#unless they deliberately urged others to misuse it

[empress-hancock]

Something that I think is very important to keep in mind regarding the argument that “this objective observation can be used in a bad way so you shouldn’t say it” is something my archaeology professor brought up to our class a few years ago. She talked about how limiting that argument is to the spread of information, and she gave this example:

A team of anthropologists published a study discussing lactose intolerance and its relation to regions across the world. The fact was, many nations populated predominantly by non-white people had higher rates of lactose intolerance. They published this study as nothing more than an objective observation, and discussed the influence that the behaviors and eating habits of generations centuries before contributed to this modern day pattern. Some white supremacists then took this paper and started parading it around as “proof” that white people are superior.

The questions we must ask ourselves regrading this circumstance are as such; are the archaeologists at fault for publishing the study? Should they have kept it to themselves to prevent this? Are they responsible for predicting the responses to their study and taking steps to prevent any ridiculous claim made based on it? Is their publication of objective fact dangerous because other people with nefarious motivations may use it to their own advantage? And finally, how would withholding basic information simply because someone might attempt to twist it to uphold their chosen narrative affect the world and the spread of information as a whole?

#sharing objective information is not handing a key to those with ill intent #it is like handing everyone a piece of metal because they need it. and while some do something worthwhile with it. a few may choose to #carve it into a key. but the people sharing the information can’t be held responsible for what others choose to do with it #unless they deliberately urged others to misuse it

[thegodthief]

A week ago, I dreamt that I had wandered into a bar on some back street in some forgotten part of a town that never existed. None of the patrons looked up at me as I asked the bartender for a bottle of "fancy water", and yes, I'll pay the exorbitant price because my GI tract will likely not appreciate the local flavor but I am very thirsty.

The bartender laughed at me but also thanked me for being aware of my limitations because it meant our interactions would be "a lot cleaner" than what most tourists leave for them to handle. As we threw scatological puns at each other, I didn't notice an old man approaching me on my right side until he had reached out and grabbed my right hand the moment I had let go of the bottle of fancy water.

He turned my hand palm up and quickly ran his thumb over the pad of mine. "Subtle, but it's there." He traced his left index finger over the palm. "Clean. Cool. Too cool." He pressed the tip of his finger into a certain spot on my palm.

A sudden rage inflamed me from within and I nearly lost my will and my sight to the soul-chewing urge to clock him back to the tables. He studied my face even as I quickly shoved the feelings back down. I knew where those feelings came from and why they were triggered by that press.

I didn't know how he knew of it.

"Your left hand, please." He had released my right hand and was now gesturing towards my left.

"Why didn't you take it the way you took my right?"

"Because I know what is holding your left hand, child, and I do not have leave as I did your right."

"I did not come here to start shit." I turned to the bartender and addressed him. "May I take the glass bottle with me? I don't think it is prudent for me to stay if the regulars are going to treat me like an exhibit."

The bartender looked between me and the old man. "Yes, you may take the glass bottle with you since it's only water. But... you may also want to hear this particular regular out. Yes, he's a bit of a perv and he is certainly up to something, but he won't cross a boundary unless you give him permission to."

"Deliberately triggering a rage response isn't crossing a boundary?"

"Not when it was within his right to do so in the first place. Take a look around. You're not in your world right now. The rules you are used to aren't the rules that are enforced here. At the very least, consider what governs your right hand, what governs your left hand, and why would he have full rights to one but must ask permission for the other?"

"I don't even know who the fuck he is, or how he knew about... that. Unless... someone told him... but who would?" Who could?

I looked around the bar. It looked like any other bar I've hung out at during the off times. Cracks in the tile and rips in the seats. Table edges worn down by use, abuse, and misuse. The bar likely has a reputation for being a poor place for tourists and a prime place for crime, when the reality is it is a prime place for the locals, a poor place for influencers, and a perfect place for grifters to bring their marks for everyone to watch.

The bar didn't give any indication that there was any supernatural activity going on. I suspected I was dreaming, but there was nothing out of the ordinary that would confirm if I was or reveal if I wasn't.

I looked at the palm of my right hand. There was nothing to indicate there was anything special. Even the redness that came from his gentle press had already faded. Just my hand and all its creases, calluses, and scars.

What governs my right hand... or really... what governs the spot that the old man pressed. I didn't want to think about that so of course, I considered what governs my left hand. I decided I didn't want to think about that either. I took the bottle of water and turned to leave the bar.

The old man's hand was suddenly resting on my right hand as I tried to press myself away from the bar. "Please. A moment. Come sit with me, child. I don't bite. You can always go home at any time. But once you leave this bar, there's no telling if you will ever come back here again."

The spot on my right palm heated suddenly, as if a candle flame was trying to erupt through the skin. It reminded me of another analogy, one that I have told no one, and I realized he knew of that already.

I pulled my hand out from under his and looked at the edge of the bar my palm had pushed against. What I saw there confirmed that I was dreaming. "Since you can't cross a boundary unless I give you leave, I reserve the right to treat you like the Good Folk. If that would give you offense, speak now so I may leave you in peace."

He laughed. "The hand may be cool, but the mind has been tempered. Some. That would not give me offense, but I may laugh a lot at you. I am not of their kind, though I know of them."

I followed him to a corner table set away from the restrooms, the back rooms, and any desirable light. This is a table for those who do not want to be bothered. Cramped against the corner of the room with only a dingy light to illuminate the table.

Somehow, I saw everything clearly.

We sat across each other. I noticed he had a leather bag at his feet. My small satchel was hanging off my belt. It has been a long while since I have seen it in my dreams and I wondered if I was going to start wandering again.

"Now, your left hand, please."

"What is your intent and do you ask to view or to take?"

"Oh, if you think my play is that obvious then you have missed too many lessons, child. My intent is to examine your hand, to view, but I will need to touch it to examine it properly. I will not hurt you, nor will I take anything from you."

I placed my left hand not in his waiting right hand, but flat upon the table with my palm turned up. He laughed low to himself and felt the pads and ridges of my fingers and palm.

"Ah, there's the twin to the right thumb. You read cards and are brutal with your shuffling. No marks upon the palm. A shadow is wrapped around this finger, but it is not given to me to read. Your left hand is clean. Surprising. I would have thought your rebellious streak would have manifested itself indelibly by now. There's still time, I suppose."

He moved his touch from my hand to my wrist. "Now, the stain upon your arm, on the literal other hand..."

I pulled my hand away from the table and rested my hand on my lap. "If you're going to cop a feel, there are safer ways to do so. What do you want with me, old man?"

"Finish your water and let the boy take the bottle. I need the table clear before I answer."

I was suddenly aware of a boy, no older than nine years of age, standing close enough to the table to pay attention but far enough to not be noticed. I drank the rest of the cold mineral water and handed the empty bottle out to the boy. He rushed forward, bowed as he took the empty bottle, and disappeared towards the back of the bar.

"You have lost yourself, child. You have your own well to drink from but you spend yourself to drink from other people's cups. You know you are dreaming, and that was a bottle of fancy water and that wasn't a bottle of fancy water. Have the words rotted so much within you that you don't realize an allegory when it touches your lips?"

He pulled small boxes from his bag and stacked them on the table. "You read cards. They are comfortable in your hands. You are brutal to many of your decks, with your rough palms and too-strong fingers. Your occupation is such that you can't adorn yourself with long manicures and fancy decorations. Your fingernails turn at a certain length, the result of continued interactions with the scribe's tools, modern and ancient."

"But, at the end of the day, or the start of it, depending on your mood... you read cards. I know you read tarot, your Hierophant told me of such. Ah. There. I have said too much. Do you recognize me now?"

I had recognized him when he pressed that spot in my right hand, but I didn't want to acknowledge the understanding. But now the reference makes it unavoidable.

"Ay, Signor, I recognize you."

"Good. Then you know there is no need to be coy with me and that what would defend you from [the Sweet Lights] would not defend you from me in the slightest. Tell me, why are your hands clean?"

I looked at my hands. Aged. Scarred. Clean. "I have been afraid... I am afraid, that if I go too far, I will not be able to return. I am a scavenger in the midst of predators. I am afraid that if I work to my potential, I will not survive the consequences."

"All that lives is born to die, child. There is neither comfort nor safety in cowardice."

I stared at the collection of decks between us on the table. "I am afraid that... I am afraid. Of many things. But mostly, that it's too late to do anything about it."

His voice floated over the table. "Here. Take a deck of cards. Any deck."

I looked over the stacks of cards. There were casino poker decks and cheap barajas. There were indie-published tarot decks and museum replicas of historical decks. There were worn decks wrapped in yellowed handkerchiefs and new decks in sealed foil tuck boxes. A glutton of decks, more than I could ever hope to use, were piled high on the table.

I wondered how they all fit in the small bag I saw at his feet.

"A deck for what purpose, Signor? To read? To play?"

"Is there a difference?"

"Well, yes, there is." The history of tarot and playing cards blurred my sight for a moment. I realized I was confusing myself. "I think there is. I'm not sure anymore."

"Look at me, child." I obeyed his command. "You know my history, tell me, when did I ever have any of these in my hands?" He gestured over the table.

"Never, Signor."

"Then what does it matter what deck you take now?"

"Because, Signor, I do not know the intent that you want me to take up a deck for, or with."

He laughed again. "When did you stop looking for yourself and start demanding to be led? This does not become you. Okay, let us begin with the basics, then. You know my history, of my deeds, real and imagined. Tell me, then, when I needed to do something, which do you think happened? Did I wait for the perfect tool to come to my hands or did I perfect the use of whatever I had within reach?"

The insult stung because it was correct. I did not react to it, but smothered my shame by trying to pass the impromptu test. "By perfecting the use of whatever you had within reach."

"Go and do likewise. Before you take a deck, I am going to tell you something you already know. You have all the tools and resources you need within reach. You just need to lift your head and see with your eyes and reach with your hands. Now, take a deck."

Without looking, I reached blindly and picked up a deck of cards. Immediately, all the other decks disappeared off the table. It was a deck of casino poker cards. It was a deck of baraja española. It was a deck of bootleg souvenir cards. It was a fancy art deck never meant to be used. It was not a tarot deck.

"Read my cards."

I looked up at the old man. He was sitting back in his chair, stroking his beard smugly even as he just asked me to do the impossible.

"But... you don't... that's not... It's an anachronism! There's no..." I bit my tongue with the force I used to shut myself up as I realized what had been holding me back.

"Hmm? What's that? Were you going to say something?"

I pressed my lips to remain silent and shook my head.

"Surely the great truth you are choking on must be important for it to burden your hands so heavily. Better to reveal it so I may be taught something new, yes?"

I was choking on the word, but like hell was I about to spew it into the old man's face. I'd rather cut my own throat with the cards, first.

He watched me with silent mirth as I struggled to regain my composure. Eventually, I was able to chew the word into syllables and swallow them down, sound by sound. Only when the word was gone from my mouth did I feel safe enough to speak again.

"I almost spoke out of turn, my apologies, Signor. Read your cards, you say? And how do I go about doing that? And for whom shall I read?"

He stood, transforming as he did into a visage I am more familiar with. He tapped the table and I was gently held still and silent. "You have everything you need to learn. You have everything you need to read. You do not need to spend any money chasing someone else's ideals. You can cultivate your own in the safety of your own home."

"This week, you will receive a demonstration of my cards. The same word you almost insulted me with is the same word that will give you leave to do the same. Take up what you put down and add my cards to your arsenal of tools. But do not leave them clean. My cards are not meant to be admired. My cards, my tools, are meant to be used. They have been placed in your hands for this."

"Stain your hands by work, and you will wear down your fear. Keep your hands clean and your fear will keep them bound. Read my cards."

He passed me to leave the bar and I found myself unable to turn to watch him. Only after I heard the entrance door close was I able to move. Instead of standing or reaching for the deck I had chosen, I closed my eyes and fell into a deeper sleep.

~~~

The following day, a post describing the use of his cards was in my social media feeds. At once, I remembered the dream and his references. At once, I remembered which books I have and which playing card decks that have remained fallow and forgotten because they are so plain and ubiquitous. At once, I remembered the word that I have been using to justify my inaction even as I lament my solitude.

I spent much of the week transcribing the collections of instructions to my notes. I found many of the instructions to be incomplete or overly complicated. They would need to be adapted to fit the circumstances that I am in. The fear that I was doing things wrong or without tradition kept trying to creep up on me. Each time, I would remember my outburst at the table and how I used the word "anachronism" to justify doing nothing.

I do not have a perfect set of tools.

I do have the ability to perfect the tools I do have within reach.

And I guess, that is the most traditional thing I could do after all.

It was after that moment of acceptance that I closed my eyes for five hot seconds. I was suddenly seated at the small table in the bar again. Signor was seated quietly across from me. I was aware of the presence of a young boy nearby.

"A story was told to you, and so you carry on another day. Tell this story."

And so, it is told.

#dream #Will be posted to the main blog tomorrow. #Long post.

[thisdaynews]

SERAP Drags Nigerian Government, Military To ICC Over Shooting Of #EndSARS Protesters.

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/serap-drags-nigerian-government-military-to-icc-over-shooting-of-endsars-protesters/

SERAP Drags Nigerian Government, Military To ICC Over Shooting Of #EndSARS Protesters.

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sent a petition to Mrs Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (ICC), urging her to “promptly investigate reports that Nigerian authorities, military, and some politicians have used/ and are using thugs, soldiers and security agents to intimidate, harass, attack and kill #EndSARS peaceful protesters in several parts of Nigeria, including Abuja, Lagos, Edo, Osun, Plateau, and Kano states.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

SERAP urged Mrs Bensouda to “push for those suspected to be responsible for these crimes, mostly security officials, soldiers, some politicians and other actors who directly or indirectly have individually and/or collectively contributed to the attacks, deaths, and injuries, and are therefore complicit in the crimes, to be tried by the ICC.”

In the petition dated 21 October 2020 and signed by SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare, the organization said: “The Nigerian authorities over the years have been unwilling and/or unable to prosecute suspected perpetrators of the killing of protesters, which in turn has promoted a culture of impunity and emboldened authorities, the military, politicians and their accomplices who continue to commit human rights crimes against protesters.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

SERAP said: “The violent attacks on peaceful protesters in Lekki, Alausa, and other parts of the country suggest the lack of political will by the government of President Muhammadu Buhari to respect people’s human rights, including the rights to life, dignity of the human person, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.”

According to SERAP: “The repeated attacks on peaceful protesters suggest the misuse of the military and security agents by the Nigerian authorities and the failure to apply criminal sanctions to suspected perpetrators.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

The petition, read in part: “Without accountability for these serious human rights crimes against peaceful protesters, the victims will continue to be denied access to justice, and impunity of perpetrators will remain widespread and the result will continue to be a vicious cycle of violence against Nigerians.”

“Nigerian authorities, military, and some politicians have failed abysmally to ensure the enjoyment of the rights to life, dignity, freedom of expression, and peaceful protest by the people. These events suggest criminal conduct within the jurisdiction of the ICC.”

“SERAP believes that violence against protesters gives rise to the individual criminal responsibility of those suspected of perpetrating and/or failing to address the problem. as entrenched in the Rome Statute.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“The incidents of intimidation, harassment attacks, and killings of peaceful protesters also strike at the integrity of the democratic process and seriously undermine President Muhammadu Buhari’s oft-expressed commitment to human rights and the rule of law, and to end impunity of perpetrators.”

“Persistent attacks on peaceful protesters by Nigerian authorities, military, security agents and some politicians seriously undermine the people’s right to participate in their own government, and have resulted in serious human rights crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC.”

“Ending impunity for attacks on peaceful protesters would improve respect for human rights in the country, and empower the citizens to hold their leaders to account. Unless the citizens are freely allowed to exercise their right to protest, the pervasive culture of impunity will continue to flourish in the country.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“The government of President Muhammadu Buhari has repeatedly failed to address these grave human rights violations, which amount to crimes against humanity within the jurisdiction of the ICC.”

“The use of thugs and soldiers against peaceful protesters have resulted in several deaths and injuries. Nigerian authorities have failed and/or neglected to prevent these crimes against peaceful protesters.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“Nigeria is a state party to the Rome Statute and deposited its instrument of ratification on 27 September 2001. It is therefore important to promptly investigate allegations of killings and other attacks on peaceful protesters if the ICC is to contribute to preventing escalations in the coming days, months and years.”

“The CCTV monitoring cameras at the Lekki toll gate and street lights were reportedly turned off before soldiers opened fire on peaceful protesters. This suggests a deliberate ploy by the authorities to cover up these crimes against humanity.”

“Nigerian authorities, military, and politicians have failed to understand the seriousness of killings of peaceful protesters, and have been complicit in the commission of these crimes.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“According to our information, Nigerian authorities, military, and some politicians have used thugs, the police and soldiers to intimidate, harass, attack and shoot at peaceful protesters campaigning against police brutality across several parts of the country including Abuja, Lagos, Edo, Oyo, Osun, Plateau, and Kano states.”

“The protests began on October 8, 2020, calling on the authorities to abolish an abusive police unit called the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS). Just last night, several people taking part in the #EndSARS peaceful protests at the Lekki Toll Gate, and Alausa in Lagos were reportedly shot dead or wounded by soldiers. Several journalists covering the protests have been severely attacked.”

“Nigerian authorities have shot tear gas, water cannons, and live rounds at protesters, reportedly killing at least 60 people and wounding several others. According to Amnesty International, on October 10, Jimoh Isiaka was allegedly killed when police opened fire to disperse protesters in Ogbomosho, Oyo state.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“At least two other people were killed the following day in protests against Isiaka’s death. On October 12, police officers in Surulere, Lagos, reportedly opened gunfire to disperse protesters, killing 55-year-old Ikechukwu Ilohamauzo.”

“On October 15, the Nigerian army warned ‘subversive elements and troublemakers’ to desist and offered to ‘support the civil authority in whatever capacity to maintain law and order.’ The Nigerian military has also been complicit in human rights abuses, including the use of lethal force against peaceful protesters.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“Nigeria has a long history of systematic and widespread attacks on peaceful protesters especially since President Muhammadu Buhari assumed power in May 2015. Nigerian authorities have failed to ensure justice for the killings of protesters. Hundreds of members of the Shia Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) were killed by the Nigerian Army in Zaria, Kaduna State on December 12, 2015.”

“The Rome Statute in article 7 defines “crime against humanity” to include “inhumane acts causing great suffering or injury,” committed in a widespread or systematic manner against a civilian population. The common denominator of crimes against humanity is that they are grave affronts to human security and dignity.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“The consequences of persistent violence, attacks, and killings of peaceful protesters in Nigeria are similar to those of the offences in article 7(1). Senior government officials, the military, and some politicians know well or ought to know that their failure to prevent these crimes will violate Nigerians’ human rights and dignity.”

“SERAP considers the apparent failure of the government of President Muhammadu Buhari to prevent widespread and systematic attacks on peaceful protesters and the killing of protesters as amounting to complicity under the Rome Statute. SERAP, therefore, believes that the widespread and systemic nature of the problem fits the legal requirements of violence against the Nigerian people and crime against humanity.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“The national authorities of the Court’s States Parties form the first line of defense in addressing the crime against humanity during protests, as they shoulder the primary responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of the crime. But Nigerian authorities have been unwilling or unable to address the problem of attacks on peaceful protesters, and end the crimes against humanity.”

“SERAP urges you to investigate the killing of protesters, and other attacks perpetrated against protesters, and if there is sufficient admissible evidence prosecute officials, soldiers and any politicians for allegations of killing and violence against protesters, as provided for under the Rome Statute, and other relevant treaties, to deter the crimes and end impunity in the country.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“SERAP believes that substantial grounds exist to warrant the intervention of the Prosecutor in this case. Under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the Court is a court of last resort, expected to exercise its jurisdiction only if states themselves are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate and prosecute international crimes.”

“Also, pursuant to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor has the power to intervene in a situation under the jurisdiction of the Court if the Security Council or state parties refer a situation or if the information is provided from other sources such as the information SERAP is providing in this case.”

SERAP, therefore, urged the ICC to:

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

1. Urgently commence an investigation proprio motu on the widespread and systematic problem of attacks on protesters, with a view to determining whether these amount to violence against the Nigerian people and crime against humanity within the Court’s jurisdiction. In this respect, we also urge you to invite representatives of the Nigerian government, the military to provide written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court, so that the Prosecutor is able to conclude since available information whether there is a reasonable basis for an investigation, and to submit a request to the Pre-Trial Chamber for authorization of an investigation;

2. Bring to justice those suspected to be responsible for widespread and systematic attacks on peaceful protesters across the country;

3. Urge the Nigerian government to fulfil its obligations under the Rome Statute to cooperate with the ICC; including complying with your requests to arrest and surrender suspected perpetrators of the widespread and systematic crime of violence against peaceful protesters, testimony, and provide other support to the ICC;

4. Compel the Nigerian authorities to ensure that Nigerians are afforded their right to life, dignity, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, and ensure reparations to victims, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and guarantee of non-repetition

[nolimitsongrace]

January 12: Abstain From All Appearance of Evil

Abstain From All Appearance of EvilJanuary 12, 2020

Abstain from all appearance of evil. — 1 Thessalonians 5:22

When I was getting started in the ministry, God blessed me with an opportunity to serve as associate pastor to an older man of God who taught me many important principles for my life and ministry. One of the most important principles he taught me — one that I now require of every leader who works in our ministry — is the necessity of abstaining from all appearance of evil.

When I first heard this pastor’s rules, I thought they were a little overboard. For instance, men on the pastoral staff could not meet alone with members of the opposite sex, counsel a woman alone behind closed doors, or ride alone in a car with a woman other than one’s wife. I thought these types of rules made life very inconvenient. But the pastor was very strong on never doing anything that gave a wrong impression or that opened a door for criticism or accusation.

I’ve been in the ministry many years and know of numerous times when pastors were accused of inappropriate behavior. The behavior was sometimes real and at other times imagined, but the opportunity for accusation was almost always the result of carelessness in keeping certain boundaries. So I now agree wholeheartedly that there is great wisdom in adhering to restrictions like the ones my senior pastor required in my early days of ministry. By taking this cautious approach, men and women of God are able to steer clear of insinuations and accusations. This, however, should apply not only to ministers of the Gospel, but to every believer who cares about the integrity of his or her witness.

*[If you started reading this from your email, begin reading here.]

The verse that my senior pastor used as the basis for his rules, and the verse I use in my own ministry to provide guidance to our team on such issues, was First Thessalonians 5:22. In this verse, the apostle Paul wrote, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” Today I would like for us to take a deeper look to see what we can learn from this key verse in the Word of God.

Paul began by saying, “Abstain.…” The word “abstain” is from the Greek word apecho. This word means to deliberately withdraw from; to stay away from; to put distance between oneself and something else; or to intentionally abstain. The word apecho is also used in First Peter 2:11, where Peter wrote, “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.” In this case, the word “abstain” — apecho — means to deliberately refrain from something; hence, it could be translated, “…I urge you to refrain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.” The implication is that believers should put distance between themselves and temptations of the flesh and soul.

There are other examples of the word apecho in the New Testament that also demonstrate how this word depicts some type of distance between objects. For example:

In Luke 7:6, the word apecho is used to describe the physical distance between Jesus and the house of the centurion.

In Matthew 15:8 and Mark 7:6, the word apecho is used to describe human hearts that are hardened and therefore distant and far from God.

In Acts 15:20, the word apecho is used when James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, gave instructions that the new Gentile believers should abstain from food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from the consumption of raw blood. In that verse, the word apecho is so strong that it makes a demand on the new Gentile believers to withdraw from and permanently terminate their contact with these things. It is actually a command to refrain, to desist, to discontinue, and to terminate any further contact with them, and it calls for a permanent halt to the practice of allowing such contact.

Keeping this in mind, we know that when Paul told us, “Abstain from all appearance of evil,” he was strongly urging you and me to put distance between ourselves and any appearance of evil. This Greek word apecho demands that we do not allow even the smallest hint of inappropriate behavior or any act that could be misinterpreted or viewed as being immoral or unethical. There is no doubt about it — the word apecho calls for extreme caution and vigilance.

The word “from” is the Greek word apo, which means away. However, because the word apecho had already been used, meaning to put distance between yourself and some other thing, it means the word apo was really not needed — unless Paul intended to place very strong emphasis on this point. By adding the word apo, it makes the point abundantly clear that believers should not only put distance between themselves and what is obviously evil, but they must also put a great deal of distance between themselves and whatever fits this description, even in appearance.

The word “appearance” is the Greek is eidos, a word that is only used five times in the New Testament, but depicts an outward form, visible appearance, a likeness, or a resemblance of something. Therefore, Paul was telling us, “It doesn’t matter what you think or what you know to be true; what matters is what appears to be true in the eyes of others.” Even if there is a small chance that someone may mistake your actions as evil or if what you do even resembles something evil or wrong, you need to stay as far away from it as you possibly can.

What makes this even more serious is the fact that this word “evil,” the Greek word poneros, is often used in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament to describe actions that are ultimately damaging to a person’s testimony and reputation (see Deuteronomy 22:14). There is no doubt that Paul was telling us that we must do everything in our ability to put a lot of distance between ourselves and anything that would bring harm or injury to our reputation or to our godly witness in front of other people.

Think about it! How many people do you know who did something that they “thought” was all right to do — but other people saw their action and misinterpreted it, and as a result, it stained their reputation? I’m talking about situations like pastors being accused of immoral behavior because they had close contact with a member of the opposite sex who wasn’t their spouse. Maybe nothing wrong occurred, but what people saw resembled something bad, and the pastor was therefore falsely accused. This is why it is a good rule never to counsel a member of the opposite sex alone! By using common sense and refraining from ever being in such a situation where you could be accused, you have put distance between yourself and potential accusations.

Have you ever heard a rumor about a preacher who wrongly used money that was intended for the work of the ministry? The truth may be that the minister never did anything wrong at all with those funds, but because his actions gave a wrong impression to people who were watching, what he did resulted in a damaged testimony. Preachers can avoid these types of accusations by determining never to touch ministry funds personally and by establishing a bookkeeping system that demands accountability. Just by using common sense and choosing to refrain from activities that might give a mistaken impression, those in the ministry can put great distance between themselves and suspicious-looking situations. In so doing, there will never be room for accusation that they misuse ministry funds or participate in any questionable activity or behavior.

As I said, this principle of refraining from every appearance of evil isn’t pertinent only to ministers. It applies to every believer who wants to maintain a godly reputation. The fact is, if your testimony in the eyes of others is important to you, you must make the decision to withdraw from, refrain from, desist from, discontinue, and permanently terminate any action that gives the appearance of evil. Although this may require a new set of rules for your life, you will be taking vital steps toward preserving your testimony and godly reputation.

How much is your reputation — and the reputation of the Holy One you represent — worth to you? If you want to maintain a good name and testimony in front of others, you must refrain from any action, language, or contact that gives the appearance of evil. And this is not just my suggestion — it is the commandment of God found in First Thessalonians 5:22.

By understanding the Greek words in this verse, we can interpret First Thessalonians 5:22 to read:

“You need to terminate contact with any place, action, language, or relationship that gives people the impression that you are doing something wrong. It doesn’t matter what you think is acceptable; what matters is what other people perceive. So put a great deal of distance between yourself and anything you are doing that people could misinterpret and that could thereby stain your reputation.”

So many people have forfeited their testimony because they didn’t use their heads and think about how their actions might be perceived by others! Perception is often reality in the eye of the beholder.

Even if you know that you’re doing nothing wrong at all, the fact remains that people don’t see your heart — they see your actions. If they see you do something that appears immoral or unethical, you will likely be judged by what they perceive.

If you’re like me, your highest desire is to glorify Jesus in this life in all you say and do. That’s why our hearts can agree with what Paul says in this verse — that it’s always best to “abstain from all appearance of evil” because we are His representatives on this earth!

MY PRAYER FOR TODAY

Lord, I understand that Your Word commands me to break off and desist from doing anything that would give the impression of evil to people who are looking at my life from the outside. Today I have a new and a fuller realization of the great impact my actions can have on my reputation and on other people. Please forgive me for doing things that could be misconstrued, misunderstood, or misinterpreted. I am truly sorry. Help me today to put safeguards in my life that will help me to abstain from all appearances of evil from this point forward.

I pray this in Jesus’ name!

MY CONFESSION FOR TODAY

I confess that I use common sense in the way that I conduct my life. I am thoughtful about my actions; I am careful to remember that people are watching me; and I am led by the Holy Spirit in how I conduct my life. Because I want to maintain a godly reputation, I care about what people think of me. I will not do anything that would cast a shadow on Jesus’ name, my name, or my testimony as a child of God. With God’s help, I will live a life that is free of accusation!

I declare this by faith in Jesus’ name!

QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER

Have you ever known someone who stained his testimony because contact with a place, action, language, or relationship gave people the impression that he or she was doing something inappropriate?

As you look back on that particular situation now, what steps could that person have taken to circumvent the accusations and charges that were brought against him or her?

Are there any areas or actions in your life right now that others might perceive to be questionable? Be honest with yourself! What are those areas, and what steps should you begin to take to put distance between yourself and future accusation?

[hellofastestnewsfan]

A rising generation of Americans has never known peace.

Very soon, in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria or Somalia or Libya or perhaps elsewhere, an 18-year-old man or woman will be deployed by the United States military to risk his or her life in a War on Terror that began before they were even born.

Already, every single spring, roughly 3.5 million high-school graduates reach adulthood with no memory of a time when their country wasn’t waging multiple wars.

This undemocratic Forever War is a civic disaster.

The United States is at war in so many places, against so many groups, that the majority of citizens would struggle to name half of them—and no reader can name all of them, unless an official with access to highly classified information is among us, because the identities of some of the groups the United States is fighting are state secrets.

Last year, when four American fighters died in Niger, multiple United States senators declared their surprise that the military they oversee had troops deployed in that country.

The American public elected successive presidents, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, who expressed skepticism of foreign wars that they did not then end. Members of the U.S. Congress have been unwilling to endorse several of the wars that successive presidents waged anyway, despite their unpopularity and illegality. Last Friday, one American was killed and four wounded in fighting in Somalia, though it is unlikely that a proposal to put boots on the ground there would pass.

The need for Congress to act—to rein in the president, to protect American blood and treasure, to preserve republican government, and to reassert its lawful, constitutional authority over war—has never been more urgent, with the single exception of the years of fighting in Vietnam, another conflict that began without a declaration of war and stretched across multiple presidencies, resulting in the deaths of 58,220 Americans.

To avert a like catastrophe, prominent Republicans and Democrats have been urging Congress to reassert itself on the matter of where the president is permitted to wage war and expressing their belief that the status quo undermines the rule of law.

President Trump’s saber-rattling only adds urgency to the question.

But incredibly, the most widely supported effort to improve on the  Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a resolution that has been stretched past the breaking point by successive presidents, would actually legalize war in all of the places it is presently being waged and radically increase the president’s ability to legally expand the Forever War.

Proposed by Senators Tim Kaine and Bob Corker, its radicalism approaches that of a constitutional amendment. Their new AUMF would subvert an article at the core of the Constitution, gutting a vital protection against tyranny devised by the Framers. It would authorize multiple existing wars without even debating them individually. It would empower Trump and his successors to unilaterally wage war in new countries, expand their ability to indefinitely detain prisoners without charges, and empower them to unilaterally kill individuals even inside the United States.

In opposition, the ACLU has declared, “It would be hard to overstate the depth and breadth of the dangers to the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights that the Corker-Kaine AUMF would cause … The Corker-Kaine AUMF would cause colossal harm to the Constitution’s checks and balances, would jeopardize civil liberties and human rights at home and abroad, would lead to a broad expansion of war without meaningful oversight, and would represent a sharp break from adherence to international law, including the United Nations Charter.”  

The Fox News host Andrew Napolitano declared in testimony to Congress that “the legislation would give the president far more powers than he has now, would directly violate Congress’s war-making powers by ceding them away to the president, would defy the Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of  giving  away core governmental  functions, would commit the U.S. to foreign wars without congressional and thus popular support, and would invite dangerous mischief by any president wanting to attack any enemy—real or imagined, old or new—for foreign or domestic political  purposes, whether American interests are at stake or not.”

And in his view it would be unconstitutional.

“Just because the branch of government that is losing power consents to that loss does not make it Constitutional,” he argued. “The Separation of Powers Doctrine was not written to preserve the power or the hegemony of the three branches for their own sake, but rather to preserve human liberty by keeping the branches at tension.”

Yet the law might well pass. And for that reason, while there is still time to stop it, the bill warrants the attention of every adult American, regardless of party or clique.

Before going further, it is important to understand exactly what the proposed law says, and why some well-meaning legislators believe that passing it is a prudent course.

The bill would authorize the president to wage ongoing wars against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda in Syria, the Haqqani Network, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb, in countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya.

The bill would create a way for the president to lawfully wage counterterrorism campaigns against those terrorist organizations in still other countries, and to add still other groups or individuals as “associated forces.”

More specifically, to wage war in a new country, or against a new group or person, Trump would merely have to notify Congress within 48 hours. Legislators would review his expansion of war and could vote to stop it—but that congressional “no” would be subject to a presidential veto, so it would effectively take a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate to stop any expansion of war. (Waging war against a new country would still be governed by the War Powers Resolution of 1973—not that presidents generally adhere to that law.)

It would repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization.

It would expand the list of those vulnerable to indefinite detention without charges or trial by applying a former National Defense Authorization Act to new groups.

For proponents, those provisions are attractive because they bring existing wars under the color of law; define what groups count as “associated forces” of al-Qaeda; force the president to notify Congress upon adding a new associated force—which doesn’t always happen now—and force a legislative debate; and guarantee no White House lawyer can misuse the Iraq War AUMF.

That isn’t nothing.

Kaine’s thinking is perhaps illuminated by an anecdote he related on the Senate floor last year while discussing the notification provision in his proposed law. In April of 2014, he said, the Department of the Navy solicited contractual bids for “personnel recovery, casualty evacuation, and search and rescue” in “high risk environments” in 14 countries: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Benin, Togo, and Tunisia.

“Only five of those 14 countries have ever been notified to Congress pursuant to war-powers letters, but we were planning to engage in casualty evacuation in connection with high-risk activities in all of these countries in Africa,” Kaine said. “I’d like a process that informs Congress and informs the public equal to what we put in contracting documents to inform military contractors.”

That would be nice. The oft-violated War Powers Resolution ought to do the trick already; still, a new law that forced public disclosure of all warring might prove useful. But even as the Corker-Kaine bill attempts to wrest new information about where the president is waging war, it undercuts Congress’s ability to do anything about it, as if gaining a bit of transparency is worth trading away the war power itself.

Senator Rand Paul has rightly objected that the bill flips the Constitution on its head. “This authorization transfers the power to name the enemy and its location from Congress to the president,” Paul observed. “Worse yet,” he added, “this authorization changes the nature of declaring war from an affirmative vote of a simple majority to a negative, supermajority vote to disapprove of presidential wars. So if the president defines a new associated force that our military will attack, Congress can only stop that president with a two-thirds vote to overcome his veto.”

Napolitano sharpened the point in testimony to Congress. “So a president with one-third plus one vote in either House of Congress can wage war on any target at any time the president chooses,” he fumed. “That is so contrary to what Madison intended, so contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution, so violative of the separation of powers as to be a rejection of the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. And none of you wants to reject that oath.”

The legal scholar Jonathan Turley most effectively underscored how anathema the proposal would be to the Framers who so deliberately vested the war power in Congress.

“This is one of the few points on which there was almost unanimity [at the Constitutional Convention],” he explained. “I say almost because Pierce Butler actually proposed to give this entire power to the president of the United States. He didn’t receive a second. He spoke to a room of Framers and made that proposal, and not a single one seconded that motion. That was one of the most important moments of our republic. That silence, the absence of a sound, shows where we began.”

And one needn’t care at all about the views of the Framers to see the dangerous implications of empowering the president today as the Corker-Kaine bill would do.

“Do I want my son going to war with al-Shabbab in Somalia?” Christopher Anders of the ACLU asked. “My son can’t find Somalia on a map,” he declared. “Probably very few people in this room know what al-Shabbab is.” Yet under the law being considered, “if the president wants to send 200,000 troops there and go all out in house-to-house fighting, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, he can do that.”

Or say, for instance, that President Trump wanted to invade Pakistan, a nuclear power, with a force of 50,000 American troops. Even after the reckless precedents that Obama set with the constitutionally dubious arguments he offered to justify his illegal intervention in Libya, and the similarly dubious arguments Trump offered to justify his illegal bombing of Syria, a ground invasion of Pakistan would be hugely difficult to justify without the imprimatur of Congress.

But if Corker-Kaine becomes law, Trump could simply order the invasion, then notify Congress that he intended to wage war in a new country where the Taliban operates. And he would be perfectly within the law to start deploying troops without advance permission or notification, and to keep doing so even if majorities in the House and Senate were against him, so long as even a third of either chamber declined to order him to reverse the expansion of the Forever War.

Now say Trump wanted to wage war in Mexico. He might do so within the law by declaring a drug cartel that trafficked in Afghan opium to be an associated force of the Taliban.

Hours after the first drone strikes fell on Ciudad Juarez, he could notify Congress that he was targeting a new associated force in a new country. Once again, a majority of Congress could vote against him without stopping the war. The law’s failure to exclude the United States as a country that the president can add, and language that allows individuals to be added as “associated forces,” even raises the specter of drone strikes or other targeted killings on American soil—something many today would consider not only unlawful, but an impeachable offense.

Little wonder that Turley considers the law worse than the current AUMF. “It will make this body a pedestrian to war,” he said. “It will put war-making on autopilot. And this law does not even have a sunset provision. It just goes on. Under the former AUMFs, we’ve gone through 17 years of war. Adopt this proposal and we’ll have 170 more. It will revise the Constitution without an amendment.”

At Just Security, Tess Bridgeman offers several changes to the legislation that would allow Congress to retain more control. “First and foremost,” she writes, “a new AUMF could explicitly state that it does not authorize the use of force against ‘associated forces’ beyond those named in the statute, and that the President must come back to Congress and seek authority to use force when necessary.”

The same should go for combat in new countries. And rather than requiring mere congressional debate on ongoing wars every four years, “the new AUMF should sunset in 4 years,” Bridgeman writes. “Congress can reauthorize force just as it reauthorizes other extraordinary authorities, and a decision not to do so should be taken seriously.” She concludes that “if Congress truly wants to reassert its role in authorizing military force, which I strongly believe it should do, it should not hand the President the permanent authority to expand the conflict unless a veto-proof supermajority can be mustered to stop him.”

There are those in Congress who agree. Representative Barbara Lee, the lone member of Congress to predict the Forever War that the post-9/11 AUMF ushered in, warned in an open letter, “I have grave concerns about the current proposal authored by Senator Bob Corker and Senator Tim Kaine that would continue our state of perpetual war.” Paul organized a hearing against the bill, where Senators Sanders, Lee, Udall, Peters, and Merkely shared their misgivings. But the fate of the proposal remains unclear.

from The Atlantic https://ift.tt/2y36dp1

#Blogger