Happy 5th of November!

Tonight I celebrated the memory of Guy Fawkes by (re)watching “V for Vendetta” - not a bad way to end the day.  Though we generally avoid violent movies, overall it is pretty tame by today’s standards.  My wife especially doesn’t like the spurting blood in various scenes in the film, but we all like the story. 

I found Jake Towne’s article on the fifth of November (aka Guy Fawkes day) an interesting read.  Jake reminds us of how tenuous our hold on freedoms really is, and how important it is to struggle to retain our liberty.  Have a look at it, and “Remember, remember the fifth of November …”

800px-Gunpow1(1)

The Constitution is Becoming a Lost Cause

Congressmen (presidents too …) really should be required to read the Constitution once in a while, should possibly consider referring to it before talking about it (so that they will not look like fools), and should certainly refer to it before writing or passing laws.  From CNSNews:

When asked by CNSNews.com what specific part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."  In fact, the word "health" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

“Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country," said Burris. "That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.”

More …

 

Of course he is partly right in saying, “We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here”, for there is in fact no support for this measure in the Constitution.  The Preamble, which he misquotes and misrepresents, states:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Not only does the Preamble fail to mention health, but it also fails to give any authority to Congress. It simply defines the purpose of the document.  A document written to protect freedom is now being (mis)used to justify taking our freedoms away.

This is reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi’s recent similar Constitutional stupidity:

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

… Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

More …

The Constitution is becoming more and more worthless for protecting our freedoms.  There are few in power who know and understand the Constitution, and even fewer who desire to respect it.  

I once (foolishly) hoped for a government which would restrain itself.  However, it is becoming overwhelmingly clear that it will not happen voluntarily. Those in power do not want restraint, nor do they even understand the concept. They cannot imagine that there should or could be limits to their “authority”, and that in passing these laws they become criminals. 

Unless and until they can be criminally tried for the laws they pass, and for the harm caused to us in the enforcement of those laws, there are effectively no limits.  The “majority” wins, we all lose.

For this reason I say the Constitution is largely a lost cause.

The “Conservative Bible”

2502195721_bafa6229de

Just when we thought it was safe to go to a Christian bookstore, there is a  new dilemma for conservative Christians – will they accept the new “Conservative Bible”? 

From The Tennessean:

If Andy Schlafly has his way, there will be no socialists or snake handlers in the Bible. No woman caught in adultery. And, definitely, no Stephen Colbert.

Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, wants to save the Scriptures from liberals with his latest venture, the Conservative Bible Project. He says translations like the New International Version have added socialist ideals to the Good Book. But his rewrite of the Bible has drawn criticism from biblical scholars, liberals and conservatives.

Schlafly, the son of national political activist Phyllis Schlafly, says a conservative Bible should be masculine, for example, using the words mankind and man rather than more inclusive language. It also should shun terms like laborer or comrade. It also should put a free market spin on the sayings of Jesus.

Take Mark 10:25, where the King James Version says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Liberals have used that passage to attack the wealthy, Schlafly said. The Conservative Bible substitutes "a man who cares only for money" for rich man.

More …

How about the translation of Mark 2:22:

King James Version: “And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.”

New International Version: “And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.”

Conservative Bible: “And no man puts fresh grape juice into old bottles. The fresh juice will burst the bottles, spilling the juice and damaging the bottles. Fresh juice must be put into new bottles.”

OK, as long as we get rid of the wine in the Bible, all is well.  For we all know that Jesus simply couldn’t be a wine drinker, right?

Concerning the woman caught in adultery:

Schlafly says that adultery story, in which Jesus says, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," should be cut because it portrays Jesus as being soft on sin.

"It's a liberal addition, put in by people who wanted to undermine the reality of hell and judgment," he said.

The story of the woman caught in adultery, known as the "Pericope Adulterae" and found in John 7:53-8:1, has troubled scholars for some time. Most Greek manuscripts have the story but not the oldest manuscripts. St. Jerome included it in his Greek New Testament, which was used as the basis for the King James Version of the Bible. Modern translators put a footnote or bracket around the story, pointing out the questions about its origins. But none removed the text.

Jennifer Knust, who teaches New Testament at Boston University, has been studying the origins of the adultery story for years. She says the story was accepted universally until the 1800s, when liberal scholars began to question its authenticity.

"It was the liberals who wanted to take the story out and the conservatives who wanted to keep the story," she said.

This is so confusing - what’s a proper right-thinking conservative to do?  May I suggest trying the English Standard Version of the Bible, or another reputable translation instead?

Discussion - The Christian’s Golden Calf

The following is copied, in it’s entirety, from Lew Rockwell’s site.  The author, Lawrence Vance, is best known for his Christian Anti-War stance.  See Mr. Vance’s archives here.

For discussion – do you agree with, or disagree with Mr. Vance’s assertions?  Why or why not?  If you wish to take it a step further, what should a non-calf-worshipping Christian do about it?  Feel free to discuss in the comments.  I will join in if a conversation ensues.

Hint:  I do agree with what I read below, however, what to do about it is a challenge.  One can be a “prophetic jerk” and accomplish little, or quietly persuasive and maybe accomplish more.  Perhaps the worst choice is to do nothing.

Anyway, on to Mr. Vance …


The Christian’s Golden Calf

by Laurence M. Vance

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." ~ (Exodus 20:3)

Most people know the story of Aaron’s golden calf.

After the Jews came out of Egypt, while Moses was up on Mount Sinai receiving from God the ten commandments on "tables of stone, written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18), the children of Israel complained to Aaron, Moses’ brother: "Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him" (Exodus 32:1). So, after the people donated their gold, Aaron made a golden calf and proclaimed: "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (Exodus 32:4). Then Aaron made an altar, the people offered offerings, and they all had themselves one wild party (Exodus 32:6); that is, until Moses came down from the mount (Exodus 32:19).

Some, perhaps, also know the story of Jeroboam’s golden calves.

Years later in the history of Israel, when most of the tribes rebelled under Jeroboam, he "made two calves of gold" and said to the people: "Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 12:28). After placing one calve in Bethel and the other in Dan (1 Kings 12:29), Jeroboam appointed his own priests, ordained a feast, burnt incense, and made offerings on an altar, "sacrificing unto the calves that he had made" (1 Kings 12:32). The people likewise worshipped before these golden calves (1 Kings 12:30). As a consequence, the tribes that sinned under Jeroboam were "carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day" (2 Kings 17:22–23).

Ever since these incidents, a golden calf has referred to some object that is undeservedly worshipped or venerated.

To their shame, American Christians, who profess to serve the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and wouldn’t think of making a god out of gambling, Internet porn, or alcohol, have a god – a golden calf – they honor, reverence, and pay homage to. This god demands perpetual thanksgivings. This god demands obeisance on national holidays. This god demands special appreciation days. This god demands songs to be sung in praise to it. This god demands prayers to the Lord God on its behalf. This god demands sacrifices of young men and women. This god demands signs, buttons, shirts, bumper stickers, yellow ribbons, and lapel pins inscribed with its various names and slogans. This god tolerates no criticism of its activities.

The Christian’s golden calf is the U.S. military.

Not all Christians, mind you, but a great many Christians from throughout Christendom have exchanged biblical Christianity for imperial Christianity. From Catholic just-war theorists who oppose abortion (but not the killing of people outside of the womb) to progressive Christians who oppose the war in Iraq (but not military intervention in Darfur) to the Religious Right who oppose the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries (but not the American killing of Muslims in Muslim countries) – Christians of all branches and denominations are engaged an idolatrous affair with the U.S. military.

The worst offenders are the independent, evangelical, fundamentalist, and other conservative Christians. And I say this as one of them. With them it is the majority who bow before the golden calf. Yes, the majority. That is the conclusion I reached during the Bush years and that is still my conclusion now. In spite of the waning support for the war in Iraq and the venom directed toward Barack Obama by right-wing Christians, Christian reverence for the military remains unchanged.

I don’t make this golden calf accusation lightly. I say it after years of listening to conservative Christians, talking with them, reading hundreds of e-mails from them (both friend and foe), hearing scores of reports from disconsolate church members about their warmongering pastors and church leaders, reading numerous books, articles, blogs, and newsletters by Christian defenders of war and the warfare state, seeing the negative reaction to my book Christianity and War, and reading countless pathetic attempts to justify Christian participation in the state’s wars.

I still see on church signs and church websites the "support our troops," "pray for our troops," and "God bless our troops" mantras. It doesn’t matter where U.S. troops go, how many go, how long they stay, or what they do when they are there – support for the military is a fundamental of the faith, right up there with the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ.

And here is a resolution passed by the Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches at their annual meeting last year:

C. Support for Soldiers: Whereas there are young men and women from our country and our churches in military service, and some in perilous situations around the world, and whereas we appreciate their sacrifices and willingness to protect our freedom, BE IT RESOLVED that we will pray for our troops, support them in tangible ways as we have opportunity, and encourage them to make their field of service a harvest field for the Kingdom of God.

These are conservative, independent Baptist churches – and they are spewing forth anti-biblical nonsense.

And it is not just Red-State Christian fascists, Reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters (who recently expressed their support for warmonger Mike Huckabee in a Family Research Council Values Voter Summit), Christian Coalition moralists, and "God and country" social conservatives who support federal funding of school vouchers, abstinence education, and faith-based initiatives who venerate the military. It is also Christians who don’t consider themselves part of the Religious Right, Christians who don’t vote, Christians who oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, Christians who denounce abuses of the FBI, CIA, IRS, and BATF, Christians who oppose the Iraq War, Christians who caution against Christian service in the military, and Christians who oppose basically every other government institution.

Support for the military among Christians is pervasive, systemic, sacrosanct, and codified.

It is also an unholy alliance, an illicit affair, an affront to the Saviour whom Christians worship as the Prince of Peace, a blight on Christianity, and the worse form of statolatry. It also violates the whole tenor of the New Testament:

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:14).

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people (2 Corinthians 6:16).

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen (1 John 5:21).

I fear that things are hopeless. I see no end in sight to churches publicly honoring veterans, praising the troops for defending our freedoms, turning national holidays into military recognition days, having special military appreciation days, encouraging or not discouraging their young men (and sometimes women) to join the military, helping young men to become military chaplains, ostracizing those who disparage the military, equating admiration for the military with patriotism and criticism of the military with treason, imploring church members to pray for the troops, regarding the military’s acts of aggression as benevolent, presuming divine support for U.S. military interventions, accepting the militarism of society, having a superstitious reverence for the military, and remaining in willful ignorance of U.S. foreign policy and its use of the military as a force for evil in the world.

I have spoken about these things again and again and written about them time after time after time after time. I am afraid that my words are being heard and read for the most part by the wrong group of Christians – those who already reject the warfare state and a militarized Christianity.

The day is long past (if it ever existed) when the function of the U.S. military was limited to what it should be: defending the United States, securing U.S. borders, guarding U.S. shores, patrolling U.S. coasts, and enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies – not defending, guarding, patrolling, attacking, invading, or occupying other countries. And not providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, changing regimes, enforcing no-fly zones, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, promoting good governance, stationing troops in other countries, garrisoning the planet with bases, and killing foreigners in their countries and destroying their property.

A military not strictly for defense of U.S. borders, shores, coasts, and skies is nothing more than the president’s personal attack force staffed by mercenaries willing to obey his latest command to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary.

Christian, it is time to slay the golden calf.

October 19, 2009

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The Revolution that Wasn't. His newest book is Rethinking the Good War. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Failures of the (various) Rights Movements

Does anyone need any further reason why the state does not belong in the marriage business?  How about this:

Hammond, La. (AP) - A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. (Ah yes, the never-failing “for the children”, always useful in a pinch…)

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”

More …

Rather than dealing with the real problem of state control of marriage, the civil rights movement addressed a side issue – whether a person of one skin color can marry a person of another skin color. So now, interracial marriages are properly allowed (except in Tangipahoa Parish apparently), but the state retains the ability to license marriages, thereby controlling them according to the will of the state and its agents.

315127886_2335388976The gay rights movement is today making the same mistake. They are likewise seeking the “right” to have their unions licensed by the state. This is an odd one if you ask me – do gun owners seek the “right” to license their guns? The idea is ludicrous. The core issue remains the same, the state is deciding who can and cannot get married.  The state does not belong there.

Meanwhile, rather than standing for what is right, the Church has caved. Marriage, being sacred, cannot properly be licensed by the state. This blatant, unnecessary, and evil encroachment on religious freedom and other natural rights should be solidly condemned by the Church and by free individuals. Unless and until we take this power away from the state, these types of abuses will continue. 

Unfortunately there is no will to free marriage from the bonds of tyranny.  The “conservatives” (both religious and non-religious) want to retain control in order to ensure that those they don’t want married will unable to do so, and the “liberals” (again religious and non-religious) want to retain it because it is in their blood, a necessary part of their being. 

Thomas Jefferson once stated:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Marriage is the same; it harms me in no way when a couple claims to be married, even if it is contrary to my understanding of marriage.  The only harm which comes to me is when the state or others attempt to enforce their definition of marriage on me.

Freedom is a much better idea; may we achieve it someday by God’s grace.  Discussion is welcome in the comments.

The September 2009 Edition of The Christian libertarian Blog Carnival

Carnival RideWelcome to the September 2009 edition of The Christian libertarian Blog Carnival!

As usual, we have a great lineup of articles, though participation seems to be diminishing.  I hope that is not the long-term trend!  On the positive side, we have articles from several newcomers.

The Article of the Month award goes to Nellis Lake, with “Are we living in USA 5.0?”.  I chose his article simply because I like it, and well its my carnival …

Enjoy!


Ben Oravetz presents “How Can One Be Christian and Libertarian?” posted at On the Rim of Insanity. Ben writes:

Many Christian conservatives are dumbfounded and often times offended by people who are Christian and libertarian.  I encounter those kind of people a lot on discussion forums where I am accused of being a liberal because I support drug legalization, gambling legalization, and other such social ills.  What they fail to recognize is that I support such things because I wish to see spiritual illnesses such as those handled more by the church rather than the government…

More …

Editor’s note: Ben is a newcomer to the Carnival.  In this article, he tackles a question that many of us have had to answer, either for ourselves or for others, but he goes at it with a slightly different twist.


Bob Brooks presents “Does God Need a Partner?” posted at Prudent Money. Bob writes:

“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.” President Barack Obama – August 20, 2009

A friend of mine sent me an e-mail with this quote and his reply – a new low. It came from this article. Everyday something unbelievable comes out of Washington…

More …

Editor’s note: Bob is another newcomer to the Carnival.  He has a good collection of articles on money at his blog, including many that fit into the Christian and libertarian themes.


Dave Jones presents “What Civil Government Should Christians Want” posted at Southern Bread. Dave writes:

It’s a simple question. Of all the different experiments with government that humanity has conducted, which one is it that Christians should advocate? Or should we advocate any particular one at all? Well, that question can only be answered by a proper understanding of what government is and what it does. If it’s a benign institution that exists independent of common people then it should be an easy step to say that Christians should just let it all be and not get involved. But we know that isn’t the case.

More …

Editor’s note: Dave is a returnee to the Carnival, and the first winner of Article of the Month.  He continues the same quality of writing here.


David Gross presents “Some remarks occasioned by the perusal of John Brown’s ‘The Law of Christ Respecting Civil Obedience, Especially in the Payment of Tribute’…” posted at The Picket Line.  David writes:

In the mid-1830s, a Scottish nonconformist minister named John Brown (no relation, so far as I know, to the American abolitionist) stopped paying something called the “annuity tax,” the proceeds of which went to support the official Church of Scotland, which competed with Brown’s own, competing Christian franchise, the Presbyterian United Secession Church.

At first he paid the tax under protest, but then decided he couldn’t pay at all: “I have not paid, and, with my present convictions, never will, never can, pay it… I cannot do so without offering violence to a conscientious conviction, not rashly nor hastily arrived at.”  Brown held out, and eventually the government seized some of his property to satisfy the tax.

More …

Editor’s note: David is another newcomer to the Carnival. According to his blog, David is an active resister of government and war through non-payment of income taxes.  See here for his method.


Dr Matthew Flannagan presents “Sunday Study R 13: Romans, Revelations and the Role of the State” posted at MandM. Matthew writes:

In a previous post, Sunday Study: 666 The Number of the Beast, I exegeted Revelation 13’s infamous reference to the mark of the beast, in that post I argued that the first beast is a reference to Rome; a world empire, built on seven hills that ruled over all the nations of the earth at the time of John’s writing. The historical context of the book was the emperor cult; the roman state, in the person of the emperor, was considered a god and was to be worshiped.

More …

Editor’s note: Dr. Flannagan is a regular contributor to the Carnival, and puts a lot of effort into his blog articles.


Greg Heller presents “Did the Apostle Paul Poke Nero in the Eye?” posted at The Holy Cause. Greg writes:

Some Christians believe and teach that we should always honor and respect those in authority, regardless of the evil that they commit.  This persuasion is often based on some text found in one of Saint Paul’s (aka the Apostle Paul) letters, Romans 13.  However, as we examine one of the last acts of Saint Paul’s life, we find a very different story.  Let’s consider the case of Paul and Nero.

More …

Editor’s note: This article was published on Lew Rockwell’s site on September 24, 2009, my first LRC article!


Nellis Lake presents “Are we living in USA 5.0?” posted at Christian and State. Nellis writes:

Whatever one may think of Hauerwas, he has a point:

Who has the infinite duty to honor the infinite claim of every person to the pursuit of happiness? The answer of the eighteenth century, and of those who have followed, is familiar: it is the nation-state. The nation-state replaces the holy church and the holy-empire as the centerpiece in the post-enlightenement ordering of society . . . the nation-state has taken the place of God as the source to which we look for happiness, health, and welfare (Stanley Hauerwas, After Christendom, p. 66).

For long years the situation has developed. The powers that be would prefer that we go blandly onward believing a cardboard cut-out picture. The United States is the land of the free and the home of the brave. “We” are always the good guys. No need to be concerned…

More …

Editor’s note: Nellis wins the Article of the Month with this entry.  Congratulations Nellis!


Rick Foreman presents “Some Possible Health Care Solutions” posted at Waiting for the Singularity.  Rick writes:

Criminalize not having health insurance.

Anyone caught without health insurance would automatically be put in prison. Of course, in prison all prisoners have health care. Some of the best healthcare is provided in prisons, even prisoners with malfunctioning organs are given transplants and there are no co-pays. An added benefit is that prisoners also have room and board supplied to them so this could also be a solution for unemployment. No job, go to jail: plus the jobs that would be created in the prison industry; a win-win situation all around.

Bring back the draft.

More …

Editor’s note: And yet another newcomer to the Carnival. Thanks for bringing a little humor into the discussion Rick … it is humor, right?


Rowman presents “Frédéric Bastiat” posted at Liberty vs Leviathan. Rowman writes:

Bastiat repeatedly emphasized that his audience was the public; the common man; the consumer. His essays were written in such a way as to engage someone too busy to read. He knew that the battle was for the mind of the common man, daily pulled and swayed in many directions.  Today, the distractions and diversions have multiplied beyond the imagination of nineteenth century France. With the pull and sway of Röpke’s mass society, the consumer of the twenty-first century has even less inclination to steal minutes from the day to educate himself. Plus, the fallacies fought by Bastiat are today even more abundant as they are broadcast incessantly from television, radio and other media outlets…

More …

Editor’s note: Rowman is another regular contributor to the Carnival, and a fan of Bastiat, as am I.


That concludes this edition of The Christian libertarian Blog Carnival. Please submit your blog articles (up to two articles per author) to the next edition of Carnival using our carnival submission form, or via the widget in the sidebar of The Holy Cause. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page, or again via the sidebar widget.

Any of the Carnival participants are invited to host the next Carnival, otherwise I will again be hosting it here at The Holy Cause. Just send me an email if you wish to host.

The submission deadline for each Carnival is the last day of the month. So the next submission date for the October Carnival will be October 31, with publication scheduled on or before November 7.

Please help get the word out, so that the next Carnival can be an equal success!

C.S. Lewis Quote of the Day

“There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations, these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.” ~ C.S. Lewis

(Hat Tip Lew Rockwell)

This Really Bothers Me

1823258414_302fdf766aDoes it bother anyone else that as the economy deteriorates, we are apparently becoming more willing to consider killing others?  And that we have accepted perpetual war as “normal” now?

You know, I was told that the election of President Obama was a signal that the American people were rejecting the wars of his predecessor.  I believed it as well - that Americans were rejecting warfare in favor of welfare.  It now looks like we are instead getting both, full steam ahead.

When will we learn?  How many more wars will we support with our votes, or bodies, and our money?

 
Blog Widget by LinkWithin