Revisiting the Christian and State Relationship.

Archive for the ‘voting’ Category

Non political strategies for freedom

I want to finish the series with part 8, but that will wait another day or two. In the meantime, read these strikingly good notes on “Non political strategies for freedom” from


Democracy in action?

I don’t agree with the idea of a popular vote (as suggested at the end of this very brief video), because I am a Christian anarchist / anarcho-capitalist. But this information may still be interesting for those who are only beginning to process the issue of democracy.

You lie!

Don’t say it. The guvmnt—lie? During president Obama’s recent speech, representative Joe Wilson shouted out “You lie!” He has since apologized. But let’s be clear. Coercer Obama lied, undoubtedly, concerning a number of things, and coercer Wilson, on this occasion, to make political hay, told the truth, but then apologized for telling the truth, at least in the manner that he did it. Politics is not hard to figure out. It is the main gang of coercers versus the other main gang of coercers. The presently dominant coercers get to coerce just somewhat more than the gang of out-of-power coercers. And year after year more than 300 million people not only put up with it, but they call this the American way, and their eyes tear up when the state idol, the star-spangled banner, is put on parade.

Most citizens are voluntarily party to the farce of the state. We participate in it, and so we justify it as being good. It must be good, for we are involved, eh? When elections are presented before them, most dutifully go and pull the lever for one party or the other. Because they voted for the present coercers, they think they have the right to complain about the coercion. If they hear that you did not vote, you did not participate in the circus, they say that you have no right to complain about the coercing. They lie. (And they have a poor understanding of logic!)

We should determine whether we wish to be party to all this. If the answer is no, then we should withdraw our fealty from the state. We can reduce its footprint in our lives a great deal without directly confronting it. We can choose to be free men and women. We can refuse to grant the state its sheen of legitimacy. But after a lifetime of being surrounded by the all-powerful state, after years of education in state schools where we learned how good the USA is and how it carries the torch of freedom from coercion on behalf of the world, we have somewhat of a project in reeducating ourselves.

But if we do not reeducate ourselves, we will soon find that we lie too. We will join the liar-in-chief. We will begin to voluntarily strip our own children and grandchildren of their wealth and their freedoms. We will subject them to state schools and all the juicy “the state is good” programming. We’ll mess with their heads. We will perpetuate the myths.

The president is the leader of the national gang, 300 million liars. As far as the state goes, once we have seen its fallacies, it would be well, that is to say, moral, for us to exit the lemming horde. Hauerwas nailed it: we need to learn how to tell a counter story to the commonly accepted story of the United State and all the presumptions that underwrite the supposed necessity for what we call the nation-state system (See Stanley Hauerwas, After Chistendom, p. 150).

Obama not the problem

Day by day it seems that the current US president and his administration are generating more and more state control and driving the nation ever more deeply into debt. His approval rating is dropping and there is a steady increase in people who think that Obama is the problem. Actually, “the problem” is not Obama but the tens of millions of American people who elected him. And the particular problem is not their election of him, although that didn’t help matters. The problem is their voting booth affirmation that it is right for one person to exercise an involuntary lordship over another.

With that idea (that it is legitimate to exercise lordship over another if it is done through “legitimate” means), the whole project goes overboard, because all you need at that point is to concoct a means of legitimization. Kings ruled over others and their legitimization was the inheritance of hereditary power and sometimes even an imaginary “divine right.” In the United State, legitimization is on the basis of Constitution and Bill of Rights.

However, no human document can grant one man the right to plunder another. There is something unhealthy, for all parties, about human overlordship. In granting one rights of superiority, one is vacating those same rights in oneself. If you granted all your rights to another, you would have the same amount of rights that a rock has. So, to repeal certain of one’s rights and to grant them to another is to de-animate oneself to that same degree. A man who has stripped all of his people of all of their rights rules over a horde of automatons.

It is not the system even that is the problem. The system is supposedly a mutually agreed upon removal of power from oneself and granting of it to another. Supposedly, we have all agreed that the one who has the most votes counted wins and participates in the state’s looting and redistribution. But remember, it is not that something being legal or accepted makes that something moral. There is often a great difference between the legal and the moral. If the state says you can do X, that does not make X right. Neither, if the state says you cannot do Y does that necessarily make Y wrong. You are a human being, gifted by God, granted free will. You are to decide for yourself and to choose the moral path.

Which brings it all back to the bottom line. It is the people—the voters—that is, the voter—who on the basis of the system choose to plunder others. Obama is not the problem. Neither was W or Clinton etc. It is always the voter, the one who chooses to legitimize the state and to legitimize the exercise of involuntary lordship over others. Wouldn’t it all be easier if this vast mess could be ascribed to one person who lives in a white house. The real problem starts in each of our own hearts. We take up the machinery that awaits our use, and we use it.

To close, we recall the oft quote of Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

How the US stole Hawaii

Ever heard of Dole Bananas?

Interesting juxtaposition

From blog:

…with this…

Nice pan/reveal starting around 28 seconds. But start at the beginning and let it run through to it.


We respect and appreciate the positive intention of those desiring to remedy injustice through political action. Still, energies are poorly spent attacking sparks instead of fire.

The way to transform the world is to transform men. What is needed is the restoration of the image of God in man—something that can never be achieved through force. Political action is the wrong tool. Unrenewed, fallen people cannot force other fallen people to become moral; a corrupt tree can only produce corrupt fruit (Matthew 7:17, 18). Indeed, the command of Scripture is to cut down the tree which is the source of bad fruit (Matthew 7:19).

The full allegiance of the Christian is to Christ and the government of God. He recognizes the Creator as rightful Lord over His creation (Exodus 20:10, 11). Adam and Eve were given dominion—self-government—directly under God’s government (Genesis 1:26). But mankind fell (Genesis 3:15), and the earth was divided between those who refused His lordship and those who returned to it.

Two systems of government were now in play. To bring the universe to a clear understanding of the end results of liberty versus coercion the two systems must be permitted to play out. Each must manifest its fruits.

Men would not be forced to do good. A space would be allowed for the demonstration of Satan’s principles of coercion, and for God’s principles of liberty. As such, the believer does not in civic matters exercise lordship over any other person. The Christian’s citizenship is above (Colossians 3:1; Galatians 4:26); he is called an ambassador for God’s government (2 Corinthians 5:20; Ephesians 6:20). Ambassadors do not vote in the civic matters of the country of their embassage.

In a state like America, a majority of citizens exercises lordship over a minority; a majority vote determines elections. But we are not to exercise lordship over other persons made in God’s image (Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:24-30). Jesus Himself is Lord. People are granted freedom to chose evil or righteousness. Men are to reap what they sow (Galatians 6:7, 8)–something confused when coercion is applied.

Moreover, the governments of earth—all of them—stand in opposition to God’s government (Psalm 2:1, 2; Acts 4:24-28; Revelation 18:1-4, 9, 10, 23). If the Christian votes in matters of civil government, he is advocating that the state coerce; he is acting in favor of goodness by force. This is not his work. He is undergoing renewal of mind, he is learning self-government, to think and act for himself as an agent in cooperation with the government of God (Philippians 2:12, 13).

He is friendly but no friend of the world, storing up his deepest interests in the things of the kingdom. He is just a stranger here; heaven is his home. But while he is here, he represents a kingdom of righteousness. Thus, it is imperative that he in no way coerce. This may be called the “self-government,” or “direct lordship” position. Jesus is Lord. A state is sometimes permitted but never endorsed by Him (1 Samuel 8; Romans 13:1-7).

Tag Cloud