fbpx

Dear Mr. Mayor

—————————————–
an open letter to the Mayor of Twin Falls, ID
—————————————–

Dear Mr. Mayor,

It was a humble kindness from God to participate in a blessed experience as a tax paying citizen of the City of Twin Falls, Idaho, my home for the past 18 years (and counting) where this past Monday (Aug. 1, 2019) I was given a generous spot on the agenda of a very busy city council meeting.

That moment when I was introduced by you to address the council with my proposed ordinance to speak for the unborn in the city of Twin Falls, was among the most humble moments I have ever experienced in this temporal day.

  • The day of my salvation, when I was shown I was deserving of the wrath of God but given mercy and grace, what a day.
  • The day I vowed “I do” on December 20, 1986, what a day.
  • The births of my sons, their wedding days, and the news of grandchildren, o what days.
  • The day I stood before the Twin Falls City Council to appeal for the consideration of adopting city code that would forbid any person or organization from murdering our neighbors, what a day.

This was not a religion trying to impose a practice or system upon another, this was a day that this citizen stood before you, with over 250 neighbors, to interpose for other neighbors at risk, at risk of murder. As you know, statistically speaking, 5 of our neighbors are murdered every week in the city limits of Twin Falls. That puts the city of Twin Falls, Idaho among the most deadly cities to live in in all of Idaho. Not deadly because of natural causes or accidental death, this is the kind of premeditated murder that is given a legal permission to not properly prosecute the perpetrator, making this even more severe.

Where I was given a generous time to introduce my draft ordinance to the council, I was surprised that you overlooked my attempt to speak after several false claims were made by some of the council members. I have found you to lead fairly and patiently enduring disruptive citizens from time to time. But this conclusion was not at all like those previously witnessed. This was a quick and speedy conclusion to vote. I respect that this was a majority vote 4 to 3 to not consider further dialog on my appeal and not a decision of one single person. Any one of the four who voted not to discuss this further could have voted differently.

  • Councilman Talkington, could have been consistent with his earlier statement to give longer consideration with legal council on the ordinance.
  • Councilman Lanting, could have shown compassion to the citizens while still expressing concern about tax payer money to have a longer conversation about the life of babies who will never be able to pay taxes. The discussion of money really showed to be more important than the concern of neighbors at risk of murder.
  • Councilwoman Pierce could have acted on her “pro-life” position when given the moment to actually consider the plight of our neighbor.
  • You, Mr. Mayor, could have voted to give further discussion to investigate the appeal of a citizen without compromising your own values.

I’ve witnessed my city give long and slow consideration to far less important matters. We accommodated several public meetings to talk about smoking in the city. We’ve heard talk about butterflies and honey bees for months. We form citizen committees to be a voice for “under represented” citizens. Apparently, our neighbor in the womb will continue to be an altogether un-represented neighbor.

I am thankful for the intention of Councilwoman Hawkins’ motion with intent to give serious consideration with the aid of legal council and go down the normal slow path with care and interest to the request and the protection of the city while expressing serious concern for the murderous activity happening in the city. Her motion was crafted with humanitarian interest and fiduciary responsibility to the city. Consistent with Councilwoman Hawkins’ tenure.

The other two, Councilman Reid and Councilwoman Boyd, voting in favor of her motion were willing to consider the plight of the innocent in light of the threat of legal lawsuit showed their concern of life over money. This doesn’t mean we ignore the possibility, it means we take time to weigh out if it is indeed a real possibility, not just an empty threat.

But not even one moment to take a deep breath to think about what a city can do for preserving lives of all its citizens? Not even a moment of silence to acknowledge one of the more than 2,000 neighbors murdered in our city by a tyrant company who has no interest in innocent lives of babies.

You, Mr. Mayor, actually made my point better than I did when you brought up the other laws in Title 6 – Public Safety of our city code. When the city of Twin Falls introduced an ordinance in 1958 forbidding prostitution or homes of “ill fame” was it legal in the state? If so, and it was, then why could the city of Twin Falls forbid it from happening when it was not illegal at the state level?

It wasn’t that long ago that the city of Twin Falls voted to change the law of how long a bar can be open in the city. The state of Idaho regulates it at 2 a.m. Until the city of Twin Falls decided to change it’s code, a bar had to close at 1 a.m. Cities can have laws that are more strict than the state and federal.

These are only a few of many reasons I think a longer discussion would have been a fair discussion for the city to have. Not to mention Idaho code gives local municipalities the authority to govern their cities and counties.

The action of the majority has communicated to the public that the City of Twin Falls is willing to live in fear of the ones holding our children hostage and demanding we obey their every demand while they slowly kill off our neighbor.

The city of Twin Falls will be written about some day. You see, by the grace of God, a day will come when the nation will wake up from this drunk stupor and be shown the brutality of allowing the murdering of babies in the womb. The city of Twin Falls will be on the list of the equivalence of a concentration camp in Nazi Germany and its horrific gas chambers and mass graves of innocent neighbors.

May the kindness of God lead the city council of Twin Falls to repentance.

Until Christs’ return, my death, or justice is given to my unborn neighbor, I will not be silent.

Paul Thompson
A tax paying, property owning citizen, of the City of Twin Falls, ID


—— edited for misspelling and grammar 4:38 p.m. on August 9, 2019 ——

How Important Is It To Know?

When state legislators are in session the people better be paying close attention.

There is a bill right now before Idaho legislators to address the language of the law concerning Family Life and Sex Education. (section 33-1608 Idaho State Legislature). The link I have referenced is the current law, amended last in 1970.

Here is how it currently reads:

TITLE 33
EDUCATION
CHAPTER 16
COURSES OF INSTRUCTION

33-1608. FAMILY LIFE AND SEX EDUCATION — LEGISLATIVE POLICY. The legislature of the state of Idaho believes that the primary responsibility for family life and sex education, including moral responsibility, rests upon the home and the church and the schools can only complement and supplement those standards which are established in the family. The decision as to whether or not any program in family life and sex education is to be introduced in the schools is a matter for determination at the local district level by the local school board of duly selected representatives of the people of the community. If such program is adopted, the legislature believes that:

a. Major emphasis in such a program should be to assist the home in giving them the knowledge and appreciation of the important place the family home holds in the social system of our culture, its place in the family and the responsibility which will be there much later when they establish their own families.

b. The program should supplement the work in the home and the church in giving youth the scientific, physiological information for understanding sex and its relation to the miracle of life, including knowledge of the power of the sex drive and the necessity of controlling that drive by self-discipline.

c. The program should focus upon helping youth acquire a background of ideals and standards and attitudes which will be of value to him now and later when he chooses a mate and establishes his own family.
History:
[33-1608, added 1970, ch. 119, sec. 1, p. 282.]

Notice a few things with me…

  • The state of Idaho believes (in 1970) that the primary responsibility for family life and sex education, including moral responsibility, rests upon the home and the church.
  • The school can only complement and supplement those standards. The standards established in the family.
  • Local school districts/boards is the level that determines how this is implemented.
  • The state of Idaho (in 1970) saw that the jurisdiction of family life and sex education was chiefly, the duty of the family.
  • The state of Idaho (in 1970) believed the best place for children to responsibly establish their own families was in the authority of the family.
  • The state of Idaho (in 1970) set law in place to ensure that children would primarily receive their moral, scientific, physiological instruction for understanding sex and its relationship to the miracle of life, and set its moral compass of the sex drive and self discipline as high priorities of family and church.
  • The state of Idaho (in 1970) was satisfied to be a supplement for what was to be primarily taught in home and church.
  • The state of Idaho (in 1970) believed that parents were qualified to give their children the necessary background, attitude and morality to help them make informed decisions now and to later choose a mate and establish their own homes.

Our duty now is to consider what is being presented to legislators today. We need to ask good questions about why they are suggesting changes and why have they deliberately chosen the wording of such and what are they saying about home and church today in relationship to what was previously thought about them both.

This demands our attention.

Here is the new wording of the proposal…

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE BILL NO. 414
BY EDUCATION COMMITTEE
AN ACT RELATING TO SEX EDUCATION; REPEALING SECTIONS 33-1608 THROUGH 33-1611,
IDAHO CODE, RELATING TO SEX EDUCATION; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16, TITLE 33,

IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 33-1608,

IDAHO CODE, TO  ESTABLISH PROVISIONS REGARDING SEX EDUCATION.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
SECTION 1. That Sections 33-1608 through 33-1611, Idaho Code, be, and
the same are hereby repealed.

SECTION 2. That Chapter 16, Title 33, Idaho Code, be, and the same is
hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and
des
ignated as Section 33-1608, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:

33-1608. SEX EDUCATION.

(1) For purposes of this section, “sex education” means the study of:
     (a) The anatomy and physiology of human reproduction; and
     (b) The development of healthy relationships.
(2) The decision to include sex education in the school curriculum
shall be made at the district level by the board of trustees. If a sex education
program is included in the curriculum, the program shall:

     (a) Be medically accurate according to published authorities on which
medical professionals generally rely, which authorities shall be designated

in rule by the state board of education; and

     (b) Adhere to the Idaho content standards for health education as
es
tablished by the state board of education.
(3) School districts shall involve families and community groups in the
planning, development, evaluation and revision of any instruction in sex
ed
ucation offered as part of the school curriculum.
(4) A child may be excused from sex education if the child’s parent
or legal guardian files an excuse request to the school district board of
trustees on a form made available by the board. Alternative educational programs shall be provided for excused children

Acknowledgement: I am not a lawyer. I make no pretenses on this matter. I’m writing with an attempt to be a well informed and responsible follower of Christ. This is my one and only agenda. Nothing hidden in my observation of this change in Idaho law.

Here are the following initial observations of the change in Idaho law Section 33-1611

  • First, note that this revision of a law starts with scrapping the entire previous law. Maybe that’s the normal way to keep a law clean, but when what was previously the law and the intentional language of the law is completely removed I want to know why and I want to pay close attention to what the new law has to say.
  • Second, I note there is no mention of church. It may be implied by the language of “community groups” but that is no small change and should not be overlooked.
  • Third, I note that the state law seeks primarily to “involve” families rather than treat families as the primary educator on this matter.
  • I then see that there is, what appears to be, intentionally dangerous language that leaves the matter of morality to the subjective wind of “published authorities” on which medical professionals “generally” rely.
  • The law gives parents right to excuse a child from the “sex education” curriculum on a form made available by the local school district board of trustees. Then it gives unclear direction as to what the alternative curriculum that is to be provided for excused children is.

I will be writing my legislators today to inform them of how I read this and express desire that they not alter the good law we already have. I urge you to do the same. Even if you don’t agree with me in how I read the proposal.

What do you think about this?

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: