David Neff at Christianity Today wonders if an evangelical meeting to anoint a presidential candidate is a bad idea.

Three articles at Antiwar.com caught my attention this week: Who Wants War With Iran?, Blood On Whose Hands, and Another Reason Not to Go to War So Often.

William Grigg writes about the current crop of presidential candidates who think state murder is a “moral enterprise.”

I mentioned this article yesterday but I would like to highlight again Anthony Gregory’s piece on LRC about why the left’s excuses for not supporting Ron Paul are ridiculous.

Doug Bandow writes in the Huffington Post about that perennial question, Who Would Jesus Vote For? Should we even ask?

Ron Paul Schools Santorum:

I heard about Word Dynamo from my colleagues at UT, and I have to say it is super fun. If you enjoy wordsmith-ing around, you’ll love this site.

If you have interesting news you would like to share, make sure to post in the comments below!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week, January 15-21, 2012

In the field of Republican candidates sans Ron Paul, you essentially have a bunch of ideologically identical bozos. On all the issues that matter, they are essentially the same (or worse) than Obama himself. Take health care, for instance. Can any candidate, other than Paul, offer one piece of substantial evidence that they do not want to replace Obamacare with some form of Republicare? As the wise sage Yoda once said, “Size matters not.” Republicare may be a smaller version of Obamacare in the details, but never forget that in principle there is no difference.

The candidate’s positions on health care should be proof-positive that none of them care about the free market. Only Ron Paul has consistently defended the free market and demands that the federal government stop interfering in health care and otherwise. But there is more to the story.

Regarding taxation, the candidates (sans Paul again) completely miss the point. Of course they all want to cut taxes, this is the bread and butter of Republican rhetoric (other than pro-life language). But taxation itself is not the only variable in the equation. In fact, it doesn’t matter if you cut taxes without cutting spending, because any deficit incurred by the government is simply delayed taxation.

All candidates (sans Paul) advocate essentially the same kind of spending spree that Obama has been on the past three years, and Bush II for the previous eight. For what it’s worth, Barack Obama is essentially the continuation and logical conclusion of George W. Bush, and the current candidates (sans Paul) are in their essence the continuation and logical conclusion of Obama. Again, only Ron Paul has provided a plan to substantially reduce the actual size and scope of government power and to substantially reduce taxes in tandem.

So on these key issues, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are no different than Obama, and Paul is left standing. Why, then, do conservatives, and especially “conservative” Christians, avoid Ron Paul?

It probably has to do with their devotion to war. In that case, however, the conservative case against Obama must be abandoned. Every ounce of Obama’s dubious anti-war leanings touted during his campaign has been completely ripped to shreds, yet we still hear that Obama is “anti-military” for some reason. Christian warmongers should be proud of Obama.

Interestingly enough, if you want to see who troops support you should once again look to Ron Paul. Just as in 2008, military donors prefer Ron Paul over other candidates. Their second choice, interestingly enough, is Obama. What does the right – especially the Christian right – think that means?

Furthermore, I continue to be amazed at how much the right says they care about spending, yet turn a blind eye to the trillion dollar Iraq War and repeatedly call for military action against Iran. Which pocketbook do they care about?

On every issue of spending, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of defense, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of spending and defense that supposedly matter to Republicans, only Paul can lay claim to a realistic solution. On every issue that matters*, Ron Paul has been right and the other candidates wrong. Again, how can anyone claim a dime’s worth of difference between Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama? It certainly isn’t enough to write home about.

Yet “conservatives” and Christians still flock to crooks, liars, and at least one pathological adulterer. Why is this?

Wanting to get rid of Obama is fine, but don’t kid yourself. When you love war more than liberty, you will make crooked compromises. When you begin to truly appreciate what liberty means, I think you will find more than just your views on the free market changing.

This post was inspired in part by Anthony Gregory’s piece regarding the left on the LewRockwell.com Blog.

* One caveat: immigration. I am not 100% on board with Paul’s views on immigration, but they are still much better than anyone else in the field.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Weighing Political Planks and the Obama Dilemma

She begins by discussing money and quoting my article:

Libertarians talk a lot about economics, and rightfully so. Money is central to a healthy economy. Christians are also concerned about money; in fact God talks frequently about money in the Bible. [Horn]

Actually, money is mentioned more in the Bible than anything else. I’ve written previously of this here. Scriptures tell us that money is a tool with which evil can control man. The Bible obviously doesn’t give political doctrine specific to the Fed, but rather as Christians we are taught to use our access to money as a way of evangelism through deed. This is something libertarianism leaves out, the God part. Are libertarians conservatives without God? That’s a question friends and I have discussed.

Yes, money is mentioned in the Bible a lot. Nonetheless, money is is not “a tool with which evil can control man.” “Evil” does not “control” man. Man has sinful desires, and he chooses to follow after those desires and commit evil actions. This is an important distinction, lest we become metaphysical dualists. Sin is indeed personified sometimes in the Bible, but it is clearly absurd to take such personification too far. As James 1:14-15 tells us, “But each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”

The language of James likens our sinful state to a struggle going on inside us, and it fits very well with what Paul says in Romans 7. Still, never do Paul or James imply that some ethereal “evil” controls the Christian. On the contrary, Romans 6:6-7 says, “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin – because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.”

Money is indeed a tool, and man can use it do great good, or great evil, or anything in between. I would argue that money has a far greater potential for good than for evil, as is evidenced by the market ecosystem that produces such amazing things as, for instance, computers and the internet, or Bibles and theology books.

Now, although Loesch is right that there is no specific doctrine for the Federal Reserve, Loesch’s statements above are completely non-responsive to the actual substance of my argument: (1) that we need sound money in order to have genuine prosperity and to avoid the business cycle, and (2) sound money, as opposed to state fiat, is the proper moral and Biblical position. Stranger still, she somehow transitions from talking about money – and ignoring the Biblical point about money I was trying to make – to declaring that libertarians leave out “the God part.”

This statement is rather silly and also, quite frankly, rather insulting. It is clearly meant to stand in contrast to Christian “conservatives,” whom I suppose categorically make sure God is in every one of their doctrines, including big government national security and war, big government social security, big government education, and big government health care so long as it’s sponsored by Republicans like Bush or Romney.

More importantly, Loesch misses the point of the article. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that expounds upon natural law, and whose critical ethic is the non-aggression principle. Though not all libertarians believe in God (just as not all conservatives believe either), a vast number admit from the outset that natural law comes from a higher authority. It is transcendent to man, and no man is exceptional to it. The Christian libertarian takes the particular position that natural law was created by the God of the Bible, and that natural law will always stand in concordance with Biblical revelation. This stands in stark contrast to the typical conservative stance that is perfectly fine with giving special moral privilege to American leaders for various purposes regardless of what natural law or the Bible says.

Loesch moves on to war and peace, quoting my article once again:

It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same. [Horn]

This passage presupposes that every conflict in which the United States has ever engaged is due to the United States’s frat boy aggression and need to sow its seed of democracy by force.

No, it does not make such a presupposition, but it does imply that I think the litany of recent wars is completely evil. Such an implication would be correct, in fact. Reader, if you are curious about the effects of American interventionism over time, perhaps you should peruse this article on the Middle East. George W. Bush eventually even admitted that the point of the Second Iraq War was to bring democracy to the Middle East, after the lies about WMDs and such were fully abandoned and they needed a new excuse to continue the violence.

Lest you think I spoke too quickly about the American churches at large – and I mean this in the general sense rather than every church everywhere in America – how many Christians noticed when the Department of State released its report saying that there are no more churches in Afghanistan? How many who did notice thought that this just might be related to American interventionism in Afghanistan for the past 10 years? Christians are typically fine with praying for their military members (I get that), but rarely, if ever, do you hear prayers on the behalf of the innocent people whom their military members directly affect. Where are their priorities?

One year after the Civil War was over, Church of Christ luminary David Lipscomb said: “Why is it that we see men willing to sacrifice property, the comforts of home, the sweets of the domestic and family relationship, undergo privations and sorrows, suffer hunger, and cold, and nakedness, and want for long and weary years, and freely give up life itself at the bidding of earthly rulers and for the sake of corrupt and perishing human kingdoms, while so few are willing to undergo the slightest inconvenience or suffer the least self-denial for the heavenly and eternal kingdom?” Yes, why is it?

Furthermore, it’s odd to me that a follower of limited government would advocate for a state-endorsed religion as a way of nation building, supplanting the previous logical fallacy.

How Loesch discerned from my writings that I support some sort of state-endorsed religious means of nation-building I will never know. Libertarians don’t endorse nation-building by governments at all. If anything, we are interested in spreading our values via peaceful interaction, never through force. Quite a “Christian” thought, I might add.

This author quotes Paul more than the Bible, which tells me everything I need to know about this piece. Ron Paul is not God.

This is potentially the worst accusation in Loesch’s post. Honestly, I do not feel as though I even have to answer it, because the quality of the statement is so poor and the accusation so ridiculous that it should be obvious how wrong it is. I will, however, make one note. When the Washington Post asked me to write an article for them, they requested 600 to 800 words on why some Christians embrace libertarianism and how Ron Paul fits into that. I cannot cover all topics nor can I quote everything I might want. I gave it a good shot, and even so my article ended up being just over 850 words. Loesch, you need to stop reading into my article too much, and trying to make me say things I have never said.

What is truly unfortunate is that by making the universal straw man that “modern American churches seem to think,” i.e. all churches, the author betrays a (conscious or subconscious) prejudice against churches based on his own presupposition.

Whoops, Loesch continues her uncharitable and fallacious reading! She completely misses the mark here, and if she had done her homework she would have probably realized that I love the church and, as I mentioned, even work part-time for one. In fact, I have frequently chided Christians who think that they can just get along without the fellowship of other Christians or who criticize all organized religion. Also, I love how she can read into my subconscious. That’s just outstanding. 

Horn misses a huge part of Christ’s work, exemplified in Matthew 10:34:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Generally, you need to do something called “exegesis” to understand the meaning of a passage like this. You cannot just proof-text Matthew 10:34 to refute the peace-loving nature of Jesus and that pesky “blessed are the peacemakers” passage. Or perhaps you should also call your mother, father, and siblings regularly just to say you have turned against them? (See the next verse.) Moreover, how does one extend this idea that Jesus knew conflict was coming spiritually between people into something akin to “peace between nations is a bad thing”?

I get that Horn wants to promote his stylized version of Biblical interpretation, but he should realize that Ron Paul’s words carry no weight compared to Christ’s, and he perhaps should study the Word of God more than Paul’s words, especially those newsletters.

Again, this statement is so off-center it is barely worthy of response. Besides the blatant insult regarding the newsletters, again she accuses me of elevating Ron Paul to god-status. Loesch, did you not realize I have a theology graduate degree from a reputable, theologically-conservative seminary? Of course not, because you didn’t do your homework. I don’t do “stylized interpretation,” Dana, I do scholarship. If you want to argue with me like scholars do then go right ahead if you can, but leave the needlessly incendiary comments at home.

There’s also this third graph:

Thus, Christian libertarians think that government power should be limited, sound money and truly free markets should return, aggressive war must cease and civil liberties must be preserved.

Scratch “libertarian” from this, it’s something every Christian I know believes, but how does Horn think our rights are secured? By lying prostrate before our enemies when they attack?

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Does that make our Founding Fathers that misused and abused term: “neocons?”

I highly doubt that every Christian Loesch knows truly believes in these principles. I doubt even Loesch agrees with the principle of sound money based on her earlier remarks. Besides, I would guess that the conservatives she knows thinks “limited” government means whatever Republicans want to do, like initiate unconstitutional wars, bailout entire industries, control education of children, and sponsor massive government healthcare programs. I would highly suspect she also knows plenty of Christian warmongers, who think all the aggressive wars of recent years are justifiable, and plenty of Christians who think personal lives ought to be regulated by the government in multitudinous ways. Unlike “conservatives,” libertarians actually care about limiting all government power, not just the power of Democrats.

Then, once again, she completely misrepresents what I said in my article. Never did I argue against using self-defense, but suddenly Loesch apparently thinks I am a complete pacifist (or something similar) who will not defend the rights of others. How ridiculous! If she is perhaps more innocently just indicating I did not say enough, well, there are editorial limits to what you can do with 800 words.

I disagree with the hyphenated way that Horn presents his religious discipline: Christian is Christian. There is no “libertarian Christian,” such division is expressly protested throughout the Gospel, especially in Paul’s address to the Ephesians which addresses division in the body of Christ. There is no need to self-segregate and doing so shows a lack of knowledge in the face of Christ who Himself and through his disciples preached unity.

We now arrive at what seems to be central point of the article. It relates to the title of the post as well, which is: “A Bad Way to Argue for Libertarian-Christianity.” Apparently, what seems to offend Loesch the most is that I would dare argue at all that Christianity and libertarianism are compatible. Doing so, she says, is hyphenating the faith. First off, this is a complete misreading of my article. Never did I say I was arguing for some “libertarian-form-of-Christianity.” Never have I done this on LibertarianChristians.com. On the contrary, any reader of this site can see through the long history of writing that I have always argued for being Christian first, such as this short blog post.

My goal is to get Christians to reconsider their political philosophy, because as far as I can see the modern American church (general sense) tends to elevate statism above principle. Learning better principles tends to lead Christians to embrace a more libertarian political philosophy; it’s a perfectly natural result. It is not, as C.S. Lewis warned us, injecting a “Christianity and…” problem into our theology, it is a consistent way of viewing natural law and behaving accordingly.

Statism is not only a miserable failure, but also fraught with moral hazard and prone to commit atrocities beyond imagination. Instead, let us heed the words of Frederic Bastiat: “And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.”

To conclude, I return to the beginning of Loesch’s article:

Can a Christian be a libertarian? A column with some questionable logic that prevents the piece from being truly thought-provoking. A few things: …

Does anyone else find it funny that the only complete sentence in the first paragraph is the title of my original article? More importantly, how is it that Loesch accuses my article of “questionable logic” when her own work is fraught with mischaracterizations, insults, and straw-man arguments? If this is representative of the quality of her BigJournalism site, then count me out.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A Bad Way to Argue Against Being a Christian Libertarian

A quick excerpt:

“Through libertarianism, many Christians have found a way to move past their previous beliefs about politics and embrace a more consistent, more biblical political philosophy. The message of abolishing government power is powerful on its own. In Ron Paul, many Christian libertarians see a leader who points to principles that conservatives and liberals have long forgotten… Libertarianism is not going away, and it surely will take an increasingly prominent place in the political discussion of Christians for years to come.”

Many thanks to the Washington Post for this great opportunity.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

LCC is in the Washington Post

1. It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano – The Judge, host of FreedomWatch on Fox Business, has put together an amazing book that analyzes a host of topics from the standpoint of natural law. I will be reviewing this book on LCC soon but I’m going to say it now – you need to read this book. The data and stories he presents in the book make it easily worth every penny and a well-deserved place on your (or anyone else’s) bookshelf.

2. Libertarianism Today by Jacob Huebert – This book was on the list last year, but it warrants another mention because you can get it at a significantly reduced price by purchasing directly from the publisher. Huebert’s book is definitely a must-read, and is one of the best recent books on hardcore libertarianism in the past few years. LCC writer Laurence Vance has called it, “The best introduction to libertarianism on the market.”

3. Bourbon for Breakfast and It’s a Jetsons World by Jeffrey Tucker – Check out the LCC review of Bourbon for Breakfast, and you’ll see that it is a super read for anyone looking to circumvent statist restrictions upon their lives. Tucker’s followup work tells exciting stories of the little everyday miracles of the free market at work.

4. Liberty Defined by Ron Paul – Another gold standard in libertarian literature by one of liberty’s greatest defenders. See the LCC review for the full story.

5. Rollback by Thomas Woods – I am a huge fan of Tom Woods and have known him for over 5 years now. His latest book makes an eloquent case for dismantling pretty much everything the government currently does today.

6. Great Wars and Great Leaders by Ralph Raico – Leaders who take a country to war are often heralded as “great,” but the libertarian perspective dispenses such ideas as folly. War is the health of the state and the enemy of liberty, and Raico’s historical work is great ammunition in the war of ideas that we fight daily.

7. Myth of a Guilty Nation by Albert Jay Nock – This is an old book newly reprinted by the Mises Institute, and I’m excited to see it available again (because I’m a big fan of Nock and haven’t ever read this one). From the Mises.org description: “Nock’s book reminds us of what most everyone has forgotten, namely, that this was sold as a war for freedom and self-determination over imperial ambition. Along with that came some of the most rabid war propaganda ever fabricated until that point in time, all designed to make Germany into a devil nation. Nock’s brave book took on that idea and demonstrated that there was fault enough to go around on all sides. All through the 1920s, a Nockian-style retelling of the facts behind the war led to a dramatic shift in public opinion against World War I.” Awesome!

8. The Bastiat Collection Pocket Edition by Frederic Bastiat – If you haven’t read Bastiat’s The Law, you need to get on that immediately! This book contains all the major works of Bastiat in a very small volume, and makes a great gift.

9. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt – Need to learn a little more about economics? Start with the classic by Hazlitt, and never forget the first lesson again…

10. Christian Theology of Public Policy and Bible and Government by John Cobin – I would be remiss to write a book list on LCC and not mention the excellent work of John Cobin, especially in this volume. As Christian libertarians, these are must reads, and don’t forget to check out Cobin’s free Christian Theology of Public Policy Short Course series on LCC!

Check out other Top 10 book lists and book reviews on LCC for more ideas, and remember that every time you shop at Amazon.com through a LibertarianChristians.com link you are supporting the work of LCC! Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Top 10 Libertarian Books for Christmas 2011

Jack Hunter reports in the Daily Caller that Rand Paul blocked an unanimous consent vote that could have had big effects:

Last week, while most senators were focused on the important national issues of war funding and Americans’ constitutional liberties, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) seemed more concerned with the fate of a foreign country. Behind the scenes, Rubio moved to have a unanimous consent vote that would have hastened Georgia’s entry into NATO. The unanimous consent vote never happened because Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented it.

This is not a triviality. Make no mistake: Bringing Georgia into NATO could lead to a new military conflict for the United States, which is why any move that would facilitate Georgia’s entry into the alliance should be publicly debated. Rubio’s attempt to push this through by unanimous consent — that is to say, without any formal debate or vote — is highly suspect and calls into question the senator’s better judgment.

You may remember that the small country of Georgia, which is on the border of Russia, nearly got the United States into a smoking conflict just three years ago. There is more information in the Daily Caller article and I recommend reading it. The American people are, for the most part, incredibly ignorant of foreign policy these days. I highly doubt that most could even find Georgia on a map, or even know that Georgia is a country at all. Nonetheless, this rogue government continues its imperialist ventures behind the people’s backs, ignoring the costs and building its hegemony day by day.

However, just reporting the facts in this blog post is only part of the point…

Rand Paul made a good move here, no doubt. But, we need to remember such events do not prove that politics is the be-all-and-end-all of the liberty movement as well. Rand, I am sure, knows that if the government wants a war, they can get one. The importance of Rand’s block is that it brings attention to the inner workings of the State. If the consent vote had gone through, hardly anyone would have noticed until another conflict was underway. Then, of course, boobus Americanus will fall in line, trusting that their deified overlords got it right just like they did Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and etc.

It is our job to expose the evils of the State, not “reform” them. Libertarian politicians like Rand and Ron Paul can only do so much to “fix” anything at all. Ultimately, the willingness of the people to turn a blind eye is what allows the State to thrive. We should take events like Rand’s vote as opportunities to talk to people, to teach them about liberty. Without changing the culture, any good a libertarian politician might accomplish has every possibility of being washed away the moment he leaves office.

I support Ron Paul, but it is up to us to carry things forward in the long run. I’m not Ron Paul, you are. Think about it.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Rand Paul may have prevented conflict with Russia, but what does it mean?

However, on this latter point it needs to be said that it is only natural to expect that foreigners on the receiving end of U.S. military invasions, occupations, bombings, and killings would retaliate against U.S. troops. Just think of what Americans would do if these things were done to them.

So, on the one hand, as Herbert Spencer wrote over a hundred years ago in his essay on patriotism: "When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves." But on the other hand, as an American, I don’t want to see any American soldiers harmed, and especially those that were duped into fighting some unnecessary and senseless foreign war.

The solution to the dilemma is to not send American soldiers overseas to fight foreign wars, which are inherently unjust. This keeps foreigners from having to shoot invading American soldiers and American soldiers from having to shoot resisting foreigners.

The difference between a warmongering Republican or conservative (like every major conservative talk show host and every major Republican presidential candidate except Ron Paul) and yours truly is that I don’t want anyone on either side to die.

One way that American soldiers are increasingly dying is at their own hands. More U.S. military personnel have died because they committed suicide than from suicide bombers detonating explosive devices near U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to see military suicides reduced.

According to a new policy brief titled "Losing the Battle: The Challenge of Military Suicide," published by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), from 2005-2010, "service members took their own lives at a rate of approximately one every 36 hours." The Army had a record number of thirty-three suicides in July of 2010. That is eight times more soldiers dead by suicide than were killed in Iraq that month. That is over half the number of soldiers killed in the much-more-dangerous occupation of Afghanistan that month. The report also says that the Veterans Administration estimates "that a veteran dies by suicide every 80 minutes." Although only 1 percent of Americans have served in the military, veterans account for 20 percent of all suicides.

According to the report:

• The mental health screening process following deployment is flawed.
• Suicide among service members and veterans threatens the health of the all-volunteer force.
• America is losing its battle against suicide by veterans and service members. And, as more troops return from deployment, the risk will only grow.
• Soldiers who deploy are more likely to die by suicide. Data have long indicated definitive links between suicide and injuries suffered during deployment.
• Additional factors that heighten risk include chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms such as depression, anxiety, sleep deprivation, substance abuse and difficulties with anger management. These factors are also widely associated with deployment experience in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The report also noted that military hazing caused some of the suicides and that excess prescription medication in the military community was also a problem.

At an event launching the CNAS report, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Peter Chiarelli said that trying to reduce the number of suicides in the Army has been "the most difficult challenge" in his forty years in the military. One of the authors of the report, Dr. Margaret Harrell said that the battle against suicide was being lost "multiple times a day."

According to the Department of Defense Suicide Event Report (DoDSER) for calendar year 2010, 295 service members died by suicide in 2010 (Air Force – 59, Army – 160, Marine Corps – 37, Navy – 39). There were 863 known suicide attempts. The suicide rate for divorced service members was 55 percent higher than the suicide rate for married service members. Most of those who successfully committed suicide were white, male, and under 25 years old. The number of suicides in 2009 was 309; the number in 2008 was 268.

According to the Final Report of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide by Members of the Armed Forces, in the nine-year period from 2001 to 2009, more than 1,900 members of the military took their own lives. This is more soldiers than have died fighting in Afghanistan since the war on terror was launched.

Although I am not a physician, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, or a mental health or suicide prevention counselor, I can think of four things that would reduce military suicides. And not only that, these things would also save the taxpayers money, improve America’s image in the world, keep us safer, and make it honorable to serve in the military.

One, stop fighting foreign wars.

When soldiers are sent to fight unnecessary, unjust foreign wars (is there any other kind?), there will always be questions in their minds about why they are fighting in a place they couldn’t locate without a map and against a people that never harmed an American until Americans first stuck their noses in their business. And we wonder why soldiers get depressed and suicidal?

The aforementioned CNAS report found a direct connection between deployment and suicide. Some soldiers don’t even wait until they get home to suffer chronic pain, PTSD, depression, and unemployment – they kill themselves in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The fewer foreign wars our soldiers are told to fight (the ones who have to do the actual fighting are never asked for their opinion), the fewer cases of traumatic brain injury, loss of limbs, depression, PTSD, anxiety, substance abuse, and chronic pain our soldiers will needlessly have to suffer with.

I just can’t see U.S. soldiers getting depressed and suicidal or suffering PTSD and sleep loss over having to kill enemy soldiers who actually tried to attack the United States.

Two, end the empire.

Why does the United States still have tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea? Why does the United States have any troops at all in Djibouti, Australia, and Argentina? Why does the United States have 250,000 troops in foreign countries? Why does the United States have troops in 160 countries and territories? Why is it now so commonly accepted that someone in the military is being deployed to Germany or Japan?

Military life is destructive to children, families – and service members. The strain of separation or relationship breakups, or the guilt over temptations succumbed to, can certainly lead to suicide.

Sailors on Navy ships in Jacksonville should sail down around the Florida Keys and up through the Gulf of Mexico to Texas and then turn around and go back and see their families. No landing in Mexico, the Caribbean, or South America – for any reason. That will do more to keep America safe than sailing in the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Tonkin. And it will certainly do more for morale and military families than overseas deployments.

Three, end most roles for women in the military.

"Your mother wears army boots" used to be a derogatory remark. Now it is true for 207,308 women in the U.S. military. This is about 15 percent of the 1,425,115 total members of the military. (All figures are as of September 30, 2011.) And these numbers don’t include the Coast Guard. Women comprise an even higher percentage in the Guard and Reserve.

Over 200,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been 111 female U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. There have been 30 female U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan, the most recent one being Sarina Butcher, aged 19, who died on November 1, 2011. It is a terrible tragedy that we send young men to die in senseless foreign wars; it is a horrendous evil that we send young women.

Call me a sexist, a chauvinist, and a misogynist all you want, but no woman has any business flying a helicopter in Iraq, like twenty-seven-year old Army captain Kimberly Hampton, who died when the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter she was piloting was shot down. (No man does either, but that is not my point here.)

According to Allan Carlson, the U.S. Department of Defense is the nation’s largest child-care system. Up to 40 percent of military pregnancies occur among unmarried military personnel. The 10 percent of military personnel who are "service couples," with both husband and wife in uniform, are 64 percent more likely to be divorced by age 24 than comparable civilian couples. Carlson made the case many years ago for the "Bachelor Army" in Policy Review (the Fall 1993 issue in which it appeared is apparently not online).

Things will only get worse since the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago, recommended that the Pentagon do away with the policy that bans women from serving in combat units.

According to the previously mentioned DoDSER, one fourth of attempted suicides in the military are by women. Relationship issues are a factor in both male and female military suicides.

Four, stop perverting the purpose of the military. As I have said in one form or another on many occasions:

The U.S. military should be limited to 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 instead of defending, securing, guarding, patrolling, and enforcing in other countries. The U.S. military should be engaged exclusively in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not attacking, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States perverts the purpose of the military.

Soldiers should know without a doubt that what they are doing is moral, just, and right. Limiting the military to actually protecting the United States is the surest way to do this.

This means no more offensive wars. No more nation building. No more spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun. No more policing the world. No more providing disaster relief. No more dispensing humanitarian aid. No more preemptive strikes. No more bombing. No more extraordinary renditions. No more enhanced interrogation techniques. No more peacekeeping operations. No more enforcing UN resolutions. No more regime changes. No more assassinations. No more overseas deployments. No more foreign military bases. No more containing communism. No more opening markets. No more enforcing no-fly zones. No more training foreign police and armies. No more invasions. No more occupations. No more foreign wars.

I support the troops. I support the troops not being put into positions where they face unnecessary danger. I support the troops not fighting senseless foreign wars. I support the troops not being separated from their families. I support the troops not being sent to kill foreigners. I support the troops not being stationed on overseas bases. I support the troops not being misused by presidents, politicians, and military brass. I support the troops not being killed as invaders and occupiers. And I support the troops not killing themselves.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on November 28, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How to Reduce Military Suicides

One commenter cited a critical verse from Psalm 22: “dominion belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations” (TNIV). It’s highly unlikely that those who inserted “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance had this verse in mind. Yet the simple truth is: every nation is under God, but in what manner? The truth is that every nation will be judged by God. God is serious about the treatment of the poor. God is serious about our moral decisions. God is serious about the debasement of money. And God is certainly serious about who we worship.

I don’t believe any geo-political nation must be, ought to be, or even can be, a “Christian nation.” But surely that doesn’t nullify God’s demands for justice and morality. Those who live their lives apart from God bring upon themselves God’s judgment, and nations who fail to satisfy God’s demands for justice will likewise reap what they sow.

I am sure some would endorse an idea that we transform “under God” from meaning the arrogant “we are better than you” statement that it is into the biblical Psalm 22 meaning. Perhaps good would come from reminding ourselves that American is going to be judged. It could serve as a stark reminder about the dangers of not living as if we are under God’s reign.

This intent is surely genuine, yet I’m afraid it will do nothing to turn the ship around. There are three main reasons this is the case: (1) the state itself expects nothing less than the traditional meaning; (2) most Christians who endorse pledging to the U.S. flag believe God are passionately devoted to their position; and (3) when on earth will we get the chance to explain this “new meaning” to the pledge? Most recitation of the Pledge takes place at sporting events and schools. Yes, preachers can start espousing this “new meaning,” but I’ll defer to #2 as a response to that impossibility.

Attempting to infuse new meaning into the words “under God” will do little to remind us that God will judge a nation for its sins. In fact, it’s sure to do just the opposite—engender a sense of importance and praise of the state. That is reason enough to not advocate pledging our allegiance.

Yet there are rhetorical advantages to pointing out this new meaning to other Christians. Beyond simply knowing the real meaning of the phrase “under God,” this can become an excellent opportunity to ask meaningful questions. For those who believe it’s our duty to pledge to the flag, we might want to ask, “When you pledge to the flag, do you really believe our nation is ‘under God’?” Or perhaps, “In light of the fact that [insert any/all of the Vance statistics here], do you think it’s helpful to make a declaration that we are ‘under God’? Isn’t that a bit flippant?”

Whether we stand up to say the pledge or abstain, we are standing for something, and we should always be ready to explain our beliefs (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, we are allegiant to King Jesus, challenger to the Kingdoms of this world. We might even love our country, but the United States of America is not immune from being manipulated by the devil, who Greg Boyd refers to as “the CEO of the kingdoms of this world.” A pledge is reserved solely for the King of Kings, not for a demonic state whose past sins include leading the world in “the incarceration rate, the total prison population, the divorce rate, car thefts, rapes, total crimes, illegal drug use, legal drug use, and Internet pornography production.” As Christians, Jesus is our King. Above him there is no other.

(By the way, check out Cobin’s work on Theology of Nations for more interesting thoughts on nations and nationalism.)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

All Nations are “Under God”

I remember back in the mid 1990s when I was teaching theology and Zondervan published Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. I thought it was a good book, and now see that it has sold over 300,000 copies. Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw that the author recently wrote an equally massive book on politics. It is not everyday when a theologian is found to have such a different field of interest and, in the case of Grudem, expertise.

As I have mentioned in some of my other reviews of Christian books (see here, here, here, here, and here), because one of my primary interests is the intersection of religion with politics and economics, I try to read and possibly review any books on these subjects. Although I am usually disappointed, Politics – According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (hereafter just Politics – According to the Bible), although it has much to disappoint, and much I vehemently disagree with, is still an important and needful work that I can recommend to Christians interested in religion and politics, albeit with many caveats.

Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. He was formerly Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois. Grudem holds degrees from Harvard, Westminster Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Cambridge. He has served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

The book is very well written and organized. Grudem divides the book into three parts: Basic Principles (5 chapters), Specific Issues (10 chapters), and Concluding Observations (3 chapters). There is a brief preface and introduction, a very detailed table of contents, clear chapter divisions, footnotes, and Scripture, name, and subject indexes.

The author’s approach to the issues he discusses is threefold: arguments from direct biblical statements, arguments from broader biblical principles, and arguments that do not depend on the Bible but on an evaluation of the relevant facts in the world today.

Grudem is a conservative and a Republican, makes no apologies for it, and doesn’t try to hide it. But although he claims in his preface to "not hesitate to criticize Republican policies" where he differs with them and gives as examples "runaway government spending" and "the continual expansion of the federal government" under conservative Republican presidents, the book is long on criticism of Democrats and liberals (with one direct, negative mention of libertarianism [p. 275], although it is not in the index), and short on criticism of Republicans and conservatives.

Grudem’s whipping boys are President Barack Obama, Jim Wallis, the author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, and, to a lesser extent, Greg Boyd, the author of The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church.

Boyd has written what I think is a good book criticizing Christian nationalism and warmongering, although I don’t necessarily agree with everything in it. Wallis is a liberal Christian that I rarely agree with either. I also share Grudem’s aversion to the Marxist, socialist, fascist, corporatist abomination that is Obama. In other words, I feel about him the same way as I feel about George W. Bush.

Bush should go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. He gave us the No Child Left Behind Act, expanded Medicare with a prescription-drug program, started two immoral and senseless wars, justified perpetual incarceration, torture, and innumerable other violations of civil liberties and human rights. He had bailout and stimulus programs before Obama did. He crippled corporations with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, destroyed the Fourth Amendment with the Patriot Act, waged war on the Bill of Rights, created the monstrous Department of Homeland Security with its groping TSA goons, and increased farm subsidies and foreign aid. Bush and the Republicans used the federal treasury as an ATM, doubling the national debt, massively increasing government spending, and giving us the first trillion-dollar budget deficit.

Although Bush is mentioned many times in the book, there is only one negative thing said about "George W. Bush’s administration" (p. 573). It is in the Concluding Observations section, and it is just basically a restatement of what Grudem said in the preface that I quoted above about the increase in government spending that occurred "when Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate." Taken together, both of these statements imply that there is some criticism of Republicans in the pages between them. But all you will see is some faint criticism of Republicans on pages 274 (a quote from someone else about government debt), 313 (some Republicans opposing change because they are fearful of losing re-election), and 489 (wealthy members of Congress). The only significant criticism of Republicans is on page 474 where Grudem says he is astounded "that anyone in either party, whether Democrat or Republican, would oppose having Congress and the President take the necessary steps to complete a secure and impenetrable border fence immediately." Later in his Concluding Observations section, Grudem reluctantly admits that "President Reagan, a Republican, supported some reduction of the US nuclear arsenal" (p. 582), condemns "hyper-conservative people who have opposed any elements of a plan that would allow any path to citizenship whatsoever for the illegal aliens who are now here in the United States" (p. 584), and criticizes John McCain for being an opponent of "coercive interrogation methods" (p. 582) and a prominent supporter of campaign finance restrictions (p. 585).

Part I

As mentioned previously, the book is divided into three parts. The first section, Basic Principles, actually consists of four distinct elements: what Grudem considers to be five wrong views about Christians and government followed by his "better solution," biblical principles concerning government, a biblical worldview, and the court system as the ultimate power in a nation. The second and most important part of the book is the Specific Issues section. Although there are ten chapters here, there are actually about fifty topics that are discussed, from things one would expect like abortion and private property, to unexpected topics like farm subsidies and CAFE standards. The third division of the book, Concluding Observations, has three unrelated chapters, two of which depart from the stated purpose of the book.

Grudem starts out with his five wrong views about Christians and government: "government should compel religion," "government should exclude religion," "all government is evil and demonic," "do evangelism, not politics," and "do politics, not evangelism." The problems with the first two and the last one are obvious, but I think Grudem errs in his treatment of the other two.

In his discussion of "all government is evil and demonic," Grudem is mainly arguing against Greg Boyd and his The Myth of a Christian Nation. Grudem takes issue with Boyd’s reference to Jesus’ encounter with Satan when he was fasting in the wilderness, specifically this:

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. (Luke 4:5-7)

Grudem says Boyd is wrong in pointing out that Jesus "doesn’t dispute the Devil’s claim" because Satan is lying, because "there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44). I think the point here is that Satan was offering Christ the kingdoms of the world now, without the Cross, which was not in the plan of God. Christ later said that his kingdom was not now of this world (John 18:36), although it will be in the future (2 Timothy 4:1). Christ three times refers to the devil as "the prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) – the "present evil world" (Galatians 1:4) that "lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19). It could be argued that the devil had this position by usurpation and permission (see Job 1 & 2; Daniel 2:21, 4:25; John 19:11), but he had it nevertheless.

In taking issue with Boyd’s pacifism (which I don’t necessarily agree with), Grudem makes some statements that show where he will go later in the book on the subject of national defense (chap. 11). He reasons that taking the view that "all government is demonic" (how else could you describe the current U.S. government?) "would mean less and less support for a strong military" that could "oppose evil aggressors anywhere in the world" (p. 43). He is concerned about "aggressive nations who would attack us and our allies," blind to the fact that the United States has the most aggressive foreign policy of any country and is the only country currently engaged in foreign wars half way around the world. Naturally, like all apologists for U.S. wars, he is compelled to mention Munich and appeasement, as if that someone justifies the aggressive foreign policy of the United States. (On Munich, see my review of "Buchanan’s Necessary Book.")

In arguing against "do evangelism, not politics," Grudem seems to equate Christians not using political means to transform society with not preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God and not seeking to be a good influence on society. He is arguing here against a straw man. And I think he is incorrect in more than one respect when he says that "God gave both the church and the government to restrain evil in this age" (p. 48). The real purpose of government, as my friend Tom DiLorenzo has said, is for those who run it to plunder those who do not.

I have no argument with Grudem’s "better solution" to what he considers to be wrong views of Christians and government of "Christian influence on government." I wholeheartedly concur that "the responsibility of pastors is to give wise biblical teaching, explaining exactly how the teachings of the Bible apply to various specific situations in life, and that should certainly include instruction about some political matters in government and politics" (p. 62). On the subject of Prohibition, Grudem makes the good point that "it is impossible to enforce moral standards on a population when those moral standards are more strict than the standards found in the Bible itself" (pgs. 63-64).

The one problem I see with Grudem’s "better solution" is that it includes voting. Although I think he wisely says that he doesn’t think Christians should only vote for Christian candidates or generally prefer an evangelical candidate over a non-evangelical one (Grudem’s endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2007 over Mike Huckabee proves his sincerity), he believes that Christians have an obligation to vote. And not only vote, but to do something else like "giving money or giving time to support specific candidates and issues," "writing letters or helping to distribute literature," or "running for office or volunteering to serve in the military" (p. 75). I think rather that Christians would do better to give their money and time to churches and charity work instead of politicians and political parties, distribute religious literature instead of political literature, and run for a church office instead of a political office. And above all, stay out of the military. We are only in chapter two, and once again Grudem’s admiration for the military shines through. He also mentions here the canard of U.S. soldiers dying for our freedoms, including in that number those who were duped to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. One can already see that we are going to have a tough time getting through his chapter on national defense.

In the third chapter of the Basic Principles section, Grudem gives us his biblical principles concerning government. Here we find mostly good, but sometimes a mixed bag. He recognizes that "governments too often attempt to restrict human liberty in ways that are much more extensive and intrusive and that prohibit not only the doing of things that are clearly evil, but also doing things that are morally neutral or good but not favored by the government" and that "every incremental increase in governmental regulation of life is also an incremental removal of some measure of human liberty" (p. 94), but then defends the current airport security system that views all travelers as criminals and expresses support for a federal court decision that prohibited a religious group from using marijuana.

Another example is on the subject of taxes. Grudem mentions how taxes result in lost liberty and freedom and rob people of huge portions of their lives. But he speaks favorably of "tax-supported playgrounds and parks where families can picnic and sports teams can practice and compete" (p. 80). We will see the same thing in his section on taxes in the chapter on economics (chap. 9).

Grudem makes a distinction between "blind patriotism" and "genuine patriotism" (p. 109), and makes some good biblical points about the necessity of sometimes disobeying the government, but does not seem to sufficiently recognize a distinction between a country and its government.

To finish out the Basic Principles section, Grudem has chapter on "a biblical worldview" that is straightforward enough. However, his final chapter on "the courts and the question of ultimate power in a nation," while it contains much good information, concludes with the admonition to vote Republican as "the best way – in fact, the only way known to me – to bring about a change and break the rule of unaccountable judges over our society" (p. 154). Grudem is under the delusion that Republicans generally support "‘originalist’ judges and justices who will rule according to the original meaning of the Constitution." I guess that’s why Senator John McCain voted to confirm to the Supreme Court the liberal, pro-choice justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter. It is also delusional to say that justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas "consistently" rule "according to the original meaning of the Constitution" (p. 151). Just look at the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005) where Scalia voted with the "liberal" majority while Thomas wrote a blistering dissent that charged the majority with making a mockery of the Constitution. And on the federal appeals court level, in the case of Seven-Sky & American Center for Law and Justice v. Holder, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just recently ruled that the Obamacare "individual mandate" was constitutional. The opinion was written by Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman. (On the legal challenges to Obamacare, see my "The Supreme Court and Obamacare.")

Part II

The meat of Politics – According to the Bible is the Specific Issues section. Each of the ten chapters discusses from four to eleven topics. The best chapter is the one on The Environment; the worst is the one on National Defense. Although Grudem covers about fifty topics, I think some important ones are missing; e.g., civil liberties and the war on drugs.

The Protection of Life

The chapter on The Protection of Life includes the topics of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and self-defense and ownership of guns. Obviously, Grudem, as a conservative Republican, is an opponent of abortion, and states his case quite well, but I take issue with his statement that "every vote for every Democratic candidate for President or Congress undeniably has the effect of continuing to protect 1,000,000 abortions per year in the United States" (p. 177). Earlier in the section on abortion, Grudem says that no government money should be given to pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. But just look at who has been funding Planned Parenthood. This is a blog post I did on April 28, 2010:

I have seen it reported in several places that Planned Parenthood, one of the world’s leading abortion providers, received government grants and contracts of $350 million for fiscal year 2007-2008 and $337 million for fiscal year 2006-2007. I verified this information for myself on the Planned Parenthood website. I also discovered that Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year ends on June 30. This means that Bush the Republican was the president during this time. But after doing a little digging, I also found out that Planned Parenthood received government grants and contracts of $305 million (34%) during fiscal year 2005-2006. During this time we not only had Bush the Republican president but also a Republican majority in Congress. Yet, Planned Parenthood was still funded. And we are supposed to take Republicans seriously when they complain that Obama isn’t likely to appoint an anti-abortion judge to the Supreme Court? Why wasn’t the Republican Party that concerned about abortion when clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood performed 264,943 abortions in 2005?

Although I agree with Grudem on his biblical defense of capital punishment, I think he exceeds the biblical mandate when he says that he thinks "that capital punishment should be the penalty for some other crimes that were intended to or actually did lead to the death of other people" (p. 192). In his otherwise good discussion of gun control, I think he compromises when he says the government should be able to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership including "the prohibition of private ownership of certain types of weapons not needed for personal self-defense" (p. 211).

Marriage

In his chapter on marriage, Grudem shines except for his insistence that "only a civil government is able to define a standard of what constitutes a marriage for a whole nation of whole society" (p. 222). Marriage preceded the state, and does not need the state’s oversight. Furthermore, I think Grudem greatly overstates his case:

Without a governmentally established standard of what constitutes marriage, the result will be a proliferation of children born in relationships of incest and polygamy as well as in many temporary relationships without commitment, and many children born with no one having a legal obligation to care for them (p. 222).

Taking these in reverse order, a child’s parents have the legal obligation to care for it whether they are married or not, there are many children born now as a result of temporary relationships without commitment, and it is ludicrous to think that it is only state oversight of marriage that keeps people from incest and polygamy. This is akin to the drug warrior implying that everyone would be on drugs if all drug prohibitions were lifted.

Grudem unfortunately provides the wrong information on which states have legalized same-sex marriage. In a book the size of Politics – According to the Bible, it is understandable that has to be written over a long period of time. However, every attempt should be made to have facts and figures up-to-date by the time the book is published. We are told on page 229 that three states – Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont – have passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage, but that the voters in Maine overruled the legislature and governor. This leaves two states where same-sex marriage is legal. But on page 596, Grudem tells us that there are four states where same-sex marriage is legal: Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Both of these are wrong. The date Grudem gives at the end of his preface is February 2010. On page 395 he mentions that he is writing in early 2010. Five states plus the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage before the book was published. And since Grudem mentions in one place the latest state to do so – New Hampshire on January 1, 2010 – there is no excuse for the other states and the District of Columbia not being mentioned.

Grudem makes a good point when he says that if the majority of society decides to grant domestic partner benefits, "they should not be limited to homosexual domestic partners, but should apply to all people living together in long-term relationships where there is mutual commitment and obligation to care and support each other" (p. 234).

On the topic of pornography, Grudem begins well: "The fact that something is morally wrong according to the Bible does not by itself mean that governments should have laws against it" (p. 242). Yet, he makes a distinction between laws against looking at pornographic material (he opposes them) and laws against the production, distribution, and sale of pornography (he supports them).

The Family

This brief chapter includes a discussion of educational vouchers. Although Grudem believes that "parents, not the government, should have the freedom to decide how best to educate their children" (p. 248), he believes, unfortunately, that this freedom includes the use of other people’s money to pay for their decision. Grudem wants to see "a system of school vouchers provided by the local government to pay for the education of children in each family" (p. 250). To the objection that parents could use vouchers to send their children to church-related schools, he says, correctly: "The First Amendment was only intended to prohibit the governmental establishment of one certain church or religion as the official state church. It was never intended to prevent all government support for everything that is done by a church." But this does not mean that the government should support anything done by a church. What we need, of course, is a complete separation of school from state, not a continuation of it through a voucher system. (See my articles on vouchers here, here, here, and here.) But as to whether "governments should encourage married couples to bear and raise children" (p. 245), the government should neither encourage nor discourage this decision.

Economics

Overall, this is a very good chapter. Grudem defends free markets, personal liberty, limited government, and property rights while disparaging government regulation, progressive taxation, the "fair tax," and income redistribution. My favorites:

• Every increase in taxes takes away that much more human freedom (p. 286).
• Governments all over the world are notorious for waste and inefficiency (p. 286).
• Higher taxes on corporations are just passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices (p. 289).
• A strong argument can be made that the capital gains tax should be completely abolished (p. 291).
• I can see no justification in the Bible for a "progressive" tax rate (p. 292).
• When taxpayers are allowed to keep more of their own money, there is an increase in the amount of personal liberty in society (p. 300).
• Property belongs to individuals, not to society and not to the government (p. 301).
• My conclusion is that the estate tax should be permanently repealed (p. 309).

But in typical Republican fashion, Grudem compromises, and sometimes a great deal. Note carefully the downward progression (emphasis mine):

• Government is never an efficient provider of economic goods (p. 313).
• It is difficult to think of any goods or services that a government might produce that could not be produced better by private companies (p. 285).
• The free market is almost always a better way of solving an economic problem than government ownership or control (p. 275).
• Some services and products needed by the entire society are best provided by government (p. 285).

Therefore, "government should establish and maintain an effective money supply for a nation" (p. 271), "it is necessary for governments to impose some health and safety standards on the sale of medicines and foods or other products such as bicycles and cars" (p. 274), some government regulation is necessary "to prevent wrongdoing such as theft, fraud, and breaking of contracts (p. 276), "there is some need for government-supported welfare programs to help cases of urgent need (for example, to provide a ‘safety net’ to keep people from going hungry or without clothing or shelter)" (p. 281), "it is appropriate for government to provide enough funding so that everyone is able to gain enough skills and education to earn a living" (p. 281), the government should enable "every citizen to live adequately in the society" (p. 281), "there is nothing wrong with the original idea behind Social Security" (p. 312), and "some provision should be made to care for those who truly cannot afford medical insurance" (p. 315).

So, lest there be any misunderstanding about Grudem’s compassionate conservatism:

I want to reaffirm that I believe that it is right that government provide some kind of guarantee of support for those who are genuinely no longer able to work due to old age, disability, or involuntary unemployment. And it would of course make sense to provide provisions for partial benefits to be paid to people who wanted to take semi-retirement and then ease gradually into full retirement (p. 312).

It would make more sense to follow the Constitution, which Grudem says is the highest government authority (p. 153), and that authorizes no such provisions.

It is unfortunate that in this chapter Grudem perverts Matthew 22:17 in maintaining that "Jesus thus endorsed the legitimacy of paying taxes to a civil government" (p. 285) and Romans 13:4 in saying that "governments should do ‘good’ for people." (On the former see Jeffrey Barr on "Render unto Caesar"; on the later see my recent analysis of another perversion of Romans 13.)

The Environment

As mentioned previously, this is Grudem’s best chapter in the Specific Issues section. "It is not wrong in principle, as many environmentalists think it is, for human beings to modify the world" (p. 323), says Grudem. Man was placed on the earth to subdue it and have dominion over it (Genesis 1:28). Grudem demolishes environmentalist wacko claims about global warming, and perceptively sees the issue as a controversy over human liberty versus government control:

If the government can dictate how far you drive your car, how much you heat or cool your home, how much you will use electric lights or computers or a TV, how much energy your factory can use, and how much jet fuel you can have to fly an airplane, then it can control most of the society (p. 380).

Grudem makes the case that there is no good reason to think we will ever run out of any essential natural resource. To this end, he examines data regarding population, land, water, clean air, waste disposal, forests, species loss, pesticides, and life expectancy, and discusses energy sources. I also like his heroic defense of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

National Defense

All good things must come to an end. Grudem’s chapter on National Defense is typical Republican and conservative pro-war and pro-military claptrap.

No one would have an argument with one of Grudem’s opening statements:

Now, if a government is commanded by God to protect its citizens from the robber or thief who comes from within a country, then certainly it also has an obligation to protect its citizens against thousands of murderers or thieves who come as an army from somewhere outside of the nation. Therefore a nation has a moral obligation to defend itself against foreign attackers who would come to kill and conquer and subjugate the people in a nation (p. 388).

He also says later: "No nation has the right ever to use military power simply to conquer other nations or impose their ideas of social good on another nation" (p. 394). But all of this goes by the wayside when Grudem says: "I believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just wars" (p. 414). And especially when he says: "The war in Iraq was a necessary, strategic, and highly significant step in defending the United States against radical Islamic terrorism" (p. 417).

But that’s not all, Grudem, in typical warmongering, interventionist Republican fashion, defends coercive interrogation techniques (he justifies this on the basis of biblical admonitions to discipline children), John Yoo, George W. Bush, the atomic bombing of Japan, the FBI, the CIA (we should "be thankful" for it), NATO, more weapons, missile defense, bigger military budgets, the war on terror, waterboarding ("this procedure does not seem to me to be inherently morally wrong"), and warrantless wiretapping.

Grudem singles out Congressman Ron Paul for his noninterventionist views (p. 398-399). He calls his understanding of foreign policy "deeply flawed." His criticism of the sane noninterventionist views of Dr. Paul is enough to make you want to put down the book. But your reviewer has persevered.

There are some real howlers in the chapter. Like justifying foreign intervention with the Declaration of Independence (p. 397-398). Like bemoaning the vote of the Senate to stop production of the F-22 at 187 fighters (p. 400-401), a decision supported by Senator John McCain, senior military leaders, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and opposed by Democratic and Republican senators because they were concerned about job losses in their districts. Like Saddam Hussein transported his mass of weapons destruction to Syria (p. 415). And like it is all Obama’s fault that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is decreasing (p. 418) when Bush made an agreement to do so in 2008.

Because this review is already too long, I refer the reader to some of my articles regarding things Grudem brings up. On the sixth commandment is only about murder (p. 389), see my "The Unholy Desire of Christians to Legitimize Killing in War." On soldiers in the New Testament not being condemned (p. 389), see my "There They Crucified Him" and "Do Violence to No Man." On the just war tradition being consistent with biblical teachings (p. 389), see my "What About Hitler?" On Romans 13 as a justification for national defense (pgs. 392, 425, 428), see my "Romans 13 and National Defense." On Obama reducing the strength of the military, see my "Rush Is Wrong." On torture being okay if we don’t call it torture (p. 425-433), see my "Waterboard an A-rab for Jesus," "Christians for Torture," and "The Morality of Torture." And on the war in Iraq being a just war (p. 414-418), see my "Christianity and the War."

Foreign Policy

Grudem’s chapter on foreign policy isn’t much better than his chapter on national defense. But this was to be expected since an interventionist military policy is just the other side of the coin of an interventionist foreign policy. No one would argue with the author that the "promotion of human freedom, human rights, and democratic government is consistent with the most foundational convictions of our nation" (p. 441). But it is the way Grudem feels the United States should go about this that is troubling. He applies the command of Jesus to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39) to nations, saying that "nations should seek to do good for other nations insofar as they have opportunity to do so" (p. 437). However, the main way this is to be done is through foreign aid; that is, the looting of the American taxpayers (see my many articles on foreign aid here). Grudem supports continuing the Cuban embargo. Grudem is not a dispensationalist, but still believes that "we should treat Israel as a very special and close ally" (p. 467). He again states his disagreement with the noninterventionism of Ron Paul because it is a policy "which opposes any defense alliances with Israel and all foreign or military aid to Israel."

Grudem takes an exceptionally hard line on immigration. "The United States must take immediate action to immediately and effectively close its borders," he says (p. 473). As mentioned previously, Grudem favors the immediate construction of a secure and impenetrable border fence. He sees no valid argument to oppose it or delay it. He favors more effective law enforcement to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants and the E-Verify program. To his credit, Grudem does say that the idea that foreign workers will take jobs away from Americans "is based on a misunderstanding of economics" (p. 481) And he also says that "immigrants who want to come to the United States are, by and large, producers who bring benefit to the economy and helpers who bring other benefits to the society as a whole" (p. 476). One thing he doesn’t say is that the welfare state should be abolished to prevent immigrants draining more resources "from the nation than they provide to the nation" (p. 472). The fact that Grudem lives in Arizona may somewhat explain his views on immigration.

Freedom of Speech

Here Grudem presents a biblical and constitutional defense of freedom of speech. In doing so he harshly criticizes campaign finance restrictions, campus "hate speech" codes, and the Fairness Doctrine.

Freedom of Religion

The only problem I see with the author’s chapter on Freedom of Religion is his advocacy of government-supported "faith-based" programs because they "‘promote the general welfare’ of the nation" (p. 508). He maintains that faith-based programs "actually save tax dollars that would otherwise need to be spent to help the people who are cared for by these religiously based institutions." But just like vouchers don’t lower federal spending on education, so faith-based program funding will not lower federal welfare spending. Our main disagreement is over government funds needing to be spent on welfare in the first place.

Special Groups

The last chapter in the Specific Issues section covers topics like regulators, earmarks, affirmative action, gender-based quotas, farm subsidies, tariffs, tort reform, the NEA, Native Americans, and gambling. Grudem favors "the complete abolition of all affirmative action policies in law and business and government once for all" (p. 524). He opposes farm subsidizes and tariffs on principle, but is willing to make some exceptions. He terms regulators "a vast army of bureaucrats," and labels increasing government regulation as "anti-democratic" and "anti-free market" (p. 517), but allows for "certain product control standards and certain standards for safety and justice in the workplace" to be "enforced by such government agencies" (p. 515). His criticism of the NEA is mainly over its opposition to vouchers. The solution to the Indian problem he sees as private ownership of property instead of the system of tribal ownership.

On gambling, Grudem says he is not aware of any specific Bible verses that directly prohibit participating in gambling" (p. 550), and that it is his personal practice to avoid gambling, but since casinos and state lotteries "bring much more harm to society than the benefits they generate" (p. 551), he would vote against a state allowing a lottery, an Indian casino, or a commercial casino to operate. (See my articles on gambling prohibitions at the state and federal levels.) Since Grudem has a section on gambling, there is no excuse for not having a section on the drug war.

Part III

The third division of the book, Concluding Observations, has three unrelated chapters, two of which depart from the stated purpose of the book. Chapter 16, on "media bias," closes with one Scripture reference at the end. Chapter 18, on "faith and works, and trusting God while working in politics and government," although it contains may Scripture references, likewise departs from the subject of politics and the Bible.

Chapter 17, titled "application to Democratic and Republican policies today," forms the book’s conclusion. It also serves as the author’s solution to policies that don’t line up with the Bible – vote Republican. Grudem criticizes Jim Wallis for writing a book about God not being a Republican or Democrat and then arguing that "‘God’s politics’ are the politics of the Democratic Party" (p. 573), but this is exactly what he has done as it relates to Republicans.

Grudem is deluded to think that the policies and principles of the two major parties represent very different viewpoints (see my many articles on the Republican Party here). He claims that "the Republican Party has been dominated by people favoring smaller government, lower taxes, strong defense, traditional standards regarding abortion and marriage, the promotion of democracy, and the promotion of free market economics" (p. 574). Anyone who has studied the history of the Republican Party knows that this is simply not true (again, see my many articles on the Republican Party here). Rather than the teachings of the Bible mostly supporting "the current policies of the Republicans" (p. 573-574), it would be more accurate to say that the teachings of the Bible mostly support Republican rhetoric that they don’t really believe.

One thing that will turn people from, and cause readers not to finish Politics – According to the Bible is its size (619 pgs.). The main reason for this is the author’s departure from the book’s subject, which is not limited to just chapters 16 and 18. This does not mean that all his departures are necessarily bad, but I do think that the book, in its current format, should have been shorter, or else expanded and put into a more encyclopedic format.

To repeat what I said at the onset, although this book has much to disappoint, and much I vehemently disagree with, is still an important and needful work that I can recommend to Christians interested in religion and politics, albeit with many caveats.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on November 17, 2011.

You might not want to read Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible, but there are plenty of other great books out there for you. Check out LCC’s latest book list and the recently updated LCC bookstore, and support LCC by clicking through a link to Amazon.com. Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Republican Politics According to the Bible

It has now come to light that, like the Commission that governed the American Mafia, the Obama administration has a secret panel of senior government officials that places the names of individuals on a hit list and then notifies Obama the capo di tutti capi. There is no congressional oversight or judicial review.

This very real death panel was behind the decision to add American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki to the hit list and take him out by CIA drone strike in Yemen last month.

The evidence that al-Awlaki actually killed anyone is nonexistent, unlike the following Americans who actually kidnapped, tortured, raped, and killed other Americans.

John Couey, a convicted sex offender, abducted Jessica Lunsford, aged nine, from her home in Florida in 2005, raped her, and buried her alive. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death for kidnapping, rape, and murder. He died in prison before the sentence could be carried out.

Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, killing 168 people. He was tried on eleven federal offenses, convicted, and sentenced to death. He was executed in June of 2001.

Charles Manson and his "family" committed the brutal Tate/LaBianca murders in California in 1969. Except for Linda Kasabian, who was given immunity in exchange for her testimony against the "family," Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Charles Watson, Leslie Van Houten, and Susan Atkins were tried for murder, found guilty, and sentenced to death. Their death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment in 1972.

Ted Bundy was a serial killer who confessed to murdering thirty people in seven states from 1974-1978. In Florida, he was charged with killing two FSU students and a twelve-year-old girl. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. He was executed in January of 1989.

John Wayne Gacy raped, tortured, and killed thirty-three young men in Illinois between 1972 and 1978. He buried twenty-six of his victims in the crawlspace of his house. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. After spending fourteen years on death row, he was executed in May of 1994.

Jeffrey Dahmer killed fifteen young men between 1978 and 1991 after raping many of them. This was followed by dismemberment, necrophilia, and cannibalism. He was tried, and found guilty of fifteen counts of murder, and sentenced to fifteen life terms. He was beaten to death by a fellow prisoner in November of 1994.

None of these Americans – as reprehensible as their actions may have been – were executed without trial even though there was no doubt as to their guilt.

When Lee Harvey Oswald was suspected of killing the president of the United States in 1963, he was captured and held for trial before being killed by Jack Ruby, a private citizen.

And then there is Jared Loughner, who publicly killed six people and shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the head in a shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona, earlier this year. He is awaiting trial even though fifty people saw him commit murder.

Heck, even in wartime, if an enemy soldier – who may have been trying to kill you for days – comes out of the woods waving a white flag or raising his hands above his head, he is supposed to be taken prisoner, not killed.

And then, according to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, POWs are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. And if there is any doubt as to whether an "enemy combatant" is in fact a legitimate POW, he is to be treated as such until his status can be determined. In Article 3 is prohibited "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Twenty-four Nazis were put on trial in Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1946, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Twenty-two of them were found guilty. Twelve defendants were sentenced to death by hanging, which was carried out in October of 1946.

Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who had escaped to Argentina, was captured by Israeli intelligence in 1960, taken to Israel, tried with defense lawyers and witnesses for both sides, convicted after deliberation, and allowed to appeal before he was hanged in 1962.

If the perpetrators of World War II and the Holocaust were tried before their executions, then any American who commits any crime should be tried likewise.

Was Anwar al-Awlaki a bad guy who inspired and motivated others to want to commit acts of terrorism against America and Americans? Certainly. Should he have been killed by a CIA drone pilot acting simultaneously as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner? Certainly not.

The killing of an American citizen without trial sets a terrible precedent. As Congressman Ron Paul has well said: "If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a ‘really bad American,’ is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States?"

Dozens of U.S. citizens are thought to be on the government’s hit list. Will you be next?

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on October 24, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Murder Inc.