Jim Shaul's Reflections and Refractions

“The old adage about giving a man a fish versus teaching him how to fish has been updated by a reader: Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights.'” Thomas Sowell

Miriam Webster defines rights as “something to which one has a just claim”. I think most of probably see rights this way. So if I said to you that as a left-handed person who has been discriminated against all my life, I have a right to financial restitution from all right handed people in this country and you can go ahead and make your due payment to my GiveSendGo account, how much would you give?

I believe that you would be more likely to give me a piece of your mind than your money. And why? Just because I claim that a right exists, doesn’t make it so. This also is something that I think we all agree upon. Saying it is so does not make it so. Claiming the existence of a right without proper justification is wrong. It must be done write.

Now, if I got the government to accept my claim and they put it into a statute or amended the constitution, then I could safely say that I have that right. In philosophy class I defined rights as privileges typically granted by an authority who has not only declared the right (usually in writing) but also is committed to defending that right.

When I have discussions with folks who are claiming particular rights exist, I generally will ask them who granted the right and where is it recorded and when. It is unquestionable that many nations have granted many rights… but when they do, they are implied in statutory entitlements or made explicit in the Bill of Rights or amendments. Every nation is free to set forth in writing any rights that the government has declared its willingness to defend.

Just because one nation declares a right, if does not make it universal or even appropriate. Each country’s populace or its government is free to create or not create national rights.

When someone says to you that such and such other countries have granted a certain right and on that basis say the it should also be granted here, you should ask them why? It this a universal objective right that exists above nations and humans (as set forth in the Declaration of Independence), or is it just one that you like. If they like it and consider it a just claim and therefore want to defend it, let them. If they want that right to be legally enforceable in this country, encourage them to use sound reasoning to argue that it is a just claim and convince enough people to enshrine that right in writing. Until that happens, it exists on the same level as my claim for reparations to us left-handers.

Saying it so does not make it so, but writing it does. Write makes right.

———————————————-

If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at jimshaul@gmail.com and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: https://jimshaul.org and follow me there.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,

Jim

When I taught Critical Reasoning and Ethics, I used to get lots of papers written on the topic of gun control. Over the years, the arguments were often the same . I would over and over again write on the returning papers that were calling for restrictions on guns that the paper had good – or even great – arguments that were very persuasive. I told them that these arguments would be great if they were arguing for gun control in Mexico or Egypt or Mongolia… but they carry no weight in the U.S. unless they take into consideration the second Amendment that does not allow the government to “infringe” on the right to bear arms. To infringe means to encroach. To encroach means to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another (Both definitions taken from Miriam Webster). So any even gradual steps to infringe were violations of that amendment. Of course the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of just exactly what “to infringe” means and therefore what arm are protected by the amendment.

If folks are truly serious about solving the problem of mass shootings, I encourage them to do one or both of the following: 1) find solutions that do not “infringe” or 2) get the second amendment overturned. I see no other reasonable options.

———————————————-

If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at jimshaul@gmail.com and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: https://jimshaul.org and follow me there.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,

Jim

People rarely see the flaws in their own arguments. Typically they do not until someone points out the flaws in such a way that they actually listen and see the errors.

See if you can point out the flaw in the following argument:

P1 All devices that are used to wound or kill many people at once should be outlawed

P2 Guns are used to wound or kill many people at once

C: Guns should be outlawed

It is actually is kind of easy to find the weakness if you are just looking at the claims and not throwing emotion into it. P2 is clearly true and undeniable. P1, however, is an untenable claim ( which means it is not reasonable to hold the claim.) If one were to hold the claim, then many devices should be outlawed.

If you hold to P1, then it would logically follow that you would be fine when the authorities come to your house and take your car away – as well as everyone else’s car. As we saw in Waukesha (https://nypost.com/2021/11/21/suv-drives-into-parade-in-wisconsin-possible-shots-fired/), 5 people were killed and 40 were injured by a person driving a car.

We all know that the car was not the problem – the driver and his heart and mind were the problem. To require that all other drivers of cars surrender their cars or to prevent any new cars to be sold would be punishing the innocent and not addressing the real problem. Morally sick and mentally ill people are the problem.

You can close your eyes to the real problem… and you know that many are doing just that. Doing so, however, just results in the truth not being seen and innocent people having their rights infringed and others having their lives taken away.

I adjure you to close your eyes to the bad logic, and open your eyes to what is really happening: a loss of the fear of God and a rejection of the value of human life has spread like an infection in our society.

———————————————-

If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at jimshaul@gmail.com and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: https://jimshaul.org and follow me there.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,

Jim

In a constitutional republic, each person with suffrage gets to vote their conscience and their values. That is how the system was designed and how it works. It makes ZERO difference if the people are left handed, Presbyterian, transgender, a Cubs fan, a communist, or a Bible-thumper. Everyone gets a say. No one has to check their beliefs and values at the door of the ballot box. If a large majority of voters share the same values, then those values become woven into the ordinances, and statutes of their states. If a majority of states share the same values, then they are woven into the rules and laws of the federal government. It is that simple. That is how our system was designed to work. If you want your beliefs and values to be more represented in our society, voice them and gets others – through winsome rhetoric – to agree with you and encourage them to speak and vote.

God gave me the incredible gift of being born into a nation that allows me a voice in my society so I will share it. I do not see changing my society as the most important goal – because it is not the biggest problem. People’s relationship – or lack thereof – to their creator is the biggest problem, but that is addressed by sharing with as many as I can the good news of how we can know Him through His Son.

If you do not share my faith, I still love you and want the best for you. I still respect you as a human being and support the freedoms given to you by our constitution. We are in this together.

If you do share my faith, I encourage you to stay focused on the things above, not get too entangled with the things here below, do not use rhetoric that will likely inflame others (although all truth tends to do that and we still must speak the truth in love). I also encourage you to reach out and strengthen fellow believers that are struggling in these difficult times. We all need daily reminders that God is above and behind and in all the events around us and is weaving His own plan in this country, In this He will not fail; and it is in Him that we live, and move, and have our being. (Acts 17:28).

———————————————-

If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at jimshaul@gmail.com and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: https://jimshaul.org and follow me there.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,

Jim

A theocracy, as defined by Miriam Webster is, “government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In my world religion classes, I used the definition: where the laws of the holy writings are the laws of the land.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannic, “The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican.”

I have seen recently posts on social media that express concern over the establishment of a theocracy in the U.S. It is curious to me as I have not seen a large number of people pushing for a theocracy here. (unless it refers to the bodily return of Jesus to establish His Kingdom on earth).

Since the beginning of the Christian church, there has never been a true theocracy. There have been countries with theocratic tendencies and some might even consider the Holy Roman Empire as one, but I do not; however, whether there has been a pure theocracy or not in the past or in other countries, there has never been one in this land. Sure there were some Puritans who were looking to establish a nation under God similar to what Israel had Under David and Solomon, but they were a small minority. Most people came to the new world for religious freedom – that meant living life without the government telling them what to believe and how to practice their faith. They wanted a life where the state stayed out of their religion. THAT was the original fear and concern of the founders – NOT that there would be religious influence on state matters. They assumed (since a large number of them were Christians) that Christianity would impact the society because it impacted the ideology and values of so many of its citizens. For a quick, informative and likely surprising look at how extensively religion impacted the early colonies, go to: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/laws-rights-and-liberties-related-to-religion-in-early-america/. Recent First Amendment decisions by Supreme Court have upheld this notion that the state should not infringe on citizens religious liberty.

I have seen no individuals or groups of note that are calling for the New Testament to be the Law of the land (not that there aren’t a few crazy fringe folks out there). I have seen people who have been labeled as Christian Nationalists call for a return to Christian values and morals – but that is not a call to theocracy – not even close. Would they like government officials who were Christians and who had their personal values be a part of the discussion of what is right and lawful in this country? Sure they would. Do they want this forced on the non-Christian community? No, but they would like the majority of people to either become Christian or adopt similar values and then vote people in who shared those values. THAT is not violating anything in the Constitution nor is contrary to what most of the founding fathers wanted.

The constitution is a secular document and there was a good reason for that. The state should not be in the business of religion. The founders, though, fully saw no problem with religion impacting and greatly influencing the state and its laws.

———————————————-

If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at jimshaul@gmail.com and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: https://jimshaul.org and follow me there.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,

Jim