Monday, August 20, 2018
Ep. 1202 Abolish the Sex Offender Registry?
Here's an outline of my position on the issue of child pornography.
The word "pornography" comes from two Greek words, porneia, "fornication" or sexual sin of some kind, and graphe, "writing." In an illiterate society, such as ours, pictures substitute for words. In the Bible, the book called "Song of Solomon" is about marriage, not fornication. It is not designed to cause the reader to be sexually stimulated over the prospect of committing a sexual sin. It is therefore not "pornography."
If I had a Staples "Easy" Button and could abolish all laws against possession of child pornography by pushing that button, I would push the button . . . PROVIDED that pushing the button would also eliminate the rest of the federal government, especially the federal Department of Education and the pressure it puts on local schools to legitimize sexual deviancy, and all federal court precedents removing God, the Bible, prayer, and the Ten Commandments from public schools. In other words, I believe the adoption of the complete libertarian program would, on balance, eliminate more child abuse than retaining the present system with its child pornography laws and abusive school system.
And let's face the fact that the Signers of the Constitution would be horrified and angered at the government's atheistic and immoral education system, which pushes homosexuality and fornication on children in its captivity.
If I had a Staples "Easy" Button and could cause all pornography to vanish, I would push the button. Pornography would then begin to reappear soon thereafter. A Godly society wants to keep this from happening. Some folks suggest that pornographers, especially child pornographers, be locked in a cage with a psychopath who will sodomize the pornographer and maybe even beat him to death. This is not a Christian option.
I agree with the Bible that all sexual contact outside marriage is sinful and should be socially condemned. I also agree with the Bible that some forms of sexual contact are sinful even if "the government" claims the parties are "legally" "married." I believe most parents want their children to wait until they are married to just the right person in a life-long commitment before they have sexual contacts. The complete libertarian program would give these parents their wishes, or at least remove all government-sponsored undercutting of parental desires.
Government schools are presently the largest and most systematic criminal child abuse ring in America. This is The Harsh Truth About Public Schools. Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea than to offend a little child (Luke 17:2). Child pornographers are clearly an example of the scum Jesus was talking about. But so are public school educrats who encourage children to experiment sexually before marriage (as long as the children use condoms, of course). It is a form of child abuse not to teach children "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Every single person who signed the Constitution would say the government is a child abuser by teaching children that homosexuality is not sinful.
Homeschool pioneer John Holt was not a Christian, and I'm sure he would be appalled at some of the things I've said in this post; and I don't agree with many things he said, but I am in fundamental agreement with his book Escape from Childhood. No, I don't believe a child should jump into an airplane and start flying -- I admit to the need for "flight instructors" -- but if my 14-year-old daughter, physically, emotionally, and intellectually mature beyond her years, meets the moral and intellectual equivalent of John Hancock or Samuel Adams, and she wants to marry Mr. Hancock, I don't believe the federal government has any rightful (or constitutional) authority to say she cannot. How many 14-year-old girls do you know who would appreciate John Hancock and want to begin a family with him? Not many in the government's school system, I'm sure of that. The government wants all citizens to be perpetual adolescents and dependents. John Holt says children should be encouraged to be mature and treated with at least the same respect we are willing to give to immature and irresponsible adults.
Sensible libertarians admit that some people will make bad decisions if given the freedom. Does that justify the entire institution of socialist education and coercive violence which is the essence of today's government? I say no.
The federal government is not the friend of children.
Part two of this analysis is here:
"Legalize" the 3 H's!
Friday, November 17, 2017
This post is about the allegations of constitutional impropriety.
Isaiah 64:6 says,
But we are all as an unclean thing,I understand that a modern English translation of the ancient Hebrew for "filthy rags" is "used Kotex."
and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
and we all do fade as a leaf;
and our iniquities, like the wind,
have taken us away.
Almost as gross as the stuff you can find in the New York Times.
Like: We're With Stupid by Timothy Egan.
Lost in the news grind over Roy Moore, the lawbreaking Senate candidate from Alabama, is how often he has tried to violate the Constitution. As a judge, he was removed from the bench — twice — for lawless acts that follow his theocratic view of governance.Fake news.
What "law" did Moore violate?
Moore is right about the Constitution.
This Egan guy is a moron.
(I wrote that analysis of the Federal Court decision against Moore back in 2003, so some of the links might be old.)
Shariah law has been justifiably criticized as a dangerous injection of religion into the public space.Fake news.
Used Kotex News.
The problem is not that Islam is a "religion" being injected into a religion-free zone.
As though the Founding Fathers created such a zone.
The problem is that it is a FALSE religion
Christianity is the TRUE religion
Roy Moore is correct when he claims that Washington D.C. and the New York Times must come under the jurisdiction of Jesus the Christ and His Word, the Bible. America was built on this idea.
Now imagine if a judge insisted on keeping a monument to the Quran in a state judicial building. Or that he said “homosexual conduct” should be illegal because his sacred book tells him so. That is exactly what Moore has done, though he substitutes the Bible for the Quran.Egan is a Kotex-pedling Jerk.
America was built on the Bible.
The Supreme Court correctly acknowledged that America is a Christian nation:
Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" -- laws which Blackstone reminded us were found "only in Holy Scripture"
Jefferson (who did not sign the Constitution) believed homosexuals should be castrated.
Everyone believed homosexuality was contrary to the Bible:
Egan doesn't know what he's talking about, or else he is a vicious unprincipled liar.
And the NYT.
I don’t blame Moore. I blame his followers, and the press, which doesn’t seem to know that the First Amendment specifically aims to keep government from siding with one religion — the so-called establishment clause.The Constitution does not prohibit the government from siding with the True Religion.
My colleagues at the opinion shop on Sunday used a full page to print the Bill of Rights, and urge President Trump to “Please Read the Constitution.” Yes, it’s come to this. On press freedom, due process, exercise of religion and other areas, Trump has repeatedly gone into Roy Moore territory — dismissing the principles he has sworn to uphold.Moore is the only one in this controversy who actually upholds the Constitution.
This would be the thunderous affirmation of everyone who signed the Constitution.
This guy Egan is an anti-Christian, anti-Constitution bigot.
Just like Mitch McConnell and the "Republican leadership."
Republican "moderates" hate Roy Moore and Christian conservatism as much as Egan and the NYT.
Back to Egan:
One reason that public schools were established across the land was to produce an informed citizenry.Informed about what?
The religion of Secular Humanism?
No, public schools are the product of the Protestant Reformation, the banner of "sola Scriptura." Common schools were created to make sure "every ploughboy" could read the Bible:
It is Egan, the NYT columnist, who is the victim of educational malpractice.
It is the secular media that peddles putrid fake news.
And way too many Trump voters actually agree with this secularist mythology that the NYT is pushing. Many Trump supporters would agree that they all oppose "theocracy." They are all victims of educational malpractice.
And up until the 1960s, it was common for students to take three separate courses in civics and government before they got out of high school.And the Bible.
But that ended in 1963.
Returning to a previous quote from Egan:
Lost in the news grind over Roy Moore, the lawbreaking Senate candidate from Alabama, is how often he has tried to violate the Constitution. As a judge, he was removed from the bench — twice — for lawless acts that follow his theocratic view of governance.Ooooooo ... "theocratic."
The NYT's scariest boogeyman.
The word "theocracy" comes from two Greek words, "theos" (God), and "kratein," which means rule (literally, to seize and to hold on to).
Ben Franklin was a Theocrat. He reminded the delegates to the Convention that gave us the Constitution that
Another word for "Theocracy" in this sense is "Providence." God intervenes in history.
The opposite of "providence" is "deism."
Deism holds that God does not "govern in the affairs of men."
The Deistic god does not intervene in history.
Not a single person who signed the Constitution was a "deist." Not one.
In 1844, a French deist donated a huge sum of money to Philadelphia to create a school for boys in which -- shockingly -- no clergy would teach.
It was scandalous.
It was front page news.
Daniel Webster was horrified.
Webster argued before the U.S. Supreme Court against the conspiratorial intentions of the deist devise. Oral arguments lasted three days. (Cases today usually get 30 minutes max. The Obergefell case got less than 3 hours to debate the negation of thousands of years of western civilization and human history by re-defining "marriage" to include homosexuality -- but that was incredibly long by modern standards.)
The City of Philadelphia wanted the money.
They promised that it would be used to teach the Bible, but using laymen instead of clergy.
Webster didn't buy it.
The U.S. Supreme Court said that the charge that the school might teach deism
is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country; and therefore it must be made out by clear and indisputable proof. Remote inferences, or possible results, or speculative tendencies, are not to be drawn or adopted for such purposes. There must be plain, positive, and express provisions, demonstrating ... that Christianity is not to be taught....http://VFTonline.org/TestOath/Vidal.htm
The Supreme Court ruled that the school
under the auspices of the city government, ... may, nay must impart to their youthful pupils ... the Bible ... as a divine revelation ... its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated."(It is unbelievable, even staggering, how much Christian history has been flushed down the Orwellian Memory Hole by the modern Supreme Court and the mainstream anti-Christian media.)
The 1844 Court spoke of being asked to
consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of Judaism, or Deism, or any other form of infidelity."The word "infidelity" comes from the Latin word "fide," faith. It means "faithless."
Deism is faithlessness.
It used to be the case that only Christians could take an oath, because an oath was an act of Theocratic worship:
One raised one's right hand toward heaven and asked God to "govern in the affairs of man" (to quote Franklin), that is, to judge the one who violated his oath.
The oath was said to be "self-maledictory."
"May God judge me if I am lying."
An oath is inherently Theocratic.
( Strictly speaking, a "test oath" was an oath of allegiance to a particular "ecclesiastical body" [to use the words of James Madison] or as we would say today, a particular Christian denomination.
This is obvious in the ratification debates:
The oath is no longer a form of religious worship, as it used to be called. It is now called a form of "ceremonial deism."
In other words, taking an oath today is swearing to be an infidel, because, as the Court used to remind us, deism is a "form of infidelity."
Do words really matter that much?
Am I taking things too literally?
Doesn't the Third of the Ten Commandments prohibit us from taking the mere word "God" in vain?
God cares about words.
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, "And to seeds," as of many; but as of one, "And to thy seed," which is Christ.Even letters matter.
This is why I asked to add the Theocratic language of Article 22 of the Delaware Constitution (adopted Sept. 20, 1776) to the deistic oath required under California law for attorneys:
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . . . shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I ________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."My request was denied.
I appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thanks to the New York Times and their fake history for protecting my "freedom of religion."
Roy Moore is A WHOLE LOT smarter than stupid Timothy Egan, a mental and moral dwarf.
But Roy Moore has something in common with Bill Clinton.
Both are "archists."
Both believe in the moral legitimacy of using the machinery of violence which is called "the government" to advance their agenda. To his credit, I think Moore wants to seize the reigns of power in order to use them less. The size of Moore's government would be much smaller than that of Clinton's. But Moore would emphatically deny being an "an-archist."
For some reason, archists seem to want to exercise power over women. That is demonstrably the case with Clinton, and that is the allegation against Moore. I confess I am tempted to be both an archist and a sexual predator. The first of Martin Luther's 95 Theses were:
1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" ( Matthew 4:17 ), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh."Mortification," related to the word "mortuary," means "put to death." We all must put the archist within us to death.
We must also put the deist within us to death.
Martin Luther is reported to have said:
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.In our day, one who is not championing "Theocracy" or who is not accused by the NYT of trying to "impose a Theocracy on America" can hardly be said to be a Christian at all.
Jesus is the Christ.
Jesus is the Governor.
All other governors are anti-Christ.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
News today of an ISIS attack on a church in France, in which ISIS terrorist slit the throat of octogenerian priest.
- ISIS knifemen forced French priest to kneel and filmed themselves slitting his throat in horror church attack - Mirror Online
At the RNC convention, Donald Trump promised to "destroy ISIS."
This is not the first time he's said this, of course.
- Donald Trump on ISIS - "I would bomb the SHIT out of 'em!" - YouTube
- Trump: "I Would Bomb The Hell Out Of ISIS" - YouTube
- Trump: ‘I Will Destroy ISIS’ :: Grabien - The Multimedia Marketplace
- Donald Trump: Use NATO to destroy ISIS; this is war | Fox News Video
I think most people agree with this goal, and the means to the end, but quite a few are unwilling to be as blunt and transparent about it as Trump (which some voters find attractive). Obama, winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, drops bombs on ISIS:
As a pacifist, I agree with the goal (destroying ISIS) but not Trump's (and Obama's) means to the end (dropping bombs on Syria, joining with Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen, and strengthening NATO).
So how would a Christian pacifist "destroy ISIS."
And why are so many Democrats quiet about Obama's bombing of ISIS?
Democrats believe in "multiculturalism."
The idea of destroying an entire culture doesn't sit easy with them.
As a Christian Theocrat, I'm all for destroying all non-Christian cultures.
But as a Christian pacifist, I'm against bombs and other forms of violence to accomplish this "genocide."
ISIS is not the first group of terrorists Americans have had to deal with. President Thomas Jefferson dealt with terrorists during his administration. Those terrorists were called "Indians." Not all Americans treated all Indians in a consistently Christian manner, and not all Indians were terrorists, but many Indians attacked not only American settlers, but other Indians as well. In 1779, Jefferson explained to Sir Guy Carleton, the Governor of Canada:
"The known rule of warfare of the Indian Savages is an indiscriminate butchery of men, women and children."
Sounds like ISIS.
Jefferson's letter was an echo of the Declaration of Independence, which said King George III
has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions
We do not live in a meaningless, random, evolving, amoral world. There really is such a thing as "evil," and it is defined by "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," which Blackstone said were only to be found in the Christian Bible.
Christian culture -- whether in Africa, Brazil, Byzantium, New England, or China -- is good. ISIS culture is bad. The world would be a better place if it were eradicated.
Jefferson and America's Founding Fathers knew how to deal with terrorists from false religions. Jefferson compiled a collection of his favorite teachings of Jesus Christ in order to civilize the Indians. Congress appropriated funds to various missionary agencies to Christianize the heathen. This was good foreign policy.
It was a good thing to for America to destroy "native American" culture. They lived in poverty, "darkness" and superstition. They needed the Light from a shining City upon a Hill. The chiefs of the Delaware Indians wanted their people to lose their dysfunctional culture and become like the Americans. On May 12, 1779, in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, George Washington advised them:
You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention.
The Writings of George Washington, JC Fitzpatrick, ed., Wash. DC: US Gov't Printing Office, 1932, Vol 15, p.55.
I oppose coercing taxpayers into funding missionary agencies, but the direction of America's Founding Fathers is a direction we must follow today.
And while it was good to destroy savage Indian culture, it was immoral and unChristian to use violence to do so. And sometimes the destroyer of culture does not represent true Christianity, and may be destroying Christian culture. The real goal is to create conditions in which savage cultures want to abolish themselves. We see this with the Delaware Indians. This is called "repentance."
Americans have a lot to repent of. A lot of American "culture" should be extermintaed.
We must destroy ISIS through evangelism. We should have used evangelism in Iraq rather than armed invasion.
This (non-violent evangelism) is the policy that will be most vocally attacked by Democrats. They will sound the alarms against "Christian Theocrats" and deploy all their "multiculturalism" weapons. They are horrified at the prospect of "destroying" an "indigenous" "culture." But they won't say anything if Hillary promises to destroy ISIS by murdering them all using weapons of mass destruction.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Last month (June 14), I wrote to my Congressman, Billy Long, inquiring about Syrian refugees. I asked how I could get in line to open my home to one or more of them. I received what appears to be a form letter, rather than the specific steps I must take to emulate others who have shown hospitality to strangers:
June 28, 2016
PO Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
Dear Mr. Craig,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Syrian refugee crisis. As you may know, the civil war in Syria has resulted in horrific violence and instability when Arab Spring protests escalated into violent conflict. This intense struggle between President Bashar al-Assad’s forces and rebel groups has resulted in massive civilian casualties and widespread human rights abuses. The United Nations estimates that as many as 200,000 people have died since the violence began. The violence has also spilled into neighboring countries, including Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, which is a NATO member. As many as 7 million Syrians have been displaced from their homes and more than 3 million are now considered refugees. The vast majority of these refugees have resettled in neighboring countries such as Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq. This influx of refugees has placed significant strains on these countries food and water supply, housing, hospitals, and schools. In response, the United Nations Refugee Agency plans to refer 30,000 refugees to countries outside of the region. The United States participates in this program, but it will accept only a small portion of this number. Additionally, the number of total refugees is capped for each year at a maximum of 70,000, and there is a further cap every 3 months to minimize the strain placed on the law enforcement and intelligence communities in order to screen and verify each refugee entering the United States. In September 2015, President Obama announced that the United States would accept 10,000 more Syrian refugees over the next year. America has a long history of accepting refugees from all over the world fleeing hardship, oppression, and conflict. However, the security of the United States remains paramount—especially after the terrorist attacks in Paris—and we cannot allow extremists or terrorists into our country. That’s why I signed letters to Governor Nixon and President Obama asking them to halt the process of incoming refugees and to refuse them from entering Missouri and the United States. In addition, I voted in support of H.R. 4038, a bill that would effectively pause President Obama’s refugee program by requiring additional vetting and background checks prior to Iraqi and Syrian refugees ever being admitted the United States. Specifically, it would prohibit any refugees from Iraq and Syria being admitted to the United States unless the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) certifies to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Director of National Intelligence that the individual has received sufficient investigation to determine that they are not a threat to the United States. H.R. 4038 passed the House of Representatives on November 19 by a vote of 289-137.
But aside from these measures, processes like our country’s visa waiver program (VWP) are critically flawed. The VWP allows citizens of other participating countries –mostly European countries—to come to the United States and stay for up to 90 days without a visa. In fact, it would be easier for a terrorist to come through the VWP than as a refugee. As a result, I voted in favor of H.R. 158, the Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act. This bill addresses the vulnerabilities of the VWP and requires the participating countries to share counterterrorism and intelligence information.
This will continue to be an ongoing issue for the United States and I appreciate having the benefit of your views. I remain committed to defending the safety of American citizens above all else, and I will continue to monitor this issue very closely.
For additional information regarding current legislation, my representation of the Seventh District, and to sign up to receive my monthly newsletter, I invite you to visit my website at http://long.house.gov
Please read this article from The New York Times, "Refugees Encounter a Foreign Word: Welcome." These people who show hospitality to refugees are ordinary people, not professionally-trained, certified and accredited, elite refugee professionals and bureaucrats. They are "Canadian hockey moms, poker buddies and neighbors."
Then read the final parable in Matthew 25.
Sure, if I open my home to a refugee, I run a very small risk that I might be opening my home to a Jihadi terrorist. My life could be cut short by 20 years.
On the other hand, if I refuse to show hospitality to a terrorist, and hope that my grace might lead to his/her redemption, I live for an additional 20 years on this planet, and then spend eternity as a goat. ("Goat" is a reference to the Words of Jesus in Matthew 25.)
What does it profit a man if he gains 20 years of fleeting life and loses his soul? (Mark 8:36)
This weekend America is purportedly celebrating the signing of "The Declaration of Independence." A document which the Federal Government has declared must not be taught in public schools as objective truth. We might ask that document, Why are there terrorists? That document would tell us to ask "The Supreme Judge of the World."
And what would the Judge tell us?
Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.God sends the terrorists.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
What would Winthrop think about the New World today? Today's churches are surely less pure than the Church of England was in the 1600's.
Where would Winthrop go today to establish a City without the impurities of America's atheistic, hedonistic culture?
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Well, it's Veterans' Day, and I haven't updated my "Veterans Day" website in a few years. I think the site goes back as far as 2007.
Here's a summary of the argument of that website, with a few new webpages added.
I believe unrepentant vets should be excommunicated.
- A "Veteran" was part of an organized killing machine.
- The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill."
- It is therefore a sin to be a part of the U.S. Armed Forces.
- Veterans who do not repent (repudiate their sin and pledge to move in the opposite direction, beating swords into plowshares, making restitution, and promoting life and peace) should be kicked out of Christian churches ("excommunicated") -- just like unrepentant adulterers.
Here are some new pages to supplement this argument.
Since I was born, the U.S. Armed Forces have killed, crippled, or made homeless TENS of MILLIONS of innocent, non-combatant civilians. The Armed Forces continue to be committed to killing anyone who gets in their way.
"In the way of what?" you might ask.
Since 1971, when Nixon removed the last connection between gold and "the dollar," the Armed Forces have been committed to the goals of propping up the "Petrodollar" and protecting the Federal Reserve and U.S. corporations, particularly oil corporations with assets in foreign nations.
- NOT "defending" the U.S. "homeland" against armed foreign invasion (but even if it were, Jesus says "national defense" is a sin. [Better Red than making the other guy Dead.]).
- NOT "defending the Constitution."
- NOT "defending our freedoms."
Why did the U.S. overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein (and destroy the largest population of Christians in the Arab world) but doesn't lift a finger against the government of North Korea? Because Saddam threatened to stop accepting "dollars" for oil. This threatened "the dollar" as an international "reserve currency."
The United States is an atheistic, aggressor nation.
• Atheistic: The United States federal government now expressly repudiates America's Christian heritage. Your local public school teacher cannot teach students in a government-operated school that the Declaration of Independence is really true -- because that document is based on a Christian worldview. U.S. foreign policy promotes abortion and homosexuality around the world. U.S. troops are killing the innocent in defense of pornographic atheism.
• Aggressor: The United States federal government is the most evil and dangerous entity on the planet. (The government of North Korea may be more evil, but it is not more dangerous. An innocent child anywhere in the world is more likely to be killed by a member of the U.S. Armed Forces than by the armed forces of North Korea.)
There are certainly veterans who have suffered greatly. They may still have nightmares about the innocent people they killed in defense of "the dollar" (PTSD). They may have lost limbs. They may be battling cancer from the depleted uranium bombs and other weapons they deployed against innocent populations. This is indeed tragic, and on a purely humanitarian level, we should help these "wounded warriors." On a Christian level, however, they still need to repent. Kudos to those who have.
The Republican National Platform of 2000 says that
We [Republicans] will once again make wearing the uniform the object of national pride.
The wearing of a U.S. military uniform should be an object of public disgrace.
Friday, August 07, 2015
This week is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan by the United States.
Most Americans still feel the bombings were justified.
Probably the majority of the Japanese people who were killed, if given a choice, would have preferred surrender vs. a continuation of the war.
But these innocent non-combatant civilians were not the decision-makers.
They were pawns.
Terrorism is widely defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" and "a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government."
The bombing of Japan -- not just the atomic bombing, but the sustained conventional (and probably more lethal) bombing that preceded it -- was an act of terrorism. It was "violence for political purposes."
In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a "fatwah" against the United States in opposition to (1) U.S. Bombing of Muslims in the middle east (2) U.S. military bases on Muslim holy land (3) U.S. support of Israel's anti-Palestinian policies. 9/11 was an act of violence intended to intimidate and force change of these political policies.
The bombing of Japan was a protracted act of terrorism -- violence intended to change the political policies of the Japanese government. It was perhaps 750 9/11's inflicted on Japan.
Conservative, patriotic Americans will object to U.S. policy being equated with Al-Qaeda policy. But the objection is not based on morality. It is based on patriotism, which is a non-rational allegiance to a particular political regime. They are morally equivalent.
To say that Japan and the United States are moral equivalents will offend some. Japan was evil. We are good. Japan was aggressive and invading China. U.S. sanctions against Iraq were two or three times more lethal than Hiroshima, but Clinton's Secretary of State would say the deaths of half a million children were "worth it." That is, "moral."
Let's do some moral calculations.
I have used this illustration in my discussions of allegiance and the oath of office: Suppose the government requires your parents to get a blood test, and based on the medical data obtained from the test, the government concludes that your parents are genetically likely to experience certain end-of-life medical conditions which will be very costly to treat. In order to protect the fiscal solvency of the Medicare and Social Security systems, the government orders you to put your parents to sleep. That means kill them. Would you obey the government's order? It could save the government over a million dollars, and any life insurance company would agree that your parents don't have a million dollars of life value left in them.
I wouldn't obey the government. The Bible says "Honor your father and mother" and "Thou shalt not kill." According to the Supreme Court, putting God ahead of the government in this way renders you ineligible to hold any public office because of your lack of allegiance, patriotism, or loyalty.
It is immoral to take the life of a human being based on this kind of political calculation. Can we agree on that?
How about another illustration.
You receive a letter from the government ordering you to get your affairs together and report to the local hospital. There are five people waiting for you at the hospital. Each of these people has a life-threatening need for your vital organs. By sacrificing your heart, lungs, liver, and a couple of other organs, you will save the lives of five people.
Does the government have the moral right to take your life based on this calculation? One life saves five! What a deal!
If you voluntarily chose to do that, an argument about the morality of suicide would ensue. I'm talking about a government making the choice for you, without or against your consent.
Does the government have the right to take your life based on the fact that five lives will be saved?
This week we commemorate the U.S. government's choice to take the lives of 200,000 innocent non-combatant Japanese civilians without their consent in order to save the lives of a million American soldiers. At least that's the most popular patriotic justification for the bombing. "One life saved five."
But those Americans Soldiers weren't going to die of some inevitable natural cause, but were going to die because their government was prepared to order them to die. A million American soldiers who really did not have to invade Japan anyway. As Eisenhower put it, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Not only was it unnecessary to kill 1 Japanese person to save 5 Americans, U.S. policy likely increased human deaths by nearly 100 times. Crushing Japan meant crushing the Japanese government's ability to invade China. This allowed the spread of Communism in China, which ultimately cost the lives of 76 million Chinese people.
Do we really trust politicians to make such God-like calculations? Obama? Bush? Truman? Should one man have the power to kill a human being based on a fiscal cost-benefit analysis? Should a politician have the power to kill a million people based on a geo-political calculation?
Communism was the clear winner of World War II. Communism in China; Communism in Poland and Czechoslovakia. That's what "we" fought for. That's what tens of millions of people died for. Was it "worth it?"
We must allow simple Christian morality to prevail over Harvard-educated patriotism.
- Hiroshima - Gulf of Tonkin 2007
- Nagasaki 2007
- Religion and National Security 2009
- Hiroshima: From Christian Republic to Atheistic Empire
- Campaign Platform: Hiroshima
- Pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
America is (or was intended to be) a Christian nation.
More specifically, a Protestant nation.
More specific than that, a Presbyterian nation.
The British (Church of England) referred to the American Revolution as "the Presbyterian junto"
I'm a Calvinist. I believe in the Calvinist doctrine of "the depravity of man."
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed in "the depravity of man." James Madison studied under John Witherspoon, the Calvinist President of Princeton University and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. As Madison put it, " If men were angels, no government would be necessary." This is arguably the most famous line from The Federalist Papers. We've all heard this in our civics class. We need "government" to keep society in line.
But in that particular essay (#51), Madison was not trying to emphasize the need for society to have a civil government. Everybody already agreed on that. He was stressing the need to control the controllers:
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Hence the need for such "auxiliary precautions" as "checks and balances," a "separation of powers," and a Bill of Rights. All because we cannot trust men with political power. Trusting the government is un-American.
But, as we know, the Framers trusted men with political power anyway. They (wrongly) believed that God required men to form governments. If you go through the Bible verse by verse, at each step asking the question, "did God just now command human beings to form what we know as 'the State?'" after each of the 31,103 verses you will have to answer "No." God never commanded human beings to form "the State." "The State" was invented by unGodly rebels like Nimrod. I'll betcha.
The institution called "the State" is responsible for more evil than any other institution ever created by man. More evil than all organized crime. More evil than all "private sector" evil. And the United States, believe it or not, is the most evil government on the planet.
Some will say, "But if we don't have any government, society will be plunged into anarchy."
"Anarchy" in this case means "chaos, lawlessness, rampant crime."
Why would "chaos, lawlessness, and rampant crime" break out without politicians? Because of "the depravity of man." That's the usual conservative answer.
I would like to suggest that human beings are better than that.
The Bible says that every human being knows it is immoral to steal or to hurt other people. See the first two chapters of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans.
14 The Gentiles do not have the law [which was given through Moses]. But they do what the law says because their own hearts tell them to. They have a law of their own, even though they do not know the law [of Moses].
15 They show that the law is written in their hearts. They know what is right to do and what is wrong to do. Their own thoughts tell them they have done what is wrong or what is not wrong.)
The King James Version renders verse 15:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Christians are often told they should not judge homosexuals, adulterers or abortionists. That, of course, is an intolerant judgment of/against Christians.
As the KJV suggests, we all accuse or excuse other people all the time, based on our internal moral compass.
This capacity for judging others holds us all in check. I would like to suggest that our concern over the moral judgments of our family, neighbors, co-workers, employers, and Facebook friends, is more immediately important to us than what politicians in Washington D.C. think about us.
If Washington D.C. were to fall into hell, nobody would notice. "Anarchy" would not break out, even if we lived in a state of literal anarchy, that is, a stateless condition. People will still be judgmental. There will be social pressure not to steal. The Bible says unbelievers tend to pretend to be believers. This is why you have so many "hypocrites" in church.
If you believe in the "depravity of man," you might admit that there are times when you would like to steal, but you're afraid someone will find out. You don't want to be publicly branded as a thief.
Not simply that you don't want to be arrested by the government's police. Most criminals think they can evade the police and "get away with it." Non-criminals like you are more concerned about what other non-criminals like you think about you.
People who don't care what others think are called "sociopaths."
They can inflict harm on others, because they don't care what others feel.
They are not social.
Here's why anarchy (a society without politicians) is our best option.
First, the cost of creating a "civil government" -- a socialist monopoly on security -- to deal with the small percentage of people who are criminal sociopaths is greater than the cost to society inflicted by those sociopaths. You pay about 2/3 of everything you earn to the federal government. Every year. Do you think if we abolished the federal government that private sector criminals would inflict that much damage on you? By abolishing corporate income taxes (which you pay at the checkstand) and income taxes and all other ways Washington D.C. has its hand in your wallet, your disposable income would double, and you could afford to buy a much better system of security than the government provides, at a more competitive price. Capitalists would see to that very quickly. (Right now, there's less of a market for private security because consumers live under the illusion that the government protects them. Which it doesn't.)
Second, government destroys the family, and it is families that create empathy and prevent children from growing up to be sociopaths. More powerful government means less powerful families, with mothers forced to get a job outside the home to pay the government's taxes, and more sociopaths. Then the cry goes up for more government, and you have a vicious cycle of declining civilization.
Third, sociopaths are attracted to government like bees to honey. Politicians are more likely to be sociopaths than any other occupation. You want more government? Get ready to pay more taxes to hire more sociopaths. Sociopaths love the power to control, to steal, to inflict pain, and -- best of all -- to do it "legally." And get paid handsomely to do it. Why on earth would you hire sociopaths to protect you from sociopaths?
Let's start imagining a less sociopathic society. Let's imagine how human beings would interact without sociopaths in "government." Start here.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Republicans seem to oppose a deal with Iran regarding the development of nuclear energy in Iran.
The GOP’s Iran Dilemma by Patrick J. Buchanan -- Antiwar.com
How would a Christian government (as opposed to a secular humanist government, such as we have today) deal with Iran?
To answer this question, I suggest reviewing my answer to the question, "How would a Christian government deal with Iraq?"
The U.S. didn't follow that policy, and destroyed the nation of Iraq, and the largest Christian community in the Arab world. There were over one million Christians in Iraq, and they had the freedom to publicly evangelize, which would be a death penalty offense in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. "ally." Today there are less than 20% of those Christians alive in Iraq.
The United States federal government is the enemy of Christianity. It is also the enemy of followers of Abraham, and followers of Muhammad. The atheistic ("secular") government of the United States is the enemy of mankind.
If the federal government had even the slightest interest in following the Constitution and the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers, it would declare a national day of fasting, prayer and repentance for the monstrous evil it inflicted on Iraq, and continues to inflict on the Middle East.
The federal government should begin asking the question, How can we make restitution for the senseless destruction of so many lives and so much infrastructure in Iraq?
Only then can the United States even begin to start to understand how to approach Iran.
Dealing with Iran requires spiritual (Biblical) insight, as well as political/diplomatic insight. How well has the United States done in this regard so far?
The United States helped overthrow a democratically-elected government in Iran in 1953. It imposed a dictatorship on the people of Iran for the next 25 years. That dictator was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution, and U.S. diplomats were taken hostage. In retaliation, the U.S. assisted Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, which lasted a decade, and cost the lives of a million human beings. Through its sanctions policy, the United States has imposed an incalculable burden on the people of Iran.
The U.S. cannot see clearly without repenting of its unconstitutional and unChristian behavior for the last 50 years or more. "Patriotic" Americans cannot assess the value of "The Iran Deal" because they are victims of educational malpractice.
Does Iran Really Want a Bomb? — Patrick J. Buchanan
The federal government, consisting of defenders of "the dollar" (the Federal Reserve System") and defenders of the military-industrial complex, are on the side of terrorists. That sounds like the paranoid claim of an insane person, until you give it a little thought and apprehend the facts.
"Terrorism" is the use of violence to achieve a political objective. The U.S. military, propping up dollar-hegemony, uses violence to achieve its political objectives. It puts weapons in the hands of "terrorists" who, it is hoped, will topple governments which are seen as obstacles to U.S./dollar hegemony.
The U.S. and Al Qaeda Are on the Same Side in Yemen | The American Conservative
The U.S. spends almost as much money on weapons as the rest of the world combined. It uses these weapons to achieve its political objectives. That is "terrorism" by definition. Nobody is attacking the United States in an attempt to invade it and "take over." There are numerous groups who, having been attacked by the U.S., seek to defend themselves. But the United States is not defending itself against any enemy that was not created by its own policies. Russia and China would rather have Americans working hard and selling their goods and services to Russians and Chinese. They have no desire to "invade" America, or to drop nuclear bombs on the goose that lays the golden eggs. Americans are already slaves to the Russians and the Chinese, insofar as they spend their days working as capitalists for consumers in Russia and China. "The customer is king," as they say, and capitalists are their slaves.
If you don't want to work for the Chinese, and you prefer using the military to get what you want (something for nothing), then God will raise up terrorists in judgment against you.
This is why the hundreds of billions of dollars that Americans turn over to the military-industrial complex every year -- instead of to
- single mothers contemplating abortion,
- immigrants fleeing drug war cartels to work in peace and feed their families,
- children of absent fathers who need a better education than they get in government schools,
- or to a couple of billion people overseas who need the help more than Raytheon or Lockheed Martin
Go back to Sunday School, and then you'll be equipped to take a position on the Iran Deal.
Monday, July 06, 2015
Some people say I'm crazy because I'm an anarchist.
Of course, what I say is, "I am not an ARCHIST."
An "archist" is someone who believes he has a right to impose his will on others by force or threats of violence.
Am I really crazy to say that using coercion and threatening violence is unethical and immoral?
Is the following really a crazy thought:
|For the last few centuries, human beings have tried organizing their societies using a monopoly of violence called "the State." The State has done the following in the last 100 years:
We have tried the idea of "the nation-state for hundreds of years now." It has been a dismal failure. Let's try a state-less Free Market system.
Is that really a reckless proposal?
Two things are needed to stop this march of death:
- persuade the people who wear government uniforms that what they do is unethical or immoral.
- persuade those who salute or vote for these people that their lives will be improved once we abolish the machinery of death.
Too many people believe that without "governments," criminals -- murderers, thieves and kidnappers -- will:
• murder hundreds of innocent non-combatant civilians
• enslave thousands of human beings
• steal millions of dollars of private property.
Compare that with the record of "the State" above.
In 1994, private non-state criminals in the U.S. stole $28 million.
That same year, the government stole $2 BILLION -- one hundred times more -- through just one government revenue program: "asset forfeiture."
"But if we abolish the government in Washington D.C., we will not be able to defend ourselves, and we will be invaded and enslaved."
Yes, by other governments.
Imagine a silent invasion. An enemy government replaces all the people who currently wear U.S. government uniforms with the people who wear government uniforms in Russia or China. It all happens overnight, without a shot being fired. Would Americans notice the difference? You have been invaded and "enslaved." What difference would it make? Would your taxes go up if suddenly all U.S. government employees were Chinese? If the government forced you to bake a cake for a Communist Rally or a homosexual wedding, would you feel better about it solely because the gun pointed to your head was held by your next-door neighbor rather than a "commie" from China?
So let's make this a global project.
Let's persuade human beings in every nation that theft, murder, and kidnapping are immoral, even if conducted by people calling themselves "the government."
Let's abolish the United States using a treaty with the people of Russia who agree that both "governments" will resign and disappear simultaneously from the face of the earth. Let's get rid of all the nation-states at once.
We could form a non-profit organization to promote this idea and hire experts who could draw up legal blueprints which could be adopted as treaties by governments as their last official act, abolishing themselves.
We could call it, "The United Dis-Nations."
Christian Globalism: The Vine & Fig Tree Worldview
Friday, June 26, 2015
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ham has a constitutional right to be kosher.
Any business that refuses to confess that ham is kosher can now be shut down by the government, and the owner will lose everything she has worked for her entire life.
Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and every single person who was present in the state Constitutional ratifying conventions, believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." No agency of the federal government should say that two men can be "married." No state government or agency should be compelled by the Federal Government to confess that a homosexual relationship is a "marriage."
In centuries of Anglo-American common law history, up until 2003, courts have unanimously acknowledged that marriage is an institution created by God, not by government. In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers when it declared: "Marriage was not originated by human law."
The Court could have ruled that every federal agency is free to acknowledge as "married" anyone who claims to be "married" even without any license from any state to that effect. This would have been a "libertarian" solution to the conflict. Instead, the Court decided to use coercion to compel states to confess that two men can be "married," contrary to the democratic will of the People expressed through referenda and legislatures, contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and contrary to the Constitution, which without doubt by any sane and educated person, did not give the U.S. Supreme Court authority to compel states to confess that two men can be "married."
I admit I have not yet read the Court's full opinion:
- Scalia burns the Supreme Court as a group of ‘unrepresentative’ elitists in gay marriage ruling - The Washington Post
I'll probably enjoy the latter more than the former.
Here are a few notable quotes from the Court Syllabus:
"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples." p.3
The Court claims that a cultural revolution has occurred, such that same-sex "marriage" is now recognized culturally, and the Court should give its imprimatur to the new cultural consensus. But here the Court says that unless it compels states to legally bless popular trends, children hijacked into same-sex "marriages" will suffer a "stigma." This is contradictory. The Court has already said that people don't think this way any more. That's how people thought back when America was a Christian nation. The Court is actually trying to compel a cultural consensus.
"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." p.2
" the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." p.3Marriage is not about "personal" or "individual autonomy."
Marriage is not about love.
Marriage is not about sex.
- Is Marriage about Love? | Stand to Reason
Marriage is about commitment to God's order.
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28."Not a single person alive in America when the 14th Amendment was proposed, debated and allegedly ratified, believed that the 14th Amendment conferred or was intended to confer upon the federal judiciary the authority to order states to repudiate God's institution of Marriage.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
The biggest issue in the 2016 Presidential race will be whether the forces of smaller government can unite behind a single candidate to run against the candidate of the forces of bigger government.
"The forces of smaller government" are:
- Conservative Christians, a.k.a. "the religious right."
- Believe abortion and homosexuality (etc.) must be eradicated.
- Secular libertarians -- I'll call them "anarcho-capitalists"
- Don't care about, or even endorse, abortion and homosexuality (etc.).
Christian conservatives say they want smaller government, but they want a government big enough to fight abortionists, homosexuals, and Muslims.
Secular libertarians want smaller government, but they don't seem to care if mothers kill their own children, two (or more?) people of the same sex get "married," and don't realize that their secular worldview is no match for Islam.
Can these two groups agree on a candidate to run against the Big Government candidate?
If they don't, then the Republican candidate will either displease conservative Christians, who will stay at home rather than vote for another Mitt Romney who does not oppose abortion and homosexuality, or the Republican candidate will please social conservatives, but neo-conservatives (who despise conservative Christian morality) will vote for a hawk like Hillary, and secular libertarians will vote for Gary Johnson. Hillary will be crowned.
As it stands right now, I don't think Christians and libertarians can agree, and the reason is that conservatives -- even "Christian" conservatives -- do not really support smaller government.
Socially conservative Christians must become libertarians on the social issues: abortion, homosexuality, drugs, divorce, you name the "hot-button" issue. Only by moving toward the "anarchist" side of the political spectrum can these sins be eradicated.
In every case, Christian conservatives look to the government for solutions, forgetting that the government caused the problems in the first place, and will only make the problems worse.
Abortion is an interesting example. Millions of dollars have been spent by conservative Christians seeking government solutions to abortion. There is good reason to believe that the decline in abortion over the last decade does not represent an upsurge of Christian morality, but a decline in the "stigma" attached to out-of-wedlock births (which are now nearly "fashionable"), allowing single mothers to get support for the children they might otherwise have killed for convenience. This in turn suggests that Christians -- instead of giving loving support to unwed mothers -- gave them "stigma," and directed massive resources (which they might have employed in supporting unwed mothers and giving a Christian upbringing to their illegitimate children) to political lobbyists, to get laws passed which would, I suppose, put in prison mothers who kill their kids, or maybe have them executed. After they kill their kid.
Why is it that the mothers of 55 million babies since 1973 found the greedy, bloodthirsty abortion industry more attractive than Christians opening their heart, homes and wallets to support those children?
Christian conservatives also tend to support the "war on terror," which is really a Big Government Program to suppress Islam -- unless the "war on terror" has nothing whatsoever to do with Islamic terrorists, but is solely about expanding U.S. corporate hegemony and propping up the Dollar as an international reserve currency. The size of our military and its anti-Christian character would have astounded America's Founders. Even if the architects of U.S. foreign policy are concerned about the spread of false religions, using government to aid in "The Great Commission" is unChristian. And destroying the true religion using the military is even worse. If the Biblical prophets spoke truth, we should expect God to do to us what we did to Iraq.judgment on Christians, who have failed to carry out the "works of mercy" which are supposed to characterize Christians. Hospitals were built by Christians with Christian money. Modern Christians wanted government Medicare subsidies for their aging parents. Christians have given liberals an excuse to step in and give glory to the State. Christians alone could eliminate all health and welfare problems -- not only for other Americans, but for all the poor of the world. Prof. Ronald J. Sider notes;
“If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog
But American Christians prefer a Frappuccino® and comfortable entertainment in their mega-churches. Let the government take care of the poor folks and the old folks.
Again, had Christians taken their responsibilities (and their financial power) seriously, advocates of "Obamacare" could never have gotten a foothold.
Further, the importance of providing education for all the poor of the earth should not be overlooked. Education is the foundation of Christian civilization. Global Christian education has staggering foreign policy implications. See the concept outlined on our Iraq page. Some Muslims understand this better than most Christians. See this extraordinary admission by Muslim leaders:
Sure, it's not easy to assume the financial responsibilities that come with obeying Christ when Caesar is working 24/7 to empty your pockets of everything you worked to earn. But the Bible says God sends Caesar and Pharaoh and Bush-Obama against the people that will not put God and His commandments first.
In every case, the institution we call "the State" or "civil government" eventually destroys Christian civilization.
- The State has destroyed education (which was originally created to make sure everyone could read the Bible),
- and healthcare,
- the Military is at war with the family (causing divorce and suicide)
- and tears the fabric of life at home and abroad
- 675,000 veterans of these wars have been granted disability
- More than 2 million American children have coped with a parent going to these wars
- As many as one half million of those children may have become clinically depressed
- The VA only began tracking war veteran suicides in 2008 even though rates now appear significantly higher than among comparable civilians
- Unemployment rates have been two percentage points higher among war veterans than civilians
- The military has increasingly off-loaded the burden of care for service members’ health onto their families, and mainly onto women
- Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003
- The Army’s use of the determination that a soldier has a “pre-existing condition” has saved it over $12.5 billion
- Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are 75 percent more likely to die in car crashes than comparable civilians
- The United States destroyed the largest Christian community in the Arab world, overthrew a government that permitted open, public evangelism by Christians, and replaced it with an Islamic theocracy under Shariah law, and left millions of dollars in military hardware for ISIS.
- The State is at war against Christian virtues.
- Washington D.C. promotes and imposes abortion and homosexuality around the world.
- The government is a model of violence as a solution to personal and social problems.
- Christians err grievously by voting for the "lesser of two evils," which is each and every candidate who does not trumpet the truth that "power corrupts," and legalized violence is the cause of every problem and the solution to none.
From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
- -- President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address
In no case is the government a better solution to social problems than Christians families, businesses, charities, and an army of voluntary associations, working outside the State, and sometimes against the State.
Christians need to realize that Radical libertarianism is the best way to advance socially conservative morality.
If you give the State an inch to do the work of the People of God, you give the State a mile to undercut it. Libertarians who do not oppose abortion and homosexuality -- but who actually oppose bigger government in practice -- do more to help Christians be "salt" and "light" and a "City upon a Hill," and therefore do more to end abortion and homosexuality than neo-conservative Republicans who solicit funds from the Christian Right with empty talk about "values." Christians should be libertarian with respect to political power; willing to endure accusations of trying to "impose a Theocracy" because we uphold a strong and clear moral standard. And above all, characterized by self-sacrificing love, which trusts in the Holy Spirit to change hearts.
Without a commitment to personal obedience and responsibility, it is all too likely that Christians in 2016 will once again vote for an Establishment Republican who promises government solutions to problems that can only be cured by Christians.
Please leave a comment if you can think of a social problem which is better solved (and was never caused in the first place) by the State, rather than by "the Church," that is, by Christians of every denomination who function as the Body of Christ.
We are not Christian anarchists because we do not want to obey God's Commandments. We are Christian anarchists because "archists" invented "the State" to evade God's Commandments.
The Conscience of an Anarchist [pdf] | Gary Chartier
Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life | Edward Peter Stringham | anarchist blueprint newly published by Oxford University Press.