John Galt Quits Church

John Galt is the male hero of Ayn Rand's epoch novel, Atlas Shrugged. Atlas was Rand's answer to Marxism and those who attempt to live off the industry of others. While I do not agree completely with Rand's Objectivist philosophy, I believe Atlas Shrugged is the most important work of fiction produced in the Twentieth Century. I recently paid my son to read it and I think it should be required reading for every teenager.

John Galt is a brilliant inventor, philosopher, and physicist. In the story, Marxist philosophy has begun to infiltrate every faction of American life. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" has become the idealism driving government and industry. The lazy and incompetent people realize that they can have government confiscate the wealth and property of those who produce and redistribute it to them. The world becomes an insane collection of People's States where those who create, invent, produce, and work hard are vilified. The strong arm of government takes more and more from the producers and redistributes it to the "looters" and "moochers".

Finally, Galt and his friends decide to remove themselves from society and stop producing. They "go on strike" and quietly recruit every producer to join them. After a short time, there is nothing left to loot and society quickly degenerates to a mob mentality. Galt and his friends begin a new world in Galt's Gulch where truth, integrity, and a man's word are the only laws needed.

Several years ago, I left church, tired of the leadership taxing my talents, my time, and my life to further an agenda that did not reflect my beliefs or my life's purpose. Since then, I have become even more convinced that the church, especially the evangelical church, is some sort of alternative bizarro world where truth takes a backseat to dogma. The church leadership creates imaginary problems like eternity in hell or the idea that Satan is everywhere seeking to ruin your life. Then they offer a solution to these problems if you will only give up your talents, time, money, and dreams to them. This allows them to live out their life dream while depriving you of yours.

In the last eighteen months, my former denomination has had around five hundred credentialed ministers leave the church, almost all of them under the age of 35. Some are leaving for other denominations. Some are leaving for secular employment. But most of them have expressed deep frustration with denominational direction and leadership. Lay people are quitting church in unprecedented numbers. And evidence seems to show that most retain faith in Jesus while rejecting the leadership of the churches they attend. They are tired of the politics and the demands for sacrificial giving of time and money.

To them, I offer Jesus. I do not offer an organization. I do not offer manipulation or guilt. I do not demand tithes. I want nothing. I offer Jesus, crucified and raised from the dead to bring abundant life. I offer Jesus, who fulfilled the law so that we are free from it, all of it. I offer Jesus, who repudiated the religious elite so that we no longer have to obey them.

Each week, I speak to people who feel they must escape the evangelical church but feel guilt and shame about it. My role is to help restore the freedom and life that the church has robbed from them. If this is you, feel free to contact me and share your story. Join us here in Galt's Gulch, where self-appointed religious leaders have no power over you.

I intend to make this subject one of my main topics on this blog. Stay tuned for more.

This Smells like Hillary!

So Hillary finally decides to go against her true personality and make nice at the most recent debate with Barak Obama. Did she have something up her sleeve? Yesterday, I remarked that Obama must be the cleanest living human on the planet or Hillary's goons would have destroyed him by now. Then Larry Sinclair's video and lawsuit hit.

I'm going on record saying I don't believe a word of it. But doesn't it smell like the Clinton Machine? You cannot prove a negative, so Obama will never be able to get everyone to believe Sinclair's claims are false. Some Americans will never vote for a gay or bisexual man. Others will never vote for a casual cocaine user. And if this only effects 10% of primary voters, Hillary will win Texas and Ohio and get the nomination.

I smell a rat! Her name is Hillary.

Bush's Ugly Legacy

Writing about the Iraq War is difficult for me. I have relatives serving there and sons of friends, one who gave his life. My daughter’s ex-boyfriend is a Marine currently doing his second tour. I think about him every day. He comes to see me whenever he is home. My son, Adam, is in the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian training organization staffed by former Air Force officers. He plans to join R.O.T.C. in college and will likely become a pilot in the Air Force at some point.

My objections to the war are not born of naïve liberal pacifism or a loathing of our military. In fact, I am profoundly respectful of those who serve in the armed forces. I believe they are the best of the best and many in our nation are unworthy of their sacrifice. My objections to the war are aimed squarely at George W. Bush and his close advisors. They have put the United States in an unwinnable situation where long-term commitment of our military forces is inevitable. The deployment will exacerbate our deficit problems, further weakening the Dollar. And most importantly, it will provide additional fodder for Islamic extremists, aiding in the recruitment of terrorists and strengthening the grip of radical clerics on the region.

In retrospect, Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship served as a stabilizing presence in the Middle East. Of course, that sounds callous, even cruel. But this post is discussing war, where truth and reality must be respected above our idealism regarding the dignity of humanity and our inane desires to speak in politically correct terms. Saddam’s reign of terror kept rival tribal and religious factions under constant fear, thereby limiting most of the civil conflict now plaguing the nation. Iraq is surrounded by nations with brutal dictators, tyrannical kingdoms, and pseudo-democratic theocracies. Saddam’s military, although inept against our superior forces, was sufficient to keep at bay those in the region posing a threat to Iraq.

I allowed Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike McConnell, Bill Cunningham, and others to sell me on the necessity of taking out Saddam Hussein. But I am a real estate appraiser with no training or expertise in foreign policy. I deeply regret that I allowed those people to paint Democrats opposing the war with the broad brush of cowardice and anti-patriotism. Bush’s advisors were paid to be expert on foreign relations and should have known that removing Saddam would create a dangerous vacuum of power in the region. I think they did know. I believe that neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz wanted to create a situation where we would have to maintain a military presence in Iraq indefinitely. And the purpose of this military presence is two-fold: the free-flow of oil and the protection of Israel. It should be noted that I like inexpensive gasoline and I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to exist, but not at the expense of our nation's future.

It is obvious, even to those opposed to the war, that we can never leave Iraq. The day we leave, be it tomorrow or fifty years from now, Iraq will see a bloodbath and violent conflict for control of the country. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey will all choose different factions to support and provide arms to those groups. The resulting chaos and violence will make Saddam’s brutality pale in comparison. Iran would support the majority Shiite population. Saudi Arabia, fearing a next-door neighbor controlled by Iran, would support the Sunni population. Turkey would likely go to war with the Kurds in the north.

Scott Ritter, the U.N. Weapons Inspector in Iraq, was the number one thorn in the Bush Administration’s side before the war began. Ritter claimed that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration went to great lengths to refute Ritter’s expert opinion with limited success. Mysteriously, Ritter was charged with trying to meet a fourteen-year-old girl for sex by Albany police and was branded a sex offender. I have always questioned the bizarre coincidence and timing of Ritter’s arrest. And conservatives instantly jumped on this to discredit him. Suddenly, Ritter became irrelevant. Of course, even if he was guilty, his expert opinions about Iraq’s weapons programs should not have been ignored. But there was no fourteen-year-old girl. And the simplicity with which the CIA could fake a computer IP address should make all of us at least consider that Ritter may have been set up. But I digress.

The fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was insufficient reason to remove him from power. If it were, we must question why all of the other brutal dictators plaguing the world are not targeted. Of course, we now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam probably had chemical weapons. (He had gassed the Kurds to squelch an earlier uprising.) But chemical weapons without the means to deliver them, en masse, to Israel should have been none of our concern. And Saddam was smart enough to know that Israel would respond to such an attack with overwhelming force. Even a nuclear response was not off the table.

So we went to war and within days, our finest men and women had militarily taken the country. But then the internal violence began, foreshadowing the bloodbath to come. General Patreas’ expert leadership has finally reduced most of the violence with a surge of additional troops and a get-tough policy that does not concede any area to the insurgents. But the success of the surge only proves my point. Only the ever-present power of the United States military can keep the internal violence to a minimum. A troop draw-down will only result in more violence and instability. We must remain in Iraq forever. Paul Wolfowitz got what he wanted: indefinite protection of his beloved Israel at the cost of our economy and our influence in the world.

Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that immediately leaving Iraq is not an option. Barak Obama, in an effort to get the Democratic Presidential nomination, has suggested we could immediately begin leaving Iraq. But he is a smart man. He knows a full withdrawal will only appear to put the blood of millions of Iraqis on his hands.

George Bush has created a foreign policy nightmare for every President for the next fifty years. He has greatly strengthened the position of his good buddies, the Saudi Royal Family, allowing them to spread Wahhabism throughout the world and enrich themselves while denying basic human rights to women and non-Muslims. And I voted for him twice. What was I thinking?

Getting In Touch With My Inner Hippie

My son is a bourgeoning rock star. In less than two years, he has become a very good guitarist and currently plays with three bands. I noticed his musical ability when he was five. He wanted a guitar at seven. I got him a Stratocaster at the Fender shop in Nashville. I started trying to teach him to play and he just lost all interest. I did not push him. If I had pushed him, one of two things would have happened. He would have become the next John Mayer or he would have resisted and never played again. I'm glad I let him find his own way.

Anyway, Adam and some of his derelict musician friends asked me to take them to Bonneroo, a music festival with about 250,000 people in Tennessee. It will be camping, hippies, 100 bands, 15 stages, and I'm sure lots of leftist politics and global warming alarmists.

I have agreed to go. Debbie jumped at the idea. Our friends, Cary and Roni are going too. Their daughter is also an emerging guitarist.

Yesterday, word leaked that Led Zeppelin might be playing. That may even get my buddy Tom to go. Tom is not a camper! His idea of roughing it is renting a chalet in the mountains where you have to drive 15 miles to get a good Manhattan. I told him to man up and let his love of Zeppelin overpower his love of comfort.

Last week I cleaned out my clothes closet and did not throw away three tie-dyed tee shirts. Now I know why.

The following is my result from the "Are You A Hippie?" test at Kansas Bob's blog.

You're Not Exactly a Hippie...

While you're not a hippie, you've got the spirit of one. Like most hippies, you have deep beliefs and unusual interests. You may not buy into hippie fashions, music, or heavy drug use. But at heart, you are a free spirit and suspicious of the status quo.

Are You a Hippie?

Upping the Intellectual Ante

I read Julie Bogart's blog every day. She is a pro and her writing style is simple and fluid. There seems to never be a wasted or unneccesary word as the phrases jump off the page and allow you to peer deep into her soul. I am interested in many of the same subjects Julie writes about, but more importantly, I want to become a better writer. And she provides excellent examples every day.

But today, she has ruined my planned day of football, fatty foods, robust ale, and commercials featuring monkeys in suits by enlisting me in a random game of tag. We are participating in a meme, some sort of random theoretical look into our culture. Here are the rules:

Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. (No cheating!)
Find Page 123.
Find the first 5 sentences.
Post the next 3 sentences.
Tag 5 people.

This is mine. Turning to page 123 of my nearest book, "The First American, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin", I find sentences 6-8 are as follows:

Almanac makers may have placed more or less importance on planetary conjections and transits than almanac readers, who themselves varied greatly in the store they put in such things. But readers expected astrology with their equinoxes and eclipses, and publishers did not disappoint them. Readers expected other expert information as well.

I tag the following five people:
Old Pete, my new friend from England
Brian, a fellow universalist and former Vineyardian
Kevin, a restauranteur and watchman from Lincoln, Nebraska
Tom Stark, who wrote a great piece on a Fundamentalist Funeral Gone Bad
Stuart K. Hayashi, a fellow libertarian and Ayn Rand fan from Hawaii

I feel as if this violates my principle that all chain letters end with me. Sorry guys.

Bringing Back a Popular Saying

I am going to use my powerful influence in the blogosphere to push for the resurgence of an old catch phrase. This is a phrase taught to me by my father. Its meaning became significant to me as I read books by the founding fathers and champions of liberty who came after them. Men like Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson wrote articulately what can be summed up in this simple phrase.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

The beauty of the phrase is that it plainly says something very powerful and equally infers something just as important. The simple wording tells the hearer to take care of himself, to think about things relevant to him, and to hold himself to a high standard. It infers that one should allow others the same privilege and respect their right to do so. But it implies that when you are taking care of yourself, you have no time to stick your nose into the business of others.

America has become the Land of the Freeloader and the Home of those Brave Enough to Meddle in the Affairs of Others. (That used to get one shot.) We are bombarded each day with news of a meddling legislator or pathetic soccer mom trying to come up with a law that encroaches on rights we have held for over two hundred years. It has become quite unfashionable for candidates to proclaim that they will go to Washington and work hard to defend the constitution and at least stand firm against future government encroachment on our rights. Ron Paul is the only elected official I know of in Washington who makes this claim.

Years ago, we decided to buy the argument that if someone’s choice costs the government or an insurance company money, that choice should be taken away. Now come on! Did we actually think that if people stopped smoking or eating red meat that insurance companies were going to lower our premiums or that the government was going to lower our taxes? If you say yes, you are a fool. Yet we bought that argument and are now applying it to everything the do-gooders can possibly identify as bringing pleasure or thrill to life.

MADD founder Candy Lightner has distanced herself from the organization because they have become a prohibitionist group. They accomplished their original goals of toughening DUI laws and raising national awareness about the problem. But do-gooders can never just claim victory and move on with their lives. And this is the problem with every group in America that seeks to “raise awareness” about an issue. They will never stop until the strong arm of government helps them stop an activity they see as bad.

In Ohio, we have an organization called Citizens for Community Values. It is headed by Phil Burress, a former union thug and self-described former porn addict. Phil makes hundreds of thousands of dollars each year strong-arming politicians into enacting his Puritanical views into law. Burress is twice bankrupt and twice divorced, once while President of Citizens for Community Values. He is married to wife number three, also a values activist who makes quite a hefty salary bullying Indiana politicians.

Conservative Christians blindly follow this pathetic loser. Republicans are so indebted to him that they dare not question his financial motive or his past moral failures. I am researching information for a post on Burress. It will blow your mind. My interest in his business stems only from the fact that he pokes his nose into everyone else’s. I, along with many of my friends, have moral failings that rival those of Phil Burress. I am not condemning him for his failures, only for the fact that he is so judgmental of others while making big bucks doing it.

But my point is that we have lost the ability to take care of ourselves and allow others to do the same. Today, I am going to work hard at MY business. That should be enough to keep me busy all day.

Biblical Inerrancy?

My life as a Christian became much simpler when I figured out that the “New Testament” is not the inerrant, infallible, inspired word of God. Of course, I was taught that it was. That was one of the foundational premises of, not just my belief system, but my life. I somehow fought my way out of Evangelicalism still believing this to be true. There are so many Bible passages supporting Jesus as the Savior of All that I was able to grasp the concept and just ignore all the passages that indicate otherwise.

Then I began to study the struggle for control of the early church. It never made sense to me why Paul was so proud of the fact that the other apostles had no influence over him. He brags about how he did not go up to Jerusalem to meet with them, but instead, went to Arabia. In Galatians, he emphasizes that he had very little contact with the Apostles, except a 15-day stay with Peter and a short meeting with James, the Brother of Jesus.

A few years ago, I read an excruciatingly long book by Robert Eisenman called “James the Brother of Jesus”. Eisenman confirms what the Book of Acts infers and dances around, namely that James was the central figure of the Jerusalem Church and was combining the ritual of Moses' law with the new teachings about Jesus. (It should be noted that Eisenman is of the opinion that James was more correct and that Paul, in essence, hi-jacked the early church by getting it to abandon much of the old ways.) We know that the church in Jerusalem was requiring animal sacrifices, ceremonial washings, and circumcision. So it is safe to say that James (who was not one of the twelve disciples) and the other disciples such as Peter and John, just never understood the finished work of Jesus. And why would we assume that they would? They rarely understood anything Jesus was doing when he was on earth.

There was a debate going on about law and grace. It was a very heated debate. Acts tells us a little bit about Paul’s run-ins with those who required some law to be mixed with grace. It is clear to me that Paul’s much debated “thorn in the flesh” consisted of those sent to buffet him about circumcision and keeping parts of the law. In Paul’s writings, he refers to “flesh” as our desire to please God through our works. Why would he change the context of “flesh” in that sentence?

So Paul and the original apostles were having a decades-long debate about what Jesus' death and resurrection meant for Jews and for mankind. They wrote letters arguing their points, letters that contradict each other’s views. The books of Galatians and James were clearly written in opposition to each other, like editorial opinions designed to influence the opinions of readers. And these debates were sometimes less than cordial. At one point, Paul says that he wishes those requiring circumcision be completely emasculated. Ouch!

Yet Evangelical Christianity has taken books of debate and claimed they are the inerrant Word of God. They claim to believe every word of two opposing arguments as true and infallible. And they base their belief systems on them. Is it any wonder why Christian doctrine is such a mess of gobble-de-gook? This is the equivalent of taking a speech by Hillary Clinton and a speech by Ron Paul and claiming that both are right. In fact, both are so right that neither is, even a little bit, wrong. Do you see the problem?

On the cross, Jesus proclaimed that “It is finished”. I do not believe he intended for the Keystone Cops that followed him to begin another organized religion, or to keep on life-support the religion Jesus had just fulfilled. I believe Jesus reconciled mankind to God through his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. And if I am reconciled to God, why would I want to join myself to a religion that emphasizes just how unreconciled everyone is?

So I continue to read the “New Testament”. But I read it as the imperfect opinions about a perfect sacrifice.