I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do.
Some evangelicals get a little bit annoyed because I’m not always preaching and saying, “I’m this, I’m this, and this.” I think my obligation is to reflect my beliefs in my life. I like the … part in the bible about not showing off … we’re instructed to pray quietly … [and] not to play big fanfare. I’m trying to strike something in between there; where I’m not bashful and ashamed of it, at the same time I don’t want to look like others who …look to get votes because they were willing to say and do something in public. … You don’t do it out on the streets and brag about it and say, “Look how holy I am.” If a person has true beliefs and is truly born again, it will be reflected in their life. … I’d rather my views and my convictions and my faith be shown by my actions rather than [by] what I say …
Growing up, my family was very much involved in religious teaching and interested in religious faith and actually encouraged all five of us to become ministers. Two became ministers and I decided I could minister through medicine…. People have asked me what influenced me most in my family and upbringing and it was the work ethic and church. It was faith-based. We spent a lot of time at our church and that was part of our routine.
I didn’t have much choice about the Lutheran church because I was born that way. It was very conservative and we spent a couple years in catechism and that was when I made my commitment to Christ and joined the church. And then when my wife and I got married it was sort of an accident because there wasn’t a Lutheran church handy and there was an Episcopal church handy and we enjoyed the older traditions of the old prayer book and at that time it was a much more conservative religion. As the years went on both of us became more annoyed with the liberalization of the Episcopal church and it didn’t fit us. None of our children stayed in the church…. we drifted away from it. We now go to a Baptist church.
The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation … biased against Christianity. …
I think it’s systemic … in court cases that say you can’t say a prayer at a football game. Where is it in the Constitution that said that somebody can prohibit prayer? The First Amendment says the federal government shouldn’t write any laws regarding freedom of speech and prayer. And if it becomes offensive … then the local people have to deal with it. … it should be the school board or somebody. But there can’t ever be under the First Amendment a prohibition. The Founders never thought that to be the case … It’s systemic, especially the aggressive atheists who are always going to courts, to say that their attitude because they’re atheists means a prohibition against expression of Christianity and that of course didn’t happen 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. It’s much more so today because there are some people aggressively trying to undermine Christianity.
A lot of times [secular liberals] love to have an ally and broaden their base … then all of a sudden, they’ll be a few [secular anti-war liberals] who will come off and break off and say, “Do you know who your ally is? He’s somebody in prayer, we have to attack them! He’s not even for the welfare state!” And they say, “He can be our friend, but not too friendly,” and then some of them will start attacking me.
I get to my God through Christ. … I pray for wisdom and grace.
This post started out as a comment On Dr Goode’s blog post ‘Is Ron Paul a Libertarian’, yet as it focused on just one aspect of his post, and grew longer and longer by the minute, I decided to make it a post in its own right.
Richard was responding to a Not PC blog post criticising Ron Paul in which he lists a set of ‘Ron Paul positions’ which in Peter’s view are incompatible with Libertarianism. One of these was the fact that Ron Paul is opposed to abortion.
PC is expressing a commonly held view, and because many Christians oppose Abortion and want it recognized as murder, they tend to agree with PC that ‘to be a Libertarian means you must condone abortion’ and therefore conclude from this that ‘No Godly Christian can be a Libertarian’
Today I seek to destroy this false assumption. I have herd Abortion is the most common medical operation performed in New Zealand. A huge number of Woman have had abortions, and so this is a very difficult subject to discuss. It is a Subject many prefer to keep hidden in the shadows.
I am a Christian, and a Libertarian, and I am 100% anti-abortion.
Politically speaking Abortion is one of the most difficult of subjects to deal with.
I think its murder… yet still don’t see how it can be banned, without compromising/destroying some of the most vital principles that underpin a Libertarian government, esp the principle that woman own their own bodies, and that Government is formed by consent…a compact between people of different race, culture, and religion.
As a Christian, I don’t believe a utopian Human government is even possible.
Sinful men in power must be given as little power as possible…thus I certainly do not believe moral salvation is possible via human Legislation. Thus I don’t expect the government to be the solution to all mankind’s woes. Thus I don’t expect the Law to solve the abortion problem. Furthermore if abortion remains legal, there is nothing stopping Christians from publicly expressing their Moral outrage at the practice, and via converting souls to Christ, They convert them to the belief that an unborn child has the God ordained right to life…thus I am saying Christianity (and other anti-abortionists) can still work to convince the population to voluntarily abandon this wicked practice. Christianity operates properly via Liberty…via preaching Godly values…not by lobbying for the political oppression of unbelievers.
In such a society that allows Abortion, Homosexuality, drugs, etc a Christian can still function fully as a Christian. Just because society practices these things, does not violate his rights or liberty, doe not mean he must sanction them, etc. He can deal with these sorts of things as he encounters them… by practicing his faith and following his convictions.
In a society that allows abortion (Like the Status quo) Men can avoid having their children aborted by guarding their seed. Taking care not to impregnate girls whom don’t share the belief that a child’s life is sacred, and first asking for a life long commitment from a girl before impregnating them. This would not Guarantee the marriage, but such a process is at least the honorable course to take, because it shows honest diligence in such a weighty thing as deciding to bring Children into the world.
Sacrificing children to the God Molech.
And Even if Abortion is tolerated in a free society, getting rid of Socialism… and their anti-Christian/ Pro-abortion Nanny State would still be a great improvement on the status quo because the Tax payer would no longer be forced to fund this mass murder against their will. Thus this would then mean those who oppose abortion can exercise their right to completely separate themselves from this practice.
That the government extorts taxes from us by force, and then uses the money to pay for mass extermination of unwanted children is absolutely an intolerable situation.
I would love to put an end to the practice of Abortion. By daily propagating Christian Libertarian values I am working towards that Ideal. I really struggle to believe a social compact between Atheists and theists is possible which includes making abortion illegal. I think The Christian argument against abortion is true, yet inadmissible because it crosses the line between church and state. The social compact being framed in secular terms which are acceptable to all reasonable individuals. (Secular truth is not ‘atheist truth’, but truth that stands by its own merit… (eg Both theists and atheists accept Euclidian geometry…for self evident reasons). I think Christians who go to the Law to solve society’s ills are acting in a very unchristian way. I think Christians who actually think the government can be so constructed as to deliver perfect justice… are deluded…and expect far too much from such an all too human institution.
Finally let me note the fact that Moral virtue springs voluntarily from the Heart… not the Law. Woman are not displaying any virtue by carrying children full term simply because the Law prohibits abortion. Conversely Woman display great virtue when they choose to carry their children full term, when the easy and legal option would be to have an abortion. They are practicing their Humane values as to the sanctity of human life.
In a society that allows abortion, Woman with strong Christian values ought to be revered and courted for marriage far above Godless/ unscrupulous woman… because of their values. Thus in a free society which allows abortion… Godly woman ought to have every advantage over the infidels…and prosper.
A libertarian society is not Utopian. It cannot halt all evils. It cannot foster an angelic society. It is a Compact… a peace treaty between disparate groups and individuals. The compact lays down a minimum of terms by which these disparate groups can coexist in peace… if not harmony. Thus the government is not the font of all justice. It is strictly limited to the agreed terms of the peace treaty, and so many practices will be legal which some members of the society will find abhorrent. Eg Cigarette smoking. To many people Cigarette companies and shops which sell cigarettes are Death dealing murderers… Yet Smoking cigarettes cannot be justly banned according to Libertarian principles. So too with abortion… yet this does not mean that all Libertarians must indorse Abortion, or must submit to it as helpless victims. They can work to reduce it and even completely eradicated it without recourse to political force…via preaching. This is exactly how the Christian Missionaries effectively halted Cannibalism here in the early 1800s. They proved Christian values can overthrow ungodly wickedness. That’s Christianity in action.
The many great evils that would manifest themselves should Abortion be banned is also a heinous prospect. The rise of horrific illegal alleyway abortionism. The tortured existence of unwanted children living with desperate and malicious parents… etc etc. All Children go to Heaven when they die… All aborted children are saved… and even if Abortion is Legal, the Murderers shall not escape justice! All People whom murder their children shall stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty.
For those whom have had abortions there is but one way to escape the wrath of God… That is to call upon the name of Christ. He died to pay the penalty of sin for all whom reach out for Gods grace and mercy.
Many woman whom have had abortions carry a heavy burden of guilt. It is to you that I share this message… You can have the forgiveness of God… if you will but call upon Christ… and you will meet your child again when you go to Heaven!… Because that is where they are… right now.
End Note: I am still working on this issue in my mind…
The Jurisdiction of a libertarian Government is limited. It does not extend over all time, places and people. A NZ Libertarian Government could not protect the rights of people, or convict Criminals for crimes which occur outside the country… and in a sense this is a similar circumstance to the situation of the rights of the unborn child. If a criminal injures a pregnant woman and the child dies, this is a very serious offence, yet they are usually prosecuted for the injury and loss to the woman… not for murder. I don’t like this, yet struggle to find a solution. ?
Tim Wikiriwhi
Update: 15-3-16.
The following video puts a very important question to Pro-abortionist, many of them choosing to avoid answering it because somewhere in their consciences they realise the argument that ‘A fetus is not a person’ absolutely falls apart… and that killing a Baby a day before they are to be born is no different to killing them the day after they are born.
It is a great argument Anti-abortionists have and it makes a very good case that if not at the beginning of pregnancy… that *at some point*… the Law should protect *the rights of the unborn child* from being murdered by their mother… and that an overwhelming majority of people could be convinced that such Laws would be just. (Just to Recap my position… I do believe abortion is murder… yet this post has been all about whether or not it can be banned in a free society without violating the essential principles upon which it hangs).
This argument (below) will still work to end abortion… even when there are no laws to ban it…. by convicting individual consciousness that it is wrong.
And so Anti-abortion folk are not absolutely defeated even when abortion is legal.
They still have the power of reason to convert others to their way of thinking.
Update: 10-2-18
My Blog on this subject I wrote several years ago… Abortion poses a serious dilemma for Libertarianism, and I tended to lean towards preserving a womans sovereignty over her Body… yet this position has been almost too heavy to bear in the light of how legal abortion has turned this into virtual genocidal levels of murder… its an industry… and woman have become so callous about it.
In the dilemma between the Right of the baby to Life, and the womans sovereignty over her body… I believe the Legal weight should be in favour of the innocent children… esp given Woman can prevent themselves from having un-wanted pregnancies by other moral means.
rejects the Jeffersonian principle of a “wall of separation” between religion and government;
is anti-immigration (“to the right of most Republicans” says Vodka Pundit Steve Green);
is anti-abortion (Paul describes “the rights of unborn people” [sic] as “the greatest moral issue of our time,” and “abortion on demand” as “the ultimate State tyranny”);
“plays footsie” with racists and kooks;
is a hypocritical supporter of pork-barrel earmarks for his own congressional district;
is opposed to free-trade agreements (like NAFTA); and
is appallingly “blame-America-first” on foreign policy.
Let’s take these one by one. (The only way to exit is going piece by piece.)
(1) Libertarians insist on the separation of church and state. If Ron Paul rejects the separation of church and state, he is not a libertarian. But what does separation of church and state entail? It comes down to freedom of religion (and freedom from religion, if you’re that way inclined). Ron Paul is not opposed to the separation of church and state. He’s opposed to the War on Religion.
(2) Libertarianism is a view on how a government should treat its citizens. Its own citizens. Libertarians can be anti-immigration.
(3) Libertarianism holds that men are endowed
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
Ron Paul believes that fetuses are Men, too. Thus, it is the role of government to secure one’s right to life both after and before birth. Abortion is not a moral issue. It is a metaphysical issue. Libertarians can be anti-abortion.
(4) So Ron Paul “plays footsie” with racists, 9/11 Truthers and Objectivists. What of it? Libertarians insist on the right to freedom of association. Ron Paul exercises that right.
(5) Pork barrel politics is anathema to libertarianism. Or is it? Ron Paul’s argument for pork barrel projects in his own district is that, “if they take it, we should ask for it back.” Seems reasonable to me.
(6) Ron Paul says, “I’m for free trade.” Ron Paul is opposed to NAFTA. He says, “This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.”
(7) Foreigners in foreign places tend to resent American government intervention in their lives, in much the same way that U.S. libertarians resent American government intervention in their lives. It is not unlibertarian to point this out. Blowback? If it’s America’s fault then blame America.
Of seven purported reasons why Ron Paul is not a libertarian, none is any good.
Politics, Art and Faith from a Kiwi in the Heart of Texas
… and Fox News foxes.
Back in the day, Blair Mulholland was NZ’s best pro-freedom blogger. Not only that, of course, but Mulholland Drive used to feature pictures of Naomi Watts and Laura Harring from the David Lynch movie of the same name.
But the real reason I like Blair’s blog is political not pictorial. It’s that his views almost always align with my own. In other words, he’s almost always right. Take, for example, his views on Peter Dunne.
I am not remotely jealous of Mr Dunne … I would rather spend three years in parliament, achieve sweeping reform, then lose, than do nothing but warm a seat for nearly thirty years. Give me a career like David Garrett’s any day over Dunne’s. He has no principles or morals, and I have plenty of both. I win, he loses.
Actually, Ohariu and New Zealand lose more. Dunne represents everything that is wrong with the current state of New Zealand politics. No risk-taking, no innovation, no principles, no love of freedom. Just a desire for more control and a pompous, sneering contempt for the average New Zealander.
Kiwis and Aussies are the world’s biggest stoners. But we already knew that. “Experts are not surprised by new research showing New Zealand and Australia share the highest rates of cannabis and methamphetamine use in the world,” says the NZ Herald.
Will de Cleene has an informative post showing where (else) in the world to find the stoners, the coke heads, the smack heads, the ravers, the speed freaks, the smokers and the drunks. Check it out.
After serving the standard sound-bites from the executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, Ross Bell, the Herald reports some remarks from former police officer and managing director of “methamphetamine eduction company” MethCon, Dale Kirk.
“We’ve treated cannabis as a soft drug and we’ve ignored the risk of methamphetamine use, and unfortunately we’re playing catch-up.
“We’re now seeing initiatives from the Government aimed at the supply end, which are having some effect, I believe, yet it’s a little bit too late.”
Mr Kirk said the right way to tackle the drug problem was a mixed approach, including punitive measures like harsher sentences, more education, and more resources to treat addicts.
Harsher sentences? What can Kirk possibly be proposing? The maximum sentence for the sale, manufacture or importation of methamphetamine is already life imprisonment. How do you get harsher than that? The death penalty?
Methamphetamine had a devastating effect on families and communities, he said.
“I’m speaking to people all the time in the community who have family members who are affected by methamphetamine, and it is a consistent theme that you hear – it’s a downward spiral in their life, everything else takes secondary interest to the drugs.
“They lose families, they lose jobs, they lose money – and obviously ultimately they can lose their lives.”
Ultimately, yes, if we ever allow drug fascists like Kirk to have their way. Unfortunately, Kirk’s predecessor, Mike Sabin, is now in government as the MP for Northland.
In the picture above, sourced from Sabin’s own website, Sabin gives the thumbs up to alcohol, a drug responsible for more social ills than P and all illegal drugs combined.
Sabin is an enemy of freedom and sane drug policy. Watch this space.
“Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.” (NIV)
Guilty until proven innocent
We condemn your soul and fate
Never mind the possibilities
Too busy for logic or to calculate
Take part in a diminishing breed
Where complex turns to simplicity
When pain is acknowledged
Frivolous calculations will be abolished
Without judgement what would we do?
We would be forced to look
At ourselves emerged in lost time
Assuming what may be
Without judgement
Perception would increase a million times
Distracted by imagination
That experiments with ease
If you could taste it, it might be addictive
Where life will crush those who defy
Take part in a diminishing breed
Where complex turns to simplicity
When pain is acknowledged
Frivolous calculations will be abolished
When Joshua was near the town of Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and demanded, “Are you friend or foe?”
“Neither one,” he replied. “I am the commander of the Lord’s army.”
At this, Joshua fell with his face to the ground in reverence. “I am at your command,” Joshua said. “What do you want your servant to do?”
