Abortion: The "Black Hole" of Libertarianism

In light of the recent GOP convention, the topic of abortion has come up in earnest recently. First we had Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" debacle. Then we had the GOP approving strict anti-abortion language in time for the convention. And of course we have the variety of Personhood Amendments making their way through various state legislatures.

At first glance, the issue seems like a no-brainer for the Bible-believing Christian. After all, the abortion issue seems to dominate the platforms of such Christian political activism organizations such as the Family Research Council and myriad others, as well as many Christians themselves. And let us be clear about this: Exodus 20:13 states that you must not commit murder.

However, the problem comes down to one's definition of "murder," as the pro-choice crowd will be more than happy to tell you. The pro-choice crowd does not believe that a zygote/fetus/what-have-you is a person, and thus to destroy one is not to commit a murder, but rather to perform a medical procedure. Thus, the personhood amendments I referred to above, which would define a fetus as a person.

For the liberty-minded individual, abortion presents similar problems. A caller on Free Talk Live recently referred to abortion as "the black hole of Libertarianism." Even the official Libertarian Party Platform (scroll down to issue 1.4) hems and haws somewhat on the issue, recognizing that there are genuinely-held opinions on the matter on both sides.

The reason this is such a contentious issue, even among those of a libertarian mindset, is that the Non-Aggression Principle (that is, the principle that we will not initiate aggression against another person or their property) can be used to make a case for both the pro-life position and the pro-choice position. On the one hand, a woman's reproductive organs are her property and no one has any claim over what she does with them. On the other hand, a fetus is a human life, and to abort one is an act of aggression against a human life.

Of course, if you're a reader of this blog, you read it for my opinions on issues, on not other peoples' opinions on issues. So, here we go:

First: I do not buy into the hype that overturning Roe v. Wade will result in back-alley abortions. This Pro-Life Website (NOTE: I make no claim as to how reliable this site is) claims that the number of back-alley abortions prior to Roe v. Wade was and is greatly exaggerated, by orders of magnitude. Further, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the fact remains that making something illegal will not prevent it from happening; look at our ridiculous drug laws and the continued availability of drugs. There are thousands of pro-choice doctors in the country who, law or no law, will perform abortions either openly or under the table (so to speak), in accordance with their conscience. In other words, when (or if) Roe v. Wade is overturned, a woman who wants an abortion will still be able to easily find a safe one. And if a physician is caught performing abortions, is there any jury in the U.S. who's going to convict him/her of murder?

Second: I do not buy into the hype that opposing abortion is actually about oppressing women. This is a claim made by many enthusiastic feminists- that the pro-life crowd is really about putting women back in the kitchen. While there may be some (nay, many) in the pro-life movement who would happily erase decades of progress made on women's rights, they are in the minority. As one who has advocated strongly for pro-life legislation, and who has even participated in anti-abortion demonstrations, I can tell you confidently that it was, and always has been, about the belief that abortion is murder. It was never about oppressing women. I stood side-by-side with women of all ages and all walks of life, most of whom were not at all interested in allowing themselves to be oppressed.

Third: I believe that the drive towards a personhood amendment is a Trojan Horse. Defining a fetus as a person is a noble idea, not to mention a clever workaround to that pesky Roe v. Wade problem. But, it also opens the door to a variety of unintended consequences. Broadly-written, and broadly-interpreted, personhood amendment language would actually criminalize most forms of birth control. While there are certainly some in the pro-life movement who would gladly see birth control outlawed, in the main most people in the pro-life movement recognize birth control as legitimate medical treatment.

In the end, though, it comes down to this: as I've said elsewhere in this blog, I believe that having liberty means that I must allow others to have liberty as well. This can, and often does, mean that I must allow others to say and do things that I find distasteful. I find abortion distasteful, and I believe that a case can be made that abortion is an act of aggression against a human life. I believe that it is an awful thing, and it is a choice that I would never make.

But it is, and therefore must remain, a choice.

Now It's a Crime to Feed the Poor

"During this time, as the Disciples were increasing in numbers by leaps and bounds, hard feelings developed among the Greek-speaking believers - "Hellenists" - toward the Hebrew-speaking believers because their widows were being discriminated against in the daily food lines." Acts 6:1-4, The Message.

In New Testament times, a widow was basically facing a death sentence. With no husband to support her, and with no means of supporting herself, she would have to rely on her sons to provide her with daily sustenance. If she had no sons, she was basically facing a slow death by starvation unless charitable people stepped in to help. Thus, the Disciples stepped up to make sure that widows were being fed.

Unfortunately, if they were to do that today, at least in Philadelphia, they'd be facing hefty fines. Apparently in Philadelphia (the "City of Brotherly Love," ironically enough), one must get government permission in order to feed the poor.

As a Christian, and as a libertarian, I believe that the needs of the poor are best served by private charities. This concept is lost on far too many statists; many choose to believe that those who want to cut government welfare programs are quite happy to let the poor starve, be homeless, and go without medical care. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Once government is out of the charity business, real charities can step in to fill the void, and do it more efficiently than government.

The larger issue is that decades of welfare, food stamps, rent assistance, and related government programs have created a class of people totally dependent upon the government for most, if not all, of their needs. Legitimate charities are not only marginalized, but are limited in what they can do because of government regulation upon government regulation.

The first-century Disciples made it clear, however: feeding the poor is our duty, and we can not, and must not, give that duty over to the government. Nor do we require government permission to do it.

"Ademo" Guilty of Wiretapping Charges

I reported last week on the case of Adam "Ademo Freeman" Mueller, who was facing three felony wiretapping counts for recording phone calls with a high school principal, her secretary, and a police captain. I'm sorry to report that Mueller was found guilty on all three counts.

The "good" news, if it can be called that, is that Mueller's sentence will amount to little more than a few extra weeks in jail (he's already jailed on an unrelated charge). With good behavior he should be free by the end of October, at the latest. He will, of course, still be a convicted felon, and he will also be expected to be on his best behavior for the next five years (the length of his suspended sentence); given Mueller's brand of in-your-face activism, he's probably going to find it difficult to lay low.

I was tempted to write a histrionic article decrying this guilty verdict as the beginning of the end of press freedom in the U.S. But then it occurred to me that the U.S. ranks forty-seventh in press freedom, behind such places as Botswana and Tanzania, so that ship has already sailed.

In listening to the accounts of some observers who were present for the trial, and who know Muller personally, it seems like Mueller would have been better-suited by a more professional defense. Mueller represented himself, for reasons known only to him and a few personal close friends, though undoubtedly his libertarian principles came into play in this decision. His desire to stand on principle is admirable, but ultimately it cost him. By the looks of things, a good lawyer (or even more time to prepare, with access to a law library) could have made his case an open-and-shut acquittal.

This raises an interesting dilemma. If one is facing a lengthy jail sentence, is it better to work within the system and retain an attorney? Or is it better to go it alone and try to convince a jury yourself? It's a difficult question, and for me, the answer is: I would take the lawyer, if I ever wound up on the wrong side of the law. Nevertheless, I congratulate Mueller for risking his freedom for his personal beliefs.

Far too few people are willing to take that risk.

Adam "Ademo" Freeman: Felony Wiretapping Charges for Recording Phone Calls

Jury selection began today in the trial of liberty activist Adam Mueller, who goes by the stage name Ademo Freeman. Mueller is facing three felony wiretapping charges for recording bureaucrats without their consent. Mueller committed his alleged crimes in New Hampshire, which is Two Party-Consent state; meaning, that in order for a conversation to be recorded legally, both parties must consent.

Mueller's ordeal began in October 2011 when a student at West High School in Manchester, New Hampshire recorded video of a police officer slamming a high school student's head onto a table (see the original video here). The student recording the video was familiar with Mueller's website, Copblock.org, and gave the video to Mueller, who posted it on his website.

When the officer involved in the incident was back on the job the next day, with no suspension or any other disciplinary action, Mueller attempted to contact local bureaucrats to get their side of the story. Of the three he contacted, none wanted to talk to him. He posted the audio of his "conversations" on his website and on youtube.

For each conversation that he recorded and posted without permission, Mueller is facing a felony wiretapping conviction, each of which carries a seven-year prison sentence. This means that Mueller is facing twenty one years in prison for his journalism.

Mueller has two things going for him in his defense. The first is the Glick Decision, which is a decision by the First Circuit Court that protects video recording as free speech. The Court ruled that public officials, when performing their duties in a public place, have no expectation of privacy. Mueller contends that, since he was acting as a journalist attempting to get comment for the record, that the bureaucrats had every reason to believe they were being recorded when he phoned them. Mueller also contends that he's being targeted because, in his words, he "sought to make transparent the wrongs committed by public officials."

The other factor working in Mueller's favor is the New Hampshire law requiring judges to inform potential jurors about their right, and their duty, to render a verdict based on their conscience and not just on the law itself. This is actually one of New Hampshire's first high-profile trials in which a jury will be able to decide a case while fully aware of their right to nullify.

The sad reality is that this case is not simply about wiretapping. This case is about the freedom of the press, and the right of the citizens to hold police and bureaucrats accountable. If Mueller loses, an innocent man will be looking at spending years in a penitentiary. Worse yet, the precedent will be set that journalists can face prison if they report on things that the government would rather the public not know about. Such government abuses of the press are expected in places like North Korea, China, or Iran. Not in New Hampshire.

More Christian-on-Muslim Hate

A few posts ago, I reported on Christian-on-Muslim violence taking place in Dearborn, Michigan. I am sorry to report that hatred against Muslims, from so-called "Christians," continues. This time, it's in Tennessee.


The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro continues to await official clearance to open, after enduring years of legal wrangling. In the meantime, the center has been vandalized repeatedly, and some Tennessee politicians have pledged to fight the mosque as part of their political platform. Lou Ann Zelenick is on the record as saying "I will work to stop the Islamization of our society, and do everything possible to prevent Sharia law from circumventing our laws and our Constitution." Republican representative Diane Black, in the same article I linked above, is on the record as opposing the mosque, saying that a "Jihadist viewpoint" must be kept out of American communities.


The Murfreesboro Muslim community, on the other hand, just wants their house of worship to be made available to them in time for a major holiday - in the case, Eid al-Fitr, the breaking of the fast of Ramadan.


It seems that, whenever the words "Muslim" or "Islam" or "Mosque" make their way into a conversation, American Christians immediately go to fear of Sharia Law and/or Jihad. Obviously, the wounds from September 11th, 2001, still sting, since those behind the attacks were zealously in favor of both. Similarly, the Muslim community itself bears the scars inflicted upon itself by the likes of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban; were it not for the more violent and militant among its followers, Islam likely wouldn't be so feared in the West.


However, to automatically equate Islam with Jihad, Sharia law, violence and terrorism is to make a huge mistake. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban no more speak for all Muslims, or even most Muslims, any more than the Westboro Baptist Church or the Christian Identity Movement speak for all Christians, or even most Christians. The actions of those who commit hate or violence against others in the name of Jesus Christ put a black eye on all Christendom; similarly, those who commit hate or violence against others in the name of Islam put a black eye on all peaceful Muslims.


Is is quite possible that there may be "Sharia Courts" coming to a legal jurisdiction near you in the future. However, that does not mean that Sharia law is going to replace U.S. Law. Think of a Sharia court as binding arbitration; all of the parties agree to to have their case heard by an independent arbiter that they agree on, and they agree to abide by the decision of the arbiter, with the force of law behind those decisions. Lest anyone conclude that a Sharia court is a second set of laws that operates along side, and in opposition to, U.S. law, I'd like to remind you that any Christian may take their complaint against another Christian to be heard by a Christian arbiter and have his ruling be handed down based on Biblical law. Christian Arbitration has existed in this country for decades. Should Muslims not have the same right as Christians to have matters settled by their own standards (if all parties agree to it)?


However, discounting for the moment fears of Jihad and Sharia law, there is a much more appalling factor going on in the Tennessee Mosque case. That is, the simple matter of hatred. For a Christian to deny a Muslim the right to build a house of worship is to violate the principle, laid out in Luke 10:27, of treating others the same way you would want to be treated. If a Christian group were denied the right to open a church because of the opposition of Muslims, the cries of "Persecution!" would be heard from every rooftop. So why is it OK for Christians to use law to keep Muslims out of their community, but not OK for Muslims to keep Christians out of their community? The answer, of course, is that it is not.


I call upon the Christians of Murfreesboro - indeed, Christians everywhere - to do three things. First, stop equating Muslims with violence and oppression. Second, stop trying to use the force of government to impose your will against other groups, and let the Muslims have their mosque. Third, and most importantly, respond to your Muslim neighbors not with hate, vandalism, and ostracization; but with love, open arms, and hospitality (Romans 12:13). Invite a Muslim friend into your home for a cup of coffee, or for a play date with your kids, or for a neighborhood celebration.


We (Christians and Muslims) may never fully understand each other, and our differences remain great. However, Christ is not honored when we treat others - even others who worship different gods and live according to different moral codes - with anything less than absolute, unconditional love.

Civil Disobedience Poster

I decided I'd try my hand at making a meme. This poster includes a dozen people; some Christians, some non-Christians, and at least one anti-Christian; who disobeyed bad laws. From the top left:


Susan B. Anthony: arrested for voting.
Galileo: Faced persecution for publishing his scientific theories.
Martin Luther: Faced death for challenging the authority of the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther King, Jr.: Arrested and jailed multiple times for his activities during the Civil Rights Movement.
Rosa Parks: Jailed for refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a bus.
Mahatma Ghandi: Jailed multiple times for opposing British rule in India.
Margaret Sanger: Arrested for teaching poor women about contraception.
Corrie Ten Boom: Sent to a concentration camp for helping Jews escape the Holocaust.
Frederick Douglas: Escaped slavery; faced imprisonment and torture for being an escaped slave.
Harried Tubman: Helped slaves escape to freedom; faced slavery and prison.
Richard Wurmbrand: Tortured for preaching about Jesus Christ in the former Soviet Union.
Youcef Nadarkhani: Facing death in Iran for being a Christian.

Chick-Fil-A: Delicious Chicken, With Baggage

By now, you are no doubt familiar with the Chick-Fil-A Controversy. The beliefs of CEO Dan Cathy with regard to gay marriage have now made a fast food stand, and the choice to patronize it or not, a political issue. A Chicago alderman has gone on the record as saying that he will use his authority to prevent CFA from opening in his ward; and the mayor of Boston sent a letter saying that CFA is not welcome in his city. (*NOTE: The Boston mayor recently clarified his position on the subject, but my original point abides.) On the other side, August 1st has been set aside as a Support Chick-Fil-A Day, and proponents of "Biblical Values" (country musician Charlie Daniels among them - see third tweet down the page) are encouraging Christians to patronize the place as a show of support.

This controversy is interesting from a liberty-minded point of view, and of course from a Christian point of view, because it brings with it several factors to consider: the free market system; the rights of the individual (and the corporation acting as an individual) to spend their money as they please; whether or not there is a duty for customers to patronize consider the businesses' values when patronizing businesses; and a host of other concerns.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me state that I do not patronize Chick-Fil-A, for a very simple reason: there isn't a Chick-Fil-A within 50 miles of me, and there isn't likely to be one in my city any time soon; see here. If there were a Chick-Fil-A in my city, I would patronize them or not patronize them based on how strongly I was hankering for CFA chicken, and whether or not I was willing to accept the price, and not as a political statement.

The first consideration that comes to my mind about the CFA controversy is the mixing of political views and commerce. I've always found it to be a little dis-ingenuous, if not downright silly, for a public figure such as a musician, actor, or CEO to use his position to advocate for or against a political or social cause. We're all familiar with the controversy caused by Dixie Chicks when they publicly made disparaging statements about George W. Bush and the Iraq War. Similarly, the Dave Matthews Band is quite vocal about Global Warming; Tom Selleck is a proud advocate of gun rights; and magicians Penn & Teller are vocal about their atheism.

The question I ask myself is: Why? What relationship exists between Grammy-winning Country music and the Iraq War? What relationship exists between an excellent Vegas magic show and religion? What relationship exists between delicious chicken and gay rights? The answer is, of course, none. So my first instinct would be to parrot Laura Ingram and say, as the title of her book says, Shut Up and Sing! The problem with this is that it makes me a hypocrite. The Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews, Tom Selleck, Penn & Teller, and Dan Cathy all have the same First Amendment rights as I do; and if I were to call up on these people to focus on country music or magic or chicken or whatever, and keep their mouths shut about politics, then I have no right to open my mouth about politics. In other words public figures, whether I like it or not, are free to do and say as they please. It's up to me to decide whether or not I'm going to give them my money.


Which brings me to my next consideration: should the political/social views of a person (or company) factor into my decision whether or not to give them money. This is a tricky question, and it's a question that every person will have to answer for himself or herself. As for me, in the main the answer is "no." Unless the company were advocating or supporting something dangerous or violent, a person (or company's) stance on social issues isn't going to come into play in my decision to give them money.


I'll admit that this has been a hard pill for me to swallow. As a Christian, I have a problem with Penn & Teller's ardent atheism. But, their show in Vegas is magnificent, and I gladly shelled out some serious bucks to see it, and will gladly do so again if I ever make it back to Las Vegas. Similarly, I'm not a fan of the Dave Matthews Band's style of music, so I won't go to their concerts or buy their mp3's. Dave's ridiculous stance on global warming doesn't come into play. As for Chick-Fil-A, their chicken is delicious, and it's available at a reasonable price, so I'll buy it if and when I'm in the mood for CFA chicken.


The final, and in my opinion, most important, issue about the CFA controversy is the matter of the free market. The Chicago alderman who would use his office to keep CFA out of his ward is, in my opinion, clearly wrong. His views about gay marriage are not my concern; he is free to hold and express his views. However, he vowed to use his office to deny the choice of whether or not to patronize CFA from his constituents. If the people of Chicago wanted to deny CFA their business, they could do so and the Chicago franchise would close.  If they wanted to patronize CFA anyway, they could do so and the store would remain open. That's the beauty of the free market.

Hooter's, like CFA, serves delicious chicken. Hooter's chooses to employ scantily-dressed women to do so. When Hooter's came to my city a decade or so ago, many Christians were quite vocal about their desire not to have a Hooter's in our city. However, the free market prevailed and Hooter's was allowed to open, and remain open to this day. Those Christians who were (or are) unhappy with Hooter's are free not to spend money there. That's the beauty of the free market. If it's good enough for CFA, it's good enough for Hooter's; and there is no need to bring government into play in either situation.

Oddly enough, this is not the first time Chick-Fil-A's social stances have made it a target of controversy. As recently as 2010 the company's stance on gay rights had generated threats of boycotts. Yet the company continues to expand because people continue to eat there. For every CFA hater there is an ardent Christian who makes it a point to spend money there. But if the strident Christians were CFA's only customers, would it continue to be an expanding business even in today's emerging pro-gay culture? Or are the customers who don't care about the company's social stances, and buy CFA chicken because they value it, the ones growing their business? Maybe it always has been, and always will be, just about the chicken.

Is It OK to Disobey Bad Laws?

In light of the recent tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, the subject of guns and gun laws has, naturally, come up for discussion. This is true in my personal life, as I have friends and loved ones - all very dear to me - who believe fervently in gun control. Recently a loved one and I were discussing this topic, in the context of general principles of liberty. My counterpart's argument was that we all must follow the law - even bad laws - because living in a society where people pick and choose which laws they are going to obey would result in inevitable chaos. My contention is that people are naturally good, and thus we have the natural right, if not the duty, to disobey bad laws.


Before we get further into this topic, something else deserves mention: author Harvey Silvergate makes the case that the average American commits three felonies a day, either through ignorance or intent. Whether those laws are bad laws is a matter for discussion at another time. But the point abides: our government in the US is so large, and so intrusive, that today those who would never dream of breaking the law find themselves doing so on a daily basis.

For Christians (at least, Christians in the United States), we have two documents that shape our views of government and law: The Bible and the Constitution.

The Bible, via Romans 13:1, is abundantly clear: "Submit yourselves to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1, NIV). However, this verse is clearly not an admonition to follow all laws all the time. The Old Testament is filled with stories of people (Daniel, Mordecai, Elisha, etc.) who disobeyed the law, often at their own peril. And the Christians in Rome would, within a generation or two of Paul's letter to them, find themselves at odds with Roman law and would face torture and death because of Roman law. Paul would not have dreamed of telling the Roman Christians to deny Christ in order to obey Roman law; indeed, in his letter to the Thessalonians Paul praised the Christians who were suffering for their faith yet remaining true (2 Thessalonians 1:4, NIV).

The Constitution provides a remedy for punishment for disobeying bad laws via a doctrine known as Jury Nullification. In essence, this means that a jury can find a defendant not guilty of a crime even if the facts of the case prove that he is guilty. Jury Nullification allows a juror to vote according to his or her conscience with regard to the law, and not just the law itself. The the concept is enshrined in the Constitution, in practice the courts can be hostile to it; visit here to read about cases where people have been harassed and even imprisoned for trying to inform potential jurors about their right to nullify. Jury Nullification has been used in the US many times to protect people from being punished for disobeying bad laws; as we get deeper into this article we'll look at some examples.

So now that we know that we have a precedent for disobeying bad laws, what exactly is a "bad" law? Obviously, the answer to this question will vary from individual to individual. But history provides us with some general guidelines.

1. Laws That Require Us to Victimize Other People. Ask yourself this question: If you had lived during the 1850's and you knew the whereabouts of some escaped slaves, would you have turned them in? Would you have gone a step further and assisted escaped slaves yourself? Many Northerners (and sympathetic Southerners) found themselves in court for harboring escaped slaves and/or assisting in their escape or obstructing their capture. Thankfully, the doctrine of jury nullification resulted in several acquitals for those who fought for slaves' freedom in spite of laws that made it a crime to help slaves. More recently (though not in the US), Nazi concentration camps saw their share of victims who were not Jews, but who were there for harboring, assisting, or even refusing to turn in, their Jewish neighbors. It goes without saying that no one, Christian or otherwise, should obey a law if doing so would victimize another person.

2. Laws That Victimize You For Following Them. Nobody should be required to do something which violates their own conscience. This idea seems so patently obvious that it wasn't even included in the Constitution. Yet, our law books are filled with laws that, while well-intentioned, make victims of those who follow them. For example, if the administrator of a Catholic hospital chooses not to offer his employees a health insurance plan that includes contraception coverage because of his conscientious opposition to birth control, the hospital should not be forced to do so, regardless of the law. A mother in Iowa who chooses to educate her children at home, without begging the state's approval for her proposed curriculum, should be allowed to do so, regardless of the law. A Christian's right, if not his or her duty, is to obey his or her conscience if the law is in conflict with their conscience.

3. Laws That Make a Crime Where There Is No Victim. The notion of a "victimless crime" is difficult for many people, Christians in particular, to grasp. As I've said elsewhere on this blog, what I decide to put into my body; what I decide to do with my time; and how I choose to spend my money; are no one's business but my own in light of Luke 10:27. Yet thousands of laws, specifically those relating to drugs, prostitution, gambling, liquor, homosexuality, and myriad other "moral" issues, exist simply because one person decided that they know what is best for another person, and have used government to impose their standards on others. I have made the decision to completely ignore all such laws inasmuch as I'm able to (or even care to), and instead abide by my conscience. Does doing so contribute negatively to anyone but myself?

The downside to disobeying any law is that such disobedience is likely to catch up to you. The consequences may be trivial - as in, strongly-worded letters, or vague threats, or fines; or the consequences may be severe - history is full of people who were imprisoned, or worse, for disobeying laws in obedience to their conscience. Perhaps this is what Paul is saying in Romans 13: not that disobeying the law is itself an act of disobedience toward God; but that disobeying the law is something you do at your own peril. So to disobey a bad law is to invite trouble; you can either hope a jury nullifies the law, or you can face the consequences but live with a clean conscience.

As a Christian, are you prepared to exercise your conscience and thus face the consequences? Or is it more expedient to obey the law for the sake of not bringing difficulty on yourself? Or are both valid choices? These are questions for which there are no ready answers. Ultimately, this is something that each reader will have to decide for himself.

Who Owns Your Life?

If you find yourself having around 8-10 minutes to spare, by all means set aside some time to watch this video. I was first exposed to it last night, and I find that it eloquently, and succinctly, says everything that I've believed about liberty ever since I was old enough to begin thinking about such things.

As I watched this video, in my mind I could hear the objections of my fellow Christians loudly and clearly, beginning at :23, where the video posits that "[to deny ownership of one's self] is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do." Many Christians, upon examining this claim, will say: "But there is another person who has a higher claim on my life than I do!"

For Christians, this is absolutely true: there is one who has a higher claim on our lives than we ourselves do. That person is Jesus Christ. As Christians, we accept that Jesus Christ is the Lord of our lives, and we strive to be like Him. Paul drives this point home, comparing us to slaves who have been bought, by saying "...you are not your own. You were bought at a price." 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, NIV Therefore, we not only allow one person to have a claim over our lives; we are made free by making Jesus our Lord.

The problem arises when Christians behave as if Jesus' lordship over ourselves extends to others, whether they seek it or not. If you are a true Christian, you are a Christian because you entered into this covenant with Jesus Christ voluntarily. Had you entered into the covenant under threat of coercive force, would it be the same covenant? If you obeyed Christ's law only as far as it's written on paper (again under threat of coercive force), but denied Christ in every other way, would it be the same covenant? The answer is, of course, no.

Therefore, as Christians, we have no right to ask the government to use force to "make" people behave like Christians, whether they want to or not. To use government to try to inject Christian teaching into a public school curriculum is to claim that you have a claim over the education of someone else's children. To use government to outlaw things that you find offensive (be it birth control or drug paraphernalia or objects you consider obscene) is to make an ownership claim against someone else's life. To use government to force the community to limit what others can or cannot do on Sunday is to claim an ownership interest in what others do in their free time. These are all ownership claims that you would deny to someone else, were they to make such a claim against you.

I do not shy away from loudly and firmly stating that I am a Christian, and that I expect standards from myself that may not appeal to others. But my standards are mine, and your standards are yours, and someone else's standards are theirs; even if, and especially if, those standards are not Christ's standards. We do not want other individuals, or groups of individuals, making claim to any aspect of our lives. It's only fair that we extend the same courtesy.

The Global Warming Scam: A Christian Perspective

Yet another recent study has offered contradictory evidence to the supposed global warming "consensus." This time, peer-reviewed research suggests that global warming took place two thousand years ago. This is, of course, just the most recent salvo in an ongoing war of ideas, where rationality and reason are pitted against government-funded hysteria. Yet, almost continually, the global warming community continues to regard scientists who find evidence to the contrary as the ramblings of a lunatic fringe.

The real reason so many scientists seem to be finding evidence for global warming is a simple one: governments want to make carbon dioxide a taxable commodity. The public would never go for that, of course, so all the government needs to do is convince people that global warming is real. Start indoctrinating the voters when they're children, and convince them that the very planet itself is in mortal danger with (of course) government intervention. What the global warming lobby completely ignores (and, both the media and the education system fail to get out to the people) are two basic facts.

1. The Earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. Minute fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, or in the angle of the Earth's axis; volcanic eruptions; asteroid impacts; oceanographic current changes; all of these, and thousands of other factors, of which science still only has a superficial understanding, have played a role in heating and cooling the Earth for millenia. What is now the Sahara Desert was once covered with glacial ice - in 8000 BC. Or consider this graph, which purports to show the mean temperature of the Earth across all time. That minor red uptick at the very right? That is the "catastrophic climate change" that has governments racing frantically to regulate industry out of existence.

2. The Earth simply cannot be manipulated by human intervention. It's entirely possible that environmental damage - even permanent and irreversible environmental damage - can be done on a micro scale (e.g., if someone pours toxic sludge into a lake continuously until the entire lake is dead), it simply cannot be done on a macro scale. Consider this: the Earth is over 70% water; and of all the available land, a very small percentage of it is habitable. The means that humans, comparatively, occupy a tiny fraction of the Earth's available space. To suggest that humans can in any way impact the planet as a whole is utterly ludicrous. A single volcanic eruption - particularly one as large as the Krakatoa eruption - could pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a few days as has been put there by humans in decades.

So does this mean that humans have free reign to abuse, exploit, and deplete the Earth with complete abandon? Of course not! Consider Psalm 24:1, "The Earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." The role of man is to be a [i]steward[/i] of the Earth. Here are some ways we can strive for stewardship, without going full-tilt into environmental hysteria.

1. Strive for sustainable energy. I am 100% in favor of alternative energy, but for reasons you might not suspect. I have no problem with burning coal for electricity, or with burning gasoline for cars. But I support alternative sources of energy, such as wind, solar, nuclear, etc., as well. Why? Because we will eventually run out of coal (and natural gas and any other natural resources). These tings exist in finite amounts, and it may take us decades, or it may take us centuries, to completely deplete them. But they will be depleted, and we'll need a backup plan. The same is true for oil; we will eventually run out (to say nothing of the fact that we buy much of our oil from terrorist-supporting, Middle-Eastern despots), so we need to find alternative means of powering our cars. However, these solutions need to be borne out by the free market, not by government.

2. Strive for sustainable food production. The current, industrial model of food production brings with it a host of problems, some of which are downright terrifying, but all of which are matters for another column. It also provides the world with an abundance of food; in fact, there is plenty of food around the world to feed the hungry. Modern famines aren't caused by lack of food; they're caused by government interference in food production and delivery. However, thanks to the fact that largely the same crops are grown worldwide, the lack of biodiversity will eventually take an irreversible toll on the world's food supply. This crisis is what has spurred the creation of a seed vault to preserve a wide variety of plants for future generations to grow and harvest. Take yourself out of this equation by simply choosing to buy local. The tomatoes you buy at your town's farmer's market weren't grown on an industrial farm and picked with slave labor; they were grown in your community, by farmers who care. And they taste better!

3. Strive for conservation. No one wants to see the Amazon rainforest disappear; or to see gorillas go extinct. Nor does anyone want to see beautiful rivers and valleys given over to pollution. But the way to see to it that these things don't happen is not through government intervention; it's through the free market and through charity. Wildlife sanctuaries are popular tourist destinations because people are willing to pay to see wild animals in their natural habitat. Therefore, wildlife sanctuaries are profitable, and thus the market has the incentive to create more sanctuaries, thus more profit, and more animals saved. Contribute to conservation efforts through charitable contributions, or through supporting businesses that make conservation a priority. But keep government out of the equation.

Being a Christian does not excuse one from their duty to the environment. However, we need to aim for balance. There's no call to completely abandon all of the modern-day advantages we have of abundant, cheap energy and food in the name of "saving the planet." But at the same time, our duty as Christians requires us to treat the Earth with the respect it deserves. If we do that, the Earth will continue providing for us, as long as we allow it to.

Religion and Government Don't Mix: A Brief Example Illustrating Why

Today's blog post will be brief and to-the-point.

I'd like to direct your attention to an article posted recently to Slate. Sanal Edamaruku, a reporter and member of an Indian skeptics' society, recently visited a Catholic shrine in Mumbai to investigate claims of miracles. Local Catholics believe that a statue of Jesus drips water.

Upon his investigation, Edamaruku concluded that there wasn't actually anything miraculous going on. Rather, a clogged pipe and resultant drainage problems made it appear as if the statue was miraculously dripping water.

Interestingly, Edamaruku is now facing prison time for his conclusions. Indian law makes it a crime to "deliberately [hurt] religious feelings and [attempt] malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community."

While no doubt well-intentioned - after all, relations between India's religious groups can most charitably be described as "strained," - this law interferes with both freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, in ways that border on being absurd. And while Indian law is in no way accountable to the Bill of Rights, I note that there are more than a few members of the Religious Right who would be more than happy to have such a law here in the U.S. At least, if it only protected Christians, that is.

Nevertheless, this case illustrates a fundamental truth: when religion and government mix, the outcome is rarely good. If Mumbai's Catholics want to believe that a statue of Jesus miraculously drips water, good for them. If Mumbai's skeptics want to believe that faulty pipes are the cause, good for them as well. Involving the courts is only going to make matters worse.

Public Education Fail: One Size Does *NOT* Fit All

This blog is not now, nor is it ever going to be, a movie-review blog. But for the sake of this particular blog post, I'd like to take a look at a cute scene in the movie Ramona and Beezus. Ramona is a precocious nine-year-old in third grade. Ramona isn't fond of such mundane things as "rules" or "expectations," and as such, she tends to color outside the lines. In the scene in question, her parents are discussing her disappointing report card from her public school.

Ramona's teacher has observed that, first among Ramona's many shortcomings, is Ramona's tendency to make up words and to make up her own spelling of real words. Ramona's defense is at once both irresistibly cute, and a telling commentary on how her public education was already beginning to fail her: "They make us all learn the same words!"

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that vocabulary and spelling are open to interpretation, as Ramona would prefer. Rather, I'm suggesting that Ramona's complaint that they all have to learn the same words is valid, and reveals a much larger problem. To assume that a classroom of  25 or 30 children of various home lives, maturity levels, intelligence levels, interests, fears, and likes & dislikes would all be equally well-served by learning the same vocabulary words is patently ludicrous. On a larger scale, the idea that the entire third grade curriculum for Ramona's school district will equally serve every child is even more ludicrous.

If you're a parent of a child in a public school, consider for a moment his or her curriculum. It was decided upon by a committee of which you were not a part and into which you probably had little to no say. As I said in this post, it was most likely developed by persons with ideology that differs from yours. It may well have been decided upon before your child was even born. It conforms to the standards of your state - standards which were developed by unaccountable bureaucrats - and developed to meet federal guidelines, under threat of the withholding of federal funds. And you can rest assured that your child was in no way considered when the curriculum was developed, and anything he or she has to say about it will be summarily ignored. Your child will be expected to learn the curriculum, or fail.

This system fails on multiple levels. Let's take a look.

1. Exceptional kids are left behind. At first glance, this claim looks ridiculous: schools across the country are full of straight-A students; your child may be one of them. The problem is that a straight-A student is excelling only within the system. Kids with exceptional talent, exceptional intelligence, exceptional imagination, or exceptional whatever, can only go so far as the system will allow them. A third grader who makes an A+ in Vocabulary may or may not have an exceptional vocabulary; it just means that she's met the government's standard of third-grader vocabulary. She may well have the vocabulary of someone twice her age (for example, when I was in third grade I was reading at a grade 9 reading level); but in the one-size-fits-all model of public education, she won't have any opportunity to exercise or expand her vocabulary because she'll spend the rest of the school year learning words she already knows.

Not all exceptional kids in public schools are readily identifiable by their excellent grades on report cards. In fact, many bright and gifted kids do poorly in school simply because they're bored. Can you expect a first-grader who has already read every book that his teacher reads to the class to pay attention? This one-size-fits-all method doesn't even consider this possibility. The problem is even more pronounced in high school, where thousands of kids across the country show up daily for no reason other than they're expected to be there. I, for one, more or less "floated" through high school simply because I found it indescribably pointless (there are other reasons for my failure in high school as well, but they're not relevant to this column). Or, consider the words of a friend on an internet message board: "I really didn't know why I was there, I wasn't clear on what the guidance counselors were for, and I just washed out." 

2. Special-needs kids are left behind. The debate continues to rage: should kids with special needs be mainstreamed into the classroom with the rest of the students, or should they be segregated to learn on their own? The sad fact is, within the one-size-fits-all public education model, both methods have extreme disadvantages. Mainstreaming special-needs kids may lead to disruptions in the classroom, and a disproportionate amount of the teacher's time being spent on them, to the neglect of the other kids in the classroom. Segregating special-needs kids draws attention to them and quickly makes them targets of derision from the other kids. Needless to say, in the public education model there seems to be no right answer.

But what about bright, or even average, kids who struggle in one or two areas? For example: I was an exceptionally bright and gifted kid in almost all areas, except math. As the school years marched ahead, I continued to struggle with math, getting worse and worse grades and getting more and more frustrated and bogged down in concepts that I simply could not understand. Special tutoring? There was no money in the budget. Special attention? There was no time. The expectation was that I would learn the exact same amount of math as every other kid in my grade year, or I would fail; there were no other options. To this day I can barely do simple calculations such as balancing my checkbook. Or consider a friend from church, whose son struggles with reading. In most areas of his education he does as well as can be expected, but in reading he lags behind the other kids. While his peers will progress through their educational careers, my friend's son will be left behind unless and until someone comes up with a way to get him caught up. It won't happen; there is neither money nor time, in the one-size-fits-all public model.

3. Average kids are homogenized. I considered long and hard what word I wanted to use in the headline to this paragraph, and with much regret I settled on "average." "Average" is a loaded word: no one wants to hear that their son or daughter is "average." And in reality, no one child is average! Where one child may be exceptionally bright, another may have average intelligence but have a knack for art. Another child may struggle with math or science but may have a knack for reading or vocabulary. One child may struggle academically but be an exceptionally talented singer.

By design, the one-size-fits-all method of public education ignores those differences, insisting instead that every child must meet the same standards in the same subjects in order to advance. So a child who is interested in caring for farm animals is going to learn about the Bay of Pigs Invasion, regardless of how much or how little she cares about it, because someone she's never met has decided that she needs to know about it. A teenager who is interested in building machines and computers is going to learn about Byzantine art because someone he's never met has decided that he needs to know about it. The interests and skills of the kids are ignored in the name of making sure they meet arbitrary "standards" set by people who have never met them, who don't know them and most likely don't care about them.

Homeschooling, un-schooling, and private education continue to offer far superior alternatives to public education. The way to assure that your child receives the best education possible is to build an educational plan around their needs, desires, interests and goals, in concert with your goals as well; instead of one designed by bureaucrats who have never met you or your kids. This can't, and won't, be done in a public school.

Relations With the Police

One complaint that observers have about liberty activism is that it is antagonistic toward the police. This is somewhat disturbing to me. First, because it's not true; and second, because as a Christians I'm expected to reject hate (Eph. 4:31).

The reality is that the liberty mindset is not about rejecting (and therefore, hating and antagonizing) the police; it's about rejecting intrusive government. The police force is merely the most visible face of intrusive government. This is regrettable, but it's also an undeniable fact.

Before I get into a deeper explanation of why liberty activism really isn't about hating or badmouthing cops, I'd like to take a look at some of the ways outside observers have reacted to attempts at holding the police accountable. Here is Glenn Beck going on a six-minute rant against what he calls a "police setup." If you don't want to listen to Glenn Beck going on a six-minute rant (and really, who does?), here's the TLDR version: In response to what some local blacks in Indianapolis considered a racially-motivated incident involving a cop and a mixed-race youth, a group contrives an altercation to see how the police react. It doesn't go well. Beck uses this as an excuse to launch a tirade against all people who would attempt to hold police accountable as cop-hating leftists. Thanks, Glenn Beck. If I ever feel like I'm running low on ignorance, all I need to do is look for some clips of you on Youtube.

Here is the late, great Paul Harvey praising the police, bringing out the old canard that a few bad apples don't spoil the bunch. While Paul raises legitimate points about the difficulties faced by police, he completely ignores the facts about why our police get put into such difficult situations in the first place. Mr. Harvey neglects to mention how it's our country's utterly ridiculous drug laws that put police in the line of fire between gangs fighting turf wars; or that municipalities' dependence on revenue from speeding and traffic tickets pit the police against motorists; or how using heavy-handed police tactics in the enforcement of matters that should easily be settled with a fine or a ticket, or better yet, be ignored entirely (see here) tends to put the police in a bad light.

But never mind all that. As I said at the beginning of this article, seeking liberty is not about hating the police. Let's look at some ways in which advocating for liberty tends to put our movement in opposition to the police.

1. Advocating against bad laws (and enforcement of bad laws) is not an act of hate. Look, I understand that cops are just "doing their jobs." All of us are required by our jobs to do things that we don't like. But when I view a law as bad, I view the enforcement of that law as bad. It's a fact of life. The fact is, I support the police in their enforcement of laws in which someone is victimized, and I feel quite strongly that there would be fewer victims (and fewer opportunities for police themselves to be victimized) if police weren't required to spend so much of their time policing for victimless crimes.

2. Advocating for Constitutional rights is not an act of hate. Whether they're doing it on their own, or by department policy, police across the country routinely violating Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. Stop-and-Frisk stops, DUI checkpoints, and random stops by VIPER Teams on Tennessee highways are all acts of government intrusion into our lives at the expense of the Constitution. I call for an end to all such tactics. This is not about the police themselves conducting these checkpoints; it's about the government allowing or requiring these intrusions in the first place.

3. Advocating for police accountability is not an act of hate. Consider for a moment the case of a Harlem couple branded "professional agitators" and placed on a Wanted poster. Their crime? Filming the police conducting stop-and-frisk stops. Some within the NYPD seem to have concluded that these people are deliberately antagonizing the cops; and maybe so - I have no claim to know their personal motives. But I strongly advocate for filming the police; not because I think every cop is going to do something bad if they're not being filmed. Rather, I fear that those cops who do act badly won't be held accountable by their own departments (based on a police culture that looks after its own). In this case, the internet and the court of public opinion are there to advocate as a voice for accountability.

4. Attempting to prevent acts of state-sponsored extortion is not an act of hate. Attempting to warn other motorists of upcoming speed traps is a First-Amendment right, as long as those who would warn are not impeding traffic or otherwise being a nuisance. It's not about hating the police; it's about rejecting state-sponsored attempts at extorting money from motorists.

5. Educating citizens about how to protect themselves from police harassment is not an act of hate. As a member of the liberty community, I support (and practice) the tactics taught by those at Flex Your Rights. It's not because I hate the cops, or feel that they're out to get everyone, or whatever. It's because citizens who don't know their rights tend to talk themselves into even more trouble than they would be in if they kept their mouths shut. It's because, as the Miranda Warning makes abundantly clear, anything you say can and will be used against you. It's because, most importantly of all, the Constitution, at least on paper, protects you from government tyranny in law enforcement, but if and only if you know your rights and invoke them.

As a Christian, I believe that all people deserve to be treated with respect and courtesy, whether they wear a badge or not. This means, among other things, that I'm not an advocate for violence (verbal or otherwise) against cops; I reject calling them "pigs," or initiating violence against them, or whatever. But in light of Luke 10:27, I also call for government to stay out of my life. If this means that I'm called to point out and decry police abuses, or to participate in activism that may make the police look bad, or to participate in activism they may result in fewer police powers (or fewer police, period), then so be it. It's not about the men and women in uniform themselves; it's about the presence of the uniform where it's neither wanted nor needed.

Sectarian Violence Is Now a Part of US Culture

Until recently I've always - perhaps naively - assumed that religious violence was a problem that existed only outside of the United States. Oh sure, there have been instances where a rogue Amish group cut the beards off of other Amish men; and incidents where pro-gay or other seemingly "anti-Christian" signs or billboards have been vandalized are too numerous to mention. But in the main, it's always been my belief that actual violence, perpetrated on a large scale by members of opposing religious groups, was not a part of the American experience.

Until now.

Recently in Dearborn, Michigan, some "Christians" felt the need to antagonize and incite their Muslim neighbors during a celebration. This lead to violent confrontation, including stones being thrown at the Christians. Interestingly enough, most of the pro-Christian and pro-Right media considers this as an act of persecution against Christians, while the mainstream media has largely ignored the matter.


Christians who attempt to play the persecution card when it was they themselves who created the climate that lead to violence are being dis-ingenuous at best, and liars at worst. Compare this situation to the schoolyard bully who calls another kid names, gets punched in the nose, then runs to the principal yelling "He started it!"


Let's be clear about this: carrying a pig's head through a Muslim community, while carrying signs promising hell and damnation to Muslims, is a gross act of hate. It also goes without saying that such behavior completely ignores Luke 10:27. If a Muslim group had converged on a Christian community's parade burning Bibles and carrying upside-down crosses, pro-Christian media would be shouting about it from the rooftops. And while the Muslim community in Dearborn is not without blame in this situation (they did, after all, respond to antagonism with violence), in my view the fault for this debacle lies squarely with the Christians.


Christian and Muslim relations in the US have been strained, to say the least, since September 11th (if not before). The situation only promises to get worse as the War on Terror continues to make second-class citizens of our Muslim neighbors within, and makes enemies of Muslims without. The way to bring Muslims to Christianity is not through violence and hate, but through compassion, understanding, and friendship.

Technology Paves the Road to Liberty

If you are waiting for your government to give you back any of the rights it's taken away, you'll likely be waiting a long time. For example; the federal government's fanatical war against a harmless medicinal herb has gone on since 1937 and shows few signs of letting up. In fact, the government's war on our liberties is only escalating: consider the fact that military surveillance drones spy on citizens in civilian airspace; roving paramilitary units (known as VIPER Teams) conduct warrantless searches on the highways; and has recently been given the green light to manage our health care for us.

Nevertheless, one area in which governments are failing (though not for lack of trying) to intercept liberties is the area of technology. Thanks to the unimaginable power of the internet, to say nothing of the global free market it creates, technology is outpacing governments' ability to control it. Here are few technological developments to come out in just the past few years that are helping citizens to regain their freedoms.

1. The Ubiquity of Cameras. The early morning of March 3rd, 1991, marks the beginning of the era of police accountability vis a vis cameras. A bystander by the name of George Holliday used his camera to record the police beating Rodney King, and the rest, as they say, is history. There is a reason why Judge Andrew Napolitano calls cameras the new gun: today, the cheapest of smart-phones include video cameras, and just about anyone anywhere can record anything. Not surprisingly, these cell phone cameras (and cheap handheld video cameras) have been used multiple times to record the police abusing and harassing citizens (see http://www.copblock.org). Governments are not necessarily warm to this idea; Illinois continues to harass and threaten with imprisonment those who would record the police.

2. Instant Dissemination of Video. Many police officers and government beaureaucrats persist in the idea that free speech can be stifled simply by confiscating damning footage (see here for an example). While that tactic might have worked in the past, nowadays, thanks to apps such as Qik and livestream.com, any and all footage can be tossed into the electronic ether to be copied and re-posted well before any judge can order its confiscation or destruction. Even better, if you combine an instant video app with your own dashboard camera, all of your encounters with the police can be uploaded instantly.

3. The TOR Network. Without delving too deeply into the technological specifics of it, suffice to say that the TOR Network is a means of inserting layers of encryption between an internet user and the website to which he/she is posting/visiting. This makes it more difficult for an oppressive government (say, China or Iran) to monitor or track down people who post and/or view "objectionable" content. Using the TOR network enables any user, anywhere, to freely view any website regardless of government censorship, as well as preventing governments from monitoring or tracking anyone's internet use.

4. The Bitcoin. This is the Big Daddy of liberty-oriented technological innovations. The Bitcoin is an entirely digital currency, based on open-source, peer-to-peer technology. As such, it is outside the reach of governments, banks, hackers, and anyone else who would try to prevent, monitor, or tax monetary transactions. And while at first blush Bitcoins appear to be little more than a geeky hobby (if not a way to deal in contraband), in fact Bicoins are gaining wide acceptance. In fact, Bitcoins can be spent on Amazon, eBay, and a variety of other retailers. Blogger Xeni Jardin is on the record as saying that Bitcoins will change the world. As of now I'm inclined to agree.

Peaceful activism remains the best option for those who would seek liberty in their lifetimes. Technology does not replace peaceful activism; it merely enhances it. These new technologies should not be considered the be-all end-all of liberty activism, but rather another tool in our belts.

Public Schools: The Battleground of Ideology

Conservatives like to point to two events that marked the decline in the quality of public education in the US. The first was the Scopes Trial, which paved the way for the teaching of Evolution in the public schools; and the second was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Engel Case, which outlawed mandated prayers in public schools. To this day, the call from Christians to "put God back into the public schools" continues, loud and clear. Consider this petition, for example, which has over 21,000 signatures as of this post. Or consider this proposal, or Pat Robertson's words on the matter before the US Senate.

Liberals, on the other hand, are equally interested in seeing to it that subjects that many consider anti-Christian are taught in the schools. Climate change; sex education that includes birth control; evolution; acceptance of GLBT lifestyles, and other topics often work their way into public school cirricula, to the consternation of vocal Christians.

Both sides claim absolute authority in their claims. Conservatives claim the holy Word of God, and this nation's supposed "Christian heritage," while liberals claim science and the needs of modern culture. And these debates continue to play out in state and local school boards across the country. Should schools teach the kids about creation, evolution, or both (see here)? Should  their Sexual Education cirriculum be based on abstinence, protection methods, or both (see here)? Should the kids be taught that a family based on a married mother and father, and children is the ideal family unit, or that the definition of "family" is fluid and may include single parents, gay parents, unmarried parents, or other arrangements (see here)?

The reality is that these debates aren't really about what is scientifically right vs. what is scientifically wrong; or what empowers the kids with knowledge vs. what burdens the kids with confusion; or what instills values in the kids vs. what leads them down the path of moral decay. Really, these debates are about which side is going to win the right to indoctrinate other peoples' kids with their own ideology, and with public tax money. These debates turn the whole concept of public education into a chess match between competing worldviews, where the schools are the chess boards and the kids are the pieces.

When a Christian high-school student wants to lead her graduating class in prayer at graduation, and an atheist enlists the ACLU help put a stop to it, both sides of the debate are bringing their ideologies to court - both the court of law and the court of public opinion - to see which side wins the right to indoctrinate kids. The kids themselves are merely pieces in the game. When a Christian student wants to wear a shirt with an anti-gay message and the courts (both of law and of public opinion) are brought in, it's just another battle for the right to indoctrinate. Every matter in which the religion or culture of one student (or her parents) in a public school butts up against the religion or culture of another student (or his parents) in a public school, and the matter is brought before the courts, it becomes just another battle for the right to indoctrinate. And the kids always lose.

The belief that we don't want anyone else deciding what our kids are taught is one of the principal reasons libertarians, minarchists, voluntaryists, and other small-government types oppose the very idea of government education. If we want to teach our kids x, and someone else wants to teach their kids y, then the way to assure they're taught what we want is to do it ourselves; not to make our local school board do it for us and bring everyone else's kids along for the ride. We need to detach ourselves from the idea that we have any say in what other peoples' kids are taught in school, just as no one else has any say in what our kids are taught in school.

So how are we to accomplish this? Let me make a few suggestions.

1. Advocate for home-schooling/un-schooling. The only way to have absolute, 100% control over the education your kids receive is to do it yourself. Homeschooling, which started out as a fringe movement (and is still regarded by some as such) has now gained grudging acceptance, and conservative parents and liberal parents alike have warmed to the idea that a child can receive a good education solely from their parents. Un-schooling takes the idea a step further, letting the kids themselves direct their own education (see here for an extreme example). The downside to this is that it requires a huge commitment, of both time and money, of one or both parents to be successful at it. In today's economy, it's simply not a workable solution for many Christian parents.

2. Advocate for educational cooperatives. If full-time homeschooling isn't workable for your family, there are likely several other families in your community in the same boat. While by yourself you may not be able to accomplish your goal, with the help of other parents you may find that, collectively, you are able to pull it off. Parents can cooperate together to see that their group of kids share in the educational experience. Where one parent can handle matters of music or art, and another can handle matters of math or science; or where one parent can facilitate the group's education on Mondays, and another can facilitate on Tuesdays; where parents cooperate with each other to achieve their goals, the government is taken out of the education equation, yet the burden doesn't fall squarely on one's own family.

3. Advocate for educational vouchers. Private education remains an alternative for parents who want a say in what their kids are taught. The fact that it's private means that parents have the power to vote with their feet if they are not satisfied with the education their kids are receiving. Unfortunately, that power is denied to parents who cannot afford the cost of private education. For this reason, I support a system where parents are offered a refund on their tax burden that would otherwise go to public education. With a voucher system, parents are given a credit that could be applied to the cost of a private education of their choosing. This saves parents who choose private education from the financial burden of having to pay both taxes for public education and the cost of private education.

Remember, having liberty means allowing others liberty as well. My beliefs may differ from yours, sometimes in dramatic and startling ways. But I have no more right to demand that my beliefs are taught to your kids than you do to demand that your beliefs are taught to my kids. Let's stop making the schools the place where my ideology fights it out with yours. This is the only way that the kids will win.

Sin vs. Bad Ideas; What's the Difference?

I remember the sermon that was preached to me in Bible College that was delivered from the president himself. As part of a series of sermons on personal behavior in twice-weekly Chapel meetings, the president was called on to deliver a message on alcohol consumption. Not unexpectedly - considering that all of us students had signed pledges not to drink any alcohol, on-campus or not, under pain of expulsion - our president delivered an impassioned sermon arguing that teetotaling abstinence from alcohol was the only acceptable Christian approach to alcohol.


This flies in the face of 2,000 years of Christian history, to say nothing of the millions of Christians around the world who partake in alcohol as part of their worship. Mr. President's sermon, however, was based on a variety of arguments, such as: the example set for others; the appearance of wrongdoing; the potential damage done by alcohol to families and, by extension, to society at large (one of the very arguments that led to Prohibition, but I digress); and potential harm done to one's body by alcohol. Nowhere in his sermon was any mention of Biblical prohibitions against alcohol use.


That's because there aren't any. While the Bible does warn against drunkenness, the reality is that wine was a part of daily life in Bible times, and indeed it's a fair assumption that most if not all of the early Christians drank wine, and most likely Jesus himself did too (see John 2; the idea that Jesus would create wine for consumption at a wedding but then insult the host by not drinking any is patently ludicrous).


Through either a tortured reading of Scripture; or through tired and illogical arguments about the differences between ancient wine vs. modern libations; or both, millions of Christians (mostly in the US) hold to Prohibition-era notions of alcohol consumption. And while a compelling case can be made that alcohol consumption is (or at least, can be) a bad idea, there is just no evidence that's it's a sin.


When exercising Christian liberty, we need to be mindful of the differences between things that are bad ideas versus things that are sin. For example, in the main, gambling is a bad idea. The house gets a (sometimes huge) cut - and always wins - and when the house is done with their cut the state gets a cut. Gambling is essentially throwing money away, on the hopes that you'll gain some that you didn't earn. Far too many families have been impoverished by breadwinners choosing to gamble, and no one will deny that gambling addiction is a real disease. Naturally, many Christians choose not to gamble. It's a bad idea. But is it a sin? No - gambling is mentioned rarely in the Bible, and when it's mentioned, it's merely mentioned matter-of-factly (see John 19:24). It's a sin to impoverish your family by blowing your paycheck, but that can be accomplished through any number of means besides gambling. If no one depends on the money you're throwing away but you, then gambling is merely a bad idea.


This argument can be applied to any number of things that, at least in Christian culture, are considered to be sins but are actually just bad ideas. Smoking? Bad idea, not a sin. Overeating? Bad idea, not a sin. Use of hard drugs such as opiates? [Very] bad idea, but still not a sin.


And of course, all of this says nothing about the best tool available to us in matters of sin vs. bad ideas: moderation. Letting your kids go hungry this week because you blew your paycheck at the craps table is a sin. Blowing a few bucks that you've saved for a weekend at the riverboat casino is not. Drinking until you're falling-over drunk and then driving is a sin. Having an adult beverage with a meal is not.


Having Christian liberty means allowing others (Christians and non-Christians alike) to exercise their own liberty. Sometimes that means making choices that we may or may not agree with. We need to let go of our notions that, just because we regard something as harmful (even rightfully so), that we have any say in whether or not another Christian (or, more importantly, non-Christians) can participate in it. And for those matters where the harm only comes from abuse, our job is to allow others to practice their liberty, and to advocate for moderation, not only in the lives of those we care about, but in our own lives as well.