Pol­i­tics, re­li­gion can­not be sep­a­rated

Cecil Whig - - OPINION -


I once men­tioned some­thing po­lit­i­cal to a very re­li­gious friend and he in­formed me that he was into re­li­gion, not pol­i­tics. I ar­gued that the two sub­jects can­not be sep­a­rated.

A Chris­tian can try to love ev­ery­one, but he or she knows that evil is out there lurk­ing. A prime ex­am­ple is abor­tion. I be­lieve most Chris­tians ab­hor this mur­der­ous prac­tice but there are mod­er­ate Chris­tians who have been con­vinced by lib­er­als that a child within a woman’s womb is not re­ally a child, just an in­con­ve­nient mis­take that can be cor­rected by one of those “doc­tors.” These lib­er­als be­long mostly in the Demo­cratic Party but there are some pro­choice Repub­li­cans. Pro-choice in­de­pen­dents are plen­ti­ful and the So­cial­ist Party is in­fested with them. No politi­cian re­ally wants to talk about the evils of abor­tion and peo­ple like my friend need to find out just where a politi­cian stands on this is­sue, then vote ac­cord­ingly.

The midterm elec­tions are over, but with the new Demo­cratic-ma­jor­ity U.S House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, you can bet on them do­ing their best to fur­ther this evil. You may con­sider pro-choice a neu­tral po­si­tion, but it re­ally means that you want abor­tion to con­tinue, and that makes you pro-abor­tion. The next time you see your grand­child at play, imag­ine him or her in­side the womb of your daugh­ter or daugh­ter-in-law and thank God that she de­cided not to con­sider her preg­nancy an “in­con­ve­nient mis­take.” most cases is a po­lice stand down, or do not en­gage, or­der.

This re­sults in prop­erty dam­age to busi­nesses, au­to­mo­biles, in­di­vid­u­als, etc.

I don’t blame the po­lice for this. If the choice was given, I am sure they would want to pro­tect and serve. These or­ders come down from politi­cians and oth­ers in power for var­i­ous rea­sons.

The prob­lem is that we pay taxes for po­lice pro­tec­tion of our­selves and our prop­erty. Then the lawabid­ing cit­i­zens, who own these busi­nesses and au­to­mo­biles, get in­jured and have to pay for the dam­ages or in­juries as a re­sult of the po­lices stand down or­der. This usu­ally in­volves in­sur­ance, but what peo­ple don’t con­sider is that a claim on your in­sur­ance will gen­er­ally in­clude de­ductibles and usu­ally in­crease in your in­sur­ance rate.

I be­lieve that ci­ties should be li­able for the dam­age that is caused by these ri­ots since they failed to pro­tect the pub­lic who en­trusted them and funded them with our tax dol­lars to pro­tect us. If Bal­ti­more can give Fred­die Gray’s fam­ily $6 mil­lion with­out any court ac­tion, they surely can af­ford to pay for the dam­ages caused by their stand down or­der.

Ever try su­ing the gov­ern­ment? It’s not fun and you bet­ter have deep pock­ets.

There should also be a pub­lic dis­clo­sure of the chain of com­mand and who or­dered the stand down or­der. I re­al­ize they will change the ter­mi­nol­ogy to “do not en­gage, pro­tect per­son and prop­erty” or what­ever other po­lit­i­cal and le­gal ma­neu­ver­ing they can to put a “we- did-not-have-any-oth­er­choice po­si­tion.”

The fact is they do have an­other choice and if they choose not to al­low the po­lice to pro­tect and serve, they should have fi­nan­cial con­se­quences for their ac­tions. It should be the law and if it was, maybe we would see an end to the end­less ri­ots we see that re­sult in dam­age to in­di­vid­u­als and prop­erty.

I be­lieve in free speech and the right to protest, but when that be­comes vi­o­lent and tax­pay­ers are not pro­tected, then the re­spon­si­bil­ity for dam­ages should be on the city. This just might re­sult in less ri­ots since there will be fi­nan­cial con­se­quences to stand down or­ders. Re­ally the pro­tes­tors should be, and are by law, fi­nan­cially li­able. Good luck with that though.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.