In 2012 we must make a big decision. Do we choose Socialism, do we choose to follow in the footsteps of our nation’s founders, or do we consider other options? Since there are over 300 million of us, and we will each make our own choice, we will probably choose a path that has no ideological purity. When tyrants do not rule, such is the nature of compromise.

Yet when old men look at where they are, they look back wondering how they got to that place. Then, even when they are soon to pass away, they look ahead. Therefore, Harold Estes wrote his letter, and I linked to it here and here (See PEARL HARBOR DAY).

When I linked to Estes letter, one commenter said that Estes grossly distorted our president’s words. Sadly, I do not think so. Yet the possibility is worth considering, and of course, somebody has. About.com has this article, Harold B. Estes Letter to Obama, for example. So let’s consider the matter here.

” We’re no longer a Christian nation”

About.com posts ‘The President Without a Country’ by Pat Boone. That links to The president without a country by Pat Boone. Oddly, if you google Boone’s op-ed, “The president without a country” pat boone, About.com’s and Snope.com’s (here) articles pop up at the top of the search list. Like as not, since Boone’s article appears to predate Estes letter, Estes got this line from Pat Boone’s article.

However, this article, Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’, actually addresses the source of this first quote.  So what is wrong with the quote. Some have left a few words out, supposedly with nefarious intent.  Here is the “complete” quote from Obama’s inaugural address.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. (from here)

Or perhaps it is from an interview with a Christian broadcaster.

Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. (from here)

Supposedly, that “not just” makes everything okay.

”America is arrogant”

MediaMatters blames this one on a certain talk show host, Hannity truncated Obama quote to claim it was an example of “blame America first”. What is funny is that Hannity plays the portion of Obama’s speech he “quotes.” The “quote” comes from this line in one of Obama’s apology tour speeches.

In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. (from here and here)

”America is mean-spirited”

 The quote comes from that time before Obama entered politics, when he was at Harvard.

“Hopefully, more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we’re going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous,” Obama said. “I mean, I really hope to be part of a transformation of this country.”  (from here)

Here is a different version.

“We’re going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous.” — May 1990, quoted in article while attending Harvard Law School (from here)

Of course, Michelle Obama shares similar views.

“America hasn’t lived up to her ideals”

With this “quote”, Estes apparently refers to another line in the Barack Obama apology tour.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. (from Barack Obama’s speech at Cairo University in Egypt, June 4, 2009)

Conclusion

Did Harold Estes grossly distort Obama’s words? Well, if you want to nitpick, I suppose he did. However, when I read the letter, I did not take the quotes as literal. I understood Obama would not be so stupid as to say exactly those words. In fact, without the help of Liberal Democrats, I would never be able to figure out exactly which words Estes misquoted.

Obama in fact:

• Does not believe America is a Christian nation.
• Has gone on what most Conservatives regard as apology tours. If he is not apologizing for our “arrogance”, what is he doing?
• Is trying to transform our country and make it what he says is less mean-spirited.
• Has spent all kinds of effort blaming his predecessor for one thing or another. I think it safe to say Democrats did not think George W. Bush lived up to their ideals.

There is a deliberate effort by the Obama administration to transform our nation. ”Transform” is Barack Obama’s word for what he wants to do to America — to the American people. I can only speak for myself, but I do not think much of what Obama and Democratic Party wants America to become comports with Christian values. What Estes did is express his legitimate objections to Obama’s efforts to transform us. Nitpicking over “quotes” will not make those objections go away.

FOR RELEASE: On Receipt (December 7, 2011) CONTACT: Del Bob Marshall, (703) 853-4213 Kaine ‘Is Very Confused’ DEL. MARSHALL SAYS Tim Kaine Misrepresents HIS Personhood Bill ‘We already have enough people in Washington who vote on bills without ever reading them.’ Del. Bob Marshall tonight (Wednesday, Dec. 7) accused Tim Kaine, the Democrats’ presumptive 2012 candidate for the U.S. Senate, of mounting a “skewed attack on my personhood bill” in tonight’s early-bird Senate debate in Richmond. “After seeing Tim Kaine’s skewed attack on my personhood bill (HB1), it is obvious he is very confused,” Marshall (R., 13th District) said. “First of all, we tell third graders in Virginia’s public schools that human life begins at fertilization or conception. Scientists have definitively known when human life begins since at least the 1830′s. Why not Tim Kaine? “Tim Kaine, a Harvard-educated attorney, claims that my personhood bill, HB 1, will outlaw birth control. The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with Tim Kaine, because it upheld almost identical language in a Missouri statute from the 1980′s, 25 years ago, in the Webster v. Missouri case. “None of the parade of horribles predicted today by Tim Kaine occurred when abortion was illegal, such as homicide prosecutions for women who abort their children or making miscarriages manslaughter. My measure passed the House of Delegates earlier this year, 62-36. Virginia’s entire press corps apparently slept through the legal earthquake Tim Kaine predicted would follow passage of my bill most likely because his claims are not true. “My personhood bill creates a civil cause of action for the wrongful death of an unborn child. This cause of action already exists in the majority of states and is a natural complement to Virginia’s fetal homicide law. “Does Tim Kaine object to providing a legal remedy for parents whose beloved unborn baby is killed by the negligent or criminal act of a third party? Does anyone other than Tim Kaine really think that is a bad idea? “Tim Kaine wants to serve in the US Senate. But if he refuses to understand the meaning of a simple seven line bill, what would he do in Washington as a Senator with bills longer than a single page? We already have enough people in Washington who vote on bills without ever reading them.” Marshall’s HB1, prefiled for the Virginia General Assembly’s 2012 session and co-patroned by State Sen. Charles Colgan (D., 29th District), is summarized by the General Assembly’s Legislative Information Service as follows: “Rights of unborn children. Provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth, subject only to the laws and constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the Commonwealth.”

This continues a series on the Ten Commandments. In the last post we discussed 8th commandment. With object of demonstrating that we base our laws upon the Bible, in this post we will discuss the relationship between the 7th commandment and government.

What is the 7th commandment?

Exodus 20.14 The New Revised Standard Version

14 You shall not commit adultery.

Note that for reasons we discussed in PART 2 of this series Catholics consider the prohibition against adultery the 6th commandment.

What Is The Sin Of Adultery?

adultery n : extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; “adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce” [syn: criminal conversation, fornication]

The Amplified Bible provides this footnote.

Exodus 20:14 Observe here the expansion of the meaning of the seventh commandment in many catechisms to include whoredom in all its forms, as well as unchastity [premarital relations, sexual impurity, and lustful desire under whatever name] (J.P. Lange, A Commentary). Not only is adultery forbidden here, but also fornication and all kinds of mental and sensual uncleanness. All impure books, songs, pictures, etc., which tend to inflame and debauch the mind are against this law (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with A Commentary).

The Bible teaches us to regard the marriage bond as a prerequisite to sex.

Exodus 22:16-17 Amplified Bible (AMP)

16 If a man seduces a virgin not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to become his wife.

17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equivalent to the dowry of virgins.

What Bible prohibits is what people now call casual sex. The Bible teaches is that there is no such thing.

Genesis 2:21-24 American Standard Version (ASV)

21 And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof:

22 and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

One flesh. The sex act joins two people both physically and mentally.

What Are The Consequences Of Adultery?

In our era, we treat sex casually. Why we treat sex casually, however, we cannot rationally explain. The consequences too easily argue against casual sex.

• What are the consequences of sexual immorality? at ChristianAanswers.Net addresses the moral consequences of sexual immorality. 
• Teen parents talk legal, financial consequences of sex, at USA Today speaks to the turmoil generated by legal and financial complications.
• Consequences of unsafe sex at HubPages tells us of the problems caused by “unsafe” sex.

Yet in spite of the consequences, we have “scientific evidence” that safe sex is not a problem. According to “new research,” Casual Sex Doesn’t Cause Emotional Damage: Study. Really? Then consider the incongruity of this observation at Self.

Hooking up can lead to getting hitched — and not just in the movies. A recent study from the University of Iowa found that a significant percentage of current relationships began with nonromantic sex.

So can you really have a healthy, committed relationship with your old hook-up buddy? (continued here)

[The idiocy of such studies and advice explains The Onion's humor. See Study: Casual Sex Only Rewarding For First Few Decades.]

What most people want is a committed relationship, what the folks at Self would consider romantic sex. What is a committed relationship? Isn’t that marriage? When we have sex with someone with whom we do not want a committed relationship, then we use that person for our own momentary pleasure.

Jesus taught that sexual commitment is highly important. Here is how He spoke about adultery.

Mark 10:2-12 The Message (MSG)

1-2 From there he went to the area of Judea across the Jordan. A crowd of people, as was so often the case, went along, and he, as he so often did, taught them. Pharisees came up, intending to give him a hard time. They asked, “Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 Jesus said, “What did Moses command?”

4 They answered, “Moses gave permission to fill out a certificate of dismissal and divorce her.”

5-9 Jesus said, “Moses wrote this command only as a concession to your hardhearted ways. In the original creation, God made male and female to be together. Because of this, a man leaves father and mother, and in marriage he becomes one flesh with a woman—no longer two individuals, but forming a new unity. Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart.”

10-12 When they were back home, the disciples brought it up again. Jesus gave it to them straight: “A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery.”

Why is commitment so important? This is what Mark recorded next.  

Mark 10:13-16 The Message (MSG)

13-16 The people brought children to Jesus, hoping he might touch them. The disciples shooed them off. But Jesus was irate and let them know it: “Don’t push these children away. Don’t ever get between them and me. These children are at the very center of life in the kingdom. Mark this: Unless you accept God’s kingdom in the simplicity of a child, you’ll never get in.” Then, gathering the children up in his arms, he laid his hands of blessing on them.

“The very center of life in the kingdom.” God treasures our children, the fruit of our sexual unions. It is children who make marriage especially sacred.

What Do Our Laws Say?

Matthew 19 also provides an account of Jesus’ words on marriage, divorce, and adultery. In verse 9, Jesus offered one specific cause for divorce, adultery. In Adultery, the Catholic Encyclopedia explores the subject of adultery with respect to:

I. Nature of adultery;
II. Its guilt;
III. Obligations entailed upon the offenders.

As the section titles suggest, much of the discussion would have relevance to Law as it relates the sin of adultery with justification for divorce.

In our day, we have no fault divorce (see An Overview of No Fault and Fault Divorce Law at Findlaw.com). In the United States no fault divorce started first in California effective January 1, 1970 (see No-fault divorce in Wikipedia). Prior to that, one of the parties in a marriage had to be shown at fault for the breakup of that marriage. here is what Findlaw.com says about those states that still recognize fault divorces.

Fault divorces are not as common, and in fact, many states no longer even recognize them. In the states that do recognize them, one of the spouses requests that a divorce be granted based on some fault of the other spouse. The most common grounds for granting a fault divorce are:

• Adultery
• Abandonment for a certain length of time
• Prison confinement
• A spouse is physically unable to have sexual intercourse
• Inflicting emotional or physical pain (cruelty)

No state requires the spouses seeking a fault divorce to live apart for a specific period of time, unlike a no fault divorce. Proving fault also often provides the spouse without fault with a larger portion of the marital property or support. These two characteristics make a fault divorce more attractive to some people.

Because divorce is a hate-filled acrimonious process, no fault divorce looked like a good idea. Why not avoid that unpleasant strife? Well, after trying the experiment, we should know the answer? So let’s phrase the question clearly. Was the departure from Biblical divorce standards to no fault divorce a good idea? Since better minds than my own have argued against no fault divorce, here is a reference to such an article, The Evolution of Divorce by W. Bradford Wilcox at National Affairs.

Note Wilcox makes a fairly strong case that no fault divorce is a bad idea. His solutions for a fix, however, leave something to be desired. Why? There really is no government fix. Consider this paragraph near the end of his article.

Of course, none of these reforms of law and policy alone is likely to exercise a transformative influence on the quality and stability of marriage in America. Such fixes must be accompanied by changes in the wider culture. Parents, churches, schools, public officials, and the entertainment industry will have to do a better job of stressing the merits of a more institutional model of marriage. This will be particularly important for poor and working-class young adults, who are drifting away from marriage the fastest.

What is needed is a change of heart, not law.

To be continued.

I first heard about the decision on Affordable Care Act is that by DC Court of Appeals when I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show (Here is the transcript.). Limbaugh thought the decision appalling (a fact he underlines here). He expressed astonishment that a jurist that he once thought Conservative wrote the majority decision in favor of the government, that is, declaring the nationalization of our health care system constitutional.

At that point, I was curious, but busy. However, when a commenter (here) brought up the opinion from the DC Court of Appeals, I decided to look at it. I fear it is a rather depressing document. Judge Silberman wrote the majority opinion using a tone reminiscent of A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift.

When I was growing up, I learned something I thought rather profound and peculiar to our nation. Our Constitution says what our government can do. On the other hand, our laws proscribe the individual from doing certain things. In most other nations, the opposite is true. Governments in those nations operate with little restraint. Instead, their laws work to define what the individual is allowed to do. What Silberman explains in a few pages (pages 25 – 37) is how the United States is becoming more and more like other nations.

Note that the opinion is 101 pages long. Why so long? Much of the document involves a discussion separate from the fundamental issue. In fact, the dissent is quite lengthy; it basically says the court lacks jurisdiction. The argument revolves around an arcane legal debate. The subject? Does the court have jurisdiction to consider the case? Apparently, there is this law called the Anti-Injunction Act. Here is a description that describes the argument over that law (from page 2 of the dissent).

Under the Anti-Injunction Act, a taxpayer seeking to challenge a tax law must first pay the disputed tax and then bring a refund suit, at which time the courts will consider the taxpayer’s legal arguments. Or a taxpayer may raise legal arguments in defending against an IRS enforcement action. But a taxpayer may not bring a pre-enforcement suit. In this case, the individual mandate takes effect in 2014, so taxpayers without health insurance must start paying tax penalties on their tax returns in 2015. The Anti-Injunction Act means, therefore, that a suit challenging the individual mandate cannot be entertained until 2015, unless Congress acts before then to exempt these suits from the Act.

Taxes have a special place in the hearts of our leaders. Therefore, because of the Anti-Injunction Act, there is a real possibility that the Supreme Court may blow off any decision over health care nationalization until well after the 2012 election. We may not think that tax/penalty associated with the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, but thanks to Anti-Injunction Act before we have privilege of taking our concerns to court we may have to pay the tax/penalty.

In the world being evolved by our leaders, laws primarily serve to ensnare and bind the individual in webs of weasel words. Consider the case Judge Silberman cited for precedent.

We think the closest Supreme Court precedent to our case is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). There, a farmer ran afoul of his allowed wheat acreage under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 by growing additional wheat, not for sale, but to feed his family and his livestock. Id. at 114-15, 118-19. Filburn argued that the Act was unconstitutional as applied to him because he was not using the excess wheat for any activity in the interstate market. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this claim. It held that even growing wheat for personal consumption, not for sale in any market, could affect the national price, and therefore was within Congress’s commerce power. Id. at 127-28. This conclusion was not only because his wheat might be diverted into the national market, as was recognized in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 18-19 (2005). Justice Jackson said even “if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon.” Wickard, 317 U.S. at 128 (emphasis added). Justice Jackson thus recognized that the Act “force some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves.” Id. at 129. Although a regulation limited the size of the farms covered, the logic of the opinion would apply to force any farmer, no matter how small, into buying wheat in the open market. See Raich, 545 U.S. at 20. Wickard, therefore, comes very close to authorizing a mandate similar to ours, at least indirectly, and the farmer’s “activity” could be as incidental to the regulation as simply owning a farm.

Think about it. You have a personal garden? Is what you grow in your garden subject to the interstate commerce clause? Could be. Consider what the judge wrote on page 29.

We look first to the text of the Constitution. Article I, § 8, cl. 3, states: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” (emphasis added). At the time the Constitution was fashioned, to “regulate” meant, as it does now, “[t]o adjust by rule or method,” as well as “[t]o direct.” To “direct,” in turn, included “[t]o prescribe certain measure[s]; to mark out a certain course,” and “[t]o order; to command.” In other words, to “regulate” can mean to require action, and nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to those already active in relation to an interstate market. Nor was the term “commerce” limited to only existing commerce. There is therefore no textual support for appellants’ argument. So we turn to Supreme Court decisions.

The Framers, in using the term “commerce among the states,” obviously intended to make a distinction between interstate and local commerce, but Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century has largely eroded that distinction. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 553-61; id. at 568-75 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Today, the only recognized limitations are that (1) Congress may not regulate non-economic behavior based solely on an attenuated link to interstate commerce, and (2) Congress may not regulate intrastate economic behavior if its aggregate impact on interstate commerce is negligible. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 610, 615-19 (2000); Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558-61, 566-67. Those limitations are quite inapposite to the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which certainly is focused on economic behavior–if only decisions whether or not to purchase health care insurance or to seek medical care–that does substantially affect interstate commerce.

What the judge is doing is citing precedence, precedence he apparently feels he cannot ignore. Yet as he plainly states (bolded above), the Supreme Court has “largely eroded” the plain intent of the Constitution.

Why did Supreme Court feel justified in eroding the Constitution? Consider an excerpt from page 7.

Congress made specific findings why, in its judgment, the individual mandate regulates commerce. Congress determined that decisions about whether and when to purchase health insurance, and how to pay for health care services, are inherently economic. And Congress found that without the mandate, uninsured individuals, in the aggregate, would consume costly health care services and pass on those costs to other market participants. Without the mandate, in Congress’s view, other reforms–namely prohibitions on denying health insurance coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions (the “guaranteed issue requirement”) or using an individual’s medical history to justify higher insurance premiums (the “community rating requirement”)–would increase average premiums, exacerbate adverse selection problems, and discourage individuals from obtaining coverage until they were sick.

Because Congress wants to mandate charity (that is, redistribute the wealth) via health care insurance, everyone must be forced to participate. In the ethical math used by Congress, two wrongs make a right.

Will we continue to allow the erosion of the intent that was once plain in our Constitution to continue? If we do then at some point Congress will be able to do whatever it wants. Instead of regulating commerce, Congress will direct, prescribe, order, and command all the little details of our lives.

Other Views

Writing for The New Republic Atlanta lawyer Bruce P. Brown defends the ruling in How Conservative Judges Just Provided the Most Authoritative Legal Defense of Obamacare. Brown ignores the fact that Judge Silberman is not happy with the precedent provided by the Supreme Court.

In Judge Silberman’s Strange Opinion, the editors at the The Wall Street Journal appear a bit baffled. Did they read the decision?

DC Circuit Review notes Silberman’s apparent reluctance in Judge Silberman Reluctantly Upholds “an Intrusive Exercise of Legislative Power”.

In the title of its article, The Daily Caller nails it, D.C. Circuit finds no significant limit on commerce power. Here is how their writer defines the issue.

Silberman is correct in his reading of the Commerce Clause case law, and therein lies the heart of the issue facing the Supreme Court when it considers the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Will the Court finally abandon the pretense that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause remains limited? Or will it take seriously the concept of a national government of enumerated and limited power within a federal system in which, in the words of the 10th Amendment, “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people.”

This continues a series on the Ten Commandments. In the last post we discussed 9th commandment. With object of demonstrating we base our laws upon the Bible, in this post we will discuss the relationship between the 8th commandment and government. What is the 8th commandment?

Exodus 20:15 The New Revised Standard Version

You shall not steal.

Note that for reasons we discussed in PART 2 of this series Catholics consider the prohibition against stealing the 7th commandment.

What is stealing?

steal n : an advantageous purchase; “she got a bargain at the auction”; “the stock was a real buy at that price” [syn:
bargain, buy]
v 1: take without the owner’s consent; “Someone stole my wallet on the train”; “This author stole entire paragraphs from my dissertation”
2: move stealthily; “The ship slipped away in the darkness” [syn: slip]
3: steal a base, in baseball
4: to go stealthily or furtively: “..stead of sneaking around
spying on the neighbor’s house” [syn: sneak, mouse, creep,
pussyfoot]

Of course, what the 8th Commandment prohibits is taking without the owner’s consent. With a little hyperbole, we call that furtive action we associate with stealing, stealthy movement, ”stealing”.

Because we speak English and most of the colonists who founded the United States were the descendents of Englishmen, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible probably has more effect upon the morals of Americans than any other document (See here for its history.). That version of the Bible contains versions of the word “steal” 26 times and the word “stole” 20 times. Thus, Christians understand what God thinks of theft (which appears 5 times), thieves (which appears 16 times), robber (which appears 23 times), and thief (which appears 28 times).

What Does The Eighth Commandment Require Of Us?

Although the 8th Commandment does not prohibit slavery, it does discourage certain aspects of it.

Exodus 21:16 American Standard Version (ASV)

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy 24:7 Amplified Bible (AMP)

If a man is found kidnapping any of his brethren of the Israelites and treats him as a slave or a servant or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall put evil from among you.

Of course, there are plain rules for dealing with the theft of property. Here is the explanation in modern English.

Exodus 22:1-4 The Message (MSG)

1-3 “If someone steals an ox or a lamb and slaughters or sells it, the thief must pay five cattle in place of the ox and four sheep in place of the lamb. If the thief is caught while breaking in and is hit hard and dies, there is no bloodguilt. But if it happens after daybreak, there is bloodguilt.
3-4 “A thief must make full restitution for what is stolen. The thief who is unable to pay is to be sold for his thieving. If caught red-handed with the stolen goods, and the ox or donkey or lamb is still alive, the thief pays double.

Although it might surprise some, the Bible does not regard the “right” to kill a thief as foregone conclusion. John Wesley (1703 – 1791) reached this conclusion about the text above..

If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing it, his blood was upon his own head. But if it were in the day – time that the thief was killed, he that killed him was accountable for it, unless it were in the necessary defence of his own life. (from here)

Nonetheless, sympathy for the thief has its limits.

Proverbs 6:30-31 New Century Version (NCV)

30 People don’t hate a thief
when he steals because he is hungry.
31 But if he is caught, he must pay back seven times what he stole, and it may cost him everything he owns.

The society of man cannot easily tolerate open thievery.  

What Does The New Testament Say?

When asked “Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? ” Jesus observed that we must obey the commandments, including the one that prohibits stealing (Mark 10:17-27). As Jesus had observed earlier in the Book of Mark:

Mark 7:20-23 King James Version (KJV)

20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

The Apostle Paul summed up this way.

Romans 13:8-10 New Living Translation (NLT)

8 Owe nothing to anyone—except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law. 9 For the commandments say, “You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.” These—and other such commandments—are summed up in this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills the requirements of God’s law.

In fact, the Apostle Paul suggests that the thief exchange stealing with charity.

Ephesians 4:28 King James Version (KJV)

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

What Do Our Laws Say?

FindLaw.com provides an overview of Theft. Here is the legal definition.

Theft is often defined as the unauthorized taking of property from another with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. Within this definition lie two key elements: 1) a taking of someone else’s property; and 2) the requisite intent to deprive the victim of the property permanently.

Just as the Bible does, we try to make the punishment fit the severity of the crime.

Other key questions in theft cases are: 1) what type of property was stolen; and 2) how much the property was actually worth. This determines the category and/or degree of theft charges that an accused could face. Many jurisdictions create degrees of theft crimes. For example, a third degree theft might be a misdemeanor involving property with a relatively low market value. On the other hand, a first degree theft could be classified as a felony with stolen property valued above a limit established by law. Alternatively, some states categorize their theft (or related offenses) as “petty” or “grand”.

Of course there is more to stealing just sneaking and creeping off with someone else’s property. Matthew Henry‘s (1662 – 1682) commentary puts it this way.

The eighth commandment is the law of love as it respects the property of others. The portion of worldly things allotted us, as far as it is obtained in an honest way, is the bread which God hath given us; for that we ought to be thankful, to be contented with it, and, in the use of lawful means, to trust Providence for the future. Imposing upon the ignorance, easiness, or necessity of others, and many other things, break God’s law, though scarcely blamed in society. Plunderers of kingdoms though above human justice, will be included in this sentence. Defrauding the public, contracting debts without prospect of paying them, or evading payment of just debts, extravagance, all living upon charity when not needful, all squeezing the poor in their wages; these, and such things, break this command; which requires industry, frugality, and content, and to do to others, about worldly property, as we would they should do to us. (from here)

Thus we prohibit fraud and punish those who break contracts and seek to evade payment of their just debts. In addition, we allow workers to organize and seek just wages (See FAQs About Union Members’ Rights).

To be continued: Next week we will discuss the 7th of The Ten Commandments.