Naughty or Nice

This is Michael's wife, Joanna. I'm not a writer and don't really want to start my own blog, so I asked Michael if I could share these thoughts rumbling around my head tonight here.

We went to the Christmas Tree Lighting at the village tonight. My 8-year-old daughter that I will call Biscuit for this post got to have an impromptu chat with Santa while we waited for the parade to begin. He was very sweet and chatted with her. Eventually he asked her if she had been naughty or nice. Her response was to hide behind me a bit and shrug her shoulders. He told her she still had a month to work on it.

A bit later she confided in me that she was a little bit afraid of Santa because she wasn't sure if she belonged on the 'Naughty List' or the 'Nice List.' She knows Santa isn't a real person in the North Pole with a host of elves making toys. But clearly there was a deeper concern on her mind. So I gave her the comfort (at least I hope it was a comfort) of the truth, "Biscuit, we're all on the 'Naughty List.' The Bible says we've all sinned and made mistakes. None of us is completely good and nice all the time. That's why Jesus came. He knew we couldn't work ourselves off the 'Naughty List.' So He came and died to pay the price for our sins so he could get us off."

But it goes deeper than that. He didn't just get us off the 'Naughty List.' He put us on a new list--'Holy and Righteous Sons and Daughters of God.' We can never deserve to be on that list. No matter how hard we might try we could never live up to those titles. Not even Mother Theresa could or would claim those titles. But He put us there all the same because He loves us. He gave His life for us so that we could be adopted into His family and be called the children of God. We do our best to follow Him because we love Him, not because there's anything we can do either way to earn or lose our place on the list.

We no longer have to worry about the naughty or nice lists. We are forgiven and loved beyond measure.

The Choice 2012

This is a quick rundown of the most important governmental and social issues on my radar, and which candidate matches my leanings on each. Part of my reasoning here is that the president can make significant contributions to any issue and plays a part in many of the country’s policies, but he does not make law or set policy himself for the most part, so even if I disagree with particular points, I don’t always consider them deal breakers.

This feels short and simplistic, but longer disquisitions are likely to go unread and become overly complicated. I’m unlikely to be swayed by arguments attempting to change my mind on these issues before tomorrow: what I’m trying to decide is which presidential candidate I would be happier to see in office.

Abortion: This is a key issue for me (though, obviously, not my single issue). I am against abortion in all but the classic conservative points: rape, incest, and the life of the mother exemptions. I believe life begins at conception, indeed, and every cut-off point I’ve heard proposed is not based on morals or ethics, but convenience. I was disappointed that Obama promised to make abortions legal but rare (a preferable alternative to legal and common, as they are now), which had a better chance of success than attempts to outlaw the practice under current conditions. He has not shown any initiative to carry that ideal through.

You know what gets my goat, though? The complaint leveled by many liberals is spot on: conservatives want these restrictions, but do little to help those who are struggling and who are the most vulnerable when it comes to carrying pregnancy to term in difficult circumstances. Things that ought to be included with any campaign to end abortion are a far greater support for single mothers, much greater funding for the support services that aid those mothers as well as child care and adoption options and assistance, and real accountability for fathers. That last is especially egregious. I’m not certain how to go about it, but making certain fathers are financially and socially responsible for their own offspring is vital. If we mean what we say when we claim that all life is precious, then we had best do out best to provide for those lives in every way we can.

Candidate: Romney

Marriage: The least important issue on my radar, but an issue nonetheless. I’m increasingly of the camp that says that the government should get out of marriage altogether: make all couplings (and the inevitable future triplings and so on) civil unions; hand marriage exclusively to social organizations (usually, churches) to make their own rules. Historically, this has been the model until the recent era.

That said, I’m still against same-sex marriages. I’m not prepared to overturn history, logic, and my faith to choose otherwise, and I think a government that endorses it is headed down the wrong path. No, my marriage is not threatened when others marry; yes, the definition of the term is in jeopardy when it begins to be applied to whatever we feel like. (If the term itself wasn’t important, there wouldn’t’ be such a fight over it.)

Candidate: Romney

Supreme Court: This may not be on everyone’s radar, but there’s a high likelihood that the next president will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice during his term. Given that I’m a conservative when it comes to legal interpretation, I’m guessing that Romney would put in a justice I think more acceptable than Obama’s probable pick. (Though given the likelihood of a slim Republican majority congress, the candidate who makes it through is likely to be pretty moderate in any case.)

Candidate: Romney

Economy: Like many items on the list, this one’s a toss-up. I do think Romney knows how to run a business, so I think he’d have a handle on things economic. On the flip side, I am not convinced he’d help anyone except business owners and corporations—the latter needs some help but not all of it; the former need little to no help at all. I’m terrified of Romney’s drive to reduce restrictions and regulations (which were put in place for a reason) and aid corporate interests at every turn. I’m also not convinced Romney’s numbers add up.

Obama hasn’t been the engine of change that I would like to see, but things have been improving under his watch and I think they would continue to do so. I don’t think that it would have been possible for anyone to turn things around in just four years, and steady recovery is workable. I’m somewhat disturbed by the tendency of folks to vote directly based on how they, personally, are doing economically, rather than looking at the bigger picture of the economy as a whole. I am not against taxes that go toward helping others. (Though I’ve heard the argument that if we paid fewer taxes, we’d have more to give to charity, I haven’t seen it—and government welfare was established to help precisely because private giving was not covering the needs of many. When tax returns show up, I rarely hear people crowing about how they can now make bigger donations to help others…)

Candidate: Obama (probably)

Education: Obama is the clear winner here. His dedication to education seems far stronger than Romney’s, and while Romney may have some useful reforms in mind, his general lack of interest in the subject and his dismissive attitude don’t lead me to think that things would get better on that front. Romney’s push to weaken unions also disturbs me: to take the guidance of education out of the hands of those who actually educate is not wise. Two areas of public interest in particular, I think, cannot be run like businesses: education and health care. I believe Romney would run both of them as such, and the results will be ugly.

Candidate: Obama

Energy: This is tied strongly to the next issue of the environment, but again it seems as if Romney’s agenda is to pump money into the economy at any cost, even if it means pushing wasteful and dangerous energy sources, and his desire to do away with restrictions is frightening. Green energy is going to be required in the future—the experts only disagree on the timing. The more we invest in such technologies now, the better off we will be in the future. There will be some parts of the economy that will suffer, as there always will be. Obama’s policies are more sustainable and less damaging.

Candidate: Obama

Environment: This is a big one for me, and the evidence all leads to one side. Yes, trees and owls and mice do matter as part of the ecosystem. There may be tweaks to be made to accommodate industry and nature, and serious consideration to be given to employment, but Romney’s desire to do away with restrictions for pollution and resource extraction, and his goal of opening up the wild lands that remain in our country to more industrial exploitation, makes me ill. As with so many things, we are sacrificing long-term stability for immediate gains, and we are already paying some of the cost: I fear that the future costs will be unsustainable. While I’m not completely convinced that global warming is entirely human-caused, evidence suggests that it is at least partly true, and if I’m not certain, I would far rather play it safe than be sorry later. Those who suggest that, since it hasn’t been proven in their minds, we should continue as if it isn’t a possibility seem incredibly short-sighted to me.

Candidate: Obama

Health Care: Sorry, conservative friends: this is one that I am quite liberal on. I’d rather have my options severely reduced if it meant providing basic services to everyone. I don’t know if I’d call health care a right, but it is a service that should be available to all. The only reason I don’t like Obamacare is that I’d rather see a single-payer plan. It was a real blessing in Canada when we lived there, and I’d go for it in a minute here. The argument that it cuts down on competition and innovation doesn’t seem to hold water, and I have faith that universities and corporations will still pursue health care even if they can only earn large profits rather than the staggering profits they are seeing now.

Candidate: Obama

Immigration: I’m utterly undecided on this one. On one hand, I think we need stronger enforcement of immigration law, and I don’t have the same problems with efforts such as those in Arizona that some do. Sneaking into the country, for whatever reason, is illegal: it may be understandable, but we don’t let people off the hook for other crimes just because they had good reason to commit them. If your family is hungry and you steal, that may be understandable; you still get charged with theft. Those who argue that such laws—and those policies recently unveiled in California—are deporting people for minor infractions are missing the point: they are being deported for minor infractions committed after breaking the law to enter the country. I have great compassion for those born into difficult circumstances, but from a civic standpoint, much as it might be desirable to help every soul, a country’s resources are limited, and as a political entity,  government must attend to its own citizens first.

On the other hand, something does have to be done with the vast number of illegal immigrants we have now. Denying them services does not normally force them to re-emigrate; it just creates a huge underclass who have no other options than crime. I don’t know if the DREAM Act is an answer, but some form of amnesty has to be put in place for people already here coupled with stronger enforcement. I don’t know, from the candidates’ shifty answers and minimum effort to actually deal with this problem, who would do the better job here.

Candidate: ?

Foreign Policy: The candidates presented themselves as so closely aligned on these issues that the choice seems almost immaterial. Obama certainly engenders more goodwill overseas, and Romney’s gaffes have been ridiculous. Though Romney has the stronger stance on Israel (which is important to me, though not as apocalyptically important as it is to many others of my acquaintance), both have pledge support to that nation, and the complaints leveled against Obama on that score have been relatively slight (though not immaterial, and certainly worrying). I might regret either choice depending on what happens in the next four years, but based on what’s happened so far, I can’t suss out who comes out on top here.

Candidate: ?

Role of Government: Again, a toss-up. I’ve been very disturbed by some of Obama’s moves on this score, including the assault on moral objections to provisions of health care and his insistence on some government programs that seem wasteful. On the other hand, Romney’s stripped-down version of government—which seems to exist solely as an aid to business—scares me almost as much. A hands-off government which backs the power of the dollar before people, or one whose octopus-like tentacles reach into every area of life: which one is worse? I haven’t figured that out yet.

Candidate: ?

So Obama wins on points, but some of the points that favor Romney have a higher priority. Where are the scales to weigh this out?

What is it that ultimately scares me?

Under Romney, a country where my moral values are upheld, but many against them become militant in the face of seeming dismissal by the powers that be. A country ravaged environmentally by business interests. A country that puts corporate interests above social welfare and trades in long-term stability for today’s gratification. A country that leaves its poor to become poorer and helps its rich to become richer. A country where education and health care are up for sale, and the losers are cut off as unprofitable.

Under Obama, a country that continues to slip down the slide of relativism, where my morals are more and more seen as dangerous attacks on the selfhood and dignity of others rather than ethical statements. A country in which the government overpowers our freedoms in the name of safety and security. A country where everything is allowed and celebrated, save for disapproval, and conscience is trumped by political correctness. A country in which the government’s hand is in every transaction and bureaucrats decide what is best for me and mine.

So: what do I do on Tuesday?

This Is Why

For years, a kind of self-righteous screed has been floating around the internet and elsewhere, popularized in an episode of The West Wing and brought up against Christian beliefs (usually when the condemnation of homosexuality is mentioned). I answered this set of questions on an internet forum, and just posted them again in response to a friend on Facebook (where it was probably not wanted).

I'm posting it here now so I don't have to keep copying and pasting the thing. It won't do any good at getting rid of the fallacious thing, but it'll make me feel better.

First, for reference, the screed:

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man,
and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go
to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a
Canadian)

My response:

Yes, God's word is "eternal and unchanging." That does not mean that all verses are to be applied to all circumstances blindly--but nor does it mean that the clear indications of those things God finds morally repugnant can then be ignored. The new covenant does not call on us to punish sins the way the Israelites were called to, but that does not somehow mean that those sins have since become acceptable.

(For reference, I repeat my statement from an earlier post: "The short version is, OT covenant law breaks down into three basic categories, which we might call practical (like the call to build railings around the roofs of houses), cultural (such as the directives about eating and dress), and moral (such as the directives about sexual behavior and punishment). They are grouped within the covenants with relative clarity and are not difficult to differentiate." )

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Your friend is a buffoon. Yes, slavery (as a form of indentured servitude and not the version of permanent racial subjugation, which we tend to think of with our own past) is a feature of ancient Near Eastern life--and, by the way, a means of survival. People often sold themselves into slavery so that they could have food and shelter. Since slavery is no longer legal, these, of course, don't currently apply. If a Canadian (or anyone else) offers to work for you for room and board, and the alternative is to let them starve in the street, which would be the better course of action?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Again, since our cultural situation is vastly different from that of the ancient Israelites and their neighbors, there isn't any particular way to apply this today. Today you might argue about what a fair minimum wage would be for her work, though, which is essentially the same issue. If you are unable to provide for your children and you don't find a way to provide for them, I'd suggest it is you who have the moral failing.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Um... You are one disturbing fellow. If we lived in a time of extremely basic hygiene, we too might wish to be cautious about how and with whom we interacted. This is one of those practical guidelines, and is, in essence, giving women a week off each month during which they were relieved of any household duties and did not have to put up with the demands and attentions of men. How very cruel!

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

If you are still living under the covenantal requirement to sacrifice animals, you are in trouble indeed. And isn't this tantamount to an argument for religious freedom? Shouldn't this be allowed, no matter what the neighbors say? At no point is there a biblical injunction to smite those who dislike the smell of barbeque.

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Are you an ancient Israelite living under the old covenant? Then there are no police, and you will have to gather folks from the village, most likely guided by the elders, to carry out this punishment. (Though, of course, since Hebraic law is always given as a guide and all such cases would be decided on a case-by-case basis by a local adjudicator, the man would have ample opportunity to explain and defend himself.)

Oh, wait--you're not an ancient Israelite? Then you are under the new covenant, and God handles all such cases of judgment and punishment. You would be wise to counsel your neighbor against his actions, but you are under no obligation to investigate the crime or carry out the penalty.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

As shown earlier, yes, indeed, there are levels of abomination. (It's called a hierarchy of morals--the same reason that lying to the Nazis about the Jews you are harboring is not a sin on the same level as turning those Jews over to the Nazis.) So, yes--according the covenant, homosexuality (a sin of the moral kind--look at what else is condemned in Leviticus 18) is a worse abomination than eating shellfish (a cultural proscription, meant to keep the Israelites separate from other corrupting cultural influences). You clearly just need to actually read the bible...

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Sadly, if you are an ancient Levite, a vision problem might indeed keep you from performing the act of presenting the food offerings on the altar of God in the capacity of priest. Of course, given that there was no way to measure visual acuity in the ancient Near East, unless the sight issue was severe, it most likely wouldn't be noticed.

Again, we're talking about God's purity, and as a symbol of such, no defect was allowed in those who approached him: a very powerful visual metaphor. So, ancient Levite, if your vision is so bad that you can't see or you have an obvious wound on your eye, I'm afraid you'll have to carry out one of the thousands of other tasks prescribed for your clan.

Oh, wait--you're not an ancient Levite? And, in fact, there is no altar of God which you could reasonably even wish to approach? Well, I guess it's a moot point, then.

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

*snort* Why do you keep insisting on killing people? At what point does Leviticus proscribe death for this?

As another of those cultural markers, the ancient Israelites were commanded not to cut their facial hair (as many neighboring tribes did as part of their religious rites). So since you're an ancient Israelite...

Oh, wait. No you're not.

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

I know almost nothing about sports, but I do know they haven't made footballs out of pigskin for decades. And if the ancient Israelites played football, they would have been in trouble. They would have had to stay outside the camp for a whole afternoon as punishment. Again, the cruelty of the Old Testament is staggering, isn't it?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

One, the burning is only for someone who marries a woman and her mother, not just sleeping with them. So there's that.

But, again, O thick-headed commentator, we're talking about two different kinds of laws: cultural and moral. The clothing and planting issues have never carried the penalty of death. (One good measure to tell the difference is to look at the prescribed penalties: cultural deviations were never punished with death, while moral and spiritual ones often were.)

And yes: the ancients put the same weight on profaning the name of God as they did murder--all those who insist endlessly that we have to respect cultural differences and not judge others should have no problem with this equivalency. And all such executions were public: in a society always on the brink of chaos and starvation and with no margin for social deviation, they would be a public affirmation of values and solidarity.

As a final note: yes, I know some will accuse me of taking this too seriously. "It's just a joke." But it's a joke premised on a thinly veiled attack on belief in and the integrity of the bible, which is not a matter for levity. This is, in it's snide way, a serious attack on Christianity, and it ought to be confronted and buried whenever it rears its ill-informed head.

The Sensible Solution

Last week, another of our citizens was taken from us, and to no real purpose.

Ray Blatterson, a manager for the Ohio trucking firm Safe-T Transport, was sentenced to forty years behind bars. Blatterson had a running feud with his crosstown rival, Stephen Rigg, which had grown increasingly bitter as the economy slumped. Thanks to the nation's lax gun laws, on Monday, July 13, Blatterson was able to obtain a Glock 19 at a legal gun dealership. He crossed the city in one of his company’s trucks, walked into the offices of Nation’s Best Trucking, and fatally shot Rigg at his own desk.

It was the very first time Blatterson had murdered anyone, yet thanks to the judge's sentencing this week, he will most likely die in prison.

It’s time we face up to an important truth: the war against murder has failed.

Last month, thousands marched on the capitol, demanding that the government decriminalize murder, and they were right to do so. Never has it been so clear that all of our efforts and legislation attempting to control (and even end) murder have proven useless. Thousands upon thousands of police are on the streets; every state has the strictest laws against homicide; yet the killings continue. When will Congress realize that, no matter how Draconian your laws, you cannot stop people from doing what they want to do and think is right?

Murder has been a natural part of life since the dawn of mankind. Every major civilization has had murder, and those individuals who accepted this managed to live normal, even exemplary lives. From the kingdoms of Europe to the empires of the Americas, from tribes in Africa to clans in the Far East, this inevitable feature of life has always been with us. Anger is as natural to mankind as laughter.

However, early in our history, political and business interests decided that murder was a threat to America’s industry. Unregulated killing could eat into their precious profit margins. Thus began a campaign to spread fear and paranoia, fanning the flames of moral outrage of politicians beholden to special interests until murder was illegal across the nation. Pulpits rang with righteous indignation against the simplest and most understandable of killings. Murderers—even those who had been a threat to almost no one—had to hide their desires and activities, driving them underground.

Now, we’re faced with an epidemic. In 2007, the latest year for which statistics are available, there were over 16,000 murders in this country, and those who committed these understandable acts are languishing in prison, contributing little or nothing to society. Studies show that they are most likely learning new criminal behavior from the other inmates, refining their “murder” skills and making connections with larger criminal elements. Someone who might have begun as a fairly innocent 3rd degree offender might leave jail ready and able to take out an elementary school.

It’s time we legalize murder. After all, in a society in which blood sports and “extreme fighting” competitions are sanctioned (resulting in untold numbers ending up in hospitals and suffering through agonizing recovery every year), why is this one activity singled out for special treatment? Can you honestly allow the death penalty, but somehow hypocritically condemn the individual’s right to the same freedom the government enjoys? What kind of socially conflicted society allows the hunting of all animals save man?

When murder is illegal, then only criminals murder. Anyone who wants to take the life of another right now must sneak around, plotting in secret, living in constant fear of being caught. Under the current regulations, not only is the freedom of the murderer taken away, but others are put at risk. Since the murderer is often doing his work under cover of darkness, trying to avoid the ridiculous legal restrictions on his legitimate desires, he may come upon friends or family members of the real target, making them incidental targets as well. The concerned (or nosy) neighbor who chooses to investigate may also find herself in dire straits. And this is not even taking into account the law enforcement officials, potential witnesses, and dozens of others who must put themselves in danger to continue cranking the outmoded wheels of the legal process.

With murder criminalized, killing remains in the hands of the worst of our society: violent gangs and deranged psychopaths. Assassins and so-called “hit men” make a tidy profit by providing murder services. The “black market” price for murder is astronomical, and it is in these elements' interests to keep it illegal. When such thugs and lawbreakers are in favor of something, can any right-thinking citizen support it?

If murder was legalized, the government could regulate it, ensuring that only the chosen victim faced his potential killer, and that in a secure and contained environment. People are going to murder anyway—why not make it as safe and open as possible? And with the possibility of televising the events, corporate sponsorship, and a new “murder tax,” we might even manage overcome our current economic slump and provide revenue for our struggling state and local governments.

Right now, billions are spent each year on police officers, federal agents, and the entrenched interests of the law enforcement industry. Yet there is not one reliable, verified estimate of the number of murders that have actually been prevented. We would not put up with a track record like this for any private corporation, and we shouldn’t allow such inefficiency in our government, either.

Some argue that legalizing even the simplest murders will lead to the legalization of worse crimes: serial killing, mass slaughter, and even genocide. These slippery slope arguments are only fear-mongering at its worst. No one can prove that these would ever occur, and surely lawmakers and citizens of conscience could craft laws that allowed personal, small-scale murder but kept the most dangerous bombings and terrorist acts illegal.

Meanwhile, anyone who murders even just one person ends up in prison for decades, sometimes for life. “My husband is a good man, a good father,” Blatterson’s wife, Cindy, stated in a tearful press conference after his sentencing. “You can’t imagine a more responsible murderer than Ray. There are so many others Ray could have killed, but he knew how to keep his temper in check. The court has taken away my husband, a wonderful father, and our sole support simply because of these idiotic laws…” She then broke down, unable to continue.

“Mr. Blatterson is no monster,” stated Blatterson's lawyer, Shane Williams, at the same press conference. “There were nineteen bullets in that gun—nineteen—and yet Ray only shot one man. If that isn’t control, I don’t know what is. While madmen are running free in our streets, gunning down dozens of victims without rhyme or reason, this relatively harmless individual, responding to a perfectly natural urge, is nabbed and thrown into a cage to prove some kind of point. A great injustice has been committed here.”

Evan Talbot, spokesman for the Organization for the Sane Murder and End-of-Life Regulation (SMER), stated, “Ray Blatterson is the real victim here. When will the government get out of people’s private business? You cannot regulate morality, but lawmakers and conservative groups continue to attempt to curtail our freedoms, trying to force everyone to live by their outdated and narrow-minded definitions of right and wrong. We must fight these unwarranted restrictions at every turn, and SMER will be at the forefront of that fight.”

What isn’t to like about legalizing murder? We will reduce crime rates, put an end to the criminal monopoly over the industry, allow government regulation, raise revenues, and put an end to the senseless curtailment of personal freedoms so rampant under the previous administration. The proven benefits of murder—stress relief, free expression, population control—far outweigh the terrible consequences of forcing thousands (if not millions) into illegal activity. The billions of dollars we’ve poured into fighting the problem have proven useless: no matter how many small-scale “murderers” are thrown into prison, murders continue each and every day. Victim apologists, big business, and entrenched bureaucrats may object, but it’s time we came to our senses and did the right thing.

The Need to Write

It's only been a bit over three months since the last post—there's no real need for more, but I figure it won't hurt.

And I still don't have my own writing to post. Life has been full to bursting since that last post, but I can't get up the gumption to recap it all. So I offer someone else's words instead.

I found a set of signs I used to have up in my office in order to remind me of why I write, or why I should be writing; to encourage me to get to work or to keep working, or at the least not to give up completely. When I moved offices, they got shuffled, and now they're in bad shape, so I'm working on recreating them.

And I figured I'd get you in on the work. If you know of any inspirational or chastizational (my adjective form for chastising), or other quote that touches on writing—or creative endeavor of any kind—feel free to post it as a comment below. I need all the encouragement I can get these days. (I'm also putting up a similar post with different quotes over on my Facebook page, if you're interested in such things.)

The following comes from Michael Card's book, Scribbling in the Sand, which is a great read. One of my favorite aspects of the book is that it includes a number of letters from Christian artists to others; these are selections from a letter by H.R. Rookmaker:

“If God has given us talents we may use them creatively—or rather, we must use them creatively. A Christian artist is not different from, say, a Christian teacher, minister, scholar, merchant, housewife, or anybody else that has been called by the Lord to specific work in line with his or her talents. There are no specific rules for artists, nor do they have specific exemptions from the norms of good conduct God laid down for man.

“Freedom is the necessary basis for creativity, for creativity is impossible where there is timidity, when you allow yourself to be bound by narrow rules... Freedom is positive. It means being free from tradition, from the feeling that everything you do has to be original, from certain fixed rules said to be necessary in art—but also from the thought that to be creative you must break all kinds of rules and standards.

“Freedom means also that there are no prescriptions for subject matter. There is no need for a Christian to illustrate biblical stories or biblical truth, though he may of course choose to do that. An artist has the right to choose a subject that he thinks worthwhile... It is freedom to help a neighbor out and give him something to delight in.

“... art has its own task and meaning. There is no need to try to justify one's artistic activity by making works with a moralistic message, even if one is free to emphasize moral values. Nor is there any need to think one has to serve as a critic of culture, or always provide eye-openers to the non-artists, or teach, or evangelize, or do whatever other lofty things one can think of. Art has done its task when it provides the neighbor with things of beauty, a joy forever... [The artist] has to make art while thinking of his neighbors in love, helping them, and using his talents on their behalf.”

Picaresque

From my bible reading today, 2 Chronicles 12:7-8:

"Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak. They will, however, become subject to him, so that they may learn the difference between serving me and serving the kings of other lands."

How often, I wonder, have I been spared the consequences of my actions, but become "subject" to rulers other than God as a result? How often do I continue to serve under other masters, laboring in vain, because I have repented of the sin of the moment but not given my heart over to Him completely as a result?

The closeness I desire with God, the moment-by-moment experience of walking with Him, can only be found by... well, walking with Him moment by moment. Too often I walk my own way, only throwing my arms around Him when I'm about to plunge off a precipice or I get so mired in a swamp that I cannot pull myself out. Then He sets me aright, and I turn and wander off on my own paths once again.

I think I do this less often than in the past, but this seems like a journey a man might walk—to a greater or lesser extent, and always hopefully growing toward the lesser—all his life. Or maybe I'm pushing this metaphor too far...

This Is Why I Study Literature

It's one thing to get your spiritual sit-upon kicked by an exhortational sermon; it's another to be humbled by a poem:

Batter my heart, three-personed God; for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurped town, to another due,
Labor to admit you, but O, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy.
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again;
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
—John Donne, "Holy Sonnet 14"