Cross and Flag Burning
11 Aug., 2000
Bowie-Blade Editor
Cross and Flag Burning
The four conspirators are ensconced behind federal prison doors where they will no longer torment the good citizens of Bowie (or at least Janet Reno) with their unacceptable thoughts. The last of the four to be sentenced, Derek Schleicher, got 27 months for planning to burn crosses while harboring anti-negro race thoughts. The other three got 24 months, 35 months, and 10 years. The heaviest sentence was laid down on Brian Swetnam because his action was judged to be “arson” in connection with a “hate crime.”
Before I proceed, I must perform certain PC genuflections to establish my credentials as a non-racist; to wit, I affirm the following basic creed: 1) Racism is false doctrine; 2) The foundation for all human rights is the biblical doctrine of the image of God in man; 3) No civil rights ought to be denied anyone on the basis of his membership in a particular grouping within the human race.
I boldly affirm this third article of the creed even at the risk of being called a “speciesist” (a la the cute neologism advanced by Australian animal rights guru, Animal Liberation author, and recently installed Princeton professor, Peter Singer). And I shall go the extra mile and display my fair-mindedness by stating that the root of racism is opposition to interracial marriage. As long as a person believes that his daughter ought not to marry another person on the grounds of race, he will be incorrigibly racist. That is not to say he will necessarily hold others in disdain or even inferiority. He will, however, be de facto a nice racist (like Abraham Lincoln) at best.
On this issue, I am proud to preemptively declare that I am pristine. Let the record show that I give my permission for my eight beautiful daughters to marry men from any race. (They may not marry other women or animals; they may not do what everybody else is doing). As Christians, my daughters are to marry Christians – not Muslims, Mormons, Morons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, pagans, Democrats. It is a matter of belief, not biological phenotype.
It is instructive to consider the beliefs, the doctrinal principles of the Christian faith, which bear upon the issue of racism. Biblical law does not condemn slavery; rather, it regulates it. A person, may Lawfully come into the possession of another via debt, war, or choice (on the part of the slave). What is prohibited in Biblical law is man stealing (a capital crime), which crime, sadly, was integral to the system in place in our land. Our form of slavery depended upon race-based man-stealing . . . A nation’s tolerance of slavery does not, in itself, convict it as a “human rights violator.” And a person’s livelihood ¾master or slave; employer or employee¾is not relevant to his humanity.
It is not incongruent to say, therefore, that the biblical view of human origins – the monogenic descent of the race from Adam ¾ provides a foundation for racial unity. The only dichotomy in the human race is that between those who are keepers of God’s commands and those who are not; between believers (in Jesus the Messiah) and those who do not believe in Him. Distinctions between humans from a Biblical standpoint, therefore, is a function of doctrine and behavior, not birthplace, family, race, or caste.
This is not the case with racists such as Louis Farrakhan who believe in polygenic origins wherein white people are believed to have sprung not from Adam but from devils. This view of innate and fundamental racial distinctions makes for insurmountable racial distinctions. Nor does the cloudy view of human origins in Darwinism afford a strong foundation for racial harmony. Man, whatever his murky origins, is definitely not a special creature (uh, “animal”). He (rather, the species) has no dignity greater than any other animal since homo sapiens are not endowed with the imago Dei (image of God). Humans have primates rather than God as their Father.
The Biblical view of human origins affords the highest dignity for the human race and the greatest principles for the unity of humanity.
Now, then, having laid down in brief a doctrine of race and purged myself of any vicious race label detractors would hang on me in lieu of addressing arguments, let me return to the race issue at hand, the jailing of young men for thought crimes.
It is clear that these four men were convicted of thought crimes. They acted upon racist views, perhaps even evolutionary doctrine learned in government schools. They were not taught that all mankind is descended from a man, Adam, created in the image of God and therefore endowed along with his descendants with a certain dignity and inalienable rights. Rather, they were taught that mankind, evolving from other animals, has no special dignity; that it is natural and good for the strong to survive and the weak to die out. Perhaps their survival instincts led them to regard their own white strand of humanity to be more fit than the black strand.
Whatever the thinking processes, they did not view black folks kindly and have expressed their opinions through the offensive manner of burning crosses.
This is the crux of the manner. The foul form of expression was simple vandalism which endangered no one. The crossed attached to the fences were not close to any house or school facility. Restitution could not have been more than a day’s work. Why was the charge a composite 17 years and 2 months?
Penance for thought crimes. The federal inquisitors want to change minds. They want to re-educate – with a vengeance. “All attorneys agreed that the guidelines were too harsh for these cases” (Blade, 10 August).
Indeed it is as with a religious zeal that the federal government wishes to enforce right thinking on matters of race. No hating allowed. These boys hated and talked about getting a hit man.
People talk every day about hiring a hit man to kill their own children by abortion. They hate the child treading upon their own lifestyle and plans.
What is illegal to hate?
If we are going to have the government instruct us in such matters of religion and morality, what law, what system of ethics do the feds operate by? Are they, since God has been expelled from the civil realm, the Almighty Lawgiver? Do they determine what may be hated?
It used to be that the doctrine of nationalism was important enough that its symbol, the flag, was protected from desecration. An attack upon the symbol of the nation was an attack, though in thought only, upon the nation itself, and punishable by fines and jail time. But the doctrine of nationalism is being supplanted with the doctrine of globalism wherein the “world community” is united by some nebulous principle of planetary togetherness due to the unity humans enjoy in breathing the same air and living under the same sun. Moreover free speech, not matter how vulgar and offensive, must be protected.
But some free speech is not protected. Racist free speech is muted because any action which may be tied to it is punished exorbitantly.
(I could bear witness to some first hand experience with the zealotry of the federal judiciary. I have been the victim of a Planned Parenthood lawsuit from which I have been found liable for $8 million.
My deeds? Writing an ethical treatise on the use of force in general and in opposition to abortion in particular. But, I digress.)
The federal government knows no authority above itself and so it takes no offense against desecration of national symbols, the suborning of sexual holiness and human dignity through pornography, blasphemous films which slander the Son of God. It not only makes no restrictions, it forbids state authorities from doing so. The federal government knows no God in whose image children are created, so it takes no offense over the slaughter of them by the millions. It not only refuses to outlaw such a holocaust, it forbids states to do the same.
Is there any rhyme or reason why one can burn a flag but not a cross?
Our federal government reigns now as a tyrant. It needs to be reined in and returned to its constitutional bounds or abolished.
Special Speech Rights in Berkeley ELCA Apostates and the Persecution of Horsley
Comments are currently closed.