1. Killing cops is within the realm of possibility.
2. Throwing off your government is within the realm of possibility.
3. You shouldn’t just always do what the cops say.
4. You shouldn’t always go on singing God Save the King and pledging allegiance to the union jack.
5. You shouldn’t trust the government to educate your children.
A couple of my Christian friends have said that they support the police because they protect us. There are a few problems with that.
1. That’s not their God-given job.
The only job of government is to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4). THERE IS NO OTHER PURPOSE. Protecting the people is not the purpose of government.
2. Police don’t protect us.
a) They’ve failed to protect the 60 million babies murdered by abortion. They are bad at their job.
b) Government is the biggest thief and murderer. Their theft by civil asset forfeiture alone is greater than private theft. That’s not to mention property taxes, income taxes, vehicle taxes, etc. Police and government are the thieves we need to be protected from.
3. Americans are armed. The reason there aren’t gangs of thugs going around robbing, raping and pillaging (other than the police) is because Americans are armed, and a home invader knows there’s a good shot he’ll have his head blown off.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security are worth of neither.
This would be hilarious, except that Americans have given their lives for this stupidity. And how many millions of innocent lives have been taken? And that’s not to mention trillions of dollars wasted while we are impossibly in debt.
I don’t think they could have been much more evil if they were trying.
I believe police should be abolished for many reasons. However, they do provide some valuable services that will have to be done even after they’re gone. In fact, maybe if we implement these solutions now, it will hasten their abolition.
Others have pointed out that many of the services that have been taken over by government monopolies have been taken over because of a lack of involvement of Christians. I think that applies to many of the services that police provide.
In the vast majority of emergency situations, the cops show up long after the emergency is over. What happened before police existed (mid 1800s)? I would imagine that you would ask your neighbors for help, and as we’re commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves, people would have dropped what they were doing to help, even to the point of laying down their lives. In the 1800s, it would have been difficult to communicate your need in an emergency. Of course, that’s not the case anymore.
Maybe those who are committed to not using police except where legally required should prepare for an emergency now. It could be as simple as getting a text group where neighbors can send out a quick text to each other asking for help. There are also apps like Cell 411, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to be widely used. This requires getting to know your neighbors, and maybe having more involvement than the ignoring them that I’ve grown accustom to.
As those of us who wish to not call police are still being forced to pay for police services, this is also a cost-effective solution. I guess it would be the analog to homeschooling for those who reject government education.
I believe this would be an effective solution to the fear mongering objections of those who are opposed to abolishing police. In fact, it is a superior solution, as your neighbors will probably have a much better response time than police anyway.
√ THE GOVERNMENT
√ POLICE
√ DONALD TRUMP
√ THE WAR ON DRUGS
√ ICE/BORDER PATROL
√ THE IRS
√ THE MILITARY
√ REPUBLICANS
√ DEMOCRATS
GUNS
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time I’ve had a conversation where the person doesn’t understand a concept from Kindergarten: That which isn’t illegal is legal. I thought this was funny at first, but by the end it just got kind of sad. Here it is.
Crazy Guy – At least support your claim. Simply stating something does not make it fact. Tell me how biblical law supports open borders.
Me – Because there is no law against people moving to ancient Israel. In fact it is desirable. You’re the one who wants to enforce unjust immigration laws written by Ted Kennedy.
Crazy Guy – Welcoming strangers does not equate to allowing the free-flow of immigrants – the notion is ridiculous.
1 Timothy 5:8 ESV
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Open borders are, without a doubt, counter-intuitive to this verse – fullstop.
Numbers 20:14-21 reports:
“Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom: ‘Thus says your brother Israel … here we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your territory. Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, or drink water from a well. We will go along the King’s Highway. We will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.’ But Edom said to him, ‘You shall not pass through, lest I come out with the sword against you.’ And the people of Israel said to him, ‘We will go up by the highway, and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then I will pay for it. Let me only pass through on foot, nothing more.’ But he said, ‘You shall not pass through.’ And Edom came out against them with a large army and with a strong force. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory, so Israel turned away from him.”
Me – Edom is a pagan nation that had the laws of men. I guess it’s fitting that you’re using Edom’s pagan border policies to defend Ted Kennedy’s socialist border policies. 1 Timothy 5:8 has nothing to do with border policy.
There was no law against immigrating to Israel. God’s law defines justice. Your choice is between the law of God and the arbitrary, unjust laws of men.
Crazy Guy – Prove it.
Me – Prove what? If something isn’t illegal, it’s legal. If it’s illegal, show me, and I will repent. This is really quite simple.
Crazy Guy – Prove to me there were no immigration laws in ancient Israel. I will await your quotes from The Bible which proves this.
Also, just because the Bible speaks of welcoming strangers, it does not mean they were openly allowed in without restriction.
Me – This would all be discovered by you reading Scripture.
Crazy Guy – I’ve read it, multiple times, in Armenian and English. Now, if you could substantiate your claims that would be much appreciated. If you can’t, we will end the conversation here.
Me – How can I show you something that doesn’t exist?
Crazy Guy – If it doesn’t exist, how can you make a claim?
Me – A prohibition on immigrating to Israel doesn’t exist. Therefore, there is freedom to move to Israel.
This is one of the funniest conversations I’ve had in a while.
Crazy Guy – Wrong. Just because something specific was not written in the Bible, does not mean it DOESN’T exist.
You make claims based on something NOT written, rather than something written. What a joke.
The Bible is basically void of Jesus’ younger years, so using you logic it would mean those years didn’t exist.
Me – The law of the Lord is perfect (Psalm 19:7). I’m sorry you don’t like what it says.
Crazy Guy – Exodus 34:24
“For I will drive out nations before you and ENLARGE YOUR BORDERS, and no man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD your God.”
I guess God is following the Devil, too? If there is no need for borders, why did God promise to enlarge them? If there is no need for borders, why would God secure control of land to a certain person or group?
Me – Borders are to limit governments. Not to prevent the free movement of people. Thanks for the conversation. I have to get going.
Crazy Guy – Where is this law you claim to exist? If it is not written, it must not exist. You cannot substantiate you claim, and you therefor run from providing an answer.
Here’s an interesting discussion of what Scripture teaches about taxation.
Bojidar Marinov says,
“What’s the biblical principle behind ‘no taxation without representation’?”
It’s a very good question. It’s yuge. It’s an enormous question. I am not kiddin’.
So I did a quick study on the issue. Just quick (queek, as they say it in the South), not comprehensive, just to see what the Bible says and doesn’t say, without making any systematic ideology out of it. And here’s what I think I discovered:
There is no such Biblical principle. The only Biblical principle as to who gets taxed and who doesn’t is found in Matt. 17:25. It specifically says that the sons of the rulers (the homeborn, the citizens) are not taxed, while only the strangers are taxed. The words used for “taxes” there are “telos” and “kensos” (that is, “census”) and both signify taxes that are TAKEN from the population, the first as a rent for living on government land, the second as “tribute” of conquered people to their conquerors. (To compare, the taxes in Rom. 13 are “phoros,” that is, a “bringing,” something that can be understood to be a voluntary offering, not our modern compulsory taxation.) Thus, taxes in our modern sense – as a compulsory payment – only apply to strangers. The “sons” (homeborn and citizens) should pay no taxes.
This corresponds to other references in the NT and from history. Rome taxed the conquered peoples but not its own citizens. (Wealthy Romans were expected to contribute voluntarily.) That’s why the commander in Acts 22:28 paid a large sum for his citizenship: it freed him of taxes, in addition to allowing him to serve in the military and be armed at all times. The tax code changed much later, and then all citizens were made subject to taxation, and with it, all the conquered people were granted Roman citizenship.
The US had such system until 1913. It was foreigners who were taxed for the privilege to immigrate. The federal budget was sometimes almost entirely financed by this immigration poll-tax, to the point that the US entered WWI with a gigantic budget surplus, all financed by immigrants.
Such a system, however, is entirely opposite to what we have today, both as policies and as ideology. In the first place, if rulers are only supported by taxes from immigrants, they need to make sure that the nation is an attractive place for foreigners. (Rome did it by conquering nations but that can’t continue for long, not in our time, at least.) This means righteousness and justice. It also means open borders for both people and merchandise; for a ruler who closes his borders will either be left without revenue, or will have to tax his own citizens which will mean effectively turning his own citizens into foreigners. (As is the US today.) It also means a government that depends heavily on its own citizens to understand the concept of hospitality, thus, expanding the rule of righteousness across the land. In the final account, a nation that only taxes foreigners will have a government that is forced by the very nature of its taxation sources to stay limited and just, and encourage voluntarism, hospitality, and general righteousness in its population.
So, the answer to the question is:
There is no Biblical principle to support “no taxation without representation.” The Biblical principle is: “No compulsory taxation for citizens.”
Here’s how Bojidar Marinov answers the question asked in the title.
“Is abortion our national sin, or is it only the personal sin of those mothers and the abortion doctors?
If it is just personal guilt, we shouldn’t worry about God’s judgment. And our fight against abortion is rather a hobby. Whether babies are killed or not is not our personal problem.
But if it is national sin, on what basis do we project the personal sin of a few mothers and doctors onto the whole nation?
That’s right: COVENANTAL IDENTIFICATION. We are members of the same covenantal entity, the USA, and we all have our participation in the forming of its laws. And because of that, if and when God decides to bring judgment on America for her national sin of abortion, we all will be the recipients of His wrath, whether we have personal guilt or not.
Same with the South African farmers. For three generations they identified as a separate group from the blacks; and they used their political power to legislate identity policies of oppression, injustice, theft, and slavery. And what is worse, they used the name of Christ.”
A few months ago, I wrote this post about a local pastor who apparently has little ability to discern good and evil after decades of being a Christian. Of course that’s not exactly uncommon.
Unfortunately, his son has the same discernment level, and is dragging down the third generation. Thanks, grandpa!
Here’s an article in the Daily Record where this 4-year-old (the grandson of Larry Weaver) and his family pass out thin blue line key chains. The thin blue line is about protecting abortionists, and displays of force. The thin blue line is a terrorist symbol, but Larry would scoff at that.
Our system of government is evil, and is propped up by the boots on the ground forcing Americans to put up with all kinds of evil. Christians should be working against it at all levels, but instead, this is what we get from Christian leaders in this town.
Here’s why our system is evil and should be opposed by Christians with two brains cells to rub together. The government has self-prohibited from governing in submission to Christ. Unfortunately all choices in this life boil down to being between Christ or absurdity. America has chosen absurdity. The government cannot give any valid reason for why their laws ought to be obeyed by anyone, save one, the threat of violence. We have a pagan government built on the principal that might makes right, and fools like Larry Weaver are all about supporting it. He should be ashamed and he’s caused his son and grandson to blunder into the same stupidity he’s in.
I agree with one thing that the Weavers are doing. They’re praying for police, and I’m praying for them as well.
