Monthly Archive for May, 2010

Remembering Soldiers as Victims of War

Written by Colin. Published on May 31, 2010 ago in Politics. 15 Comments

When Veterans Day rolled around in my current country (the UK), I posed this piece: The Soldier Gives Us Neither Freedom Nor Peace. I want to be clear that in this piece and my short remarks to follow, that I desire to accent my displeasure with war itself and an aggressive philosophy of militarism, rather than soldiers.

Today is memorial day in my country of birth – the United States. In this country, so often the soldier is seen to be the archetype of American heroism. Much like in ancient Rome, an individual hero, made of moral selflessness, who submits himself to the collective, ordered machinery of the military to provide for the defence of his family, community and nation.

I see things quite differently.

Throughout history, the soldier has often come from the poorest of backgrounds, having been told by the propaganda of the state that the military is his best option in life. His individuality is broken down, and his is used on behalf of those elites which control and direct the military to kill other people who have been similarly conditioned.

We should remember soldiers as victims of the state. The state lied to them with false promises, and exploited their very lives as the means to control some resource, obtain some territory, advance some ideology or, at worst, eliminate or subjugate some peoples. We should mourn the American soldier as we mourn the German Soldiers from 1939-1945: men and women who could have produced so much for the benefit of humanity, but who were instead sucked dry, and summarily discarded like so much trash.

There is nothing glorious about the military. There is nothing glorious about war.

We should mourn and weep for the soldiers who have died. We should see them as the victims of sinful, fallen man and cease to demand their service, except only in the most dire need of defence.

Seven Year Old’s Lemonade Stand Shut Down by Government – No Permit

Written by Colin. Published on May 29, 2010 ago in Current Events. Closed

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZZLAL5p0xw[/youtube]

Watch the video for the story. A seven year old, taught by her family the value of hard work and creativity, was mercilessly shut down by her local government for a) not having a permit b) selling at a location which might be “dangerous” (a local intersection).

Obviously that itself may be revealing of the stark insanity of the current level of government intrusion that the public is allowing. But note anotehr thing.

This young girl is also already learning about how modern state capitalism works. At the end of the video, the city council, moved by her request, is going to try and work out a special arrangement for her to sell her lemonade. This is the real lesson in this: let government make it impossible for people to freely set up business, and by so doing, create a culture where business needs to lobby government for special favours and privileges.

At the end, the anchor says “she’s going to be a great businesswoman.” Without question: she’s already learned the valuable lesson of going to the government for special favours.

Washington Times Defends Rand Paul Eloquently, Intelligently

Written by Colin. Published on May 23, 2010 ago in General. 31 Comments

The Washington Times puts forward the best, most succinct defence of Rand Paul I have yet read. It’s brilliant.

For all of its faults, the country is a better place in the wake of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The problem with Dr. Paul is that his intellectual honesty – a malady we wish would infect other politicians – would not let him overlook the faults. He rightly pointed out that if one accepts the ability of the federal government to decide that all customers must be accommodated, Congress could use the same power to force liberal restaurant owners to serve people carrying guns.

Ms. Maddow wasn’t interested in logical consequences, she was interested in tarring Dr. Paul and the Tea Party movement in general as racist. Dr. Paul has never expressed an interest in revisiting any part of the Civil Rights Act. As he said in a later interview, the left should save its questions for Sen. Robert Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, who actually filibustered the bill in question and was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the old days. It’s questionable why Dr. Paul expected fair treatment from the network that talked about the “racism” of a Tea Party activist who carried a gun to a rally, but took care not to show his face in the video – because that Tea Party activist was a black man.

An article worth reading.

What Rand Paul Might Have Said: Four Other Media Appearances To Consider

Written by Colin. Published on May 21, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. Closed

I’ve already made my position clear that I agree fully with Rand Paul’s intentions about the Civil Rights Act. I will echo some of the sentiments of others that he could have been clearer, but at the same time, the Rachel Maddow show was a kangaroo court. Despite Rand Paul’s attempts to explain his position, he obviously knew that he was being set up and wriggled, finagled and squirmed in his explanation.

Here are a few other ways this issue has been dealt with.

1. Barry Goldwater

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacJtYPHKiE[/youtube]

Goldwater didn’t win any friends by this. He was unabashedly critical of the Civil Rights Act and made it clear as to why. He also called out LBJ’s flip-flopping on this, but to no avail. It remains a black mark on his legacy in the eyes of many to this day.

2. Ron Paul on Meet the Press circa 2008 (forward to 4:44)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4&feature=related[/youtube]

Ron Paul is also unapologetic and unabashedly purposeful in his remarks. But he is wise. He first finds a place of agreement with where discrimination is wrong, and then shows the principle behind the law. “It has nothing to do with race relations.” And then he lays the smack down and Russert quickly moves on.

3. John Stossel

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsNGSCC6aI[/youtube]

Stossel isn’t running for office, and therefore is the most upfront. He says that he would go even farther than Rand Paul and seek repeal of the law. But Stossel, again, brings the issue away from race right away to show the principle. The anchor then tries to make the emotional point against Stossel, which he authoritatively dismisses with the axiomatic case of how people who refuse customers which others serve will eventually go out of business. This goes over the anchor’s head, and probably would be over the head of most Americans.

4.  Ron Paul circa yesterday

Here Paul again finds a point of agreement, showing MLK as a person who favoured the repeal of laws and for civil disobedience. He then proves his knowledge of integration history and shows how the government is no friend of civil rights. In this context, Paul reveals in plain language the greater principles at stake here. Lastly, he makes the axiomatic point, just like Stossel and then criticises the witch hunt going on about the issue.

What all of this shows is that Rand’s big mistake was trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth. He should have taken the libertarian position, dealt with the flack and then moved on. Instead, his shiftiness on the show and subsequent backtracking has made him look disingenuous (which is not new).

Rand Paul may have principles somewhere in there, but he behaves like a politicians and that makes him incredibly different than his father.

Worth the Watch: Christless Christianity

Written by Colin. Published on May 20, 2010 ago in Religion and Theology. 8 Comments

I finally made it through the hours of video available from the “Christless Christianity” conference held by RC Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries. The whole thing is free online.

The material of the conference goes through the entire litany of false Christianity – everything from more obvious gospels based on prosperity and self-will, to those which I myself have seen creep into mainline conservative evangelical churches (and my own life): gospels of self-help, therapy and “just loving Jesus.” The conference is a supreme reminder of the importance of doctrine – and right doctrine at that.

Finally, the material ends quite aptly describing the solid biblical nature of reformed theology. I couldn’t help but be touched when the last two speakers described what it was like to come into the knowledge of good, consistent, biblical theology about God’s grace. One of the speakers had a similar b***ground to me; being saved in a pentecostal church, moving to an Armenian mainline evangelical church, and finally finding the doctrines of Grace and seeing the whole basis of his Christianity moving away from being about him and what he’s done / should do to being about God and what he has done.

Even for those who have not yet accepted Reformed Theology, the material is a great measure for what kind of gospel might be in your life or your church. It’s a call to a return to the basics of the gospel and a putting aside of the extra baggage we’ve attached to it.

This is the Kind of Silliness We’re Up Against: Rand Paul and Rachel Maddow

Written by Colin. Published on May 20, 2010 ago in Current Events, Philosophy and Politics. 51 Comments

Rand Paul, fresh off an overwhelming victory over an establishment republican is already getting attacked by the left. What are they attacking him on?

His disagreement with 10% of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Yes. Nothing about any relevant modern legislation. Nothing about actual policy to be implemented. Rather, they are trying to pin him as a racist because he doesn’t agree that private businesses should have their free speech and property rights abridged.

Watch Rachel Maddow harangue him for a quarter of an hour as he calmly tries to explain why property rights are more important than positive rights to not be discriminated against.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo[/youtube]

Part 2

Paul even goes as far to point out exactly what Maddow is doing: trying to use a deep philosophical discussion about the nature of racism, property rights and free-speech to score a political point which media hacks can put on repeat for the rest of the general election.

Philosophical libertarians, conservatives and even philosophical liberals need to be alert and aware about these kinds of tactics. They are the largest barrier to anyone other than a shifty, people pleasing shiester getting into political office.

Rand Paul, and others like him, are just too smart for hacks like Maddow who cannot and will not consider that something with such a noble name like “the civil rights act” may contain provisions that actually do more damage and cause more problems then they solve. Is there any question that it is right to fight racism? Of course it is. But to fight racism by infringing more fundamental, basic rights needs a deep and tempered philosophical discussion.

Homosexual Activist Defends Preacher – Case Suddenly Dropped

Written by Colin. Published on May 18, 2010 ago in Politics. 17 Comments

Some of you may have read about a street preacher in England who ended up being prosecuted with criminal charges for daring to proclaim that homosexuality was a sin in a public place in northern England. Dale Mcalpine recounts the conversation with a Cumbrian policeman that ended up getting him arrested:

“He told me he was homosexual,” Mr Mcalpine said.

“I said ‘the Bible says homosexuality is a sin’. He said ‘I’m offended by that and I’m also the LGBT liaison officer within the police’.

“I said ‘it is still a sin’.”

…Mr Mcalpine was charged with breaching section 5 of the Public Order Act by allegedly using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Fortunately, all it took was one homosexual libertarian to defend Mcalpine and the case were suddenly dropped:

Veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell condemned the arrest and urged the home secretary to issue new guidelines to the police.

He said: “Although I disagree with Dale Mcalpine and support protests against his homophobic views, he should not have been arrested and charged. Criminalisation is a step too far.”

Tatchell would not go so far as to say overtly that the case was dropped because he decided to testify on behalf of the defence, but  he doesn’t exactly not say it either:

Soon after I offered to appear as a defence witness and to argue in court for Mr McAlpine’s acquittal, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case. The sudden withdrawal of charges may have been mere coincidence but perhaps not.

I, however, am a blogger on the internet, and thus can say whatever I want. I believe that these charges were dropped because the state was hoping to make a witch trial out of this. In a culture obsessed with political correctness and self-esteem, drumming up a kangaroo trial against a “homophobe” with the state as defender of the feelings and “right not to be offended” of the public – the state gets yet another mandate to intervene against one of the most basic human rights: free speech.

This is yet another area where libertarians and anti-statists in general need to come together in common alliance against the state. As a “fundamentalist” evangelical Christian, I believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination before a righteous and holy God, but I would defend a homosexual’s right to engage in sin, associate with other sinners and marry because it is not my job to force them to obey my moral convictions. I will plead with them to stop, I will proselytise them and I will always call out homosexuality as sin – but as Christians, we must never use the state to make people behave like Christians.

I’m glad that at least one leader in the homosexual community feels the same about we Christians and our rights.

Quiz: Joel Osteen or Fortune Cookie

Written by Colin. Published on May 14, 2010 ago in Religion. 7 Comments

Tim Challies has put up a brilliant post with a series of statements which are either from Joel Osteen, famous heretical preacher, or a fortune cookie. Take the quiz – your score isn’t the point!

Optimism For The New Coalition In Britain

Written by Colin. Published on May 12, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. 4 Comments

I am tremendously excited and optimistic about what has occurred in the UK general election. In full disclosure, I voted for the Liberal Democrats. I did this because I felt that they had the most to offer me as a libertarian, despite sharp disagreements on some economic and environmental policies. Though I had very broad and significant disagreements with the Conservatives, I liked a couple of ideas: a) adopting a Swedish “free schools” model to allow charter schools b) cutting government spending now (as opposed to later).

The conservatives did not win an overall majority, but with the Liberal Democrats, they have formed a coalition government which, in my view, is providing much of the best of both worlds. For a libertarian in such an un-liberal place as Britain, this is pretty decent. We’ll get:

  • reduced income tax for lower earners
  • referendum on a new, more fair voting system
  • decent sized cuts in government spending
  • free schools
  • no new power to the EU and a referendum on any such proposals
  • scrapping the national ID card
  • protection of civil liberties

This is more than decent. However, there were some casualties:

  • England’s nuclear weapons will not be scrapped
  • Inheritance tax will not be reduced
  • there will now be a cap on total non-EU immigration

Nevertheless, we are basically getting the fiscal conservatism from the Conservatives and the social liberalism from the Liberal Democrats. As government is cut, there is going to be some immediate pain, but in the long term, I believe the country will be better off for this.

Moreover, the Alternative Voting system is going to be put to a referendum. This system is a step in the right direction for providing more power to smaller parties. It’s a long-term measure that has only come about because of this hung parliament.

Many in England (especially Conservatives) lamented the hung parliament, but this is by far the best thing which could have came out of the election.

Another Example of The Beauty From Christians Forsaking Copyright

Written by Colin. Published on May 6, 2010 ago in Religion and Theology. 6 Comments

I found this video on Bob Kauflin’s blog. It’s an incredible reminder of the grace of God:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbTK-mKxrAc[/youtube]

But, guess what? This video violates copyright.

If copyright were enforced strictly this video would not exist.

It is in the church’s best interest to free up the creative gifts that God has given to men for the profit of all, and cease to put up barriers of intellectual property. We cannot centrally plan God. No pastor, no local church, no movement of churches has a monopoly or say in how God is going to direct the creative work of his universal church.

As Christian creative artists we need to let go of the illusion of ownership over God’s gifts to us, stop peddling the word of God and follow John Piper’s example at Desiring God and put out our labour for the kingdom without barriers.

Read more in-depth articles on this topic in the two part series on Worship and Intellectual Property: