Author: Jeffrey Pitts

For those of you who do not understand this question, here is a quick description (FYI, this is what I think it is ’cause I do not fully understand it either), what an open meeting is is a meeting where anyone participating in the meeting can talk about any topic and for as long as they like. There are no existing rules governing taking turns, topic adherence, or other constraints on the meeting. This meeting can also be recorded by any means by anyone present.

In my opinion, my answer to this question is no. The police should not be allowed to restrict recording or taping a video in an open meeting. Let me tell you why. In many cases, an open meeting is very important to a lot of people, and they video tape it so that people can watch it later and know what happened. Also, politicians are supposed to be helpful to the people and truthful. In most cases, a politician who is not being truthful does not want the meeting to be recorded, so a politician who does not want the meeting to be recorded is not really being truthful most of the time. So really, if a politician is okay with the meeting being recorded, then the politician has full confidence they will say and do the truth, and hopefully help a lot of people. So, the police should not be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting.

How important is the idea of covenant sanctions in the week’s readings? Well, I have recently began to read the King James Bible, and I must say, this is the most interesting version of the Bible I have ever heard of or read. The King James Bible was an early modern translation of the Bible for the church of England. The publishing of this book was commissioned in 1604 and it was published in 1611. It was sponsored by King James IV and I, hence the name, King James Bible. This book seems too be written by one person, but it was not. In fact, this book was a committee project. It was written by so much more people. This book was written by forty-seven people and six committees. This was a very poetic book.

Here is an exert from Deuteronomy 28:20 KJV: “The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

And here is that same exert from the ESV Bible: “The Lord will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me.“

Here is another exert from the KJV, Matthew 5:13-16: 13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. 14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

And here it is again in the ESV: 13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so thata] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Which translation do you think sounds more poetic? I think the KJV Bible sounds better.

How important is the idea of covenant sanctions in the week’s readings? This past week I read Deuteronomy 28-34, Ruth, Lamentations, and Matthew 5-7. In all of these readings, I found out that a broken covenant brings negative implications, and a kept oath promises inheritance in the future.

Enlightened absolutism was just the belief in Enlightenment-era rationality and the concern for social problems. That, intermixed with the belief in an absolute monarchy or despotism. That is Enlightened absolutism. An example of an enlightened absolutist is Catherine II of Russia. She succeeded in creating enlightened policies.

The constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that led to the American Revolution. Ever since the colonists landed in America, the British tried to control them, because they thought the colonists were still British, but the colonists wanted to be free from Britain. So there was a constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that led to the American Revolution. There were events in which the constitutional dispute was evident, an one of these was the Stamp Act. According to Wikipedia, “The Stamp Act 1765, also known as the Duties in American Colonies Act 1765, was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain which imposed a direct tax on the British colonies in America and required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper from London  which included an embossed revenue stamp.” Well, I bet you can imagine that the colonists were furious at this, so they decided to revolt against this, and not pay the taxes. Then the American Revolution ensued shortly after this.