Law and Liberty

Raise up a child

2009-08-20T08:17:00.001-07:00

It’s been awhile since I posted anything to the Blog. Summer was hectic (as usual) and now school is starting again. I am preparing for another opportunity to influence young (and not-so-young) minds. My objective is to equip this generation to be more productive, more wise, and more “significant” than it would otherwise be without the benefit of my age, experience, and insight. Does that sound egotistical? Perhaps, but I think it sounds “self-confident.”

One of the attributes that seems to follow a pattern of successes is that one grows into a state of heightened self-confidence. I submit that one of the chief duties of a parent is to create for their children, opportunities for success. Please note that I did NOT say, “give them success” but rather, “create opportunities” for the child to succeed. Even children realize the insincerity and shallowness of an award that is not earned.

Have you noticed that the more we “reward” children for just showing up and participating (sports, school, etc.) that the more children suffer from lack of “self-esteem” and “self-confidence”? Have you observed that the more children are given, the more unhappy and demanding they become? Perhaps you have seen the correlation between more “stuff” and more leisure time, and higher drug use, increased suicide rates among teens, and generally more destructive behavior? Do you think that it might be reasonable to examine whether this is mere correlation, or is it actually a “cause and effect”?

It’s not just me…the generation before me, and the generation before them, and, indeed, every generation that has believed and followed Biblical principles of child-rearing and social interactions has discovered that we (people) NEED discipline in life. Our children must be exposed to adversity and guided through the process of overcoming adversity, in order to live well-adjusted lives.

The chief responsibility of parents is the teaching and training of their children. Deut. 6:6,7; Prov. 22:6; 2 Cor. 12:14; Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; 1 Tim. 3:4,12; Tit. 2:4; Deut. 4:9; 31:13

You want your child to be mentally stable and psychologically normal. A child can be fully adjusted to circumstances whether they are pleasant or adverse. This requires learning to have a relaxed mental attitude which results from claiming the promises of Scripture, executing the commands, and learning doctrine.
Another goal is that your child have respect for authority, of all kinds: parental, political, spiritual. As a child observes his mother's submission to his father, or his father's submission to legal authority, he will have a very positive object lesson in proper response to authority. Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18. These relationship principles are NOT hard-wired in us at birth, but must be learned and practiced. This is the parent’s PRIMARY responsibility to the child, after meeting basic physical needs.
Every semester, I meet a new crop of college freshmen who have NOT received proper training. This year, more than any other, I have witnessed parents (almost always mothers) who come WITH their college student, to help them through the registration process. Here is a NEWS FLASH…if your 18 year-old student needs his mother’s help to register for college, YOU HAVE FAILED as a parent! No excuses! Part of the problem of America’s downward spiral is YOUR FAULT!
The older I get, the more I receive affirmation that MY parents (and others from my generation) were ON TARGET by teaching us responsibility at an early age. My own children have followed a path of success because they also learned responsibility. External discipline became internalized as we (and they) grew older. Self-esteem naturally follows accomplishment. Self-confidence is a natural consequence of winning an honest-to goodness, hard-fought battle. Deprive your children of that opportunity and you doom them to a selfish, unfulfilled life, marked by one poor choice after another.
This will undoubtedly anger many readers. That’s OK. I have absolute confidence that I am telling the truth, and that any objective analysis of the problem will lead to the inevitable conclusion that I (and countless others) have learned. My goal is tell the truth, NOT to make people feel good. The truth will set you free.
JAS

Escaping Adversity

2009-05-05T06:29:00.000-07:00

We (Americans) are a culture obsessed with comfort and convenience. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to make ourselves more comfortable. Before the advent of electricity and the appliances it powered, mankind had adapted to the hardships and inconveniences of “life”. We accepted the realities of our existence and took pleasure in simple things: what we made with our own hands and shared with others. Today, however, the “simple life” has been replaced by the frenzied pursuit of more comfort and more convenience. Our present “reality” is artificial- a distraction from the interactions from which we formerly derived our sense of purpose, joy, and fulfillment. Interestingly, the present generation has more comfort, less stress, more “things”, more time to pursue leisure activities and more information available that at any time in history, yet we have the highest number of suicides and numbers of people on anti-depressants.

Many of us are drawn towards the promise of “the simple life”. Retirement is sought after as the time in life when we can slow and “smell the roses” (although my retired friends say they work harder than ever). We pay big bucks to take “primitive” vacations where we camp in the woods, ride horses, take canoe trips, hike miles of nature trails, and in short, take ourselves out of our comfortable bubble, and place ourselves in a relationship with nature. For many of us, that is very soul-satisfying. I personally derive great satisfaction from laboring hard to create something useful from the sweat of my brow, so to speak. I agree with the admonitions of my forefathers who taught that hard work was not to be avoided, for built strength of character and self-discipline. Our Founders taught us that self-government was ONLY fitting for self-disciplined people.

My father was a minister. He often told the story of a man who was sitting on his porch one afternoon, witness a butterfly attempting to escape his cocoon and take flight. The butterfly would struggle awhile, make some headway, then appear to rest for a bit before trying once again. The man, feeling a bit sorry for the plight of the butterfly, took a razorblade and slit the cocoon so as to hasten the escape of the butterfly. The butterfly emerged from his former prison but was unable to fly away. Soon, an army of ants discovered the disabled butterfly and set upon it with violence. Unable to escape, the butterfly was killed and devoured by the hungry ants. The man learned an important lesson. You see, it is in the struggle to escape the cocoon that butterfly’s wings are strengthened. Fluid is forced into the tiny capillaries at the extremities of the wings by the exertion of the butterfly. Without the exertion, the ability to fly is never developed and the beautiful butterfly becomes easy prey for its natural enemies.

I maintain that one of the primary reasons for the dysfunction of our present generation is we have become slaves to convenience and comfort. Parents cannot say NO to their children’s requests (demands) and then they wring their hands when their children wreck the cars that they didn’t have to pay for, or waste their college opportunities, or won’t leave the home when they graduate from high school. It seems that people in general urge (demand) that government intervene to lighten their load when they experience failed expectations. We expect government solutions to problems created by our own poor choices. Abortion is one example of irresponsible people seeking an easy escape from the natural consequences of their bad choices. Public assistance to the poor has NOT created incentive for people to work harder. Rather, it creates disincentive for people to work at all.

If you think life has dealt you unfairly, take it up with God. Try to understand the Divine Purpose for the things that are going on in your life instead of looking to parents, government, or immoral behavior as the “solution” to your circumstantial dilemma. Romans 8:28 says, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” That means that IF we love God, and will accept that our lives are to be lived according to HIS purpose, then we may rest I absolute conviction that ALL THINGS work together for GOOD. If, however, we try to remove God from the equation, and attempt to remain in our “comfort zone”, then we have no excuse when the natural consequences of our actions bear fruit.

Friedrich Nietzsche (who said a lot of stuff I agree with, and a lot of stuff I do not) said, “What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.” Evangelist Billy Graham said, “Comfort and prosperity have never enriched the world as much as adversity has." Jeremiah Burroughs (Puritan Scholar, 1600-1646) wrote "You will not find one Godly man who came out of an affliction worse than when he went into it. Though for a little while he was shaken, yet, at last, he was better for an affliction. But, a great many Godly men have been worse for their prosperity."

SUMMARY
When I was in Basic Training with the U.S. Army, I was pushed to physical and emotional extremes that I had never previously experienced. Yet I knew that countless others had gone before me and I was experiencing nothing that had not been endured before. Besides, I also knew that combat would be the greatest challenge of my life, and I HAD to be as prepared for that as I could be if I wanted to survive. It is this framework that must define our approach to, and understanding of, adversity in our lives. Sin causes adversity and it intends to destroy us, but God uses that same adversity instead to make stronger, draw us to Himself, and perfect our Relationship with Him. Our avoidance of accountability, disdain for disruption, and pursuit of pleasure, weaken us and will destroy us as individuals, and as a nation. What was intended to become a beautiful butterfly will be eaten by the ants.

Dr. John Sterling

WAR AND SEX- will technology destroy us?

2009-05-01T12:52:00.000-07:00

Well…we are wrapping up another semester. This week I gave a presentation to a bunch of High School Seniors on the subject of Technology and The New World. The focus began with the incredible advances in technology for our warfighters and policemen and the potential (and probable) impact on our society. Let me share some of those highlights with you.

First, a search of YouTube will reveal a number of videos on the subject of new war-fighting technology (as of May 1, 2009). Several things may be noted. First, Soldiers will be SAFER because more of the fighting is done by machines. Second, machines are becoming ever more sophisticated, being able to adapt quickly to a changing battlefield environment. Third, The Research and Development of war-fighting machines stimulates R&D into other aspects of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Fourth, although a great deal of scientific exploration has emerged, and technology has surged forward, very little study is being done with respect to the social/cultural implications of these technological advances.

I discovered from my reading, while preparing for this presentation, that at least SOME researchers are questioning our ability (as humans) to control either our lust for new scientific develops, or our ability (inclination) to abuse or misuse our discoveries, to the detriment of all mankind. One researcher suggested that we have had, in the past as few wars as we have had, because war is a terrible thing. The human organism detests warfare and it marks our collective psyche in a way that makes us accept warfare as ONLY a last resort. With the dawning of the new age, where machines do more and more of our war-fighting, and the human element is further and further removed from the actual death and destruction, it is LIKELY that war will INCREASE. Apparently, we are “de-sensitized” sufficiently to order our machines to do our killing and this is a more “palatable” recourse for us. Additionally, as our enemies likewise develop more war-fighting technology (and likewise become even more desensitized to destruction), then we will end up with machine-killing machines (ala the Terminator series). Humans will become incidental casualties of war.

At least some psychologists and social scientists are concerned about the devolution of the human species as a result of this aspect of futuristic warfare (which is now not futuristic at all). War, after all, is a result of failed relationships at the national level. What happens when we humans experience failed relationships at the personal level? It seems we have a technological solution to that as well.

My perusal of the Internet (yes, I am an avid user of technology!) disclosed another interesting and disturbing trend: Love robots. Advances in robotics and AI have led to the development of androids (humanoid robots) that imitate human speech, facial expression, body language, and even sexual behavior. They flirt, tease, and even can engage in intercourse. Of course, for some years now, some researchers have combined electronics, fluid hydraulics, micro-ship circuitry, and/or synthetics to produce a variety of sex toys or other means of mechanical masturbation. I doubt that too many people have actually developed a sense of “love” towards a mechanical device that simulates a part of the human anatomy. However, an interesting thing seems to happened when, instead of merely a “part” of human anatomy, a “whole person” is created, with the ability to recognize, communicate, initiate intimacy, and is programmed to simulate “love”. The human being is, apparently, able to “love” their robot. In fact, you can now order online “the perfect woman” (don’t know how much she costs) and it will be only a very short time until advances will allow for a fake woman that will be virtually indistinguishable from “the real thing”.

Should we be concerned? What’s next- legal marriages between “man and machine”? Can’t the same argument be used as for same-sex “marriage”? After all, if a man truly LOVES his android, why shouldn’t he be able to secure the same protections for himself and his “mate” as “any other normal person”? Why should narrow-minded right-wing bigots force THEIR old-fashioned values on him/her? What if he/she is “genetically pre-disposed” to love a robot? Or, what if some early childhood development event created a kind of social/sexual dysfunction that precludes this individual from enjoying a healthy sexual relationship with a real person? Why shouldn’t technology be used to “adjust” that person’s dysfunction or “re-align” that person’s identity? That is the same phraseology used to justify Sex-Change operations (called Sex Re-Alignment Surgery, or SRS).

I hope the reader notes that I say this “tongue-in cheek”. I will never consider that such thinking is rational nor healthy nor in any way conducive to a healthier society. It is, in my humble estimation, the height of self-deception. Such scenarios as I have suggested are quite possible, technologically speaking, and quite probable, given the near-total rejection of God in our society. I understand that God created us in a perfect state, but that we CHOSE SIN and thus introduced imperfection. We have since been attempting to achieve “perfection” WITHOUT GOD by refusing to yield to HIM and going our own way instead.

When we try to perfect our lives by science and technology, without regard to the PERSON of God, the WORD of God, or the WILL of God, we are doomed to life of deception, dysfunction, and despair. When we try to SUBSTITUTE the PLAN of God with our own plan, and attempt to thwart the PURPOSE of God with our own pursuits, we condemn ourselves to Hell in the here and now, and Hell in the hereafter.

I am not anti-science nor do I claim that all technology is bad. I AM, however convinced that the human race is too spiritually immature to be able to manage or control the mental abilities with which we have been blessed. Thus, I believe that the literal fulfillment of Biblical prophecy concerning the end times is near. Very near! It is not technology that will destroy us, for that is merely a tool in our hands. Rather, it is our sinful nature, and our willful disregard for the God who created us, and loves us and desires nothing more than to have relationship with us. We have not only REJECTED the love of God, we have chosen to replace HIM with a man-made machine! I would never have believed we could be reduced to such stupidity had I not been alive to witness it with my own eyes!

Look to the hills for your redemption draweth nigh.

John Sterling

Discussing the Bible (and everything else)

2009-05-01T09:39:00.000-07:00

It is not uncommon for me to be involved with discussion groups where the subject turns to matters of religion and faith. The old adage that religion and politics are subjects to be avoided in polite company is often true, NOT because these topics are unimportant, but because people have difficulty discussing without allowing their passions to seize control. It is precisely BECAUSE these topics are so important that we must learn to discuss them intelligently, and openly, and with appropriate passion, BUT NOT to permit emotions to control the dialogue.
I have developed some “rules” to govern how this process should unfold.

As a college professor with a law background, I tend to "get down in the weeds" and force my students to critically analyze a subject. That means compelling them to explore other perspectives than the one they brought to the table initially. I urge them to support their findings with evidence. The subjects that I teach are those which usually ignite the highest levels of emotional energy: religion, politics, and patriotism. It is important for the students to learn very early in the semester that we are going to talk about these things, and that there is a way to do it and remain civil. So... on the first day of our class I teach the difference between an "opinion" ( a strongly-held belief that does not have empirical support) and a "conclusion" ( a well-reasoned result of analysis of fact, supported by evidence). Evidence must be (1) credible, (2) relevant, and (3) sufficiently "weighty" to have a bearing on the matter at hand. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, it is unreasonable to expect that “mere opinion” can or should be considered persuasive in a discussion of any topic. In other words, it is totally unreasonable for me to get angry because you do not accept my opinion of something, no matter how strongly I believe in the truth of my assertion. Strong belief, by itself, is simply not compelling.

We (Americans, Conservatives, Christians- the audience to which I am writing) need to become better skilled at the use of reason. We SHOULD be passionate in our beliefs, but it is not our passion, or at least not our passion alone, which should be persuasive when we discuss the very important issues of faith and patriotism.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT AGE ( a little history)
The period of history now referred to as “the enlightenment” spans roughly two hundred years, beginning in about 1600 and terminating with the French Revolution in 1789. It is less a movement, than a series of movements- uncoordinated but moving in generally the same direction. The very notion of “enlightenment” comes from the philosophers and academics of the time inasmuch as this is the view they held of themselves. Generally, the prominent men (and women) of the age determined to educate themselves in the use of reason, and rely less on the dogma of then existing institutions, be they ecclesiastical or secular. Philosophers and academics of the enlightenment era can be grouped, more or less, by time and geography; English Europeans were decidedly more “religious” than French Europeans, and scholars of the 17th century were more “religious” than those who came later. By “religious”, I mean that they believed that proper use of reason would lead one to understand the character and nature of God. Reason was not seen as a “challenge” to the authority of the church. Later “Enlightenment” thinkers tended towards “reasoning God right out of the equation”, believing that Science and reason would render moot any discussion of Ultimate Authority.

Because our Founding fathers were all products of the “The Enlightenment” (Early English European variety), this has greatly influenced the way we view religion in this country. Americans typically have not viewed education (and reason) as antithetical to Christianity and religion. Only recently have some been persuaded that the pursuit of scientific discovery and intellectual “reason” should only be entertained if God is eliminated from the analysis (more like later French European Enlightenment thinkers).

When I discuss matters of faith, particularly with the "faithful", I notice a disturbing lack of ability with regard to critical thinking. There seems to be a pervasive misunderstanding that “faith” somehow is the opposite of “reason” or that “scientific” analysis trumps other forms of evidence.

SCIENCE as EVIDENCE

Scientific methodology requires, at a minimum, the following: the investigation (test) must be (1) observable, and (2) repeatable, and (3) able to control the variables in order to achieve a quantifiable (and predictable) outcome. Scientific evidence of one form of acceptable evidence. Another form of acceptable evidence is LEGAL evidence. There is a troubling trend around the world that places an artificial weight on “scientific” evidence. This is known in our own criminal system as “the CSI Effect”, in which decisions in criminal cases can ONLY be made when there exists solid, incontrovertible, laboratory proof (such as DNA). There has been an increase in cases where, although LEGAL evidence was sufficient, the absence of “Scientific” evidence (such as we see every week on programs like CSI) resulted in acquittal.

There is nothing wrong with science, as long as we realize that, although a powerful tool, it is also a limited tool. Because of the limitations of scientific methodology, there are truths that cannot be “scientifically proven” because either (1) it is not repeatable, or (2) it is not observable, or (3) the variables cannot be controlled to achieve a quantifiable outcome.

LEGAL EVIDENCE
There are at least three legal standards used to determine whether the burden of proof has been met. The one with which most people are familiar through television or movies is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is a very high standard used in criminal cases. The prosecution, seeking a criminal conviction, must prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The intermediate standard is the "clear and convincing" standard used in quasi-criminal proceedings. In such cases the government must prove that a person is liable or guilty by a standard slightly lower than that of "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is a higher standard than the "preponderance" standard required in most administrative matters.

The preponderance standard is the lowest legal standard used in civil or administrative matters. The preponderance standard is essentially "more likely than not" or "probably true" or a greater than fifty percent chance.

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE BIBLE

Many truths in the Bible are asserted. By FAITH, the Christian understands that it is GOD who is making the assertion, albeit through an intermediary such as Moses or Paul. The TRUTH of the assertion is WITNESSED by the HOLY SPIRIT in our heart(s)s (individually, and collectively, as a congregation) In American Jurisprudence, we do not convict for capital crimes without two or more witnesses, a principle found in Old Testament (Hebrew) Law (see Deut. 19:15-19). The New Testament affirms this same principle. Jesus himself used it in Matthew 18:15-20, where he instructed the disciples on how to settle a dispute in the church. The unrepentant sinning brother must be confronted with witnesses so that the judgment against him is assured to be just: "so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (v. 16). One of the vital ministries of the Holy Spirit is to guide us (believers) into all truth (Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before. This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; Hebrews 10:15-16)

When discussing the Bible, it is important that people be able to distinguish between “mere opinion” and “reasoned conclusion”. Note that I have never said that “mere opinion” was not true; but it never forms the basis of an argument, even IF true. (For purposes of this article, and ARGUMENT is defined as, “A reason or reasons offered in proof, to induce belief, or convince the mind; reasoning expressed in words; as, an argument about, concerning, or regarding a proposition, for or in favor of it, or against it.” Therefore, an argument is evidence, NOT an emotional or a heated discussion. If the dialogue becomes heated, it is pretty clear evidence that reason has flown (or is about to fly) the coop.

WHY “ARGUE” ABOUT THE BIBLE
There are at least three conditions when we SHOULD engage others in dialogue concerning scripture and doctrine. First, it is important, for the Christian, to be able to reason with unbelievers, in order to lead them into salvation. NEVER are we to do this in an arrogant, abrasive way. (But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…1 Pe 3;15, NIV) Sometimes, we must be bold and even defy the attempts to restrain our speech but it is still done in a civil, polite manner (Acts ch 4). We are NOT permitted to judge a person’s heart in this circumstance (Mt 7:1) but that does NOT mean that we are NEVER to judge other people. (see below)
Second, when we are confronted with people who seem to have already made up their minds AGAINST Jesus, or AGAINST the Bible, then almost always our response is going to include terminating our discussion, and probably even taking leave of their company. (Mt 10; 2 Ti 2:16; Titus 3:9) Let’s face it, you cannot “reason” with someone who is “unreasonable”. The inability to engage in meaningful dialogue, even on sensitive subjects, renders a person “unreasonable” in the sense I am using that term herein. Perhaps that is a temporary condition, due to an extreme emotional state, or perhaps it is a condition that simply represents an aspect of a person’s character. My mother used to say (jokingly, sort of) “My mind’s made up- don’t clutter it up with facts!) In any case, if a person has “made up their mind” about something, then move on and talk about the weather or your favorite sports team. There is NOTHING positive to be gained by trying force-feed a recalcitrant child. (you can lead a horse to water…..(NOTE* sometimes the Spirit of God may lead a Christian to boldly proclaim the TRUTH of Christ when the outcome will almost certainly be unpleasant- rejection, or even death. Read Acts Chapter 7)
In between the two extremes, we have a third opportunity (or mandate) to discuss scripture/doctrine. Sometimes we must confront a brother who is in serious doctrinal error (Gal 2:11-15; Gal 6:1; ). There will come a time when a brother in Christ will not hearken unto God and he/she MUST be confronted with the truth of scripture. (1 Pe 4:17) IF they will heed the admonition of the WORD of God, then there WILL come a judgment of the church! (Mt 18:15-19)
So what is worth really digging our heels into? What doctrine(s) of Christianity must we insist remain pure and NOT subject to individual interpretation? The list is very small, and God gives a great deal of latitude to the local church to set certain standards. (see Acts 11 and Acts 15) Beyond the basic Doctrine of Salvation, our form of worship, and ceremonialism, seems largely left up to the believers.

SUMMARY
It is good to discuss the WORD of God. It is prudent to grapple with sticky issues of our social/economic/political world and attempt to organize our relationships with regard to the doctrines of our Christian Faith. It is quite likely that we can interact civilly with people whose faith is different than our own, when we are in harmony with respect to our social/economic/political environment. It is not necessary to remove discussions of faith and religion from the marketplace of ideas and, indeed, it is desirable NOT to try to remove those aspects of our social interactions. HOWEVER, Christians must always remember that it is God’s Holy Spirit that guides men into truth, and NOT our clever, impassioned, or even well-reasoned arguments. We must be always mindful of WHAT is important to discuss, and WITH WHOM. I suggest that EVERY time we sense an opportunity to discuss our faith, our Lord, our Scripture, or our beliefs, that we FIRST, prayerfully, consider whether (or IF) the Holy Spirit is involved. Then, we must DISCERN (a spiritual condition) the “receptivity” of the listener and adjust our delivery accordingly. Failure to understand this will almost certainly result in damaged relationships and will REDUCE the effectiveness of our ministry.
In Christ,
JOHN STERLING

Technology, Terrorism, and Tyranny

2009-04-22T14:48:00.000-07:00

NOTE* Excerpted from the article by the same title first published in 1999 by the author on the Law and Liberty Foundation Web Site. Footnotes copied from original document.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND TYRANNY

Within the philosophical framework of western jurisprudence, preservation of individual human rights of the citizens is the very reason for the existence of government. The rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, privacy, and travel were considered by the founding fathers to be " inalienable" rights endowed by Almighty God. As such, these rights were beyond the reach of the state unless the holder of the right (the citizen himself) should commit an act tantamount to forfeiture. Chief among these rights is the inalienable right to personal liberty. "Next to personal security, the law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one' s person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law." [26] Influenced, as they were, by Blackstone and others, the founders erected a criminal process by which every citizen could claim a protection against the host of evils which might inflicted against them by an over-zealous prosecutor. They recognized the principle that once liberty is abridged, other individual liberties would shortly and inevitably be under attack as well. "Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper, (as in France it is daily practiced by the crown) there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities." [27]

Given this historical foundation of western jurisprudence, government is, and should be, wary of doing injury to the Constitution, no matter how great may be the threat of terrorism. It will almost certainly be more injurious to the long-term health of our Republic if the Constitution is abrogated for the sake of a temporary disturbance. A prudent man will never suffer a cure which is worse than the disease it purports to remedy.

The government, predictably, advocates for virtually unlimited discretion in applying new technology to its ongoing drug/terrorism fight. Although professing a high regard for the Bill of Rights, the government (both legislative and executive branch) has been only too willing to suspend the Constitutional protections if there exists sufficiently compelling national interests. Of course, the national interest is always sufficiently compelling in their view. While giving some ground in favor law enforcement, the courts have shown an inclination to protect privacy from the increasing spate of new technologies. They split on the use of the heat-detecting Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR), with several federal circuit court’s ruling that FLIR does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the energy that is released and detected is waste heat. The most recent decision in the 10th Circuit, however, questions the legality of using both FLIR and other new surveillance technologies. In a marijuana growing case in which it threw out evidence obtained through thermal images of a house, the Court noted that "the Defendants need not have anticipated and guarded against every investigative tool in the government's arsenal. To hold otherwise would leave the privacy of the home at the mercy of the government's ability to exploit technological advances: the government could always argue that an individual's failure (or inability) to ward off the incursions of the latest scientific innovation forfeits the protection of the Fourth Amendment. ... [T]he government would allow the privacy of the home to hinge upon the outcome of a technological race of measure/counter-measure between the average citizen and the government a race, we expect, that the people will surely lose." [28] It is, after all, the people whose rights the government is instituted to protect if we are to believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Thankfully, most of our jurisprudence still reflects that ancient notion. Justice Wm Brennan, writing a dissenting opinion in U.S. v. White, had this to say about the public policy implications of an unrestrained police surveillance power:
When a government degrades its citizens, or permits them to degrade each other, however beneficent the specific purpose, it limits opportunities for individual fulfillment and national accomplishment. If America permits fear and its failure to make basic social reforms to excuse police use of secret electronic surveillance, the price will be dear indeed. The practice is incompatible with a free society. [29]

In the case against Plamondon in 1972, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court in holding that a bombing suspect, charged with destruction of federal property, had been denied his right to protection against unwarranted search when his phone conversations were tapped without judicial authorization. Justice Powell writing for the majority, responded to the government's claim that only the executive branch of the federal government could adequately determine what was in the national best interest. Powell articulated the dangers of allowing the government to be the sole judge of the necessity of employing high-tech surveillance against its citizens:
History abundantly documents the tendency of Government--however benevolent and benign its motives--to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the President's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. In this case we hold that this requires an appropriate prior warrant procedure. [30]

CONCLUSION
Nearly every president since FDR has sought to increase the s cope of the executive authority, some with more success than others. No president since FDR has been as zealous in securing expanded power for the presidency as has William Jefferson Clinton. While entire volumes could be written about the excesses of Constitutional torture indulged in by the current sitting president of the United States, it is sufficient here to say only that America is at critical jurisprudential juncture. What is needed desperately in our leaders (all three branches of government) is a profound sense of commitment to principles; those historic principles of right and wrong which animated our nation during its formative years. Unless, and until, our president, our legislators, and our judges understand and embrace the notion that the liberty of the nation is tied directly to the liberty of the people; and unless the people wake up and take their rightful place at the helm of the great ship of state, we will continue our tumble towards tyranny.

JASTERLING

Footnotes
[26] Sir Wm. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England, Book One, Chapter One, Oxford: Clarendon Press, MDCCLXV, Reprinted 1966, The Layton Press, Buntingford England, for Oceana Publications, NY, pg. 130.
[27] Id. pg 131
[28] David Banisar of Privacy International at http://www.worldmedia.com/caq/articles/brother.html
[29] Justice Brennan, dissenting in U.S. v. White, 91 S. Ct. 1122 (1971) quoting R. Clark, Crime in America (1970) pg. 287
[30] Justice Powell, writing the majority opinion in U.S. v. Plamondon, 92 S. Ct. 2125, (1972)

Principles of Law-Part II

2009-04-22T14:14:00.000-07:00

Continuation of Concepts of Justice
Copyright, 1999, John Sterling

Sir William Blackstone was a legal scholar during this period (mid-to-late 1700’s) whose Commentaries on the Law of England became the guiding influence on English (and American) Law for three hundred years. He developed and articulated many legal principles which are Biblical in origin and anyone familiar with the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution will recognize the principles advanced by Blackstone. Among those principles are the theories on Civil duties . Every citizen who wishes to share in the benefits of social order, for example, must share in the responsibilities required of such order. In other words, there can be no liberty without responsibility. Another Blackstone principle is that civil government only has authority in matters of peoples’ relationships with each other. It has no authority to regulate or govern matters of man and God. Although the concept has been twisted completely around today, "separation of church and state" meant that government should stay out of religion. (religion, as understood by most of the founders, was some variation of Christianity although, to some, might include the five major world religions of the world at that time).

Blackstone advances the theory that if conduct does not violate God’s law or hurt your neighbor, it cannot be made illegal by the civil authority. Writing in 1765 (eleven years before Adam Smith wrote on economic theory) Blackstone pointed out that restraint of individual right should be easily recognized by all those who are being asked to give up a right for the "necessary" needs of the state. Today, it seems that the public is less aware of just how much individual liberty they have been asked to sacrifice for the general welfare.

Recently, certain "authorities" have maligned Blackstone for contradicting himself in his Commentaries. They fail to understand that Blackstone functioned as subject of a King who took a dim view of people who disagreed with him. One must be delicate in such situations. Blackstone sets up the theory of law at the beginning of his four volume Commentaries, then issues his personal commentary on the application of the actual laws in place in England at the time. It is shallow and improper to assume that Blackstone concurs with the principles OR the applications of the English law, where it contradicted his theories. Jeremy Bentham, who died in 1832, was an aggressive voice for legal reform in England. An atheist, he was profoundly influenced by Darwinism and the "enlightenment" which denied God and elevated human reason. Bentham (the atheist) and Blackstone (the Theist) were contemporaries in England who were at philosophical odds and modern legal theorists can generally trace the roots of their theories to one of those two men and their respective world-views.

The list below is a partial list of the principles of criminal justice which became part of the written law during this period.1. Justice is proportionate to our actions,2. Justice is retributive, 3. Justice is vindicatory, (provides sanction against the offender)4. Justice is compensatory (restores to the victim),5. Judgment under the law is declaratory (declares what is right).6. Judgment under the law is remedial (corrects what is wrong),7. Judgment under the law is directive (directs behavior),8. Burden of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" equates to moral certainty.9. Inalienable right to property. Citizens cannot be forced to give up rights to property unless they are found guilty of a crime which amounts to forfeiture.10. Citizens cannot be treated like criminals unless they have been tried and convicted as criminals.
Other principles which emerged during this period are pertinent to development of our three branches of government as they constrain them all equally. These include:1. No human law or justice can preempt "natural (or God’s) law"2. Absolute rights are God given3. God has placed on every civil authority the responsibility to insure that absolute rights are not infringed. 4. Upon citizens, the government is additionally charged with protection of citizenship (relative) rights.

COLONIAL AMERICA
The Colonial period in America saw changes to the English Common Law which reflected the cultural and social differences that were developing in the new nation. In many ways the law in America became more complex, reflecting the influence of "enlightenment" philosophy and, at the same time, reacting to the concentration of power in the hands of the leaders. Conflicting ideologies and shifting demographics resulted in a natural state of checks and balances in the criminal justice system. The power of the jury to decide both "the facts and the law" acted as an informal reform of the system without the cumbersome legislative process. (for more information on the subject of jury nullification, see JURY NULLIFICATION: The Top Secret Constitutional Right , by Regent University Professor James Duane.) When this produced inconsistent and often contradictory results, the "rules of evidence" were strengthened. The power of the judge was balanced against the power of the jury; the citizen against the state; the state against the federal government.

At times, when the checks and balances were perceived to be excessive and the citizens believed that justice was being denied, vigilantes and lynch mobs sought justice through extra-legal means. Interestingly (perhaps frighteningly), vigilante justice was often met initially with widespread public acceptance which reflected the huge dissatisfaction with the system. But, as vigilantes exercised more power, they became corrupted by their successes and they quickly lost public support. Vigilante justice is a case where the "cure" is often worse than the disease!
At the foundation of all of this conflict within the system is the "concept of justice" which was rooted in the Bible and was the philosophical core our social order. Knowledge is power but too little is a dangerous deficiency and too much can be used as tool of tyranny. "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children." Hosea 4:6

MODERN THEORY
As criminal law developed in the 20th century, American Jurisprudence moved further and further away from common law principle that a crime consisted of two elements, a guilty deed [ Actus Rea ]plus a guilty mind [Mens Rea]. The requirement of an act is one that is evidence of a choice being made and choice, of course, brings into question the state of mind (drug induced, emotion induced, medical/psychological aspects). In an effort to make the criminal justice system more uniform and predictable, judges and legal theorists sought to marginalize the element of "intent". They sought to blur the lines between criminal law and civil law by minimizing, or eliminating altogether, the requirement of mens rea.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. sat on the United States Supreme Court in the 1800’s and was largely influential in bringing to the court a distinctively "Darwinian Positivistic" legal philosophy. Holmes argued in favor of utilitarian "strict liability" conformity to rule of law which does not require criminal intent. It is sufficient to prove merely that an act was committed which is in violation of the law (Mala Prohibita) and the punishment is established with regard to its deterrent effect on others.

If the intent is to create "order" in society at the expense of "liberty", then this theory is what the doctor ordered. By eliminating the burden of proof on the prosecution to produce evidence of "intent" to do harm, the government is free to create a third "classification" of law under which they can impose "sanctions" on the accused. Sanctions are not "punishment" (which is one of the ways of distinguishing criminal conduct) therefore resulting in greater social control by bending, without breaking, the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights. Holmes’ philosophy, coupled with Bentham’s theory of sanctions, set us back 700 years in legal theory.

Conflicting and competing philosophies of Positivism vs. Common Law , cause a see-sawing back and forth in Legal opinion. No unified theories of crime and punishment seem to be held among judges or congressmen or presidents. For a government to maintain social order without becoming tyrannical there must be a cohesive, consistent, historically validated foundation. It is vital for the future of the United States that there be a return to the founding principles of law and government. Failure to anchor jurisprudence firmly in the rock-bottom of historical principles will allow the great ship of state to drift too far towards the rocky shoals of liberalism, making it impossible to avoid the ruination of Rome.

There is a place for deterrence, for retribution, for rehabilitation, and for incarceration all blended into one system. If such a criminal justice policy were based upon justice and fairness (as revealed in the Bible) it would not be a problem to balance these various aspects (or tools) of administering justice.
END of Part II

JASTERLING

Principles of Law- Part I

2009-04-22T14:11:00.000-07:00

Note* Originally published in 1999 on the Law and Liberty Website, somewhat abbreviated here and presented in two parts. This is an overview of the historical principles of law that have formed the very foundations of American Jurispurdence. We would do well to refresh our understanding of these principles.

Concepts of Justice-Past and Present

PART I
The history of crime begins in the first book of the Bible which dates back at least seven thousand years. Whether the Genesis account of Cain and Able is accepted as historical fact or allegory, the principle of retributive justice is as old as recorded history. In Exodus 21: 24, the oft misquoted "Eye for an eye" verse, when read in context is a statement of the modern "rule of proportionality" standard used on our courts today. That is, the pay-back (penalty) is proportionate to the harm actually caused. This is a legal principle in Biblical, Rabbinical and Common Law. It has nearly always been understood (until fairly recently when scarcely anybody is a bible scholar) that this verse was not a literal eye but representative of the "worth" of an eye. In other words, the context of Exodus 21 is "value for value" (lost wages, use, ability, etc.)
In Deuteronomy 17:6 the modern principle of "two or more witnesses" is found. This is a requirement that direct testimony, corroborated by other direct testimony, be the standard of admissible evidence in capital cases. Besides setting a standard for capital punishment, this verse and the following verses (8-13) acknowledge that there will be hard questions of law which should be decided at the appellate level (in this historical context, the clergy). When principles of justice seem to be in conflict with the law, it is given to the wisest and best educated to discern and judge the law. For example, when verse 8 speaks of , "between blood and blood" , it means that a distinction needs to be made between "degree of culpability" in cases of murder and homicide. The ancient principle of common law appeals is also found in these verses. Finally, in order that the people may know of these distinctions and intricacies of the law, the appeals judges are charged with teaching the public concerning the law (Deut 17:9-10). It is a system that has worked, in one form or another, for at least 7,000 years.
While principles of retributive justice have been emphasized, the deterrence principle is not neglected. In Deuteronomy 17:12-13 , the death penalty is pronounced on men who refuse to obey the edicts of the court. The principle herein articulated is that legitimate government, being conducted in accordance with the principles of God, is a sacred trust and that the conditions of continued blessing for nation depend on the observance of God’s law. Thus, to keep people from destroying good government (by holding in contempt the law of the land), the death penalty is imposed on those who act "presumptuously" with regard to established law. Lest this be dismissed as harsh and barbaric, it is important to keep in mind that there were very few laws of this magnitude, the rest being subject to lesser sanctions (remember, the law of proportionality).
When the ONLY principle of punishment applied is deterrence, however, the system becomes dangerous and destructive. Deterrence alone breeds a "zero-tolerance" atmosphere where "the letter of the law" is paramount and "the spirit of the law" is suffocated.
NEW COVENANT
The New Covenant, written nearly two thousand years ago, reflects a continuation of the Old Covenant legal principles. The distinction, however, (which is completely lost on many modern-day "theologians") is that the same principles of law which were external before, are internalized through the Spirit of Christ. I Tim 1:7-9 reveals that not only were there people (then, as now) who wished to teach the law but who were ignorant of the principles upon which the law was founded. Further, they delighted in arguing the minutiae while ignoring the broader truth (sounds vaguely familiar). Verse 8 affirms that the purpose of the law is good when it is used lawfully (in accordance with the principles). Verse 9 explains that purpose for the "external" law is to keep rebellious people in check and is completely unnecessary for a "righteous" man.
Having a judiciary which misuses the law in order to achieve personal/ political ends is not just a modern day phenomenon. History abundantly records acts of malfeasance in every culture. It is especially troubling when the judiciary is also the clergy. In Acts 3:1 through 4: 20, a kind deed which harmed no one, the healing of a lame man at the temple steps, results in the arrest of Peter and John for "breaking the law." The principle here is that acts of kindness, charity, and good works, should not be unlawful even they are politically incorrect. Indeed, they cannot be unlawful according to scripture. In the apostle Paul’s second letter to the Corinthian Church, he speaks a word in defense of his gospel team. In the course of his long journeys and his ministry in those churches, he says (II Cor 7:2) "...We have wronged no man, we have corrupted (spoiled) no man, we have defrauded (fooled) no man." The inward "spirit" of Christ manifested itself externally by the keeping of the "letter" of the law.
ENGLISH COMMON LAW
Mens Rea began to be used after the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 during the Gregorian Reform. In the 1230’s, Bracton ( law clerk for Judge Raleigh) reached back to Augustine and wrote material that was influential for the next 550 years of jurisprudence. Bracton was influenced by the Roman notion of culpa (fault) and Catholic church’s emphasis on moral guilt. These legal principles were not new ideas, but were resurrected as a result of theological reforms within the Catholic church. These principles were prevalent during the development of English Common Law and, subsequently, during American Colonial law period. In this historical period, judgments from the court began to reflect the two component parts of a criminal violation, "Actus Reas" (guilty act) plus "Mens Rea " (guilty mind).
When public policy is shaped by people with a Christian world-view, the presupposition is that man is sinful (rebellious against the authority of God) and therefore in need of external constraint. The establishment of civil authority is, first, an acknowledgment of that "natural inclination", and second, a covenant among men to submit to a common judge in order to bring social order and protect their property. Such a covenant, or contract, is binding on all parties and is sworn before God as affirmation of the Divine Judgment if either party should break the covenant. This is the reason for "oaths of office" which we still practice even though many who give their solemn word have no intention of submitting to the burden of their office.

JASTERLING

Rule of Law

2009-04-21T11:47:00.000-07:00

I have an entire lecture on this and I may make it available for those who want to read further but for now, let me explain what "The Rule of Law" means.

The LAW is a result of a deliberative process by an authorized body. Because that body is authorized by "The People" through a democratic (participatory) process which grants authority to REPRESENTATIVES (that is what is meant by a "Republican" form of government, guaranteed by our Constitution), the LAW is PRESUMPTIVELY a reflection of , and a codification of our morals. The LAW either prohibits, or requires, certain behavior that is consistent with those morals. (See my earlier post about morals being derived from historic Christianity). The LAW is presumptively valid. That means that we can PRESUME that the law is good (moral), unless there is evidence to the contrary. Behavior (in our Constitutional Republic) is regulated through DUE PROCESS, which consists of investigation, apprehension, judgment (trial by bench or jury) and retribution (punishment, etc.). The LAW is divided into two categories: Civil law, and Criminal law. Criminal law is further divided into two categories, Mala en Se (something that is intrinsically evil, and therefore prohibited) and Mala Prohibita (something it is prohibited because it is deemed undesirable- NOT because it is inherently evil. i.e jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, etc.). The law is uniform, fair, and KNOWN (we are all given NOTICE of the law)

The Rule of Law requires that EVERYBODY be subject to the law, regardless of estate (social position). Elected officers, even judges, are BOUND by their oath of office to comply with the law. Failure to comply is breach of a public trust and public duty, and is impeachable. It is the DUTY of elected officials to police each other in order to protect the system. (how's THAT working for us?)

OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT

The Rule of Law is at the heart of our system of self-governance. Ours is a Federal, Constitutional, Democratic, Republican form of government. IT IS NOT a "democracy" however democratic process allow for a degree of self-governance. Our government is "federal" in the sense that there is a "head" or central governmental function that has some control over the subordinate parts. HOWEVER, all of the parts of government, including ESPECIALLY the federal head, are SUBJECT to the constitution. That means, we, the people (the source of authority for the government), are ALSO SUBJECT to the constraints of the constitution! We are not FREE to demand of government ANYTHING that is not granted TO the government expressly by our written constitution, or implied by the express language therein. Likewise, the elected officials that carry out the duties of their offices, are constrained in the same way. We are ALL SUBJECT to the RULE OF LAW and the United States Constitution IS the SUPREME law of the land!

When any of us, elected officials or ordinary citizens do not know (or else we DO KNOW, but DISREGARD) the Rule of Law, we become a nation of lawbreakers. Then, the "law" becomes whatever the government SAYS it is, and TRYANNY becomes the rule of the day!

John A. Sterling

Self-discipline required for self-government

2009-04-21T11:36:00.000-07:00

Note* This post is a composite of several responses made to students when we were discussing the influence of Christianity on our system of law and government. There was a great deal of confusion at first because students were using ambiguous terms and were not carefully analyzing the sources they were using!

God and Government

It is not always an easy thing to communicate effectively with someone. Words are symbols of ideas..an attempt to make concrete something that is abstract. First... "there is a lot of misinformation and half-truths." Most communication takes place for a PURPOSE, that is, the speaker (or writer, or movie producer) has AN AGENDA. The PURPOSE of communication is to move an idea forward. When the subject is as sensitive as religious faith, or political influence, or some other deeply held belief, then the field of speakers and writers becomes quite crowded and very noisy. I am one of those people who communicates with a purpose: that is, I speak (or write) in order to MOVE an idea forward. Listening to (or carefully reading) a message from another is also moving an idea forward.

Second...the CONTENT of the communication may contain error, either by design, or by ignorance, or through carelessness. In this day of instant information via media (including Internet), it is HARDER (not easier) to get accurate information. There is a plethora of "information" that is more conjecture than fact. It is very important that we exercise due diligence as we process new information.

Third... there are different kinds of TRUTH. There is OBJECTIVE truth (which is generally held to be true because sufficient experience/research/study has gone into the matter that most people are persuaded without further evidence) and there is SUBJECTIVE truth (which is "subject" to the filtering process of one's own personal experience, or perceptions.) These two terms are NOT mutually exclusive...that is, one MAY exist with the other. In other words, some "truth" may be a mix of objective and subjective reality. ALSO, truth itself is used differently in context. There is TRUE (as in morally right), and there is TRUE (as in factually correct), and there is TRUE (as in "original") etc.. You see, the word "true", without context, is ambiguous (having more than one possible meaning).

Concerning legal and social issues, there are many sources of beliefs, among the most prominent, religion. People draw upon their religion (or religious upbringing) to frame their values and expectations in their social relationships. In another article, I address the question of whether America is a “Christian” nation. Although many people claim to be “Christian” they are really describing a moral system that governs, at least to some extent, their conduct and their social interaction. This group of “Christians” is NOT describing a relationship with Jesus Christ in which they regularly and materially participate. There are probably millions of people for whom religion is merely a social framework within which they interpret behavior and regulate social relationships. There is nothing "spiritual" about their experience! Jesus taught AGAINST this kind of religion! Religion (and religious experience) is both objective AND subjective. There are people who claim to be "Christian" but who lack faith, and have no RELATIONSHIP with Christ. These people have transformed a faith into a fraud. These people are "religious", but NOT Christian, even though they go to traditional "worship" services and perform ritualistic "Christian" acts like pray before mealtime, pay tithe to the their church, and even do good works. You see, the Taliban is a very "religious" group. The Muslim Extremists that threaten us are deeply "religious" people.

Christianity is NOT a religion...it is a RELATIONSHIP. You cannot be a Christian by "belonging" to a Christian church. The people who try to ram their religion down your throat are, probably, not secure in their relationship (if they even HAVE a relationship with Christ. Those who have never HAD the experience are in no position to deny the validity of that experience for those of us who HAVE. You will notice that, very often, it is people that have not even an inkling of spiritual experience who are the loudest protestors against it. (That is a case of subjective reality or truth, trying to suppress objective reality or truth.)

Atheists are people who hold a belief that there IS NO GOD. A person who is not yet decided, and holds forth the possibility that God may, or may not exist, is properly labeled AGNOSTIC. An Agnostic is, by definition, a searcher. As to being "anti-religious", JESUS was definitely "anti-religious". He spoke out repeatedly against the Sadducees (theological liberals), and the Pharisees theological conservatives) of His day.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Because religion is at the very heart of the conflict in which we are currently embroiled. The Muslim Extremists are devoutly "religious" and they very much believe in the idea that religion is necessary for the control of people (Just like the Pharisees of Jesus' day). Anti-Christians HATE Christianity because it teaches the AUTONOMY of man. If a man (or woman) is under the control of Christ, he will not be controlled by other men. Christianity teaches that women are spiritually equal to men (this idea REALLY rankles the Muslims.) Christianity teaches that men are FREE to choose between good and evil. THAT is an idea that is not popular with "control-freaks" (like the Taliban, and many in our own government). Christianity teaches INTERNAL control (SELF-Discipline) which leads us to a form of government that possess and exerts minimal external control. John Adams once said, “Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind.” When we grant ever more power to our government in order to control our behavior, we are acknowledging that we are no longer a “moral and religious people”. Self-government can ONLY work with a self-disciplined people, and apart from the internal direction and discipline that comes from our faith, we Americans are incapable of self-governance. If we allow the destruction of our historic principles, rooted in our historic Christian faith, we are deserving of the tyranny of big, controlling, intrusive, government.

John A. Sterling

Flag Desecration and Free Speech

2009-04-21T09:39:00.000-07:00

NOTE* The inspiration for what follows was a series of pictures taken at Montibello High School in California on March 27th, 2006. The photos depict a group of students (apparently mostly Hispanic or Latino) who removed the American flag and then replaced it, upside down, with the Mexican flag flying ABOVE the inverted U.S. flag. I posted these photos and asked students to answer these questions: Free Speech...When does it become a threat? Is this particular form of "speech protected (or SHOULD it be protected) and do you think that this was what the founders had in mind when the approved the First Amendment. Is this manner of speech "dangerous" and can (or should) it be regulated because it is intended to incite violence?

MY ANSWER:
I AM offended by flag-burning and ANGRY at flag-desecrators. The reason is NOT because of the physical act, but because of the SYMBOLIC act. The question before us is whether that particular form of speech is destructive in any meaningful way. The lines will be drawn in accordance with what you mean by "meaningful".

When I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, it is understood that I am not protecting the physical document, but the PRINCIPLES that it articulates, and the PRINCIPLES that define us as Americans. There are DEGREES (or gradiations) of threat to those principles, but, clearly, at some point, a LINE has to be drawn. At some point, disagreement becomes defiance, and defiance becomes destructive. All who swear the Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America are OBLIGATED (read: DUTY-BOUND) to DEFEND against destruction. At some point, EROSION of PRINCIPLE has the same result as DESTRUCTION of PRINCIPLE. There HAS to be a LINE where ACTION is required. Perhaps a graduated approach of increasing punishment or consequences (such as: fine for first offense, jail for second offense, deportation for third offense, and death for fourth offense) could be applied in the present case.

IF those students were to engage in a civil (polite) discussion- a public forum- where their specific grievences were aired, evaluated, and assessed as to their relevance (in the context of the broader public) and a specific plan was discussed to mitigate the undesirablle consequences brought about by their grievance, then I would have no problem with their exercise of free speech. But when they descrate the flag openly, publicly, wickedly, (place another sovereign nation's flag above) they display MUCH MORE than merely a dissatisfaction with some issue; they are attacking the fundamental principles of America. I DO NOT BELEIVE that that conduct should be legal, nor tolerated. (see above for suggestions as to punishment). Mob conduct is not, in my opinion, a protected form of free speech as envisioned by the founders.

I BELIEVE in FREEDOM OF SPEECH, especially policital and religious speech! When you tell me however, that you HATE America, and WANT to DESTROY her foundations, AND TAKE THE FIRST STEP (action) towards that end, then it's time to END TOLERATION! (saying you hate America is one thing, but publicly descrating the flag and all that it symbolizes, is (for me) entirely different. For the record, I KNOW what the Supreme Court has said on the issue and how the standards have been seriously relaxed in recent years. I am wondering whether the issue should be revisited. SHOULD the law promote principles of honor, courage, and integrity? SHOULD the law promote awareness of personal sacrifice and patriotic service? Lord knows, it is being used to promote a lot of contrary values! I DO understand, and agree, that the law should reflect the values of the majority, while not coercing the minority. Still, there will always be lines that will have to be drawn.

Consider the following:

Give to us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for—because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything.~~Peter Marshall (1902–67) Senate chaplain, prayer offered at the opening of the session, April 18, 1947
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Attributed to Sir Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797) was an Irish political philosopher, Whig politician, and statesman

"Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? " - Corinthians 5:6-8 Paul explaining to the Corinthian Church that tolerating a little bit of evil will corrupt the entire congregation.

From runny noses to indigestion, headaches to strained muscles, symptoms are our body's way of warning us that something is wrong. Ignoring symptoms in your body may lead to irreversible damage of (heart, lungs, infections, blood pressure, blurred vision, etc. etc. etc.) and death. This is the body's way of warning us to take action sooner rather than later.

What think ye, scholars??

Why the Blog??

2009-04-21T09:20:00.001-07:00

In the context of my teaching Criminal Justice, Political Science, and Homeland Security at the college level, I have written rather extensively about the state of American society. Specifically, I have engaged my students in discussions about (1) the way we ARE, (2) the way we WERE, and (3) the direction we seem to be going as a society. All of this is in the context of our FOUNDING PRINCIPLES and the dynamic tension between these principles and the changes (and challenges) that face us, both as Americans and as part of the global community.

Once upon a time, I was the Founding Director of the Law and Liberty Foundation (now defunct) and I wrote several pieces related to this subject and so, to preserve those writings, and add new insight in these changing times, I am using this new forum to present these views to a larger audience.

The writings and musings contained in this Blog, are intended to provoke thoughtful discussion, and stimluate new ideas about an old question: What kind of Society do we want to create for ourselves and our posterity? Does society shape us, or do we shape society, or is it something of both? Are there historic principles that can/should be preserved or do we permit abandonment of those principles and embracing of others?

Clearly, there are LARGE numbers of people who will disagree with my views. I encourage reasoned analysis and discussion. The mentally challenged will be painfully obvious, as they will resort to name-calling when they run out of intellectual ammunition. Even if the views herein are not found to be persuasive, I will at least have aired them for scrutiny and rebuttal.

In Liberty,
Professor John A. Sterling, MA, JD

Short Biography of Dr. John Sterling

2009-04-21T09:10:00.000-07:00

Dr. Sterling is currently a professor of Criminal Justice and the Program Coordinator for the Security Operations Management Program at Pellissippi State Technical Community College (PSTCC) in Knoxville, TN. He has accumulated 13 years of Law Enforcement experience including patrol, investigations, and SWAT, and Homeland Security. He is a former U.S. Army Infantry Captain, and has completed tours in Central America (including Panama, and Guatemala) and Europe (Germany) performing counter-terror operations. He has served with the 5/19th Special Forces and the 3/87th INF, and the 220th Military Police Company. He is now a Major in the Tennessee State Guard.

Dr. Sterling formerly taught Law enforcement Counter-Terrorism for the Governor’s Crime Commission, Academy of Counter-Terrorism, in North Carolina, and had the privilege of serving as the first Regional Coordinator for East Tennessee’s Office of Homeland Security, before being hired by PSTCC. He also taught Political Science for the Tidewater Technical Community College in Chesapeake, VA, and College of the Albemarle in Elizabeth City, NC. He is also a former professor of Criminal Justice at Elizabeth City State University.

Dr. Sterling has a Bachelor’s Degree from Regis College in Denver Colorado in Business Administration, a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from Regent University in Virginia Beach, and Doctorate in Jurisprudence from The Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach. He has hundreds of hours of specialized training in Counter-Terrorism, Counter-Intelligence, Human Intelligence Operations (HUMINT), Special Weapons and Tactics, Jungle Operations, Personal Protection, and other Military and Law Enforcement training.

Dr. Sterling has always been a cowboy, growing up in the panhandle of Oklahoma, Southeastern Kansas, and Eastern Colorado. He has worked on horse and cattle ranches and has owned a small commercial cattle herd. He still trains horses and teaches horsemanship classes on his small farm/ranch in Roane County, TN. He is a member of the Dyllis Baptist Church. He and his wife, Melanie, are both certified firearms instructors and both shoot competitively in the fast-growing sport of Cowboy Action Shooting.

CONTACT INFO:
E-Mail: jasterling@pstcc.edu
WEB: www.j-bar-m.com