A Gay Gospel

Earlier today, Travis Hoewischer published A Modern Gospel in  cooperation with “Christian rock star” Trey Pearson to facilitate the latter publicly embracing his homosexuality. (Full disclosure: I’ve never heard of either of these guys before.) In the course of the article, a number of criticisms are leveled at the religious establishment. Many are valid, and none seem to contain the sort of vitriol common to this issue. That being said, the importance of substance and reason dwarf style in any controversial discussion. And in the context of Christian lives and doctrine, sound biblical basis is equally important. Christianity with no biblical basis is nonsensical; it does not derive truth from any objective source, and is reduced to meaningless babbling of inconclusive subjective opinions of those who are Christian only in culture and name. So let’s examine this article from that point of view – concerned with biblical teachings and their logical extensions.


But first, let’s get this topic out of the way. It is undoubtedly quickly dominating the thoughts of the reader more powerfully than the Empire at Hoth. Or possibly even Alderaan. Every post on this site has thus far been very political in nature – half the site title is even the name of a political philosophy. But I wish to deviate from your irregularly scheduled programming to ignore politics for once.

Discussion of homosexuality within the context of Christianity is related to, but entirely separate from a discussion of homosexuality-related laws. Christians can and should have a variety of opinions on that subject. I personally am of the opinion that government involvement in marriage (or “marriage”) should be minimal, whether that entails permitting homosexual couples to adopt whatever label they wish or permitting private citizens to abstain from gay weddings. Contrary to what many leftists and ultraconservatives may think, the purpose of Christianity is not to codify Christian beliefs into law. Nor is the purpose of our constitutional republic to arbitrarily enforce some form of morality (or lack thereof).

In any case, it is not the purpose of this post to attack or defend any particular political position or ideology. Rather, I simply wish to look at the moral and religious issue through a biblical, Christian lens to shed light on what someone who identifies as a Christian should believe in this area.

Nature Versus Nurture

Trey claims that he was taught that “sexual orientation [is] a matter of choice.” Perhaps he is misinterpreting what he was told, but we have no reason to doubt his honesty or intelligence, so we should assume this is accurate. Many have debated whether sexual orientation is as much a conscious choice as Android vs. Apple on the one hand, or as biologically determined as hand size on the other… hand. But there are two important points to put this debate in proper perspective.

First, there is a distinction to be made between “choice” and “sum total of experiences.” Few – if any – claim that people choose homosexuality (though oddly many opponents of this assertion claim that people choose their sex). Usually, this is a perversion (by the pro-homosexuality crowd) of the common belief that people become homosexual due to their past experiences, in addition to their (somewhat unrelated) inherent genetic predispositions. For example, childhood sexual abuse tends to yield deviant behavior later in life. That may take the form of promiscuity, general perversions, or basic homosexuality. Or conversely, perhaps some think that a very close relationship with one’s own parent (or even a total lack thereof) may push an individual towards same-sex attraction. There are a variety of hypothesis, and many of them will likely turn out to make no more sense than Waiting for Godot, but the point is that life experiences can influence a person’s lifestyle without them “choosing” anything.

Second, the Bible is silent on the issue. No verse anywhere in the 23,000 verses of the Protestant Bible makes any claim whatsoever regarding the overall source of homosexuality. Romans 1 comes the closest, and it merely identifies homosexuality as the “sinful desires” and “shameful lusts” without one word as to whether that desire is natural or not. It does claim that homosexual relations (that is, activity) is “unnatural,” but this too makes no claim on the origin of the tendency. Also noteworthy is that scientists have yet to discover a “gay gene,” meaning that science has not yet definitively answered the question any more than the Bible has.

In the end, this debate is actually academic. Whether homosexuality is determined at birth, or by life experiences, or is consciously chosen has no more bearing on whether the Bible permits such behavior than whether it is rabbit season or duck season.

Temptation Versus Indulgence

A more crucial point is the biblical distinction between temptation and indulgence. This is a distinction entirely ignored by Travis’ article and Trey’s letter. A man who is attracted to another man’s wife is entirely innocent. It is only when he indulges that attraction – in the form of lustful thoughts or overt physical sins – that the Bible condemns him. The same applies to male-to-male attraction. The Bible never prohibits same-sex attraction, only homosexual activity (Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9). (Some may claim that the Bible has been changed to add homosexuality to such verses, but the old KJV bans not homosexual activity, but even being effeminate.)

The effects of not understanding this distinction are evident in the article. They create a false dilemma that consists of only two options: completely ignoring homosexual attraction and forcing oneself into an actively heterosexual lifestyle, or fully embracing one’s homosexuality. Needless to say, reality and the Bible allow for a third option – chastity. Indeed, even in the context of heterosexuality, Paul says that it is “good […] to stay unmarried.” Nowhere does the Bible encourage the course Trey initially took – of forcing himself into a marriage devoid of physical attraction. In fact, 1 Corinthians 7 even phrases the permissibility of heterosexual marriage (read: marriage) as a concession, not as a command.

No Christian is biblically required to marry under any circumstances. That Trey chose such a path is clear evidence of a fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of biblical Christian doctrine. Given the near-total abandonment of the Bible in determining the “modern gospel” in its many forms, it is unsurprising that distortions like this have become commonplace. I don’t doubt that many modern “Christians” have more knowledge of the Jedi Code or the beliefs of various celebrities than they do of God’s word. Apathy leads to apostasy. Apostasy leads to distraction. Distraction… leads to Kardashians.

The (Un)importance of Identity

A consistent theme amongst pro-homosexuality “Christians” in general and this article in particular is the importance of being “true to one’s self.” Putting aside questions of whether or not that is actually what Trey is doing, we can conclude from a combination of reading the Bible and basic literacy that being “true to one’s self” should be utterly unimportant to a Christian. True, we should be honest. We should not hide our characteristics. But there is a big leap of logic from “we should be honest about who we are” to “we should embrace who we are without reservation.”

In fact, being “true to one’s self” is in many ways the exact opposite of what a Christian should be. Jesus said disciples must “deny themselves” daily (Luke 9:23). Time and again “the flesh” is referenced negatively – even being called “the sinful flesh” in Romans 8. That chapter explicitly states that “the mind governed by the flesh is death” (emphasis mine) and “hostile to God”! Put simply, the whole point of being a Christian is to deny our nature; that is, our “identity.” This has apparently never occurred to Travis or Trey.

It is sad – even disheartening – to see someone negatively affected by one combination of confusion and unbiblical teaching jump so quickly and shortsightedly to a different yet equally unbiblical lifestyle. Trey may not be jumping, in the words of Bilbo Baggins, “out of the frying pan and into the fire,” but he is certainly jumping from the kettle into the pot.

Moving Forward

A terminal underdose of Scripture is again evident in Trey’s subsequent actions. Towards the end of the article, Travis quietly and tacitly acknowledges that Trey has divorced his wife (or is planning to). While I agree that Trey should probably never have married the mother of his children in the first place, the Bible is pretty clear on God’s feelings on the matter. “The Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce.” (Malachi 2:16 NKJV)

Even so, the proper Christian stance in this particular scenario is perhaps a bit murky. Does Trey’s homosexuality mean that the marriage was based on false pretenses and is therefore invalid? Some may make a good case for this, but I personally cannot see how “being true to one’s self” is sufficient reason to subject one’s children to the ordeals of a broken home.


Overall, it is clear that neither Trey nor Travis have made any effort to determine what God desires. The entire article is based on human perception and opinion, without a single relevant reference to the Bible. As is too often the case in modern “Christian” theology, personal desire is all-important, the desires of the Creator irrelevant. Self-denial is outdated, and self-indulgence paramount. As long as that is the approach we take, we will never be Christians, no matter what songs we sing. That is not obeying God’s command, and therefore it is not “loving God.” (1 John 5:3)


As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, and (b) the First Amendment does not in any way prevent me from doing this.

Feel the Bern: Part 3: Social Justice

Social Injustice & Inequality

The second video of the sociopolitical discourse between Killer Mike and Bernie Sanders kicks off with Bernie bemoaning the “outrage” that is the existence of homelessness in America. He is also rightfully upset over the employment status of the African American demographic. The growth of American incarceration is mentioned, as is outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, and tax evasion among the wealthy. He rails against the indifference of business owners towards the national debt, against the greed of the “people on top,” and against America choosing a wealth/poverty system over a equally-and-moderately prosperous system.

Killer Mike, for his part, professes a trust of most old people and criticizes the departure of the American steel industry. He lays this at the feet of the increasing selfishness and greed throughout the country and wonders why people vote against their own self-interest. The video ends in agreement on the dangers posed by creating monarchs of political families.

Homelessness: To Be Or Not To Be?

A major problem in American discourse on homelessness is the variance of definitions. Generally, when a typical American refers to someone as “homeless,” the implication is that they are chronically homeless, in the sense that they have been homeless for a period of years. It also typically implies that they are likely to remain homeless. The problem is that both these characteristics are a tiny, though not insignificant, minority.

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR), approximately 1.59 million Americans were homeless at some point between October of 2009 and September of 2010. Let’s stop right there and note the accomplishment. The 2010 census revealed a US population of 308 million:

Homeless:   1590000
American: 308000000

Even assuming that all of the 2010 homeless were permanently homeless, that means the homeless population accounts for 0.5% of the US population. While we should certainly strive to eliminate this unfortunate phenomenon, a 99.5% success rate is pretty amazing, as I’m sure any grade-schooler expecting a report card would agree.

But that 0.5% can be considered exaggerated, because only 39.1% of that 1.59 million were homeless prior to October of 2009, bringing what might be termed the “homeless problem” down to 0.2%! I do not mean to dismiss the hardships the other 955K people endured, but while homelessness that ends in less than a year[1] is worth addressing, it is not all-important, especially in the face of the yearly million or so abortions and the specter of more US involvement in the Middle East. Nor does it necessitate a massive rethinking of the system.

In any case, the number of chronically (using a fairly liberal definition[2]) homeless individuals – that is, the definition most commonly assumed by typical Americans – was around 124K in 2010. It is worth mentioning how many of the homeless actually choose homelessness due to a gypsy-like love of roaming, a desire for near-total freedom, or even, yes, simple laziness. My parents once took a homeless woman off the streets for several months. They finally made the difficult decision to have her leave after she spent those months watching TV over the Internet in the room she virtually monopolized, all while doing nothing around the house save cleaning dishes on occasion. She did have some mitigating health issues, but the point is that she never exhibited a desire to earn her keep or even express gratitude in any tangible sense.

Hopefully, we can agree that the issue of homelessness is small enough to be considered even by the most ardent statist as falling under the purview of private charity and existing systems.

Black Employment

It is true that the employment situation among African Americans is disproportionately negative. However, it does not necessarily logically follow that this necessitates political action. Given that the United States has elected a black President and that many of the country’s leading executives and business owners are minorities, it is irrational to assume the unemployment issue is a result of systemic racism. And therefore, I find it very likely that it is cultural shifts – not political revolutions – that are required. The idolization of gangsters and the idea that economic success marks one as discredited or even someone who betrays or abandons one’s race must stop. I won’t be so arrogant as to outline goals and plans for the reduction of African American unemployment. There are many people more qualified and in touch with the community than either myself or Bernie Sanders. And many of them are saying the exact things I just wrote.

Wisdom of the Ancients

Killer Mike briefly breaks from politics to express his trust for most of the elderly. It might interest those of similar sentiments to know that the elderly are much more likely than youth to embrace the label of “conservative,” which when coupled with the idea that the elderly possess vast stores of wisdom gives rise to the saying that “a young conservative has no heart, but an old liberal has no brain.”

Steeling Economic Prosperity

Killer Mike cites the flight of the US steel industry as evidence of growing selfishness, completely ignoring the preceding unionization of the steel industry and accompanying rise in costs, the liberalization of China, and other relevant factors. This seems indicative of a common statist practice – ascribing malicious motives to the direct actors of a specific economic event rather than holistically considering all the build-up and convergence of circumstances that propels a system to such an act.

Similarly, Sanders lambastes U.S. business owners for moving jobs overseas, which creates several interesting questions. First, where is the intellectual integrity in demanding higher wages while simultaneously wishing to penalize outsourcing? Second, is Sanders implying that Americans deserve those jobs more than the Chinese or the Indians? If so, how can he claim that his ideology is motivated by a compassion for the poor or a desire for equality? If not, then why is outsourcing a morally negative practice?

The Good Old Days

Mike and Bernie seem in agreement that the United States is becoming more selfish, more greedy, and more self-absorbed. Putting aside the issue that this supposed trend coincides temporally with a rise in policies and legislation in line with Sanders’ plans (increases of government spending, increased welfare, increased taxes, increased regulation), I wish to examine this common failing amongst people of all walks of life and political persuasions. That is, a yearning for the Good Old Days and a belief that people from one time period are fundamentally different than those from some preceding time period. The Good Old Days of business owners supposedly caring more for their employees and being more selfless were also the Bad Old Days of lower standards-of-living, racist legislation, and massive warfare. I am not implying causal links between these things. I am merely attempting to remove the rose-colored glasses with which these two statists are viewing modern history.

What About the Deficit?

Continuing in a similar vein, Sanders attacks business owners for not caring about the national deficit. This is highly irrational and hypocritical. Irrational because, except in the context of voting, it is not truly a business owner’s responsibility to care for the national deficit. That is the responsibility of those who create it, i.e. the government, i.e. Senator Sanders. His attack heavily implies that he believes one should have concern for the deficit. That is an interesting opinion for a man who consistently advocates for increased government spending in almost every category. One may argue that he also endorses corresponding tax increases, but if the government has thus far been unable to balance what it has, it seems unwise to exacerbate the problem by continuously tithing more and more money into the abyss.


A consistent theme throughout the video is the greed of the rich and powerful. But Mike and Bernie seem to espouse a double standard on the definition of greed. According to the Sum Total of Human Knowledge, greed is composed of an

intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Selfish simply means to desire for oneself (without regard for or to the detriment of others). While the wealthy Sanders and successful Killer Mike may not be putting forth ideologies that are selfish from their perspective, it is obvious that they are appealing to the selfishness (and greed) of the voting public (among other – possibly more positive – things). And in this context of satisfying one’s own needs and wants by taxing the properties of others (and justifying it with accusations of excess and greed), we must add envy to the list as well. Sanders is building his campaign on voters’ desire for free healthcare, free food, free education, and free shelter. (That is, sanfreedoms.[3])

In light of this attack on selfishness and greed, it is incongruous that Killer Mike complains that many of the Sanders opposition seem to be voting against their own self-interest. One cannot maintain integrity by both attacking greed and appealing to it.

On a cliché note: Killer Mike and Bernie Sanders claim the country is selfish. Indeed it is, such is the nature of mankind. Free market economies are fueled by and dependent on this selfishness. The leftist ideals these two espouse are dependent on changing this aspect of human nature, of establishing a system fueled by that which we lack in sufficient quantities: selflessness.

Fallacy Time!

It is at this point that Bernie Sanders appeals to a major and all-too-common false dilemma. In his view, the world can be a world of haves and have-nots (the wealthy and the homeless) or a world where everyone is “doing pretty well.” It is inarguable that self-interest creates wealth (through mining, farming, and construction, among others). It is also evident that in the general sense, selflessness merely shares wealth (few have ever obtained or created jobs and goods solely for the purpose of providing for others). Therefore, a system that rewards selfishness will tend to increase in overall wealth, while a system that does not will tend to stay level at best, and will almost certainly decline.

The two options presented are not immediately obvious as a false dilemma until you add in the hidden qualifiers. That is, in Sanders’ view (as stated), the world can be a place of wealth disparity with a given quantity of wealth or a place of relative equality with that same quantity of wealth. In actuality there are several potential systems, and among them are wealth disparity with a world-leading quantity[4] of wealth and wealth equality with a much lesser quantity of wealth as evidenced by Denmark’s[5] $10,000-lower per-capita wealth.

To put it cliché terms, any rational individual would prefer a smaller slice of a larger pie than a perfectly equal slice of an insufficient, shrinking pie.

Together in One Accord

Killer Mike ends the video with apprehension over the potential creation of “monarch” families in American politics, a concern which I share wholeheartedly. He is referring to the potential of Hillary Clinton’s election as the second President in her household. And no doubt Sanders would use a similar argument (correctly and accurately) against a potential Bush dynasty.

I will however, caution that this is not a novel trend. The Kennedys have wielded substantial power over the last fifty years. Two Roosevelts have occupied the White House and the George W. Bush was not the first President Jr. While this concern would have likely prevented me from voting for Jeb Bush had he won the Republican primary, it is not cause for panic or hyperbole.


As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, (b) the First Amendment does not prevent me from doing this, and (c) if you inform me via smoke signal that you are a socialist, I may wonder what a socialite is doing on a political blog.


  1. A conservative assumption, given that AHAR’s homelessness estimate for 2015 is a mere 0.5 million, meaning that homelessness is declining, meaning that those who were newly homeless were not likely to remain so
  2. 1+ years or 4 instances of homelessness in the last 3 years.
  3. See Part 2
  4. As Sanders himself emphasized so thoroughly only one video ago.
  5. It is unfair to single out a particular country (insufficient sample size), but Bernie chose this one, so my intellectual conscience is clear.


  1. 2016-06-02 10:33 EST – Slightly updated definition of selfishness.

Feel the Bern: Part 2: Economic Freedom & Rights

Economic Freedom & Rights

econfreedomThe core of the first video in the interview between rapper Killer Mike and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is Bernie Sanders’ discourse on freedom and rights. He equates the freedom of speech with a hypothetical right to healthcare, food,[1] shelter,[1] and education. In the form of a rhetorical question, he posits that one is not truly free if one lacks these things. He terms these services and goods as “economic rights” and claims that as the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, America can and should do a far better job of providing these rights. Also included in these rights are employment, a “decent wage” (by which he means a wage that allows you to “make it”). Essentially, he desires to guarantee a minimal standard of living for every American.


One of the roots of Sanders’ disconnect from reality is his concept of freedom. True freedom is defined by the Wise and Benevolent Disseminator of All Knowledge as this:

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

While this definition does not quite explicitly capture the distinction, the phrase “without hindrance or restraint” begins to shed light on the difference between true freedom (the right to be free from interference) from Sanders’ pie-in-the-sky freedom (the right to be free of want).

lemonade_girlsThe problem with sanfreedom[2] brings us back to the question of reality. True freedom can easily exist in reality. Say you drop a man on the surface of the moon. Harsh mistress though she is, the man has by default true freedom. No one will interfere with his plans to sell lemonade, to hunt moon fairies, or to vainly suck in nothingness as he inevitably surrenders to the chilling fatal embrace of the endless void.

He does not, however, possess sanfreedom. He has neither food nor healthcare; neither shelter nor additional education. Because Wal-Mart has not as of this writing claimed Luna for all of Buffetdom, there is no one there yet to provide these things. Therein lies the crucial distinction between true freedom and sanfreedom. True freedom is negative – it requires nothing to be done or created. Sanfreedom is positive – it requires things to be produced and performed. Therefore, since these goods and services must be provided, sanfreedom is entirely dependent upon their availability and – crucially – cannot be guaranteed regardless of political rhetoric or legislation. Just as vacuous pop stars come and go with the tide of fandom, so will “economic rights” come and go with the rise and fall of the economic supply-demand equilibrium (read: price).

Furthermore, a right that infringes upon someone else’s right is irrational. A right, by nature, must apply equally to all, otherwise it is a privilege. Since sanfreedoms depend on goods and services which must be produced, any would-be guarantor of sanfreedoms (such as Sanders) must have a mechanism by which to extract these goods and services from the producers. Since the guarantor does not have infinite resources, he, she, or the Brain may be forced to exchange fewer resources than the provider is willing to accept or be forced to exchange under circumstances which the provider is unwilling to accept.

Since the provider may be unwilling and the guarantor must take the provisions regardless, it follows that the guarantor will violate the producer’s true freedom (that is, his right to be free of interference). This is true even if the guarantor is entirely virtuous at heart. Since supply is finite and subject to fluctuations, the guarantor will at some point reach a crossroads where they must either fail in their guarantees of sanfreedoms or violate true freedoms. This is evidenced in the low wages of public educators and the laggardly pace at which government documents are obtained. (Which is not to say that low wages are a foregone conclusion for public educators – trade-offs do exist.)

Therefore, since sanfreedoms require the violation of rights, they cannot logically be considered true freedom.

The Logic Train Breaks Down

train_wreckIt is simple, trivial, and obvious to determine that the invalidity of sanfreedoms invalidates the basis upon which Sanders has built all the ideology he espouses in this video. And, therefore, the justification for his socialist policies of government guarantees must be discarded by any rational observer. This does not automatically prove his policies immoral or illegal, but it does leave them wanting for justification.


This is all not to say that Bernie Sanders’ statements are entirely with out merit. A critical statement of his follows:

bernie_sanders_twitter_profile.jpgYou don’t have food in your stomach. You don’t have a house, roof over your head. If you don’t have any education are you really free?

This is an interesting philosophical statement worthy of some consideration. It is true that the realities of human existence create constraints on our freedom to do as we will. The very nature of things requires us to perform some action (typically work) to produce or procure food, shelter, and all the rest. Therefore, we are not truly free to do as we will. However, since these constraints are imposed by the nature of a finite reality – which trends towards maximum entropy –  they cannot be removed by human policy or ideology.

Therefore, Bernie’s rhetorical question, while relevant, is a non sequitur in the context of supporting government-guaranteed services.


I wish to take a quick moment to note that Bernie’s emphasis on America’s wealth has no bearing on my preceding arguments. Wealth is a factor, of course. Wealthy America might take longer to reach the guarantee-or-bust crossroads than, say, the Central African Republic. But reach it it would, and our wealth would only make the crisis all the more dramatic, just as our depressions and booms are more far-reaching in their effects than those of much smaller economies.


While Bernie Sanders and Killer Mike both seem completely earnest and desirous of helping others in need, the ideals and policies put forth in this video are self-contradictory and defy physical reality. Unless I am very much mistaken, rational people of principle and logic must therefore discard their arguments and seek policies, ideals, or at the least arguments more consistent with physics, scarcity, and internal consistency.


As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, (b) the First Amendment does not prevent me from doing this, and (c) if you inform me via smoke signal that you are a socialist, I may wonder what a socialite is doing on a political blog.


  1. implied; not explicit
  2. sanfreedom – An ancient term I just made up, meaning “freedom from want.” It works equally well as a reference to Bernie Sanders or San Francisco.

Feel the Bern: Part 1: The Interview


Some time ago, a rapper named “Killer Mike” sat down and had a fairly all-encompassing social, economic, and primarily political conversation with Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. I admit it is quite refreshing to see a relatively novel form of political discourse, and the interview has only enhanced my opinion that Sanders is a “true believer” to a greater degree than most politicians. (And it provides a convenient segmentation on which to outline a response.) That said, they say a great many things that may sound nice to the casual observer, but their ideals – while arguably admirable – are simply incompatible with reality.

To illustrate what I mean, I’ll say that every human has  a right to life. However, our society must nonetheless deal with the realities of death in the form of burial arrangements, inheritance laws, and even the simple act of recording history. The human right to life does not obviate the need for various systems to deal with and account for failures to protect that right. We pay not only police officers, but also district attorneys, judges, and coroners because reality does not permit the ideal which we desire.


What I hope to accomplish here is to expose where the sentiments and statements of people like Mike and Bernie conflict with reality, and are therefore untenable. I am Christian, and that will likely have considerable bearing on my train of thought, but I believe these arguments will be apparently accurate to any honest seeker of truth, regardless of political or religious persuasion.

My goal in this series is not to assault Bernie Sanders intent or sincerity and perpetrate an ad hominem attack. I make no claims for or against these qualities; I wish only to discuss his goals and ideas on their own merits.


Killer Mike frequently refers to capitalism, which everyone is familiar with (to paraphrase Ronald Reagan’s definition of “status quo”) as the colloquial term for “America’s dysfunctional system.” I (both generally and in this specific argument) am not intending to defend America’s current system in many respects, and will therefore use the term “free market.” This system is more relevant in any case, as it constitutes the system most securely rooted in personal liberty (i.e. “freedom”), the actual ideological opposite to Sanders’ beloved (democratic) socialism (as opposed to the quasi-opposite system America represents in Killer Mike’s false dichotomy).


As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, (b) the First Amendment does not prevent me from doing this, and (c) if you inform me via smoke signal that you are a socialist, I may – due to the inherent inaccuracies of the medium – wonder what a socialite is doing on a political blog.

Biblical Abortion

A man by the name of Curtis Fiers has written  an article titled “5 Verses that Prove the Bible Supports Abortion Rights.” As any amateur Biblical scholar might expect, it is very deceptive and lacks logical coherency. This post is a point-by-point response.


I cannot speak for Curtis, but my responses here directly relate only to the moral and religous question of abortion. The legal question is another subject – for another time – about which the Bible is less adamantly clear. In any case, this post is primarily aimed at debunking Curtis’ claims rather than making any  claims of my own.

Biblical Legality

It’s strange, though, that the Bible wouldn’t directly outlaw abortion if it was wrong. After all, each of the books of the New Testament were written in the Common Era (CE) — often referred to as A.D. Yet the earliest evidence of an induced abortion dates to 1550 BCE. This, of course, is around 1,545 years before Christ was even born.

It’s not at all strange that the Bible wouldn’t directly outlaw abortion. The New Testament doesn’t even “outlaw” conventional murder – or anything else for that matter. The only “outlawing” is in the Old Testament. This is primarily in Leviticus and other books of the Torah.

Joshua son of Nun lived around 1300 BCE[1]. This is a few hundred years after the “earliest evidence of induced abortion.” But proving that abortion existed during the Mosaic period and proving that it was practiced by Israelites (and, thus, needed to be addressed) are two completely different things.

Additionally, the Code of Assura provided for the death penalty if a woman got an abortion without her husband’s blessing. This was in 1075 BCE. It just seems weird, even with historical evidence that abortion was occurring over 1,500 years before Christ, that the Bible never specifically outlaws it.

Obviously, the Code of Assura was written hundreds of years after the Torah, and in any case every Bible novice knows that the Assyrians were dramatically different from the Israelites. It would be no surprise at all to find that abortion was partially outlawed in Assyria while God, Moses, David, or whoever saw no need to create a similar law in Israel. If it was not practiced, such a law would be comparable to a 2016 American law outlawing guillotine executions – it would not be ridiculous, but it would seem odd and unnecessary.

Biblical Silence

The main focus of the abortion debate is whether fetuses constitute living persons. If you believe that the Biblical authors thought so, then obviously abortion is prohibited by any verse prohibiting murder. It is only if you believe that the fetus is not a living person that you can make the case for Biblical silence. Even then, I personally find the utter lack of mention of abortions in the Bible to be indicative that it was not in practice (or at least was extremely rare).

The only instances where abortion could be considered to have been mentioned are verses like 2 Kings 8:12[2], where the death of the fetus is incidental to the death of the mother, or Hosea 13:16[3], where the fetus death is incidental and where a terrible judgement is being pronounced. These references invariably portray abortion as a horrible event and indicative of a time of great suffering. Beyond that, they usually portray it as evil [4].

Biblical Support

“When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

This Biblical verse lays out the penalty for accidentally causing a woman to miscarry, and it’s just a fine. If the woman herself is injured during the incident, however, the good old “eye for an eye” rule comes into play.

So if the mother dies, the person who caused the death dies. If only the unborn child dies, however, the at-fault party has to fork over a few shekels. If an unborn fetus is a human life, why is it not treated as such in this verse?

Here, Curtis takes Exodus 21:22-25 to mean that fetuses are not valued as human life. The core of his argument is that “eye for an eye” punishment applies to maternal injuries, but not the death of the fetus. There are a couple problems with this argument. First, how could “eye for an eye” possibly be applied to the man who caused the fetus to die? He is obviously not pregnant. Moreover, if the Bible supports the concept of fetal personhood, such a punishment would be unjust. Therefore, the fine is entirely consistent with pro-life sentiment.

Now some may argue that this verse’s failure to pronounce the death penalty implies that a fetus is not valued equal to an adult, since murder is a capital offense under Levitical law. But there are two glaring problems with this. The first is intentAccidental “murder” (i.e. manslaughter) is not a capital offense (a “perpetrator” may flee to a “city of refuge”). This verse deals with accidental fetal death.

The other, more crucial failure of this argument is that the verse does not relate to abortion. Curtis has cherry-picked the New American Bible version (the Bible used by American Catholics) which can be twisted to support his pro-abortion sentiments. Look at these translations:

  • American Standard Version: “hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow”
  • International Children’s Bible: “they might hit a pregnant woman so that the baby comes out”
  • English Standard Version: “hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out”
  • New International Version: “hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely”
  • New King James Version: “hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely”
  • New American Standard Bible: “strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely”

Clearly, this verse concerns itself primarily with premature birthnot abortion. Indeed, the “eye for an eye” punishment is concerning injuries suffered by the infant – or possibly both the infant and the mother –  not the mother alone. This means that if the fetus dies (i.e. is aborted), the offending man must be executed per “eye for an eye” sentencing! The very verse Curtis uses to support abortion actually partially bans the practice!

The only way to read this verse as supporting abortion is to [a] twist its meaning and [b] use a Catholic Bible. This is somewhat problematic, since the Catholic church is firmly anti-abortion. The current Pope Francis has changed the tone somewhat, yet he remains as morally opposed to abortion as his predecessors.

Unfulfilled Life

“If a man beget a hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.”

This text says that it is better for a person to suffer an “untimely birth,” meaning to die from miscarriage, than to live an unhappy life. That’s right: the Bible literally says it’s better to die in the womb than live an unhappy life. This flies directly into the face of all anti-choice believers.

I refuse to deign his Ecclesiastical reference with a thorough analysis. It is an insult to literate people everywhere. Curtis probably thinks that murder is justified if the victim first says “I wish I’d never been born.”


“The total number of Levites counted at the Lord’s command by Moses and Aaron according to their clans, including every male a month old or more, was 22,000. The Lord said to Moses, ‘Count all the firstborn Israelite males who are a month old or more and make a list of their names.’”

In these verses, God tells Moses to conduct a census of all Levite males, but he only tells him to count those who are at least one month old. It’s almost as if those younger than a month don’t hold human value.

Curtis infers that fetuses do not “count” (ba-dum-tsh) as humans because one month was the age cutoff for the Levitical and Israelite censuses of Numbers 3. Ignoring the fact that these censuses were likely intended to aid logistics and planning, Curtis’ interpretation implies that the following groups are not human:

  • Levite infants less than a month old
  • Male Israelites who are not firstborn
  • All female Israelites

Creation of Adam

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

This verse talks about the creation of Adam. It specifically states that God formed Adam from dust, but he wasn’t yet a living soul. Not until God breathed life into this inhuman form did it become alive. If Adam, the first human to ever exist, had to take a breath before being considered a living soul, why is the same not true for unborn fetuses?

Again, Curtis has chosen a cherry-picked version of Genesis 2:7 to suit his purposes. And again, he insults every literate person reading his article. Anyone can plainly see that this verse is not intended to describe life’s criteria. The poetic use of “breath of life” to refer to “life force” hardly means that “breath must come first.”

Moreover, we can add doctors and scientists to the list of offended parties, since fetuses do breath prior to birth. Sure, it’s amniotic fluid rather than air, but it certainly still qualifies as “the breath of life.” Even a pro-abortion radical cannot deny that at some point fetuses are living, if not persons. To quote Mike Adams, “dead things don’t grow.”


“If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.”

This is a fun one. Earlier in Numbers, it’s stated that, if a man suspects his wife of sleeping with another man, he may bring her to a priest who will create some sort of magic potion with water and dirt. The woman is then made to drink said magic potion. If she has not cheated on her husband, nothing will happen.

If the woman has cheated and is carrying another man’s child, though, the mystical dirt water — we can call it magic mud — will cause her to immediately miscarry. This is a directive coming straight from God himself to Moses. So even if pro-lifers can dodge all these other verses, they can’t deny that this one essentially says, “Abortion is okay as long as it’s forced upon a woman, against her will, for cheating on her husband.”

Here we finally come across something resembling a logical argument. Numbers 5 does indeed indicate that abortion is acceptable if performed on a unfaithful wife by means of what Curtis terms a “magic potion.” However, as religious liberals like Curtis are so fond of reminding us, Old Covenant law is no longer in effect. This means we can wear mismatched clothing and eat bacon; and it means that this exception no longer has true Biblical support.


Curtis’ mocking tone towards the end confirms the suspicion I had throughout the article – this is no pro-abortion “Christian” earnestly seeking God’s will. This is a leftist[6] pro-abortion activist (who’s probably atheist) incompetently abusing Biblical interpretation (and, indeed, literary interpretation as a whole) as a means of attacking the analyses and conclusions of those who actually understand and value the Bible.


  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua
  2. 2 Kings 8:12 (NIV) – “‘Why is my lord weeping?’ asked Hazael. ‘Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,’ [Elisha] answered. ‘You will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women.'”
  3. Hosea 13:16 (NIV) – “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
  4. Arguable exceptions being ‘wrath of God’ verses
  5. http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm
  6. https://www.facebook.com/CurtisFiersWriting/timeline


  1. 2016-05-12 13:27 EST – Added Disclaimer section.

Wages & Benefits

To anyone reading this who think that they or others deserve $15/hour (or $10/hour, or frankly even $5 for some people), in the hopes that it will help you live a better life in some small fashion,


When I got my first job mowing grass for $5 an hour (which the keen-eyed Virginian observer will note as $0.15 *less* than minimum wage of the time), it was possibly the second most exciting thing for me in my short ten or eleven years after getting my first pocket knife, the possible exception being my bike (my brother’s adoption notwithstanding).

I was also frequently happy to help out at my father’s construction sites for the same amount (the last time I did, I believe the North Carolina minimum wage was $6.15, $1.15 more than I was making). You’ll note that neither of these jobs involving spinning razor-sharp metal blades with a noticeable lack of OSHA presence provided any kind of health insurance. Unless you count Dad’s pocket knife removing my splinters as “healthcare”. (Frankly, if I’d gotten my way at the time, some of those splinters might still be there.)

When I was sixteen and found out  I’d gotten the job at Food Lion for minimum wage, I was so excited I could barely sleep. Somehow the lack of any benefits whatsoever beyond the paycheck itself (that I knew about or used) failed to depress me. Anyway, I was only injured on the job once. That was due to my own stupidity and I never considered asking Food Lion to pay for my trip to urgent care. The one (small) holiday bonus in my two years there was just icing on the cake, not my due.

Despite the free meals, my next job selling fried chicken at Bojangles excited me less. But it did let me move out of my parent’s house. Admittedly, I was making about $0.25 above minimum wage, but that changed when the North Carolina government, in its wisdom, raised it again. (Before moving on, I am legally obligated to say TANSTAAFL[1] or risk the wrath of libertarians of all stripes due to my reference to “free meals” just now.)


Not once during my tenure at any of those jobs was I ever convinced I’d deserved the amount I was paid. Not once. That is not hyperbole. Now, I was entitled to it; the employers and I had agreed that was the amount I was to be paid. And I earned it (except perhaps for the minimum-wage jobs). But I have never been convinced that I deserved it.

Frankly, this trend has continued and I still think I’m making more than I deserve. That doesn’t mean I’m willing to work for less – market forces have virtually guaranteed a person of my particular skillset will have a certain minimum income – but it is true.

And it certainly doesn’t mean I’ve never wanted more or been dissatisfied with my income. Frankly, the fast food income and the circumstances of my father’s job sites are what pushed me towards software development.

Now there are some details I’m glossing over. I was covered under Medicaid and obviously my parents provided for my needs until I moved out (back to that in a moment). But neither of those things have any bearing on whether or not I deserved that income. You deserve things based on what you do in exchange (that’s called “earning”), not because you have some need (that’s called “whining”, “theft”, or sometimes “taxation”). “Need” and “deserve” are two completely different things, which are frequently not even related. Hence why a mandated “livable wage” confounds so many liberty-minded individuals and economists.


Quick side note regarding parental support: they did stop supporting me financially pretty much as soon as I moved out. Sure, I came home for a few meals. And during my last year at college (not a typo… I’ll never live in an apartment again) I probably washed about a dozen loads of laundry at their house (maybe, what, $40 worth?). And my mother (*without* any request or prompting from me) did buy me a few articles of clothing at times. But the support as a whole stopped. Similarly, my parents probably could’ve afforded to buy me a (albeit very cheap) car when I was sixteen. But they never offered and I never asked. I waited until I had the right ballpark amount and then *borrowed* a few hundred dollars from them – short-term – to buy my own.

This is not meant as a criticism of people who continue receiving support for a few years. I mean, my parents have less money than most to give in the first place and I did receive a few thousand dollars a year in financial aid (above and beyond school costs) through FAFSA and my grandparents. And different people have varying degrees of ability. Nor is it meant as a criticism against those who get free stuff. My own sister inherited “her” car from her namesake and it has never bothered me. (Side note: that’s another pet peeve of mine and one of the few stated opinions of Louis C.K. that I support – how much someone else has should have no bearing on your own contentment or sense of entitlement.)

But the point is that self-sufficiency is a worthy goal that should be sought even before it becomes necessary.


Now I’m not trying to bragroller_blades or build  myself up as something special. I was a whiny kid who shirked his chores and spent hours (and hours and hours and hours) reading sci-fi and playing video games. I screamed bloody murder when I got a staple in my thumb and refused to talk to Dad for hours after he had the audacity to grab my hand and pull it out. I was 13. I was reprimanded multiple times at my jobs for being to casual or not greeting customers with enough forced cheerfulness. I thought roller-blading outside on a hilly sidewalk was a good idea and I’ve got a face to match. (I was 19.) I even thought deleting some Windows system files was a good way to save hard drive space as a teenager. And one time I tried to remove Internet Explorer from Windows, almost bricking my computer in the process.

I even once thought it’d be a good idea to jump off the riding lawn mower and try to race it. An idea that predictably ended with a tree-shattered bumper 20 yards from the driveway I’d been driving down. If you want more of these stories, just ask my sisters. I’d recommend some popcorn and a comfortable chair, because they’ll keep you busy for a few hours. Anna’s probably disappointed I didn’t mention my alleged momentary forgetfulness that gravity is a thing.


But the point is that you mark_twain_the_world_owes_you_nothingshouldn’t think of what you – or anyone else – “deserves.” Focus instead on what you can *earn* and *do* and on accepting responsibility for your own self and actions. (That last anecdote cost me four or five hours worth of pay at my lawn-mowing job and a two-hour trip for a replacement part while my sisters got to go swimming. Two hours of car time before I’d ever owned a Game Boy or conceived of smartphones.) Make use of the undeserved free stuff you get (presents, financial aid, etc.), but don’t ever take it as your due.

I’m just sick and tired of hearing about how minimum wage workers “deserve” this or that. No, they don’t. They deserve not to be abused by their employers. And they’re entitled to make their own choices. But they don’t deserve one cent that someone else doesn’t choose to give them, except as reparations for some abuse or infringement.

Quit whining, and get to work. If you support this $15 (or some variation) on others’ behalf, tell them to get to work. If they legitimately can’t, then maybe help them out or help them find someone who can. But, for the love of all that is good in the world, stop whining. You are better off than 90% of the world’s living population and 99.9% of the world’s historical population. They would be amazed at the sort of things we throw away (not even “we” meaning Americans – just “we” meaning young, often “poor” Americans who re-use paper cups or use coats as blankets). And they would be dumbstruck by your complaints, in your circumstances. And the same goes for almost every American, employed or otherwise.

P.S. Please, if you must support Bernie Sanders, find some better reason for it than the free services and goods he’s promising to you or others.


For the Christians among you, here are some relevant Bible verses, from the New International Version:


First, a few select verses:

Proverbs 6:10-11 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest- and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man.

Proverbs 11:7 Hopes placed in mortals die with them; all the promise of their power comes to nothing.

Proverbs 16:26 The appetite of laborers works for them; their hunger drives them on. (The Bible seems to frown upon the idea of a guaranteed minimum lifestyle.)

Proverbs 18:9 One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys. (No middle ground here.)

Proverbs 22:13 The sluggard says, “There’s a lion outside! I’ll be killed in the public square!” (“No one’s hiring” “It’s the wrong time of year.” “Employers just don’t want me because I’m young, female, inexperienced, [insert race here], skinny, and/or fat”)

Proverbs 28:19 Those who work their land will have abundant food, but those who chase fantasies will have their fill of poverty.

Ecclesiastes 5:10 Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless.

Lamentations 3:27 It is good for a man to bear the yoke while he is young.

And now, the rest:

Continue reading “Wages & Benefits”