Here is a post that reflects upon a curious inconsistency. How does an article in of our local papers begin?

It’s no secret that school officials and educators generally consider the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to be onerous.

President Barack Obama appears to agree with that take.

Under a plan Obama announced last week, states will now have the chance to get waivers from some provisions of the law that, among other things, requires stu­dents have 100 percent proficiency in math and reading by 2014.

Manassas City Schools School Board Member Tim Demeria said lifting NCLB is a good thing because it was a “onesize- fit-all” program that measures end results rather than progress. (continued here).

Can we naively assume Federal officials or any government officials always have the best interests of our family and friends at heart? No. Too often people just want things their way. Here is an example. What must state governments do to get a waiver from President Obama?  They must qualify for the waiver.

States will receive a waiver if and only if they agree to certain conditions set by the Education Secretary. CNN calls those conditions “credible commitments to close lingering achievement gaps.” Conservatives call those conditions “strings attached” and “legislating through the executive branch.”

Chief among the administration’s stipulations for a waiver: The adoption of college-and-career-ready standards (a.k.a. national standards). National standards and tests might sound sensible in theory, but, in reality, they would strengthen federal power over education and weaken schools’ direct accountability to parents and taxpayers. Moreover, they would most likely lead to the standardization of mediocrity rather than the standardization of excellence. (from here)

If the Federal Government’s role in public education is not a “onesize-fit all” solution, what is it? Well, what the Federal Government does is needlessly involve distant political officials and bureaucrats in our schools. In return for a small sum of money, Federal officials dictate how our children will be taught and what our children will learn. We call these unfunded mandates, and nobody really knows how much they cost. Consider this excerpt from Federal Government Shouldn’t Mandate Kids’ Meals—or Their Education by the Heritage Foundation.

Additionally, one Virginia school district calculated that the price associated with NCLB was “equivalent to the cost of hiring 72 additional teachers…[ten] instructional assistants,…[and] four additional assistant principals” who could have had direct “interface…with the community’s children.”

Thus, it is no surprise that after five decades of ever-increasing federal involvement and spending, there has been virtually no increase in student achievement. Nonetheless, since the implementation of the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act (currently known as No Child Left Behind) in 1965, the government has taken the approach that greater federal involvement is the way to improve schools.

Fortunately, some of Virginia’s elected officials have started saying no. Here are a few examples from the last year.

• Governor McDonnell Vetoes Unfunded Mandate on Localities. Here is the reason.
  

  Governor Bob McDonnell has vetoed legislation (SB 966) that would force local school districts to provide 150 minutes of physical education per week for all students in elementary and middle school by the year 2014. The state mandate was strongly opposed by local school districts and teachers concerned about the financial impact of its implementation.

• Md., D.C. poised for common education standards, but not Va. This reference is from The Washington Post. Of course, the writer favors nationalizing education standard, and editorializes to that effect. However, Virginia is not ignoring these standards. It is simply incorporating portions of those standards into its own standards. See VIRGINIA STANDARDS OF LEARNING & COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

In the last post, HOW OUR GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS DEVIANTS, we posted Delegate Bob Marshall‘s letter chastising the Virginia branch of the Federal Reserve for flying the homosexual, bisexual and transgender rainbow flag. Here we post Marshall’s letter to Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke.

Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke questioned by Bob Marshall

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, why his organization is taking sides in a social controversy. Specifically, I questioned a decision of the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank to fly the homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender flag just under the American flag at the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank building during June.

Previously I had contacted the head of the Richmond Federal Reserve and received an ambiguous response which is why I decided to write to the Fed Chairman.

June 24, 2011
Hon. Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20551
[Via Fax: 202-452-6481]

Dear Chairman Bernanke:

I write you as a senior member of the Virginia House of Delegates regarding the decision of the Federal Reserve Bank in Richmond to fly the homosexual, bisexual and transgender rainbow flag, along with the American flag, at its Richmond offices during June.

This act appears to violate the Richmond Fed’s own political advocacy policy: ” Federal Reserve Banks have a unique need to protect their independence from the political process … an employee may not engage in political activity while on duty or on Bank premises, and must be extremely cautious to avoid any suggestion of Bank sponsorship or support of such activities.”

In the Richmond Fed’s June 16, 2011 public response to me, Mr. Jeffrey Lacker first reported that this decision “generated considerable public reaction,” but then disputed that flying this rainbow flag was a “political or social statement.” His response failed to explain how this decision to fly the rainbow flag was arrived at, other than to say employees requested it.

Mr. Lacker also failed to address how the Fed made its decision or how it would handle future requests from other employee groups. However, a reporter later told me that a Fed spokesman had said it would be a non-starter if an employee group requested the Richmond Fed to even consider flying a Christian Flag or a Flag of the Sons of the Confederacy.

The New York Times reported (6-10-11) that, “Jim Strader, a spokesman for the bank, said the bank had fielded hundreds of phone calls and as many e-mails about the flag. … One of the most popular arguments by the flag’s opponents was that the bank is a government institution … Mr. Strader’s response is that the bank is in fact privately owned, as are all regional Federal Reserves, and that it considers requests by employees … but not the general public.”

As chairman of the Federal Reserve System please advise me of the following: (1) Did the Richmond Fed violate its own non-partisan directive? If so, what steps will you take to ensure that it does not happen again. (2) Regardless of whether the flag flying violated the Richmond Fed policy, should the Federal Reserve, and/or its 12 regional banks, use Fed money to take such public advocacy positions? (3) Mr. Strader’s comments about the status of the Richmond Fed are problematic. Was Fed spokesman Jim Strader accurate when he told the New York Times that the Fed’s 12 regional member banks are privately owned, and not governmental in nature? I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Delegate Bob Marshall

Delegate Bob Marshall
R – 13th District of Virginia

With liberty comes responsibility; we must leave others in peace. We live as a free people when we do not force our beliefs and practices upon each other. Unfortunately, not all people will accept the self restraints required to remain free, and they look for ways to impress their beliefs upon their fellow citizens.

Here is an example, a recent email that Delegate Bob Marshall provided to his constituents. Note that the online version provides a picture showing how the homosexual, bisexual and transgender rainbow flag is being flown. Can you imagine what’s next. Are we going to have innumerable flag poles at the Federal Reserve so we can sport flags for all the other special interest identity groups?

Below is an Op-Ed I was asked to write by the Richmond Times Dispatch. To see an online version Click Here. 

* * *

Virginia Federal Reserve Takes Side In Culture Wars

The Richmond Federal Reserve Bank has decided to take sides in the culture wars.

Its decision to fly the homosexual, bisexual and transgender rainbow flag under the American flag on Fed property is imprudent and conflicts with the Fed’s own code of conduct.

Its policy states: “Federal Reserve Banks have a unique need to protect their independence from the political process … an employee may not engage in political activity while on duty or on Bank premises, and must be extremely cautious to avoid any suggestion of Bank sponsorship or support of such activities.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989), recognized that flags can be used to make political statements. The Fed flying the homosexual, etc., flag is a political statement.

Federal Reserve banks are not corner convenience stores that we can choose to not patronize. They are not mere private entities. The Fed was chartered by an act of Congress in 1913. It is subject to portions of the federal Freedom of Information Act.

The Fed notes that: “The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a federal government agency. The Board is composed of seven members, who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

The president and U.S. Senate do not appoint and approve the CEOs of McDonald’s or Wal-Mart because they are privately owned and controlled.

The Richmond Fed website states: “As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy, supervises and regulates member financial institutions and provides an array of financial services.”

The Federal Reserve’s secretive, behind-closed-door actions can make or break national economies.

There is no logical link between banking and sexuality. Yet, the rainbow flag was placed on the Richmond Federal Reserve flagpole by unnamed operatives of a public agency with enormous coercive powers granted by Congress.

When I asked a Fed official who authorized the flag, I was told the Fed was flying the rainbow flag to show “inclusion and acceptance.”

I then asked, “Does the Richmond Federal Reserve ask prospective employees about their sexual inclinations? Or has this been done in the past?” I wanted to know if this flag was some kind of a “remedy.”

I was told, “Thank you for the additional questions. Those will be reviewed with your letter.”

Flags are very powerful emotional symbols used as rallying points in warfare, as standards in armies, as proclamations signifying dominion, legality, nationhood or ownership. Americans pledge allegiance to our American Flag.

The Fed’s action is unnecessarily provocative and is not merely the placing of a piece of cloth on a metal pole to show workplace “inclusiveness.” Homosexual persons were already hired and are working there now.

This act is loaded with coercive implications for individuals and businesses. Will member banks be required to fly “rainbow” flags or adopt employment or business loan policies that force “inclusion and acceptance?”

As partisans in the values war, the Federal Reserve cannot be a fair umpire of the economy because it refuses to recognize moral cause of some economic problems — and calls some “problems” panaceas.

If the Fed cannot be trusted in the things we see, how can we trust them behind closed doors?

Institutions are lengthened shadows of their founders. A Federal Reserve System founder, Virginia Rep. Carter Glass, was the force behind the poll tax in the 1902 Virginia Constitution to “protect” Virginia’s self-appointed elites.

Official notes record Glass as saying the poll tax “will emancipate the mind and make free the action of the dominant race … restoring to us the natural right … of independent thought. … This plan of popular suffrage will eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State. … And next to this achievement will be the inability of unworthy men of our own race … to cheat their way into prominence.”

At a time of economic uncertainty and growing mistrust of the Fed, our skepticism is certified by the Fed’s in-your-face action.

George Washington, in his first inaugural address noted “the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” No one is perfect. Calling vice a virtue does not alter the nature of things, but it does call into question the judgment of those making such declarations.

Upholding “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” is love of our neighbor.

Again, I urge Richmond’s Federal Reserve Bank president, Mr. Jeffrey Lacker: Take down that flag.

What is the highest military priority of the United States? Is it the war on terror? Guess again.

American combat troops will get sensitivity training directly on the battlefield about the military’s new policy on gays instead of waiting until they return to home base in the United States, the senior enlisted man in Afghanistan said Thursday. (continued here)

Imagine you are in the U.S. Army, a combat soldier in Afghanistan. What do you want your leadership thinking about? Would you be concerned if your leaders were not intensely worried about the sensitivities of sodomites? Well, the Obama administration does want to protect sensitivities of sodomites. Decisions about the combat mission can lag for months, but they just can’t wait to indoctrinate the troops.

“We will take our directions from the Department of Defense, from the secretary of defense, the chairman, as well as the service chiefs of each service. Our plan is to take their direction, and we’re going to execute that training right here on the battlefield.”

No unit is exempted, he said.

“Our goal is to not allow a unit to return to home station and have the unit responsible for that,” he said. “While we own (emphasis added) those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, we’re going to execute that training on the ground. We hope that it will have little impact on their combat and security operations here.” (from here)

They hope, but do they really care.

“If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they’re going to have to do what’s best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward – if that’s the way that we have to go,” Sgt. Hill said on the television show, “Washington Watch” in December. (from here)

Thus, our leaders have high expectations.

‘We expect the entire army of over a million people to be trained by the end of the summer’, the spokesman added. (from here)

Some think this priority misplaced.

Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, called the move to train combat soldiers engaging in daily battle ‘ridiculous’.

‘It’s absurd because the military has more important things to think about in that dangerous part of the world,’ she told The Washington Times.

‘For the administration to say this is more important than even with the troops we’re trying to train in that part of the world, I think it shows flawed priorities at best.’ (from here)

What is “sensitivity training” intended to do? Why is it so important? Why would our leaders want such a thing? Is their goal is to change attitudes, that is, what we believe? Have the leaders of our government have set out to change/transform our beliefs about homosexuality? Is that sort of thing our government’s job? Would you volunteer to have an “expert” reeducate you to believe what our leaders want you to believe? Doesn’t putting soldiers, people who volunteered to defend our nation, through such training and forcing taxpayers to fund it violate our right to believe what we want — including freedom of religion?

Government exists to protect each of us from the abuse of others, but this is abuse. Our society made it illegal to physically abuse another person a long time ago. We do not allow one person to bully and harass another. Nonetheless, we have never made it other people’s job to make sinners feel good about themselves by approving of their sins. Unfortunately, some of our leaders think military personnel provide the ideal test subjects for their social experiments. After all, without severe consequences, military personnel cannot refuse their orders.

No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. — Gideon J. Tucker

It is an old joke, but it is nonetheless true. So what has our legislature, Virginia’s General Assembly, been up to?

“Curbing” Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

The Washington Post reports:

Democrats in the General Assembly are trying to curb the power of the state’s attorney general to subpoena public universities in an effort intended to limit inquiries like the one Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II is conducting at the University of Virginia.

It appears that Northern Virginia State Del. Adam Ebbin introduced legislation designed to handicap Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on Thursday (see here). Fortunately, leading Republicans in the General Assembly say they intend to defend Cuccinelli (see the Post’s article).

Here in the Washington Examiner (Democrats try to use ‘Roman Polanski defense’ in UVA Climategate case), Norman Leahy offers some background that explains why Cuccinelli should retain his subpoena power.

Governor Bob McDonnell On YouTube

To influence the General Assembly — and us, the citizens of Virginia — Governor McDonnell has produced a bunch of videos (see vagovernor). Here, for example, Governor McDonnell Announces K-12 Education Initiatives for 2011 General Assembly Session.

Of course, Governor McDonnell also listed his spending priorities in the State of the Commonwealth.

News From The Blogs

Blue Virginia asks Is This the Craziest Bill in Virginia So Far in 2011? One of our senators wants anyone having sex with a minor to have to register as a sex offender.

FamilyFoundationBlog.com post on the defense of property rights, Property Rights In The Balance Friday Morning In House Of Delegates!

Bearing Drift posts on the battle over education funding. Virginia Education Association flunks again by defending money for unionized teachers instead of student instruction. In addition, Bearing Drift posts Legislation Bearing Drift supports/opposes and Redistricting in Virginia – The Ins and Outs. Redistricting happens only once every ten years.

Two bloggers Virginia Virtucon in VA Senate Dems Kill Transportation “Lock Box,” Oppose Protections For “Right To Work” Laws and SWAC Girl in House Democrats against Va’s “right to work” laws? discuss the battles in the General Assembly over transportation spending and right to work laws.

Citizen Tom posted emails from legislators to their constituents: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TAKES UP THE SUBJECT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, SENATOR OBENSHAIN ON THE FIRST WEEK, DELEGATE JACKSON MILLER ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, IMAGINE THE BANK WANTS YOUR HOUSE.

The Farm Team in Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment – Patron Senator Patsy Ticer advocates passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, and it posts Delegate Abbott’s Weekly Legislative Update — 1.21.11

On Friday, The Washington Times carried a commentary on the inability of Christians in America to bring up their children in the faith, CROUSE: We don’t believe.

Christianity Today recently documented the fact that America’s churches are not only “failing to attract younger worshipers,” but they are also “not holding on to the ones” raised in the church. Research studies indicate that “70 percent of young people leave the church by age 22″ and that figure “increases to 80 percent by age 30.” The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) revealed that the “percentage of Americans claiming ‘no religion’ almost doubled in about two decades” (8.1 percent in 1990 and 15 percent in 2008). Among the young (18 to 29 years old) the number doubled (11 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 2008), with 73 percent coming from religious homes and 66 percent describing themselves as “de-converts.” Consequently, according to the Southern Baptist Convention (America’s largest Protestant denomination), church growth is not keeping up with the birth rate. (continued here)

When we see such a failure, we look for someone to blame. We rarely look into the mirror and wonder what we are doing wrong. As Christians, we cannot afford to blame someone else. The Bible offers us no such latitude. Remember what God said to Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 33:7-9 (Today’s New International Version, ©2005)

“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked people, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, those wicked people will die for their sins, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sins, though you yourself will be saved.

Christ gave his disciples the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20). Thus, he made us all watchmen. When we see our people giving up the faith and taking up wicked ways, we must each do our part to give the alarm, or He will hold us accountable for their blood.

FAMILYFOUNDATION.BLOG reports that “Don’t Tread On Me” Plates Bill To Come Before General Assembly.

Not only will Virginians have the opportunity to drive around with an attractive In God We Trust license plate, approval for a Don’t Tread On Me plate also will be before the 2011 General Assembly. Delegate John O’Bannon (R-73, Henrico) has introduced HB 1418 to establish the plate but, as with the all specialty plates, the General Assembly requires at least 350 pre-filed applications to be on hand for the legislation to be approved. Delegate O’Bannon spoke about the plate this morning on WRVA-AM’s Richmond Morning News with Jimmy Barrett (listen here).

“Don’t Tread On Me” Plates Bill To Come Before General Assembly also explains how to order the plates. If you want one, I suggest reading the full post.

Why should you want a DON’T TREAD ON ME license plate? It is unfortunate, but too many of us do not well know our nation’s history. That includes the historical significance of the Gadsden flag, that is, the flag on which the design of the DON’T TREAD ON ME license plate is based. Therefore, I have provided several references.

• Gadsden flag – a Wikipedia article
• Don’t Tread on Me at FoundingFathers.info
• The Gadsden Flag at www.usflag.org
• The Gadsden Flag: ’Don’t Tread on Me’ from The Corps’ Official Magazine

What all theses stories relate is that Benjamin Franklin originally represented the thirteen American colonies as a rattlesnake. He did so in America’s first political cartoon.

(from here at the Library of Congress)

As strange as it may seem to us now, much of America once saw itself a somewhat noble rattlesnake. Here is how Wikipedia relates Franklin’s thoughts on the matter.

In 1754, during the French and Indian War, Franklin published his famous woodcut of a snake cut into eight sections. It represented the colonies, with New England joined together as the head and South Carolina as the tail, following their order along the coast. Under the snake was the message “Join, or Die“. This was the first political cartoon published in an American newspaper.

As the American Revolution grew, the snake began to see more use as a symbol of the colonies. In 1774, Paul Revere added it to the title of his paper, the Massachusetts Spy, as a snake joined to fight a British dragon.^[2] In December 1775, Benjamin Franklin published an essay in the Pennsylvania Journal under the pseudonym American Guesser in which he suggested that the rattlesnake was a good symbol for the American spirit:

“I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of stepping on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?”^[3]

Thus, the DON’T TREAD ON ME or Gadsden Flag symbolizes American unity, magnanimity, and courage in the defense of liberty.

Had anyone asked, I would have said the word “vote” is not in the Bible. I would have been wrong. When he preached the word of God to King Agrippa, the Apostle Paul used the word “vote” as described how he had once persecuted Christians.

Acts 26:9-11 (Today’s New International Version)

“I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.

Of course, Paul did not vote in a general election. Yet vote he did, at least that is the most literal translation. Paul voiced his support for the punishment and death of Christians. He supported and worked for a regime which punished people for practicing their religious beliefs.

Fortunately, Paul repented. Thanks to the example of the people he persecuted and words of Jesus, Paul changed. A reborn Paul stood with the people he had once persecuted. At the risk of his own life, that Paul advocated the teachings of Christ.

What relevance do Paul’s words have for us? We too cannot choose to stand apart. As Christians we have the obligation participate in the governance of our nation. That is particularly true because our nation is founded on Christian beliefs. Consider this one sentence from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We each belong to God. Our Lord Jesus commanded us to love each other as He loves us. Therefore, we have no right to abuse each other. Such love gave Paul the strength to stand before the leaders of his day and give voice to the teachings of Jesus.

Eventually a tyrant put Paul to death, but we need take no such risk. We need only take the time. In fact, because we can cast a secret ballot, we can keep our vote a private matter. Nonetheless, we can vote prayerfully, and we can each use our vote as an opportunity to defend both our faith and the God-given rights of our fellow citizens.

Information Sources

We are here to assist you. Please see:

• VOTER GUIDE for the GENERAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 2nd 10th and 11th DISTRICTS, U.S. HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES
• BACKGROUND ON THE BALLOT QUESTIONS ON THE 2010 VIRGINIA BALLOT: 2nd POST.

On Friday the Washington Times reported: Debtors repent by walking away, not by paying off: ‘New frugality’ a deception. Here is the gist of the article.

Although that sometimes painful but virtuous “deleveraging” process has been a boasting point for President Obama and other political leaders looking for positive trends in the economy, a closer look shows that it is not all or even mostly the result of moral rectitude and improved spending habits on the part of the public.

Rather than paring down what they owe, millions of consumers have simply stopped paying the bills, forcing banks to write off hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages and credit card debts as uncollectible.

Defaulting on the debt, while not as commendable as paying it off, in the end produces the same statistical result once banks charge off the loans: lower debt, lower consumer spending and an increase in cash savings.

There was a time when there was no “walking away” from debt. If the debtor did not pay as agreed, then the debt holder could punish the debtor severely. In still earlier times, the debt holder could enslave the debtor and his family. Such is the reality spoken of in The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant. When the debtor is unable to pay, “the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt” (Matthew 18:25).

Fortunately for that debtor, his master proved merciful, and he relented, allowing debtor time to repay. Yet this same debtor would not show similar mercy to his own debtors (Matthew 18:30). So his master called him and punished him (Matthew 18:32-34). Thus, this parable reflected the reality of a harsher time.

Has the world changed that much? Can by a government edict all debts be blithely forgiven? No. Even though our government no longer allows debtors to be thrown into prison, someone must pay their debts. In this case, taxpayers, mortgage lenders, and various assorted creditors now eat costly loans. Such cannot continue. Eventually an indifferent attitude towards debt must wreck the lending industry.

Consider that Jesus told The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant to help us understand the concept of forgiveness, using debt as a metaphor for sin. The parable illustrates what Jesus meant by forgiving sins in the Lord’s Prayer. (see Lord’s Prayer in Wikipedia).

Matthew 6:9-13 (Today’s New International Version)

“This, then, is how you should pray:

” ‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’

In The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant, the master expected his debtor to follow his own example of mercy. The master still expected his debtor to honor his obligation to repay (With respect to sin, the equivalent would be restitution and repentance.). Nevertheless, the master showed forgiveness and mercy by setting aside whatever anger he might have felt at not being repaid on time. What the master did not ignore was this debtor’s hypocrisy. He did not allow his willingness to forgive to become an excuse that enabled bad behavior.