A few days ago, I received an e-mail from a former student; a Christian man, a patriot and a defender of freedom in the US Military. He wanted me to comment on an article he had just discovered in the Huffington Post written by Mr. Wallis of the Sojourners, entitled “Stand your Ground has no Moral Ground”. As a believer in our country’s moral high ground and the inalienable right to self- defense, my student seemed to be concerned. I understand why.

Huffington Post Article: Stand Your Ground Has No Moral Ground

To say the least I am once again disappointed that there are individuals who choose to be influenced by ignorant writing such as the aforementioned article, and that such poorly written fodder can find its way into the mainstream media and hailed by those who apparently cannot think or discern for themselves.

The truth is, that I could pull apart The Huffington Post’s piece from beginning to end; from its inaccuracies and ignorance of the Law, to the case facts and, more importantly to the word of God. As a Christian and a Patriot, my motivation herein is not to abase the man, but to abase the words. There is both life and death in words, causing us to easily condone or condemn, especially when it comes to our National morality.

The author is known as an “Evangelical Leftist” and is an advisor to President Obama. His argument simply follows the rhetoric of a clearly biased agenda, based on his politics. The thoughts and critique conveyed in his argument are certainly not faith based, nor are they Biblically based. This is nothing more than another attempt to pollute the thoughts of society with anti-gun dogma and irrelevant unverifiable information. We are two individuals offering opposing arguments; the difference is that his is based on opinion and mine is based on a fundamental right which is older than this country.

When citing the Bible one cannot interpret it to justify one’s own opinions through omission and selection. Sadly it has become common practice to take the Bible out of context. Mr. Wallis’s article is merely just another example of this. He claims that the two isolated cases of Zimmerman and Dunn “highlight a major Theological problem” with Stand Your Ground laws (SYG). Really? I find this statement both arrogant and ignorant aside from the fact that neither of these cases validates his hypothesis which calls for the repeal of SYG. Mainstream media have over-sensationalized these two cases, causing them to inaccurately represent SYG laws. The judges in both cases routinely educated the jury members on the law of the land, as per their mandate. That is extent of the involvement of SYG.

Mr. Wallis sites Romans Chapter 13 selectively to support his narrative. The Apostle Paul clearly states in Romans: 13 1-7 that the civil government exists to enforce good conduct among its citizenry. Furthermore, we must abide by the law of the land and be willing to “bear the sword” and reap the consequences {execution of wrath} thereof if we do not. “We must obey the law just as much to avoid the wrath, as we do for conscience sake.” No one can argue that the authorities set by God are intended for good, but Mr. Wallis would have us believe that our society is intended to be a candy coated, peaceful, co-existing environment where harshness and trials do not exist. This is idyllic to say the least and not based in Theology whatsoever. The basis of Theology is not “tip-toeing through the tulips” where the “common good” outweighs righteousness. To simply disabuse anyone of this illusion: the Bible plainly says;

“…the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force…”-Matthew 11:12.

As TRUE Christians we are called to be aggressive in our faith, belief and practice thereof, every day and with everything we stand for. We are called to be true to our convictions, and to not conform to cultural mores. We are called to stand against the willingness to modify our convictions. We must not be influenced by the demands of “social change”. In fact, we should unequivocally become more vehement in protecting and upholding our moral and ethical high ground when it is threatened. Make no mistake; I am not endorsing violent behavior in the cities and the streets, but we must absolutely maintain our moral high ground when our belief system and our way of life are attacked. I do not agree with the manner in which Mr. Wallis portrays Christianity in this article. Suffice it to say, abundant Biblical references exist which support our obligation we have to God to preserve our bodies, life, and the lives of those who are threatened with harm. Readers do not be fooled with mild tempered faith; God requires Christians to be unwavering in our belief lest He spew us out of His mouth;

“So then because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth”-Revelation 3:16

According to Mr. Wallis,

“The Stand Your Ground laws are based on fear — fear that is often rooted in racism. Rather than promoting a vision of the common good and what our life together should look like, it justifies taking life and codifies fear.”

What was that Mr. Wallis?

First, it is true that Stand your Ground Law codifies fear, as it should. However, Mr. Wallis’s interpretation of that fear is incorrect. SYG empowers us by relinquishing fear from the individual and subsequently imposing it on the potential criminals. Why is that so controversial? Surely a deterrent such as the threat of death should be enough to discourage criminals from breaching the law or threatening the lives of others. With all acts of violence or aggravated criminal behavior, there is the very likely threat of death, whether it is that of the aggressor or of the defender. One is right and one is not. We must also acknowledge that the involved parties are on opposite ends of the moral spectrum, and almost always, aggressors have advantages over the victims; namely the element of surprise, different weapons, multiple cohorts, disregard for the law, and the key element of willingness to inflict harm -which when mixed with intoxicating substances, is a lethal combination.

Since the implementation of SYG in Florida, to use Wallis’s example State, the FBI statistics reflect a significant rise in justifiable homicides from 13.2 between 2001-2005 to 42 between 2006-2012.The numbers speak for themselves; the SYG law is indeed working. Aren’t justifiable homicides far better than unjustified?

The very laws that we are supposed to obey are those that declared these acts justified. The correlation is evident:

Justification by definition is the action of proving something to be right or reasonable: a defendable, righteous act of a person, or conduct morally right or virtuous. Then surely isn’t it infinitely better that those who are on the moral high ground be those that prevail? I would certainly not want it any other way. I would absolutely prefer that fewer people lose their lives, but I want to see criminals clearly understand the severity of their actions and choose to correct their course.

Stand your Ground “Rooted in Racism”?

How can the nature of SYG be rooted in racism when the very premise is to enable ALL individuals, regardless of race, the right to protect themselves and safeguard against harm? The two cases sourced for Wallis’s argument are neither relevant nor applicable here. To re-iterate, the SYG justification was never used by the Zimmerman or Dunn defense teams, and they were both tried and judged by a jury of their peers, represented by an attorney in a court of law according to their individual merit, and under the authority of Constitution of the United States.

The fact remains that murder has no moral ground whatsoever. But what we are talking about here is not murder, Mr. Wallis, it is self-defense. And if I or my family is threatened with imminent danger, bodily harm, or death, I can justifiably contend that I stand ready to defend myself and my family with deadly force. The race of the perpetrator is absolutely irrelevant. In the face of danger, I am no less colorblind than when I am not threatened. Surely Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed the same when he was willing to exercise deadly force when he and his family were threatened with harm. He was known to have an arsenal of weapons and he even applied for a concealed carry permit. As an individual exercising his Civil liberties in a place where he was “lawfully allowed to be”, was Dr. King different from you or me exercising ours?

“The problem is the systemic injustice inherent in Stand Your Ground laws: just feeling like you are being threatened can justify your response in “self-defense.””-Wallis

I don’t know about you, readers, but I believe that statement is a blatant insult to our criminal justice system. Are our Judges and Jury members and the constituents of the SYG States so inept and lacking in their discernment and reason to implement a law that allows justification of action through emotion? No! This is obviously not the core purpose of Stand Your Ground laws! Any individual of a moral high ground and basic IQ can discern this. The Reasonable Man Standard is exactly that; the Standard, and if we continue to distort the moral fiber of our society by allowing our religious leaders to corrupt our Biblical instructions to fit the mold of any agenda, we will continue to distort what is earnestly reasonable, making it more difficult to discern the righteous from the simply confused. The Stand your Ground Laws are, in essence, Civil Rights Laws: they protect and empower law abiding Citizens against the un-abiding ones, without regard to race or ethnicity. These Laws have essentially been in place for over 100 years. The forerunner of the Stand Your Ground Laws was Runyon v. State of Indiana in 1877 where it was found that;

“the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed , to avoid chastisement or even to save a human life…. therefore , the weight of modern authority…establishes the Doctrine that when a person, being without fault, and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in reasonable exercise of his right of self -defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.”

So, dear readers, trust discernment and reason, but above all trust God. If you want to communicate anything to the leaders of the land about SYG Laws, it should be to enforce them in all 50 States, there by re-enforcing our basic rights of self-defense and our obligation to protect what is ours. You can attack an opinion but you cannot attack a right!

For now, from a determined and devoted voice,

God Bless you and may God Bless America – Jonathan W Wallace II of Native Executive Security.