Lynn Green

Category: government

  • Trial by Media

    Trial by Media

    Photo ©Pixabay

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    A woman gathers her courage and decides to use Twitter or Facebook to tell the story of when she was sexually assaulted as a teenager.  What response can she expect?

    The current social environment means that she will probably be commended for being so brave.  Her message will be re-tweeted, her post will be shared.  She will get a large number of likes.  With this encouragement she decides to name the man who assaulted her.  Someone else then finds out where he is now and posts that information along with a picture of him.

    What happens to him?  Most of us would think that whatever happens to him will be deserved—and probably more!  Let’s say he loses his job at the charity/non-profit where he works, then his wife confronts him and his children are deeply embarrassed and lose confidence in their dad.  The family breaks up.  Some men in these circumstances have committed suicide.  Does he still deserve it?  How does the woman who accused him feel?  She says he destroyed her confidence, will this rebuild it?

    MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS
    Is it ever possible that the woman could have a different reason for holding a grudge against this man?  Is there even a remote chance that he is innocent of the charges?  What does sexual assault mean?  It covers such a wide range of unwelcome and damaging behavior!  Most of that wide range of acts can be devastating to a woman, especially when she is young, innocent and unsure of what is really happening to her.   Some acts, at the other end of the spectrum, can even be innocent in intent but misinterpreted.

    From my perspective, the vast majority of women who go public with a charge of sexual assault will be telling the truth.  That is because there is a great cost to going public and, sadly, little chance of the person assaulting her being convicted.  (More on that later.)  However, the recent high-profile charges against powerful men have made it  less difficult for women to make statements about sexual assault.  That is a good thing!

    But it also opens the door a bit wider for spurious allegations.  Let’s say that over 95% of women who say that they were sexually assaulted are telling the truth; what do we say about the 5% where the men are innocent or there is mistaken identity?  When the allegation gets social media interest, and sometimes print or broadcast media, the accused is almost always assumed to be guilty.

    ACQUITTED BUT STILL PUNISHED
    Here in the UK, the reputations of several high-profile public figures have been unfairly destroyed by the media identifying and publicizing the name and photos of the accused.  After many months or years of investigations, the police or courts have dismissed the allegations as having no substance.  Usually though, the original allegations get a lot more media coverage than when the case is dropped.  In some cases, the accuser has been shown to be an attention-seeking or vindictive individual.  But we all tend to rush to judgment against the more powerful person.  In our Western cultures, most of us have a very strong, emotional bias for us to always believe the person who is the least powerful.  I think that is because, in a culture influenced by the Bible, we have a bias towards protecting the weak or powerless—and that is also a good thing.

    However, God speaks to Moses in

    Leviticus 19:15 and says, “Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful.  Always judge people fairly.”

    JUSTICE DERIVED FROM THE BIBLE
    The Bible is a primary source for our legal system and this passage is one of the more important ones.  It is the reason why, in classical art, Justice is always pictured as a female who is blind-folded.  She also has a set of scales in her left hand and a sword in her right hand.  It symbolizes the principle in Leviticus 19; she does not judge on the basis of whether people are more or less rich, more or less powerful, young or old, male or female or any other basis for identity.  She weighs the evidence and executes justice on that basis.

    The very low rate of convictions in cases of rape or sexual assault is the result of another fundamental principle of justice.  Every person must be considered to be innocent until there is sufficient evidence to conclude that they are guilty. One person’s word against another is not enough.  There must be either witnesses or convincing evidence.

    Sexual assault usually occurs when there are only two people present.  In addition, most of the recent high-profile allegations are about events that happened years ago, so there is no evidence and usually no witnesses.  Another foundational principle of  justice from scripture is

    Deuteronomy 17:6, “You must not convict anyone of a crime on the testimony of only one witness.  The facts of the case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. ”

    These are well-proven, essential principles of justice.  They are essential to Western democracies with law and order and they come from Biblical Christian influence over hundreds of years.   We ignore them at our peril, even though social media tempts us to pass judgment without witnesses or evidence, but because we want to believe the less-powerful against the more powerful.  Whatever the reason for the rush to judgment via social media, it has become a scourge in our society.  I am not sure what we will do about it, but we will have to eventually do something.

    BETTER PERSONAL RESPONSES
    In the meantime, we can hold ourselves accountable to the proven principles of justice.  When we read accusations or allegations online or in the more traditional media, we can remind ourselves that we don’t know what really happened but we can hope that a fair process can be played out so the guilty are found guilty and the innocent are not punished.

    STILL FRUSTRATED?

    You may have read this article thus far and found it quite frustrating because these principles of justice are so likely to allow many guilty people to go free.  But that is not actually true.  Our courts and other legal processes are far from perfect, but are not the final judges.  King Solomon understood that well and when he dedicated the Temple.  He and his people had labored to build it over the previous seven years. When the day of dedication came, he prayed,

    “If someone wrongs an innocent person and is required to take an oath of innocence in front of your altar in this Temple, then hear from heaven and judge between your servants—the accuser and the accused.  Punish the guilty as they deserve.  Acquit the innocent because of their innocence.”  1 Kings 8:31.

    JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED
    If a crime has been committed and there is no evidence and no credible witnesses, and the accused lies under oath, that is not the end of it.  God sees and He is the final Judge.  Remember, though, that His justice is sure even though it is not always immediate. 

    Ecclesiastes 8:11-13 says;  “When a crime is not punished quickly, people feel it is safe to do wrong.  But even though a person sins a hundred times and still lives a long time, I know that those who fear God will be better off.  The wicked will not prosper…”

    The ultimate Judge will punish the wicked.  On the other hand, God is on the side of those who suffer and he promises that He can make

    “…everything work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.” Romans 8:28.

    When seen in the light of God’s character and His promises, we needn’t become angry, bitter and judgmental.  We can actively trust Him, knowing that He sees.  We needn’t  rush to judgment with the angry herds on social media, or believe all that we see, hear or read in traditional media.

    Thank God that He is the all-knowing, merciful and final Judge!

    Lynn Green.

  • Is Britain Going To Pot?

    Is Britain Going To Pot?

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    You might be relieved to learn that this blog is not about Brexit.

    This is about pot, weed, cannabis, marijuana, hashish, bhang, kif, Mary Jane, dope, skunk….My goodness, there are so many names for this stuff!

    SOFTENING US UP FOR CHANGE IN THE LAW? My wife, Marti, and I are just back from a visit to Colorado, where cannabis has been approved for medical and recreational use for quite a few years, so we have some recent experience with the results of legalization.  In the few days since we got back, I see that a number of national newspapers and several TV programs have focused on the pros and cons of legalizing cannabis.  It is quite obvious that they usually lean towards the positives, especially since Canada just decided it was in the best interests of the nation to make it legal.    When this kind of media onslaught appears, my experience tells me that it usually implies some measure of government and media coordination.  Someone with quite a lot of clout has decided to change the law, so first they aim to change public opinion.

     

    THE FIRST ARGUMENT The most common argument is summarized by this quote from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau saying that it had become, “too easy for our kids to get marijuana – and for criminals to reap the profits.”  So we asked around our friends and family in Colorado to see if legalizing stopped illegal dealing in the state.  The answer was;

    “No, there are always people who will grow and sell illegally because they want to avoid the state tax and the regulations which were the inevitable result of legalization.  They can undercut the legal pot shops and make bigger profit.” So that seems to be one argument shot down, or at least seriously holed.

    Since my home state, Colorado, led the USA in legalizing pot, it would be good to know what the Governor thinks now.  In a recent interview with CNN, he explained that the crime rate has been rising since pot was made legal six years ago and he has not ruled out making it illegal again.  He said:

    “Trust me, if the data was coming back and we saw spikes in violent crime, we saw spikes in overall crime, there would be a lot of people looking for that bottle and figuring out how we get the genie back in.  It doesn’t seem likely to me, but I’m not ruling it out.”

    Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper opposed legalizing marijuana, but embraced the choice of his state.

    THE COMPASSIONATE ARGUMENT The second argument is medical and there is no doubt that cannabis or cannabis extracts have proven to be helpful for alleviating some painful illnesses or reducing the symptoms of some diseases such as Parkinson’s disease.  I don’t think there is any case for continuing to criminalize the medical use of cannabis or extracts from it.  However, the medical uses are difficult to monitor.  For example, I recently spoke to a young man who was prescribed cannabis to reduce his anxieties.  I have personal experience that leads me to pretty clear conclusions on that.

     

    MY CANNABIS STORYAt this point, I should make a confession.  In the year before I committed my life to the lordship of Christ, I smoked hashish (cannabis resin) at least a couple of times a week.  I was attending the University of Colorado at the time.  I enjoyed it a lot and wanted to smoke whenever it was possible.  Although I was in my third year of a four-year electrical engineering degree, it was my first year completely away from home, as I had done the first two years at a junior college in my home town.  When I got to the home of CU in Boulder, I joined in the party atmosphere.

    I then proceeded to demonstrate an obvious truism; partying, drunkenness and pot smoking don’t contribute to an engineering degree!  It wasn’t long before I was experiencing anxieties and there was a reason for that.  It’s not much fun to go to a math class, having missed the two previous ones, only to realize that you can’t begin to understand what the professor is talking about.  In those circumstances I could see two choices:  I could stop partying and study with the “nerds” who understood, or I could reduce my anxieties with hashish.  I smoked more. 

    The problem was I was only anxiety free when I was high.  Every high was followed by ever more excruciating anxieties. Back to the young man who was prescribed cannabis to reduce anxiety:  I notice that he is not addressing the reasons for his anxiety.  He is still avoiding the hard choices required to make his life better, but the smoking makes him feel less anxious–at least temporarily.  It seems quite clear to me that his prescription cannabis is not helping him lead a better, more fulfilling and satisfying life.  All he gets is a temporary delusion that things aren’t as bad as he feels they are.

    A BETTER CURE There are much better cures for anxiety.  Since my conversion, I have aimed to live clear-conscience Christianity and that has given me the key to anxiety management.  Where there are reasons for me to feel anxious, I should never avoid the circumstances causing the anxiety or attempt to anesthetize my conscience; I must face the reasons and make the choices that reduce my anxieties.  However, sometimes anxieties arise for no identifiable reason.  In those cases, once again, a clear Christian faith provides a pathway to overcoming.  I have access to God’s presence, His promises and His reassuring love for me as an individual.  When I focus on those realities, anxiety begins to shrivel.

    I conclude that substance use, whether alcohol or cannabis or another something else, is no way to manage anxiety or fear.  It is so much better to change the way I think and live and thus increase relational harmony and whole-person peace—shalom.

    REVENUE FOR GOVERNMENTS I think the only obvious case for legalizing pot is the case for revenue. When a government legalizes and taxes pot, they will certainly increase their tax income.  How much of that will have to go on extra policing is hard to say because it is so difficult to say that certain crimes are the result of pot use and others are not.  But it’s not just a matter of policing.  Some people will be able to use pot recreationally without it apparently affecting their behavior, but others will lose more time from work, withdraw from relationships, become less industrious and make more mistakes at work.  Some of those mistakes can result in injury or death.  How do we calculate the cost of that?

    Driving under the influence of cannabis can be as dangerous as driving drunk.  Note the following quote from a Canadian news service earlier this year,

    As Canada prepares for legal pot, the federal government plans to spend as much as $80-million to train 750 police officers to smoke out high drivers. But how sound is the test? A Fifth Estate investigation raises serious questions, showing it can lead to false arrests, is prone to police bias and, according to one scientific expert, is no better at detecting high drivers than “flipping a coin”

    The same article states that the Canadian government has spent as much as $80 million to train 750 police officers to “smoke out high drivers”.  So where does all this leave the equation that all governments have to work out?  (Revenue minus costs equals the overall financial benefit.)  The answer is not clear, but it is not likely to be an overall positive income.

    We become used to governments presenting this sort of decision in purely financial terms, but they are always more than that.  This one is certainly about more than mammon.  What impact will legalization have on the character of our nation?  Will it be a help or a hindrance to young people as they grow up?  Will it help develop more reliable and responsible citizens?  The answer to that one is self-evident.

    So is there a case for legalizing pot?  Should Britain go the same way some other liberal western democracies have gone?  Now that it seems many other nations will follow suit, so should we be among them?

    A few months ago I watched a BBC documentary in which about half a dozen British TV celebrities were taken to Colorado where they talked to lots of people about pot.  They toured pot farms and went to the specialist shops where they tried many different kinds of smokes and eats.  They were older celebrities—I would say the average age was middle fifties—so their giggling and fooling around was quite entertaining.  After their fascinating and picturesque tour was over, they were asked the big question:

     

    “Would you recommend that pot be legalised in Britain?” 

     

    I was sure their answer would be yes.  But to my amazement, each one had exactly the same answer. “After all we have seen and experienced on this trip—the answer is no.”

    I agree.

    Lynn Green.

  • The Politics of Anger

    The Politics of Anger

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    I have been planning to write something about this for a long time, but have wondered if it would be wise to do so.  An article I read on the BBC news site a few days convinced me to go ahead and the Senate Committee hearings for the Supreme Court nominee has made it seem urgent.

    Here’s the relevant quote from the BBC article:

    Hawaii Democrat Mazie Hirono said “the men in this country” should “just shut up”.

    “Not only do women like Dr Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed,” she told a press conference.

    The press conference she spoke at was called so that Senator Hirono could comment on the charges that Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, made a clumsy, unwelcome and unsuccessful attempt to have sex with Christine Ford (now Professor Ford) when he was 17 and she was 15 years old and both had been drinking.

    Now the charges and Kavanaugh’s response have gone to the Senate committee and there have been more tears , shouting, anger and hostility.

    If you are reading this, you will probably be likely to side with Ford if you tend to be a progressive liberal in your political persuasions, but conservatives are likely to see Dr Ford’s statement as false or irrelevant.  What is going on with this humiliating process?  What is driving this polarization?  Something is driving the Senator to direct men to “just shut up” and to assert that “women should be believed”.  It’s pretty obvious that her position is not consistent with our established understanding of truth or justice.  What would happen in our courts if all women were automatically believed and men could not speak?

    Why would an intelligent woman make such a foolish statement?  She has enough life experience to know that the question of who is more likely to lie or tell the truth is not related in any way to sexual identity.  What is the origin of such unreasonable thinking?

    I am convinced that anger is a major factor in our political life.  And that is not a good thing! To further illustrate the point, while I was writing this, an angry woman cornered Senator Flake in an elevator during a break in the Senate Committee hearings and berated him for not immediately taking Dr. Ford’s side.

    Anger has roots.  It doesn’t usually start as anger; it starts as hurt, and hurt is an unavoidable aspect of life.

    Sometimes, the hurt has a systemic dimension to it.  Few people are more disadvantaged than the Dalits in India.  Dalits, or untouchables, are born into a caste that is at the very bottom of a stratified social system.  They are discriminated against and deprived of opportunity at every stage of life and that will not change until the dominant religious system changes.  Amazingly, though, you can find Dalits who have a positive outlook and have overcome all the odds to make a successful and happy life for themselves.

    More often hurt comes, not from systemic injustice, but from personal encounters with other people and it therefore has little or no systemic root.  I am ashamed when I think of “Raymond” who was in my class when I was 9 and 10 years old.  Raymond came from a family who lived on a very poor and small farm in the nearby mountains.  They did not have running water and had very few clothes.  Raymond rarely washed and wore the same clothes day after day.  He smelled.  He was also the slowest learner in the class.  Raymond had no friends in our class but he had many mockers.  As far as I can remember, no one ever stood up for Raymond.  My shame now is that I didn’t stand up for him either; I was one of the mockers.

    I can’t remember ever seeing Raymond again after we all moved on from grade-school to junior-high school.  I wonder how he coped.  Did he grow up to be well adjusted and happy, or did our cruelty leave permanent, distorting scars on him? To put it another way, did Raymond find the grace to forgive his tormentors and rise above the cruel treatment, or did his hurt turn to anger and his anger to violence?

    I can empathize with women who have been subjected to sexual assault.  I have listened to, counselled and prayed for many victims of sexual assault by strangers or friends or family members.  I know that sexual assault alters a woman’s life from that point on.

    I recently had a conversation on this subject with a therapist who, since she was a woman, could say what men cannot say these days.  She said, “I have also been disgusted to see many women use sexual attraction as a tool or weapon in the work place, but you can’t say that in the current climate.”  It seems that sexuality is used as a weapon these days by both men and women, though the power has usually rested more with the men.  Is it now shifting to the women?  Will they be able to get even because we all feel obliged to believe the claims of every accusing woman?

    Hurt has turned to anger and anger is dominating our public discourse.  Truth and justice are the victims.  That is why forgiveness is such an important alternate pathway following hurt.

    These are the two competing pathways available to us: forgiveness leading to the development of strong and admirable character—or nursing the hurt until it becomes anger.  The path of hurt becoming anger makes us vulnerable to exploitation by more powerful people with their own agendas.  There are many who would like to marshal all the hurt into a powerful force to overthrow the democratic system we have developed over the generations.

    It seems to me that all human beings admire those who forgive and don’t become bitter and angry in spite of suffering great injustices.  Surely Nelson Mandela is a contender for the most admired man in modern history.  We were and are deeply impressed by his gentle and forgiving attitude to the men, and the system, who imprisoned and attempted for decades to humiliate and break his dignity.  His forgiveness and gracious voice enabled an entire nation to take a giant step towards justice when it seemed destined for a bloody civil war.

    On the other hand, we don’t generally admire angry people who see themselves as victims of “the system” or some particular aspect of it.  Other angry people might want to get behind the hurt and angry voice, but we know intuitively that anger cannot produce justice and peace.

    Politicians understand that the angry groups represent votes so they attempt to “speak the language” of the bigger angry groups.  If their goal is to get elected or re-elected they have to figure out how to appeal to as many of the larger or more outspoken groups as they can.  But there is a problem here.  The angry groups always have a louder voice than those who are not angry, so the politician can get behind a very vocal group and find they are losing votes from those who are quiet.

    These are the dilemmas of the current tumultuous, angry public square.  Doesn’t it make us all long for leaders who are not seeking to appeal to the emotions of the angry groups and who are motivated by selfless public service for the common good?  Where are the political leaders who have deep convictions about what is right and what is wrong and who will not deviate from that path and will not violate their well-developed conscience?

    If you have seen a member of that endangered, and possibly extinct, species do let me know!

    Lynn Green.

  • Nebuchadnezzar Alive and Well?

    Nebuchadnezzar Alive and Well?

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    Have you been following the rise of Xi Jinping?  He is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, President of the People’s Republic of China and Chairman of the Central Military Commission.  He is also known as the Paramount Leader, or the Core Leader of China.  As has been said many times, he is the most powerful leader of China since Chairman Mao.

    The New Zealand Herald explained, “China’s Communist Party doesn’t like difference. So it has set about eradicating any trace of it among its 1.38 billion population.

    “First they moved on Tibet. Its ancient spirituality and unique identity has been suppressed for decades. Its remaining leadership has long since been co-opted by the Party.

    “China’s Christian community has also long been a source of embarrassment. The Bible has been banned. Crosses must not be displayed in public. Its leadership must be approved by the Communist Party. Its teachings must now conform to Party ideals, news.com.au reports.

    “ But, for the moment, Beijing has another ancient community in its sights: the Uighurs. China invaded the East Turkestan Republic in 1949. It’s now named Xinjiang province, bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

    Several other media outlets have reported that up to a million Uighurs are in prison camps, primarily because they practice Islam.

    Sometimes we think Christians are the only ones being persecuted for their faith, but the Chinese Communist Party does not limit its restrictions to Christians.  They are out to eradicate all faith.  President Xi has made it very clear that no Communist Party member can practice any religion.

    I have had the opportunity recently to ask several Chinese citizens about these developments and it seems clear to them that their President wants absolute loyalty to himself.  Shades of Caesar, or Kim Jong-un!

    What do we make of this aspiration to be venerated as a God?  For ordinary people like me—or you, I assume—the idea of wanting to be worshipped is preposterous.  But I suppose that is because we have never been even close to enough power to awaken that ambition.  But a quick over-view of history confirms that powerful men (not usually women) often want more and more loyalty, then adulation, then worship.  It illustrates that human pride knows no bounds.

    Or perhaps it illustrates that recognition by others or even their worship can never satisfy the hunger for assurance that we are significant.  We could call it the Nebuchadnezzar syndrome.

    You can read the first 6 chapters of the book of Daniel, in the Bible, in less than 30 minutes and it provides a fascinating study into the search for power and then worship.  Variations on the theme have been played out countless times in human history.  In some cases, the stage has been huge—as with Caesar, or Nebuchadnezzar, but it happens in smaller circles as well.  It takes the form of leaders who will not stand for any criticism or variance from their views.

    In the end though, the over-riding truth was declared by Nebuchadnezzar himself in Daniel 4:37.  He had just recovered from God’s judgment on his pride: seven years of insanity, living as an animal.  What had he learned?

    “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and glorify and honour the King of Heaven.  All his acts are just and true, and he is able to humble the proud.”

    May all who exercise any authority over others TAKE NOTE!

    Lynn Green.