Now It's a Crime to Feed the Poor

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Ademo" Guilty of Wiretapping Charges

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

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

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

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

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

Far too few people are willing to take that risk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Christian-on-Muslim Hate

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Civil Disobedience Poster

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


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