"Everything You Know Is Wrong"

Weird Al recorded a weird song with a chorus that includes the following words:

Everything you know is wrong.
Black is white, up is down, and short is long,
And everything you thought was just so
Important doesn't matter.
Just forget the words and sing along.
All you need to understand is

It oo. The owowner of a house is away for a time in Europe. He asks a few locals to check on his house from time to time. After about a month, someone goes in and discovers that the place has been taken over by "squatters." Were they authorized to be there? No. Should they be arrested? Yes. They broke into someone’s private property, which ought to be a crime, if it is not. The police in Sammamish, Washington, did arrest the man and woman who had illegally entered the house.

But they had to release them because, apparently, "squatters" have rights. Now, in what universe does that make sense? Unfortunately, it is the one we all live in. Does anyone remember the good old days when a person was jailed for trespassing on someone else’s property? What is wrong with our culture that these individuals have "rights"? How does something so crazy become enacted into law? Is there a "squatters" lobby somewhere within each state? What kind of a legislator would even seriously consider giving such criminals any credence? This kind of thinking is so warped that Weird Al is starting to sound logical.

But there’s more. Discovered in the house were "12 guns, more than 15,000 fentanyl pills, steroids, meth, heroin, bulletproof vests and more than $40,000," according to one news source. Doesn’t this finding seem just a little suspicious? But the police could not confiscate any of it because such would be a violation of the squatters’ rights. They were allowed to remove everything they said belonged to them. Hold on! Aren’t these illegal substances? And the police cannot arrest them for possession? They just have to stand by and watch these people load a U-Haul truck and then take off with it? To paraphrase Shakespeare, "There’s something rotten in the state of Washington."

In this state, the squatters have more rights than the homeowner. The person who owns the property has to initiate eviction proceedings to have the people removed, which could take months. How looney is that? Suppose a person buys a piece of property with the idea of remodeling it and selling it later. Maybe it sits unoccupied by anyone entitled to be there, but squatters move in, and the owner must go to court to get rid of them? This is insane. No homeowner should be required to pay a dime to have the police escort unauthorized personnel out of the structure and into a comfy jail cell. One should ask, "Who is behind these rights for squatters?" Most people know intuitively that the removal of the homeowner’s property, just because the squatters said it was theirs, is both unfair and ridiculous. Unfortunately, many states have similar laws.

Owning property is a constitutional right; squatting is not. When people’s rights are not upheld, communities will suffer. Such laws can only lead to worse situations that will likely lead to violence. Last year, a couple in St. Louis came out of their house with a weapon to face a mob whose intent seemed to be to destroy their house. The police showed up and arrested—them. There was a time when people could protect their property, but apparently not any more. If such attitudes do not lead to lawlessness, where are they heading?

In the past year, certain stores have been robbed, looted, and set on fire. Cars, even police vehicles, have been overturned and set on fire. This behavior went on for three months in Seattle and Portland, and the police were ordered to stand down. Or people were occasionally arrested and then released. Have community leaders decided to practice Dr. Spock’s principles on criminals now instead of what the Bible teaches? Anyone who thinks that such actions are shameful needs to be reminded that "everything you think you know is wrong."

What does the Bible say? Even under the Old Covenant, God put in a principle that readily comes to mind: "You shall not steal" (Ex. 20:15). Anyone who breaks into another person’s house to squat is stealing. They are stealing utilities such as water and electricity (unless they were turned off). They are stealing the rooms they occupy plus the roof over their heads. They did not labor for it; they did not purchase it, and they have no right to take what belongs to someone else. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul wrote: "Let him who stole steal no longer, but let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need" (Eph. 4:28).

May 24th, 2021 is the date in which this sequence of events began in the state of Washington, thus making it a current issue. What will happen next is anybody’s guess. Is it too old-fashioned to ask states and communities to abide by the instructions God has given throughout earth’s history? Man must obtain his morality from an objective source. When he makes up his own, it obviously doesn’t work well. Is it too square to just be practical? Does anyone want someone else to take over his possessions? The public’s reaction to this event seems to indicate that the majority of people think that what happened is nuts. Is it too much to hope that people still want fairness in our treatment of one another? Or has right become wrong?

The Moral Universe

Although some of these societal inversions seem fairly recent, mankind has been readjusting morals and ethics for centuries. Isaiah the prophet lived 700 years before the Lord Jesus, and some had invented a topsy-turvy approach to God’s principles even back then:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight (Isa. 5:20-21).

How could anyone make good seem bad and vice versa? Just listen to what the secular humanists say. A woman must be given the right to choose. It is not murder to kill the unborn; the fetus is not yet a human being. This is a matter of calling evil good. On the other hand, convicted murderers should not be put to death because that would be murder, and it makes us as a society no better than a murderer. This is an example of calling good evil. God grants the right to the state to execute justice. Secular humanists, however, have a "spin" for every occasion.

One college professor proclaimed that telling the truth all the time was wrong." Suppose a woman bought a new dress and asked someone’s opinion about it. "You would not tell her how unflattering or gaudy or silly-looking it was, would you? It would hurt her feelings." Really? Is avoiding hurting someone’s feelings the highest priority in life? While God requires a Christian to be honest, it is not always necessary to be brutally frank. One can answer tactfully by saying something like, "Some like it, but that others will it say it contains too much green (or red, or yellow). If the lady persists by asking, "But what do you think?" one can answer, "I think it might have too much of that color myself." Such a response may invite some abuse from the woman, but it is better than hearing others snicker when she walks by. The point is, however, that it is not wrong to tell the truth, albeit cautiously. And it is wrong to lie (Rev. 21:8).

Somehow, the vast majority of young people have been told that it is "good" to live with someone before marrying them—although subsequent marriages of cohabitating couples have a higher divorce rate than those who do not. This writer’s first experience with such nonsense came from watching a soap opera in a waiting room somewhere. A young woman was so excited to be talking to her friend: "Guess what? Bob (or whatever his name was) asked me to…." Surely the rest of the sentence would be, "…marry me." But, no. The shocking conclusion was, "to move in with him." What? He just asked her to provide all the sex he wants on a convenient basis without any strings attached, and she’s excited about this? And if he gets tired of her at some point down the road or wants to try somebody else, all he has to do is tell her to leave. And this kind of situation is called "good" and "sweet"? And waiting until marriage is bad?

At least, that’s what one Miss-America contestant affirmed when she said, "I would not even buy a pair of shoes without first trying them on." The woman who tries on seven or eight pairs is going to be awful busy. A week later she may find a pair that she likes better; then the first pair just sits in a closet—someday to be donated to charity. People practically do back flips to get evil to sound good.

Some think that adultery can be a good thing; some have claimed that open marriages are healthy and that it keeps a marriage revitalized. Some undoubtedly think that polygamy has advantages, also. However, God could not be clearer on the matter: "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4). Try as one might, no loopholes can be found in this easy-to-understand verse. It is as clear as the Old Covenant law: "You shall not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14).

In fact, the book of Proverbs contains many warnings against committing this sin (2:16-22, 5:1-23; 6:23-35; 7:6-27). Solomon gives numerous reasons not to give in to immorality; one of the most sobering is: "Whoever touches her shall not be innocent" (6:29b). This is the truth of the matter regardless of how many reasons people set forth to try to justify their actions.

The same is true with those trying to justify unauthorized divorce: "We fell out of love"; "We just grew apart"; "outside pressures took a toll on our marriage"; and the ever popular "I know God wants me to be happy." Were there not these things called "vows"? What about them? So, it’s wrong to remain in a loveless marriage, and it’s right to ignore promises and "marry" someone to whom one is not entitled? Such attitudes certainly fit Isaiah 5:20.

Who would have ever imagined, sixty years ago that part of the morality flip-flop would include the sin of homosexuality? Most people knew it was a perversion back then, but now we are told it is not—it’s just a different preference. It’s good for people to express themselves in that way, if they so desire. And anyone who says otherwise is bad. To even suggest they seek counseling or consider becoming heterosexual just about merits being put into prison. Most people today have no clue concerning all the darkness that is being put for light.

One other assault on Isaiah 5:20 is that the vast majority think that consuming alcoholic beverages is good. They may not think that abstinence is bad, but it is at least a little weird. All people drink, don’t they? They drink to celebrate; they drink to commiserate. Is there an occasion not to drink? Particularly, they enjoy it on the Hallmark Channel. The Bible issues several warnings against imbibing, extending even to the very seductive appearance of wine (Pr. 23:31). But society thinks it ought to be present at all times.

Is everything we think we know wrong? It depends on where we get the information from.