Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Orlando, Gun Control, and Principle over Emotion

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family members of the 49 killed in the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida. Unless you've experienced the emotions of suddenly losing a loved one to random violence, it would be difficult to understand these families' pain. We can collectively feel for these families, and we do.  Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those suffering through the effects of this horrific crime. 

Newspapers and social media are now filled with articles on why America ought to have strict gun control. I completely understand reacting to the emotional trauma we all feel, but I would caution every American to take a position on gun control on the basis principle, not emotion. 

After the Sandy Hook massacre occurred, I wrote an article explaining why I was against gun control on the basis of principle. The timing for publishing such articles like mine is often questioned by those advocating gun control, but this is precisely why I believe it's important to re-publish what I wrote a few years ago. 

Water in one's eyes often obscures clarity in one's mind. 

When our country was founded, our nation's Founding Fathers believed in what is called Natural Law. Natural Law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally known by human reason. The best summary of Natural Law is contained in the following seventeen word statement:
"Do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property." 
In the early days of our nation, when a criminal encroached on another person or their property, the courts of the United States established the precedent that restitution would be made to the victim(s).

In the case of murder, the murderer would be swiftly brought to justice via execution. In cases of encroaching on property (i.e. theft, vandalism, etc...), restitution would be made by the robbers to the victims as ordered by the judge.

Over time, a series of decisions in the courts of the United States established what we call common law. Judges would look at previous legal decisions in similar cases to make a ruling on restitution that would be fair and equitable to the victim. It's important to note that in the early days of America, the people encroached upon were the victims, not the state. Therefore, the criminals who encroached made restitution to the people, not the state.

Amendment II of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution gives to citizens of the United States "the right to keep and bear arms" for two very important reasons.

(1). Our nation's forefathers knew there would be occasions when criminals would not make restitution to their victims as ordered by the courts.

When this happens in a country built on Natural Law, outlawry is invoked. Outlawry is the ability for citizens in a civilized society to pass judgment and punish those criminals who refuse to make court ordered restitution to their victims.

Most of us understand the term "outlaw," but few of us understand that it is derived from the word outlawry. Outlawry means criminals who run from court ordered restitution are handed over to society and placed "outside the protection of law." This is what it meant for an outlaw to be Wanted: Dead or Alive.

It did not matter how the outlaw was captured. When you brought the outlaw in before the judge, dead or alive, you received a bounty for the capture. The outlaw was outside of "the protection of the law."

In the old days, prisons were fairly empty.

Incarceration was limited to those awaiting trial. Once a court ordered the terms of restitution, the criminal was released in order to work and pay for his crimes. If the criminal ran from his responsibilities, he was turned over to society (by the courts) as "an outlaw."

Our Founding Fathers understood the need for civilized society to "keep and bear arms" because a society of free and civilized people were ultimately the highest power in the land. The citizens of the United States would need to keep and bear arms because of outlaws. Natural Law demands the principle of outlawry.

A modern version of outlawry would be a free and law-abiding citizen in a school or a club, armed with a weapon, shooting and killing a murderer in the act of encroaching. The citizen doesn't wait on "law enforcement" to take action--for our Constitution, built on Natural Law, demands citizens take action.

Many believe a country is more civilized when free citizens don't have guns. Our Founding Fathers believed just the opposite. A free society, according to Natural Law, makes the free people of that free society the highest authority--not the state or the government. Government is of the people, by the people, for the people.

Could law-abiding citizens in a free society make a mistake in dealing with they deem to be an outlaw? Of course, but the checks and balances on a free people is the knowledge that you yourself might be deemed an outlaw if you violated Natural Law and encroach on an innocent person.

Natural Law is as much a science as biology, physics and math. It is understandable regardless of one's religion, because it comes from Nature and Nature's God. Natural Law says the victims are those who experience the crime of encroachment and the criminal is the encroacher.

Unfortunately, our government has assumed the role of victim.

Statism, sadly, has become the expected form of government by the American people. The government of the United States - in practice - is replacing the people of the United States. Statism says the criminal pays his or her debt "to the state" instead of to the victims of the crime.

When a state usurps the governance of a free people by the people themselves, then the state (government) will eventually devolve into a fascist state. Fascism (e.g. Nazi Germany) does not arise overnight. Just like Germany in the early 20th century, fascism progresses slowly as more and more power is handed to the state and more and more freedoms are taken from the people.

One of the fundamental requirements for a fascist state to exist is for its citizens to not be armed. I oppose gun control in the United States for the principled reason of resisting the rise of fascism in the United States.

(2). Our nation's forefathers understood that there could be an occasion when the state violates Natural Law (by encroaching on free people), and it would be the duty of the free citizens of that state to rebel.

Very few Americans know that the rationale of the Patriots - the men and women who fought the British government during the American Revolution - was a rationale built upon Natural Law.

People like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and others believed that England's monarchy (the King of England) was encroaching on the people and property of the colonists. The Patriots rebelled because Natural Law was being violated.

America's Patriots believed a nation of people should always be able to keep and bear arms because there always needs to be the ability for a free people in a free society to revolt against a government that violates Natural Law. England violated the principles of Natural Law, and in obedience to Nature and Nature's God, the American colonists revolted against England.

Thomas Jefferson, when writing the draft of the Constitution of Virginia, wrote "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."  Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (The Federalist Papers, pages 184-188).

Abraham Lincoln, declared at the commencement of the Civil War"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

These men understood that any government which removes the right to keep and bear arms from her free citizens takes a gigantic step toward statist facism.

So, though we grieve over the mass murder of those in Orlando, and though we deplore acts of violence by criminals throughout our land, we should resist with all our might any intrusion by the government to take weapons from us.

Natural Law, America's Constitution, and freedom's fight against facism all demand that America's citizens have the right to be armed.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I may choose not to bear arms, to turn the other cheek, and to live like Jesus Christ lived.

But as an American, I must resist any effort by the state to take weapons from her citizens.


Unknown said...

In the movie "The Imitation Game" Dr. Alan Touring (Played by Benedict Cumberbatch) was intentionally struck by one of his workmates and knocked to the floor. In his very mild response to being struck Touring said to his fellow workmate "Do you know why people like violence? It is because it feels good..." Likewise with immediate reactions made out of emotional need.

I have learned over the years to wait on details before making conclusive statements on such a sensational issue as this one. Have been doing this now for over a decade. Oh, I am not some deep intellectual who has all the facts straight or the best advice but I have learned well to stay my sword lest I cut off an ear…(if you know what I biblically mean!)

Once more we will have the calls for “control” once more we will have detractors of those calls. Yet, so far, in this action-reaction game we do not see improvement in the thing that will fix-stop-end such moments. Of course I believe as a professing born-again believer that it is only Christ Who can, indeed, fix this. Alas, we are in our fallen world. It IS up to us to protect, defend and assist the helpless. It IS up to us to prevent and deter the assailants. It IS our job to ensure peace and tranquility. That will be done through law and order. So, with over 20,000 laws (Federal, State and local) on our books we see that there are those who government misses in its attempts to do just this regarding this attacker. The man in question was interviewed twice and was on a watch list…how did he get past a NICS check for a firearm? It was unlawful for him to have purchased it. There…a law was passed and if enforced it would have “prevented” his ability to get a gun that way. Why did the FBI not go after him? Well, I will not judge them harshly right away, but make no mistake, incompetence can cost lives in war or in everyday life. If it is incompetence the FBI will show us that in due course….if, however, it was more out of fear to reactions by political leadership then we have a much bigger problem.

Once more people were led to believe they were “safe” in a “gun-free” zone where they patted down people…well, when you frequent a place like this (the attacker did so 15 times) you can, if your patient and intend on following through, learn when and where they stop frisking folks…when the place is at its peak in attendance…and more. In other words, you will exploit weakness so you, the wolf, can have your pick of the sheep because there are no sheepdogs allowed.

The dividers in our nation seem to want to make this about the targets being gay more than of them being human beings. That I detest! Already the calls by some that many people “don’t care” because of the targets being gays at a gay bar are being made. Like I said earlier, the same principle that Alan Touring makes in the movie applies here. It is false, it is divisive and it is slanderous, but it “feels good” because somehow in making such a claim one feels like they are pointing out a perceived injustice when in reality they reveal their own bias’.

These were Americans…they were my fellow citizens…they had the right to be protected from harm…they had the right to be what they wanted and who they wanted to be. They were murdered by a hatred that began in the heart of one man. You will not make one of us safer by making more of us incapable of defending ourselves. You will never increase security of the people by making the state the monopoly of firearms. For this reason and for the reason of defense against tyranny ARMS was what we the people were guaranteed the right to. McVeigh used fertilizer, the 9-11 men used box cutters, others use IED’s…folks, it’s a heart problem, and it always will be.

Greg said...

Looking from the outside (New Zealand which is a long way off both geographically and culturally), it often seems that Americans are quite blinkered in their approach to guns. It seems there must be a huge gulf between "the right to bear arms" and "the right to bear semi-automatic assault rifles", yet that distinction seems unable to be made. And while the intentions of the Founding Fathers may have been noble, the excess to which the principles have been taken seems to completely invalidate them. In contrast, the absence of guns in the hands of large segments of the population in many other countries has not automatically led to fascism, suggesting that the principles at stake may have more than one way of being adhered to.

This article casts a sad light on the place of guns in American culture, not simply in the headline-grabbing mass shootings, but in the suicides that are thereby enabled. And sure, guns are not the only, or even necessarily the most important contributor, but they amplify the outcomes of decisions made, and often in a detrimental way.

Unknown said...


Having spent a lot of time in the awesome country of New Zealand I can say with great affection I love where you live! At some point between October and February since 1994 I have been there and have been to so many places and I still want to see more. I fly to Antarctica and as I'm sure you know its all based out of Christchurch.

Rights, my friend are never invalidated,. It is precisely why the founders said they come from God. They are neither given by man but man is commanded to protect them. Yes, in the end mere men did determine what is and what is not a right...Arms was the word used...for a very specific purpose. But that, in essence, supports your offer here. After all, what limitations might they have thought of should they ever theorize semi-automatic weapons or even machine guns or even more powerful weapons? While just a question the fact is this...they said arms because they knew full well that the state should never have the monopoly on sanctioned violence or force.

However, in your favor in this argument stands the reasoned approach of the founders which clarifies how it will work...For instance, John Adams said the following:
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. Religion and virtue are the only foundations…of republicanism and of all free government."
(John Adams, Works, Vol. IX p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776 / ALSO p. 636, to Benjamin Rush on August 28, 1811)

He makes it clear from which the rights and liberties stand in harmony...religion (that of Christianity) and virtue. They make the republic work and the rights enjoyed by all work together to support that. That a man acts contrary to that does not negate the right. What you call excess is in itself a call to either limit rights in some fashion or assert that there should be a "need" commensurate with the "right" which stands diametrically opposed to what a right is.

More than just Adams spoke this way, Washington, Rush, Webster, Madison all concur and speak to the virtue required. In the end it is just that, morality and virtue and only in Christ can we find that.

Christiane said...

If someone is on the terror no-fly list, I would like for them to be banned from being able to purchase assault weapons which are built for one purpose only: to kill large numbers of people with rapid fire.

I don't think there will ever be a ban on gun-ownership in this country. But we need to have some common sense, folks.

I am very grieved that it is being put out that the Democratic Party wants to ban gun ownership. That is not the case. The kind of attack rifles the terrorists have been using, and the kind that was used at Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, these weapons are not for self-defense or for hunting. They are used to kill people.

Our law enforcement will do what it can, but if we as a country don't back them up with some common sense, our police force is put in greater peril by our inaction.

It's time to take assault rifles off the market for crazies and terrorists. No 'loop-holes' allowed. It's past time.

Rex Ray said...


Is the first word in Wade’s post and is what I consider the MOST important. As important as the subject of GUNS, I believe it can’t hold a candle to what is happening to our NATION which is the decline of morality.

If America is going to be “great” again, it has to heed the warning of:

1. "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

2. “He turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into heaps of ashes and blotted them off the face of the earth, making them an example for all the ungodly in the future to look back upon and fear.” (2 Peter 2:6 Living).

How in the world could Orlando tolerate a ‘Night Club for gays’?

I guess for the same reason Congress tolerated Obama’s acceptance of gays in the military. Not to mention all the gay programs on TV.

How can I complain when I did nothing to stop two men kissing in front of my children at Niagara Falls? They ruined the view so we left.

Yes, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Wade Burleson said...


I certainly agree with anyone being on a terror watch list being barred from obtaining weapons.

As you know, unfortunately, that would not stop a terrorist.

Christiane said...

I think it a good thing not to put the welcome mat out to the terrorists at the gun shows and on the internet.
Respectfully, I do understand what you mean, WADE. But I feel we must do what we can, if we want to look at ourselves in the mirror and confront whether or not we behaved responsibly as a nation with some common sense.

Ramesh said...

Very funny that all are for no fly list ban of weapons purchase.

A list that is highly arbitrary and without any due process. All based on nameless bureaucrats.

What if YOU are placed on a list and deemed terrorist?

Who will you go to get off this list?

This is hotel California.

Instead of banning guns in US, maybe a better idea is to sell FEWER weapons to the world and arm FEWER terrorists (er freedom fighters) doing the bidding of US vagaries of its power.

Also build a better social safety net and provide resources to provide both health and mental or psych for ALL people in US.

THAT would reduce gun violence.

US lives are not any more special than rest of the world.

My 1c.

Christiane said...

I just read the new post by Benjamin Cole which was very moving. I also am aware that likely, later, Dr. Russell Moore spoke and also left his mark on a very interesting convention:


Ramesh said...

An example of the stupidity of the US No Fly List Terrorists:

U.S. Air Force Veteran, Smeared as “an ISIS Fighter,” Just Returned to the U.S. | Glenn Greenwald

Ramesh said...

A little off beat to this post but very relevant to the mechanisms of the terror industry in US ...

Careerism: Prolegomena to a Political Theory

The main reason for the contemporary evasion of Arendt’s critique of careerism, however, is that addressing it would force a confrontation with the dominant ethos of our time. In an era when capitalism is assumed to be not only efficient but also a source of freedom, the careerist seems like the agent of an easy-going tolerance and pluralism. Unlike the ideologue, whose great sin is to think too much and want too much from politics, the careerist is a genial caretaker of himself. He prefers the marketplace to the corridors of state power. He is realistic and pragmatic, not utopian or fanatic. That careerism may be as lethal as idealism, that ambition is an adjunct of barbarism, that some of the worst crimes are the result of ordinary vices rather than extraordinary ideas: these are the implications of Eichmann in Jerusalem that neo-cons and neoliberals alike find too troubling to acknowledge.


Victorious said...

Yes, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Rex, sometimes even the most valiant efforts to oppose evil have little to no effect. I read several days ago that China has had to resort to "Female-Only" buses in an effort to curb the sexual harassment they were receiving by male bus riders. The problem is, of course, that the women will eventually get off the bus when they reach their destination and will likely face harassment in another venue if the problem is so prevalent that such measures are needed to stop the evil.

I could be wrong in my thinking, but I think we can't expect non-Christians to live by the standards and morals that Christians do. I sometimes feel saddened by the things I see, but realize our values are not shared by everyone.

I tried to shield my young children from as much evil as I could knowing that it realistically it was impossible. But keeping the lines of communication open enabled any incidents they may have witnessed or encountered provided an opportunity for productive discussion between us.

In the end, I believe in reaching out to the lost and sharing the reason for my hope when the opportunity presents itself and when it doesn't, I can always pray.

And I could be wrong about this too....but I believe our commonality is our humanity. Someone can correct my thinking if they think it needs correction...:)

Ramesh said...

As a side note on the origins or non-origins of "few good men" quote ...

The False Attribution: Our Democratic Poetry

Ramesh said...

Democrats Embrace Secretive, Flawed Terror Watchlist in Fight Against Gun Violence

Ramesh said...

Sarah Palin got this quite right in my view: "This was all part of that hope and change and transparency. Now, a year later, I gotta ask the supporters of all that, 'How's that hopey, changey stuff working out?' "

Rex Ray said...

Well, ‘La-dee-da’, I spent most of the day replying to the Benjamin Cole post by reducing a 27 page sermon by John Weaver into 2 pages. http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/battleflag.html

BUT NO COMMENTS CAN BE MADE! Is that not against the law? :)

I think in a year the SBC will be asked the question of Sarah Palin’s: “How’s that hopey, changey stuff working out?”

Wade Burleson said...


I'm so sorry! Ben requested no comments, but feel free to publish your comment in this blog. :)

Rex Ray said...


It’s like the preacher said…The side that wins the war gets to write the school textbooks and they portray the Confederate Battle Flag as hate. Why even the newspaper today tells of the Confederate flag being removed from the Pennsylvania Capitol where it was displayed.

The complaint from Vanessa Lowery Brown who chairs the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus did not mind the flag being displayed but the placard underneath it did NOT “properly say that this was a symbol of hatred, murder, and oppression.”

Rex Ray said...

The Truth about the Confederate Battle Flag by Pastor John Weaver

Pastor John Weaver is a native of Georgia, and a graduate from Bob Jones University where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Theology and attended graduate school. He has been in Christian ministry for over 30 years.

The Confederate Battle Flag is not a racist flag. I can hear it now though, “Brother Weaver, don't you know that the Ku Klux Klan, supremacists groups, and hate groups uses the Confederate Battle Flag? Yes, But I also know that they used the Stars and Stripes and the Christian flag. Why are they not considered racist flags as well?

I mean if something is going to be guilty by association, condemn those flags. Do you realize that most attackers of the flag are either motivated by historical ignorance or pure unadulterated malice toward the South, its symbols, its heritage and its people?

Two greatest lies: the South instigated the war, and it was fought by the North for the purpose of freeing the slaves!

This flag represents a yearning for liberty, freedom, and independence rather than to beg the government for charity.

There was not one slave brought into this country under the Confederate flag but under the Stars and Stripes by Northern ships. The Confederate Battle Flag flew only 4 years out of 224 years that slavery was legal in this country. Why not hate the Stars and Stripes?

Maybe the real flag to hate would be the British flag because England was responsible for taking five million blacks from Africa and selling them to many countries.

In March of 1861 Abraham Lincoln proposed a thirteenth amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State.” It was passed unanimously by Congress.

In other words if the South accepted the amendment, they could keep slaves forever. So what was the war about? The South was rich compared to the North and paid about 75% to 80% of all taxes. The North wanted a 40% tariff, but the South was only willing to give 10%.

Rex Ray said...

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free one slave but was a war measure to keep England and other Countries from joining or recognizing the Confederate states of America.

Before the war General Robert E. Lee inherited some slaves but he gave them freedom. There were over 300,000 slaveholders in the Northern armies. After the war General Ulysses S. Grant kept his slaves. Slavery was not the issue. Slavery has never been the issue until political revisionists wanted to make it the issue.

The Confederate flag is a Christian flag and it represents freedom from tyranny. The Confederate Battle Flag as we know it did not come into full-blown presence until July 21, 1861. The South was not fighting as a racist nation or as a slave holding nation. They were fighting for constitutional rights. They were fighting for State's rights. The flag represents a limited Constitutional republic.

All one has to do is to look at present day Washington, D.C. to know exactly what our forefathers fought against. Two hundred and fifty thousand Confederate soldiers gave their lives to prevent from having what we have today! The extension of government into every area of our lives is a result of the fact that the South lost the war. To attack the flag is to attack truth, which the flag represents. The Confederate Flag not only represents a limited view of government, but it also represents freedom from tyranny.

The Confederate Battle Flag waved when the Berlin Wall was being torn down. The Confederate Battle Flag has been adopted and used by the people of Poland, Hungry, Ukraine, Lithuania, and East Germany, as they were victorious over the Union of Soviets.

The flag must be attacked and destroyed to prevent us from questioning the myths and propaganda of the political correctness that's in our country today. In order to keep a people enslaved and content in the present, their past must be destroyed. A people, who have no past, will have no future. We need to come back to our Christian roots.

“This is what the Lord says: Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Jeremiah 6:16 NLT)

I would trade the culture, character, and morality that men have today in a heartbeat for what the South had before the War of Northern Aggression. We better stand in the way and ask for the old ways, which is the good way. We not only need to keep our symbols, we need to defend their principles and apply those principles in our present day life.

RB Kuter said...

Wade says; " then the state (government) will eventually devolve into a fascist state."

Okay, just have to say it: A recent book you may, or may not, find interesting and related to this discussion can be found for $4 electronic version on www.rbkuterthejourney.com

Just saying..

ScottShaver said...

Rex Ray:

Men of your courage and willingness to call out clear-eyed realities are few and far between these days my friend. My hats off to you and thank you for the clearest rationale I've found to date for not buying into the divisive revival of race demons currently being fostered by SBC "leaders" and "ethicists".

My great great grandfather and his brother out of Northwest Arkansas (Missouri Territory) served as volunteers in the Union Cavalry and Infantry. Although my ancestors fought for the North, they themselves understood, appreciated, honored, forgave and understood why their southern counterparts were willing to give their lives...for exactly the reasons Rex Ray has mentioned.

People 150 years removed from the time in question cannot pass moral judgement on the zeitgeist of the late 1800's in this country because they have absolutely no comprehension of what it was like.

Sad thing is Ray, "the culture, character, and morality that men have today" is actually the portrait of the complete absence of those characteristics when you compare them to the men of yesterday from both North and South.

Some of these guys wouldn't pick up a sling-shot to defend their own wives and families. They just don't have the moral constitution for it.

Pulpit may not be the best place for em but certainly the safest.....that is until things in the world and in the U.S. REALLY go "South".

ScottShaver said...

Klu Klux Klan....Shmoo Klux Klan.

I don't think this particular movement came into full blown prominence until post Civil-War during Reconstruction.

How many members does this organization have nationally? I'm guessing about the same number as registered messengers to a Southern Baptist Convention?

ScottShaver said...

Hey Rex:

What do you think about an "ethicist" (Russell Moore) that calls for public removal of the Confederate Flag by Christians while displaying himself an oil painting of CSA Chaplain Broaddus in his ERLC office in Washington DC.

Why should anybody listen to him on anything?

Is he primarily following Jesus or Joseph Fletcher?

RB Kuter said...

I'm just saying, www.rbkuterthejourney, and read the "Excerpt" even if you don't buy the book and let me know what you think.

RB Kuter said...

Rex Ray,

Almost all the time we agree but we're not on the same page, entirely at least, on this issue. I agree that the Civil War was fought because the south felt the federal government infringing upon its right to control itself. I agree that the primary reason the north was fighting was not to free the slaves but to maintain control and the union.

But I do not agree that slavery was "not" a huge factor in the motivation of the south to fight against the north in order to preserve the slave-based economy and agricultural industry. It is a very complicated topic and I totally agree that in most discussions today it is "dumbed down" to be a matter of the righteous north fighting for the freedom of the slaves while the demonic south was fighting to maintain that institution, which was indeed evil and sickening.

As always, politics was involved more than moral ideology. I think that LBJ's struggle with the promotion of the "Voter's Rights" law was very similar to Lincoln's struggle with what to do in regard to the "Emancipation Proclamation". Both were finally done by LBJ and Lincoln but largely due to political circumstance and pressure and not due solely to moral obligation.

Regardless, if we deal with things as they are today and our society's view on things, the Confederate Battle Flag is indeed seen by probably all of the African-Americans and perhaps the majority of the white population, as being a racist symbol and is very offensive to them. I'm guessing that it is seen by them much as the Jews would view the Swastika. This being the case, what is more important; promoting something that clearly causes pain, distrust and anger to my brother who may or may not interpret its intent accurately, or give it up because it really has nothing to do with who I am today or who/what I stand for?

Also, I believe the Southern Baptist Convention has been "all white" since its conception. It has never been hospitable to the non-white community; hence, ALL-white congregations. It is only in the past decade that it has shifted this status and I'm glad to see it.

Still, Rex Ray, let's be friends. My intent is not to "judge" you but only to express an opinion that is somewhat different.

ScottShaver said...

Respectfully RRR, and as friendly dialogue:

You write "Regardless, if we deal with things as they are today our society's views on things...."

Therein lies the problem. I refuse to see "things today" in terms of an attitude that's always looking to be offended whether such an attitude is popular or even defended as "biblical". If we're going to be a pluralistic society we need thicker skins far more than we need more legislation or religious moralizing on flags, icons and history markers.

The rationale seems to be we take 1% who are miserable, offended or noses-out-of-joint and we make 99% even more miserable with our "good intentions".

This kind of thinking not only defies logic, it can get very expensive from a purely economical perspective.

Rex Ray said...



What’s happening today proves history repeats itself:

“Texas loses fight to keep out Syrian refugees” is in today’s newspaper.

Also, “Federal judge dismissed Texas’ lawsuit against federal government.”

It’s ‘States Rights’ against Federal Government all over again!

ScottShaver said...

The rationale from current SBC "leaders"/talking heads appears to be as follows:

Beatings will continue until morale improves.

Boy are they going to be sorely disappointed.

Also, likewise was puzzled by the lack of response to article on "Pressler". Wish I could have seen that moment.

ScottShaver said...

Pressler reduced to "former shell" on convention floor.

Paige better get his house in order and on board with young blood or he'll be next.

His former allies don't care who they eat. LOL

Ramesh said...

Why Is the Killer of British MP Jo Cox Not Being Called a “Terrorist”? | Glenn Greenwald

... the term “terrorist” at this point has so little cogent meaning that debates about how to apply it seem quaint and completely academic. The scholars Remi Brulin and Lisa Stampnitzky have spent years documenting how the term, from the start, was little more than a propaganda tool designed to legitimize one side’s violence while delegitimizing its enemies’ violence.

Rex Ray said...


Old friend…Yesterday was so busy somehow I didn’t see your comment until last night. I missed the point you made about LBJ. I told my wife that LBJ did not live when Lincoln was alive. (You see when I see the name LBJ it’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull…like the Confederate Flag does to a lot of uneducated people.) She explained very well your point of LBJ.

I have on my cell phone a picture of Wade’s comment that I wrote on my computer:

“Rex, really sad that only "16" people showed up at James' funeral. I read the book [LBJ and the Kennedy Killing by James T. Tague 2013] you sent me (Thank You!) - it was an eye-opener! I love history, and James' book was well-written, well-documented and startling. Wed May 18, 08:09:00 AM 2016” (I added the words in brackets.)

The book reported LBJ was on the floorboard 30 seconds before the first shot was fired. Also his car was moved from second to third in line behind JFK.

Sirhan Sirhan was a pasty in the murder of Robert Kennedy just like Oswald. 13 shots were recorded by a reporter with the sound of 8 shots different from the rest.

Sirhan’s gun held 8 bullets. Robert who asked LBJ “Why did you have my brother killed” was about to become President at the end of LBJ’s term.

Sirhan wounded 5 people as he was held down on a table. Those bullets and the ones that killed Kennedy were replaced by ‘substitute’ bullets at the trial. Also the autopsy that showed power burns from BEHIND was not allowed.


Well, I got off the subject but there’s no limitations to murder.

Rex Ray said...


Lord help us!


RB Kuter said...

Rex Ray,
I thought that they might have opened the files on those times by now but guess they never will.

Don'the forget to check out www.rbkuterthejourney.com, "excerpt"

ScottShaver said...

Who cares, Glen Greenwald, about the "debates" over what or doesn't constitute "terrorism".

Even a child who is old enough to walk and remember and is exposed understands EXACTLY what "terrorism" is.

Ask Timothy McVey the reactionary to U.S. Government or the Islamic-inspired soldiers of the jihad (Mujahdeen) whether or not they have debated the actual meaning, goals, and collective effect of "terrorism".

Some folks are dangerously overeducated...and darn proud of it.