The defense "cuts," of course, are not really cuts at all, just reductions in the rate of spending increases of the bloated defense budget.

So, who is this Christian warmonger that is so upset about defense budget "cuts" that he thinks they are a deeply disturbing, draconian, recklessly dangerous, self-destructive absurdity.

He is not a member, with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Hal Lindsey, Cal Thomas, and Pat Boone, of the Christian axis of evil, although he should be. He is not a Christian killer par excellence, like Doug Giles. He is not a Christian warmonger on steroids, like Bryan Fischer. And neither is he the greatest Christian warmonger of all time. That designation goes to Ellis Washington.

He is Michael Milton, the newly elected chancellor/CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. Milton holds a B.A. from Mid-America Nazarene University, an M.Div. from Knox Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from the University of Wales, Lampeter. He is the former pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in addition to founding two other churches and a Christian school. Milton is the host and speaker on Faith for Living, which can be seen on television and heard on radio. He has also released three music CDs and is the author of several books.

But perhaps I should also note that Dr. Milton has a diploma from the Defense Language Institute, holds a commission in the U.S. Army Reserves as a chaplain, and was elected in 2010 by the Chief of Chaplains to the College of Military Preachers and appointed an instructor at the Armed Forces Chaplain School. He is also the founding director of the Chaplain Ministries Institute in Charlotte. I also note that on October 14, 2001, it was announced that Reformed Theological Seminary had "been approved by the NC SAA Program to receive the GI Bill under the provisions of Title 38 and 10, United States Code!"

Milton is a theological schizophrenic. Schizophrenia has been described as a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness that most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking.

I know of no other way to describe Milton after reading his latest post on the Faith for Living blog hosted by his seminary:

The failure of the bipartisan super committee to take decisive action to reverse the 15 trillion-dollar debt crisis this country needs from becoming another Greece has, predictably, failed. Now the Washington blame game begins. However, the greatest losers are the American people and, specifically, those Americans who courageously and proudly wear the uniform of the armed services.

As threats of cuts are made to their very mission, our brave troops are on the ground, in the air, and on the seas fighting, defending, and protecting this nation from the continuing threats to our very existence as a people. The absurd decision to tie massive cuts to the US military as an "incentive" to force action by the super committee was one of the biggest mistakes ever made by Washington DC, and they have made a few recently. Of all the things that the government does, providing a military to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" just happens to be one of the clearest.

Scripture teaches that God has ordained government for the good of man. Civil authority, according to St. Paul, has been granted the power of the sword to punish evil, thereby protecting the innocent: "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (The Epistle to the Romans 13:4 KJV). The present talk of defense cuts flies in the face of our nation’s duty and our proud heritage.

We have had draw downs before – after WWII, after Vietnam, and after the Gulf War, but we have never had to think about draconian reductions while we were in the middle of a war! It is this very point that is deeply disturbing, and recklessly dangerous. The consequences of even the talk of such tinkering with our defenders, even if reasonable heads prevail to stop this absurdity, will have their consequences.

Have we not learned our lesson? Reagan’s military build-up in the 1980s reversed the ill-advised draw downs after Vietnam (just one front in a larger, trans-generational Cold War) and, according to scholars like Paul Kengor of Grove City College and the American Center for Vision and Values, "All of these ventures [the strengthening of defense] had the effect of demonstrating a stronger, resurgent America, not only economically but also militarily. Suddenly, the country that had left Vietnam no longer appeared to lack resolve" (The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism by Dr. Paul Kengor, HarperCollins, 2007, 82).

Kengor went on to demonstrate that President Reagan understood that America was still at war. According to this preeminent Reagan scholar, his action in strengthening the military greatly contributed to bringing down the Soviet Union. Why now, when our sacred military members are risking their lives to fight "over there" so we don’t fight "over here," would the president and other congressional leaders think that it is any different? To reduce military strength or even to talk about it as an option is to demoralize our troops while they are literally in the midst of a battle for our way of life.

Some may call it treason. I would call it self-destructive. As a minister of the gospel I would also call it irresponsible and immoral, given that God has called our civil authorities to protect our people against evil. May God have mercy and bless the troops who bravely carry on their mission to defend this nation, even while others who have taken the same oath are allegedly using the military as pawns in a Washington election year. There are times when the Church should speak up. Because our life and liberty is at stake, I think that time is now.

Milton holds to every armchair warrior, red-state fascist, reich-wing nationalist, imperial Christian fallacy known to man.

As I mentioned above, cutting the bloated defense budget is to Milton a deeply disturbing, draconian, recklessly dangerous, self-destructive absurdity. The "cuts" fly "in the face of our nation’s duty and our proud heritage." Never mind that the real defense budget is $1 trillion, that the United States spends more than the rest of the world combined, and that most defense spending is really spending on offense.

Milton idolizes members of the military. They are our "brave troops." They "courageously and proudly wear the uniform of the armed services." God should "bless the troops." U.S. soldiers are never Christian killers, murders, accomplices to murder, criminals, dupes, mercenaries, or part of the president’s personal attack force willing to obey his latest command to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary. They are "our sacred military members."

Milton is likewise deceived about the real mission of the military. He thinks they are "our defenders" who "defend this nation" and protect "this nation from the continuing threats to our very existence as a people." The government provides a military to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." U.S. troops "fight ‘over there’ so we don’t fight ‘over here.’" They are "in the midst of a battle for our way of life." But is this what the U.S. military actually does? Unfortunately, most of what the military does is more offense than defense, more foreign than domestic, and more civilian than martial. I think Milton needs a course in DOD 101.

Milton says that we are "in the middle of a war." The United States is actually in the middle of several wars. But rather than saying we should not cut defense because we are fighting wars, why not examine the wars we are fighting to see if they are just, right, and necessary? Since the undeclared, unconstitutional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Yemen, Pakistan, and everywhere else, are clearly – except to Christian warmongers and imperial Christians – unjust, immoral, and unnecessary, the only sensible solution is to end the wars, not increase the defense budget.

Like other Christian apologists for the state, its military, and its wars that I have written about who appeal to Romans 13 to justify their blind nationalism, their cheerleading for the Republican Party, their childish devotion to the military, their acceptance of national-security state, and their support for perpetual war, Milton seeks to justify a large defense budget by doing the same thing. This, of course, is ludicrous, since the passage has nothing to do with the government providing national defense. But let’s assume for a moment that it does. Fine. How does that justify bloated military budgets, foreign wars, militarism, imperialism, and policing the world? When it comes to the military budget, conservatives adopt the same fallacy as liberals do when it comes to education. To liberals more spending on education means better education; to conservatives more spending on defense means better defense.

And finally, why do conservatives always invoke the name of the criminal, warmongering, budget-busting, deficit-increasing, liberty-destroying, government-expanding, economic and foreign interventionist St. Reagan? Anyone remotely familiar with the Reagan record would not be impressed with Milton’s name-dropping. For the complete and utter evisceration of Reagan, see Murray Rothbard’s "The Reagan Phenomenon," "Ronald Reagan, Warmonger," and "Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy."

What is so bad about theological schizophrenics like Michael Milton is that they have a position of influence over many young people. We can only hope and pray that this is one college administrator that students never get to know.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on December 9, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Theological Schizophrenia

As I have maintained whenever I speak about Christianity and war, if there is any group of people that should be opposed to war, empire, militarism, the warfare state, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government war propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians, and especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace.

I have also maintained throughout these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that, even though it is Christianity above all religions that should be opposed to the evils of war and militarism, in the Church will be found some of the greatest supporters of the military and the current wars.

The "criminality of war," as Howard Malcom, president of Georgetown College, wrote in 1845, is not "that tyrants should lead men into wars of pride and conquest," but that "the people, in governments comparatively free, should so readily lend themselves to a business in which they bear all the sufferings, can gain nothing, and may lose all." That people would act this way, Malcom says, is an "astonishment indeed." "But," he continues, "the chief wonder is that Christians, followers of the Prince of Peace, should have concurred in this mad idolatry of strife, and thus been inconsistent not only with themselves, but with the very genius of their system."

I have heard and read many Christians criticize Obama – and rightly so – for his horrendous policies, but I have heard and read little or nothing from Christians of how Obama has continued the war in Iraq, escalated the war in Afghanistan, and expanded the bogus war on terror to other countries.

The above sign from a church in Maryland can unfortunately be seen almost anywhere in the United States. Although some Christians have begun to criticize Obama and the Democrats for the things that only a short time ago they were silent about when perpetrated by Bush and the Republicans, support for the military among Christians – no matter where it goes, why it goes, what it does, how much it costs, how long it stays, and how many foreigners it kills – is so entrenched, so sacrosanct, that I am at the same time bewildered and embarrassed, angered and ashamed.

The result of this mindset is a perversion of the very Scriptures that Christians claim to believe and follow. So, just as Christian warmongers would, if they were honest, recite The Warmonger’s Psalm (Psalm 23), assent to The Warmonger’s Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12), and pray The President’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), so they would acknowledge that they manifest The Warmonger’s Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

In contrast to the works of the flesh (adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, and revellings), the Apostle Paul in the Book of Galatians mentions the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.

But in place of these virtues, warmongers have substituted pride, indifference, vengeance, ignorance, malice, arrogance, lust, foolishness, and blasphemy.

Christian warmongers have pride in the U.S. military – the greatest cause of terrorism and instability in the world. They are indifferent to the tremendous suffering of foreigners who get in the way of the U.S. military. They want vengeance for 9/11 now matter how many innocent Muslims have to die. They have a tremendous and willful ignorance of the true nature of U.S. foreign policy. They have malice toward foreigners who never harmed Americans until the U.S. military starting bombing them. They have an arrogant "USA, USA" patriotism that supports an interventionist and militaristic foreign policy. They lust for the blood of foreigners by supporting bombing, drone attacks, torture, and indiscriminate killing. They make foolish statements like the military is defending our freedoms by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They blaspheme God by asking him to bless and protect U.S. soldiers.

I realize that I am making some serious accusations, but the truth is simply that most Christian warmongers don’t care whether there are Predator drone attacks against Afghan and Pakistani peasants as long as a Republican-controlled government gets to conduct the attacks.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on June 23, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Warmonger’s Fruit of the Spirit

In 2003, the Barna Research Group released a well publicized study indicating that only about 10 percent of Christian students possessed a biblical worldview.¹ I was reminded of this after talking with a friend recently after church.

My friend is not a political person, which probably speaks well of her. However, she seemed perplexed when I calmly implied that it was an outrage that Uncle Sam confiscates half our income before we can buy groceries. She responded that ‘we get a lot of things’ for those taxes we pay.

I heard millions of people speaking. She did not recognize that taxation is theft. She had no clue that things like oppressive taxation, gun control, government education and government welfare have no scriptural basis. I told her that this just may be the first time anyone had ever told her that the Bible has something to say about a limitless array of social and political issues.

If she had never heard this in church before, it would not surprise me one bit.

America’s churches are as ‘dumbed down’ as its schools. In all fairness, several generations of pastors have been lied to about the political themes in the Bible. Our call to be ‘salt and light’ goes beyond loving our neighbors, telling the truth and being faithful to our spouses. It extends to all aspects of life including politics, economics, law, education, medicine and any societal issue you can think of.

The word ‘king’, as well as variations such as ‘kings’ and ‘kingdom,’ appears almost 2,000 times in the Bible. But, for some odd reason, we are not supposed to discuss politics in church.

I am no Bible scholar. That some folks think I am reflects their ignorance, rather than my intellectual superiority. I have just read more than some folks. This does not make me a better Christian or even a better person. I am just a bigger nerd. I am just a hack advertising salesman who has developed an interest reading the Bible with an eye to political themes. It would blow most people’s minds if they knew what the Bible really said about these things and how much they are being lied to by pastors and purported Christian politicians.

Most churches nowadays do a rotten job of Bible education. This has resulted in a generation of gullible Christians who stand for nothing and fall for anything.

There are several forces at work here. The Church Growth Movement shares much of the blame. In order to get the maximum number of warm bodies through the doors each Sunday, many churches have sacrificed godliness in the name of relevance. Preach something too controversial and some folks might not come back. Relevance and a packed house are preferable to godliness and a few empty seats.

501(c)(3) is another huge contributor, if you will. This provision of the Internal Revenue Code requires that organizations refrain from endorsing political candidates and keep political comments to a minimum if they wish to remain tax exempt. Most pastors, I fear, are more committed to keeping this exemption than to the struggle against the rulers, authorities and powers of this world. (Ephesians 6:12)

The sad irony of 501(c)(3) is that, while churches compromise Scripture in order to avoid taxes, they remain silent about a tax code that inflicts far more harm on Christians than Ozzy Osbourne, Larry Flynt or Howard Stern ever possibly could.

This situation will only grow worse as federal funding for “faith-based” institutions grows from a trickle to a deluge. What a great way to get more money from someone: speak oh so glowingly of them! You cannot serve God and money. (Matthew 6:24)

Contemporary churches typically discuss only three Scriptures pertaining to the Christian attitude toward government. And even then, they get things all wrong.

I Timothy 2:1-2 instructs us to pray for those in authority. This does not mean that we should be brainlessly uncritical of what they do just because we like their rhetoric or their party affiliation.

Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25 tell us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. There is a who-o-o-o-ole lot of difference between rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and rendering unto Caesar whatever he willy-nilly demands. Jesus never assigns any specific duties to Caesar. Here in America, our Constitution assigns only 18 duties to Uncle Sam and forbids him from engaging in any other activity.

All the fiery rhetoric of the American Founding ‘ it was based on Christianity, you know² — was directed at a “tyrant” who taxed his subjects at a rate of about three percent. Let me give you a thought experiment: How much easier would it be for you to give ten percent of your income to your church and other Christian causes if half your income did not disappear in the form of taxes? Here’s another thought experiment: How much more able would you be to provide for your family (I Timothy 5:8) if you were not being taxed into the pavement?

If I put a gun to your head and demanded that you hand over your purse or your wallet, you would call it robbery and have me arrested. It is no different when some government flunky demands that you fork over the fruit of your labor under penalty of fines, jail or death. It matters not that ‘ in some ‘democracy’ ‘ the majority voted that half of your income should be confiscated. In God’s eyes, government agents are no better than thee or me. They are subject to the same judgment.³

Romans 13:1-7 is the favorite Scripture of control freaks everywhere. (3) It is too often taken to mean that Christians should obey secular laws without questioning. While we should obey godly laws ‘ i.e. those against murder, rape, theft, etc. ‘ the idea that we should heed every command of secular governments is madness. Indeed, it is downright unbiblical. Civil disobedience is a theme throughout the Bible. (For further reading, see Daniel 3, Daniel 6, Luke 23:2, Acts 4:19 and 5:29.)

Too many people think it is their pastor’s job to spoon feed them Scripture. God gave you a brain. Use it! Take some initiative! Just because your pastor does not discuss certain subjects does not mean that they are not of biblical importance. Jesus told the apostles to be as ‘shrewd as serpents.’ (Matthew 10:15) Discern the world around you in light of God’s Word rather than in light of party agendas.

Again, it would blow your mind if you only knew how much you are being lied to.

We hear a lot of talk about certain movies desensitizing children to the effects of sex, violence and so forth. I see a parallel in politics. Most people today have no memory of life before 1913. We are used to a socialist police state at home and perpetual war for empire abroad. We have no memory of life in a free society. Therefore, we are indifferent about the loss of our freedom. We view the world through the lens of socialism and consider it normal.

Add to this a church that has been derelict in its duty to educate people about a very important theme of Scripture, and you have greased the skids for a slide into slavery and persecution.

In the Old Testament, God rebukes the Israelites for setting up kings without His consent and princes without His approval. (Hosea 8:4) American Christians 2,700 years later are no different. We have rejected God as our king, and we clamor for political saviors. (I Samuel 8:4-20) We are just like secular people in our love affair with the modern superstate, which has no basis in Scripture.

Most Christians simply have no clue that every ‘benefit’ government provides carries a price. The more you ask government to do for you, the more government will do to you. Most Christians are unaware that the worst persecutors of Christians have been governments. Most Christians are unaware that, if you give governments too much power, they will at some point proclaim that ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before us.’

The more we place our faith in the state, the more we reject God. Keep in mind that Jesus was put to death by people who proclaimed, “We have no king but Caesar.” (John 19:15) They had become completely allied with Rome and no longer acknowledged their real king.

Government is not nice to begin with. It is at its cruelest when it rejects God. In the Twentieth Century, government was at its most godless. Indeed, in the Twentieth Century, more Christians perished at the hands of their governments for being Christians than in all prior centuries combined.

R.J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, has pointed out that in the Twentieth Century, ’170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners.’

But, for some odd reason, we shouldn’t talk about this in church. The devil, undoubtedly, is in the details.

¹ http://www.worldviewweekend.com/articles/christianstudents.shtml

² No, not all of the Founders were Christians. However, many were. And even those who weren’t were far more Christian in their politics than so many of those who purport to be Christians in today’s political scene.

³ Consider Romans 13:1 in the New International Version: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Now consider it the King James Version: “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.” As stated in this essay, “In God’s eyes, government agents are no better than thee or me. They are subject to the same judgment.”

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Dumbing Down the Church

The Economic Argument
Arguments against immigration on economic grounds basically boil down to “They took our jobs!”. Some feel that allowing people to freely cross borders will result in a flood of low-wage labor that will “steal” jobs from natural born citizens. Labor is a factor of production, just like raw materials or financial capital. Restricting the flow of capital and labor will always decrease economic prosperity. Access to more resources – human or otherwise – always increases wealth and opportunity. If this does not make sense to you, I recommend Frederic Bastiat’s “What is Seen and What is Unseen”, chapter 7, as well as his brilliantly satirical “Candle Maker’s Petition.”

The Culture Argument
Others argue that immigration must be restricted in order to protect the nation’s unique cultural heritage. I submit to you that any culture which must be maintained by force is not an authentic culture and is probably a bad one. Cultures freely arise because they provide benefits to those who participate in them. Cultures are always changing. Getting government in the business of protecting culture is dangerous and counter-productive. First, who gets to define what constitutes culture? Bureaucrats don’t have the best track record in such matters. Second, do we really want to live in a culture that is forced upon us by government prohibitions, restrictions and mandates?

The Welfare Argument
Advocates of limited government sometimes argue against immigration on the grounds that immigrants make use of the welfare state and increase the cost of government. State-sponsored welfare programs are a problem. Stopping immigration because immigrants might use welfare programs treats one tiny symptom, not the disease itself. If you routinely dumped garbage on your front lawn and found critters frequenting your property, would you try to ban critters or would you clean the up the garbage? Though I think the vast majority of immigrants immigrate for jobs, freedom and opportunity, I’m sure some come and make use of government handouts (though far less than U.S. Citizens, and on average less than they pay in taxes). The handouts are an attractive nuisance and should be addressed on their own merits, not by attempting to ban the free movement of people.

The Safety Argument
Some argue that allowing easy immigration will bring bands of criminals into their country and make them less safe. First, if something is a crime it is already, by definition, illegal. Threats to life and property are already protected against via the existing police/military operations. Putting up a wall and stopping anyone from crossing it on the grounds that some of them may be criminals is ludicrous. By this logic, governments should perpetually engage in random home searches because they might discover criminal activity. Closed borders probably don’t stop criminals, but let’s pretend that they could; if we could keep foreign criminals out by keeping out anyone foreign, what would we gain? We’d have spent tons of resources keeping out foreigners, most of whom aren’t criminals, and we’d have that much less to use fighting domestic crime. Banning people from movement because some of them may be criminals is even dumber than banning gun ownership because some people may use them for crime. I trust LCC readers to see the many problems with preemptive Minority Report style crime fighting.

The Right Argument
Freedom to immigrate can be defended from several angles, but I believe the most important argument is based on rights. Imagine you and I have pieces of property that share a border. You wish to traverse my property and I wish to let you, but lawmakers prohibit it. What business do they have dictating whether we can make decisions about our own property? Sure, they were democratically elected, but what business do others have of voting to determine how you and I peacefully use our property?

What if government issued a decree that business owners were prohibited from hiring anyone born on a Tuesday? It’s no different when they prohibit hiring anyone born in another country. Shouldn’t the business owner be free to hire whom he wishes? If an individual wishes to travel, work, buy, or sell peacefully and all other parties involved agree, why should government prohibit it?

When you think up other arguments against immigration, ask yourself why they should not also be applied in state to state immigration? City to city? Home to home?

At bottom I think much anti-immigration sentiment comes from a fear of people unlike us. I support anyone’s right to be prejudiced, or to associate only with those of like culture. But putting that attitude into public policy not only hampers wealth and progress, it violates my right to associate peacefully with whom I choose.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Bad Arguments Against Immigration

I love this post by my dear friend Anthony Gregory at the Independent Institute: “Saved from the Precipice of Doom!”

————————

Thank goodness for the Republicans and Democrats, who in the eleventh hour, put aside their differences and compromised to avert the catastrophe of a government shutdown. You see, the Republicans wanted to cut something like $78.5 billion from what Obama wanted to spend—itself more than $78.5 billion over the year before. The Democrats were initially willing to talk about “cutting” much less. And now, thanks to the greatest political compromise since the one in 1850—and surely one that will be as permanent in preventing a national crisis—we can all sleep at night knowing that Yosemite and the National Archives will continue to be open for business. The Washington Post reports:

The final pact on 2011 spending called for $38 billion in cuts to federal agency budgets compared with last year’s levels, about $78.5 billion below the president’s initial funding request for 2011. The White House, which initially resisted any funding reductions, started touting all the cuts it signed off on in a statement that praised reductions of $13 billion in funding for education, health and labor programs.

Oh my, oh my! $38 billion cut from Obama’s budget proposal? I guess everyone gets what they want. Obama gets to pat himself on the back for avoiding a shutdown. The Republicans get to pat themselves on the back for avoiding a shutdown, and the American people are satisfied as well.

Oh, wait. Those who love government spending are not so satisfied. You see, the cuts appear to target hot-button social programs. And those who want (at a bare minimum) for government to live within its means might also be dissatisfied. They might protest that even if we go by Obama’s projected deficits, these cuts will only shave a few percent of the amount deeper the U.S. goes into the debt hole in a year.

Yet we should forget about all this and just be glad the government didn’t shut down. For if it did, we would surely awake to a dystopian nightmare, coastal cities collapsing into the ocean, civil unrest at every corner, whole swaths of previously populated centers abandoned, disease and lawlessness rampant in every direction. Thank goodness Congress and the President got together and stopped this.

After all, we all remember when happened when the government shut down in 1995. Traffic lights didn’t work. All the prisoners were running wild in the streets. The US military was completely put out of commission, allowing the Soviet Union to spring back to life and take over half of the world. In the Great Government Shutdown of 1995, an estimated 150 million Americans died of starvation, pertussis, rubella and acute cynicism. Cats were chasing dogs, telephones and plumbing ceased to function completely, and only 75 channels were available on cable television.

Some will respond that these claims are preposterous—that in fact, not only do modern “government shutdowns” only close down a handful of functions (including such programs as tax refunds and national museums, just to annoy the American people)—but that, in the United States, such shutdowns are so superficial an example of the government truly shutting down that they actually cost more money than allowing the government to run as normal.

Sure, refuse to take such a catastrophe seriously. But as our Dear Leader says, “Americans of different beliefs came together. . . [i]n the final hours before our government would have been forced to shut down. . . [to pass] a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history.” Thanks to these courageous and selfless efforts, “when 50 eighth graders from Colorado arrive in our nation’s capital,” they might “get a chance to look up at the Washington Monument and feel the sense of pride and possibility that defines America.”

Doesn’t that make your burn with patriotic fever? Red-white-and-blue fumes are just making their way up my esophagus right now. The two parties put aside their vast disagreement—over whether to borrow another trillion or so of to be paid back by these eighth graders or whether to cut that amount down by a few percent—and they agreed to meet in the middle. Just like their parents and grandparents, these kids will have the pride to know that they live in a country where every generation has the chance to grow up with much more money owed by the government on their behalf that the generation before it.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: Saved from Doom!!!

Clearly, there is a great divide in the Bible between animals and humans. Although the Bible does say: “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast (Pro. 12:10), that doesn’t preclude him from putting said beast to work, sacrificing him, and then eating it (sorry, “him”). The opening chapters of the Bible show some uses that God allowed for animals. God himself made Adam and Eve “coats of skins” (Gen. 3:21). And when Cain and Abel each made an offering, God only accepted the one that included an animal to be sacrificed (Gen. 4:3-5).

Referring to an animal like it was a human being elevates animals to a place that the Bible never does.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

PETA and the Bible

Most human differences are set­tled peacefully. Collisions of in­terest occur sporadically, but when intelligence and good-will com­bine we work out a modus vi­vendi. Conflicting opinions are resolved by an appeal to reason; patience and persuasion ease the frictions arising out of personal encounters. Thus it is in most areas; we carve out survival pat­terns and get along with each other. But there are periods of history more violent than others when arbitration works poorly and conflict intensifies; we are living through one such.

Warfare of unusual ferocity has plagued the West for more than half a century—despite lip service to peace in the form of nominal pacifism and humanitarianism. But international strife is not the only plague; domestic ten­sions break out of bounds with increasing frequency; riots, dem­onstrations, assault, kidnappings, bombings, strikes, and acts of sabotage barely make the front pages, so commonplace have they become. Out of the woodwork come spellbinders to lecture uni­versity audiences on gun barrel politics, revolution for its own sake, and the beauties of violence. Professors of philosophy are in­voked to provide a specious ration­ale for destructionism. A cult of violence and systematic terror comes into being. There’s no longer time to take thought, we are told; men must act. Incessant and strident calls to action are directed toward the base emotions of hatred and fear, drowning out quiet appeals to the mind. The demand that we do something results in thoughtless action, and mindless violence breeds more of the same.

Violence Displaces Reason

What has brought about this state of affairs? How shall we ac­count for the increased violence that mars our land? It is obvious that violence and the cult of vio­lence expands as faith in reason declines—only when people are convinced that differences cannot be worked out intelligently do they resort to force. The restoration of reason to its proper role in human affairs is essential if we would live in peace, but first we must try to understand what has caused men of the modern era to distrust reason.

History is not simply what Gib­bon called it, a catalogue of "the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind"; but the human record is spotty and there has been vio­lence in every era. People differ, and occasional conflict is thus a built-in feature of human action. The species could not have sur­vived, of course, were there not a preponderance of cooperation and mutual aid in human affairs, but traces of friction remain even un­der the best of conditions. Abra­sive contacts between men may be eased by good will plus a disposi­tion to argue it out rather than fight it out, but when all strata­gems fail and flight is impossible human beings do resort to force. Violence, in other words, is an­cient in human experience—but as a last resort. It is today’s cult of violence that needs diagnosing.

A collision of interests devel­ops between two evenly matched men. Before any blows are struck one man says to his adversary, "Come let us reason together," or words to that effect. If this offer is accepted it is because both men hold certain assumptions in com­mon. Each man takes it for granted that he is a finite and fallible human being; he entertains a set of convictions on grounds he deems reasonable, but he has no im­mediate access to Universal Rea­son which might assure certitude. It is assumed that men are gifted with a divine spark, reason—a valid instrument for getting at the truth when used properly, that is, with due regard for logic and in good faith. Finally, it is assumed that the universe is ra­tionally structured, in the main, so that there is a correspondence between correct reasoning and the nature of things, enabling men who start from different places to think their way through to common ground.

The human reason, employed within these rules, may thus re­duce tensions and resolve conflict. It may firm up one’s own convictions, enhance appreciation of the opponent’s views, and persuade a man to ponder the rich diversity of mankind. Admittedly, even un­der the best of conditions men may not find a reasonable modus vivendi; words may lead to blows. But violence, if it occurs, is at any rate postponed to the last stage. It is not condoned.

Imagine another encounter. The antagonists this time do not share a common faith in the ef­ficacy of reason. Skeptical of rea­son as a useful means for thrash­ing out differences of opinion they are prepared to accept the alternative that differences can be settled only by the forced imposi­tion of one man’s or one party’s will over the other. Everything that denies or diminishes Mind, everything that downgrades rea­son, transforms a point of view—which is reasonable or amenable to reason—into a nonnegotiable demand for submission to supe­rior force. Men have a condition rather than an opinion; two states of mind confront each other.

Slogans to Live By

The True Believer does not en­tertain conclusions arrived at by marshalling the relevant evidence and drawing from it the correct inferences; to the contrary, he has been programmed with a set of armed doctrines picked up ready to use from the nearest intellec­tual arsenal—newspaper, TV, lib­eral journal, college, or whatever. Instead of ideas which might en­lighten, there are slogans, catch­words, and labels—a new set every few years—that nerve both sides for combat. When the pre­vailing ideology deters men from ventilating their differences rea­sonably they fight about their differences, hence the depressing increase of violence in our time. And the proceedings are rational­ized; hence the cult of violence.

Faith in reason is at a low ebb in modern man; Mind is bogged down in the snarled ideological skein of the twentieth century. The low estate of things mental is the consequence of a trend which has brought several sets of ideas together.

• Philosophical materialism and mechanism assumes that the ul­timate reality is non-mental; only bits of matter or electrical charges or whatever are, in the final analysis, real. If so, then thought is but a reflex of neural events. "Our mental conditions," wrote T. H. Huxley, "are simply the symbols in consciousness of the changes which take place auto­matically in the organism." Fare­well to free will, if "the brain secretes thought as the liver se­cretes bile," as one materialist put it.

• Evolutionism, popularly under­stood, conveys the idea that living things began as a stirring in the primeval ooze and became what they are now by random inter­action with the physicochemical environment, moved by no pur­pose, aiming at no goal. "Darwin banished Mind from the uni­verse," cried Samuel Butler. Man, wrote Bertrand Russell, is "but the outcome of accidental colloca­tions of atoms."

• From popular psychology comes the notion that reason is but ra­tionalization, that conscious men­tal processes are but a gloss for primitive and irrational impulses erupting from the unconscious mind. Psychoanalysis discredits mind by subordinating intellect to the Id.

• From Marxism comes the no­tion that class interest dictates a man’s thinking. There is one logic for the proletariat and another for the bourgeoisie, and the mode of production governs the philosoph­ical systems men erect, and their life goals as well. The unfortu­nately placed middle class forever gropes in darkness, unable to share the light revealed to Marx and his votaries.

These are some of the battle lines where men must fight to vindicate themselves as reasoning beings, possessed of free will, ca­pable of guiding their lives with intelligence and idealism. The Mind must be restored to its rightful place in the total scheme of things, and that place is central for, if the Mind be deemed un­trustworthy, who can then trust any conclusion? The centrality of Mind must be the keystone of any philosophy worth the allegiance of rational creatures, and this is the battle line behind all the others.

Overarching all other causes for the flight from reason is the decline of theism—an interpreta­tion of the cosmos which finds a mental or spiritual principle be­yond nature. If there is no God the cosmos is only, in the final analysis, brute fact, and a man’s thoughts are reduced to a bodily function. The thinking part of a man is validated ultimately by its kinship with the Divine Mind. Theism contends, as a mini­mum, that a Conscious Intelli­gence sustains all things, working out its purposes through man, na­ture, and society. This is to say that the universe is rationally structured, and this is why cor­rect reasoning pans a few pre­cious nuggets of truth. Restora­tion of faith in the efficacy of rea­son and a revival of theism go hand in hand. But this is not all. Acceptance of the Creator re­minds men of their own finitude; no man can believe in his own omnipotence who has any sense of God’s power. And finite men, aware of their limited vision, have a strong inducement to enrich their own outlook by cross fertili­zation from other points of view.

A revival of theism, in the third place, will curb utopianism. Men vainly dream that some combina­tion of political and scientific ex­pertise will usher in a heaven on earth, and they use this future possibility as an excuse for pres­ent tyranny. Under theism, they modestly seek to improve them­selves and their grasp of truth, thus making the human situation more tolerable, confident that the final issue is in God’s hands.

Originally published in the April 1971 edition of The Freeman. Read more from the Edmund Opitz Archive.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Some Thoughts on Violence

I am fascinated by cultural movements for a variety of reasons, and some of the most interesting cultural tidbits you find occur in the form of internet memes. The website Know Your Meme does an incredible job of documenting and explaining how these things develop and propagate, and this live presentation at a recent conference illustrates why they consider their work important to the preservation of cultural knowledge. It even has some implications to how we think about intellectual property (or the lack thereof). Best quote: “Culture isn’t just valuable when you can stuff it full of DRM and sell it.”

Also, if you haven’t heard about Amazon’s Cloud Player, check it out. It is AMAZING.

That’s all for now, enjoy your weekend!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: Of Memes and Clouds

Somewhat different argument, but similar conclusion: turn off the news!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Quick Follow-up on the Value of News

I rarely follow the news and almost never get it direct from news sources. What news I’m up on tends to find it’s way to me through filters – blogs I read, emails from friends, Facebook posts and hearsay.

This is not because of laziness or a lack of concern with being informed.  Indeed, I love information, trivia, knowledge and truth.  However, I found that keeping up on the news, especially reading papers and watching news shows, significantly diminished my quality of life.  It made me angry and depressed more often than not.

This is not because the cold, hard realities of terrestrial life are simply all bad news.  In fact every day billions of people are voluntarily, peacefully co-operating and being made better off through trade, commerce, community, and friendship.  Millions of things are invented, quality of life improves, the creative destruction of the market (in both goods and ideas) brings about untold beauty and opportunity.  Indeed, with a little bit of reflection it is not hard to see how vast, mysterious and awesome life is, even in the smallest tasks of a typical day.

But, probably for rational reasons, the news chooses to focus on those relatively few happenings between relatively few people that are violent, coercive and troubling.  A disproportionate amount of space is devoted to that tiny sliver of our individual and societal existence, politics, and nearly all the rest to all the other dangers and troubles in the universe.

It’s not an accurate picture of the world, nor is it particularly useful.  I think it was for this reason (and perhaps the generally bad quality of the writing) that C.S. Lewis warned against frequent newspaper reading.  Mark Twain (I think) said “Those who don’t read the news are uninformed.  Those who do are misinformed”.

Does this mean we turn a blind eye to reality so that we can be happy?  Isn’t that a form of escapism?  Frankly, I think that’s the wrong question.

There is a phenomenal scene in The Silver Chair, part of C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia series, where a group of children and a kindly swamp creature are trapped in an underground world by an evil queen.  The queen has them under a sort of spell and she is trying to convince them that there is no outside world, but only the cavernous underworld.  When they object and say that the outside world is real she asks them what it is like.  They tell her it has a sun, which is much like the lights in the cave only bigger and brighter; it has lions which are much like the cats of the underworld only grander and more fierce, and so on.

The queen remarks that there is no outside world at all, but that the children have simply taken things from the real world and pretended they were bigger and better.  It was a mere game, and the reality was in the caves all along.

The group is on the verge of being persuaded of this sad state when the humble swamp creature proclaims that even if this were true, what would it say about the real world?  What kind of world would it be if children could easily create a make-believe world that was so much better?  Even if the outside world is make-believe, he declares, it’s so much preferable to the “real world” underground that he’d rather go on pretending.  At that the spell was broken, hope restored and the deceptive queen’s power rendered inert.

It is more than a mere cliche to say that perception is reality.  Expectation is also reality.  Believing a better world is real and possible makes this world better, if for no other reason than that positive, optimistic people are more pleasant to be around.

The evidence also supports optimism.  Who could ever have predicted the kinds of technologies and opportunities we have available today even just 50 or 100 years ago?  The iPhone alone is jam packed with capabilities that were the stuff of sci-fi even a decade ago.

Why then do we listen to the news when it constantly reports on the fearful side of the present and future?  That is only one view of reality.  It’s a tiny slice of all that is, and a very unrepresentative slice at that.  If a human can only take in so much of reality at once, why would I focus on the negative in a sea of positive?

I’d rather create my own reality – a powerful, free, beautiful one – than get angry about the false reality portrayed by the news.  If that’s escapism, so be it.  Escaping something bad into something better is nothing to be ashamed of.  It’s a choice to perceive and embrace reality in a more useful, constructive manner.

It doesn’t mean injustice doesn’t exist, or that there are not things I am hoping and fighting to change – not least of which are in myself.  It just means there are better ways of doing it and thinking about it.

Instead of letting it be selected for me, I choose each day what bits of news I take in about the vast and wondrous universe.  It beats the hell out of the paper.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Don’t Watch The News