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.