UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES KEVIN CRAIG, ) CASE NO.
Plaintiff, ) CV-94-8090 RSWL (SHX)
)
) PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO
vs. ) DEFENDANT STATE BAR OF
) CALIFORNIA'S FIRST SET
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,) OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendant. )
)
________________________)
PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF JAMES KEVIN CRAIG
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
State all evidentiary facts, other than legal argument upon
which you base your allegation contained in paragraph 8 of the
Complaint that the concept of a "State" is thus
condemned as the institutionalization of violence, and the
political philosophy which justifies the existence of this
violence is contrary to your religion.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2
As with my Response to Interrogatory
No. 1, a complete statement of "all evidentiary
facts" which explicate my opposition to the State would
fill many volumes. Some of those volumes
were listed in my Petition
before the California Supreme Court, Appendix A,
"Petitioner's Religious Views," p. 37, note 27,
reproduced here.[1]
Once again,[2] clear
Biblical statements have not been consistently practiced by
Christians over the centuries. Greatly simplified, the argument
runs as follows:
Ethically, God commands us to love our enemies
and not to kill. Nevertheless, we
use the State to conduct a "bold
foreign policy for a New World Order" (that is, to kill
nearly a quarter million innocent people in Iraq) and to
"speedily bring criminals to justice" (that is, to
kill them).
God commands us not to steal. We
use the State to "redistribute wealth" through "taxation."
God prohibits fraud through currency
debasement. We make it the cornerstone of the State's
economic policy.
God commands us not to kidnap. We use the State to enslave
through conscription and imprisonment.
What distinguishes the State from private citizens is its
claim to sin with impunity.
Historically, this claim is without foundation.
God created man to do the "works
of mercy"[3] in a
family-centered society. Men left the family not out of
necessity, but to pursue their lusts in violation of God's Law. The
Biblical record shows that God nowhere
commanded men to form a State; the state is the instrument
through which rebels violate God's Law. These arguments were set
forth in the California
Petition, Appendix A, "Petitioner's Religious
Views," especially at note
23.
Philosophically, this movement from Patriarchy
to Politics is justified by a philosophy of atheism and secularism.
We are told that our high ideals of good and justice will be
thwarted by evil and the forces of injustice unless we adopt
policies of justifiable war and
legalized violence. Miraculous
divine intervention cannot
be relied upon, if it in fact exists at all; we must arm
ourselves. The philosophy of the State presupposes the
ultimacy of rights over self-sacrifice,
competition and threats over harmony, and vengeance
over forgiveness. Constitutionalism
denies that order arises spontaneously and can safely continue
in the absence of organized political force,[4]
and yet in the Bible we are
explicitly challenged to repudiate violence and trust in the
Providence of God. These
two philosophies are utterly irreconcilable.[5]
Christianity began to dominate in the Middle
Ages. But after the "Enlightenment," Secularism
triumphed, reaching its apex in the 20th century.
During this century's reign of
Secularism, over 180 million people worldwide have been
murdered (deliberately killed) by secular governments.[6]
Here are 180 million reasons to condemn the State, and any
philosophy which justifies this killing or uses it to win an
election is anti-Christian.
NOTES
(1) Ironically, many evolutionists and
Secular Humanists now question faith in any coercive
political apparatus to generate or preserve law and order, and I
quote them frequently: see generally,
- Robert C. Ellickson, Order Without Law: How Neighbors
Settle Disputes, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1991;
- Bruce L. Benson, The Enterprise of Law, San
Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy,
1990;
- Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law, Indianapolis:
Liberty Fund, 1991 (3rd ed.);
- David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a
Radical Capitalism, La Salle: Open Court, 1989 (2nd
ed.);
- William Tucker, Vigilante: The Backlash Against Crime
in America, New York: Stein and Day, 1985;
- Morris and Linda Tannehill, The Market for Liberty,
New York: Laissez Faire Books, 1984;
- Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty, New York:
Collier Books, 1978;
- J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Anarchism
(Nomos XIX, Yearbook of the American Society for Political
and Legal Philosophy), NY: New York University Press, 1978;
- J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Voluntary
Associations (Nomos XI, Yearbook of the American Society
for Political and Legal Philosophy), NY: Atherton Press,
1969.
- Jerold S. Auerbach, Justice Without Law? Resolving
Disputes Without Lawyers, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983
Nobel
Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek was also a defender of
what he called "spontaneous order." See generally, his
The Mirage of Social Justice, volume II of Law,
Legislation, and Liberty, published by the University of
Chicago Press, 1976. See also J. Birner, ed., Hayek:
Co-Ordination and Evolution, 1994.
Unfortunately, Christians have not frequently spoken in
defense of "anarchism." One exception is Jacques Ellul,
Professor of Law at the University of Bordeaux, France, in Anarchy
and Christianity (1988). [Back
to text.]
(2) See
the remarks from the Dictionary of the History of Ideas.
[Back to text.]
(3) See Interrogatory
No. 1. [Back to text.]
(4) This presupposition dominates nearly
all of The Federalist Papers. [Back
to text.]
(5) The Bible is critical of the State
and institutionalized violence from cover to cover. Its rhetoric
is almost unremittingly strident and defiant. But the Bible also
commands us not
to return violence to the State for its violence. These
commands to "submit"
to the wrongs of the State have historically been understood by
many Christians to justify the existence of the State. This is
tragically erroneous. When Jesus says "turn the other
cheek," He is not saying that hitting people is morally
legitimate! [Back to text.]
(6) R. Rummel, Death
by Government, 1994. [Back
to text.]