Minor Thoughts from me to you

Now this is interesting (well, to me):

I don't know much about the current situation in Honduras, but most of the news reports I've heard have generally portrayed the ouster of its president Manuel Zelaya as a military coup, albeit one of a man who seemed likely to make a play for the role of dictator.

Well, reknowned conservative commentator Dennis Prager has informed his listeners which side he supports by flying to the country and broadcasting his show from there. I think it's an unusually bold move; commentators are generally sedentary creatures who enjoy talking about the issues more than anything productive (and why not? Talking's easier), but his move here underlines the passion he communicates in his article.

Am I convinced? I have no idea, still knowing little about the country and its problems. Dipping my hand for but a moment into the well of information that is the Internet, I find that in 1998 the county was declared the third-most corrupt country on Earth by Transparency International's Corruption Research Center. A more recent (2008) publication from the Overseas Security Advisory Council informs me that Honduras was full of gang violence, kidnapping, and political shenanigans even before the "coup". Finally, I notice that as of July 2 the military has restricted citizens' rights, although Prager rightly notes they haven't taken power (so calling this situation a "military coup" is very much a misnomer), not even from Manuel Zelaya's party. All of this suggests we're talking about a struggling, nearly failed state that is chaotic but has thankfully had too much recent experience with complete authoritarianism (the military ruled until the 1980s) to succumb to an obvious power play.

That said, some of the response by the Honduran government is unquestionably illegal, such as Zelaya's deportation (no Honduran citizen may be forcibly removed from the country, according to the country's constitution), so it appears that the Hondurans have allowed themselves to push a little harder against the encroachment than was strictly advisable.

Shoot, let's just invade.

Are you tired of politics?

God knows, I am. As big a politics junkie as I used to be - in my time as a flag-wavin', God-fearin' Republican there wasn't a Townhall.com update I didn't read, nor an issue of _The Economist _I didn't completely consume for more general news before moving on to a host of blogs - these days I can barely finish a simple newspaper article without feeling that despicable strain that comes from forcing my poor brain to endure the consumption of totally repetitive and irrelevant information (for those of you who aren't Bible geeks like me, think of how you feel when reading the Book of Leviticus). Unless that newspaper article details the sexual exploits of one of our holders of higher office, anyway, because at least the secret life of Mark Sanford appeals to the voyeur in me.

But what the heck am I supposed to find interesting about Washington today - or indeed the world? No thoughtful debate of current issues exists within the federal and state levels of U.S. authority. Bills are written at absurd length and then submitted to the floor for approval on days when reading them, much less discussing them is impossible - and often include "blank checks", entire sections which are simply to be "filled in later" without returning for reconsideration. Which might be averted had our so-called representatives the huevos to simply vote down bills they've only just learned about, but Congress is utterly beholden to the unions, corporations, foreign governments, and associations which purchase its members' elections - the work of passing a bill doesn't really have anything to do with what's in it, so much as who is for it and who is against it. Indeed, at least in many sessions the leader of a party has simply informed his party's other members how they are to vote using hand signals - one for "yes", another for "no", an occasional third for "vote your conscience".

Oh, I suppose there is a little bit of discussion about the choices before us, now and then. Remember the most recent presidential debates? When an Ordinary Citizen would ask a pointed question and both Obama and McCain would simply ignore it, just make a vague statement about the economy or the Earth or Change instead? Just like their campaign managers demanded, I'm sure, because being boring and non-specific is how Poli-Sci wizards have determined one wins elections. There's a reason no president of our country has delivered a speech worthy of the Gettysburg Address in a very, very long time.

What is the American government that I am supposed to want to engage in it? Let's momentarily push past the oft-quoted reminder that "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch" (Benjamin Franklin is often incorrectly cited as the author, but in fact nobody can find evidence of the observation been written prior to '92). Let's note instead the unchallengeable fact that even the laws established both by the Unites States Constitution and our government are ignored whenever they get in the state's way. The government has a "compelling interest" in ignoring our property rights. It prosecutes people and expressly denies them the right to raise funds for their own defense. It goes to war without declaring war. It spies on us. It imprisons people indefinitely after they are found innocent of the crimes with which they were charged. It takes my money and gives it to the people who voted for and contributed to whoever is in office.

So I should work to change all that, right? I should start a movement. I should convince others of my position. That's what Democracy is all about.

Sure. That's the ticket. I'll just convince a bunch of first-class thieves to pass a bill which forbids them from stealing. Perhaps something along the lines of what Dan Carlin repeatedly suggests: a bill that requires a politician to excuse himself or herself from voting on any bill that affects an industry from which he or she has taken donations. If I campaign tirelessly for its passage, I'm sure it will only be a matter of time. Say, the rest of my life.

And really, that's a point I think needs to be brought up more often: the unknown amount of time I have on this planet and how much I can do with it. I have so many dreams. How much of this surely limited lifespan I have am I supposed to use up defending myself against these politicians and their supporters? These people hell-bent on owning me because they've bought into a utopian religion.

No, I really want nothing to do with any of it. I don't want to read another lie on the front page - and there is always a lie on the front page. I don't want to waste an hour or more of my day voting so that the next thief-in-chief to come along can say he has a mandate from me (or alternatively that he does not, but too bad).

But what options does rejecting this political arena, this total lie, leave me? Two, really: one is to resign myself to being at the mercy of whatever greedy power possesses the military might to hurt me and try to live my life as best I can anyway. The second is to succumb to what some commentators are snidely calling "the Bubba Effect" because they envision white rednecks from the South when they think of it (and incidentally, um, they're spot-on, 'cuz I am one). According to Glenn Beck's definition of the term (there seems to be disagreement), communities of like-minded individuals tend to form when citizens become disillusioned with the idea they are going to be able to live decent lives under their out-of-control government. Militias, for example. Or Christian Exoduses. Or Free State Projects.

I ask myself on a fairly regular basis these days if I have the courage to choose the latter and live a life of civil disobedience, as well as at what point the former would become unbearable (after Hate Speech Legislation? After socialized medicine? When my taxes reach a certain level?). Fortunately for me it's an academic question for now. I've the next several years of my life planned out and they mainly involve overseas work, living as a guest in other countries. My decision will remain deferred 'til my return.

And then, what?

It's photos like this that demand we start a "Mad Libs" category.

And yes, since I know you're wondering: she_ is_ an actual representative. Brazil.

"It is is depressing that it even needed to be discussed," begins The Economist latest Europe.view column. From that opening sentence it proceeds to inform us of the Russian reaction to a resolution by the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) equating Stalin with Hitler.

'...the OSCE resolution prompted outrage from Russia. Indeed, under the new law criminalising the “falsification of history”, anyone who voted for it, discussed it or publicised it in Russia would risk a jail sentence of up to five years.'

It's a response I think anyone with their head on straight must find indefensible, but a comment on the article from another reader did adequately explain for me the psychology behind it.

'For better or for worse, human beings look to a few major events in national history for one of the most central components of identity building (the other typically being religion). As such, these are the places that hurt the most. All great events and all great leaders have their dark sides. We are all human. And yet, in some cases those dark sides are acknowledged but not played up. Jefferson's slave ownership (and, indeed, his diddling of some of those slaves) is not played up. July 4th does not focus on genocide of Native Americans. FDR is not the man with dictatorial aspirations who packed the SCOTUS. Truman is not celebrated for nuking hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. The names on the Vietnam War Memorial do not have bracketed numbers to indicate the number of innocent people those individuals might have brutalised.

'It is well known that for Russians, their victory (and the fact that it was a victory, rather than a defeat is hugely important) in WWII, which came at great cost (in no small part by virtue of Iosif Vessarionovich's incompetence) is the defining moment of their modern history. Stalin is only tolerated, for all his warts, because he personifies this victory. And now you want to tell them that they were no better than those they fought against and that it was all down to luck anyway?'

The poster, an Aiden Clarke, disdains "foreigners gloatingly belittling the cornerstones of [Russia's] national identity." I see his point and think his logic is pretty clear, but I've still not enough interest in preserving Russian pride to excuse any defense of the evil man - and what Aiden belittles with his comments is the full weight of Stalin's crimes. Furthermore, Aiden might be right in saying that the resolution is merely an exercise in "poking a wounded animal" by politicians, but the Russian reaction shows that it's nevertheless an exercise worth doing, for if the fact that the world would be better off if Stalin were never born is not common wisdom in every room of the Kremlin itself, then that fact bears more repeating.

Russians need to spend less energy protecting the nonexistent honor of its homegrown monster, more coming to accept and grieve the destruction he wrought.

Above: Jonathan Edwards.

Webmaster Joe's really been crankin' out the apologetics recently. And it's all interesting - not so much the in-and-outs of the arguments themselves (which I say without offense to Joe, I hope - I simply know them already) as my reaction to them from a new, quasi-outsider perspective, what I'm learning about how mental paradigms work.

The theology Joe is taking the time to explain to all of us seems to me self-evidently crazy and even evil. Reading it, I realize how Nazis could slay 6 million Jews (or Jews could wipe out lands full of Canaanites), how Muslims could understand why one should blow up women and children on buses, why Catholics once forced baptisms and lit people on fire. Yet I remember quite clearly once making many of the same points to other people, and how justified I felt in doing so at the time. What's more, I know the man making them now, and I would never consider him less morally-inclined than I. I'm forced to reconsider a bromide I once casually dismissed about good men, bad men, and religion.

But I suppose I'd better get to answering it all. And that shouldn't take much time, since Joe stipulated at the beginning of his post that all of his logic is based on the unwarranted assumption that the universe exists according to orthodox Christian theology. On that basis there's little arguing to be done.

Except with Jonathan Edwards' logic. That might hold up if not for the fact that his entire argument is made up of phrases that either don't mean anything or are self-evidently untrue. That is, God does not have "infinite glory" since glory is something He has to be given by others - beings which are not Him. He is also only "infinitely excellent" (read: perfect) because we're judging Him against Himself. "Infinitely lovely" because... because... Well, that one just makes my head hurt (seriously, what on Earth is that supposed to mean?). And he certainly isn't possessed of "infinite majesty" - He may well have "all" majesty, but not "infinite" majesty. There's only a finite amount of majesty (def: sovereignty, authority) to go around, at least as applies to us humans.

Really, the only term understandable within Edwards' whole fubar essay is "infinite punishment", which is very understandable - and horrifying. Uncalled for, too: even taking Christian theology for granted, I can't possibly be under obligation to God for any more than has been given to me, which would be one life's worth of service. You're not obligated to give a return on what you haven't received. That's why when we give God "all praise" we (presumably) mean that we are thanking Him for "everything we have" rather than infinite possibilities (unicorns, pink elephants, honest politicians?).

But maybe I'm trying to prove far more than is necessary here. After all, there really isn't any reason for me or anyone else to bother refuting Jonathan Edwards' analysis of why we deserve Hell, since Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist and hence believed the hellbound were predestined by God for eternal torture anyway. If that's the case, how can it make sense to say the hellbound deserve their fate, except in that they were built for it? One would assume the whole case to be an exercise in absurdity for a man of such beliefs.

Funny that the same objection was of course raised nearly 2000 years ago to the Bible's Paul. Funnier still that the self-proclaimed apostle had no answer, either.

I made an earlier obversation that Calvinism is a religion that possesses no perspective on humankind distinguishable from Atheism, except that many atheists cling to the idea Life has independent value. However, it does have a flaw the atheistic world view doesn't have; the Calvinist perspective might be structurally sound if unattractive ("We are God's organic toys. He loves some of us and smashes others because this makes Him look good"), but for the fact that Calvinists also must insist that we playthings somehow did wrong and thus _deserve _this whole process that shouldn't need any justification. That keeps tripping them up.

What Calvinism really needs in order to form a coherent perspective is to do away with the concept of Sin entirely - but its adherents naturally can't do that, so maintaining their beliefs requires a certain level of cognitive dissonance and a willingness not to think it through too much. I suppose they accept their confusion as part of God's mystery (His doubtlessly infinite mystery).

Would that they would take the advice of Ayn Rand, who said: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

An absolutely chilling article from FOXNews.com informs us that the Obama administration is now claiming the right to "continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted (italics mine) of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission."

Recall that the Bush administration was lambasted during its stay for (a) holding terrorist trials by military commission instead of a jury and (b) holding terrorists for indefinite periods of time. Now our new president, still fresh from campaigning on the promise of a more humanitarian policy toward these same people, is saying that even when alleged terrorists do get trials and are found innocent, they remain entirely at the United States' mercy.

Would even President Bush have dared to suggest that? And what are we going to do about it?

In Calvinism Continued, Adam argues that it's nonsense to suggest that all sin is really a sin against God.

A Christian might also suggest that all sins are sins against God, not men - but that is simply nonsense. Whosoever harms me, harms me (a better argument is the idea that God wants you to forgive as you were forgiven, but that proves a lack of need for blood). God is by all accounts undamaged. Indeed, the only crime against God must be simple, completely ineffective rebellion - which we must assume does not hurt God's feelings, because that would suggest we have some power over Him - and the idea that God can't put up with that suggests He's not merciful at all.

I disagree, for perfectly valid libertarian reasons. But to follow the logic, you'll have to temporarily assume that the Bible is what it claims to be: God's attempt to reveal who he is and what he's all about.

Propositions:

1. God created the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
2. God created man (Genesis 2:7-8)
3. Ownership comes from mixing labor (John Locke)

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

Conclusion: God owns the earth and everything in the earth -- including us. Further conclusion: Because God owns us, he can do with us as he likes. He has, in fact, done so by giving us the Law and requiring us to obey it. I'd say that most of the Old Testament assumes this point of view.

Deuteronomy 10:12-14

And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding you today for your good? Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.

1 Samuel 2:8

He raises up the poor from the dust;
he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
and inherit a seat of honor.
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's,
and on them he has set the world.

1 Chronicles 29:11

Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.

Nehemiah 9:6

You are the Lord, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you.

Psalm 24:1-4

The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof,
the world and those who dwell therein,
for he has founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the rivers.

Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord?
And who shall stand in his holy place?
He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to what is false
and does not swear deceitfully.

To repeat my argument: God created the world and everything in it, including us. Therefore, God owns us and is perfectly justified in doing with us as he likes. God has designed his world (his universe) to run according to certain laws. Every violation of those laws is a violation of the "natural order" of things and a rebellion against God. Rebellion is nothing more nor less than taking that which doesn't belong to you, namely power.

True, your sin of theft is between you and your victim. He's harmed by longer having that which once belonged to him. But your theft is a crime against God: you've also usurped his power to decide what is and isn't right. You've placed your own judgment and desires above his.

Jonathan Edwards makes the argument that punishment must be proportional to the degree of sin. He goes on to argue that sin is a crime against an infinite God and deserving of infinite punishment.

A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.

Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.

But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.

So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.

Therefore, I argue, God is perfectly justified in any punishment he cares to deal out.

Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge - NYTimes.com

...the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.

... The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting's Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.

But they are also 30 percent more efficient than older bulbs. Philips says that a 70-watt Halogena Energy Saver gives off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb and lasts about three times as long, eventually paying for itself.

It's a case study in the way that mandates can spur innovation, but I'm not sure the news is as good as the New York Times seems to think it is. A government mandate has so far managed to make incandescent bulbs 30% more efficient and 1900% more expensive. This is progress?

Adam is right, of course. The crucial question about whether or not I'm wasting my life -- about whether or not anyone is wasting his life -- is "what exactly [is] a good Christian supposed to do with his or her new life in Christ?" I posed the original question (am I wasting my life) as a result of reading and listening to John Piper. Adam answered the question from his own perspective, I'll start by answering it from Pastor John's perspective.

Pastor John has written a short pamphlet entitled, appropriately enough, "Don't Waste Your Life". His intro to the book provides a succinct answer to the question:

God created us to live with a single passion: to joyfully display his supreme excellence in all spheres of life. The wasted life is the life without this passion. God calls us to pray and think and dream and plan and work, not to be made much of, but to make much of him in every part of our lives.

Later in the second chapter, he expands on that a bit more:

God created me--and you--to live with a single, all-embracing, all-transforming passion--namely, a passion to glorify God by enjoying and displaying his supreme excellence in all the spheres of life. Enjoying and displaying are both crucial. If we try to display the excellence of God without joy in it, we will display a shell of hypocrisy and create scorn or legalism. But if we claim to enjoy his excellence and do not display it for others to see and admire, we deceive ourselves, because the mark of God-enthralled joy is to overflow and expand by extending itself into the hearts of others. The wasted life is the life without a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples.

The book itself attempts to answer the question "What does this mean I should do?" He says:

It has become clearer that God being glorified and God being enjoyed are not separate categories. They relate to each other not like fruit and animals, but like fruit and apples. Apples are one kind of fruit. Enjoying God supremely is one way to glorify him. Enjoying God makes him look supremely valuable.

And, later:

Jesus said, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23). Daily Christian living is daily Christian dying. The dying I have in mind is the dying of comfort and security and reputation and health and family and friends and wealth and homeland. These may be taken from us at any time in the path of Christ-exalting obedience. To die daily the way Paul did, and to take up our cross daily the way Jesus commanded, is to embrace this life of loss for Christ's sake and count it gain. In other words, the way we honor Christ in death is to treasure Jesus above the gift of life, and the way we honor Christ in life is to treasure Jesus above life's gifts.

... But what I know even more surely is that the greatest joy in God comes from giving his gifts away, not in hoarding them for ourselves. It is good to work and have. It is better to work and have in order to give. God's glory shines more brightly when he satisfies us in times of loss than when he provides for us in times of plenty. The health, wealth, and prosperity "gospel" swallows up the beauty of Christ in the beauty of his gifts and turns the gifts into idols. The world is not impressed when Christians get rich and say thanks to God. They are impressed when God is so satisfying that we give our riches away for Christ's sake and count it gain.

This was part of what gave rise to my original question. By this definition, am I wasting my life? I'm rich. Historically speaking (as we've previously discussed, Adam) I'm ridiculously, fabulously wealthy. I can listen to almost anything I want -- spoken or musical -- at any time. I can watch nearly any form of any entertainment at any time. I have access to thousands of books within days or minutes. Most of the world's knowledge is at my fingertips, thanks to the Internet.

I'm pretty well-off by American standards as well. Our household owns 3 computers, 2 iPods, 2 completely paid off cars, 18% of a house, lots of nice clothes, and plenty of food. We can eat out nearly anytime we want to, we can and do fly around the U.S., we rent nice cars and stay in nice hotels on vacation. I have a beautiful, helpful wife who loves me. We have two beautiful daughters. All four of us are in perfect health. In short, I'm doing pretty well at doing as Voltaire's Candide said: "', i.e. enjoy your work, wife, and life - in short, function as you were made to function - and leave the rest up to God."

But, so what? Is that really all there is? Just be thankful that I'm one of the lucky ones and enjoy my wealth? Most days, I'm very tempted to say "yes". God gave it to me, why should I complain about it? But other days I wonder -- am I wasting His gifts? Am I wasting my life?

If, tomorrow, everything were to disappear in a Job-like orgy of destruction, how would I react? Would I praise God and say "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21)? Put differently, is God the most important thing in my life or are my things the most important thing in my life?

My original post also referenced the Rwandan genocide. Many Rwandan Christians reacted as violently and savagely as non-Christians when everything was stripped away from them. I'd like to think I wouldn't do the same thing in the same situation. I'd like to think that my reaction would show that God is the most important thing in my life -- even more important than my family.

God willing, I'll never have to go through that situation and I'll never have to find out the hard way. But it's something I think about as I examine my own priorities and how I react to my stuff.

Now, you also mentioned Luther's solution of passive righteousness to the dilemma of how to improve yourself -- how to become more like God and less like a sinner. And, Luther is right. The two opposite extremes are excessive pride in your accomplishments and excessive despair at your failures.

Personally, I've found Tim Keller to be a big help in understanding how this works. I'll quote from his book The Reason for God. He says:

Religion operates on the principle "I obey--therefore I am accepted by God." But the operating principle of the gospel is "I am accepted by God through what Christ has done--therefore I obey." Two people living their lives on the basis of these two different principles may sit next to each other in the church pew. They both pray, give money generously, and are loyal and faithful to their family and church, trying to live decent lives. However, they do so out of radically different motivations in two radically different spiritual identities, and the result is two radically different kinds of lives.

The primary difference is that of motivation. In religion, we try to obey the divine standards out of fear. We believe that if we don't obey we are going to lose God's blessing in this world and the next. In the gospel, the motivation is one of gratitude for the blessing we have already received because of Christ. While the moralist is forced into obedience, motivated by fear of rejection, a Christian rushes into obedience, motivated by a desire to please and resemble the one who gave his life for us.

I've long lived my life with a constant fear of failure. I'm afraid to try new things because I'm afraid of the consequences of failing at them. That's carried over into my Christian life. I've been afraid to do things for God because I've been afraid of lousing them up and making a bigger mess. Keller (along with C.J. Mahaney and John Piper) has taught me that I can't possibly be any worse than I am. I don't have to worry about God's unhappiness if I fail to live up to his standards and I don't have to bend myself into a pretzel trying to be perfect. Jesus already paid for every single one of my rebellions and moral failures.

I am free to live out my life without endless agonizing over every decision. I'm free to go out and "just do it". I don't have to figure out how to be perfect before doing "it". Whatever I decide I want "it" to be. In a way, I feel like my options are opening up for the first time ever.

Will I do it? Will I step out and do something for God? Will I prove that God is more important than my stuff? Or will I still refuse to take risks, because I don't want to endanger my stuff? Will I use my life profitably or will I waste it?

Our government (Joe and I are both Americans, if it wasn't completely obvious) is the world's oldest. Economically, we account for a quarter of the world's entire gross domestic product - which is a fact that tends not to be mentioned when activists bemoan the fact that we consume a quarter of the world's usable oil ("To each according to his need," we might reply to them). Relatively-speaking, citizens have more economic and social freedoms in the United States than any of their ancestors could imagine, and they have responded by being one of history's most generous people both in charity and in warfare.

There's a lot to celebrate. And maybe that's why the Unites States' citizens don't seem to understand what a pickle they're really in. Drunk with the glory produced by their ancestors, our fellow Americans fail to realize just how much danger they're really in.

Because they are in a bad state (no pun intended). They are broke. Worse, they are heavily, heavily in debt, and their government representatives are unwilling to even arrest their descent into financial ruin, much less lead them out of it, because Americans have been successfully fooled into accepting a paradigm of government known as the "two-party system". So long as Republican officials keep their voters scared of Democrats and Democrat officials keep their own scared of Republicans, both sides are aware they will never be held accountable for their actions. Bizarrely, they can take money from anyone - even the Iranian government - and then do favors for those financiers just as blatantly once they enter office, just so long as they tell the IRS about it.

Keeping their electorate scared of foreign agents has completed their stranglehold on the minds of their subjects ("constituents" is too polite a word at this stage). Somehow, they have successfully convinced over half of the U.S.A. that their personal security demands the continual presence of at least one million soldiers stationed inside their national borders, as well as many more on 820 different bases in over 39 different countries - this despite America's own constitution fairly clearly (though admittedly not completely unambiguously) rejecting the notion of a standing army entirely. The total cost for it all constitutes 21% of annual discretionary spending by their Congress.

They have also convinced many of their fellow citizens that their freedoms are subject to their own "compelling interest" - that is, the level of trouble the government would have in respecting rights to free speech, property, and privacy. The Supreme Court has ruled that governments may indeed abridge political speech (McCain-Feingold Act), take your property (Kelo), or wiretap you (President Obama is now legalizing what his predecessor illegally performed) without judge approval - which as it turns out is a rubber stamp anyway, as citizens are learning across the nation at the most local levels when they challenge police harassment. Inform a policeman that you don't consent to a search or that you are not interested in answering his/her questions and you can be arrested on any number of absurd new catch-all charges.

Indeed, so fragilely do your personal freedoms rest on the government's whims that it has been clearly established by federal judges - and I swear I am not making this up - that you do not actually have a legal right to your own urine or blood and that you cannot put in your body what you want (but then, all you "drug war"-lovers do know about that one, don't you?).

Strip away the paeans to public health and morality and you are left with the central message at the heart of it all: other people own you.

I would say these are the problems with the services our government is providing today - except that they aren't really "services" at all, are they? A favor must by nature be refusable, but should you refuse services the government is not adequately providing - and most certainly if you stop paying for them - you will be met by its mercenaries, men in blue uniforms inexplicably thought as heroes, who will use their guns and clubs to make you pay or else throw you in a cage.

Don't want to fight the Iraqis? You must still at least pay for the guns or you will go to prison.

Don't want government health care? You must buy health care - or you will go to prison.

Don't want to pay for other people's care/education/unemployment/retirement? You must - or you will go to prison.

Don't like how we're literally stealing your money? Pay anyway - or you will go to prison.

Don't want to do something as simple as wear you seat belt? You must, or you will get a ticket - and if you don't pay even that, yes, you will eventually go to prison.

And again, most Americans are OK with it.

In the main, that is because Republican and Democrat officials have successfully fooled the electorate into forgetting why the United States was a great idea in the first place - something that has nothing to do with Democracy or a Republic. Democracies and republics are not especially fantastic forms of government. The former are rule-by-mob and the latter are rule-by-mob with a couple levels of safeguards.

What was absolutely crazy about the U.S.A. was the notion (far from fully-developed though it was) that a person had a respected right to largely live life as he or she chose, _irrespective _of what his or her fellow citizens thought. That was the Big Idea, the Lightning Bolt, the historically uique factor, what made it a hundred times cooler than Greece thousands of years past and France just across the way. Yes, the Founding Fathers failed to initially apply that idea to all people - but that was because some failed to regard women and ethnic minorities as people, not because they didn't understand that people in general should make their own choices. That's a shame, but it's still a fabulous seed of an idea, largely alien to human history.

In fact it's great - and if the United States of America wishes to remain so or even reach still mightier heights, its citizens must recall the seed from which they sprung and rather than allow their leaders to whittle away at the tree of liberty grown from it, force them to allow its expansion.

Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence itself tells us what our next duty is:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

(PS: Boy, the Fourth of July really brings out the windbag in all of us writers, doesn't it? Well, the clock strikes midnight - back to sanity and hopefully some lower level of pretension!)

Happy Birthday America. Let's remember how it all began.

And here's the best dramatic reading I've seen, of the entire Declaration of Independence.

(Previous discussion of this subject can be found in the entry just below this one.)

The primary evil of Calvinism, in the eyes of those who do not adhere to its beliefs, is its denial of the free will to choose Heaven over Hell, God over the Devil. God's omniscience - His ability to know what we will pick ahead of time - isn't really an issue for mainstream Christianity; in fact the idea that God knows our decisions and accounts for them in His work, thus maintaining total control, is a staple of Arminianism (which is why people who say, "I believe in both!" when asked their opinion on the issue are both right and yet reveal their ignorance - "both" predestination and free will is the standard Arminian position of today, though there are of course some who deviate from it).

Interestingly, the same evil is inherent in Atheism: if we are merely biological machines, we are bereft of free will as Christians understand it. Our genetics and experience are the masters of our fate, not "us" (which we tend to think of as our consciousness).

Only "evil" is a misnomer when we discuss the existentialist horror of the atheist. Nobody has "done wrong" by creating the atheist universe. The most one could say about it (if one does take a negative view of the whole affair) is that it is a cosmic tragedy. Calvinism qualifies in theory as evil only because its situation has a mastermind who could produce something better if He liked.

However, it's worth pointing out that Calvinism has the advantage over Arminianism in that it is soon likely to be the only option left for believers - for the centerpiece of Arminianism is Humankind's "X-Factor", a decision-making entity we refer to as our soul or spirit, wholly independent of our biology and experience. Much as the LORD's Temple serves as an integral part of Judaism, without the soul's existence the entire Arminian view of Humanity is rendered incoherent.

So the fact that scientists are doing their best to prove that we don't have souls or spirits at all is potentially crippling (at least to the honest; Jews have gotten along just fine for nearly two thousand years pretending the Temple was never really important).

But not to Calvinism, since Calvinism doesn't require people to have souls. Removing the need for an independent decision-maker unshackled by the input it receives frees Calvinism of the need for there to exist a soul at all; all other functions of the soul can be easily attributed (and are indeed now largely proven to be the function of) the brain.

Calvinists thus have the following defense against the hypothetical scientists who have just proven the soul doesn't exist: "Well, fine - but you must understand that the Bible's authors were putting their message into words that people could understand."

If you believe in a bodily resurrection, all the better.

A note on the previously-mentioned existentialist horror of being an atheist (or a Calvinist, if you believe you're one of the pre-damned, but then I've never met a Calvinist who does): I recently read a great book of philosophical conundrums, one of which asked whether a robot who perfectly simulated being alive would in fact be alive. The question clarified for me the answer to the dilemma of how people like Dawkins, Harris, et al. live. For the last century, researchers have argued as to which is the chicken and which is the egg: our biology or our consciousness. But when there is no difference between life and its simulation, there is no need to differentiate between them - and so it is with Free Will and Predestination, Consciousness and Biology.

Now, a note on God's predestinative powers and Time: probably due in the main to science fiction stories, educated people have largely accepted the idea that Time is basically just another dimension, like Space (Newtonian Time). While that view is a superb manner in which to mentally picture Time and a lot of fun for the imagination, mistaking that abstract representation for reality is ultimately ridiculous. If God knows the future, it's not because He's already "seen it", "outside of it", or working simultaneously in the past, present, and future. If anything, God simply has a powerful enough intellect and influence to predict the course of events He sets in motion.

A third note, about my comparison of the Temples of Judaism to Calvinism: not to pat myself on the back too much, but I just realized how good a comparison that is. Modern Jews bizarrely insist that two verses, one in Hosea (6:6: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice") and one in Proverbs, frees them from entire books' worth of sacrificial requirements. Calvinists similarly are willing to overturn the entire rest of the Bible in favor of relatively few verses about God's control. Humans are treated as decision-making, moral agents responsible for their choices throughout the entirety of Scripture, except for the relatively rare declaration otherwise.

A final note, this one about God's glory, justice, et al.: We are told that God does everything for His own purposes. Fair enough. But we are often also told that God's purpose is "His own glory". Beg pardon, but what the dickens can God possibly want with glory? And what sort of creature would it make Him that He created beings to give it to Him?

The idea that God created people for the pleasure of creation is understandable. So is the idea that He wanted to have relationships. Those are two values that are self-justifying, independent. The idea that God created people just to reveal how awesome He is to them and demand that they admit it, not so much, and I suspect it's just "theology creep", the government-like tendency of theology to make more and more extreme statements to outdo itself.

God's justice and its requirement of blood to remit Sin is an equally bizarre idea, now that I think about it. I've forgiven many people in my life - and I have not found it necessary to kill anything in order to do so. A Christian might suggest that it is unnecessary for me to kill because Jesus paid the price for their sins against me - but I just don't honestly buy that I would find it necessary to kill regardless, unless I was defending myself from the offending party or utterly consumed by a need for vengeance.

A Christian might also suggest that all sins are sins against God, not men - but that is simply nonsense. Whosoever harms me, harms me (a better argument is the idea that God wants you to forgive as you were forgiven, but that proves a lack of need for blood). God is by all accounts undamaged. Indeed, the only crime against God must be simple, completely ineffective rebellion - which we must assume does not hurt God's feelings, because that would suggest we have some power over Him - and the idea that God can't put up with that suggests He's not merciful at all.

Discussion continued from the comments section of "Two Fun New Books".

If I didn't call them something new, Joe, how could I hope to stimulate discussion? :)

Calvin's views fail to pass the mirror test, whereby one stands in front of the mirror (or in front of someone else, if you are very brave) and proceeds to make a pitch such as:

"Hi. I just want you to know that Jesus loves you - and it's possible that you were arbitrarily chosen to be one of the limited number of people he has created to accept into Paradise. I won't know unless you accept the offer, of course... and then die a Christian, too, 'cause if you ever fall away that means you were shamming.

"Why doesn't God love everybody? Oh, but He does! What's that? But why doesn't He save everyone, then - especially since nobody is capable of choosing Him on their own, or even doing a good thing unless the good thing is done with His incarnation as a Jewish carpenter in mind? Look, I know it sounds strange, but this is the only world view that you can really come up with if you take every line of this book as the unvarnished truth - and you must never question the book. Even though other parts of it have conclusively shown to have been added later/corrupted.

"Oh, and one more thing: When I say He 'loves' you, I don't want you to get any wrong ideas. He's really doing all this for His own glory."

At some point during the mirror test/friend test, your voice may start lowering, perhaps even to the point where you fail to finish the statement or only are whispering. Don't worry; it's a natural side-effect and a good indicator of a healthy sense of shame.

Blogger David D. Flowers cuttingly illustrates how Calvinist theology undercuts Jesus' message of love by tinkering a little with the Bible, producing what he calls "John Calvin 3:16-21".

_

16 For God so loved the elect, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever of the elect believeth in Him shall not perish in the fire God created for those he hath predestined to burneth for all eternity, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent his Son into the world to condemn the heathen to hell and save only those who acknowledge they have no choice but to repent and do exactly as God says.

18 Whosoever be amongeth the elect is not condemned, but whosoever is among the damned stands condemned already because God’s sovereignty wills it.

19 This is the verdict: Light has come unto the elect, but all the other men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were predestined to be evil.

20 For everyone who doeth evil must hateth the light, and shall not come into the light because they have no choice but to doeth evil.

21 So he that doeth truth cometh to the light by the TULIP, that his deeds may be made manifest through reformed theology, that they are all forced by God._

Also, as I mentioned in my previous comment, John Calvin was something of an animal to anyone who disagreed with his views, and I can't believe he was a Christian, so as a source he's rather untrustworthy anyway. He'd certainly have killed me if he thought I posed a threat. Am I supposed to believe that such a man had Love Incarnate within his bosom? I cannot. One may blather all one wishes about someone's views in historical context and imperfection of man while on Earth, but if the Holy Spirit does not at least instill a man with the understanding that He cannot butcher people until he has established the Kingdom of Heaven, it is an impotent, worthless thing.

I'll add the same for Martin Luther, even though we have a lot for which to thank him as our liberator from the Catholic Church; the man was an anti-Semite who said, "We are at fault for not slaying them!"

Joe, you're a much more moral person than someone like Martin Luther, or John Calvin, and indeed the very God who is described by Calvinists. I think you should be confident enough in that good within you, be it born by the Spirit or through your own intellect, to reject what is clearly ridiculous and evil.

I just learned about two new books that I'm interested in reading. (Editor: Isn't that true of every book you hear about?)

This one interests me because Dr. John Walton interests me. I transcribed a sermon he gave on Genesis one, Why Didn't God Call the Light, Light?, and have read some shorter pieces he's written. His perspective on the Origins debate and Genesis one is unique and thought provoking. I've wanted to learn about it in more detail ever since I heard his message. This book is my big chance.

Westminster Books has a PDF with some sample pages from the book. The publication date is "July 30, 2009", but Amazon claims to have it in stock. Amazon also includes two brief blurbs for the book:

This book presents a profoundly important new analysis of the meaning of Genesis. Digging deeply into the original Hebrew language and the culture of the people of Israel in Old Testament times, respected scholar John Walton argues convincingly that Genesis was intended to describe the creation of the functions of the cosmos, not its material nature. In the process, he elevates Scripture to a new level of respectful understanding, and eliminates any conflict between scientific and scriptural descriptions of origins. ----Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God

Walton's cosmic temple inauguration view of Genesis 1 is a landmark study in the interpretation of that controversial chapter. On the basis of ancient Near Eastern literatures, a rigorous study of the Hebrew word bara' ('create'), and a cogent and sustained argument, Walton has gifted the church with a fresh interpretation of Genesis 1. His view that the seven days refers to the inauguration of the cosmos as a functioning temple where God takes up his residence as his headquarters from which he runs the world merits reflection by all who love the God of Abraham. -- The Publisher

This one interests me because John Calvin interests me and this is a novelization of his life. Since I discovered it through Tim Challies's review, I'll let him do the talking.

The Betrayal, published by P&R; Publishing, comes from the pen of Douglas Bond who has written several historical fiction novels in the past. In this new book, he writes from the perspective of a lifelong sworn enemy of Calvin--a boy who grows up in the same town and who, as a man, remains involved with Calvin's life to the very end. As the publisher says, "This fast-paced biographical novel is a tale of envy that escalates to violent intrigue and shameless betrayal." I hesitate to say too much about the plot lest I inadvertently ruin it for those who would like to read the book.

... As for me, well, I'll be honest and say that I read fiction only on rare occasions and my preference would always be to read a standard biography over a historical novel. However, I do know that a lot of readers prefer fiction and for these people, I think The Betrayal will be a great way of getting a useful overview of Calvin's life. I was sometimes amazed at just how much of Calvin's life is present in this book but never in such a way that the novel becomes bogged down in irrelevant details. Bond has done a great job of integrating reality with fiction so the reader will hardly know when one begins and the other ends.

If you are a fan of novels or of historical fiction, and if you are anxious to learn a little bit about John Calvin, this man who is so fondly remembered even five hundred years after his birth, you cannot go far wrong in reading The Betrayal.

I like novels a lot more than I like most biographies (killing the memory of great people and events under a pile of dusty prose since the beginning of time), so this is the "biography" of Calvin that I'd like to read.

Michael J. Totten: The Future in Iraq, Part 1.

On the Jaysh al Mahdi, Moqtada al Sadr's radical Mahdi Army militia:

Hajji Jasim, General Nasser's guest from the office of the Mahdi Army's "political wing," sat next to Major Kareem on the couch. "Understand something," he said to Captain Heil. "In the media, JAM only pretends to oppose the Status of Forces Agreement. Privately, we like it. It helps Sadr more than anything else. Those committing violence are going against Sadr's orders. You wanted the occupation to last 20 more years. Now, under SOFA, it's down to three years. That's great for us."

When I met Tom Ricks a few weeks ago, he relayed to me an interesting anecdote from his new book about the surge called The Gamble. "Sadr's people entered into secret negotiations with the United States in, I think, 2007, about whether or not to have negotiations," he said. "They said before we begin any talks, we have to have a date certain when you will withdraw from Iraq. The American policy said we can't do that. So the Sadrists said well, then we can't have talks. Then the Americans said, well, just out of curiosity, what was the [withdrawal] date you had in mind? The Sadrists said 2013. Which put them on the right-wing of the U.S. Congress."

On the use of force in Iraq:

Iraq has never been successfully governed by anyone but a strongman. You might even say Iraq has never been successfully governed at all. Who today sincerely believes the use of force by Saddam Hussein's Baath Party regime was an effective "remedy" for the Iraqi people, as General Nasser put it? Still, despite my unease with what he was saying, I don't think he necessarily meant a totalitarian system is the solution to what ails Iraq.

"Twelve JAM members were brought to court recently," he said. "They asked to be put under American justice because you are softer and jail people under better conditions. Iraqis are not like Americans. You are educated, we aren't. Without force, Iraqis cannot be civilized. Americans don't use real force. You talk to people nicely and worry about human rights."

On peace in the Middle East:

"If the U.S. solves three problems," the general said, "American-Arab relations will be very good. First, resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Second, promote democracy in the Arab world. Third, destroy the Wahhabis. If you solve these problems, all will be well."

On pro-American Iraqis:

Sometimes it's hard to tell if Iraqis who talk the pro-American talk are sincere or if they're just blowing smoke. General Nasser, I think, was sincere. His body language and tone of voice said so, as did the naked calculation of his own interests.

"I had Iraqis here at my house recently," he said. "I told them Americans are better than you because they keep their word and they are disciplined. American people are not profiteers. Their wisdom led them to this. I want Iraqis to learn about American honor."

On the feelings toward American soldiers:

Iraqi public opinion is hard to read. Most Arabs are exceptionally polite and hospitable people, and they'll almost always conceal any hostility as a matter of course. That's true everywhere in the Arab world as long as the people aren't violently hostile.

Much of Iraq used to be violently hostile. Even kids in Sadr City used to throw rocks at American soldiers. Some Baghdad neighborhoods were so dangerous that Americans who left the relative security of their base had a 100 percent chance of being attacked. Overt hostility is rare now, and violent attacks are even rarer. Something important has changed. Reconciliation between Americans and Iraqis is real.

On the rule of law:

"The insurgency now is more criminal than anything else," Colonel Hort said. "The Al Qaeda threat isn't down to that point yet, but Shia insurgents are becoming more and more criminal than anything else. We're working closely now with Iraqi judges, as well as Iraqi Security Forces, to ensure that when we identify a guy we're getting a warrant and arresting the guy that way. It's a significant change for us that we now need a warrant to make an arrest like we do in the States."

Some American officers I met are worried that more terrorists and insurgents will remain at large now that warrants are needed for their arrest, but others are convinced this is wonderful news. It is, at least for the time being, just barely possible to wage a counterinsurgency using law enforcement methods instead of war-fighting methods. There is such a thing as an acceptable level of violence, and Iraq is nearer to that point than it has been in years. Baghdad is no longer the war zone it was.

Some also say a transition to warrant-based arrests now instead of later gives American officers time to train their local counterparts how the rule of law works instead of letting the Iraqis sink or swim on their own later.

Read the full article, please.

Between Two Worlds: All of Grace:

Jerry Bridges, The Discipline of Grace (p. 19):

Your worst days are never so bad that you are beyond the reach of God's grace.

And your best days are never so good that you are beyond the need of God's grace.

And from pp. 22-23:

Pharisee-type believers unconsciously think they have earned God's blessing through their behavior.

Guilt-laden believers are quite sure they have forfeited God's blessing through their lack of discipline or their disobedience.

Both have forgotten the meaning of grace because they have moved away from the gospel and have slipped into a performance relationship with God.

Together for Adoption: The Forgotten Part of James 1:27

The world tells us that our fundamental identity is determined by our performance not by the performance of another (i.e., Jesus). It seduces us to believing (often unknowingly) that our main sense of significance is found in what we do or in what we're involved in.

It might look like this: "God is pleased with me because I have given my life to caring for the least of these." Now, does God smile at us when we care for orphans? Yes, but if the main way we sense his smile is by our efforts to care for orphans, then chances are we've become stained by the world.

If our primary sense of God's smile upon us comes from our involvement in caring for the least of these, then it's highly likely that to some extent our lives are performance-based rather than grace-based. In other words, it may be that my functional paradigm of Christian living is: "I share God's heart for the orphan; therefore, God is pleased with me," rather than "God is pleased with me because of Jesus; therefore, I am freed to care for the orphan." There is a massive difference between these two ways of thinking. To think the first way is to be stained by the world. To think the second way is to be unstained by the world.

Here's a bit of news I know I know I'm very late to the party on, but I think it's still worth mentioning for those who remain unaware ('cause it's great): After doing a little soul-searching and winding up an ardent supporter of marijuana legalization, a former narcotics officer named Barry Cooper now produces videos informing drug users how to avoid arrest, and has actually partnered with investors to conduct sting operations against police forces breaking the law in their investigations.

You don't have to buy his videos to become informed about your rights and the proper manner in which to handle law officers. Nor do you have to be a pot-smoker to benefit from that information. Publicly available films like "Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters" are short and well worth watching, giving you a step-by-step guide to the common traffic stop and other unfortunate occasions.

I've been spending time this weekend catching up on some of the articles that I marked for reading over the last couple of months. This morning, I read How David Beats Goliath by Malcom Gladwell.

He tells several stories throughout the article to illustrate his main points: underdogs have to change the rules of the game.

How?

• Change the speed of the game
• Supplant superior ability with superior effort: work harder than the competition.
• Do what is socially horrifying: "challenge the conventions about how battles are supposed to be fought".
• Accept the disapproval of the insider's.
• Be prepared for Goliath to insist on unfair rules -- rules that only benefit Goliath.

Goliath doesn't like to lose. He'll stack the deck and insist on playing on terms that are favorable to him. Your job -- whether in sport, business, or battle -- is to exploit every loophole he gives you, to change the rules as much as possible, and to resist the pressure to conform to Goliath's rules.

Here's a few of my favorite quotes from the article:

What happened, Arreguin-Toft wondered, when the underdogs likewise acknowledged their weakness and chose an unconventional strategy? He went back and re-analyzed his data. In those cases, David's winning percentage went from 28.5 to 63.6. When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath's rules, they win, Arreguin-Toft concluded, "even when everything we think we know about power says they shouldn't."

... David's victory over Goliath, in the Biblical account, is held to be an anomaly. It was not. Davids win all the time. The political scientist Ivan Arreguin-Toft recently looked at every war fought in the past two hundred years between strong and weak combatants. The Goliaths, he found, won in 71.5 per cent of the cases. That is a remarkable fact. Arreguin-Toft was analyzing conflicts in which one side was at least ten times as powerful--in terms of armed might and population--as its opponent, and even in those lopsided contests the underdog won almost a third of the time.

... We tell ourselves that skill is the precious resource and effort is the commodity. It's the other way around. Effort can trump ability--legs, in Saxe's formulation, can overpower arms--because relentless effort is in fact something rarer than the ability to engage in some finely tuned act of motor coordination.

... This is the second half of the insurgent's creed. Insurgents work harder than Goliath. But their other advantage is that they will do what is "socially horrifying"--they will challenge the conventions about how battles are supposed to be fought. All the things that distinguish the ideal basketball player are acts of skill and coordination. When the game becomes about effort over ability, it becomes unrecognizable--a shocking mixture of broken plays and flailing limbs and usually competent players panicking and throwing the ball out of bounds. You have to be outside the establishment--a foreigner new to the game or a skinny kid from New York at the end of the bench--to have the audacity to play it that way.

... The price that the outsider pays for being so heedless of custom is, of course, the disapproval of the insider. Why did the Ivy League schools of the nineteen-twenties limit the admission of Jewish immigrants? Because they were the establishment and the Jews were the insurgents, scrambling and pressing and playing by immigrant rules that must have seemed to the Wasp elite of the time to be socially horrifying. "Their accomplishment is well over a hundred per cent of their ability on account of their tremendous energy and ambition," the dean of Columbia College said of the insurgents from Brooklyn, the Bronx, and the Lower East Side. He wasn't being complimentary. Goliath does not simply dwarf David. He brings the full force of social convention against him; he has contempt for David.

... But let's remember who made that rule: Goliath. And let's remember why Goliath made that rule: when the world has to play on Goliath's terms, Goliath wins.

"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

The above quote encapsulates the answer with which liberty activists are often met. We are reminded of how much we owe to our various levels of government. Have you been recently accosted? Of course not, because your tax dollars pay for the police. Did you take the road to get here? The government built our road system. You should pay your taxes because you benefit from the government's services.

The implication is that we are ungrateful... er, ingrates, but it's a silly argument. The position is akin to nothing so much as that taken by the homeless man who sweeps a cloth over your car window and sticks out his hand expectedly (then proceeds to break your wipers if you renege on paying for the service you didn't request).

Benefiting in no way obliges the beneficiary unless that beneficiary has asked. I don't owe the government anything.

Neither do you.

Liberty activist Sam Dodson's recent victory over the Cheshire County government in New Hampshire has inspired our own Webmaster Joe - but like many family men, he feels he hasn't the right to jeopardize his wife and two daughters' security by committing civil disobedience.

I'm not sure I agree with his description of illegal activism as "self-indulgent". Most of the men and women who have previously liberated American society from various evils had families; most of the Iranians currently protesting in Tehran's streets and opposing Ahmadenijad at risk to life and limb (God bless them all) likely have them. That they were and are still willing to engage the enemies of freedom underscores their commitment against injustice - and if we all felt such conviction, the injustices of today would likely never have been allowed to take root in the first place.

Which is not to downplay Joe's concerns regarding how civil disobedience might affect his family or to suggest he needs to "man up" and get to chaining himself to fences. No, no - the point deserved to be made, now has been, and I'd prefer to suggest methods by which citizens like Joe might contribute without undue risk to their livelihoods.

Having said that, my first suggestion will probably seem strange: cheat on your taxes. Starve the beast of government by denying it the funds with which to finance its clearly immoral and illegal programs. For the time being this is actually very safe, according to BookKeeperList.com, which writes that in in one recent year "only 2,472 Americans were convicted of tax crimes — .0022 percent of all taxpayers." That's despite the fact that the IRS believes 17% of Americans are not compliant. The IRS just doesn't have the manpower or data-mining equipment to inspect everybody and when it does find suspicious claims it rarely prosecutes. So really, what's the worst that can happen? Paying back-taxes? A penalty, maybe?

But I am am addressing at least one (and probably several, statistics tell me) Christians, so the question naturally arises: isn't that unethical? I've recently reached the decision that it is not. Even if you believe that every government which obtains power over you is legitimate by divine decree (which is stupid - does that mean African-Americans were wrong to protest in the '60's?), to "render unto Caesar" is one thing, especially in a country in which we have a deal with our Caesar; to render unto a known embezzler is another - and it is now undeniable from public information that we Americans are being taken for a financial ride. Even if you accept the idea that they have the right to take money from some people and give it to others, they're not doing that with the money you give them. They're just thieves.

Take for example John Stossel's investigation into the government agency meant to assist Native-Americans in poverty. He's found that $40,000 is purportedly spent on each Native-American purportedly being helped - an amount which obviously would put them all in the middle-class if we simply cut each of them a check for the amount.

Obviously, that money isn't going to those tribes. The government tells us it is, but it isn't - and even the government isn't so incompetent as to mismanage that much moolah. People aren't that stupid, Folks. It's being stolen from you - just as it's being stolen from you inside the Department of Defense (they've been trying to produce a credible financial statement for approximately a decade now), inside the Fed (which hasn't been audited in nearly a century), and doubtlessly inside many other departments.

I'm not saying it's necessarily being stolen from you without being accounted for. I'm sure most of the money that our government officials give to their friends is accounted for on their budget and rationalized, if poorly. But it's still being stolen. The intent of these people is not to help Native-Americans.

A second argument against faithfully paying taxes: I won't declare paying your taxes to be sinful (after all, it's basically the equivalent of handing your wallet to a robber - "Give us the money or else!"), but through your taxes you are funding programs you know to be morally wrong. I can't see that failing to assist evil men in their evil actions can be wrong.

(I wish this conversation was more than academic for me. In my life, the metaphor of the government as highway robber takes on a light-hearted tone. Thumbing through my wallet, the masked menace's eyebrows rise. "Really? This is all you have? Dude, tell you what - just keep it.")

Let's move on to another idea: If you can't be disobedient, fund people who are. The CD Evolution Fund is a charity which financially supports liberty activists in New Hampshire, usually by paying for their legal aid. The fund was instrumental in supplying Sam Dodson with representation during his two-month incarceration.

Obviously, you can also support other liberty-oriented projects. In fact we may want to discuss a libertarian tract of the sort produced by Mr. Ditko; I have $250 in my "Time for another project" account and am currently considering what might eventually pay for itself.

Finally, don't cooperate in your victimization to the extent the law allows. This will still make your life more difficult, as police and government officials don't like it when citizens remind them of their limitations, but freedoms are like muscles - if you don't exercise them, they waste away. Never let a government agent or policeman inside your house without a warrant. Don't tell traffic cops where you're going or where you're coming from if all they stopped you for was speeding.

A number of Free Staters and general libertarians take this tactic to daring levels, openly carrying firearms in areas legal to do so.

Before I close, a note on one tactic you haven't yet heard me mention: voting. To vote for a Libertarian is a harmless enough act, I suppose - and sure, it registers disapproval with the system as it stands - but like Ian on Free Talk Live I'm now wondering if it wouldn't be more productive to deny the legitimacy to our government granted by the electoral process. One of the reasons so few people offer more than token resistance to any government program is that the government is still considered to some extent "all of us", even if it's doing something illegal. But it's not. And perhaps ceasing to play into the pretense that it is would help bring light to that fact.

I think I'm done for now. One thing's for sure, Joe... With people like Sam Dodson doing as much as they are, there's one tactic we can't choose: getting along to get along.