Nothing more than human trash

You probably got the wrong idea when you read the headline above.

I do not mean that some people are trash (well, I don't mean that in this column ... yet). What I mean is some people are simply treated like they are nothing more than a bag of garbage.

This happens all over the place.

Back when Hurricane Katrina whomped the Southeast, Florida evacuees came north. Many stopped over the Turner County.

One family (OK, now is when I refer to people as trash) dropped an elderly lady at the nursing home in town and left. Just drove away.

When she died, all the contact information the "family" left was no good. This woman was treated like a sack of garbage (what I originally meant in the headline). Set it beside the road, it gets picked up and vanishes.

I just can't imagine that.

I should not be surprised. We live in a world where people are disposable commodities. This is nothing new. It is as old as humanity.

I am disappointed.

In this week's newspaper, you can read the story of a Hispanic man who drowned in a pond here. Who was he? No one here is entirely sure. Two names were found, each with a different date of birth.

Family? May have a father still alive. May have a sister alive in Florida.

Whoever this man was, he died with no identification in his pockets or in the vehicle he used to drive here.

If no one claims the body in a few days, he'll be buried in one of our cemeteries.

So sad.

About Jeff Sessions comment on Romans 13

Blog sort of by request. 

I was asked to offer the facts around a recent comment by US AG Jeff Sessions.

"I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said.

He is right. To a point. He does not complete the thought.

"Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:10

Likewise, when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name's sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name. 1 Kings

GUMMINT ORDERS

Christians are to obey the government unless there is a direct contradiction between God's Word and man's law. If there is a contradiction, Christians must refuse to obey, even if it means their death. Christians may not fight against government punishment unless specifically ordered by God. Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego. Despite being innocent, Jesus gave himself over the government authorities, as have so many martyrs, because:

• The government ordered it.

• They refused to break God's law and thus were subject to man's law for that refusal.

Sessions is correct in what he says. According to the Bible, all government is ordained by God. Some people argue against this. Witness the ancient Jewish people subjugated by the Egyptians and made slaves with no rights, not even a right to life. Later in the Old Testament, the Jewish people were conquered by other peoples because they turned away from God. Witness in the New Testament, the conquering of the Holy Land by Roman invaders.

So. When Sessions says the above, he is correct. God gave government the power to do this. We are to obey.

Is this right? I say no. Is it fair? Again, I say no. Under the Bible is he correct? Yes. Does anyone have to like this? No. Does government have to be fair or right by my definition under the Bible? No.

CARING FOR THOSE FOLKS

The passages people quote against Sessions - saying the Bible tells us we should care for the widows, the orphans and the poor is also correct. However, this is instructions for people, NOT the government. Nowhere in the New Testament is the government ordered to do anything. The OT does sometimes. Exodus 12:49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you. This is also qualified in other places in the Bible, see below.

The passages about accepting the foreigners into your midst, which the objectors also quote is also accurate, but not complete. 

These sections of the Bible also say the foreigner who comes to you must be accepted AND must assimilate into your culture. Also, this is a directive to people, not to government in the New Testament. In the OT it can be either or both.

Ezekiel 44:7: In addition to all your other detestable practices, you brought foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary, desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood, and you broke my covenant.

Deuteronomy 18:9-14: 9 “When you enter the land that the Lord your God is about to give you, don’t learn the detestable practices of those nations there.10 There must never be found among you anyone who sacrifices[a] his son or daughter in fire, practices divination, interprets omens, practices sorcery, 11 casts spells, or who is a medium, an occultist, or a necromancer. 12 Whoever practices these things is detestable to the Lord, and the Lord your God will expel them before you because of these things. 13 You must be completely faithful to the Lord your God, 14 because those nations that you are about to dispossess listen to those who practice witchcraft and divination. But the Lord does not allow you to act this way.”

If the foreigner does not assimilate, he must still be treated fairly, but that is all.

“A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.” Exodus 12.

ORDAINED AND IN PLACE

In the Old Testament, God warned the Israelites what would happen if they got a man-directed government. God said if the people truly wanted a man-made government, then He would ONLY step in to take action against the government in very exceptional circumstances. He said it would not be pleasant. See the books of Judges and Chronicles for examples.

1 Samuel 8: He (Samuel) said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” (empahsis mine)

Above, I tell you "Christians may not fight against government punishment unless specifically ordered by God." However, our form of government allows and encourages protests against government. There is no contradiction with God's word here.

We may protest. We may argue. This is legal under our secular laws. However, we must always respect that same government, including the current president, says God.

NO SEPARATION

Legislative bodies may be opened with prayer.

Nothing in the Constitution specifically calls for a separation of church and state. People misunderstand 1A. It only says Congress cannot establish a state religion. This is not separation. Religion, per Supreme Court decisions, may be a part of government. See decisions regarding prayer in schools, teaching the Bible as a religious matter in public schools 

And actually, a sizeable part of the law in the United States is based on Biblical principles, which are based on the Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi is an excellent read.

As for Sessions quoting the Bible, anyone can quote the Bible. Doesn't make 'em right, wrong, informed or ignorant. Albeit any time a politician quotes the Bible I see that person as both ignorant and stupid.

1 John 3:17 ESV: "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

In short, Sessions is correctly quoting the direct word of the Bible as a member of the government. As an individual, he is contravening the spirit of the Word of God. In this case, he is anot NOT acting as a Christian either personally or as a government official.

One more thing -

Individuals are to take in the foreigners IF they assimilate. If government says this is wrong, individuals must continue to do this, under God's word. If we are caught, then we are subject to punishment under Man's law.

A refusal to understand

Understand this, no Christian walking this earth today is perfect. We want to be better than we are. We are trying to do better. We are going to fail. However, God will not hold our failures against us. What man may hold against us is another matter.

I am not an expert on religion. What follows is what I believe as well as some empirical facts. YMMV.

In the wake of the Masterpiece Cake decision, experts on "Christianity" are coming out of the ether telling the rest of the world that the Bible says "We should stone divorced people, we shouldn't get tattoos, don't eat owls, don't kill a burglar during the day, if your brother dies, marry his wife. But we don't do these things anymore. For. A. Reason!"

Yes, Christians have a reason too, one which statements like the above choose to ignore. Such statements as above are made through ignorance (curable) or a refusal to understand (incurable).

Our reason is:

GRACE

Yeah. Christians don't should not do that stuff anymore for a reason. S'called Grace.

Grace is God's unmerited favor upon His children. You did not do anything to earn it. You cannot pay it back. You cannot do anything to earn it. It's free. It is life changing.

CHANGES THEY ARE A'COMING

The proof of the life-changing effect of a religious faith is all around.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rayqhfjmDIgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA2&dq=religious+faith+changes+the+brain&ots=MGJkD8Jb2W&sig=ZzBOWvAVs9hbJhwn6ZRVTbownvo#v=onepage&q=religious%20faith%20changes%20the%20brain&f=false

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eileen-flanagan/changing-your-life-with-r_b_698170.html

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537903.2017.1298905

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MbURDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=religious+faith+changes+the+brain&ots=bPHLKZK_IB&sig=MThTFbXeJFyg7SceNZDTCdeYpgw#v=onepage&q=religious%20faith%20changes%20the%20brain&f=false

WHAT HAPPENED?

Before I tell you what happened, I can tell you one reason why. I cannot tell you the whole reasoning behind it. No human can. We're dealing with an entity whose ability to reason is above ours. As soon as someone explains calculus to a dog so that the dog understands and can do the equations, someone will be able to explain God to a human.

So what happened? Love. Grace. Grace in the form of a bi-natured human who died and rose again, delivering the world from the consequences of sin. That is the ultimate expression of love - that one man should be willing to die for another.

Why did it happen? That's easy. Love.

What did it do? Again, easy. Love.

NOT BOUND

Christians are not bound to the Laws of the Old Testament. Under the New Testament, which is ignored by people who refuse to try to understand when criticizing Christians, we can eat an owl. In case you wonder, yeah, I'd try it. http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/10.htm

We can do anything. CAN - this is the ability to do so. It does not mean we SHOULD do it.

In this respect, the Law of the Old Testament is almost identical to the law of man.

You can murder someone under the law of man. Yes, you can. People do it every day. If the law was an effective block against murder, it would not happen. Yet, murder happens. You should not murder anyone. If you do and get caught, you are subject to man's penalties. The Bible, in the red letters if you have that version, even says man may be prosecuted and punished under man's law. Yes. It. Does.

Under the Law of the Old Testament, a punishment was prescribed. Under Grace, the Law of the Old Testament still exists. It was never set aside. Rather, the Law of the Old Testament was fulfilled by giving mankind the last sacrifice ever needed for the expiation of sin.

In other words, the prison sentence under God's Law was already served. The prison sentence under man's law is a different matter. Man's law says criminals have a debt to society - that is prison time, fine, community service, etc. God's law says sin has a debt to a fellow human and God - that debt was also spelled out in the Old Testament. Again, that debt is now paid in full, forever.

This is not a license to go out and commit murder any more than serving time for a murder and being released is a license to out and commit another murder.

CONFUSING

Yeah. This is confusing. I don't understand it completely. I believe no one walking around today does.

Yassee, I don't have to understand. You don't have to understand. Just accept.

Someone is going to call this stupid and ridiculous. Most of these people, not all, also support a bigger government. Yet, they do not understand everything government does, how or why. No one person can possibly understand all of it. Yet, they accept it while demanding more. I certainly do not understand that.

No difference.

A few people who call for no government at all also don't understand and more importantly won't understand.

Not much difference.

A few people call for much less government, a government that can be understood.

A somewhat bigger difference.

ONE LAST THING

This "what Christians can't do" all comes down to one thing - love.

Period.

A deeper look at the SCOTUS cake decision

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/06/04/16-111_j4el.pdf

In typical SCOTUS fashion, the justices waffled. The majority decision by Justice Kennedy states in part: "One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference."

The word "might" appears twice. As SCOTUS decisions are parsed down to the kerning, focusing on the word "might" as mentioned twice in the same paragraph is significant.

The next 'graph adds to the consternating confusion. 

In short, SCOTUS did not rule on the First Amendment Freedom of Speech issues in this case. All it did was say the Colorado Commission was hostile toward religion and so the decision was invalidated. Other Commission cases presented as evidence and actual commissioners' testimony during their hearing clearly back this up.

PRECEDENT

Justice Kennedy says the right to religion is not absolute. Duh. Human sacrifice is not allowed. More pertinently, "The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws."

In other words, your freedom of and from religion can be stopped by government, according to the court. Some past examples:

A church rents out its social hall to the public. By setting precedent, the church has to rent it to anyone who meets the rental agreement. Renting property is subject to anti-discrimination laws.

MUST SERVE

The majority decision is packed with references and past SCOTUS cases that say a business must serve the public. "Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."

I have a fundamental objection here. Government should not have the ability to force a business to serve anyone. If a business refuses to serve any customer for whatever reason, that is the business owner's right. If people do not like it, they should take their money elsewhere. If the denial of service is egregious enough, then society forces should force a change, not government. In other words, boycott the business and encourage others to do so. Put enough economic and social pressure on the business to either force a change or drive it out of business.

SCOTUS admits that preachers cannot be forced to perform religious ceremonies that go against their beliefs. However, the religious belief exemption should have limits, the High Court said, "Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations."

FREE SPEECH

Too many people believe 1A only covers what someone says. I have seen people who believe the written word is not subject to free speech nor copyright. In fact, freedom of and from speech applies to the written word, spoken word, sign language, images, dance, architectural renderings and so on. A good way to know if it is free speech is to look at copyright. Can you copyright it? If so, it is almost guaranteed to be free speech. May be an exception to this rule; I cannot find one. 

CONCURRING OPINION

"I join the Court’s opinion in full because I believe the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not satisfy that obligation. I write separately to elaborate on one of the bases for the Court’s holding." "I accordingly concur."

Kagan's opinion, joined by Breyer, runs back to three other cake cases brought to the Colorado Commission. Bakers refused to make cakes demeaning of same gender marriage. She says that was appropriate because the bakeries would refuse to bake a cake demeaning anyone. She does not supply proof that the other bakeries would deny demeaning cakes. The dissent does provide that proof.

Suppose she is right. If so, that is equal treatment under the law. It is also discrimination, which is illegal under Colorado law. Or is it? An opinion may be changed. Colorado law and federal says everyone must be treated equally under the law irrespective of things they cannot change like sexual orientation, race, handicap and gender. Discrimination based on a customer's opinion or other matters which can be changed (pull your damn pants up) is allowed.

Some people believe a gender can be changed. Some see race as equally malleable. If so, discrimination based on gender and race must also be allowed.

Let's make this more clear. This is a legal matter. The High Court specifically did NOT use the word gender. It used the word sex. As this is a legal matter, we MUST stand on the words used. 

In the opinion, Kagan wrote: "As this Court has long held, and reaffirms today, a vendor cannot escape a public accommodations law because his religion disapproves selling a product to a group of customers, whether defined by sexual orientation, race, sex, or other protected trait."

That being said, and leaning on other court decisions, sex can be changed. If it can be changed, it may be discriminated against, or we have a contradiction in the law.

NO FREE SPEECH

Kagan also sees this as not a 1A speech issue. "It was simply a wedding cake—one that (like other standard wedding cakes) is suitable for use at same-sex and opposite-sex weddings alike." The cake baker said he was being called on to create a special, unique cake for the event that required him to use his developed decorating skills.

I wonder if the couple would have accepted a plain sheet cake with plain icing and no decoration.

Other judges also wrote separate opinions splitting legal hares and hairs. Not going into them.

Much was made of the 7-2 decision with some calling it narrow. The decision was narrow in scope, but not in the justice's view of what happened.

DISSENT

Ginsberg and Sotomayor were the standouts. Ginsberg's opinion leans heavily on the refusal to sell the cake. She pretty much dismisses the overt hostility as displayed by the Colorado Commissioners as irrelevant, even though one compared the baker's religious views to views on slavery and the Holocaust. She says "nor do the comments by one or two members of one of the four decision making entities considering this case justify reversing the judgment below."

The Colorado Commission is an appointed body of 7 people. It does not have the power to fine anyone it finds guilty of a violation.

Ginsberg: "Whatever one may think of the statements in historical context, I see no reason why the comments of one or two Commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips’ refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins. The proceedings involved several layers of independent decision making, of which the Commission was but one."

Except the binding decision was made by the Commission. Courts were later asked to rule if the decision was legal or not.

Judge not lest ye be corrected

The Supreme Court decision on baking a cake is not the victory so many on the right thought at first glance.

Nor was it a "narrow" victory as so many on the left were screaming.

The 7-2 SCOTUS decision said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was overtly "hostile" to religion in making its decision. Left unresolved are the issues of free speech, how far a government may go in ordering an individual to do something and, yet, how far freedom of and from religion must be considered.

SOWING CONFUSION

This is all too typical of SCOTUS decisions - sowing confusion by handing down a ruling that does not fully address the issue. At the same time, SCOTUS is vilified by the right AND the left for handing down these decisions. What direction the hate goes depends on the ruling. Both sides complain judges legislate from the bench and both sides complain judges do not go far enough in their rulings. But that's a rant for another day and one I've covered in the past.

WWKD

Anyway, the FB discussion took a religious bent as it is wont to do under the circumstances. Those with a religious faith and those with no religious faith weighed in. In other words, WWJD. I posted WWKD (What Would Kali Do) because I think it's funny and I hope Shanny will stumble across this and reconnect with me).

In this particular thread, the atheist side wins.

Me bud Phil — I (sarcastically) said Jesus would be proud, meaning of his followers, not of himself. Jesus seems a decent fellow with lots of love in his heart. It's his followers who clearly hate "sinners". Jesus said to love thy neighbor, and his followers gave him the finger. His dad said judge not, and those same followers flipped him off, too.

Please understand that I use quotation marks because I think it is preposterous that anyone is a sinner or an abomination because of the way the good Lord made them. —

YOUR RIGHT TO SHUT UP

A lot of the "christians" out there say God does not make mistakes. These same people of faith are quick to attack that which the Lord hath made for being different. Why? In case you don't wonder, the same First Amendment SCOTUS references also gives you the right to shut up. All of us need to apply this part of 1A more frequently.

PERFECTION

If God made it, then surely that is the way God wanted it. If God made it, is it perfect in His eyes? Christians will say so. If that is the case, who are you as a follower of the man we call the Christ to criticize the work of the Almighty?

The Jesus of the Bible criticized the religious leaders of the day for their choices. He told the people of a better way. He showed them a better way. He did not attack non-leaders. He never attacked anyone for the way God made them. What gives you, as a Christian, the right to do that? Show me where you have that right. Jump in any time with proof. Meantime, chew on this.

"Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things -– he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies."

 Former president Jimmy Carter.

Someone will say the Old Testament condemns homosexuality. Sure does. The New Testament also placed the laws of the Old Testament to the side, sometimes eliminating old laws completely.

Regardless, me bud Phil continues to be correct. Jesus never condemned anyone for the way God made 'em. Nor should Christians. 

If you are a Christian and you feel you have the right to condemn someone for the way God made 'em, please permanently excuse yourself from my life. I have no interest in ever having anything to do with you because of the choices you made. God made you. What you do with that is a decision you make and a decision that may, under the tenets of the Bible, be judged.