Monday, September 01, 2014

I Pledge a Conscience

A man was recently made to leave a town meeting for not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. 

I don't care where you are on the issue, and it doesn't matter where I am; what matters is that this country is crumbling to an orgy of collectivist symbolism. 

I can ignore the Socialist inception of the Pledge, I can ignore the neo-Nationalist overtures of the Pledge, and I can even ignore the idolatrous concept of pledging my allegiance to an inanimate object representing an ungodly, unruly government - all things that would cause the founders of our country to turn in their graves.

What I cannot ignore is the persecution of those who have the ounce of sense it takes to be an individual and the pinch of conscience it takes to grow a spine and not blindly follow the crowd.  What I cannot ignore is that the persecutors are mostly so-called Conservatives, mostly so-called Christians. 

What I would like to do is pledge my conscience.  I pledge my full intellect to the service of my countrymen in the tradition of my forebears and in unrelenting obedience to God.  I will never seek to coerce another human being to pledge his allegiance to anything he is unsure of or against, for that would be wrong.

I would, however, direct him to lay up his treasures in Heaven, and not on this moldy, moth-eaten world.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

ISIS: A Geopolitical Ghost Story

“These people that are coming to fight on the side of ISIS are returning to their countries in Europe and there’s 100 of them that we are tracking in the United States.”  ~Sen. John McCain

And if we don't demand Obama go to war overseas/maintain the unPATRIOTic Act, they will raise black flags over the White House. 

Why don't they just stick to the original concept and refer to ISIS as the boogeyman and tell us to stay in bed?

I'm sure the whole ISIS thing has generated great political talking points for both sides, but seriously: if there are terrorists who are bent on taking over America *in* America, please arrest them. It doesn't frighten me into wanting to adjust our foreign policy, it frightens me that there are Republicans who would use that to scare us into demanding we intervene in the Mid-East. 

Justifying a police state by saying we are tracking terrorists within our borders doesn't do the trick.  Just like police watch "known drug houses" and bully the public through warrantless checkpoints and unreasonable searches and seizures, why don't they just arrest criminals where they find them swiftly and precisely?

I am an American, I do not act on fear but on reason.  This is my position, and I will not be easily swayed.

Thursday, August 07, 2014

Military Requirement, Eh?



Require that a Presidential candidate serve in the U.S. military?

Okay... but of all the Republican candidates from the last election, that would have disqualified Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain... making Ron Paul (Captain, USAF) the only qualified candidate.

Sunday, August 03, 2014

D.C.'s Dizzy Gun Laws Overruled

A federal judge has ruled Washington, District of Columbia, to be in violation of the Constitution.  Their ban on weapons outside the home is now of no effect.  How anyone sworn to uphold the law, such as the Chief of Police Cathy Lanier, could possibly justify the ban as anything other than contempt for the law is beyond me.

City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said, "Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated by gunfire, and at least five others have been shot at, including Ronald Regan who was seriously wounded in 1981.  Neither the Secret Service nor the Capitol Police will disclose all incidents where they have recovered firearms, but we do know that just two years ago someone hit the White House with gunfire, and there are frequent threats on the foreign diplomatic corps."

Oh noes!  Now criminals won't have to break the law in order to break the law! 

Quick, ban assassinations outside of the home! 

Sunday, April 13, 2014

R3VOLT


It was Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign that introduced me to the above image.  I thought little more of it then than a peacenik teenager's attempt at being clever. Turn four letters around in the word "revolution," and it seems to spell "love."  Sort of neat, sort of... hippie-ish.

The campaign came and went.  As did another.  I had grown a great deal more attached to the idea of a revolution based in love... we in the Paul camp wanted to end the wars.  Not so much pacifistic as realistic.  The idea of a "revolution of love" was catching on, and I was glad.  We weren't promoting a selfish kind of love, nor did we promote the vision of a neo-liberal, sensuous utopia for America.  Far from it.  For myself, and I believe for everyone else who promotes the "R3VOLUTION," whether they realize it or not, this is a Christian love - a Christian love which opposes itself to an empire of hate. 

I cannot speak for anyone else, so I will explain what I mean from my own heart.

I am just a man, and all men are created equal.  I respect my fellowman.  By respect, I mean I understand that though we may disagree, and unless he harms me or another, what another man does or believes is a matter between himself and God.

I know others sin, and I know I sin.  All deserve Hellfire equally, it is God who saves.  Where is aristocracy or hatred for my neighbor justified in light of this truth?  Where is pride or unforgiveness?  It is illogical and unreasonable to have anything but compassion, even for our enemies, as Christians. 

When hatred and spite become national policies, going beyond the administration of justice and into the realm of injustice, we have tyranny and despotism.  When political policies become policing of morality and immorality (the distinction between which government is notoriously ignorant), we will have lost the respect and love we have for our fellow man.  Government is force, and it is administrated by sinful creatures.  That is all it inherently is.  It is only by the grace of God that governments are able to function at all, and a righteous man is a rare and precious find in civil administration.  So, when government becomes destructive of the ends of its establishment - that being the protection of its citizens rights to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness - our only recourse is to "throw off such government, and to provide new guards for our future security," as our American Declaration of Independence clearly states.

More important to note than this, however, is that our response to tyranny and despotism, in whatever form, must not be based or consumed in hate or spite.  The political history of Europe is replete with examples of ideological revolutions turning into senseless bloodbaths, the French Revolution not least among them.

When we think of our own Revolution in America, we immediately think of the War for Independence.  But, what did the Founders of our country think the "American Revolution" meant?

John Adams said, "The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?  But what do we mean by the American Revolution?  Do we mean the American war?  The Revolution was effected before the war commenced.  The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. ... This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution. 

"... Revolutions are no trifles; that they ought never to be undertaken rashly; nor without deliberate consideration and sober reflection; nor without a solid, immutable, eternal foundation of justice and humanity; nor without a people possessed of intelligence, fortitude, and integrity sufficient to carry them with steadiness, patience, and perseverance, through all the vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery trials and melancholy disasters they may have to encounter."


If we are to succeed as a people in the overthrow of statism, the religion of faith in an all-powerful state, we are to have a revolution.  Let us hope and pray that such a revolution never becomes a war; it needn't become one.  A revolution is a change of direction, a re-settling, a re-founding, a return to our core values.  And we desperately need that in America.

Such a revolution will fail if it is not based in love.  God is love, and God directs us to love.

Revolution against hate is an act of love and obedience to God.  It is a lie which many propagate that revolution is wrong, that revolution breeds contempt for law.  Rather, the truth is that laws which breed contempt against the liberty of the people are actually in rebellion, not the other way around.  If a law is justly based, it is a sinful revolution that comes against it.  But it is a natural and righteous thing for unjust laws to be held in contempt.

God made it simple for us when He said to us in Romans 13, concerning civil government, "... [H]e that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. ...Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

If we are to have a successful revolution in this country, or anywhere, it must have at its core the Godly principle of love.  At the core of all we do, we must love God and our neighbor; respect both He and them, for only then will our civil law parallel His moral law.  Constructive love must be at the center of our response to the destructive weapons of spite found in statism and war.  Love is the only answer to hate, and we must R3VOLT.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Straining at Putin, Swallowing Obama

What is this love of war?

Why are Republicans, in lockstep with the administration, urging our intervention to stop the democratic processes of Crimea simply because we disagree with them?  Some say Crimea was bullied into secession and annexation, as though Operation Iraqi Freedom was a grassroots movement of the people of Iraq.  Ukraine is in the midst of civil war, and Russia has the legal right, if not an obligation, to protect the security and stability of its borders and coastal waters.  And Crimea has the right and obligation to self-determine its course in surviving the turmoil.

The Obama administration decries the unconstitutionality of Russia's handling of the situation with Ukraine, as though the Euromaidan protests forcing the ouster of the president of Ukraine were legally conducted.

Yet American chickenhawks, none of whom are at all aware of the politics, historical or contemporary, nor aware of the legalities of the thing, are demanding we intervene.  To intervene at this point would be beyond naive, it would be monstrous and idiotic.  But, such is our culture.

Why are we so concerned with tyrants "over there" harming the rights of those "over there" when there is an entire city of tyrants sitting on our East Coast menacing our people?  These brave chickenhawks, with their chests puffed and their sabres drawn, demand war with Russia... the country which harbors the man who confirmed that our government spies on us illegally.  While we threaten war with countries who can hardly touch us, we hold tea parties for the terrorists in D.C.  If they mean to be consistent, let them advocate a military coup in our own country!  We strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Or rather... we strain at Putin and swallow Obama.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

God and His Order: Part 2

The question begging to be answered is, simply, what legitimate role should civil government take?

As Christians, we may well look at the Bible as a foundation in every area of life, if not expressly, then in principle.  Speaking on civil government, Paul wrote,

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." ~Romans 13:8-10

Romans 13 has been used by tyrants to legitimize their reigns of terror, but the specific things listed under the fulfillment of the law are all things that one person does to another.  If Romans 13 is to be used in an understanding of civil law, it may only be understood in a libertarian, free-market frame of mind.  There is no directive in the entire chapter for government to enforce anything other than evils perpetrated by one person against another.  If civil government were to legitimately enforce religious obligations, surely Paul would have placed, "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me," in the list, but he didn't. 

Government enforcement of morality is not the issue. Henry Hazlitt described the places of civil law and morality as two spheres - the smaller sphere of law within the larger sphere of morality.  Law can't fully encompass all of morality, only those things where people harm others; not only is it impractical to envelop all of moral law into civil law, it is unscriptural.  Government is not our god, God is our God.  To say civil government may "legislate morality" is to set the institution up as a god on earth.  There is no person or institution between us and the Father but His Son, Jesus Christ. 

Legislating morality is not a Christian position.  Proponents thereof are products of the statist model which require every problem to be solved by the state.  The proper place of government is to legislate against those evils committed by one person against another, so as to provide an equitable environment of justice. 

Legislate equity, not morality.

Friday, November 22, 2013

God and His Order: Part 1

The question of origins is the most impressive and necessary question in all of human curiosity.  We've come a long way since Adam first hid from God, and we've lost a great deal of good sense from that time on.  With that good sense went the undeniable truth that God created the world and all that is in it, and that He created reason and logic by which we may ascertain His order of things.  He gave us the Bible, by which we can know Him - at least to the degree necessary for earth-bound worship of Him, as His whole being is, ultimately, unsearchable - and it is in the Bible where our origins are made clear. 

There is no other book or process by which we can confirm the truth of God, but if His Word is true, we should be able to reasonably confirm His truth by objectively observing the nature He created.  All of science should arrive at the conclusion that His Word is true.  Whether there is some fictitious element of science falsely so-called which seems to contradict Scripture is a matter of erroneous methodology and prejudice against the Bible.  If, however, objective science can confirm the truth of God as found in the Bible, mankind has come that much closer to knowing his God.  Though the advance is infinitesimally small compared to the immensity of God's creation, it is an advance worth making if it helps us to know Him better.

The advancement of science is not a cause in and of itself, but a study of God's order.  There is no creation to study outside of His creation, so anything science pursues in the physical world is an examination of His fingerprint.  It is therefore obvious that what we observe in nature cannot contradict His Word.  Scripture's ultimate goal is not to advance science, as though science were a study of things separate from their Creator, but to bring us closer to Him.  Science is supplementary to the Bible, not the other way around.  Science may confirm, and never deny the Bible.  Similarly, the Bible may confirm science, but it may also deny it when erroneous conclusions are drawn.

It has been said that we cannot know anything of human rights and freedom outside of the Bible, as our rights and freedoms come from God.  I would sooner say we can know nothing of the atomic weight of carbon outside of the Bible for the same reason.  God created human liberty like He created nitrogen - both are essential and necessary aspects of nature, both are discernibly present in and out of Scripture.  There is no mention of nitrogen by name in Scripture, but of God's creation thereof, we cannot doubt. Its observable presence only confirms the account of origins found in the Bible.  We can study its role in His order, and every aspect of it.  We can understand the irreducible necessity of it, and thereby further know of God's wondrous design.  Of its origin, we cannot know but by the Bible.  The universe is a mystery without purpose, neither in existence nor in discovery, if we have not the Bible describing its Architect.

So, too, is the elemental nature of freedom.  Human freedom is an element as physical as bedrock, and no less solid intellectually.  It is an intellectual necessity, a logical deduction, reasonably discernible and Scripturally sound.  In a phrase, liberty is the freedom of a man from the yoke of another man.  In his natural state, there is no physical and no spiritual precedent for one man to rule over another.  There is no inherent quality in man that justifies his authority over another. 

Certainly, since God rules the destinies of men and nations, He may choose men to be rulers and masters as part of His plan of our history and future, but that is nothing more than His particular manipulation of that which He created.  There is no divine right of kings, as though a king is born a king; rather, a man may be born a man and made into a king.  There are some men who would make very good kings but are not kings; others may be kings and terrible at the job.  History is full of examples of rulers, good and bad.  Does God accidentally pick the wrong people to be kings?  No, but each contributes to His overall plan in some way or another.  The same is true of every person, be they the ruling authority or a criminal. 

Friday, November 15, 2013

That Which Glorifies Him

When an artist paints a pastoral scene on canvas, perhaps of a prairie with rolling hills and a solitary tree, and we all admire the painting and the painter, what are we really admiring?

The tree, grasses, hills, small flowers, and the sky above are all depictions - renderings of things that are real, not abstract concepts.  They are only depicted because they are real, or at least put us in mind of those things, and they are only appreciated because such things are beautiful to us.

But the artist has not invented anything original.  The things depicted existed before the artist painted them, the paints rendered from the resins and oils already found in the earth, every last fiber of canvas and every last bristle in the brush was previously found in some form in the nature represented in the painting now produced.  There is beauty in this fact alone, but even more beautiful is the mind that can conceive beauty.  The mind's eye that was made capable of the concept of beauty and creative enough to promote it through art was made by the same Hands that made the things which the artist represents in his painting.

It is all a massive cycle of unimaginable intricacy that can only ultimately bring glory to God.

Why would anyone glorify the things that were made instead the Creator?  There is beauty that should be admired, but how can the glory be given to the creation? 

Every poet and author; every orator and singer; every sculptor and photographer; all of them and their media are only what God made them to be.   Every great mind, theologian or statesman, is not an inventor of the reason or logic or doctrine he promotes unless it is flawed, because if they indeed promote the Truth, that Truth has been in existence for untold ages before they were ever even born.

There can be no legitimate praise but to God.  No real glory but His.  No name to be taken, no word to be believed, and no beauty to be admired but that which He created.

Love that which glorifies Him. 

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Marque vs. Morality

Is it immoral to break the law?

Yes?

Why?

What about a law, Christian reader, that would cause you to violate your beliefs?  A law that required you to do something or consent to something that offends your sacred beliefs about God and His Word?

Oh, to break this law would not be immoral?

How can that be, if you answered yes to the immorality of breaking the law?

The problem is that laws are not any standard of morality.  They neither enforce nor subvert morality.  We ought to rid ourselves of terms such as "legislating morality," because morality is not at issue, it is the pretended authority of some trying to legitimize their use of force - civil law is merely the social medium through which some people seek to impose their will on you.   The morality of an issue is never settled through directives.  Even in systems where there is no such thing as democracy, republicanism, repeal, appeal... you are not solving an issue with legal force.  As I have shown, an immoral law may be passed.  The legitimacy of an argument is no more proven by enforcement than a criminal may rightfully rob you because he overpowered you.  They may be right, they may be wrong, but the legislation is merely a letter of marque.

Murder is immoral. Murder is against the law.  Two correct sentences?  In this country, murder is both legal and illegal, because while stabbing a man to death will send you to prison, a woman may kill her unborn child.  How is the law a standard, then?  Marriage has been made into a legal issue, branching off into everything from property rights to taxation.  Is homosexuality immoral? Yes, but it is not illegal.  I can think of many things that are wrong that aren't and shouldn't be illegal.  Disobedience to parents, blasphemy, lying, berating someone, profanity... in most instances, those things are unregulated.

The legitimate purpose of legislation is to ensure the full liberty of every individual to live freely, it is not to promote morality or immorality in society.  Morality in society is an issue for the public to decide - and as Christians, we need to show up and speak up, not bully our neighbors with badges and guns.

Websites That Make This One Possible

Ideations of a Jayhawker: Blog Policies

Comments
No vulgar, obscene, vile, or inappropriate language or insinuation may be used, and comments are subject to editing or deletion at my own discretion.

Please use proper spelling, following the rules of grammar of the English language.

The elimination of comments due to an objectionable account image may also be used at my discretion. Links given in comments that direct one to a website containing evil or unsightly content will also be deleted at my discretion.

Advocating or promoting specific acts of violence isn't allowed, but the vitriolic spewing of rants and ravings is encouraged.

Content

Content found in this blog is public domain, and it may be used freely; permission to recreate is automatically given, I only ask that I be informed when it is copied on another website; though this is not required, it would be considered a kind gesture.

Content found at any other website that was linked to from this page is beyond my control. I strive to put out as little objectionable content as possible here, but if you do find something that you feel is inappropriate, please contact me via comment, and I will duly edit it to a degree I deem appropriate.

Quotes you may find are all sic, including spelling, grammar, etc.

Following
Followers of this blog are more than welcome, but if you have a website that routinely displays content that you wouldn't allow a child to view or read, do not follow this blog unless you have a blogger warning previous to entering your website.
Failure to do so may result in being blocked from the followers list.

A follower may also be blocked if your account image is found to be objectionable.