Pax Americana Belliger per Deus

Robert Silverberg’s Roma Eterna is a collection of alternate history stories in which Rome never succumbed to the corrupting forces of decadence nor to barbarian hordes. Although there are some very dull moments, it’s mostly a good book.

The primary point of divergence in Silverberg's alternate universe was 3500 years ago at the time of the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt. Instead of crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites were driven into it by Pharaoh, drowning 10,000 of them and dooming the remnant to remain in Egypt. Of course, in reality, there probably never would have been a Roman Empire if the Israelites had not conquered Canaan. The kingdoms of Israel and Judah were much more powerful than most of the individual Canaanite kingdoms they replaced. They served as a stablizing influence in the region and very likely set in motion a series of migrations that sparked the development of both the Greek and Roman peoples into true nations. Their religion and scriptures were also major influences on other Mediterranean cultures.

Despite that historical problem, Silverberg’s characters still tell a few significant truths:

Democracy in Iraq?

While discussing the possibility of bringing Arabia into the Empire, Nicomedes says, “…these Saracens are free men, free within themselves, which is a kind of freedom that you and I are simply not equipped to comprehend. They can’t be conquered because they can’t be governed. Trying to conquer them is like trying to conquer lions or tigers. You can whip a lion or even kill it, yes, but you can’t possibly impose your will on it even if you keep it in a cage for twenty years. These are a race of lions here. Government as we understand it is a concept that can never exist here.”

Nicomedes was wrong about the freedom of the Saracens, but he was right about the possibility of governing them. God said they would always be at war with their neighbors, and so that’s the way it will be. Attempting to bring democracy to Ishmael’s descendants is worse than a fool’s errand. It’s rebellion against God. Do we really think we can bring peace where God said there can be no peace?

Gen 16:11- And the angel of the LORD said unto [Haggar], Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
Gen 16:12- And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him…

The Lowest Common Denominator

Later, a Roman in exile became a friend of the fictional version of Muhammad in the days before he Islam. He said to Muhammad, “We Romans are accustomed to regarding all creeds with tolerance, and if you ever visit our capital you will find temples of a hundred faiths standing side by side. But I do see the beauty of your teachings.”

Muhammad replied, “Beauty? I asked about truth. When you say you accept all faiths as equally true, what you are really saying is that you see no truth in any of them…” And he was absolutely correct. It borders on insanity to say that Hinduism and Voodoo contain as much truth as Christianity or Judaism. Most of the great religions are totally incompatible with each other. Either you believe Yeshua’s words or you believe Muhammad’s. If you say you believe them both, what you are actually saying is that you believe neither, and you make yourself look like a complete ignoramus.

Divorce Is Not the Problem

Dr. Stephen Baskerville at MensNewsDaily wrote that "...until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that "divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays." The central problem is the divorce laws."

He's right that divorce is a problem and that the divorce laws are a problem, but he is way off when he says they are the central problem. The divorce laws are terribly perverse, but that is only a symptom of a greater problem that really is cultural. Or maybe I should say spiritual. The central problem with marriage today is feminism, rebellion against God's prescribed order. The absurdities of no fault divorce, mandatory and draconian spousal maintenance and child support payments, default child custody laws, homosexual marriage, et cetera, are the logical end of rejecting the common sense of created order. In that context, divorce is actually an oft-abused remedy that God has built into his Law.

Here's my ideal solution (as of today--I might change my mind later):

1. Take marriage out of the hands of government. Do away with marriage licenses. The civil government has no legitimate role to play in deciding who may marry whom. Neither does the church.
2. Replace marriage licenses and platitudinal "vows" that no one takes seriously with real marriage contracts that must be signed by the bride, groom, and at least one senior relative of each. Two would be better. If there are no relatives available, then a spiritual mentor, such as pastor, rabbi, or priest, would do.
3. Reduce the government's role in marriage and divorce to contract enforcement.
4. Immediately eliminate government financed welfare for able-bodied adults and corporations. Gradually eliminate most other government financed welfare programs as well and eliminate the income tax to compensate. Charity is admirable and spiritually mandatory, but there's no charity at the end of a gun.
5. Institute a biblically based land and property reform. Every family gets its own land, which will be returned every fiftieth year without obligation. No land can ever be permanently sold, but can only be leased for a maximum term of fifty years. The only way that land can be permanently divided or transferred is through inheritance. Eliminate inheritance taxes. (I did say ideal and not necessarily practical, didn't I?)
6. Replace the judicial concepts of punishment and reform with restitution and removal. Scrap 95% of all laws and send all the lawyers to an internment camp on the shores of the Beaufort Sea. The ones we don't just give to old Billy, anyways. All future judges in local courts must be unpaid and must be respected and successful men of the general public.

Then I think we might be getting somewhere. ;-)

The Eighth Day

Days were divided into seven-day weeks at Creation, with the seventh day set aside as a day of rest. If you are at all familiar with Hebrew numerology, you'll know that the number of each day corresponds in meaning with those things created on that day. Two obvious examples are six and seven. Six is the number of man, who was created on the sixth day. Seven is the number of completion and perfection. Creation was complete and God rested on the seventh day.

Eight is the number of new beginnings. On the eighth day of Creation, a new week began--the first week of the completed creation. Throughout the Bible, eight is a day for starting new things. The eighth day of Sukkot is a high Sabbath in honor of the start of a new life in relationship to God. The eight days of Hanukkah represent the rededication of the Temple and are a shadow of the Great Sukkot to come (Isaiah 4, among others). Yeshua rose from the dead at the very beginning of the eighth day not to change the Sabbath from the seventh day--that is actually one of the signs of the antichrist (Daniel 7:25)--but to symbolize a new phase of his ministry and the new life we have in him.

Veterans Day 2007

I wanted to write something in honor of Veterans Day, but I can't think of anything appropriate. There is honor in serving, in being willing to risk your life to defend your nation. I only realized after I had already served for several years that the nation I had signed up to defend didn't exist anymore, and maybe it never did.

It seems I've been down that road more than once now.

The Game Plan: Good Call

When I checked the movie listings I didn't even mention this one to my son. I didn't think he'd be interested in a cute father-daughter story. Instead, we settled on Martian Child despite my misgivings about the pro-homosexual theme of the original book. (The reviews said that Cusack's character had been straightened for the movie version.) However, as soon as he saw The Game Plan on the marquee, all thoughts of cardboard boxes were out.

I was expecting another story featuring an incompetent father, but I was pleasantly surprised. Johnson's character was vain and self-obsessed, but not stupid. I think the audience heard the line, "Peyton needs her father," so many times that someone out there might get the idea that the writers think fathers are more than sperm donors and cash cows. Good for them!

I really liked this movie. And not just because Roselyn Sanchez was all over it. That doesn't hurt, though.

What Was Sarai's Status in Pharaoh's House?

From Genesis 12:15 - "...the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house."

Sarai was taken to live in Pharaoh's house, but only in a state of semi-betrothal (v19). Apparently, it was a widespread practice for a wealthy man to take his prospective bride into his house--often against her will--as a sort of hostage in order to influence negotiations with her family and to forestall other potential suitors. Other possible reasons for this practice may have been to ensure the bride's purity and to watch for indications of sickness which appear over time. The same practice can be seen in...

1. The similar events at Gerar (Genesis 20:1-18).
2. In the story of Dinah and Shechem (Genesis 34).
3. The betrothal of a captured war bride (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
4. In the story of Queen Esther (Esther 2:1-18).

There is something similar among some modern polygamous families. A prospective bride might live with the groom and his family for a period of several months to a year so that she can be certain their lifestyle will suit her and so that any personality conflicts with existing wives might become obvious before a binding commitment is made. Close knit communities who worship and work together would eliminate the perceived need for such "trial periods" because everyone would already have a good idea of each other's character and lifestyles.

Liberty for Security

 Something that Harry Browne used to ask people: Would you be willing to trade your favorite government program for greater freedom and prosperity? What he was really asking people was to trade the illusion of security for liberty.

Do you really care about education? Do you also care about the freedom to speak your mind? Then consider getting the federal government out of both. If you could secure your right to speak and hear the truth on any subject, would you be willing to shut down the federal Department of Education? What if it meant you would also have an extra thousand dollars each year to invest in your own child's education?

Do you really care about the plight of small-scale farmers in the face of unfair competition from giant corporations? Do you also care about the right to defend your family from human predators? Wouldn't it be satisfying to know you could get more money into the hands of those farmers at the same time you ensured your right to protect your own home? Eliminate federal subsidies to farms, which probably do more to support politicians and lobbyists than to help farmers, and you would have more money in your pocket to spend directly on locally grown produce.

The problem with using government to solve social problems is that there is always a trade off. If you give the government the power to regulate or fund something, it will always use that power to take a little more. The only way you will ever have more freedom is by taking power away from government. Arguments about monopolies, anarchy, and all of those typical panic buttons are just so much hot air in the face of reality. Monopolies are almost always created by government. Anarchy grows even while the federal, state, and local police have more power at their disposal than ever before.

Government programs are like security blankets. They're helpful now and then, but they're mostly only good for making you feel better. They can't protect you from the real bogeymen, and the government refuses to even try. In truth, most people don't have a lot of room to complain about foreclosures, school shootings, or terrorist attacks. As Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

If you're plan to vote in the presidential election next year, I urge you to support Ron Paul now. Some of his ideas might scare you, but, like walking on your own for the first time, that's the price of growing up. Don't be a child forever. Take some responsibility for your own successes and failures, for your own liberty and security.