PREACHER HELPS by Evangelist Don Boys, Ph.D.

Copyright 2009, Don Boys, Ph.D. #111

 

Under Bill s. 1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of "removal." To be removed just type REMOVE in the Subject line and hit Reply. 

 

If you strongly agree with one of these columns, please forward to your mailing list. Some pastors put them is the church bulletin..  Make no changes from title to tag at the end.

 

Contents:

 

*Should Teens be Executed?

 

*Is the Death Penalty Right or Wrong?

 

*Why Are More Poor People Executed than Rich People?

 

*Is the Death Penalty State Sanctioned Murder?

 

*Dead in the Back Seat of His Cadillac from Drug Overdose!

 

*My Response:  Were Bob Gray, Jack Hyles, etc. Christians?

 

*Letter from Old College Friend

 

*Little Known Fact of History: “He Did His Duty!”

 

*Illustrations: “No Apology Necessary!”

 

*Funny Story: “Another Blonde!”

 

*Incredible Quotes You Can Use

 

*Pithy Sayings

 

*Did You Know?

 

 

Recently, I have had many responses to a chapter of mine that was published in a secular book on our judicial system. It dealt with the death penalty and the execution of teens who commit murder. My critic closed his missive by writing, “matter of fact, I feel the death penalty is no punishment at all. It’s a easy way out, quick and painless.” Well, it is quick and painless but I would hardly call the death penalty “no punishment.”  My original column follows:

 

Should Teens be Executed?

 

Don Boys, Ph.D.

 

Our city streets are dark, dirty, dangerous and are often dominated by raping, robbing, and rampaging children. In 1992, juvenile courts handled 2,500 criminal homicides and over a million cases of lesser crimes. We are seeing more and more very young people commit serious, sordid, and sadistic crimes–some kids as young as six! As families, homes, and churches implode, a subculture of juvenile criminals has developed.

 

Juveniles used to be considered young, athletic students with ruddy complexion, squeaky voice and acne, but now they are often vindictive, vicious, and violent criminals.

 

We have been assured that "there is no such thing as a bad boy" (or girl); however, the fact is, there is no such thing as a good boy (or girl). No kid has to be taught to lie, steal, talk back, rebel, etc. It is human nature. Theologians call it the "fallen nature," as a result of original sin. But since that is not politically correct, men have been conned into believing all people are basically good–then they try to justify and explain why "good" people commit outrageously brutal crimes.

 

Part of the problem of juvenile crime is the criminal justice system itself. While ours may be the "best in the world" (what does that say about the rest of the world?) it is long overdue for a major overhaul. It is part of my recommended crime bill to insist on that overhaul.

 

Kids must no longer have a free ride until age 18.. They must get the message that they will be held accountable for their actions with their names and photos published in the media, and their record following them if they continue into adult crime. Studies show that a juvenile's crime record is one of the most valid predictors of repeat adult crime.

 

Young criminals should not be in school, and while the bleeding hearts whine about those kids, I prefer to show my concern for the large group who want to learn. Put the violent kids in a boot camp where they can be made into "young marines" under the tutelage of a traditional leatherneck trained at Parris Island.

 

Get them up at 5:00 a.m., feed them a big breakfast and work them until they drop. Absolutely no back talk and only magic words such as "yes sir," "no sir," "please," and "thank you, sir" would be permitted. And no psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, or lawyer within 100 miles!

 

Those kids who are involved in non-violent crime would be treated less severely. They would be forced to make restitution to their victims, clean up any mess they made and spend time in structured community service.

 

Kids must learn that justice will be swift, sure, and severe in the courts if not at home and school. Personal accountably will be the reality from now on. That will appall many social scientists and psychologists who tell us that a person is not responsible for personal actions. It all goes back, we are told, to poor potty training, low self esteem, poor living conditions, etc., so a young person should not be held to an accounting for his crimes. My intellectual reply is poppycock, balderdash and a generous portion of hogwash.

 

We are told that kids murder, mug, and maim because they grew up in poverty; however, poverty doesn't cause crime; crime causes poverty. Juveniles, like adults, commit crimes because they choose to do so. And they must be held accountable.

 

When young criminals kill and rape, they should be treated like adults, even executing them! Most of us are horrified at that thought but if capital punishment can be defended (and it can be) then who is to say one must be 21? If a 16-year-old commits a vicious murder, who says he should not pay with his life? Of course, there must be an age below which a child would not be executed, but that is a political decision made in each state.

 

Therefore, the message to kids should be clear, concise, and conclusive. No free ride until 18. No anonymity. No blaming poverty, parents, or potty training for criminality. No more community service for rape and murder. Even the dullest teen will understand that society considers leniency lunacy and a thing of the past.

 

Kids think they can get away with murder and they will continue to believe that until citizens force the criminal justice system to get its act together. When a few teens "walk the last mile" other teens will get the message that sane, sensible, and scared people are taking over from the bleating hearts.

 

The radical leftist, upon reading this, will stand up and on cue, bleed all over himself; however, my heart bleeds for the innocent victims not for criminals, young or old.

 

Copyright 2005, Don Boys, Ph.D.   

 

Is the Death Penalty Right or Wrong?

 

Don Boys, Ph.D.

 

I think we can agree that if the death penalty is right then it is also good and if it is wrong, it is also bad? Of course, our first concern should be, what does the Bible teach about the state putting people to death? If we can ascertain that, then it doesn't matter what philosophers, theologians, sociologists, criminologists and weeping, whining, and whimpering liberals have to say about the subject.

 

Genesis 9:6 clearly teaches that if a man sheds another person's blood, then his life will be taken by the government. Moses wrote, "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." When a person premeditatedly takes a life, he not only assaults society but also attacks God since man was made in His image. For those who accept the Bible as binding on what we believe and practice, that should settle the issue.

 

However, sincere people tell us that God also told us, "Thou shalt not kill" so killing is wrong, but informed Sunday school pupils know that that verse means, "Thou shalt do no murder." And of course, we should not murder. If there were a Bible prohibition against all killing then we would be prohibited from killing a fly, beef, hog, etc. Nor could we kill in times of war or self defense, but that is not the issue. The issue is murder.

 

We are experiencing about 20,000 killings each year in the US, but back before the states stopped putting killers to death, we "only" had 10,000 per year. When the death penalty was stopped in 1965, an additional 10,000 people were killed each year! We had been executing about 50 killers per year, but we stopped executing killers, and the result was 10,000 additional innocent people being killed each year! We only execute one killer for every 10,000 victims! That's why I say we are playing with the death penalty even though three-fourths of Americans want killers executed. It's not vengeance but justice.

 

Some states are back to executing killers, but we are only playing with the death penalty. Execution is still not sure and very slow coming to the killers. A killer should know that after a fair, fast trial and one appeal, he goes to the chair! He should be in the grave before the first anniversary of his victim's death. Will the number of killings go down if each state really gets serious about executing the killers? I'm not sure, but that's not the issue. Killers deserve to die. The blood of innocent ones cries out for justice, and one thing is sure: the executed killer will never kill again. Often, the bleeding hearts tell us that a man must be insane to take a life so they put him in a mental hospital, but studies show that they are back on the streets in a few years. I said years ago, “If they are truly insane, lock'em and leave'em. If sane, try'em and fry'em.”

 

But why not be humane and give the killer life in prison without possibility of parole? That still doesn't satisfy the scriptural demand that killers be killed, nor does it speak to justice. It also puts prison guards in jeopardy.  Why not kill a guard during an escape attempt? Why not kill a fellow-prisoner during a fight?  After all, the killers have nothing to lose. A life sentence can't be any longer than life! And why shouldn't thieves or kidnappers kill witnesses if there were no death penalty hanging over their heads?

 

To hear death penalty opponents talk, you would think that our only argument is the deterrent effect of the death penalty. That is only an insignificant argument. (however, an executed killer never kills again)!  They often point out that states without the death penalty have about the same killings as those that do execute killers. Of   course, no one says that all killers are deterred. We know that no law deters everyone. But we do not know how many thousands of men thought of taking a life, then considered the death penalty and changed their minds.

 

Furthermore, we do know that many criminals have not taken guns to their crime scene because they might be forced to kill someone and "get the chair." That is a deterrent.

 

While preaching near Toronto, Canada I talked with a man who was the youngest police chief in Ireland. He said, "Dr. Boys, you might be interested to know that we asked nineteen convicted killers if they would have killed if Ireland had the death penalty.." He said, "All the killers replied that they would not have killed if Ireland had a death penalty." Well, that's from the experts!

   

Copyright 2005, Don Boys, Ph.D.

                       

Why Are More Poor People Executed than Rich People?

 

Don Boys, Ph.D.

 

During television and radio talk shows I have been told many times that more poor people are executed than rich people, so in fairness, society should not execute people. I tell them that more poor people are executed for murder because they do more murders! After all, there are more poor people out there than rich people. It is also a fact, that really does not need to be expressed, that rich people don't usually have the motives to kill as often. They have money, friends, homes, cars so they usually only kill during very emotional times.

 

Of course, when a rich person kills another, he or she should get the death penalty as poor people do. Yes, rich people can afford better lawyers than poor people, but that is a fact of life that must be accepted.

 

We are also told that more Blacks get executed than whites; however the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty does not discriminate against Blacks. Furthermore, a Stanford University study revealed that killers of Whites (whether the killers are black or white) are more likely to get sentenced to death than killers of black people (whether the killers are black or white). But Blacks who kill Whites were less likely to receive death sentences than were Whites who killed Whites. Doesn't sound like discrimination to me unless maybe it is reverse discrimination!

 

It is also interesting that women commit about 13% of the murders in the U.S. yet less than 1% are executed. Maybe we can expect the screaming ladies at NOW to do something about this glaring inequality and injustice. Unless you look good in blue, don't hold your breath until the feminists carry signs demanding, "Execute more women," "More Women to the Chair," or "Put more women on death row."

 

We had better demand that all people be treated like people whatever their color, gender or social status. The answer is to mete out punishment equally, not drop it altogether. A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis found that a killer could expect only 1.8 years for murder in 1990. That's not justice.

 

"But if we execute all the killers on death row in the various states, that would be a blood bath," says the innocent one. What do you think we have today? If there is going to be a blood bath, let it be the blood of convicted killers. If all 50 states were to execute all 3300 killers tomorrow morning at 6:00, it would sure send a message to other potential killers, wouldn't it?

 

Authorities should also get the message that felons should be in prison, not on the streets. Streets are for people who obey and respect the law. Rebels belong in prison. But at least 30% of those arrested for violent crimes were on probation, parole or on bail when the crimes were committed. We must send officials a message: Keep violent criminals in prison!

 

The US Justice Department's annual report revealed that two-thirds of those on death row had prior felony convictions and a full 10% of those killers had killed before! That 10% should not have been permitted to prey on innocent people because they should have been executed. You've heard of three strikes and you're out, but it should be one strike and you're dead. No second chance for killers.

 

Scores of people have told me on talk shows that an innocent person may be executed so we should do away with the death penalty. Well, since we live in an imperfect world, I'll concede the possibility that an innocent person may be executed. But without the death penalty, there will be the certainty of  many more innocent killings. 

 

I have also heard  the  old  canard  that  it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to execute one innocent man. Now, I'm not advocating executing innocent people, and the thought is horrifying, but it is a silly statement. We are comparing one Innocent man to  hundreds of other innocent people who would be killed if the hundred killers went free. Those on the other side of this issue don’t think.

 

Often the opponents of the death penalty affirm that many innocent people have been executed, so it should be done away with, but as usual, they are wrong. They usually quote the Stanford Law Review to prove their contention, but they didn't read the complete article! Professors Bedan and Radelet looked at 2300 capital crime convictions since 1900 and said they thought 25 men were wrongly executed. The professors "believed" the men were innocent, but they did not prove their case. They even listed such notorious cases such as Sacco and Vanzetti, Hauptmann, the Rosenbergs, etc., all cold-blooded killers and traitors whose cases were reviewed by various courts. The professors ended up admitting, "...in none of the cases...can we point to any state action indicating the belief that the person executed was innocent." Evidently, my opponents never read the full article.

 

Yes, it could happen. It may have already happened, but it is unlikely with all the restrictions placed on the police, the emphasis on the rights of the accused, the jury trial, numerous appeals, DNA and usually a long period on death row. Add to that the fact that most governors hand out pardons like campaign literature and are gutless "cry babies" who are super-sensitive to the bellowing and whining from leftist groups who have never seen a guilty killer they didn't like.

 

We are told that it is state-sanctioned murder to carry out the death penalty, but if that is true is it state-sanctioned kidnapping to keep a person in prison?         

 

Are fines state thievery? It is amazing that intelligent people can’t see the difference in the actions of an individual person and the legal actions of government.                

 

Copyright 2009, Don Boys, Ph.D.

 

Is the Death Penalty State Sanctioned Murder? 

 

Don Boys, Ph.D.

 

We are told that it is state-sanctioned murder to carry out the death penalty, but if that is true is it state-sanctioned kidnapping to keep a person in prison? Are fines state thievery?  It is incredible that opponents of the death penalty tell us that it perpetuates violence. They  can't see the vast difference in a person who takes another person's  life and the state doing so after a fair trial. Government is supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Those are the two functions of government, yet our states are failing at both.

 

It is almost always true that those people who oppose the death penalty for convicted killers (and I think that kidnappers, rapists and traitors should get death as they did 50 years ago) almost always are loud proponents of abortion!  Let's see now: they don't want vicious killers to be killed, but they do want innocent, unborn babies to be butchered! I don't  understand that kind of thinking.

 

I have asked my opponents if I have a right to defend myself if a person is trying to kill me, and most of them agreed that it is acceptable. I then asked them, “If it is morally and legally right for me to defend myself—even killing my attacker—before I am killed, why is it wrong for the state to kill him after he has killed me?" They are strangely quiet.

 

Often, in desperation, my death penalty opponents remind me that most  nations have banned the death penalty as cruel and inhumane. I usually pause for a few seconds and say, "So?"  When European nations were ruled by tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc., we didn't emulate them by looking for a home-grown dictator, so why follow them in their folly now by abolishing a reasonable and scriptural tool for the sake of society? European nations are also collecting the fire arms from law-abiding citizens and opening their borders to almost anyone. Should we follow them in that direction? I think not.

 

We are told that we should forgive the killer, but I remind them that no killer has asked for my forgiveness. Besides, he didn't take the life of one of my relatives so I don't have the right to forgive him. During a talk show forgiveness and mercy were mentioned as  related to the Susan Smith case—the mother who drowned her two little boys. I had just demanded a death sentence for her, but the judge I was debating asked, "But what about mercy, Dr. Boys?" I replied, "Mercy you get from God; from the courts you expect justice."

 

He said, "But the clergymen in her small town have all asked for mercy in her behalf." I said, "Her two children would liked to have seen some mercy from her, but instead they were pushed into a lake to drown. Besides, preachers asking for mercy is not an argument, since most preachers pull on panty hose each morning and wear lace on their shorts." The host said, "What did you say?" I then repeated it, and he said, "I thought that's what you said.”

 

We members of society must demand of our legislators that crime not pay. That message must resonate to every city and country town that killers will not be pampered and made heroes in the media. Killers will be executed and after all, that can facilitate the best kind of rehabilitation. If a man knows he is going to die in 30 days, while the ACLU, PAW, NAACP and other radical groups whine, weep, and carry candles for him, then maybe he will experience the ultimate in rehabilitation and turn to Christ for genuine salvation.

 

State officials had better get the message that we must feel safe in our home, car, and streets or the seeds are sown for anarchy, vigilante justice, and lynch law.

 

Copyright 2009, Don Boys, Ph.D.

 

Dead in the Back Seat of His Cadillac from Drug Overdose!

 

Don Boys, Ph.D.

 

Country singer Hank Williams, Sr. held the world in his grasp then lost it all in the back seat of his Cadillac dying from a drug overdose on New Years Day, 1953. He was age 29. His long-time manager Merle Kilgore called him, “the most cocky, confident man I ever met in my life.” Yet, he was a small man with no outstanding appearance. 

 

He had a string of hits including “I’m so Lonesome I Could Cry” in 1949; and the haunting “Cold Cold Heart” in 1950; and “Your Cheatin Heart” in 1952.  It seems that Williams could massage a song to get the most from it and was proficient with his guitar, but he couldn’t handle fame, money, and life in general. He was often drunk or drugged.

 

His songs reveal that Williams had some exposure to the Gospel. One of his songs reveals his knowledge of salvation “How Can You Refuse Him Now?” The chorus asked: “How can you refuse him now, how can you refuse him now, how can you turn away from His side, with tears in His eyes on the cross there He died, How can you refuse Jesus now?” Hank evidently refused Him.

 

He wrote his famous “I Saw the Light” in 1948 although the melody was exactly the same as the Chuck Wagon Gang’s 1935 country gospel song, “He Set Me Free.”  Williams often sang his song as if he was a man facing the end, desperate to believe in a salvation that he didn’t think existed. Was he trying to convince himself of the reality of the Gospel? He sang: “I wandered so aimless, life filled with sin; I wouldn't ask my dear Saviour in. Then Jesus came like a stranger in the night; Praise the Lord, I saw the light!” 

 

The chorus went, “I saw the light, I saw the light. No more darkness; no more night. Now I'm so happy no sorrow in sight. Praise the Lord, I saw the light!” The second verse: “Just like a blind man I wandered alone, Worries and fears I claimed for my own. Then like the blind man that Jesus gave back his sight; Praise the Lord, I saw the light!” The third verse:  “I was a fool to wander astray, For straight is the gate and narrow is the way. Now I have traded the wrong for the right; Praise the Lord, I saw the light!” But Hank apparently never saw the light! He usually closed his shows with this famous song.

 

Near the end of his life, he was doing a show in San Diego but stumbled drunk off stage after only two songs. His friend, country performer Minnie Pearl tried to sober him as they rode around town in the back seat of his Cadillac so he could do his second show. She got him to join her in singing “I Saw the Light” thinking it might help sober him, but after one verse, Hank put his head in his hands and said, “O Minnie,  Minnie, I don’t see no light. There ain’t no light.” But there was light, only it seems Hank refused it.

 

On Jan. 1, 1953, Williams died in the back seat of his car on the way to a concert in Charleston, WV. He was to do a show the next day in Canton, OH in the Memorial Auditorium. Williams’ Drifting Cowboys band opened the Ohio show with a spotlight on the curtain after the packed crowd was told that Hank Williams had died the previous day. The band, behind the curtain, sang "I Saw the Light."

 

More than 20,000 people attended his funeral on Jan. 4 at Montgomery's (AL) Municipal Auditorium where an overflow crowd listened via loudspeakers.  Roy Acuff sang "I Saw the Light" as Hank's body lay in front of him in its casket. Acuff was joined by Bill Monroe, Little Jimmie Dickens, Carl Smith, Red Foley, Webb Pierce and others. Dickens began weeping uncontrollably during the song. It seemed to be appropriate to this huge crowd of fans that Hank’s “closure” song was used to end his last public appearance—his funeral. 

 

Williams is buried in Montgomery, AL and across the front of his huge tombstone are the words, “Praise the Lord, I Saw the Light.”  What a tragedy that a man could talk, write, and sing about seeing the light, and never see it and apparently died in darkness.   

 

Copyright 2005, Don Boys, Ph.D.