Turn the Other Cheek

Introduction: 

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5:38-42, NIV 

Stance Summary: 

I think the text means exactly what it says, but with an understood reservation in favour of those obviously exceptional cases which every hearer would naturally assume to be exceptions without being told. 

CS Lewis (1940, The Weight of Glory - Why I am not a Pacifist)

I agree with Lewis on this one, there are times where we have to use violence in order to follow the other commandments and live out our life.  Even Christ used aggression when cleaning the temple of the people who tainted it.  Like Lewis says in the same address, if it's between you and another person, be the better man and let him be.  But as soon as another person enters it, the whole paradigm changes.  As I say on my facebook page:

Course, I'm no pacifist, the moment you use force to get something from someone else, I'll be all over you like I was all over that spider and flying bug thing earlier today. ... They got the shoe to the face technique, just so you know.

Personal Actions Based on Stance:  
Expansion:
Sources:

Closing:
 

The Governments "spend, Spend, Spend!"

GIntroduction: 
This stance is written for the Government's policy of heavily promoting debt, spending, and consumption.  They are under the impression that what doesn't work to increase wealth for individuals, will increase wealth for society, which as we all know is just a collection of individuals.

Stance Summary:
I am not for any government policies!  But there are ones I like better than most, and the policy of promoting debt on a personal and national level is horrid.  The government should cut back spending anywhere and everywhere (especially on the Department of War or rather the Dept of "Defense").  In doing so their in actions, their savings would encourage people within the nation to start saving more.  When the nation spends, most of the people will follow suit

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
I am a heavy saver.  I try to save or invest more than the average person.  Which sadly is easy enough to do right now.  But even in times of wealth proliferation, I try to "beat" the average person in terms of saving.

Expansion:
Spending creates a specific level of living standards at the amount commonly spent.  In addition, saving and investing reduces the future spending necessary to maintain that same living standard and allows you to then spend the same for a better living standard.  Spending more than one has will also boost the living "standard", but only so long as you can spend more than you have.

For example, lets say we have a scale of 0 - 100 of wealth.  0 being horrid wealth, 100 being amazing wealth.  Say it costs me personally $1000 a month to maintain my level of living of around a 15 wealth, and I am able to save $500.  If I boost my spending to $1600 a month I can raise my standard of living from a 15 to an 18.  I have more things, I go out to dinner more, buy a new computer even though the old one is still good enough.  So now I have a better standard of living, but I now dipping into my savings.  Eventually I will run out of savings and start going into debt.  If I'm smart and reduce my consumption back to the original $1000 level, I can reduce my living standard back to 15 and have no accumulated savings in case of disaster (which could wipe me out and reduce my living standard to a 10 or below).  But say I don't reduce consumption and I start pulling out the credit card for that extra $100 a month.  My debt increases, and increases and suddenly it is no longer manageable.  I have to sell off all my goods, my house (i move into a rental place), sell my car and buy a cheaper one, sell my excess clothes.  But I don't lose my job so I can reduce my spending back to the $1000 level and start saving $500 again.  Except this time my living standard has been reduced to a 10 where I was instead a 15 earlier.  And it will take awhile before I can be back to the 15.

However, let's say I continued at a standard of 15 with $500 in savings, and I invested that over time in my life and in valuable things.  At some point the savings could earn interest and earn you a small bit of extra income that you can spend, maybe raising your living standard from a 15 to a 16 (and maybe over the years from a 16 to 17, 17 to 18, ... and up and up depending on how many financial and life disasters occur eating up your savings), and you haven't changed anything!  Maybe you save up enough money that you are able to invest in yourself, a nicer computer for your business (gotta work hard to get more customers!), a dishwasher to save you time and money, house repairs/upgrades that cost a lot of savings, but make your house more valuable in the long run, and other things like that.  They spend your savings, and increase your living standard, but don't get you into debt.  Over time, and it will take time, you will hit that level 18 living standard that you could have gotten to by just spending more but now you are still saving $500 a month and living under your means at a level 18.  At this point, the only limit you have to continue inching up your living standard is your life expectancy!  ;-)

Sources:

Closing:
 

Nationalism

Introduction: 
Today is 9/11.  September 11th.  A day that is supposed to be of collective sorrow for the innocent lives that were cruelly extinguished nine years ago.  I have no problem with that.  Murder of innocents is always something worth remembering.  The problem I have with the way our nation has twisted the event is how it has become about the State and about those trying to bring home the pain.  This was never about us or them, but making it so has turned Americans into nationalistic narcissists who don't think of other people in other nations with other tongues.  What ever happened to all nations, all tongues?  But the nationalism that has been purposfuly embedded in the American traits is why I write today.

Stance Summary:
I detest nationalism.  I see it as an idol and those who worship, idolaters.  This isn't about politics, or my politics versus yours.  This is about idol worshiping narcissists, each and every one of us, taking our faith out of He who is faithful and putting it into a collective whim that is faithless.  The Government, with all its participation, its community and little cells of politics is the current ages "Tower of Babel"; all the "feel good" benefits of being part of something greater than yourself, being part of the "whole" and feeling connected is nothing but lies and deceitful thinking.  All we are doing is setting up gods and idols.

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
There have been no real actions specifically on nationalism.  I read and study and attempt to open my mind to the truths that God reveals.  I try to see through the lies that are around me every day, as well as the lies that I craft within my own mind and world.  Though those are much harder.  I try to talk about politics and government with people when given the chance, but I remain timid on the whole deal.  People don't like blunt politics.  People especially don't like someone in their face telling them that they are setting up idols.  Though I do admit, I generally don't try it so those are statements based on my thoughts rather than my reality.

Expansion:

Sources:

Closing:
 

Marriage License

Introduction: 
In today's world, the States generally own everything.  And by everything I mean that as it sounds.  They own your labor, they own you, they own your house, they own your property; or at least they think they do, and depending on your endorsement of them you may give them the right as well.  If you think I'm being a little extreme, they have the "right" to take your paycheck, remove a percentage, then give you the remaining.  Try removing that "right" from them and see what happens.  Same with property taxes, if you actually owned your house, then couldn't you just not pay property taxes?  But if you don't pay your tax/rent, then you lose the house.  As for owning you, well that's a topic for another day, but what other entity can jail, kill, hospitalize your body without any consent from you?  Generally only entities that have more of a right to your body than you.

Stance Summary:
If the government owns everything then, why give them the right to your marriage?  My stance on this matter is that a marriage license gives the government authoritative right to your marriage.  The Marriage License is a request by two parties (bride and groom) to be married under the authority of the local state.  Even looking over my in-law's marriage license says in plain English something akin to "This certificate authorizes this marriage".  Though the referenced statement may have been longer, the term authorized was used.  As such, under God I can not give authority over to the State in my marriage.

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
I do believe in unalienable rights established by God through his Natural and Eternal Law, and as such I used those rights to establish my marriage without giving over any authority to the State. I crafted my own Marital document, available in the sources section.  Generally on this site I speak for myself, but in this case I will make the distinction that my wife was fully agreeable on our mutual actions for this. 

Expansion:
I understand that the State will probably assume some authority anyways over my marriage as time goes on.  However, with a clear conscience on the matter I can continue knowing that I did not sign over authority to someone or something else besides God.

I also understand that there are certain benefits to having a licensed marriage that my wife and I will not have, and many of these may make future activities difficult.  That being said, I recognize that no entity or person is required to recognize my marriage, even the State of Washington.  They do not recognize common law, and as far as I understand it they do not recognize my marriage.  That is their prerogative.  As such, it is also their prerogative to not supply benefits generally reserved for couples under their jurisdiction.  Tax benefits being an obvious one.  Other than that, I recognize that I will have to make other arrangements to make sure my wife and I are protected.

Sources:
Personal Marriage document: Link

Closing:
Luckily my Stance was arrived at prior to the need for any actions.  So I do not regret any actions I've taken on the matter.

Coercive Government

Introduction: 

Stance Summary:
I agree with H.L. Mencken's statement:

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.

Assuming that the term government is used meaning all non-voluntary forms of government, which is compatible with his views.


Personal Actions Based on Stance:

Expansion:

Sources:

Closing: