A law just passed in New York now requires labels for violent content in video games that are already rated, as well as having parent-controlled lockout features installed in consoles by 2010. The law has caused an uproar with civil rights groups who claim that such a law is unconstitutional. A legal challenge is already in the works by the New York Civil Liberties Union who cite that similar laws that have been brought to courts in California, Illinois, Minessota, and Washington state have been deemed as unconstitutional. NYCLU legislative director Robert Perry also says that the ‘new law is a “back door” way of regulating video game content.’

While many additional libertarians, civil or otherwise, will be crying foul against this law, I posted the following as a comment:

Is it confusing to anyone why such a law would be deemed unconstitutional? It makes no sense to me. If they’re crying “1st Amendment violation!” we should note instantly that this is not the U.S. Congress passing a law infringing on the freedom of expression. This is a State-level body declaring their right, via the 9th and 10th Amendments, to regulate speech.

Now some of you are saying “Whoa, Mr. Anarchy says it’s OK for States to regulate speech!” According to the U.S. Constitution, they can. If their own State Constitution has a declaration of what they can’t do, and I hope many States do, then they should be bound by that. But if the People of a State decide that they want their speech regulated and restricted, nothing in the U.S. Constitution should prevent them from deciding it’s OK to be nannied to death by their State governments.

I’m all for dismantling the State, piece by piece, top-down, but in this case, I don’t see what the issue is. As long as the U.S. Congress does not try this tactic, as far as I know, it’s constitutional, and people will get what they deserve at the State level.

The U.S. Constitution is a series of rules that govern what the Federal government can do and what it can’t do. It does not cover the individual States. If the plebes of New York wish for their government to regulate their expressions, so be it. The U.S. Constitution does not limit New York’s power to destroy the inherent rights of the citizens of New York.

Of course New York’s Constitution might restrict their own government’s ability to infringe on the freedom of expression, but I have not read New York’s Constitution to see what their limits on government are.

If you support the U.S. Constitution, you should see that this law has nothing to do with the U.S. Congress, Judicial Branch or Executive Branch.

My answer was: “No. Bring the war over here.”

He was shocked. Literally floored. With his mouth agape, and before he could respond, I told him I’d post a blog post for him, and him alone, but share it with the public. I think it’s a worthy post to share with others, because it opens up a realistic eye to this so-called war, and the definition of “them.”

When many think of “them” bringing the war to us, they think of 9/11. 9/11, a tragic event, an event that could have been prevented with less government, not more. No government in the world can prevent guerilla attacks. It isn’t possible. Yet private organizations can, and do, prevent outbreaks of mad people every day. I saw a drunk youth booted out of a shopping mall by armed guards once. It was fast, and no rights were violated. When 9/11 happened, my claim to fame was that I foresaw the event just 7 months earlier. I ran an email newsletter read by around 2000 people. I was ranting and raving about the inability of the airlines to monitor security, about the inability of pilots to arm themselves, about how ridiculous it was that pilot doors weren’t even locked (a year before 9/11, I witnessed an old lady accidentally open the flight-deck). Before 9/11, few listened. They felt secure. The day after 9/11, I was stuck in San Diego, and I received hundreds of emails asking me how I knew there would be an attack. My response was: “Because government got in the way.”

Terrorist attacks are infrequent even in the Middle East. We hear about all the ones that happen, but if you were to plot them out on a world map, you’d see they mostly happen in the same 2 or 3 locations. What is unique about those locations is the massive oversupply of government agents in those areas — agents there to supposedly secure the area. Yet just miles away from the most popular place for terrorists to attack, you see peaceful private citizens going about their lives: going to movies, eating fast food, shopping, living. The common sign is not where the terrorists are, but where uninvited agents of war exist.

So I welcome the idea of bringing the war over here, for many reasons:

1. Reducing our foreign aggression would reduce the amount of innocent casualties that occur. I find it horrific that our government doesn’t keep track of how many innocents are murdered during our dalliances in foreign lands. I want to know. I think I have a right to know. It’s a more important fact than how many enemy combatants are killed. I also think that by not killing innocents, we’ll anger far fewer people. Blowback’s a mean enemy.

2. Reducing our foreign aggression would reduce the amount of money we spend on military games. It’s a massive figure, and when money matters get large, I have a law I wrote: “The bigger a monetary amount grows, the less understandable it is to common people.” When I mention to someone that a $100 car radio was stolen at the mall, they understand. When I mention that billions of dollars a year are stolen because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policy, they look like they didn’t hear me. Big numbers mean little connection to reality for most people. So I’ll put it this way: the U.S. government has to tax 10,000,000,000 people (about the size of the world’s population) $100 each to pay for the Iraq war. That’s 10 billion people paying $100 each. It’s staggering, since it takes a few hundred years for a single person to count up to a billion. They still don’t understand.

3. Reducing our foreign aggression will definitely reduce the amount of hatred aimed at the U.S. government. I’ll be in the Middle East with my wife on December 27th, less than 15 miles from Iran. We’re going shopping and sightseeing, and we’ll eat good food. I’ll take photos. It’s not a bad place to be. The people I know in the Middle East are constantly shocked at our saber-rattling, and many of them can’t understand why “we” hate “them” — most of the countries we supposedly hate looked very much like our own home towns. The photos you see in the paper and on TV would be akin to someone going to the California desert and calling it America. It’s called lying.

4. I know my neighbors in Illinois. Most of them are packing heat. That’s what a conservative area calls for: people using their God-given inherent right to protect their homes. I’d love to see any army, organized or not, try to walk 5 miles into the U.S. The U.S. army would be ridiculously undermanned if it had to repel an enemy attack. The U.S. private citizens would not be. We have 300 million adults in the U.S. We’re spending $1 trillion on a war that we’re losing, just as we’ve lost every war since the day after WWII ended. $1 trillion divided by 300 million adults = $3333 per adult. That’s more than enough money to arm every adult with a single firearm and enough ammo to last years. Personally, I gave up my gun ownership beliefs, but that’s the wonderful aspect of freedom: if the enemy has no idea who is armed, they’re less likely to attack. John Lott’s great book “More Guns, Less Crime” showcases how towns with few gun restrictions are the safest, and towns with heavy gun restrictions are the most dangerous. Criminals know what the laws are, and they know that the average resident will follow them. Why rob in a town with many legal guns when you can rob in a town with strict gun laws?

Seriously, bring it on. I know my neighbors wouldn’t stand for it. It doesn’t matter who attacks, because the minute a madman goes on a rampage, I can see 50 million or 100 million Americans not standing for it.

It’s a good answer. Let people hate us for our freedoms, our Imperialism, our love of Britney Spears, our use of trans-fat laden foods, or even our ice cream variety. What are they going to do? Come here? If they do, there is only two groups to blame: the attackers, and those who pretend to defend us.

We can defend ourselves. We don’t need the police (who can’t defend anyone while they write their traffic citations and play Dog the Bounty Hunter with those who jump bail on a minor pot charge). We don’t need the Army. All we need are individiuals who understand that they may be called to defend their families, their home, their neighbors and their towns. No one can destroy freedom except those voted to protect it. And if you’re familiar with the past 90 years, you understand that is exactly the case. 9/11 should have been responded to by returning more rights to individuals. Instead, we chose the wrong people.

But is California in financial trouble? Growing foreclosures pushing as much as a 200% growth year over year, shrinking wages, rampant Federal Reserve monetary inflation, and continued consumer overspending may give people the idea that California is in trouble, but that’s just not true. The people of California are not experiencing a fiscal emergency, the government is.

I call repeatedly for people to understand that you are not your government, and they are not you. What defines you in an economic sense is merely those around you who you pay for products or services, or who pays you for products or services. That defines an economy: the billions of quick interactions that exchange products/services for money.

In almost every situation imaginable, you as a consumer have unlimited choice as to where to spend your money, or if to spend you money. Let’s say you go to a steak house, and love the experience, price, quality and speed of service. You’re likely to go again, and maybe even tell your friends. Yet the experience you have is only limited to that experience. There is no long term commitment forcing you to go again, and the steakhouse owners and employees are not required to follow up with you in the future. If you have a bad experience, you never go back. Fairly simple, and voluntary.

Even at work, there is a similar experience. If you find that your boss is not paying you for what you are really worth, the market of possibilities exists for you to discover your true value in an economy. If another person or company will pay you more, you can set your labor’s value by marking-it-to-market and taking a job elsewhere. Your boss has no more control over you than you have over him or her. The same is true for your bosses: they can fire you, or promote you, based on your value to the company. This, again, is purely voluntary. Some will say the boss has more control because they can fire you without cause, leaving you in financial turmoil, but this is also untrue. A casual and focused savings program when you are working is enough to weather any short-term job loss. I have never met a single person who has proven to me that a job loss is truly a financial problem, except those who spent more than they earned, and didn’t save a dime. When your savings is zero, security of your living situation should be THE priority over spending or living life to its fullest. This is especially true when you are young, yet the young today are more focused on debt and entitlements than on thinking about the short term future.

Those who save are not enslaved to their jobs. The excuse for fiscal emergency in a household or family’s budget is tied to their responsibility, not their bosses.

So we see that most fiscal and economic thoughts are tied to voluntary decisions made by consumers and producers. Prepare for the worst, and the worst ends up not being so bad. No one can force you eat at the steakhouse, no one can force you to work a job for less than other businesses are willing to pay you (short of you signing a non-compete agreement). But in other parts of our spending, an area where a significant portion of our weekly budget goes, you are forced, sometimes against your will, to make payments even if you don’t want to, even if you have no need for the product or service that is offered. That part of our spending is government, and California is one of the worst governments to burden the voluntary and charitable individual.

While this year’s budget is, at the moment of this posting, offline and impossible to view, I looked at the budget from 2005-2006, a budget that has grown by an additional 1% in the next year. After browsing for an hour, I continued to be shocked at how short-signed taxpayers are, and why the government of California is bankrupt. It’s a matter of looking at the voluntary actions that taxpayers could take, but instead they accepted forced payments that have increased the cost of living, put a larger burden on both the haves and the have-nots, and have pushed the average taxpayer into a dire position of having to spend more of their income in order to try to bailout generations of bad intentions, bad laws, and bad taxes.

Public Transportation
In my part of the country, Chicagoland, public transportation is going bankrupt. And it should! But California is in even deeper trouble. The State government in 2005-2006 provided a budget of nearly $20 billion for public transportation “needs.” This is $20 billion dollars shifted away from voluntary transactions and into forced transactions. The use of force to acquire finances brings along a high overhead from bureaucracy, as well as lessened oversight into the spending of the money. If I forced you to buy a steak from me, I could charge more than the steakhouse that you went to voluntary. I could reduce the quality of the steak, and require you to pay for the steaks of other people who couldn’t afford my steak. That $15 steak at the voluntary restaurant may end up being $150 from me, since you’re required to buy it, even if you’re a vegetarian and don’t touch it.

Public transportation is the same situation. Many people will quickly argue that the average poor person needs public transportation to go to work, but this idea is a lie, or at least a mass confusion. If public transportation’s ticket price is tied to the real costs of providing it, with no tax help, the people who rely on public transportation may end up having to change jobs. This sounds tragic, but they have a powerful market force in their favor: if they have to change jobs, their employers are in more trouble than the poor worker is. Employers have huge financial concerns in keeping their doors open, and the loss of lower income workers would have an immediate effect on the employers. The net effect of raising ticket prices for public transportation would be for employers to make wage increases to offset the cost of travel, or the cost of living closer. These costs would be passed on to consumers, but from a market perspective we quickly see that consumers in wealthy areas are accustomed to spending more to access services and products in their area than deal with the hassle of driving far to save a buck. Poor people working in wealthier neighborhoods are likely not living in those wealthy neighborhoods, so they rely on transportation to get there. By tying ticket prices to actual costs, the poor people would need an incentive in the form of a higher wage to make the travel worthwhile. This is not trickle-down or trickle-up, it is just a fact of the market economy.

Education
The same marker truths come into play in education. The State of California contributes over $20 billion a year to higher education (college), a tax-and-spend philosophy that likely adds an additional $20 billion to the cost of education. When government provides tax money for a needed service or product, the supply of money added to that market goes up. Prices of a product or service are directly tied to three areas: demand for the product, supply of the product, and supply of money available for the product. Just as the Federal Reserve’s fraudulent monetary inflation cycles adds a new supply of money, causing prices to go up, government taxing-and-spending for a product causes those prices to go up. California lies to their citizens, saying that they need to sponsor education because of the high cost of education, but few look at the high cost of education as an effect of previous government dollars taxed from everyone to pay for the few.

If the State of California cut the education budget to $0, the colleges would still need students. It is ridiculous to think that the colleges would just serve the rich, as the rich are a small percentage of the State. What would happen would be budget cuts in administration, bureaucracy, and overspending, just like the household that witnesses a job loss or pay cut. The same people would still have the opportunity to go to college, but at a lower price. California’s incredible overspending of education is the key reason that education is expensive in the State.

Human Services
California spends a whopping $37 billion on health and human services, an outrageous sum that helps the wealthy and harms the poor. Just as in education, government spending in a market sector causes prices to go up. Spending $37 billion in tax dollars on health care causes the price of health care to skyrocket. There’s an idea that the poor couldn’t afford health care without public dollars, but this is an untruth. Providers in all markets are knowledgeable of the “long tail” in all economies: the wealthy are a small percentage of spenders, and are not big enough to keep the doors open in almost any service or product providing market. As you travel the long tail to the poor and poorer, you see more and more people who want a product, but can’t afford as much for that product. Since there is great profit in providing services to as many consumers in the entire tail of a market, there is incentive for doctors and health care providers to find ways to serve even the poorest in a region. Without finding a way to offer their services to the poor, they’d be overstaffed as their client base would drop significantly.

Instead, the State spends and spends and spends, making prices skyrocket so that the poor who are not familiar with the welfare system are unable to afford basic health care. When government starts a bureaucracy to spend in a market, there are many loops and twists for a consumer to go through to try to acquire the subsidy to use in that market. Health care in California has some of the most impossible to navigate options. If fast food was subsidized, I’d believe that almost everyone would go hungry. The time and frustration spent trying to navigate the bureaucracy of the California health system gives incentive to people to not bother, and the high cost due to government’s spending in the market make health care frustrations an issue for even the upper middle class.

Looking over the California budget, we can see that there is no fiscal emergency. Instead, there is a spending problem. California is a drunk consumer of voluntary spending, forcing it into involuntary spending. It is too large of a bureaucracy to properly ascertain what the market wants or needs at any given moment. It can not change its course when the market changes, but it still steals from the taxpayers in order to support yesterday’s needs, and has no option to take care of tomorrow’s needs.

California has an easy solution: fire the bureaucrats. Wind down the spending, wind down the taxing, wind down the public services. Do it immediately, not in a tiered withdrawal. Let the markets quickly react to saving their own incomes. When the iPod was released, the music market changed immediately. Small and poor individuals quickly found ways to sell their music, and to buy the music they wanted. The large, bureaucratic corporations are left in the dust, unable to compete with the fast-changing market, because bureaucracies can’t react. Not big government, not big business. They work together, hand-in-hand, to find ways to tell people what they want, rather than actually listening to people’s needs and wants.

Never believe in the term “fiscal emergency” from any large government or business. It’s just not true.

First of all, I believe Democracy is an evil word, based solely on the idea that 51% of the people in a voting district can tell 49% of the people what to do. To me, it doesn’t work. The only Democracy I could theoretically accept would be one that operated under a strong barrier to unlimited power. The U.S. Constitution, as well as many State Constitutions, theoretically were formed with the barrier to unlimited power in mind, but we can see that they’ve all been stretched way beyond their original intent. You can’t stop powerful people from pushing their powers a tiny bit at a time, which snowballs into tyranny. Democratic tyranny is worse than Dictatorial tyranny, since you can’t easily blame millions for bilking the fruits of your labors. I’d rather blame on Dictator than try to convince hundreds of millions.

That being said, I do think there are steps we can take to make Democracy more palatable. Of course, the first point is to restrain those powers to a very slim definition of what government should do. The second step, I believe, is to extend the voting timeframe, along with regular updates of the current tabulated results. Real-time counting of ballots is not difficult to do, even with punch voting systems.

As each punch card is submitted by the voter, a receipt is printed for them detailing who they voted for and where their vote is recorded. If there is a problem, they don’t press the “Submit” button. They press “Cancel” and redo their vote. Then they return to the tallying machine until they’re happy. Upon “submit” being pressed, the numbers are uploaded to the central servers. In this day and age of DSL and cable broadband, getting real-time votes recorded centrally should not be a 3 week process.

At the end of the voting day, the votes are tabulated and provided to the media or to a website where people can look at them. The voting period, in my opinion, should be one week long. If after the first day of voting the non-voters see how the results are proceeding, they can then make a decision to pop in the car and head to the polls tomorrow. I seriously think this would get the lazy and apathetic voters to turn out if they saw how things are going. There’s nothing worse than hearing someone complain about their candidate losing when they didn’t show up. This way, they have a reason to go, especially if their candidate is losing or the margin is close. If the difference between one candidate and another is huge, i.e. a landslide, then people likely won’t turn out.

While this won’t fix democracy, it will be a huge step in getting the apathetic out to vote. This would be especially true at the local level, when tax addenda and bond issues are voted on. It would increase the media’s profits from covering elections, as they’d have more traffic to post results. Bloggers would profit with the additional traffic as people who haven’t voted would be able to get opinions on the various issues.

Why have I had to make this declaration? Because I’ve noticed that Americans, of which I include those born here, abroad, and those who skipped over the border illegaly, have forgotten so much about how this Republic exists. We are not a nation, we are a Republic of 50 Nations and a few territories that are not pro-freedom enough to realize that they, too, are independent nations.

As 50 Nations, which is the definition of a State (a State is a country in its own), we made a decision a long time ago that we would elect a staff of people at a Federal/Republic level that would work for us with one primary intent: to make sure that the countries (”States”) that we live in do not trample on the rights we have as individual, given by God or inherently the moment you are born or conceived. There are many rights that all individuals of all countries and races and religions share: We inherently have the right to speak freely. We have the inherent right to prevent uninvited visitors from coming into our homes, and from forcing themselves to live there. We are inherently free to assemble with other people we like, but we’re also inherently free to decide not to assemble or do business with people we don’t like. We’ve the inherent right to practice whatever religion we want, or none at all. We’re free (inherently!) to travel as long as we don’t trespass, and we’re free to keep quiet if anyone questions us about illegal activities. We’re all free, from birth to protect our bodies and our properties from trespass, with force if necessary. We’re free to demand compensation if those we elect usurp our freedoms or trespass on our properties or bodies.

These are freedoms that every man has, just by being born (or conceived, depending on your definition of life). Those freedoms are inherent in all men: Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, Iraqis, Australians, and even the Chinese. They’re born with them. You’re born with them. No one can GIVE you those freedoms, and no one is allowed to take them away. No one.

When the 13 countries in the New World decided to unite, they didn’t decide to unite as one big country. It wasn’t an option. Instead, they decided to stay as separate countries, that is, States, but they were fearful of one another. They decided to elect a Federal branch of government for one sole purpose: to respect those inherent (”God-given”) rights that all are born with, regardless of nationality or citizenship, and to force the other countries to also respect those same rights. That’s what the Federal government was enacted to do. The States also knew that other countries not agreeing to these rules on States might decide to attack a single State, so they decided to give the power to call up a defensive army to this Federal Republic. The army would be called up from the various States to repel an attacker. The army would be composed of State armies, private militias, and individuals who voluntarily would commit to defending the land of other States (countries) within this Republic. Then the army would go home, back to farming, horseshoeing, running the saloons, the whorehouses, the main street stores and inns. It would dissolve, impossible to track down once the attack on another country (State) was stopped.

These 13 countries (States) also didn’t trust one another when it comes to money. Historically, all countries have harmed the individual by taking away their ability to choose what form of money they’d use. Some used dirt, others sand, some wheat, some used cows. Some used gold and silver, which for 6000 years had been the only safe form of a bartering medium. Since the 13 countries didn’t trust each other with money, they decided to force each other to pay their debts to individuals, and to other countries, only in gold and silver. Individuals were free to use whatever bartering medium they thought was good, and accept or deny how they were paid. The countries also gave the power to physically coin a currency to the Federal Republic, but that was only for the coins that the countries themselves used — individuals were free to barter between each other in any currency available and preferred.

The 13 countries were also fearful of pirates on the open seas, so they decided to band together and protect the borders on the seas with a united Navy/Coast Guard. This was not to be used to attack, but to watch for pirates and attackers. It was purely defensive.

There was really to be no leader of these 13 countries, which quickly grew to 50 countries, united as a Republic only to protect those inherent rights that all are born with. The President of this Republic had one task: enforce the laws of the Republic, if they followed the points above. Does the law restrict the inherent freedom to speak of any individual, foreign or domestic, that any of the 50 countries deal with? If so, the law can’t exist. The President can ignore it, and force the Republic to ignore it. Does a law or an action force an individual, foreign or domestic, to speak when they don’t want to? That is an illegal activity, and this President should immediately force the agent to stop it. Does a law or action trespass on a person’s body or property? If so, the law can not exist at any level, and force should be used against the government perpetrator.

The President of the Republic is not there to lead individuals, but to lead in force against any usurping of individual rights by any of the 50 countries (”States”), or any government body above or below them. The President does not lead, we as individuals do. The President’s sole power is not to make laws or decisions, but to Execute the few powers the Republic does have, and to ignore the powers that may breach those inherent, “God-given” rights that all men are born with.

If an illegal alien is captured by any government, those rights are still theirs. They’re born with it. The Rule of Law of the Republic, the Constitution, does not grant many rights specific to citizens, but to all People who are affected by the Republic or the countries themselves. Yes, the countries can kick them out, but they can’t force them to speak, jail them without telling people why, providing for their freedom to consult with a lawyer, know the charges against them, and ask for a jury. If for some strange and illegal reason the Republic or any individual country is acting outside of its borders (grossly illegal, immoral and unconstitutional), it has to understand that the foreign people they are harassing, killing, maiming and angering also have inherent rights that they can not trample on.

Some of these powers and restrictions are modified if the Republic is called to go to a defensive war, but we have not had a Declaration of War since World War II, so anything the Republic or the individual countries are doing internationally is illegal and should be stopped by the President (who again, is not a leader).

It is obvious that the recent Presidents, going back 90+ years, have ignored their oaths to the Constitution, their promises to protect the rights of the individuals (foreign and domestic), and to restrain the Republic from hurting the freedoms that all people are born with. This is why I declare all individuals to be the new President. It is now your job to remind others that they are free; the others can be people born within any of the 50 United Countries of the American Republic, or foreigners, or aliens residing in the borders of the 50 United Countries of the American Republic. Remind them that they are responsible for themselves and their families, first and foremost. No one is supposed to trample on the rights they were born with, the very rights that give them ability to succeed or fail. Most failure comes from individuals lying, or being lazy, or relying on someone else using force for their profit. No one fails because of bad luck, because we all have the ability to protect our families and heirs in the cases of bad luck. You might be dead, but you can protect yourself today using the market providing insurance policies out there.

We must realize that all humans are born free, even if someone else disagrees. We mortals do not need others to lead us together, as we all have different needs, abilities, and desires. We must lead ourselves, and when we do, we can be positive influences on our heirs. When we teach our heirs to lead themselves, too, they will be prepared for all risks and rewards in life. When we rely on others to lead us, we no longer have the knowledge that we are sovereign individuals responsible for our own actions.

When the current President of the Republic leaves office, the next President of the Republic will likely follow in his footsteps in forgetting that he or she is not there to lead us, but to make sure that the 50 countries don’t harm our ability to lead ourselves. Ron Paul might be the least aggressive in harming our individual rights, so I do believe he would do a good job returning the job of President to being a mere aggressor against the 50 countries themselves. That’s why I like the guy — he doesn’t want to lead me anywhere, or force me to do anything. He’ll leave me alone, but if the Country of Illinois tries to control me, he’ll step right in and give them the smack-down.

Sounds good to me.

Since Mr. Schweitzer has agreed to discuss Just War Doctrine, I’ve spent a day talking with the wife and a few good friends about the proper angle to portray my viewpoints on Augustine’s popular theory. I believe that the Just War Doctrine is immoral, and unbiblical, while Curtis takes the opposite view.

At first, I thought I had a slam dunk, but after discussions with others, I realized that my primary debate tool is useless in this venue. For those who know me personally or deeply, they are aware that I prescribe to a minority view on Christianity and the Bible, notably the Preterist or Covenant eschatological doctrinal view. I assume that Curtis, as well as most Christian readers here, prescribe to the more common Dispensationalist doctrinal viewpoint on Biblical matters. This complicates the issue significantly for me, but does not necessary make it an impossibility.

Since the majority of Christian readers here are of the Dispensationalist, I believe it is in my best interest to “attack” the debate from their point of view rather than from my own. I used to adhere to that same doctrine for many years, but I had many concerns that plagued me regarding significant portions of the New Testament, which led me down the path to accept many aspects of the Preterist viewpoint, although not all. I would appreciate, and openly pursue, comments from people who see me leave the Dispensationalist path in my oppositions (or even agreements) to Mr. Schweitzer’s posts at his blog. For those friends and readers who are Preterist, or who are heading in that direction, I will try to address those views at a later date, or after the main body of the replies I post here. I will be very explicit in defining that view separately, and hopefully without any attempt to sway or provoke a change of doctrine for the reader.

One caveat: I am very potent as a convincer toward the Preterist viewpoint, I’ve been told. It is NOT my place, or my wish, to get anyone reading any of my posts to accept or even consider that viewpoint until they are led spiritually to question their own doctrine of beliefs. I find the Dispensational viewpoint significantly lacking in both grace and justice, but I also accept that it is the status quo doctrine of the 20th century for most Evangelicals, and I will not be one to judge another’s views, even if they are counter to my own. I serve hundreds of Dispensational congregations fruitfully, and do not openly promote my own views in that servitude. If you feel I am promoting a heretical or opposing doctrine within any of these future posts (other than when I place a warning that I will do so), please post a comment and hold me accountable. While I have made many inroads in my own private home assembly to teach people the varying views of Christianity (and other religions!), I don’t believe that this blog is the place to do so. /caveat

The setup
The basis for my part of the debate will focus on a few areas of the Bible that I believe show that the Just War Doctrine can be challenged by Christians who do not advocate the use of force against others. I sincerely believe that Christ also held to the ideas of non-resistance and acceptance of hatred from others, which can be used as a powerful weapon to shine the light of love, peace and charity to others in hopes of getting them to question the basis for their own hatred.

Definition of a Christian
I also accept that there are New Testament verses that are useful in defending force on others, and I hope to dig deep into those verse to prepare against Curtis’ side of the debate in utilizing those same verses. I will start by saying that all verses of the Bible are contextual, not absolute. Using one verse without explaining the context of the paragraph or book is a process that many seemingly heretical pastors and preachers use to advocate fear and force and control of the individual. Christ was/is about freedom and submitting to God and other mortals, not about making God or other mortals submit to you. When it comes to dealing with other Christians, the Dispensationalist has practical and strong advice/advocations in how to deal with brethren. If we can not agree with those basic tenets, the debate will be fruitless and a wate of time for the writers and readers. It is my hope that we can at least come to an agreement with some or all of these points, at least from an Evangelical Dispensationalist viewpoint.

Preterist Prespective: It is my believe that the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Age is over, fulfilled completely in two “Comings of Christ” that have occurred and will not occur in the future. I believe we live in the “Reign of God” which is transliterated incorrectly in many modern Bibles as the future “Kingdom of God.” It is my believe that Christ’s actions and words were incredibly spiritual in nature, not physical or pertaining to a mortal Kingdom./Preterist

Some verses against the use of force
Two simple verses that seem to show that Christ promoted peace, always:
Matthew 5:9 Jesus: blessed are the peacemakers
Matthew 5:39: if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

Matthew 5:39 has an intriguing transliteration problem that Rob Bell (who I generally do NOT agree with) pointed out: the striking of a cheek was an act that was common in ancient times, always being performed with one particular hand. The idea of striking someone on the other cheek would cause the striker to use the back of their hand, which put them on the negative side. I do believe that this is the case, but I am not sure that the transliteration problem is a negative one necessarily. Still, I think this verse is the weakest in defending against the Just War Doctrine.

There are also verses that promote the idea of the use of force:
Eccles 3:3: a time to kill
Luke 3:14: Peace of Rome, could keep their jobs

Many Dispensationalists believe that the Old Testament still offers insight and direction for the Christian. I vehemently disagree, finding the Old Testament’s direction as useless after Christ. Nonetheless, I will try to provide Christ’s unique insights into Old Testament verses that show that Christ was against much of the teachings of the mortal men of the Israelite Bible.

Since this is just a setup explanation, I believe it is important to close with Augustine’s viewpoints on the Just War Doctrine. This is a paraphrasing, but should be conclusive:

Augustine said that before one could use force against an “enemy,” one must make these considerations:
1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) there must be serious prospects of success;
4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Just on the face of it, I believe that even if you prescribe to the Just War Doctrine, most if not all of these 4 considerations have been broken in modern warfare, both terrorist-driven and State-enforced. This view, though, is not part of our debate. I hope we can proceed in this debate from a neutral aspect: more of a “what if” than a “what happened.” It would be unbalanced if I was to use examples of any recent war against Mr. Schweitzer, so I will refrain from those angles.

Please feel free to join us by tracking back from your own blog to either of our blogs, or entering your own comments on either site. I hope that we can do justice to both the Word of God, and provide some security for those believing either viewpoints, as well as opening a door for both sides to inquire deeper into their own beliefs.

Preterist Prespective: Many people know that I truly believe we live in the Reign of God age, and in doing so, we are kings and shepherds of the world, but not kings akin to the rulers of the Old Testament, nor shepherds of animals. It is my firm belief that our only option to teach the world is pure peace, love and charity. If we walk away from those 3 teachings, we quickly succumb to the worship and support of a mortal king to drive our lives, rather than the Immortal King who provides grace, love and charity through our hands, minds, mouths and bodies./Preterist

I copletely agree with you that we should know our own Bible and study other faiths. Christian do not do near enough of this and it is undefendable. You seem very well read and I’m sure you have arrived at your conclusions through careful study. However I must dissent with you on a few points.

Dissent is the finest form of communication, since it allows us to continue the discussion in hopes of providing some ideas unthought of by both of us. I appreciate the response on my blog.

First, “Islamofascist” is a term used to describe people who murder their own sisters because they were raped, who behead journalist, and do it because they believe Allah requires it. I’m not saying Allah does or does not, but that is what they believe. To call someone a “Christofascist” is to equate them with the Islamofascists accept that they believe they are doing the will of Christ. That is a powerfull thing to say. And you at least imply, that I am a Christofascist because I wrote an article critical of Ron Paul. I think that is going too far.

Actually, the term Islamofascist could also be used to describe the Pharisees and Ancient Israelites because they also believed in the same response to those who were against their Rule of Law. If someone sinned, it was the people’s place to stone them to death, including those who are raped (sex outside of marriage, even rape, was considered sinful by both the Ancient Israelites and some Muslims). I am currently about to start a short series of debate points with another blogger regarding the Christian/Catholic Just War Doctrine, and why I believe it is not the will of Christ or God the Father. I sincerely did not mean to imply that YOU are a Christofascist, even though I do believe that many Evangelicals are currently more fascist than individualist. I do believe that Christ’s words and actions prove that God is an individualist, who used the Ancient Israelites to prove that the Mosaic Convenant was not something that mortals could truly live by (i.e., theocracy or worldly covenant). Christ’s New Covenant (the Reign of God, or mistakenly called the Kingdom of God due to false translations) provides for individual decisions outside of theocracy.

Secondly, I do not dispute that most Muslims are peaceful. All I said was that the terrorists believe they are doing the will of Allah. I make no claim as to if this is the correct understanding of the Quran or not but, it is their understanding.

I accept that — but I also felt the need to explain how SOME Christian Evangelicals today believe that the Koran gives Muslims a reason to force theocracy on the world, when it fact it does not. The Koran, like the Bible, leave the issue of the Reign of God to individuals who form a new Kingdom without borders, mortal kings or the use of foce.

Thirdly, As you yourself said, there are different translations of the Quran. Your complaint about the translation I used seems to be (based on your bolding of the text) based on the first half of the verse. (I do not deffend the translation, honestly I’m not even sure what translation it was and I think I will switch it to Pickthall because of the complaints.) Yet I was refering to the latter half, “and all submit to the religion of Allah alone.” The translation you cite says the same thing in more eloquent language, “and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.” So I think the translation is more or less irrelevant to your criticism.

Maybe that’s true, but we also see in the Old Testament and New Testament the view of “all” nations and people, which are horrible mistranslations of the original language and intent of each book. Of course, as a Preterist myself, it does produce a significant difference in my interpretation versus that of the majority of Evangelicals in terms of the translations we use of our own Bible. My problem with Christians is that I meet so many (maybe a dozen or more a week) who have never really inquired as to the meaning of specific verses or phrases in their own Bible, and just accept what their Pastor/Preacher/Leader tells them is Truth. When a Christian misconstrues the Koran, that’s OK because it isn’t their book. When a Christian misconstrues the Bible, it is up to other Christians to make note, and try to offer their perspective lest we allow that misconstruing as Truth for the future.

Finally, How did I take Surah 8:39 out of context? I let it speak for itself. I didn’t even write comentary on it.

I believe you did take it out of context because it seems you were promoting the ideology that Muslims, and the Koran, propose that they conquer the world and force everyone to bow to Allah (”God”), when it fact the Koran says to protect their “homeland” and Allah will take care of the rest. It is a common misconception for Christians and other non-Muslims that Muslims have a different doctrine of spreading their holy book than Christians do. Also, Christians today seem to have a misconception of our own Bible that leads many of us to believe in such unbiblical beliefs such as the Just War doctrine, as well as support of the State/government, or laws that supposedly prevent sinful nature from showing itself.

Yes, in the end it is just a doctrinal issue, but if we Christians can’t agree, how can we move forth to force non-Christians to live a certain way if we ourselves can not agree on which way is correct?

Blogger Curtis Schweitzer has agreed honorably to discuss and debate the morality versus immorality of the Just War Theory, a Christian doctrine founded by Augustine and one supported by many Evangelicals today, including Dr. Ron Paul, Republican Presidential candidate.

Mr. Schweitzer, and Dr. Paul, both believe that the Just War doctrine of Augustine’s is moral and acceptable for Christians. I personally am in the minority in believing it is both immoral, and unbiblical, to go to war or use force against another — be it individual, state or society.

I’m not sure when we’ll begin, but I will post my own starting views this week. Curtis will be posting his views on his site, and we will go back and forth until we’ve both hopefully presented our points of view and our cases.

It is not my desire to necessarily convince anyone to support or deny the Just War doctrine because of my beliefs of Curtis’, but I do hope that it causes the fair reader to consider the reasons behind the supporters and detractors of this historical doctrine.

I was browsing the web this morning, doing some casual searches for a few topics I’m interested in. I always do a search for Islamofascism, to try to see what confusion (and sometimes hatred) I come across. Today, I came across a blog that two of my searches hit: Ron Paul, and Islamofascist. That blog is titled UnderAgeThinker, and the post is titled Ron Paul Shoots Himself in the Foot and His Campaign in the Head.

From UAT’s post:

The Islamofascists are waging a holy war. Ron Paul doesn’t seem to get this. They truly have faith that what they are doing is the will of Allah and is therefore not only justified but obligatory. When they say that they are waging jihad it is not just rhetoric, they mean it. It is not difficult to see why they are fighting, it is not because we have a base in Saudi Arabia, it is because their religion tells them to.

I am a Christian, but I find that it is very important to understand all the world’s religions, not just to inform myself of what people believe, but also to see where the similarities are. When it comes to Islam, I truly do believe that Islam is mostly a religion of peace, just as one could say that Judeo-Christianity is mostly a religion of peace. Christianity, by itself, is not debatable in terms of its purpose: Christianity is solely a religion of peace. Augustine, and many Christian Thinkers after him, were wrong to believe in Just War Theory or any non-peaceful action as approved by Jesus Christ or God. Even the Muslims advocate Christ as a peacemaker, and bless His name by following it with the words “peace be upon Him.” In the Koran, Muslims believe that the “End Times” will occur with Christ returning to vanquish to foes of God. How funny that the Muslims that Christofascists hate are the ones who understand that Christ was purely peaceful, and the Christians are the ones who think that the Bible allows for any war by the faithful.

UAT quotes a much-maligned Surrah (”book”) of the Koran, which is Surrah 8:39. His quote is (wrongly) here:

So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief ) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone

This is the quote most often used by the Christofascists to make Christians believe that Muslims want to come “over here” and kill us. They believe the Koran advocates murder of non-believers, but that is not the case. Here’s a short study on Surrah 8, and why it is important to not take any holy book out of context, including the Bible.

Surrah 8’s context is specific: how to handle war that comes to a Muslim area. This is not advocating that Muslims go to war, but it tells the Muslims how to handle a war that is waged on them. When you read Surrah 8, you immediately see the connection to the Middle East, the United States foreign policy there (for 60+ years), and why the anti-US Muslims are receiving more and more support. From the Koran that we have (we have all faith holy books for reference, sometimes in various translations) at home, the same verse of Surrah 8:39 is as follows:

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

As you can see from the verse I typed up, it does not say to fight everyone until all in the World agrees, it says to fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression. This is a key phrase within the Surrah, because it shows the advocation for fighting if you are oppressed. It does not say take the fight elsewhere. To understand this entire Surrah, I feel the need to open up the entire set of verses, which I will address one by one. For Christians who wonder why I would “defend” the Muslim holy book, I do so because often times Christianity is battled because someone focuses on one phrase out of context. It is my belief that many Christians take one verse out of context, which is why I am adamantly against the idea of preaching a sermon based on disparate verses rather than teaching a sermon focuses solely on the context of the Book, the people who are the topic of the book, and a view on multiple translations as well as comparisons to Old Testament Prophecy regarding the verses. Too many Christians are taught the Bible from Pastors and Preachers who jump around and don’t focus on context — it is important to READ what you believe, rather than just listen to opinion and interpretation. I am NOT defending the Koran as God’s Word, nor am I advocating support or detraction of it.

Koran, Surrah 8:1: They ask thee concerning spoils of war. Say: “These spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Apostle: So fear Allah, and keep straight the relations between yourselves: Obey Allah and His Apostle, if ye do believe.”

Surrah 8 begins by addressing the topic: the spoils of war. Anything “earned” during a war is to be given to Allah (God) by the believers. They are told to fear God, and be good to one another. It says here, if you believe in God, obey God. It does not say to force obedience to non-believers. Christians also have the same advocation: believe in God, but don’t force that obedience on non-believers. Here, Muslims and Christians can agree.

Koran, Surrah 8:2: For, Believers are those who, when Allah is mentioned, feel a tremor in their hearts, and when they hear His signs rehearsed, find their faith strengthened, and put their entire trust in their Lord;

This is a definition of what “believer” means. It is very similar to both the Judaic guidance and the Christian advocation: a Believer is someone who feels a tremor in their hearts when God is brought up, and they find their faith and trust strengthened when their lives correlate to God’s Word. Again, Muslims and Christians (and Jews) generally agree with these points.

Koran, Surrah 8:3: Who establish regular prayers and spend out of the gifts We have given them for sustenance:

A believer establishes regular prayer, and gives charity of what they receive. Again, Muslims, Christians and Jews agree to this point.

Koran, Surrah 8:4: Such in truth are the believers: they have grades of dignity with their Lord, and forgiveness, and generous sustenance:

Surprising to see the word “forgiveness” in the Koran regarding believers. This verse is debatable as to whether it means God’s forgiveness and sustenance for a believer, or a believer’s forgiveness for others. I know Muslims who accept both as their truth.

Koran, Surrah 8:5: Just as thy Lord ordered thee out of thy house in truth, even though a party among the Believers disliked it,

Remember, Surrah 8 relates to war. Muslims believe that they must be truthful when outside of their own, and even though there are Believers who don’t want to be truthful…

Koran, Surrah 8:6: Disputing with thee concerning the truth after it was made manifest, as if they were being driven to death and they did see it.

…there is no need to dispute the need.

Koran, Surrah 8:7: Behold! Allah promised you one of the two parties, that it should be yours: Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the Unbelievers;

The Koran I have says that the Arabic word for “parties” above can also be “aggressors.” Basically, the Koran says that God gave the Muslims two aggressors, and that the Muslim may wish that his aggressor would be unarmed, but God will give the armed aggressor. This has a lot of prophetic meaning to the Muslim in the Middle East, who sees any Imperial force there as an aggressor. Remember, Muslims in the Middle East have had to deal with aggressors and Imperialists for hundreds of years. In recent times, they’ve dealt with the Ottoman Empire (Imperialists aggressing against Muslims), then the French (Imperialists), then the English (Imperialists) and now the United States (Imperialists). Taking a Surrah dealing with war and addressing it to modern times is something that Christians also mistakenly do. But yet, you can’t fault the Muslims for seeing prophetical context between this Surrah and the hundreds of years of Imperialism and murder against them. Still, the Koran here does not advocating spreading the battle outside of their land.

Koran, Surrah 8:8: That He might justify Truth and prove Falsehood false, distasteful though it be to those in guilt.

Here it shows that God will justify Truth in the non-believer, and it will be distasteful to the non-believer. It doesn’t advise the Muslim to show the non-believer the truth.

Koran, Surrah 8:9: Remember ye implored the assistance of your Lord, and He answered you: “I will assist you with a thousand of the angels, ranks on ranks.”

Just as in the Bible, the Koran shows that God will assist in the Spiritual Warfare through guidance of angels (jinn).

Koran, Surrah 8:10: Allah made it but a message of hope, and an assurance to your hearts: there is no help except from Allah: and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

A confirmation to Muslims that all hope and assurance comes from God.

Koran, Surrah 8:11: Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith.

Here is a text that talks about location: therewith refers to where they are. It does not advocate taking their battle elsewhere.

Koran, Surrah 8:12: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels by saying: “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

Here we see the word terror, but it is a message to the angels, not to the believers. In this battle of spirtual warfare, God tells Muslims that he will tell the angels that he will smite the believers in the head and hands. This is contextually not a physical attack, but one that is repeated in the Koran over and over, dealing with his vengeance against those who attack non-believers. The Jewish Old Testament also deals with similar issues.

Koran, Surrah 8:13: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels by saying: “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

Again, we don’t see guidance for the believer to attack, but that God will do it for them. Just as in the Jewish Old Testament, God is the Warrior, not man.

Koran, Surrah 8:14: Thus saith: “Taste ye then of the punishment: for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.”

Here again we see that the Muslim is told that God will punish others, for those who resist God. This is no different than what Jesus warned of for the end age of the old covenant.

Koran, Surrah 8:15: O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.

Again, this Surrah regards war waged against Muslims, not a war that Muslims wage. It says that if an unbeliever wages war against a Muslim, the Muslim should not bow down or turn his back. This is similar to the Old Testament guidance that God gave the ancient Israelites.

Koran, Surrah 8:16: If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop - he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge!

This is a warning to Muslims not to turn their back if they are attacked.

Koran, Surrah 8:17: It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest dust, it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth all.

Just like God the Warrior in the Jewish Old Testament, the Muslim God is also the warrior. When a Muslim must defend their home, it is God that wages the battle.

Koran, Surrah 8:18: That, and also because Allah is He Who makes feeble the plans and stratagem of the Unbelievers.

This is a powerful verse for Middle Easter Muslims. It is obvious to many, including U.S. troops, that the plans and strategies of the U.S. are feeble. By proposing this as a fulfillment of prophecy BEFORE military action came, it ended up coming true in the eyes of the Muslims. The Jewish Old Testament also has similar verses of prophecy.

Koran, Surrah 8:19: If ye unbelievers prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist from doing wrong, it will be best for you: if ye return an attack, so shall We. Not the least good will your forces be to you even if they were multiplied: for verily Allah is with those who believe!

This is a warning to those who wish to wage war against the Muslims: if you continue to do so, you will lose. If you stop, it will be best for you. Similar verses are within the Jewish Old Testament. Again, Muslims who knew of this verse before military action feel that prophecy was fulfilled.

Koran, Surrah 8:20: O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Apostle, and turn not away from him when ye hear him.

This verse reminds Muslims to stay the course in defense, no matter what.

Koran, Surrah 8:21: Nor be like those who say, “We hear,” but listen not:

Jesus used this very same saying, to listen and mean it, just don’t say “we believe.” When Christians advocate open aggressive war, who is the one who didn’t listen to the Prince of Peace?

Koran, Surrah 8:22: For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who understand not.

Again very connected to the Bible. God believes the worst are those who don’t understand His Commands.

Koran, Surrah 8:23: If Allah had found in them any good. He would indeed have made them listen: if He had made them listen, they would but have turned back and declined believing.

This is similar to many Old and New Testament verses. It basically gives God the power to Judge others.

Koran, Surrah 8:24: O ye who believe! give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life; and know that Allah cometh in between a man and his heart, and that it is He to Whom ye shall be gathered.

A verse of martyrdom which is similar to the verses of martyrdom in the Old and New Testament.

Koran, Surrah 8:25: And fear tumult or oppression, which affecteth not in particular those of you who do wrong: and know that Allah is strict in punishment.

This tells that God is the only one who can use tumult and oppression against others. It sets up another verse later.

Koran, Surrah 8:26: Call to mind when ye were a small group, despised through the land, and afraid that men might despoil and kidnap you; But He provided a safe asylum for you, strengthened you with His aid, and gave you Good things for sustenance: that ye might be grateful.

Another verse used to show fulfillment of prophecy. When the Muslims were a minority in the Middle East, they were despoiled and kidnapped. Muslims believe that God provided the asylum within the Middle East for them, and they’re to be grateful for it. This also shows that it is specific to the land they are on, not guidance to take the land of others.

Koran, Surrah 8:27: O ye that believe! betray not the trust of Allah and the Apostle, nor misappropriate knowingly things entrusted to you.

This speaks of not taking advantage of the things given to you by God. Reminds me of both Bible books.

Koran, Surrah 8:28: And know ye that your possessions and your progeny are but a trial; and that it is Allah with Whom lies your highest reward.

Material possession, even family, are merely a setup for the ultimate reward: God. Christians have similar verses to be guided by. Even Christ ignored his blood family when faith needs were present.

Koran, Surrah 8:29: O ye who believe! if ye fear Allah, He will grant you a criterion to decide between right and wrong, remove from you evil that may afflict you, and forgive you: for Allah is the Lord of grace unbounded.

Here we see that Muslims believe that God has given them the ability to see right and wrong, and be protected from evil. Many Christians believe they have the Holy Spirit to help in this case as well.

Koran, Surrah 8:30: Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out of thy home. They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah.

How can a Muslim ignore this verse? For hundreds of years, non-Muslims have tried to push them out of the Middle East, where they have been for 1200+ years. Time and again, they are not defeated. Again, this verse is used as prophecy for their reason to stay. It does not advocate pushing themselves to the world of unbelievers, but to be warned of unbelievers who attack them. “of thy home” is key here.

Koran, Surrah 8:31; When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say: “We have heard this before: if we wished, we could say words like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients.”

Here is a verse that is also used as a prophecy fulfillment. Muslims have heard the words of non-Muslims as rescuers before over and over. The Muslims can respond by saying “We’ve heard what you’re saying since ancient time, and the words mean nothing.” Intriguing to me.

Koran, Surrah 8:32: Remember how they said: “O Allah if this is indeed the Truth from Thee, rain down on us a shower of stones from the sky, or send us a grievous penalty.”

This verse regards the older Imperialists who questioned Muslims by saying “If God exists, then let Him rain down a shower of stones.” Christ also was questioned by the Pharisees (the Imperialists of Judea) and responded by telling them not to test God. This verse is the same idea.

Koran, Surrah 8:33: But Allah was not going to send them a penalty whilst thou wast amongst them; nor was He going to send it whilst they could ask for pardon.

Muslims believe that God refused to send the stones from the sky, because Muslims were there. This again points to the verses on war dealing with the land they’re on, not foreign land they should attack.

Koran, Surrah 8:34: But what plea have they that Allah should not punish them, when they keep out unbelievers from the sacred Mosque - and they are not its guardians? No men can be its guardians except the righteous; but most of them do not understand.

Here’s the key verse of the Surrah: the sacred Mosque. This means the Middle East specifically. It doesn’t tell Muslims to go and conquer the world, but to defend the Middle East as their own, which they occupied for 1200+ years.

Koran, Surrah 8:35: Their prayer at the House of Allah is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands: Its only answer can be, “Taste ye the penalty because ye blasphemed.”

This also speaks of location: the House of Allah (Middle East Mosque). If the enemy is there, they’re making fun of the holy Mosque, and they’re blasphemers. Again, intriguing.

Koran, Surrah 8:36: The Unbelievers spend their wealth to hinder man from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend; but in the end they will have regrets and sighs; at length they will be overcome: and the Unbelievers will be gathered together to Hell;

This is also damning evidence against Christofascists. Muslims can see connection between this verse and modern Middle East. The Imperialists for ages have used their wealth to corrupt the leaders of the Middle East, and the Muslims believe this hindreds Islam and their path to God. Can you not see the connection?

Koran, Surrah 8:37: In order that Allah may separate the impure from the pure, put the impure, one on another, heap them together, and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost.

God is the Judge, according to Muslims (and Christians).

Koran, Surrah 8:38: Say to the Unbelievers, if they desist from not believing, their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already a matter of warning for them.

A warning from God to believe. Christianity and Judaism have similar verses in warning.

Koran, Surrah 8:39: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

Here’s the verse that UAT quoted incorrectly, and out of context. The word for “everywhere” is a specific word not meaning World, but everywhere the Muslims are (in the Middle East, specifically). They are to defend their home against all tumult or oppression, until the unbelievers leave.

Koran, Surrah 8:40: If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your Protector - the best to protect and the best to help.

If the unbelievers refuse to leave, God will protect the Muslims. Judaism has similar verses. Christians are told to not resist force, though.

Koran, Surrah 8:41: And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire in war, a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Apostle, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.

This speaks of the war of defense: if the believers collect anything (booty), they are to give a fifth to God. The Israelites also had similar verses. Christians, though, can not go to war, so they’d have no spoils of war.

Koran, Surrah 8:42: Remember ye were on the hither side of the valley, and they on the farther side, and the caravan on lower ground than ye. Even if ye had made a mutual appointment to meet, ye would certainly have failed in the appointment: But , that Allah might accomplish a matter already enacted; that those who died might die after a clear Sign, and those who lived might live after a Clear Sign. And verily Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth all.

This tells the Muslims that the unbeliever who comes to attack is the weak element. The Muslims are aware of their surroundings, and have the power of the same tactics than any defender would use in their home. It even warns Muslims that their enemy may make promises to meet, but they will break them. This has happened to Muslims in the Middle East for hundreds of years.

The Surrah continues for another few dozen verses, but I wanted to lead up to the point that UAT quoted. Out of context, and translated improperly, it looks very negative. Once you review the entire text, you see that the point is not made to go out and kill the unbelievers (although a VERY small minority of Muslims do believe that). Because these “prophecies” seem to be coming true in the Middle East, more and more Muslims are listening to the minority who is trying to get them to defend themselves against aggressors.

I am not agreeing with any Muslims, or detracting them. The Koran is not my holy book, but it is the holy book of billions of believers. If you do not review what they believe, you can not just pick a verse willy-nilly and say “This is what they believe.”

Ron Paul is right: it is the fascism of the United States Government that is building hatred towards the People. The People are not the aggressors, the government is, but we are being blamed for what we allow our government to do. As the war continues to fail, we will find ourselves against an “enemy” who feels that prophecy is being fulfilled. As a Christian, I can not kill another man, even an unbeliever. If Christians would end their fascist reign, they could be a beacon of peace, charity, love, forgiveness and sharing as Christ was.

Unfortunately, most Christofascists have the same beliefs that the Israelites did, as well as the aggressive minority Muslims. It is time to read your Bible yourself, and understand what Christ spoke — harm no one, love all.

For the past decade, I’ve been fairly anti-State philosophically. I’ll say philosophically because I do tend to look at the good and the bad of various State interventions, and try to ask people about what aspects of government they feel works. For a decade, I’ve found almost no incidents of where government actually works, except in rare accidental situations. Manuel Lora of Swamp Land Exile has a great OpEd piece regarding his shift in perspective about his shift in feelings on the police. It’s a worthwhile read even if you’re not anti-State.

Lately, though, my anti-State viewpoint has shifted dramatically, away from distrust government and towards the reason why government has become so authoritarian and anti-freedom. It is easy for us to quickly blame politicians, special interest groups, the bankers, Wall Street, and other government groups or pseudo-government groups. After much thinking, I’ve realized that I just can’t be angry that people are taking advantage of rules, policies, laws and regulations that make their lives better. If I had less moral drive, I’d be the first one in line for the handouts.

So who is on my list of people to distrust? It’s a fairly long list, and it doesn’t end just with these groups. I hope to convince you, kind reader, that there is a longer list that each of us can make, and put to the test in your daily lives.

In no particular order, here is my list:

People to Distrust #1: The Elderly
There are many elderly people in my life. From Church Pastors to neighbors to my own family, I rely on the older generations to give me insight into mistakes I’ve made, and even mistakes I continue to make. We all know how difficult it is for a young person to understand these insights, until they acquire them individually through making mistakes and finding the source of those mistakes: our own inability to judge our actions in the long term. From debt, to trusting others, to responsibility, my biggest mistakes in life could all have been prevented had I just listened. Why didn’t I, and why don’t I continue to listen? Old people have left a burden for me and my family, without asking, without convincing, and without caring.

I have family who receives Social Security payments even though their incomes in the past 10 years of their work lives exceed my next 10 years of work. That’s ridiculous, especially when you consider my own household’s needs. As they aged, they pushed harder for more government retirement involvement, to the point that they started to receive the benefits even though the costs would be pushed on beyond my work years. Morally, I do believe it is my responsibility to take care of those I love who are old and needy, but I just can’t do it. I don’t want to burden the next generation, but I also have no ability to extricate myself from the mess created by the Baby Boomers. When an elderly friend or family tries to give me advice, I am quick to ask them why they supported the system that is creating the hardships for me today — and letting them off the hook for their years of irresponsibility. The previous generation had almost no real cost for decades, but acquired “rights” to my income based on the so-called social contract. This is pure socialism, and there is absolutely no regard for how costly the benefits will be, and who will pay them.

People to Distrust #2: The Educators
Over the years, I’ve had a love/distrust relationship with most public educators, at all levels of education. Close friends of mine are educators, and they know that I’ve waxed and waned on the level of sheer disgust I’ve had for their employment choice. I don’t have children, yet I pay thousands of dollars a year to support the children of others. I don’t see any moral or charitable reason for this, since I can not hold the teachers, the students, nor the parents of the students accountable for the use of that money. Have you met teenagers today? Many of them are inept, unable to form simple sentences or calculate simple mathematical equations. I’ve received horrific resumes from college graduates at top level universities — resumes that I wouldn’t believe could be written so badly even by a 7th grader. I won’t even go deep into the inability of some 20-something cashier who can’t figure out that I should get $10.00 back if I pay $25.16 for a $15.16 bill. No, don’t get the calculator. No, don’t get the manager.

I was a D-level student all my life, repeatedly told that I am Learning-Disabled (I’m sure the school system would receive more money if I accepted that label). Teachers openly made fun of me because of my opinions. I was almost expelled from 7th grade for writing a report for a science class about disposable contact lenses: “They will never exist” I was told. I ran a popular BBS from 6th grade through part of High School, and was laughed at because I believed that email would replace the written letter. There were many parent-teacher conferences because of my refusal to pen what I could type faster. I even failed typing class (old typewriters that refused to keep up with my typing speed), even though I repeatedly asked if I could bring in a computer to prove I was able to type. The whole system is upsetting, not just from a financial perspective. Our educational system is a mess, thanks to the parents who force the non-parents to pay for basically “free” day-care. Take a walk over to MySpace and spend a few hours looking at the absolute destruction of society, primarily due to the lack of responsible parenting combined with the belief that it takes a village of bureaucrats to raise a child.

People to Distrust #3: The Church
I serve hundreds of congregations with my “free” church printing ministry. I don’t do this just because it is what I think should be done, I do it because it gives me an opportunity to “worship” creatively without singing, playing an instrument, or doing the group-think that I so abhor that has taken over not just society, but faith society.

In my many years of Bible (and other “Holy” Book) research, I see almost no connection between what I read and what I hear preached. When I tell a Pastor that I am anti-IRS, I am quoted a book in the Bible that is obviously not written for me, and especially not written for an organization corporation of faithful. When I ask why the corporation called “the Church” is free to ignore the same laws that I am forced to follow, I am told that it is because the laws allow for that ignorance. Sorry, that’s not a legal loophole, that’s hypocrisy, pure and simple. A congregation should abide by the same laws and rules that its members have to abide by, including the tax law. The funniest part of the idea of a 503/c incorporated congregation is that it falls directly under the licensing of the IRS in what it can preach and teach. How fulfilling do you think a faith organization can be if they must follow the rules of the government? Do you think that faith organization has ANY ability to prevent a tyrannical government from growing and blossoming if it is licensed by that same government in what it can say to the followers? I think not.

I’m also disheartened by the books I see on the shelves of so many Pastors. I’m not afraid to tell them what I think (and often do). James Dobson is not a good person if we compare him to Jesus. I’m not saying this in judgment, I am just making an appeal that Christians should stop straightlistening and start reading (and then listen). You’re not going to learn about God from a 1 hour sermon each week. The Pastor that I consider my Pastor is a Baptist, but he’s a real son-of-a-bitch when it comes to upsetting the status quo. I absolutely love his sermons when he goes outside the Evangelical box, and he does so often. I know he’s confused about some eschatological issues, but that’s OK to me because the times he hits the nail on the head, I can see the crowd shift. They’re uncomfortable, and that’s good — it opens their eyes to the need to READ the book they believe in, rather than have someone guide them in it. I love the Berean ideology of religion: read, discuss, debate, disagree, and then discover what faith means to you. We don’t see Bereans at most congregations today, not even the ones who throw the word “Berean” in their denominational title. It’s too bad, because I truly believe that an active and disciplined congregation can do more for the community than government can ever do.

My biggest distrust of the Church is when the very people in a leadership position escalate the need of more government in the community. “Let’s help the poor by taxing them.” “Let’s educate the dumb by taking away their choice in education.” “Let’s force the unfaithful to live by our rules.” It’s terrible. How can a Christian be a police officer, or a teacher, or a government official? When did Christ tell Christians to become part of a system of force, theft, and judgment? For what it’s worth, a few very close friends of mine are either members of the police force, the public school system, or the local government, or have family who are. They know of my distrust for their employment, and I do understand that there is nothing they can do to extricate themselves from their form of income. Where was the Church when they were growing up, warning them to stay away from the equivalent of the Whore of Babylon? Oh, the Church was supposed to be quiet on the issue of government, or they’d have to pay taxes. Heaven forbid.

People to Distrust #4: The Licensed Many
We fired our CPA for our corporations a few years ago, and it was good riddance. I stopped using Real Estate Agents and Lawyers for transactions, because I can read myself, and I can negotiate, too. I don’t want to have anything to do with most licensed individuals and businesses, unless I have no choice (i.e. doctors and dentists). In some cases, I prefer to travel overseas to an unlicensed practitioner than do business locally. Licensing has nothing to do with safety or protecting the masses — it has everything to do with creating a monopoly within a given market. Go and find a copy of the Real Estate licensing exam. Now try to find an Agent who really cares about the buyer’s needs. Good luck. Look at the mortgage brokerage business (a licensed occupation) and then look at how many people were duped into trusting that license. Licensing gives consumers one great disadvantage: trust. Because the city or state says a person is safe, or a building is safe, people trust them. I don’t. If I go to a restaurant or nightclub or business, and I see that it is more crowded that I feel is safe, I walk. The fire code license means nothing to me.

There are so many licenses for so many occupations, it is a wonder that anything gets done. “Continuing education” is a big market — a market that provides insight into new requirements, regulations, and licensing needs for that given market. It’s a cost passed on to the consumer in reduced supply of labor, and an increased barrier to industry. Good luck if you’re poor or lower middle class; the costs to get licensed can be enormous, and are rarely approachable for the masses because they don’t want to invest the time to learn a job AND learn what it takes to meet the requirements of the licensed. Our old CPA is proof of what a distrustful provider they were. Instead of focusing on the job of helping us run a profitable and clean business, they focused solely on taxes. What a terrible business to be in. And guess who lobbies for more confusing tax laws? It doesn’t take long to find the biggest CPA groups in line to extend, and obfuscate, the next tax laws. Thanks to licensing, they have a monopoly on their new job: charging huge bills to help someone navigate the very laws that were written by the guiding agent. In the old days, CPAs looked at general ledgers, profit and loss, and bank statements. Today, most of those items are handled by QuickBooks, so the CPAs found a way to avoid becoming the do-do.

People to Distrust #5: The Old Media
Where is the honest media, today? I love the blogosphere, because I can find 50 opinions within minutes. When I hit the mainstream media (TV, radio, newspaper), all I find is regurgitated news, sometimes without any re-editing. I respect the Associated Press for at least having reporters, but I have no trust for what they’re reporting. My “dream” news team would be a blogging co-operative where people who openly share links to opposing or different views. Writing about some new medical research? Link to an opposing article. Give the reader 1 or 2 or 10 opposing viewpoints to see your opinion. I’d love to do that myself, and I openly invite opposing viewpoints to link to me so I can link back. Even if you just write about how the Bears will get killed next Sunday, it is in your best interest to give your reader the opposite view, especially if you feel your opinion is stronger. If you don’t, you’re worthless in the grand scheme of news making.

In the old days, you had journalists who wrote, reporters who investigated, and opinion editors who told you what they thought. Today, there’s little left of this bifurcation of trust versus opinion, and you just don’t know if there are alternative opinions because the media shills for one side, usually. Give me the news in a Ebert and Roeper format: I especially like their movie reviews when they differ in which direction the thumb goes. I know that for most news writers, I have another finger that is up for them — and all the other shills who regurgitate the exact same viewpoint. The old media outlet that really offers two or three opinions on a matter will be the one who wins.

People to Distrust #6: The New Media
I distrust bloggers who don’t have open comments, and approve every non-spam comment written. It’s time for someone to make a Firefox Toolbar that lets you thumb up or thumb down blogs based on their open comment policy. Write a comment, and if it isn’t approved in an hour or a day, give them a thumbs down. Someone should write a plug-in that actively tracks if your comments appears on a page (it would be very easy, actually). Click in the comment box, click the Firefox Comment Tracker button, and type your comment into a new Firefox pop-up that records your comment, the website you posted at, and follows up if it is ever approved. Then, share the response with a central server. I’d love this, as I comment on hundreds of blogs in a week and not all have follow-up abilities. I need to add that ability here, but I am looking for a good system. I’d like a system where a comment writer can check a box to get e-mails on follow ups, but also get e-mails on when their comment is approved. It shouldn’t be that difficult.

If a blogger doesn’t have comments, I don’t bother with their site. It’s a waste of time, because you have ZERO opportunity to see alternative views of the readers. What’s the point of the blog if you can’t break free from the old media “we control it all” advantage? If you blog, spend time addressing your comments. Provide an RSS feed to your comments, and also provide an e-mail notification feature for people who visit rarely or just once. I definitely have spent 2 months looking for a perfect plug-in.

My title includes (or hate?) at the end because some people have said “Boy, you really hate so-and-so.” No, I don’t. I just don’t trust them. Some are close friends, family, clients, or collegues. They generally know it. I still hate the idea of the State, but my distrust falls to those who have implemented more government because it makes their life easier while harming my own. It is beyond unfair, it is immoral. If you’re anti-State, I’ve found that we have to be vocal against those who support the policies of the State, not just be anti-State. We must be anti-State-Supporter by voicing our disdain, abhorrence, and view towards the immorality of using force against individuals or groups. We must demand freedom by explaining to those who want less freedom as to why their views are a bad policy, and not just for others, but for themselves. For every policy you support that uses force, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, that work against you.

I’m just asking for fairness in opportunity based on the time, responsibility, and drive you put into acquiring a benefit from your investment. I’m not looking for all to be equally profitable, or everyone to have a fair share by harming someone else to give one person “more” fairness.

It’s isn’t hate; it’s distrust.