What I like about the Perry Mason series by Erle Stanley Gardner is that Gardner, in his books, includes some common sense examples of the difference between the reality of actual, legislated, laws, and the necessity of sometimes circumventing these same legislated laws in order to defend one's self from prosecution and incarceration because some jury might be unable to distinguish between Truth and Creative Perjury. Fighting Fire with Fire, at times, is a most "truthful" defense. One example of this is provided by this excerpt from: The Case Of The Negligent Nymph, by Erle Stanly Gardner (1950).
Mason said, "It's a legal classic. The businessman sued the American for a large sum of money which he claimed he had loaned the American with which to start a business venture. The American went to a lawyer, complained bitterly, and wanted to go on the stand and swear that it was a complete falsehood.
"The attorney carefully listened to the American's story, smiled benignly, and said he would fix things up.
"Imagine the American's surprise when the case came up in the foreign court. The businessman got on the stand and swore that he had loaned the American this sum of money and then called five witnesses; two of them swore that they had seen the money loaned to the American, and three of them testified that the American had told them about having borrowed the money from this foreign businessman and hoped to be able to pay it back out of profits."
"What happened?" she asked, interested.
"The American's lawyer didn't even cross-examine the witness, and the American almost had a fit," Mason said.
"His lawyer explained to him that in this country it was rather easy to get witnesses to commit perjury for a reasonable consideration. The American saw ruination staring him in the face. Then it came his turn to put on his defense and his lawyer urbanely called seven witnesses, each of whom stated that he knew that the American had borrowed money from this businessman, but that he had been present in the room when the American had paid it back, every cent of it."
A wan smile twisted her lips. "And what's the moral of that story, Mr. Mason?"
"It isn't a moral, it's an "immoral"," Mason told her. "It means that there are times when you have to fight the devil with fire."
Now you will have to Think about this a little, but I believe that this fore mentioned quote from "The Case Of The Negligent Nymph" is a good example of the differences between religious Republicans, as opposed to Republican's in general, and Democrats. Religious Republicans tend to live in a "Fantasy World," dominated by the type of world Christians envision, rather than the world of actual reality about 75% of the time.
Democrats and Republicans, who are not religious, and who believe that "The End Justifies The Means", tend to live in "The Real World", as defined by the voting majority, 90% of the time. And in America, we are legislated to live in a world ruled by the majority, and this is what passes as "The Real World".
I feel that the previous paragraph exemplifies the reason that Christians are almost always on the "losing side" in encounters in "The Real World". It is human nature to live life always doing for the individual what is easiest, rather than taking, and accepting, individual responsibility for individual actions because individual actions sometimes have, as a result, unintended consequences that are not the price one necessarily wants to "pay" for some "bad", personal, behavior. And when anything is put to a vote, in government, the majority will always take the "easy path" towards governance, and "punishment". But thank goodness for Christian Republicans, because in what kind of "Dark World" would we live, were it not for these tireless disciples?
I hope that this posting has given the Religious Republican minority something to Think about. And if you need more prompting, be aware that in the coming elections of 2012, the bad guys will win the majority of the vote. Just knowing that you are right is not enough. When Jesus confronted the money changers in the Temple...... did he call the police or demand a court imposed interpretation of the law?; No. He took charge and control, and stopped the corrupt practices himself. Do you see a method, in this abovementioned example, that might be used to correct the abuses of our American government? I truly believe that if we wait until the elections of 2012, rather than take action now, this Great Republic will be lost to the pages of history. Sometimes you really do have to fight the devil with fire.
Lord Howard Hurts