"The historical tragedy is that genuine Christianity can, apparently, never obtain complete mastery and power in this world. Mastery and power have only belonged to pseudo-Christianity. The world turns away from integral Christianity."
Nicolas Berdyaev. The Russian Revolution. University of Michigan Press. 1961. 90.
"It may be asked where the number of superior leaders are to come from who are to act as educators, and it may be alarming to think of the enormous amount of coercion that will inevitably be required before these intentions can be carried out." Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927; Norton, 1961), p. 8.
“Capital is always available under capitalism, but knowledge and insights are rare and precious under any economic system.”Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics (Basic Books, 2007), p. 548.
"Sometimes attaining the deepest familiarity with a question is our best substitute for actually having the answer."Brian Greene. The Elegant Universe. NY. Norton. 1999. 365.
Here
is my answer to the people who have commented on my video on u-tube.
I do not tell the whole story here. For that you must see my earlier
blog posts. Here I only defend certain aspects of the case that have
been commented on, some of them negatively.
Here
is the major issue: Craig Burch, do you know how it makes children
feel for the police to say they are going to take them away from
their parents?
That
is why I talked to you at all; and that was why I was not happy when
I did. And that is why I made sure you did not get what you wanted.
That kind of behavior should never be successful. Here are the rules
of ethical engagement:
You
may not threaten to take away people’s children.
You
may not look in people’s windows, or violate their curtilage by
snooping in their yards and outbuildings.
You
must leave when you are asked to leave by the owner or resident of
the building.
You
shall refrain from saying nasty things, or getting your friends to
do so, on the internet. That should get you a double penalty.
My edited version of the Incident. This is much closer to the real story.
I
posted the video of our conversation almost immediately. There was
a reason for this; it was because I did not want to be tempted to
edit it to make myself look better, and Mr. Burch look worse. It is
true I come off sounding like a mean dog in this video. However, you
must recall I had already, as was my right, asked him to leave a
number of times. Besides, he had played the lowest trick in his bag
of dirty tricks. He threatened to call the Child Social Services
Department. He was threatening to take our children into custody if
we did not come out and tell him what he wanted to know. That is not
only illegal, but is so unethical he should lose his job just for
this. It won’t happen, however, for policemen do this all the
time. It is time it was stopped for good.
You
will hear me in the video saying that he cannot talk to my wife and
for him to leave. How many times do I ask him to leave us alone? I
say he needs to go back to Florence (his jurisdiction). I tell him
to go away? Why was I so impervious when he started telling me about
wildlife law? What did I mean saying: “You obviously don’t know
who you are talking to.” He was spouting off to a Boone County
Conservation Supervisor (myself) about Federally protected geese,
when he apparently doesn’t know a duck from a goose, and didn’t
even bother to find out what animal he was even talking about, or
whether the report was true. My children know all about ducks and
geese, and other wildlife. They were doing something that was
ethically correct, in fact admirable, trying to protect endangered
baby ducks; for this they get hounded and threatened by a policeman
out for an easy assignment.
The
video shows a policeman’s face. It does not show something else
you would have seen if you looked out my window: Big Bone Creek and
Gallatin County, Kentucky on the other side. That is what I meant
about going to Gallatin County. We live on the banks of Big Bone
Creek and my wife could have easily taken the rowboat and been in
Gallatin County in a few minutes, or in Switzerland County, Indiana,
for that matter. (No one has to stay here that doesn’t want to.)
Here we have beavers, blue herons, Canada geese, and wild animals of
many descriptions. A city cop, at least 15 miles out of his
jurisdiction, and, it turns out, without the permission of his
supervisor, has no right to come down here preaching Federal Wildlife
Law to me. I didn’t mean I am such an important person, but that
he simply didn’t know what he was talking about. He might have
impressed some people with his blather; he did not impress me with
anything except his ignorance of the subject — not to mention his
lack of people skills.
Several
comments by shocked persons have been sent to me saying : “You
told a lie!” Shock, shock, and this from people who don’t know
what they are, since they have never told one. (The implication is
that some lies may be alright, but to a policeman!) But this is
based on a false idea of truth; according to this view we must tell
“the truth” no matter who it hurts (that is especially handy if
it is someone other than ourselves). It is true that neo-pagan
philosophers like Fichte and Kant taught that one must tell the truth
under all circumstances, and would have been very shocked to hear
such a lie; but great Christian theologians, such as John Milton,
held that a lie to protect the innocent is not only right, but a
duty.
This
teaching comes from the Bible, for example, Jael (pronounced Ya-el)
in the Old Testament became a heroine when she lied to one of the
enemies of Israel. When the soldier ate her food and went to sleep
she drove a tent peg through his head. She was protecting the people
he would kill, and avenging those he had already killed. Nowhere in
the Bible does it say we must tell the Taliban where our troops are
positioned, and that we must never trick them. It is wise to trick
an enemy to save life!
If
that seems a little far out. Consider the case of Rahab, who told
the police who were after some Israeli spies, that the spies had left
the city about the time of the closing of the gates, when in fact
they were hidden among some stalks on flax on her roof. For this she
was praised, and received the ultimate reward, a place in the
genealogy of Christ. It is likely that the spies would have been
killed; but the police would argue that she was a criminal who had
not co-operated in their “criminal investigations”. God did not
agree with them and their city was destroyed.
There
are many such cases. Milton, the author of Paradise
Lost,
the greatest poem in the English language, was also author of De
Doctrina Christiana.
He wrote in that book of divinity that if a madman knocked on his
door breathing threats against innocent people, and asking for the
sword he had left in Milton’s possession a short while earlier,
that he, Milton, would certainly tell him that he had loaned it, or
no longer had it in his possession. So am I to believe the great
Christian theologians, or this internet pundit (probably Burch
himself) with an ax to grind? Burch making comments under a false
name is lying, according to his definition. He can make whatever
comments he wants, but he need not expect me to publish them for him.
All he has to do is sign up for a blog or website and publish
comments to his heart’s content.
I
am not a liar; which doesn't mean I have never told a lie; but this is not one of them. I have no license to lie for my own gain; but I was
protecting an innocent person. If this policeman had talked
reasonably he would have found me the most reasonable person in the
world; I usually am! I don’t know how much worse Mr. Burch might
have talked to me if he had not realized I was setting up my computer
to record him. Instead of being reasonable he chose to threaten my
children, was looking in my windows, talking to my small children,
and was belligerent to me, insisting that he had every right to talk
to my wife. He claims, with no evidence, that she is a criminal. He
has no right to talk to my wife. There is no such right for
policemen; the police always have the advantage in these kinds of
situations; and no one who is being “investigated” should ever
talk to a policeman without a lawyer present.
I
would very likely have given him all the information he needed if he
had acted civilized or even civil; but, as things were, it was my
duty to protect my wife from him. That meant getting rid of him, and
I had no weapon but my tongue. I admit it sounded a bit sharp.
However, it shouldn’t have taken so much talking to make him go
away; the police are obliged by law to leave the premises the first
time you ask them. These men have found that if they browbeat most
people long enough they usually get what they want. I decided the
instant he issued his illegal threat that he might get part of what
he wanted, someone to come talk to him, but that he absolutely would
not get what he was after. That needs to be the constant and
inevitable result of his reprehensible and unethical approach.
I
might add that the few people (apparently associated with Craig
Burch) who have expressed the wish that my family have to pay a heavy
fine will be very sorry to hear that as there was no crime (isn’t
that a shame?) there will be no fine (that, to them, is even worse).
The whole matter was dropped, as it should have been in the first
place. The police supervisor who was concerned about the manager
from Chick-fil-a turning in a false report was at least on the right
track, though he should have been more concerned about his own
worker’s illegal actions. This leads me to believe that he uses
the same tactics himself, and possibly encourages his officers to use
them also. These guys deserve to hear about such unethical actions.
Chick-fil-a,
Florence
So
far as Chick-fil-a goes. Some people have said I shouldn’t say
anything about them because they are under fire for being against
“civil unions”. It is admirable that they are against one wrong,
but why can’t they say that their franchise manager-owner is wrong
to protect the manager who filed false charges against my children?
If they protect one wrongdoer I do not see they get any special
reward for opposing others. I will speak out against the wrong they
are protecting, and let God take care of the results.
Whatever
the family who owns the franchise does nationally has nothing to do
with the injustice of a local franchise owner. If anything they
should oppose this with as much vigor as they do any other wrong. I
think they probably would if they really knew the situation. As it
is they are so rich and so far away they feel protected by all their
good works, and don’t think they should concern themselves with the
people hurt by their employees. This cuts hard against any stand
they make for ethical concerns elsewhere.
Someone
(predictably) tried to blame this on the Teaparty! What does this
fall under in the Teaparty platform? Surely not Limited Government,
or Fiscal Responsibility. (There are only three major principles.)
I have a hard time seeing how it has anything to do with the third
plank either: Free Enterprise. That makes me wonder if the
Grass-roots program has been hijacked for a personal agenda. Police
harassment has everything to do with limiting the government. It is
also a waste of resources to overfund all of these police and sheriff
departments so that they have so much time to waste on nonissues.
Issues like a kid jaywalking on Fifth Street! (Compliments of Rabbi
Erlich at Hebrew Union College.)
That
leaves only free enterprise, and I think that enterprises that are
responsible for injustice to families, or anyone else for that
matter, should be boycotted, and if they don’t resolve the issue,
then they can go the way of other non-competitive enterprises. Free
enterprise takes responsibility for its own actions. That means
owners are responsible for what their managers do, just as managers
have primary responsibility for their employees.
A Conclusion in Favour of Liberty
The
truth is that our police departments will use their usurped powers to
hound and harass any who oppose “civil unions” before long; in
fact it is already happening. As much as I oppose that, I think the
issue of police harassment and violation of civil rights and legal
procedure is much more of a danger to our rights now. Once the
police can come in your house and search and demand anything they
want we are all in trouble.
Aleksandr
Solsenitsyn reported to the world that the Soviet police would come
into your house in the middle of the night, wake you up, give you a
few minutes to dress, refuse to allow you a belt to hold your pants
up (a belt is a dangerous terrorist weapon!), and carry you away in a
“Black Maria”. And what happened if you didn’t co-operate with
these good police? You don’t want to know. But it is coming here
if we let this state of things continue. You simply are not required
to answer their questions, ever! You may talk to them if you want
to; but if you don’t have a lawyer with you I would suggest you
never talk to them, unless you have called them. You might be
careful what you say even then. The pride and haughtiness of the
police just “doing their job” is surely leading to a police
state. We are obligated to oppose this however we can. I suggest
the best way is to cut the budgets of police departments to the bone.
Police are a necessary evil. The fewer of them the better for
everyone, including the police.
James
Duvall, M. A.Big
Bone University: A Think Tank, Research Institute, & Public
Policy CenterNec
ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem. Big
Bone, Kentucky 31 July 2012
It reads like a script written by James Joyce. Maybe I have discovered an important source of modern literature! Phrases like "jacoby politically seed floors" and "i don't care idoney jude here jobs" could have been written by university literature professors just yesterday, if they had been this intelligent. "anything criminal and i want to go away anti-tank either" ain't bad for starters.
Try this mouthful: "nobody else is on the deedrick made i've this is an outhouse cold and i want to go electrocuted powered maybe she doesn't live here anymore technical data car maybe she asked you". Or my favourite: "whiskey what is your name craig" and I suppose that one would have a question mark after it, if this wuddn't modern lit.
I 'spect that electonic transcription has a ways to go before it is perfected, right-o, Whiskey?
0:01
well then uh... don't go away
0:03
okay no and i'll tell you something about their ok stand down
0:14
listened
0:16
there's no keys anywhere
0:17
we're set
0:19
i will tell you something particularly botanical i want to tell you something
0:23
you don't have any business being here whatsoever excluded all criminal
0:27
investigation
0:28
i don't care idoney jude here jobs
0:33
lecture uh... dish into partisan here before
0:37
but uh... we don't have anything to do with your
0:40
protecting
0:44
you know when you're talking to she said yeah jacoby politically seed floors
0:52
i don't know what you're talking about but i think you need to go away
0:55
there were no d_c_ where and i want you to go away
1:00
accused it doesn't matter what you think i want you to go away you don't have any
1:04
business being here ago well i'm sorry
1:10
if there's nobody here for you to talk to you can talk to you
1:14
i don't care what you think i want you to go away
1:17
we'll have a business down here
1:19
down here with your light senior police in we are stuck like a artist ok what i
1:24
want you to know what to do this has nothing to do you have you nobody do
1:26
anything criminal and i want to go away anti-tank either
1:33
i want you to go when replying and uh...
1:37
ryan rehearsal and cannot come on a property right
1:41
and i think i want you to allow
1:42
relocating i'll
1:45
works i want to go away in regards
1:46
but
1:50
body does not here and you can talk about it doesn't want to talk to you
1:54
whiskey what is your name craig
1:58
but joe k
1:59
i want you to go away creek burgeoning the salon
2:02
cakap tak with no ka you can color you can talk you can do anything care what
2:08
you're going to slow that you have any crimes investigate dot you have any
2:12
place to go in florence italy okay
2:15
dissident ok alright well you don't have a business been hearing do anything i
2:20
want you go away okke how do you know somebody who is here this is my house
2:25
nobody else is on the deedrick made i've this is an outhouse cold and i want to
2:29
go electrocuted powered
2:32
maybe she doesn't live here anymore technical data car maybe she asked you
2:37
says my car park uh... it's my car
2:40
stressor maybe so maybe she's over and out in town
2:45
usual maybe she'd it may be shown above the minority
2:49
okay welt i'm sorry she's not here you can talk to her
2:52
elicit it doesn't matter uses i don't have to tell you my phone number maybe i
2:58
don't have a phone
2:59
yankees crisscross i don't care what your criss-cross says that you don't
3:02
have to come in bother me
3:04
it's where's ok and this is how it works here because i want you to come here and
3:09
harassment investigation
3:13
i don't care i'm sorry
3:15
prepare alberto i'm sorry
3:52
uh... uh...
3:57
uh...
4:01
uh...
4:08
uh...
4:12
uh...
4:13
uh...
4:22
hoop
5:00
uh...
5:05
uh... okay
5:16
uh...
5:21
uh...
5:29
at
5:32
uh...
5:38
uh...
5:44
uh...
5:55
uh...
6:01
and
6:03
hope
6:07
it
6:10
at
6:13
dot
6:33
uh...
6:35
who met with the foreign splits big band
6:39
it's eleven eighteen a m
6:41
uh... landed and you are
6:43
two thousand well
6:45
i my wife is on the phone
6:47
with a dispatch talking to you know barclay says no littered incumbent
6:51
caress my family and i think that the taxpayer should know how their money is
6:56
being waged against him
6:58
and
6:59
i think that this is unconscionable that he would sign that they weren't collins
7:02
and county police
7:03
better wildlife agencies and so on
7:06
and so i want the people who can you know how people can take you to know
7:10
this give the kind of a restaurant that we could set up individuals
