Category Archives: Civil Liberty

The times they are a changin’

There is nothing quite like a Supreme Court decision to add fuel to the fire of politicized hyperbole. One example: the recent US Supreme Court decision regarding the Voting Rights Act set aside just a single section (Section 4) as no longer applicable as written – but the “sky is falling” remarks of those opposing the decision would have us believe the entire bill was voided AND that from now on the KKK would be in charge of voter registration. “Return to Jim Crow!” – “Rampant disenfranchisement!” Give me a break. All the court did was say that perhaps after 50 YEARS, just perhaps, there have been some changes in the hearts and minds of the citizenry in those states it was originally targeted at. To argue, as opponents are, that racism is just as prevalent today as it was 50 years ago is to willfully ignore not only all the gains minorities have made in the last 50 years but likewise the fact that we’ve added two new generations of non-racists since that time. Why do you think “gay rights” are more widely accepted today? Changing attitudes? Hardly. It’s just demographics. The prejudices of the old die with them. Is racism wiped out? No, of course not. But to suggest that there has been ZERO improvement is an equally absurd assertion.

If one truly believes in the anti-discriminatory role of the VRA then one should have been concerned that Section 4 focused solely on historical regions of discrimination while turning a blind eye elsewhere. Not only does it use stale data, it uses stale methods. To the extent racism does exist, it is no longer overt, it has grown subtle.  The methods used to root it out must change so that it can be identified. The rescission of Section 4 now provides Congress the opportunity to establish new criteria better suited to rooting out actual voter discrimination rather than imagined discrimination. If the disease is evolving then one’s treatment method must evolve with it.

“Oh but you’re wrong, as soon as this passed Texas moved to reintroduce a voter ID law!” I’m sorry; I have never understood this knee-jerk response that Voter ID = Discrimination. How is it that merely requesting proof that one actually has the right to vote can be construed as nothing other than a blatant attempt at discrimination? Is it not possible, just perhaps, that a border state, such as Texas, which possesses a large portion of non-citizen immigrants, would want to ensure that non-citizen immigrants are not voting (since in most cases all you need is a pulse to get registered to vote)? The most commonly requested ID is a driver’s license, but for some reason this is decried as creating an unreasonable hurdle for most minorities. Really, so the vast majority of minorities do not drive? To suggest that voter ID laws disproportionately harm minorities is to imply that driver’s license regulations disproportionately bar minorities from driving. If that is the case then it seems there should be more outrage over this horrible discrimination keeping our roadways nearly minority free.

Do voter ID laws create an impediment to voting? Sure they do… in the exact same way that the fact that the polling place is not in my living room creates an impediment to my voting. I have to expend effort in getting in my car and driving to the polling place. But it is minimal effort. In the same way, being requested to show some sort of ID before one may vote is not an insurmountable obstacle. It might take some minimal effort but it is doable. It’s not like you have to prove you can run a marathon before you can vote. If you can’t pass the tiny hurdle of obtaining the requested ID then apparently voting is just not all that important to you. So, please stop with the crocodile tears about how “voter ID” disenfranchises voters. If you are truly concerned with voter discrimination then use this opportunity the Supreme Court has handed the country and encourage Congress to fix Section 4 of the VRA so that it is relevant to the world we live in today, not the one we lived in 50 years ago.

E-Verify = National ID

Over at Huffington Post, David Bier goes into some detail on how the innocuous sounding “E-Verify” may very well morph into a biometric National ID system. The comments following the article were quite depressing – the all too willing sheep take umbrage at having it pointed out to them that our wise overlords treat us as children. Here’s what I had to say to that:

These comments are pretty sad. You guys are missing the big picture. The problem is not the light onus of obtaining said ID. The problem is the classic “slippery slope”. Today it is evil “ferners” who “steal our jobs” that we are trying to control. But what will it be tomorrow? If you agree to a system wherein a citizen must obtain permission from the government to engage in Activity A (work), then you will have no right to complain when the government adds more and more activities to its Control List. With the ability to biometrically identify anyone anywhere at any time (think biometric scanning drones so high in the sky you won’t even know they are there) perhaps a “Save Our Roads” bill will allow the government to decide if your car should be allowed on certain roads at certain times (aka “road rationing”). Or perhaps in order to equalize economic resources you will only be permitted to shop at certain stores thereby forcing you to shop at others (to save jobs). Or perhaps restricted from buying certain items (“Bill is overweight so no beer for him”)
In short these systems allow us to be corralled around in our daily lives like sheep. And all of it is for our good, of course. Government is now our shepherd and technology the sheep dogs… and judging from these comments most of us are all too willing sheep.

I’ve written on this topic before at greater length, please see this page for more.

Safety vs. Liberty

Fear. Fear is paradoxically a powerful motivator and pacifier. It compels us to fight back but sometimes can lull us into complacency if we believe such complacency will protect us. It was recently revealed that the NSA been collecting “metadata” from American’s phone conversations and recording the content of our internet usage in a furtive attempt to uncover the word “TERRORIST” in a virtual global-size Word Puzzle.

terroristPuzzle.jpg

After this revelation there was much popular indignation. Liberal, libertarian, and conservative – all briefly joined together in outrage that their government would subject them to such scrutiny. We all (naively) believed our internet communications to be private; thus our outrage over such virtual eavesdropping was no different than had the NSA been bugging our bedrooms. Then something happened. The government did not blink. They were not at all shamed by this revelation. In fact all three branches of government defended it on the grounds of safety. Or the illusion of safety anyway. Without the PRISM program (the codename for the internet spying) we might have fallen victim to dozens of terrorist attacks, so they say. The brushfire of outrage was all but quenched with the bucket of our own fear – “well I guess it’s ok if it will keep us safe” now says John Q. Public.

How many violations of our liberty will we accept to keep us safe? Since we generally value our lives more than anything else it is safe to say we will tolerate quite a bit. And those in power know this. That is why historically such appeals to “protecting the people” have always been the siren call of despotic regimes intent on accruing more and more power to themselves. Such appeals to “safety” give them a carte blanche to inflict just about any measure of control over the citizenry. The trick though is that it must be done piecemeal. You would notice a million ants at your front door, but one or two sneaking in under the door each day are hardly noticed at all. Given enough time eventually all the ants are inside and by then it is too late.

Rather apropos was Anton Scalia’s dissent  last week in an unrelated case, “Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches.”

Yes indeed we could find more criminals if police could search any house they wanted any time for any reason. If we required every citizen to provide a DNA sample or undergo a psychological evaluation we could prevent many crimes. If we could bug every home, building and car we could surely catch a terrorist or two. But is that the country we want to live in?

We can speak of balancing liberty and privacy but by what non-arbitrary method can one find that balancing midpoint? There is none. The need for safety is always immediate whereas the need for liberty is less exigent; therefore in a contest between the two, liberty tends to lose out. We don’t realize we need liberty it until it is long gone.

But this whole question of balancing the two ignores the elephant in the room. How did we get here? How is it that we have the tiger by the tail? Even though Ron Paul was ridiculed for bringing the question up 6 years ago (as though to merely pose the question is to be guilty of being un-American), we still are not addressing why America is a terrorist target (short answer: our interventionist foreign policy).

If our boat is sinking, the immediacy of safety demands we bail out the water, but perhaps it would be prudent to find the source of the leak instead of focusing all energy on mitigating its effects. Reacting to the effects of something we are willfully blind to is the definition of futility.

War Against the Constitution

In the wake of the Boston bombing many of those who claim a deep and abiding respect for the Constitution show a curious tendency to ignore those parts of the Constitution that tend to interfere with their desire for instantaneous revenge (i.e. 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments). The desire for revenge is understandable. Those desires exist today just as they did 200 or 2000 years ago. However, human passions, being irrational as they are, must be put in check so that human reason may triumph in our collective attempt to mete out justice. Fortunately for us, the founding fathers of this country realized that perhaps there was a more ethical manner to ensure justice than relying on a pitchfork-wielding mob. Thus was born the 4th-6th Amendments.

Ensuring that everyone accused of a crime, no matter how heinous, is afforded their full Constitutional rights does not protect the guilty – it protects the innocent. It protects you. It ensures that if YOU are wrongly accused YOU have the right to demonstrate how your accuser’s evidence is flawed. The greater the heinousness of the crime one is accused of does not increase the likelihood of one’s guilt. If the accused is truly guilty, then evidence of that guilt should not be terribly hard to uncover.  A guilty verdict will be assured and the validity of that verdict made public. It is curious how the more sure people are of an accused’s guilt the more annoyed they get with the idea of “wasting time” on a trial. If you are that certain of the guilt then what could possibly be lost by burying the accused in a mountain of evidence at trial? To suggest trials are not needed because no one would ever be accused of a crime without evidence is to accept man as an infallible being.

Although some people have often desired to dispense with trials involving particularly gruesome crimes they had resigned themselves to the fact that the Constitution said they had to follow these rules so they just put up with it. But now the war on “terror” has given these types a novel avenue by which they can circumvent the restraints of the Constitution. It’s the same old ruse all totalitarian governments play: foment fear over an imagined or provoked enemy. In their fear the people will do anything the government tells them if they believe it will ensure their safety. But tangible enemies come and go. The ideal enemy for the state would be one that could never disappear. An incorporeal enemy such as the concept of “terror” is just such an enemy. But people aren’t quite that stupid, they need to see a real human face for their enemy. Simple enough – label anyone you believe to be on the wrong side of this war as an “enemy combatant” and “poof” their rights are gone, because the rules in war are different after all. This is not to suggest such “combatants” have done nothing wrong, rather that all should be allowed to prove as much.

Sadly these circumventions of the Constitution will become permanent, just as this state of war is now permanent – how would one sign a treaty with “terror” after all? These circumventions of the Constitution will take place on US soil because naturally “terror” can exist anywhere in the world. We can bomb our enemies abroad, but here at home, that would be too messy. At home we simply declare an emergency and invoke “temporary” martial law. Boston was sadly our first taste of what that martial law may look like: a band of heavily armed Gestapo barks orders at you at gunpoint to your face to vacate your house and then searches it to their heart’s content, without a warrant, all in the name of “law and order”.

The application of the label “enemy combatant” means one has no right to confront their accusers, to see the evidence against them or to even attempt to provide evidence showing their innocence. Better hope you don’t have a similar name or appearance to an accused “enemy combatant” or were in the wrong place at the wrong time – because you have no right to demonstrate that you aren’t the person they think you are. We should be wary of our clever traps, as we ourselves may become ensnared in them.

State Marriage Benefits Betray State Intrusions

Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning two different cases that relate to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA was signed into law in 1996 in order to delegitimize any attempt by the states to legalize homogender marriage by disqualifying members of such unions from receiving certain federal “benefits.” So even if a state did legalize and recognize such marriages they would always remain somehow second-class in terms of government-mandated benefits. However DOMA proved to be an irrelevant impediment and several states have since enacted laws recognizing homogender marriage. So, once again the question of federalism falls before the court: wherever federal and state law conflict, which shall take precedence? The constitution was written in such a way that state law supersedes in all cases except where the constitution has expressly delegated such authority to the federal government. Progressives typically fall into the category of those who believe the constitution to be a “living document” insofar as they routinely discover new “expressly delegated” authority that tends to align with their worldview. Conservatives however view the document more through an “original intent” lens. Oddly enough though the rolls are reversed with respect to DOMA. Now it is the progressives insisting that the constitution does not give Congress any implied authority to regulate marriage and it is the conservatives claiming there is clearly an unwritten mandate in the constitution to defend “pillars of our society” such as marriage. My, my, it seems the constitution can be all things to all people when it suits their partisan purpose.

The more compelling message of DOMA, which both sides and the media have managed to ignore, is the idea that there even exists such a thing as “federal benefits”. Every so-called benefit is connected in some way to some illegitimate intrusion of government in our lives. Government takes away our liberties and intrudes on our rights and then graciously metes them back out piecemeal as “benefits” for those that play nice and follow their rules. Consider the following contested benefits: Tax benefits (income and estate tax are immoral confiscation of productivity), insurance benefits (employers should have no role in providing insurance of any kind), Social Security benefits (Social Security is a fraudulent compulsive quasi disability/ponzi scheme that should not exist in a free society), immigration benefits (there should be no limits on immigration).

But the biggest intrusion of all: Marriage itself – the government, neither at the federal nor state level has any business whatsoever in regulating, validating or approving of marriage. Marriage (for legal purposes) is simply the voluntary association of one or more individuals for a specified or unspecified length of time. Advocates of marriage regulation base their argument on an appeal to the concept of government playing a role in maintaining the structure of society. There is only one problem with that argument: government has no such role. Churches may play that role for some and to the extent people freely associate with those churches and abide by those teachings that is entirely legitimate. But the state has no role in embodying in law the teachings of certain religious institutions.

Remember, democracy is a dangerous weapon as it cuts both ways. For example a law passed last year (by majority) in Denmark forces churches there to marry gay couples by some representative of that church. Using government to either require or forbid some action is equally wrong no matter who does it. All sides should join together in dismantling the ability of government to intrude on our rights. Government is a powerful weapon. We need to stop using that weapon against each other.

National ID = National Disgrace

The Washington Post’s editorial board recently opined that a national ID card would be the most effective method to thwart illegal immigration. Their idea was bolstered by the fact that both President Obama and a bipartisan group of eight senators recently put forward similar ideas (“fraud-resistant, tamper resistant Social Security card”). Superficially this makes sense. If the problem is uninvited guests crashing your party then the most logical solution would be to demand your guests show their invitation at the door. The Post then dismisses any potential concerns about civil liberties as nothing more than empty rhetoric by citing the fact that 35% of Americans already have a passport.

The Post misses the point in a grandly ironic fashion by citing the innocuousness of the tool the state uses to violate our civil liberties whilst simultaneously ignoring the actual violation. Move along, nothing to see here. The truth is that ID’s don’t harm civil liberties; rather it’s those that require them that do. Government says to step from point A to point B you must show this card. Government says to get a job you must show this card. Government says to start a business you must show this card. There is no end to what new actions the government could conceivably try to control by making one’s right to engage in an action contingent on the possession of “proper” ID. Do you want to go shopping? Buy gas? Go to a movie? Buy a car? Open a bank account? Go to the library? Go to the park? Please – show me your papers. Yes, ID is already required for many of these things. But that is the point. It should not be. Think about it. What are you doing when you show your ID? You – a grown adult – are asking for PERMISSION to engage in some action. It is one thing to ask for permission to engage in something that is not a natural right (i.e. enter a private residence or business), it is quite another to ask permission from the State to engage in an activity that is innocuous to others (traversing a border, starting a business, getting a job, etc.). We are not children, and the State is not our parent. I stopped asking for permission when I turned 18. How about you?

Sadly the real immigration “problem” has never been addressed. The problem is immigration prohibition. In fact the prohibition of anything innocuous to third parties always leads to more harm than ever could result from the prohibited activity itself (violence being the primary result). Drug prohibition is at least plausible albeit still as harmful as alcohol prohibition. But immigration? How can immigration harm anyone? By “stealing” that lucrative low wage job no American wants? Some say immigrants drive wages down. Although nominal wages for low skilled labor may decline, real wages rise for society because cheaper goods and services mean each dollar buys more. Some say immigrants are mooching off our socialist safety net. Well seeing as how it is not so much as a net as it is a luxuriant feather bed what did you expect? Turn it back into a mere net and that problem will vanish. Both big employers and low skilled workers use government to protect themselves from competition. The former uses regulation and the latter uses immigration. A few benefit at the expense of the many.

The solution to “illegal” immigration is to end the prohibition on immigration. Completely free and open borders. Chaos? The end of America? Hardly. Illegal aliens constitute a mere 2% of the US population. Even if every Mexican (all 110 million) came to live in the US (an absurd notion) “native” Americans would still outnumber them 3 to 1. Since even that outlandish scenario would not “end” America, perhaps we should face what immigration control has always been about. Fear. Fear of the unknown, of new customs, of new languages, of new competition. It is only when we humans give in to fear and allow it to guide our actions do we engage in the most reprehensible and irrational behavior. Since fear guides all immigration policy perhaps it is time to examine the rationality of such policies. If the process of entering or exiting this country is indistinguishable from the process of entering or exiting a jail, then are any of us truly free?

Vaccination Cures Gun Epidemic

Those that are opposed to gun control frequently resort to the tactic of citing some statistic that demonstrates how some ordinary object (e.g. a hammer, a fist) is used far more frequently to kill someone than is a “rifle.” This approach is not particularly constructive to the debate. While it is true that hammers are used to kill more people than “rifles”, “guns” are used to kill far more than all other methods combined. Since the real debate is on gun control and not rifle control, it is a bit dangerous to argue such control is unnecessary owing to relatively low death totals. If your opponent switches from “rifle” control to “gun” control your argument will fail.

An adjunct to this argument is an appeal to common sense. Most intuitively accept the premise that that it would be silly to ban things because they might be misused (which taken to its logical conclusion would involve banning everything). However, people generally go along with banning something if it has no apparent “legitimate” use (e.g. drugs, high capacity guns, cigarettes) but bristle at banning objects that are predominantly used for “legitimate” purposes, particularly if the loss of that legitimate use would present a substantial hardship. The main problem anti-gun control advocates have is that the legitimate use and illegitimate use of a gun have the same result: death. The difference between the legitimate and illegitimate use of a hammer is obvious, not so much with guns. How does one overcome this hurdle? Always forthrightly confront any questions of the “why do you need a gun that does X?” variety. If asked why does one need more than 6 rounds, explain real life is not like the movies and one bullet does not kill someone instantly (recently a mother in Loganville, Georgia shot an intruder 6 times and he still walked away!

a disarmed population is as unprotected as an un-vaccinated child

 

The current approach of gun control advocates is equally counterproductive toward their cause. They seek to regulate the weapon and not the individual. Even the 2nd Amendment says “a well regulated militia” not a “well regulated arsenal”. So while I am no fan of the state deciding who may or may not own a weapon (by what subjective metric will it make that determination?), this approach resonates with the reasonable notion that we don’t want “crazy people” to have weapons. If the state determines I am safe and sane (how they will do that I have no idea and is unsettling prospect) what difference does it make what type of weapons I own? Similarly, if you have a driver’s license you can drive a Mini or a Ford F350 Dually. Nobody asks “why do you need that F350?” – so why do they ask “why do you need that AR-15?”. But since this is so commonly asked, allow me to answer. Those best able to answer that would be the following: Jews in pre-war Germany, civilians in Stalinist Russia, civilians in the Cambodian killing fields, or civilians in Maoist China. Guns are not merely for self-defense; they are also for defense of the sovereign people against their own (illegitimate) government when such government would seek to violate their sovereign rights. All of the 20th century genocides occurred on populations that were entirely unarmed and unable to resist. I do not believe there is some “master plan” to commit such atrocities in the US. However, a disarmed population is as unprotected as an un-vaccinated child. The first exposure to a dangerous element will be impossible to resist. Democracy is no prophylactic against tyranny: Hitler was elected through a democratic process. Those that genuinely do wish to disarm everyone (probably) have their heart in the right place. Any one of us would, if we could, wave a magic wand and eliminate every weapon on the face of the planet. Sadly that is nothing but a utopian fantasy. Once man creates technology it can never be made “unknown”. The only way to resist the misuse of technology is to maintain a level playing field so that all can access it and thereby mankind keeps mankind in check.

 

Legalize potato marriage now!

President Obama’s recent “outing” by Joe Biden on the same sex marriage issue along with North Carolina’s Amendment 1 which bans all non heterosexual marriages has bubbled this divisive issue back to the top of the lava lamp that is our political landscape. It does not matter what the President nor the voters of North Carolina think. Laws based on the mercurial moods of the public are a recipe for tyranny, i.e. the Rule of Men rather than the Rule of Natural Law. Natural law is the immovable bedrock that supports a stable framework that PROTECTS our natural rights, not abridges them.

 

Not so recently marriage licenses were used as a mechanism to prevent whites from marrying non-whites.

To understand the marriage issue we must first gain some perspective. The historical purpose of a state granted marriage license was to cause the applicants to plead to the state for permission to marry in order that they prove that there was nothing about the marriage the state might find objectionable. In other words you had to ask for permission from your master (the state) to partake in a natural right (right of association and speech). State prohibitions on marriage fluctuate with public perceptions of what constitutes a “valid” marriage. Not so recently marriage licenses were used as a mechanism to prevent whites from marrying non-whites. Today we view that as an absurd restriction, but the public did not view it that way a mere 50 years ago. If the majority is always right then does that mean the “rightness” of an action depends upon mass opinion? Surely such moral relativism has no place in a modern constitutional republic.

For those that suggest the Bible establishes inerrant moral edicts and therefore the ban on same sex marriage is valid, please recall that the Bible too was often used not only as justification against interracial marriage but as a justification for slavery as well. My point is not to disparage the Bible but rather to point out that whether it is the Bible or the US Constitution, humans will always find a way to interpret a complex document to fit their desired viewpoint. How do we know we aren’t doing that right now? Some are sure they aren’t doing so now, but people 50 years ago were sure they weren’t doing it then either. But even were we to agree the Bible is clear on this issue, do we truly want to live in a theocratic state where laws are based upon current religious viewpoints? As I have covered previously, morality that is imposed by law does not make one righteous. God gave us free will, our laws should not take away that which God granted (for victimless “crimes”).

Some have argued that if there are no restrictions on marriage this will lead to crazy scenarios with people marrying their cat or a potato. Please. Anybody crazy enough to marry their cat is already crazy… you can’t outlaw crazy, they’ll just find some other crazy thing to do. But even if they did marry their cat, so what? How does that in any way affect your marriage? Do you suddenly stop loving your spouse? Are matrimonial vows nullified? Others argue that children are best raised in a two parent male-female household. I’m not sure by what metric one objectively measures the outcome of child rearing but current evidence shows no deleterious effects. Besides, if we assume that two parent male-female households are best and “best” is the basis by which to outlaw that which is not “best”, then I suppose we must make single parent households illegal as well?

At the end of the day what I propose likely would make neither side of this debate happy, so that by itself should suggest it is the best course of action. In short, return marriage to the private realm. The state (government) has no place in regulating or licensing marriage (contractual associations). The right of association/contract implies we may associate with whomever we choose and in whatever manner we choose as well as giving public notice of such associations. Likewise, no individual or group (churches, health insurers, employers, etc.) can be required to formally recognize such associations. They can if they want to, but there should be no legally mandated consequences to not doing so. That’s what freedom is, freedom to do as you desire as long as it does not infringe on anyone else’s freedoms.

 

What law would Jesus pass? None.

Although Georgia has a long history of having one foot in the dark ages when it comes to certain “blue laws” such as the ban on Sunday alcohol sales, it was encouraging that last year Governor Nathan Deal signed into law legislation that would allow local communities to vote on the matter. It is also heartening to see that our local governments are permitting us the opportunity to vote on this matter (as the new legislation did not require such a vote). We should be grateful the governing bodies of the state of Georgia have deigned to permit us the opportunity to have our say on this bizarrely anachronistic ban.

 

Blue Laws are not in conformity with Jesus’ message

 

Although proponents of blue laws (laws that ban a range of activities from occurring on Sunday: alcohol sales, automobile sales, shopping, working, etc) often claim there is no religious basis to these laws, history suggests otherwise. The overriding goal of these laws is clearly to restrict activity on one day of the week and oddly that day is always Sunday, the traditional day of worship for Christians. These laws have included both the mandatory closure of all business and in some locales the prohibition of personal work or “non-spiritual” behavior (e.g. arrests for fixing wagon wheels or playing cards are known). Over time the total ban on Sunday commerce inconvenienced even those that had passed such laws. So rather than wholesale repeal they chipped away at these laws, making exceptions for some goods (the ones they wanted on Sunday) but keeping bans on others. And so we end up with a bizarre hodgepodge of restricted goods. For example in Texas up until 1985 laws banned the sale of house wares such as pots and pans. Currently in several states the sale of automobiles and hunting is still banned on Sundays.

Given that there is a clear Christian motivation behind these laws I am perplexed by the rationale employed. I’m not alone. Jesus had no qualms about violating those Old Testament commands that are putatively upheld by blue laws. He is derided by the synagogue leaders for “working” on the Sabbath (Luke 13:13-15). Furthermore the aversion that some Christians have for alcohol is quite odd given that Jesus himself turned water into wine on more than one occasion (John 2:1-10, 4:46).

The motivation behind these laws can be summarized as a general knee jerk reaction of “we must keep things ‘holy’ on Sunday.” However that is not only misguided but is also actually not in conformity with Jesus’ message. Jesus led by example, by words and deeds. Had he desired to forcefully apply God’s laws to the world he would have done the very thing the Jews had expected their Messiah to do: establish himself as a king and militarily conquer the world thus ensuring that his ideals as king were spread throughout the world by the force of royal decree. His inaction in this regard speaks volumes. It says we must willingly follow Him and if we do not it must be our choice. As in the story of the rich man who could not give up his possessions to follow Jesus (Mathew 19:21), Jesus told the man what he must do and allowed him to choose. He did not command him or threaten him with punishment if he did not follow him. In the same way it is extraordinarily un-Christ-like to pass laws that attempt to mold or coerce the behavior of others in a way that you believe to be in line with Jesus’ message. Following the logic of the blue laws it would be acceptable to lock everyone in prison for their whole life as that would 100% prevent any possibility of sin.

There is no virtue in not sinning if it is impossible to sin. You can’t make someone believe as you believe by coercion. Lead by example.

 

Who will speak for me?

All too often violations of liberty by our government upon its citizens occur silently, sheltered from the bright lights of the Fourth Estate as it were, because the victims are singular. Abner Schoenwetter was sentenced to 8 years in federal prison for violation of the Lacey Act because he imported seafood from Honduras in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes. Civil asset forfeiture incidences are on the rise, such as the case of the Motel Caswell in Massachusetts wherein the local police are attempting to seize an entire hotel from its owner under federal law (the police get to keep 80% of the value of seized property under federal law but only 50% under state law) because over the last 20 years 0.05% of guests had been arrested for drug offenses. These repugnant violations of civil rights occur every day as a consequence of the over bearing government that now exists in this country. The president can laugh all he wants about “spilt milk” but these are real people with real lives that are destroyed due to the passage of thoughtless laws whose “unintended” consequences could have clearly been seen by Ray Charles.

If you’re going to point a gun at someone you can’t cry foul when they grab that gun and point it back at you.

Oh, but I must chuckle when I hear the howls and screams from the large indignant organizations who have recently become ensnared in the briar patch that is our Federal government. Oh, the humanity! We cannot permit such violations of our basic freedoms (because now those violations affect us!) A few weeks ago it was the SOPA flap. Nearly the whole country stood arm in arm with the big Internet companies (Google, Wikipedia, etc.) to fight back against government intrusion. Why? Because it affected them. When government violates other people’s rights nobody cares, but when it affects us, well that we cannot stand for! Likewise the Catholic Church was rather upset that Obamacare will force them to provide health insurance that covers contraception. This requirement would force the church to violate one of its core beliefs. I would argue it is not so much a 1st Amendment issue as it is rather an issue of “the government has no right to tell anyone how to spend (or not spend) their money.” The Church is right in their opposition. But what is humorous is that the church in the US was a proponent (3/23/10) of Obamacare  (except as it related to coverage for abortion). What’s the saying…“If you dance with the devil, you will get burnt.”

Although both groups are absolutely correct in their stance in proclaiming that the government is violating their rights, they are both somewhat hypocritical (and please don’t accuse me of Catholic bashing, I’m Catholic, all right). The internet companies are all too happy to push for “net neutrality” regulations that employ government force to compel others to behave the way they want, yet they don’t like it when such force is turned on them. Likewise the Catholic Church is equally happy to endorse laws that restrict civil unions or outlaw state recognition of homogender marriage, yet they don’t appreciate that same force being turned on them by people who find their stance on contraception as archaic. If you’re going to point a gun at someone you can’t cry foul when they grab that gun and point it back at you.

When violations of liberty are perpetrated we must all stand together at all times, not just when it affects us. The lessons of political apathy were summed up well in the words of Martin Niemöller (a German pastor who initially supported Hitler but then opposed him and was jailed for that opposition) – “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”