Lying To God
by William Stone III
As those who have read my essay "Parenting Free Individuals" may remember,
I've got two daughters, presently aged seven and nine. I've been working
very hard to ensure that they grow up to be gun-toting freedom-lovers like
their father.
What you also know if you've listened to me talk about them for very long is
that - largely due to genetics - these girls are much too smart for my own
good. I live in mortal fear of their teen-aged years, because I know with
absolute certainty that they are bright enough to concoct a method of getting
out of the house late at night to see their boyfriends.
My current plan to circumvent this is to place a web of motion sensors
around all the exterior doors and windows which will be tied into and
controlled by my Linux server. If the mesh is violated, I'll be paged
immediately.
| |
However, one daughter in particular has expressed an interest in learning how
computers work so that when the time comes, she can get a cushy part-time job
in some computer lab instead of flipping burgers. The other daughter already
has her future planned: she's been taking dance classes for several years
and intends to teach at the studio - not at all unusual for longtime
students at Sandy Keane's School of Dance.
I now have visions of the younger daughter using her athletic prowess to
bypass the motion-sensor mesh to get to a computer. Then, via cell phone,
the older daughter will talk her through the process of hacking the server
and turning off the security mesh.
As I said, these kids are smart.
One night, we were sitting together watching TV before bed. A news story
flashed past, featuring one of those airport Gestapo checkpoint incidents
with which we're so familiar. Some grandmotherly old lady had been groped,
fondled, and kicked out of the airport for having the audacity to become
enraged at the violation of her person and papers.
My older daughter said something about how stupid it was - and then
reiterated the lesson she'd learned from the last time we talked about it:
That these KGB bullies are totally unnecessary if only the FedGov would
enforce the Bill of Rights.
As I said: smart kids.
She then wondered why Mommy would vote for President Bush if he violated
the the Constitution. I explained that most of the time, Presidents promise
to do one thing before they're elected and then do something totally
different afterward. In this regard, President Bush is pretty typical.
"And honey,"
I went on,
"it's actually worse than that. President Bush had
to take an oath when he became President. He put his hand on a Bible and
swore that he would protect and defend the Constitution -- and yet he spends
almost all of his time trying to destroy it!"
There was a long pause, and then in a hushed, shocked tone, the younger
daughter said:
"You mean he's breaking a promise he made to GOD?!"
Understand that I'm not religious. However, I'm not one of those really vocal
atheists who is actively actively anti-Christian. My sole concern is the
Zero Aggression Principle. As long as your religion doesn't require the
initiation of force, I don't care what you happen to believe.
(Contrary to what many of my atheist friends believe, religion does not
require initiation of force. There's no question that power in the hands of
organized religion has been used to initiate force. Power is ALWAYS used
to initiate force. The trick is to never cede coercive power to any
organization or individual: religious, governmental, or otherwise.)
My wife, however, is Catholic, and our girls go to a Catholic school. I have
no particular objection to them learning religion. I'm a very strong
believer in the notion that if one's going to break the rules, one needs to
know what the rules are in the first place.
In college, for example, I learned iambic pentameter specifically so that if
I ever wrote in it, I could violate its rules artistically instead of
ignorantly. You'll find that Shakespeare did this on a number of occasions,
specifically having his characters break out of iambic pentameter during
moments of emotional tension. Hamlet's "to be or not to be" soliloquy is
often held up as a textbook example of Shakespeare's artistic violation of
the form.
Similarly, I think if you're going to be an atheist in a predominantly
Christian culture, you need to have an understanding of context. If you
don't, you end up angry and frustrated.
However, at this age, the girls don't have a conception of this. For them,
Mass is something you attend on Thursday morning with your classmates and on
Sunday morning with your family.
You NEVER break your promises to God.
When my daughter realized that President Bush was breaking a promise he made
to God, it completely changed the context of the hideous things he does. It
was no longer the he was violating the highest law of the country. It was
that he lied to GOD.
You don't lie to God. It's a million orders of magnitude worse than lying to
a friend or a parent. Punishment for lying to a parent can be severe, but
Mommy will eventually give you another chance.
When you lie to God, you go to Hell for all eternity.
I was then suddenly deluged with questions. What, exactly, did President Bush
promise to God? Do all Presidents promise that? Did President Clinton? Did
President Clinton lie to God, too? What about Congressmen and Senators?
Thus ensued a very lengthy discussion in which the girls learned the
following:
Every President takes an Oath of Office when he is sworn in:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
Note that the President doesn't swear to protect and defend the country. He
swears to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION.
Every President of which I'm aware at least as far back as Lincoln has to some
extent violated the Constitution - and in so doing broken a promise made to
God. Children of the new millennium don't even understand the reason that
Jefferson was so conflicted regarding the Louisiana Purchase: it seemed to
him like a technical violation of the Constitution.
I told my daughters this, and then explained that while it was a good thing
that the land we live on was added to the United States, it was a bad thing
because it set an example of lying to God for future Presidents to follow.
In modern, post-September 11 America, the President has created
governmental bureaucracies such as the American KGB (the correct Russian
translation of "Homeland Security Department"). He's used (and threatens to
continue to use) military force in absence of a Declaration of War by
Congress. He has ordered the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens.
He has required individuals to be disarmed.
Since September 11, the President has been engaged in activities that are
directly in violation of the Constitution, thereby putting him in violation
of his Oath of Office. This makes him guilty of a mortal sin, having lied to
God. He swore a sacred oath to God that he knowingly and willfully violates
every waking minute. In fact, virtually all of his activities presently
involve violating his promise made to God.
If you're a religious individual, how can you come to any other conclusion
but that President Bush is headed straight to Hell? My daughters came to
this realization within SECONDS of hearing that he broke a promise made to
God.
The magnitude of this is difficult for those of us who aren't religious to
comprehend. President Bush has violated a a promise made to the Creator of
the entire Universe. President Bush is going to Hell. He will suffer
torments and damnation in the flames of Hell for all eternity.
The girls were both very surprised, since they had no conception that so many
people over so long a period of time would lie to God. They were mystified
as to why someone would intentionally do something that would put them in
Hell.
As I said, I'm not a religious man. I enjoy the weekly sermons by Father
Bruce Lawler, the (Sioux City, Iowa) Sacred Heart Church parish priest. He
generally puts a historical context into the Bible that other priests
overlook. For me, his homiles are uniformly informative and interesting even
when I disagree with a philosophical tenet.
While I'm not a religious man, I have a number of religious friends, some
within the freedom movement. I also know many religious individual who
consider themselves conservatives or Constitutionalists. I'd like to ask them
a question:
How do you reconcile supporting an individual who intentionally and
unrepentantly lies to God?
From a religious perspective, Bill Clinton must also be going to Hell for his
unrepentant womanizing and repeated violations of the Sacrament of Marriage.
Do you overlook one sin but not the other, simply because the sinner happens
to be on "your side"?
If a man will lie to God (and go to Hell for the offense), what stops him
from lying to YOU? Can you trust a man who would lie to the Almighty Creator?
My daughters, being the intelligent individuals they are, understand that you
CAN'T overlook such sins when electing a President. They understand that any
individual who believes in God but lies to Him cannot be trusted to tell the
truth to a human being. Or, as my older daughter said upon finding and
putting on a George Bush mask last Halloween:
"Hi, I'm George Bush! Vote for me, and I'll lie to you!"
These kids are smart. You can see why I'm worried they'll defeat my measures
designed to keep them out of trouble. World-proofing them is certainly going
to be an interesting experience.
Then again, I'm a big believer in rewarding intelligence. I suppose if the
girls figure out how to defeat my security measures, maybe they deserve to be
making out with their boyfriends.
- – William Stone III
William Stone, III is a computer nerd (RHCE, CCNP, CISSP) and philosopher of
the Zero Aggression Principle from McCook Lake, South Dakota. He seeks the
Libertarian Party's nomination for the 2004 Senate race in South Dakota.
The following exchange took place by email whilst asking permission to run this article. I think it adds something to the above.
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 09:56:12AM -0800, I wrote the parts that begin ">", the rest are Bill's responses:
> I really liked your Lying To God piece. I have a 3 and a half year old
> daughter - she's not in the space your's are in yet, but shows signs of
> heading that way!
Well, they're both incredibly intelligent and I wish I could take credit for
it. But the girls have been what they are more or less since the day they
arrived on planet Earth. I'm just trying to keep from screwing them up. ;)
> Both myself and my wife are atheists, but I see your point about context.
I'm an atheist as well, though as I mentioned in the article, I've got
nothing in for religion as a concept. I attend church on Sunday for the sake
of family unity and because the homlies are often very informative.
I do, however, have friends within the movement who are very much into
hating and detesting Christianity in particular. This is, I think, because
they simply fail to understand the context of how Christianity fits into the
culture, particularly that of the US. The result is a huge chip on their
shoulder that does them no good and is actively harmful to getting people to
listen to what they have to say. People take their religion VERY seriously,
and when you go around scoffing or actively disrespecting it, it really
pisses people off.
And in fact... that's probably the subject of next week's column, now that I
come to think about it. Next week or the week after, for sure.
Bottom line on religion is: I happen to think everything - the Roman
pantheon, the Greek pantheon, the Norse pantheon, Wiccanism, Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Paganism, and anything else you can think of - is a
boatload of primitive, superstitious nonsense. Regardless, no one can
actually PROVE that there isn't a God or a Gaia. That being the case, I'll
believe what I believe, you can believe what you believe, and as long as no
force is initiated, who cares? ;)
> Rhiannon will have to go to a Church of England school, as there is little
> other choice where we are [except RC, which I feel is "even worse" given the
> choice - no hard core Calvinist / Lutheran / Methodist schools here, even!].
Well, if I could either convince my wife that home-schooling was a good idea
or were there good non-Government, non-parochial schools in the US, I'd
probably want the girls to go there. As it is, the Catholic school they
attend is a fine school educationally as well as not being a government
indoctrination center. ;)
> Once again, might we run your piece on Blue?
Of course. You may feel free to run any column I send -- that's why I send
it your way. ;)
Bill Stone
|
|
