How Much Revenge?

The Democrats have been breaking a lot of laws of late. Should we seize the opportunity?

How Much Revenge?

Remember last summer when a few lefties crossed the line celebrating the Trump assassination attempt? That was a step too far even for the whackdoodles who dominate the Democratic Party. Those who crossed that line could be Cancelled! WHEEEEE! Revenge time!

Or so said the sage from Barsoom:

Right Wing Cancel Squads

along with others. But the sentiment was not unanimous. Holly Math Nerd was so disgusted by the Dissident Right wielding the Looney Left’s favorite weapon that she foreswore making further political posts.

In Which I Resign from Political Commentary

The Abject Lesson invoked the New Testament in decrying the calls for Cancellation.

OH, How the Turn...tables

This is pretty serious condemnation consideration that it comes from an actual warrior. A universal call for forgiveness is also contradicts donning our nation’s uniform and fighting. In the comments I suggested a more nuanced take on the subject, but wrote that the subject would require an entire post to give it justice. I didn’t get around to that post, since interest in the subject fizzled out rapidly, as the opportunities for right wing Cancellation quickly evaporated.

But with the Trump Administration now waging aggressive lawfare, the subject of revenge is back on the table, and this time we have a target rich environment. Forget Comey with his pathetic 86-47 seashell picture. That’s litter bugging compared to the mass quantities of treason, terror, and human rights violations that Team D has been committing over the past decade.

• They did Watergate level phone tapping of Trump Tower before The Donald could take office.

• They made a mockery of the impeachment process multiple times.

• They used COVID-19 as an excuse to engage in massive ballot stuffing in 2020.

• They engaged in ridiculous lawfare trying to get Trump off the ballot.

• They ran a Weekend at Bernie’s fake presidency, using an autopen to forge Biden’s signature on bills and executive orders.

• They flooded the country with future welfare recipients in the hope of creating a permanent Democratic majority.

• They canceled the 2024 Democratic presidential primary despite the fact that the incumbent was a vegetable.

• Act Blue money laundered funds from big donors by falsely crediting small donors.

• They used government money in the form of USAID, the Green New Deal, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to promote their ideology.

• They funded and cheered urban terror during the Floyd era riots.

• They toppled statues and attacked the core ideals that made this country great.

• They indulged in and celebrated genocidal language – as long as it was against White people.

• They closed churches and small businesses, while keeping open riots, orgies, and big businesses.

• They forced people to take experimental vaccines of questionable efficacy.

• They even foisted said vaccines on the young, who were never at serious risk from COVID-19 in the first place.

• And they have corrupted the young, extolling sexual perversion and an unrealistic assessment of the effects of sex change technology.

• And more!

Many of these acts were clear violations of black letter law. We hold the Presidency. We hold the Supreme Court. We have the opportunity for sweet revenge, in mass quantity. Should we take it?

And the answer is yes, but not as much as we want, or as much as they deserve. I will make cases for this position both secular and religious.

The Secular Arguments For Revenge

Let’s start with the simple secular argument for exacting some revenge.

Crime Should Come with Fear

Thanks to a fawning press and a thankful Deep State, the Left has been getting away with mass quantities of evil, criminal, corrupt, and otherwise criminal behavior. As libertarians love to point out, politics is always a dirty game. Taxation is theft – if performed by anyone other than the government. Governing the governors is always going to be a difficult task, but it must be done. While we cannot make government squeaky clean, we can clamp down on the most blatant corruption, criminality, and hypocrisy.

The Left Needs to be Humbled

When the Left is kept in check, the Left gets dominated by liberals. Liberals – even modern liberals – are useful. They look out for the underdog. They provide a check on the powerful. They thwart monopolies and corporate power. They prevent the forces of law and order from becoming forces of oppression and unjust punishment.

(For those in the audience who think liberals are a priori evil, note that RFK Jr. is a liberal in the modern liberal sense – of 60 years ago. And he is doing the good things that a liberal should do.)

When the Left has too much power, the utopian and vicious elements take over. The Left goes from liberal to Jacobin. People die! It’s a dangerous phase change, one I pointed out when I initially announced this blog:

The Left in this country was heading to hubris when I was growing up. Cults and communists were everywhere, along with riots and bombings. It was the era of Charles Manson and Jim Jones. Then the Left lost badly to Richard Nixon twice. (The size of Nixon’s win was obscured in 1968 because the law and order vote was split between Nixon and Wallace.) So the Democratic Party humbled itself and nominated Jimmy Carter in 1976. Jimmy Carter was a sincere Christian who ran as a fiscal conservative and was the biggest deregulator in American history.

(This is why Hollywood played fair and lampooned Jimmy Carter as much as they lampoon Republicans, by the way. )

And after Mondale and Dukakis lost, the Democrats were humbled again, and nominated members of the Democratic Leadership Council – Bill Clinton and Al Gore – in succession. It wasn’t until Obama won the presidency in 2008 that the American Left went back into hubris mode.

And they are still full of hubris. They still believe that they can double down on windmills and sex changes for children and win elections.

Unfortunately, that hubris is still justified. While the Left lost the 2024 federal elections, the margins were slim and they had a cackling airhead with the charisma of a hyena at the top of their ticket. And our very slim majority in the House is thanks to computerized Gerrymandering in the rural states. Furthermore, the Left controls most of our institutions:

• The universities

• The public schools

• The American Bar Association

• Silicon Valley

• Wall St.

• The lower courts

• The foundations left behind by robber barons

• Hollywood

• The legacy news outlets

• The music industry

• The Deep State

• And maybe even the military officer corps.

And all those retirees who make Florida Red will eventually end up in nursing homes and die.

While it pains the remaining libertarian parts of my brain, I fear that Donald Trump’s heavy handed treatment of Harvard and other institutions is long overdue and necessary.

But still dangerous.

The Secular Case for Restraint

Our side has the legal and moral right to basically destroy the Democratic Party. But we shouldn’t. Hurt them? Yes! But not destroy.

It Looks Like Fascism

If the Trump Administration goes after the guilty with too much enthusiasm, it will look like fascism to swing voters. And the legacy news outlets will have a field day pushing the Trump is a fascist line. It might cost us the midterm election.

There is a Potential for Dictatorship

As I wrote above, we now have the legal power to truly destroy the Democratic Party and it’s supporting institutions. What happens if we up the ante on DEI with some lucrative lawsuits for past discrimination? What if we send the suspiciously rich congresscritters to jail for corruption? What if we put Act Blue out of business? What if we treat sanctuary cities as being in a state of insurrection? What if we arrested the Antifa goons for their destructive rampage of 2020 and got them to rat out their sources of funding? What if we applied the Civil Rights law to Minnesota for letting Dylan Adams go scot free after destroying Teslas?

Destroy the Democrat funding base and turn 20 million Democrats into convicted felons and we get a one party state.

While a populist dictatorship in the classical sense (i.e., temporary) in order to right some wrongs and expel invaders could be a good thing. Alas, in the modern age, most dictators aspire to be kings, and that is problematic. I’m an American reactionary; I want to restore the Republic.

It Sets Precedents

Suppose we don’t destroy the Democratic Party. The tools used against Team D will be turned against us. The precedent for the spurious impeachments of Donald Trump were set when Bill Clinton was impeached for a bit of hanky-panky in the Oval Office. Using that embarrassing incident to score political points was fair game. Treating it as an impeachable offense undermined the stability of our republic

Many might argue this is a sunk cost. The Democrats were already playing dirty lawfare games – and not just to Trump. Conservative think tanks were being harassed by the IRS at Democrat command well before Trump descended the escalator.

But feuds and wars can continue to escalate, and the feud between Team D and Team R has already reached the point of breaking our republic. We need to de-escalate this feud even as we win the current round. Options include:

• Focusing on the most egregious cases.

• Staying well within black letter law.

• Pushing for moderate to light sentences.

• Offering clemency in return for reform.

Regarding that last bullet, this might be an excellent time to push for term limits. And there are other reforms to consider:

Political Reforms for an Aenean Age

Ex Post Facto Punishment is Evil

The universities didn’t embrace DEI out of the blue. They were pushed by the government...hard. While discriminating against White people has always been technically against the law, discrepancies in racial results have long been used as evidence of racial bias in a different direction. Racial (and sexual) quotas are thus both illegal and mandatory. Given that the government is the primary funder of private universities in this country, staying on the right side of the government has become more important than providing a good education.

The prestige universities are in a particular pickle. Moderate differences in talent/interest distributions lead to gigantic differences at the far right hand side of the bell curve. Elite universities have to either bend the rules and discriminate against the more academic races, or admit Charles Murray is right and thereby paint a Defund Us, We’re Racists sign on their metaphorical backsides.

DEI, Microaggression Theory, and all sorts of Critical Theory majors, are responses to harsh government incentives.

Forcing Universities off these bad paths is worthwhile. Punishing them for obeying previous administrations is unjust.

And we should really listen to the Left when they cry out over Trump’s bullying and violations of academic freedom and come to the negotiating table. It’s time to get government out of such decisions entirely. Let there be DEI, affirmative action, color blind, and traditional ethnic club universities (including old blood WASPs). Let there be universities for all sexes and let there be universities for men, women, and unnamable horrors with mango chutney sauce. Let there be Christian, secular, atheist, Satanic, and even Episcopalian universities. Let them all fund student loans out of their own endowments or offer an education value/dollar value high enough that banks will provide the loans.

Similar logic applies to corporate America. ESG is a response to government pressure. Applying retroactive punishment for compliance with previous administrations is thus unfair. Applying pressure to correct the unfairness pushed by previous administrations is another matter. Alas, the compromise measure of the government getting out of the way doesn’t work – unless we break up the megacorporations, which will be the subject of Rule 13: Reinvent Antitrust.

The Christian Perspective on Revenge

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Mat 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Mat 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

If we take the passages above both liberally and universally, the Bible is telling us that we should forgive the Demoncrats completely for their crimes, including ongoing crimes. Not only that, we should forgive all criminals. Empty the prisons! Don't thwart shoplifters! Open the borders! Defund the military! Don't resist the commies! Leave those pedophiles alone!

The implications are unsatisfying. I struggle greatly with parts of the Semon on the Mount. Leviticus and Revelations are far more comforting.

And I am not alone in my discomfort. Quite a few writers on the Dissident Right struggle with the sentiments above. Some look to other parts of the Bible. Some skip past the Bible and look to Catholic doctrines on the virtues of knighthood. Some reject Christianity entirely, and look to revive the Old Gods of Northern Europe or to revive the mindset of pre Christian Greece and Rome. Then there are those who look to Nietzsche.

Here, I will attempt to address these inconvenient passages head on, and hopefully provide some guidance on what our side should do to those Democrats who indulged in treason, terror, and child abuse.

The easiest dodge is to note that the Sermon on the Mount is contradictory if taken literally and universally.

Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Making are prisons less hellish is merciful. Unleashing criminals and communists to do their thing unchecked is not. Is it merciful to let the groomers corrupt and castrate vulnerable children? Is it merciful to let bullies dominate the public schools? Is it merciful to let puritanical satanists govern when we have the ability to run the government ourselves?

I see three paths to rationalizing around this contradiction:

1. Jesus was using hyperbole to hammer in some important points.

2. Jesus was messaging to a potential inner circle of saints who were to attempt to live up to the standards of the Sermon. That is, we keep literally but drop universally.

3. Jesus was prepping his followers to peacefully convert the Roman Empire and other kingdoms.

Some mix of all of the above could apply, by the way.

1. The Case for Hyperbole

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

How many Christians do you know with missing eyes or hands due to religious amputation? I know zero in this age. Way back in the earliest days of Christianity there were monks who had themselves castrated in order to enforce celibacy, but they were outliers. Revealed Preference shows that a majority of Christians believe that Jesus used hyperbole to hammer in some points. Jesus was shouting across the centuries from an age that predated the exclamation point.

Not all Christians can take the shouting. Many turn to more pleasant passages and discount the shouts as noise, legalism, and/or obsolete. This is a grave error. Contrary to the sermons of certain Protestant preachers, baptism is a do-over, not a perpetual pass on sinning.

And receiving the Holy Spirit is not a cruise control that prevents future sinning; it is more of a warning light on your dashboard (among other things). The above passage is not just a shout against sinning, it is one of several passages that explain how to avoid sin, despite the limitations of willpower. Do something about the things that lead you into sin.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Consider the absurdity of taking the above passages too literally. If admiring a woman's cleavage is the same as adultery, one might as well go all the way and have an affair. Sunk cost, baby! These passages make more sense as Total Quality Management applied to sin. Hit the brakes at the thought level and you are far less likely to follow through with the act. The same holds for violence; contain your anger and you are unlikely to engage in violence. (This view doesn't rule out divine penalties for sinning in the heart, by the way. It merely suggests that thought crime is likely to receive less penalty than actual crime.)

The call for universal forgiveness for all crimes might be a shout across the centuries as well, a shout against forced conversions, cruel and unusual punishments, and maybe even America's archipelago of prisons. This is unsettling to many law-and-order conservatives, and they dial down the shout to some New Age twaddle: punish away, but forgive in your heart. This is easily dispelled by the language of the Lord's Prayer:

Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

To forgive a debt is to forgo payment. Such forgiveness is expensive. This is another reason to diligently avoid sin. If you need less forgiveness, you can be less forgiving -- if we apply the converse of the above passage. Note also that under the Law of Moses, a thief was a debtor. For most theft, a thief had to pay double. (For certain livestock, the multiplier was a bit higher.) If the thief couldn't pay up -- and relatives wouldn't or couldn't redeem the thief -- the victim was entitled to up to seven years indentured servitude from the thief (or other debtors), depending on when the next sabbath year was to come.[*] Once again, forgiveness had a cost.

A Call to an Inner Circle?

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Two things to note from the scripture above: First, there is rank in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus did not promise an eternal vacation. He promised membership in a future government, here on Earth during the Millenium and then on the new Earth afterwards. I've written more on this in a previous post:

Second, if you want a position of high responsibility and privilege in said Kingdom, you need to be very cautious about applying dispensation theories and whatnot. Heaven and earth have not passed away. The written Law of Moses is still in effect. The only question is how much of that Law applies to gentile Christians. (Jesus did deprecate the oral law of the Jews of his day, rulings where later found their way into the Talmud. There's a big difference. Think of the difference between the written US Constitution and what the courts rule that it means -- and that's with only a bit more than two centuries of judicial precedents. The Jews had even more time between the time of Moses and the time of Jesus.)

And to be really great in the Kingdom, you may well need to heed the words of the Sermon on the Mount more literally. This is hard and can lead to brutal consequences.

Most of the original apostles suffered imprisonment, torture, and creative executions. Ditto for many other early Christians, later missionaries, and converts in heathen lands. Maybe the Dead in Christ [1 Thessalonians 4:16] who will be in the First Resurrection will be limited to such martyrs. I know not.

But the passage that launched this section -- as well as other passages cited in my afterlife article -- indicate lower ranking positions available for those Christians who don't go to such extreme measures, such as those who live reasonably righteous lives and create new Christians by raising families and teaching their children properly, vs. going off to do dangerous missionary work. And hopefully this includes those who protect their families by not completely forgiving every criminal, pervert, and internazi who threatens their children.

A Statement of Strategy

Moses gave the ancient Israelites a law code for low overhead governance that could survive the threats from the surrounding empires of the day. Think 2nd Amendment times ten. Under the Law of Moses there were no standing armies, no paid police, no armories. When surrounding nations got uppity, it was time to round up a bunch of boys and fight a battle. Think Wild West posse.

Moreover, the Law had provisions to prevent feudalism. Struggling farmers could not sell the family farm -- the birthright of their descendants -- outright. They could only sell a leasehold which expired on the jubilee year [see Leviticus 25]. The rich could not use their surplus income to keep buying up farmland, reducing the regular folk to serfdom. Ancient Israel was a yeoman farmer society, a society heavy with the equivalent of rednecks and dangerous hillbillies, complete with lynch mobs and blood feuds -- albeit moderated by the Law and a professional priesthood.

Eventually, the Israelites wimped out and opted for professional government-- much as many Americans would do away with the Second Amendment and even most private charity. Samuel's curse should be reread annually by everyone on the Right:

1Sa 8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

1Sa 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

1Sa 8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

1Sa 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

1Sa 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

1Sa 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

Think about that curse all ye who yearn for monarchy. And think of ancient Israel before the curse all ye neo pagans and Nazi adjacent. The America of old was an echo of early Israel. The America of old had more in common with pre monarchy Israel than it did with feudal Europe. The Law of Moses was largely compatible with the America of old, the America of New England militia and the Wild West. (The perpetual slavery of the American South was not compatible with the Law of Moses. The Black slaves who converted the Christianity should have been freed after at most 7 years of indenture. There were edited Bibles circulated to the slaves in order to hide this Inconvenient Truth.)

The Law of Moses is still in effect. But Jesus was calling for followers willing to go beyond the Law. Jesus was on a mission of conquest, spiritual conquest. Rome was physically mighty, far mightier than ancient Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. But Rome was spiritually weakened by its conquests. Romes's soldiers were professionals. Rome's plebians were out competed by slaves and imports from Egypt, and thus dependent on the dole. Rome's conquered peoples were betrayed by their local gods. The Romans themselves were exposed to the religions of its conquered peoples. Not all the religions could be correct.

This spiritual weakening happened to the Greeks earlier as they became more cosmopolitan. When Alexander the Great conquered eastward, beyond where the edge of the world should be, the religion of Hesiod and Homer was undermined. By the time of Paul, Greece was a hotbed of cults and mystery religions. They even had a Temple of the Unknown God. (I don't know if that god had a bag over his head.)

The western world had been made ready for the spread of Christianity before Jesus arrived in human form. Christianity was to be spread peacefully, by missionaries willing to die passively and horribly for the cause, proving to the world their belief in a better afterlife for those who follow Jesus.

It worked, and even to this day the martyrdom of the early Christians is testament to their belief -- Revealed Preference in the language of economists.

1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

1Co 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

1Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

But let's be careful with this idea needing super self-sacrifice being just for missionaries in heathen lands. Even today, in safe countries with legal religious freedom, Christians have the task of setting an example before the ungodly. It may not require getting horribly executed. It may simply require donating to charity while your neighbor donates his money to fancy sports car payments. It may require homeschooling your child if your local public school is wicked. It may require doing without cable television or other entertainment options. It may require keeping the sabbath even as business competitors make money 24/7.

Early Christianity vs. Civil Authority

Mat 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

Mat 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Governing is dirty business: lots of moral tradeoffs. You can enforce laws and ward off rivals, or you can be a saint. You cannot do both. Constantine the Great understood this and split the difference by delaying his baptism to near the end of his life. By doing so he wasn't waffling between paganism and Christianity; he was taking Christian doctrines seriously, including the Sermon on the Mount.

Were Constantine's legalistic maneuvers necessary? How do you govern a land which has already officially converted to Christianity? Do you find a virtuous heathen to succeed Constantine (or the Constantine equivalent) and hope he times his baptism successfully? Or are Christians allowed to govern (if getting into power doesn't entail too much bloodshed)?

The New Testament does not give a clear signal, but there are hints. Jesus' "Render unto Caesar" can be interpreted as an endorsement of having a force wielding civil authority -- even if ungodly. See also Jesus' response to a centurion who asks for his servant to be healed.

Mat 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

Mat 8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

Mat 8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

Mat 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

Mat 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

Jesus marveled at the centurion's faith -- and healed his servant long distance. He did not berate the centurion for his violent job choice or command him to make a career change. Then again, he also didn't have him baptized. Jesus ministered mainly to the Israelites and left it to his followers to spread the word to the world beyond.

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

St. Paul was told the church of Rome to be subject to those in power.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Paul clearly appreciated a bit of law and order, even if enforced by the ungodly. But should the ungodly do all the judging? In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul called for the church to have internal courts of law:

1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

1Co 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

1Co 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

But then there is this ambiguous passage in the previous chapter:

1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

1Co 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Was Paul referring to capital S Satan? Was he calling for killing the perp and sending him straight to Hell? Or (more likely) was he calling for expelling the perp from the church and shunning him? On the gripping hand, maybe Paul was referring to an earthly small s satan -- the local adversary/prosecutor. Maybe he was writing that the perp's sin was so bad that the civil authorities should deal with it. Given the context, I lean towards the latter interpretation.

Finally, we have Jesus' mixed message on swords towards the end of his earthly ministry.

Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Luk 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

This fits very much with the third interpretation of the Turn the Other Cheek messages: that it is for those doing priestly/missionary work. But then he waffled:

Mat 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Confusing indeed! Maybe this is a message to later Christians that they can take up the sword in self defense, but that the missionary stage is still ongoing, after all. I know not. This might be worth contemplating on the Tree of Woe:

The Terrible Swift Sword

Guidance for Christian Governance

So what do we do with all this? Did Christians corrupt themselves when they took governmental power in the West?

The answer is definitively Yes, but consider the alternatives.

In the West we had forcible baptisms, the crimes of the Holy Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the Teutonic Knights in what should have been Poland, etc. I don't think certain choices of the Roman Catholic Church were optimal.

I know less about the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Librarian of Celeano has recently published a piece giving the Eastern Roman Empire as an example of Christian governance that's a must read. Two things that stood out to me were:

1. Anti feudal provisions which resembled the Jubilee Laws in the Old Testament.

2. A policy of partial forgiveness and outreach to barbarians who came to loot.

Invasion of the Based Pagans

The Eastern Roman Empire lasted about a thousand years, which is pretty impressive. But today, Eastern Orthodox Christians are not allowed to wear their vestments in public in what was once their capital. Orthodoxy spread northward into Russia, but from what I have studied of Russian history, Russian governance was far less Christian. Russian peasants could be bought, sold, and brutally beaten; their status was little different than negro slaves in the Deep South of the United States before emancipation.

Once upon a time, the largest branch of Christianity was in the Semitic lands. Nestorian Christianity is now largely forgotten, but it had extended as far east as Mongolia. Nestorian Christians were sending out missionaries to Mongolia even as they lived under Moslem authorities. They were an example of a large branch of Christianity thriving for centuries while living under non-Christian rulers.

But they've been largely wiped out, the last remnants being brutally treated by those attempting to establish a Caliphate in Iraq in recent times.

So, how much should Christians wield the might of the state? I don't have an authoritative answer, but I will state where I currently stand. Based on both scripture and history, I currently believe that it is right for Christians to take the sword and govern -- when opportunity arises. But we should govern lightly. Forcible conversion is a No No. Imposing a nominal Christian secular government where the locals are mostly non Christian is also a bad idea. For such areas, sacrificial missionary work is generally the way to go, though I tend to think that Cortez was justified in taking on the Aztec empire. To many of the locals, Cortez was more liberator than conqueror.

And even where Christianity is the dominant religion, a Christian government should recognize that not all are Believers. The Gate is Narrow.

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The body of self-identified Christians is larger than the body of actual Believers, and has been from almost the beginning. The early Christian churches were mutual aid societies and places to network with people who could be trusted. The aid part was very attractive for the poor seeking alms and the networking opportunities were attractive to many even if the alms were a net expense. We see the dynamic today in the many examples of people who go from secular party animals in college to going back to church once they become parents. Moral instruction and trustworthy friends for the children are intrinsically good things.

Purging churches of these fellow travelers is a bad thing -- unless they are blatantly unrepentant and/or insist on taking charge and watering down doctrine into the modern Methodist range. Believers are supposed to be inspiring non Believers to behave in a godly fashion:

Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Unlike churches, government needs to serve everyone within its borders. The standards enforced by government should thus be lower than the standards for church membership (which should be lower than the standards of the true Believers).

And at the very least, judgments meted out by Christian government should no harsher than the Law of Moses. This is not the case for the United States today, nor was it the case when we were nominally a Christian nation. We have many penalties on the books that far exceed Pay Back Double or even A Tooth for a Tooth. Our prison system is an abomination. Under the Law of Moses, thieves were to pay back damages or be subject to humane indentured servitude -- complete with access to families. Upon release, these indentured servants were to be given startup capital to take a crack at honest business. Thieves were not put into crowded cages with other men -- a setting more suitable for a gay porno than for reforming the wicked.

I was a Libertarian for a quarter century in part due to the excessive incarceration committed in the name of the War on Drugs, and I stand by that position today. (Sure, regulate the hard stuff, and demand that druggies handle their high. But don't send storm troopers into people's homes at 3am in order seize their stashes.)

I was also a Libertarian in opposition to the expensive welfare state. And while I still think our welfare system is excessive and inefficient, the words of the Gospels make me wonder if I was on the wrong side when it comes to taking care of the poor. Yes, voluntary Christian charity is an essential part of being a Christian. And voluntary charity was called for by Moses.

Deu 15:7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:

Deu 15:8 But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

But the Law of Moses also had mandatory provisions for taking care of the poor. During the time of the Judges, Israel was a welfare borderline anarchy. We'll explore the welfare provisions in the Law of Moses in a future post. For now, I leave it to the reader to mull on how much the government should take care of the poor vs. how much should be handled by voluntary charity.

About Those Wicked Democrats

Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

The Democratic leadership and its supporting organizations have performed much wickedness of late, including wickedness punishable by US law. Our side is in charge currently. Punishment is possible. Should we go for it?

To some degree, yes. But let's keep in mind that Republicans are not without sin. I doubt that any of you reading these words are without sin. I'm definitely not. Some forgiving is in order.

Given the extreme lawlessness of leading Democrats and supporting organizations, we could truncate possible sentences by 90% and still wreak havoc. Consider the case of Hannah Dugan, the Michigan judge who let an illegal alien out a special back door in order to thwart ICE agents. She is now charged with crimes which carry up to 6 years in jail and $350,000 in fines. Throwing the book at her would be excessive. The illegal alien was promptly captured by ICE agents despite her efforts. The number of man-hours lost were minimal. While she should certainly lose her job, and maybe even be disbarred, even six weeks in jail would be a massive multiplier of damages caused.

Apply such thinking across the board. While throwing large rocks and brick chunks at passing cars can constitute attempted murder and deadly force to stop such nonsense is warranted, penalties of far less than 20 years are adequate unless police were seriously harmed. While those surgeons who spayed and neutered confused minors may deserve to be spayed or neutered themselves, merely taking away their medical licenses would be enough punishment to provide significant deterrence. We can let Jesus decide on additional punishments in his own time.

We can be very forgiving and still experience a great deal of wailing and lamentations on the part of our enemies. While enjoyable, let's keep in mind that our true goal should be humbling and repentance, not pain and destruction.

As for the less guilty Democrats, I'd limit punishment to what they are asking for: more taxes. Methinks I will turn to that subject next. Stay tuned for Rule 10: Tax Thine Enemies.