Privacy vs. Life and the “Dilemma” of Apple

The news is that the federal government has compelled Apple to break their inscription that ensures the privacy of Iphone users. Apple is refusing.

Which reminds me that civil disobedience isn’t what it used to be.

But I digress.

Who’s right? Apple or the government?

Let me pose a thought experiment: Let’s say that someone has kidnapped your child and hidden her somewhere. And let’s say that the police surrounded the kidnapper who, after a standoff, killed himself. The police break down the door and find only the kidnapper’s dead body and an Iphone that has been secured which the police have reason to believe contains data that reveal the whereabouts of your child. There is no one else that is suspected of having any information that could lead to your daughter. In the meantime, you don’t know if she is hurt, if she is being raped by accomplices, if she is unconscious and bleeding out. You don’t know anything, but the Iphone may have some clues.

Do you believe that Apple should refuse to provide a means to break the encryption?

If your answer “Yes, Apple should refuse,” I question your sanity; I question your humanity; I question your parenting skills and your heart.

What does it say about a person who would sacrifice the life of his or her own child in order to protect Iphone encryption?

I would suggest it says a lot, and none of it very good. In fact, if you believe that, I would keep it to yourself so no one else finds out how calloused you are towards life, particularly of your own family?

Strong words? Yes. So tell me why I am wrong. Explain to me why Iphone encryption is of greater importance than life.

In the current case, the phone belongs to one of the San Bernadino shooters who killed fourteen people and wounded twenty-two more. The phone could provide information as to other plans for mass murder, or provide information as to other people involved in terrorism plots.

Now, in case I have been too subtle, I will go ahead and put my cards right out on the table: I am of the mind that life is more important than privacy of an Iphone using criminal who is endangering the lives of others. I cannot think of a good reason that Apple should refuse provide to the government the means by which to break the encryption. I have seen a lot of handwringing and fearmongering about it. But rational arguments? I haven’t seen any of those yet. And I can’t imagine what rational argument there is.

The government has a long history of being to perform, with legal approval, reasonable searches and seizures. It was written right into the Constitution that all states agreed to to join the union. And it seems entirely reasonably (no pun intended) that such searches fit that category.

Such searches are reasonable, based on the facts as known at the time. They are not guarantees of success. They are not without danger.

Sure, a government might hatch a pretense of an argument that can unreasonably invade the privacy of its citizens. It already happens. It’s not new. It’s not good. But it’s rare.

I believe the use of such encryption breaking ability should be used as it is in any other investigation—with a demonstrable probable cause approved by a dispassionate judge and a limited scope of searching. It’s not a ticket to an open-ended fishing expedition.

Those who say that Apple should refuse may be endangering the lives of others. Notice, I said “may be.”

Let’s pose another thought experiment: Let’s say that, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack which kills a dozen or so people, and wounds another two dozen. In the aftermath, it is discovered that the new terrorists had connections to the San Bernadino shooters, connections that would have have been uncovered with access to the Iphone. Such access would have provided information that could have stopped the shootings.

Does that change your mind?

What if one of those dozen fatalities is your spouse? Or your parent? Or your child? Or your neighbor?

Does that change your mind?

It shouldn’t take a close friend dying to make us think about this.

If we are pro-life, then let’s be pro-life all the way. Let’s not be pro-life after we are pro-privacy. That was the basis of Roe v. Wade—that a right to privacy supercedes whatever life may be extinguished in the meantime. In other words, your privacy with your doctor was more important than your child.

And that’s why the initial thought experiment is not far off from reality. It’s just an Iphone instead of a doctor.

I understand privacy concerns. I am not wild about the government, or anyone else for that matter, rifling through my phone or my computer. I would be mortified for people in authority to find out how boring my life actually is. I would prefer to keep the sad state of my existence to myself.

But frankly, I find the right to life more important.

Ben Franklin is reported to have said that those who give up freedom for security deserve neither. It may be that that those who refuse to give up some freedom for some security shall soon have neither.

I think many Christians—evangelical, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians—have bought into the God of America. That our constitution is sacrosanct, and that our rights to certain things go hand in hand with the Bible, and may, in fact, go ahead of the Bible.

America isn’t God’s chosen people. And the Constitution didn’t come by divine inspiration.

Yes, the government may one day decide to outlaw Christianity. But if it take a violation of my privacy to find me guilty, I have bigger problems than constitutional ones.

My friends, let me urge us to take life seriously. If we are going to be pro-life, let’s be pro-life even it means giving up something else.

Houston and the Subpoena of Sermons

Word is going around that the city of Houston is issuing subpoenas for sermons to see if they criticize homosexuality.

Is it true? Who knows. It could be. It might not be. Like a lot of stuff on the internet, it might be overblown. Like a lot of the stuff on the internet, it may be entirely true.

But here’s the question: Why is Houston using court resources and tax payer resources issuing subpoenas for things that are publicly available?

If they want the content of these sermons, can’t they just show up at church? Or download them from the internet?

But it seems like Christians like a persecution complex and tend to go into crisis mode at the drop of a hat. So it’s a great time to note that the end of the world is almost here.

I think if I were a pastor in Houston, I would invite the people charged with this task to come to church and hear it first hand. I speak publicly several times a week, and to be frank, a lot of what I say is not in my notes, and a lot of what is in my notes never gets said. So getting my notes is no guarantee that you will get what was actually said. Not to mention that my notes often contain the opinions of people that I don’t actually agree with. In a nutshell, my notes are quite often useless for anyone other than me.

However, you are welcome to come, record (or just use our recording), take notes, just sit and listen, or whatever, so long as you do it peacefully and quietly. We will even give you some coffee.

Here’s another thought: If this is actually true, then the government of Houston must be run by a bunch of second-graders. Or the Detroit City Council. Seriously. This is like (insert whiny second grade voice here) “Johnny said something mean about me.”

You know what, kid. Get over it. Move on. Go swing on the swings, or slide down the slides.

Can the mayor of Houston really not endure a few pastors saying things about her lifestyle? She’s a politician. Surely this can’t be the worst thing ever said about her, can it? Why is she so insecure in her lifestyle?

When you embrace a lifestyle (whether homosexual, Christian, vegan, video-game lover, etc.), expect that people will think you are strange, weird, wrong, stupid, silly, etc. If you like your lifestyle, then go on with your life. If avoiding criticism is that important to you, then change your lifestyle. But don’t whine because someone disagrees with you. You are not smart enough and don’t know enough to demand complete agreement.

And why are pastors in Houston, or anywhere else, naming names of political officials when they are supposed to be preaching the Bible? What verse does that come from? Seriously, if we are supposed to preach the Bible, that should limit us to things God actually said. And there is more than enough of that.

Here’s what I think I would do: First, I would invite any interested person to come to our services. Come for six or eight months to every public meeting. Listen, engage your mind, engage with the people around you. Let’s have some conversations together over coffee or lunch. You might be surprised at what will happen.

Second, I would also complain that the city of Houston is using taxpayer resources to issue subpoenas for things that are publicly available. Don’t waste my money on this nonsense. If you want it, come and get it firsthand, every week.

Third, I would let the legal process play out. I don’t know if I would turn anything over. On what biblical grounds could I? I don’t know. I think this will be challenged in court and overthrown. So I think, in the end, it will be much ado about nothing.

But Christians, let’s embrace the fact that people don’t like Christianity. We shouldn’t have a conniption over it every time we see it.

Sure, let’s use the courts and resources available to fight it, but let’s not be scared of it. Let’s go on about our business, Let’s do what we have been called to do.

Some Thoughts on Hobby Lobby and the ACA

This week, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) passed down it’s decision in the birth control mandate case that Hobby Lobby (HL) brought before the court. It was a small, minor, and likely short-lived victory for freedom.

In a nutshell, HL objected on religious grounds to providing insurance that included a few of the required birth control options required. HL did not object to providing insurance that included other forms of birth control. In addition, HL does not (apparently) have any concern for whether its employees seek the birth control methods to which HL objects. (More on this in a minute.)

The biggest question for me is this: What were the other four justices thinking? On what grounds in America should someone be compelled to violate their religious beliefs?

Apparently, birth control for women is one of them.

It is ironic, I must admit, that this generation of people who want the government to stay out of people’s bedrooms went all the way to the Supreme Court to get the government in the bedroom. People who want the freedom to do whatever they want do not want to afford that same freedom to others.

The hometown newspaper here, The Detroit Free Press, has run some articles on it. I highlight two.

The first is an editorial by Stephen Henderson, who objects to the idea that corporations have rights (more on this in the next post), unless its his corporation, the Free Press. But more shockingly, and in what can only be ascribed to ignorance or dishonesty, Henderson says, “But it ignored the rights of employees — a comparatively weak constituency — to use their compensation (yes, health care is compensation) in a way that was free from someone else’s religious beliefs.”

Actually, the employees are probably the single strongest constituency related to a corporation. If you doubt that, imagine what would happen if all the employees decided not to show up for work one day. Actually, you don’t have to imagine it. It has happened in our labor history. And when that happens, not all the money in the corporate coffers can make a freshly built car roll off the assembly line, or stand up in front of a class and teach some students. All that money can’t even make a cashier stand behind a register and take people’s money for little kitschy craft items.

But more directly to Mr. Henderson’s attempt at an argument, no one, at any level, has suggested (until now) that HL was trying to control what its employees do with their compensation. Henderson probably knows this, which means it isn’t ignorance. It is more likely that Henderson is a political shill (something we already knew), who willingly subverts facts to support pet causes. I have seen and read enough of Henderson to believe that Henderson is not to be taken seriously. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine that Henderson takes himself seriously. This piece is another proof of that.

Mr. Henderson, HL has made no attempt to prevent employees from using their compensation to acquire whatever they desire. They are free to use their above average wages to but whatever  legal drugs they like. In fact, as you know living in Detroit, they can use their wages to buy whatever non-legal drugs they like. You know that. So why say something that isn’t true?

This case was never about controlling how employees spend the money they earn working. It is fundamentally dishonest to pretend that it is.

Another Free Press article highlights what is perhaps one of the most ironic comments that came from April Higgins, 31, of Detroit. She said, “I don't think anyone should have the right to tell you what to do. … What does that have to do with my job? If I'm working and I'm here every day, why should it matter?”

I imagine that HL could not have made a better case for their position. No one should tell them what to do. It has nothing to do with the job. People should come to work every day and work.

Of course, Ms. Higgins doesn’t believe what she said. She thinks the government should have the right to tell people what to do. That’s what this whole case was about. Do the people in Congress and the White House have the right to tell other people what to do with their money.

Justice Ginsburg opined that other religious objections might now arise in other matters, and what will we do then?

That’s an easy one that even Justice Ginsburg should have gotten right: We honor religious objections. If a company doesn’t want to pay for blood transfusions, vaccinations, or some such, they should be free not to.

Let’s return this issue (and virtually all others) to the marketplace. If people want these four types of birth control in their insurance plan, then they won’t work at HL. Go work somewhere else.

That’s what the aforementioned April Higgins does. She works at Greektown Casino. So why does she care what HL does for its employees? She is free not to work at HL.

You say, “It’s not that easy.”

Why not? Any HL employee can walk into the manager’s office and say, “I am quitting this job.” They don’t have to give a reason. They can just quit.

You say, well, it isn’t easy to find another job. Okay. So you have choices to make. We all make choices about what we do and don’t do. And there is no right to an easy choice.

Here’s the most disturbing implication of this case: It appears to put the federal judicial system in charge of determining whether a religious conviction is sincere or not.

I don’t like that, for me or for anyone else. How would it be measured? What proof will be acceptable? And why, in the first place, should courts be involved in determining people’s religious views?

In the end, this isn’t a big deal. The HL decision is fairly narrow, apparently. And it is probably short-lived.

For those whose Christian hope is in America, they will be found sorely disappointed. This holiday weekend is a good time to remember that America is not the church, and the church and the gospel doesn’t depend on America.

HL being free from providing all forms of birth control isn’t going to bring revival. I doubt your church attendance will be higher this weekend because of this. In fact, I doubt many people in your church will know much about this case. So I encourage you not to change that.

Preach the gospel. Call people to obedient faith. It still works.

Quick Hits on SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

Remember back in 2000 when the left was all up in arms that SCOTUS overruled the will of the voters. Boy those were the days, weren’t they? Now those same people are rejoicing that SCOTUS overruled the will of the voters. Twice. Just today. Funny how times have changed. Actually, it’s just naked hypocrisy.

Remember all those people who said that the Republicans and Democrats were the same and they voted for some unknown third party candidate or sat it out because it didn’t matter? Well, here’s why you were wrong. Those two justices appointed by Obama would have been someone else. There are no guarantees what they would have been, but there would have been a chance for them to be significantly different. Yes I know that Kennedy was a Republican appointee. And so were Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Even if you don’t like either candidate particularly well, you have a moral authority to vote for the better of bad options. And this is why. Your sitting out or wasting a vote on someone with no chance will last far longer than four years till the next time. These court appointments are for life.

Obama apparently said he wouldn’t force churches to marry gays. Huh? Did he actually think he could? Churches can’t marry anyone; only ordained pastors can. And pastors don’t have to marry anyone, much less everyone. Color me really unconcerned about this one. Any attempt to force pastors to perform marriages for homosexuals would likely result in a blanket refusal to perform civil marriage for anyone. A religious ceremony would likely be maintained. This is already the way it is in other countries.

UPDATE: My friend Bill has helpfully reminded in the comments that this may affect our military chaplains, who might be forced to either perform these marriages or leave their posts. He says it could result in there being no evangelical chaplains in the military anymore. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. But it’s a real danger.

So here’s my political prognostication: This brings a Republican landside in 2014. There will be more Tea Party type candidates elected than ever before. And the government will continue to spend way more than it takes in.

Here’s my religious prognostication: Nothing changes for gospel-preaching, Jesus-loving churches. We will go about doing what we have always done. If you thought the government’s laws against homosexual marriage were any part of the hope of the gospel and the church, then you severely misunderstand the Bible and the promises of God.

The Sky is Falling!!! Oh Wait …

Christians are quick to jump on the bandwagon of persecution by evil government forces. As Ed Stetzer has written about several times recently, this is not a good thing. As Christians, we, more than anyone, should be concerned about actual truth.

In keeping with that, I point you to this article about the German family supposedly under threat of jail and losing their children for homeschooling. This article points out a number of fallacies and problems with the narrative that many Christians are following.

It’s worth reading.

And it’s a good reminder not to jump on these bandwagons.

The narrative goes something like this: The Obama administration wants to let 11 million illegal immigrants stay with amnesty, but is trying to deport this poor German family who was suffering religious persecution simply because of their religious beliefs.

The problem is that the narrative just isn’t true.

While Obama wants amnesty of some sort, the Obama administration is reportedly deporting about 50% more illegal immigrants than Bush per month, on average. And the German family isn’t suffering religious persecution, as you can read in the article.

So Christians shouldn’t be repeating the narrative. It’s just wrong.

As the old saying goes, You only have one life and there’s a lot of hills out there. Pick the ones you die on very carefully.

This is not a good one.

Quite frankly, I think Christians look bad with this constant narrative of persecution. It’s particularly troubling in light of history (even current history) where Christians die for their faith in Jesus.

I am pretty sure home schooling wasn’t the mind of Paul when he talked about offering his life up for the cause.

And Jesus didn’t die so you could homeschool your kids.

Which is not to say I have a problem with homeschooling. Every parent is regularly involved in educating their children, whether or not they drop them off at a school building for six or seven hours every day. From the time you get up until the time you go to bed, you are teaching your kids how to think, how to live, how to speak, how to love, how to learn, and thousands of other things. Many parents simply don’t educate very well.

If you choose not to drop them off at a school building, fine.

But don’t confuse that with persecution for following Christ.

Breaking out the DVDs and the workbooks on the kitchen table isn’t denying yourself and taking up your cross.

And the gospel won’t be damaged if this German family goes back to Germany, or to some other country.

Mr. President, Have You Nothing to Say?

The USA Today reports:

"The president does not and cannot take a position on an ongoing trial, so I won't as well," White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Monday.

Obama is "aware" of the case but it would be inappropriate for the president or White House to weigh in on an ongoing legal proceeding, Carney added.

Huh?

Is this the same president who had no trouble taking a position on the ongoing legal proceeding known as gay marriage? Nobody’s dying over that one. Why wasn’t it inappropriate then?

When a gunman shot up a theatre in Colorado, he spoke up, traveled out there, and met with families.

A gunman shot up a school in Sandy Hook and he still hasn’t stopped talking about that. In fact, he is pushing for new laws because of it.

But when it’s dozens (perhaps hundreds) of little babies and their mothers, he develops lockjaw? Or laryngitis?

When it was Trayvon Martin, the president said if he had a son, it would look like Trayvon.

Guess what, Mr. President. Many of those little babies killed by Gosnell look just like you too.

They never had a chance to don a hoodie or to enroll in school at Sandy Hook. They never saw a movie in a theatre, or even on a DVD.

And there were more of them than Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Trayvon Martin combined. Every day. Day after day.

Yet you can’t bring yourself to speak a word about this horrible atrocity?

Where’s your moral outrage?

Perhaps there isn’t any because this is about abortion rather than guns.

Of course, abortion kills far more people.

Guns killed twenty-six people at one school in Connecticut in December.

Abortion has killed that many since you started reading this. And abortion will continue unabated and unchecked, regardless of the gun laws you get passed.

One reason is because you, Mr. President, won’t speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Gosnell is only part of the problem.

People like you, Mr. President, also part of the problem, perhaps even a bigger part. Gosnell was one man running one operation in Philadelphia.

You have the power of the bully pulpit, the power of legislation, and the power of the media. You have influence over thousands, even millions.

And you think it is inappropriate to speak up when dozens of little African-American and White babies have been brutally murdered after they were born alive?

What good is a voice if you won’t use it to speak up for the least and most vulnerable among us?

What will it take to get you to condemn this modern holocaust?

Curious News Sentence of the Week

Tonight, the Allen Park Inter-City Baptist Chargers boys’ basketball team faces off against Southfield Christian in a regional final game. MLive.com says,

No. 3 Southfield Christian and No.7 Allen Park Inter-City Baptist should collide in what should be one of the best region title games in the state. The teams are 1-1 against each other with both games being decided by one point or less. Christian is the defending state champion and is led by scoring machine Bakari Evelyn.

Huh?

“Both games being decided by one point or less?”

How much less than one point can you score and still decide a game?

Or better yet, how much non-editing can an editor do and still be an non-editing editor?

The Cost of Academic Freedom

Here’s a follow up to an earlier story about a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University who was dismissed from the program because she referred a gay client to another counselor because of her religious beliefs. After filing suit, she was awarded $75,000.

We are often told that academic institutions of higher learning are supposed to be places of freedom. One of the frequent knocks against some Christian colleges is that there is no academic freedom, that you have to agree with the positions established.

Of course, what honest people know is that is par for the course at just about any academic institution. It’s part of the culture of intolerance that has been created and sustained.

It’s a bizarre and troubling world when people aren’t allowed to practice even basic freedoms of their discipline (including referring clients to other practitioners), and the academic intelligentsia is above questioning.

EMU doubled down by asserting that “The faculty retains its right to establish, in its learned judgment, the curriculum and program requirements for the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University.”

It’s learned judgment? By whose estimation? It is likely by the estimation of a MAS (a mutual admiration society). It’s a group where “learned” is defined by “agrees with me.”

It is interesting to imagine why EMU settled this case out of court. One can’t help but wonder if it’s not because of the danger that they envisioned, not just financially, but academically.

My guess is that the courts generally have a sympathy for religious objections, and a loss in the courts would mean that the “learned judgment” of the faculty is determined not to be so learned after all. The outcome would be that the university would no longer be able to establish these requirements that limit freedom.

$75,000 (of either insurance or state money) is a small price to pay for “academic freedom.”

One of the most instructive parts of this article are the comments where the student is repeatedly attacked and called names for her beliefs. Nothing quite like tolerance. It reminds us that tolerance means about the same thing as “learned judgment” means—agrees with me.

In reality, it seems to me she did the proper thing—she referred a client to someone she believed could better help them. Isn’t that what we expect out of doctors and counselors?

Shouldn’t we admire a doctor or counselor who says, “Someone else is better equipped to help you here”"?

My guess is that these same people who complain that she referred the client would also complain if she counseled the client.

In the News: Evangelism on the Head of a Pig

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that taunting Muslims with the head of a pig probably isn’t the best way to open doors to the gospel.

I suppose you can call me a chicken or compromised or something, but it just doesn’t ring true to what I see in the Bible about how we should go about evangelizing.

Regardless of our strong commitment to the gospel, we must have some basic common sense when talking to people.

As has often been said, the gospel is offensive enough. Let’s not add to it by the way we present it. If someone is going to reject the gospel, let’s make sure it is the gospel, not us or our methods, that they reject.

Finally …

At long last, we have discovered a level of government regulation the Democrats don’t like. We have found where the line is.

Unfortunately, it’s drawn squarely at the graves of the unborn, most of whom never make it to the grave. They are unceremoniously disposed of long before then.

This week, the Michigan Legislature was considering a bill to “increase insurance and regulations on abortion clinics, regulate the disposal of fetal remains, prohibit the use of teleconferences to prescribe abortion medication and make it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion.”

It’s hard to imagine what the downside of this is. What exactly is there to object to here?

But thirty-nine Democrats objected to it, anyway. It still passed with sixty-four Republican votes and six Democratic defectors. (So much for “They are all alike.” They are only mostly alike.)

To be clear, I object to this bill because it’s toothless. It will not do one single substantial thing to protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us.

In the name of women’s health, millions of young women (not to mention men) will be murdered, and this bill won’t stop that.

In a bizarre turn of events, a couple of women legislator’s chime in, making some rather absurd comments, both in the original article and in a follow up session. A follow up article says this:

And Byrum [one of the female legislators'] was gaveled out of order after she protested when she wasn’t allowed to speak on her amendment to the bill that would have required proof of a medical emergency or that a man’s life was in danger before a doctor could perform a vasectomy.

It’s hard to believe that this woman actually equated a vasectomy with an abortion.

Have we really stooped so low in our moral judgment that we don’t recognize the fundamental difference between sterilization and taking a human life?

Can we do no better than this?

Sadly, I imagine we probably can’t.

Unfortunately, millions of people are being systematically eradicated in a modern day movement that makes the Nazi Holocaust look small. The Nazi’s exterminated six million (6,000,000) people in about four years.

Modern society reaches that number about every fifty-two days (115,000 abortions per day worldwide; 42 million each year [42,000,000]) (source).

In America, the Holocaust takes place just about every five years (1.2 million abortions each year; five years to reach six million [source]).

The difference is that the Allied Armies, led by American courage and principle, isn’t standing up for these modern Holocaust victims like they did for the previous Holocaust victims. Maybe it’s because there’s no real courage or principle when it comes to defending the weakest Americans. There’s only politics.

These little ones are indeed the victims of politics,not to mention selfishness, lack of moral courage and integrity, and a gross deficiency of responsibility.

If 600,000 women were being brutally dismembered and chopped up and thrown out with the trash every year on the streets of America, there would be outrage, public demonstrations, and probably violence that not even the National Guard could quell.

But because these 600,000 women (and 600,000 men) are being dismembered, chopped up, and thrown out with the trash in doctor’s offices, we call it health care.

Strange health care, it seems to me.

May God help us and have mercy on us.

Say what?

I saw a headline recently on a local newspaper site (that shall remain unnamed). The headline read:

Pending obituaries for Thursday.

I thought about going to back to see if they turned into actual obituaries, or if these people somehow pulled through.

It reminds me of my grandma who used to say she got up every morning and read the obituaries to see if she was in them.

She only made it once and unfortunately she never lived to see it.

As an aside, I wonder what the affect of “Pending Obituaries” is on recovery. Is one more or less likely to recover once they have made the “Pending Obituary” page in the paper?

Sounds like the makings of a good sociological study.

Broken Justice

A story hit the Detroit Free Press recently about a man wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for three years for a sexual assault.* Apparently, this man committed this sexual assault while he was dictating medical records on the dictaphone. Very talented he is.

Or at least the jury thought so. They convicted him on the word of an accuser and her boyfriend, in the face of physical evidence that he was actually doing something else at the time they swore he was assaulting her. They sent him away for more than a decade, leaving a wife and children behind.

Turns out this particular piece of evidence about dictating during the time frame was presented at trial, and the problems with the timeline were shown.

The jury, however, was unable to figure the time line out. So they simply disregarded it. How thoughtful of them.

Now this piece of evidence doesn’t mean that he was innocent. He may have been guilty and the accuser was simply wrong on the timeline. But the fact is that a key piece of evidence was simply disregarded by people who are supposed to be seeking the truth.

On top of that there was a letter from a priest, seeking justice for the accuser by imprisoning the accused. Turns out it was forged.

But why was the priest writing a letter? Why wasn’t he showing up in person and taking the oath? Why didn’t the prosecutor subpoena the man and compel him to testify? Why didn’t the judge compel the man to come and testify?

Later, the accuser’s boyfriend had a twinge of conscience for lying on the witness stand and fessed up. The prosecutor wired him and now has the evidence that the accuser was laying on the stand.

The accused and convicted man spent three years in prison before being released after pleading to a lesser charge.

Now the prosecutor is trying to determine whether or not to charge the woman with perjury.

Really? Still trying to decide? What is the missing piece of evidence that will push you over the edge on this one?

And this is only one story of many. Others are detailed by The Innocence Project.

This should remind us all of the weakness of a jury trial. Simply put, a jury trial is a horrible way to get at truth. It is made up of a two sides, each presenting only arguments that favor their position. They have a vested interest in hiding certain things. Neither side is dispassionately interested in the truth. The defense attorney wants his client to go home. The prosecuting attorney has already staked his claim that this man is guilty and he has to see it right on through. And losing sex crime convictions is never a good way to get re-elected next time around.

A jury trial is overseen by a judge whose sole purpose is to make sure that the evidence is presented properly. He has no role in making sure that proper evidence is presented, or that proper consideration is given to the evidence. He can’t interject when attorneys or witnesses say stupid things, or make bad arguments.

It is based on the judgment of twelve people who, most likely, have better things to do than sit in the courtroom. While we would like to appeal to their noble side and think they would do their best, most people are very ill-equipped for the type of thinking that is necessary to process trial evidence. On top of that, in most cases they are not allowed to question the witness themselves. So they can’t even satisfy their own minds about questions. They can only judge on information that is presented.

If I were being tried (and for those who are linguistically challenged, I am not guilty of anything since “if” is a hypothetical, not an indicative), I don’t think I would want a jury trial. I know too many people. I know what they are like. I know the level of critical thinking in our society. And I can’t imagine the horror of trusting my life to a group of randomly selected people from Wayne County, or any other county.

This jury was utterly inadequate for the task. The prosecutor was utterly incompetent, and probably downright dishonest; knowing the timeline discrepancy, this should never have come to trial; it is hard to imagine any honest person could have ignored that. The judge should be impeached for allowing this. He is there for a reason, and he failed in the basic reason of controlling the trial to make sure it was a fair trial. The moment that the timeline was questioned and physical evidenced presented, if the prosecutor did not immediately back away from that line of reasoning, he should have intervened and declared a mistrial. A man’s freedom and family was on the line, and he stood by when he knew better. That is dereliction of duty.  It is unfortunately made by a man with no consequences. The judge, the prosecutor, and the jury will never have to face any consequences for this. And that makes it a lot easier to be cavalier with the facts and the truth. After all, it’s only someone else’s life.

Some suggest that you only want a jury trial if your case depends on emotion. If your case depends on facts, you want a bench trial. Why? Because judges are better with facts and reasoning. Juries are better with emotions.

If I were guilty, I wouldn’t want a bench trial. Judges are too smart; they are usually highly educated; they are quite often attorneys who have been through law school. They are more likely to be committed to the law, and less likely to be deceived by personalities on the witness stand. I would rather take my chances that there is at least one person on the jury that can be persuaded.

If I were innocent, there’s no way I would want to trust twelve random people from my community. Or your community. Because it’s not about the community. It’s about the nature of people.

In the final analysis, we should always remember that jury actions are forensic in nature. They are the conclusions of a group of people who make a legal determination, not necessarily a factual one.

______________________

*This article comments only on what was reported in the Free Press. It does not take into account the totality of evidence, since I have read no trial transcripts. However, the facts as presented in this article were enough to cause the prosecutor to free the man.

Praying for a Car Race

NASCAR still opens its left turn festivals with prayer. Perhaps that’s good, though I have my doubts.

A recent prayer by a pastor has strengthened those doubts, though perhaps the problem is not so much with praying for a race as it is with pastors who have no spiritual discernment and reverence.

In the midst of this prayer, he thanked God for his “smokin’ hot wife.” He then claimed he was trying to be like Paul (the apostle, not the driver … That’s a bit confusing though because I didn’t think Paul had a wife.)

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that some people think it was acceptable. And some even think it was good.

One hapless commentator said this was “a prayer that at worse [sic] praised a man's wife for being sexy.”

Seriously?

This person even thinks this is a positive for the church.

What?

This is a guy who uses a public prayer to hold up his wife as some sort of sex symbol, and that's a positive for the church?

Now I don’t want to be a crank. I really don’t.

But "smokin hot" is an advertisement for a strip club, or July in Detroit, not a church. This is a blight and embarrassment to God and the gospel. And I am a man, but I would think this would be an embarrassment to his wife.

In the Bible, and in civil society, women are honored for their character and virtue, not their "smokin' hotness." (See here and here for some thoughts on this.)

While Nelms wanted to use this prayer for publicity for the church, to draw people to the gospel, attracting people to your church because of a pastoral prayer like this ain't exactly holding up offense of the cross of Christ as the dividing line.

But in a church world gone mad over relevance and being cool and hip which has confused attraction and novelty with evangelism, this shouldn’t be surprising.

God help a church, or a believer, that thinks this is a good thing for church attention and growth.

And God help a pastor who thinks that this is appropriate for public prayer.

Say It Ain’t So!!!

Word is in: USC* Stripped of 2004 BCS National Championship

What a tragedy for college football.

What a blight on the BCS.

What a joke.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that not a single one of those 55 points USC scored on January 4, 2005 are coming off the board. And Oklahoma will still have their 19 today, and a hundred years from now.

Somehow I don’t think the players on the 2004 USC team will suddenly change their story. In fact, they probably don’t care. The truth is that they got what they wanted—a chance to play in the game and a victory. Their celebrations are over, and they will always be able to say, “I was on that team that won.” And they will always be able to point and say, “Scoreboard.”

On a related note, I met a guy this week who showed me his national championship ring from the Texas Longhorns team he played on in 1969. It was a relatively small ring by today’s standards. If you saw it on his hand, you wouldn’t take a second look. But it is something he treasures because, in his words, “It was neat to be a part of something bigger than yourself.”

It was a pretty unglamorous ring, to tell you the truth. In fact, most class rings (the one’s you buy to congratulate yourself for graduating) are bigger. Perhaps after four decades or so, some of the gold has worn off. But not so much that you are unable to read “Texas Longhorns National Champions” on it.  And that’s what made it special.

He told me he couldn’t imagine how someone could sell their ring like the players at OSU did in the recent scandal that landed Jim Tressel in the back of the line that 9.1% of the American public are already standing in.

Of course, that’s the unemployment line though I doubt The Sweater Vest will be seen down at the welfare office anytime soon. I imagine he has enough to tide him over for a  while, and perhaps his boy Terrell can slip him a couple of Benjamins to get him through, and maybe give him a lift down to Kroger for a bag of rice and some bagels. Besides, I imagine he will be employed somewhere soon.

And his players will go on with their lives. Just like Reggie Bush and the rest of the USC gang has.

And there will be some who, like the man I met this week, are still proud to be part of something bigger than themselves and won’t their souvenir from that event for a tattoo, or a used car, or anything else.

College athletics are big business.

If you want to crack down on this type of stuff that got OSU, USC, SMU back in the day, and lots of of other schools in trouble, the death penalty is probably the only way to do it.

End the USC football program for five years for this offense, and warn them that next time it will be ten years. And fine them the gate receipts for the seasons in question.

You see, the penalty has to be a deterrent. It can’t be worth it to succeed when you cheat.

Oh, and the standard will be a civil trial standard: preponderance of the evidence as considered by a jury made up of your rival’s season ticket holders.

I like that plan.

Any chance of it passing?

____________________

*For my friends in my home state, the USC here is University of Southern California, not University of South Carolina. It is probably obvious since we are talking about football national championships and only one school in South Carolina has one of those. Truth be told, the last time that USC sniffed a national championship was probably the exhaust from the plane when Notre Dame flew over SC on its way to it's bowl game in 1988.

Parenting

I am no expert parent by a long shot. In fact, sometimes I think I am barely a parent. But I have two kids that live in my house and I am pretty sure I am responsible for them.

Having said that, here’s an article that interests me.

In what has become an annual event close to graduation, another lawsuit was filed about prayer at graduation. Here, a couple in Texas said “their son would ‘suffer irreparable harm’ if anyone prayed at the graduation.” And the judge agreed.

Seriously?

You have had eighteen years to raise your son, and a short prayer at a graduation is going to push him over the edge?

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest this isn’t a prayer problem. It’s a parenting problem.

Here’s a Guy Who Doesn’t Get It

Several weeks ago, Kwame Kilpatrick, former Detroit Mayor and current prison inmate, said this regarding his perjury about the text message scandal that brought down his corrupt administration.

I certainly believe that telling the truth right would have saved my own butt and would have saved a lot of turmoil and trouble, but I don’t know if I would have done anything any different, because I was trying to stand up for my wife and children at the time.

This is unfortunately all too typical of the kind of thing that passes for husbands and men these days.

The notion that you are protecting your wife and children by lying about another woman is beyond bizarre. It comes only from a sense of entitlement that you should get what you got at home, and get some on the side as well. It is the sense of entitlement and arrogance that underlay the whole sordid mess known as the Kilpatrick Administration in Detroit.

If you had been wanting to protect your wife, you would have limited yourself to her. You would have kept the promises and the commitments you made to her when you married her. There would have no been no text messages, no relationship with your chief of staff, or other women.

You would have taught your boys by example that a real man loves the woman he married and he keeps the promises he made to her.

The truth is you were trying to protect yourself from your wife, from the possibility that she might infringe on your fun, take your family and your life savings, and leave you behind.

And now your boys are growing up without their daddy.

Now, the Detroit Free Press runs another story with this as the lead paragraph:

Carlita Kilpatrick says her husband is distressed and depressed, angry and resentful, has trouble sleeping and fears the future – mainly because his text messages were released, according to a now-disclosed interview with a psychiatrist.

Again, this is just evidence that he, and she, just doesn’t get it. The problem isn’t that the text messages were released. The problem is that there were text messages to be released. His anger, fear, resentment, trouble sleeping, and depression is because he did something wrong, he knows it (which is why he wanted to hide it to begin with), he got caught, and now is paying the price for it.

Here’s the cold hard truth: If you don’t want salacious text messages or emails being made public, then don’t send them.

Instead, cultivate a heart of respect for the woman you married.

It’s a hard lesson to learn, I guess. And one that more than a year in prison has not yet taught him.

His mother, former Congresswoman woman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick chimes in calling it “judicial misconduct” and “prosecutorial misconduct.” She says it’s “helplessness and slavery,” which is an embarrassment to her and disrespect to generations of African-Americans who were actual slaves for reasons other than getting caught sending illicit text messages to someone they weren’t married to and lying about it while spending $9 million dollars of someone else’s money to hide your own mess.

Fortunately, the gentle congresslady is unemployed now.

Unfortunately, she’s living off her government pension, which means you and I are paying her to pontificate like this..

And by the way, Kwame, your greatest fear should not be the already released text messages.

It should be the federal corruption trial that awaits you and some of your cronies.

Because long after your sentence on perjury and violation of probation has passed, your sentence for corruption and bribery will keep you away from your family.

And my bet is that you still won’t get it.

But let’s not kid ourselves. This is not a Kwame problem. It’s not a Detroit problem. It’s a human problem.

All of us have within us the seeds of self-destruction that have manifested themselves in incredibly ugly ways in this situation.

We are sinners by nature. We are possessed by an extreme sense of entitlement and a deep and abiding gullibility.

We are tempted to satisfy our own lusts and then cover our tracks with dishonesty—whether implicit or explicit, whether only to ourselves or also to those around us.

We would all do well to consider the instructions of Proverbs: Guard your heart with all diligence for from it flow the springs of life (Proverbs 4:23).

Only the gospel can save us from ourselves.

So run to Christ.

An Exercise in Foolishness

Florida pastor Terry Jones was going to hold a protest today in Dearborn against Sharia law in the United States. He apparently does not know what Sharia law is, but hey, why let that stop him.

However, the city of Dearborn refused to give him a permit for the place he wanted to hold it, and so the matter ended up in court where a jury agreed with the prosecutors that the protest was likely to cause a breach of the peace, thus breaking a little used law written before Lincoln was president (Abraham Lincoln, that is). The prosecutor wanted a $45,000 “peace bond” to pay for the costs of police overtime and other costs to the city. The judge set the bond at $1 and ordered Jones and his assistant to stay away from the mosque for three years.

There are some interesting things here.

One is the issue of free speech. Can a protest be restricted? Jones said no. The jury said yes. Historically, free speech has been given a pretty wide berth. Not today, however.

Here’s the rub: They were being restricted based merely on the possibility that someone else might do something—namely, disturb the peace. To me, it’s a strange thing that the court was tied up trying a case that hadn’t even happened. There were no facts for the jury to consider. It was all based on speculation.

Dearborn can say this wasn’t about content (and they are). But they were worried that the content of his speech might incite a “breach of the peace.”

I think there’s a good case that this should have never gotten to court to begin with.

And the irony is that if it would not have gone to court, things would have actually been better because in the end, taking Jones to court in an effort to preserve the peace didn’t work. A crowd of several hundred people gathered in a counter-protest, thus requiring the police presence that the peace bond was was supposed to pay for. Except the bond didn’t get paid.

And then Jones went to jail for refusing to pay the bond for a protest that had not yet happened. In other words, he went to jail for something he had not yet done, and was not even required to do.

The crowd that gathered was pretty rude and loud, both at the courthouse as well as at the police station. The anger and hatred in the crowd was probably worse than the protest would have been.

I think this is a place where Proverbs 26:4 takes over. Terry Jones is a fool. By answering him, the city of Dearborn gave him not just fifteen minutes of fame, but a whole day, and more to come.

Had they not taken him to court, the rains would have severely dampened any protest. And ignoring him would have been the worst thing you could do to him. He wants publicity. And this gave him far more than a little protest in Dearborn would have given him.

You see, there are some things in life that you make worse by responding to.

This was one of them.

My bet is that this isn’t over.

Dearborn’s effort to save a few thousand dollars on a protest is going to end up costing them a lot more by the time this is litigated.

And Jones got what he wanted. He got a lot of publicity for his cause (more than he ever would have gotten through a simple protest). He also gets to claim the city of Dearborn is being run by Sharia law and is acting unconstitutionally.

All in all, the jury made a bad mistake. The City of Dearborn made a worse one.

The loser is the constitution.

The winner is, believe it or not, none other than Terry Jones.

Uh-Oh

Word is that an “Indian ‘living god’ [is] in critical condition.”

This guy has apparently performed miracles including raising people from the dead. He has also “a string of hospitals that claim to be able to cure ailments beyond the capabilities of mainstream medicine.”

He is also “believed to produce sacred ash every day.” (Hmmmmm.)

He is also one whose “his reputation has also been damaged by allegations of sexual abuse and paedophilia.”

It should make people think about the things we call gods. And the loyalty we offer to men.

In the News

Nothing says “Great presidential election season” like Donald Trump running for president.

Anytime The Donald is involved, you know it’s gonna be good. Here’s a recent letter to the editor published in the NYT.

Even before Gail Collins was with the New York Times, she has written nasty and derogatory articles about me.  Actually, I have great respect for Ms. Collins in that she has survived so long with so little talent. Her storytelling ability and word usage (coming from me, who has written many bestsellers), is not at a very high level.

Typical Trump, great spin, and funny stuff.

The trifecta.

Wow

I don’t even know what to say about this.

An elderly Georgian woman was scavenging for copper to sell as scrap when she accidentally sliced through an underground cable and cut off internet services to all of neighbouring Armenia.

There’s gotta be a joke in there somewhere.

But I will wait to tell it until Armenia gets internet service back so they can laugh with us.