People criticize pacifists like me for being "utopian." They say following Jesus the Pacifist is "impractical" and "unrealistic" in a world of terrorists and would-be invaders.
People also criticize anarchists like me for not being in "subjection" to government. They quote Bible passages like these:
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
They don't usually quote this verse, though it fits perfectly:
Matthew 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Israel, you may recall, had been invaded by the barbaric, pagan, unclean Roman Empire, who put Israel under tribute, and stationed soldiers throughout the country. These soldiers were authorized to conscript Israeli citizens and compel them to carry the soldier's provisions for up to one mile. This infuriated many Israelites, who longed for the Messiah to liberate them from the Roman occupation. Many were making plans to be a part of a violent revolution against Caesar.
Jesus repudiated violent revolution. "Render unto Caesar." Pay your taxes.
This surely means that the American Revolution was not Biblically justified.
The Apostle Paul echoed Jesus in Romans 12 and 13. Jesus said "Resist not evil." Paul adds, not even the government, the greatest evil-doer of all.
And if we are not allowed to resist the powers that be, how can we justify resisting the powers that wanna be -- imperialists who are not yet "the powers that be," but are invading our country with the intention to set themselves up as "the powers that be."
Was it Jesus' position that Israel should have/could have resisted the Roman invasion, but once the invasion was successful, Israelites could no longer resist the occupation?
Those who patriotically support the government and the traditional interpretation of Romans 13 usually also "support the troops."
But isn't the Defense Department actually a Department of Un-Subjection? Isn't the Defense Department an unwillingness to obey Biblical commands to be in subjection, and not to resist the powers that be (or the powers that wanna be)? Isn't the U.S. Department of Un-Subjection not only fomenting resistance on our part, but actively engaged in resisting "the powers that be" in many foreign nations? If the people of Iraq were commanded by Jesus to "render unto Saddam," how is the U.S. Defense Department justified in violently overthrowing this foreign government, and exempt from these commands to be in "subjection?"
The same Greek word in Romans 13 is found in 1 Peter 2, where slaves are commanded to be "subject" to their masters. Were Christians like William Wilberforce violating the Biblical worldview by attempting to abolish the institution of slavery? What argument can be made that we should not abolish the institution of "the State" that would not prohibit us from abolishing slavery? Without slavery, slaves would not work, but would riot in the streets. Without "the State," those who are commanded to be "subject" to it will break out into crime waves and labor strikes.
Romans 13 does not command patriotic allegiance and flag-waving loyalty to Caesar, but only a pacifistic non-resistance to evil. "The powers that be" are evil. We eventually will overcome evil with good, as imperialists see our good works, and repent of the evil of being occupation troops and collectors of tribute.
Washington D.C. is an occupation government, just as Rome was in Israel.
In order to save America the Christian nation, we must abolish Washington D.C., the atheistic empire. We will overcome this evil regime with good, not with the Second Amendment.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Abortion, Kissinger, and The World Bank
BBC News - Sex selection: The forgotten story - Did the West stoke the scourge of sex selection in Asia?
But the story of sex selection in Asia is not as simple as it looks from the outside, writes award-winning science journalist Mara Hvistendahl in her startling new book Unnatural Selection.
Hvistendahl points a finger at the West for encouraging the epidemic of sex selection which has gripped Asia since the early 1970s.
Amniocentesis tests and ultrasound scans have led to more than 160 million girls being aborted in Asia alone since then, according to one widely quoted 2005 estimate.
It had to do, Hvistendahl writes, with the West's paranoid population control movement during the Cold War - a growing fear that more hungry babies would grow up and turn to communism. The "monster of sex determination in Asia" lead to vastly skewed ratios in countries like India, China and South Korea.
Western money, she writes, was used to set up an extensive network of family planning advisers and doctors that encouraged women to opt for amniocentesis.
In 1969, sex determination was included as one of the 12 new strategies for global birth control at a US workshop. Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state under Richard Nixon, signed a classified memo stating that "abortion is vital to the solution" of population growth in the world.
So in India, Hvistendahl says, advisers from the World Bank and other organisations pressured the government to "adapt a paradigm" where population was the problem. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation poured money into "research into reproductive biology".
THE NSSM 200 DIRECTIVE AND THE STUDY REQUESTED - The Life and Death of NSSM 200 - Chapter 3
National Security Study Memorandum 200 Blueprint for world de-population and western domination
How Eugenics and Population Control Led to Abortion
But the story of sex selection in Asia is not as simple as it looks from the outside, writes award-winning science journalist Mara Hvistendahl in her startling new book Unnatural Selection.
Hvistendahl points a finger at the West for encouraging the epidemic of sex selection which has gripped Asia since the early 1970s.
Amniocentesis tests and ultrasound scans have led to more than 160 million girls being aborted in Asia alone since then, according to one widely quoted 2005 estimate.
It had to do, Hvistendahl writes, with the West's paranoid population control movement during the Cold War - a growing fear that more hungry babies would grow up and turn to communism. The "monster of sex determination in Asia" lead to vastly skewed ratios in countries like India, China and South Korea.
Western money, she writes, was used to set up an extensive network of family planning advisers and doctors that encouraged women to opt for amniocentesis.
In 1969, sex determination was included as one of the 12 new strategies for global birth control at a US workshop. Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state under Richard Nixon, signed a classified memo stating that "abortion is vital to the solution" of population growth in the world.
So in India, Hvistendahl says, advisers from the World Bank and other organisations pressured the government to "adapt a paradigm" where population was the problem. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation poured money into "research into reproductive biology".
THE NSSM 200 DIRECTIVE AND THE STUDY REQUESTED - The Life and Death of NSSM 200 - Chapter 3
National Security Study Memorandum 200 Blueprint for world de-population and western domination
How Eugenics and Population Control Led to Abortion
The Fed Audit: Taxation Without Representation
Really, now; what's so bad about "taxation without representation?"
Taxation is theft, at least without some color of legal authority.
Suppose Congress passed a law giving the Chinese government authority to take as much money as it wanted out of our paychecks. Would that be "representation?" Most people would say no.
What if Congress passed a law giving bankers the authority to print all the money they wanted, even if that meant that the dollars in our savings accounts would lose purchasing power?
It's called "The Federal Reserve," and since the latter part of 2007, has printed over $16 Trillion out of thin air and given it to other banks, even banks overseas, robbing our dollars of the power to purchase things we had planned to purchase, or create jobs we had planned to create.
The Fed Audit - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
Fed Audit: Trillions For Foreign Banks, Conflicts of Interest
Inflation is a tax, a transfer of purchasing power. The Fed is taxation without representation. The Declaration of Independence says this is tyranny, and it says we have a duty to abolish tyranny.
Taxation is theft, at least without some color of legal authority.
Suppose Congress passed a law giving the Chinese government authority to take as much money as it wanted out of our paychecks. Would that be "representation?" Most people would say no.
What if Congress passed a law giving bankers the authority to print all the money they wanted, even if that meant that the dollars in our savings accounts would lose purchasing power?
It's called "The Federal Reserve," and since the latter part of 2007, has printed over $16 Trillion out of thin air and given it to other banks, even banks overseas, robbing our dollars of the power to purchase things we had planned to purchase, or create jobs we had planned to create.
The Fed Audit - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
Fed Audit: Trillions For Foreign Banks, Conflicts of Interest
Inflation is a tax, a transfer of purchasing power. The Fed is taxation without representation. The Declaration of Independence says this is tyranny, and it says we have a duty to abolish tyranny.
Friday, July 22, 2011
July 23 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall
We'll get started at 10:30am Central Time, this coming Saturday Morning, after the President posts his Radio Address to the Nation, and the Republicans post their response. Congressional Candidate Kevin Craig will give a libertarian response, then we hope you will share your comments or questions.
To listen to replay:
Town Hall Archives
To listen to replay:
Town Hall Archives
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Liberaltarianism and our Founding Fathers...
As a compulsive debater, I'm glad I have a blog to answer hate mail. There's nothing positive or edifying about the letter below, but it gives me a chance to make a few comments.
| Subject: | Liberaltarianism and our Founding Fathers... |
| From: | telesia55@gmail.com |
| Date: | Sun, July 17, 2011 3:08 pm |
| To: | KevinCraig@KevinCraig.US |
Please, do NOT call our Founding Fathers "Libertarian". They were not and never will be. By any of today's measures, even the liberals of THEIR day would be considered "ultra-conservative".
You Liberaltarians are little more than re-branded liberals trying to get over on an unsuspecting public, and your ilk are truly sick and out in left field - as Rep. Ron Paul exemplifies so handily.
Do not bother replying. This e-mail is sent from a "junk" spam account where all incoming mail is automatically deleted. I have no desire to hear your liberal nonsense.
For the record, I'm a Constitutionalist... if it isn't in our Constitution, it has no place in American life.
To the extent that the Founding Fathers opposed tyranny and British monarchy, they were libertarian. But the "liberals" of their day were also libertarians, so I don't know what the letter-writer is trying to say. Lew Rockwell writes:
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit.
I agree, however, that both the Founders and "liberals" would have been shocked at federally-funded abortion and homosexual "marriages." They were, on "social issues," ultra-conservatives.
"Liberaltarians" -- a term that came into vogue in late 2006 and went out of vogue a few months later -- refers to libertarians who think there are more points of common ground with left-leaning folks than with right-leaning folks. I disagree; both sides are hopeless. Or, both sides are equally fertile.
I am completely unaware of the late-breaking news that Ron Paul is a former liberal, that is, a former advocate of bigger government.
For those who haven't already read my "liberal nonsense," try here.
For my views on why anything that's not in the Constitution has no place in American life, see here, here, here, here, here, and maybe here.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Security Without Weapons
For the weapons of our warfare are not those of the world. Instead, they have the power of God to demolish fortresses. We tear down arguments and every proud obstacle that is raised against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive in order to obey Christ.
2 Corinthians 10:4-15
Peggy Noonan gives us reasons to be confident that we can have peace and national security without a trillion-dollar defense budget:
A veteran diplomat in the area, an American, said later that everything he'd heard in the speeches left him thinking how the great progress of the past quarter-century had been made not through warfare but through diplomacy, tough decisions, aid, encouragement and rhetorical clarity and candor.
In short, by being a "City upon a Hill," not a military-industrial complex.
Listen to the article and comments by Richard Land.
2 Corinthians 10:4-15
Peggy Noonan gives us reasons to be confident that we can have peace and national security without a trillion-dollar defense budget:
A veteran diplomat in the area, an American, said later that everything he'd heard in the speeches left him thinking how the great progress of the past quarter-century had been made not through warfare but through diplomacy, tough decisions, aid, encouragement and rhetorical clarity and candor.
In short, by being a "City upon a Hill," not a military-industrial complex.
Listen to the article and comments by Richard Land.
New York's Expansion of State Power
'Gay Marriage,' Libertarians, and Civil Rights
Untangling Several Confusions
George Weigel
National Review Online
June 27, 2011
"Gay marriage" in fact represents a vast expansion of state power: In this instance, the state of New York is declaring that it has the competence to redefine a basic human institution in order to satisfy the demands of an interest group looking for the kind of social acceptance that putatively comes from legal recognition.
There is a curious rhetorical fact that has usually gone unremarked in these debates, but which is worth pointing out. That what the New York state legislature approved has to be described, not as marriage, but as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" is itself a verbal indicator that what is being done here is counterintuitive. We all know, or thought we knew, what marriage is, and to add the qualifier "gay" or "same-sex" is a tacit admission by the proponents of the practice that it requires an appeal to authority to enforce what seems strange, odd, not right. The verbal tic of "gay marriage" or "same-sex" marriage is thus itself a rhetorical warning sign that what was done in Albany was an exercise in raw state power, the state's asserting that it can do X simply because it claims that it has the power to do so.
And that is an exercise of power that libertarians ought, in theory, to resist, not support.
Friday, July 08, 2011
The Treaty of Tripoli
I agree with Lew Rockwell on The Proper US Attitude Towards Muslims.
I disagree with his use of The Treaty of Tripoli to criticize "the Bachmannite myth" of America as a Christian nation.
I disagree with his use of The Treaty of Tripoli to criticize "the Bachmannite myth" of America as a Christian nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)