Gotta love a candidate with a sense of humor!

Take care! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired, because then you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give a gift to someone in need, don’t shout about it as the hypocrites do – blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I assure you, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone, don’t tell your left hand what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in secret, and your Father, who knows all secrets, will reward you.

And now about prayer. When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I assure you, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father secretly. Then your Father, who knows all secrets, will reward you. When you pray, don’t babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again. Don’t be like them, because your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him! (Matthew 6:1-8, NLT)

Kind of puts Matthew 25 into a different perspective, doesn’t it? I ask you – how does campaigning for public charity fit with the private, secret approach to charity commanded us in Matthew 6?

My response to this is usually that I can totally understand, appreciate, and even identify with this on a personal level. But that applying that kind of mentality towards government is dangerous and suicidal.

I usually try to take the argument towards this one question: why do cops carry guns?

I have had people refuse to discuss that point – outright claiming that it was silly of me to ask the question. But I bring it up because it is crucial to understanding the effects of pacifism.

Cops carry guns because without the credible threat of authorized, deadly force, it would be impossible to keep society from descending into anarchy. To understand this, you have to have a basic understanding of the sinfulness and depravity found in a fallen world. That while most people will obey most of the laws, there are always some who will disregard as many of society’s rules as they possibly can.

Take your typical hostage scenario, for instance. If the police do not have the authorization to use deadly force, then what is to prevent the criminal from shooting all the hostages, and then come out with guns blazing and shoot all of the cops? Nothing. It is the credible threat of deadly force, coupled with the desire on the criminal’s part not to die, that prevents the worst-case scenario.

Note that it is not enough that deadly force is authorized. It must also be credible. That means that the criminal must believe that he will be killed if he comes out with guns blazing. In order to believe that, he must have a basic understanding of police that they will fire if fired upon. And that if hostages are seriously endangered, they will do what they can to neutralize the person responsible, including killing them.

The exact same logic applies to global affairs. It is not enough that other countries have the power to stop an imperialist from invading another country. They must believe that other countries (and particularly, their leaders) have the will to do so if necessary. That means the possibility of a response must be credible.

The only reason Hitler felt able to pursue his imperialism was because he judged the nations of Europe to be too weak to stop him. The threat of other countries stopping him was not credible. He had rightly judged that few nations in Europe could withstand his attacks, and he had rightly judged that America would stay out of it (until Japan tipped us over the edge).

Bin Laden saw America’s response to issues in Somalia in the 1990′s and judged us to be weak. He felt that he could attack, and stay safe in Afghanistan because he judged us to be a “paper tiger.” So plans were prepared to attack targets on US soil. The threat of force was not credible to him.

The UN had authorized the use of military force on Iraq if Saddam did not comply with the weapons inspections, based on the cease-fire from the 1991 Gulf War. But this threat was not credible – the UN was incapable of action. So Saddam threw the inspectors out.

More recently, Russia watched as the world, and particularly America, debated these issues in the aftermath of Iraq. Russia sensed America’s growing pacifism, and knew that there was little an American president could do to stop them.

Do you think Russia would have invaded Georgia if America had been showing a more unified sense of support regarding sticking it out in Iraq? Personally, I think not.

Now take a look at this year’s presidential election. You have two men, neither of whom want to go to war with anybody. But one represents a position of strength, the other represents a position of weakness. My pacifist friends prefer the weaker candidate, as far as how our enemies would view him.

Now let me ask you – based on the understanding of the credible threat of force, which president would prevent enemies from attacking us, just because of their presence in the oval office?

You can stick to your pacifism out of a sense of principle, but you should do so understanding the inevitable result. If cops without guns leads to anarchy, countries led by pacifism leads to fascism. History gives us plenty of proof for that.

By the way, over at the FairTax site they have a little petition going on that they’re sending to Congress today. Head on over to sign it if you’re tired of the overly complicated way the federal government taxes you.

Now that’s change I can believe in…

It’s been billed as their effort to “answer the outspoken and misinformed critics” of the FairTax. The main disappointment I have with the book is that it really only does that for about two chapters.

The book is still good, though, including more history about how the FairTax developed. The book does a good job of dealing with criticisms, even if it’s a little short on explanations here and there. It does not assume that you’ve read their first FairTax book, nor does it assume you’re familiar with all of the aspects of the FairTax. Between giving some history on the FairTax, and explaining most of its basic concepts, it’s not until about halfway through the book before they really take on the critics.

Perhaps the best stuff in the book is towards the end, though. There’s a great section where they describe what it would be like to have lived under the FairTax all of your life – receiving your entire paycheck. No payroll taxes. Knowing exactly what government is costing. Not having to base business or investment decisions on their tax consequences. And then they describe a politician trying to come and sell the current system as an improvement. Taxing your income. Taxing business profits, so there’s a hidden tax cost in everything you buy. Taxing investments. Even taxing death.

It’s a very interesting way to look at it, and it really helps to make it clear how much simpler the FairTax is, and how it removes government from more day-to-day business and personal decisions.

If you’ve been suspicious of the FairTax, I highly encourage you to pick this book up. It’s less technical than the first one, in some ways, and more visionary in tone. And many of your questions and concerns about the FairTax are probably dealt with in this book.

One criticism I felt like they should have dealt with better is the progressive nature of the FairTax. They explain the prebate well, and how that prevents anyone from paying taxes on the basic necessities of life (defined by the poverty level), and they explained how this makes the FairTax progressive. They also talked a good bit about net effective tax rates under the current tax system. But I think they could have talked more about net effective tax rates under the FairTax. I’ve left comments about this over at FairTaxBlog.Com, and I’ll probably work on a post about this particular issue in the future. It’s really important to consider net effective rates when people initially react to the idea of a 23% inclusive consumption tax.

(Actually, if you have serious questions or concerns about the FairTax, check out FairTaxBlog.Com. There are a lot of supporters and critics that can support their points very well there.)

I think this quote does a good job of describing the overall goals of tax reform, and what the FairTax will enable.

Under the FairTax Vision for Tomorrow, every time an American buys a loaf of bread or a new car, he’ll know, to the penny, how much of that money is going to the federal government.

Our vision for tomorrow sees a government that’s a partner with the business community and the people, not an adversary; a government with a tax system that encourages economic development and the creation of the new business, rather than a government and a tax system that chases valued businesses to foreign shores.

Our vision for tomorrow is one where governance returns to the local level; were communities are allowed to make the important decisions regarding their government and their schools. No longer will politicians be able to hide regulations and programs that control every aspect of our lives in 9 million words of confusing and draconian codes and regulation. The FairTax will demand political honesty…

Our vision for tomorrow sees an America where jobs are insourced, not outsourced… sees America becoming the safest and most secure tax haven for trillions of dollars currently languishing offshore… sees an America that will enjoy a virtual $400-billion-per-year tax cut… an exporting powerhouse, selling goods and services into a global economy unburdened by the 22 percent tax component now burdening our price system…

People see all of this and say, “how can a different tax system do that?” One point that I haven’t seen made clearly enough, is that the FairTax wouldn’t be responsible for any of this. The truth is that these “benefits” would not be due to enacting the FairTax, they would be due to completely getting rid of all of the oppression of the current tax structure on our economic decisions, while still funding our government. It is not the FairTax that would produce such wonderful results – it would be the American people, unencumbered by an oppressive tax system. How can you disagree with that?

So I decided to start quoting myself every now and then. Kind of vain, I know. But every now and then I just say something that I think, “I should write a blog post about this.” Due to my laziness, I’ll just give you the back-of-the-book quotes.

If people were half as worried about babies getting their brains sucked out of their head while being halfway through the birth canal, I’d take liberals a little more seriously in their concerns about waterboarding. (from Huckabee Is An Idiot)

The whole process of picking a president was never supposed to be this way. Presidents, initially, were chosen by electors who were chosen by state legislatures. So none of this beauty contest type of thing. Presidents (and senators, for that matter) were chosen by the states. I would really love to see someone push for a more simple system like that again. It would give the national news media a LOT less to talk about. (from Oh Politic Where Art Thou?)

I think the ideas of transforming culture, and us redeeming the world, are very appealing. But therein lies their danger. They make us important. Following what Christ personally did, and what He commanded His followers to do, will not really help us transform the world. It’s too radical. Too crazy. Too dismissive of worldly systems. When we become followers in God’s kingdom, we’re aliens here. I don’t know, I just see so much in scripture that goes against the idea of us redeeming the world, whereas I think you have to try really hard to read those ideas into scripture.

Look, we have a hard enough time following Christ’s explicit commands. Trying to obediently serve my place in the kingdom of God is simple, yet really, really hard to do. I don’t think Christ burdened the entire church with the transformation of the world into God’s original vision of it – something that is described in scripture, but something that is described as God doing, not the church. (from Oh Politic Where Art Thou?)

Compassion means “to suffer with.” If our efforts are based on funneling money from the “evil rich” to the poor with no interaction between them except for a cold, soul-less government, it’s very little service to anyone. I think it’s perhaps the most heartless form of ministry imaginable. (from The Politics of Heaven)

When Jesus is telling us to sell our possessions and give to the poor, I don’t think he was suggesting that we encourage the government to do so by force. To me, that sounds like a joke – if I could only figure out how to turn it into a punchline. (from The Politics of Heaven)

Good comments from the other side on each of those posts as well, lots of stuff to think about.

Just about any criticism of the FairTax can be met with a reasoned, logical response. Maybe that’s one of the reasons I like it. All Taranto needs is some time with some FairTax supporters who can answer his criticisms.

We are certainly responsible for going to the ends of the earth and making disciples from people of every nation. There is plenty in Scripture about doing justice and loving mercy and feeding the hungry and caring for the widow and orphan. But I find little or nothing about us having the task of transforming the culture.

Britt has talked about how Changing the World is something that isn’t found in scripture. At least not something that is assigned to us.

Galli’s article touches on how service is our number one task, in terms of transforming the world:

Servants aren’t about world-changing initiatives as much as about washing the dirty feet of the travelers sitting at their kitchen table. Jesus never tells us to do anything because it will transform the culture. Surprisingly, he didn’t seem interested in transforming the Roman Empire, one of the most oppressive and unjust cultures in history. He seemed rather to think that society would always have economic disparity, and that not only should changing Rome not be a priority, but also we should not even object to underwriting it with our taxes…

I remain puzzled as to why we’re so bored with the very things Jesus asks us to do, like picking that foreigner up out of the ditch, giving away our goods to the poor, going to court with a young man who’s being railroaded by the system, taking an orphan into our home, going the extra mile with the oppressive and manipulative, forgiving the offender, baptizing, and witnessing. I find these things really, really hard to do. I fail all the time. If I can’t even do these things well, why would I believe that I could transform my culture, let alone change the world?

Despite my political rants and opinions, I’ve been learning more and more that it is not our job to make political systems reflect the church. Does that mean we should be apathetic towards politics? I don’t think so. But it makes it all the more difficult to discern when we are pushing our own religious agenda into politics.

People tend to think that Christ’s mission was about transformation, and that in today’s culture, we should redeem the culture (by keeping it sanitary), transform social politics (by enforcing charity), or other high ideals. But by doing so, we are trying to place a significance onto ourselves that simply isn’t rooted in scripture. Galli says “we all face the common temptation of Adam and Eve. We want to feel significant.”

Scripture is clear that Christ’s mission was about service, and that this is our mission also. In today’s culture, I think the targets of that service are clear. While it is hard, it is not a complicated thing to fulfill what the scriptures have required of us. And it is about doing it ourselves, not about creating a governmental structure to force everyone else to do it our way.

For my generation, the question every single one of us can answer is where we were when we found out that the World Trade Center and Pentagon had been attacked.

Amy and I were on vacation in the North Georgia mountains, at a bed and breakfast not far from Ellijay. Amy was pregnant with our first child, due in January. This was to be our last little vacation as a married couple with no kids.

We had gotten up about 8 or 8:15 in the morning to get ready to go to breakfast downstairs. There were about two TV channels available in our room, so while Amy was finishing up I was watching the Today show on NBC.

They suddenly interrupted whatever was going on – not surprising that I completely don’t remember what they were originally talking about – and showed a shot of the smoke coming out of the north tower. They soon talked about a small plane hitting the tower. Amy came over and we watched as they tried to speculate about what had happened.

Then we, like so many other millions, saw the plane strike the south tower, live on TV. Everyone who saw that live on TV knew immediately: this was no accident. This was intentional. And this was huge.

We were glued to the TV for what seemed like hours. I remember at some point we went downstairs to eat breakfast, primarily motivated by the fact that Amy was pregnant and that the kitchen closed at 10am.

But we saw both towers collapse live on TV as well.

It was a shock to us, knowing that our child would be born, in a matter of months, into a world very different from the one we expected.

I honestly feel that many people have forced themselves to forget the feelings they felt that day – that we were under attack, that this was war, and that this was something our generation would have to rise up against if we were to have any hope of our children living in a free society.

Two movies were released in theaters this year that help to remind us of the human side of this attack and destruction. The first was United 93, which told the story of the passengers who stopped terrorists from flying a fourth plane into an additional high-profile target, either the capitol or the white house. The second was Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center, about two New York Port Authority officers who were rescued from the rubble of the collapse.

Discovery Channel ran a new two-hour documentary Saturday, with re-enactments, called Inside the Twin Towers. It tells the story of several people inside both buildings, some who survived and some who did not.

I believe these movies, and documentaries, are an important thing for us to experience. They help us see the event from different angles. You better understand the scope. You better understand the nature of those who desire nothing more than to kill us.

I personally find it difficult to understand how anyone cannot support positions that allow the government to locate, apprehend, and detain the sorts of people that would zealously pursue similar attacks in the future. By this, I mean the types of opposition we see towards a program to monitor calls between people inside the US with suspected terrorists abroad (the NSA surveillance program, which its critics misleadingly refer to as a “domestic spying program”), attempts to analyze mass logs of calling data, holding enemy combatants in military prisons, intense interrogations of known terrorists, and even deposing leaders who are known, active supporters of terrorism.

Any American who would have opposed such measures in the days that followed September 11, 2001 would have been completely ignored. Yet now, five years later, opposition to these policies are popular, and even required in some political parties, if one has any hope of becoming that party’s nominee for president.

The question for our generation, as it was in the 1940′s, is not whether or not we will experience war. The question is how we will experience war. We could have concentrated on Japan in World War II, only to find ourselves with the Nazis on our doorstep when we had our attention turned somewhere else. Should we have waited for Hitler to attack us first? Or was the fact that he had attacked our good friends and allies not reason enough?

I agree with President Bush that the only way do defeat this enemy is with liberty. Not only freedom here at home, but liberty across the globe. To the degree that America has exported and protected liberty around the world in the past sixty years – from turning Japan from a suicidal empire to a productive and innovative economic powerhouse, to protecting western Europe from Nazi domination, to aiding eastern Europe in their escape from Soviet domination, to providing Iraqi and Afghan citizens the opportunity to form their own freely elected democratic societies – the world is a better place.

Pearl Harbor inspired our grandparents’ generation to defeat the evil in their time. The assassination of John F. Kennedy inspired our parents’ generation to remain steadfast against Soviet oppression. We have an enemy that has risen up to challenge our generation. The question is, will we have the courage to defeat this enemy? Will the attacks of September 11, 2001, inspire us to defeat our enemy?

The results are very encouraging. In Fayette County, the FairTax was approved by 85.33% of the Republican primary voters. In Cobb County, the FairTax was approved by 85.15% of the Republican primary voters. And in Gwinnett County, the FairTax was approved by 86.89% of the Republican primary voters. (I was one of the 31,068 voters who signaled their support for the FairTax in Gwinnett County.) Between these three counties in the Metro Atlanta area, 74,494 Republican voters showed up at the primary polls and voiced their support for the FairTax.

Keep in mind, these were only the responses of the Republican primary voters in three Metro Atlanta counties. I had expected strong support in Gwinnett County, which is John Linder’s home district. (John Linder is the author of The FairTax Act and the co-author, with Neal Boortz, of The FairTax Book). But I did not expect it to be nearly 87% in Gwinnett, and I certainly did not expect it to be as high in other counties.

To me, this signals a couple of things: