Dis Figure

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    1/44

    Dis-Figuresof

    American Speech

    Paul G. Sandgren

    Contents

    1. Demise and Rebirth of Freedom

    2. Class Warfare

    3. Hate Speech

    4. Privilege and Advantage

    5. Power to the People

    6. Exporting Democracy

    7. Homeland Security

    8. Freedom and Liberty

    9. Church and State

    10. Free Enterprise

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    2/44

    Introduction

    Language is an incredible thing. It can express the inexpressible, or confuse the plain. In a daywhen opposites express the identicals, e,g, cool jazz and hot jazz, or flammable and inflammable

    liquids, it is hard to take language seriously Never mind what he said. Find out what he meant.

    Add to this Political Correctness, double entendre, and other machinations and it can become quiteconfusing for the uninitiate. And yet it is all we have.

    Perhaps we can attempt to insert a bit of logic into the glossary of America today. There

    may be hundreds of these distortions, some purposeful, some accidental, some evolutionary.Languages change over time, everything does; thus the current squabble over the original intent

    interpretation of the Constitution of the United Sates of America.

    In thinking these ten things through, we might see the validity or maybe the nonsense of the

    expressions. It is dangerous to operate a society on accidents of verbage. Nonsense does not needto be written into law to affect change in society, and even if it were so written, it would still be

    nonsense.

    While age does not always validate an idea, yet sometimes it takes age to validate or

    invalidate it. If a system or statement has failed every time it has been tried, why should it work forus now?

    Disagree, if you will, but please try to defend your position with some regard for our nation's

    history.

    1.

    The Demise and Rebirth of Freedom

    When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the politicalbands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth . .

    With these solemn words, from humble and sincerely Christian hearts, an insignificant

    group of farmer-merchants began a process -- some have called it an experiment -- of self-government based on their understanding of the principles of Holy Writ, which was to change the

    face and course of human history.

    The ancient doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings was being challenged by the newlydiscovered doctrine of the Divine Right of the individual to control his own life and destiny; and

    that the role of government was no more and no less than the citizen-bestowed obligation to

    maintain and defend that singular right.They contended that God had in fact spoken in the Bible, and had laid down principles and

    laws by which they were to govern their own lives; and that when those principles and laws came

    into conflict with the rules and mandates of men, their obligation was to obey God. Obedience to

    God and service to ones fellowmen was considered to be the highest virtue and good.Sometimes it seems that the world and all that is in it has conspired to bring to pass a series

    of occasions designed to wreak the destruction of all things good. A world at war with itself.

    Can it be that the founders of this blessed republic, having received from the Creator of allthings both the inspiration and the understanding to establish this land, -- Is it reasonable that they

    intended, in declaring liberty and independence, to sever themselves from the anchoring restraints

    of God-given conscience, and good morals as well; to embark upon a voyage of carnality and vice?Was liberty ofconscience meant to be libertyfrom conscience? Was independence from England to

    include independence from God? Let no one think it.

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    3/44

    To those noble souls, liberty was not the right to do whatever their baser natures might havedriven or enticed them to, but the ability and personal authority to do what was right; and that not in

    their own eyes, but in the eyes of Him who had led them here.

    Their belief in the reality of the absoluteness of right and wrong, and the controlling innerconviction of their responsibility to love and to do the right, and to abhor and to abstain from the

    wrong wrought in their society an order and tranquility that rendered human laws almost

    unnecessary.So deeply and strongly rooted was this moral sense that good government rose almost

    spontaneously from the consent of the governed. That which men who feared God knew by

    conviction needed not to be enforced by other men. It was enough to know that an answer wouldhave to be made to their Creator.

    Moral sense, however, is not native to humanity, nor is goodness in the genes or

    chromosomes. It is an acquired characteristic, or taste, which must be inculcated in the young by

    those who have already acquired it. The teaching of it requires, first, agreement with the preceptsand concepts, and then the discipline on the part of the teacher to be consistent for more than brief

    episodes; discipline both for himself and for his charges.

    The natural tendency of humans from conception is toward personal law, that is, to be a law

    unto themselves. One entire generation existing without this restraining moral discipline andteaching could disrupt the moral flow and chain.

    But of course there was no such one entire generation. This was not the work of a day ora year. It was the gradual, eroding decay of watchfulness and diligence, and the resulting gradual

    severance of God from government; not from civil government -- that came later -- but from self-

    government. The laws which had been sufficient for our self-controlled Fathers were by their

    nature incapable of controlling natural rebels.Self-will naturally despises self-control, and resents any control imposed, or even attempted

    upon it. More laws seem to produce nothing but more lawbreakers, which weakens the will toenforce, or eventually even to pass moral laws. And the severance grows.

    In that severance there lay the seeds of disaster. The blessings of God, paradoxically, made

    God, in the thinking of too many, dispensable. As long as there was rain, there was no need to prayfor or to be grateful for rain. The abundance of so many things was credited to human effort and

    ingenuity, and the humans gladly accepted that credit. They were not only intelligent, industrious,

    and wise; they were self-sufficient, and that became dangerous.Self-sufficiency acknowledges no need, and human pride can admit to nothing less than total

    self-sufficiency. No need for anyone else, except to feed their own insatiable demand for personal

    pleasure, status, possessions, and well-being. Any attempt to bridle this demand is met with fierceresistance. No need for anyone to tell them what is right or wrong. Their personal law becomes: If

    it is good for me it is right; if it is bad for me it is wrong.

    The inevitable result of this thinking showed up in Israels history when they had no king,

    and every man was left to do that which was right in his own eyes. The things described during

    that period of time were horrendous, but notice --THEY WERE RIGHT. The people had beentoldthat their actions were wrong, but they were not convinced. They justified --made right --

    their actions according to need, circumstance, or simply desire.Such a large percentage of our citizens have adopted this mental process that it has gone

    beyond personal, and become societal.

    Only a few brave voices rise above the din to proclaim an ABSOLUTE TRUTH, or anunchanging standard of RIGHT and WRONG. But those rare citizens are drowned out by the

    irresistible and irrefutable logic of Who are you to judge us? Who, indeed?

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    4/44

    Let us enter for few moments into the two major bastions of discipline for the majority ofour youth: the school principles office and/or the juvenile court; the scenario is equally valid in

    both.

    A young person has been brought in for some breakage of the rules. He (for our purposesbut just as well she) belligerently demands the reasons for this disruption of his life. A dialogue

    follows:

    Pr: You know the rules. Boy: What rules?Pr: The rules on this paper. Boy: We have our own rules.

    Pr: But our rules are better. Boy: Not where I live.

    Pr: You live in a jungle. Boy: Big dog eats little dog. Survival of the fittest; just like yourworld.

    Pr: We have a congress, and the opinions of the courts. Boy: We all have opinions. And

    your courts change the rules with every election.

    Pr: But ours are traditional from our forefathers. Boy: So are mine. My father and his fatherlived by the same rules I live by.

    Parenthetically, that boy might not even recognize his father if he saw him, but ask yourself,

    Would our forefathers recognize us? We condemn absentee fathers, while we ourselves are

    runaway children, awaiting checks from Daddy to sustain us in our rebellion, and to bail us out ofits inevitable consequences..

    But the debate goes on and on and on ad nauseum. Both are right in their own eyes. Sowho is to say which viewpoint is acceptable? Whose rules shouldrule?

    There is only One who has the qualifications to make and enforce laws for mankind, and

    that is the Creator of mankind; the laws of nature and of natures God.

    Our youth are taught from kindergarten on by state-approved instructors that they arenothing more or less than the accidental and mindless elevation of animals, and parents urge their

    children to learn their lessons well. Now when they act out their base instincts on the playground orthe streets, we are to believe that they are simply reverting to type. That good behavior, (when

    not induced by mind-numbing chemicals in their brain), is only layer upon layer of civilized veneer,

    brought about largely by generations of religion.Ah yes, religion, that opiate of the people: not all of the people, of course; just the lower,

    more primitive and superstitious classes, under-educated and unsophisticated.

    But does not religion have a role in society? Of course it does. Religion takes up wheremere mortal words must, for lack of authority, leave off. The strong will not listen to the weak, so,

    it is said, some enterprising individual invented an imaginary real superpower who told me to tell

    you what you must do or, not do, under penalty of retribution.Thus god was born, and in process of time, out from under the glory of his majestic robes

    there slithered The Clergy. Since god was not readily available to all, the pathway to him lay

    obviously through the clergy.

    To be fair, only in rare instances does The Clergy claim to be the way. But it does draw the

    map, and it does hold the key to the gate. And since, also, the way is as important as thedestination, that way -- the Clergy -- demands more immediate kindly attention than does the goal --

    god.So we have a new tyranny: Religious tyranny! of a yoke of man-made laws upon the necks

    of the people which neither the makers thereof nor their fathers were able to bear.

    But please understand this. God, the real God, does not commit the eternal destiny of blissor misery of sinful men into the hands ofother sinful men. Men by nature are too capricious and

    vain, and ambitious of their own honor and power to be just. Rules and decisions and judgments

    must be made by Someone who is literally above the fray; Someone who will have no advantage or

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    5/44

    disadvantage in the outcome, because He already has all power; Someone who cannot be bribedbecause the silver and gold of the world is already His; Someone who sees all men as equally

    created and equally loved.

    How do we put this SuperBeing in charge of this world? At this present time it is only bypersonal invitation: one open heart at a time. Each individual applying the battle cry of this

    Nations founders: No King but King Jesus. The surrender of Self to the lordship of Christ.

    Here we come face-to-face with our third tyranny: Self. That great hulking beast that lurkswithin the breast of every one of us; that thing which allows no unchallenged competition to its

    goals and desires; which recognizes no needs or wants but its own. Not just a simple third-grade

    me first attitude but an ultimate, if necessary, me only. A mindset condemned in Scripture.And yet, our school counselors and teachers are trained and required by the State to cultivate

    in our children a good self-image. Our prisons are already filled with people who believe they

    deserve the very best. Even our pastors, shamefully, who claim to represent God to us, contradict

    Him with a constant theme of self. Thou shall love the lord thy Self with all thy heart, soul,mind, and strength. Self love, self esteem, self actualization, self respect, self affirmation, self

    fulfillment, self acceptance. Happiness and money are the primary goals of which they speak.

    We do not need instruction in focus on self. We are born with it.

    In all of our seeking, what have we found? Soul-killing disappointment. We have gottenthe opposite of what we sought: Self-loathing. Guilt, A death culture, Meaningless life, Hatred.

    Depression. And envy.A man always deserves a nicer, sweeter, prettier, younger(?) wife. Or a bigger, shinier,

    sportier, newer(?) car. And a woman deserves a more successful, considerate (translate: good to

    me) husband. Or a larger, more comfortable home. A higher standing in the social register. The

    list is almost infinite; which is fine, if it is earned, and not merely coveted.Where on that list is self-control or self- denial? Why not a brilliant, glaring contrast

    between selfishness and selflessness? Self sacrifice.Our young men and women in the Middle East are dying on an almost daily basis to gain

    nothing more than what they already had, and left behind, to preserve it for us Are they the super

    beings? No, but they are inspired by Him. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man laydown his life for His friends. But He who is their Example went even further, if possible. He laid

    down His life for His enemies! For ME! and for YOU! When we know, and apply, that truth, that

    truth will make us free.Three tyrannies. One rebirth able to assassinate all three. Full, thorough, deep-hearted

    repentance which requires a disdain for personal rights, and the acceptance of personal

    responsibility to God. If we as persons will accept that inspired concept of self-governmentembraced by our Fathers, we, like they, will be driven to reject, nay, tofight offall attempts of

    government, or church, or even our own passions, to control us.

    These are the travail agonies of the rebirth of freedom.

    With Thomas Jefferson, I, too, have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility

    toward every form of tyranny over the minds of men. Will you join us.This is how freedom must, of necessity, be painfully gloriously reborn, and, since self

    cannot give up self, once again our LORD will have to be the Father of it.It has become customary in political speeches, even by those who have no apparent

    connection to God, to close with God bless you, and God bless America.

    In closing here, I cannot in any expectant faith ask a holy God to bless this unholy nation,but I can, I must, ask a loving God: O LORD Jesus Christ, please, I beg you, be merciful to my

    beloved America. Amen.

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    6/44

    2.

    Class Warfare

    The recent discovery and implementation of the science of DNA (desoxyribonucleic acid) in the

    human molecular system has provided a great service edge in the field of criminology. The literaluniqueness (one of a kind) of each individual has been demonstrated. The chances of two people

    being found guilty of the same crime are less than one in a number larger than that of the entirepopulation of the earth.

    That uniqueness, under purely rational investigation, is, in the science or mathematics of

    probability, impossible What would be the chance, the random chance, of there occurring sixbillion of anything with recognizably similar triplet structures, and yet with no duplication? And

    that six billion is only the current population of the earth.

    Given enough time, the evolutionist says, anything is possible. Perhaps, but we are notasking about ethereal possibility, but probability. Logically, it is probably impossible. It would

    take infinite designer powers of intellect to keep duplication out. And even then, the creator of such

    a thing most likely was designing something greater if DNA was just a building block.Finite logic inclines me to believe that intelligence of that magnitude and power would

    desire something with which it could communicate. Evidence of this idea is found in the amount of

    money we humans, with extremely limited intelligence, have expended, and what focus of the little

    power we have is given to search the universe for signs of life. We have sent signals into spacehoping for a response: something that would indicate intelligent life.

    Whether we are alone or in company in the myriad universes is outside the scope of this

    present inquiry. The point is that we who are so similar, yet are infinitely diverse. I tell youngpeople who are under tremendous peer pressure to conform to forget it. It took many generations

    of manipulating and juggling genes and chromosomes to come up with the exact combination of

    molecules that produced 'you' The same is true for all of us.

    There is nothing special about you. No. That is wrong. Everything is special about you.You are exactly what God intended you to be. We have set our own arbitrary and false values on

    the things we have. What are they?

    Eye color. Everyone has eye color.Hair color. Everyone has hair color.Skin color. Everyone has skin color; some shade of brown.

    Take a look at only a partial list, and continue the extrapolation: Height, weight, texture,

    intelligence, physical characteristics and size, etc. We all have all these things; some more, some

    less, some different. Now, since they all came to us by inheritance, what have we to be proud of, orashamed of? The best, and most, we can do is slightly to modify them. But why? We can use what

    we have been given and develop it by use, or we can waste it by wishing it different. And that

    waste or use will make much more difference between us than the raw materials. God has told usthat He made of one blood all nations of men (Acts 17:26) and one flesh of men. 1 Corinthians

    15:39) One flesh; one blood. One race.

    Race or wealth are only incidental to class warfare. Egypt held Israel captive for over fourhundred years. The Roman armies brought back slaves of various hues from almost every corner of

    the known world. Today in Sudan black non-Christians are selling black Christians to other black

    non-Christians. In Ireland Roman Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians are killing each

    other. It appears that all we need is an excuse to fight. But there is no excuse good enough toexcuse this.

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    7/44

    Classification based on any of the aforementioned gifts is not only false and arbitrary, butalso downright harmful. To hold anyone at fault, or credit, or even responsible, for anything in

    which thy had neither part nor choice is unjust.

    It is wrong to say that a man who has not the God-given ability to earn a great fortune isinferior to another man who has that gift. It is just as wrong to part the first man from his fortune in

    order to equalize him to the second. But that, with a generous dose of pseudo-sympathy, is the basis

    of class warfare. That is not fair!, becomes the battle cry. And again the answer comes fromScripture, Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

    (Romans 9:20)

    Forget Who said life is fair? What makes life fair is that we are all responsible to Godonly for the use we make of His gifts. What makes life seem unfair for some people is the mistaken

    concept that wealth is intrinsically good, and that things which wealth can accumulate lead

    inevitably to happiness. Are all wealthy people happy? Are all poor people unhappy? No, twice.

    Are any wealthy people unhappy, or poor people happy? Of course! So what determines thedifference? Some theorists believe that a child is born as an empty slate, or vessel, or material

    mass; that what we become is determined by exterior forces; that our minds are developed along the

    lines of our level in the community, or our friends, neighbors, and schools, or by our national or

    cultural ancestry.Let us approach this argument from varied viewpoints of determinism: Economic, social,

    and hereditary. There may be others, but these will answer most of our questions.Children born of wealthy parents are more likely to succeed. . . in acquiring wealth. They

    are surrounded by it, both in things and people, and will learn methods and skills, and, most

    importantly, desire almost by osmosis. Will they be more successful in their marriages? They may

    have more educational opportunities. Will they be wiser in the use of them? Which, if any, of thesepossibilities is more conducive to happiness? Why would rich people ever commit suicide?

    Children born into inner city poverty may lack all of the above; money, education andexample. Some have never been supported by legitimate work or means; never seen an honest

    rich man. Their schools fail them, not by failing grades, but by a failing system. The sink-hole

    seems almost bottomless, and struggle futile. Yet in that morass we find mothers and fathers whohave beautiful, faithful marriages and families, and children who somehow rise above it all, and

    find within themselves all the reasons in the world to live and to thrive amidst the deafening chaos.

    Children are born in so-called Third-World countries where a person who owns a bicycle isconsidered both rich and lucky. People who by whatever means arrive in America, succeed in

    happiness and education and money where those of similar race or culture, who were born here,

    have chosen to fail.It would seem that if determinism of any sort were replaced by determination, much of our

    class structure would fade into oblivion. Contrary to the findings of Hitler's scientists, and all

    other atheistic evolutionists, the difference is not a matter of class, or race, or any other distinction.

    It is not a matter of rich-over-poor, color-over-color, elite-over-undistinguished. It is a matter of

    mindset.I have known people who lived in what to my teenage mind was unimaginable splendor. It

    seemed the children were normal, noisy, happy kids, except for their toys. . . until they grew up.Somehow those lives and relationships fell to indistinct shadows. The mother/wife complained that

    of the twelve Cadillacs in the long garage, none matched her gown for a planned evening; so, I was

    told, she got one that did.In a tiny, barren African village I watched a young teenaged boy chase field mice through

    the sparse grass clubbing them for that night's supper. He got one, picked it up and handed it to his

    little sister, and went for another. She took it by the tip of its tail between thumb and finger tip,

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    8/44

    wrinkling her nose and squealing like any little white American girl would do. After the processwas repeated, she took the mice to her mother who was holding a baby, and took the baby while the

    mother dressed the mice and placed them in a Chinese import enameled pan and put in on the

    stove, which consisted of triangle of stones on the ground, with a small fire under it. The househad neither floor nor windows, and the furniture was three rolled up grass sleeping mats. A larger

    mat constituted the living room. But they laughed and ate, and joked with each other just like rich

    folks. A mile and a half distant the governor's mansion could be seen.People, in reality, can be perhaps mustbe convinced that they are rich, or that they are

    poor; that they are one color, or another. They can also be convinced that it does not really matter.

    Those who do the convincing should be held to account for the results of their work. Children, Ibelieve, come into this world completely blind, oblivious at least, to all of the distinctions we adults

    hold so dear.

    To make a career of defining those distinctions, and benefiting from the resulting warfare,

    should be considered by sane men to be the lowest of all occupations. The use of God's gifts for thedestruction of His creatures is reprehensible. Tearing people down in the name of lifting them up, is

    worse than lying; it is close to cannibalism. In comparison, good old-fashioned American

    hypocrisy begins to looks almost virtuous. In the 1960's placards appeared preaching,

    Pornography is not obscene. WAR is obscene! There were no such sentiments expressed aboutClass Warfare. Truly, too many lives have been lost in military warfare. How many lives have

    been destroyed in class warfare?These good citizen-leaders incite first to failure by a series of fancied disadvantages, and

    then incite to violence and/or riot to right the supposed wrongs. In the end, who benefits, and who

    loses; who retreats into the shadows? Who comes out ahead, with the money, and the power? Is it

    the Leader or the followers?There is another aspect which deserves our attention. A war requires two combatants.

    Where are they to be found? Certainly not in the nursery. And, unless interfered with by adults, noton the playground.

    Historically in America this stupidity has been evidenced in newspaper ads which stated that

    No Irish need apply, No Chinee [sic] allowed, or most predominantly seen between black andwhite. But the two sides must be recruited. A friend told me of his friend who said where he was

    stationed in the Navy during World War II, the rant was (please excuse me) You ain't a man 'til

    you killed a nigger. I am a Scandinavian white man, and I cannot express to you how repulsivethat sentiment is to me.

    Marian Anderson, marvelously voiced Metropolitan Opera star, was wrong when she sang

    You have to be taught to hate, before you are six or seven or eight. Two child psychologists atthe University of Minnesota reported in their findings that, Any two-year-old would gladly kill

    any other two-year-old for possession of a red rubber ball, if only he knew how. But they stated

    clearly any other two-year-old. That is not race- or class- focused. And probably not learned

    behavior.

    All of the so-called personal sins, like lying, greed, envy, malice, jealousy, etc., the Biblestates, are born into us. Thus, before he ever begins, the task of the purveyor of division among

    men is already half accomplished. This leaves to him only the focusing of those attitudes on hischoice of victims. Whom to choose? And how to go about it?

    Since the purpose is put down one and raise the other, it might seem that opposite sides

    would be working against their counterparts, but that is not always true.Two aspects of this question come into view. In 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation freed

    the slaves. Those who had been for generations dependent on their white masters suddenly found

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    9/44

    themselves alone, some without the knowledge to run a farm or a business. Some for good reasons,chose to remain on the plantation, not as slaves, but as employees.

    There came up a class of whites who preferred to keep the black man in his historical place,

    by making ordinary life so difficult, or complicated, that blacks could not make it alone, but hadto depend on whites to survive, even though, technically, they were free. Nothing of reality had

    very much changed.

    Reprehensible as that is, still worse is the black man who spends his life telling other blacksthat they are incapable of making a go of life without the aid of some form of government, federal

    or state. Children are taught this by parents or peers or Pastors, who, if they would read and

    preach the truths of the Scriptures, could raise them up to the level on which God has placed them.However harsh this may sound, such men need to be needed, and thus must perpetuate, even

    increase the neediness of the needy.

    On the other side, at least one white man was willing to kill a United States president to keep

    blacks in their place. This while thousands of other white men, side by side with black men, weredying to complete and establish black emancipation. Neither attitude has ever died, perhaps never

    will; but it is not a racial fault or inadequacy. It is a choice; and that is where recruitment becomes

    essential to either cause.

    Thomas Jefferson has received immensely deserved credit for his We hold these truths tobe self-evident line, but it lacks authority, not because it is untrue, all men are created equal

    but because, to most men's minds, it comes out of a man-made document. It was Jefferson'sopinion. If our school classroomwalls were decorated with In the beginning God created the

    heaven and the earth, and followed up with So God created man in his own image, it would

    change attitudes while change is still possible.

    So, how badly do we want to stop the struggle? I did not ask how to win the war. Neitherside should win. Neither did I ask, which side is right? Both the sides and the war are all wrong.

    As long as we leave the situation in the hands of ego-centric, pride-filled, covetous, fallen men weare doomed to failure. We have neither the ability nor the authority to make others think right

    thoughts. Real change of mind comes only from genuine change of heart. For as a man thinketh

    in his heart, so is he.How difficult will this be? We can test it out quite simply and quickly. Are you willing to

    put God in his rightful place in your own life only you can before we try it as a society in

    everyone else's life? Seriously it will take a literal act of God to accomplish either, and that is whyand how I write and speak.

    When we ourselves are no longer guilty, remove the beam in our own eye it becomes

    much easier to plead for the removal of motes of guilt elsewhere.

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    10/44

    3.

    Hate Speech

    There is a millenia-old adage which advises people to hate their enemies. It seems hardlynecessary. It is part of human nature. Well, that is not exactly accurate. It may be very easy for us

    to hate, mainly, I suppose, because at some point our comfort zone has been invaded. We are well-adjusted to our surroundings. We have been in them since birth. So we feel that those areas of life

    must be the right ones. A baby, passed from Mama's arms to he babysitter's, is immediately

    uncomfortable. It cries, and if no adjustment is made to the situation, it may develop a strong

    dislike for babysitters, or even for the Mama who failed in time of need.That, however, is too simple an example for our discussion. It can be extruded, can it not,

    by a repetition of the action over time. We have found children who after Mama's sixth or seventh

    attempt at marriage have a strong dislike and distrust of the term stepfather. This may grow intoan irrational hatred for all those men who carry the title; hatred based only on their personal

    experience, not on any knowledge of the character of a particular individual. I think that fear cansometimes be irrational. I also think that fear is one of the main causes of hostility among humans.We adopt without any further investigation the opinions and reactions of others whom we have

    come to trust. Why do you hate strangers? Because someone said they are dangerous. Is that

    man dangerous? I don't know, but neither do I know that he is not. So, do I hate him? No, not

    really.True hatred, of course, needs to be focused to be effective, so we may find people who are

    constantly on the hunt for a viable victim, individual or class. Since there are no limits on

    differences in a melting-pot nation like America, there is no lack of races or classes from which topick a victim. What don't you like? Skin color? Nationality? Culture? Status? Accent?21

    Wealth? Poverty? Name it. They are all good. They are all also no good.

    In my Boy Scout days I asked the help of an old doctor, since I wanted to be one, to aid mein qualifying for the merit badges of Public Health and Personal Health. That time together grew

    into a friendship which lasted long past my school days. I was a preacher's kid; He was an atheist. I

    loved him, Dr. John Greenleaf Webb Havens and he loved me. He was an amateur astronomerwith a good quality telescope looking out the front window of his top floor office on Main Street. I

    asked him, How can you look out at all that, and not see the hand of God? He replied, I don't

    have to look that far. Just look at an eye ball. He could not accept that a loving God would allow

    the kinds of suffering he had witnessed. Yet we accepted each other.At one time he told me, Paul, if you want to be good doctor, you will have to learn to hate

    disease, and finishing a large bandage he added, and injury.

    I thought about that for a long time. I had never been taught to hate anything, except sin.My inclination, once I got into it, was to begin also to hate whatever caused the disease or the

    injury. Strangely, I could not stop even there. What about the person who spread the disease or

    caused the injury? Disease and injury have been around a long time. Where do I start in myhatred? Or where end it?

    Then this preacher's kid thought about God. He hates injury and disease and sin in waysand depth I never could. And yet he loves the diseased, and injured, and sinful people who are

    taken with these things.

    That statement is so far out of reach of the ordinary citizen that it has become laughable.Think about Quasimodo. Was he the keeper of the bells at Notre Dame?No, He was The

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    11/44

    Hunchback of Notre Dame., too ugly and ignorant to love. The only things crippled about FDRwere his polio-stricken legs. We judge people by what they have or lack rather than by what they

    are.

    A medical doctor told my sister, age 21, that she had cancer and was going to die. Anotherdoctor told my brother, age 54, that he had cancer and was going to die. Still another doctor told

    my wife, age 78, that she had cancer and was going to die. What is there about this group of people

    that drives them to such hateful actions and speeches? Are there minds poisoned in medical school?A person who does not believe in cancer or sickness would say, Yes.

    My friend, Dr. Havens, always treated the person to help in his treatment of the disease. He

    told them the truth in love. Dr. Lohmen worked diligently for nine months to save my sister. Thesame must be said for the others. Their honesty and candor was saying, I love you, and I don't

    want you to die. Inoperable cancer. Was that hate speech or love speech?

    Jesus Christ said , He that believeth not shall be damned, and then went to the cross to die

    for those very unbelievers to make sure their damnation did not have to happen.There are people who are being accused of Hate Speech who have by-passed fame, fortune,

    popularity, etc. while enduring ridicule because they believe what Jesus said. He was simply

    sounding an alarm. He knew what God had reserved in store for unrepentant sinners, so He warned

    them. People who warn others today are termed Hate Mongers. What group of any other religiousbelief, or other philosophical persuasion, would be ostracized for quoting the founder or leader of

    their group? The One who preached love, and taught His followers to practice love, even towardenemies, is the object of virulent, and soon violent, hatred. But Pilate's question is still hangs

    unanswered: Why? What evil hath He done?

    Andy Taylor of Mayberry was trying to teach his son, Opie, about obeying the law. If the

    sign says 'No Swimming you don't go swimming. But what if someone broke that law and went inand was drowning, do you obey that law and let him drown, or do you break the law and save him?

    Canadian law prohibits mention of certain activities from the pulpits. It will soon be sohere. Doctors are forbidden to mention a certain disease because the victims, who are also

    spreaders of that disease, are protected by law. But who protects the partners of those victims

    who are about to become victims themselves? Shall the doctor sentence the wife to death becauseof a law? No: He should be punished for criminal neglect if he does not tell her.

    You can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater. That is understandable. But what do you do if

    there really is a fire? When seconds count? When death is imminent? Does it matter if the death isnot immediate by trampling, but comes later from infected burns or from smoke inhalation?

    I would have lost my job as a lifeguard and been shamed out of town if I had not told people

    they were drowning. Were they insulted? Yes. Angry? Yes. Embarrassed? Yes, but they lived!Liberals in America have become so dedicated and cold hearted that they will sacrifice any

    number of unborn babies, or unwed mothers, or aids-carrying men and women on their altar of

    sexual freedom. A sign suggesting alternative lifestyles, like adoption or celibacy or monogamy, or

    heterosexual marriage is deemed unloving, hateful, and wrong. Which is the real life-style and

    which is the alternative?Shall a pastor silently watch a parishioner perish in sin because of a law? He will give

    account to God if he does notwarn him.So many instances occur in which it would make no sense to apply the reasoning put out by

    the Liberal Left as they seek to protect so many of the breakers of Divine law. They owe it to

    Americans to explain whom it is they are trying to protect from what. And why?, and with whatfinal result?

    They also need to reread the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Left is establishing

    in America a godless religion. Yes, the Supreme Court has considered the arguments and

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    12/44

    established that atheism is a godless religion. That religion has not, however, been subjected to therules and restrictions imposed upon the others, especially upon Christianity. Not only is Atheism

    taught in the classroom K 12, but it is taught exclusively, without fear of any real contradiction.

    The fear is on the other side: teachers may be relieved of their teaching duties and responsibilitiesfor even believing in intelligent design in nature. They can forget about mentioning God. They

    may not so much as hint at His existence.

    A great American philanthropist, highly regarded and blessed throughout the world, sendingrelief and sharing love with people of all nations and faiths has, today, been disinvited from the

    Pentagon prayer breakfast because he believes thatJesus died for all men, including Moslems. How

    is that hate speech? Why is it not just as inflammatory to stand in whatever rostrum exists themosque and declare, Allah has no Son!? They are both understandably quoting their Holy

    Books!

    Allow me to introduce at this point a few items that failed to make the news. Jesus was

    portrayed as a philandering womanizer in one movie; as a homosexual in another (He condemnedboth); His messengers as lunatics and crooks. These are all very offensive to Christians, but here is

    no outcry from the Left. In fact, these things win awards as great artistic ideas and presentations.

    Christ can be immersed in urine and the Virgin Mary smeared with human feces, and not a whimper

    of religious bigotry ever emergesThe authors of the First Amendment protected free speech while seriously disagreeing with

    each other. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.Where has that sentiment gone? Are we so unsure of the truth or rightness or accuracy of our

    beliefs and opinions that we dare not let an opposite view be heard? The Bible is the only authority

    no longer allowed to be quoted in our courts today. The only Book no longer allowed in the public

    school classroom. Yet it has been allowed back into the state and federal prisons at the request of

    the prison officials. There is some good advice here: Never tell an expert how to run his business.

    Paradoxically, the haters of hate speech are the most virulent and violent people who gatherin the streets to advocate for their positions and rights, and yet those rights are still intact; and will

    be as long as reasonable, peace-loving citizens prevail. When we are no longer allowed to voice

    differing ideas, we will be guided by an all wise government into a polytheism so extreme as tobe almost atheism; a condition where no religious speech is allowed to differ from the guidelines.

    In other words, no religious speech.

    However, this may be exactly the result so ardently desired by those who are trying toprotect everyone's freedom of speech. Or freedom from contradiction.

    Perhaps they understand some thing we have too long overlooked. The ruling principle in

    any successful endeavor is total commitment. The Bible principle concerning saving faith in theOld Testament for Judaism is nearly the same as that for saving faith in the New Testament for

    Christians. The Old is, Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart: The New is

    Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ with all thine heart. Of course, He and His disciples were killed

    for saying it. And whose side are we on?

    Halfhearted love is no real love at all. Halfhearted belief is likewise no real belief at all. Sothe job of the godless becomes to get everyone to believe in nothing with their whole heart. In the

    Bible it is a zero-sum game. Any love for any other God than the LORD necessarily deducts fromthe love due to Him, and is condemned and punished. Any amount of faith in anything or anyone

    other than Jesus must, in the mind of the individual, diminish the sufficiency of the death of Christ

    for salvation, and, is, therefore, enough to disqualify that person for salvation. Thus, in both cases,teaching someone to respect other gods or their religions is morally wrong. In Saudi Arabia it is

    illegal for a non-Muslim to set foot on Arab soil. In some places infidels may be killed on sight.

    Is that the example we want to follow?

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    13/44

    If all religions are equal, it does not really matter whether they are all equally right orequally wrong, just so they are not truly believed. He who fears God fears no man, and that foils

    the aims and plans of the Progressives. In the days running up to the Protestant Reformation the

    men who were determined to translate the Scripture into the languages of the people German,English, Italian, French, etc. were hunted, tortured, killed, and their writings burned because the

    authorities knew that It is impossible to enslave a Bible-reading populace.

    Is that why the progressives are so determined? I understand why they hate God (eventhough there is no god to hate) First, Evolution has taught them that we humans are the top of the

    line, and they are humiliated to find anyone who holds Someone higher than themselves. Second,

    They would almost automatically become answerable to that Being, and that is both unthinkableand intolerable.

    So, under the guise of protecting everyone from religious harassment, they are harassing the

    religious, and with a vitreol which might be considered hateful. In Seminary debates we were

    taught that 'as the argument grows weaker the voice grows stronger.'Our God-consciousness is the one thing that distinguishes us from the animal realm. When

    will we all learn that an essentially religious human being cannot be forcibly divested of its

    religious character and remain human? That religious conviction can be neither wrought nor

    expunged by the sword?While entering the German extermination camps under signs reading Arbeit macht Frei,

    Labor makes free the condemned Jews chanted under their breath Die Gedanken sind frei thethoughts are free.

    Laws against speech will not change the minds; will not change hate to love. Nor intolerance

    to tolerance. If we punish thought, some will stop thinking. But those who refuse will one day re-

    emerge, and make things right again.

    .

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    14/44

    4

    Privilege and Advantage

    Literature has given us a shining example of the nobility of the quest for equality among men.

    There have always been rich men; and there have always been poor men. Unfortunately, we havenot yet found a method effective in keeping people from becoming either rich or poor. A fool is a

    fool. The same lottery that makes one person richer makes many others poorer. Experience hasshown that many of the winners have soon reduced themselves again to poverty. Reckless spending

    reduces wealth while saving and investing reduces poverty. So, wisdom is wisdom, too.

    King Solomon, the man who was world renowned as both the wisest and the richest inhistory, said sadly, that everything he had he would leave to the man who would follow him, and

    who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? As it turned out, he was his son, and a fool.

    (Ecclesiastes 2:19)That, however, is not the literature suggested in the opening word. It was a fictional

    character given the name of Robert of Loxley, known to almost every child as that hero of the poor,

    and bane of the rich, Robin Hood. He made robbery a virtue. About the same time, anotherfictional character, Jean Valjean became the heart-wrenching victim of injustice at the hands of the

    law for a minor offense, if an offense at all.

    But Robin Hood stole from the rich, and gave to the poor. The motive becomes the act, and

    who can find fault with helping the poor? Are not all of the rich evil and unfeeling? And the poorvirtuous and kind? The rich obviously do not deserve their riches, just as the poor do not deserve

    their poverty.

    What to do, what to do.A great deal of ink has been spread over the misty and mystical pronouncements of the

    horrors of Privileged and Underprivileged or Advantaged and Disadvantaged classes of

    citizens of America. Someone is trying to make it almost criminal claiming that it should be a cause

    and even source of shame to the country that these things exist. However, it is more often than notapplied to the haves and the have-nots as though the two sets of terms are synonymous. Is this

    true? Are the haves privileged, and the have-nots underprivileged?

    In every discussion or debate, the first item in time and importance is to define the termsused in the proposition.Strangely the dictionary definition of Privilege is Advantage, and the definition of Advantage

    is, thats right, Privilege.

    I understand these terms to be synonymous only because they are equal in result, but not in

    means. To me, advantage is a better position one gains for himself, hopefully by legitimate means;whereas a privilege is granted him above that granted to others by someone in a position to aid him,

    whether deserved or not. This breaks the subject down into finer pieces. It may seem to be an

    artificial distinction; the two terms may be absolutely or nearly synonymous. But that does not helpto answer the dilemma of Who decides the matter? Who receives which advantages and/or

    privileges? And why?

    Generally speaking, we claim advantage when one has a better starting position thananother. A driver finished first in the preliminary race, and so was given the pole position in the

    final event. In a fair race any of all the drivers have an equal chance, as far as dissimilarities in cars

    and mechanics will allow, but only one could win.

    Contrast this with a case where the race supervisor has a 54-year-old veteran in the race,whom he wants very much to win just for old times sake. He gives the ol boy the pole position

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    15/44

    for the final. This is unfair to all the other drivers, but after all, it is a privilege granted by someonein authority This privilege idea involves intention and favoritism. No one would contend that

    privilege or advantage always goes to the right people.

    To accuse blind chance of this sort of thing is ludicrous. To accuse God is worse. And yetpoliticians who cannot see beyond the next election have assumed the role of deity, and are Hell-

    bent on solving the problem. In order to level the playing field they have to turn the world upside

    down.The two things (advantage and disadvantage, not God and government) seem very easily

    confused in the American mind. I say easily confused because sometimes both seem to be involved

    in the same case.If a very bright young person wishes to attend an elite university and is granted a scholarship

    he is considered lucky, one of the elite, and may land a better position upon graduation than one

    from a state school. Being highly intelligent is undoubtedly an advantage, and the university

    attendance a privilege, which gives another huge advantage in the otherwise competitive order ofthe world.

    However, the students intelligence is not something he worked for and gained on his own.

    It was given to him by whomever is charge of such things, and is therefore a privilege.

    So, I believe we must investigate our judgments on an almost individual basis. Is there sucha thing as a privileged class? Of course not. There are too many privileges. In every field

    talented people rise to the top. Those talents are most often inherited from similarly talented parentsDid those talented offspring choose, or create, those parents? Obviously not. The same logic may

    be applied to wealth as to music or athletics or anything else we prize highly.

    Usually the term is applied to the wealthy as a group, without regard for the source or even

    the amount of the wealth. They are rich, and that is all that counts. They have far more than theaverage people; far more than they need, certainly. Is that morally wrong? Are they to be punished,

    or fined, or robbed, or taxed (all of which, in this context, may be synonymous) because they havemore?

    A seeming advantage may have its own built-in disadvantage. A tall basketball player has

    hands that are closer to the basket which should make the shot easier, but if he misses the shot ashorter, quicker player has the advantage of getting to the rebound sooner and thus also to the other

    end of the court for his own lay up shot.

    A man complained to another who was wearing 700 dollar shoes that it was wrong for himto do so. Do you work for a living? the shoe man asked. Sure, I put in my forty hours, was the

    terse reply. I put in over a hundred. was all the explanation the shoe man had to give.

    What was the incentive that drove one man to do something the other did not do? Was hejust made that way? How do we account for differences in individuals that lead to such broad

    differences in outcomes in life? The man who inherits a fortune is lumped together with the self-

    made millionaire. They both are suddenly advantaged and privileged.

    At the other end of the social scale are those who are physically or otherwise incapable of

    holding a position whereby great wealth may be acquired. They will never be able to rise above thebottom financial rung of society. And what of those who refuse to work, or who are satisfied with

    much less than average. Perhaps freedom and leisure are more important than status or possessions.Or service: A worker at a womens shelter is not considered disadvantaged, because she chose her

    field knowing her future. But she is below the poverty level. These low income people are smeared

    with the same prejudicial brush of underprivileged as the hard drinker who blows his entirepaycheck on lottery tickets while his wife and children go to bed hungry.

    This inequality is observable in federal aid to students. On one hand a students loan is

    rejected because his parents have too much money in the bank. The neighbor kid in the same block

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    16/44

    is eligible for the loan because his parents have no money in the bank. The first family workedhard and saved their money so their child go to a good school. The second family worked hard so

    Mom could have nice car and clothes and Dad could have a boat. So which one has needs and

    which does not?If the intangibles, the non-observable differences were factored in, a lot of our sympathetic

    responses might be overcome by reason, and a more real fairness emerge. But we have seen how

    incredibly complex the idea can become. And we have scarcely begun.The amount of money that will make monthly payments on a nice house in some areas of the

    country would be laughed at if offered as rent on a run-down apartment in another section. If we

    consider insurance rates on cars and homes in various places and for various uses, we build a verythick book.

    How many children? What are their needs? Are they supporting grandparents? The list is

    inexhaustible, and the problem insoluble.

    If all the money in the world were converted into US dollars and redistributed equally toeach of the six billion or so inhabitants of this globe, what good would it do the people to have it.

    How would the world be improved by the new condition of the poor or the rich? And how long

    would it take for it all to gravitate back to where it is now?

    The means of high production have always been much more expensive than the averageperson can afford. They have found ways to pool resources for the mutual benefit of all. At times,

    they specialized into groups, such as food growers, and spinners, and tailors, and cobblers, andcarpenters, and metal smiths so that no one person would have to buy all of the implements to create

    a good life; but could, by barter and trade, own more expertly-created goods at less expense than

    one might accomplish all himself.

    But all were not equally endowed with ideas, and skills, and, yes, motivation to compete forthe highest quality, and receive the highest price and profit. In more modern times as

    manufacturing advanced, thousands of people pooled their money and each bought a part of theenterprise, a share in the company for gain or loss. Now that the ownership was no longer in one

    person, more people made money, and the leadership, deserving more made more. Still the share

    holders would choose their own leaders, so it seemed good all around. Not equal, but good.There is a gnawing in the back of the mind that keeps itself alive in this whole discussion.

    What is the cause of all these differences in people that determines who gets what out of life? Can

    we credit or blame a mindless, impersonal force that is totally and uncaringly disconnected fromeverything going on in the world?

    Who is responsible for these differences, and why do they exist? To whom do we apply for

    our grievances? Or to whom do we turn in gratitude for our benefits?We come to the point of our discourse. Who is it that hath made thee to differ? (1

    Corinthians 4:7) Blind chance drives us to fatalism, which cannot be fought. Or to frustration over

    the seeming unfairness of it all. Or to unfocussed rebellion against the world in general or our

    choice of supposed oppressors. In any case we feel we cannot win. There is a senselessness to the

    whole of life. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. How hollow, how empty, howmeaningless is life under such a philosophy. Four of the Seven Cardinal Sins are present here,

    along with the Golden Rule and the second greatest commandmentThere is no way for America to solve or cure the envy/jealousy syndrome by government

    action. The actors are too involved in a power struggle among themselves. If they could agree on a

    Fairness Bill, they are not honest enough or wise enough to administer it fairly.There is cure, hope, love, reality in the simple statements that have rung through the ages,

    and come at last to us: In the beginning God. . .made man in His own image. . .and so loved the

    world that He gave His only-begotten Son.

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    17/44

    Suddenly we know who we are, why we are here, and Whom to thank that we are not all thesame. Envy and gratitude cannot dwell in the same mind. He made us, each as we are, so that we

    could participate in His unfailing plan for His world. Idealistic as it seems, it does remove the fears,

    hatreds, jealousies, roadblocks in relationships, etc. It can give us faith for a joyful outlook on thislife and a joyous anticipation of the future eternal life.

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    18/44

    5.

    Power To the People

    It is the ultimate goal of mankind in general, and of men in particular, to regulate for themselves a

    life suited to their own individual aims, goals, aspirations, and such like things as are in keepingwith their native likes and dislikes, ancestral customs, mores, etc. Quite frequently, however, their

    desires run contrary to the ideas of other men, and conflict erupts over the supremacy of therespective ideas.

    It is also in the nature of a man to espouse the superiority of his own ideas over those of

    another man; any other man; perhaps all other men. If that superiority is considered stronglyenough by the author, to be of an actual, not simply imagined, higher quality, then it becomes

    incumbent upon that person to raise the level of response to his ideas on the part of the rest of

    humanity to the point of at least professed agreement. This is not easy. Every other man is pronetoward a like opinion of his own thoughts.

    In this natural state, it is difficult for any man to step back and consider the possibility that

    the other man's goal of happiness or satisfaction may be better for that man than what the interlopermight be able to develop for him. Pride creates out of a simple and necessary disagreement a

    personal attack and confrontation which, for honor, must result in the destruction of one or other of

    the involved parties, and with that person, the death of his ideas.

    The personal authority to determine one's own future, and the ways and means to advancetoward that future is at stake here: power over his own life. Such a simple concept. But there

    always appears to be a "greater good:" the false idea that all men were intended by disinterested

    nature to be, not merely equal, but identical. The doctrine that no man has the right to more ofanything than any other man has in the name of "fairness," is madness.

    Our children were taught in progressive education to develop "color-blindness," in a futile

    attempt to eradicate racism. Racism, which simply recognizes the God-created differences between

    them, is faulty only insofar as it degrades or robs another person of his freedom. Skin color is asmall part of the progressive program. I strives to "get beyond" all distinctions: hair and eye color;

    intelligence; the desire to win, to exceed, to pass. To get ahead was good, as long as it meant to get

    ahead of oneself, of where we are, not ahead of someone else. There was to be no grading in class,no keeping score in the athletic arena. Nothing that might cause one to feel bad or inferior.

    "Disinterested nature," of course, is a myth, a chaotic, out-of-control monster that, having no

    personhood, can have no master. The authority over life is up for grabs, and the stronger always

    prevail over the weaker.

    The cry of the mobs of the 1960's and 70's was the only possible outcome of over a centuryof mindless teaching to mindless students of mindless evolution in a vacuum of anything else. But

    what they accepted was hollow and shallow. No one was allowed to ask the question:

    "WHAT POWER TO WHICH PEOPLE?"Earthly power has always been in the hands of people. It must be supposed that a certain

    group of "people" was in the collective mind of that present, chanting crowd, but how many of

    those individuals knew the leaders' goals, backgrounds, qualifications, or even names?"Government of the people by the people" sounded good when uttered by Abraham Lincoln

    at the grave sites. In less than fifty years, however, it had been corrupted to "government of the

    people by the Elite." So much money was required to run for public office that one had to wonder

    how it could be profitable to be, or to put someone else, in the position. Someone is getting

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    19/44

    something for their money, and in that something must be included POWER. Wealth is power onlybecause power can be bought. If it were not for sale, politics as it is now would cease to exist.

    Many of our Founding Fathers were men of wealth who lacked the incentives that drive our

    leaders. General Washington refused the position and title of "king." He preferred the quiet of farmlife and family. His truly Christian character shone brightly in that act. He and the others no more

    wanted to rule than to be ruled, an attitude unknown to today's leaders. The motto "No king but

    King Jesus" did not die in the time of victory and peace. They were satisfied with their wealth,whether great or little, and understood that "contentment was great gain." They had no need for

    power over anyone but themselves They knew that men who would not be controlled from the

    inside would have to be controlled from the outside.The principle of personal humility, so well characterized by our first president, was taken

    from the Bible: "For who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst

    not [freely] receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received

    it?" Those who believed in the Creator knew that the creation was composed of myriads ofvariations in every aspect of non-living, and living things, but especially in humanity. The "God

    who gave us life" gave us the physical and mental attributes necessary to a well-structured society,

    with each individual contributing to the whole. Every "vocation," [ >Lat, voco, to call] or calling

    was a gift from God, and none to be looked up to, nor down upon. Every man is created equal inthe sight and purpose of God.

    Some of our political leaders are elected from among the common folk. It may be morecorrect to say "out from among" the common folks. Once they cross the Beltway and enter the real

    world of decision-making "for the people," they change. They seem to become one of those

    repugnant elitists which they so disdained back home, and are no longer "of the people."

    The idea of term limits merits more consideration and conversation than it receives. In thebeginning congressmen and senators met for a few days and then went back to their occupations as

    citizens. They had no concept of career politics. This was good for good reasons. The people lived lives of freedom. Congress was not involved in the day-to-day workings

    of families, and schools, and businesses, and a dozen other areas of private life. There was not

    enough work for a politician to keep him busy all year. International affairs were at that time separate national affairs. Those men shunned

    treaties which bound us as a Christian nation in ways by which other non- Christians were not

    hampered. Our word was our bond to live up to those agreements, even when they turned out to bedisadvantageous. There is grave temptation to forsake integrity when partnering with amoral

    people.

    The States each had their own constitutions and legislatures which handled their respectiveaffairs. Counties, when they existed, and cities, and villages took care of their own business

    politics, crime, charity, improvements in means and ways of their own choosing.

    This, in its pure form, was the thing of which the President spoke at Gettysburg. This is that

    form of government which must "not perish from the earth." What, then, was the purpose or use of

    a professional federal legislature?. Basically, to raise an army to defend the United States, to coinand regulate money (which under the gold standard required little regulation), and to declare war.

    The highest requirement of qualification for that job would be a self-sacrificial love ofcountry with the accompanying love of national and individual freedom. Such men need not to be

    recruited or enticed by fame or fortune. They would serve for the privilege, not the privileges, of

    serving; for the honor, not the honors, of the office. They would have to be drafted out of theirprivate sphere into the public arena as men free from obligation to any but their near neighbors, and

    their country as a whole.. Plain people, serving not ruling other plain people; not seeking power,

    but almost trying to avoid it.

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    20/44

    The cry of "power to the people" is made by those who are of the opposite ilk and ideology.The authority they seek is the power to throw down existing forms of government and to install the

    dictatorship of the proletariat (common people). But whether the victorious result be to the self-

    exalting, self-worshiping leader of the shouting mob, or to the anarchistic mob as a whole, thedismal end is the same: dictatorship.

    It is unreasonable to think that the crowd that would wrest control of power from one group

    would generously distribute that control any other person or group. If they have acted collectivelyto achieve power, they will act collectively to maintain, and probably to collectivize the entire social

    structure.

    The difference between the atheistic, Voltaire-inspired French Revolution and theBible-inspired American War of Independence can be most clearly seen in the fate of the respective

    governments. The French ended in about ten years of almost constant beheadings of not only the

    king, and his family, but also of the real or suspected noble class. In America, the only deaths were

    of those soldiers "who fired first." Even of those British soldiers who survived the conflict, manywere given back their weapons and horses upon the verbal promise that they would not use them

    against Americans again. In the history of mankind, this is an astonishing event. America has

    never kept a single person or a square foot of ground as the "spoils of war." Does this not speak

    volumes?Our Constitution gives us, as the common people of America, the means of setting up our

    own form of government and choosing our leaders, and, in the same document, the peaceful meansof deposing them, or rather, of replacing them. Our ex-presidents and -legislators walk our streets,

    speak in our assemblies, receive pensions and respect because of, or in spite their beliefs or

    successes while in office. No blood. No terror. No vengeance. The world marvels every four

    years at the voluntary surrender of the "right to rule."There is only one power that is capable of producing this kind of peaceful transfer, and sad

    to say, that Power is the real source of displeasure for the benighted masses: "We will not have thisMan to rule over us." And they are benighted by several generations of near-frantic desire to erase

    the name of the great Benefactor of our beloved nation, and to put Him to an open scorn. In the

    words of Pilate, His first judge, "Why? What evil hath He done?" We should "Praise the powerthat hath made and preserved us a nation." It is in our National Anthem, the second verse which is

    seldom by design? sung.

    Power to the people, is in reality also a gift from God. God gives us what we want (whichmay not be good for us) or what we deserve (which taken rightly will turn out to our benefit)

    "There is no power but of God. . . he [the ruler] is the minister [servant] of God," to be honored and

    respected as such. Also "He removeth kings and setteth up kings." Let us leave the final powerwhere it is with God, and not take it into our own hands.

    If our leaders are to be removed, let it be done by God, and in accordance with our

    constitution, not trying to be little "gods," shouting to ourselves, "Power to the people." Even in

    America not all power resides in the people.

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    21/44

    6.

    Exporting Democracy

    Why do we desire, and how do we expect to export something we do not have and do not want? In

    our Pledge of Allegiance we say that our allegiance is to the Republic which is represented by OldGlory, our flag. We were given a republic, not a democracy. The Founders knew the difference.

    Those whom we have elected as representatives make the rules, not the majority. In fact, in a

    republic, no body rules; the majority has the simple duty to protect the rights of the minority.Our Founding Fathers had lived in peace and prosperity for a little over two hundred and

    fifty years before their King, Charles II, awakened to how much wealth he could extort from those

    Colonists. After untold and unimagined breaches of royal trust those colonists decided they hadhad enough taxes already: three pence on a pound of tea was the last straw. Imagine an Englishman

    without his tea!

    But if they were to revolt against the Crown, who would keep the peace? Who would holddown the marauding mobs? All the world's forms of government were well within view before

    them, and well understood. They could imitate and implement whichever they should choose. But

    likewise all the choices in the world were against them. Wherever they looked despotic rulerscrushed the very life out of their citizens. But that was merely looking around. They had another

    alternative: They looked up.

    As individuals they were well conversant with what they believed to be the very Word of

    God: the Holy Bible. It had been the standard ofpersonal conduct since Plymouth Rock was awilderness, and it had worked fine. So what did It say about societal conduct? There was much

    said about kings, and governors, and about the respect due to them and their laws.

    But there was a great deal more about God, and and respect for His laws. Kings beinghuman, they saw, are corrupt by nature, and great power made them only so much more corrupt.

    The antidote was found in Isaiah 33:22. For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the

    LORD is our king; he will save us. It appeared to them that there were three distinct areas ofgovernment, which was good so long as God was the governor. But at that time in world history, most

    kings, even Charles, claimed to be religious; in fact, Defender of the Faith. But religiosity is not

    deity, nor was the faith which he defended Scriptural. His divine right of kingship meant to him

    that he could hold all three offices, and be Lawgiver, Judge, and Executioner. He was wrong, andhe failed.

    Those offices are distinct, and the distinguishing characteristics are the very things that

    make them work so well together. A king can make a law. He can also make a mistake in the law,(a bad law). That law can be ignored or, more likely, reinterpreted by the judge. And a faulty

    judgment can be nullified by the king.. But who can nullify the king?

    A system of equality was needed and sought by our Fathers: more than the simple all menare created equal because, although they are equal in the eyes of their Creator they do not stay

    equal among men. Their Creator, in His wisdom dealt differently with each of them, without

    respect of persons. He made them different in mental, physical, even dispositional gifts. Men donot react identically to God's kind and wise bestowments. It is we humans who have deemed

    leadership as a superior trait. Obviously, someone must lead. But some capable people do

    not want the responsibility residing in a high position. And just as obviously, some must be

    followers. So,which is more important: the idea, or the fulfillment? What would Henry Ford haveaccomplished without workers?

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    22/44

    The heads of the respective offices are not allowed to be petty dictators even inthe their own sphere. The king should have only one vote in the council. The leader of the

    legislature should have only one vote on laws. The chief justice should have but one vote in the

    decision. In the multitude of counselors there is wisdom. (Proverbs 11:14)However, in human nature (and for the smooth operation of society) we find that someone

    will have the last word. To keep that last word out of the mouth of the most strident, or the most

    forceful of arms or of personality, each group elects its own leadership. This is, at the same time,the beauty and horror of Democracy. To say only that the majority rules makes the majority

    the ruler, which is precisely what the Founders sought to avoid. It was not that they desired no

    rules, or even no rulers. They wanted the rule to be as close to personal as would be consistent witha well-regulated, yet free and peaceful, society. Close to the individual, but not interfering with an

    independent, self-sustaining and self-responsible citizen of a united people.

    This, I believe, is where we find the greatest impediment to exporting democracy.

    I want to ask a few questions and then try to answer them. My questions are aimed at thecommon, the average, person, and not at the sometimes foreign-educated, well-to-do upper level

    who want their country free from the current despotism so they can install their own.

    Do the oppressed people we want to help know what is involved in true freedom? Do they

    want actual, real self-determination? Are they capable of maintaining what we export?The Ante-bellum Negroes in America (those who were slaves) took much of their comfort

    and culture from their scant knowledge of the Biblical account of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt: Letmy people go.

    Go where? The Hebrews had never made a collective decision in their entire existence. The

    patriarch Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to buy food, not to learn civil activity and government. Then

    followed four hundred plus years of slavery. Spewed out into the wilderness, they were lost if leftto themselves.

    Were it not for the personal intervention of Almighty God, they would have perished in afew days. Moses, who was chosen by God (and not by election), was in constant contact with God,

    or he would have given up the struggle and died with them. They did not have to set up a

    government complete with laws and culture: God did even that for them. And food: the manna.And protection: the fiery pillar.

    Who was going to do all of that for the freed slaves in rural America? They were not

    allowed reading, writing or any other education which might equip them for independence. They,like the Hebrews to whom they compared themselves, were not stupid, but they were, largely,

    ignorant. There was not one among them who had made an independent, individual decision by

    which he could govern his actions in his entire life. Under supervision they knew how to plant andreap, but what would they plant? And with what would they reap? Their timing had always been

    planned, and their equipment all provided. If the crop failed someone else was responsible, and

    bore the loss.

    If all this sounds like the gossip of an ignorant, prejudiced white European, I will plead

    guilty to the first and last. But whatever prejudice I have has almost always been for theunderdog. I was in fourth grade when I saw my first non-Caucasian. He was 24 years old, from

    China, and joined our class to learn English. I admired him very much, and we all called him Mr.Wong. My first Black man, Mr. Cox, appeared sometime around my twelfth year. He was the

    baritone in The Mississippi Gospel Four, a male quartet that sang occasionally in my father's church

    for several years running. I tagged along closely after him until I was told by my father to give thepoor man a break.

    Back to the export business. We have picked the unlikeliest places on earth as our targets,

    and at tremendous cost. In some we have been successful: notably Japan and Germany. In others

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    23/44

    we have failed. In still others, our presence and failures have made things worse for the people:North Korea, Viet Nam. What made the difference? I have opinions, but I do not know that

    answer.

    Some peoples live in centuries-old conditions that appear appalling to us modern Americans,but they have never known anything else. A sort of acceptance and accommodation keeps their

    lives on an even keel. So, to them, what they know is at least as good as what they don't know.

    We, in our country, at least until recently, would never have stood for it.We have very different history. Remember, our continent was discovered by Christopher

    Columbus, a man whose stated purpose was the the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the

    inhabitants of the new continents. The pilgrims at Plymouth rock had the same inspired intention.To all who are conversant with the real history of America it is plain that they all had the same Lord

    Jesus Christ, though differing in their approach to Him. They could come together as believers, not

    having vowed to destroy the infidels on the other side. (We have given up that likeness, and now

    are in danger of losing our unity, and thus our entire way of life.)When we look to spread our way of life to others, we had better go there first with the Bible

    in our hands and Jesus on our lips. Our constitution was made for a religious and moral people

    and is totally unsuitable for any other kind. This sentiment from Samuel Adams was based upon the

    sincerely-held belief of George Washington that It is impossible to rightly govern the worldwithout God and the Bible. (1752) In that context can there be any logical argument as to which

    God he meant?Perhaps our misplaced hope that democracy, which can quickly turn to anarchy and then,

    by necessity, to tyranny I say, dare we hope that democracy, coupled with some watered-down

    version of free-enterprise capitalism can be planted and flourish in soil barren of, and even

    poisonous to, these moral requisites? Perhaps this is merely an optimistic, rose-hued dream of thosewho see only goodness and purity of motive in human nature. That thinking goes against all

    history, experience, sense, and logic. The world is not that way.There is only one creed that teaches men to love their enemies, to do good those who hate

    them, to give to everyone that asks of them. These are the teachings of Jesus Christ, and only He

    can instill them into the proud, greedy, self-serving hearts and minds into the very nature of ahuman being.

    We do not imbibe this human rottenness with our mother's milk. Nor do we absorb it by

    osmosis from our surroundings. It is a part of us from conception, and must be trained and strainedout of us. Thus it is with every child born to human parents. But by what means is this extraction

    to be accomplished?

    Every force from ancient Nebuchadnezzar through the Mongols and Moors, through theCrusades, and into the fascist, Nazi, and communist Twentieth Century had as their battle cry:

    Death to the infidels. Agree or die!

    There is much more than political difference between America and the rest of the world.

    We must consider what makes a Third-world country what it is? Dare we consider that the culture

    is the result of the religion? And, even in America, would we be so bold as to say so?Our recent presidents have stated their belief that the desire for freedom is universal in the

    human heart. Will those in other cultures die to promote and protect that same and equal freedom inevery other person's heart and life? In truth, our own leaders have narrowed our liberty into

    liberties, and our freedom into freedoms. They know it is easier and less painful to remove one

    tooth at a time.This thing which we, by God's grace, have inherited is a special and extremely fragile

    organism, a glorious flowering plant that does not do well in all weathers or climes, and when

    pruned too closely will die. It thrived fairly well here for a hundred years or so, but the last century

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    24/44

    has been a slowly smoldering catastrophe. By a continual redefinition of the terms of first, theBible, and then, the Constitution, and a belittling and ignoring of both, they have isolated and

    attacked the basic precepts that compose our national soul. God has been humanized; man has been

    deified; the Bible mythologized, and the Constitution gutted by interpretation.The horrifying effect is that the crown jewel of the political treasury, that worshipfully-

    envied star on the world stage, has been transformed into a tawdry third world country. We have

    more natural riches, and at the same time, more debt than ninety percent of the third-world's nationscombined.

    But the world itself doesn't get it. They think it is the system we have, or the natural or

    human resources we possess, that have made us great. We have bragged on the point But asindividuals we are not more intelligent, or industrious, or talented than they. We are simply people,

    governed by other people, working for the good of all people, with a firm reliance on God, and a

    reverent trust in His Son Jesus Christ. This, as admitted almost unanimously by our Fathers, is the

    foundation, the blue print to the success which we, until recently, enjoyed.If the envious people viewing us would look around them, and consider the state of affairs in

    those countries where a single religion or a single man or political party, is in control: in other

    words, where man's rules, and/or man's interpretation of their god's rules, control the lives of the

    people, they would see nothing to envy.WE ARE FREE BECAUSE GOD MADE US FREE. When we voluntarily revert to slavery

    to a system, no matter high-sounding or well-intentioned, we will lose our high position in theworld, and become just one more nation like all the rest. Until now, that has never been the desire

    or goal of the American citizens' spirit. Under God we are different, and that difference has made

    us better and greater than any other nation in the world's history. Out from under God we become

    very un-special: we become like them.After World War II, General Douglas MacArthur requested America to send ten thousand

    Christian missionaries to Japan, because their god, Emperor Hiro Hito, had stepped down.Several of my friends, who had fought the Japanese, answered, and went to help Japan recover.

    Japan wanted to industrialize and build cars, etc., so we sent them steel, and technology. Look at

    Japan today. Are they a Christian nation? No, thankfully, and neither are they a feudal serfdom.Jesus said something that has been quoted myriads of times. It was, for a hundred and fifty

    years, true about America. Ye are the light of the world; a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.

    America certainly has not been hidden. Our light has broken the darkness of much of the world.This light of ours is going out, but not because of a fuel shortage. We need to drag the candle out

    from under the bushel, or in present vernacular, out of the closet, and put the light back on the lamp

    stand that it may give light to all that are in the house!

    Shall we attempt to plant an apple orchard in the Sahara, or a cactus in the Everglades? Can

    we not remember the soil and climate which brought forth our nation, and into which our

    Constitution was planted? This is the first and only nation ever founded by Bible-believing

    Christians on Biblical principles. It has become the pride and envy of the world.

    I believe that democracy would not have worked here at our founding. Quite possibly theraw majority would not have approved the Declaration of Independence, to say nothing of the

    Constitution. Would it not be wiser, in planting such a delicate crop, to attempt to cultivate andprepare the soil before laying in the seed? Do we still possess the know-how and perseverance for

    the task?

    As progressivism has advanced its agenda, America has cut loose its sacred moorings, andgone adrift into a sea of moral relativism and to nearly-official atheism. The result has been

    astonishing in its decline and rapidity. Look at how many Americans are willing to give up their

    freedom, albeit piecemeal, for financial or physical security? How many have traded God for

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    25/44

    Government or, in mind, replaced God with government? Obviously, the average citizens havemore faith in government than in God. So, how has it worked out? Are we going in the right

    direction? Are we better off? Or safer? Can a godless democracy defend itself?

    Perhaps, instead of extinguishing the flame of freedom at home, and exporting dyingideologies, we ought to reinstate the Author and Giver of freedom in our own place first, and then

    exportHim to the WHOLE WORLD.

  • 8/2/2019 Dis Figure

    26/44

    7.

    Homeland Security

    The basic instinct for survival is common to all life. It can be witnessed in the fear exhibited

    toward us humans in almost every approach we make to lower forms that are not fairly wellacquainted with us. We are created with more than intuitive intelligence, so we take all the more

    necessary precautions to avoid danger. We teach our children not to talk to strangers. We fence ouryards. We lock our doors at night. We install alarm and safety monitoring systems in our homes,

    stores, and schools. We employ firemen, policemen, guards,and whatever else we believe will

    increase our sense of security.What we do for our own families and possessions, we want, as good neighbors to do, or at

    least help to do, for others. We have neighborhood watches to aid those who sometimes cannot be

    at home. It is good to have people whom we trust looking out for us, whether we pay them or not.Why do we do all this? It can become very expensive. It hardly seems worthwhile. Add to

    this our insurance policies, both house and homeowners, and life insurance to protect against future

    catastrophe.It is because bad things happen. Because there are bad people out there on the other side of

    the fence. People who do not like us; who are envious of our lifestyle or possessions; who disagree

    with the way we run our lives. People who do not like our skin color, or religion, or something.

    My father once told me, If there are twenty-one people in the church who don't l