OPINION Some local councils hold dim view of public speech By Leo A. Hohmann leo@wgbeacon.com It should be troubling to anyone who values free speech and democracy to watch the controlling spirit in which city council meetings are run in Hogansville and Grantville. In Hogansville, two citizens signed up to speak about a controversial billboard variance that would allow a local developer to bypass some of the regulations in the city’s sign ordinance. Signage is a big issue, a legitimate issue, that is being tackled, with public input, all over the country. Yet, in Hogansville the council seems to cast a wary eye on any citizen who dares to approach them with an opinion on the city’s business. Perhaps that’s why more citizens don’t approach them. The two citizens who signed up to speak on the variance, one for and one against, were limited to two minutes each. Since when did approaching our local government officials become so restrictive? Citizens must sign up to speak the week before the meeting, at which time they must tell the government what they wish to speak about and then they’ve got to figure out how to make an intelligent point in just two minutes. Grantville also has a time limit on citizen comments and often turns on a timer that ticks down the seconds until a loud “ding” interrupts the speaker. We’re not sure why listening to citizens voice their concerns or opinions on city business is so frightening to those who control the council meetings in Hogansville and Grantville. The stifling “two minute” rule has been selectively applied on public speakers, depending on the issue at hand. When an executive from MEAG calls to get his name on the agenda to address the council, nobody looks at their stopwatch. If a local citizen calls ahead to get placed on the agenda, the chairperson for the meeting may or may not invoke the two-minute rule. It apparently depends on what he or she wishes to speak about. If these councils insist on taking a narrow, restrictive view of free speech at their meetings, we urge them to at least go about it in a consistent and orderly fashion. This crass attitude toward their own citizenry was carried to extremes in Hogansville last Monday when Mildred Burdette got up to speak against the billboard variance. It was obvious that all members of the council had already made up their minds which way they were going to vote on this issue. Regardless of whether the council members have made up their minds, they are elected officials and should have to sit and suffer through all sides of an issue before they vote. That’s just part of the job. That’s democracy in action. It works in other cities, large and small, across this great nation. It would have been different if there had been 10 or 15 citizens signed up to speak on the billboards. Logic and reason would apply, and the citizens could understandably be limited (we’re still not sure two minutes is enough to make a point, though). But at the Dec. 4 meeting in Hogansville, there were only two people on the agenda to speak about the billboards, and the whole meeting only lasted 20 minutes! Were some members of the council afraid they might miss some Monday Night Football preview hype, or maybe a scheduled 8 p.m. dinner date in LaGrange? Why not let citizens have their say? At least give them five minutes. Two minutes sends a very clear message — “we’re not interested in what you have to say.” We should point out that not all who sit on these councils are for shutting down the voices of the public. Some have a sincere desire to operate the meetings on the basis of democratic principles of openness and fairness to all. Hopefully they will convince their colleagues on these councils that rule by intimidation and caprice usually backfires in the long run. The citizens should demand that it stop. After all, who is working for who in these towns? Some seem to have forgotten who their bosses are. Students we can all learn from By Leo A. Hohmann leo@wgbeacon.com Caitlyn Van Orden was managing editor of her high school newspaper, until two weeks ago. Recent issues of The Smoke Signal at East Coweta High have reported on everything you’d expect a school paper to report on, the exploits of the football team, test scores, student council elections and so forth. But some of the paper’s editorials ventured into more risky territory. One, written by Caitlyn, questioned why schools would want to promote beauty pageants that glorify girls’ physical appearances over their scholastic achievement. You can agree or disagree with the students’ opinions. At least they are engaged and thinking about issues that affect their lives. Learning to think critically was once the hallmark of a solid education. In post-9/11 America, marching to the drum beat of political correctness seems to be of higher importance to many of our school administrators. East Coweta’s principal, Derek Pitts, pulled copies of the paper from circulation because he didn’t like some of the content. One boy’s use of satirical wit didn’t amuse Mr. Pitts, who took issue with his suggestion that fifth graders who couldn’t make the grade on standardized tests should be “euthanized.” As editor, Caitlyn VanOrden stood on principle against the principal. She didn’t think it was right to write only stories that received pre-approval from school officials. “Just covering the positives and not the negatives would be like not covering the football game because we lost,” she told me. “What kind of journalism would that be?” Because of her courageous stand, and some excellent reporting on this issue by The Times-Herald of Newnan, it has come to light that Coweta County has one of the most restrictive policies in the state when it comes to regulating the content of student publications. Hoping to draw attention to the issue of free speech, Caitlyn organized a “Freedom Rally” on the square in Newnan on Sunday, Oct. 28. As a member of the local press, I went to show my support of this brave student journalist. I was pleased when about half a dozen other student journalists from the homeschool group my family belongs to, called Eluminatus, showed up. Eluminatus publishes its own student newspaper, which is not subject to the whims of the Coweta County Board of Education. But we felt we should band with Caitlyn and the public school kids who aren’t as fortunate in this regard. We carried signs that said “Freedom isn’t Free” and “Free Speech Isn’t a Crime,” along with placards promoting the freedom of religion — which is also guaranteed by the First Amendment. It was interesting to see the reactions of folks as we stood on the sidewalk and waved our banners and asked people to support the First Amendment by signing a petition, which will be presented to the Coweta school board in November. Some honked their horns in support. Some refused to even make eye contact. Some gave us a look of confusion like they weren’t sure what the First Amendment was. A few came over and signed our petitions, even thanked us for standing up for the basic rights of all Americans to express themselves freely. Afterall, if the only speech that’s protected is politically correct speech, then what do we have that’s any different from any other country? The founding fathers intended for nearly all speech, even unpopular views, to be protected. I was struck by how few people bothered to come support this young person who was fired up about freedom. The event was advertised in the Newnan paper but less than 25 people turned out on a sunny day in late October. Perhaps they wanted to come...intended to come. Maybe there was a conflict with the NFL games on TV, or maybe some folks were counting down the hours to the start of Desperate Housewives. Caitlyn did not let the small crowd discourage her. She enthusiastically thanked everyone for coming out, gave interviews to the press and to one independent filmmaker who said he may include the footage he shot in an upcoming documentary. It’s more important than ever that our public schools teach students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, while at least a few of those rights still exist. In practice, many have already ebbed away. All the government has to do is say you are a terrorist suspect and, shazam, all your rights are gone. They don’t have to prove anything. The First Amendment (freedom of speech and of religion) and the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) are about all we have left and there are those who would love to see these last great American liberties done away with, or at least severely weakened. Under President Bush, the government has greatly increased the use of “free speech zones.” Authorities herd protesters at major public events into “zones” set up far away from the event in question, where protesters will not be seen or heard by their intended audience. Often the intended audience is the president himself, who apparently feels more comfortable surrounded by flag-waving supporters. There’s something distinctly American about a politician having to look his critics in the eye and address their grievances. Today’s politician, even on the local level, seems to have little time for such trifles. America is supposed to be different. You’re supposed to be able to criticize the government. The First Amendment says that. I came away from the event Sunday with a new sense of confidence in our young people. They aren’t all just interested in numbing themselves with entertainment, alcohol or drugs. Some are actually standing up for what they believe in. Perhaps this new generation will take back our government, and demand that it return to its mooring of “government for the people, by the people, of the people.” I wish more adults would follow their lead. Coty affair shows Grantville has a long way to go in treatment of its most valuable assets — people By Leo A. Hohmann leo@wgbeacon.com Like many of the folks in the audience during the Grantville City Council’s Oct. 8 meeting, we sat in disbelief as Mayor Casey Houston called for a motion to remove Selma Coty from her position as chairwoman of the Grantville Library Board. When pressed for a reason by Councilwoman Rochelle Jabaley, Houston threw out some vague accusations about unauthorized purchases, stalling tactics and impolite emails. Just about anyone who has had any dealing with the Grantville Library Board will tell you that Coty is a dogged proponent of anything that will improve Grantville’s library services. She orchestrated the transformation of a section of the library into a tropical rain forest that lit up of the eyes of young children in the community and got them excited about reading. She did this at almost no expense to the city, using corporate donations of materials and rounding up volunteers to do work. Her chief concern was making sure Grantville got the $600,000-plus state grant to help build a new library that would reflect the specific needs of this community — not just a choice of plans A, B or C as presented. Take it or leave it and be glad you got it. No, she asked tough questions, and didn’t rest until she got answers, exactly the type of tough-minded public servant that most small cities would love to have on their team. Basically, she was the liaison between the regular Grantville people who will use the library and the honchos at the county and state levels who control the purse strings on this project. The mayor cited $438 in purchases Coty made for the rainforest project without getting a purchase order number from the city. But, as it turns out, several other people who worked on the project also did not turn in P.O. numbers. This was not reason to dismiss anyone since the city was merely a conduit for this project, not the source of funding. Not to mention, Coty had receipts for everything she purchased and kept impeccable records. If Coty is guilty of anything it is that she ruffled the pretentious feathers the proud peacock who chairs the new entity known as the Coweta County Library Board of Trustees. Coty did have a contentious email exchange with County Library Board Chairwoman Liz Camp in which both women displayed ill feelings toward each other. Are we to believe that Camp was justified in making condescending remarks toward Coty but that Coty was out of line to respond with a rebuke in which she demanded that Camp’s future correspondence be done in a more respectful tone? If the mayor and two members of council wanted to be rid of Coty due to their desires for a cozier relationship with Camp and the county, they should have just said as much and left it at that. To accuse Coty of acting irresponsibly with city money was nothing less than a cheap political maneuver to smear Coty’s name in the eyes of the public. That strategy clearly backfired when residents packed city hall during the council’s Oct. 22 meeting in support of Coty. Several members of the Grantville Library Board, including vice chair Rhetta Bryant, have now lost their faith in the local government and plan to resign. At this point, only a sincere apology could repair the damage and get everyone working together on the same page again for the betterment of Grantville. The mayor and council need not apologize for removing Coty, as it is within their legal right to remove any appointed member of an advisory board, even if it proves unpopular. It was the way they went about it that was so disappointing to so many. The handling of this matter will not move the city forward, as the mayor suggested. Rather, it is more of the same old bullying tactics Grantville residents have grown all too accustomed to from their local government. Guest Editorial It's not just the drought that has drained our lakes By Jeff Brown West Point Lake, and all other corps lakes on the Chattahoochee, are at extremely low levels with little hope for a return to full pools anytime soon. While there is no doubt west Georgia has experienced one of the most prolonged periods of drought in recent history, experts state that the greatest challenge facing these lakes is the Interim Operating Plan (IOP) This plan, imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), mandates implementation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The crisis is explained in very simple terms. Throughout the dry summer months, more water is flowing out of West Point Lake and the other Corps lakes than is flowing into the lakes via the Chattahoochee River. During the crucial wet season of the late winter and spring, the IOP does not allow enough water for the lakes to be refilled and levels to be sustained for the dry summer months. To correct the situation and prevent a worsening of this natural disaster, the West Point Lake Advisory Council is calling on Congress to immediately suspend the IOP, thereby compelling the Corps of Engineers to revert to the 1989 water control plan, an important component of which requires flows into the Apalachicola Basin to be no more than what nature is capable of providing. The IOP was devised more than a year ago by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to provide a guaranteed flow of water to Florida for supposedly endangered mussels and sturgeon. The IOP, as it exists today, is a poorly crafted plan based on flawed science. With little input from concerned citizens in west Georgia and other stakeholders across Georgia, the IOP in no way considers the basic human needs of those dependent on these lakes. Problematic in even the best of times, the continued implementation and enforcement of the IOP is having a devastating effect on much of Georgia. The facts of an average day in the life of these lakes this past summer are undeniable: • 1.21 million gallons of water per minute flow into the Chattahoochee basin • 2.24 million gallons of water per minute flow out of the Chattahoochee basin In essence, the USFWS is placing a higher value on the health and well being of mussels and sturgeon than the basic human needs supported by the entire Chattahoochee River and the Corps Lakes dependent on the River for their water. If the IOP is not suspended, or at least modified, it is obvious that at the current rate of water flow, there will not be enough inflow to sustain these lakes, nor will they be refilled even during the spring wet season. These lakes, as we know them, will be no more and in fact will not be safe or usable and drinking water for the entire basin including metro Atlanta will be jeopardized. Members of the Georgia Congressional delegation have been involved in earlier efforts to modify the USFWS position on the IOP with little effect. What can you do to help? Letters highlighting some or all of the following concerns can help to refocus the attention of the congressional delegation on this important issue: • Personal stories of how your home or business has been affected by the drop in lake levels. • Requests for Congress to take immediate steps to stop the current, unreasonable flows into Florida that are draining the basin Citizens should demand a Congressional investigation into the actions dictated by the USFWS and implemented by the Corps and the resulting damage caused to the entire river system, specifically West Point Lake. • Requests for Congressional oversight over future actions by the USFWS and/or Corps that could potentially have devastating effects on the lake. These are just a few suggestions to be addressed in correspondence with the Congressional delegation. While we cannot prevent the devastating drought we have been in for a prolonged period, we can try to do something about the IOP with all of its faults while still protecting mussels and sturgeon. Silence and apathy will ensure the continued devastation of West Point Lake as well as the other Corps Lakes on the Chattahoochee. To take no action is unforgivable. The time is now for friends of West Point Lake to raise their voices and demand action from their congressmen and senators. Your efforts can help to secure optimal sustainability of West Point Lake, for today and forever. Jeff Brown, a former Georgia State Representative from LaGrange, is Chairman of the West Point Lake Advisory Council. Signs of the times could arrive in Hogansville By Leo A. Hohmann leo@wgbeacon.com Why is it that everytime a developer comes through Hogansville with his version of “Have I got a deal for you,” it always seems to have billboards as the linchpin? Want us to develop a glitzy golf-course community? It comes with billboards. Want an industrial park? Well, guess what? Billboards are part of the package. The latest sales pitch comes from Mack Reynolds and John Hardy Jones, who own 44 acres on I-85 that they want the Hogansville City Council to annex and rezone from rural to light industrial, which would allow small industries and billboards up to 30 feet high. Reynolds has already put the council on notice that, if approved, he would most likely be back to ask for a variance that would allow for billboards up to 70 feet high. So, we know the monster billboards are coming. Whether any industry would come is far less certain. At stake is an I-85 corridor that will define our communities. Do we really want our communties to be defined by one of the most insensitive business enterprises in America — the outdoor advertising industry? Once a city approves zoning for billboards, courts have ruled that it cannot regulate the “commercial speech” placed on those billboards. This was a point that Mr. Reynolds was quick to make a couple of years ago when he argued against I-85 billboards, back when it was somebody else who wanted them on the same land he now owns. Just ask the folks in communities along I-85 in northeast Georgia how much control they have over signs that tout “Café Erotica” on tacky bright yellow placards, one after another, after another. It will be interesting to see how the Hogansville council votes on this matter. Will they side with the developers, whose interests are motivated by profit, or will they represent the citizens in standing up for the preservation of precious green space and for the integrity of our family-oriented communities? We’ll find out June 4. Guest Column Rural Heard County worth preserving By Chumsy Harjo and Mardi Little One Speaking as a Native American of the Muscogee Creek Nation, whose ancestors were the earliest inhabitants of the greater part of Georgia, I have many thoughts regarding relationship to the land and the manner in which we two-legged creatures interact with Mother Earth. This would define how civilized we truly are. What man refers to as wild and untamed in nature is really where he can discover the pictures, patterns, harmony and justice reflecting the will of the One who created her. I live on 10 wooded acres in Heard County in a hillside home overlooking a winding creek. In this rural area outlying the small town of Franklin are splendid farms on a rolling sweeping terrain. It is welcome scenery for the eye seeking relief from the landscape of commercial enterprise. I am glad that many of the communities around me have not succumbed to the excess of what many would call “progress.” In the name of the dollar, we drain and bulldoze Mother Earth, giving back little in return other than disrupted waterways, pollution, noise, congested highways, crime, overpriced housing, gaudy commercial signs, and the manicured token greenery left standing. Animals who cannot adapt are driven from their natural habitat, in their desperation acting out of character, or ending up dead on the side of a road which is littered with garbage tossed from windows of passing cars. As a Native American, I indentify with these four-leggeds who have fled in search of a new home because their way of life has been threatened. Of course, there have always been cities and towns. And I, too, enjoy the diversion of shopping, coffee at the Waffle House, or taking in a movie. But do I need so much of the same on every corner? Have so many of us, in order to survive, become weary and uninspired participants in this insatiable franchised scenario? There can still be found beauty in the urban community of man, and my heart is appreciative where it has seen the wisdom of creative planning, individuality, pride, respect and restraint. But my heart grieves where it has seen the trashing of earth’s landscape, which I would perceive as reflective of the landscape of souls. We can only create from that which has already been created. And as free-willed creative beings, do we render honor or dishonor towards our loving Creator by the manner in which we handle earth’s provision? There is a difference between subduing her and descrating her! I have said all this to lay a foundation before returning home to focus on Heard County. It is good to see all the cosmetic improvement in the vicinity of Franklin, a charming small town nestled up in hills surrounding the Chattahoochee River. There is one project on the square where the memorials of veterans are honored, which is nearing completion. My father was a veteran who served in Korea and World War II, having shaken hands with President Truman and awarded three times the Purple Heart. My people were the first who died fighting to defend this land, their families, way of life, and freedoms held dear. Native people fought in American wars even before being granted legal citizenship in the year 1924. The rich history of my ancestors has pervaded this continent long before the word America was invented. I am appreciative of the Creek Indian representation documented in Franklin’s historic old jailhouse museum. Many of our waterways, towns and roads have Creek names (eg. Hillahbatchee, Chattahoochee, Musogee) though often mispronouned or modified in spelling. A major Indian trading route on the Chattahoochee River once passed through this area, and there existed many Creek villages surrounding the place I now live. It is admirable that Franklin has chosen to observe its own unique history and identity. The major roads leading into Franklin should be an introduction to and expression of, what is being showcased in town and on the square. And here is where I, amongst many others, would make a personal appeal to Heard County relating to everything I’ve already addressed about our relationship to the land and to each other. I am glad for what the county is already doing to have the garbage picked up on the side of the roads, but from appearance’s sake it needs to be done on a more frequent basis. Although the newly paved Hwy. 34 is looking better, the scenic Hwy. 100 between Franklin and Ephesus is in great need of attention. Homeowners and taxpaying residents deserve cleaner roadsides and should not have to be embarrassed when friends or family pass through here to visit. It is a significant contradiction when we dishonor the veterans who are commemorated on Frankin’s square by trashing the land they fought and died for. Heard County is a great landscape where many would feel blessed to make their home in order to escape urban madness. Our beautiful country roads should not be allowed to look like a landfill! Other counties and towns do a commendable job with their roadside trash maintenance, so please, citizens of Heard County, let’s cultivate the conscience and self-respect to improve efforts in this area. Perhaps one day we will meet again, for I have many thoughts to share about the heart and history of our Native people. I hold the Feather. Chumsy Harjo is a Native American living in Heard County with his wife, Mardi Little One. They are frequent presenters at Native American festivals throughout the U.S. and he was a Southeastern director for the Georgia State Commission of Indian Affairs under former Lt. Gov. Zell Miller. Guest Editorial Lawmakers oppose fraudulent ‘immigration reform’ proposal By State Legislators Chip Rogers and John Lunsford The current debate in Washington D.C. over so-called “Immigration Reform” highlights the failure of our federal government.  Instead of enforcing the current laws passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, the current Congress seems determined to vote on new laws they haven’t even taken the time to read.  It is government at its worst. As Georgia legislators, we must deal with the failure of the federal government to secure our borders and enforce our current laws.  It is incomprehensible that Congress would propose another amnesty plan after the dismal failure of the 1986 amnesty that has led us to this point. We strongly urge the U.S. Congress to heed the findings and recommendations of the Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform of 1995. Congresswoman Jordan, a civil rights pioneer and Congressional Medal of Honor winner, led a multi-year Blue Ribbon Commission to determine the problems and potential remedies of our illegal immigration crises.  If Congress wants to find an answer, they should follow the lead of Congresswoman Jordan. We further call on Congress to fulfill the most basic responsibility of creating law – debate and discussion.  Recent reports suggest the “compromise” bill will go directly to the Senate floor.  It is estimated to be hundreds of pages in length.  This suggests that our Senators will most likely vote on a bill they have never read, and a measure that has never been fully vetted in committee hearings. The Senate has not even taken the time to determine the costs of such a “comprehensive” plan. According to expert testimony from a preliminary study to be given today to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee by Robert Rector of the highly respected Heritage Foundation, the cost of amnesty and earned citizenship for just 7.9 million amnesty recipients would be $2.4 trillion, a cost that must be born by the American taxpayer.  It is unconscionable that any legislator could vote for a measure of this magnitude without knowing and debating all the costs involved. We denounce any effort to create a so-called “Z-Visa” and touchback provision, which grants amnesty to those who have violated the laws of the United States.  Such a plan gives preference to those who have violated the law over those who have followed the law and patiently await legal entrance into the United States. We reject any idea, specifically those included in HR 1645 and S. 1348, that would effectively abolish the borders of the United States by eliminating the necessity to have a visa to travel anywhere on the North American continent. We understand that the amnesty of 1986 proved beyond all doubt that the only real solution to solving the illegal immigration and illegal employment crisis in our nation is to secure American borders and hold employers accountable for violation of the law.  We do not so cavalierly dismiss an employer’s violation of tax or pollution laws, yet somehow we are led to believe we should accept that a violation of immigration law should go unpunished. Sadly, we have little faith in the current administration’s dedication to certify border security or operational control.  Almost one-year has passed since President Bush signed a border security bill calling for the creation of an almost 700-mile physical barrier.  To date only two miles have been completed. It is our belief that no responsible elected official would even consider the fraud that is being offered as “comprehensive reform” in the U.S. Senate. — Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock)        Chairman, Georgia Senate Immigration Reform Caucus — Rep. John Lunsford (R-McDonough) Chairman, Georgia House of Representatives Immigration Reform Caucus Sen. Chip Rogers serves as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. He represents the 21st Senate District which includes portions of Cherokee and Cobb counties. He can be reached at his office at 404.463.1378 or by email at chip.rogers@senate.ga.gov. Guest Column Jesus and War By John Whitehead “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”—Jesus With President Bush’s veto of the recent spending bill, fighting in the Middle East will continue indefinitely—wars not only waged by an avowed Christian president but also backed by the evangelical Christian Right. Rev. Jerry Falwell, in speaking of terrorists, epitomizes the Bush Administration’s stance: “I’m for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them away in the name of the Lord.” In this way, Christianity is joined with the state and its war machine. However, what would Jesus think about this in light of his teachings against the use of violence—war, of course, being organized, systematic violence? One can only imagine that he would be horrified. After all, many who strive to follow Jesus’ teachings find it impossible to do so and still participate in war. Indeed, leaders in the early church adopted Jesus’ attitude of nonviolence. Tertullian (born about AD 160), one of the giants of the early church, stated very clearly that confessing “Jesus as Lord” means taking the teachings of Jesus seriously. Just as Caesar commanded men to kill their enemies, Jesus commanded them to love their enemies. Caesar made use of chains and torture, in much the same way as governments do today. Jesus, on the other hand, taught Christians to forgive and to sacrifice power for servanthood. In fact, Tertullian had pithy advice for soldiers who converted to Christianity: quit the army or be martyred for refusing to fight. Tertullian was not alone in his thinking. “For three centuries,” writes biblical scholar Walter Wink in The Powers That Be (1998), “no Christian author to our knowledge approved of Christian participation in battle.” This, of course, changed in the third century when the church was institutionalized and became an integral part of the warring Roman Empire. Jesus’ apostles never advocated violence. Rather, they urged their followers to suffer, forgive and trust God for the outcome rather than take matters into their own hands. And while they may have talked about warfare and fighting, it was not through the use of conventional weapons. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote: “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.” Christ’s crucifixion was a radical repudiation of the use of violent force. And the cross, which was the Roman tool of execution, was reserved especially for leaders of rebellions. “Anyone proclaiming a rival kingdom to the kingdom of Caesar would be a prime candidate for crucifixion,” writes Brian McLaren in The Secret Message of Jesus (2006). “This is exactly what Jesus proclaimed, and this is exactly what he offered.” But Jesus’ kingdom was one of peace. Among other things, he proclaimed, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also.” Consequently, Jesus ordered Peter not to use the sword, even to protect him. The so-called Roman peace (Pax Romana) was made possible by the cross. That is, people so feared crucifixion that many opted not to challenge the emperor rather than face the possibility of death on the cross. Why then would early Christians choose the cross—an instrument of torture, domination, fear, intimidation and death—as their primary symbol? What could this possibly mean? For early Christians, “it apparently meant that the kingdom of God would triumph not by inflicting violence but by enduring it,” notes McLaren, “not by making others suffer but by willingly enduring suffering for the sake of justice—not by coercing or humiliating others but by enduring their humiliation with gentle dignity.” Jesus, they believed, had taken the empire’s instrument of torture and transformed it into God’s symbol of the repudiation of violence. The message? Love, not violence, is the most powerful force in the universe. Not surprisingly, the early Christians were not crusaders or warriors but martyrs — men and women with the faith and courage to face the lions. Like Jesus, they chose to suffer rather than inflict violence. When Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers,” exhorting his followers to turn the other cheek and give freely, he was telling us that active peacemaking is the way to end war. Can you imagine what the world would be like if every church adopted that attitude and focused its energies on active peacemaking? The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who vocally opposed the Vietnam War, took to heart Jesus’ teachings about peacemaking. In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, King proclaimed: “Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We will not build a peaceful world by following a negative path. It is not enough to say ‘we must not wage war.’ It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the positive affirmation of peace.” This is not to say that Jesus was a pacifist. The opposite is true. He spoke truth to power and engaged in active resistance to injustice. In my opinion, Jesus would have intervened to defend someone being violently mistreated, and I believe we must do the same. But he would never have engaged in violence as the means to an end. One has to wonder what Jesus would say about war being waged in his name today. As Gary Wills writes in What Jesus Meant (2006), “If people want to do battle for God, they cannot claim Jesus has called them to this task, since he told Pilate that his ministers would not do that.” In fact, as Wills notes, Jesus “never accepted violence as justified.” Constitutional attorney and author John Whitehead is founder/president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be reached at johnw@rutherford.org. From the Editor's Desk Ever felt like a ‘Dirk’? By Leo A. Hohmann leo@wgbeacon.com I can still hear my grandfather’s stinging words. It was 1993 and I had just landed a job as a staff writer for a business journal that covered North Carolina’s Raleigh-Durham area, home of the burgeoning Research Triangle Park. Not a bad gig for a 31-year-old journalist who sprang from humble roots in rural Michigan. Or so I thought. My beloved grandfather, “Gramps” as we called him, was unimpressed. “By now I thought you’d be writing for the New York Times,” he said. The New York Times. Those three words haunted me for years. As a writer, I hadn’t lived up to his expectations. But I decided to make the most of the business journal experience. I worked hard and was promoted to managing editor of that publication in 1996, about a year after Gramps had died. And the knowledge gained from that position as an editor helped prepare me in 1997 to launch my own newspaper, The West Georgia Beacon, which you now hold in your hands. Looking back, I can see that my journalistic career has had its share of Dirk Nowitzki moments—those times when you don’t live up to others’ expectations. For those of you who don’t follow pro basketball, Dirk Nowitzki was the best player on the best team in this year’s NBA playoffs. His team, the Dallas Mavericks, romped through the regular season with an astounding 67-15 record, earning a matchup with the lowest seeded playoff team, the Golden State Warriors. Led by Nowitzki, the odds-on favorite to win the league’s Most Valuable Player Award, Dallas was expected to sweep past the Warriors, the equivalent of a pesky mosquito landing in the web of a skilled and hungry predator. But in that first-round playoff series against the lowly Warriors, Nowitzki wasn’t himself and certainly didn’t look like any MVP. In the deciding game six, you could sense Nowitzki’s confidence being shaken with each missed shot. Finally, it left him altogether. In the final quarter, when his team needed him most, Nowitzki reached for his normally trusty arsenal of jumpshots and found only blanks. Clank, Clank, Clank, he went en route to a 2 for 13 shooting performance. It would be like Spiderman losing his powers just as the Green Goblin stood poised for the crushing blow. The Warriors, suddenly looking like world beaters, lowered the boom on the mighty Mavs, 111-86. Headlines the next day said it all: • “Dirk’s a dud as Mavericks get bounced in first round,” from The Sporting News. • “Mavs might not recover from collapse” from MSNBC. • “Dream season ends in nightmare for Mavs” from the Houston Chronicle. Some analysts said it was the Warriors’ sticky defense that rattled him, but most of Nowitzki’s shots seemed no more contested than those he routinely took and made during the regular season. It was clear to me that the pressure of the playoffs and everyone’s expectations simply got to him. He choked. Have you ever had a Dirk Nowitzki moment, when it seemed like everyone’s eyes were on you and you flopped? Can you, should you, ever be trusted to deliver in the clutch again? History says Dirk Nowitzki, like the rest of us, deserves another chance to learn from his failures, or what seemed like failures to others. It’s been 25 years since an MVP got bounced in the first round of the NBA playoffs. The last player was Moses Malone in 1982, and he went on to win a championship the next year with the Philadelphia 76ers. Nobody remembers Malone now as a choker, but rather as the leader of a championship team. For most of us, life’s a struggle. Whatever measure of success we attain, we get there in small increments, through trial and error, groping and feeling our way through each challenge. Few burst onto the big stage and walk off triumphantly without paying their dues. Sometimes we have to be humbled before we can win at the next level. Men like Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein were seen as utter failures before they finally broke through with historic achievements. While a career at the New York Times may have been nice, I could not have birthed The Beacon were it not for those years I toiled at that business journal. While it still struggles financially, The Beacon has become one of the best weekly newspapers in Georgia in terms of news coverage, earning 10 awards from the Georgia Press Association over the past two years. Gramps would have been proud. Meandering with Marty Watching a wild horse taught valuable lesson By Marty Hohmann marty@wgbeacon.com There are all types of learners in this world. Some of us learn by hearing information. Others learn by watching. And still others process information best when they are able to have a hands-on experience. I never realized that I am a visual learner. But after an experience I had this past weekend, I am convinced. I had the opportunity to watch Lew Sterrett of Miracle Mountain Ranch in Pennsylvania train a young stallion while teaching valuable lessons from Scripture. Michael Harbin of Tyrone had Sterrett come to his ranch and offer this free demonstration. The afternoon included a Gospel singing by The Daybreak Quartet and a free dinner. The ranch was packed with hundreds of spectators, many of whom had no idea what to expect. I know it seems strange, but Sterrett is able to impart biblical principals through his demonstration of taking an animal that has never been bridled, saddled nor ridden and earning his trust. He is a part of a ministry he calls Sermon on the Mount, whose purpose is to show how a healthy and vibrant relationship can develop between man and God. Not knowing what to expect, I was completely mesmerized as I watched this untamed 2-year-old stallion running anxiously around his pen. When Sterrett approached the colt, he would take off in full gallop around and around the pen. The trainer explained that the horse was full of fear and had no trust in him, just as we humans tend to live a life full of fears and anxieties and out of relationship with God. As Sterrett talked with the horse, stroked him, and gently guided him, the horse gradually began to make eye contact. Still he turned his hind quarters away so that the trainer could not make real contact. The trainer equated the horse’s back with his heart and beautifully demonstrated how we as men and women tend to give God little more than “face time” but avoid giving Him our full heart and trust. I watched amazed over a two-hour period as Sterrett taught these Biblical truths, all the while taking the horse to another level of trust. First he was able to get the colt to turn to face him, then to allow him to touch his back, then to throw a blanket over his back. Next came the rope, which Sterrett eventually was able to tie around the horse as a rein and mock saddle. Finally, the horse accepted the saddle, allowed the trainer to mount him, and ride him around the stall. It was a long, difficult process. It was two steps forward and three steps back. The trainer had the horse trusting him, but then circumstances (like an unfamiliar rope), would cause the horse to run away in fear. Still, Sterrett remained in the stall with the horse. He was hot, dusty, thirsty and tired. But he remained and waited. The demonstration was such a clear depiction of the relationship we have with God. We want to follow Him, we want to trust Him, but then something terrible happens and we run away in fear. It could be that someone in our family gets very sick, or we lose a job, or have a serious accident. We tend to pull inside ourselves and question whether God is even there any more. We want to find the answers within ourselves. We run and run and run, all the while hoping that God will not give up on us. We resist Him and yet we cannot resist returning to His loving pull. The strongest message I received from this gripping visual demonstration is how incredibly patient and long suffering our God is. He knows we want to break and run whenever difficulties come along. And yet He waits patiently until we look Him in the face and take those first awkward steps of trust toward Him. As one who is going through some difficult circumstances right now, where fear is lurking just on the edge of every decision I make, I was rejoicing to be reminded that God can be trusted, no matter the situation. I have seen with my own eyes that my heavenly Trainer is standing by patiently while I find my way into His leading. More information on Lew Sterrett and his powerful ministry can be found at www.miraclemountainranch.org. Guest Editorial TV news can be dangerous to your health By John W. Whitehead The Rutherford Institute Anyone who relies exclusively on television news reporting for insight into what’s happening in the world is making a serious mistake. However, since Americans have by and large become non-readers and primarily viewers of television, it has become an inescapable necessity for most that if they desire information on current events, they get it from watching TV news shows. Yet TV news networks, having fallen prey to the demands of a celebrity-obsessed and entertainment-driven culture, provide viewers with what they want to see, rather than what is newsworthy. As a result, there tends to be little deviation between the networks as to what stories are covered. Hence, more time is spent titillating and entertaining viewers than educating them about pressing issues of concern. This was sadly illustrated by the wall-to-wall coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre. TV anchors and personalities were falling over one another on the school’s campus in competing for viewers by presenting any type of information surrounding the incident, whether it was relevant or not. Even the excessively violent footage left behind by the killer was aired, despite the fact that psychologists have urged networks not to broadcast these types of events. They fear that unbalanced people watching these shows will attempt to repeat such events in order to gain their 15 minutes of fame. While the networks must bear the brunt of the blame for this, the lack of discernment on the part of television news watchers also plays a part. For example, in an average household, the television set is in use over seven hours a day. Most people, believing themselves to be in control of the process, are scarcely bothered by this statistic. But it is a false sense of control. The fact is that television not only delivers programs to your home, it also delivers you to a sponsor. Thus, the main point of television, including news programs, is to keep you watching so that sponsors and others can make a lot of money by selling a product to you. That is why so-called news events are commingled with a bevy of inane entertainment items. This does not mean that television news is not important. There are things the public needs to know, whether they “like” it or not. This is a necessity in a democratic society. Thus, TV news should give people what they need, not necessarily what they want. However, that rarely happens. Realistically, there are some things that can be done to help you understand TV news and, in the process, minimize its impact on you. Here are a few: TV news is not what actually occurs. Rather, it is what someone labeled a “journalist” or “correspondent” thinks is worth reporting. That’s why it is important to analyze what is reported. Although there are good TV journalists, the old art of investigative reporting has largely been lost. For example, how often have you heard a reporter preface a “news” report with the statement, “This comes from official sources”? What this often means is that the government is speaking directly to you through a reporter. This cannot be trusted because the government hires thousands of spin doctors to spread government propaganda. TV news is entertainment. TV news is not communication. Communication is between equals. When you are being spoon-fed by advertisers, you are in no way equal. And although the news may have value, it is primarily a commodity to gather an audience, which will be sold to advertisers. That is why the program you are watching is called a news “show.” This means that the so-called news is delivered as a form of entertainment. Never underestimate the power of commercials, especially to news audiences. People who watch news tend to be more attentive, educated and have more money to spend. They are, thus, a prime market for advertisers, and, as such, sponsors are willing to spend millions on well-produced commercials. Learn more about the economic and political interests of those who own the “corporate” media. There are few independent news sources. Indeed, the major news outlets are owned by corporate empires. For example, General Electric owns the entire stable of NBC shows, including MSNBC, which it co-owns with Microsoft (the “MS” in MSNBC stands for Microsoft). Both GE and Microsoft have poured millions of dollars into the political campaigns of George W. Bush. The obvious question: How can a news network present objective news on a candidate that it financially supports? Pay special attention to the language of newscasts. Because film footage and other visual imagery are so engaging on TV news shows, viewers are apt to allow language—what the reporter is saying about the images—to go unexamined. A TV newscaster’s language frames the pictures, and, therefore, the meaning we derive from the picture is often determined by the reporter’s commentary. TV by its very nature manipulates viewers. One must never forget that every television minute has been edited. The viewer does not see the actual event but the edited form of the event. Add to that the fact that the reporters editing the film have a subjective view—sometimes determined by their corporate bosses—that enters in. For instance, when we see a political figure such as the President on TV, we are not seeing the person but the image that his handlers have decided we should see. Finally, schools must begin teaching children how to watch TV news. Specific courses should be taught so that our future citizens can hopefully avoid the pitfalls that the television news monolith will continue to lay before future generations. If not, our democracy may not survive. Guest Editorial Are red-light cameras a sign of coming surveillance state? By John W. Whitehead The Rutherford Institute “There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. ... You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” — George Orwell, “1984” The renowned media analyst Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “the medium is the message.” His point was that emerging technologies do more than facilitate processes—they impact us on a deeper level by altering how we think and act. By understanding the message, we can better understand its consequences for the future. For example, when the gun was invented, the “message” was not that this portable metal cylinder could fire a bullet but that it made murder more accessible and dehumanized the process of killing someone. This in turn made war, carnage and violence more likely resolutions to conflicts. Likewise, the invention of television was more than a means of broadcasting news and entertainment; it has led to a couch-potato culture and a dumbing down of the American mind. This brings us to the debate currently underway over the use of red-light surveillance cameras at traffic intersections as a way to discourage drivers from running red lights. First, there is the safety issue. Considering that more than 850 people die and about 170,000 are injured yearly in accidents relating to drivers running red lights, improving driver safety is a weighty concern. While some studies suggest that rear-end crashes rise, at least temporarily, when traffic cameras are installed, deadly side-impact crashes decline. And two new studies suggest that the surveillance cameras, when properly implemented, may be an effective way to curtail red-light running. For instance, one of the studies found that violations dropped by 36% after yellow lights were extended to give drivers more warning that the light was about to turn red. After red-light cameras were added, remaining violations dropped by 96%. Second is a concern about how money generated from the cameras will be used. Critics contend that these red-light cameras could become money-generating traps, “cash machines for money-hungry local budgets.” There is certainly money to be made. For example, in just the first six years after installing red-light cameras in the nation’s capital, the District of Columbia generated $32 million in fines. Third is a concern about potential abuse since state and local governments aren’t the only ones that will profit. As one commentator explains, “The manufacturers of red-light and speed cameras typically sell their equipment to cities and receive a large percentage of the revenue from each ticket, creating a billion-dollar industry.” Eric Skrum, Communications Director for the National Motorists Association, has suggested that Lockheed Martin, one of the largest government contractors in the country and one of the biggest manufacturers of red-light cameras in the U.S., has a vested interest in red-light fines since “the company doesn’t get paid unless a ticket is issued.” Fourth is a concern about the appeals process. The absence of human involvement—a police officer who witnesses a violation and investigates before issuing a ticket—is one factor. The cameras are not infallible. For example, approximately 13,000 drivers received tickets by cameras located at one particular Washington, D.C. intersection—the only problem: they weren’t guilty because the red-light cameras at the particular intersection were wrongly positioned. Another factor is cost. According to the Washington Post , “Regina Williams, a DMV spokeswoman, said those who appeal their tickets also have to pay a $10 appeal fee and $10 for each page of any hearing transcript, both nonrefundable. In addition, motorists must pay the fine until the appeal is resolved, which usually takes two months.” A final concern is that Americans are increasingly having to prove their innocence as the traditional standard of criminal justice—you’re innocent until proven guilty—is nullified. We all want safer roads—and that starts with safer drivers. If red-light cameras are an effective solution, that’s fine. However, it wouldn’t hurt for communities to put some other safety checks in place such as extending the duration of yellow lights to give drivers more warning; ensuring that red-light cameras are only snapping photos and not carrying out constant video surveillance; making the appeals process more accessible by reducing or eliminating altogether any fees involved in challenging a signal ticket; and structuring the system in such a way that the fines pay for the cost of the system, rather than creating a profit-raising revenue stream for the government and its contractors. Before we travel too far down the slippery slope of embracing a surveillance state, we should ask ourselves: If surveillance devices are the “medium,” whether we’re talking about red-light cameras at traffic intersections, surveillance cameras in parks and sidewalks or monitoring of our telephone calls and emails, then what is the message? Although stop-light cameras are probably the least invasive of these devices, the undeniable message being communicated is that we’re constantly being watched, tracked and catalogued. Any expectation of privacy will eventually go down the drain, and with it any sense of true freedom. Constitutional attorney and author John Whitehead is founder/president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be reached at johnw@rutherford.org. Guest Column ML King: ‘Universe is on side of justice’ By John Whitehead The Rutherford Institute   As 1968 dawned, the vision of peace and love that was articulated by the hippies and such groups as the Beatles was splintering. The summer of love, only months old, seemed as if it had happened eons ago. Many who believed, as I did, that peace and understanding were going to change things began to question such assumptions. I was one year away from graduating from college. And I was part of the youth rebellion that was gripping America. That January, the Vietcong began what is now known as the “Tet Offensive.” In an effort to overthrow the generals who were supported by the United States, North Vietnamese forces attacked more than thirty South Vietnamese cities, including Saigon. The power of the North Vietnamese impressed the world. Americans, in particular, were stunned. American government officials had reported that most of Vietnam was secure and an end to the war was in sight. Now, however, after years of war, things looked even worse. In March, in a South Vietnamese village called My Lai, American soldiers “wasted” 500 unarmed men, women, and children, but the news of it would be suppressed for almost two years. Simply trying to understand what was going on at the time was impossible. Here I was scheduled to enter the Army after college, but I was against the war. I was still in the first year of my marriage, trying to learn how to be a decent husband. My parents were barely speaking to me. They believed, like a lot of parents during this era, that their child had lost his mind. And studying for classes was difficult. Consequently, I often took solace in a local bar that catered to students. I was in that bar one evening after classes in April. It was crowded, the day was warm and the cold beer felt good going down. Suddenly, a student jumped up on a table and yelled, “Martin Luther King has just been shot and killed.” The students cheered and burst out in applause. I was stunned. King dead? The great man had been murdered and students were cheering? What was happening to the world? I went back to my apartment. My first thought as I watched the news of King’s assassination was that “they” had killed him because he was challenging the system. King fought racism. He was against the Vietnam War. He was a peace warrior who had gotten out of hand. So “they” killed him, and he became part of what would become an assassination motif of the sixties. This may sound paranoid, but that’s what I believed at the time—and I still have my suspicions. The message I was receiving from these events seemed clear: If you effectively resisted the people in power, you would get hurt. Change, loss of power—that’s what they feared. This type of thinking radicalized many young people, including me, and produced the necessary mindset for social activism. As a result, many of us began to “hate” those in power—the politicians, the military and the corporations. But in the midst of all this, we missed what King had been trying to say to us—much like those who cheered his death that day. Indeed, years later, when I began to study King’s writings and speeches, they changed my life. King was the greatest teacher of Christian love since Jesus Christ. King reiterated in many of his speeches that “to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns” was clearly wrong. To retaliate with hate or bitterness, he often said, would do nothing but intensify hate in the world. “Along the way of life,” King proclaimed, “someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can be done only by projecting the ethics of love to the center of our lives.” King, a minister, viewed love in the Christian sense. As he said: “In speaking of love, we are not referring to some sentimental emotion. It would be nonsense to urge men to love their oppressors in an affectionate sense. ‘Love’ in this connection means understanding good will.” Furthermore: “When we speak of loving those who oppose us we speak of a love which is expressed in the Greek word agape. Agape means nothing sentimental or basically affectionate; it means understanding, redeeming good will for all men, an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return. When we love on the agape level we love men not because we like them, not because their attitudes and ways appeal to us, but because God loves them. Here we rise to the position of loving the person who does the evil deed while hating the deed he does.” King also spoke of nonviolence, which he believed is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. It is this deep faith in the future that causes the nonviolent resister to accept suffering without retaliation. He knows that in his struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship. This belief that God is on the side of truth and justice comes down to us from the long tradition of our Christian faith. There is something at the very center of our faith which reminds us that Good Friday may reign for a day, but ultimately it must give way to the triumphant beat of the Easter drums. Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a palace and Christ a cross, but one day that same Christ will rise up and split history into A.D. and B.C., so that even the life of Caesar must be dated by his name. Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Guest Column When it seems like all is lost... By David Epps Nearly all of us have experienced those dark moments when we seem abandoned to cruel and undeserved fates. It is then we cry, “My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?” The childless woman who has experienced miscarriage after miscarriage only to have the latest baby stillborn—the faithful wife, who has given her all, only to be abandoned by an unfaithful husband ...the man who has, for the fourth time, been told that the cancer has returned ...the person who is lost in the swirling vortex and sucking quicksand of continual depression. All these understand this prayer. The soldier who is captured and submitted to indescribable horrors at the hands of a brutal enemy ...the entrepreneur who has invested his life only to go bankrupt ...the pastor who has faithfully served without expectation of glory only to be criticized, humiliated, and perhaps even fired by the very people for whom he poured out his life. These understand the prayer. The child who has been abused and rejected by his parents ...the strong athlete who is crippled in an accident ...the family of the father or mother who has committed suicide ...the parents who have just been informed that their son or daughter has been killed in an accident, or in war, or due to drugs, or murdered ...the young woman who has kept herself pure only to be violated ...the parents who have sacrificed for children who now want nothing to do with them ...all these, too, understand the prayer. And on and on it goes. In many church services last Friday, Good Friday in the church calendar, worshippers heard the anguish in the voice of Jesus from the cross as he utters that prayer with which we all immediately identify. Who of us, at some point or another, using the same or similar words thrust heavenward our own heartfelt cry of “My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?” I am told that the most offered prayer is the Lord’s Prayer, spoken over a billion times around the world each day. Surely, this cry of emotional pain and brokenness must be a close second. On that day so long ago, we can sense the darkness creeping near in an attempt to smother the light. The darkness threatens to stifle, to suffocate, to obliterate hope and even life. It has always been so, even from the beginning. In the Creation Story, in the midst of plenty and paradise, a darkness was present to undermine, to cause division, to “steal, kill and destroy.” Throughout human history, in every culture, nation, and time, the darkness threatens. In our own time, dark forces of one kind or another attempt to snuff out the light of hope and peace and freedom. The prayer is universal in that, sooner or later, it is uttered by everyone except the most hardened atheist. It is easily understood. We understand pain. We understand anguish. We understand darkness. We identify with the person on the cross because we know something of how He feels. And, at last, we know that He understands our own torment as well. Yet, the prayer, a quote from Psalm 22, carries within it a hidden message of hope, faith and trust. The Psalm looks to the One who cannot be destroyed by the present darkness. The psalmist, though anguished, remembers the faithfulness of God in days past and proclaims—even in the midst of immeasurable troubles—that there will be an end to suffering and that he will be able to pass through this darkness and stand in the light of God’s grace and deliverance and proclaim the praises of his Name. “This, too…” he believes, “shall pass.” St. Paul in writing to the Church at Thessalonica, said “We do not belong to the night nor to the darkness” (2 Th 5:5 NIV). The darkness, the blackness, the sense of abandonment may come but it is not forever. We may feel swallowed up by the darkness but we shall also see the coming of better days and the brightness of the ever-increasing light. Psalm 22 begins with the specter of anguish and death—but its conclusion is life, and light, and resurrection. The Rev. Epps is Rector of Christ the King Charismatic Episcopal Church at 4881 Hwy. 34 East, Sharpsburg, He may be reached at frepps@ctkcec.org. Guest Column Why was Jesus killed? By John Whitehead The Rutherford Institute In the time of Jesus, religious preachers and self-proclaimed prophets were not summarily arrested and executed. Nor were nonviolent protesters. Indeed, the high priests and Roman governors in Jerusalem would normally allow a protest, particularly a small-scale one, to run its course. However, the authorities were quick to dispose of leaders and movements that even appeared to threaten the Roman Empire. The charges leveled against Jesus—that he was a threat to the stability of the nation, opposed paying Roman taxes and claimed to be the rightful King as Messiah of Israel—were purely political, not religious. To the Romans, any one of these charges was enough to merit death by crucifixion. But the gravest charge, for which Jesus was ultimately crucified, was stated in the inscription on the cross: “The King of the Jews.” The Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who alone had the authority to execute Jesus, focused on his political identity: “Are you the king of the Jews?” This seems to be primarily what mattered to Pilate, whose job it was to uphold the religious as well as the temporal power of the deified Caesars. Jesus does not deny the allegation which, if true, will lead to his death. He answers: “You are right to say I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world, to testify to the truth.” To which Pilate responds: “What is the truth?” The fact that Jesus was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews was not an afterthought pinned on the cross above his head. The Roman soldiers commissioned to prepare him for execution knew this was the issue. That is why they gave him the burlesque of coronation, clothing him in royal purple with a mock crown and scepter. Then they abased themselves and called out, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Unfortunately, through the centuries, those claiming to be Jesus’ followers, from Christian emperors to popes to those who claimed the divine right of kings, have clothed themselves in his execution robes. Now many evangelical Christians emulate it, along with attempts to gain political power. “All have dressed Jesus in borrowed political robes,” writes Gary Wills in What Jesus Meant (2006). “They will not listen to the gospels, where Jesus clearly says that his reign is not of this present order of things. The political power they claim to exercise in his name is a parody of his claims, like the mock robe and crown put on him by the Roman soldiers. These purported worshipers of Jesus are doing the work of Pontius Pilate.” The main conclusion we can draw from Jesus’ execution is based on its method. Given that crucifixion was used mainly for slaves and political rebels, the Romans must have understood Jesus to be an insurrectionary of some sort. From the Roman point of view, the cross was a way to terrorize the people. It was a public service announcement proclaiming: “Do not engage in political sedition as this person has, or your fate will be the same.” And it was used quite liberally. In fact, crucifixion, according to the Jewish historian Josephus, numbered 500 a day in Jerusalem at one point, with totals reaching the thousands. Such was the political unrest during and after the time of Jesus’ death. Crucifixion was the cruelest, most sadistic possible act of the cruel, sadistic Roman Empire. Death by crucifixion was a slow process, which could take as long as two or three days. The victims were stripped naked, exposed to the scorching Mediterranean sun. The “science” of crucifixion, as James Tabor notes in The Jesus Dynasty (2006), “required the nails be affixed in a way to minimize bleeding, otherwise the victim would quickly pass out and die in a matter of minutes.” And the end that often awaited its victims was to become human carrion for dogs and birds of prey. Any reflection on Jesus and his execution must take into account several factors. Jesus’ kingship and rule stand against such things as empires, controlling people, state violence and power politics. Jesus challenged the political and religious belief systems of his day. And worldly powers feared Jesus, not because he challenged them for control of thrones or government but because he undercut their claims of supremacy. Jesus taught that God was love and that God preferred the poor and downtrodden over the powerful and rich. He said that what is valued in the kingdom of God is not material prosperity but poverty of spirit and mercy. His principles, thus, undermined the establishment and the status quo, not only of his own time but ours as well. And he spoke truth to power in a time when doing so could—and often did—cost a person his life. In terms of popular support, Jesus’ message didn’t work during his lifetime. Nor has it worked well since. Jesus’ message of peace, gentleness and justice has always stood in opposition to the evils of nationalism and religion. Thus, those who attempt to truly follow Jesus and practice his teachings invite suffering, attack and death. In a fallen, corrupt world, the good politics of Jesus are always in opposition to the powers-to-be. Humanly speaking, we simply cannot follow this man’s example. We are not good enough. “This journey to the cross we cannot comprehend,” writes Alan Storkey in Jesus and Politics (2005), “we are fools to pretend we can.” Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Guest Column Do you live with regrets? By David Epps A lady aked me some time ago, “Have you ever done something that you regretted?” I responded that I had done, or in some cases, not done, things that had caused me a great deal of regret. I don’t talk about those instances very much because there is little value in asking “what if” all the days of one’s life. For one thing, there are no “do-overs” and for another we can only compound our regrets by dwelling endlessly on lost opportunities or poor decisions. I do believe that, for Christians, “all things work together for good for those who love God.” Sometimes, even terrible decisions, once submitted to God, can have a positive result or a valuable life lesson can be learned. Yet, there is a price to be paid for missing an opportunity or for making decisions that are unwise. In Luke 15, Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son. The son, the younger of two brothers, approaches his father and demands that his portion of the inheritance be given to him. This, of course, was a way of saying, “I just can’t wait for you to die, old man, to get my money. I want it now!” In the face of this shockingly arrogant disrespect, the father does the unthinkable. He gives the son a third of his wealth, which would have been the son’s portion upon the death of the father. The son leaves home and, according to Jesus, “squanders his inheritance.” It may have been that the father tried to reason with the son. If he did, it is not part of the parable and, in any case, was unsuccessful. It may have been that the dad saw this coming and knew that his son was going to do what he wanted to do regardless of any fatherly counsel he might give. But, give him the money he did, and, at some point in the future, the son was destitute and trying to survive on hog slop. It is at this low moment that the son “comes to himself” and determines to go home to his father. He rehearses a speech and, by all accounts, is genuinely repentant. The father sees him from a long way off and runs to meet his wayward son, embracing him before the son had a chance to give his speech. He is welcomed back into the family, a party is given, he is provided with clothes to replace his rags, and a roasted calf will be his dinner that day instead of the vile slop he had been consuming to stave off starvation. Yet, when the faithful, elder brother is angered by the treatment given the rebel, the father reminds him that “all that I have is yours.” Here is an indication that the younger son, who squandered his inheritance, will not receive any additional funds at the end of the father’s life. When the father dies, all of the estate will pass to the faithful, dependable son who stayed in his father’s house and didn’t waste the opportunities before him. To be sure, the younger son will have a home, a place, a family—but he has squandered his inheritance—there will not be another. So, yes, I have regrets. There have been times that I have lost opportunities only to realize too late that another course of action would have been of great benefit. There have also been those times that I committed acts that have been costly to me and to my family. I am deeply regretful for the pain I caused others and the pain I caused myself in the process. As a pastor of some 35 years, I have witnessed, all too often, people going their own way and living to regret their decisions. But, one cannot “unscramble eggs.” Wallowing in regret about what might have been is unproductive. There are lessons to be learned, however, but the greatest of these is to make good, sound decisions. It is wonderful that the loving father, who obviously represents God in the parable, welcomes the son back home without a word of condemnation. But the sad truth is that the younger son, who had such a rich inheritance to look forward to, never had to leave his father’s house in the first place. The Rev. Epps is Rector of Christ the King Charismatic Episcopal Church at 4881 Hwy. 34 East, Sharpsburg, He may be reached at frepps@ctkcec.org. Guest Editorial The Pentagon’s power to jail Americans indefinitely By Jacob G. Hornberger The presiding judge in the Jose Padilla case has held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a speedy trial does not protect American citizens from being indefinitely incarcerated by the Pentagon. Padilla had filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the federal government had denied him his right to a speedy trial. Padilla has been in custody since May 2002 and his trial, which is scheduled to begin in April, is not being held until some five years later. From May 2002 until January 2006, Padilla was held in U.S. military custody as an "enemy combatant" in the "war on terror." In January 2006, the Pentagon chose to transfer custody of Padilla to the U.S. Justice Department, which had indicted Padilla on terrorism charges in U.S. District Court. (Ever since 9/11, U.S. officials have had the option of treating people suspected of terrorism either as "enemy combatants" or as federal-court defendants.) Last Friday, the presiding judge in the case, Marcia Cooke, denied Padilla's motion to dismiss. The judge held that when a person, including an American citizen, is held in custody by the Pentagon as an "enemy combatant," the time doesn't start running with respect to his right to a speedy trial. It begins running, she held, only when he becomes part of the federal criminal-justice system. Gee, I wonder if the judge's reasoning applies to the rest of the Bill of Rights as well. Maybe the First Amendment doesn't apply if it's the Pentagon that is suppressing speech and assembly as part of its perpetual "war on terror." Or maybe the Second Amendment prohibits only the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), not the Pentagon, from seizing guns from the American people, as it is doing as part of the "war on terror" in Iraq. Our 18th-century American ancestors would have found Judge Cooke's ruling to be ludicrous. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the American people from the federal government, not a particular department of the federal government. What Judge Cooke obviously fails to recognize is the deep antipathy to militarism and to an enormous standing military force that characterized our American ancestors. Unlike Judge Cooke, they understood the tremendous threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people that militarism and a standing army would pose. This week, Judge Cooke is scheduled to rule on Padilla's motion to dismiss on the basis of the government's torture and abuse of Padilla while he was in pretrial military confinement. It will be interesting to see if Judge Cook rules that that the military is also exempt from that part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits the federal government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments on Americans and others suspected of terrorism. Don't forget: Jose Padilla is an American citizen. Thus, this case continues to hold ominous implications for the American people, especially when Judge Cooke's ruling is considered in conjunction with the ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the government's "enemy-combatant" designation for Americans as part of its "war on terrorism." That means that whatever the government has done -- and continues doing to Padilla -- and, for that matter, every other "enemy combatant" in its "war on terror," -- it has the authority to do to all Americans. Judge Cooke's ruling is just one more confirmation of how civil liberties have soared to the top of importance in terms of federal infringements on our freedom. Perhaps this is a good time to revisit the warning issued to the American people by President Dwight Eisenhower: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted." Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org). Beacon Editorial A Pax Americana built on fool’s gold By Leo A. Hohmann leo@wgbeacon.com March 19 marked the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war. A few weeks after he launched the attack, President Bush rode a jet fighter triumphantly onto the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to declare that “major combat operations” in Iraq had ended. Victory was all but in the bag! That was on May 1, 2003. American soldiers continue to die in Iraq, at a rate of about one a day. Many more Iraqi civilians die each day at the hands of sectarian death squads, while the war has created 2 million refugees, who leave everything, often even family members, behind in a desperate attempt to flee the violence. The Middle East is now completely destabilized. Iran has been empowered and the region is looking more and more like a proving ground for World War III. There are no winners in this war, except perhaps if you are one of the war’s fat-cat corporate profiteers, feeding on a juicy no-bid contract. Having a civil conversation with my pro-war friends is getting harder these days. One of the hardest things in life to admit is defeat. You dig in, mouth the party line, and hope for a miracle. Government mouthpieces, like programmed drones, saturate the airwaves with trite slogans like “stay the course.” Never “surrender,” they tell us. Surrender to whom, I ask? Who is the enemy in Iraq? Who is our ally? It’s getting harder to tell the difference. Yet, we must march, or “surge” on to “victory,” the drones tell us, while slapping the dreaded “liberal” label on anyone who dares to dissent. Oh, and don’t forget to mention 9/11 in the same sentence with Iraq... But weren’t those hijackers Saudi Arabians, I ask? As we head into our fifth year in Iraq, war fever is starting to chill. Only 29 percent of Americans think the war is going well and 53 percent now believe the U.S. won’t succeed in Iraq. America’s credibility is tanking. We are increasingly seen as the occupier without an exit strategy — a crusader nation that talks big about democracy but can’t deliver. The new “Pax Americana” is starting to look like the old Pax Romana. As our military “surges” and erects ever more checkpoints to try and restore security to Iraq, they will make mistakes. Civilians will get killed. Jihadist recruiters will celebrate as their jobs get easier. The question is, will America suffer the same fate as the Roman Empire, whose caesars never hesitated to intervene and put down foreign rebellions in order to maintain a world order based on the Roman view of reality? I hope not. But storm clouds are gathering. Our economy is teetering under the burden of debt, much of it brought on by the high costs of war. We cannot continue forever to fight wars with borrowed money. David Walker, the U.S. Comptroller General (the nation’s chief accountant), has been imploring Congress of late to reverse their irresponsible deficit spending. The alarm has been sounded. Will they listen? Or will his voice get drowned out by the drones? The modern American thirst for global adventurism would have been a foreign concept to Madison, Jefferson and Washington. They envisioned an America where individual liberty could thrive unhindered by big government. Our founders rebelled against the British for that very reason. They tired of paying heavy taxes to support a large standing army and navy, which protected the “interests” of a far-flung empire. Once that burden was lifted, the American patriots were careful to craft a written Constitution that limited the government’s power and included a Bill of Rights. These documents, not the military, served as the guarantor of our fundamental freedoms of speech, press and religion. Christian doctrine also teaches that human rights are “unalienable,” meaning they come from God, not from any man-made institution or army. For if man giveth, then man can taketh away! It’s time we return to our roots and stop meddling in the affairs of others under the guise of “nation building,” which is really just a euphemism for empire building. Guest Column Risk another bite By David Epps A few days ago, I went with a couple of our church staff to a Mexican restaurant. It had been some time since I had enjoyed guacamole, so I ordered a large side order so that all of us could share. The server brought a bowl with “all the fixins,” as they say in the South, a heavy mixing bowl, and two avocados. When he was finished, I took a chip, scooped up a healthy amount and popped it into my mouth—which promptly burned as though on fire. I consumed half of my ice water in one gulp. I do not like spicy foods, especially hot, spicy foods. I know it’s all the rage these days but I refuse to believe that eating must be painful. I was disappointed and even a bit angry. I had enjoyed guacamole at this same establishment several times in the past and had never been burned. I spent three years in Colorado where the native Westerners took great delight in trying to burn the tongue off the Tennessee guy. It was there I first ate “real” Mexican food, Tex-Mex, and other dishes. It was there I came to loathe food that left blisters on the inside of one’s mouth. I don’t mind sweating when I work out—I don’t need to do it while I am having lunch! My displeasure was, evidently, intense as the server came over to see what the problem was. I was polite—I really was. I figured the whole thing was my fault for not inquiring before I ordered. It was then that the other man at the table, Paul Massey, said. “You know, it could be that you got the only red pepper in the whole bowl.” I’m sure my scowl reflected that I thought his comment was ludicrous. A few minutes later, I decided to see if he was right. I placed a small amount of the green stuff on the chip, nibbled cautiously, and—no pain! To my amazement and delight, he was right! I got the only hot pepper in the bowl with my first bite. The next several moments were spent savoring and sharing the cool, delicious guacamole to which I was accustomed. I was glad I had risked the second bite. The risk was worth the reward. Over the years, I have seen people emotionally destroyed by terrible relationships. When they finally end, the comment is usually, “I’ll never (date, get serious, marry, or) fall in love again.” For a time, most stay true to their commitment. But, eventually, many take a second bite and hope for the best. One must be wise and heed counsel but it is surprising how many times the second try is not as painful as the first. The same could be said for church relationships. Nearly everyone who has been part of a church has been wounded at some time or another. In my own case, the deepest emotional pain I have ever experienced has come at the hands of those who labeled themselves “Christians.” In 1977, after a bitter experience as a young 24-year-old pastor, where my salary was cut, I was publicly humiliated at numerous church business meetings, and my wife and children were the prime victims of vicious gossip, I resigned the church, the ministry, and took a position with the state as a counselor/investigator in child abuse and neglect, figuring that it had to be easier. It was. Yet, a couple of years later I grudgingly took another bite and became the pastor of a tiny church in a lower working class section of a Tennessee town that was full of genuine, authentic, loving people. I still run into a few unpleasant people from time to time but now I have over 30 extra years of having my skin hardened and, besides, I have discovered that most people truly want to live their lives in a fashion that would please their Master. When I was younger, at age 19, I was dumped by a girl of whom I thought the world. She, it seems, didn’t want to be a “minister’s wife.” Dejected and angry, I turned my back on God, walked away, and did things as a “backslider” I never considered doing as a faithful believer. But, one day, there came the ever-present opportunity to take another bite. I married a lovely girl who knew I had been called to the ministry and wanted to be with me anyway. That risk of another bite has turned into over 35 years of marriage. And while I am the “chief of sinners” in my church and, as far as I know, in this community, I have discovered that God is faithful when I have been, and often continue to be, so faithless. I have discovered that he is a faithful Father who, according to St. Paul, is “not counting men’s sins against them” (2 Cor. 5:19 NIV). It is possible that the subsequent bite may contain a pepper. But one never knows until one risks experiencing pain. The reward is well worth the risk. The Rev. Epps is rector of Christ the King Charismatic Episcopal Church, Sharpsburg. He may be reached at Frepps@ctkcec.org. Guest Editorial It’s time for Congress to get a moral backbone By John W. Whitehead Speculation over a possible U.S. military strike against Iran has moved from questioning whether the U.S. will launch an attack to questioning when it will do so. Despite denials by the Bush Administration that a future offensive is planned, the present military build-up in the Persian Gulf of aircraft carriers, fighter jets, missiles and minesweepers and the stockpiling of oil reserves suggest differently. There is no shortage of opinions on the prospect of war with Iran. Those in favor seem determined to extend our war efforts on another front. Those opposed are leery of embarking on another drawn-out military offensive while we continue to lose ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. And we, the people, are left feeling powerless as the Bush Administration’s saber-rattling may be moving us inexorably closer to yet another war and yet another tragic loss of lives. This is the problem with allowing one branch of government to become more powerful than the others. The genius of the American system of government is that its powers and authority are deliberately divided. Referred to as the separation of powers, this means that the president, the courts and Congress each individually serve as one-third of the American governing body. And there are important reasons why the separation of powers must be preserved, especially when it comes to the power to declare war. James Wilson, one of our founding fathers strongly in favor of creating a strong presidency, recognized that by preventing the president from declaring wars, the Constitution guarantees that the government “will not hurry us into wars.” He went on to explain, “It is calculated to guard against it. It will not be the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distresses.” The framers of our Constitution understood that there is a world of difference between the power to declare war and the power to conduct war. They also knew from experience the dangers inherent in vesting both powers in the same person. That’s why they severed the power to initiate war, which rests with Congress, from the power to conduct it, which rests with the president. However, although Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes clear that only Congress has the power to declare war, Congress has absolved itself of that greater responsibility. As Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has noted, “The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war.” Since the 1973 passage of the War Powers Resolution, which limits the power of the president to wage war without Congress’ approval, Congress has resorted to issuing “authorizations of force” rather than “declarations of war.” By doing so, they are able to lessen the perception that the U.S. is committing itself to as serious an endeavor as war, shift the burden of engaging in hostilities to the executive branch and subsequently further erode our governmental system of checks and balances. The consequences of the government’s utter failure to obey the dictates of our Constitution and the wisdom of its drafters have been devastating—both to the rule of law and the war efforts. So what is to be done? First, Congress needs to do its job by reining in the runaway executive branch and enforcing the separation of powers. The Founding Fathers were deeply devoted to securing a government committed to an equal distribution of power. Fresh in their minds was the tyrannical rule of the British king. They understood well that if power weren’t shared and checked, a dictatorship would occur. Indeed, it is for this very reason that they created the three co-equal branches of government. Second, Congress and the Bush Administration should stop playing semantics and games. If it looks like war and it feels like war and the deaths and casualties mount up as they do in war, then it is war. And no amount of word-play or authorizations of force can get around that. Third, it’s time for Congress to get a moral backbone. There is no such thing as a free pass on issues of such great magnitude as war. War is irreversibly consequential. Thus, unless there is an extreme emergency, the decision to enter into war should be made with cautious deliberation and only after a measured public debate among our elected representatives. We are, at present, treading dangerous waters. And, at the very least, we owe it to those in uniform to guarantee that the ultimate sacrifice will only be asked of them under the most scrutinized circumstances. Thomas Jefferson believed that by putting the power to declare war with Congress, it created an “effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose.” Let’s put that power back where it belongs before the dog turns on its master and destroys the republic. Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Beacon Editorial Time to rein in military-industrial complex By Leo A. Hohmann leo@wgbeacon.com “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. “ —James Madison, Political Observations, 1795 It’s one of the more mind-boggling statistics I’ve ever laid eyes on. It shows that one country — our country — accounts for nearly half of the world’s military expenditures. Of the $1.2 trillion spent last year on the art of making war, $532 billion was coughed up by American taxpayers. And this does not even include the ongoing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! Nor does it include the loans that our government subsidizes for foreign governments so they can buy U.S.-made weapons. China comes in a distant second on the world military expenditures list, with estimates ranging from $45 billion to $80 billion. Even if you take the higher figure, the U.S. spends nearly seven times as much as China on defense. That’s obscene. That’s immoral when you think about all those who do without — without health insurance, without healthy meals, without enough heat in the winter months. Here in Georgia, the biggest losers are children. The PeachCare program, which provides health insurance to the children of working parents who don’t have employer-provided group plans and can’t afford private coverage, is being frozen by the state legislature and Congress. The federal government funds 73 percent of the program and it has not kept pace with the growing number of families who find themselves priced out of the health insurance market. But President Bush will surely get the $100 billion more he wants for the remainder of 2007 to fund his open-ended foreign wars, where our soldiers are sent to stand in between Sunni and Shiite Muslims locked in bloody sectarian conflict. The question we should all be asking is....why? Why does it cost so much more to defend American soil than it does Russian or Chinese or European soil? Our country is blessed with location — between two vast oceans to the east and west and friendly neighbors to the north and south. Yet, we can’t seem to provide for our national defense without breaking the budget. The national debt sits at $8.6 trillion and growing! Part of the blame has to lie with the military-industrial establishment, which President Eisenhower warned in the wake of World War II was a burgeoning threat to our representative form of democracy. When candidates are bankrolled by corporate interests, they will pay them back with our money once they get in office. Just look at the billions in no-bid contracts that the Bush administration handed out to companies to “rebuild” what the American military had destroyed in Iraq. That country’s infrastructure and social institutions were pulverized on the say so of one politician, the same politician who then played sugar daddy to huge multinational firms like Halliburton, Bechtel and Fluor Corp (see The Center for Public Integrity, Feb. 8, 2005 study on post war contracts at http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/resources.aspx?act=total). Honest leaders don’t stand a chance under a system where all you have to do is follow the money to predict which candidate will win the nomination of his or her respective party. We also need a national debate on what the proper role is for the U.S. military. Do we want a U.S. Department of “Defense” or do we really prefer a Global Department of Offense? If it truly is defense we are interested in then, as the richest nation in the world, we should have no problem protecting the homeland from attack while still taking care of our children and elderly. Shoot, we could probably even give our rank and file military personnel a hefty raise if we only employed enough of them to defend our borders, instead of sending them off on global military adventures at the whim of whoever happens to occupy the Oval Office. U.S. presidents have since World War II used our military to take down dictators they don’t like (i.e. Saddam) and to prop up friendly dictators (i.e. Saudi Arabia’s royal family). This is neither Constitutional nor practical. Our founding fathers invested the power to declare war with the Congress for a reason, as they most directly represent the people and are to be held accountable for the way money is spent. We now have 1.4 million people in the U.S. armed services. We pay them a total of $108 billion every year. Andy Rooney pontificated on 60 Minutes that “If we didn't suffer under the illusion that some country is just sitting around waiting to invade us, think what we could do with all the money we'd save by not paying for an Army and Navy.” I’m not advocating shuttering the Army or the Navy. I am saying we need to use them more wisely. Guest Coulmnist The soldier in seat 1-A By David Epps I had just taken my seat, number 2C, aboard Airtran Flight 569 from Bloomington, IL to Atlanta. The day was cold but clear and the sunset was but moments away in a near cloudless sky. I paid the upgrade of forty dollars for a business class seat because I wanted to read and relax after a busy two days in Champaign where I am helping to start a new church. I was about to open a book when a young soldier dressed in desert BDU’s entered the cabin and seated himself in 1A, a window seat, just in front of me. “The soldiers,” I thought, “look younger every day.” A few minutes later, an Airtran employee, a tall young man I judged to be in his twenties, approached the soldier and began to talk. Perhaps I shouldn’t have, but I listened. I overheard that the soldier was on his way to Fort Benning in Columbus, GA and, from there, to Kuwait then to Baghdad and to the war in Iraq. “Is this your first time?” the Airtran employee asked. He replied that it was. “I spent a year there,” the employee said and offered a smile and words of encouragement before departing the cabin. A flight attendant with a British accent came and sat with the soldier a few minutes before resuming her duties. Another flight attendant, a young man, went to the soldier and informed him that the captain was diverting the aircraft so that it would pass by the window where the soldier’s family was waiting to see him take off. “You can wave at them one more time before you leave.” “You don’t have to do that,” the soldier replied, but the aircraft had already turned. Word apparently quietly spread throughout the aircraft why the plane was not headed directly toward the runway. When the plane taxied in front of the large windows in the terminal, the aircraft came to a halt so that one young soldier could have a final moment. “You can wave,” the flight attendant quietly said. The soldier waved to his family. So did the flight attendants and most of the passengers on the left side of the aircraft. I waved too. Then a man standing with the family, the soldier’s father, came to full attention and offered a crisp military salute to his departing warrior. He held the salute as the plane rolled toward the runway. He tried, the young soldier, valiantly but unsuccessfully, not to cry. As his face sank into the cabin bulkhead, a flight attendant, put her hand on his shoulder and then turned away to spare him embarrassment. The soldier needn’t have been concerned about anyone thinking less of him because of his tears for the flight attendants were also wiping away their own tears. Behind him, I was weeping too. So were several passengers in business class. As the plane lifted into the darkening sky, the soldier continued to look out the window until the terminal passed into the distance. During the remainder of the trip to Atlanta, it seemed the flight attendants gave him extra attention. No one minded at all. He was going to war and we knew it. He deserved all the concern, care, respect, and attention possible. I marveled at this young man, and the many men and women like him, who volunteer to leave their communities, their mothers, their girlfriends or boyfriends, their brothers and sisters,  and their saluting fathers and go to serve in a war so far away. The courage that is required to offer themselves up in a cause that so many are loudly condemning is enormous. I don’t know if the young man will ever see Illinois again. Only God knows what awaits him in Iraq. If he returns home, he may be among those who arrive back home maimed and scarred for life. I was painfully aware that this man, perhaps still in his teens, might face violence, bloodshed, and death. Certainly, the father who saluted him carries these thoughts with him constantly. I didn’t read very much on the flight home. My thoughts were too serious—too sober. I did, however, do what I knew I could do: I silently prayed for this young man, this warrior, this soldier, this son, for most of the flight to Atlanta. I prayed that he will soon be on another flight—the flight home to Illinois. May God mercifully grant that he, and all the brave men and women who serve so far from home, be returned to those who love them safely and unharmed. Before I left the plane, I introduced myself, asked his name, gave him my card, and told him I would be praying for him and for his fellow warriors. Then I did one more thing—I saluted him. The Rev. David Epps, a former Marine, is rector of Christ the King Charismatic Episcopal Church, Sharpsburg. He may be reached at Frepps@ctkcec.org. Guest Editorial Needless barrier to public access Proposed Georgia law would roll back public’s right to see government records without hassle By Dusty Nix Columbus Ledger-Enquirer Once again some members of the Georgia General Assembly are trying to create another hoop for Georgians to jump through to get information that by rights belongs to them. Once again it's a bad idea and a recipe for bad law. The culprit this time is House Bill 283, which would allow government agencies subject to open records laws to require that public record requests be submitted in writing. Exempt from such regulations would be routine items like minutes, meeting agendas and the like. You can quickly see the problem here: Some local governments likely would not enact, or at least not rigidly enforce, such powers. Some would enact them and use them responsibly. And others, of course, would use the law as just another barrier to full and timely accountability. Anyone who doubts this is clearly unfamiliar with the ways governments routinely use, and have always used, any loophole available to delay or deny public access. The bill's author and chief sponsor, Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, argues that the measure is a means of protecting officials subject to criminal charges for violation of sunshine laws. "It isn't a secrecy issue," Hatfield said. "It's a matter of fairness to all parties involved in the process." If frequent and frivolous charges against public officials for sunshine law violations were a chronic problem in Georgia, such a measure might make sense. They aren't, and it doesn't. What this bill does is what most such would-be impediments to public access -- whether they are intended as such or not -- almost always do: It reflects an assumption, perhaps subliminal, that laws governing access to public records should serve the interests and convenience of government rather than of the public. No responsible public servant will say that, or suggest that he or she believes that; but it is the inevitable effect of buffers between citizens and the institutions that exist to serve them. Of course there should be common sense expectations of, and limits to, how quickly documents, especially detailed and voluminous ones,