Category Archives: New Testament

2 Thessalonians, Acts, Communism, Keep it Metal!, Satan Laughing Spreads His Wings

Give me Communism, or give me Death!

Thursday 9 October 2014 Richard 3 Comments

Article twelve of the 1936 Soviet Constitution states

In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

It disturbs me that according to Lenin, “He who does not work shall not eat” is a necessary principle under socialism (the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society, according to Marx).

It disturbs me because under New Zealand socialism the exact opposite is true, “He who does not work shall eat”. Will the real socialism please stand up?

It disturbs me more that this aphorism is taken directly from Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (KJV)

But there it is in Article 12 of Chapter 1 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution. 🙁

What does the Bible say about communism?

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you[a] sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things. (ESV)

Now I’m not suggesting that this passage from the Acts of the Apostles endorses communism as we know it. But it certainly describes communism of a sort. There’s no escaping the fact that the first Christians were commies!

I’m also not suggesting that comrades Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for being insufficiently communistic. They died because they lied.

What I am suggesting is that this passage confirms the theory of property rights according to which property rights are conventional.

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. (ESV)

Luke says that “no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own” so it might almost seem that the Apostles were maintaining a contradiction. Of course, any of the things that belong to you are yours! But I think that two conventions are being alluded to in this passage. The prevailing convention in society at large, that of private property, and the convention in force amongst the Apostles, that of communal property.

So the question arises, were Ananias and Sapphira thieves or misers? Did the proceeds of the sale immediately fall to the collective, such that in keeping back some of the proceeds of the sale Ananias and Sapphira were guilty of theft of communal property? Or did they proceeds of the sale fall to Ananias in the interim, and in keeping back some of the proceeds he (and his wife, who was party) were guilty instead of being mean and selfish and breaking an accord?

2 Corinthians, ACT, ALCP, John, Labour Party, Metallica, National Party, Peter Dunne, Romans, Satan Laughing Spreads His Wings, Vote 2014

Am I evil? Yes I am.

Friday 19 September 2014 Richard Leave a comment

I’ve been honoured once again to have received Liberty Scott’s endorsement of my candidacy in his 2014 New Zealand voting guide for lovers of liberty.

Mana – Safe Labour – Richard Goode Kris Faafoi or Hekia Parata? To hell with them both, vote for libertarian Richard Goode standing under the ALCP banner. He believes in more than just legalising weed, he believes in a smaller state and so your vote will be principled.

It’s true. I do believe in a smaller state and I am principled. Well, mostly.

I had intended to post my own series of Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsements. In the end, I posted only two, one for Grant Keinzley and one for Alistair Gregory. Why only two?

I ran out of time, as I so often do. More exactly, I ran out of time to do a proper job. I’m a bit of a perfectionist, you see. And that brings me to the other reason I posted only two endorsements in the end. The paucity of perfect candidates, indeed the paucity of anywhere-near-perfect candidates. As far as candidates worthy of a Christian libertarian’s endorsement go, Alistair Gregory is about as good as it gets. But I have since had serious qualms about my other candidate endorsement and I resile from it.

Here at Eternal Vigilance we champion principle over pragmatism. Two of us (me and Tim) are former Libertarianz activists, candidates and spokesmen. Libertarianz was New Zealand’s only Party of Principle, and Tim and I actively carry on its proud tradition of promoting more freedom and less government. As do some other former Libz members, two of whom are running as candidates for the pseudo-libertarian ACT Party this election. (Although at least one former Libz activist is beyond giving a shit.)

To its great credit, and the credit of all in the party at the time, Libertarianz never compromised. Even to the point of promoting the practically unworkable Tracinski’s ratchet. The Libz recognised that the greater good is never a moral defence of government action, and voting for the lesser evil is always morally indefensible. (Are you ratcheting evil?)

Sensing the Libertarianz Party’s impending demise, I jumped waka and joined the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. Legalising cannabis is a libertarian policy, and it was the policy of the Libertarianz Party for which I was the Spokesman on Drugs, so there was no cognitive dissonance for me and no ill-feeling from any of my fellow libertarians who all wished me well with my open infiltration of the ALCP. (Check out the ALCP’s ten principles and tell me if you see a libertarian influence.)

But the devil is in the details. While I steadfastly stand by my party’s policy of regulating cannabis Colorado-style, I recognise regulation for what it is.

Regulations are actually prohibitive – if government defines the one way they will allow something they are really prohibiting all other ways.

Thus I fail any libertarian purity test.

1. Is there a positive candidate to endorse?

But so does Liberty Scott. As a libertarian, does he really have any business asking questions 2 and 3?

2. Is there a likely winner worthy of tactically voting to eject because he or she is so odious??
3. Is there a tolerable “least worst” candidate?

It’s no secret that I consider Peter Dunne to be New Zealand’s most evil Member of Parliament. Evil in an utterly banal way, like Adolf Eichmann. Dunne now faces the very real risk that he will lose his Ohariu electorate seat to Labour Party challenger Virginia Andersen. So I hope and pray that Virginia Andersen is Ohariu’s new MP when the votes are counted tomorrow night!

I admit I was even tempted to get out on the streets and help Andersen with her electorate campaign. But I didn’t, and in the end I couldn’t even bring myself to endorse her candidacy explicitly when I spoke at a recent Meet the Candidates evening in the Ohariu electorate. Compared to Dunne, Andersen is the lesser evil. But what about the even lesser evil on the Ohariu voter’s ballot paper, fellow libertarian Sean Fitzpatrick? He’s explicitly stated he’s seeking only the party vote for the pseudo-libertarian ACT Party. Perhaps he, too, secretly hopes that Ohariu voters will give their electorate vote to Andersen? But aside from that, Fitzpatrick’s party has no cannabis policy. That’s why I call it pseudo-libertarian. Drug legalisation is the litmus test for being a libertarian. The ACT Party fails on that count. What’s more, post-election the ACT Party may enter into a coalition agreement (to provide confidence and supply) with the National Party. How evil is that?

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? (ESV)

Jamie Whyte & co. are believers in individual freedom and personal responsibility at least.

They’re lesser evils. But what about my own candidacy? Am I evil? Yes I am!

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (ESV)

but some fall shorter than others. I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that I’m a lesser evil just like all the candidates in the list below. I’m standing to give Mana voters the choice to vote for a lesser evil. Am I evil? I’m your man!

Without further ado, here are my candidate endorsements. I’ll spare you the details.

Christchurch East Robert Wilkinson (ALCP)
Dunedin North Abe Gray (ALCP)
Dunedin South Julian Crawford (ALCP)
Epsom Adam Holland (Independent)
Kelston Jeff Lye (ALCP)
Mana Richard Goode (ALCP)
New Plymouth Jamie Dombroski (ALCP)
Ohariu Virginia Andersen (Labour)
Palmerston North Iain Lees-Galloway (Labour)
Te Atatu Adrian McDermott (ALCP)
Te Tai Tokerau Kelvin Davis (Labour)
Te Tai Tonga Emma-Jane Mihaere Kingi (ALCP)
Tukituki Romana Marnz Manning (ALCP)
Upper Harbour Stephen Berry (ACT)
Wellington Central Alistair Gregory (ALCP)

Politics is a dirty, worldly business and we know who is god of this world. Should Christians, who are in this world but not supposed to be of it, even get involved in politics?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.

Epistemology, Gospel music, I Built The Cross, Romans

Sensus divinitatis

Wednesday 3 September 2014 Richard Leave a comment

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (NIV)

A while ago I borrowed a friend’s copy of the New Scientist’s special edition, the God Issue. (Note to self: Return it!) Contrary to the tiresome claim of online atheist trolls, that everyone’s born an atheist, it turns out that

The vast majority of humans are “born believers”, naturally inclined to find religious claims and explanations attractive and easily acquired, and to attain fluency in using them.

Justin L. Barrett, the author of the article, then goes on to say

This attraction to religion is an evolutionary by-product of our ordinary cognitive equipment, and while it tells us nothing about the truth or otherwise of religious claims it does help us see religion in an interesting new light.

Of course, Barrett would say that. And, of course, that’s not the only explanation of human beings’ natural tendency to theism. Reformation theologian John Calvin wrote that

God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges

Calvin explains, Barrett explains away. The distinction between explaining and explaining away is an important one. I think the consistent atheist/Naturalist incurs an unfeasibly costly explanatory overhead.

But that discussion’s for another day. Really, this somewhat shallow blog post of my own is just a protracted excuse to post some awesome Christian deathcore from awesome Christian deathcore band I Built The Cross.

For somewhat greater depth on the current topic, I recommend Glenn Peoples’s awesome blog post Born Atheists? Science and Natural belief in God.

See also Psalm 19:1 (for something a little more soothing).

Luke, Parables, Trees

The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree

Monday 1 September 2014 Richard Leave a comment

A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.

And he said to the vinedresser, “Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?”

And he answered him, “Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.” (ESV)

Christian Libertarianism, Freedom, Libertarianz, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Nile, Romans, Thomas Jefferson

Libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless

Friday 22 August 2014 Richard 2 Comments

The terms ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ mean different things to different people. In a broad sense, a libertarian is anyone who favours more freedom and less government. In a narrower sense, libertarianism is minarchism.

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts.

The libertarianism on which I cut my teeth is libertarianism in the latter sense. It’s the libertarianism that was espoused by the now deregistered Libertarianz Party and is promoted by Objectivists such as Lindsay Perigo. In what follows, I’ll use the term ‘libertarianism’ in the minarchist sense.

Sadly, in today’s Western world we are very far from a minarchist libertopia. The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Our government departments ever increase in both size and number. Our surfeit of statism won’t be gone any time soon, let alone gone by lunchtime.

In a libertarian state, all government departments—save for the military, police and courts—would be gone. There would be no public health system. There would be no state welfare. There would be no state schools. Even the roads would be privatised.

But persuading most people—who are thoroughly inculcated in statism by the very state education system that libertarians seek to dismantle—that we should roll back the state is difficult. How can libertarians possibly justify getting rid of government-run hospitals? How can libertarians possibly justify ending state education? And how can we even envisage life without state highways? Muh roads!

How can we justify paring back the state to the barest minarchist minimum?

Actually, it’s the wrong question. The right question to ask is this. How can we justify even the barest minarchist minimum? How can we justify having any state at all?

There are plenty of problems with libertarianism. Underlying philosophical problems. I called attention to a couple of them here, here and here. And I’m about to present another problem. It’s a compelling argument for anarchism and against minarchism. (I’m not going to go into all the reasons why I think anarchism, rather than minarchism, looks set to win the day. For that, I suggest readers follow the arguments of anarchist thinkers such as Stephan Kinsella. See, e.g., his paper What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.)

Here’s the problem. Libertarians think that taxation is theft, and that all giving, including the giving of money to the government, should be voluntary. Libertarians (of the minarchist/Randian variety) think that the (only) legitimate functions of government are providing defence and police forces and a judiciary, and that these functions should be funded voluntarily by the citizenry. But what if the citizenry don’t want to fund a minarchist state voluntarily? What then?

Here’s an excerpt from L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department to illustrate the problem.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care …

Elsewhere I presented the case for compulsory taxation. In the comments section to that post, a battle erupted between Damian Grant, a libertarian in the loose “More Freedom, Less Government” sense, and Mark Hubbard, a devout minarchist. Damian didn’t manage to better my case for compulsory taxation, but Mark didn’t score any points either. The whole thing was left hanging.

When Christian libertarians confront statists, statists just love to throw the Good Book at them! There are two Bible passages commonly mentioned.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been confronted with Jesus’s injunction to render unto Caesar. But this objection is easily demolished. To render is to give back. Jesus tells us to give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give back to God what is God’s. But what do we have that is Caesar’s? What have the Romans ever done for us?

Elsewhere, of course, the Bible tells us that all things belong to God. So the objection is easily dealt with.

Seemingly more difficult to deal with is the second objection, viz., Romans 13.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (NIV)

This objection is taken so seriously by Christian libertarians that the Facebook group of the same name deals with this passage (and only this passage) specifically in its “About” section.

A very common question new members have is, “What do you think about Romans 13?” One member has shared a Facebook doc with links to the various discussions we have had:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/290101931017604/doc/491608790866916/

Here are two additional essays on Romans 13:
http://libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/28/new-testament-theology-2/
http://libertarianchristians.com/2013/04/02/theology-doesnt-begin-and-end-with-romans-13/

But, far from dooming minarchist libertarianism, Romans 13 is its salvation! For, without this crucial passage, there is nothing in the Bible or anywhere else to stop the slide into anarchism.

I’ve been looking for a Biblical justification of libertarianism ever since I heard this speech. Now I think I’ve found it. In the last place I ever thought to look.

Romans 13 is libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless.

1 Corinthians, Keep it Metal!

A hairy problem

Friday 8 August 2014 Richard 7 Comments

Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. … Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?

– the Apostle Paul (NIV)

2 Corinthians, C S Lewis, Epistemology, Metaphysics

In the jar

Thursday 31 July 2014 Richard 9 Comments

Once upon a time I was a real philosopher. I wasn’t a very good philosopher then, and I’m certainly not now, but here’s an argument for the truth of Christianity. If you fancy yourself as a philosopher, feel free to shoot my argument down in flames. But if you fancy yourself as a real philosopher, do what a real philosopher would do. Improve my argument, so that it’s as good an argument as it can possibly be. And then shoot it down in flames!

Okay, so here goes. Lately, something called the multiverse theory has become popular in atheist circles. It purports to explain why the universe we live in appears to be fine-tuned for the existence of life, without the universe we live in actually being fine-tuned for the existence of life. Because what best explains the fact that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for the existence of life, if it’s the only universe, is the existence of a creator God. If, however, our universe is only one of trillions upon trillions of other actual parallel universes, each with different physical laws and constants, then we can find the explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe we happen to inhabit in the so-called anthropic principle. Basically, we’re here because of sheer, dumb luck and the probabilistic resources of a multiverse.

As far as I’m aware, there’s no empirical evidence for the multiverse theory, but it does at least explain why most atheists believe in pink unicorns. So there is that. Now, my argument appeals to the idea of multiple possible universes. The possible worlds heuristic has been a mainstay of academic philosophy for a very long time. Since I’ve been around, anyway. I think my argument only depends on the existence of a finite number of possible universes, and not on the existence of an infinite number of actual universes, but I’m not sure. But the question is, if there are multiple possible universes, but only one actual universe, which of the multiple possible universes is the actual universe we live in?

Well, it could be that the universe we live in is, in actual fact, contained in a tiny glass jar placed neatly on the shelf of an alien child’s room. It’s a logical possibility. The thing to note about this possibility is that it’s a possibility that our universe is contained within another universe. Thus, this possibility is a variant of what I have elsewhere called supernaturalism. Naturalism, as I define it, is the view that the world we know is a stand-alone affair. It’s not contained within anything else, or a product of anything else. It’s self-sufficient from go to whoa. It just is. Whereas, supernaturalism is the view that the world we live in—and all it contains, including us—is an artefact.

Now consider all the logically possible universes. Logically speaking, what is the likelihood that the one-and-only actual universe is a self-contained universe, as opposed to a universe contained within a greater reality? Bear in mind that the the universe inhabited by the alien child, in whose room our universe is contained in a jar on a shelf, could itself be contained in another jar on a shelf in some uber-alien child’s room. That’s right, for every possible self-contained universe, there are an infinite number of possible nested universes containing that universe. So it’s highly likely that we live in a nested universe.

God is eternal. The claim that God is eternal is often taken to mean (as I take it to mean) that God is “outside” time and space. God is outside the time and space fabric of our universe, which means that our universe is “inside” the outside reality in which God dwells. If Christianity is true, we live in a nested universe.

There are two types of possible nested universes. Those in which the creator in the containing universe has communicated with the inhabitants of the contained universe, and those in which the creator hasn’t. What would our world look like if we lived in a universe within a universe? Moreover, one in which the creator outside had communicated with us in the jar? It would look exactly like this one looks if Christianity were true. Therefore, Christianity is true.

Perhaps my argument, such as it is, is a variant of an argument that C. S. Lewis presents in Mere Christianity. According to Lewis, we should expect the unexpected.

Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have.

So, there it is. It’s not an argument I’m about to write up and submit to a peer-reviewed academic journal any time soon, but hey. I’m only a jar of clay.

Justice, Old Testament, Romans

Rulers bear the sword for a reason

Monday 14 July 2014 reed 4 Comments

blind-justice — Roman justice goddess – blindfolded with sword

Romans 13:4
For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Governments that serve God well should be agents of wrath that bring punishment on wrongdoers.

Christians should be supporting/advocating government punishment of wrongdoers. As I write this I think this doctrine is too obvious to mention and uncontentious… but I have seen that some Christians think justice has been replaced with “not judging”, forgiveness and mercy. And many people think the purpose of a justice system should be to rehabilitate and/or protect citizens.

Mercy and forgiveness have their place but these are, I believe, an individual’s prerogative – in the same way that generosity is an individuals prerogative. It is not virtuous when the state gives away people’s money against their wishes and neither is it virtuous when the state gives lenient punishments against a victim’s wishes. (Mercy, forgiveness and generosity by proxy are counterfeit virtues.)

Significant disagreements amongst Christians occur when we consider which wrongdoings should be punished. Wrongdoings can be classified as against God (e.g. worshipping other gods, disobedience), against self (e.g. drunkenness, greed, laziness, pride) or against others (e.g. murder, theft, assault).

Wrongdoings against God or self are nobody else’s business – those wrongdoings are between that person and God – as Paul said “Who am I to judge another man’s servant?”

The reason rulers bear the sword is to punish wrongdoers – specifically those who do wrongs against others.

(I thought I was finished… but I guess I’d better add that all punishments should be just i.e. they must not be disproportionate to the wrongdoing… eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, yadda yadda.)

Hypocrites, Jesus FTW!, Matthew, Necrophagist

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord

Sunday 1 June 2014 Richard 1 Comment

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (NIV)

Distracting from
your deficiencies
while you point at others.
(Once) enlightened
you judge and execute.

To be the only one
to discover the seven,
(To) toss open and pass
the gates to heaven.

Affordable City, Bigotry and Hate, Charity, Christian Libertarianism, Corruption, Economic Ruin, Economics, Faith, Freedom, Heaven, Heroism, Hope, Housing, Hypocrites, Justice, Merciful Grace, Mercy, Nanny State, New Testament, Property, Righteous Rants, There is a God!, Truth, Tyranny, Uncategorized, Vested Interests

Hamilton City Council’s relentless agenda to starve out the homeless.

Friday 30 May 2014 Tim 7 Comments

you-fed-me1

wp7147bebe

Over the last few months I have written several blogposts about a fledgling voluntary charity which has begun operating in Hamilton City, Waikato, New Zealand, attempting to embody the Christian principle of Loving our neighbor as ourselves.
Hamilton Homeless was started by a small group of Mormons concerned about the growing number of Homeless people living in the Central City.
They saw their plight and felt a Religious Humanitarian obligation to do something about this unfolding tragedy, and rallied Hamiltonians to start providing free meals, clothing, and Love to the many people in desperate need.
And caring Hamiltonians of all shades of Religious and cultural backgrounds put aside their doctrinal differences, and in the spirit of Good will and co-operation have been working together in this Righteous endeavour.

10252131_10152419608008010_8385905336774103544_n

Despite these obviously noble and selfless ambitions aimed at helping the most needy sector of our society, and the fact that all this Charity work is being done voluntarily and without any politically imposed burden on Hamilton residents and ratepayers, ‘Hamilton homeless’ has nonetheless become the target of what can only be described as an orchestrated and on-going campaign of oppression at the hands of the City Council, in whose warped minds… it is more important to foster a commercially and Politically aesthetic façade of Hamilton’s CBD a place of glamour and affluence, than any concern about the *Real World* Poverty which is growing there… a reality they intend to shove into a dark corner…. Away from the public view.
‘Out of sight…. out of mind’.

There can be no doubt that the Council is behaving in a malicious and oppressive manor…. abusing it’s political power to violate the rights of the citizens of Hamilton to exercise their Religious convictions in a peaceful manor, …. having threatened the Land lord of a property ‘Hamilton Homeless’ have rented for the purposes of avoiding City Council threats of arrest for feeding the Poor on public spaces… without a permit.

Council staff have put pressure on the Landlord demanding he insists Hamilton homeless immeadiately stops feeding the poor from their rental property.

It appears that even though Hamilton homeless have acquired their own private property… quite a distance from any commercial interests whom might complain about poor people ‘loitering’ in front of their businesses, that the Council is determined to shut this Charity down.

442822345_e9bae56f04_z

I personally believe the Council is in serious violation of Private property rights, and intend to investigate whether or not the laws of our Nation protect our private property rights, and religious liberty, or in fact sanction such vile abuses of political power!
On top of this wicked agenda, It is of course truly heartbreaking to the compassionate members of Hamilton Homeless that the Poorest members of our community… the people whom they seek to serve… are in danger of loosing this loving support.

This really is a question of our rights to peacefully practice our religion, and follow our own conscience.

Private property rights are not merely a Legal protection against theft…. Not merely a foundation for establishing and exchanging ownership and legitimizing trade, it is fundamentally a principle which establishes *a space* …. *a place*… where citizens can worship their God/God’s, and peacefully practice their beliefs.

This function of private property is a fundamental corollary of our inalienable rights as individuals to Religious liberty, and is why we live in a society which is to great extent a testimony to Religious tolerance and peaceful co-existence.
We as individuals have the inalienable Right to form voluntary associations, and to function as a group, from private property… and it is a measure of the Justice of any society to the degree that such Freedom is protected from molestation and any potential violence of intolerant bigotry at the hands of other citizens, or from political oppression from the powers that be.

coexist

And the glory of these principles of Rights….Freedom, Equality, and Private property is why here in New Zealand that within the space of a few kilometres you can have a Catholic church, an Islamic Mosque, and a Mormon Temple… with virtually zero religious conflict!
This is truly a wonderful testament to the virtues of a society which has respect for these principles, and All New Zealanders should be Eternally Vigilant… watching politicians and Public servants, that they don’t start to undermine our Rights and Liberties… and to be always ready to Rally in defence of *Any voluntary association* whom has become the victim of political oppression.

Real Christians, and Patriots ought to rally in defence of Muslims, or Hindus… should it become apparent that their Religious liberty is being violated.
All our rights are equal.
When government threatens the freedom of anyone, they are in reality a danger to every ones freedom.
It is only the foolish and ignorant that don’t appreciate this… and the Nasty Bigots whom enjoy watching people whom hold different beliefs being suppressed.

Socialist Governments and Councils love to try and divide our society into separate groups and to systematically oppress these sub-sections, and it is appallingly far too often that New Zealanders go along with such corrupt political agendas instead of unifying for the sake of the principles of Freedom, equality, and Real justice… realizing what really is at stake… ie either maintaining a system of justice and freedom, or allowing the government and city councils to start telling us what peaceful religious beliefs we are allowed practice on our own property!

And Private property rights, in regards to religious liberty also exist on rented properties as long as all activities are kept within any caveats that may have been conditional upon agreement to lease.

Hamilton Homeless was doing exactly that.
It is not a commercial enterprise.
It is not a Community house.
It was not even cooking food, and therefore is not subject to Health department regulations which apply to such things as Restaurants, Cafes, etc.
It is a privately rented house in which invited people in need to come and enjoy food which was being cooked in other private homes… the very same way that we all cook our own Kai… and all this was done peacefully, quietly, and in love… the same way that is very common in Communities of strong communal bond… for example in many Christian, Indian and Maori homes the front door is always open, People come and go at leisure, They sing songs and enjoy fellowship… nothing at all strange or evil about it.
This may not be everyone’s ‘cup of tea’… there are of course millions of Kiwis whom shun such openly communal living… enjoying their own privacy and insulation, yet I would hope that such people are still tolerant of their neighbors whom have much larger community involvement.

maxresdefault

It is truly tragic when small minded prudes allow their own closeted ways to become motivation for making complaints against their neighbors more open enjoyment of their properties… and lobby the Government and Councils to generate and impose heavy restrictions which violate Freedom and equality.

That is the road backwards towards societies of Intolerance and conflict.

Thus I fervently argue that Hamilton homeless has become the target of political oppression and abuse of power.
I hope to be invited to attend any meeting of the Hamilton homeless executive to discuss how to move forward and fight this council injustice.

I hope to inquire what legal grounds, if any the Council staff had in approaching Hamilton homeless’s Land Lord as I believe they have seriously overstepped their duties as servants of Hamilton ratepayers and residents.
I hope to inquire what legal right, (if any) the Land lord has to insist Hamilton homeless cease to feed the poor from that address, or whether in fact he is in breach of their tenancy rights.
Did their Landlord know what purposes Hamilton homeless intended to use the property for when he rented them the house?
I will be asking these sorts of questions.
I do believe everyone should respect their landlords reasonable requests, yet It is a very poor show if the Landlord is simply bucking under the duress of a Bully Council which is out of control…. Esp to detriment of the Poor, Cold, and Hungry!

I will report back as things run their course…. For good or ill.

It may amaze some readers to realize just how uncaring and Nasty Hamilton City council is behaving on this matter, yet a quick Google search will reveal to any inquirer just how common this sort oppression is meted out by Heartless Councils around the globe upon Charities whom care for the Needy.

Eg>>>> Here <<<< The difference being how the various communities respond… to the knowledge of how their elected officials and paid City staff treat the most vulnerable and exposed members of our community! How will you Hamiltonians and Kiwi’s respond to this local crisis? Will you rally in defence of voluntary charity and your poor neighbours? poor

I am reminded of a homeless Beggar whom not so long ago was found dead in the Waikato River after being thrown out of his hovel by a Hamilton City Ticket Warden whom had no business doing so!
He was not on council property, but had found a corner somewhere along the Riverside on Private land where he had lived in squalor for some time, yet had not caused any one any real harm.
The Council worker went out of his way to take away the smallest comfort this poor soul had in this world… and he died.
I think this story is a exemplar of just how Cold hearted, and indifferent to the plight of others some Public servants can be.
Vicious and tyrannical.
Poverty is happening not only in Africa… but is growing here in God’s own!

This sorry tale also shows the sort of Dire straights many people are finding themselves, and the urgency with which the down and out need the care and compassion of people like Hamilton homeless.

This is a matter of Religious Conscience.

Will You readers spread the word and rally in defence of this Noble charity?

As a Libertarian I will be doing my best to guide ‘Hamilton Homeless’ to remain fully private and voluntary so as to maintain it’s moral stature as true charity in the Christian sense of the word… rather than becoming another burden upon the backs of struggling ratepayers and renters.
As far as I am concerned…. we just want The Council to ‘Bugger off’ and leave us Hamiltonians to take care of business ourselves.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

hungy