1 Corinthians 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other:
for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
Why is it that the newly energized liberty movement has only enjoyed marginal support amongst the so-called religious right? In the early days of the Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign I can remember thinking that Dr. Paul is one of the first liberty centered candidates who will be a slam dunk with this faith based segment of the Republican Party. After-all, a grandfatherly figure married to the same woman for more than fifty years; A pro-life OBGYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, and a military veteran who is an outspoken advocate of the Christian Just Theory of War seemed like the Christian Coalition Super Candidate. However the Ron Paul R[evol]ution failed to produce overwhelming numbers of faith based supporters within the rank and file of the GOP. As someone who has always considered himself to be a cultural as well as a fiscal conservative, I was anxious to understand why my brothers & sisters of faith were not on the same page as me.
I began by taking a close look at my own personal transition from a faith and religion centered political philosophy to a liberty and freedom focused philosophy. Did this transition make me a believer in moral relativism? Did it weaken my faith in God? Certainly not, but it did cause me to re-examine the proper role of government when it comes to cultural, religious and moral issues. And I believe it is here where the real conflict and disconnect between the two groups lies. To illustrate, consider three issues where traditional religious right conservatives and liberty minded activists usually part ways: Drug Legalization, Gay Marriage and Prayer in School.
Drug Legalization
It is generally agreed upon by both the religious right and liberty activists that the use of drugs causes more harm than good. And it is also agreed upon by many in both camps that an individual who is engaged in drug use is acting immorally. Furthermore both groups see a need, perhaps even an obligation, to work to minimize this activity in our society. The conflict only arises when one group (the religious right) favors using the force of government to minimize drug use while the other group (liberty activists) stand in opposition to such an approach.
Gay Marriage
Most people of faith believe the institution of marriage is a sacred institution that should be preserved in its traditional form of a one man, one woman lifelong committed union. Many (not all) liberty activists share the same view. The conflict again arises when one group (the religious right) favors using the force of government to enforce this belief while the other group (liberty activists) is opposed to any and all governmental interference in the institution of marriage.
Prayer in School
Most people of faith believe that if we as a society had a greater focus on God and spirituality via public prayer we could improve many of our cultural problems. And again many (not all) liberty activists share the same view, but are in conflict when they are told that the force of government should be used to promote this behavior. There does however seem to be a consensus from both groups that the force of government should not be used to prohibit such behavior.
When it comes to each of these three issues, the behavior being regulated by government does not directly impact the freedom and liberty of anyone besides the individual whose behavior is being regulated. Yes, drug use many times leads to behavior that impacts the freedom and liberty of others – but it is possible for the behavior in and of itself to affect no one but the person choosing to engage in the behavior. And the moment it does cross the line, most everyone is in agreement that the force of government is acceptable to remedy the injustice. In the case of gay marriage it could be argued that over time a prevalence of gay marriage would weaken the traditional family, but the fact is that when two people choose to call themselves married it has no direct effect on the freedom and liberty of anyone else but themselves. And in the case of prayer in school, the person who chooses not to pray is the only one being directly impacted by a government regulation forcing them to pray. So the central question is whether or not the use of government force is justified in promoting moral behavior or prohibiting immoral behavior.
Aside from the effectiveness and obvious lack of constitutional authority for government to delve into these issues, you should consider the inconsistencies in regulating moral behavior. There are seven deadly sins, but yet the religious right is not advocating using the force of government to reduce gluttony, greed, avarice or lust. Why not? I mean if the general premise behind laws against drug use, gay marriage and laws mandating prayer in schools is righteous, why not make laws that will promote all moral behavior and prohibit all immoral behavior? I think the answer is obvious. This is not the proper role of government. It is the role of individuals, families, Churches, charities, civic organizations etc. to promote “good behavior” and hopefully raise the standards of moral conduct in our society. Faith is not the foundation of freedom – individual liberty is the foundation of freedom.
When I first moved from a faith and religion centered political philosophy to a liberty and freedom focused philosophy I felt a little guilty because it seemed as though I was downplaying the importance of the culture war in today’s society. I was no longer in the same political camp as groups like Focus on the Family, The Christian Coalition or Huck’s Army. I know I shared many of their ultimate goals but I was just no longer comfortable with their approach or with their willingness to use government as a means to an end. However, I still feel that there is no more pressing issue facing our nation than promoting a moral culture. Capitalism, Free- Enterprise, Individual Liberty, and even a constitutionally controlled federal government will ultimately fail in an immoral and decadent society. I have since reconciled this conflict by fully understanding the proper channels to achieve progress in both liberty and faith. I have also come to the realization that there is a natural home for the religious right within the liberty movement and that understanding the proper roles that Faith and Liberty serve in our society is the first step to increasing the ranks of both.
John Stevens
RLCNEF Chairman
Loading ...
December 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Hey John,
I recieved this in an e mail, just thought i would post it.
LAUS DEO…. Pass on this important part of America ’s History!!
We can learn something new every day……………………Read on!
One detail that is never mentioned is that in Washington , D.C. ,
there can never be a building of greater height than the Washington
Monument . With all the uproar about removing the ten commandments,
etc., this is worth a moment or two of your time. I was not aware of
this amazing historical information.
On the aluminum cap, atop the Washington Monument in Washington,
D.C., are displayed two words: Laus Deo.
No one can see these words… In fact, most visitors to the monument
are totally unaware they are even there and for that matter,
probably couldn’t care less.
Once you know Laus Deo’s history, you will want to share this with
everyone you know. These words have been there for many years; they
are 555 feet, 5.125 inches high, perched atop the monument, facing
skyward to the Father of our nation, overlooking the 69 square miles
which comprise the District of Columbia, capital of the United
States of America.
Laus Deo! Two seemingly insignificant, unnoticed words. Out of sight
and, one might think, out of mind, but very meaningfully placed at
the highest point over what is the most powerful city in the most
successful nation in the world.
So, what do those two words, in Latin, composed of just four
syllables and only seven letters, possibly mean? Very simply, they
say “Praise be to God!”
Though construction of this giant obelisk began in 1848, when James
Polk was President of the United States , it was not until 1888 that
the monument was inaugurated and opened t o the public. It took
twenty-five years to finally cap the memorial with a tribute to the
Father of our nation, Laus Deo. “Praise be to God!”
From atop this magnificent granite and marble structure, visitors
may take in the beautiful panoramic view of the city with its
division into four major segments. From that vantage point, one can
also easily see the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles
l’Enfant… a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape, with the
White House to the north. The Jefferson Memorial is to the south,
the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west.
A cross you ask? Why a cross? What about separation of church and
state? Yes, a cross; separation of church and state was not, is not
in the Constitution. So, read on… How interesting and, no doubt,
intended to carry a profound meaning for those who bother to notice.
Praise be to God! Within the monument itself are 898 steps and 50
landings. As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings the
memorial stones share a message…. On the 12th Landing is a prayer
offered by the City of Baltimore; On the 20th is a memorial
presented by some Chinese Christians; On the 24th a presentation
made by Sunday School children from New York and Philadelphia
quoting Proverbs 10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6. Praise be to
God!
When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July
4th, 1848, deposited within it were many items including the Holy
Bible presented by the Bible Society. Praise be to God! Such was the
discipline, the moral direction, and the spiritual mood given by the
founder and first President of our unique democracy “One Nation,
Under God.”
I am awed by Washington ’s prayer for America . Have you ever read
it? Well, now is your unique opportunity, so read on!
“Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the
United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the
hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and
obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and
love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United
States at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be
pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to
demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of
mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our
blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in
these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our
supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
Laus Deo!
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
There are other arguments regarding prayer in school. Being a liberty activist myself, government should have no role whatsoever in the education of our children. I believe that all schools should be private choice to parents. Homeschooling, private, charitable, church, etc. When schools are private, charitable or church, if you don’t like the way the school is run, simply find a school that you like. Christian faith could go to Christian schools where Christian values are part of the curriculum, Jews could go to Jewish schools where their faith and values are part of the curriculum. So on and so fourth. There could also be schools for those who prefer no religion. The quality of education would improve because of the increase in competition and no one would be complaining, one way or the other, about prayer in school.
And about “Faith being the foundation of freedom” you are absolutely correct. Faith is not the foundation of freedom, but certainly CAN be the foundation for an individual. Without liberty, the individual may find his faith disallowed by government. The statement “Faith is the foundation of freedom” is a subjective statement. Because the question is “Who’s Faith is the foundation you are speaking of?” You must ask yourself what happens when it is determined that another faith, not your own, is the foundation of freedom and is enforced by the rule of law. Bottom line, religious establishment has no place in government or law, but can be fully expected to be the foundation and spiritual guide to those we elect as representatives to make moral, yet Constitutional, decisions. After all, that is why we would have elected them in the first place. They would be representing the character and morality that closely relates to ours.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
John-
From the way my post ended I guess that I agree with you in essence. My basic philosophy is that societal values are supposed to be developed at a “grassroots” level by society rather than being legislated.
The problem is that philosophy doesn’t always meet up with reality, neither for the individual or for the masses. On the individual level it can be said (broadly) that a libertarian values liberty, and prefers to look at political/ideological conflict as being between liberty vs. tyranny rather than the more conventional conservatism vs. liberalism. The problem for me and i suppose many others is that while I value liberty I do hold some conservative societal values. The big problem is that the “power groups”, on both the liberal and conservative sides, do expect to get their way through force of government. If somehow the conservatives were persuaded they have no right to force their will upon others, without similar realization by liberals, then the liberals win.
It’s a bad situation I see no way out of. But we are supposed to be advocates for liberty, we have to do what we can do.
On a tactical note, if the RLC is to be effective in advocating liberty within the Republican Party we might need to work on our message relating to religious conservatism. Certainly there are things we do not like about the GOP and factions within the GOP, otherwise we wouldn’t be in the RLC at all. However, too often our message is framed in such a way it can be interpreted as our being opposed to conservative religious values, and it can make us sound like liberals. Republicans don’t like liberals, so if we sound like liberals they won’t like us. Liberals contribute to at least half of the problem of government expansion, I feel they are deserving of at least half of our criticism.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
If we’re going to base everything solely on Christ – and ignore the various other faiths in our nation, which frankly is rather offensive – then it is worth noting that he didn’t really advocate rewriting the laws of society to match a specific moral code. There were other lessons he had that apparently have been forgotten.
I’m not a fan of moral decline but I believe in most cases a society has actually declined faster because people force such “morality” upon others, who take offense to being forced to follow someone else’s ideals, leading them to rebel against such force in the worst ways possible.
At the end of the day, though, wasn’t God’s greatest gift to us (aside from His love) supposed to be free will? The ability, and inherent right, to choose our own path, and be responsible for our own choices, was gifted to us by our Creator, and yet we would seek to steal that away for the ability to force others to follow our own ideals… and the irony is, even the various Christian denominations can’t agree on one set of ideals.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
Jesus had no political agenda. He was not a left-winger or a right-winger. He only initiated force one time: when He kicked the moneychangers out of the Temple. This entire notion that if we just elect enough Christians and that if they pass enough laws we will arrive at some optimal Christian society has no basis in Scripture and is therefore a false hope.
Conservatism is like liberalism. Neither is a biblical concept. They are worldly philosophies and hence both doomed to failure.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 am
Travis -
Good points. I wanted to include some other specific issues (gambling, adult entertainment, sex education) but in the interest of space I limited it to the three issues in the article. The point would be the same anyways.
I prefer to view Right to Life as a human rights issue rather than the a “faith based” issue. EVERY individual is guaranteed the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
My main point in the article was to point out the inconsistencies that exists among religious activits in their logic on the role of government in many cultural/moral issues. I also wanted to demonstrate that being part of the liberty movement does not preclude one from being a person of faith focused on improving the moral climated of our nation.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 am
I think you are somewhat mis-categorizing the standpoints of the religious right, and in some cases suggesting these views apply only to few people rather than being popular, and in some instances majority views.
You bring up the issues of contention between religious conservatives and libertarians as being as being drug legalization, gay marriage, and school prayer. There are a number of religious groups out there, some of which are very extreme in their views, but the larger and more politically influential groups, like Florida Family Policy Council, are fairly mainstream. They also tend to be reactionary. For instance, I have never heard them speak out against of drug legalization because neither political party is in favor of that, not an issue.
Some “religious right” issues have included:
right to life
opposition to the expansion of legalized gambling
opposition to gay marriage
Opposition to pornography/adult entertainment
Support of abstinence-only sex education
Support of home schooling
school prayer
When you look at these issues one by one it becomes clear this is more than a matter of liberty vs. faith.
I’m going to throw out the gambling and pornography/adult entertainment as being issues most liberty minded individuals would condone. More difficult are the issues of sex education and home schooling. I would think that the libertarian stance would be to support the right of a parent to control the education of their child.
Much more difficult is the issue of abortion. Philosophically, which is more important, the right to life of an unborn child, or the right of a mother to have an abortion? You tell me. This is not just a philosophical issue, it is one that is highly politically charged and in which there is profit to be made by the abortion industry, pro-choice advocates, and it must be admitted, pro-life advocates.
Prayer has been out of the schools for a hell of a long time. I don’t know of any major group of religious conservatives that is working to get prayer back in schools. Rather, what I see is religious conservatives trying to battle back ACLU types, whose actions I consider an extreme imposition on religious liberty. Religious liberty is liberty nonetheless. Any liberty organization that wants to win over religious conservatives needs to join in the fight to preserve religious liberties.
As for gay marriage, don’t pretend that opposition is something confined to just a few fringe people on the right, it was shown in 2008 to be the stance of 62% of the Florida electorate, Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike. Call it tyranny of the majority if you will, it is what it is. You can say that the government has no business telling people who they can marry, but I will tell you that the gay lobby does not feel that way. I watched the marriage protection amendment campaign very closely, and I will tell you the gay lobby are some of the most vindictive and dishonest people on the face of the earth, and they are highly politicized and expect their agenda to be fulfilled by government. For good or ill, for or against, if there is no opposition to gay marriage then gay marriage is what you will get.
Don’t think that I am a big bible-thumper because on most political issues I don’t care about a person’s religious beliefs. However, the issue is more complex than that. To a certain degree, basic religious morality is very closely linked with the republican party, and a very large part of the base support the GOP because they see not exactly as the “Christian Party” or “God’s own party,” but rather as just reflecting their own values. You can’t change that, and even if you could all you would accomplish is to alienate a big chunk of the people in the big tent. For me, the downside is not that people are too religious or that the GOP is too Christian, but rather that people vote for the wrong reasons. Many people liked Huckabee because he was so Christian, I think Huckabee is a freaking idiot despite his religious beliefs. Crist is currently trying to convince everyone he is a conservative because he is pro-gun, low taxes, pro-life.
The GOP is defined by it’s candidates and elected officials. The current problems with GOP electability and GOP policies is that we have some sucky elected officials and sucky candidates. The crux of the problem is that too many republicans automatically go for that candidate that spins out conservative talk and seems churchified. There is much more to good government than that. Liberty is more important than conservatism or religious beliefs, and until people realize this they will continue to have a Republican Party that talks the talk, but actually undercuts personal liberties and the free market and expands the size and power of government.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Very succint and impressive, i think i agree with all of that. I believe with reasoned logic and well founded, respectful arguments we can help our conservative friends on the religious right see the folly of their ways in advocating government intervention and take that one last step. If they see many strong people of faith advocating the liberty doctrine and simultaneously NOT working to undermine traditional values in the process they will be much more likely to view it from a constitional, limited government view and not from the perspective that we are just trying to completely “secularize” our society. I think the perception with matters of drugs, same sex marriage/unions etc., is that those who are not willing to use the law to reduce it are actuall ADVOCATING it–we need to make clear this is not always the case, but that instead we are simply taking the coherent and consistent position.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
David –
I think your assessment of Ron Paul’s agenda is a bit of an oversimplification. What specifically in his platform would take the country back in “one giant step”? A new policy of refusing to engage in UnDeclared Wars? A new policy of auditing (oversight) of the private federal reserve system? These were the cornerstones of his campaign. WHat does he vote “NO” on that you think he should be voting “YES” in the interest of being the Tortoise rather than the Hare?
I don’t think this is the reason that the religious right did not overlwhelmingly support him. Most activists in this group DO advocate radical changes that would take the country back in “one giant step”.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
John, I go back to the first paragraph of your article where you ask why Ron Paul, with his strong agreement with the majority of the religious right, wasn’t a complete success with them as a candidate. I believe that most people, including myself, see his approach to leading this country as being oversimplified. We don’t believe for one minute that we can go back in one giant leap to where we need to be to make this country reasonably the way our founders imagined it. He simply does not come across as a leader and has failed to succeed because it looks like that is what he thinks can happen. His approach appears to be “just say no to almost everything” and that comes from his own pen.
It has taken about a century to get to this constitutional mess this country is in right now. Much of it has happened during my lifetime. People have voted in a manner that they thought would make their life easier and would relieve them of personal responsibility. To make a long story short, “THEY” did not do it to us, we did it to ourselves.
It would be nice if we could go back in one giant step, but to be realistic, we cannot. We will have to not only change people in Washington, but we have to change attitudes of millions of people. That is a slow process. People rebel naturally against change, no matter what that change is. They will only change slowly and the left has made that very thing work. Note that Barack Obama called for immediate change, won votes for doing so, but only because he didn’t suggest what changes he would initiate. His whole message was that he would take care of everyone and they wouldn’t have to take care of themselves. Until we get folks to think differently, the left will hold the aces.
John, what you believe in principle and what I believe in principle varies very little and in fact I often wish that it could be done as quickly as you are trying to get it done. I just don’t believe that it can. Apply here the tale of the Tortoise and the Hare.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
LB Writes: “I want the best for our future children and yes it would be nice if the government would help. I am not saying that they should be in control of everything but to go back when this country was a little more Christ minded.”
I want the best future for our children as well.
Your comment gets to the crux of this issue. And I used to hold the same viewpoint you are expressing here. The “ends justify the means”. I so wanted a more moral society that I was willing to trample on the rights of others to achieve it. Two problems with this logic…
1. In the end it ususally doesn’t work – Forcing a moral society usually leads to rebellion.
2. When you set a precedence for using govt force to get what YOU want -ultimately someone else will come along and use that same govt force to get something THEY want and that you don’t.
I also believe using govt force is a cop-out for people of faith. We are supposed to be promoting a moral climate through our own actions and by creating stronger families, Churches and communities – NOT by using the Govt to do our hard work for us.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
L.B. –
I too believe the line must be drawn somewhere. One of the points I made in the article was that there needs to be a consistent standard when drawing the line. We can’t just say because someone really really dislikes a certain behavior – the government should be able to force people to stop doing it. That logic leaves us at the whims of the tyranny of the majority. For example there was a time when people thought that inter-racial marriage was really really bad behavior. Should the force of government be used to prevent that behavior?
I believe the line in the sand needs to be drawn at the point someone’s behavior infringes on the rights of another. Use drugs and destroy your life – no authority for goverenment force. Use drugs and then physically or emotionally abuse your kids – then there is authority for government force.
With liberty comes responsibility.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Continuity of thought is the most difficult endeavor for any man. For we are of the flesh, living in the present and fearing the unknown earthly future. In that pursuit of alleviating untold possible evil outcomes, we succumb ourselves to evil. When those of faith turn away from love, peace, forgiveness and redemption; all that is left is forced conversion, enslavement and death. The fears of irrelevancy oblivion are exposed through the evils of compromise and good intentions.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I see what you are saying. But, you have to draw the line somewhere. If we are going to be like that to let people make there own decisions then why have any rules? Let’s just see how society runs itself with that frame of mind. Sounds stupid huh. Well the more you let people get away with, the further they will go into trouble. You have heard the saying give him an inch and he will take a mile? Well that is how society is. I think that most of the “good” and moral people who hold this country together are Christians. I love to listen to my gandmother tell me stories of the old days when all of this craziness in the world was unheard of. You know when you could leave your doors unlocked or walk down a street at night without being raped or mugged. This is a point i am trying to make. Society is getting worse and worse and not enough people are doing things to prevent it because they are worried about offending someone or stepping on someone toes or hurting someones feelings. Yes it is the families duty to raise there children right, but if we are exposing them to sex on tv and violence all the time, what do we think is going to happen? I guess i just have an old soul. I want the best for our future children and yes it would be nice if the government would help. I am not saying that they should be in control of everything but to go back when this country was a little more Christ minded.