The People Really Mean It: No More Tyranny

I’m back. I didn’t really stop writing this blog. For the past month I’ve been inundated with work on the state platform. Got subcommittee files sent out last night. So today I vacuumed, which I hadn’t done for some weeks, so that we were practically swimming in dog hair. And I did some grocery shopping and other things I’ve put off.

I’m a little bit compulsive about details, things like formatting and consistency. But much of this long effort just has to do with the overwhelming amount of work—done by me and other volunteer/unpaid editors. This is the first year we’ve done the file preparation; in past years RPT staff did it. But we hadn’t been satisfied (some senatorial districts—mine included—had not been included, so that was a serious problem). We now have better ideas for process, for next time. Ways that I thought were going to be done this time, since we had done it at our district level, but I guess what was in my head did not coincide with others. Anyway, it takes a lot of tedious work, regardless of process. But we do have plans for a better process in the future.

There were more than 3500 resolutions that came in from the 31 senatorial districts across Texas. There were duplicates of many of them; several SDs submitted the exact same wording. And there were additional near duplicates, where just some of the wording was different. And there were many more resolutions of the same ideas but that were expressed in different wording. And here and there are unique ideas, also worth noticing.

We have a huge platform—over 330 planks, before adding more this year. People are very concerned about ideas they’ve worked on in the past being lost, so they insist that we start with the previous platform. If no resolutions come in related to a particular plank, that doesn’t mean it goes away; it means it probably didn’t generate strong concerns this year. It may not even get talked about. So it stays. And the issues garnering attention this year get added. Most of the time, the committees don’t disagree with what was put in the platform the year before—unless it’s an idea that still stirs up emotion—so they leave those ideas alone. So, alas, it will probably always be long.

What has gotten my notice this year are the themes. And these are repeated from what I saw at our district convention.

The people of Texas are against tyranny. They’ve seen too much of it—from the federal government and state and local. The platform is a way to express that. The ideas come up from precinct conventions to district and county conventions, and now on up to the state convention.

Some of the resolutions are minutely specific and detailed. Some just express a broad sentiment in a sentence.

Two years ago we were already expressing concern about pandemic response being used as an excuse for tyranny. There’s even more on that this year. But that concern has broadened—because the government overreach, attempting to control our lives, is even greater, with more invasive tentacles.

We do not want tyranny in our healthcare choices. We also do not want tyranny in our media—social media, news media, entertainment. We think more open discussion is better. And we’re really sick of truth being labeled “disinformation” by people who are lying to us. And, by the way, we don’t want the government surveilling us and keeping that data—just in case they can come up with probable cause someday.

Parents have the inherent right to the
care and upbringing of their children. That's
Mr. Spherical Model doing that job with
two of our now-grown kids.

A huge part of the pushback this year is related to families. It goes way beyond school choice, which is becoming a main Republican theme that legislators better listen to. But it’s bigger than that. Parents have the inherent right to the care and upbringing of their children. Parents—and taxpayers in general—aren’t going to tolerate sexualized and racialized indoctrination of our children.

If this were not a real issue, if this were something that is just a rumor with no real life examples, we would not be hearing the uproar from across the state.

Think about numbers. Most people do not attend a precinct convention, let along write a resolution to put forward at one. So that person who writes the resolution probably represents several hundred people in his or her precinct who feel the same way but aren’t involved. Maybe they don’t know how to get involved or express that idea.

So this person writes a resolution on a topic of concern—like Social Emotional Learning, and anything under that umbrella, being taught in our schools. We get similar resolutions on the same topic from maybe dozens of local precincts, meaning it’s widespread here. It means several thousand people have the same concern.

And then you get together at a district convention and find out tens of thousands of people have the same concern. You can extrapolate at the state level, when the same idea comes up in maybe 20 out of the 31 districts, that there are hundreds of thousands of people with the same concern, probably millions.

People want sex out of the schools. Let’s just remove sex ed entirely, since the public schools have already proven they can’t be trusted—and because that’s not the basic function of schools. We want NO LGBT-plus-any-other-letters-or-symbols agenda being foisted on young people. Parents resent schools doing sneaky things like leaving parents out of the information loop, or telling kids not to tell their parents about something.

When schools fail to meet the needs of families, the parents feel stuck. They want school choice. Here we are paying taxpayer money, and it goes to this failing monopoly—actually preventing parents from getting the kind of education their children need. We want our legislators to hear this: we want the money to follow the child WITHOUT government strings attached.

Related to that is the horror people feel about permanently mutilating minors for the sake of “affirming” a confusion that most of them will grow out of.

First and Second Amendments

People care about their First Amendment rights—religion and speech mentioned mostly. And people care about their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. What part of “shall not be infringed” does the government not understand?

During the 2018 convention season—it was May—there was a school shooting in Texas, in Santa Fe. As a result, people were concerned about the same type of conversation going on now, following the Uvalde school shooting. The pro-tyranny crowd tries to use such tragedies to gain power. Pro-freedom Texans want to make sure the over-emotional “we’ve got to do something” crowd that gets all the media attention doesn’t take away our rights.

Do we or do we not have a God-given, inherent right to defend ourselves? Texans know we do. And none of the hue and cry gives us a reason for law-abiding citizens to stop defending themselves against the criminals/crazies. It’s not the guns that are evil; it is those who wield those weapons in the perpetration of crime that are evil. Taking away the means for good people to defend themselves from such evil does not make anyone safer. In fact, we argue that it makes us less safe. Schools are targeted because they lack defenses.

And, no, we can’t wait for government officials to show up after a crime is underway to protect us. In Uvalde, we still can’t understand all that happened. But we know the shooter was inside the school for most of an hour, continuing to kill, before an official came in and took him down while other officers waited safely in the hallway. An armed teacher might have made a huge difference. An armed security officer actually on campus and doing his job might have helped.

We can’t trust elected officials to respect our right to self-defense. So there’s a lot being voiced on that in the platform resolutions. And, I should mention, the resolutions were turned in weeks before the Uvalde shooting. But, because of the tyrannists going for our guns, these resolutions should get attention in platform committees.

Can you think of other ways the government has been overreaching? They’re probably mentioned here.

The detentions related to January 6^th come up a few times. Detention of citizens without charges is wrong on so many levels.

Election integrity is a huge issue. I’ll be writing more about 2000 Mules soon—you and everyone you know should definitely watch it. Catherine Engelbrecht is from here. True the Vote started here in Harris County. We’ve been paying attention to these issues longer than most—but still come up against the same wall of frustration. “Here’s the evidence. Do the prosecution.” And nothing happens. So the cry comes up, through the platform, to the legislature to do something about it.

People have many ideas and specifics they’re offering that they think will help. People are concerned about the machines that do the counting and think paper ballots might help (there are arguments against that as well, because there’s a long history of cheating with paper ballots). People are calling for forensic audits—which are expensive but probably necessary if we’re ever going to regain trust in our election system. People want voter rolls cleaned up—and they don’t want some outside company, like the ERIC system [Electronic Registration Information Center], meddling in the process.

Here’s a pretty good general list, from one resolution:

New Election Law Bills:  The New Election Law Bills provide:

a.     Voter Registration database with restricted input/output access.

b.     Limit voting to precinct or adjacent precinct only voting.

c.      Paper Ballots that are sequentially numbered, hand marked, & watermarked.

d.     Paper Poll Books for voters to sign.

e.     Basic Optical Scanner/Vote Counter only to tally vote results.

f.       Printed Vote Result Tapes – Early Voting and Election Day.

g.     Limited Early Voting with no gap between Early Voting and Election Day.

h.     Hand Counts are allowed at the judges' discretion.

i.       No wireless, Lan, cellular, or computers in voting sites.

j.       Third party verification and audit.

k.      Unique identifiable seals on ballot boxes.

l.       Vote results delivered to central count on paper.

m.    Vote results tabulated from paper record with calculator.

n.     Chain of custody from start to finish.

o.     Unofficial results called into SoS and media.

p.     Poll watcher protection: Standing to sue, and ability to use video surveillance.

q.     Lawsuits can be filed in adjacent counties.

What all this tells me is, the people mean business. They’re waking up. They’re taking action in ways they believe are both effective and civilized. I hope the next legislative session responds. But I don’t place my trust there. When a large group of people are declaring their love of God and family, and are doing all they know to do to make things right in a world gone very wrong—that is when we can expect to see God step in to protect us in ways that are miraculous.

Good people of Texas standing together
might be able to do some good in the world.
This is a University of Texas class photo, found online in 2015,
link no longer active.

There may be more appalling things before that end comes, as the opposition ripens in iniquity. But that end will come. When it does, I will be very glad to be on the side of freedom, family, and truth—on God’s side. He can win His battles without us; but we cannot win these battles without Him.

Minor and Major Disagreements

It seems like an overly ambitious, or presumptuous thing, to disagree with someone very smart and very well respected. But I’m going to do that today anyway.

Since January, when I became aware of Jordan Peterson, I’ve enjoyed learning a lot from him. But this past week there were a lot of us conservative Americans who took issue with a tweet or two Peterson sent out concerning the Kavanaugh confirmation.

images from here

Dr. Peterson was addressing the polarized tension. And he suggested that one possible thing to consider was for Kavanaugh to be confirmed—which means he was safe from the accusations—and then step aside to allow another conservative justice to take his place. This would leave him with his life intact (he’d still be a circuit court judge, which wouldn’t have been possible if he hadn’t been found worthy of the Supreme Court following the accusations against him). And those who were so upset about him personally would be mollified.

Here’s the thing. Jordan Peterson is Canadian. He isn’t a political person, and it’s hard to pin him down with a label. He talks about justice and Western civilization as though the US, Canada, and Great Britain—and others—are equivalent in their debates between freedom and it’s opposite (which I call tyranny, but is called liberal, leftist, progressive, socialist, and other names). But there’s a reason Canada didn’t join with the colonies to rebel against the tyrannical British crown back in the 1770s, and failed to join us in our constitutional republic in the 1780s. They tolerated more tyranny than we were willing to tolerate.

And then there’s a difference in recent experience. Brett Kavanaugh is not the first US Supreme Court nominee who has been viciously opposed by the tyranny side, who abuse their advise and consent role.

The way “advise and consent” was set up to work, the President would be allowed to appoint justices that shared his political ideas, as long as they were qualified to be justices and were not unsavory characters or simply cronies.

The Republican side, which is the side that actually follows the Constitution, if anyone does, has allowed the president that privilege with very little rancor over the many decades. Republicans have voted to sustain candidates even when there was clear evidence those justices would not judge based solely on the Constitution, but would impose their personal viewpoints from the bench, making themselves an unelected extra-legislative body. The Republicans could have been fully justified—had they had the strength of numbers—to refuse to accept justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, for example. But, in the spirit of collegiality, they limited their own advise and consent power.

But the Democrats, most obviously with Robert Bork, and certainly continuing since then, have decided to block nominations based simply on their (the Democrats’) political bias. And their bias happens to be against the Constitution. They object to justices who will keep their oath to abide by the Constitution.

Only one Democrat voted to confirm Justice Kavanaugh; that means every single remaining Democrat is claiming the appointee was unfit to be a judge, despite a sterling character record and long and open record on the bench proving he was fully capable. And they were willing to pull out all the stops: wait until after the hearings, toss out a still anonymous accusation about 36 years ago that had no evidence or corroboration, lie under oath, collude with other liars, and orchestrate the character assassination of a good man—because they don’t agree with him.

Kavanaugh was the most egregious since the derailing the Robert Bork nomination—or maybe including that. But they also nearly succeeded in undermining Justice Clarence Thomas’s hearings, with false charges against his character—and to this day they continue to honor the woman who falsely accused him.

Their threats led to less controversial appointments by Republican presidents, for the sake of peace, which took the Court in a bad direction, from which it will take maybe another lifetime to recover. Justice O’Connor and Justice Kennedy are two, both appointed by Reagan (who had to deal with a Democrat Senate and House his entire eight years).  Also Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, and David Souter, appointed by George H. W. Bush.

In other words, Republicans have already tried the conciliatory route, to avoid controversy and tension. And the result has been a much less Constitution-following court. We’re trying to make up lost ground.

There can’t be compromise for the sake of peace over certain things.

Jordan Peterson agrees about that. In a response about what he’d meant by his tweets, he said this: 

And, people said, “No, that’s wrong, because if you let the accusers knock you out of the race, then they win, and that will embolden them, and you should know better than that, because you have told people not to withdraw.” And you know—look, fair enough. I don’t know what the hell is the right way out of this mess. I don’t see a clear path forward out of this.

You know, what I see now is the—  I mean I don’t like the believe-the-accuser philosophy. I think that’s an appalling philosophy. You have to be naive beyond comprehension to think that that’s a good idea. To think that people wouldn’t misuse— If that was the rule, every accuser is right? Oh, that’s a great rule, that is. [sarcasm]

I’m not willing to give up the presumption of innocence. And for the idea that it’s better to let, you know, ten guilty people walk free than to convict one innocent person—that’s a good bloody rule. That’s a good rule. And we don’t just give that rule up because we’re feeling all empathic and morally superior about it.

screen shot from here

So there’s a baseline we can agree on. Whatever we do, we can’t give up on the presumption of innocence. Not even for the sake of peace.

But how do you know when you’re at the point of refusal to make peace for the sake of a relationship? It’s a more personal question that is now playing out on our larger population. These are questions about accountability, justice, forgiveness, and mercy. If you’re trying to be merciful and have peace for the sake of a relationship, how do you hold someone accountable and have justice for the sake of the larger community?

In a relationship the size of this country, when there are essentially warring factions, how do you stand up against the bullying side to keep both your personal sovereignty and your self-respect?

What about mob rule? Can we agree that’s a bad thing? We should. But the opposition, at this point in history, defines “mob rule” as something only “right wing” extremists can do. Meanwhile they mob conservatives to run them out of restaurants. They scare police away from downtown Portland,OR. They riot if a conservative speaker is invited to a university campus.

Eric Holder, Obama’s former attorney general, suggested Democrats forget taking the high road; "kick them." Hillary Clinton called for no civility until they’re in power—that is, wielding power over us. This isn’t about Trump’s lack of civility, as they claim; it’s about their weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that we the people have not kowtowed to their supposed right to rule over us.

They talk about repealing the Second Amendment, or doing away with the Electoral College, or even doing away with the Senate—which is based on equal state representation rather than population. They want to get rid of anything our founders designed to keep us free from tyranny—because their goal is tyranny, and the Constitution is in their way.

We don't really have a lot of disagreement with Jordan Peterson. He was doing a thought experiment that happened to go down a path many of us have traveled before, so we know how that would go, and we reject it. But there's still this question he was dealing with:

We’ve got a problem. The problem is, is that, I don’t see any way of moving this forward without exacerbating the polarized tension.

He may be right. There may be no path without polarized tension. But he’s the clinical psychologist. So my question for him is, at what cost should peace be the goal?

If Europe and beyond had succumbed to Nazi rule, they would have had peace, of a sort. But they would be subjects of tyranny; that would be the cost. Can we agree that cost would have been too high?

The thing with logic is, if you start with the wrong “if” statement, you’ll get the wrong “then” outcome. So the starting point may not be, “If the goal is peace,” unfortunately. We might be beyond a peaceful outcome with people who are our literal enemies. Peace only comes after we defeat them.

Well, there’s one other way to peace: Those who are seeking to wreak havoc on our constitutional republic could stop it. Life would get better for them—even though they don’t see how—and it would certainly get better for us. But the record of power mongers doing that is pretty dismal.

The problem is that, at a granular level, all of us know Democrats that aren’t actually trying to tyrannize us; they’re just not thinking things through the way we freedom lovers do. So we mostly just avoid talking about divisive issues with them—anything beyond work, weather, food, and sports, maybe. And we can get along fine with them as long as we can avoid being attacked. That’s a sort of peace we’ve been used to for about a century.

The hope, then, has to be separating out regular people who have been among those enemies, but are really just our neighbors who don’t have a good understanding of the alternatives. If they knew they could choose freedom,prosperity, and civilization—rather than tyranny, poverty, and savagery—they’d step over to our side.

But for those who insist on ruling over us—on taking away our liberty, property, and civilization—and who stir up mob violence against us, there’s no path to peace. We are, however, still very hopeful—possibly naively so—that we can defeat them in the arena of ideas, without violence. (Though that explains why they have been calling speech that disagrees with them “violence,” because they prefer to think of us as the bad guys.)

Some of what has to be done is pointing out the extremes of the would-be tyrants—getting that message out despite the complicity of so much of the media and academia who hide the truth.

It’s a time to stand up and speak truth, even when peace is at stake, and even when it looks to bystanders that we haven’t been tolerant enough of tyranny yet. In this case, the bystanders don’t know what we’ve already learned by hard experience.

Standing Up

The MLK Memorial in Washington, DC,
viewed from near the Jefferson Memorial

I had my flag out for Martin Luther King’s Birthday today. I keep thinking we’d do better to have school and other ways to educate his message on this day than just having a long weekend. So, to that end, here are some thoughts from and about a man who stood up when it took bravery and strength to do that.

“A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.”—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a palace and Christ a cross, but 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. Yes, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”—Martin Luther King, Jr. (quoting 19^th Century abolitionist Theodore Parker)

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.—Martin Luther King, Jr., “I Have a Dream”

 

The stone marking where MLK gave his
"I Have a Dream" speech,
in front of the Lincoln Memorial

In 2013 I wrote this in honor of Martin Luther King’s birthday:

MLK, like Gandhi, valued non-violence as a strategy toward change. He stood up for what he believed and was willing to spend time in jail to show his seriousness. That willingness to stand up for principle no matter the unpleasant consequences is something to admire.

MLK was a conservative in many ways that I am. Our Constitution says it guarantees the rights God has given to all human beings. It was not the Constitution that was wrong, but the people in the country who hadn’t opened their eyes to the validity of human rights for all races. So the Constitution was worth conserving. MLK was a Republican, because that party was (and has been, since Lincoln or before) the party ideologically aligned with applying the Constitution to all citizens. Conservatives, half a century ago as well as today, look at MLK’s words, and find resonating truth.

Last year I shared Martin Luther King’s Ten Commandments for those joining him in the nonviolent movement, which bear repeating: 

1.       MEDITATE daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.

2.       REMEMBER always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and reconciliation—not victory.

3.       WALK and TALK in the manner of love, for God is love.

4.       PRAY daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free.

5.       SACRIFICE personal wishes in order that all men might be free.

6.       OBSERVE with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.

7.       SEEK to perform regular service for others and for the world.

8.       REFRAIN from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.

9.       STRIVE to be in good spiritual and bodily health.

10.   FOLLOW the directions of the movement and of the captain on a demonstration.

It was an advantage that this man was willing to stand, and also had the talent of speaking words that persuaded good people to stand with him. Here are a few more beautiful words from MLK:

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light 

can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: 

only love can do that.

Faith is taking the first step, even when you don’t see the whole staircase.

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

On the wall of the MLK Memorial in Washington, DC

Freedom Is a Universal Desire

It is my belief, here at the Spherical Model, that freedom from repression is interrelated with prosperity and civilization. It’s easy to see why people want civilization and prosperity. And since tyranny limits civilization and prosperity, while the freedom of small government limited to protecting God-given rights leads to flourishing, it is logical that anyone with understanding will also want freedom. People will yearn for it. They will recognize the unfairness, the corruption—the evil—of tyranny. They will want to move “northward” the way a swimmer moves up to the surface for air.

We can see evidence of this universal desire for freedom. This past week one example is Ukraine.

We haven’t been getting very much news out of Ukraine, but there have been protests in the streets for some months. If I have gathered accurately, the Ukrainian people have wanted to remain European, connected to the European Union, with increased capitalism, while their president, Yanukovich, has been leaning toward Putin’s Russia. There are ethnic differences. Within the country’s boundaries is a significant minority that are Russian rather than Ukrainian, and wouldn’t mind reconnecting with Russia.

But you have the Ukrainian people who lived under the repressive Soviet Union until just over two decades ago, who gained their freedom, who want to grow and live in freedom—these people have absolutely no incentive to submit to yet more tyranny.

Things reached a turning point this past few days. Police snipers, presumably on orders from the president, shot as many as 100 protesters in the streets. (Government reports claim the number of deaths is a mere 77; however, 577 were injured, and 369 hospitalized.) Then the president was deposed. I’m not sure exactly how the deposing too place. There is some discussion that Yulia Tymoshenko, prime minister recently released from prison, may be willing to step up. President Yanokovich has disappeared from his luxurious estate. Word this morning was that he hasn’t yet attempted to leave the country, so he may be in hiding somewhere. His home had been off limits to fellow countrymen for years. He used it for state dinners, one would suppose. But it was astoundingly opulent in a nation where average families get by on $500 a month.

We had neighbors some years ago who took their family on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to visit their relatives in Ukraine. They loved the people, who were so giving. But they were a little shocked at conditions. This was a relatively middle-class Ukrainian family, who were able to send their daughter to America to study abroad for her senior year. But in preparation for our friends’ visit, they upgraded their home by getting a new wooden toilet seat for the outhouse. It wouldn’t be surprising for people who have patiently waited as slow growth brings them prosperity to be very angry to learn of their president’s lifestyle.

Photos showed the estate this weekend, with people invading and looking around—in shock, because apparently his exorbitant lifestyle was kept hidden from the people. Yet, at least in the photos I saw, people looked around like tourists—no windows broken, no looting, no one even entering the house. There were however attempts to recover paperwork, some of which had been partially burned, and some which protestors were beginning to sort out.

Among some of the most effective word that got out was a YouTube video, uploaded 2-10-2014, called “I Am Ukrainian.” A young woman named Yulia makes an impassioned plea, in English, with video and photos backing up her words, asking for help getting the word out. I attempted to transcribe her words (sorry for any errors), which verify the basic belief that people everywhere yearn for freedom.

I am the Ukrainian, the native of Kiev. And now I am now in Maidan [??], in the central part of the city, to know why thousands of people all over my country are on the streets. There is only one reason: we want to be free from a dictatorship. We want to be free from the politicians, who work only for themselves, who are ready to shoot, to beat, to injure people just for saving their money [or “saying their minds” ??], just for saving their houses, just for saving their power. I want these people who are here, who have duty, who are brave—I want them to lead a normal life. We are civilized people, but our government are barbarians.

It’s not the Soviet Union. We want our courts not to be corrupted. We want to be free.

I know that maybe tomorrow we’ll have no phone, no internet connection, and we will be alone here. And maybe policemen will murder us one after another. Then it will be dark here. That’s why I ask you now to help us. We have this freedom held inside our hearts. We have this freedom in our minds. And now I ask you to build this freedom in our country. You can help us only by telling this story to your friends, only by sharing this video. Please, share it. Speak to your friends; speak to your family; speak to your government and show that you support us.

[written on screen]: Please contact your representatives and demand they support the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom and democracy.    

Before it’s too late.

This video was made in early February 2014.

Hopefully, thanks to you and the strong people of Ukraine, things will get better.

Please take time to view the entire two-minute video:

 

 

Meanwhile riots and reprisals continue to worsen in Venezuela as well. Our friend who was living there has returned to her native Uganda, so I’m relieved for her. The people there have for some time been seem clamoring for goods, promised to them by their failing socialist government (I know, “failing socialist government” is redundant). The question there is whether the people know to ask for freedom in order to get prosperity and civilization, or whether they have been successfully turned into government dependents who are now simply throwing tantrums that they are not getting what they were led to expect. You can’t simply demand “better” socialist government and expect that will lead to better prosperity and thriving civilization. You have to start by living civilized lives (religious people, strong families), where honesty, self-reliance, hard work, and caring for others become natural. Then you get better prosperity—and you realize tyrannical government is in the way of the flourishing that’s building up pressure to happen.

But what is happening now could bring to everyone’s awareness the innate need for freedom—for life and liberty. The government oppression of its people—usurping control over their words, their acts, and their very lives—may wake the people up to the disastrous choice it is to exchange material “security” for the freedom to work and prosper. I don’t know what the people will do there, but I hope they will seek freedom as if their lives depend on it, because they do.

Those of us who have some freedom (as long as we can keep hold of it), know to value it, and we want it for all peoples. We offer our support and prayers to any people reaching northward toward freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Moral Dilemmas

As I was writing the last post, on being good citizens even in difficult times, I recalled a book I read some years ago, for a homeschool book club. I’m uncertain of the name, but I can give you the basic story, and several books that tell it.

Back in WWII Germany there were three teenage Mormon boys, approaching the age when they were required to join the Hitler Youth. Their religion had taught them about the value of freedom, which became at odds with their nation and the tyrannical pressure there during the war. They also found that what the government was telling them wasn’t true.

The boys learned from BBC radio—which was forbidden to listen to, but they heard it nevertheless, over a short-wave radio—that the war wasn’t going the way the government was telling the people. There were a lot of things the German news was saying that the outside world knew wasn’t true. The boys were troubled by the dissonance between their beliefs and the laws and actions of their country.

Helmuth Hübener, center, with Rudolf Wobbe, left,
and Karl Schnibbe, right
photo from Wikipedia

It was not policy for Mormons to be encouraged to rebel against their government, even under tyranny. But still they were taught the value of freedom and God-given rights. So it was a dilemma.

German Mormons were not condemned for fighting in the war, even if they believed their country was in the wrong; they were obliged to do as directed, and the blame would be on the hands of the nation’s leaders. However, if they could find ways to do good to their fellow man, or to find nonviolent ways to seek freedom, they were not forbidden by the Church. In other words, they were taught the principles and allowed to make their best decisions—just the same as today. (A similar situation comes up in the movie Saints and Soldiers, when Mormons fighting on opposite sides find their common religion important enough to help one another. Also, I told my Dad’s story of an encounter with a German Mormon soldier here. )

So here were three boys, in a Mormon congregation in Nazi Germany. Their congregation’s leader was strictly obedient to Hitler and insisted that was the right choice. But the boys felt directed to act differently. They listened in to the BBC, copied what they heard, typed it up, and distributed flyers to let the German people know the truth.

It was dangerous—and illegal. But it wasn’t violent. It was definitely brave. The boys were eventually caught. The main leader of the three, Helmuth Hübener, was tortured and beheaded, even though execution of youth for such crimes was rare. He wrote from prison: "I know that God lives and He will be the Just Judge in this matter. I look forward to seeing you in a better world!"

Here’s a quote from one of his treasonous pamphlets:

German boys! Do you know the country without freedom, the country of terror and tyranny? Yes, you know it well, but are afraid to talk about it. They have intimidated you to such an extent that you don't dare talk for fear of reprisals. Yes you are right; it is Germany—Hitler Germany! Through their unscrupulous terror tactics against young and old, men and women, they have succeeded in making you spineless puppets to do their bidding.

The other two friends, Rudi Wobbe and Karl Schnibbe, survived, with 5-10-year prison sentences. Wobbe told his personal account in Before the Blood Tribunal, published in 1989, and Three against Hitler, with Jerry Borrowman, 2002. Schnibbe wrote his version of events in When Truth Was Treason, published in 1995. Other book versions include the biography Hübener vs. Hitler, by Richard Lloyd Dewey, 2003; Hitler Youth: Growing Up in Hitler’s Shadow, 2005, and The Boy Who Dared, 2008, both by Susan Campbell Bartoletti. Her first one, a Newbery Honor book, includes Hübener’s story among others, while the later one is a fictionalized novel of the boys.

Unfortunately, I can’t tell which one I encountered. I think it might be The Boy Who Dared, but the date on that makes it barely fit as a possibility, so I’m uncertain. I only know that the remarkable story of these boys is something that sticks.

What is my conclusion about the dilemma? The boys were right, and heroic, to act as they did, because the tyranny surrounding them was wrong. Nevertheless, they did commit treason in the eyes of the law, such as it was, and they acted with the full knowledge that they would face punishment if caught. It would not have been sinful for them to have followed their adult leaders’ advice, keep their heads down, and make no waves. But it would not be a dilemma if there weren’t two competing positions. Since they were old enough to know their own conscience, and know what God was personally leading them to do, it was right for them to act.  

When Sir Thomas More faced the dilemma between supporting King Henry VIII and remaining loyal to the Catholic Church, he scrupulously remained silent. Nevertheless, his silence was interpreted as treason, and he was convicted. Before execution, he went ahead and voiced his true beliefs. (The story is beautifully told in the movie AMan for All Seasons.)

Most of us will not be in a position where we face death if we act according to conscience. But it’s something to think about ahead of time, to know ourselves well enough to know what is most important—eternally important, beyond comfort and life. Because if we don’t stand up for the important things while we are able, freedoms slip away, leaving us at greater risk when we do stand up to stronger tyranny.