Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Humpday Entertainment Presents:

Justice?
by:
Charles Patrick Akers

It has been said one good deed can not right a lifetime of wrong. Now, while I wholeheartedly agree, how is it that one good deed cannot right a lifetime of wrong, but one foul deed is enough to condemn a man's life with total disregard for any and all good deeds or services he may have performed before hand, that had gone unnoticed by the person, or persons, charged with deciding this said man's fate? Not only condemning the said man's life, but making him pay for that one wicked deed for the rest of his life.

I am of the opinion (with the understanding of a certain amount of bias, which comes from having fallen victim to circumstances stated previously) that the irony of this is so great that it borders patronization.

What I find more ironic about this issue is that these hypocritical sentiments describes the very foundation of what we call our "Justice" system. The definition of justice is 1: just conduct, fair dealing, 2. Just treatment. 3. Deserved reward or punishment.

Who is it to decide what is deserved for any deed (be it good or bad) when it effects another man's life? While every ill deed deserves some sort of punishment, it should not be held over that offenders head for the rest of their life. It does not matter how many people vote for such legislation. It is not just conduct nor is it fair dealing for any group of people to decide the rest of the man's life. However, the dementia has been carried further.

Now we have it so that one person can be elected to sit on the bench and decide a man's fate. Of course, here, I am referring to the judges of the courts. The narcissistic, self proclaimed demigods that act, daily, as if they have some sort of divine right to decide the rules to govern society and decide the punishments when these rules are not followed.

Then they reinforce these ideals by trying to insinuate that God supports their laws; although not being so bold as to state it plainly, but, instead, having witnesses place their hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth; with the threat of offending God (and therefore invoking his wrath. ) I think the subliminal contexts are easy to recognize.

Since this insinuation has been "brought to the light" I shall elaborate a bit more. As I stated above, the implied message is that God approves of the court system and the way in which it is run. However, I believe the Bible (called the word of God for a reason) says differently. In John 8:1-11 Jesus went to the Mount of Olives to teach. While he was teaching, a woman was brought before him; a woman that had been caught in the act of committing adultery. The punishment for which (by law) called for the woman to be stoned to death, with which the men present agreed. However, Jesus' response was, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. He then began writing in the dirt, where He had left off with His previous lesson. The Bible then says that the woman's accusers turned and left "convicted by their own conscience." When Jesus looked up and saw this, and said to the woman, "Woman, where are these accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you? To which she answered "No one Lord." Jesus responded, saying to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

Now, I think it is simply an elementary expectation for the law (or laws) to be supported by God, that they should correspond with the word of God; and if not in correspondence with, they should, at least, not be contradicted by it. For, if Jesus would not condemn a woman caught in the act of breaking the law, how would he feel about a mere man condemning another man simply on the testimony of another person?

Is one man's word more valuable than anothers simply because one is the accuser and the other stands accused? How about the judge? How is it right for him to make a career out of dispensing what he sees as justice, but it is wrong for me to take justice into my own hands? Is this not saying he is made more of a man than the? Or that his worth, or value, is more than mine; therefore giving him the right to do things that I am wrong for doing? This cannot be the case, because it would most definitely not be" just conduct" nor "fair dealing" therefore making what we call justice and injustice in itself.

Rest assured, I know what I'm speaking of: it has been termed anarchy (lunacy by some) however, it is not precisely anarchy of which I speak. I speak merely of consistency. The justice system saw fit to bring the Bible into the equation, therefore I am going to quote from the Bible a bit more to clarify that of which I speak.

I would like to call to attention, once more, the statement I made earlier referring to witnesses being forced to swear with one hand on the Bible. It says clearly in James 5:12 -"But above all, my bretheren, do not swear, either by heaven or by any other oath. But let your 'Yes' be yes and your 'No' be no, lest you fall into judgment. I don't see any way one could possibly misconstrue that verse in any way, shape nor form. Yet, the justice system would simply that everything they do is just and fair in God's eyes.

Thus bringing me to my semi-anarchist ideals. If God is to be used as the measuring stick for justice, then why not give God uncontested rule? In the book of Exodus, when God saw the need for written rules, God hasn't seen the need imperative enough as to be served a response? Are we so far gone as to use God as a figurehead while implying that we know what's best for us by establishing our own laws? How would God feel about the laws supporting gay marriage? What about the laws supporting abortion? Are these things right simply because the majority votes as they are? John 15:19says "If you were of the world the world would love its own. Yet because you were not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." Thus being said, if the majority of the world is not of God, then how could any majority vote (on any topic) be expected to coincide with God's wishes? And, if not supporting guides wishes, how could it be expected to gain His support? Very simply answered: it can't.

Please understand that this is not meant to be some misguided lesson in theology. This is merely my view, from the perspective of the man that has fallen victim to these psychotic ideals and, having done so, been deprived of any possibility of another chance at life. However, I am not delusional. I realize that, having entered this devastating cycle of self destruction, any and all opinions I have developed are irrelevant; in the sense that any possible avenues I may have to make my views known can just as easily be close off by deeming my opinions as the complaints of another unhappy menace wno doesn't want to suffer the consequences of his actions. Therefore making any grievances raised lose any weight or momentum gained; once again leaving the justice system triumphant, and making the law the most powerful weapon in this psychological warfare used against those that couldn't imagine the immense power this processes. But, "God always punishes us for what we can't imagine."

1 comment:

  1. Wow...thats about all i can say.

    ReplyDelete