The Higher Law is Don't Trash Thy Neighbor

This Living the Higher Law Will Not be Easy

I've long known that when Christ came, he instituted a higher law, but I don't think I've been alone in not knowing exactly what that higher law is. When asked, I would often say something like, "Well, for one thing, they had animal sacrifices back in Old Testament times, and now we just offer up a broken heart."
   
Now, if Christ had spelled out what the higher law was, maybe mentioning just six or seven things that are in it, would I even know what those six or seven things are? I mean, if it is the law for me, doesn't this higher law become  something I will be judged on, the code of conduct I am expected to live by? And, if this is so, shouldn't I know exactly what the higher law is? If it is my law, it becomes my goal. How can I go through the whole of my life without having a very clear idea of just what is expected of me?

Well, I might not be ready to tell you every thing in the higher law, but a week or two ago, I realized at least much of it is right there in the scriptures, memorized by few despite its importance.

I am now memorizing what is in it.

Once, it was said, Thou shalt not kill. But now, the law for me, is that I must no longer speak of someone I know as being a fool. I must no longer hold him (or her ) in derision or contempt. I can no longer even get angry at someone without cause. I would guess this means I should not say things like, "Tom over there is losing it," or, "That guy is an idiot."

My, my, this is quite a large bill, if this is what is expected of me. A higher law, indeed, and I can only pray and hope and try. This is much to be expected of me. The higher law says I should not even get angry with someone without cause. I wonder if at least some of the "righteous" indignation I feel is something I should let go of.

The higher law means no divorcing except for cause of fortification. 

And, it was once said that we should not commit adultery. Now, the higher law says I shouldn't even look on a woman to lust after her. This sends many of us scurrying, wondering what that means. For me, and how I think I will interprete it, when I see a beautiful woman, I want to leave it at that and go no further. No taking of a deep breath, no uttering, "Ouch," underneath my breath, and no second glance.

The new law means I should agree with my adversary quickly.

The new law means I should not only not forswear myself except in God's name, but I should not forswear at all. I can only hope I am interpreting this right when I consider ways we sometimes use God's name to proclaim how things will or should be. 

"If you do that, so help me God, I'm going to make sure you don't get that position." Better if I were just to use the yea-yea or nay-nay approach and say, "Oh, my friend, no, it is not a good thing to do that. It might risk whether you get the position."

Or, how about,  "In the name of God in His Heaven, I ask you not to do that"? Better that I just gently say, "No. I'm asking you not to do that."

The old law said an eye for an eye. Maybe that is like saying, "Fight, but just fight fairly," or "Don't hit them unless they hit you first." The new law is if they take something from me, I'm to give them something else, also. The new law is that if a person asks me for a ride to the corner, I'm to give him a ride all the way to his house.

The old law said for me to love my friends, but it was understandable if I hated my enemies. The new law says I am to bless those who curse me. i am to do good to those who hate me. I'm to pray for those who disrespect me and treat me despitefully. If someone speaks ill of me, or steps in the way of my doing something, or whispers a rumor against me, those are people I am to seek out and do something good to them.

Ahh, this higher law: It will not be easy to keep. I notice after the scriptures spell out what is in it, there is the passage, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect," and I note how it has been suggested that that was a reference to being complete, and whole.

That is probably accurate. Coming after such a code as is spelled out in the higher law, I wonder at how complete and perfect I must be. I can hardly be a more complete person than if I live the higher law, and I can hardly be a more perfect one.

If We are to Keep Electoral College, Let's do it Right

Perhaps, in the name of doing things as the Founding Fathers intended, we should not vote for president, at all. Instead, we should vote for delegates to the Electoral College.

I think on this as I reflect on how talk of going to a straight popular vote elicits strong sentiment against it from those who see the Electoral College as sacrosanct, something the Founding Fathers designed through divine inspiration.

And, I think perhaps they are right.

The Electoral College came to us as a compromise between those who wanted the president elected by popular vote and those who wanted him or her elected by Congress. Perhaps they wanted a little bit of republican governmentism to stand in this matter, with us electing a president in a republican fashion. But, tell me, how does the way we have ended up doing it count as a republican form of governing? We vote for a presidential candidate, but our votes are transferred to electors pledged in advance to vote for the candidate we have selected. It is a system that lacks the benefits of republican government. The electors bring no special study of the candidates, and no special wisdom of their own to the table, rather they reflect the vote of the people once the vote of the people has been skewed by such factors as the winner taking all.

So, then, maybe the Electoral College was not conceived at all as a way of administering a republican form of government. Maybe, instead, it was simply envisioned as a way to give a better balance of  power to smaller states. I've heard a lot of people argue this. The Electoral College representation helps small states have slightly higher representation than they would otherwise have. But, if helping the small states was the intent, why have electors at all? Why not just say the vote of the people will be calculated automatically to equal the proportions of each state's congressional delegation?

If the Founding Fathers didn't suggest just calculating the vote that way, but instead wanted electors, they must have had more in mind than just balancing things out for the small states.

So, I'm just saying. I'm just saying maybe we aren't doing it right. Yes, the Constitution does give each state the right to choose the electors in the manner it sees fit. But, I really wonder if this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. 

And, I doubt it is.

Organizer Promises Marijuana 'Tsunami'  

   Is the big news simply that the marijuana industry holds an out-in-the-open business conference? It opened today, not much more than a day removed from Colorado and Washington becoming the first states in the nation where voters have approved recreational drug use.
   And, no less, the convention is right there in one of the states that just made marijuana legal, being held in Denver. The two-day event closes Friday.
   Or, is the big news that the convention's organizer, Cassandra Farrington, promises that a marijuana "tsunami" is coming, sparked by what has happened in Colorado and Washington?
   The National Marijuana Business Conference is for those in the medical marijuana industry. I should not be so surprised to learn there is a national conference on marijuana use. After all, a third of all states now allow medical marijuana, I am told. So, thus the National Marijuana Business Conference.

Free the Prostitutes; Offer Them Shelters

Oh, prostitution is surely wrong, and not a thing to be legalized at all. But, there is more to this matter of prostitution than whether we should legalize it. We should have a little heart for the prostitutes, themselves. I read how 89 percent of the prostitutes would like to escape, but see no way out. Some just don't have income options, but a good share of them are victims of human trafficking, nudged into prostitution by others. So, regardless whether we say prostitution should be illegal, shouldn't we should be concerned about the prostitute as a victim, and help her find a way out?

Add to the list of things that would improve our society, the freeing of the prostitute. As the song says, "Free, free. Set them free."

Seems like a few good shelters would be in order. Googling, I see shelters do exist. But, if women are going to leave prostitution, they need to know they have that option. They need to know the shelters exist. We should ensure that shelters are situated in every reasonable-sized city, and that enough advertising is being done so the prostitutes become aware of them, and know that they can escape to them.

I suggest the shelters offer employment as part of their way of taking care of prostitutes, rather than just taking them in and taking care of all their needs. If part of the reason prostitutes choose that profession is that they need the job, then part of the solution should be giving them an alternate job. Indeed, the shelters should require the prostitutes take the offered job in order to remain at the shelter.

Oh, I would not be surprised if the number of them who want out is not near 89 percent. Fine. Still, if there are even a decent number of them, at all, who want out, help them. 

You are going to have to tell me what would be wrong with this idea, if you oppose it. All I am asking is that we offer them a job to replace their prostitution, and a simple place to live that allows them to remove themselves from the influence of the pimps. If you want someone to change, you are wise to offer them an alternative.

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdf/Prostitutionin9Countries.pdf

http://www.childrenofthenight.org/contact_us.html

(Note: Updated 7/9/14 as I corrected the Sting quote. On 9/21/15, I added the last paragraph.)

On Mary Jane and Mary Marrying Jane

I never did understand all the talk about how this was to be the most crucial election of our lifetimes, until now. It's not Romney or Obama I'm talking about, nor control of Congress by the Democrats or Republicans. None of that. But, recreational marijuana won approval in two states, Washington and Colorado, and I believe this is the first time voters have approved such a measure. (Small amounts of marijuana are legal in Alaska and other states have have reduced small amounts to being infractions, instead of misdemeanors) Voters in Maine and Maryland approved same-sex marriages. Okay, I'm just joking in saying now I see why this election was the most crucial in our nation's history. Still, these two things seem significant.

   Let Federal Government Keep Lands, That Our Word Be Our Bond

Your word is your bond, it is said. This being true, surely then, Utah should give up efforts to take public lands away from the federal government.

   Our word is our bond. We gave our word we would not do this thing, and we must not. Way back before any of the current generation were here, the federal government handed us a little paper to sign. Called the Utah Enabling Act, it set forth the conditions for us becoming a state.

   Read from it, what we signed: "The people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof."

   That's sweet and simple and easy to understand.

   When I presented this to one of the legislators who voted for the bill calling on the federal government to give us those lands, he suggested the provision was only put in the Enabling Act just to establish clear title.

   Clear title or not, we still signed it. 

   When I brought it up with the chief sponsor of the bill petitioning the federal government to turn the lands over to us, he, also, did not seem fazed.

   This movement to claim public lands from the federal government has been around for decades. It once was called the Sagebrush Rebellion, but we have gotten away from using that term much. From appealing to the courts, to burning a National Parks Service airplane in Alaska, those in the movement have been quite vocal about their perceived rights.
   Ironically, though, the very document that says, No, to them says, Yes.

   They point to a phrase saying that money from public lands that "shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union" is to go to the state to pay for schools. To them, "shall" means the lands must be sold. I say otherwise. I say that where it speaks of the federal government selling the land, it is saying that IF the federal government sells the lands subsequent to Utah becoming a state, then the money goes to the schools.
   They also quote from a part of the act that says, "and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States" without quoting the words that come just after that, which say, "the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States."
   That the law does give the contingency of what should be done with lands sold by the federal government prior to statehood, but it does not say all lands must be sold. To the opposite, it says until that time, they must remain subject to U.S. disposition.
    And, to the opposite, the agreement forbids us from pursuing these lands. We said we will "forever disclaim all right and title," and so we must.
   For our word is our honor.

John Jackson for House District 44

   I would to sell you on a candidate -- myself -- who likes to think he is not for sale.
   This time, elect someone who doesn't accept money from special interests, be that from corporations or from civic-cause concerns such as education, for if it is wrong for influence to come from anyone, then that includes it being wrong for it to come from even good causes. A couple years ago, when I asked one state candidate about taking contributions, she shot back that, no, she wouldn't take money from anyone who doesn't serve the public interest. Somehow that has an ironic spin to it. Do we say the bad guys shouldn't be allowed to practice the crime, but the good guys should? Wrong is wrong, even in small matters, and if you consider this a small matter, it still is one we should not like.
   We set finance disclosure rules because we see the danger of special-interest influencing. It's like we know our system is wrong, yet instead of changing it, we simply make sure it is transparent.
   If wrong is wrong, change it. Don't simply monitor the wrong, get rid of it.
   Some would argue in favor of allowing contributions from individuals, but can't we be just as beholden to an individual as to a lobbyist? Why set up a system that shields off one person's influence, but allows another's?
   No one doubts the reason many give money to politicians is they want them to remember them when elected. Most contributors do not do that, but the candidate often cannot know which ones are doing it until after the election,when legislation appears on the table that would benefit the contributors.
  Well, your vote counts. One vote for either of the other two candidates is not likely to decide the election, it is not likely to be the deciding vote. But, a vote for me sends a message against influence spending. In me, you will get just as much of a prudent, thoughtful, reasonable, and well-reasoning public official as you will if you elect one the other two candidates. This time, cast a vote for someone campaigning without contributions.