Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Judeo Christian Foundation to America's Social Justice
David Hethcock’s editorial from April 18th on the state of the Bible skims the surface of the hotly debated topic regarding the nature of America’s Judeo-Christian political philosophy. He refers to the Fox News article which discusses the implications of American’s lackadaisical usage of the Bible, usage which is limited to theory versus real life application. His point is that American’s hold the Bible in increasingly low regard. Though it sits on the vast majority of American bookshelves, there it remains, unused. As the owner of a 1592 Geneva Bible (lucky man!), the fact that mere ownership at one time entailed a potential death sentence begs his question “Would we own the Bible if that were the case today?” However worthwhile the query may be, I nonetheless think that Mr. Hethcock is missing the more pertinent discussion regarding the relationship between America’s version of liberty and the Judeo-Christian principles on which it is built.
This is significant because there is a social justice movement in the US which would replace the concept of liberty and equal opportunity (as it is constitutionally espoused), with liberty based on equalized outcomes, a fundamentally different approach. The chasm here is tremendous and so the opinion Mr. Hethcock renders needs more attention.
To summarize, Judeo Christian values in American government honor God as the author of life, liberty and happiness. It is this relationship to God that is most fundamental to the social justice worked out in our Constitution. The necessary separation between church and state was intended to allow reason and common sense to prevail over secular or religious influences coming out of Old World traditions. Though church was separated from state, God was not. Indeed, God was specifically named as the creator of our rights. In addition, His inclusion in the documents and laws that are at the heart of our Constitutional government were intended to provide a Biblical morality that would prevent tyranny and encourage justice. Thus this Biblical morality and acknowledgement of God in our founding documents effectively combined with astute political reasoning and common sense are uniquely American and are very much a part of our government.
This is evidenced by John Quincy Adams statement “The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." Also, the signers of the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War, required that the treaty start with the statement, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity”. In addition in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), the Supreme Court ruled, simply, that America is a "Christian nation."
Many argue against this relationship. These arguments provide an important thread to theories of social justice that are in favor of a redistribution of wealth, a key element of ongoing political debate. They argue that the early Christian church advocated this redistribution by asking members to place their goods into the hands of the church in order to redistribute wealth on behalf of the poor, but this justification is faulty. It is necessary to first consider the nature of leadership in the Biblical church, initially that of Jesus Christ, a perfect man, and the apostles, many of whom were personally school by Him. The point is then made when one considers the nature of leadership in our current government. That wealth could be redistributed to mutually benefit the rich and the poor requires inspired leadership that is morally capable of such a responsibility. This alone defies the reach of government per se.
Mr. Hethcock mentions the use of “In God We Trust” on our coins as a recent trend that does not necessarily demonstrate a Judeo-Christian tradition in our founding laws and documents. However, I would venture to say that this is incorrect. The phrase has been used sporadically on money coined as early as 1864 and as recently as 1957. It is significant that the clause became our national motto, engraved on the wall before which the Speaker of the House stands. Its use came about as an acknowledgement by a joint Congress after WWII wherein God was being recognized as the nation’s source of success in the war, not US weapons or economic strength.
I realize that Mr. Hethcock is not necessarily disputing any of these points, and probably supports them. However, the fact that he did not make use of them as they were inferred in his source article does little to convey the importance of American’s use of Biblical morality and their understanding of its influence in our government.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/18/state-bible-2012/#ixzz1t45ooPkh
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cherry/080128
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/05/07/obama-is-wrong-when-he-says-were-not-a-judeo-christian-nation
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/judeo-christian-principles-and-socialism/
http://www.fredsauermatrix.com/64-Can-JudeoChristian-Principles,-Values-and-Ethics-Survive-Obama-Care.html
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Capital Punishment: A Question of Justice or a Question of Competency?
Convicted Ohio murderer Mark Wiles recently dropped his last
appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and has been scheduled to die by lethal
injection. David Alan Gore, a Florida convicted rapist and murderer, spent 28
years on death row before his final appeal was overturned and he was executed
last week. In January, Texas convicted murderer Rodrigo Hernandez was also
executed after his final Supreme Court appeal was rejected.
Headline news reminds us of the reality of capital
punishment in the United States and subsequent and ongoing debate forces us to
consider its implications, however abhorrent they may be.
Ohio is one of 38 states that impose the death sentence on
capital crimes. Texas, which has a high crime rate and an ongoing problem with overcrowded
prisons, has had the highest percentage of executions since the Supreme Court
lifted its ban in 1976. Of the 1264 executions in the United States, 447
occurred in Texas.
Most of these inmates were convicted based on irrefutable
evidence that was substantiated by DNA testing, and their crimes were so cruel
that few argue against the justification of their sentencing. However, there
are others who are sitting on death row in front of a gnawing backdrop of
innocence that beg the question regarding capital punishment.
Many of those questions are moral in nature, and involve the
right a state has to kill an individual. Opposing views pertain to the freedom
individuals have in making moral choices (to commit a crime) which control
their destiny, whether they be good or bad. In this regard, capital punishment
treats human beings as intelligent beings who have sense enough to receive
their “just reward”.
Additional questions pertaining to the constitutionality of
a death sentence, its cost versus the cost of life in prison, and the question
of retribution versus revenge, all heat the ongoing debate. The purpose of this
blog is not to add to that debate per se.
Rather, the fact that the judicial process surrounding such
a sentencing requires nearly perfect administration is what concerns me. Several
cases reveal such serious flaws that they have clearly failed to produce
justice.
The case of Delma Banks, a black Huntsville inmate, demonstrates
these concerns when he received a stay of execution within 10 minutes of
receiving a lethal injection in 2003. His sentence was commuted in 2012 based
on rife prosecutional misconduct, which is to say there was not sufficient
proof available to verify he committed the murder, and indeed there was ample
evidence proving his innocence. As a result he is still alive, but how many are
not because such misconduct?
Additionally, in 2007 Texas Court of Appeals presiding Judge
Sharon Keller inadvertently refused a last minute appeal of a death row inmate by
closing the Court at 5 pm sharp. He was executed later that night. I hope her
reasoning was sound because in my mind if the potential for innocence exists,
it should be considered, regardless of trivial matters such as the Court’s
hours. This is obvious and, once again, reasonable.
The case of Troy Davis, also an African-American, is also a
case-in-point. He was executed in 2011 despite the fact that 7 of his 9
commuters recanted and 10 witnesses have since come forward to accuse a
different man at the crime scene. Furthermore, there was no DNA evidence
proving he was the convicted killer.
Clearly, his guilt was not proven beyond a shadow of a
doubt. Is this due to apathy in the courts or administrative incompetence? That
would be hard to believe given the intensity of the media coverage and the fact
that we are talking about the Supreme Court. In addition, if it were an issue
of racism (both examples are African American) then the associated numbers
would reveal a higher number of blacks on death row in proportion to lesser
crimes committed. In reality, it is the the higher number of violent crimes committed
by African Americans, and there are proportionately just as high of a number of
white inmates who have been executed. Though I don’t dispute that racial issues
influence judicial processes, my point is that it doesn’t answer the dilemma we
have in addressing potential innocence on death row.
I am not sure what the problem is, but if I could cast the
deciding vote I would say that until the system is capable of maintaining already established standards of justice, it shouldn't be given such authority. If and when its competency is proven then the debate makes sense.Capital punishment would not be administered on
my watch unless the system itself was consistent in assuming one’s innocence unless
substantiated proof was provided. In this day and age, it should go without
saying that DNA verification would be required.
Friday, April 6, 2012
The Dream Act and the Nature of Citizenship
Ms. Nance’s position on the Republican version of the DreamAct is contradictory and doesn’t take into account the historic controversy
surrounding immigration law. The difficulty in solving the immigration problem is
finding a fair way to address the status of illegals without creating amnesty
and while simultaneously managing to keep the requirements for citizenry in
place. It is a complex issue and to oversimplify it by claiming it will create
class warfare misses the point.
She argues that because the bill does not provide legal citizenship
to illegal immigrants, it will push the country towards class warfare by
inadvertently creating an inferior third class which “would
encourage problems that go hand-in-hand with a new, inherently lower class(es),
such as racial stereotyping”.
I have a hard time
understanding this logic. Turning it into a class warfare issue does nothing to
address the reason why our government isn’t getting anywhere with the problem
of illegals. It’s the issue regarding citizenship that has bogged down progress,
and for several reasons.
First, it is not likely,
and rightfully so, that a sufficient majority of congressional leaders are
going to toss aside already existing immigration laws. It is not a reasonable option, unless we
ignore the law. Thus, providing a mechanism which provides a middle ground for
illegals, who simply want to get on with their lives, who could care less as to
whether they can vote or not, is both fair and reasonable.
Secondly, opening the
floodgates of immigration by allowing for citizenship based on education or
military service does not allay concerns pertaining to the legitimate drain
this could have on limited American resources. One of the reasons we have legal
standards for citizenship is to limit lazy, corrupt, dishonest or otherwise
immoral individuals from taking advantage of this nation’s resources. That’s
how most countries work.
Again, it is not likely
any legislation that doesn’t address this issue is ever going to get through
Congress. Thus it makes sense to find a method which would allow for legal
status to be granted based on the merit of the individual, arguing that they
will be an asset to this nation, not a detriment.
The Republican version of
the Dream Act doesn’t ban an illegal from future citizenship; it simply doesn’t
make citizenship readily available and easy to obtain. How does this segregate
individuals into a third class? It seems to me that Ms. Nance has not considered
the value this legislation has in providing a way for an illegal to prove him
or herself, through hard work and discipline, thus paving their own way for
future success and stability through legal means.
The new version of the Dream
Act will not spoon feed illegals. The assumption is that the privilege of being an American citizen warrants an individual taking it
upon him or herself to prove they deserve, and therefore should be entitled to,
such a privilege. That endeavor requires initiative and effort, but it does not
force a third class status on anyone. Rather, it allows those excellent
individuals to be rewarded as such.
I wonder if the argument she
is making has more to do with creating legislation that will enhance votes,
rather than to enhancing lives. Should the huge influx of illegals be given
citizenship, they will provide a tremendous voter base for Democrats in
upcoming elections. Simply giving them legal status will not give them this
voting power.
I suppose the same argument could be made in
reverse, that by disallowing citizenship the Republicans are making this a
partisan issue to block Democratic votes, except the Democrats already gave it
their best shot and could not get the original Dream Act-with its mechanism for
citizenship- passed, even among fellow Democrats. The reason? It does not
address the fundamental concern this nation has regarding the nature of
citizenship. Ultimately, that is not a partisan argument; it is a legal one.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/15/445762/rubio-takes-dream-out-of-dream-act/?mobile=nc
Monday, April 2, 2012
Give Justice a Chance
The Treyvon Martin shooting has been the subject of our
dinner conversations for several weeks now, and, not surprisingly, it has evolved into a debate among my children and I regarding the influence the media has in shaping public opinion. Though I was initially outraged by the blatant racial overtones
and disregard for justice (why wasn’t Zimmerman arrested?), I have since come
to appreciate how much more complex the case really is. Racism and disrespect of our legal system is clearly present, but it doesn't take much to see that the roles presented by the media are deceptive and frustrate the need to gather truth.
The death of Treyvon Martin is a tragedy that requires justice, but for justice to be served, due processes is necessary to discover who the victim/perpetrator really are. Catapulting this case into the mainstream without carefully considering every element of the story is an irresponsible manipulation of media. In it we find a serious, indeed alarming, situation in which our
legal system’s standard of justice, i.e. innocent until proven guilty and trial
by jury, is being disregarded.
The force driving the Martin/Zimmerman controversy is not racism per se. If it were then front page news would state the case plainly: the vast amount of violence against Blacks in America is not being perpetrated by Whites. Rather, it is being perpetrated by Blacks themselves, and to a significant degree. In addition, where is the Latino voice in all this?
The force driving the Martin/Zimmerman controversy is not racism per se. If it were then front page news would state the case plainly: the vast amount of violence against Blacks in America is not being perpetrated by Whites. Rather, it is being perpetrated by Blacks themselves, and to a significant degree. In addition, where is the Latino voice in all this?
The underlying issue has nothing to do with
addressing real issues of violence or solving real problems of racism. Instead,
the momentum seems to be effectively increasing the amount of hatred American’s
feel towards one another. Doing so increases racial tension and leads to what?
Class war?
I am not politically sophisticated enough to answer that question, but there doesn’t appear to be a more explosive issue,
or one that is more easily manipulated, and this case-presented in the media’s
carefully crafted light -is doing an excellent job of it. However, if our
nation is to function on principles of justice then it is critical for Americans to use caution in developing public opinion,
and the best way to do that is to connect the political dots.
It was revealing to me to look at the role the radical
Black Panthers have had in biasing this case. In a recent press conference the new Black
Liberation Militia revealed its intention to perform a citizen’s arrest on
Zimmerman, offering a $10,000 reward for anyone assisting in his “capture”, and
provided flyers with such blatant provocations as “Murdered in Cold Blood” and “Child
Killer of Trayvon Martin-Wanted Dead or Alive”. Where is the standard of being
innocent before proven guilty? Even former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant accused longtime
Black Panther supporters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of exploiting the case
in order to racially divide the nation. And indeed, how effective they’ve been.
I’m not using this blog to plead the cases of
Zimmerman or Martin. Both are surrounded in controversy that warrants careful and
judicious consideration, but that is my point exactly. Our Founder’s understood, and in
fact the history of the nation has demonstrated, that for justice to prevail it
is best that a legal system restrain human emotion, not to be dictated by it.
This is no small thing. Mob violence was and is a very real concern, one that
needs to be prevented. There is no way for justice to be served unless it
is carried by the protective restraints of law and order.
Law and order require evidence and until the
legal system can do its job, the only noncontroversial facts in this case are
that Treyvon Martin was killed by a bullet from George Zimmerman’s gun and Zimmerman
has claimed self defense. Short of that, the evidence being present by the
Court of Media is tainted.
The public outcry is that Zimmerman was racist,
yet the most recent report indicates that the 911 record did not reveal racism.
Zimmerman’s history as a neighborhood watch didn’t reveal racism (he intervened
with Whites, Hispanics as well as Blacks, had black friends and black family
members). In addition, Treyvon was not an innocent boy as his posted pictures
indicate. He was a 6’2” football player kicked out of school for drug related
issues who left a series of tweets that reveal a not-so-innocent young man.
Does it matter whether George had black friends
or how big Treyvon was or that he liked to smoke pot? Maybe, maybe not, but at
this point no one knows-nor will they- until the police and the justice system
has had the opportunity to gather the facts.
Unfortunately, the media has lost no time in
creating a public opinion tsunami which does not serve justice. Media-consumers
need to recognize how dangerous this can be and take caution that their
sentiments are being developed through careful consideration of the facts,
which takes time and deliberation. It doesn’t appear that the Black Panthers
are going to be spoon feeding any such unbiased information. The public will
have to do that on its own.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/23/arrest-demand-grows-in-florida-teens-shooting-death/?test=latestnews
http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/03/race-card-hypocrisy-in-black-florida.html
http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/03/race-card-hypocrisy-in-black-florida.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)