It’s been a few months since I enjoyed a good argumentation rodeo. One presented itself on a friend’s discussion thread in social media recently. I had been resisting the urge to throw-in my two-cents’ worth (or five bucks, depending on perspective).
By the way, as a matter of pure happenstance that friend is a fellow Libertarian.
In this latest installment of Don’s Debates, a video spoofing stereotypical comments made to libertarians by three pro-big-government characters was posted.
It appeared as though it was going to turn into a run-of-the-mill libertarian-love-fest in the comments section. Right after I posted a quote by Frédéric Bastiat there came a pair of replies by someone less libertarian-leaning. Another individual followed those two comments with his own selection of a Bastiat quote: “It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
Then the straw men were erected by the less-libertarian participant. He contributed the following observation: “State raised grain is inferior in some way to privately raised grain? Less iron or protein, or you just don't like anything any government might do? Will it feed fewer people?”
The banter continued after I had logged-out to start getting ready for work. It became a tad circular in nature while I was away. It had been my intention to not embroil myself in an elongated point-counterpoint session. But, I allowed Mr. Statist to suck me into the conversation when he opted to proclaim those who disagreed with him weren’t adequately making their point.
So, I gave-in and replied with the following:
The problem, [name omitted], is when government (be it here or anywhere else in the world) decides to participate in any industry – in the case you're attempting to make, agriculture – virtually all actions must be run through its internal bureaucracy which makes the production and delivery of the grain inferior: not the grain itself.
When the production and delivery are inferior, less of it gets to its recipients in a timely manner. The delays and inevitable loss to spoilage leads to increased hunger.
You're engaging in a complete straw man argument.
You're deliberately omitting the fact when government is thrust into a sector of the economy it soon disapproves of competition. This leads to laws and regulations that squeeze-out private-sector competitors and leave people few-to-no choices of alternate sources for that grain.
Adding to the potential for rampant hunger is the unavoidable political component when those elected (or appointed) insist distribution be fair, which then requires a massive regulatory establishment to oversee said fairness.
That doesn't factor [further] increased hunger in certain segments of the population where the political connections aren't as vibrant – thus the component of fairness becomes flexible in its definition as a result of cronyism.
Does cronyism exist in the free market?
Of course.
But, in a free market we are all consequently free to pursue our desired goods (such as grain) from other sources when that situation becomes intolerable. Or, depending on the circumstances of one's situation, some among us are then free to take it upon ourselves to engage in that industry and produce that good.
Mr. Statist responded later that morning with this end-all-be-all post:
“We don't have anything even approaching a free market. Talk about straw men!”
Sigh...
Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Losing my religion, saving my faith
“Awakening” and “enlightenment” – they are terms which describe intersecting periods in American history.
In our nation we find ourselves in need of them again now more than ever. We stand at the cusp of either turning an amazing corner if we can wake-up as a society or becoming bonded into servitude of the whims of other nations which have been able to maintain greater clarity in seeing the consequences of nations’ choices: theirs and ours.
To save our country, we need a second “Age of Enlightenment.” With history as our road map, it then should become obvious we first need to enter a second “Age of Awakening.”
The original Age of Awakening was a stretch of the middle of the 18th century when a new ministry nearly exclusively the domain of Colonial America began to arise. It empowered the Enlightenment which had emerged in Great Britain in the late 17th century – which began slowly inspiring America’s greatest minds over the course of the century that followed.
We have gotten away from the ministry of that time, unfortunately. In truth, we have strayed terribly from it. The operative inquiry becomes, “How do we get back to it?”
One hope that I hold lies in my own personal awakening in my faith this year – and I pray it can take hold across our society.
In my previous note, I belabored the point that the Laws of God and the laws of man were never meant to be one and the same. I firmly believe the failure to acknowledge this truth is one of the key blunders of the American Right. When you vest that much broad-sweeping power into the bureaucracy of the state you allow much too dangerously great of an opportunity for those who hate Christianity to engage in destructive mischief upon stepping into that power.
But, this spring the truth to be found on the other side of that coin finally got through.
I was born into the Catholic Church. I attended Shrine of the Little Flower Catholic School for grades 1 through 8. I was raised Catholic.
Recently, though, I found myself struggling to return to faithful attendance of Mass on the Sabbath. I have been very delinquent in recent years with keeping my end of the bargain on the Third Commandment – so I understood my obligation to seek the sacrament of Reconciliation in order to be able to receive Communion again.
Even after forcing myself to not be lazy to that end for a few weekends, I still experienced significant angst over this matter.
Nevertheless, I have consistently longed to return to that path in life since I allowed myself to lapse in attending Mass.
Then it finally hit me. I don’t disagree with the Church on its Catechism. I disagree with its dogma that in order to be one with the Church you must rigidly meet points A, B, and C through X, Y, and Z.
With such an unwavering system of rules to be able to stay in the Church, in a mirror image of what the Evangelical Right Wing in America has been pursuing for decades the Vatican has been for centuries attempting to pigeonhole the laws of man into and amongst the Laws of God.
If structuring government so as to make the laws of man reflect the Laws of God is destined to be a failed concept in our society, then it stands to reason the pursuit of the other direction ultimately cannot succeed for any church.
My apprehension also stems from the massive bureaucratic framework the Church has built over the last 1700 to 1800 years.
Now, all the major denominations of Christianity have engaged in this practice. The Catholic Church, though, stands out as the leading example. (Quixotic as it may appear, I still believe in the Catholic Church’s Apostolic origins as well as the holy authority of the Pope)
This is where my libertarianism has bled into my religious province. My question now becomes, “Is it necessary for the ministry of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be so heavily contingent on the existence of a massive, complex administrative hierarchy?
Much the same way I believe society will function just fine with minimal government and reliance on our ability to engage in self-governance, so too I believe the future of Christianity would be just as promising with significant scaling-back of church organizational apparatus.
Just consider the fact that as our government has gotten ever larger and more centralized so has the omnipresence of politics grown to nauseating proportions.
As our churches become more reliant on central authorities which operate with ever-expanding dogmatic networks, it is inevitable that the risk of politics creeping into these machineries will become more prevalent.
And when politics come into play, would not the need assuredly arise for a set of rules, or laws, to keep the political side of things in check? Would not some form of framework of laws be needed to keep the internal politics from overtaking the church affairs?
Ultimately, does that not also mean you then end-up with the laws of man taking precedent over ministering to parishioners the Laws of God?
Much like with the United States government, the bureaucratic nature of organized religion has become unsustainable.
What history has taught us
As we came to learn in America, during the Age of Enlightenment which preceded the Revolution, our relationships with God and Christ were always meant to be a personal one. The opposite of this outlook is known as collective salvation.
Collective salvation was what the churches in Europe had begun implementing as a means of maintaining control of the masses: if an orderly adherence to the official sermons was not maintained, no single person could hope to be saved in the absence of blessings for the whole of society.
However, here in the American colonies during the 18th and 19th centuries, ministers and preachers began sermonizing a more individual approach toward belief in God and Christ.
Thanks to a man named George Whitefield, who began a barnstorming tour across the colonies in the mid-1700s preaching his new – and (dare I say) revolutionary – outlook on finding God, the people in the New World would slowly but surely come to understand that when we as individuals are good and more virtuous then the parishes and congregations (and ultimately the communities) are stronger and greater.
What Whitefield would end-up not only teaching but inspiring in our American ancestors during that period in history was when we are more enabled as individuals to better ourselves and fortify the spiritual health of our families, our society as a whole gradually becomes a healthier and more vibrant place.
Naturally, humanity at that time 260 years ago had a long way to go in terms of realizing civilized living and overcoming many of the superstitions which still dominated the culture. But, during that period people in the New World were more focused on self-betterment than at any time before and since – paving the way for a societal rise to world greatness that the world had scarcely seen before.
And all the while, the collective gains were being made because the spirit of the individual had been unleashed – an individual who understood the vital importance of loyalty to country yet at the same time was free to seek salvation one-on-one with God and Christ.
So, what does this mean?
One of the most important components of the spread of Whitefield’s message and the rise it gave to the American Enlightenment was the fact the individual churches retained a great deal more autonomy across the Colonies than their counterparts back in Europe and Western Asia.
Of course, much of that was due to the existence of such an enormous geographical separation from the various councils and authorities for each Christian sect as well as the lack of modern transmittal of ideas as we know it today. Still, the overall conditions of the time – not just in terms of the absence of technology but the evolving sense of the American identity – led to an amazing awakening not just of Christianity but for Christian values.
Arguably the key messages being spread across the colonies during this particular junction in history was the importance of virtue among the people: that without Americans being a virtuous people the prospects for not only achieving independence but also for lasting as a sovereign nation would be rather dim.
But, it was the more independent nature of the congregations (particularly in the more remote, frontier reaches of the original colonies), outside of the reach of church bureaucracies, that helped cultivate the sense of American Individualism: the person who sought the optimum cross-section of self-sufficiency and Christian virtuousness.
Perhaps most importantly, the conditions of living in and maintaining a community in the more untamed, frontier portions of 18th century America also led people of differing faiths to work and worship together as a result of the necessity of unity just to survive, let alone prosper – bolstering the nation’s identity as a land of religious freedom.
Where should this lead us?
It has become a growing rallying cry – among those of us who wish to see the ship of America sail true again – “Where is our George Washington among us?” that person whom we need to step forward (no doubt reluctantly as the Father of Our Nation did) and inspire us as a nation to modestly and graciously seek the path toward Restoration: that individual who can do so having earned their place as “First in the hearts of America.”
What many of us (myself included) have forgotten from our history lessons is that even George Washington needed to be preceded by others in the greater scheme of things who would set the stage for him to become our nation’s most beloved leader.
Before Washington took his place in the annals of American history there needed to be the likes of Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.
Before them, there was George Whitefield.
Before we can find our modern-day Washington, we must find our modern-day Paine, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin.
Before we can find them, we must find our modern-day Whitefield.
In the end…
If nothing else, my aim with this essay is to point-out that we are doing ourselves a disfavor by clinging tightly to our identities as Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and so on.
Do we not all believe in the Immaculate Conception, birth, life, ministry, crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ?
And that leads me back to that juncture I reached this spring: that tightly-held notion of being a Catholic was nothing more than a label – and we have become entirely too preoccupied anymore as a society with finding a comfortable label for ourselves.
As a result, in the modern quest for labels we allowed ourselves to forget our identity as Christians.
Christ called upon His apostles James and John to become “fishers of men.” His call to us through the ages hasn’t changed: to be disciples of Him. He has never called upon us to fit neatly into an arbitrary category.
For Christianity to survive another 2,000 years, we must learn to focus on discovering Christian Unity. Ultimately, these labels of church identity serve as much to divide us as any other factor working against Christianity today. With so much stacked against us anymore when it comes to living by the Gospel, what sense does it make to actively pursue and erect additional barriers to unity as Christians?
Even if we are unable to arrive at the kind of ecumenical Christian faith I pray can be achieved, a united Christian faith will become a movement for good the likes of which the world has not previously witnessed.
I believe in Christ and I believe the Bible is the Holy Word of God.
I make those proclamations in the complete absence of shame or embarrassment. Of course, there will be those who try to peg a different set of labels on me – such as Jesus freak, bible thumper, and other, similarly derisive (if not blasphemous) markers.
Just know this: they only label me – they cannot define me.
My faith in God and Christ will accomplish that.
In our nation we find ourselves in need of them again now more than ever. We stand at the cusp of either turning an amazing corner if we can wake-up as a society or becoming bonded into servitude of the whims of other nations which have been able to maintain greater clarity in seeing the consequences of nations’ choices: theirs and ours.
To save our country, we need a second “Age of Enlightenment.” With history as our road map, it then should become obvious we first need to enter a second “Age of Awakening.”
The original Age of Awakening was a stretch of the middle of the 18th century when a new ministry nearly exclusively the domain of Colonial America began to arise. It empowered the Enlightenment which had emerged in Great Britain in the late 17th century – which began slowly inspiring America’s greatest minds over the course of the century that followed.
We have gotten away from the ministry of that time, unfortunately. In truth, we have strayed terribly from it. The operative inquiry becomes, “How do we get back to it?”
One hope that I hold lies in my own personal awakening in my faith this year – and I pray it can take hold across our society.
In my previous note, I belabored the point that the Laws of God and the laws of man were never meant to be one and the same. I firmly believe the failure to acknowledge this truth is one of the key blunders of the American Right. When you vest that much broad-sweeping power into the bureaucracy of the state you allow much too dangerously great of an opportunity for those who hate Christianity to engage in destructive mischief upon stepping into that power.
But, this spring the truth to be found on the other side of that coin finally got through.
I was born into the Catholic Church. I attended Shrine of the Little Flower Catholic School for grades 1 through 8. I was raised Catholic.
Recently, though, I found myself struggling to return to faithful attendance of Mass on the Sabbath. I have been very delinquent in recent years with keeping my end of the bargain on the Third Commandment – so I understood my obligation to seek the sacrament of Reconciliation in order to be able to receive Communion again.
Even after forcing myself to not be lazy to that end for a few weekends, I still experienced significant angst over this matter.
Nevertheless, I have consistently longed to return to that path in life since I allowed myself to lapse in attending Mass.
Then it finally hit me. I don’t disagree with the Church on its Catechism. I disagree with its dogma that in order to be one with the Church you must rigidly meet points A, B, and C through X, Y, and Z.
With such an unwavering system of rules to be able to stay in the Church, in a mirror image of what the Evangelical Right Wing in America has been pursuing for decades the Vatican has been for centuries attempting to pigeonhole the laws of man into and amongst the Laws of God.
If structuring government so as to make the laws of man reflect the Laws of God is destined to be a failed concept in our society, then it stands to reason the pursuit of the other direction ultimately cannot succeed for any church.
My apprehension also stems from the massive bureaucratic framework the Church has built over the last 1700 to 1800 years.
Now, all the major denominations of Christianity have engaged in this practice. The Catholic Church, though, stands out as the leading example. (Quixotic as it may appear, I still believe in the Catholic Church’s Apostolic origins as well as the holy authority of the Pope)
This is where my libertarianism has bled into my religious province. My question now becomes, “Is it necessary for the ministry of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be so heavily contingent on the existence of a massive, complex administrative hierarchy?
Much the same way I believe society will function just fine with minimal government and reliance on our ability to engage in self-governance, so too I believe the future of Christianity would be just as promising with significant scaling-back of church organizational apparatus.
Just consider the fact that as our government has gotten ever larger and more centralized so has the omnipresence of politics grown to nauseating proportions.
As our churches become more reliant on central authorities which operate with ever-expanding dogmatic networks, it is inevitable that the risk of politics creeping into these machineries will become more prevalent.
And when politics come into play, would not the need assuredly arise for a set of rules, or laws, to keep the political side of things in check? Would not some form of framework of laws be needed to keep the internal politics from overtaking the church affairs?
Ultimately, does that not also mean you then end-up with the laws of man taking precedent over ministering to parishioners the Laws of God?
Much like with the United States government, the bureaucratic nature of organized religion has become unsustainable.
What history has taught us
As we came to learn in America, during the Age of Enlightenment which preceded the Revolution, our relationships with God and Christ were always meant to be a personal one. The opposite of this outlook is known as collective salvation.
Collective salvation was what the churches in Europe had begun implementing as a means of maintaining control of the masses: if an orderly adherence to the official sermons was not maintained, no single person could hope to be saved in the absence of blessings for the whole of society.
However, here in the American colonies during the 18th and 19th centuries, ministers and preachers began sermonizing a more individual approach toward belief in God and Christ.
Thanks to a man named George Whitefield, who began a barnstorming tour across the colonies in the mid-1700s preaching his new – and (dare I say) revolutionary – outlook on finding God, the people in the New World would slowly but surely come to understand that when we as individuals are good and more virtuous then the parishes and congregations (and ultimately the communities) are stronger and greater.
What Whitefield would end-up not only teaching but inspiring in our American ancestors during that period in history was when we are more enabled as individuals to better ourselves and fortify the spiritual health of our families, our society as a whole gradually becomes a healthier and more vibrant place.
Naturally, humanity at that time 260 years ago had a long way to go in terms of realizing civilized living and overcoming many of the superstitions which still dominated the culture. But, during that period people in the New World were more focused on self-betterment than at any time before and since – paving the way for a societal rise to world greatness that the world had scarcely seen before.
And all the while, the collective gains were being made because the spirit of the individual had been unleashed – an individual who understood the vital importance of loyalty to country yet at the same time was free to seek salvation one-on-one with God and Christ.
So, what does this mean?
One of the most important components of the spread of Whitefield’s message and the rise it gave to the American Enlightenment was the fact the individual churches retained a great deal more autonomy across the Colonies than their counterparts back in Europe and Western Asia.
Of course, much of that was due to the existence of such an enormous geographical separation from the various councils and authorities for each Christian sect as well as the lack of modern transmittal of ideas as we know it today. Still, the overall conditions of the time – not just in terms of the absence of technology but the evolving sense of the American identity – led to an amazing awakening not just of Christianity but for Christian values.
Arguably the key messages being spread across the colonies during this particular junction in history was the importance of virtue among the people: that without Americans being a virtuous people the prospects for not only achieving independence but also for lasting as a sovereign nation would be rather dim.
But, it was the more independent nature of the congregations (particularly in the more remote, frontier reaches of the original colonies), outside of the reach of church bureaucracies, that helped cultivate the sense of American Individualism: the person who sought the optimum cross-section of self-sufficiency and Christian virtuousness.
Perhaps most importantly, the conditions of living in and maintaining a community in the more untamed, frontier portions of 18th century America also led people of differing faiths to work and worship together as a result of the necessity of unity just to survive, let alone prosper – bolstering the nation’s identity as a land of religious freedom.
Where should this lead us?
It has become a growing rallying cry – among those of us who wish to see the ship of America sail true again – “Where is our George Washington among us?” that person whom we need to step forward (no doubt reluctantly as the Father of Our Nation did) and inspire us as a nation to modestly and graciously seek the path toward Restoration: that individual who can do so having earned their place as “First in the hearts of America.”
What many of us (myself included) have forgotten from our history lessons is that even George Washington needed to be preceded by others in the greater scheme of things who would set the stage for him to become our nation’s most beloved leader.
Before Washington took his place in the annals of American history there needed to be the likes of Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.
Before them, there was George Whitefield.
Before we can find our modern-day Washington, we must find our modern-day Paine, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin.
Before we can find them, we must find our modern-day Whitefield.
In the end…
If nothing else, my aim with this essay is to point-out that we are doing ourselves a disfavor by clinging tightly to our identities as Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and so on.
Do we not all believe in the Immaculate Conception, birth, life, ministry, crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ?
And that leads me back to that juncture I reached this spring: that tightly-held notion of being a Catholic was nothing more than a label – and we have become entirely too preoccupied anymore as a society with finding a comfortable label for ourselves.
As a result, in the modern quest for labels we allowed ourselves to forget our identity as Christians.
Christ called upon His apostles James and John to become “fishers of men.” His call to us through the ages hasn’t changed: to be disciples of Him. He has never called upon us to fit neatly into an arbitrary category.
For Christianity to survive another 2,000 years, we must learn to focus on discovering Christian Unity. Ultimately, these labels of church identity serve as much to divide us as any other factor working against Christianity today. With so much stacked against us anymore when it comes to living by the Gospel, what sense does it make to actively pursue and erect additional barriers to unity as Christians?
Even if we are unable to arrive at the kind of ecumenical Christian faith I pray can be achieved, a united Christian faith will become a movement for good the likes of which the world has not previously witnessed.
I believe in Christ and I believe the Bible is the Holy Word of God.
I make those proclamations in the complete absence of shame or embarrassment. Of course, there will be those who try to peg a different set of labels on me – such as Jesus freak, bible thumper, and other, similarly derisive (if not blasphemous) markers.
Just know this: they only label me – they cannot define me.
My faith in God and Christ will accomplish that.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
An Evangelical case for Libertarianism
Important note: if material of an overtly religious nature and that actively examines Judeo-Christian theology and its role in guiding us ideologically is not of interest to you, this is a good point to stop reading and go about other leisure pursuits. I am a firm believer in the notions that America is a Christian nation, to remain in keeping with Christian doctrine means defending and preserving the rights of others to hold differing religious and spiritual beliefs, and that America is great because America is good. If any of these principles do not hold well with you, you will simply be laughed-at for keying-in on the various professions of faith contained in this essay as opposed to the connections between Christianity and libertarianism I assert exist.
It has been argued on many occasions through the generations that to preserve our country’s Christian heritage and identity we must use the force of government power to remove those components of society which exist in opposition to Christian moral values. Some arguments have not contained such an overtly worded premise while others have been uttered with even stronger language toward those ends.
I disagree with this concept entirely and have come to better understand why we need to steer clear of such legislative or constitutional endeavors in recent years.
In exploring what the true meaning of liberty is in America, what has dawned on me through this period of reflection has become a crucial facet to my conclusions: the importance of God’s second-greatest gift to us.
Obviously, our Lord’s greatest gift to his people on Earth has been His only Son, Jesus Christ: His birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection. His second-greatest gift is the one which has made us uniquely human among all His creations: our free will.
And, it is our free will that serves as the focal point of this discussion. It leads us to one of our most important spiritual questions we must answer as Christians.
What is it about faith in Christ that leads us to salvation?
My answer is that in addition to accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we must also prove that faith through the opportunity to rise above sin.
Which individual is more likely to be a true follower of Christ? Is it the person who lived a life of virtue only as a result of an overreaching central authority, due to their options in life having been legislated away to protect them from temptation?
Or, is it the person who – given the opportunity to hear the Word of God and know Jesus’ teachings – opened their heart to the Son of God of their own volition and sought the rocky, gravel road as their path toward following Him; the person who has every opportunity to give-in to temptation but willfully rejects the false promises which accompany it in pursuit of Christ’s Favor at their eventual time of judgment?
At this point, we need to remember two more undeniable and vitally important truths: first, that our God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, is ultimately a forgiving God; also, that belief in – and acceptance of – Christ as our Lord and Savior is the most important Way into God’s kingdom.
As one who seeks greater understanding of Evangelical Christianity, I enter into this pursuit with an unwavering belief in the loving forgiveness of God.
A vital truth Evangelical Republicans disregard
There is one component of a free people such as Americans which the right wing among love to celebrate when it comes to history – our rebelliousness.
Peculiarly though, such high regard for America’s rebellious nature fizzles in silently rapid fashion when it comes to modern society. And so, many conservatives press forward on social issues in politics, legislation, and governance while deliberately ignoring one key reality.
Rebellion is mankind’s natural social state.
We see this throughout American history and we are witnessing it today.
Look at the ongoing fight against the implementation of the so-called Affordable Health Care Act (whose nickname lately has morphed into “Obamneycare”). Through the peaceful exercise of our First Amendment rights, Americans have been engaged in a rebellion of rhetoric against a socialist legislative maneuver that was enacted despite the fact it was clear the majority of voters in the country did not want it.
We also see it in youth whose parents attempt to take the authoritarian approach further than necessary.
That second example best illustrates my point as it relates to this discussion. With rebellion being humanity’s natural social state, to some degree it is because the Evangelical element among Conservative Republicans have sought so fervently to thrust the Gospel of Jesus Christ into our laws that there has been such a rise in atheism as well as a wider disinterest in Christian values and principles among those who identify themselves as Christians.
It is the inevitable pushback against what amounts to right-wing big government: the thrust to deny us through the law our right to exercise our free will.
It happens with each Republican congressional majority and Republican-controlled White House. And, there is bound to be another round of it when the grand pendulum of voter sentiment finishes swinging back to the GOP’s way.
The conservative contradiction
Of late, much has been made about messages entailing so-called collective salvation. This idea is based on the notion that the individual cannot be saved if the community is not first saved.
This is a concept being gradually promoted by the Establishment Left to further distance us from the truth that salvation is on an individual basis. However, the Left’s approach to this is being made via economic-centered legislation and executive decree.
Conservative commentators have taken some note of this rhetoric and have been rightfully critical of it.
But, there is one problem.
The American Right’s social agenda is operating under the same premises as the Left’s economic agenda: that we cannot be trusted to make decisions and choices for the best interests of society – or rather we cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions and choices.
Among the Republican Party’s Evangelical base, there is a mindset that our laws must be written so as to “protect family values.” This perception of the role of government in our society’s system of values ignores one vital truth:
The laws of God and the laws of man were never meant to be one and the same.
In order to achieve the ends that Evangelical Conservatives insist are what are best for us, it would require Congress to author laws either so broadly written and wide-ranging they bestow to federal authorities frightening leeway to interpret which of our actions would be too immoral under the law or produce a behemoth of legislation that must tackle and specify so many possible personal activities that no one could possibly know whether or not what they’re doing is illegal – that is until one of those statutes was selectively applied to them after the fact.
All in all, what conservatives fail to recognize is that working to use man’s law to steer us all toward following God’s law is merely right-wing collective salvation.
And, if our society is to become one engineered for collective salvation then what need is there for us to seek God’s forgiveness on our own – to seek salvation through the Word of God?
Much like left wing economic safety nets and entitlements kill the motivation to be self-sufficient in our day-to-day lives, right wing morality safety nets will have the unintended consequence of killing the motivation to seek salvation on our own. Why worry about what the Word of God tells us when we have a ready-made authority here on Earth to take care of our moral spiritual needs?
The best path to Christ is the one which is freely chosen – a Free Will Evangelical path.
Where liberty and morality collide: resolving libertarianism and the sacrament of matrimony
While the temptation is compelling (pardon the ironic pun) when writing this essay to devote time to analyze each and every plank regarding individual liberties in the Libertarian platform, for the sake of some measure of concision it makes the most sense to focus on the single most controversial issue which has leapt to the forefront recently.
One of the key arguments against libertarianism in America involves the issue of marriage. The purest of libertarian platforms is that government has no place in overseeing, regulating, or having any kind of hand in the institution of marriage: this is because it is of the most personal nature between two individuals and its origins in society trace directly back to the churches (or other religious places of congregation).
As a result, it can be argued that the requirement to obtain a state-issued marriage license is unconstitutional on the grounds of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Since the “wall of separation between Church and State” as described by Thomas Jefferson meant the true original intent of the First Amendment’s verbiage was to protect the Church and its functions from encroachment by government, the continued practice by the states today to mandate acquisition of a license in order for two individuals to be “legally” married rightfully is beyond their reasonable, constitutional authority.
This leads us to the simple truth that what government defines as a “marriage” in all actuality is a civil union as it entails the signing of a legally binding contract between the two spouses. What makes such a union a Marriage is the understanding they have willingly come together as one life and one unified soul in the presence of God.
Returning to the question of morality, many who oppose the notion of the right of nuptials being opened to couples of the same gender insist this development will put our society on a path toward polygamy and other such marital arrangements.
There lies in this assertion a glaring problem of argumentation, not of spirituality. Any logical argument must follow the pattern that if “A” is connected to “B” and “B” is connected to “C,” then it is true that “A” must lead eventually to “C.”
But, those who insist that same-sex civil unions will lead to polygamy are missing the vital “B” component in their arguments. They’re making the case that “A” (gay marriage) will take us toward “C” (polygamy or worse) – but they’re omitting the all-important “B” connector in their reasoning: what happens after the initial allowance of same-sex unions that precipitates polygamous arrangements?
Still, some libertarian ideological purists would insist if three people willingly agree to an interconnecting marital arrangement that should be their right as well as their private business – and theirs alone.
To set the minds of my fellow Evangelical Christians at ease, I would contend psychological findings through the years have proven such relationship dynamics are doomed to fail in the vast majority of instances when and where they are pursued and will not see proliferation as a result of that alone – even if a legal or constitutional argument for polygamy could be successfully made.
And in all practicality, if we assume multi-spousal marriages remain prohibited, can anyone explain how a situation where a husband and wife simply invite a non-marital third partner into their relationship becomes less immoral or less potentially damaging to the sacrament of matrimony than if they were to engage in a three-way civil union?
Conclusion
Above and beyond the points raised above, right-wing Evangelicals have been deliberately ignoring the most important libertarian point which relates to their system of values and beliefs: that it is your right not only to disagree with the choices made by others but also to express it!
Even more importantly, you enjoy the right and freedom to raise your children to embrace the values and beliefs you (and I) hold so dearly and encourage them to advocate those values to others. That right and authority as parents must never be abridged under any circumstances if we are to remain a truly free society.
You have the right (especially if you are an ordained clergy) to assume the duty and responsibility to preach before those who will lend you their ear what steps necessitate the path toward personal salvation through Christ. We are all free to engage in either the ordained ministry or personal ministry (should entry into the seminary be beyond your means) for the sake of saving others’ souls.
But, they (we) must be allowed to choose to have their (our) souls saved.
By insisting that government assume any semblance of that role in society, are you not advocating that the State serve as a surrogate parent or minister? Is that a role we could ever reasonably or reliably trust any level of government to assume without the potential for grave unintended consequences?
Do you believe humanity is so corruptible and we are all so unable to grasp the need for redemption that we must be insulated from ourselves and our free will through the force of government?
One of our greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, spoke of the preservation of individual economic freedom when he issued this well-known warning: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have.”
This same, undeniable principle also applies to our nation’s moral fabric. Does it not stand to reason that a government which enjoys the power to mandate we all live by a particular system of values is powerful enough to shift gears on us, turn that set of values on its ear, and thrust upon us a moral approach which operates in contradiction to Christianity?
As I’ve written before about this topic, those who would be in a position to set, influence, and shape social values policy – and have been holding many key offices and positions in the Executive Branch – fit that very mold.
Take a long, honest look at those who presently sit atop our institutions of power and ask yourself, “Are they people I trust with my salvation?”
It has been argued on many occasions through the generations that to preserve our country’s Christian heritage and identity we must use the force of government power to remove those components of society which exist in opposition to Christian moral values. Some arguments have not contained such an overtly worded premise while others have been uttered with even stronger language toward those ends.
I disagree with this concept entirely and have come to better understand why we need to steer clear of such legislative or constitutional endeavors in recent years.
In exploring what the true meaning of liberty is in America, what has dawned on me through this period of reflection has become a crucial facet to my conclusions: the importance of God’s second-greatest gift to us.
Obviously, our Lord’s greatest gift to his people on Earth has been His only Son, Jesus Christ: His birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection. His second-greatest gift is the one which has made us uniquely human among all His creations: our free will.
And, it is our free will that serves as the focal point of this discussion. It leads us to one of our most important spiritual questions we must answer as Christians.
What is it about faith in Christ that leads us to salvation?
My answer is that in addition to accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we must also prove that faith through the opportunity to rise above sin.
Which individual is more likely to be a true follower of Christ? Is it the person who lived a life of virtue only as a result of an overreaching central authority, due to their options in life having been legislated away to protect them from temptation?
Or, is it the person who – given the opportunity to hear the Word of God and know Jesus’ teachings – opened their heart to the Son of God of their own volition and sought the rocky, gravel road as their path toward following Him; the person who has every opportunity to give-in to temptation but willfully rejects the false promises which accompany it in pursuit of Christ’s Favor at their eventual time of judgment?
At this point, we need to remember two more undeniable and vitally important truths: first, that our God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, is ultimately a forgiving God; also, that belief in – and acceptance of – Christ as our Lord and Savior is the most important Way into God’s kingdom.
As one who seeks greater understanding of Evangelical Christianity, I enter into this pursuit with an unwavering belief in the loving forgiveness of God.
A vital truth Evangelical Republicans disregard
There is one component of a free people such as Americans which the right wing among love to celebrate when it comes to history – our rebelliousness.
Peculiarly though, such high regard for America’s rebellious nature fizzles in silently rapid fashion when it comes to modern society. And so, many conservatives press forward on social issues in politics, legislation, and governance while deliberately ignoring one key reality.
Rebellion is mankind’s natural social state.
We see this throughout American history and we are witnessing it today.
Look at the ongoing fight against the implementation of the so-called Affordable Health Care Act (whose nickname lately has morphed into “Obamneycare”). Through the peaceful exercise of our First Amendment rights, Americans have been engaged in a rebellion of rhetoric against a socialist legislative maneuver that was enacted despite the fact it was clear the majority of voters in the country did not want it.
We also see it in youth whose parents attempt to take the authoritarian approach further than necessary.
That second example best illustrates my point as it relates to this discussion. With rebellion being humanity’s natural social state, to some degree it is because the Evangelical element among Conservative Republicans have sought so fervently to thrust the Gospel of Jesus Christ into our laws that there has been such a rise in atheism as well as a wider disinterest in Christian values and principles among those who identify themselves as Christians.
It is the inevitable pushback against what amounts to right-wing big government: the thrust to deny us through the law our right to exercise our free will.
It happens with each Republican congressional majority and Republican-controlled White House. And, there is bound to be another round of it when the grand pendulum of voter sentiment finishes swinging back to the GOP’s way.
The conservative contradiction
Of late, much has been made about messages entailing so-called collective salvation. This idea is based on the notion that the individual cannot be saved if the community is not first saved.
This is a concept being gradually promoted by the Establishment Left to further distance us from the truth that salvation is on an individual basis. However, the Left’s approach to this is being made via economic-centered legislation and executive decree.
Conservative commentators have taken some note of this rhetoric and have been rightfully critical of it.
But, there is one problem.
The American Right’s social agenda is operating under the same premises as the Left’s economic agenda: that we cannot be trusted to make decisions and choices for the best interests of society – or rather we cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions and choices.
Among the Republican Party’s Evangelical base, there is a mindset that our laws must be written so as to “protect family values.” This perception of the role of government in our society’s system of values ignores one vital truth:
The laws of God and the laws of man were never meant to be one and the same.
In order to achieve the ends that Evangelical Conservatives insist are what are best for us, it would require Congress to author laws either so broadly written and wide-ranging they bestow to federal authorities frightening leeway to interpret which of our actions would be too immoral under the law or produce a behemoth of legislation that must tackle and specify so many possible personal activities that no one could possibly know whether or not what they’re doing is illegal – that is until one of those statutes was selectively applied to them after the fact.
All in all, what conservatives fail to recognize is that working to use man’s law to steer us all toward following God’s law is merely right-wing collective salvation.
And, if our society is to become one engineered for collective salvation then what need is there for us to seek God’s forgiveness on our own – to seek salvation through the Word of God?
Much like left wing economic safety nets and entitlements kill the motivation to be self-sufficient in our day-to-day lives, right wing morality safety nets will have the unintended consequence of killing the motivation to seek salvation on our own. Why worry about what the Word of God tells us when we have a ready-made authority here on Earth to take care of our moral spiritual needs?
The best path to Christ is the one which is freely chosen – a Free Will Evangelical path.
Where liberty and morality collide: resolving libertarianism and the sacrament of matrimony
While the temptation is compelling (pardon the ironic pun) when writing this essay to devote time to analyze each and every plank regarding individual liberties in the Libertarian platform, for the sake of some measure of concision it makes the most sense to focus on the single most controversial issue which has leapt to the forefront recently.
One of the key arguments against libertarianism in America involves the issue of marriage. The purest of libertarian platforms is that government has no place in overseeing, regulating, or having any kind of hand in the institution of marriage: this is because it is of the most personal nature between two individuals and its origins in society trace directly back to the churches (or other religious places of congregation).
As a result, it can be argued that the requirement to obtain a state-issued marriage license is unconstitutional on the grounds of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Since the “wall of separation between Church and State” as described by Thomas Jefferson meant the true original intent of the First Amendment’s verbiage was to protect the Church and its functions from encroachment by government, the continued practice by the states today to mandate acquisition of a license in order for two individuals to be “legally” married rightfully is beyond their reasonable, constitutional authority.
This leads us to the simple truth that what government defines as a “marriage” in all actuality is a civil union as it entails the signing of a legally binding contract between the two spouses. What makes such a union a Marriage is the understanding they have willingly come together as one life and one unified soul in the presence of God.
Returning to the question of morality, many who oppose the notion of the right of nuptials being opened to couples of the same gender insist this development will put our society on a path toward polygamy and other such marital arrangements.
There lies in this assertion a glaring problem of argumentation, not of spirituality. Any logical argument must follow the pattern that if “A” is connected to “B” and “B” is connected to “C,” then it is true that “A” must lead eventually to “C.”
But, those who insist that same-sex civil unions will lead to polygamy are missing the vital “B” component in their arguments. They’re making the case that “A” (gay marriage) will take us toward “C” (polygamy or worse) – but they’re omitting the all-important “B” connector in their reasoning: what happens after the initial allowance of same-sex unions that precipitates polygamous arrangements?
Still, some libertarian ideological purists would insist if three people willingly agree to an interconnecting marital arrangement that should be their right as well as their private business – and theirs alone.
To set the minds of my fellow Evangelical Christians at ease, I would contend psychological findings through the years have proven such relationship dynamics are doomed to fail in the vast majority of instances when and where they are pursued and will not see proliferation as a result of that alone – even if a legal or constitutional argument for polygamy could be successfully made.
And in all practicality, if we assume multi-spousal marriages remain prohibited, can anyone explain how a situation where a husband and wife simply invite a non-marital third partner into their relationship becomes less immoral or less potentially damaging to the sacrament of matrimony than if they were to engage in a three-way civil union?
Conclusion
Above and beyond the points raised above, right-wing Evangelicals have been deliberately ignoring the most important libertarian point which relates to their system of values and beliefs: that it is your right not only to disagree with the choices made by others but also to express it!
Even more importantly, you enjoy the right and freedom to raise your children to embrace the values and beliefs you (and I) hold so dearly and encourage them to advocate those values to others. That right and authority as parents must never be abridged under any circumstances if we are to remain a truly free society.
You have the right (especially if you are an ordained clergy) to assume the duty and responsibility to preach before those who will lend you their ear what steps necessitate the path toward personal salvation through Christ. We are all free to engage in either the ordained ministry or personal ministry (should entry into the seminary be beyond your means) for the sake of saving others’ souls.
But, they (we) must be allowed to choose to have their (our) souls saved.
By insisting that government assume any semblance of that role in society, are you not advocating that the State serve as a surrogate parent or minister? Is that a role we could ever reasonably or reliably trust any level of government to assume without the potential for grave unintended consequences?
Do you believe humanity is so corruptible and we are all so unable to grasp the need for redemption that we must be insulated from ourselves and our free will through the force of government?
One of our greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, spoke of the preservation of individual economic freedom when he issued this well-known warning: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have.”
This same, undeniable principle also applies to our nation’s moral fabric. Does it not stand to reason that a government which enjoys the power to mandate we all live by a particular system of values is powerful enough to shift gears on us, turn that set of values on its ear, and thrust upon us a moral approach which operates in contradiction to Christianity?
As I’ve written before about this topic, those who would be in a position to set, influence, and shape social values policy – and have been holding many key offices and positions in the Executive Branch – fit that very mold.
Take a long, honest look at those who presently sit atop our institutions of power and ask yourself, “Are they people I trust with my salvation?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
