It's Time to Stop Romanticizing the Past

   I hear it all the time from many people I know. "It wasn't like this back in [insert era]." "Kids these days are so weak. They aren't raised like they used to. Kids used to be tough." "Back in the Colonial era [or the days of the Ancient Israelites, or what have you], there weren't any teenagers. Kids grew up a lot faster. None of this nonsense we have now." Or "America used to be such a God-fearing nation, and look at us now! If only America was the same as it was in the day of the Founders." "In World War Two, we had real men, and now, young men get PTSD from social media posts!" I've even heard someone say that this is the only era where kids really disobey their parents, that before modern times, children obeyed without question.

   Look. I won't deny that the past had its bright spots. We wouldn't have civilization without the bright spots of the past. But, much like human nature itself, the history of the world is a long, varied history of misery and destruction and sin. We tend to focus only on the brightness of the past as contrasted with our present mistakes, but that gives us a rose-colored view of history.  This age isn't any better or worse than any previous time. The eras of the past did not have it more together than we do. The miseries we focus on that we claim are all our own are often reflected in the past by similar miseries.

   1. The past century is hardly the first with US government overreach. John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, the second president of the United States, pressed for and signed laws that made it illegal to speak out against the president or government. He thought such talk was treasonous and would doom the republic. He made sure newspapers were shut down and people were jailed for criticizing him. Incidentally, this is the primary reason he was a one-term president.

   2. Abraham Lincoln had many instances of government overreach. Among those was calling up the militias of various states without prior authorization from the proper parties, writing executive orders that were treated as legislation even though he had no jurisdiction over the places he attempted to order around (ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation, anyone?), and suspending the right of habeas corpus (that is, the right to be brought to court to determine whether you were lawfully imprisoned).

  

   3. The ancient Israelites did indeed declare their children adults at around the age our children become teenagers, which is understandable for a time when life expectancies are incredibly low and the most important part of becoming an adult is producing offspring. This, however, does not mean they were wiser than we are or that their teenagers were more mature than ours or that any of the ancient Israelites had it more together than we do. Here's a short list of things the ancient Israelites frequently did based only on Old Testament accounts: 

    sacrifice their children on burning altars to the idol Molech

    worship the literal sun

    sell their neighbors and each other into slavery

    frequently gang rape travelers (Judges 19, in case you were wondering)

    fight a civil war over said gang rape, ostracize an entire state, then kidnap Israelite women and force them to marry random men just to make up for rash promises made in the heat of battle

    sacrifice their children in the name of God (also in Judges, just so you know)

    worship any and every god that came along from other places

   frequently practice polygamy

    set up Temple prostitutes (not the gender you're thinking of) right outside the Temple built by Solomon

    somehow lose the Law of Moses for generations, multiple times

    occasionally resort to cannibalism and petition the king to mediate because one woman killed her son and ate him and the neighbor broke her promise to do the same

   I could go on, but I feel like I've made my point.

   4. The vice president of Thomas Jefferson killed a prominent politician while he was in office. Aaron Burr's political career was ruined after killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

   5. While many Americans during the Colonial era were Christians, or at least attending church, the Enlightenment was spreading through Europe, an atheistic movement that depended on reason to figure out truth. This movement did not leave America untouched either.

   6. And let's not forget the glaringly obvious issue of the Colonial era we so hold up. Yes, many of the Founders hated slavery, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. But it was still very legal and very present in America and pretty much everywhere else in the world. Not to mention all the

    smallpox

    malaria

    yellow fever

    measles

    bad water

    dysentery

    cholera

    terrible medical practices such as bleeding

    surgery without anesthesia

    lack of running water

    high infant mortality rates

    backbreaking laundry and scalding soap

    reliance on wooden ships for overseas products

    no air condition

    general disregard for women

    lack of decent education available to the poor

    a life expectancy of 36 

    the church bells rang for the dead so much that they were deemed by law to be a public nuisance

   7. Talk about race riots. Back in the 1850s, there was literal guerilla warfare on both sides of the issue of whether Kansas would enter the union as a free or slave state.

   8. While I forever honor the sacrifices of the generation that fought in World War II, this is not to diminish them. However, we still ought to acknowledge their faults. For instance, the lack of regard for mental health professionals and mental disorders that led to many veterans struggling alone with alcoholism and other addictions, PTSD, and pornography. Not to mention the higher rates of domestic violence, disregard for women, and polio. Also, this was the generation that fully endorsed eugenics and even began practicing it until the news of the Holocaust broke.

   The point I'm trying to make is that while there were good things about the past, there were also plenty of bad things, and we can't pretend like there weren't. Many in mainstream society tend to only focus on the negative aspects of history, but we can't let this drive us to only focus on the positive aspects. Both are dishonest and don't lead to a proper understanding of the past. For if we don't know the mistakes of the past, how can we hope to not repeat them?

How Pride Changed the World

    Pride is the downfall of humanity. It can be found everywhere, in every man. Even those who are humble are often, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, proud of their humility. But the unlikeliest of outcomes can emerge from the pride of a few men. 

   Way back in 1763, life was good in the American colonies. The people had formed militias, marched alongside their British brethren, and defeated the French. A new land was open for settlement and opportunities, and that was all thanks to their British domination. They were proud to be British subjects. They were happy.

   Others were not so happy. Fighting wars is expensive, and the British government had dug themselves into a money hole. No matter, they thought. We'll just raise taxes. The colonists in America will surely be glad to help finance the war we fought and won for them. 

   And they were right. The American colonists would have been perfectly happy to comply and give them everything they asked for. But a simple, ordinary event turned into a world-changing one. Something that should have been easy and barely a mark on the history books turned into the revolution that would rock the world. What happened?

   See, the colonists in America all saw themselves as normal British subjects with the rights of British subjects, just as if they were living in England. They had set up their own governments and legislatures akin to Parliament that were recognized by the crown as the only legitimate government for the colonies. After all, it was impossible because of the distance to ever have Parliament govern the colonies. And those governments were happy to do the crown's bidding just as Parliament was. All the king had to do was ask for a tax, and the governments would levy a tax. They had never denied a request for a tax before and they had no plans to change now.

   However, a certain pride had overtaken many in England, especially in the government. The colonists in America weren't seen anymore as equals, but as second-class, inferior to the people and government in England, unable to govern themselves properly, and bound to obey the government of Great Britain in all things. They didn't see the colonists as deserving of the English rights protected by the Magna Charta and the Glorious Revolution and so valued by all British subjects. They were simply servants, akin to the people living in the Caribbean or India or any other British colony.

   So the British government didn't ask the colonies to levy taxes to help pay for the war. They simply levied a tax themselves. The infamous Stamp Act of 1765 was this tax. And the colonists were furious. They were a people with a rich history of peaceful rebellion and restraint on government. They had certain prized rights that their ancestors had defied kings to ensure. They weren't going to take an incursion on their rights lightly. The colonists formed a congress made up of representatives from their legislatures that wrote up a petition politely telling the king that Parliament had no jurisdiction over them and could he please reign in the excesses and power grab of Parliament? Less politely, the colonists made the lives of Stamp Act collectors so miserable no one wanted the job, and Parliament was forced to repeal the Stamp Act.

   The incident could have ended there. But pride reared its ugly head and set the course of history on a different path. While repealing the Stamp Act, the members of Parliament declared that they did indeed have all authority to do whatever they wanted to the colonists. They told the colonists that they were indeed represented in Parliament, but virtually. In the same way as children, women, criminals, and the mentally insane weren't competent enough to elect their own representatives, but still represented by the members of Parliament, so too were the colonists.

   Naturally, the colonists didn't take such an insult well at all. They didn't appreciate suddenly becoming second-class citizens when they'd been equals to mainland British subjects for so long. So when the Townshend Acts were passed, they were completely ignored. And the path had been set. The British government would not budge in treating the colonists like the second-class citizens they believed them to be, and the colonists would not let themselves be abused without a fight. British pride and superiority had destroyed the amicable relationship of the British and the American colonists.

   And the rest? Well, it's history.

The Problem with Having "Christian Leaders"

   We have a tendency as humans to revere and look up to people. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing. When directed towards our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that's a wonderful thing. But when we start directing this tendency towards regular people, we start getting into dangerous territory.

   Now, I could take this post a variety of ways, but I specifically want to look at the way the church views big-name theologians, or those sometimes referred to as "Christian leaders". People like John Piper, Francis Chan, Jerry Falwell, Jr., Franklin Graham, even people like Charles Spurgeon, C. S. Lewis, John Calvin, and Martin Luther. Without a doubt, I could go to any church in the country and find a majority of churchgoers who revere one of these people or someone like them.

   So what are the dangers? What's wrong with having revered Christian leaders in the faith community? There's nothing wrong with having a healthy respect for and learning from someone. However, especially in the Christian community, we have to be careful when elevating certain people above the rest, placing them on pedestals, and saying, "Look at that man. He's so wise! He is the perfect example of a Christian in today's world."

   While there are some Christians given the gift and the calling to lead others in worship in a variety of ways, that doesn't mean those called to lead are suddenly now wiser and smarter and holier than the rest of us. So often, though, I see this mindset creeping in. Whenever a Christian is listening to a speech by someone who might not be a Christian, we tend to listen closer and test their statements before believing them. But when it's one of our own, too often we turn off our brains and take everything they say as gospel truth.

   "Take it with a grain of salt." We do this whenever we know somebody is saying something that could very well not be true. But why don't we do this all the time? No matter how wise or intelligent or well-read a person is, they're still just one person with one perspective. We live in a flawed world. Not one of us is right all the time. So why do we treat certain people as if they are the authorities on what the Bible says? Maybe John Piper, Francis Chan, and Franklin Graham know more about the Bible than you, but maybe they don't. I can guarantee they're not right about everything they claim the Bible teaches. No one is.

   This tendency to treat certain people as the leaders, the authorities, and the exemplaries of the Christian faith can get even more dangerous when those leaders fall. I'm not talking about minor mistakes in theology, I'm talking about major mistakes. Sometimes this takes the form of a once-revered leader descending into strange theology and cult-like teachings. Sometimes it's a news story about a beloved pastor secretly engaging in adultery, pornography, rape, or some other kind of sexual deviancy. Sometimes it's a belief about the Jewish people that helps contribute to the mass murder of millions.

   People make mistakes. Sometimes, they make massive mistakes. And when the people making the massive, public mistakes have been practically worshipped by the Christian community, it damages our witness. Just because someone says something smart or even wise about the Christian faith doesn't mean they are smarter, wiser, more knowledgeable, or holier than you. No matter who the person is, we must always always always test what they say. Take everything with a grain of salt. Never become a follower of a person other than Jesus. Never assume that because a person says one wise thing, they're a good Christian leader, or even a good man.

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?... For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? --1 Corinthians 1:12-13, 19-20  ESV

 

A Story of Rivals

   A couple of months that feel more like years ago, I randomly signed up for a free ancestry site called FamilySearch. I didn't expect much, but thought it couldn't hurt. Now, my mom and I are blown away by the family history that has been uncovered that we never even knew about. Crazy, interesting stories and people we never would have guessed we were related to.

   All this mess that's been going on lately has gotten me thinking about these people in my past. Some of them no one would ever guess we were related to. One interesting thing we've discovered about our family is that, besides a somewhat odd tendency to always go by middle names (call me Marie, why don't you?), our family has an interesting tendency to marry the people our ancestors fought against, possibly with a long history of prejudice.

   Among my ancestors are several memebers of Germanic tribes, including Goths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Saxons, and others. There are several tribal kings, among them several Saxon kings and Frankish kings (who were probably named Louis). The bitter rivals of the Germanic tribes, not counting each other, were the Romans, and I am also very likely descended from a line of Roman senators and consuls which includes one dictator.

   Of my ancestors from the Germanic tribes, some are Britons who were left behind after the Romans abandoned Britain, and some are of the Saxons that invaded. I have ancestors that fought against the Norman invasion and ancestors that were Normans given noble lands and castles as a result of the Norman invasion and one ancestor that led the Norman invasion (William the Conqueror). I am descended from Vikings and the English king that kicked the Vikings out of England. I am descended from Irishmen and from Englishmen, who have a long history of hatred and prejudice towards each other (though it's mostly one way, the English oppressing the Irish) and from Welshmen, who are still being oppressed by the English, and from two of Robert the Bruce's sisters (their kids married each other, and yes, I'm grossed out), who were rivals with, you guessed it, the English. (Can we all agree that the English have a long history of prejudice and rivalry?) I'm descended from English kings and French kings who most definitely fought wars against each other. 

   My French and German ancestors fought each other, and so did my German and Polish ancestors. I have ancestors on both sides of World War One and an ancestor who tried to fight in the war for America and wound up staying home. I have an ancestor who's a Native American and possibly the daughter of Pocahontas and Kocoum, and several not-so-nice ancestors from Jamestown.

   And then we come to my hero, Elizabeth Key Grinstead. She was the daughter of a slave from Africa and Thomas Key, an English slave owner. At the age of six, her father was sued for paternity and forced to provide for his daughter. He made her an indentured servant and died shortly after. He was a jerk, but he did make his friend who held the indenture promise to treat her like his daughter and take her with him if he moved back to England. The friend did move back to England, but instead of taking Elizabeth with him, he sold her indenture to another man to pay off some debts. This other man kept Elizabeth nine years after her indenture was up. Elizabeth could have become bitter and angry. She could have hated the man who enslaved her and any of his nationality. She had no reason not to hate the English.

   When Elizabeth met a young indentured servant from England named William Grinstead, she didn't hate him. Instead, they fell in love. They got married, as much as they were legally allowed as indentured servants. They had a child named John. Then the man that owned her indenture died. Elizabeth and her son were listed as slaves. They were going to be sold off in an estate sale. But William fought for her freedom in court after court, eventually going to the House of Burgesses and convincing the court to free her. She received compensation for the nine years she was enslaved over the terms of her indenture. As soon as William's indenture was up, they were married officially and had another son, who was also named William. This is the man who was my ancestor. They lived happy lives, though short ones, because life expectancy was super short in those days. (Unfortunately, Virginia changed the laws after William's death so no slave could ever win his or her freedom the same way William won Elizabeth's freedom.)

   Some of these rivalries have died away, but some of them are still with us today. Hatred in this world is so common; it's rarer to find freedom from hatred and prejudice than to find someone that is ruled by it. I'm not here to judge who is right and who is wrong in the conflict that is tearing our nation apart these days. The rivalries my ancestors fought and believed in were legitimate rivalries on both sides. Some were more balanced than others in crimes committed against each other, and some were steeped in oppression of one by another (probably by the English, if we're all being honest). But these rivalries and long histories of hatred didn't hold some people back. In the midst of these crimes and rivalries, somewhere along the line, some of these people put aside their differences and their crimes and the crimes of their ancestors and decided to forge a new history, a different history, a history that ended in love and family and new life.

   I am not my ancestors. I cannot be praised for their good deeds or condemned for their mistakes. I cannot change the things I've done in the past, for good or for ill. Neither can anyone else. All we can choose to do is move forward and forge a new future. We can choose to react to horrific crimes in emotion and anger, we can perpetuate rivalries, or we can choose to move above that. We can react with kindness instead of anger, love instead of hate. We can choose to pursue justice without hatred and end corruption without corrupting ourselves. We can make a difference while being the difference.

   This year has been one punch after the other, and who knows if it's going to stop? Hatred is not going to stop. It's been in this world since the Garden of Eden and it's going to be here until Judgement Day comes and the trumpet sounds and Jesus comes back to this world to take us home. Crimes are not going to stop. Evil men are always going to exist. We can choose to live in hatred with them, as some of our ancestors did, or we can choose to live above that, put the past behind us, and forge a new future.

   After all, it's what my ancestors would have wanted.

   Recompense to no man evil for evil: procure things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as in you is, have peace with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord. --Romans 12:17-19

This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. --John 15:12

Nothing I'm Not Worthy Of

   The Greatest Showman was a worldwide phenomenon two and a half years ago. Coming out at the same time as The Last Jedi, it was...way less disappointing. Now, my family and I didn't actually watch the movie until very recently when it came on TV. I was less than thrilled with the movie itself, but that's not what this post is about. Even before I watched the movie, even while it was still in theaters, I had heard the music (I heard "Rewrite the Stars" so much in Spotify commercials I still hate the song). I really like "A Million Dreams", and I'm pretty ambivalent about the others (they're fine to listen to, but I'm not wild about them). One of these songs is the triumphant anthem "This is Me", a song I actually like quite a bit. However, two lines of this song really put a bad taste in my mouth, especially in light of today's culture.

   "You know that I deserve your love/There's nothing I'm not worthy of!"

   On the surface, these lyrics may seem innocent. Look closer, though. As a Christian, we are told to hold all things accountable, and does this really hold up to the standard of the Bible?

   "You know that I deserve your love/There's nothing I'm not worthy of!"

   Spot the problem now? If not, let me point it out. We, as sinners, don't "deserve" anything but Hell and damnation. We certainly don't "deserve" to be loved by anyone. And, deep down, we all know there are plenty of things we are not worthy of.

   Now, come on, you're saying. That may all be true, but it's only two lines in an otherwise great song. And that's true. I'm not saying you should never listen to the song or refuse to watch The Greatest Showman again. However, troublesome things in movies shouldn't be ignored, either. If we don't talk about them and parse why this may not be acceptable, we may end up simply accepting it. And these lines are only indicative of a larger problem.

   Think again about the song. It's about outcasts in society refusing to accept being put down any longer and believing they are more than all the insults. Now, it does kind of bother me that this song is sung by the one person that grew up normal and could choose at any time to not be a hated outcast (Bearded Lady; literally all she has to do is shave and no one would ever know), but, again, that's not exactly the point. The point of the song is to encourage hated minorities to not let the world and the culture get them down, which grows out of the recent "Tolerate" movement. Now, some things (and I know I'm going to shock some people here, but here we go) about that movement aren't that bad; namely, saying that just because we don't agree with someone's lifestyle doesn't mean that person should be convicted of a crime and thrown in jail or otherwise persecuted. However, we all know the movement doesn't even remotely stop there. This goes off of my post about what tolerance truly is. These two lines indicate that we should not just not persecute people we disagree with, we have to love them and support them, because "they deserve it". This idea isn't limited to just this movie either. In the new book-to-movie adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time, Meg Murray shouts at her possessed brother that "I deserve to be loved!"

   Let's be honest here: is everything about you amazing? Do you love everything about yourself? Chances are, the answer is no. I know I'm not perfect. However, we have started encouraging commonly hated groups of people to overcome their persecution in the wrong way by essentially telling them that they are perfect. As Christians, we all know that sanctification is an ongoing process. We all have sins that we struggle with, some of which we'll struggle with all our lives. But telling people "God loves you just the way you are because you're perfect" robs us of so many things.

   I'm going to say it plainly here: Just because people hate you because of irrational prejudice doesn't mean that you are a perfect person in every area of your life. We all need to change and grow. Thinking of ourselves as "victims" leads us to believe that any criticism, critique, or angry words towards us is because that person is prejudiced against us because of our minority status as a woman or insert ethnicity here or what have you. Maybe that person really is mad at you because they're prejudiced against you. There are people like that out there. Or maybe, the critique is just a critique. Maybe that person is having a bad day and you happened to be a convenient target for frustration. Maybe you're just overthinking things, and that wasn't meant to be an insult at all and you should just calm down.

   I heard someone say once that the greatest thing about America is that we give people the chance to fail. I vividly remember little perfectionist me crying because I got words wrong on a spelling test and my mom telling me that she would be worried if I wasn't getting words wrong, that it was good that I was messing up because that was just opportunities to learn. She told me that my failures are indicators of what I just don't know yet. That's stuck with me ever since she said that. Failure is not enjoyable, but it's the way we learn. Failure isn't fun. But without it, we wouldn't be able to grow. In addition, this idea of "I deserve to be loved" puts all the burden of responsibility for change in tough situations on the haters and persecutors, when we can do things to change many miserable situations ourselves.

   Look. This world can be miserable and terrible. People can treat us horribly. But saying that we deserve to be loved robs us of the beauty of love. The beauty is that we don't deserve to be loved and yet God loves us anyway. He died for us because He loved us even though we don't deserve it. The misery of this world doesn't mask our imperfections, but there is someone that loves us not because we already are amazing, but in spite of our sinfulness. It's okay to not be perfect. It's okay that we fail. It's okay to acknowledge that not everything about us is wonderful, and that we need help overcoming something. The way you were made is not a mistake. But that doesn't mean we can't make mistakes. We can't be perfect. We're going to mess up. We're going to do something wrong that will only encourage the people determined to hate us that they were right all along. The beauty of love is not that we deserve it. We don't. We never can, not on our own. But that doesn't matter, because Christ loved us so much that He died for us even though we didn't deserve it, that we may be made like Him. Before Christ, we are all equal. Before Christ, we are all wretched sinners. Before Him, anyone can be saved by His unchanging grace.

   That is the foundation on which we should base our responses to prejudice. Not faith in ourselves and our false sense of perfection, but in Christ.

 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world. (John 16:33b) 

P.S. On a completely separate note, what is with the trend to make musicals about the jerks in history (Alexander Hamilton, P.T. Barnum)? Surely there are some nice guys in history that we could make musicals about.

What Tolerance Truly Is

   I know I'm going to open a can of worms with this post, but the topic has been on my mind lately, and I cannot deny its importance. So without further ado, let the can of worms be opened.

   Ah, tolerance. It seems like it's all anybody talks about these days. In any given political or religious disagreement nowadays, especially online, the accusation of intolerance is bound to come up. Christian churches and pastors are told they must declare gay marriage is not a sin or they're not being tolerant. Teachers have been fired for not using transgender students' preferred pronouns on accusations of not being tolerant. Being tolerant is the favorite rallying cry of social justice warriors all across the nation. This movement has become so prevalent that conservatives cringe whenever they/we hear the word "tolerance." And yet...

Via Pinterest

   What they are talking about is not tolerance, but adherence. True tolerance is something far different, something that was advocated by none other than Voltaire:

It does not require any great art or studied elocution to prove that Christians ought to tolerate one another. I will go even further and say that we ought to look upon all men as our brothers....It is clear that every private individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster....What is a persecutor? He whose wounded pride and furious fanaticism arouse princes and magistrates against innocent men, whose only crime is that of being of a different opinion.

   Voltaire lived in the eighteenth century, in a time when many countries, including his own, still killed those who held to minor differences in beliefs than the state-approved variety. Voltaire argued that people should be able to believe what they like, and live beside each other without resorting to murder, which, naturally, I fully support. But those who argue for "tolerance" today seem to have completely misunderstood the nature of the word tolerance. What they argue is not tolerance at all. It is, as I said, adherence.

   The differences can probably be best illustrated this way. We all have extended families. Within these families are people with widely varying beliefs. We often disagree with our family members on many things, yet we still have family gatherings every so often and (usually) manage not to kill each other over our disagreements. Say you have two uncles, one who thinks Donald John Trump is a gift from Almighty God, and another who thinks he is the Devil incarnate. Their beliefs are diametrically opposed, but they still attend family gatherings together. They may argue politics from time to time, and their arguments can become quite heated, but they don't refuse to see each other just because they disagree on the true nature of Donald Trump. That is toleration, and it is what the United States of America was built upon, the idea that our differences are our strengths. Now, imagine your two uncles never stop arguing until one or the other finally acquiesces and accepts that Donald Trump is either a gift from Almighty God or the Devil incarnate. That is adherence, and it is far too much advocated these days.

   The biggest mistake that seems to lead to this belief is the claim that if you disagree with or plain don't like a person, you are somehow not tolerating someone. However, that could not be further from the truth. The synonyms for "tolerance", according to Merriam-Webster, are forbearance, long-suffering, patience, and sufferance. The claim that one must agree with someone to tolerate them is the most ridiculous of all and easily debunked. After all, you cannot "tolerate" or "forbear" someone you completely agree with. But then there are the claims that if you offend somebody, you are not being tolerant.  The definition for "long-suffering" is "patiently enduring lasting offense or hardship" (emphasis added). Toleration means that we overlook any anger and offense those around us with differing beliefs perpetrate and refuse to pursue persecution against them. Indeed, don't the very connotations of "toleration " imply that we are putting up with something we disagree with, dislike, or possibly even hate?

   Adherence, while touted as the ultimate form of tolerance, is really the exact opposite. We all know people who are vegan, I'm sure. Now, when we bar our vegan friends from the kitchen or try to make them eat non-vegan food, that is intolerance. When we give adherents to all diets the same access to the kitchen or try not to feed our vegan friends non-vegan food, that is toleration. We may understand why they became vegan or we may think being vegan is the stupidest idea since invading Russia in the winter, but being tolerant doesn't require understanding or support, just putting up with each other. When our vegan friends are pressured to accept that not being vegan is better and are forced to apologize for thinking that non-veganism is wrong, or when our vegan friends refuse to use the same kitchen and hang out with us until we acknowledge that not being vegan is wrong and we're all monsters for eating meat, that is adherence. Many social justice warriors today are advocating not tolerance, but adherence. 

   Adherence, in truth, is nothing more than intolerance disguised as tolerance. To be tolerant, we don't have to love each other. We don't even have to like each other. We can think that what each other is doing is a sin. We must not persecute each other for differences in opinion, but that doesn't mean we must affirm each other's beliefs. I personally am not vegan. I don't truly understand why people go vegan when it is not for health reasons. Yet, I have a friend who is vegan for precisely those confusing reasons. I don't treat her like a second-class citizen because she's vegan; she's my friend and we get along very well. But I also don't feel the need to tell her I'm wrong for eating meat or never mention how much I love bacon just because we tolerate each other's differing dietary beliefs. My friend is a vegan. I love bacon. We don't hassle each other about it, but we don't worry about offending each other with our beliefs just because I don't understand why someone would voluntarily give up all animal products and she believes using animal products is wrong. We tolerate each other's beliefs on veganism, but that does not mean we adhere to each other's beliefs. To force others into adherence and claim we cannot get along otherwise and this is how we "tolerate" each other is to spawn wars, tear apart societies, and destroy the very foundations on which this country was founded. Forcing adherence is not being "long-suffering" or "forbearing" with our neighbors' beliefs; it is the opposite. It is intolerance. And, after all, as Voltaire said, "Tolerance has never brought civil war; intolerance has covered the earth with carnage..."

   Sometimes, our beliefs can be offensive to others. Sometimes, other people believe what we are doing is annoying, disgusting, or outright wrong. We can either use this as an occasion to cry for adherence under the guise of tolerance, or instead practice being truly tolerant, being forbearing, long-suffering, patient, and suffering. We can refrain from enforcing our beliefs, we can patiently endure lasting offense or hardship, and we can bear pains or trials calmly or without complaint. Let's stop pretending adherence is tolerance and begin to truly tolerate people's differing beliefs. After all, this is the United States of America. Putting up with people we think are fundamentally wrong is what we do. Yes, we might offend each other. Yes, we might disagree, even argue at times. Crying for adherence leads to war, famine, and death. Tolerance is the only thing that promulgates true peace.

Shel Silverstein
Via Pinterest

Why Can't We Be Friends?

   They say we're more divided in this country than ever before. While that's obviously not true (see: the American Civil War), it is true that Americans are very divided these days. It's normal and even good to have people in this country that disagree fundamentally, but that advantage of different perspectives goes away when we're never nice to each other. Nowadays, it seems like if two people disagree on certain issues, they're not allowed to still be friends, respect each other's differences, and be kind to each other.

   Take, for instance, the issue of gay rights. George W. Bush is, as Ellen DeGeneres put it, a "conservative Republican president", while she is a "gay Hollywood liberal". Ellen and her partner attended a football game that George W. Bush and his wife were also attending. They sat near each other, chatted, and had a good time, despite the fundamental differences in their beliefs. Ellen was slammed on social media for being friends with George W. Bush. Slammed! For being nice to someone she disagreed with. I myself don't agree with certain of Ellen's personal choices, but I applaud her for refusing to follow the trend of society today and instead acting like a decent human being. She told everyone that we have forgotten that being different is okay and that we can disagree with people and still be friends.

   Ellen is exactly right. I think many people have started to see people that disagree with them, especially people who are white, male, Republican, Christian, or, heaven forbid, all of those at once, are people that hate them, have some sort of agenda against them, or somehow wish harm on them. That kind of thinking is ridiculous! Just because I disagree with Ellen's life choices doesn't mean I hate her or think she's some kind of lesser human being. I applaud her for being able to look past barriers and be friends with someone who is very different from her, even though she probably knew there would be backlash.
   I posted a while ago about enemies. What I said in that blogpost still holds very true today. Maybe I really am idealistic, like my fellow students told me in class yesterday, but I don't see why that idealism has to be a bad thing. Why can't we all strive to be better than we think we can be, to be friendlier, to put aside our differences and get along anyway? Why can't we be different and still be friends? As they have said, don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon. Don't tell me we can't stop focusing on "black" and "white", "white privilege" and "black oppression", on any of the real or perceived superficialities that set us apart and focus on the true person instead. Don't tell me we can't be better than we are. Don't tell me we have to be ashamed of our past to truly change our future. We are more capable of the impossible than we could ever dream. Why is it wrong to dream big?
   The differences that set us apart don't have to divide us. So forget what's possible and just do what's right. You and I can be as different as can be, but we can still get along and be friends.
   So please, let's stop the attacks on people who believe differently than you, who look different or act different, or maybe even believe some of the things you do are wrong. Chances are, they probably don't actually hate you, and would be more than willing to be friends.
   We don't gain anything from fighting and hating each other. Differences don't have to be divisive. Disagree doesn't equal enemy.
 
   Why can't we be friends?

America, Spread Your Golden Wings...

   Once upon a time, there was a massive empire. They had just fought a hard war against one of their greatest enemies with the extensive help of thirteen of their most loyal colonies. The people in these colonies had bled and died, as they had been on the front lines of much of the war's fighting. When the time came to pay for the war, the legislatures of these colonies were ready to write laws on new taxes as soon as the crown asked them to. After all, they were English citizens, and all taxes on them had to be levied by their representative body, as guaranteed by the Magna Charta and the English Bill of Rights. They were ready and willing to pony up according to well-established laws and traditions. Whenever the king wanted to levy a new tax on the colonies, he asked the colonial legislatures to pass one, and they always complied.

   However, the king did not ask the colonial legislatures to levy a tax. Instead, the English Parliament voted on a tax on the American colonies. This angered the colonists. They had no representatives in the English Parliament. Furthermore, it would be incredibly impractical to ever have American representatives in the English Parliament, as London is so far from the shores of the New World. Parliament had no power to levy taxes on them. Since Parliament had no power to levy taxes on the thirteen colonies, the "taxes" were not obligatory or legally binding. So, the colonists simply refused to pay them, sending advocates all the while to England to remind them that the English Parliament had no power over them.

   Parliament, however, thought their overseas subjects were nuts. The colonists weren't English citizens, but a second class of subjects in thralldoms, and of course they had the power to levy taxes on them. A few MPs were on the side of the colonists, but they were outshouted and outvoted. More and more taxes were levied on the thirteen colonies.

   The colonists took more and more drastic action to avoid or outright refuse the taxes. They were English citizens, after all, and from the time of King John to the Glorious Revolution, they were never ones to surrender their freedoms quietly. Even more, they had lived for several generations in a harsh wilderness, alone except for their God and their ingenuity. After years of independence and self-reliance, they weren't going to bow down now. When the Stamp Act was passed, colonists burned anything with the king's stamp on it. Parliament repealed it, but in their repeal stated that they had full power to do whatever they wanted to the colonies.

   Parliament had gone too far. All they had had to do was ask them to tax themselves and they would have done it. This posturing was absolutely ridiculous. Whisperings of war and even more drastic action were being passed around in the most radical circles. And when British soldiers were sent to Boston to try and enforce the supposed laws, the angry colonists started drilling in militias from snowy Massachusetts and New Hampshire to humid Georgia.

   A radical group went a little too far protesting the tea tax. All the colonies thought it might be a good idea to pay reparations for the thousands of pounds in damage. However, the furious British Parliament decided to shut down the colony in which the offense was committed, shut down their largest source of revenue, and starve the inhabitants to make them suffer.

   The colonies arose in outrage. They banded together to help their sister colony in her time of need, holding hands and becoming one for the first time ever. Even more people joined the militia. The British Army attempted to shut down colonial legislatures. They completely ignored them, instead meeting in local taverns. The colonies skirted the army and ignored Parliament, hoping the king would see the oppression and stand against the illegality. Offense after offense by Parliament and the army piled up. Until one day, it all became too much. The fatal straw had come.

   General Gage sent his troops to destroy the store of ammunition and gunpowder in Concord, Massachusetts. The local militia got wind of the plan and stood in their way with their guns, hoping to deter them without firing. But British soldiers got too eager and charged the men at Lexington. Somebody fired, then everybody fired, and eight men died. The militia swore they hadn't begun the fight, but they would finish it. They couldn't stop the British from their mission, but they hid behind fences, trees, and barns, shooting at the soldiers until they were terrified and running for Boston. For a year, they fought hard, losing battles with an army they refused to call the King's Army, for surely the king they had been loyal to for so long couldn't condone this.

   The colonial legislatures the army had tried to disband voted to send representatives to a congress of all the colonies, the First Continental Congress. This congress sent pleas to the king in hopes that this war could be ended when it had barely begun, in hopes that only Parliament was the problem. Their hopes were dashed in the spring of 1776. The colonists were forced to acknowledge the fact that King George III was behind all the machinations and oppression of Parliament.

   This knowledge rocked the colonies. In the spring of '76, spurred on by this knowledge, a new identity began to emerge. The colonists were seeing themselves not as British, but as Americans. And an idea that had been tossed around for a while by the Continental Army's new commander-in-chief began to be talked about by everyone.

   Through prayer and a miracle, on July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress formed the United States of America, the thirteen colonies collectively declaring independence from Great Britain. On July 4, they told the world exactly why.

   The war had just begun. Five long years of hard fighting followed. Without prayer and praise and the Hand of God, the Revolutionary War would not have been won. After another two years of sporadic fighting and tense negotiation, a treaty was signed between the United States of America and Great Britain, ending the war.

   And the rest? Well, it's history.

   

   Happy Independence Day, fellow defiant rebels! Today, let's celebrate our amazing country and her glorious birth. Remember, rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Let freedom ring!

Things Most People Get Wrong About Southerners

   I was born and bred in the South. Now, the South is a wonderful place, the birthplace of Coca-Cola, Chick-fil-a, a bunch of fattening food, the Civil Rights movement (but not American slavery; that comes straight from Ye Olde England), and a whole lot of misconceptions. As a true Southerner, I'd like to set a few of those straight.

1. We say "Bless your heart" all the time because we're sweet
   ...Guys, this is an insult.
   This is how most people think Southerners use the phrase "Bless your heart."
 
     "Poor Leora's husband is dying of cancer."
     "Oh, bless her heart, that's got to be so hard for her."

   Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, we say "Bless your heart" and "Bless his heart" quite often, but not in a nice way. Confused? Let me show you.

     "She tried to boil frozen french fries in water, bless her heart."

   It might occasionally be used the way you think we use it, but be wary. Most likely, the only positive way you'll hear the phrase used is to compliment how cute your babies are. And please, whatever you do, do not use this phrase when talking to a Southerner. I've been told "Bless your heart" before and tensed up, wondering why this family friend was insulting me, before reminding myself she was from Indiana. It's best just to stay away from it. Likewise, "Aren't you precious" and "With all due respect" don't mean what you think either.

2. "Southern" does not equal "Country" or "Redneck"

   We are not backward and stupid just because we live below the Mason-Dixon line. Southern, country, and redneck are three completely different things. Rednecks can be found anywhere in the Union. Yes, in your state, too (just head to your local Wal-Mart and you'll probably find a few). When you think of redneck, think building a bonfire in a wheelbarrow.  And "country" is something altogether different. "Country" is people named Cooter, and people marrying their cousins (okay, I'm joking). Really, though, think of the people in Texas. They're country. We're Southern.

3. On the subject of Texas, Texas and Florida are not Southern
   If you have to look up "what states are in the South", you're not truly Southern. True Southerners know. Despite Texas and Florida fighting on the Confederate side of the Civil War (I don't know why, but I find it really hard to believe Florida actually participated in that), Texas and Florida are not truly Southern. Being Southern isn't just a matter of location. It's a certain culture. Southerners are kind, friendly (not to say that other people are rude, that's not what I mean; it's just different down here). We wave to strangers, know exactly when the allergy seasons are and the names of the allergy medicine companies, don't even try to survive the summer (we know the only combatant to ninety-degree weather is air condition), say "sir" and "ma'am", watch college football, go to church every Sunday, eat real barbecue, and have that certain state we swear is more idiotic and backwoods than us (lookin' at you, Alabama). Texas is too self-obsessed and Florida too...Florida to be Southern. Y'all know what I mean.

4. Southerners are stupid
   Well, aren't you precious! Bless your little heart.
   With all due respect, let me say this slowly and clearly so you'll understand: The South is not Deliverance. Let me say it again: The South is not Deliverance. And one more time, just to make it clear: THE SOUTH IS NOT DELIVERANCE!!!
   I've never seen the whole movie, but I'd kind of like to strangle whoever made it. That movie is one of the biggest reasons big city folks think we're stupid. One person moving to New York from the South was informed that her daughter wouldn't do too well in class because "New York's classes are harder." The daughter made straight As. And let's not forget all the hullabaloo over Brian Kemp, the Republican candidate for governor in Georgia. He made national news for his commercial where he grilled his daughter's boyfriend. Cue roasting in the New York and LA media sure he was so stupid because he has a thick Southern accent. *sigh*
   Okay, let's be real here. Ever heard of George Washington? Thomas Jefferson? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? What about Clarence Thomas? Ryan Seacrest? Anthony Mackie? Peyton Manning? Elvis Presley? James Earl Jones? Morgan Freeman? Davy Crockett (King of the Wild Frontier...)? Douglas MacArthur? Jackie Robinson? Hank Aaron? Ty Cobb? Rosa Parks? Every single one of them is Southern. And where is our president, the one everyone thinks is one of the stupidest men in America, from? Was it Alabama? Mississippi? Maybe Arkansas?
   Nope.
   It was New York City.

5. Southerners are all racist
   Story time here. There is a post office in my former home county with a "White Only" sign. Now before you gasp and scream about racism, let me provide some vital context clues. This post office is in a tiny little town called White, or Whites to most residents, named after James A. White and his store, White's. Now most post offices have two outgoing mail slots: one for mail to the town or region they are in, and one for all other places. White(s) Post Office is no different. It has a sign marking the envelope slot for all other mail, and a sign for in-town mail. And so you get the "White Only" sign.
   Thing is, these are the only "White Only" signs you'll ever find in the South nowadays, real or figurative. It's not the 1960s anymore. Down here, we really don't care what ethnicity you are. Just drink sweet tea, call carbonated beverages Coke, and know what real barbecue is, and we won't hate on you. (Unless you're an Alabama fan. No football team should win that much.)
   Now hold onto your hats, because I have some statistics.
   The gap between blacks' and whites' graduation rates in the Southern states (not counting Alabama, because something went wonky with the data their DOE recorded) is much smaller than the national average. Also, the percentage of black students in the South who attend schools that are 90-100% black is lower in the South than in any other region, according to a 2014 study by UCLA’s Civil Rights Project.
   The average unemployment rates nationwide in 2016 were 4.7 for whites and 8.2 for blacks, but in the South, 3.93 for whites and 7.97 for blacks. The black unemployment rate nationwide was 2.1 times the white unemployment rate. But in the South, the rate averaged out to 2.05, again showing that, in Southern states, blacks are hired slightly more often than the national average. In addition, of the 18 states with a black unemployment rate lower than 10 percent, 11 were Southern states.
   According to one article I read, "While it is true that Southern states incarcerate more black people per capita than the rest of the country, the numbers show that the South imprisons more people period." Soo...apparently police here are stricter than elsewhere? I guess that would explain why the city we live in sends out flyers with notes to residents to please stop jaywalking.



   Also from the article: "The evidence shows that blacks are killed by law-enforcement officials at disproportionately higher rates than whites across the country, but surprisingly, the rate is much lower in the South." (There were numbers along with it, but I don't feel like posting them.)
   (The article says it better than I can. Here's the link, but be warned, it has mild language.) "Many Southern states have made it difficult to vote through voter-ID restrictions and voter-suppression efforts. Plus, Southern states are generally under Republican control, which would seemingly result in fewer black elected officials and fewer black voters, right?
   "Not so fast, my friend.
   "Of the 52 African-American members serving in the 115th Congress, 22 hail from the 12 Southern states. In a 2015 survey by the National Council of State Legislatures, although most state legislatures nationwide were less than 9 percent black, Southern state legislatures were 17 percent black.
   "This phenomenon may be due to the fact that the South’s black population tends to register and vote more than other areas of the country. Nationally, 65.3 percent of African Americans registered to vote in the 2016 election, according to the U.S. census, but the number was higher for Southern black voters (69.6 percent). While 55.9 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2016 election countrywide, 59.2 percent of blacks in the South cast their ballots in the last national election."
   "Because the cost of living varies across the country, it is difficult to compare economic inequality by simply measuring raw dollars. According to U.S. census numbers, in 2016 the median income for whites was $61,858, but it was $39,490 for people who identified as black. The median incomes for Southern whites and Southern blacks in 2016 were $58,209 and $38,601, respectively. So nationally, blacks earned about 63 cents for every dollar that whites earned, but in the South, blacks earned about 66 cents per white dollar.
   "Furthermore, according to BlackDemographics.com, of the top 10 states with high black homeownership, nine were in the South. In Forbes magazine’s 2015 list of the cities where blacks are doing the best economically, Southern cities made up 13 of the 15 on the list.
   "Based on all of the objective evidence, African Americans in the South are closer to whites economically and politically and in education and employment. The opportunities aren’t equal, but there is less of a measurable racial divide in the Southern states than there is nationwide."
   *Drops mic*

6. Southerners are wimps
   Sure, we can't handle snow very well, but here's a secret: a lot of the snowy Northern states are flat. The South is anything but. Besides, we'd like to see all y'all try and survive our summer heat. And you can't just come down in August. You have to come down in April/early May and stay until October. If you can stand that without complaining, we will concede y'all are hardier. Until then, kindly keep your comments to yourself.

7. Southerners are all Republicans
   You'd be surprised how many Democrats there are down here. True, most of them are in the big cities, and most of the rest are in counties where they have Republican beliefs, but everyone has always voted Democrat so there's no reason to change now. But there are a few just scattered around.

8. Southerners hate Northerners
   I promise, Southerners don't hate Northerners. Do we look down on them? Yes. Yes, we do. But then, Northerners look down on Southerners, so I guess we're even there.

   People also think most Southerners are gun-toting Bible-thumping Christians who love hunting, Chick-fil-A, sports, and America (not necessarily in that order), but they...aren't exactly wrong about those. I hope you learned something about Southerners from this blog post. Or you just nodded and wished your Northern friends knew this. Either way is fine with me.
   I could go on and on, but I think I'll stop here, at least for now. This post is long enough as it is, and I'm not aiming to overwhelm anybody. Maybe I'll write a post about true Southern culture next, so all y'all can know what we're really like down in the sweet South. Y'all come back now, ya hear?

The Truth About Secession

   Secession. This subject tends to come around every once in a while, generally any time a state is especially mad at the federal government. It meets with varying degrees of approval depending on the person and the state proposing secession (I know we're all secretly hoping California will secede from the Union so we don't have to deal with them again). Most states have probably proposed secession at one time or another, Texas being among the most frequent. In the most recent posts about Texas secession, amidst the Texas pride that of course they can make it on their own and be super successful are the commentators shooting down the idea with the words "Of course they don't have any more right to secede than any other state does." By which they were trying to imply that they couldn't secede.

   The general populace seems to agree that states aren't allowed to secede from the Union, and whenever you try to ask them why, they say, "Well, it doesn't say they can in the Constitution." In fact, the general populace seems to agree that the US Constitution bans secession. Here, I'd like to examine the arguments against secession and determine whether or not they are valid.

Argument #1: This issue has already been decided by the Civil War. That's why the North fought the South.

   This is one of the weakest arguments. If you examine source documents, for quite a few months after the Southern states proposed secession, everyone in the North was in favor of their power to do so, and indeed, wished them well. Virginia didn't even consider seceding until the Federal government grossly violated the Constitution by sending armed troops to invade their state, an action expressly prohibited in the US Constitution. True, the Supreme Court decided that the South's secession had been "definitely and forever overthrown" by the Civil War, but outcomes forced by military action are a far cry from actions examined by a court and declared unconstitutional. The British Empire tried to forcibly keep many of their colonies from leaving, and yet nobody doubts the validity of the United States or India as nations. Military actions cannot decide legal precedents. Also, many scholars claim that the Civil War was fought over slavery or the Morril Tariff, so universally deciding that this issue has been decided by the Civil War is impossible. 

Argument #2: The Articles of Confederation ban secession, and they weren't actually expressly repealed, so they're still in effect.

   We all know the story of the US Constitution. They got up a convention to fix the Articles of Confederation, but ended up replacing it completely, the key word here being replace. No, the words, "The Articles of Confederation are hereby repealed" are not in the US Constitution. But that doesn't mean they weren't repealed in it. Indeed, the Constitution does repeal the Articles of Confederation: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". The Articles of Confederation are not laws, nor are they a treaty, and therefore are not counted as the supreme Law of the Land according to this clause. Whatever the Articles of Confederation meant by "perpetual Union" is irrelevant since they are not legally binding today.

Argument #3: Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution states that "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation", thereby banning secession.

   Abraham Lincoln used this argument to claim the government of the Confederate States of America was invalid. If the Southern states had entered into this confederation without seceding, indeed he would have been right. But this clause only applies to states actually in the Union, and the Southern states did not consider themselves part of the United States of America once they had voted for secession. The validity of Abraham Lincoln's argument about the CSA's government hinges upon whether the states were truly not part of the Union anymore. This question cannot be decided by this clause.

Argument #4: The Fourteenth Amendment implicitly bans secession.

   This is the hardest to refute since words can "imply" anything, and implications tend to be a matter of opinion. This being said, the only reference to states in the Fourteenth Amendment is to ban states already in the Union from denying their civilians freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution or supporting laws and does not touch on the actions of states as collective entities.

Argument #5: Six former Confederate states banned secession in their state constitutions.

   Those state constitutions were made under duress and could easily be considered voidable. Also, state constitutions are very easily amended. Furthermore, this is a ban on a state level, not a federal level, and cannot be enforced or viewed as such. Several states also have official religions and languages, which the federal government is banned from doing. 

Argument #6: The Pledge of Allegiance states that the United States is "one nation, indivisible." The word "indivisible" means cannot be divided, and so secession is banned by the Pledge of Allegiance.

   This is about the worst argument of the bunch. The Pledge of Allegiance is not legally binding and simply exists to inspire patriotism. It is considered by Congress to be a national symbol, on the level of the National Anthem and the bald eagle. 

   So secession is nowhere expressly or implicitly banned. But are arguments for the legality of secession simply arguments from silence? Not quite. I submit two pieces of evidence: one from the Declaration of Independence and one from the US Constitution.

   "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,....it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

   "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

   I could submit further arguments, such as the fact that Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York ratified the US Constitution solely on the condition of explicitly retaining the right to secede, and the US government acknowledging that also acknowledges the power of any state to secede. However, I believe that this is enough. Secession is nowhere banned by the US Constitution, so, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, that power is reserved to the States, or to the people. This isn't even a radical idea. Ireland seceded. Scotland has full power to, but voted not to. Britain is leaving the EU. Puerto Rico has the power to become an independent country, they just keep voting against it. The United States seceded from the UK. Our states only became states by voting to accept the US Constitution (which is why Delaware is the first state). All a state would have to do to secede would be to vote in its state legislature to reject it. This isn't actually a hard issue and it shouldn't be. 

   So, if California really wants to leave the Union (pretty please?) or Texas sincerely thinks they can make it on their own, go ahead. They have the power and the right to leave the Union. It's how our nation was founded, after all.

Thirteen statements from the United States (The Declaration of Independence by Google Translate)

   I'm a big fan of Malinda Kathleen Reese's Google Translate videos, and, in honor of Independence Day, I decided to send the Declaration of Independence through many different languages in Google Translate and see what came out. Enjoy!

   July 4, 1776, in parliament.

   However, in the suit that the event supposed to separate the bonds of some of the political characters between them seems to be separate from the station deserves another opinion of the earth, in the nature of the natural forces, US Congress, which has been confirmed. This type of program can only be displayed. .

   All human beings, including the search for freedom and equal rights of creators from certain felicitas.- to ensure this right. Try this truth clearly so that the government provides people with the approval of the power of observation and design, the self - not, the people, the government, the end of harm to form edited or deleted, it is theoretically included in the new auto mode in a database, every time the power has access to safety, it is fun, they have to be affected. The previous system of injury history, which is the current history of King Grandbituuzo ball, must meet all the requirements for the torture of this situation in full. Prove that, in reality it will be presented in the same world.

   He abandoned consent in October, but most importantly, it was very important for the community.

   In order to delay the submission of a case before Adoption of an individual, the law is linked to a quick and essential basis for Adoption administrators. They have been suspended, will not be able to cure.

   He encouraged large people, but only the right of presentation on the market and in the Congress, there was no need to pass the law on human will and the poor matrix.

   Organizations are called laws, damage to the population and the loss of a common control of public policy, not paying fidelity.

   A typical room bouts heavy legal lawn of troops.

   However, it is after a disaster, a long time, does not want to choose people. God's law, the power of God always exists. Because it can not be said, because, as a rule, it will return to people to practice. the threat of time for all attacks from overseas remains, that is, there is a pond.

   He is not in any way trying to make the population invisible to the public. Foreign citizenship law to encourage foreign naturalization due to cultivate new land, forgotten creation drugihov.

   Perfect justice has been beaten, refused to accept legal position in order to establish manageable authority.

   In order to determine the desire, the zodiac Quorum and the paid wages that are able to maintain.

   Need to, established a new office, we do a lot of ministers of the wild goats here.

   At the time of the pirates, this constant field was occupied among us without the consent of the military. Neptatuhaan because of its electrical transmission, in addition to the law of its external authority from the government or civilian, the shift can be attributed to other rights, for example, we have learned. so-called law of the contract of action:

   Our army is a good neighbor:

   In order to protect them against malpractice, patent protection should apply to older people:

   Worldwide we have damaged our business:

   Unauthorized taxes

   In many cases, the jury limits the test facility:

   We will try to let them take them out of the ocean

   Administrative law is an example of ridicule with the free English system and any maximum limit as a means of entering the same network of colonialism:

   Take your word and clear the most famous laws and changes based on our leadership:

   Take a legislative meeting and report your investments in all areas.

   He condemned the government, announced and instructed state insurance.

   Destroy our ocean, destroy our enemies, burn our city and destroy our lives

   Our citizens are armed weapons against states with a harbor who take friends or brothers or fall into their hands.

internal confrontations between us representing our people Savile Savages Indian, a familiar war for all ages, sexual destruction, and undesirable circumstances.

   The following conditions apply at all levels of this discount: Requirements are repeated only on frequency. The character of the prince is characterized by all the features that can be freely identified and are not equal to the loyal masters.

   Do we want to ignore British demolition? From time to time we draw attention to unacceptable claims. Here we remember the immigration situation and the decision. We have emphasized the right administration, justice and the elimination of our age for young adults, which will lead to our relationship and correspondence. They are deaf to the words of justice and expertise. That is why we must recognize the need to divide ourselves and the declaration if we continue to overcome peace, war and enemy peace.

   The implementation of the British Crown as part of global disarmament and the ending of the national and political solidarity of the United Kingdom as a free and independent state can fulfill all the other tasks and the ability of the last generation to fight and peace and persecution of the Treaty and the establishment of exchanges or not. This hypermetropic statement has a strong defense for the weekend, which means we all believe in the fate of Lakeahna and St. Anagaotna.

For reference, here is the original text:
   In Congress, July 4, 1776.
   The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
   He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
   He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
   He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
   He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
   He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
   He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
   He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
   He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
   He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
   He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
   He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
   He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
   He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
   For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
   For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
   For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
   For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
   For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
   For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
   For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
   For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
   For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
   He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
   He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
   He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
   He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
   He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
   In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
   Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
   We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.