Rules and contact information

The rules here are very simple to follow. I ask everyone who posts to respect each other and refrain from childish behavior. I do not allow spam etc. We can disagree, but let’s do so in a manner that is professional and respectful.

If you want to submit a post to this site please e-mail me your article. Please include the title, subject, and your name(If you want to use a pen name then that is fine) in your e-mail. Please note that submitting an article does not guarantee it will get published.

If you have any questions please contact me at

Please feel free to use any of my personal writings for nonprofit reference etc. All I ask is you link what you reference and/or copy back to this blog. Thank you.


8 thoughts on “Rules and contact information

  1. I’m sorry, but I laughed out loud when you tweeted that not being able to buy alcohol on a sunday means you’re living in a theocracy. What we live in is, in fact, an atheist technocratic state that is trying to stamp out religion.

  2. Our Founding Fathers created a country free from theocracy. They never intended us to be like Europe or any mystic run state. Yes, some atheist are just as bad as what they are fighting(I stand against them as well because both radical sides are wrong). See: We do not need zealots – Christian or any other – taking over our liberty movement.

    Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.(source)

    Now back to not buying alcohol on Sunday. Why Sunday? What is the basis of this Blue Law? Religion is the basis of these laws, therefore they need to be repealed. Christians would cry and belly ache if Muslims and Jews passed local laws enforcing their dietary laws on the Sabbath.

  3. Our Founding Fathers were Christians, and wanted freedom from the religious persecution they had experienced. If a local law says you can’t buy alcohol on sunday, then you have 3 simple choices; buy your alcohol earlier in the week and save it, shop somewhere else, or move. On the other hand, when our current atheist government forces students to learn evolution is schools, there is no alternative.

    Now, we are, as you well know, not talking about the country the Founding Fathers gave us; we haven’t lived in that country for a very long time. What we are living in, is an atheist state which is, through the state-run education indoctrination system, trying to quash all religions. If you are concerned with free expression for all, you realize that this is the true danger, not whether your local county says you can’t buy booze on *one day*. Especially not when the government ignores state laws that say cannabis should be legal.

    (Does this still county as “Friendly” debate?)

  4. Spoken like a true theocratic statist!

    You sir, just want to argue based on your revisionist Christian history about this country’s foundation and Founding Fathers. Did you even read my blog post about this subject?

    You sir, are not a defender of individual rights, liberty, and the dream of living free, I am not sure why you insist on posting here if all you intend to do is insult and spam. If you want to have a civil debate, then we can but I refuse run in circles with you.

  5. Wonderful, friendly debate. I enjoy reading both your thoughts on the subjects at hand.

    First, from my Individualist (yet not Humanist) humble opinion, let me say I think you’re both right and, no offense to my friend Dave, both wrong. Freedom is for everyone.

    Consider for a moment this quote:

    “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”

    Now take a long quiet look at this from both a Humanist and a Biblical perspective.

    You both desire freedom, but is freedom something only for yourself or for people who think only as you do? If so, it would seem that whatever the majority defines a Politically Correct would be the only recourse permitted by the strong arm of your chosen government. And where would that leave the Individual? Free to worship as he chooses? Free to purchase whatever he’d like on any day of the week he’d like to?

    As Dave says in his post “The trust test of Liberty…”
    The trust test of liberty is supporting liberty even when it rears an ugly head. We cannot say we support liberty while setting out to censor those with whom we disagree.

    While Dave and I disagree on some personal items, the good news is, we don’t have to agree on individual choices, and when it comes to his assessment of True Liberty, he is right on target.

    Let me share two short examples:

    As a young Marine I was challenged with a fellow Marine, LCPL Paris, who was much less patriotic (by my Country-before-self definition) than I was, who was a strong independent thinker, and who spoke his mind a great deal more than I was comfortable with. So, I had to decide long ago that I would fight for, not just MY freedom of speech, but specifically for HIS freedom of speech. It took a while, but I had to confront my mindset directly, and admit that the struggle I faced was an internal battle, where I wanted him to conform to my way of thinking, that of a theocrat, as my buddy Dave would put it. After a good while I had a serious heart change.

    I realized that if God Himself does not force anyone to His point of view, then why should I be so inclined or determined to convince others.

    A close Jewish friend of mine realized that I study the Bible often and wanted an answer to a deeply personal question. He had recently been verbally attacked by an overzealous Christian salesman-type, being yelled at that when he died, he’d for sure be headed straight to Hell for eternity. Now, I’m really NOT trying to open that can of worms on your blog, but only mention it to give some background. He asked me, Matt, what do you say? Am I going to Hell for eternity when I die? So my answer to my Jewish friend was, “I’m NOT your judge, I would never set myself up, in such a conceited way as to presume to act as your judge. But if I were to have any inclination to believe that the world and all that’s in it was created by Someone, then that Divine Creator would still have authority over His creation, and as His creation, we would have Someone to answer to in the end, with how we lived. But if I were at all unsure of what happens next, then I’d search and study until I were.” In any case, I refused to be his judge. As Christians we are instructed by the Bible and the God we worship to NOT judge others. It is not our place to do so.

    How does this apply to this friendly debate?

    It’s an oversimplification and mostly incorrect to define America as either a Christian or an Atheistic country. There are plenty of each, and with Freedom of (or from) religion, we can all live in peace, respecting the rights of the Individual over that of the State.

    What would be our justification for imposing one set of beliefs over another individual? Remember, Individual rights are not subject to a public vote. Should a ruling majority, in a true democracy really be the kind of country any of us would like to live in? Even if our point of view reigned for a while, would it be right to deny the rights of those who disagree with us, would it be moral? And what about when the winds of time change, and we find ourselves in the minority?

    Isn’t denying anyone the freedom to purchase whatever, whenever, showing an over-reaching government? And if we can justify this, by misapplying Biblical principles to those to whom it really doesn’t apply, then what’s next? Will we require a uniform catechism? Should our children be required to attend government indoctrination camps, specifically targeting the young mind, to mindlessly support any and all aspects of government? Wait a minute; isn’t that already going on in the name of “public education”? I’m all for a well-educated electorate, but isn’t what most call “public education” really government “education” or indoctrination.

    When Dave says, “You sir, are not a defender of individual rights, liberty, and the dream of living free, I am not sure why you insist on posting here…” Let me adjust my comment just a little off of that. Thank you for posting, or sharing your opinion , it challenges us all to stay or become frank or upright and fight against every form of political and personal hypocrisy. So thank you for helping open the issue on what being a defender of individual rights really means.

    And consider in all Biblical sincerity the fact that our Creator has endowed each individual with the freedom to choose, to choose either wisely or foolishly and to reap the rewards of either decision. We should never remove another individual’s right to choose.

    And if I may speak, with a little presumption, for those like Dave who would practice his beliefs at home quite differently than I, Dave is not saying that you are theocratic because you want to follow your beliefs in your own home, or at your own church. He’s merely pointing out that the offensive part would be where you would impose by use of government force, your beliefs on him or others.

    Study the name Statist, it’s not a complement, but like they say, if the shoe fits, wear it. Understand it, study it, and if the title fits, either wear it with pride or change. I believe that if you study Jesus’s life here on earth, you’ll see an example of a freedom loving individual. Statist and true Christianity are incompatible. I don’t judge you, I just encourage you to search for truth and not to confuse living morally right as an individual with a right to impose, by force, conformity to those beliefs on others.

    Study free markets. What right or place does government have in any business transaction? Only to hold both parties accountable for upholding their end of a contract. But to define, limit or expand a private contract by public means is nothing more than tyranny of the masses. What legitimate place does government (other majority-enabled statists) have to interfere with any business dealings between two free individuals? I say none!

    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s