By: Rosemary Dewar
Acts of evil are much easier to define than it is to define those who commit them. Our culture has a serious problem with sustaining standards of morality, and the lack of thoughtful consistency and honesty leaves people logically and emotionally vulnerable. It should not be difficult for anyone to conclude that violation of choice correlated with violation of life is socially harmful. Humanity is not short on examples of frailty, and identifying that frailty is dependent on one’s ability to define it.

Mankind is inherently capable of doing great good as well as great wickedness. Anyone who has had or has babysat a toddler can affirm that they can be willful and selfish dictators. Without healthy discipline and stability, any child is at a higher risk of cultivating irregular levels of vanity and validation in their character. Should these behaviors go unchecked, having someone develop into a sophisticatedly manipulative adult is a plausible outcome.

Our culture has acknowledged a new level of awareness in two particular stories: the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock and sexual predator, Harvey Weinstein. Both men perpetrated the most degrading and heartless acts, each violent in their own way. Weinstein used his influence to limit choice and violate the self-worth of his victims. Paddock fed a still-undefined delusion so fervently that he committed the largest mass shooting in United States history.

These men are equally guilty of their crime, yet society does not want to hold them solely responsible. For Paddock, the left looks to blame America’s Constitutional right to bear arms in order to defend ourselves against those like him.

Condemning an inanimate object will not resolve the character issue. As for Weinstein, the left aims to denounce masculinity for his abhorrent behavior. However, conflating sexual abuse and aggression with masculinity is culturally detrimental and, in fact, inaccurate.

Simply because men disproportionally commit more crime than women, does not mean that society has the privilege of convicting all men carte blanche of being subhuman. Absolving women who have committed heinous acts also does not cultivate a stable society. Humanity is broken, but society must do a better job at promoting and honoring men and women who excel at their morality.

Our current culture has yet to define what darkness is. It ought to do so before dancing with it.

In Act I, Scene III of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Banquo warns exactly as noted below:

But ’tis strange:
And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths,
Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s
In deepest consequence.

Ambition without mercy is the death of the human soul.

The Judeo-Christian worldview asserts that mankind is feeble and that there are those who choose darkness knowing full well that they betray the light afforded them. They forfeit their humanity. That is not a masculine trait or a feminine trait, but a godless one.

Greek philosopher Socrates stated, “Worthless people live to eat and drink, people of worth eat and drink to live.”

Those who feed on the vulnerability of others are never satisfied, and they do not consider what comes forth from them as they devour every person they encounter. In contrast, those who consider how they affect others are far more conscious of what they are willing to consume.

Should culture continue to worship self-gratification, it will find itself consumed by the very darkness it cultivated. The light is one choice away, accessible by simply refusing to indulge in another’s discomfort.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis said it best when he stated, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
As much as culture seems to be splitting away from sound rationale, there is much to recognize as hopeful. After observing the overzealousness of the nationalists and the self-righteousness of the neo-communists, it is certain that they are few in number. Society is aware that it does not take many to cause serious unrest. If one is allowed to conquer the other culturally, the collateral damage affects the conqueror as well as the vanquished.

Even though there is plenty to be concerned about, I believe the best action is to step back and breathe. So much of this is has been seen before: riots and politically-influenced violence. It is as if the 1960s have been completely forgotten. The memory has gone the way of tall-tales and myths. America came out of a chemical stupor long enough to experience a cultural renaissance in the 1980s. I repeatedly hear from my hippie-converts to conservative mentors that they have seen this all before, and a revival is approaching. I am compelled to believe them. They should be professing it more often.

The fear of division is not unusual. During the birth of the United States of America, the Founding Fathers anticipated the friction that came with the integration of opposing ideas. They did not want to mistake novelty for uniqueness. Federalist James Madison stated, “…the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness. But why is the experiment of an extended republic to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new? Is it not the glory of the people of America, that, whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times… and the lessons of their own experiences?”

Learning is the key component on how we are to move onward. The assertion that something ought to be censored for its possible dissonance inhibits the learning process. Each individual and their expression is novel. Limiting what could be learned is a purposeful violation of discovery and advancement.

The deluge of tragedies like the Charlottesville protest, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Maria, and the Las Vegas shooting has reopened a genuine discussion of what American values are. What are we supposed to be standing for? The standard that was sacrificially built upon which the citizens of the United States rely is exactly what we are desperately attempting to preserve.

The starkest dilemma is that we are now presented with two generations that were never exposed to the concept that America had any fundamental values. In response to this idea, one cannot simply say, “Because I said so” or “Because God said so” or “Because the Bible said so.” In order to effectively expose these generations to this fundamental fact, we must be willing to take time to explain “why.” Furthermore, any action that obstructs the ability to have this conversation is a direct threat to liberty.

Founding Father Benjamin Franklin stated, “Without Freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”

Whether a person is conservative, liberal, religious or not, once you assert that an individual ought to be forced to censor themselves in order to avoid challenging you, the result is that all will ultimately be censored. Targeting the individual beyond the bounds of the U.S. Constitution is discrimination. Any variant from this crucial core will decline into a tyrannical and fascist abuse of power.

The Judeo-Christian worldview presents the idea that an individual is not to pass judgment on his neighbor until they have taken the time to realize that they themselves have a fatal flaw or a blind spot. You may feel justified in your perception; however, you can be just as harmful as the person at whom you are pointing the finger.

If you are intent upon the improvement of society and culture, you must be willing to engage in constructive dialogue. Any statement or answer that is unmeasured, either yours or someone else’s, must be tested in order to affect that improvement.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
Distress can be an indicator of a situation having failed to operate in a beneficial manner, similar to the shocking sensation you experience when jamming your finger, or maybe that searing heat when one has been burned by steam. On a societal level, this can look like an increase in crime or the break-up of the nuclear family. Either a single factor or a combination of detrimental factors can cause suffering to both the individual and the immediate community.

A solution must be calculated and pursued. Is the goal to turn off the dashboard light, or is it to discover what caused it to come on in the first place? You wouldn’t stop driving a car simply because the oil-change notification appears. That’s equivalent to someone saying that when dealing with a mild case of constipation, that they would consider an elective colostomy as a cure.

There is no promise that pain in and of itself is going to bring forth anything good in someone’s life, although history is full of the stories of people who overcame tremendous adversity of all types, and they and society and were better for it. By contrast, what we have now is the mis-belief that anxiety, depression, delusion, disassociation, and dysphoria are foregone conclusions that the sufferer is a creative genius.

This is far from helpful. When something is undoubtedly wrong, the last thing you need is someone telling you, “There is nothing wrong with you. You’re perfect just the way you are.” This false affirmation delays relief. It becomes easier to understand why beloved artists abruptly commit suicide. To many, this act is presented as selfish, and it can be; however, sustained pain is torturous. Anyone with chronic physical pain can confirm that. Now, imagine if it is mental. It’s a prison with a view, but you’re “fine.”

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that when contentment and relief are overdue, the heart grows sick.There is truly nothing more depressing and dreary than an effort unrewarded or a stress unrelenting. But, a desire fulfilled is a tree of life. Nothing feeds into life like incentive. There is no sensation quite like when winning a competition or overcoming an adversity no matter how small. It feeds the soul.

Our culture is hell-bent on abandoning the vehicle that society needs to move forward in a proactive way. A society that tells you that you’re never wrong, ignorant, or miserable is incapable of cultivating a society that endures. In addition, teaching the young that they will “live forever,” and that their actions have no impact on either their physical or mental health is irresponsible. Then there is Karl Marx , who stated that, “The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain.” That philosophy is exceedingly heinous.

Yes, America’s heart is sick. It is not due to class inequality or race inequality, but from abandoning principles that work for everyone when applied. The smallest percentage of society is yelling the loudest, and the result is that we believe they are growing in numbers daily when it’s simply not true. The dissection of American culture is the result of falsehoods pushed by collectives who have little to complain about.They’d rather see more pain than relief, so long as it benefits them. Truth will confound the most divisive narrative, and it is needed more now than ever. Truth diffuses a collective ideology. Decency has a greater return than compulsion. No matter how deeply you want something, it should never come at the cost of someone else, or it will eventually come at the cost of you.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
For those who have any doubts, if you are ever approached by another who demands your silence and compliance, they are not conservative. America’s pop-culture has shown a blatant example of how they wish the world to be. It is a despotic nightmare. One’s thoughts, words, and expressions are no longer one’s own, according to the left. Any “resistance” is met with scorn and retribution.
A cascade of recent events has exposed the political left’s core.

Senator Bernie Sanders is releasing a book later this month titled Bernie Sanders’ Guide to Political Revolution. I don’t know how much more Lenin-esque one can get, but this is bordering on impersonation. Vladimir is noted to have stated, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” The senator seems to have no qualms following in the footsteps of a leader that lead tens of millions to slaughter.

Actress Lena Dunham reported two airport attendants to American Airlines for having a private conversation about the social trans-sexual issue. Since their opinion dissented from her own, Lena felt compelled to hope for a reprimand. After sharing her experience on Twitter, American Airlines stated that they were “unable to substantiate” her claims. Lena operated on the assumption that she could become a covert operative of the group-think of the left.

Actress Chelsea Handler expressed inane appreciation after hearing that Germany arrested Chinese tourists for giving the Nazi salute in front of the Reichstag building. Of course, it is distasteful. So is depriving someone of their right to free expression. The liberty to be stupid is a two-way street, whether we like it or not.

Furthermore, Google first admonished and then terminated an employee by the name of James Damore for distributing a ten-page informative memo regarding Google’s haphazard approach to accomplishing “equality” and “diversity.” Damore’s detractors framed him as a hateful, ignorant, sexist bigot for refusing to comply. So much for diversity of thought. It is reported that fifty-four percent of Google employees did not agree with the decision to dismiss. It can be expected that much of the American public shares this disappointment.

The overindulgent left has yet to reconcile the fact that once liberty is limited to one, it becomes limited to all. It continues to be believed that the hand of totalitarianism will only be ushered in by the conservative religious right. We see this mirrored in culture.

Author Kurt Vonnegut held the opinion that the concept of socialism was simply misunderstood. He stated, “It isn’t moonbeams to talk of modest plenty for all. They have it in Sweden. We can have it here… Even so, I would like to see America try socialism. If we start drinking heavily and killing ourselves, and if our children start acting crazy, we can go back to good old Free Enterprise again.” After his dystopian novels, he didn’t seem much the wiser. Although he meant to create a satire, he depicted precisely what authors George Orwell and Ray Bradbury expressed.

Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta has the same fatal flaw. In this realm, the conflation of religion, conservatism, and totalitarianism is made again. It is an absolute mockery of the concept of conservatism. The character V expresses, “And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors… soliciting your submission.” It should be observed that only one side of our government is demanding conformity and censorship. The petition for safe-spaces from alleged micro-aggressions is strongly resisted by those who hold conservative ideals.

The left’s consistently amorous flirtation with fascism can best be explained by Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and Dinesh D’Souza’s The Big Lie. Until the left recognizes that they have celebrated division and subjugation that is justified by their own warped view of morality, it is uncertain that they’ll change.

The Judeo-Christian worldview loathes the idea of unwarranted judgment. God doesn’t strike a human dead within the millisecond of the very first sin committed.The left is all too anxious to use their version of morality to judge those who disagree with them. Should the culture remain estranged to liberty, the left will never find the peace it claims it desires.
By: RosemaryDewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
On Sunday, William Shatner took to Twitter to express his disappointment in and distaste for the toxic level of leftist-identity politics. He started by stating, “SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) stand for inequality, where they are superior to any one else, hence my use of Misandry and Snowflake.” A deluge of leftist criticism flooded his Twitter feed with an ugly mutation of the principle of justice that should not need a modifier.

Detractors called Mr. Shatner a sexist, as well as a misogynist. Liberal publications decided to jump on the bandwagon and condemn William Shatner’s statements.

Recently, decided to denounce William Shatner’s regular confrontational interactions with his own SJW fans. Shatner’s unapologetic and commanding style has seemed to trigger hysteria from the most fragile of life forms.’s Matthew Rozsa asks in vitriolic fashion, “Does William Shatner’s attack on ‘SJWs’ erase his ‘Star Trek’ legacy?”

The answer to such a ridiculous question is a simple “No.”
The article is tagged with many progressive buzzwords, including but not limited to “alt right.” This is rather asinine since the topic is not addressed anywhere in the publication. Salon’s Mr. Rozsa selected several of Shatner’s Tweets that definitively outline the incoherence of those who hold fast to progressive values.

After I read the publication and found it to be quite inflammatory, I reached out to Mr. Shatner by saying, “Reminder that Salon is garbage. Once again, I adore my captain.”

Mr. Shatner responded, “Who knew Salon would go the way of New Media Yellow Journalism? I guess readership was down?”

To categorize as sensational and crude would only begin to expose how debased their platform has truly become. Their cultivation of moral relativism has ranged from sympathy for pedophiles to kowtowing to Islamic extremism.

Salon has experienced declining numbers of readers since May of 2015, without any signs of recovery. Their blind adherence to leftist philosophy is causing adverse reactions so acute that the Starship Enterprise’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. McCoy, (also known as Bones) would have no hope of saving their delicate readership.

I replied to Mr. Shatner, “The whole right-wing knew it, Bill. Salon is a sitting duck in a vortex of cultural decay.”

Lastly, he stated, “Sad. They ( used to have amazing writers.”

William Shatner’s sentiments are shared by conservatives, and reviled by progressives.

When tagged the publication under “misogyny,” one has to ask, “Did they ever even watch Star Trek?”

Captain James Tiberius Kirk’s manly charm and commanding allure are enduring qualities of his character. Current progressive standards would consider these traits “toxic masculinity.” Most Star Trek fans of the original series would not consider altering Captain Kirk’s character any way. It would clearly ruin the cavalier spirit the show epitomizes.

Mr. Shatner’s observations are perfectly innocent, yet insightful. In the sphere of truly diverse ideas, his awareness is welcome.

“The prejudices people feel about each other disappear when they get to know each other.” – Captain Kirk

Note: the Twitter exchange between veteran actor William Shatner and the author can be viewed at @rlynnd1.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
There are many issues of importance concerning the woes of local communities. Instead of looking inward for a solution, the choice to petition the federal government is often pursued. Reaching out for a federal government subsidy should only be considered an absolute, last resort. Unfortunately, it seems to be a default setting for those who manage city and state regulations in order to pacify their constituents. Resolutions are rarely reached when community limitations continue to mount. Should travailing communities want lasting relief, it is best that they find strength to be with a neighbor, while maintaining moral principles as well as responsiveness toward another.

The federal government was never intended to intertwine itself with the states’ common functions. States were to govern themselves to the point of nearly absolute independence. Any cooperation with the federal government was largely limited to self-defense.

When the Founding Fathers used the word “welfare,” they did not mean a subsidy funded by national government. Today many citizens and state representatives have severely corrupted the original meaning of the word “welfare” to the point that they have contributed to the unstable conditions found in their communities. Domestic overcrowding combined with high government funding consistently results in the increase of : single-parent families, low labor participation, substandard education, inferior urban infrastructure, increased mortality rates, and exponential growth of crime. Current state representatives have proven that they do not trust their constituents to govern their own communities; so much so that they have chosen to make sure they will not be able to.

Founding Father James Madison advised the division between the sovereignty for states, the federal government, and its citizens. He was well aware that “the cabals of the few” were as much a threat as an over-eager governing body. In the anticipation that citizens would be so enamored with liberty, Madison hoped that “the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit than the most diffusive and established character.” No matter which side of the aisle one currently analyzes, this concept is foreign, except to an honorable few.

It was Thomas Jefferson who stated, “I prefer dangerous freedom over quiet servitude.”

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that freedom and deliverance from injustice are given in such a way that it is truly impossible for mankind to strip it away from each other permanently. A legislative title will not, and cannot alter that. The only way to preserve it is to do one’s part. Take responsibility, and be accountable.

No one is going to give any mind to what someone else cares for until it is proven valuable. Once an individual creates a solution that makes other people’s lives more bearable, it benefits the individual and the surrounding community. This contributes to the overall welfare of society.

Was the government needed? No.

Should the government get involved? Not if it can be avoided.

Individual liberty is self-determined. Should one be persuasive enough to convince others to benefit from another’s loss of liberty, they are no better than those who believed that bondage is acceptable. Whether the subject is healthcare, education, infrastructure, and/or communal aid, any measure of liberty lost is bartering for a partnership with chaos.

Should a community be determined to achieve self-sustained advancement, it is imperative that it looks inward. Want to witness charity, morality, justice, and revitalization? Get a mirror.

The only non-metaphysical obstacle standing in the way suffering societies is its citizens. Most neighbors are not foes. Most carry the same hopes and fears as the next neighbor. One is usually aware of one’s own needs, which are also frequently shared by one’s neighbors. It is an individual’s responsibility to care for their neighbor as well as their brother. Many, if not all, social ills can be addressed and resolved by a small contingent of people who care about the same issue. And, it can be accomplished without any assistance from a mayor, a state representative, or a president.

To bog down the governmental system with every little complaint without considering what the individual can accomplish, robs each person of a measure of liberty. This consistent carelessness will lead to the disintegration of care and justice.
By: Rosemary Dewar

The manner in which one leads is as important as the one placed in leadership. One may lead either by Providence or paranoia. As a leader, he can either make peace with his enemy or he can make an enemy out of anyone. When everyone is the enemy, defense by any and all means can be justified. Monarchies and their kings were always more threatened by the enemies within than with a competing nearby country, and little has changed today. Within a republic, significant incontrovertible logic is essential for the proper functioning of law and order.

If the United States were an aircraft carrier, paranoia would be a hole blown in the hull from the inside-out. Instead of addressing the needed repair, the crew would be left pointing their fingers at each other. The ship would eventually sink. Because of the behavior of the kings and queens of England, the kingdom they were intent upon protecting changed family lines by the means of rumors, paranoia, speculation, and eventually war.

America’s system of government is not so easily manipulated by its leaders. The American mainstream media and the Left continue to behave otherwise. The mainstream media hold fast to the idea that they possess a monopoly on the belief systems of the public. They almost seem to long to become the fourth branch of government, regardless of the approval rating of the administration.

Although the anti-Federalists feared the possibility of accidentally instituting a ruling-class with the implementation of an Executive Branch, many governing structures were developed to counteract that threat. The President is not a king, Congress is not a royal court, and the Supreme Court is not a Parliament. They were not meant to be.

Anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan stated, “…free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and… in such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure; for when this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin.”

The American constitutional republic is structured in such a way that law cannot be approved or enforced if it runs contrary to fundamental constitutional precepts. This structure can be weakened and compromised, should a governing branch suspend the original intent of our founding documents. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are meant to stand the test of time, not bend at that the point in time they are being tested.

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that a king is installed by those who reject the authority of the Creator. A king brings taxes instead of offerings, war instead of peace, and bondage instead of freedom. Those who wanted a king said they wanted to be like “other nations.”

The Left wants America to be like Canada, Denmark, Sweden, or Australia.

Our Founding Fathers wanted America to be nothing like any government of the past. When they wrote that our rights “are endowed by our Creator,” they were ready to defend a freedom that was unlike any other.

The Left continues to believe that they can serve two masters: the public and themselves. Those that they politically prop up are not divinely appointed royalty, and the press does not hold royal court. The intrigue that they weave and spin in order to influence authority is without substance.

Should centrists and conservatives deign to play the same game the Left has played, they will see the same losses the Left is experiencing.

As expressed by the hero Westley in the classic film, The Princess Bride, “We are men of action. Lies do not become us.”

Choose to lead by Providential wisdom and integrity. A seemingly innocent act of dishonest compromise will gain no reward. Those that talk will only talk, but those that act will reveal what they believe is actually defensible. It is essential to learn that rich and open debate is paramount for the prevention of acting out of fear or indulging one’s paranoia.

If one is to be ruled, it is most beneficial that one rules oneself.
By: Rosemary Dewar

You’re Not A Hero

Self-preservation is one of the strongest forces that drives the way people eat, act, and survive. Before narcissism manifests itself, two characteristics exhibit themselves first: envy and vanity. This is the common chaos with which every human battles. The ability to control such urges is necessary to stabilize the social structure that surrounds the individual. As soon as the individual prioritizes their desires over the needs of the structure, stability begins to deteriorate.

Envy can plague the individual over the smallest thing. Without self-control, an individual will find ways to justify reasons to pursue and obtain the desired object at all costs. The result is vanity. An individual will elevate themselves inappropriately. As soon as they do, the well-being of those around them is compromised. The willingness to sacrifice someone else’s state of security to fortify one’s own is pure selfishness.

Things that humans usually attempt to preserve are either other’s perceptions of them or the state of security they currently hold. They usually surrender a level of liberty in exchange for the security they desire. As U.S. Founding Father Benjamin Franklin stated, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” That type of “sacrifice” isn’t heroism, it’s manipulation. Those that sacrifice fundamental principles for “the sake of the greater good” are persuaded by their own vanity.

We are surrounded by depictions of mythical heroes like Superman, Wonder Woman and Thor. They became more relatable with characters like Batman, Ironman, and the X-men. They are admired for their fictional acts of valor and sacrifice. Their suffering isn’t aimed to position themselves for worship. That’s why they hide themselves. Those that antagonize the heroes are dead-set on their own self-admiration, worship, and domination. They are the villains.

There are few people willing to put themselves through levels of suffering to preserve others. Simply having opposition doesn’t make one a hero. What one is capable of sacrificing determines one’s merit.

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that vanity is a characteristic of corruption. It is never satisfied for long, and will soon consume all it touches. Unchecked vanity becomes narcissism where one emotionally starves oneself to the point one’s soul dies.

Author F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “Show me a hero, and I’ll write you a tragedy.” Someone who is willing to waive self-preservation, not just once but repeatedly, is heroic. Something has to die in order for something better, stronger, and more beautiful to take its place.

The same must be emulated within a social structure, even a small one such as a family. The truly vulnerable are to be preserved at the willing expense of the formidable. Any process that results in more detriment than virtuous success ought to be rejected. If ignored, societal decay is inevitable.

If one is going to attempt to be a hero, one ought to learn to sacrifice oneself. To expect it of someone else is foolish, and to demand it is fiendish.
By: Rosemary Dewar

Modern Western civilization continues to chip away at the Judeo-Christian foundation upon which it is built. History is either ignored or revised due to the left’s agenda to “liberate” the social constructs they believe are causes for inequality and marginalization. They do not realize they are dismantling the foundation by which they live their lives, regardless of whether they hold religious views or not. Refusing to acknowledge the origins of our social structure leaves people who benefit from it vulnerable. As much as a theocracy is not ideal, neither is an overly expressive secular society. That’s why in the United States, the pluralism they are able to embrace is vitally important.

The existence of this type of complexity is present when explaining the Judeo-Christian worldview. Former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, expressed it best when he said, “A great city, whose image dwells in the memory of man is the type of some great idea. Rome represents conquest; Faith hovers over the towers of Jerusalem; and Athens embodies the pre-eminent quality of the antique world, Art.” So, let’s break this down.

Rome was the vehicle by which Christianity was able to reach much of what Europe is today. The root of Christian expression and ethics is Judaism, whose eternal home is Jerusalem. Finally, Athens was an origin of philosophical reason and science. All these aspects are elemental and essential to the social structure that gave birth to Europe, England, and the United States. Without consistently balancing these three dimensions expressed in Western culture, society is prone to instability and inevitable self-destruction.

Currently, we are dealing with a culture in the United States that is dead set on pulling down the society they have the privilege of benefitting from. Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias stated, “…We are now standing with our feet planted firmly in mid-air. I would say, while theoretically a person may block God out, logically there will be a breakdown because ultimately all enunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind. And if that moral doctrine is not absolute then the definer himself becomes undefined.”

The idea of a God is integral to the implementation of a moral standard. Without one, it is impossible to give a coherent example of what is right and what is wrong. Jewish radio commentator Dennis Prager stated, “In a secular world, there can only be opinions about morality. They may be personal opinions or society’s opinion, but only opinions. Every atheist philosopher I have read or debated on this subject has acknowledged that if there is no God, there is no objective morality.”

Now, the origin by which that God is defined is just as important as what is implemented on behalf of His authority. Some Christian denominations are dealing with the same relativism issues by attempting to override the Jewish roots from which they spring. Should this continue, the secular world will devastate the logical structure of society in coordination with the religious community dismantling its moral core.

In this case, our Western civilization will continue to decay as we see it is now. If Western civilization is to recover, the current culture must reconcile itself to the historical record that has brought it here. The longer the Judeo-Christian worldview is rejected, it can be concluded that the demise of Western civilization becomes more imminent.
By: Rosemary Dewar

The sanctity of life is the usual cornerstone argument for opposing elective abortion. Human life is a tender and sacred component of society. The Judeo-Christian worldview defends mankind up to the point of being willing to die in order to preserve it. Once a life is criminally extinguished and thereby robbed of its value, that life ought to be vindicated. A failure to validate that life devalues both the perpetrator and the victim, which will cause a weakness in a society.

The defense of the death penalty is being diluted by the fact that it is not a pleasant subject. Ignoring it makes it worse. The idea of ending a human life “before its time” is being framed to be just as equally wrong for the perpetrator as well as the victim. That is far from biblical morality or that of conscience alone. To have the same amount of empathy for a murder victim as well as the murderer is a direct ethical contradiction. A just solution must be resolute.

Many in the religious community have a real problem with the death penalty. They believe that once one is killed and another one is to be killed, it is an unending circle of violence. That would make sense if they misinterpreted or completely ignored what is asserted in the Judeo-Christian foundation. Within the Ten Commandments, the sixth commandment says “You shall not murder.” Most English versions poorly translate the Hebrew word for “murder” as “kill.” There is a massive difference. For those who go hunting, people don’t say they murder deer and turkey (Unless you’re PETA).That’s why there are three degrees of murder. Here we are discussing the worst of the three: premeditated murder.The one law that is cited in each of the first five books of the Bible is that murderers are to be put to death. Refusing to carry out the law is considered an additional violation against God and the community.

The astonishing reality is that under the U.S. Constitution the perpetrator holds the same inalienable rights as the victim. As soon as justice is denied or delayed for the victim, the perpetrator is elevated over the victim. This only feeds into the delusion the perpetrator accepted in order to feel justified in violating the victim.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are provisions that government is responsible for preserving. The argument to abolish the death penalty would essentially nullify all three. Human life can’t be preserved without holding it to a standard, as well as knowing when to hold an individual wholly responsible for their actions. Anyone living with unbearable, irreconcilable guilt is neither liberated nor happy. As odd at it seems it is more moral and humane for a violator to face justice.

Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle simply stated, “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”

Now, some assert that the perpetrator should be held in a lifetime of servitude instead of being sentenced to death. Not only is the perpetrator living with their guilt, they are now being worked to death. Most would rather die than to be forced into labor against their will. That is treating someone as if they are sub-human.

The mental health of the perpetrators and miscarriage of justice aside–because those are rare occurrences among felony cases–the death penalty is not only moral, but a defensive measure. A community that does not defend the sacredness of innocent life leaves the community vulnerable to cruelty.

In order to protect the human-value of the victim and the murderer, the perpetrator must die. They are both human, and they are to be treated as such. It is impossible to argue biblical ethics in opposition to the death penalty. A community or society that elevates wrongdoing over innocence ignores basic human decency. Don’t deny humanity to either party.
By: Rosemary Dewar