The other day I received a mailing from my old fraternity, the Kappa Sigs of Delta Chapter (Davidson College, N.C.).
It turns out that out of Davidson College's illustrious men's golf program that has produced 5 southern conference champions that 3 out of the 5 just happened to be Kappa Sigma.
Go figure!
When I was a Kappa Sig, football and track & field were the sports de jeur. Myself and Duncan Spears (both also Stuart Scholars which equalled Full Merit Scholarships as Christian Leaders!) were on the Track team together and Duncan, believe it or not, actually won the 400m men's Southern Conference Hurdles Championship. I, being an over-pumped offensive lineman, ended up as "All Academic Southern Conference" in Football.
But, as the historical records document, although Duncan & I were the best Kappa Sig athletes in our day (class of 1994) in other by-gone eras, Kappa Sigs represented the finest in men's golf!
And, for a modest donation starting at $2,500, I too could help support Kappa Sigs return to men's golf championship Glory!
Well, setting this humorous episode aside ($2,500 minimum donation sure had me chuckling! :-), the fact that I as a Kappa Sig would be called upon in Davidson Men's Golf "hour of need" (the team must really be hurting for money with minimum donations of $2,500!!!), demonstrates that whether we like it or not, and something I abhor, it is often less "what you know," but instead "who you know."
Unlike Duncan Spears and myself, both top-notch athletes who also boasted astronomical G.P.A.'s, many times things like hiring decisions, promotions, even Presidential candidacies are based less on merit and more on "who you know."
So, there you have it. Straight from the Kappa Sigma horse's mouth.
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J. King, scholar-athlete for Jesus
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Foucault, "Madness" and How it All Came to Be . . .
In a fascinating romp through history, post-modern secular French philosopher Michel Foucault explores how "madness" or "insanity" has developed as a concept throughout medieval and modern/post-modern Western history.
In his acclaimed Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, Foucault describes how once Western Europe conquered leprosy as a disease, the "empty sociological space" that the outcast leper once occupied must now be occupied by a different denizen of the Realm.
Whereas in the Middle Ages, the "madman" could range from annoying town fool to later being categorized as "mad" and sent off aboard a ship to avoid contact with normal society (the famous "Ship of Fools" metaphor is derived from this late medieval practice!), now, through the institutionalization of Christendom, the "madman" (along with the debtor, and the criminal) could be isolated in confinement.
Part of what I love about Foucault's work is his historical sensitivity and his ability to "imagine" how certain concepts that once meant a certain type of sociological arrangement in one era of history, could suddenly mean something entirely different in a new era of history.
In medieval France, the "madman" or "insane" person was little more than a town nuisance, yet once leprosy was conquered, a new "outcast" was needed, and thus the "insane person" suddenly fit the bill and was imprisoned as a result!
But is this the entire story?
Truly, as any graduate student in Theology, Ethics or Philosophy would know, Michel Foucault is one of the foremost philosophical voices of the late twentieth century.
But, although such scholarly acumen is praiseworthy, the Christian version of the story always remains different.
In the thought of Thomas Aquinas, Medieval Doctor of the Catholic Church, due to the unified Christian Governmental umbrella provided by the See at Rome, Christian Orthodoxy ruled. As such, rather than later secular understandings of 'rationality' prevailing in the High Middle Ages, to be 'rational' according to St. Thomas Aquinas was to have one's mind in conformity with God Who Is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Although Islam was encroaching both in North Africa and at the gates of Byzantium, to think of God as anyone other than Father, Son and Holy Spirit was heretical. Moreover, since a Trinitarian Christian society was assured "rationality" truly was nothing other than conformity to the Divine Mind as Revealed in Jesus Christ, the LOGOS.
Granted, such "LOGOS-theology" was more of an Eastern Greek emphasis yet, in Aquinas' own thought, such Patristic and Medieval Greek Thinkers are nonetheless a common resource for Aquinas.
Thus, in the Christian worldview, to be "rational" is to be "Jesus-like" for the Divine Mind is the source of all human rationality and only revealed through the LOGOS, either directly through Jesus Christ, or more indirectly as part of the divine rationality intrinsic to creation itself that can be found in the Natural Law, also emphasized by Thomas Aquinas.
Interestingly, this equating of "rationality" with Christian virtue is noticed by Foucault in an inverse sense when Foucault notes how "madness" was itself a "vice" in the Middle Ages (p. 24), but since Foucault is a philosopher and social commentator (and not a Theologian), the connection is not made here concerning how and why the "madman" moves from a mild sinner to a communal outcast, except of course through Foucault's excellent sociological commentary.
Therefore, in contradistinction, yet harmony with Foucault's analysis, the "birth of modern insanity" as a concept can be traced not simply to such social dislocation, but more importantly to the breakdown of Christendom itself!
First, with the Protestant Reformation and consequent splintering of ecclesial authority, and then with the encroaching secularism in the form of modern Enlightenment Thought (most notably, Immanuel Kant), "Rationality" increasingly became defined outside of any specifically Theological framework, either ecclesially OR epistemologically. "To be Rational" (for Kant and other Enlightenment Thinkers) soon became nothing other than being a well-educated European. Gone was the understanding that Rationality was to be defined by participation in the Triune God-head of Father, Son & Holy Spirit through the Divine LOGOS Who is Jesus Christ! Instead, to be "rational" soon became nothing other than to be well-educated!
In closing, in our own post-Christian society of the U.S.A., be very careful what you label as "mad or insane" because such categories are no longer defined by the Church of Jesus Christ (Catholic or Protestant), but instead are defined simply by whomever can wield enough political power to have someone institutionalized! In fact, even our beloved President George W. Bush was labelled by Democratic leader Howard Dean as being 'delusional . . .'
God help us if those god-less democrats ever get in power!
Blessings in Jesus Christ, the Source of ALL Rational Thought,
Rob J. King Thinker for Jesus . . .
In his acclaimed Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, Foucault describes how once Western Europe conquered leprosy as a disease, the "empty sociological space" that the outcast leper once occupied must now be occupied by a different denizen of the Realm.
Whereas in the Middle Ages, the "madman" could range from annoying town fool to later being categorized as "mad" and sent off aboard a ship to avoid contact with normal society (the famous "Ship of Fools" metaphor is derived from this late medieval practice!), now, through the institutionalization of Christendom, the "madman" (along with the debtor, and the criminal) could be isolated in confinement.
Part of what I love about Foucault's work is his historical sensitivity and his ability to "imagine" how certain concepts that once meant a certain type of sociological arrangement in one era of history, could suddenly mean something entirely different in a new era of history.
In medieval France, the "madman" or "insane" person was little more than a town nuisance, yet once leprosy was conquered, a new "outcast" was needed, and thus the "insane person" suddenly fit the bill and was imprisoned as a result!
But is this the entire story?
Truly, as any graduate student in Theology, Ethics or Philosophy would know, Michel Foucault is one of the foremost philosophical voices of the late twentieth century.
But, although such scholarly acumen is praiseworthy, the Christian version of the story always remains different.
In the thought of Thomas Aquinas, Medieval Doctor of the Catholic Church, due to the unified Christian Governmental umbrella provided by the See at Rome, Christian Orthodoxy ruled. As such, rather than later secular understandings of 'rationality' prevailing in the High Middle Ages, to be 'rational' according to St. Thomas Aquinas was to have one's mind in conformity with God Who Is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Although Islam was encroaching both in North Africa and at the gates of Byzantium, to think of God as anyone other than Father, Son and Holy Spirit was heretical. Moreover, since a Trinitarian Christian society was assured "rationality" truly was nothing other than conformity to the Divine Mind as Revealed in Jesus Christ, the LOGOS.
Granted, such "LOGOS-theology" was more of an Eastern Greek emphasis yet, in Aquinas' own thought, such Patristic and Medieval Greek Thinkers are nonetheless a common resource for Aquinas.
Thus, in the Christian worldview, to be "rational" is to be "Jesus-like" for the Divine Mind is the source of all human rationality and only revealed through the LOGOS, either directly through Jesus Christ, or more indirectly as part of the divine rationality intrinsic to creation itself that can be found in the Natural Law, also emphasized by Thomas Aquinas.
Interestingly, this equating of "rationality" with Christian virtue is noticed by Foucault in an inverse sense when Foucault notes how "madness" was itself a "vice" in the Middle Ages (p. 24), but since Foucault is a philosopher and social commentator (and not a Theologian), the connection is not made here concerning how and why the "madman" moves from a mild sinner to a communal outcast, except of course through Foucault's excellent sociological commentary.
Therefore, in contradistinction, yet harmony with Foucault's analysis, the "birth of modern insanity" as a concept can be traced not simply to such social dislocation, but more importantly to the breakdown of Christendom itself!
First, with the Protestant Reformation and consequent splintering of ecclesial authority, and then with the encroaching secularism in the form of modern Enlightenment Thought (most notably, Immanuel Kant), "Rationality" increasingly became defined outside of any specifically Theological framework, either ecclesially OR epistemologically. "To be Rational" (for Kant and other Enlightenment Thinkers) soon became nothing other than being a well-educated European. Gone was the understanding that Rationality was to be defined by participation in the Triune God-head of Father, Son & Holy Spirit through the Divine LOGOS Who is Jesus Christ! Instead, to be "rational" soon became nothing other than to be well-educated!
In closing, in our own post-Christian society of the U.S.A., be very careful what you label as "mad or insane" because such categories are no longer defined by the Church of Jesus Christ (Catholic or Protestant), but instead are defined simply by whomever can wield enough political power to have someone institutionalized! In fact, even our beloved President George W. Bush was labelled by Democratic leader Howard Dean as being 'delusional . . .'
God help us if those god-less democrats ever get in power!
Blessings in Jesus Christ, the Source of ALL Rational Thought,
Rob J. King Thinker for Jesus . . .
Monday, July 30, 2007
The Return of Traditional Family Life, PROMISE and a warning . . .
Today, on the front page of the St. Petersburg Times newspaper, an article heralded the State of Florida's commitment to upholding a "Traditional" understanding of Family Life. Perhaps influenced by back-to-back G.O.P. Governors (the former Governor Jeb Bush, and current Governor Charlie Crist), it turns out that my home state is teaching young people to "wait until you are married" before having sex.
Praise the LORD!
Whereas in other states, the liberal "have sex but just don't get caught" perspective reigns, here in Florida, young people are being taught that abstinence before marriage is how to not get pregnant.
Imagine that! Traditional Family Life finally affirmed (rather than attacked, caricatured, belittled, etc.) at the official Governmental level.
Truly, in states such as Florida and Texas (another state mentioned in the article), Traditional Family Life seems to be making a come-back in certain areas of the Union.
But, with such PROMISE, also comes a warning!
Although the United States of America currently allows for baby-killing (post Roe v. Wade), and although the U.S.'s divorce laws have wreaked havoc on the American Family, just simply saying, "Do not have sex until you are married" is not the end-all, be-all answer.
What does it mean to "wait until you are married" when marriage itself is being jettisoned as a "Traditional" category. If men can "marry" each other, and if divorce is rampant (sometimes even "rewarding" the person who files for a divorce through state-assistance!), then if we are telling our children to "wait until they are married," then we may be sentencing them to confinement in an institution that has largely been destroyed by the State to begin with!
Just wait until you get married so we will now teach. But, in so doing, we must also outlaw homosexual 'marriage' at the State and Federal levels, and also promote a judicial system that makes divorce itself more difficult to obtain and never with State-assistance for such a divorce!
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J. King, Traditionalist
Praise the LORD!
Whereas in other states, the liberal "have sex but just don't get caught" perspective reigns, here in Florida, young people are being taught that abstinence before marriage is how to not get pregnant.
Imagine that! Traditional Family Life finally affirmed (rather than attacked, caricatured, belittled, etc.) at the official Governmental level.
Truly, in states such as Florida and Texas (another state mentioned in the article), Traditional Family Life seems to be making a come-back in certain areas of the Union.
But, with such PROMISE, also comes a warning!
Although the United States of America currently allows for baby-killing (post Roe v. Wade), and although the U.S.'s divorce laws have wreaked havoc on the American Family, just simply saying, "Do not have sex until you are married" is not the end-all, be-all answer.
What does it mean to "wait until you are married" when marriage itself is being jettisoned as a "Traditional" category. If men can "marry" each other, and if divorce is rampant (sometimes even "rewarding" the person who files for a divorce through state-assistance!), then if we are telling our children to "wait until they are married," then we may be sentencing them to confinement in an institution that has largely been destroyed by the State to begin with!
Just wait until you get married so we will now teach. But, in so doing, we must also outlaw homosexual 'marriage' at the State and Federal levels, and also promote a judicial system that makes divorce itself more difficult to obtain and never with State-assistance for such a divorce!
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J. King, Traditionalist
Friday, July 27, 2007
Secret wire-taps, NSA surveillance and "Do we need all of this???"
In Stephen Oates' excellent biography of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the files of the F.B.I. are cited as background references for recording of King's life. Sadly, although a non-violent man of the cloth, due to King's firm theological convictions, mixed with his Leadership ability, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a man under constant government surveillance.
Horrifically, according to Oates' biography, when M.L. King, Jr. was assassinated, a field agent at the F.B.I. office in Atlanta apparently gleefully stated, "I'm glad that they finally got that S.O.B. . . ."
This is America folks.
No, this was not America under the recent "War on Terror" legislation. This was America in 1968.
Secret wire-taps and government surveillance of good Christian Leaders (such as King) has been a recurring item for news reporters . . .
The question, of course, arises, "Do we need all of this Government surveillance?" Are we actually helping keep America safer (against Al Qaida and her network of terror)?
OR are we living in an American society in which our bloated federal bureaucracy has too much time on its hands, an over-lapping set of internal political agendas, etc., and thus our "spies" are actually increasingly spying on We the People of the United States of America?
Well, since our Vice President's office will not open itself to Congressional Review (part and parcel of what it means to have a tri-partite Government founded on the principle of "checks and balances on power!"), we are largely left in the dark, at least until figures like King are assassinated and the fed in question makes a historically bad decision . . .
From "that S.O.B." (to quote the F.B.I. agent according to Oates' biography of Martin Luther King, Jr.) to the Man who is known as the Father of the Civil Rights Movement and has streets named after him throughout America and even a National Holiday commemorating his life and work . . .
My own answer is that we should start slashing funding for any and all governmental surveillance that cannot be directly linked to sister groups of Al Qaida or Al Qaida herself, and then with strict Congressional oversight concerning "who" such suspected terrorists in fact are.
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J King, Candidate for Civil Liberties
Horrifically, according to Oates' biography, when M.L. King, Jr. was assassinated, a field agent at the F.B.I. office in Atlanta apparently gleefully stated, "I'm glad that they finally got that S.O.B. . . ."
This is America folks.
No, this was not America under the recent "War on Terror" legislation. This was America in 1968.
Secret wire-taps and government surveillance of good Christian Leaders (such as King) has been a recurring item for news reporters . . .
The question, of course, arises, "Do we need all of this Government surveillance?" Are we actually helping keep America safer (against Al Qaida and her network of terror)?
OR are we living in an American society in which our bloated federal bureaucracy has too much time on its hands, an over-lapping set of internal political agendas, etc., and thus our "spies" are actually increasingly spying on We the People of the United States of America?
Well, since our Vice President's office will not open itself to Congressional Review (part and parcel of what it means to have a tri-partite Government founded on the principle of "checks and balances on power!"), we are largely left in the dark, at least until figures like King are assassinated and the fed in question makes a historically bad decision . . .
From "that S.O.B." (to quote the F.B.I. agent according to Oates' biography of Martin Luther King, Jr.) to the Man who is known as the Father of the Civil Rights Movement and has streets named after him throughout America and even a National Holiday commemorating his life and work . . .
My own answer is that we should start slashing funding for any and all governmental surveillance that cannot be directly linked to sister groups of Al Qaida or Al Qaida herself, and then with strict Congressional oversight concerning "who" such suspected terrorists in fact are.
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J King, Candidate for Civil Liberties
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Homophobia, Hate-speech and homespun paranoia . . .
The other day I was talking to an Army Vet, an African American gentleman in his late 40's who was former 82nd Airborne.
Like a couple of old geezers (and I am only 35 going on 36!) we sat there lamenting the sorry, sad state of American public life.
We talked about the recent "gay pride" festival (1 month long) in St. Petersburg and how this was something that we definitely did not want children around.
We also talked about how "back in the day" in places like the 82nd Airborne, if someone was homosexual, the rest of the platoon would beat the snot out of the homosexual soldier Full Metal Jacket-style.
Although it was refreshing hearing a fellow brother not want to see homosexuality become normative in American society, obviously physical abuse is something that should be outlawed, whether the law is civil law or UCMJ. But, just because homosexuals, like any other citizen should be protected from physical harm (along with babies in utero!!!), this does not mean that "hate-speech" laws should be passed in the U.S.
Protecting someone from physical harm is one thing, but if two competing moral visions (Judeo-Christian vs. secular humanist) are currently struggling for supremacy in the U.S. to limit one's thought or speech (especially calling it "hate speech") is simply un-Constitutional.
Congress shall make no law limiting freedom of speech or the press so reads our Bill of Rights, yet increasingly on the Democrat side of the fence (especially in the far-left states such as Massachusetts!) the Bill of Rights is increasingly being ignored.
So, no, homosexuals should not be "whipped up on" Full Metal Jacket-style, but similarly, freedom of speech (and the ability to say that homosexual acts are sins) should similarly not be limited according to our own Constitution as American citizens.
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J King, Constitutionalist
Like a couple of old geezers (and I am only 35 going on 36!) we sat there lamenting the sorry, sad state of American public life.
We talked about the recent "gay pride" festival (1 month long) in St. Petersburg and how this was something that we definitely did not want children around.
We also talked about how "back in the day" in places like the 82nd Airborne, if someone was homosexual, the rest of the platoon would beat the snot out of the homosexual soldier Full Metal Jacket-style.
Although it was refreshing hearing a fellow brother not want to see homosexuality become normative in American society, obviously physical abuse is something that should be outlawed, whether the law is civil law or UCMJ. But, just because homosexuals, like any other citizen should be protected from physical harm (along with babies in utero!!!), this does not mean that "hate-speech" laws should be passed in the U.S.
Protecting someone from physical harm is one thing, but if two competing moral visions (Judeo-Christian vs. secular humanist) are currently struggling for supremacy in the U.S. to limit one's thought or speech (especially calling it "hate speech") is simply un-Constitutional.
Congress shall make no law limiting freedom of speech or the press so reads our Bill of Rights, yet increasingly on the Democrat side of the fence (especially in the far-left states such as Massachusetts!) the Bill of Rights is increasingly being ignored.
So, no, homosexuals should not be "whipped up on" Full Metal Jacket-style, but similarly, freedom of speech (and the ability to say that homosexual acts are sins) should similarly not be limited according to our own Constitution as American citizens.
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J King, Constitutionalist
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Academia, the Church and the Future Secularism
In a strange recent turn of events, I have become increasingly more 'secular' in my perspective. Granted, I am about as "conservative" of a Christian believer as one would ever find (believing that all people must call upon the Name Jesus to be saved, not believing in artificial means of contraception, etc.), but, as an "ultra-conservative" Christian, I am coming to see the need for a "provisional future secularism."
So what would this future secularism look like?
Sadly, through my experiences with both Corporate America and with the Military, neither of these overlapping sets of institutions seem to be ethical enough to provide the "safe naked public square" where people of all faith or of no faith can meet.
Corporate America is often greedy, denying its workers health care or even arguing against a minimum wage increase that is merely calibrated to yearly inflation.
The Military (and not to denigrate the MANY fine men & women who serve in uniform), sadly, is built on an unquestioning chain-of-command in which those at the top can often lie, act unethically, and due solely to "tenure" (military rank is based upon time in service, not ability), are often difficult to confront. Sure, there are avenues for bringing a complaint against a senior officer, but sadly, many such whistle-blowers are silenced immediately with little recourse other than to request a discharge from the service.
But what about the Academic Guild?
Here the answer is opaque, but at least the better of the three options for secular authority. At its best, academic leaders can assume positions of great secular authority and lead with panache, say for example, former Provost of Stanford University, Condoleeza Rice. Other times, the academic world is just as power-hungry and corrupt as Corporate America or the Military.
But, and an important but, due to the intrinsic nature of evaluation of Academic Power (for example standardized test scores such as the S.A.T. or G.R.E.), although a wayward professor may act unethically (for example giving a Born Again Christian a lower grade due to his/her religious beliefs), due to the standardization of evaluation (academic papers, quizzes, etc.) the ability to abuse power is more limited.
Having said all of this, however, the secularism of which I am speaking obviously pales in comparison to the Church, God's Kingdom here on earth. When all others fail, it is the true believer in Jesus the Messiah who has stood by me, whether that person was an Opus Dei numerary helping me through a rough divorce, an Evangelical Protestant Professor praying with me during a dark hour or most recently, a delightful Episcopalian Vicar whose High Church Orthodoxy gives me the "bread for the journey" each Sunday in order to get back out on the secular playing field as an Offensive Lineman for Jesus safe-guarding the flock of Jesus-People from whomever may try to harm them . . .
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J King, Offensive Lineman for Jesus in the Football Game of Secular America
So what would this future secularism look like?
Sadly, through my experiences with both Corporate America and with the Military, neither of these overlapping sets of institutions seem to be ethical enough to provide the "safe naked public square" where people of all faith or of no faith can meet.
Corporate America is often greedy, denying its workers health care or even arguing against a minimum wage increase that is merely calibrated to yearly inflation.
The Military (and not to denigrate the MANY fine men & women who serve in uniform), sadly, is built on an unquestioning chain-of-command in which those at the top can often lie, act unethically, and due solely to "tenure" (military rank is based upon time in service, not ability), are often difficult to confront. Sure, there are avenues for bringing a complaint against a senior officer, but sadly, many such whistle-blowers are silenced immediately with little recourse other than to request a discharge from the service.
But what about the Academic Guild?
Here the answer is opaque, but at least the better of the three options for secular authority. At its best, academic leaders can assume positions of great secular authority and lead with panache, say for example, former Provost of Stanford University, Condoleeza Rice. Other times, the academic world is just as power-hungry and corrupt as Corporate America or the Military.
But, and an important but, due to the intrinsic nature of evaluation of Academic Power (for example standardized test scores such as the S.A.T. or G.R.E.), although a wayward professor may act unethically (for example giving a Born Again Christian a lower grade due to his/her religious beliefs), due to the standardization of evaluation (academic papers, quizzes, etc.) the ability to abuse power is more limited.
Having said all of this, however, the secularism of which I am speaking obviously pales in comparison to the Church, God's Kingdom here on earth. When all others fail, it is the true believer in Jesus the Messiah who has stood by me, whether that person was an Opus Dei numerary helping me through a rough divorce, an Evangelical Protestant Professor praying with me during a dark hour or most recently, a delightful Episcopalian Vicar whose High Church Orthodoxy gives me the "bread for the journey" each Sunday in order to get back out on the secular playing field as an Offensive Lineman for Jesus safe-guarding the flock of Jesus-People from whomever may try to harm them . . .
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J King, Offensive Lineman for Jesus in the Football Game of Secular America
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Divorce Court, The Panopoly of State-Assisted Kidnapping and a Troubled Generation . . .
The other day I was reading in a leading conservative periodical concerning the plight of many children 'abused by the system' in places such as Massachusetts.
Basically, what has been happening (according to this journal and common knowledge among Father's Rights advocacy groups) is that in many of the more far-left leaning states (Massachusetts, upstate New York, etc.) that supposed "Child Protective" agencies have become something out of a horror flick.
Children are being abducted by the state, turned over to "child protective" agencies and removed from many God-fearing homes, all on flimsy "hearsay" evidence.
Take the example of one family who brought their child in for a physician's check up, were told by the doctor that the child needed more calcium in his diet, but then due to a mix-up at the hospital (and a political dispute between two physicians!) Massachusetts Child Protective Services was called, the child was taken (on falsified information by one of the physicians) and had been left in state-custody.
Two parents with their child ripped from their home, all because of State bureaucracy that fouled up the story, but then due to the legal loophole, unable to get their child back!
This was a family that was a normal American family, from an upper class home, but then due to misinformation (low calcium misreported as "child abuse") the family was left with no recourse legally.
Sadly, this phenomenon (most prevalent in divorce/custody cases in which one spouse "flees" with the children--called "child flight" and something quite illegal in itself . . .) is a recurring news item now.
Granted, such stories are the exception, rather than the rule, BUT the fact that State bureaucracies are increasingly interfering in normal American family life is quite alarming.
This of course raises the question of "what is the role of the state" regarding family life? Should divorce be treated as a civil law issue at all? Additionally, now that some states are beginning to legalize "same-sex union" (sodomy, a former crime is now celebrated as "marriage" in direct contrast to Judeo-Christian teaching regarding sexual ethics . . .), should Jews and Christians even recognize state authority over the Family?
In some places, for example the ultra-liberal portion of South Africa, Greek Orthodox priests will not even perform "civil law" marriages any more. Granted in places like South Africa, or even Massachusetts, the good of liberalism also exists, for example, anti-discrimination laws to protect racial minorities. But, with the good of liberalism, has also come the evil side of liberalism in which Christianity itself is under severe attack.
What will happen to the next generation as this State-Assisted Kidnapping continues?
Should the State have this power according to the Constitution which is based in unalienable rights? Would not the right to raise one's family according to the tenets of one's religious convictions be an unalienable right protected by the First Amendment? For example, would the heretical christian off-shoot group the Jehovah's Witnesses be labelled as "child abusers" for refusing blood transfusions for their children when such a prohibition is intrinsically a part of their religious identity?
Although I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and to be frank I have STRONG opinions about how wrong their 'version' of christian belief may be, within the United States of America, should the state dictate to them how to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs?
Well, the Constitutional answer is that Congress (or a state agency!) should make NO law prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE of religion, and those acts that are not physically harmful to a child should not be outlawed or criminalized.
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J King, Defender and Supporter of the Constitution
Basically, what has been happening (according to this journal and common knowledge among Father's Rights advocacy groups) is that in many of the more far-left leaning states (Massachusetts, upstate New York, etc.) that supposed "Child Protective" agencies have become something out of a horror flick.
Children are being abducted by the state, turned over to "child protective" agencies and removed from many God-fearing homes, all on flimsy "hearsay" evidence.
Take the example of one family who brought their child in for a physician's check up, were told by the doctor that the child needed more calcium in his diet, but then due to a mix-up at the hospital (and a political dispute between two physicians!) Massachusetts Child Protective Services was called, the child was taken (on falsified information by one of the physicians) and had been left in state-custody.
Two parents with their child ripped from their home, all because of State bureaucracy that fouled up the story, but then due to the legal loophole, unable to get their child back!
This was a family that was a normal American family, from an upper class home, but then due to misinformation (low calcium misreported as "child abuse") the family was left with no recourse legally.
Sadly, this phenomenon (most prevalent in divorce/custody cases in which one spouse "flees" with the children--called "child flight" and something quite illegal in itself . . .) is a recurring news item now.
Granted, such stories are the exception, rather than the rule, BUT the fact that State bureaucracies are increasingly interfering in normal American family life is quite alarming.
This of course raises the question of "what is the role of the state" regarding family life? Should divorce be treated as a civil law issue at all? Additionally, now that some states are beginning to legalize "same-sex union" (sodomy, a former crime is now celebrated as "marriage" in direct contrast to Judeo-Christian teaching regarding sexual ethics . . .), should Jews and Christians even recognize state authority over the Family?
In some places, for example the ultra-liberal portion of South Africa, Greek Orthodox priests will not even perform "civil law" marriages any more. Granted in places like South Africa, or even Massachusetts, the good of liberalism also exists, for example, anti-discrimination laws to protect racial minorities. But, with the good of liberalism, has also come the evil side of liberalism in which Christianity itself is under severe attack.
What will happen to the next generation as this State-Assisted Kidnapping continues?
Should the State have this power according to the Constitution which is based in unalienable rights? Would not the right to raise one's family according to the tenets of one's religious convictions be an unalienable right protected by the First Amendment? For example, would the heretical christian off-shoot group the Jehovah's Witnesses be labelled as "child abusers" for refusing blood transfusions for their children when such a prohibition is intrinsically a part of their religious identity?
Although I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and to be frank I have STRONG opinions about how wrong their 'version' of christian belief may be, within the United States of America, should the state dictate to them how to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs?
Well, the Constitutional answer is that Congress (or a state agency!) should make NO law prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE of religion, and those acts that are not physically harmful to a child should not be outlawed or criminalized.
Blessings in Jesus,
Rob J King, Defender and Supporter of the Constitution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)