Dismantling the god-state

[Stephen]

The god-state is an object of worship for nearly everyone in our culture (including most Christians).

"Worship" is an Anglican word dating to the 1200's. It's meaning has never been altered from its initial uses in the English language. "Worship" is defined as "reverent honor, devotion or homage paid to an object; to hold above reproach." If we practice these things, we are indeed "worshiping." There is no debate. The language, grammar and definitions are clear.

When religious people worship God in church, what do we do? We pay honor and homage through the singing of songs that glorify God. We seek leadership and rule from God. And although we may disagree on particulars, we universally hold God above reproach... none of us want to abandon Him and adopt a new religion. This is worship. Each of us accept this without question, so long as it is practiced within the confines of religion.

Oddly enough, every one of us practice the exact same form of worship to the god-state, but we attempt to deny that it is, in fact, worship. We pay honor and homage to the god-state by singing songs glorifying the nation. We look to it for leadership, regulation, and accept it's rule.

And while we may differ on the particulars of how it should be run, who should be in charge and what laws should be passed, we universally hold that the god-state itself is above reproach. In other words, we may argue politics all day but no one suggests that we could live without the nurturing love and guidance of the god-state. The thought of another form of government or no government at all is immediately rejected because we hold the god-state above reproach. This, of course, is one of the primary characteristics of true worship.

When approached personally, each of us would vehemently deny that we worship the god-state. But simple denial is not enough. We can deny all day that we are breathing air, but our denial does not alter the fact that we inhale and exhale constantly. We do, in fact, sing songs and recite verses proclaiming the greatness of the god-state. We do, in fact, look to it for guidance and regulation thousands of times every day. And we do hold the god-state above reproach... the very suggestion that the state may be unnecessary or replaceable is met with shock and considered insanity in our culture.

But we cannot redefine the English language to suit our denial. Worship is what it is.

In this thread, I will post articles that address worship of the god-state in one way or another, or articles that explore what life would be life without state worship.

[Stephen]

The Best Deal in All of Human History
By
Andrew Horning
Published: June 28, 2010

I have never believed in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or that creepy Tooth Fairy thing.
But that doesn’t mean that I haven’t nurtured other baseless, nutty beliefs until some painful paroxysm jolted me awake.

Many years ago, under horrible personal circumstances, I endured the same spiritual upheaval you’re feeling right now. Just as with you, my religion turned out to be a big lie. My false god turned against me, just as it’s turning against you now. So like you, I can no longer believe in the charity, peace and love of …politicians.

While initially painful, there is relief in this truth that sets you free.

But there’s another problem. Nobody alive remembers how liberty works. We cannot imagine how schools, roads jobs, healthcare, or food ever existed without a political genesis, subsequent bailouts, lawsuits and bipartisan bickering. Only if you’re over 100 years old did you even exist when there was such a thing as a free market; with all the innovation, competition and rapid advancement that entails.

So as we endure the agony of Change that’s not working, we must thoughtfully prepare a better way forward. I suggest we first retrieve what we’ve lost from the past.

All federal authority is still clearly written into the Constitution for the United States of America (Article I, Section 8; Article II, Sections 2-4; Article III), which you could read in just a few minutes. All other powers are still very clearly denied by one short sentence (Amendment 10). Similarly, all Indiana government powers are spelled out in the Indiana Constitution, while every other conceivable power is still denied by a single sentence (Article I, Section 25).

No state or federal constitution was ever amended, altered or suspended to authorize most of what governments now do to citizens. Nullification of anything unconstitutional is already law at every level of government in the republic. So we have the right, the power, and the duty, to tell politicians to back off; all the way back to the constitutions.

Here’s a summary of what that means:

1. Citizens can do whatever they want to as long as they don’t harm anybody else, or take what’s not theirs.
2. We’d have no more government than necessary to maintain #1
3. We invite others around the world to emulate our success, but otherwise leave them the heck alone.
4. Your major civic duty is to disobey, invalidate and otherwise eliminate all unconstitutional taxes, mandates, organizations and agents. Yes, civil disobedience is a duty.

So caveat emptor would replace the FDA, FTC, FDIC, FCC and a zillion other agencies. Common sense, family ties, competition, voluntary associations, charity and free market options galore would replace union/corporate monstrosities, Medicare, Social Security, lobbyists, regulations, litigation and price controls. And because of the preceding, you get to keep what you earn, buy what you like (smoke it if you’re fool enough – and as long as you don’t blow it in my face), and live however and with whomever you want…as long as you leave others, and their stuff, alone.

No federal tooth fairies, no President coming down the chimney with treats, no more bogus political promises; just a reality proven to work better than anything else ever tried.

That may not be a Square Deal or a New Deal. But it’s a fair deal, which makes it the best deal in all of human history.

Can you live with that?

People used to call that “freedom.”

And they liked it.

[Stephen]

How To Demilitarize Your Church

by Laurence M. Vance


Veterans Day is one of those holidays, along with Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, when it isn’t safe for non-imperial Christians who think the state should be separated from the church to attend church on the Sunday before one of these holidays. Especially troublesome is when one of these holidays, or Flag Day, actually falls on a Sunday.

In many churches, Sunday services on or before these holidays are unbearable because they feature, or are wholly devoted to, the glorification of the U.S. military. Because the Christian’s golden calf is the military, it is necessary to demilitarize American churches.

Although the extent to which you can demilitarize your church depends on whether you are a pastor or church leader, some other person of influence, or just a typical layman, here are some suggestions.

First, recognize the need to demilitarize your church. Although I assume that most of you reading this article are opposed to the glorification of the military in church (or anywhere else), it is still crucial that you educate yourself as to the problems with the military – its unnecessary size, its bloated budget, its inefficiency, its merchants-of-death contractors, its murderous mercenaries, its weapons of mass destruction, its unconstitutional mission, its inability to protect its own headquarters, its foreign interventions, its foreign occupations, its overseas bases and troop deployments – and just how much the military has pervaded all of society. I recommend, first of all, two chapters in my book Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State: "The Military" and "Christianity and the Military." All of the essays are available in my article archive on this website. Since the publication the second edition of my book in January of last year, I have written many additional articles on the military and Christianity and the military. Again, see my article archive on this website. Second, see the excellent collection of articles on this website by Tom Engelhardt. Third, read Nick Turse’s The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Henry Holt, 2009). And last, but not least, see the Chalmers Johnson trilogy: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. You must be ready for opposition, and not just from veterans. Your whole church may in fact be against you.

Second, there are some practices that you need to stop, or try to get others to stop, in order to demilitarize your church. No more turning holidays into military appreciation days. No more special military appreciation days. No more recognizing current members of the military or veterans. No more encouraging current members of the military or veterans to wear their uniforms on the above-mentioned holidays. No more treating military personnel differently from other occupations. No more references to military personnel "serving" in the military. No more unspecific and unspecified prayers for "the troops in harms way." No more military guest speakers. No more justifying service in the military because the Bible mentions soldiers. No more "God Bless Our Troops" or "Pray for Our Troops" or "Thank a Veteran" slogans on church signs, bulletins, and websites. No more equating patriotism with admiration for the military. No more calling soldiers returning from overseas heroes. No more blasphemous nonsense about the troops dying for our freedoms like Christ died for our sins.

Third, there are some things that you can do to immunize your church from something that causes more deaths than swine flu – the U.S. military. Warn young people about the evils of "serving" in the military. And that includes being a chaplain, a medic, or a National Guardsman. I would feel like a failure as a parent, a pastor, or a youth director if one of my "kids" joined today’s military. Here is a letter I wrote to a Christian young man about joining the military. Instruct people about the true nature of the military. In many cases, they are simply just ignorant of the fact that the military is doing everything else but defending the United States, securing U.S. borders, guarding U.S. shores, patrolling U.S. coasts, and enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies. Emphasize the need for missionaries to be sent to the Middle East instead of U.S. troops. If Christians in the United States are so concerned about the threat of Islam, then they should do everything they can to convert Muslims to Christianity instead of wanting American Christian soldiers to kill them heartily in the name of the Lord. Never cease to point out that although God in the Old Testament commanded the nation of Israel to fight against heathen nations, the president of the United States is not God, America is not the nation of Israel, the U.S. military is not the Lord’s army, the Christian’s sword is the word of God, and the only warfare the New Testament encourages the Christian to wage is against the world, the flesh, and the devil. Pay no attention to military advertising slogans like the new one that says the Navy is "A Global Force for Good."

Now, none of this means that churches should not reach out to those in the military and their families. Nothing I have said precludes a church from having a military ministry. Remember, demilitarizing your church means treating soldiers just like plumbers, barbers, or truckers.

Because of rampant nationalism, imperialism, and red-state fascism, demilitarizing your church won’t be easy. But "whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear" (Ezekiel 2:7), it is a necessary endeavor.

[Stephen]

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." ~ (Exodus 20:3)

Most people know the story of Aaron’s golden calf (Exodus 31:18). Some, perhaps, also know the story of Jeroboam’s golden calves (1 Kings 12:32). Ever since these incidents, a golden calf has referred to some object that is undeservedly worshipped or venerated.

To their shame, American Christians, who profess to serve the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and wouldn’t think of making a god out of gambling, Internet porn, or alcohol, have a god – a golden calf – they honor, reverence, and pay homage to. This god demands perpetual thanksgivings. This god demands obeisance on national holidays. This god demands special appreciation days. This god demands songs to be sung in praise to it. This god demands prayers to the Lord God on its behalf. This god demands sacrifices of young men and women. This god demands signs, buttons, shirts, bumper stickers, yellow ribbons, and lapel pins inscribed with its various names and slogans. This god tolerates no criticism of its activities.

The Christian’s golden calf is the U.S. military.

Not all Christians, mind you, but a great many Christians from throughout Christendom have exchanged biblical Christianity for imperial Christianity. From Catholic just-war theorists who oppose abortion (but not the killing of people outside of the womb) to progressive Christians who oppose the war in Iraq (but not military intervention in Darfur) to the Religious Right who oppose the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries (but not the American killing of Muslims in Muslim countries) – Christians of all branches and denominations are engaged an idolatrous affair with the U.S. military.

The worst offenders are the independent, evangelical, fundamentalist, and other conservative Christians. And I say this as one of them. With them it is the majority who bow before the golden calf. Yes, the majority. That is the conclusion I reached during the Bush years and that is still my conclusion now. In spite of the waning support for the war in Iraq and the venom directed toward Barack Obama by right-wing Christians, Christian reverence for the military remains unchanged.

I don’t make this golden calf accusation lightly. I say it after years of listening to conservative Christians, talking with them, reading hundreds of e-mails from them (both friend and foe), hearing scores of reports from disconsolate church members about their warmongering pastors and church leaders, reading numerous books, articles, blogs, and newsletters by Christian defenders of war and the warfare state, seeing the negative reaction to my book Christianity and War, and reading countless pathetic attempts to justify Christian participation in the state’s wars.

I still see on church signs and church websites the "support our troops," "pray for our troops," and "God bless our troops" mantras. It doesn’t matter where U.S. troops go, how many go, how long they stay, or what they do when they are there – support for the military is a fundamental of the faith, right up there with the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ.

And here is a resolution passed by the Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches at their annual meeting last year:

C. Support for Soldiers: Whereas there are young men and women from our country and our churches in military service, and some in perilous situations around the world, and whereas we appreciate their sacrifices and willingness to protect our freedom, BE IT RESOLVED that we will pray for our troops, support them in tangible ways as we have opportunity, and encourage them to make their field of service a harvest field for the Kingdom of God.

These are conservative, independent Baptist churches – and they are spewing forth anti-biblical nonsense.

And it is not just Red-State Christian fascists, Reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters (who recently expressed their support for warmonger Mike Huckabee in a Family Research Council Values Voter Summit), Christian Coalition moralists, and "God and country" social conservatives who support federal funding of school vouchers, abstinence education, and faith-based initiatives who venerate the military. It is also Christians who don’t consider themselves part of the Religious Right, Christians who don’t vote, Christians who oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, Christians who denounce abuses of the FBI, CIA, IRS, and BATF, Christians who oppose the Iraq War, Christians who caution against Christian service in the military, and Christians who oppose basically every other government institution.

Support for the military among Christians is pervasive, systemic, sacrosanct, and codified.

It is also an unholy alliance, an illicit affair, an affront to the Saviour whom Christians worship as the Prince of Peace, a blight on Christianity, and the worse form of statolatry. It also violates the whole tenor of the New Testament:

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:14).

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people (2 Corinthians 6:16).

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen (1 John 5:21).

I fear that things are hopeless. I see no end in sight to churches publicly honoring veterans, praising the troops for defending our freedoms, turning national holidays into military recognition days, having special military appreciation days, encouraging or not discouraging their young men (and sometimes women) to join the military, helping young men to become military chaplains, ostracizing those who disparage the military, equating admiration for the military with patriotism and criticism of the military with treason, imploring church members to pray for the troops, regarding the military’s acts of aggression as benevolent, presuming divine support for U.S. military interventions, accepting the militarism of society, having a superstitious reverence for the military, and remaining in willful ignorance of U.S. foreign policy and its use of the military as a force for evil in the world.

I have spoken about these things again and again and written about them time after time after time after time. I am afraid that my words are being heard and read for the most part by the wrong group of Christians – those who already reject the warfare state and a militarized Christianity.

The day is long past (if it ever existed) when the function of the U.S. military was limited to what it should be: defending the United States, securing U.S. borders, guarding U.S. shores, patrolling U.S. coasts, and enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies – not defending, guarding, patrolling, attacking, invading, or occupying other countries. And not providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, changing regimes, enforcing no-fly zones, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, promoting good governance, stationing troops in other countries, garrisoning the planet with bases, and killing foreigners in their countries and destroying their property.

A military not strictly for defense of U.S. borders, shores, coasts, and skies is nothing more than the president’s personal attack force staffed by mercenaries willing to obey his latest command to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary.

Christian, it is time to slay the golden calf.

[Stephen]

It Is Official: The US Is a Police State

by Paul Craig Roberts
former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasure, Reagan Administration




On September 24, Jason Ditz reported on Antiwar.com that “the FBI is confirming that this morning they began a number of raids against the homes of antiwar activists in Illinois, Minneapolis, Michigan, and North Carolina, claiming that they are ‘seeking evidence relating to activities concerning the material support of terrorism.’”

Now we know what Homeland Security (sic) secretary Janet Napolitano meant when she said on September 10: “The old view that ‘if we fight the terrorists abroad, we won’t have to fight them here’ is just that – the old view.” The new view, Napolitano said, is “to counter violent extremism right here at home.”

“Violent extremism” is one of those undefined police state terms that will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. In this morning’s FBI’s foray into the homes of American citizens of conscience, it means antiwar activists, whose activities are equated with “the material support of terrorism,” just as conservatives equated Vietnam era anti-war protesters with giving material support to communism.

Anti-war activist Mick Kelly whose home was raided, sees the FBI raids as harassment to intimidate those who organize war protests. I wonder if Kelly is underestimating the threat. The FBI’s own words clearly indicate that the federal police agency and the judges who signed the warrants do not regard antiwar protesters as Americans exercising their Constitutional rights, but as unpatriotic elements offering material support to terrorism.

“Material support” is another of those undefined police state terms. In this context the term means that Americans who fail to believe their government’s lies and instead protest its policies, are supporting their government’s declared enemies and, thus, are not exercising their civil liberties but committing treason.

As this initial FBI foray is a softening up move to get the public accustomed to the idea that the real terrorists are their fellow citizens here at home, Kelly will get off this time. But next time the FBI will find emails on his computer from a “terrorist group” set up by the CIA that will incriminate him. Under the practices put in place by the Bush and Obama regimes, and approved by corrupt federal judges, protesters who have been compromised by fake terrorist groups can be declared “enemy combatants” and sent off to Egypt, Poland, or some other corrupt American puppet state – Canada perhaps – to be tortured until confession is forthcoming that antiwar protesters and, indeed, every critic of the US government, are on Osama bin Laden’s payroll.

Almost every Republican and conservative and, indeed, the majority of Americans will fall for this, only to find, later, that it is subversive to complain that their Social Security was cut in the interest of the war against Iran or some other demonized entity, or that they couldn’t have a Medicare operation because the wars in Central Asia and South America required the money.

Americans are the most gullible people who ever existed. They tend to support the government instead of the Constitution, and almost every Republican and conservative regards civil liberty as a coddling device that encourages criminals and terrorists.

The US media, highly concentrated in violation of the American principle of a diverse and independent media, will lend its support to the witch hunts that will close down all protests and independent thought in the US over the next few years. As the Nazi leader Joseph Goebbels said, “think of the press as a great keyboard on which the Government can play.”

An American Police State was inevitable once Americans let “their” government get away with 9/11. Americans are too gullible, too uneducated, and too jingoistic to remain a free people. As another Nazi leader Herman Goering said, “ The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace-makers for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger.”

This is precisely what the Bush and Obama regimes have done. America, as people of my generation knew it, no longer exists.

[Stephen]

Nationalism is a disease afflicting many Christians today. It is, essentially, state worship.

Here is a brief synopsis from the late Joe Sobran:

“Many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be ‘the greatest country on earth’ in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, ‘a 3rd-rate power,’ it would be virtually worthless. This is nationalism, not patriotism.

When it comes to war, the patriot realizes that the rest of the world can’t be turned into America, because his America is something specific and particular–the memories and traditions that can no more be transplanted than the mountains and the prairies.

But the nationalist, who identifies America with abstractions like freedom and democracy, may think it’s precisely America’s mission to spread those abstractions around the world–to impose them by force, if necessary. In his mind, those abstractions are universal ideals, and they can never be truly ‘safe’ until they exist, unchallenged, everywhere; the world must be made ‘safe for democracy’ by ‘a war to end all wars…’

For the nationalist, war is a welcome opportunity to change the world. This is a recipe for endless war.”

[Stephen]

One of the main precepts of followers of the god-state is the belief that the American justice system renders something resembling justice. Bill Anderson's first-hand account of this court case is a small first step in tearing down the false god of American "justice."

When I did my graduate work at Auburn University, I became close friends with an economics instructor there, John Sophocleus, as well as his wife Theresa. Part of the friendship was based upon our mutual interest in economics, but also I took an interest in an ongoing issue that began to dominate their lives.

John and Theresa lived on U.S. 280 just outside of Auburn, and before they bought the house, they asked the Alabama Department of Transportation if the place was in danger of being taken as part of a highway-widening project. The Alabama DOT said it was not, so they purchased it and soon John built a spacious garage/work area so he could pursue his work of restoring classic cars.

As one might expect, the DOT double-crossed him and the Sophocleuses were told their property would be taken by eminent domain. And, as one might expect, the DOT offered him a price that would have been about a third of the fair market value. Naturally, John and Theresa appealed the low-ball appraisal to the courts, but that did not sit well with the authorities.

For about three years, the State of Alabama engaged in a series of threats and lies aimed at driving them from their home. With my wife and me being regular guests at their home, we remember what they experienced, including the harassing phone calls and strange people showing up on their property at odd hours. (The authorities even had the pipes to the Sophocleus' septic tank broken as a tactic to force them out of the house, even though the law clearly stated that until the appraisal matter was resolved, John and Theresa were legally entitled to live there.)

The courts delayed, but a few days before Christmas, 1998, the government told the couple that they either had to move out immediately or face fines of $10,000 a day. The reason given by the authorities (under oath in court, I might add) was that they needed to raze the house quickly in order to keep highway construction going apace.

What the Alabama DOT authorities said and what they actually did were two different things. The house stood for another nine months because the government used it as a place for highway workers to live. That is correct. They lied in court under oath.

To make matters worse, the authorities denied later in court (under oath, of course) that they were housing highway workers at all, essentially calling John and Theresa liars. However, Alabama Power continued to send the electric bill to the couple as though they still were living there, and there was plenty of electricity being used, but not by my friends.

Furthermore, a number of us observed seeing people engaging in the act of living in the house, and all of us signed affidavits (under oath), but the difference was that we were telling the truth. In the spring of 1999, my wife and I went to a second-hand furniture store and the proprietor tried to sell us couches that he said were being used "in that house where they kept the highway workers." We declined the purchase.

Since 280 is a federal highway, John and Theresa filed suit in federal court. As Auburn University economist David Laband (a close friend of John and Theresa and my former department chair) wrote:

Mr. and Mrs. Sophocleus sued ALDoT, arguing that the taking was unconstitutional, since the state did not live up to the expressed public purpose used to justify the seizure and that therefore ownership should revert to them. The first federal judge to consider motions in the case, Susan Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, issued three summary judgments in favor of the Sophocleuses.

The Alabama authorities were unhappy with Judge Walker's rulings and managed to go judge shopping to Judge Myron Thompson's courtroom. Thompson clearly was hostile to John and Theresa and claimed that this was a state issue, not a federal one.

However, as Prof. Laband wrote:

But as Alabama State Code 18-1A-et seq. makes clear, as affirmed by Judge Walker, the correct venue for plaintiffs in a civil rights case is the federal judiciary. By an 8–0 ruling (Justice John Roberts had not yet joined the Court) the Supreme Court in 2005 remanded the case back to the district court for remedy.

After stalling four full years, Judge Thompson and the judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to admit the earlier call had been blown and reiterated the previously overturned position. Once again, Mr. and Mrs. Sophocleus will appeal to the Supreme Court.

One would think that once the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on something, the lower courts would obey the ruling. Think again. As Prof. Laband noted, Thompson just ignored the ruling and has refused to hear the case.

At this point, one can imagine the frustration that John and Theresa were feeling. (I often have listened to that frustration in my many telephone calls to John, and he and his wife, while being highly-principled people, nonetheless have had to deal with being given a judge's back of the hand.)

They filed a petition again, but just this past week, the Supreme Court decided that it no longer wanted to abide even by its own rulings and ignored what it had previously said. That's right. The government changed the rules without even going through the pretense of using the proper legal channels.

So, John and Theresa stand outside the gates and are denied justice. Throughout the entire ordeal, the authorities offered them money as a "settlement," and John always turned them down. He wanted his day in court. He wanted an important constitutional issue to be decided where the law says it should be decided, but the "justices" decided that they would make up the rules as they go along.

To most people, this is just an insignificant property dispute in which someone wanted more money for their about-to-be-seized home than the government wanted to pay. But it never was about the money; it was about principle; it was about right and wrong.

A few years ago, I told John that the courts really did not know how to handle men and women of principle, and he was being regarded as a foreign object in the bloodstream. Since then, I have been involved in a number of civil and criminal cases and have concluded, to my sorrow, that there are very few people left employed by the "justice" system who care about justice at all.

Where are the judges who actually follow the law? They certainly are not in federal court, and CERTAINLY not in most state courts. Prosecutors? Give me a break. People have documented time and again instances of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, and I hold no hope at all that our system can be "reformed."

I'm not sure what my friends are going to do. A federal judge refuses to obey the law and the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that it will do nothing about it.

When Judge Roy Moore placed the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building, it was Thompson who ruled that the display had to be removed because, in Thompson's words, Moore was "thumbing his nose" at previous rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, when faced with a Supreme Court ruling he did not like, Thompson did what he darn well pleased.

This is the state of law in this country. Yes, there are good people who want to see right being done, but they just happen not to be employed as judges and prosecutors. No society can survive this kind of corruption, and ours will not survive, either, at least as a place where free people can live.

[Stephen]

Here is Mark Cravelli's critique of the anti-Biblical, state-worshiping theory that "without government and cops, the world would turn to chaos."

If you ever fell victim to the prejudice that people today are smarter and more intellectually sophisticated than the people of the 1st or 13th centuries, you need only ask your friends and neighbors about the terrifying word "anarchy" to prove to yourself that our generations are just as stupid and foolish as any others. Even mentioning the word with a straight face is bound to put your acquaintances on edge, which is remarkable in itself. But, once they recover their senses from hearing the word pronounced out loud without a clap of thunder following on its heels, they will usually offer an argument against anarchism that rivals in its sheer stupidity any arguments that the flat-Earthers ever gave in antiquity.

It usually goes something like this: Human nature is so intrinsically evil and depraved that, without cops walking the streets, judges locking up potheads, and politicians buying hookers and crack in Washington, the entire world would devolve into a horrifying bloodbath. Murder and rape would run rampant as soon as the "criminals," (that is, all of us, as per our shared evil nature), got word that the police were no longer in the business of shooting, beating and incarcerating them. Virtually everyone and everything would be killed or destroyed in the ensuing mayhem. Cannibalism would probably even reappear for the barbaric survivors of the initial anarchic bloodbath. That’s right, cannibalism.

So, as you can clearly see, the fragile fabric of society is held together ultimately by the simple police officer, whom we all take for granted, and whose life is spent deterring the innumerable "criminals" out there from butchering one another, like you and me. Without police officers, given human nature’s intrinsic depravity, life would indeed be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

The sheer stupidity of arguments along the lines that human nature is so totally depraved that society would devolve into cruel chaos in the absence of police officers is almost difficult to fathom. One can forgive the flat-Earthers of yesterday for not being gifted enough in astronomy and mathematics to determine that the giant hunk of rock they stood on is spherical, but how can one forgive the people of today for thinking that that guy wearing blue polyester with mustard in his mustache in the corner of the deli is the very linchpin of human society? How can one forgive an intellectual error as large as the one that presumes that you and I would probably fight each other to the death if it wasn’t for that woman with a mullet and a radar gun under the highway overpass? How will future generations be able to comprehend an intellectual error as large as the one that holds that our very lives and our entire civilization hang oh-so tenuously from a 56-inch braided duty belt?

If our lives and fortunes were indeed dependent upon protection from a handful of people swaddled in hideous blue polyester, mankind would have long ago lost them. If human nature were truly as depraved as these arguments would have us believe, then the chubby blue line would long ago have been annihilated by its vastly numerically superior criminal adversaries. No "criminal" worth the name would be deterred from committing his favored atrocities by a small group of lightly-armed fat people, whose national reputation is tied inextricably to the donut. To even suggest that this 300 million-strong horde of savage, would-be criminals are kept at bay only by some irrational fear of blue polyester is so asinine that it makes the flat-Earthers look like geniuses by comparison.

This intellectual error is all the more inexcusable in America, where the population is armed to the teeth with high-powered rifles, pistols, and shotguns. If the American population were truly as depraved as this argument would have us believe all people are, then its bloodlust could hardly be contained by a few pudgy men and women carrying small caliber pistols. The thought is as laughable as would be an argument to the effect that the hardened and rifle-toting farmers of Mayberry were deterred from slaughtering one another by Andy Griffith and his slow-witted sidekick.

On another level, moreover, arguments to this effect are deeply insulting to people like you and me, for they insinuate that you and I are savage beasts that are only kept in check by those enlightened and portly souls who populate the local police force. Unlike those ultra-civilized "public servants," you and I would like nothing more than to cut each other’s throats, if only the peace-loving police officers of the world weren’t holding us back. The truth, as anyone with eyes in America should be able to tell you, is precisely the reverse, since police officers and soldiers are often the most depraved perpetrators of the very crimes they claim to "protect" Americans from. The police are people just like us, after all, even if their waists are often larger, and they are capable of the same brutality as any other people.

There are some intellectual errors that one can excuse, or at least understand. The people of antiquity could not see that the Earth was round, so one can understand that they did not grasp that seemingly obvious truth There are other intellectual errors, however, that are so idiotic and so self-evident that they smash to pieces any sense of superiority we might be foolish enough to entertain over other peoples. Such is the magnitude of the error of dismissing the sublime idea of free-market anarchism by assuming that the geniuses in blue keep us savages from killing each other.

[Stephen]

To many Christians, the state's wars are a false god. They worship war and the military that fights it, viciously attacking anyone who dares to challenge their god in the name of conservatism and Jesus Christ.

Joe Sobran offers a good commentary on dismantling the false Christian god of war:

William Bennett has caused another uproar, far from his first, by noting that the crime rate might be reduced by aborting all black babies. He Today's column is "Confessions of a Right-Wing Peacenik" -- Read Joe's columns the day he writes them.has defended this comment by reminding us that he called this reprehensible idea “reprehensible.”

Which should hardly have been necessary, since it would only have been put in the words he used by someone who considered it reprehensible. Most people who want to promote black abortion call it something vague, like “giving choice to poor women,” and nobody accuses them of saying what they actually mean.

Still, though Bennett had a point, it was a point about certain kinds of crimes — street crimes. But there are other kinds of crimes, crimes we tend to forget are criminal, because the government sanctions them.

Just after Bennett made his comments, I watched the absorbing film Fat Man and Little Boy, a dramatization of how a group of brilliant men, during World War II, created a weapon that would murder thousands of people in a couple of seconds. This, of course, was the Manhattan Project, the U.S. Government’s crash program to make the atomic bomb. The scientists succeeded all too well, but some of them later had qualms about what they had done.

I couldn’t help noticing that all the characters, in the movie as in real life, were white. I suppose you could say — and here I want to stress that the idea is reprehensible — that if all white babies had been aborted, far fewer nonwhites, from Japan to Iraq, would have been killed by American bombs.

When you look at it that way, you begin to see what the late Susan Sontag meant when she wrote, in her precocious days, that the white race is “the cancer of history.” She later apologized for this observation, but it was still quoted in her obituaries. It had all the brutal logic of youth.

[Breaker quote for Confessions of a Right-Wing Peacenik: How is war "conservative"?]Highly civilized white men have produced the world’s most terrible weapons of mass murder, but they prefer to call these “weapons of mass destruction,” a phrase that slightly disguises their nature. It would sound absurd to say that “we mustn’t allow weapons of mass murder to fall into the wrong hands,” since there can be no “right” hands; but if you substitute destruction for murder it sounds almost reasonable to people who don’t stop to think what you are saying.

Well, war in our time — whatever was true in the days of the crossbow — can mean only mass murder, and we ought to face the fact. Oddly enough, it’s peace, not war, that has a bad name in some circles, where peacenik is a term of sneering contempt, but there is no such thing as a warnik.

In 1991 William Buckley remarked, more in sorrow than in anger, that I had become a virtual pacifist. At that point I’d opposed two consecutive American wars, so in his eyes it was already starting to look like an alarming habit. He went on to intimate that he and other conservatives were praying for me.

I wasn’t actually a pacifist, nor am I one now, and I’m well aware that the word peace can be abused. Still, it’s a holy word to me, as in “Peace on earth,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “the Prince of Peace.” If war can sometimes be justified, it can be only as a regrettable necessity, not as a thing warranting pride or enthusiasm or self-congratulation.

War is the most destructive of human activities, and because it destroys everything worth conserving, I marvel that it has come to be associated with “conservatism.” Yet conservatives who oppose war find themselves isolated like lepers among “mainstream” conservatives, who regard them as puzzling eccentrics — charitably seen, perhaps, as in some spiritual peril requiring prayer. I guess if you find yourself preferring peace, at least your conscience should be troubled about it.

I really don’t want to preen my fine conscience; I’d rather say simply that war offends my reason. I dislike sappy platitudes about brotherhood; peace and harmony are often difficult achievements. Making war can be easier than loving your neighbor, and it’s always easier than loving your enemies; but loving your enemies needn’t mean pretending they are your friends. Sometimes the best you can do is swallow your pride and cut a deal with them instead of killing them. When you choose war, you may become your own worst enemy.

[Stephen]

While studying James 4 this week, I came across an interesting point that directly relates to Christian worship of the god-state.

While speaking to the "twelve tribes scattered across the nations," (which we just studied in church) James is pointing out how these Christians have betrayed Christ in their belief system. In James 4:4, the NIV says "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

Apparently, their love for "the world" equated to an outright betrayal of God. But what, precisely, is "the world?" Today churches sling around the term "the world" loosely in a generic fashion with no real thought about precisely what it means. Does it refer to the dirt on which we stand? The nation in which we live? The government? The planet itself? James gives us a strong hint if we discard modern interpretations and go directly to the earliest Greek.

James 4:4 literally says:

Adulterers and adultresses, have you not yet perceived (Greek: "ouk oidate") that a fondness for the system (Greek: "philia tou kosmou") is hatred toward God?

"Kosmou" or "kosmos," translated "the world" in most English interpretations, actually has three meanings: 1) the entire created universe, including all stars, galaxies, etc., 2) the entire population of planet earth, or 3) "the system," as in the controlling socio-political system under which a person lives within their culture. Biblical translators chose the word "world" because it best generalizes all three meanings of "kosmos." However, this generalization comes at a price... the real "bite" is gone from James' message.

To really understand James' intent, we must choose which definition of "kosmou" best represents his meaning. So try all three and see which one works:

"Don't you know that friendship with the entire created universe is hatred toward God? Okay, that sounds silly. Let's try again.

"Don't you know that friendship with the population of the world is hatred toward God? That's even worse.

Since the first two definitions make absolutely no sense in this application, logic forces us to accept the third. Any loyalty to the system under which you live, James says, is hatred and betrayal toward God. Then he repeats the claim later in the same verse, again using "kosmou/kosmos" to refer to "the system" under which these people lived.

"Kosmos" does not mean "the world" in the generic, 21st century "Christianese" sense of a general reference to all that surrounds us, and some mystical, unseen "evil." It has a more specific meaning that is not effectively carried by a generic term such as "the world."

Now let's look at the rest of the verse.

It is interesting to note that James is not simply making a statement. He is accusing the twelve tribes of being too dim to figure out the obvious. "Ouk oidate" doesn't actually mean "don't you know," as is written in the NIV. Again, that is a general translation... the translators wanted to play it safe and use a shotgun rather than a laser. The literal translation from the Greek is: "have you not yet perceived?" This changes the urgency of his message entirely. In the common vernacular of his day, James is saying "You traitors! Haven't you figured this out yet? Loyalty to the system is hatred toward God!"

So what exactly is "the system?" We can either accept that it means the obvious - the entire system, primarily conceived, designed and implemented by the government under which the twelve tribes lived - or we can make up an alternative definition and then formulate an explanation as to why it is more acceptable than the obvious.

I will study it more, but a plain, literal look at the Greek seems pretty clear... loyalty to a governmental system is a betrayal of the true and living God. If James were here today, I wonder if he would recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American system, or consider it a betrayal of his half-brother?