Now It's a Crime to Feed the Poor

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Ademo" Guilty of Wiretapping Charges

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

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

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

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

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

Far too few people are willing to take that risk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Christian-on-Muslim Hate

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Civil Disobedience Poster

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


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

Chick-Fil-A: Delicious Chicken, With Baggage

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Is It OK to Disobey Bad Laws?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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