Sunday, May 19, 2013

1773 Boston Tea Party = Vandalism

The original "Boston Tea Party" was an unChristian act of vandalism. No true Christian should participate in such acts of violence. I'm willing to believe that Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and others who were involved in this ignoble act repented of their deeds.

Ann Coulter, in contrasting the "Tea Party Movement" and the "Occupy Wall Street" protests of October 2011 writes:
     First of all, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like tattooed, body–pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun. Paul Revere's nighttime raid was intended exclusively to protest a new British tea tax. (The Wall Street protesters would be more likely to fight for a new tax than against one.)
     Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse -- say, voting -- were unavailable.
    Our revolution -- the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 -- was not the act of a mob.
     As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke.     George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea.
     Benjamin Franklin demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it.
     Considered an embarrassment by many of our founding fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.
     It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence.
     In that document, our Christian forebears set forth in blindingly clear terms their complaints with British rule, their earlier attempts at resolution, and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence from the crown.
     The rebel armies defending that declaration were not a disorganized mob, chanting slogans for the press and defacing public property.
     Even the Minutemen, whose first scuffle with the British began the war, were a real army with ranks, subordination, coordination, drills and supplies. There is not a single mention in the historical record of Minutemen playing hacky-sack, burning candles assembled in "peace and love," or sitting in drum circles.
     A British lieutenant-general who fought the Minutemen observed, "Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob will find himself very much mistaken."
     By contrast, the directionless losers protesting "Wall Street" -- Obama's largest donor group -- pose for the cameras while uttering random liberal clichés lacking any reason or coherence.
Neo-conservatives like Ann Coulter disapprove of the violence of "irregular mobs," but not the systematic, institutionalized violence of empires like the U.S. "No" to the "Tea Party," but "YES" to the nation-wide American Revolution.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Kreitzer on Government Force


Mark R. Kreitzer writes:

> Sad . . . you seem to make a fundamental philosophical error at
> the beginning in the major premise: All force is evil.

I think the "non-aggression" axiom is a start, but pacifism is a prima facie reading of Christ's ethical teachings.

> This cannot be justified by Scripture else Joshua,

"Holy War" against the inhabitants of the Promised Land cannot override the pacifist teachings of Christ and justify any government force today.

> David,

David was a "man of blood," hence disqualified from building the temple.

> Abraham rescuing Lot,

Admittedly a problematic instance. Abraham was not sinless. Kidnapping was a "capital crime" under the Old Covenant, but I don't think "capital punishment" is warranted in the New. Nevertheless, rescuing someone is certainly valid, though wanton killing of the captors is unjustified.

> Jesus sending armies against Jerusalem,

Jesus was God. He commands us to leave vengeance to God. He commanded His disciples not to defend Him or take vengeance against the Jews (Matthew 26:52; John 18:35)

> etc would be evil.

Yes, they would be. And they are. At least they are after the work of Christ on the cross.

> ONLY unjustified aggressive force is evil. (Non-aggression principle
> not equal to Non-violence principle).

We don't have to argue over definitions of words. No aggressive force is justified.

If I snatch a wallet out of Smith's hand, that might appear to be violence, but if I just witnessed Smith stealing your wallet, and I am retrieving it for you, it's not violence. If it were Smith's wallet, it would it fact be unjustified violence or aggression.

In our day, justified violence is extraordinary. Unjustified violence is ubiquitous. Governments murdered half a billion people in the 20th century. I'm always curious what motivates someone to rise to defend violence and attack pacifism.

> Second, you make an unwarranted false premise is stating that
> all taxation is the moral equivalent to theft. Then the tenth tax to
> God's Palace and his palace servants with which to help the poor
> and the needy as well is evil.

Yes, any attempt to extort money from someone on that basis is (present tense) evil. God had every right under the Old Covenant to require a tithe, but I don't see the practical mechanics for such a demand in our day. There is no more "God's Palace" after AD 70, and no more "palace servants." There are, arguably, no poor, at least in the U.S. The "church" collected the tithe in the OT; why the State today?

> No, taxation is to support what God
> defines as the ONE necessary function of civil government --
> exercise of completely impartial biblical justice.

The word "ONE" is emphasized, yet there are obviously other purposes, such as "palace servants" and "the poor." No conservative supports a welfare state. Where are the specific Biblical texts which say "no more taxation for the poor" and yet also mandate tax-supported arbitration of disputes (which the Free Market is better qualified to undertake)?

> Who, however, defines impartial justice? Who defines the four
> governments? Who defines justified force? Who defines government
> spheres? Who defines functions and boundaries of each? The God
> of Scripture. Seen in this light and combining Rom 12 and 13
> as this site does, Christian minarchy (i.e., a strictly limited Christian
> Constitutional Republic) is the answer not non-Christian anarchy.

False choice. What about Christian anarchy?

> A strictly limited civil government is only one of four governments
> (ecclessial--rule by elders under Christ), familial (rule by father and
> mother under God-in-Christ), civil (a Christic Republic with the
> framework of the Decalogue under God in Christ), and the
> FOUNDATIONAL self-government by the Holy Spirit in Christ.

I agree about "self-government."
I agree with "familial" government.
I think "ecclesial rule" expired with the priesthood and the temple in AD 70.
I think "civil" functions can be discharged by a Free Market -- capitalism, not socialism.

> Keep thinking! (Read Chuck Baldwin on Rom 13 to see why Ron Paul
> says that he is a minarchist. Then read and refute Gary DeMar
> God and Government. Then re-read Rushdoony. He is not an anarchist
> but a minarchist).

I don't need to re-read Rushdoony to figure out that he is not an anarchist.
I think I've refuted Gary DeMar's position, though I haven't interacted specifically with God and Government. See my response to John M. Frame.
I haven't read Baldwin's book, but I'll bet he hasn't read my site either.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Homosexuality and Fractional Reserve Banking

I am a Calvinist Theocrat. I believe in many ways America's first two hundred years -- beginning in the early 1600's and centered in Puritan New England -- were more virtuous than America's last two hundred years.

But my brand of Theocracy is Anarcho-Theocracy, and there were archists in Puritan New England.

I believe that if there were a Free Market in education, the vast majority of parents would send their children to Christian schools, or home school them following a Christian curriculum. Maybe that's just wishful thinking, but a market freed from government compulsion is certainly better than what we have today.

Would a Free Market in education have been better than what we had in Puritan New England? While today's education is atheistic and compulsory, New England's education was Christian and compulsory. Christianity was in many ways imposed by the Puritan State. Piety and virtue seemed to triumph.

But it seems to have been a failure in the long run. New England is now a bastion of Homosexuality and Fractional Reserve Banking.

Listen to Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler on the geographical distribution of homosexual activism in America.

Then consider Justin Raimondo's "Afterward" to a 1984 essay by Murray N. Rothbard:
Long before the founding of the CFR or the Trilateral Commission, there was a power elite in this country; that elite will likely endure long after those organizations are gone or transmuted into something else. Rothbard's unmasking of the historical and economic roots of this trend is vital in understanding that this is not a "conspiracy" centered in the CFR and the Trilateralist groups, as such, but an ideological trend traditionally centered in the Northeast, among the upper classes, and deeply rooted in American history.
Christianity was imposed on Puritan New England by a power elite, but it was the power elite, not Christianity, that survived in the long run.

Being a part of the power elite is contrary to Christ's teachings, so the power inevitably becomes "epistemologically self-conscious," that is, anti-Christian. The more conservative, Jeffersonian states give more to the poor than the more "liberal" New England states, whose churlish banks (Isaiah 32crush the poor with fractional reserve banking, and who approve homosexuality.

Christianity does not need "the State" for successful propagation of the Gospel.


Thursday, May 02, 2013

Chickens Roosting in Boston

Listen to whistle-blower Sibel Edmunds on the Lew Rockwell Show discussing the family tree of the Boston Marathon terrorists.

Three years ago I posted links to information on "Gladio," the British-American terrorist ring mentioned by Sibel.

Americans have been brainwashed to believe that the dedicated purpose of the federal government is to protect the American people from terrorism. An argument can be made that the billions of dollars spent on TSA's airport "security" are really a form of psychological warfare against Americans themselves, rather than any serious threat to multi-millionaire Saudi terrorists like Osama bin Ladin, who can easily bribe their way past greedy civil servants to their target. Given that, a further argument can be made that the federal government spends more money and man-hours plotting and engaging in global terrorism than protecting us from it. As Sibel explains, Chinese capitalists are justified in viewing NATO as a terrorist organization, and an arm of the U.S. federal government.

Christians with a vision of Christianizing the globe need to recognize that the U.S. federal government is their greatest obstacle and enemy. It is the greatest source of evil on the planet.

Friday, April 26, 2013

The Crime of Conspiracy


The atheist H.L. Mencken was wrong.

An organized crime syndicate -- like "the Mafia" -- is evil. Its core purposes are evil, it is dedicated to evil, and dedicated to increasing the dedication of its members and their willingness to keep the criminal enterprise secret. Simply being a member of the Mafia is usually a crime, as society recognizes that the mere conspiracy to do evil is itself evil.
"Conspiracy"
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. "Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed. For example, one who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary."
"The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Conspiracy
Wanting to "improve" the Mafia or make it more "efficient" is not just "a waste of time," it is also evil. If you witness Mafia acts of conspiracy or other crimes, you are either going to
  • oppose them
  • do nothing (and become a "guilty bystander")
  • or join their evil conspiracy.
Evil-doers tread lightly for fear of the good, but the evil are inspired when the good do nothing.

"The Government" is evil. Its core purposes are to do things which everyone agrees are evil when done by people who have no plausible claim of being "the Government." "The Government" seeks to increase the loyalty and dedication of its members to carrying out its evil purposes, cloaked in secrecy or propelled by outright deception. Every humane society is endangered by the mere existence of a conspiracy to "govern" others.

Wanting to "improve" the Government or make it more "efficient" is not just "a waste of time," it is also evil. It is a crime against humanity. It is the crime of conspiracy.



How To Become a Christian Anarchist

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Ron Paul and Anarcho-Fundamentalism

Libertarian and Republican Party Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is coming out with a home school curriculum:

www.RonPaulCurriculum.com

I haven't studied the curriculum thoroughly, but it appears to be very light on the Bible. (That is, I searched the whole site for the word "Bible" and got zero hits.) This inspired me to think about how Ron Paul should integrate the Bible into his curriculum, or perhaps how an entirely new Bible-based home school curriculum should be created.

Without a doubt, the Ron Paul Curriculum is designed to promote Liberty.

But if there is no Bible Course in the Ron Paul Curriculum, it really cannot equip students to promote liberty.

Contrary to the shrill hysteria of some lesbians and secular progressives, Ron Paul is not a Christian Fundamentalist.

And contrary to some "Christian Fundamentalists," a fundamentalist approach to the Bible provides a more radical defense of liberty than Ron Paul's secular, Bible-free approach.

Ron Paul's curriculum is generally based on the "Austrian School of Economics." But Ron Paul's curriculum is not radically based on "Austrian Economics." It is "middle-of-the-road" Austrian Economics. Radical Austrian economists are anarchists, or "anarcho-capitalists." Ron Paul and his curriculum are not.

I'd like to introduce you to what might be called "Anarcho-Fundamentalism."

Click here: Ron Paul, The Bible, and Anarcho-Fundamentalism


Sunday, March 31, 2013

Easter and Crusades

Spent my Easter listening to podcasts, including one from The White Horse Inn. The WHI believes in the "Two Kingdom" theory. This theory begins with Augustine's City of God, which describes the conflict between the City of God and the City of Man (or the City of Satan). Then the theory seems to say that both Cities must always exist on earth until the Second Coming. The City of God is extended by preaching the gospel, while the City of Man is extended by military conquest ("the sword"). Citizens of the City of God must not use the sword, unless they wear the hat of the City of Man. Then they can.

So as I'm listening at about 7:17 into the recording, I hear the White Horse experts criticize the Crusades, which as I understand it were a series of attempts to do things like rescue Jews and Christians in Jerusalem from conquering Muslims, but I guess it also has the connotation of using military means to convert pagans to Christianity.

I'm opposed to either definition of "crusade," but I'm surprised to hear "two kingdoms" advocates criticizing "crusades" as defined as the armies of Christian nations banding together to rescue people being oppressed by armies of a pagan nation. I would be surprised if the White Horse Inn crowd were opposed to World War II. Yet this war was clearly a "Christian crusade." Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt acknowledged as much:
And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, Almighty God.
Amen.






Monday, March 11, 2013

A New Civil War?

I saw this picto-graph on Facebook:


The casualties from the Civil War were recently upgraded. Total deaths were not 600,000 but 750,000.

U.S. population in 1865 was 35.5 million.

750,000 is roughly equivalent to 6,300,000 Americans killing themselves over nothing in 2013.
Think our "leaders" could get Americans fired up for another Civil War today?

I think they could. 

In a previous post I explained Why I Would Give Obama My Guns If He Asks. Many people say they wouldn't. They would kill any civil servant who tried to take their guns. Or so they say. Sounds like they're ready for a new civil war. I think most people who take the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) seriously are too moral to kill another human being on these grounds. But then, how to explain the 1860's, a far more Christian generation?

I think there's a more likely scenario for a civil war.

There has been concern over the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased millions of rounds of hollow-point ammunition. Are they expecting a foreign invasion? Not likely. Some have suggested that "We the People" may be the intended victims in an all-out assault on our liberties by an out-of-control tyranny.

Could it be, however, that "the government" intends to GIVE the arms and ammo to the "wrong" people to create conditions for a declaration of martial law?

Remember the reports by Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News, that the CIA was dumping cocaine and arms in So.Central L.A.? 
Abortion doesn't seem to have wiped out enough undesirable people. Weaponizing them might be just the excuse needed to drone them all out of existence.

It's just a theory. Please leave a comment either way.

Sunday, March 03, 2013

Day-Age If-Then

IF . . .

• people called "scientists" -- who work in socialist/atheist government-controlled universities that are enemies of Christianity

• and people called "scientists" --  who work in the neoconservative "military industrial complex" who design and manufacture weapons of mass destruction of infrastructure and innocent non-combatant civilians, and who overthrew a government that allowed freedom for Christians to worship and evangelize and replaced that Christian-friendly government with an Islamic Theocracy under Sharia law,

• and people called "scientists" --  who are propagandists for atheism and immorality in the government-dominated "mainstream media,"

• and people called "scientists" --  who work in the R&D Departments of government-subsidized crony-capitalist/fascist corporations that pollute the environment, crush workers, profit from disease, and manipulate the lives of billions of people into materialistic and consumerist life patterns,

If . . .all these secular "scientists" unanimously agreed that the entire universe -- from enzyme to homo sapiens -- randomly and naturally came into existence in the space of six literal sixty-minute hours,

THEN . . .

theologians in churches, seminaries, blogs, and publishing houses, would be falling all over themselves trying to prove that the word "day" in Genesis 1 actually means "hour."


Creationism







Sunday, February 24, 2013

The Christian Case Against "National Defense"

Sequester the entire trillion-dollar defense budget.

The U.S. has no defense against incoming missiles.
"The Defense Dept." can't defend us against 20 hijackers.
So what exactly are we being "defended" against?

Are we really being defended against an "invasion?" I doubt it.
Instead of spending a trillion dollars on "defense," let's just buy the dog-tags (and the allegiance) of every soldier in China's 2.3 million-man army for a quarter of a million dollars each once the invaders get here. Cheaper than the entire defense budget, then they party to celebrate their freedom and invest the windfall back into our economy. My point: no foreign government wants to "invade" America because the lowly chattel-invaders will all defect once they reach our shores.

If they don't want to defect -- if there's no difference between our socialist tyranny and the tyranny of the invaders -- then this nation shouldn't be defended anyway.

If they are pathological and simply want to destroy us, that may be because our "Defense Dept." killed their cousins by dropping a "smart bomb" on their wedding.

For a trillion dollars, we could send a $1,000 check to every Muslim man, woman and child on the entire planet with a nice Hallmark Card that says "America is a great place. Has your government given you a thousand bucks recently?" For millions of Muslims, it's a year's wages. Imagine we had been doing this every year since 1953 when the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran. It could be a completely Christianized world by now.

Bribery is better than "defense."
And far more Christian.

"Defense" is just a sham. It's a New Deal-style "public works project" for defense contractors.



The Christian Case Against "National Defense" | Spontaneous audio rant


Sunday, February 17, 2013

Vine & Fig Tree Tornado Crisis Fund


 Vine & Fig Tree Tornado Crisis Fund
Your donation is urgently needed! 

  On February 29, 2012, a tornado tore through Powersite, Missouri causing devastating damage.

The home of Kevin Craig was destroyed.  And as half of that house served as the offices of Vine & Fig Tree, Inc., the home of Vine & Fig Tree was lost, too.

Kevin’s mother, Marybeth, age 86, suffered a serious head injury when the ceiling collapsed on her. She has not recovered well.  The injury accelerated dementia and her frail body is now sustained by a feeding tube.  Kevin is her 24-hour a day caregiver, with scheduled (and unscheduled) duties every 2 hours, interrupting sleep and all charitable fundraising efforts to continue the Vine & Fig Tree ministry.

Now, nearly one year after the tornado, the reconstruction of the Powersite home and Vine & Fig Tree offices are nearing completion, but not yet finished.  Progress has been made as quickly as possible.  But, in a widespread disaster area, resources are limited and demand is high even for things like heavy equipment and dumpsters.  So, demolition and debris removal took three months before actual reconstruction could commence.

Insurance provided for temporary housing expenses for one year.  The year has elapsed.  The Craigs and Vine & Fig Tree, Inc. do not have the financial means to pay for everything.  Rent, the mortgage on the property under construction, the additional medical expenses for Marybeth's care . . . even with homeowner's and health insurance, the costs of tornado damages and injuries are very overwhelming.
The disaster may prove an opportunity:  The home is being rebuilt as a duplex which can be leased or sold as an income producing property for the benefit of the Craigs and V&FT, IF AND WHEN IT IS FINISHED.

This opportunity may yet turn into tragedy:  The Craigs must keep the mortgage paid or risk losing the newly rebuilt property to foreclosure.  Temporary housing rent and utilities must be paid for the Craigs to have a place to live until their home is ready for lease or sale.  Marybeth will continue to need medical care, skilled nursing, bathing assistance, medicines, diapers and many other costs that insurance does not cover. Insurance payments are delayed in the backlog of claims paperwork that the carrier is handling in the wake of Hurricane Sandy on the East Coast.  Dozens of telephone calls, emails and letters seem to fall on deaf ears.


Kevin was thinking he and his mother could live in the former home of Marybeth's parents, until we received an email from a cousin:

I do not think you have any idea that the ranch house is uninhabitable.  Two summers ago,  I took showers either in town or at the park. The shower flows at a trickle and drains even slower.  The toilet is suspect and to live there would mean a new septic system.  The pipes to the clothes washer will not work.  The roof leaks in many places.  The rats have many homes inside including the beds.  Finally, right now we are paying over $100  a month just to keep the temperature at 35 degrees.  You would be better to rent something than to try to pay a heating or cooling bill at that house.  Last summer I did not spend any nights at the ranch house, and of course we have not repaired anything in two summers.  To drag your mother and brother to that pit is a sin.
That's why were asking for your help during this time of urgent need.  Your generous and tax-deductible donations to Vine & Fig Tree, Inc. will be used to help real people in real distress in the wake of a real disaster.  And, Lord willing, the ministry of Vine & Fig Tree will live on -- when Kevin is no longer needed as 24-hour caregiver for his Mom and she has a new home in heaven.
Please mail your donation check to:
Vine & Fig Tree, Inc.
P.O. Box 179,
Powersite, MO 65731

Alternatively, you can use PayPal to safely transfer funds.
Thank you for your understanding and generosity. 
Your prayers will be enormously appreciated.


Update: One of the staff at Future Men has expressed a willingness to build a library for Vine & Fig Tree, near the Future Men campus. This is awesome, but won't be finished until Fall. And the house should be re-built by then as well. But right now I have no income due to my health care responsibilities, and maxed-out credit cards, and I cannot fund the needs of Vine & Fig Tree during this gap. Your tax-deductible donation during this crisis period would be most appreciated. There is a great future for Vine & Fig Tree, I believe.

To explore the Vine & Fig Tree vision, click here.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

What to do with murderers?

I'm often asked what society should do with murderers if we abolish "the State."

There are two tasks for the Body of Christ, in order to be salt and light in our world:

Task #1: How should Christians guide the human race in preventing murders?
Task #2: How should Christians guide the human race in dealing with murderers if we fail Task #1?

"The State" is usually the answer to #2: Execute murderers.
But "The State" is also involved in Task #1: First, virtually every State today prohibits State-run school teachers from teaching students that God in the Bible prohibits murder. Murder is never said to offed the God of the Bible, but only the State.

Second, "the State" commits more murders than "private sector" murderers by orders of magnitude. R.J. Rummel has written about "democide," government murder of "its own people." His higher estimates of internal government murder is a quarter of a billion people in the 20th century. Then there is war, government murder of the people of some other government. Higher estimates for WWII are 90 million. Total estimates for murder by war in the 20th century are again about a quarter of a billion people. That's over 10,000 murders PER DAY by the State, as compared with a similar number of private-sector murders in the U.S. PER YEAR.

And yet when I propose that the human race should agree that "Thou shalt not kill" should apply to everyone, even to the State, I'm told that (1) I'm "some kind of anarchist" (a person of bad moral character), and (2) "murderers will take over the world" if my utopian views are adopted.

It seems to me that murderers have ALREADY taken over the world, and their Trojan Horse was this institution called "The State." 10,000 murders a day. How could it be worse under principled Theonomic Christian-directed anarchy?

"The State" also legalizes the murder of the unborn, to the tune of 130,000 PER DAY worldwide.

I think Christians in the U.S. have the financial and media power to abolish all governments in the world. But that's another subject.

OK then, what do we do with murderers after we abolish the State (because we will have them, even in my utopian "Vine & Fig Tree" world)? More specifically, "What does God want us to do with a murderer?"

Does God want us to shed the murderer's blood to make atonement (Numbers 35:33)?

I don't think so.

I reject secular vengeance as a Biblical response.

So I have to admit I don't see a clear Biblical mandate for dealing with a murderer if we fail to prevent a murder. I tend to favor a form of lifetime restitution to the estate of the victim. In other words, the murderer is required to work for the victim's heirs for the rest of his life. This can be required but not compelled, as I suggest here (audio).

Monday, January 28, 2013

Why I Would Give Obama My Guns If He Asks

As a pacifist, I take Jesus seriously:
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
Of course, I would never give guns to someone with violent tendencies, like Barack "Fast and Furious" "Predator Drone" Obama. I would melt them down first.

But since I also take Isaiah and the Prophets seriously, I've already melted my guns down. "Swords into Plowshares."

As a pacifist, I'm a bit distressed at all the pro-gun, pro-resistance talk in conservative "constitutionalist" circles. It's gone beyond "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers."



With talk from the White House about going after guns, the pro-gun crowd is talking about "resistance." They expect to keep their fingers warm. The new popular phrase is the childish dare,  "Molon Labe" -- "Come and get 'em."


That means using their guns against "government gun-grabbers."

Are you insane, Mr. Labe? If a billionaire like Saddam Hussein cannot protect himself against U.S. weapons-grabbers, what makes you think you can?

The economic policies of the Bush-Obama regime have destroyed millions of jobs. Maybe your next-door neighbor has lost his job. In response, the government offers to "solve" unemployment by hiring and deputizing people to enforce Obama's gun control laws.

"Molon Labe" means you're willing to kill your next-door neighbor.

He's already called in back-up, of course, so you will be surrounded soon.

If you continue to resist, you will be killed.

It's just a matter of time.

The government will win this conflict against you and your "Second Amendment" and your pathetic "weapons cache."

In the meantime, your last act on earth was killing your next-door neighbor and attempting to "save America" by "drawing a line" and "standing up for the Constitution."

This is not what civilization is made of.



I Repudiate the Second Amendment



Pacifists are always asked, "What would you do if a rapist broke into your home and was going to rape your wife or daughter? Would you just let him?"

While no pacifist would intentionally kill the rapist, no serious pacifist (from blogger to scholar) would "just let him" have his way. Pacifists are against violence, so they employ hundreds of alternatives to lethal force in order to prevent violence.

What Would You Do If . . . ?   -- Pacifist alternatives to lethal force

But here's the question too few pacifists turn back at their non-pacifist Inquisitor: 
"What would YOU do if a rapist broke in your home: create a military-industrial complex to slaughter a hundred thousand Christians in Iraq?"
The answer is, YES, that's what non-pacifists do. They create "police" and "military" -- institutions of systematic violence and murder, funded by theft from others. They prefer their own "personal peace and affluence" over "Liberty Under God." Their world is ego-centered rather than God-centered. In order to avoid pacifism, they make it illegal for public school  teachers to teach students that God says in the Bible "Thou shalt not kill." The way of Christ the "Prince of Peace" is derided as "impractical," "unrealistic," and "utopian."

In a Christian pacifist world, we all dwell safely -- more or less -- under our own Vine & Fig Tree
In a secular non-pacifist world, we annihilate each other. Tax-funded Democide.

Each one of us is going to die eventually. Hundreds of millions more human beings will live longer if each of us preaches peace and lives it out in our lives.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Social Apologetics

My article "Social Apologetics," published 30 years ago (gasp!) by Gary North, was referred to recently on a blog called "Talk to Action," an anti-Religious Right blog.

Theocratic Libertarianism: Quotes from Gary North, Ludwig von Mises Institute Scholar

I would like to correct that article to reflect my rejection of capital punishment,but also subject the article to wholesale re-writing under the title "Anarchist Apologietics."

Someday.