I Cannot Tell A Lie. I Did Cut It With My Little Hatchet.

Stacy and I are going through Early American history. I appreciate the curriculum we are using as it is less dogmatic than one would expect from conservative Christians. This curriculum is “Sonlight.”

Do we remember the stories, the hagiography (“a worshipful or idealizing biography”) we were told as children? How George Washington cut down his family's cherry tree? Do you remember his response? "I cannot tell a lie, father, you know I cannot tell a lie! I did cut it with my little hatchet.'' An early biographer, Mason Weems, just invented the story. Nor did Washington throw a silver dollar one mile across the Potomac. 

Patrick Henry may not have said, "Give me liberty, or give me death."  It is possible, I would say even likely, that a biographer invented that catchy slogan. But my purpose here is not to rehash the lies we learned as Americans in school, no more true than Paul Bunyan, or John Henry "was a steel driving man." My purpose  is to ask the question: "Was the American Revolution justified in light of Romans 13?" 

 The French and Indian Wars were pivotal in the background of the American Revolution. The continental European rivalries were transplanted to the new world. In addition was the question of who would control the potentially fecund Ohio Valley? The French were allied with the Indians, who controlled this region. The "Americans" were still subject to the English Crown. England won the war. Since the Englishmen who lived in American colonies were the primary recipients of all this land, and protection from the Indians, it seemed reasonable and just that the colonies pay their fair share. The colonists did not agree. 

Remember what Romans 13 said? 

^6-7That's also why you pay taxes—so that an orderly way of life can be maintained. Fulfill your obligations as a citizen. Pay your taxes, pay your bills, respect your leaders.

I do not look upon this as an absolute—yes, there are times that excess taxes are a cause for revolt. But it must be remembered that Paul’s advice here was to obey the Roman Empire. Rome was an almost absolute monarchy where the traditional Senate, while retaining some powers, was not in charge anymore. Yet Paul told us to pay our taxes.  

In the case of Rome, there was no representation, yet Paul expected his readers to pay their taxes. Were the taxes that England imposed outrageous? 

Adopting the policy that the colonies should pay a token proportion of the costs associated with defending them, Britain imposed a series of direct taxes followed by other laws intended to demonstrate British authority, all of which proved extremely unpopular in America despite the level of taxation being only 1/26 that paid by British taxpayers.  

What was the real unspoken reason for the Revolution? The Indians had land and the colonists want it: 

The British sought to maintain peaceful relations with those Indian tribes that had allied with the French, and keep them separated from the American frontiersmen. To this end, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 restricted settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains as this was designated an Indian Reserve. Disregarding the proclamation, some groups of settlers continued to move west and establish farms.

As John Wayne said, "We needed the land and the Indians were selfish." 

The slogan, “taxation without representation is tyranny,” was just a propaganda piece. The leaders of the rebellion did not want representation in Parliament. They wanted independence. One of the fears of the leadership of the rebellion was that representation would have been offered to the colonists! 

While I said recently that the Texas Revolution was justified, I cannot say the same for the American Revolution based on Romans 13. The average American just replaced one master for another. They could not vote unless they were well-to-do. 

The point of this is simple: do not believe what you are told by the media. It does not matter if it is Fox, or the newspapers of 1776. Instead look for the money. Look to see who financially benefits. They are the ones to watch. Look behind the scenes—they do not hide all that well. You can see them if you look. I suggest you look. 

To Oppose Hitler is to Oppose God

There is a certain type of Christian that advocates the obedience of Christians to Government, almost no matter what. They will admit that one has to obey God rather than man, but in practice they restrict this to such a degree that it is not meaningful, at least not in modern western society. The passage that is used is Romans 13:

 ¹Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. ²Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

So I ask those who interpret Romans 13 this way. Was Hitler ordained by God? I remember one conversation in particular. My "opponent" would not answer the question. I can be a bull dog in such situations, so I grabbed on and would not let go. Eventually the person was forced to admit that Hitler was ordained by God. When one comes to an absurd but logical position, it is wise to examine one's assumptions. I do not think I asked the next logical question as the "internet rule" is that if you invoke Hitler the conversation should end. But let me ask it here rhetorically for those who interpret Romans 13 this same way. Was opposing Hitler the same as opposing God?  

A lot of these issues only occur among those that use the King James translation—you know… the one Jesus used! But I often find it helpful to look at other translations. Here is The Message:

 ^1-3Be a good citizen. All governments are under God. Insofar as there is peace and order, it's God's order. So live responsibly as a citizen. If you're irresponsible to the state, then you're irresponsible with God, and God will hold you responsible. Duly constituted authorities are only a threat if you're trying to get by with something. Decent citizens should have nothing to fear.

 ^3-5Do you want to be on good terms with the government? Be a responsible citizen and you'll get on just fine, the government working to your advantage. But if you're breaking the rules right and left, watch out. The police aren't there just to be admired in their uniforms. God also has an interest in keeping order, and he uses them to do it. That's why you must live responsibly—not just to avoid punishment but also because it's the right way to live.

 ^6-7That's also why you pay taxes—so that an orderly way of life can be maintained. Fulfill your obligations as a citizen. Pay your taxes, pay your bills, respect your leaders.

It seems to me that the Message understands the point here better than the King James. As a general rule, yes a law-abiding citizen has little to fear from most governments. But this does not mean that every government is fair to every citizen. Nor does it mean that opposition to a government is bad in and of itself. It was Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who wanted the United States' Motto to be 

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." 

In the next entry in this series on war, I will discuss the Revolutionary War. Was it justified? Was General George the hero, and King George the villain? Is taxation without representation tyranny?

Christians Are Persecuted

Copts Riot in Egypt After Church Destroyed. I have quoted Conrad Black before. His latest column is on persecution of Christians in the world:

It is not generally appreciated that over 100,000 Christians a year are murdered because of their faith. Because Christianity is, by a wide margin, the world’s largest religion, the leading religion in the traditionally most advanced areas of the world, and, despite its many fissures, the best organized, largely because of the relatively tight and authoritarian structure of the Roman Catholic Church, the West is not accustomed to thinking of Christians as a minority, much less a persecuted one.

All though out the Middle East, Christian are under extreme pressure. Communities that have lasted thousands of years are being destroyed. The secular governments, like Saddam Hussein, had protected them. The new governments of Islamic fundamentalists are trying to drive them out. 

Conrad commented on the situation in the above photo. 

The recent Muslim attacks on Egypt’s Christian Copts caused the military to intervene against the Christians, killing dozens of them, which action the military government then blamed on the “inexperience” of the soldiers involved. (Unlimited experience is not required to foretell the consequences of firing automatic weapons and rifles at unarmed demonstrators at point-blank range.)

The direct result of American foreign policy is the destruction of Christian communities that have lasted for centuries. This will continue. 

Discrimination?

Last week was an interesting week for me on Facebook and here on the blog. Last Saturday when I stated my opposition to gay marriage, I got a comment, very nice and civil by the way, that disagreed with me. I like such comments. 

On Facebook however I pointed out that the incident where Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed was not about homosexuality, but violence. I was immediately accused of being homosexual. The word “fag” was used, but not in reference to me. The thread was eventually deleted as was only proper.

I decided to talk about these issues a little more. First we have this episode:

A restaurant in Knoxville, Tennessee refused to serve state Sen. Stacey Campfield, the man who sponsored the state’s “don’t say gay” bill, compared homosexuality to bestiality, and most recently told Michelangelo Signorile that it’s virtually impossible to spread HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex. “I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discriminated against,” the Bistro at the Bijou wrote on its Facebook wall on Sunday. The restaurant has received an overwhelmingly positive response.

I found this amusing on several levels. It was not unfair for the restaurant to do this. It is their right, or at least it should be. Another thing I found amusing was that it is not a good business model for 1 to 2 % of the population to discriminate against 98% of the population. The potential customers who do not show up are not going to say anything. 

It is also amusing to me that I wish to give the right to refuse service to them, but they are often unwilling to do the same for others. Even more amusing is the fact that the person they “discriminated” against does not discriminate and rents his rental property to homosexuals. 

Maybe I am easy to amuse. 

As for it being nearly impossible to get AIDS through heterosexual relations, this is clearly wrong. 

Transmission route                        Male                               Female

Male-to-male sexual contact          24,132                                -

Injection drug use                        2,652                                1,520

Male-to-male sexual contact

and injection drug use                    1,157                                    -

Heterosexual contact                     4,551                                8,706

Other                                            47                                     29

Total*                                           32,538                            10,255

* Because totals are calculated independently of the subpopulations, the values in each column may not sum exactly to the figure in the ‘Total’ row

 I took this chart from here. 

However these statistics must be tempered with the fact that many homosexuals will not admit their lifestyle. Nor will many drug users admit to drug use. Avoidance of prostitutes, bi-sexual men, and intravenous drug users as sexual partners will reduce the risk to very low levels, but not to the “virtually impossible” level. 

The CDC estimated that a man having vaginal sex with an HIV infected women has a 1 in 1000 chance of being infected. This is every time it happens, so over the years the odds increase. I was not able to find a reference on the CDC site, but this paper on why AIDS is so prevalent in Africa and on the effects of circumcision on aids transmission (it halves the risk) references it. 

Years ago I saw a skit on the comedy show “Living Color.” Two people were about to have sexual relations. They talked about their previous liaisons. Suddenly every person either had ever had sex with appeared in the room. The woman was clearly upset that some of the man’s previous partners looked better than she did. The man that appeared in his group was explained by the man saying “I was in jail once.” The skit never did explain the white (both actors in the skit were black) meek accountant that appeared on the woman’s side of the bed. 

Often comedy can bring forward important points in a memorable way. When you sleep with someone you are also sleeping with every person they ever slept with. 

I Corinthians 6 talks about this issue:

¹² ”I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. ¹³ You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ¹⁴ By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. ¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” ¹⁷ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

 ¹⁸ Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.¹⁹ Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; ²⁰ you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

So to answer the now deleted Facebook thread, yes sexual immorality is wrong. This includes homosexual acts. 

I will talk about Sodom and Gomorrah later as their fate relates to the theme I am developing on war.  

Why I Oppose Same Sex Marriage

Many libertarians favor same sex marriage. I am basically a libertarian, but oppose same sex marriage. In a libertarian society, I would not care. But is a society that lacks freedom, like ours, I oppose it. This article tells you why:

On Thursday, administrative judge Solomon A. Metzger ruled that religious liberty did not exempt the seaside retreat, which is associated with the United Methodist Church, from renting its facilities out for purposes that violate its moral beliefs.

In March 2007, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster’s request to rent its Boardwalk Pavilion for the ceremony. The couple sued, claiming they had been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. In December 2008, the state Division on Civil Rights found the Christian campground had likely violated the state Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and joined the case.

This is the basic problem with same sex marriage is that it is combined with the coercive power of the state to destroy religious liberty. If a religious group can not regulate its own activities on its own property, then there is no limit to what the state might do. 

Surely I am exaggerating. Health and Human Services just announced this gem:

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine's recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn't include contraceptive services.

I thought that your plan would not change? What this means is that a religious organization must, if they provide health care, also provide contraception. What if your religion does not believe in artificial contraception? Tough. This will probably means that people who work in Catholic hospitals will have to get their own health insurance since it will no longer be provided by the hospital. The charities effected were graciously given an extra year to obey. 

While I do not agree with the Catholic church's position on birth control, I find it abhorrent that someone would be forced to pay for an act they feel is immoral. Even worse, it is inevitable that the abortion pill RU-486 will be classified as a contraceptive. 

I blogged about Slouching Toward Gomorrah recently. The process is speeding up.