A Few Thoughts this Constitution Day

The U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document.  When ratified in 1789, the Constitution provided an opportunity for slavery to continue, despite the practice’s inherent contradictory nature with the rights of man.  Some jaws may drop here; the Constitution was meant to be changeable.  Before you grab the tar and feathers, hear me out.  The rule of law is also important and if the Constitution is to be changed, we need to do so in the way the document was designed to be changed.  An example was when the Constitution was amended to outlaw alcohol, also known as The Prohibition.  The fact that Prohibition killed people through the production of lethal alcohol and gave power to the criminals is, while true, beside the point.  While conducted with poor judgment, at least the U.S. Legislature of 1918 had enough understanding and respect for the Constitution to actually use it.  

Today, many laws are passed without giving a second thought to the necessity of enforcing such measures via the Constitution.  While Major Bloomberg attempted to regulate the consumption of soda in New York City, as ridiculous as that was, at least it was at a local level where it belongs.  At the federal level, there are many agencies that write rules and regulations, the most infamous being the IRS.  The Constitution prohibits any entity except for the U.S. Legislature to write laws that demand compliance from its citizens.  The genius of the drafters of the Constitution was in understanding the necessity of checks and balances, in giving each branch certain roles and responsibilities.  The Legislative branch writes laws and declares war.  Let them do it.

Star Trek Convention, George Takei, and the 2014 Winter Olympics

I went to the Star Trek convention in Las Vegas this last weekend.  Did you read what I just wrote?  I WENT TO THE STAR TREK CONVENTION IN LAS VEGAS!  Had a fantastic time and helped break the Guinness Book of World Records for the most people in Star Trek costumes in a single place;  a total of 1,085! Among the many stars I was able to see, I heard George Takei make a moving and inspirational speech.   The openly gay actor highlighted the struggle for the LGBT community, specifically regarding Russia’s new anti-gay laws and the upcoming Winter Olympics, which is set to take place in that country next year. 

The following is bound to piss off many of my friends and family as they span the religious and political spectrum.  They may find my Reformed Christian and Libertarian views *gasp* “Hardly Tolerable.”  My current understanding of Scripture leaves me to believe that a homosexual act is a sin.  I also have been a supporter of the LGBT community politically.  Schizophrenic?   Not in the least.  The sexual practice of another person, gay or straight, in no way restricts my life, liberty, or property and I will most certainly not restrict theirs.  We should treat others how we would want to be treated.  Respect one another.  Disagreements are bound to occur and that’s a good thing! 

There is currently a petition out requesting the President of the International Olympic Committee to relocate the 2014 Winter Olympics from Sochi, Russia to Vancouver, Canada.  Sign it.  

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/international-olympic-committee-ioc-relocate-the-2014-winter-games-to-vancouver-2

Motor Vehicle Anarchism

DENVER- In the wake of the Venice Beach boardwalk tragedy this last weekend, a question is raised by many: “Is the need for Car Control long overdue?”  For years the national discussion has revolved around Gun Control.  However, in 2010 there were 32,885 motor vehicle deaths in the United States, three times the amount of fire-arm related homicides that same year.

Cyclist enthusiast A.K. Streeter from TreeHugger.com says that “Motorists bend and break laws systematically.”  Such sentiment has led to greater research and development into autonomous, or self-driving, cars.  These robotic cars would be able to sense its environment and navigate without erroneous or even emotional human input.  These robotic cars could also be fully electronic, drastically improving the air quality of inner cities.  Combine this technology with the efficient oversight and control of the DMV and DOT, peace and safety on the streets could very well become a reality.

Not all are in favor of an automated highway utopia, their extremism instead driving them to prefer chaos to order.  “I can’t stand all these pedestrians and bicyclists acting like they have the right of way,” says 28 year old Colorado resident John Knox.  The self-described “motor vehicle anarchist,” audaciously adds that “I admit I’ve nudged one or two [pedestrians and bicyclists] with my car.”  In response to the possibility of his car being replaced by a far safer self-driven car, Knox says, “Look, I know I am not a great driver, but it’s my right to drive.” 

Not all agree with the common misconception that driving is in fact a “right.”  Kathy Mullins of the progressive think tank The Nation Builders says, “…driving a car is a privilege…rights should be reserved for REAL rights like the right to clean air…”

Degreasing the Gears

The act of dehumanizing another person has always been the grease that lubricates the gears of sin.  While we may have caught a brief glimpse of the man’s face that just cut us off on the road, we quickly reduce him to a non-person, making it easier to sling our curses.  Online social media is rife with dehumanizing potential due to its inherently impersonal nature.  We create a caricature of a disliked politician in our mind so that the deprecating comments can flow without shame. 

On a larger scale, the dehumanization of man has historically been reinforced by public institutions, as well.  The dignity stripping practice of slavery was a promoted enterprise of the state for hundreds of years.  Today, humans living in their mother’s womb are categorized as non-persons in an attempt to remove the pain of guilt when they are put to death.  Yet some of those camped outside of abortion clinics spew hateful comments at the women who enter.  Ironically, rather than being showered in love during their greatest hour of need, these women are dehumanized and in turn seek a false sense of dignity from doctors of death.

How long did it take for us to dehumanize the Boston bombers?  We categorized them as non-persons before we ever saw their photos.  Many will say, “They dehumanized themselves and those they injured by their acts, not us.”  Their acts were dehumanizing and it was their distorted view of others as non-persons that twisted their thinking that the attack would be justified.  Dehumanizing another person justifies the sin in the eyes of the sinner.  

The same goes for us, however.  We need to be on guard that we too do not fall into the same trap.  The more we dehumanize others, the more we dehumanize ourselves.  The scary reality is that the potential for sin is great in all of us and but for the grace of God, go I.  Instead, we should repent when we find ourselves dehumanizing others, have faith in the righteous works of Jesus and his atoning sacrifice for such sins, and know that we are forgiven.  Only then will we begin to degrease the gears of sin.  

Dinner Table Conversation of a Military Family

My 11 year old daughter: "Dad are we still at war?"
Me: "Yes."
Daughter: "Feels like we've been at war for a long time."
Me: "Your entire life."
Daughter: "When will we stop?"
Me: "A good question that I wish more Americans asked."

A bold and inquisitive young lady. 

I went on to tell her that we are not likely to stop any time soon, at least not for the next four years; that Americans keep voting for leaders that keep us in wars; that once one country is taken down, we move on to the next; that maybe her generation will make better choices and elect leaders that will use the military appropriately.

War of 1812: An Example of the Value in a Congressional Declaration of War

A few years back, I got into a disagreement with a Canadian friend over who won the War of 1812; America or Canada/Britain?  I had been taught through the American public school system that we had won.  My friend had been taught in his native land that Canada had won.  Who was right?  Turns out, we both were. 

Two hundred years ago, and as recently as World War II, wars were declared in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, specifically, through a formal declaration from Congress.  This was done for several important reasons.  The first was that an approval from Congress signified that a war had the nation’s approval, namely the people and states they represented.  Second, wars are to be formally declared by Congress so that clear objectives could be established.  Once those objectives were met, the war would end.  Let me repeat that.  Once objectives set by Congress were met, the war would end. 

There were several but two main objectives the United States sought to accomplish by starting war with the British Empire in 1812.  The first was to stop the British Royal Navy from pressing American seamen into their service.  Basically, the British were kidnapping our citizens.  Second, the United States wanted to put a stop to the British and Canadian practice of inciting Native American attacks against American pioneers on our nation’s western borders.  Today, we would likely call this “terrorism,” but the British and French use of Native Americans in this manner was a common practice by 1812.

 

The Canadians had their own objective, too, as my friend pointed out; prevent the Americans from taking over their country!  By 1814 the British had stopped kidnapping U.S. sailors and coaxing Native American attacks against Americans.  The Canadians had also successfully prevented the United States from taking over Canada.  With objectives met by both belligerents, the war ended.  The war lasted only two years!  Imagine that, if you can.

The U.S. started the War of 1812 two hundred years ago this month.  At least President Madison went to war legally through a declaration of war from Congress, a forgotten practice for our now Constitutionally ignorant and indifferent nation.  

The Good Shepherd: Fencing the Table an Act of Grace

The administration of a Church sacrament has recently made national news.  Why would the secular media concern itself with a Church sacrament, specifically the Lord’s Supper?  Like all things concerning national news, it involves controversy and controversy sells.  In this particular case, a Roman Catholic priest refused to allow a professing lesbian to participate in the Lord’s Supper.  The woman protested and the priest has since been disciplined by his leadership.

First, I am not a Catholic, so I will not defend their position.  I am, however, an Orthodox Presbyterian and will speak from that position on religious matters.  Second, I am a libertarian and speak from that position as an individual on secular matters.  This point is applicable because in the secular sphere I support an individual’s right to do what they want free from government interference, as long as they do not cause harm to another person.  I believe an individual should be free to succeed or fail; to experience the positive or negative consequences of their actions.  This includes a person’s right to engage in heterosexual or homosexual relations. 

The religious sphere is a completely different matter.  The action of the priest denying Communion to this woman is commonly referred to as “Fencing the Table,” at least in Reformed Christian circles.  Ministers, God’s ambassadors, declare who may come to, and who are excluded from, the Lord's Table according to the Word of God.  Ministers exclude those from the Table who have not approached in a worthy manner, which includes consciously discerning the body of Christ given for the sins of His people.  This discernment includes repenting of sin, which likewise includes homosexuality.  To participate in the Lord’s Supper without having repented of one’s sins is to make oneself guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment on their self. (1 Cor. 11:27-29, ESV) 

I believe this Roman Catholic priest was being a good shepherd.  Rather than protesting, the woman should be grateful she was kept from making the worst of choices with damning eternal consequences.  Unlike the secular sphere, ministers are in the religious sphere and are charged with the care of people’s souls.  Far from being a bully, this priest was displaying a remarkable act of grace.  He was willing to take on persecution from within the Roman Catholic Church and outside all for the sake of protecting the eternal soul of this ungrateful sinner.  Sound familiar?  Our Lord Jesus also took on the ultimate persecution for the sake of his people’s sins even while they were still sinners.