Monday, July 28, 2014

YES OR NO, MORALITY IS LEGISLATED



The primary focus of this article will be to ask readers to reconsider this common saying:

“You can not legislate morality.” 

For Christians I post this scripture as a possible beginning from which to consider what I consider the absolute falsehood of that all too common saying. Here is I Timothy1: 8-10:    

“But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,… 

In a Republic such as the United States, I certainly object to even the best of the 43 Presidents or the most brilliant of all of the Justices who have ever served on the Supreme Court being “the deciders” of the laws that will govern our society forever and ever. But I do believe our system is the best the world has ever known and, if “We The People” actively participate in the process, it will continue to be the best way to govern man has ever implemented. 

Are there too many laws? Absolutely! Are some of the laws unnecessary or unconstitutional? For sure! Should there be far far less federal legislation and dictatorial, unconstitutional acts from our Presidents, our federal courts, and our congress? No doubt…… but regardless of the fact that founders meant for most decisions and laws to be made by elected officials close to those who put them in office….. I would say those who have accepted the idea that morality can not be legislated need to reconsider.

Arguments pro and con are welcome. Please note that I am not talking about a theocracy and I seriously doubt anyone commenting will suggest church leaders be placed in charge of what our laws should be (unless elected by the people). I am however suggesting that every voter would apply their standard or their idea of what is right and what is wrong, and some people (including me) will undoubtedly come from the similar perspective as their pastor or their priest or their rabbi or the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah.  

And yes, before Libertarians accuse me of believing it, I am again on record suggesting that this is not a new concept. Many of our Founders believed that this society was set up that way by them as they left Moses and the Ten Commandments carved and mounted in public displays all over the original states and subsequent states. The laws they passed are irrefutable evidence on all kinds of matters.  


 

Anyone who thinks they know some secret history or that I am promoting a perversion of history to go along with my narrow-minded view that restricts liberty, please do not leave comments that refer readers to books or websites etc. Express your opinion, use reasonable length quotes if necessary, but we don’t want to debate your reference material. 

As usual, no comments on this site with as many hits as it gets, means I am right and you agree. LOL! Just kidding!!

Sunday, July 27, 2014

IF ANYONE IS "NUTS", IT IS PEOPLE WHO YAWN AS FREEDOM IS TAKEN




The following is a comment that appeared on a local blog that deserves to be rebutted as often as possible. So let me start the rebuttal (I will leave plenty to be said for those who want to leave comments on either side).

The following comment was posted Sunday and is in reference to the “Open Carry” march in Liberty Saturday. One of the reasons I find this important for me to comment on is that my first impression of the way this group has presented this issue in recent months was not favorable to the marchers. But it was a lack of information and an assumption that nothing could be said that could justify marching with weapons like like-minded people have done across the state. With no further introduction, here is the comment: 

“I noticed the flags they carried, which I think is telling in the chapter's ideals, which were some what aggressive, "Come and take it" and I think one was "Don't tread on me", I may be mistaken on that one, but I noticed the only U.S. flag I saw being carried was by a young boy at the rear of the marchers around five or six years old. The absence of the American flag carried in prominence told me of the chapter's opinion of the government. They protest their rights under the Constitution but neglect to show respect for the flag that is symbolic of that very Constitution. These people are misguided in their concept of what it means to be an U.S. citizen.” 

But nothing this commentator wrties could be farther from the truth! In addition to the American flag that was carried, the marchers carried one of the most patriotic flags in our country’s history and one of the most patriotic flags in Texas history. The Gadsden flag, the one is a with a yellow field depicting a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike, harkens all the way back to Ben Franklin’s drawing that is inscribed, “Join or Die”. That drawing depicts the American colonies as a snake cut in sections and was a dramatic way to gain attention to the idea that colonists better unify and fight or they would lose their liberty. Positioned below the rattlesnake on the Gadsen flag are the words "Don't Tread on Me". The flag is as patriotic as it gets when youn take pride in the American Revolution that was taking place as it waived in battle after battle in our war against England and later was used by the Continental Marines as an early motto flag. 

And of course, the other flag memorializes the brave hearts that fought for Texas independence and, more particularly, Alcalde Pontoon and the courageous citizens of Gonzalez in 1835.

Indicating these people are not patriotic is a mistake. I have had occasion to visit with some of these people. Two preachers and one very capable head of a political group that has many political stances like Texas Republicans. They may disagree with you on the role of guns in American society. They may disagree with you on what the Constitution means, but their dominant motivation is the defense of our freedom. Their vigilance is admirable. Their willingness to spend a great deal of time and money and all the time know that most people’s first impression is that they are a bunch of nuts, reminds me of reading about the days when Samuel Adams did much the same thing.

I find every side of most every issue in politics has a strong opinion based on their version of history. As a history teacher, I would say people in this group are way above average in their knowledge and their pride in American history and the Constitution. I can tell the commentator has a very high opinion of their grasp of history too.  The only problem with that is I am also amazed at how perverted or selective almost everyone’s view of history is. It is as if we all agree the textbooks have mistakes in them (which they definitely do), but we are nowhere close to agreeing with what the mistakes are. So when I read a comment like this one, I immediately think person would have great difficulty arguing his side using the Constitution if a debate with one of the marchers was organized.

If Texans study what it is these marchers dramatically draw attention to, many will agree. Some may disagree, but still accept the marchers as well intended. And then there will be ….. of course those who would increase restrictions on gun ownership that would use the first impressions to turn people off and hope the marchers’ intentions are disregarded.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

HYPOCRISY IN OUR GUN LAWS - OPEN CARRY MAY SOUND NUTTY UNLESS YOU ARE BETTER INFORMED


The 'Open Carry" march in Liberty, Texas may, at first glance, look like a bunch of rebel rousers from the fringes of society wanting to declare the need for anarchy rather than Constitutionally based, rule of law, in a government "by the people, for the people." BUT NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

The pictures, the short blurbs on the news, and every other attempt to wake America  is tough because the optics look so threatening. But the threat is not if these marchingare successful, it is if they are not.

 The law will allow citizens to carry all kinds of long rifles openly. And I mean all kinds! But the law will not allow a pistol to be openly carried. So as nutty as it is to some to see folks carrying an AK-47 openly in public, it is infinitely more ridiculous for the same lawmakers to prohibit the open carrying of a pistol. The laws should be reversed. No AK 47's, but a pistol strapped to the hip with a safety strap across the trigger.

The law needs to be changed! These folks are nearly all hard working, patriotic law abiding citizens. they are concerned that the laws should be changed. They are concerned that if the country does not use more common sense and less restricting of our Constitutional rights, when liberty is faced with its ultimate enemy, we will have allowed ourselves to be unarmed. The laws need to be changed before restrictions are expanded and liberty is assaulted further.

Readers please note that Terry Holcomb, Jeff LeBlanc, Aubrey Vaughan, and dozens of other locals have spent a great deal of time and money warning us. At the same time, the liberal media  has enjoyed "covering" this issue in as convoluted of coverage as they can spin out.

The issue is simple. The pictures of marches if reparted in a simple, straight forward way would have a dramatic support in Texas. please help get the word out. The cause, the Open Carry Texas group wants the law to allow handguns to be safely and openly carried in public and end the hypocrisy. The liberal media wants you to feel threatened.

WHO IS REALLY IN CHARGE IN THIS COUNTRY?


The following lesson is a reprint from Pastor Aubrey Vaughan and is an excellent, full explanation of how Christians in the United States should view their relationship to government and elected officials. It is a great reminder that ultimately God is in charge, but we, not some kind of earthly ruler, are responsible to direct government in a way that honors God. The lesson is entitled “Romans 13”.


 


Understanding Romans 13


Romans 13:3 (KJV) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Any individual person in American government is a Public Servant!

The Public is defined as the voters and taxpayers in America. Most understand the definition of servant. However, some seem to place the government officials of America in the position of Ruler rather than Servant.

It is interesting to note that the two positions, Ruler or Servant, seem to contradict each other until you read the scripture that explains the position of government leaders.

God’s Government on Earth was administered after the flood by Noah and the Patriarchs from the authority of Genesis 9:6.

Genesis 9:6 (KJV) Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

God destroyed the original World because mankind’s defiled and seared conscience could not produce a world for God fearing people to live safely. Mankind is not basically good.

After the flood God instituted Government force in order to honor life. Life is the basic value for any government. When government Rulers or Servants dishonor the value of human life it despises true government.

2 Peter 2:10 (KJV) But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

See “unlawful” deeds which deals with law or government 2 Peter 2:8

That government of force was vested in the Patriarchal family later, under the Mosaic Law, called the “Avenger of blood”.

The division of nations
is described in Genesis 10

Genesis 10:32 (KJV) These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

The nations were directly under the headship and direction of a personal God directing the nations.

In Genesis 10 one particular nation seemed to emerge as a “super” power called Babel,
which was later, called Babylon. This people formed a one world government and religion that rejected God. At first Nimrod (the horned one) was a mighty hunter before the Lord and later Babel leads an insurrection against the direct Hand of God’s law and government.

In Genesis 11 God divided the languages and nations for a reason. Historically open borders produce a one-world government that fails to produce a secure and peaceful nation.

In Genesis 14 humanistic Kings used force to push their values of tyranny on the other nations and/or City States.

Abram later called Abraham demonstrated God’s authority in Patriarchal government by arming his hired servants and delivering his family member Lot from unlawful kings and Tidal the King of nations.

Melchizedek apparently was Abraham’s Pastor and mentor concerning God’s theocratic style government for the Earth at the time. Melchizedek was the priest of the most High God and King of Salem.
Genesis 14:18 (KJV) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

By studying Genesis 10-15 it is clear a Babylonian style legal system was forming and later written down in humanistic codes in contrast to God’s City called Salem that was directed by a Theocracy. The tyranny of the five kings of nations and the immorality of Sodom reveal the rejection of God in contrast to the righteous government of Salem through Melchizedek.

By the time of Moses on Mt. Sinai God corrected man’s humanistic codes and attempt to govern himself without God by writing down with God’s own finger the only true Law for mankind on planet Earth.

Any nation that rejects God’s leadership and Law will produce tyrannical Rulers as the King of the world or “President of the World”.

Any nation that honors God’s law Word and leadership will produce limited “Rulers” that are servants. (Deuteronomy17: 1-13)

Through God’s law the Ruler is limited in authority (Deuteronomy 17:14-20) making him a Servant of God for the people.

Ruler and Servant!

Government leaders in America are Servants and given authority by the true Rulers the voter and taxpayer who receive their authority only from God’s Law Word.



 

Thursday, July 24, 2014

GREG HAYMAN HONORED

On August 4th, the Dayton School District will officially rename the old library building at the corner of Cleveland and Houston Streets, the Greg Hayman Education Center. Superintendent Dr. Jessica Johnson said the reception and formal ceremony is a chance to honor Greg Hayman's 29 years of service to the school district. The dedication ceremony and reception will be Monday Aug. 4th, from 4 to 6 p.m. The entire community is invited.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

AN ABBREVIATED RESPONSE TO RIDICULE

( Please note this article is entitled an abbreviated response because of the endless number of questions those who ridicule Christianity usually will eventually ask. Responding to the first question, at least chronologically is a start, but since I am not claiming to be God and have all the answers, I usually like to ask the one ridiculing some questions about their beliefs and explanation before being buried under what they think is enough questions to make them right)


Time has gone by since my facebook friend, Chance Waller, ridiculed me and anyone who believes what he called the myth of Christianity. I didn’t want to mix the importance of discovering Who Jesus is with discovering what political ideology you identify with, so I have waited to respond to Chance’s attack. Your relationship to Christ is far more important than any of our opinions about temporal things and how to, or not to manage or govern society. It is my assertion here that if you disagree with my opinions on politics, you are far more likely to be right and you will be far less negatively affected, than if you do not live in a lifelong pursuit of following the One Who says He is the Son of God. 

For those political activists who suspect some kind of conspiracy is going on and for those who think they have already heard all about Christ and they think it is silly nonsense …. I would have agreed with you whole heartedly on both at one time in my life. But now it is easy for me to see all of the noise and all of the opinions and, sometimes even Christians, kept me from really seeing the Truth. I thought I had checked what I thought was pure total nonsense out, but I now realize I was prepared to reject Christ and, if not for Him (not me) I would have.  

Please read what some of you have read before no doubt – an explanation of just one of the “discrepancies” I would use to aggressively deny Christ when I did not believe. I would say, “You Christians live in LollaLand, You are in denial. It is obvious look at your ignorance about our planet…….” 

Oh, here we go again Chance….. Christians are not very smart because they can not explain every detail of creation. Well first of all who can? I would enjoy hearing Chance’s version of “in the beginning”, but what I find with people who ridicule Bible believing Christians is they simply refer you to their preferred reading. The whole idea of creation is so far beyond the brightest minds that they and their reading audience should realize they are talking above their pay grade. Every explanation could be said to sound mythical. 

I can tell you this, the idea that Christians must be crazy to believe the Bible because right from the start it makes conclusions that are proven wrong by science…… well that is just plain wrong.
 
But, what does the Bible really say about the age of the earth? In any case, there is no explicit verse, that relates the time of creation of the earth with any event in later books of the Bible. But implicitly: if we believe that the Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation, can we be sure that the earth near 6000 years old? This depends on how one would read and interpret verses from the Bible.

You decide. Your decision will not change what the truth is, but it may change who you are. Read the first two verses of the first book of the Bible. The first verse of Genesis already tells us that God created the heaven and the earth. Now, many people read this as a kind of summary of the remainder of Genesis 1. However, one can also read this as follows:

1) First, God creates heaven and earth.

2) Then, something happens. The text does not tell us what happens.

      3) After this has happened, the earth is without form - chaos, darkness.

4) Then, the text tells us that the Spirit of God visits this chaos, and how God turns the chaos in something good.

The seven days of creation are the first creation or are they a later creation? I think that God does not create chaos: if He creates something, it is good. So, after the first creation of heaven and earth, something has happened that made that the earth was no longer as God meant it to be. This may - but that is only speculation - have been the downfall of the devil/Satan and the angels that were cast from heaven with him. Or it may have been the meteorite impact that scientist conjecture that has taken place. Or, it may have been both of these. Or something else. In any case: something has happened that turned Gods first good creation into something chaotic, but we are not told in the text what it exactly was. Then, Genesis tells that God made the chaos into the world of which God saw that it was good.

With this interpretation of Genesis 1: 1-2, one cannot tell from the Bible how old the earth is. This is not a problem, as the Bible is no science book, but a book of faith.

The interpretation given may or may not be correct. It depends on the interpretation of the Bible on what it tells about the age of the earth. And hence, accepting the scientific theory that the earth is a few billion years old does not mean that you believe something that is in contradiction with the Bible. This Holy Masterpeice was written thousands of years ago and no book back in that day could line up with science better than scripture. Its doubters that are scientists may disagree, but the scientists that are believers are amazed by the Bible. 

Christianity shows us that there is a God that created the world, and us. God can make something good from chaos - and that is true, both for the world and its creatures, but also, he can make something good from our life when it is in darkness and chaos.

There is a misconception that science shows that God does not exist: science does not show that, and also, what science can show, is not in contradiction with the Bible. The misconception is harmfull, as it may prevent people from finding God as their father, helper, and redeemer.

The Bible does not tell us much about how old the earth is. Instead, the Bible tells us many other things - about the love of God for us, his plan for our lives, prayer, redemption, and much more. Instead of trying to convince people about one interpretation around some scientific fact that does not need to influence our lives, Christians should tell others about Biblical Truths like the salvation we can have through Jesus.

No King, but Jesus

 

SOME YOUNG ADULTS ANNOUNCE THEY HAVE SUPERIOR FACTS


It seems to me it is not unusual for young people to ridicule the habits of their elders. That has been popular among some in the thirty-five and younger group for a while. Generations waiting for their time to be heard and their time to right all of the wrongs in the world have always had some among them that felt their parents’ and grandparents’ generations were just stupid and didn’t have the courage or the brains to get things right. This current generation is no different.

This generation, just like mine, doesn’t like to hear someone try to win an argument by basically saying that “I am older than you and you just don’t understand yet.” But often they are poor listeners and have stopped listening before their elders have said something much different and much more relevant to the topic at hand. For example, I can’t tell you how often I have been interrupted by a younger person when they obviously expect me to tell them I know better because I am older when I am actually telling them I was alive and involved in a part of history that is relevant to the conversation.

As I have said, perhaps that kind of cross generational struggle to communicate is nothing new. Something new or at least new to me however, is the assertion by some young adults that they are actually smarter and better informed their elders. From what I can tell this arrogant confidence is based off of two mistakes. First, they would deny it perhaps, but when their guard is down I have detected they self identified themselves as having a better analytical than their predecessors because they have no appreciation for the way knowledge and learning accumulates and the newer generations stand on the shoulders of previous inventions, etc. Second, some of our young adults make the mistake of thinking they have an inside source and are able to get more accurate information.

“What!”, you may say to the idea of this source of better sources. I am not guessing…. In spending time discussing and debating and collecting information from young activist, there is a common idea among them that older people, and probably people in general that are just not as brilliant as they think themselves, are too busy listening to the news or reading a newspaper. They ridicule these activities and are very assertive in judging that people who get news this way are just a bunch of followers that are non thinking people who accept the company line, or what the government wants them to know or what a political party wants them to know. You can almost feel them roll their eyes and say. “bunch of  idiots”.

The problem is in all of their superiority of intellect (I am unsure where they get the data that says their generation is smarter because I must not have tuned in to their news source on this matter), I can not imagine, short of some kind of direct line to the CIA, where they have a better source than the rest of us.

A recent Pew poll shows they are more likely to watch Jon Stewart, but that would be a better source of humor not news. Making fun of people who watch CNN or Fox because one watches something else merely enforces the idea that one thinks they are smarter than others because they say so. The polls tell us this generation is more likely to get their news on the internet, but I would guess their excellent source, whatever it is, warns against inaccuracies and bias on internet news. And the internet is not just piped in to young people exclusively.

So what is it? Why are they so much smarter than the rest of us and what is their unique news source. Aren’t the young people who think they will have to spend their lifetimes trying to fix the messes previous generations made living in more comfort with more free time with more available information and choices than any generation that has ever walked on the face of the earth ? I know I am just talking about a percentage of young people, but I am still wondering what is up with all of the resentment and the inflated egos.

As for me, I make a point to watch programs that lean toward my viewpoint and ones that lean the opposite and I read a variety of newspaper online. And even though the Founders believed freedom of the press and competition would help keep government honest, I have never thought I have the “real news” while the rest of the suckers in the world are misinformed. I have seen too many local cover-ups by radio and print media to think everything is the way the media says it is. But who am I, but some “crazy old man” as I was called recently.

Below please find part of the information from the most recent Pew poll:

More Americans get news online than from radios or newspapers, Pew’s biennial study of news consumption habits says. Twenty-three percent of people living in the United States said they’d read a print newspaper the day before. That’s half the number who did so in 2000, when nearly 50 percent read a paper the day before. Twenty-nine percent reported reading a newspaper in any format.
 
Eighteen percent copped to reading a magazine in print the day before. And in wistful news, only 12 percent said they’d received a personal letter.

In more good news for trees:

[S]ubstantial percentages of the regular readers of leading newspapers now read them digitally. Currently, 55% of regular New York Times readers say they read the paper mostly on a computer or mobile device, as do 48% of regular USA Today and 44% of Wall Street Journal readers.

The number of people relying on social media as a news source doubled since 2010, a finding my coworker Jeff Sonderman digs into in another post.

TV news’ audience is graying


TV remains the most popular source of news, but its audience is aging: “Only about a third (34%) of those younger than 30 say they watched TV news yesterday; in 2006, nearly half of young people (49%) said they watched TV news the prior day,” the report says.

Twenty-eight percent of people 18-29 reported  local news regularly. In 2006, the report notes, that figure was 42 percent.

Many young people don’t consume news


It’s not surprising that more people under 25 get news from digital (60 percent) than “traditional” sources such as TV, radio and print (43 percent). One rather striking finding:

Fully 29% of those younger than 25 say they got no news yesterday either from digital news platforms, including cell phones and social networks, or traditional news platforms. That is little changed from 33% in 2010.

As before, the time people 18-29 spend consuming news, on average, is far lower than other groups. News sources are competing with social networking for the attention of people under 25, the study found: “as many used Facebook or another social networking site yesterday as got news from all sources combined (76% vs. 71%).”

Only 5 percent of people under 30 reported they follow news about “political figures and events in Washington” very closely.

“The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” had the youngest audiences: 39 percent and 43 percent are below 30. Thirty-two percent of New York Times readers are under 30, higher than any other newspaper surveyed and more than twice the percentage of “Daily newspaper” readers under 30 (12 percent).

Fewer people enjoy following the news


43 percent of people say they “enjoy following the news a lot,” the study says. That’s important because:

As previous news consumption surveys have found, people who enjoy following the news tend to get more news from a variety of sources. Fully 71% of those who enjoy following the news a lot watched television news yesterday, compared with just 41% of those who get less enjoyment from keeping up. And newspaper reading is much higher among those who enjoy keeping up with the news a lot than among those who do not (44% vs. 17%)