Monday letters
President Obama, Mill Mountin Zoo and violence in today’s letters to the editor.
Pick of the day: Man’s handiwork, not a deity’s
Re: “Limit man-made laws; return to God’s,” Feb. 6 commentary:
In his arguments against gun control, Tom Taylor neglects several key elements of the historical narrative.
Russian foreign policy during the Cold War was informed, in many aspects, by its quest to find security. As early as 1200, Russia faced invasions that left its cities in ruin, and France, Britain and Germany repeated this cycle.
The Chinese were far from unarmed; in fact, European powers gladly handed over weapons to any group willing to rise in rebellion against the Chinese government because it furthered European economic agendas.
Taylor is correct to cite restrictions against Jews, but he fails to mention that it was the allies who disarmed the country in the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler rearmed the country, and much of his popularity stemmed from his reconstruction of the German nation and military.
All of this was to say that if we return to God, tyranny will be prevented. Understand that tyranny is not something that emerges from god, but often out of popular choice in response to wrongs – real and imagined.
This is not justification for the atrocities committed, but it does inform why they occurred.
JONATHAN WATKINS
SHAWSVILLE
February 18, 2013 - 6:15 AM
Jonathan, just a few comments on your “pick-o-the-day” letter:
I agree with you on a lot of things, for instance that the Chinese militias and military were well-armed; and they put up a strong resistance to the Japanese invasion. I was speaking of Chinese civilians, as my article plainly stated. The civilians were indeed unarmed and helpless before the Japanese conquerors, who inflicted terrible atrocities on them. Read about the rape of the city of Nanking for some awful details.
Now, off to Rrrussia for our next example of the dismal fate of disarmed populations! According to a Russian, Stanislav Mishin, writing in the blog “Military Forum,” Russian civilians under the Tsars were the most well-armed in the world, although firearms were owned mostly by the wealthy and ruling class. The bolsheviks, when they took over, slaughtered these classes and confiscated their firearms among other things. Stalin’s agents had nothing to fear but a rare, antiquated shotgun or a pitchfork. Why didn’t the armed classes defend themselves? They did. There was a bloody civil war between whites and reds, but unfortunately, the good guys lost. Incidentally, Mishin ends his article with a plea for America to keep the Second Amendment, this rare light of liberty, strong.
And you’re right, Hitler eased the Versaille restrictions on private ownership of firearms, but only for those groups aligned with him. As you pointed out, he forbade the Jews to own firearms. So the net effect was the same, and it would seem my point is valid.
I do disagree with your take on the source of tyranny. A “tyrant” is any leader who puts himself above the law. It’s that simple. In the case of America, “the law” is the Constitution, which came from a long tradition of English Common Law, which came largely from the Judeo-Christian scriptures. This might sound strange to anyone whose education has been under our secular public school system. However, I’ve written an article which explains how our liberty came to be. You can find it on my website: http://www.iLuvgoodnovels.com. Scroll down the home page to a link to the gallery of articles. Find the article “Why we owe our liberty and democracy to a Judeo-Christian heritage.” A careful read will explain where I’m coming from, so to speak. Thanks.
I notice no mention of the Code of Hammurabi, c. 1780 BCE, or The Code of Ur-Nammu, c. 2100–2050 BC in your treatise on the “Judeo-Christian heritage” and where our “liberty” came from Tom Taylor. Why is that? Yes, that does sound strange to this person who only has a secular public school system education to draw from.
I have to agree with many who claim our Constitution is “unusually secular for the time when it was written”. The Founders could easily have made the document Bible based and religiously written had they so desired. Nothing and no one would gainsay them at that time.
Hey Sandi,
I’m assuming then you read the article on my website. So the answer to your question should be obvious. I didn’t mention the Codes of Hammurabi or Ur-Nammu because none of the influential writers cited in my article mentioned them, or had any reason to do so. Obviously there are some shared concepts and values, as indicated by the bas-relief carving of Moses with other lawgivers on the Supreme Court building; but the simple fact of history is that English Common law, which became America’s basis for law, was a creation of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
laws built on morals built on religious tradition. house of cards.
I think the more honest and likely evolution for all laws is that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures were built on the natural, man-made and societal laws and mores, that preceded them. Not, the other way around.
–
That you bake a cake and I put the icing on, does not preclude that cakes have been baked and iced, for centuries before that.
#2 Mrs. Saunders…..you left out the Star Treaty non-interference directive.