Reforming Indian Policy

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=715

Digital History

Printable Version

Reforming Indian Policy
Digital History ID 715

Author:   Helen Hunt Jackson  
Date:1881

Annotation: Like Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Jungle, and Silent Spring, Helen Hunt Jackson's Century of Dishonor aroused the nation's conscience and stimulated political action against injustice, in this case the nation's unjust treatment of Indians. Jackson's goals--education and individual land ownership--were embraced by many late 19th-century Indian reformers. 

Document: There is not among these three hundred bands of Indians one which has not suffered cruelly at the hands either of the Government or of white settlers. The poorer, the more insignificant, the more helpless the band, the more certain the cruelty and outrage to which they have been subjected.... 

It makes little difference...where one opens the record of the history of the Indians; every page and every year has its dark stain. The story of one tribe is the story of all, varied only by differences of time and place....Colorado is as greedy and unjust in 1880 as was Georgia in 1830, and Ohio in 1795, and the United States government breaks promises now as deftly as then, and with the added ingenuity from long practice.... 

To assume that it would be easy...to undo the mischief and hurt of the long past...is the blunder of a hasty and uninformed judgment. The notion which seems to be growing more prevalent, that simply to make all Indians at once citizens of the United States would be a...panacea for all their ills...is a very inconsidered one.... Nevertheless, it is true, as well stated by one of the superintendents of Indian Affairs in 1857, that “so long as they are not citizens of the United States, their rights of property must remain insecure against invasion. The doors of the federal tribunals being barred against them....The utter absence of individual title to particular lands deprives every one among them of the chief incentive to labor and exertion....” 

Cheating, robbing, breaking promises--these three are clearly things which must cease to be done. One more thing, also, and that is the refusal of the protection of the law to the Indian's right of property.... 

When these four things have ceased to be done, time, statesmanship, philanthropy, and Christianity can slowly and surely do the rest. 

Source: Helen Hunt Jackson, A Century of Dishonor (New York: 1881), 337-38, 340-42. 

Copyright 2016 Digital History

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/how-dark-age-begins

This Is How a Dark Age Begins…

In order to really be said to “know” something, it must become a part of you.

Information, ideas, and data: these are external to us. It is only through undertaking the hard, focused work of thinking through these things and understanding them that we internalize them; that they become “knowledge.”

One finds this sentiment echoed in the twentieth-century autodidact Mortimer Adler, who in describing a book writes:

“Full ownership comes only when you have made it a part of yourself… An illustration may make the point clear. You buy a beefsteak and transfer it from the butcher’s icebox to your own. But you do not own the beefsteak in the most important sense until you consume it and get it into your bloodstream. I am arguing that books, too, must be absorbed in your bloodstream to do you any good.”  

Furthermore, it is only through becoming knowledgeable that you are truly suitable to teach others. Knowledge is best gleaned from a person who embodies knowledge, and is a citizen of the intellectual lands into which he is trying to initiate others.

But in our current time, we are losing sight of the concept of knowledge while drowning in a sea of information. As many of you know, T.S. Eliot had a similar lament in his Choruses from the Rock (1934):

“Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” 

We live in an age where people have unprecedented access to the wisdom of centuries, but increasingly lack access to those who have assimilated this wisdom. C.S. Lewis recognized this phenomenon in 1954, when in his inaugural lecture as the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge he told his listeners:

“[T]he vast change which separates you from [the] Old Western [order] has been gradual and is not even now complete… I myself belong far more to that Old Western order than to yours… If a live dinosaur dragged its slow length into the laboratory, would we not all look back as we fled? What a chance to know at last how it really moved and looked and smelled and what noises it made!... Speaking not only for myself but for all other Old Western men whom you may meet, I would say, use your specimens while you can. There are not going to be many more dinosaurs.”

At the beginning of the Dark Ages, there were much fewer individuals who embodied the knowledge that had permeated the ancient world. As a result, the ones who were left—such as Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville—set about making a fresh start. They saw their jobs not as creatively developing what they had received, but compiling it so as to preserve it. The recovery and proliferation of “knowledge” would have to wait for future generations.

This is how a Dark Age begins... not with the loss of information, but the loss of knowledge. 

Sent from my iPhone

https://mariomurilloministries.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/gullible-christians-are-helping-to-kill-america/

Gullible Christians are helping to kill America

Posted on October 17, 2016 by mariomurilloministries

By Mario Murillo

Satan’s masterstroke of deceiving, dividing and diluting Christians in America is now paying off.  He has fooled gullible Christians into helping kill America.

Millions of believers are blind to the disaster a Clinton presidency will be to their jobs, their church and their children.

They have been pickled by preaching that tells them Daddy with take care of everything, America will be okay no matter who you vote for.

Max Lucado is telling everyone that because God is on the throne, November 9^th we will be fine.  History, the Bible, and the facts about Hillary Clinton refute this.

God was on the throne when Hitler rose to power.  God was on the throne when Stalin extinguished the hope of millions.

God is on the throne as Christians all over the world are being killing by radical Islam.

God is looking for heroes to rise up and—by His power—intervene to save America.  He uses people.

If Hillary wins, we will not be fine on November 9th.  The Bible says, “Proverbs 29: 2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked person rules, the people groan.”  Prepare for years and years of groaning if she wins.

James Riley said:  “Texas pastor Max Lucado leads what he calls a ‘red state’ church, but Max has a maxim:  ”I don’t want anybody to know how I vote.”  Max does this to make sure the Democratic voters in his church, the ones who support abortion on demand, Islamo-pandering, and class warfare are not made to feel uncomfortable. However, Max recently broke his neutrality pledge…  According to Max:

‘I would not have said anything about Mr. Trump, never — I would never have said anything if he didn’t call himself a Christian. It’d be none of my business whatsoever to make any comments about his language, his vulgarities, his slander of people, but I was deeply troubled … that here’s a man who holds up a Bible one day, and calls a lady “bimbo” the next.’

Think on that for a moment. Max closes his eyes to another “Christian,” Barack Obama, who stands foursquare for the slaughter of millions of unborn babies, at your expense, but Donald Trump called a lady a “bimbo?”

Evangelist Beth Moore has also decided to help Hillary.  “Beth Moore is standing in the gap for Hillary.  Beth Moore is breaking away from fellow evangelical leaders/speakers who stand with Donald Trump, saying she can no longer do so after hearing the 2005 recording of his off-the-record conversation with Billy Bush.  Moore suggested that Trump’s words from 11 years ago highlight how men are “objectifying” women today, and she made clear that she will not support Trump over it. She issued a number of tweets on the topic, not one of which criticized Hillary Clinton for the way she has treated the women who allege Bill Clinton sexually assaulted them — women like Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick.” -Awr Hawkins, Britebart News.

The fact is, neither Max nor Beth have said anything about Bill and Hillary Clinton.  So, where is their Christianity when it comes to protecting America from tyranny?

Beth, what is your opinion of Hillary enabling a rapist?  Or her laughing at a 12-year-old girl that was raped?  Why aren’t you talking about that?  Is Hillary wins, Bill Clinton will be immoral in the White House…General Colin Powell said, “Bill is still —–ing bimbos.”  What kind of a role model is that for men?

Max, Hillary said she will force religion to change its beliefs.  What are you doing to protect the sheep from that?

Eric Metaxas said, “if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever.”

Instead of raising up an informed electorate who could vote as a moral bloc, the modern pulpit has created gullible Christians—Christians who are about to help Hillary push the nation over a cliff.

Is the motive  really about women and love of people? Or is it—once again, political correctness?  Are popular leaders wanting to look good to outsiders—hedging their bet that Hillary is going to win—and they will escape the wrath of the new order.  Are they living in denial about the evil that will befall America once she is in the White House?

One of the most amazing and revealing statements Trump ever made—he made to pastors.  The asked them why they let the country get in this condition when—all along—they had the power to get what they wanted.

He told them that there are 50 million of you, and if you had worked together you could have elected everything from city councilmen, to state Assemblymen, to Congressmen and presidents.  He is painfully correct.  That is not just a statement of our influence but of our responsibility.

To the basket of Christian gullibles I say this: NOTHING MATTERS MORE IN THIS ELECTION THAN WHAT HILLARY WILL DO TO AMERICA.  SHE WILL FILL THE SUPREME COURT WITH LEFTIST JUDGES—SHE WILL DESTROY OUR ECONOMY—SHE WILL CAUSE A WAR—ALL FORMS OF ABORTION WILL BE LEGAL—AND THE CHURCH IN AMERICA WILL BE SEVERELY CRIPPLED.

We could stop this insanity if we unified against real—not imagined evil.  If we could see our real duty in this election–if we could get over our false sensibilities and hurt feelings…we could save the country.  The great heroes of our faith, who witnessed tyranny would grab us and shake to our core if they saw our apathy and naiveté in the face of this threat.

I am not fretting over the fate of Christianity.  I am fretting over my nation.  I know Christianity will survive without America, but America will not survive without Christianity.  America…as you have known it will not survive Hillary Clinton.

Sent from my iPhone

Wabi sabi - Learning to See the Invisible

http://www.touchingstone.com/Wabi_Sabi.html

Wabi sabi - Learning to See the Invisible

Tim Wong, Ph.D. & Akiko Hirano, Ph.D.

See their latest works:Touching Stone ImagesWhat is wabi sabi? Ask a Japanese this question and there will likely be a long silence. Pose the same question to an American, however, the answer will often be quick and sure: "It’s beauty of things imperfect!" Why do the Japanese struggle for an answer to the meaning of wabi sabi that seems to come easily to Westerners? Could they be searching for a different answer altogether?

"Translation," wrote Kakuzo Okakura, author of the classic The Book of Tea, "can at best be only the reverse side of a brocade, - all the threads are there, but not the subtlety of color or design." Few examples illustrate this better than the Japanese concept of wabi sabi. Westerners tend to associate wabi sabi with physical characteristics - imperfection, crudeness, an aged and weathered look, etc. Although wabi sabi may encompass these qualities, these characteristics are neither sufficient nor adequate to convey the essence of the concept. Wabi sabi is not rigidly attached to a list of physical traits. Rather, it is a profound aesthetic consciousness that transcends appearance. It can be felt but rarely verbalized, much less defined. Defining wabi sabi in physical terms is like explaining the taste of a piece of chocolate by its shape and color to someone who has never tasted it. As long as one focuses on the physical, one is doomed to see only the back side of the brocade, while its real beauty remains hidden. In order to see its true essence, one must look beyond the apparent, one must look within.

The term wabi sabi consists of two kanji (Chinese characters) shared by Japanese and Chinese. Originally, wabi 侘 means ‘despondence’, and sabi 寂 means ‘loneliness' or 'solitude'. These are words for feelings, not for physical appearance of objects. The term embodies a refined aesthetic sensibility that was very evident in ancient Chinese art and literature long before the concept was popularized in Japan through the introduction of Zen Buddhism and the Tea Ceremony. Asians are not born with this aesthetic sensibility. They develop it through long exposure to classical literature, brush painting, and especially to poetry. Consider this famous poem by the eighth-century Chinese poet Cheung Chi (張繼) : 

Sent from my iPhone

月落烏啼霜滿天

江楓漁火對愁眠

 姑蘇城外寒山寺

 夜半鐘聲到客船

Moon setting, a crow caws, the sky filled with frost

Maples by the river, fishermen's lights, the traveler faces a sad sleep

 Outside City of Suchow, from the Cold Mountain Temple

Sound of the midnight bell reaches the traveler's boat

A Crow's Caw  silver-gelatin print  ©Tim Wong

 

The imagery of this bleak melancholic landscape seen by the traveler spending a lonely night on the river is also calm and tranquil. A similar atmosphere is written into the following haiku by the eighteenth-century Japanese poet Yosano Buson (与謝蕪村) :

Mystic  silver-gelatin print  ©Tim Wong

山寺や

撞きそこなひの

 鐘霞む

From a Mountain Temple

the sound of a bell struck fumblingly

vanishes in the mist

Poems like these evoke a deeply personal aesthetic consciousness, a bittersweet mix of loneliness and serenity, a sense of dejection buoyed by freedom from material hindrance. This is what wabi sabi feels like. And one can only experience it by turning the focus from outer appearance to look within. No wonder the Japanese struggle to explain wabi sabi; they try to tell how it feels, not just how it looks!

Of course, this aesthetic consciousness is not reserved for Asians. One only needs to look at Walker Evan’s photographs of the interior of an Alabama farm house, or Andre Kertesz’s images of shadows cast by empty chairs, or the central courtyard in Georgia O’keeffe’s home in Abiquiu to recognize a similar aesthetic awareness. These artists speak to the audience through mutual understanding of their private emotions. Such a connection cannot be faked. A common fallacy is to believe an artist can artificially create a resonance with the audience with certain visual cues. Unless the work is a genuine expression of the artist’s feeling, the effect will only appear hollow to the perceptive eyes.

Wabi sabi is not a style defined by superficial appearance. It is an aesthetic ideal, a quiet and sensitive state of mind, attainable by learning to see the invisible, paring away what is unnecessary, and knowing where to stop.

http://edushyster.com/joy-is-the-new-grit/

How Joy Became the New Grit

by 

Schools are increasingly manipulating students’ emotions in the name of achievement—and that’s wrong says University of Pennsylvania education professor Joan Goodman…

By Joan Goodman
*No excuses* charter schools face a teaching predicament. Their long school day/year with few diverting extra-curricular activities and heavily rule-governed pedagogy is tough on students. Inevitably, strict behavior restrictions, aimed not just at controlling common misbehaviors but also behaviors that might lead to misbehavior, result in a gulf between student desires and teacher demands. To close the gulf and avoid constantly admonishing students, charter management organizations have layered onto their culture an expectation that learning is to be approached joyously. Indeed, joy has been elevated to a central value at many CMOs. 

The j-factor
Uncommon Schools promotes *joy* as one of its five values; Democracy Prep advertises a *joyous culture* with enthusiasm as one of its DREAM values; Mastery lists *joy and humor* among its nine core values; and Achievement First includes the child’s joy in its assessments of  student progress. Success Academy says that, along with rigor, its schools stress *humor (joy)…making achieving exhilarating and fun!* Meanwhile, KIPP includes joy’s close cousin, *zest,* as one of the seven character strengths on its Character Growth Card. Chicago’s Noble Network has likewise embraced *zest.* According to Doug Lemov, a major source of CMO pedagogy, the Joy Factor, one of his 49 essential techniques, is *a key driver not just of a happy classroom but of a high-achieving classroom…. people work harder…when their work is punctuated regularly by moment of exultation and joy.*

When I first began visiting no excuses schools, I was struck by the striking juxtaposition of teachers presiding over silent class periods during which children diligently followed instructions, only to interrupt them periodically with the demand for reciprocal clapping, rhymed motivational cheers, and choral responses that seemed more appropriate to an athletic or marching event than an academic environment. The effort of schools to whoop up excitement appeared artificial and disingenuous given the often tedious tasks students were assigned, and the passive/receptive role they were, for the most part, expected to assume.

Stimulating this shallow ‘joy’ is, then, just another control technique designed to foster high achievement. Joy has become a ‘character strength,’ like grit, because of the results it produces, not for its own sake.

The intentional artifice is particularly clear in teacher training videos, when leaders like Lemov, or Doug McCurry of Achievement First, talk about how teachers must be skilled at quickly turning arousal on and quickly turning it off so that it serves its purpose – aiding their academic objectives. Stimulating this shallow *joy* is, then, just another control technique designed to foster high achievement. Joy has become a *character strength,* like grit, because of the results it produces, not for its own sake.

Just add sparkle
To elicit joy, the CMOs use emotional arousal techniques such as choral chanting, finger snapping, and gestural sequences. For instance, to lend *sparkle* to a lesson, Lemov advocates the Vegas Technique. This entails breaks from instruction, as brief as 30 seconds, for a ritualized routine loosely associated with the lesson. Students might, for example, do an action-verb shimmy, clap a routine to accompany a pronoun, or perform a vocabulary word charade. Achievement First’s McCurry advises teachers to plan *joyous interludes* by using four chants accompanied with gestures and 10 cheers per class. One chant, for example, is: *hey hey hey, I feel all-right,* followed with a stomp. The phrase is repeated with two stomps, then three stomps and finished off with: *I feel motivated to learn. And graduate college.* 

KIPP defines chanting as a key component of *KIPPnotizing,* the process by which students come to identify with the school and its culture. As this student-family handbook from KIPP Triumph Academy, St Louis Middle School explains:

Chanting at KIPP Triumph begins in summer school, where all new students learn a series of school wide chants. For 5th graders, learning to chant their multiplication tables during summer school is an essential part of their KIPPnotizing. Since many of our students arrive so far below grade level, they often have significant deficits in terms of their multiplication facts. However, when set to a chant, students—even our most struggling students—are able to learn all of their times tables in a few weeks.

The following jingles from KIPP are illustrative:

A is for audacious
What could be wrong with teachers using stomps, chants and *sparkle* as a means of generating *joy* in their students? For one, the chants, like those from KIPP have little to do with learning and less to do with education; indeed, they may work against it. Education is not recitation; it is becoming knowledgeable and curious about our human heritage—physical and cultural—about the properties of the universe from atoms to galaxies, about the heights and depths of civilizations, about current threats to the biosphere and the dignity of living beings. History is a dramatic story of events and dilemmas, brave and principled heroes, vain and villainous deeds that should stir reason and emotions. Claps and jingles get in the way of this pursuit. A better antidote to low interest is a fascinating rather than fast-paced, even frantic lesson. 

Emotional manipulation?
But there is something more disturbing at work here than abetting memorization rather than deeper learning. Educators at no excuses schools assume the authority to manufacture emotional states in students in the service of academic achievement, while at the same time disallowing genuine emotional states – anger for example – when they interfere with teaching. They stimulate *joy* so that their students will greet the strict codes of discipline and daunting academic expectations at these schools with eagerness and excitement.  But genuine joy cannot be canned or imposed. As C.S. Lewis described it, true joy is experienced as descending upon us, stabbing us unexpectedly; unlike pleasure, it is not in our power to procure. Real joy must come from within.  While it is possible to set the stage for a joyous experience, it is inauthentic, even manipulative, to demand, regulate, and use *joy* to improve a test score or make students pliant to authority figures.

That is not to say schools shouldn’t plan for fun, have games, skits, songs as a release from work, or sometimes to facilitate rote learning. It is also true that through such activities there is important social learning and opportunities for inventiveness.  But that is qualitatively different from stimulating a culture that imposes bursts of joy, excitement, zest. The harder, more essential, task is to stimulate genuine intrinsic interest in students rather than externally induced transient excitement. We’ve known since Piaget that without significant and authentic input from students themselves, without engagement through interaction, learning will be a collection of evanescent bits and pieces; hardly joyous.

Joan Goodman is a Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania and a psychologist. She did an interview with EduShyster in 2013 about The High Cost of No Excuses.

Send tips and comments to jennifer@edushyster.com.

Sent from my iPhone

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/next-supreme-court-justice/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid&utm_content=100716g&utm_campaign=scalia

The Next Supreme Court Justice

July/August 2016 • Volume 45, Number 7/8 • Scott Pruitt

Scott Pruitt
Attorney General, State of Oklahoma

---

Scott Pruitt was elected Attorney General of Oklahoma in 2010. Prior to that, he served for eight years in the Oklahoma State Senate. A past president of the Republican Attorneys General Association, he established Oklahoma’s Federalism Unit to combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government. Mr. Pruitt received his B.A. from Georgetown College and his J.D. from the University of Tulsa College of Law.

---

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on June 30, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

When Justice Antonin Scalia passed away this February, talk turned almost immediately to who would replace him—although in a large sense he is irreplaceable. Even those who disagreed with Justice Scalia acknowledge his profound impact. His scholarship and judicial opinions, through brilliance and wit, transformed how we think about the law and the Constitution. He inspired a generation of law students and lawyers. He provided a foundation for the work of judges and legislators, as well as attorneys general like myself. And all who knew him personally will attest that his brilliance was matched only by his warmth, cheer, and grace. He will be deeply missed.

In thinking about the kind of person who should take his seat on the Court, it is worth reflecting on Justice Scalia’s principles of jurisprudence. One of the chief principles he championed, as a scholar and as a judge, is that the law, whether statutes or the Constitution itself, must be applied according to its text. In other words, judges should not apply the law based on what is good policy or what they suppose Congress may have intended (but did not express) in passing legislation.

In addition, Justice Scalia believed that the words of the law should be understood as they were understood by the people when the law was enacted. For example, if you strike a bargain with someone, and later there is a dispute about that bargain, how do you interpret the words of your contract? Do you look to what the words of the contract meant at the time you agreed to them? Or do you look to what those words mean ten or 50 years after the fact? There are some who believe that the meanings of words change over time, untethered from any objective measure. Thus what is legal one day may be illegal the next without any textual changes to the law. Justice Scalia rejected this notion. He held fast to the idea that the meaning of laws is fixed by the meaning ascribed to their words at the time they were enacted.

These two principles, textualism and originalism, are rooted in a third characteristic of Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence: an unwavering respect for the idea of popular government. Laws, including the Constitution, receive their legitimacy from the people. The Constitution is not an autonomously evolving document that spins out new “rights” and obligations to which the people have not given their consent. Rather than discovering new rights in the Constitution, judges should respect the constitutional prerogative of the people to pass laws through their representative legislatures, limited by the restraints imposed by the Constitution—which was itself ratified by popular means.

Along with this opposition to creative interpretation of the Constitution, a fourth characteristic of Justice Scalia’s life work was a conviction that the rights actually guaranteed in the Constitution should be tenaciously defended, from the right of free speech to the rights of criminal defendants. Beyond these enumerated rights, Justice Scalia recognized that the Constitution’s primary protection of liberty is its structure of checks and balances between branches and its division of powers between the federal government and the states.

In short, Justice Scalia rejected the judicial activism of inventing law while embracing judicial engagement by ensuring that the limits on government are strictly enforced.

Ensuring that the next justice appointed to the Supreme Court is someone in the mold of Justice Scalia is surpassingly important. Not since the New Deal has the country had a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. For 60 years, the Court has been either decidedly liberal or split between liberals and conservatives. For 25 years, the Court’s most controversial and closely-divided cases sometimes had a liberal outcome, sometimes a conservative one. At the time of Justice Scalia’s death, the Court consisted of four unwavering liberals (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), three solid conservatives (Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), a fourth who votes with the conservatives much of the time (Chief Justice Roberts), and one swing vote (Justice Kennedy). Replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal would fundamentally alter that balance, creating a solid majority of five liberal justices that would ensure liberal outcomes to all controversial decisions.

Make no mistake: the liberal justices on the Court nearly always vote as a bloc. Whereas the conservative justices occasionally depart for reasons of judicial philosophy from what some might consider the conservative outcome—as Justice Scalia often did—one is hard-pressed to find decisions where a liberal justice’s vote is in question. To illustrate the point, in the Supreme Court’s 2014-2015 term, the four liberal justices agreed with each other over 90 percent of the time—more agreement than between any two conservative justices. For example, Chief Justice Roberts agreed with Justice Thomas in only 70 percent of cases. If the liberal wing of the Court is given a five-justice majority, we should expect that no controversial decision of the Court will ever be in doubt.

Let me provide a survey of the important issues the Court might decide in coming years, once a ninth justice is appointed.

One of the issues coming before the Court will concern a basic liberty essential to democracy: freedom of speech. Under assault these days is the freedom to spend (or not spend) money on political speech. For example, before Justice Scalia’s death, the Court voted to grant review of a case called Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which public sector employees wanted the right not to pay compulsory union dues. This case raises an important question about free speech: can the government force you to contribute money to a political cause you oppose? Without Justice Scalia’s vote, the Court split evenly, leaving the issue to be resolved by a future Supreme Court—the deciding vote to be cast by the future ninth justice.

On the other side of the free speech coin is the continued vitality of the Court’s Citizens United decision. Let me clarify a common misconception: Citizens United did not hold that corporations are allowed to give unlimited amounts to political candidates. In fact, the laws limiting the amount of campaign contributions to a few thousand dollars are still valid and in place. Rather, in Citizens United, the Court held that the government may not limit the amount of money spent—whether by individuals, unions, or corporations—on their own independent political advocacy. This case was decided 5 to 4, with Justice Scalia in the majority. If he is replaced with a liberal, Citizens United will likely be overturned, and the right to free speech will be greatly diminished.

The First Amendment also protects religious liberty, another of our endangered core rights. Before Justice Scalia passed away, the Supreme Court granted review in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, a case which will decide whether certain state laws called “Blaine Amendments” are constitutional. Blaine Amendments are provisions added to state constitutions during a time of anti-Catholic fervor—they date back to the 1870s—that prevent any state funds from being used to benefit a church or a religion for any reason. This means that states running programs that provide resources to private institutions must discriminate against religious institutions, even if the program being funded is not religious. In the Trinity Lutheran case, a Missouri program was providing scrap tires for flooring in playgrounds to make them safer for children. Because of a Blaine Amendment, the State refused to provide tires to church schools. With other attorneys general, I filed a brief supporting the effort to get these Blaine Amendments struck down. The new justice is likely to cast the deciding vote on whether to remove this legacy of legal hostility to religion.

Freedom of religious conscience also hangs in the balance. We have seen this in the Hobby Lobby case, where the Court protected the right of religious employers not to fund abortions. So too in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, where the Court has, for now, narrowly avoided the question of whether Catholic nuns can be required to cover contraception in their health insurance plan. Other cases regarding freedom of conscience are on the horizon. The Court recently declined to review a case that upheld a Washington law that requires pharmacists to sell abortion drugs despite religious objections. Similarly, a case may soon reach the Court to decide whether civil rights laws can be used to force, for example, a Christian photographer to use her artistic skills to celebrate a same-sex wedding.

« Previous page 1 2 3 Next page »

Sent from my iPhone

Very interesting...

https://grandstandnews.com/2016/10/10/eating-honey-and-pulling-down-pillars/

Chosen by God: The Man Who Ate Honey, but Pulled Down Pillars

Grandstand News October 10, 2016 Image Blog

He doesn’t drink wine, he has a tendency to lie, he has a weakness for women and his hair is sort of a big deal. No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump.

I’m referring to Samson, God’s appointed judge over Israel.

The biblical book of Judges chronicles a 300-year period of the nation of Israel’s history. In this book, we are introduced to a man named Samson.

Then the woman gave birth to a son and named him Samson; and the child grew up and the Lord blessed him. ~ Judges 13:24

Samson was appointed to serve as judge over Israel at a time when the people were absent any consistent, strong or righteous political leadership. The story of Samson takes place before the reign of kings in Israel, and during a time when everyone “did what was right in his own eyes.”

Samson is an interesting character, to say the least. He’s not your traditional Moses or David or Daniel. Moses was “more humble than any man on earth,” David was a “man after [God’s] own heart,” and Daniel was delivered from extreme persecution on a number of occasions because of his unwavering faith toward God.

Samson, on the other hand, often chose the easy route. Whether it be by lying, deceiving or direct disobedience, Samson usually found a way to get what he wanted without acting righteously.

My guess is Samson – who slept with a prostitute and was a womanizer  – probably wasn’t a role model that Israel’s parents told their children to imitate.

So why did God appoint someone like Samson, when at other times he raised up Othniel, the son of Caleb; or Deborah, the prophetess; or Gideon, the general? Surely somebody with qualities more similar to these individuals would have made for a better role model and judge to lead Israel back to God.

For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, declares the LORD. ~ Isaiah 55:8

To answer that question, we must go back to the very beginning of the story. In Judges 13, an angel of the Lord appears to Samson’s mother. The angel tells Samson’s mother that she will be blessed with a son and that he “shall begin to deliver Israel” from their enemies. (Note: the angel does not say that Samson will deliver Israel from their enemies, but that he will begin the process – this is important).

The angel told Samson’s parents that their son would be a “Nazirite to God from the womb.”

The Nazirite vow was taken by individuals who dedicated themselves to the Lord. The vow prohibited a person from consuming wine or “strong drink,” cutting their hair or coming in contact with a dead body. This means that the Lord was sanctifying Samson for a special purpose.

As a blessing, God endowed Samson with incredible strength. The source of his great strength came from his hair. But while Samson’s strength allowed him to accomplish great feats, it also often led to terrible misery and tragedy in his life.

On one occasion, Samson was attacked by a lion while traveling with his parents. He used his great strength to overcome and kill the wild beast. Continuing on his journey, he came across a foreign woman who he described as “right in his eyes.” He demanded that his father “get her” for him. His parents were displeased with his request and implored him to choose a righteous woman from among his own people. Samson refused. But the Bible tells us that his parents “did not know that it was of the Lord.” His parents failed to remember that God always has a plan. 

God is always in control.

Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes. ~ Judges 14:3

Later, Samson returns to the dead carcass of the lion that he had killed. Starving, Samson noticed that there was a swarm of bees and honey in the body of the lion. The Bible says Samson “scraped the honey into his hands” and went on his way eating. Unfortunately, this means that Samson broke his Nazirite vow by touching a dead body. Samson had sinned against God. It is not recorded that Samson ever asked for forgiveness of this sin – in fact, the Bible tells us that he kept this a secret from his parents.

On another occasion, Samson falls in love with a woman called Delilah. This woman enticed, betrayed and sold Samson into the hands of his enemies. Instead of choosing a woman who would have pleased God and his parents, Samson chose a woman who cared nothing for his well-being. He may have suspected this, because he lied multiple times to her to cover up the source of his great strength. Finally, he became so annoyed with her that he succumbed to the pressure and told her his secret. This was one of Samson’s great failures – and it would ultimately cost him his life.

Up to now you have deceived me and told me lies; tell me how you may be bound. ~ Judges 16:13

After being betrayed and sold into the hands of his enemies, Samson would have his eyes gouged out and be forced into hard labor in a foreign land. God’s plan had failed because Samson was the wrong man for the job. He had broken his Nazirite vow, lied on numerous occasions and chosen women who were not pleasing to God. Realizing that the situation was hopeless, and that Samson was a lost cause, God forsook his chosen leader.

Wait… that is how the story ends, right?

Actually, no, it’s not.

I will never leave you and I will never abandon you. ~ Hebrews 13:5

While in captivity, Samson’s hair began to grow again. And as his hair began to grow, he began to regain strength. On a certain day, when his captors were feasting, they called out Samson to amuse them.

To them, he was nothing more than a clown; an entertainer.

They chained him between two pillars and “looked on” while Samson entertained them. Samson was humiliated by his enemies, who believed that they had defeated him. They never suspected for a moment that he would be able to avenge himself. But then again, they had not factored in God.

God heard Samson’s plea for help, and He answered him. Samson regained his miraculous strength and used it to bring righteous vengeance upon the enemies of the Lord. With one giant heave, Samson pushed on both of the pillars he was chained to, and collapsed the temple on top of all of his enemies. The number of people he killed that day were more than he had killed in his entire life. As a warrior, that says a lot. Samson died – but he died on God’s terms. He had judged Israel for 20 years.

O Lord God, please remember me and please strengthen me just this time. ~ Judges 16:28

You see, God has a plan. And His plan is perfect. We have a very narrow view of the world in which we live, and we are often confused why things transpire around us the way that they do. We see something that looks dangerous, and we run. We see someone who looks flawed attempting to ascend to the highest office in the land, and we ridicule them.

We say, “He can’t be president – he’s nothing like Christ!” Or, “He can’t be my child’s role model – he has said nasty things about women! On TV, no less!”

Who said a ruler had to be like Christ? No man is devoid of sin like Jesus was. While others are living better lives, and perhaps obeying the Word of God more faithfully than others, that doesn’t give us the moral high ground, as Christians, to discount a leader’s ability to rule over us. A person’s ability to govern a country is not predicated on his religion.

Is it? 

According to Scripture, the kings of ancient Babylon and Persia – Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus – believed in God. One sinned mightily on numerous occasions; the other was “appointed” by God. Both served God’s purpose of preserving His people.

Of course, as disciples of Christ, we should all be striving to appoint leaders who are morally upright and sound in spirit. Our mission in life is to bring sinners to Jesus, so it would be nice to have a righteous ruler who loudly echoed our message. But what about Samson? He turned to the Lord in the closing moments of his life, but where was his godly and spiritual example – as judge over Israel – the other years of his life?

Donald Trump is a sinner.

Donald Trump is not perfect.

Donald Trump is not a great spiritual role model.

Check, check and check. Now let’s look at his policies:

• Appoint conservative Supreme Court justices
• Destroy radical Islamic terrorism
• Secure our country’s borders
• Restore law and order
• Negotiate fair trade deals
• Lower taxes on the middle class
• Repeal and replace Obamacare
• Bring back American jobs from overseas
• Make America energy independent
• Get rid of political correctness
• Protect the Second Amendment
• Balance our federal budget
• Preserve Social Security
• Repeal the “Johnson Amendment”
• Bring education back to the states (abolish Common Core)
• Take care of American veterans

As voters, we should cast our vote for the individual who is most capable of improving and protecting our country. As Christians, we should be out on the streets spreading the good message to those lost in sin. As we accomplish our task, Lord willing, society will draw closer to God. As society improves, so will our presidential nominees.

Trump will not infringe on our rights to worship and peaceably assemble. Trump will appoint Supreme Court justices “in the mold of Justice Scalia.” As Christians, this should comfort us. And yet, while the Supreme Court does have great authority over the law of the land, Christians should not put all of their faith in man. Our faith should be in God.

How much more do I need to say? It would take too long to recount the stories of the faith of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and all the prophets. ~ Hebrews 11:32

In spite of his sins, Samson was given a spot in the “Heroes of Faith” chapter in Hebrews. In this chapter, Samson is listed alongside Abraham, Moses and David. Sadly, you wouldn’t know that Samson had great faith in God by just looking at the life that he lived. Samson was misguided about many things, which is evident by the many mistakes and shortcomings he committed. But no one can take away Samson’s spot in Hebrews 11. The inspired author of Hebrews lists him with the other great heroes of faith for a reason.

Yes, Trump has eaten “honey” – but who’s to say he won’t also pull down “pillars?”

Sent from my iPhone