is completely out of whack. Restitution to the victim would go a long way to restoring it to sanity. The concept of restitution is at least as old as Exodus 22:6, in which it is stated that “…he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.” This is real justice. We need to start thinking that way again.

    (End of letter)

1. According to the article, the neighbor who called the police told them that Lowry was extremely intoxicated. Did the police check this out? Did they notice any visible or apparent intoxication? Did they charge him with public intoxication? If so, what happened to the charge? If not, why not? Public intoxication is not something to be taken lightly, especially when violent and aggressive behavior is involved.

2. The article states that “Lowry was originally charged with a felony charge of desecrating the flag…” This charge was later dropped. I shouldn’t wonder.

a. First, the Supreme Court has held that burning the American flag is a constitutional right. (Texas vs. Johnson, 1989, and also, U.S. vs. Eichorn, 1990) See this website for more information. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/p/flagburning.htm After the Court made its second ruling, there has never been a serious question about this issue. If it is the law, as it clearly is, then Lowry could not have been convicted of burning or desecrating an American flag. Wisely, the law in Ravalli County decided to drop the charge.

b. Second, the term “desecrate” should not be applied to any action which damages or destroys an American flag, or any other flag for that matter. The word desecrate has reference only to something which is holy or considered sacred, and the American flag is emphatically not holy nor sacred. (For further definition, follow the links.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desecrate

There are those who would argue (and probably will) that the flag is indeed sacred, but sacredness involves taking on the attribute of God, Who is holy. As Christians, we are commanded to be holy because God is holy. This is seen in Lev. 11:44, in which God says, “I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy.” To counteract those who might scream “Old Testament”, I will point to 1 Peter 1:16, in which the Apostle Peter says virtually the same thing. God is holy, people are supposed to be holy, flags are not. It simply doesn’t matter how much someone vererates or is in awe of anything natural or man-made, unless it is God Himself or a person made in His image, it cannot be holy and therefore should not be considered sacred.In fact, I can think of only one other case where we are to keep something other than God or ourselves holy–the Sabbath Day of Rest, (Ex. 20:8) and that is only because God Himself has ordered it. Even then, it is not the Sabbath which is holy so much as it is our actions to keep it that way.

3. God states plainly and clearly in Exodus 20 that we are not to worship anything or anyone except Him and Him alone. “You shall have no other gods before (besides) me. You shall not make any (manufactured) image of anything to worship, bow down to, or serve…” (Ten Commandments, 1 and 2, very loosely paraphrased). Yet, at the end of this article is the statement by none other than the “Justice” who administered “justice” in this case. “I worship that flag,” Bailey said at that original hearing. “I put my life on it.” Wow! Here’s a man who is charged with dispensing justice according to law, who openly proclaims that he values the American flag more than he values the One Who is the Law. This is rank idol worship and, unfortunately for America, Mr. Bailey is not alone. There are literally millions upon millions of people in this country who revere the United States, its flag, and everything that flag stands for, whether it is right and just or not.

Justice, for Mr. Bailey, apparently does not come from God’s Word, but instead from man’s fickle law, in which case it is not justice, but punishment. 29 days of jail time and 100 hours of community service may not a bad idea. At least, Lowry will be sober when he walks out of jail, but this hardly answers the questions I raised above about restitution to the victim, whose flag he burned and the innocent parties who have to pick up the tab.

Far better would have been for Bailey to order Lowry to pay back the value of the flag twice over (for the first offense) and pay all the court costs, including what it cost Stevensville for the police work. This would have made it a very expensive flag, which Lowry would probably not want to pay a second time. In addition, if Lowry really was drunk at the time, Bailey could have ordered him to be jailed for a short, specific time, say two days to sober up and contemplate his situation, with the stern warning that the sentence would be doubled the next time it happened. Furthermore, Bailey could have ordered Lowry to pay the county for the jail time.

Consider the result if my advice or something similar were followed. The man whose flag was burned comes out ahead, the man who burned the flag comes out dramatically poorer and (hopefully) wiser, no taxpayers are nicked for the costs, and justice is served. What could be better? Nothing, absolutely nothing. God’s Law is perfect and cannot be improved upon. When we learn that and implement it, we will all be better off.

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.