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.

Finally, Some Sanity on Drones

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this blog, the FAA has authorized the use of military surveillance drones by local law enforcement agencies. I was, of course, outraged about this; but even more outrageous was the lack of outrage (so to speak) from just about everyone else, outside of the liberty community.

Fortunately, someone in Washington has found the courage to say "This is not right" and introduce some legislation. Foxnews.com is reporting that GOP Rep. Austin Scott has introduced a bill that would ostensibly curb the use of drones for surveillance on US soil.

Unfortunately, Mr. Scott's bill only seeks to limit the use of drones, rather than ban them entirely. As stated in the linked article, Mr. Scott's plan would only limit the use of drones to cases where a warrant is issued; or in warrant-less surveillance at the border, or in a terrorist attack. As we know all too well, however, such broad exceptions leave the door open far too wide for abuse of those exceptions.

I call on Mr. Scott to amend his proposal to ban surveillance drones outright from use on US soil.

Medical Marijuana: Coming to *Another* State Near You?

The number of states that allow one form or another of medical marijuana may in the near future grow (see what I did there?) from sixteen (DC makes seventeen) to twenty four, putting almost half of the nation's sovereign states in blatant defiance of federal law. Currently, seven ballot initiatives/proposed pieces of legislation are awaiting action in Illinois, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. A couple of these cases require a closer look.

The proposed Illinois statute would authorize users with medical marijuana prescriptions to fill their scripts at state-licensed dispensaries under a pilot program that would last three years; after the three years, the legislature would theoretically review the program's successes and/or failures and decide whether or not to renew the program. Unfortunately, here in Illinois medical marijuana is mostly wishful thinking at this point. The legislation has been stalled for several years and is not currently up for any votes or discussion.

Interestingly, Illinois' Democrat governor Pat Quinn, who is on the record as saying he thinks marijuana should remain illegal, supports Chicago mayor (and Obama flunkie) Rahm Immanuel's proposal to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in Chicago. I hope a reporter is able to corner Quinn and get him to admit why he favors decriminalization in Chicago but not the rest of the state.

Unfortunately, Missouri's proposal also appears to be dead in the water. It is currently not scheduled for any review in the Missouri legislature. We can only hope that the bill's sponsor will find the courage to re-introduce it at the next legislative session.

Of course, while I welcome any attempts to introduce medical marijuana, my ultimate desire remains full legalization across the country.

The Drug War Claims More Innocent Victims

In their fanatical quest to protect us from what we put into our own bodies, the feds, under the banner of the War on Drugs, are now targeting those who are legitimately sick and need prescription painkillers for legitimate pain management.


As reported here, here, and elsewhere, patients with legitimate prescriptions for narcotic painkillers have found their pharmacies closed due to the DEA deciding that they (the pharmacies) have filled too many painkiller prescriptions; or have even been arrested for filling their prescriptions.


Now, let's be clear about a few things. First, opiates are dangerous drugs (especially when compared to harmless "drugs" such as cannabis); they are powerfully addictive and can (and do) lead to severe physiological harm to their users. Second, many people who would otherwise never touch drugs have found themselves addicted to opiates as a result of surgeries, injuries, or other chronic pain-inducing conditions; and thus find themselves facing the same problems that an addict on the street faces.


However, the government has no right to regulate what we put into our bodies, even if those things are harmful. So why do so many (conservative) Christians decry attempts to regulate sugary soft drinks or trans fats  (both dangerous substances) as unnecessary government intrusion into our personal lives, but allow the Drug War to continue?


The fact of the matter is, if an opiate addict can get his/her fix at market prices without any legal hassle, then the addict won't need to resort to so-called "rogue pharmacies" or other black markets for their product. Further, the Drug War simply fuels the black market, so that addicts in need of a fix are driven to commit actual crimes (that is, crimes with victims) to get the money to pay for their addiction. If we legalized drugs, there would be no need for the black market and thus no artificially inflated prices.


So instead of zealously prosecuting (and persecuting) those who have legitimate (or "illegitimate") needs for opiates, and those who attempt to fill those needs; legalize opiates and tax them. Use the tax money to fund treatment options for those who seek treatment. Instead of criminalizing and demonizing opiate use and addiction, treat it like a disease that requires treatment.

Who *Really* Benefits from Marijuana Prohibition?

The lie that we've been told since the 1930's is that marijuana is harmful, so the government is looking out for us by keeping it illegal. Almost eighty years into Prohibition, the government continues to perpetuate this myth, and unfortunately, too many Christians continue to buy into it.


In reality, marijuana is no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol - two legal substances. This point is backed up by millions of hours of research over decades, and does not need to be debated here. What is actually orders of magnitude worse than marijuana itself are our country's marijuana laws. Consider the case of Jillian Batty, a candy-maker from California, and ask yourself the question: which is more harmful; marijuana, or our marijuana laws?


As reported on copblock.org, Jillian Batty Wemyss was on her way from her home in California to New Hampshire, where she had planned to set up her booth selling her candy and fudge at a festival. While driving through Texas, Jillian was stopped at an unconstitutional border-patrol checkpoint, where a drug dog signaled that she (the dog) smelled drugs. Jillian's vehicle was unlawfully searched, and she was found to be in possession of less than a gram of cannabis. She was jailed overnight and placed in solitary confinement. Under Texas' particularly draconian drug laws, she's facing 180 days in jail.


What, specifically, is Jillian being protected from? The possibility that she would have gone to her hotel that night and relaxed with a joint, while victimizing nobody? In what way is Jillian's life going to be improved now that she's a name and number in the Texas criminal justice system? Thanks to our overbearing government's "protection" of Jillian, she missed out on her chance for her business to make money, depriving her family of income. But at least we're protecting her from harm.


Why do we continue to prosecute this ridiculous war against a harmless plant and those who use it? Let's take a look at who [i]actually[/i] benefits from marijuana prohibition.


1. The Drug-Testing Industry. Ever wondered why your employer is so interested in what you do in your free time? If you're a conservative and/or a Christian, you've most likely bought into the mistaken belief that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, and simply accepted having to pee in a cup as part of the job. In reality, the drug testing industry is a multi-billion dollar industry [1] that purports to benefit employers and probation boards, while instead funneling millions back into government anti-drug propaganda and politicians' campaign funds in order to stay in business.


2. Police Unions. The federal government hands out billions of dollars in grants to local law enforcement agencies in the name of anti-drug enforcement; here is one example [2]. If those government grants were to dry up, local police departments would be out that sweet, sweet federal money. Of course, if marijuana were legal, police departments wouldn't need that money to bust the 900,000 people per year that they do for possession. Of course, the police unions don't see it that way. Federal grant money = police jobs = more money for police unions. The system continues to perpetuate itself. As long as a misinformed populace continues to demand police protection from the Loco Weed, police departments will continue to demand those federal anti-drug grants. And as those federal anti-drug grants continue to enrich police unions, which leads to campaign donations (but only for those candidates who are interested in continuing marijuana prohibition), prohibition will continue.


3. Criminal Gangs. There's a reason the Bloods, Crips, MS13, Mexican drug cartels, and any other armed criminal gang that you care to name, are involved in the drug trade: it's profitable. If users could purchase their cannabis legally (as they can in 16 states, barring federal enforcement), armed gangs have no incentive to become involved in marijuana trafficking. Of course, this makes a larger case for the legalization of all drugs, but that is a topic for another column.


If you are interested in supporting Ms. Batty Wemyss, and getting some delicious toffee, fudge, or candy in return, please visit her website: Stateless Sweets

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/08/12/CM163746.DTL
[2] http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120507/ARTICLE/120509652?tc=ar

North Dakota Voters Reject the Phony War on Religion

Ordinarily, a ballot measure in a spring election in a Midwestern state is hardly worthy of notice by the news outlets, the blogosphere, or the podcast-o-sphere.  But North Dakota voters and their defeat of Measure 3 have gotten us talking.

In the main, this proposed amendment to the North Dakota constitution was an attempt to restrict the legislature from getting involved in entanglements in matters of religious liberty without a compelling state interest. Although the proposed legislation predates the controversy, there is an obvious overlap between this legislation and the national discussion on contraception. Indeed, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, vocal supporters of the proposed legislation, pointed out that this measure would have prevented the state from requiring institutions to provide contraception coverage.

North Dakota voters defeated the proposed amendment. At first blush, this appears to be a blow to the ideas of religious liberty. However, a closer look at the facts reveals that the real reason the measure was defeated have to do with its broad language and poor wording. In its proposed form, opponents argued, the legislation could have paved the way for state-sanctioned genital mutilation, honor killings, and related horrors committed in the name of religious liberty.

Matters of law and matters of religious liberty are, unfortunately, going to intersect in today's world, just as they have for centuries. As a liberty-minded Christian, I'd like to explore my thoughts about the nature of this relationship.

First, something needs to be said regarding the national discussion about government requiring institutions to provide contraception care. Let me be fully clear about this: I think that the Catholic Church's position on contraception and birth control is ridiculous. It defies common sense; it unjustly burdens Catholic women and Catholic families; and it can be argued that it has lead to increases in AIDS (due to the Church applying pressure to African governments to stop providing condoms and condom education). Nevertheless, whether I agree with it or not, it is the Catholic Church's position. Therefore, I reject the notion that an institution should be forced, by the government, to pay for something that they don't believe in. This is a clear violation of the principles liberty, and while I sympathize with the plight of those victimized by the Church's position, I cannot abide any attempt by law to interfere with a religious matter if it does not affect the liberties of another person. This distinction will be important in the following paragraphs.

However, far too often expressions of religious liberty lead to victimization of innocent people. An extreme example of this is female circumcision. While some would seek to justify the practice by calling it an expression of religious liberty, the reality is that it's a hideous act of aggression against a human being. Any law that would prevent the practice would, of course, have my support (although such a law isn't necessary in the U.S., as our existing assault & battery laws would come into play).

When matters of religious liberty intersect with the lives of children, we walk a very fine line. For example, I could declare that I support the right of any parent to raise their children in a way that suits them. But I would be lying- I don't support the right of parents to mercilessly beat their children, even if their religion allows (nay encourages it). I don't support the right of parents to marry off their adolescent daughters to old men for lives of sexual slavery, even if their religion allows (nay encourages it). But do I support the right of a parent to deny life-saving medical care to a child because of their religion? Do I support the right of a parent to deny their ids vaccinations because of their religion? Unfortunately, in cases like these the answer isn't so readily apparent.

The First Amendment, while at once abundantly clear ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), is simultaneously limited. The Founders couldn't possibly have considered such things as genital mutilation, or contraception, or blood transfusions, or any of the modern areas where law and religion become entangled. For this reason, legislators need to take a cautious and measured approach when dealing with matters of religious liberty. The goal should be to allow as much freedom as possible in practicing religion while protecting the rights of others not to be victimized by an expression of religion. Unfortunately, broad and poorly-worded legislation is not the way to go about it.

Kentucky Terrorism Held in Solitary Confinement for a Year

I fully admit that, immediately following the September 11th attacks, I fully bought into the notion of the Social Compact - that is, the idea that you must willingly give up liberty in the name of safety. I dismissed as bleeding hearts and do-gooders those who attempted to speak up for people who were denied their liberty and due process in the name of stopping terrorism. With my flag in one hand and my Bible in the other, I laughed at those who opposed Camp X-Ray, indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, and all of the resultant human rights violations that have come about from this phony War on Terror.

Ten years later, however, I continue to realize how wrong I was. Nevertheless, human rights abuses in the name of the War on Terror continue. Lest you think that this is a big-city only problem (or a Pakistan-Yemen-etc. problem), consider the case of Mohanad Shareef Hammadi in Louisville, Kentucky.

The specifics of Mr. Hammadi's case can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/attorney-terror-suspect-isolated-165947922.html In short, Mr. Hammadi has been held in solitary confinement, without access to human contact or any form of electronic media, for nearly a year. It's easy to dismiss Mr. Hammadi's lawyer's concerns about his client because Hammadi is a Muslim and is an alleged terrorist. But just because he's Muslim and/or an alleged terrorist does not disqualify him from the rights afforded to him by the Constitution. But the larger point is, if it can happen to Mr. Hammadi it can just as easily happen to me or you. All it takes is a ginned-up terrorism accusation and any of us can find our Constitutional protections thrown out the window.

I'm reminded of the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). We use this story to teach Sunday School children about the need to show kindness, and that's all well and good. But in the larger context of this parable, the focal point is not the Samaritan; it's the "rich young ruler" who asked about the Samaritan. When this man asked Jesus, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" - to which Jesus responded, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself' - then asked the follow-up question, "Who is my neighbor?" he wasn't looking for an example. He was looking for an exception. Jesus provides the example of the Good Samaritan not as an object lesson in showing kindness, but as an object lesson in showing kindness despite our prejudices.

Mr. Hammadi, like all terrorism subjects, deserves the same protections and rights given to all criminal suspects. We cannot continue to justify cruel and unusual punishment, and the deprivation of the right to due process (and dozens of other human rights and Constitutional abuses) simply for expedience in this War on Terror. Like it or not, the Constitution should protect us all, not just those we like.

Why Advocating Armed Violence Never Works Out

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/was-a-church-going-daddys-girl-arrested-because-she-likes-to-blow-up-toilets-on-her-property/

Making the rounds of the Atlanta-area blogs and news outlets this week is the story of Celia Savage, a 23-year-old Georgia woman who has run afoul of the ATF. Based on the story linked above (and, considering that The Blaze has ties to Glenn Beck, we're probably not getting the whole story), it looks as if this young lady is mostly harmless, but it looks as if she's definitely in over her head thanks to some poor decisions.


Celia was apparently a bit of a popular contributor to Youtube, posting videos of herself blowing up toilets on her own property with homemade bombs. This in and of itself probably wouldn't have gotten the ATF's attention - Youtube has more than its share of videos of people people blowing stuff up - were it not for the fact that Celia is also a vocal advocate of violent revolution. At least, if her Facebook page is to believed. Describing herself as a "Christian Anarchist," Celia's Facebook page contained quotes that seem to support the belief that Celia may be an advocate of violence. Again, Christians advocating anarchy (though undoubtedly rare) are probably not worthy of the ATF's attention. But when her [alleged] violent anarchist beliefs are combined with documented tendencies to blow things up (and, as one of her supporters alleges, an anonymous tip from someone who holds a grudge against her), the ATF takes notice.


For the record, I hope Celia gets off. Not because I support violent anarchists or homemade pipe bombs; rather, I think Celia is probably just an enthusiastic young lady who has made some poor choices and wound up in a situation that is far bigger than she imagined.


But Celia's case raises a bigger issue; namely, the idea that Christians are right to advocate violence against the government. As a liberty-minded Christian, I share the concerns of many Christians about intrusive government. However, I reject the ideas of those who advocate violence. Consider these points:


1. There is no call in Scripture for Christians to violently oppose government. In Acts 1, Jesus' disciples began to question Him after the resurrection. The first question asked of Jesus (that Luke records) concerned violent revolution: "Then they gathered around him and asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?'" (Acts 1:6, NIV) The disciples had hoped Jesus would lead Israel in a violent revolution against Rome. Their hopes had been dashed at the crucifixion, but with a resurrected Jesus the disciples were right back in their revolutionary mindset. Jesus, of course, refused to allow His life and ministry to be used as an excuse for violence, reminding the disciples instead that "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the Earth." (Acts 1:8, NIV). Elsewhere in the New Testament, when Christians run afoul of the government, they either accept their punishment as an honor to suffer in Christ's name (Romans 8:17) or appeal to existing government processes for remedy (Acts 25:11).


2. Violence just leads to more violence. Far more often than any Christian would like to admit, Christians are just as guilty of aggression and violence as others. Recent sectarian violence in Nigeria (http://www.voanews.com/content/nigerian-religious-leaders-work-to-stop-sectarian-violence-in-north/1146367.html) has led to at least 700 deaths as Christians retaliate against Muslims for crimes committed against Christians. Which then leads to Muslims committing violence against Christians in retaliation, which then leads to Christians committing violence against Muslims in retaliation, etc. This cycle continues to play out elsewhere in the world: Egypt (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15235212); Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles); and even in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence). In Ephesians, Paul calls on Christians to eschew violence and instead embrace love, saying "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another, just as in Christ God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:24)


3. Peace works just as well as violence. There is a reason Dr. Martin King Jr. is remembered with a federal holiday while Malcolm X remains a historical footnote. Dr. King effected social change through peaceful means, while Malcolm X advocated violence. Consider, for example, the seminal moment in the Civil Rights Movement, the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Neither bombs, nor riots, nor vandalism, nor any other violent means brought about the end to the segregation of Montgomery's buses. Instead, peaceful resisters used peaceful means (namely, boycotting the buses and cooperating with each other to lessen the negative impact that the boycott would have on them personally), the Montgomery bus system was crippled financially and blacks ultimately won a victory over hate. This victory was obtained not through violent revolution, but through peaceful evolution.


If we, as Christians, feel wronged or threatened by our government, violence is not the means to make our voices heard. Instead, we must imitate Christ's example of peace.

Christian Liberty, Family Planning, and Childfreedom

NOTE: This blog is not now, nor is it ever going to be, a Childfree blog. That horse is being beaten elsewhere on the web. However, In light of the current national discussion on birth control and the so-called "War on Women" (which is a total farce, by the way), I thought I'd share some thoughts on the matter as it relates to Christian liberty.

Many Christian couples, either by choice by chance or somewhere in between (see the side discussion in the next paragraph), are in a position where they do not have children and don't intend to do so. Being a Childfree Christian myself, the matter has been of concern to me personally. Many years ago when I first realized that my wife and I wouldn't be able to have children without extensive medical intervention (if at all), I began to research the opinions of Christian leaders on the subject. What I found was that, while sympathetic to (if not avidly pitiful of) the plight of couples who are unable to have children, when it comes to simply choosing not to have children, Christian leaders are less than understanding.

We'll look at some of those opinions in a moment, but first, let's have a little side discussion about this whole business of "choosing not to have children" verses "not being able to have children." The vast majority of outsiders (e.g., parents) who look at this issue believe it's a matter of either-or. That is, either a couple is either unable to have children, or they choose not to. However, as almost all childfree couples will tell you, it is rarely that simple. If we imagine a line, where the far left point is "unable to have children," and the far right point is "choose not to have children," the vast majority of childfree persons fall somewhere in between. Medical considerations, financial considerations, legal considerations, social considerations, and host of other factors, all of which are very personal and none of anyone else's business, come into play in any couple's journey to parenthood or non-parenthood.

But no matter. As I said earlier in this article, some Christian leaders are less than understanding about Christians not having children. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, seems to be one of the most outspoken about the subject:

The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God's design and order. [1]

Trusted family researcher and speaker Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, is also averse to the idea of "deliberate" childlessness.

My comments are directed primarily to married couples who view having children as simply another “lifestyle choice” — and an undesirable one, at that. I believe that attitude contradicts what we know from Scripture about the blessing of children and the high calling of parenthood. [2]

Interestingly, Dr. Dobson's public position on the matter seems to contradict what one of his staffers told me directly in a personal e-mail about the subject:

...Dr. Dobson does not believe that the Lord dictates that all couples are to have children. ... Ultimately, though, the decision about whether or not to start a family rests with a couple and the Lord. We do know that He has a unique plan for each of us, and as a husband and wife give this matter prayerful consideration they will make the choice that is right for them.[3]

Even the Bible itself, at first glance, appears to support the positions of Drs. Mohler and Dobson, among countless others. In fact, the verse I'm going to quote below (among others) is often cited by these men as a basis for their positions:

Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from Him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. Psalm 127:3-5 New International Version

So in light of what respected and educated Christian leaders have to say about the subject, and in light of the Bible's very words on the subject, how can a Christian justifiably "choose" not to have children?

Let's look at three cultural considerations of God's people of Bible times that may have shaped their writings on this matter, and how those considerations are not relevant to Christians today.

1: High Infant Mortality. In an age when medical care consisted mostly of herbal preparations and prayers; to say nothing of rampant disease, malnutrition, frequent famines, and the like; it would stand to reason that very few babies born in Bible times lived to see adulthood. Indeed, if a man wanted to have sons that lived to adulthood, simple mathematics require that he have as many babies as possible simply to weed out the ones that don't survive infancy. Obviously, for most Christians in the modern era this is not a concern. Thanks to God's role in advancing medical care, nutrition, etc., most First World babies can reasonably be expected to live to adulthood.

2: The Need to Populate the Battlefields. There's a reason Solomon uses military equipment (a quiver and a bow & arrows) as an object lesson about children in the 127th Psalm. Ancient warfare was largely a numbers game; if your enemy shows up at the battlefield with 5,000 soldiers, and your side shows up with 3,000 soldiers, the odds are already against you. Therefore, if your sons faced a reasonable expectation of having to go to war at least once (if not several times) in their lifetimes, then the more sons you contributed to the war effort, the more likely it would be that your side would win. Christians today are not faced with the horrifying prospect of having to send our boys to war in the name of the very survival of our people, as were God's people in Bible times.

3: The Need for Workers in the Fields. So you've got a field of grain to be harvested, and the only way to get it harvested is through the manual labor of farmhands. And you're got to do it quickly, or your crops are going to wither and be useless. What are you going to do? Either put your own sons to work (1 Samuel 16) or hire field hands (Ruth 2). And if there is a shortage of field hands, your crop is ruined. Jesus himself used the shortage of field hands as an object lesson about the Kingdom in Matthew 9:37, when He said "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few" (NIV). Today, even the most devoutly Christian of farmers can harvest his crop with machines and technology and doesn't need sons/hired hands simply for farm work. And even in labor-intensive forms of agriculture, the labor pool is large enough that shortages of farm workers are rarely of concern today.

So what does all of this mean for Christians today? As liberty-minded Christians, we respect the right of Christians to have as many or as few children as they want and are able to care for. We reject any notion that the number of children a couple has is any business of the government, the pulpit, or the community. We may make personal value judgments about how many children a couple has (am I really the only Christian who is appalled by the Duggars), but in the end we realize that it is none of our business, and we ask for the same respect to be given to us.

[1] http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=23

[2] http://www.a2ndgenerationofhomeschooling.com/2010/06/dr-dobson-on-intentional-childlessness.html

[3] Personal e-mail from Rick O'Shea, Focus on the Family Staffer

Judge Andrew Napolitano on Drones

One of the things I'd like to do with this blog is provide links to what other commentators are saying about liberty-related matters, and today I'd like to take a look at what Judge Andrew Napolitano has to say about military surveillance drones being used to spy on Americans. Here is the link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/07/where-is-outrage/?test=latestnews

Let's focus on one paragraph in particular that mentions Christianity and its relationship to liberty:


The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias -- a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God's image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this blog (and indeed, will continue to mention), far too many Christians eagerly buy into this notion that, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. This is patently false! Do you really want golf-ball size military surveillance cameras peering into your bedroom window? Into your daughter's bedroom window? Flying over and taking shots of your wife sunbathing by the pool? Do you want a S.W.A.T. team showing up at your door because the weeds in your bushes resemble marijuana to the drone's computers?


The Social Compact is a lie (the Social Compact being the belief that you must give up liberty in the name of safety). Christians have as much right to demand freedom as non-Christians. Even if we live our lives without any hint of impurity (Eph. 5:3), we do not need to sacrifice our freedoms in the name of a so-called War on Terror, or War on Drugs, or whatever they're declaring war on today.


Call your senator or congressman and let your voice be heard! Tell him or her that you do not want military surveillance drones flying over your neighborhood! Just follow this link: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

More Assaults on the Fourth Amendment

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/colorado-cops-handcuff-all-adults-in-robber-search-16497496

For those who don't feel like clicking the link to a video, here are the basics of what happened: Police in Aurora, Colorado were searching for a bank robber and received a "credible tip" that the suspect was at a certain intersection. So what did the Aurora police do? They handcuffed and detained every last adult who was at the intersection. Forty innocent people were detained for over two hours, some who had children in their cars with them.


The Aurora police are justifying this action by saying that, by golly, they did actually find their man! I guess that means that the two-hour detainment of forty innocent citizens, in clear violation of the 4th Amendment, was totally justified. Riiight.

A Christian Case for Liberty

I'd like to take you back to a lesson I learned WAY back in the middle 70's, back when I was still in elementary school; to the point at which I first realized (even though I didn't know it at the time) that I'm a libertarian.


There was a girl in my 3rd grade class - Ann R - who was Jewish. One winter Ann's mom came to talk to our class about Chanukah and Judaism. I remember little of what she said; if indeed she said much at all. Mostly what my 3rd-grade mind was able to take in was that Mrs. R made awesome peppermint taffy, and that Jews don't eat pork. The rest I don't remember (and it's not really relevant to this blog post anyway).


Some time after Mrs. R's visit I was with my family heading down the road in the family car. As you drive along I-55 in Illinois, south of Springfield, you'll see a huge hog farm that's been there for as long as I can remember, probably longer. Near this farm is a billboard that has said essentially the same thing for well over 40 years: Pork - The Other White Meat.


This was during the middle 70's, when Jerry Falwell was preaching against the decay of the country's morality and garnering support for what would become the Moral Majority. Even though I wasn't sure of all of the specifics of what was going on at the time, I was aware that Christians were concerned about culture of the day. Rock & Roll, drug use, the Pill, and similar matters were of great concern to Christians, and Christians of the day wanted to use our legal system as a means of making sure that God's laws were followed. At least, that's how my 8-year-old mind understood things.


So what does the (now defunct) moral majority have to do with pork? Not a thing, as it turns out. You see, I figured that, since Jews don't eat pork, a big sign on a billboard advertising pork, near a giant pork farm, would naturally be of concern to Jews. So I asked my mom, "Why aren't Jewish people complaining about a pork farm being here if they don't eat pork?" Mom didn't have an answer for me; and indeed, I was well into my teens before I figured out the answer:


Unlike Christians, Jews aren't interested in everybody else being held accountable to their laws.


Consider Luke 10:27: Love your neighbor as much as yourself (CEV). This is what schoolchildren call the Golden Rule, and what philosophers call the Ethic of Reciprocity. It carries with it not only the idea that we treat others the way we want to be treated, but we don't treat others the way we don't want to be treated.


The principle laid out in Luke 10:27 tell us clearly that a Christian has no more right to demand that non-Christians follow Christian standards than Jews have to demand that Christians follow Jewish standards; or Muslims to demand that Christians adhere to Sharia law; and so on. Unfortunately, far too many Christians fall under the category of "Religious Right." Many Christians in the US favor economic freedom (and thus lean right), but tend to also want to limit others' social freedoms. As a liberty-minded Christian, I find this sad and rather distressing.


Remember, you cannot be truly free if you seek to deny freedom to others.

Welcome to the Christianity and Liberty blog! In this blog we'll discuss Christian issues from a liberty-minded perspective; and we'll discuss issues of liberty from a Christian perspective. Don't expect (much) preaching, Biblical exposition, daily devotions, or the like. Our goal here is to talk about the events of the day; to sound off on random subjects; and to talk about whatever is on our minds. Enjoy!