Monday Morning Rant 41

An important part of writing a general interest blog is reading a wide variety of entries from individuals with specific expertise. Among them are the blogs produced by law professors—Eugene Volokh, Ann Althouse, and Glenn Reynolds to name a few—which take a critical look at various issues currently before various courts. In this reading we find the importance of words.

In each aspect of law the words must be dissected to ascertain their exact meaning to support contract language, allegations of wrong doing, and form legislation. Argumentation frequently centers on definitions of the words which carelessly lack exactitude to state the case. The general agreement tends to criticism of the framers of legislation in the first place. The final arbiter in most cases in the United States is our Constitution. The wording which contravenes the intent of the founders of the nation in that sacred document is the one most frequently under assault before the bar.

As an example we find “hate speech.” In his immensely popular blog, The Volokh Conspiracy we find his opinion expressed in total. If interested, you will find the entire discussion at the previous link. Otherwise, consider this quote from the piece:

"I often hear people arguing that some speech is unprotected under current First Amendment law because it's 'hate speech,' or asking 'Is [X] free speech or is it hate speech?' That, it seems to me, is a mistake. 'Hate speech' is not a legal term of art under U.S. law, nor an exception from First Amendment protection. "

I must agree with Professor Volokh that it is a mistake. While I view much of the speech in public and private discourse as offensive to me personally, I agree with the founders that the speech, no matter how hurtful, must be protected. In all fifty states it is commonly agreed that words which incite public disruption – falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater—are not “free speech.” “Hate speech” on the other hand is an attempt to insert into the law an enhancement of penalty based on some personally held views of the severity of the crime. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. There is no need for redundancy in laws to prosecute that which is already a crime.

Speaking of speech...

In an interview with one of the presidential candidates recently, I found this insightful exchange:

“Interviewer:

Do you believe in sin?

Candidate:

Yes.

Interviewer:

What is sin?

Candidate:

Being out of alignment with my values.”

This is a serious disconnect for me to contemplate. My reading of the Scriptures has led me to believe that sin is best defined as separation from God. For me to look over my life and the values I have at sometimes entertained would constitute blasphemy of the highest order. I suppose it is possible that the candidate is so in tune with God that their values have merged. Would that it were the case with each and every one of us. I’m not sure I would be comfortable facing my Maker at judgment having made that assumption.

Dr. R.C. Sproul, who coined the phrase: “Sin is cosmic treason” quoted in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations points out that it “encompasses debt, an expression of enmity and a crime.” The crime is the failure to conform to or transgress the laws of God. By not following His laws and will, we then do what He prohibits and thus sin breaks His law. Serious violation of the law is then a crime. Therefore to sin requires we be fully familiar with God and know He is not represented by the culture around us. It is not measured by our relationship with other human beings but rather but rather with Him.

Dr. Sproul maintains: “Not until we take God seriously will we ever take sin seriously. But if we acknowledge the righteous character of God, then we, like the saints of old, will cover our mouths with our hands and repent in dust and ashes before Him.”

Abridgement of freedom ……

In a drastic move in the District of Columbia, the local police have isolated certain neighborhoods for exceptional surveillance in response to soaring crime rates. The outward manifestation is the establishment of manned “check points” where entry in to and exit from the area is reserved for those who can establish their business there or residency. This abridgement of freedom is allegedly to restrict the movement of drugs and guns.

I am in sympathy with law enforcement in the nation’s capital in their effort to stem the tide of lawlessness which exists there. In spite of draconian gun control laws, they have the worst homicide rates of any city in the country. Perhaps I should rephrase the last sentence. Because of draconian gun laws which leave the citizenry defenseless, they have the worst homicide rates of any city in the country. In areas away from the public buildings in downtown and the National Mall, crime is rampant.

This is reminiscent of travels outside the United States where check points manned by armed personnel were routine. On my last trip to Mexico after clearing the customs in Ciudad Juarez I was stopped at a check point on the southern outskirts of the city. About thirty miles later, there was another in the wilds of the Sonoran Desert. Each time I crossed a border into another state, there they were again.

While I understand the necessity, I am also offended by the check points on my routine trips to Nevada and Arizona to see my grand kids. There is a checkpoint before crossing Hoover Dam, one on I-10 between Tucson and El Paso and another on US 70 just west of White Sands and Alamogordo, NM. The first serves the purposes of homeland security and the others are for the interdiction of illegal immigrant traffic. I nearly got in trouble at the last one in the middle of the night. I made the mistake of making friends with their dog and rendered her assigned duties absolutely useless. She was an irresistible German Shepard, bored on that lonesome highway and eager to make a new friend. After “tossing” the car, they allowed me to proceed.

This ghettoization of certain parts of America may serve a worthwhile purpose but any restriction of liberty is at the same time oppressive.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon