Libertarianism as a Religion

Ilya Somin recently reflected on the influence of Ayn Rand. I was particularly struck by this passage:

In becoming a libertarian without any influence from Rand, I was actually unusual. Over the last 15 years, I have met a large number of libertarian intellectuals and activists of the last two generations, including some of the most famous. More often than not, reading Rand influenced their conversion to libertarianism, even though very few fully endorse her theories or consider themselves Objectivists.

Emphasis added.

I have noticed that many self-identifying libertarians relate their ideological development in religious language that would be familiar to evangelical Christians. Once were blind, they now could see the falsehood of statist assumptions and the truth of individual liberty and responsibility.

Perhaps I spend too much time with libertarians, but I don't often see conservatives describe a similar political awakening as strongly, and I can't recall hearing liberals express a political conversion experience in this manner.

It makes me uneasy. I know from personal experience how damaging it is to adopt an ideology as a personal identity. Ideologies as identities have a way of stifling objective thought along the lines of "This is who I am now, this is my ideology, and I will now apply it to all situations or questions that I have about the world."

Ideologies blindly applied to the world, without regard to conflicts between what can and is objectively known about a topic and what the ideology's stance on that topic is, constitute sloppy thinking.

If you shook me awake at 2 AM and asked me if I thought that we should legalize all drugs for consenting adults, I'd probably say yes. But that's because my ideology would provide me with a shortcut around thinking critically about all aspects of an issue.

If I was awake and had time to think about the question a little more, I'd probably say that marijuana should definitely be legalized, but maybe crack cocaine shouldn't. Maybe the effects of that drug are so debilitating that we shouldn't go that far.

But that takes work, and I could avoid all of that simply by thinking "I'm a libertarian, so how should I respond to this question in a manner that is consistent with my ideology?"

Or to use a different example, "I'm a believer in religion X, so how should I respond to this question in a manner that is consistent with my religion?"

One need only glance at the pages of history to know how flawed ideologies can be. Which is why I get uncomfortable with libertarians expressing their political opinions using the certainty of religious language.

I generally identify myself as a libertarian. But not with a lot of enthusiasm. Well, at least not as much as I used to. I don't want to be a libertarian; I want to be a correct thinker. And that means keeping my options open. It means seeking truth instead of an ideological identity or tribe.

Instead of saying "I'm a libertarian," it would be better for one to say "I am a thinker and I have reached many libertarian conclusions." The goal should always be truth, not fidelity to an ideological identity.

A Depressingly Accurate History of the Libertarian Party

By Robot Chicken:

Sheriff Andy Taylor, Libertarian

Darrin Knode argues that the main character of The Andy Griffith Show, Sheriff Andy Taylor, is a libertarian, in contrast to the statist sensibilities to Deputy Barney Fife.

Andy was portrayed as always civil and ever courteous gentleman, using his wits in place of violence and the pointing of guns, as Barney was all too quick to do, which rarely turned out to work. It was rare Andy ever arrested anyone who was truly non-violent, and even the violent were treated with a base respect for life. In episode 95: "The Big House," Andy fools two escaped convicts back into the jail instead of turning the streets into a war zone, and to his credit, without hurting the convicts. He often boasted throughout the show that he accomplished a task without firing a shot himself, and in episode 166 ("Off to Hollywood "), even receives $1,000 from the Belmont Film Studio for rights to his story, "Sheriff Without a Gun."

[...]

Andy was also opposed to coercively intervening in other people’s affairs that he felt was not his legal or moral right to become involved with. In one instance, Opie is being bullied by another boy and Andy does not intervene but chooses to let Opie fight his own battles, believing he must learn to stand up for his rights. Imagine that! In another episode (152: "The Case of the Punch in the Nose"), Barney opens an old case that involved Charley Foley charging Floyd with assault. The whole ordeal took place such a long time ago that no one even recalls how it began. Barney, being the statist busybody and the “look how important I am!” sort of goon he is, manages to refresh everyone's memory and rekindles the nose punching fire of old. Andy steps in again as the real man--the adult--in the scene and convinces everyone to talk out their problems, and it works. Incredible! Through peaceful discourse and discussion, the two opposing parties, through the use of a neutral third, achieve a peace without more punching. Barney, on the other hand, was more than willing to pull a gun and start making threats.

I can think of two episodes in which Barney and other townspeople urged Andy to arrest local oddballs who had not violated any laws, but were weird and disrupted social expectations. Andy refused, essentially arguing that he would not use government force to curb the lawful and harmless actions of people who flaunted social norms. Such was a libertarian response.

HT: Hit & Run

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World by Harry Browne

My current read is How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World by Harry Browne. Browne was professional investor and writer, as well as the Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000.

This book was first published in 1973, and is Browne's treatise on how to avoid falling under the control over other people, institutions, and ideas that enslave us. His objective is to teach readers how to become freer from these fourteen 'traps'.

They are:
1. Identity trap
2. Intellectual trap
3. Emotional trap
4. Morality trap
5. Unselfishness trap
6. Group trap
7. Government trap
8. Despair trap
9. Rights trap
10. Utopia trap
11. Burning-issue trap
12. Previous-investment trap
13. Box trap
14. Certainty trap

These traps are mostly states of mind, whereby a person incorrectly assumes that they cannot -- or should not -- be free and rule themselves. Browne attempts to cut through these faulty beliefs.

The book (so far) seems strongly Objectivist. It is not a strictly libertarian work, and directly rejects libertarian or other political activism. Browne advises that, in the face of government restriction, one should avoid government, not confront it. Don't organize against government, because that will incur retaliation from government. Just keep a low profile and focus on your own desires. Your goal shouldn't be to free society, but to free yourself -- to care about your happiness and only your individual happiness.

It's quite an interesting work. Here's a passage from The Morality Trap:

There are plenty of people who will be delighted to tell you how to live. You'll hear the words "moral" and "immoral" often enough.

A person who tells you to act "morally" might have any one of a number of reasons. He might really believe that your moral conduct is essential to the future of the world. Or he may believe that he's God's appointed policeman. Or he may be using morality as a weapon to pressure you to do what's best for him. Or he may just have nothing better to do with his time.

Whatever his reason, remember that it's his reason. Too often, morality is used merely as a tool by which one person hopes to manipulate another.

Your reasons for how you live will necessarily be your own. No one knows you as you can know yourself. And only from that self-understanding can you hope to create a code of conduct that will bring you the freedom and happiness that you crave....

Personal morality is an attempt to consider all the relevant consequences for your acts. If you think out of morality for yourself, it should open up a better life that will be free from the bad consequences that complicate matters....

When you decide to take matters into your own hands, someone may ask you, "Who do you think you are? Who are you to decide for yourself in the face of society and centuries of moral teachings?"

The answer is simple: You are you, the person who will live with the consequences of what you do. No one else can be responsible, because no one else will experience the consequences of your actions as you will.

During my own long exit from Christianity, I slowly came to realize that the leaders of the Church who claimed authority over my life -- to whom I had willingly yielded authority -- had only self-serving motives. It would have been difficult for them to be more blunt and explicit that they really didn't care about what happened to me and my family. They had broken covenant with me, therefore I was under no obligation to heed their will in any matter.

The expectation and birth of my daughter really sharpened my thought processes. I was a father. I held my child in my arms minutes after she was born and promised her that I would do all within my power to provide for her and protect her. The Church had done nothing but drain me and my family emotionally, physically, and most importantly, financially. As a husband and a father, it would have been recklessly irresponsible for me to remain a Christian.

I had to get out of that cult before it destroyed us all. So I did. To be a good father to my child, I had to be a fully functional human being, and so I acted accordingly.

Responses were numerous, and usually supportive. Some, not so much. Some questioned who was I to dare to speak out against the Church. Some suggested that I had a moral obligation to God to continue to remain under its domination (God and the Church being synonymous). To reject this obligation imposed upon me was immoral.

Who am I to determine right and wrong? Who am I to oppose the Church? I am human being. And for the sake of myself, my wife, and my child, I will be as free a human being as I possibly can.

No god worthy of my worship would condemn me for having done so. And if a god sends me to hell for refusing to sacrifice my daughter for the petty whims of liars and frauds, then to hell I will gladly go.

Legalize Drugs and Prostitution...Then Tax Them!

Like Nick Schulz, I find the notion that government should legalize the activities of consenting adults in order to financially exploit them...philosophically insufficient.

Sodomy laws, for example, should be repealed if for no other reason than that it's none of your damn business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

[Although I haven't heard anyone propose that sodomy laws be repealed so that gay sex can be taxed. That would be an interesting piece of legislation.]

I'm glad to hear of people who favor drug and prostitution legalization. But those who do so with a taxation proviso aren't truly supporting limited government. They're just advocating a different flavor of government intrusion. The farmer who doesn't kill the golden goose, but still takes its eggs, is still exploiting the goose.

And that's not going to cut it in a free society.

The 10 Greatest Libertarian Science Fiction Stories

I have not read any of these books. I've read a bit of Heinlein, but not Stranger. Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination looks interesting.

HT: Hit & Run

Reasons to Avoid a Libertarian Babysitter

From The Prospect on a recent survey published in The Journal of Personality and Social Pyschology:

fifty per cent of the libertarians would agree to surgery giving them a prosthetic tail if they were paid enough to do so.

Via Radley Balko. I dunno. Make me an offer in the comments. I'll think about it.

The Privatization of Marriage

Richard Epstein recently trotted out an old libertarian talking point after the victory of Proposition 8 in California, effectively banning gay marriage. He suggested that marriage should be a wholly private activity and that there's no need for government involvement. Indeed, for most of American history, marriages were church, not government activities, and there was no need for a marriage license.

Why not go back to those halcyon days of yore and let individuals decide for themselves how to define their marriages?

One reason: divorce.

A couple might have a church or other commitment ceremony to publicly announce their permanent relationship to family and friends, and this can be a non-legal transaction.

But divorce -- the disposition of estate and custody of children, is inextricably a legal activity. And because divorce is a legal action, the marriage necessarily proceeds it is also a legal activity -- or else a person could escape a negative divorce settlement by simply claiming to have never been truly married in the first place. Or, for that matter, than various causes for divorce (e.g. adultery) are inapplicable because fidelity is a not accepted as a requirement for marriage in the opinion of the divorcee.

Like any good Pavlovian libertarian, I start salivating whenever I hear the word "privatize", but I just don't see how the privatization of marriage is feasible.

But what I would like to see is a Constitutional amendment removing marriage from being subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 4, Section 1) so that individual states can define marriage as they like. This way, states that want gay marriage can have it, and those that don't, won't. And homosexuals who want to get married can move to a state that permits it. States that allow gay marriage can be laboratories of democracy, testing whether or not it has positive, negative, or no consequences for society at large.

HT: Instapundit

The Myth of Freedom

Shots Across the Bow has a great post up asking "Are you a citizen or a subject?" He argues very persuasively (not that I needed much persuading) that a government that promises to give you everything is subjugating you, rather than liberating you. Money quote:

If a man owns your house, your bank account, your job, and your health care, he owns you. Period. Just ask a coal miner from West Virginia about the company store.

"You load 16 tons, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
St. Peter don't call me cause I can't go.
I owe my soul to the company store."

The whole post is prime cut libertarian red meat. But I'd like to take this problem in another direction.

At the age of seventeen as a young and overly confident political philosopher, I was one day pontificating to my father about the virtue of freedom. My much wiser father's response was simply "There's no such thing as freedom. You're always a slave to someone."

At the time, I did not understand him, but within a few years I did more than I would care to. I learned a simple truth: everyone is a slave to their employer. If your financial safety is dependent upon some other person or company, that person or company owns you. Your boss at work has the power of financial life and death over you and your future.

Thus our lives may be filled with a hundred petty tyrants who hold sway over us. Now not every boss shall be a tyrant, but all have the power to be tyrants. And as Harry Browne once said, "The problem is not the abuse of power; the problem is the power to abuse."

Unless you're financially independent, you'll always live under a dictator. Possibly and usually a benevolent one, but not necessarily so. Get used to your chains.

HT: Instapundit

The Libertarian in the Room

Jonah Goldberg, a political conservative, has long said that every political debate needs to have at least one libertarian in the room just to question statist presuppositions that government intervention of any kind, liberal or conservative, is a good thing.

I've been pleased to serve in that capacity recently in two posts at Andy Bryan's blog, where I appear to be blindsiding people by suggesting that government shouldn't even take a stand on gambling and spending.

Charity Through Capitalism

Carl at ChicagoBoyz has an interesting post up about how increasing costs for utility companies (e.g. legal fees) are ultimately passed on to the poor:

Ever wonder who pays for all those law suits the environmentalists come up with to sue the local power company? The customer. Ever wonder who pays for all the emissions clean up (scrubbers, clean coal) and for the more costly technologies like natural gas against plentiful US coal? The customer. Who pays for the fact that it takes 20 years of red tape and permits to build a transmission line? The customer.

Not only that, but the grants that fund all these non profits usually come from cities, counties and governments. How do they pay for this? Tax revenues, and utility taxes make up a sizable portion of their take from the public. Look at any utility bill and you can see that it is riddled with tax after tax, and you can’t even see the impact of other taxes levied on the utility (property and sales taxes) because these are built into the rates.

Thus I would love for all those doe-eyed environmentalist believers to go to a utility and volunteer THERE at the customer service window for a while and watch the poor decide whether to pay the power bill or buy medicine. They can watch people decide on back to school clothes and supplies or the gas bill. These are real choices, and they will become more and more evident should the economy go into a spiral.

There are no two ways about it - 17% of the income of the poor goes to energy bills which are VASTLY inflated by taxes and regulation, without which the cost of energy would probably be 50% lower (or more… we are the “Saudi Arabia” of coal). Think of this next time they volunteer at a soup kitchen or go on a clothing drive… couldn’t they accomplish the same exact thing by working to lower the costs of energy for the poor so that they’d have more income in their pocket?

We need to remember that when a company is attacked, the person who really gets hurt is the poor schmuck making $6 an hour at the bottom of the financial food chain.

Previous thoughts here and here.

Libertarian and Pro-Life

Henry Neufeld argues that although abortion is morally wrong, it should not necessarily be illegal. He quite prudently argues that a society may not effectively combat a vice merely by criminalizing it:

This is a position that I believe is logically flawed. I hear it expressed repeatedly. There is an unstated assumption in there, that “making something illegal” is always the best way to attempt to put a stop to it or reduce its incidence.

Murder is illegal, and yet it happens every day. The sale and use of quite a number of drugs are illegal, yet we have one of the worst drug problems in the world here in this country where we are purportedly fighting a drug war. I could cite many examples, including the fact that speeding is also illegal, yet it happens more often than not on most roads here in my own county.

Henry notes that the purpose of his post is not to lay out a case for legalized abortion, but to point out the fallacious reasoning of the automatic criminalization of socially undesirable activities. But I shall, however, use the opportunity to briefly explain why I am both libertarian and pro-life, and how the two positions are not in contradiction.

I take, as a given proposition for public policy, that human life begins at conception. Of course, defining precisely what is human life is a highly nebulous process. It's hard to argue that a two-celled zygote is as human as you and me. On the other hand, a seven-month old fetus is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, fully human. Of course, I've made this distinction without even defining human life -- a philosophical project that I could not even begin to undertake.

Is a minute-old zygote a human being? Is a baby in contraction a human being? The answer is probably somewhere in between. But as a matter of public policy, I'm unwilling to take the risk that the zygote is human and participate in a massive genocide of innocent human life.

As a libertarian, I should reflexively risk the consequences of unrestrained liberty. Henry points out that laws against abortion restrict a person's control over his/her own body, just as drug laws do. But when one person's liberty imposes on another's, the greater imposition is the more unjust. A woman may be inconvenienced by a pregnancy, and even be put as physical risk. But the child dies. Surely that is the greater harm. No one has a right to avoid inconvenience or even medical trauma at the expense of another innocent human life. And a fetus isn't simply a part of another human being; it is a human being itself and therefore deserves human rights.

The state has, at a minimum, three basic functions: protect people from invasion, protect people from violence, and enforce contracts. Abortion is violence against a human life, and therefore restricting it is a legitimate function of the state. And I make this conclusion even with my uncertainty about the definition of human life because the likelihood that a fetus is human is so high, and the moral cost to society for permitting it so horrible, that state intervention to prevent is justified.

Christian Libertarianism, II

In our recent discussion on Christian commonalities with libertarianism, Brian of Growing Vertical left a comment so interesting that I've decided to quote it here in full:

I appreciated Bryan's comments on Romans 13 and 1 Samuel 8. I find verse 7 of 1 Samuel 8 very informative.

And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.

Israel wanted a king, a new form of government. In rejecting the former government, the Lord said they were rejecting Him. What was that previous form of government?

In Exodus 18, Jethro directed Moses to establish representatives, chosen by the people, who would judge between cases. It was an appellate court. From a human perspective, the entire "government" of Israel was a representative appellate court.

God established three spheres of authority: the family, the Church, and the state. A family is responsible for itself, for training the children, for providing for the elderly and infirm within it. The Church has the responsibilities of the Gospel, the Sacraments, discipline for restoration. The Church is also responsible for widows and orphans - those without families to protect them. The State is responsible for justice.

Statism is alway antichrist. That may sound like a strong statement, but consider the "preamble" to the Ten Commandments:

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

The moral law is binding to us, because the Lord is our deliverer, our Savior. Christ has delivered us out of the kingdom of darkness, therefore we are bound to obey Him.When the state oversteps its responsibility and begins claiming the responsibilities of the other spheres, it operates outside God's established order.

When a state assumes the right to train the children, to care for the widows and orphans, it robs the family and the Church of their responsibilities.When a state steps in to provide welfare, to deliver you from disappointment and provide for your material comfort, the state has assumed the position of Savior. As a savior, the state can demand your obedience.

Consider again Romans 13:1

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Ever soul should be subject to the governing authorities, not because the state is their Savior, but because the authorities that exist are appointed by God.I have the same problem when a pastor wants to take Ephesians 5 and make it a legalistic passage. Wives submit to husbands and husbands love their wives, not because the husband is Lord or because the wife is beautiful and perfect. There is mutual love and respect in marriage because Christ so loved the Church. Ephesians 5 should not be separated from Ephesians 1-3. You love your wife because Christ is your Savior. You submit to your husband because Christ is your Savior. And what you are really doing is loving Christ and submitting to Christ.

And so with the state. In America, we have a government which is of the people, by the people and for the people. It is our duty as Christians, in so far as we are able, to work together to bring the state back into its Biblical sphere of responsibility.

That is why I believe a Christian should be a libertarian, a minarchist, a Constitutionalist.

Christian Libertarianism

Here's an interesting article. Halliday argues that not only is libertarianism compatible with Christianity; that libertarianism is the only political philosophy that is compatible with Christianity. His argument appears to be to be a pacifist, as Jesus was, one must necessarily be a libertarian.

It's certainly an intriguing proposal that pacifists must be libertarians. Unfortunately, Halliday wholly ignores the most statist New Testament passages.

Batman, Efficient and Libertarian?

Illya Somin (h/t) has a couple of fascinating posts up. First, he excoriates Superman as wasteful:

Tyler offers a few suggestions on what Superman should do to increase the social returns on his investments of time and energy. On a (slightly) less unserious note, I have to admit that one reason why I never much liked the Superman franchise is that the character seems to misallocate his efforts so severely! If you had his powers, would you spend your time chasing a third-rate villain like Lex Luthor (even if played by the great Gene Hackman)? Why not instead overthrow Kim Jong Il or stop the genocide in Darfur? Perhaps the first thing our hypothetical Superman should do is take one of Tyler's economics classes and learn about the concept of opportunity cost.

Batman, on the other hand:

I recently saw the new Batman movie, which is quite good. Overall, I have a much more favorable view of the Batman mythos than of the rival Superman series. Unlike Superman, who often seems to waste his immense powers on relatively minor villains, Batman/Bruce Wayne pays attention to the importance of opportunity costs. For example, he goes after the bigwigs of Gotham organized crime, not the smalltime petty thieves. He consistently attacks the most powerful villains he can realistically take on with the resources available to him.

Somin goes on to explain that Batman exists largely as a response to the ineffective Gotham City government, thereby pointing out the shortcomings of government.

I've long been fond of the Batman mythos, and perhaps because it quietly pings my libertarian Spidey-senses.

Now to change the subject a bit, in other libertarian news, Reason magazine ranked the 35 largest cities in America from least free to most free. Chicago came up as least free, and Las Vegas came up as most free. I was intrigued by the description of Las Vegas' third-term mayor Oscar Goodman, a former top-tier criminal defense attorney:

What’s there to say? Las Vegas is the wildest city in America’s most tolerant state, and Mayor Oscar Goodman wants to make the place even freer. He supports legalizing prostitution in Vegas (the oldest profession is currently legal only in Nevada counties with fewer than 400,000 residents), and is the antithesis of a nanny: When a fourth-grader asked him what he’d take to a deserted island, Goodman said a show girl and a bottle of gin.

I did some more reading on Goodman. I really don't like the idea of government openly promoting sin (as opposed to merely allowing it), but Las Vegas has only thrived under Goodman's tenure. If he runs for President in 2012, I'd like to hear more.

Creeping Christian Statism

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the statist temptation to use government power to achieve social goals, used by both liberals and conservatives. Bruce Alderman provides a partial defense:

First, the role of the state. The United States Constitution outlines the role of the national government and specifies its duties, one of which is "to promote the general welfare." Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress to collect taxes for this purpose (among others).

Bruce is quoting the Constitution out of context that distorts the meaning of this phrase. The phrase "to promote the general welfare" is not a duty of the national government. Read the entire preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Emphasis added. The preamble is a statement of intention, not authority. The national government provided under the Constitution has no blanket authority "to promote the general welfare" however it sees fit. The subject of this sentence is not the national government, but "we the people". The people are taking the action of establishing this Constitution to promote the general welfare (among other reasons).

Bruce continues:

So it would seem there should be no controversy there: If giving aid to people living in poverty promotes the general welfare (and I think it does), then the federal government has not just the right, but the duty to collect taxes for welfare programs.

Bruce's argument hinges upon a general authority of the national government to promote the general welfare, which it does not have. Hence his argument breaks down at this point.

Bruce continues:

Furthermore, through tax revenues the government has access to more resources than any individual or group could ever hope to collect. While most private charities do the best they can with the resources they have, the need is just too great. If we were to rely solely on voluntary charitable giving, a lot more people would fall into poverty.

Again, Bruce is presenting the Robin Hood perspective: thievery is acceptable when people are poor. Perhaps one could create such a moral argument (Bruce does not), but remember: a government that has been given the authority to steal may not limit itself to your political opponents. A government that steals from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the loyalty and support of Paul, but it is just as likely to steal from Paul. Is it not far better to forbid the government to steal from either?

The second issue here is the mandate Jesus gave to Christians to take care of those in need. Our salvation depends on it, according to Matthew 25:31-46.

And yet at no point did Jesus advocate government programs to accomplish this task. None.

At this point, Bruce presents the opposite side, and I find myself in agreement with him. I am not, however, as trusting as he is to state power.

WWJD? -- A Handy Political Prop

Katherine Coble:

I get that it’s a really popular game right now to say things like “Yah! What would JESUS say about you murdering Iraqi babies in cold blood?!?” or “Would Jeeeesus deny federally funded health care?”

More often than not these questions come from people who eschew a relationship with said Jesus. They are Spiritual without being Christian (an increasingly popular faith system) or Atheist or Gnostic. Now, I have no qualms with anyone practicing any of these faiths or abjuring all faiths. Whatever floats your boat.

But I think these “gotcha” games, these abuses of Jesus’ name, are about ridiculous and tired. Not to mention insulting. There are many of us who are Christian Libertarians precisely because we believe that Jesus has asked us to separate matters of religion from matters of state. In case you’ve missed it the first hundred times I’ve said it….Jesus is EXACTLY why I’m a libertarian.

Government is a necessary stricture of my time here on earth. It is not my faith and is not to be confused with my faith.

Amen, Sister! The statist notion of Jesus as Cosmic Sugar Daddy has no basis in Scripture. In fact, Jesus has nothing to say on public policy throughout the Gospels, hence we cannot simply attach the most fashionable political causes of the day to him. That is why, as I have argued in the past, one can be of a wide variety of political persuasions without violating one's authentic Christian faith. Those who would prefer to use Jesus as a tool for political power are better off with the Judean People's Front (or the People's Front of Judea).

Hat tip: Gavin Richardson

The Separation of Church and the Predatory State

A United Methodist camp in Ocean Grove, New Jersey has been the scene of another of the denomination's recent sexuality wars. The camp is composed of a highly-developed beachfront area south of New York City featuring restaurants and shops in space leased out by the Methodist organization governing the property. Several months ago, a lesbian couple attempted to secure a pavilion for a civil union commitment ceremony and were turned down by the camp organization due to their sexual orientation.

The couple responded by filing a complaint with a state agency, claiming that the decision violated state laws about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Supporters have argued that the camp has received large sums of state and federal funding for economic development and therefore must abide by government standards on discrimination. They have also argued that the camp must be open to the public if it is to continue to qualify for a large tax exemption from New Jersey's environmental protection agency.

Last week, a Federal judge handed down an injunction against the state, prohibiting New Jersey from continuing its investigation on whether or not the camp violated anti-discrimination laws.

This dispute teaches us about the voracious, predatory nature of the state. When a church is foolish enough to take funding from the state, it is opening itself up to entanglement by government power. I have heard it said that drug dealers often offer narcotics to non-users for free...in the hope that they may later become addicted and subject to the great demands of the drug dealers. Such is the behavior of government. As Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The end result of churches taking government money is churches becoming controlled by the government. The Ocean Grove Camp Association should never have accepted government funding, nor a special tax exemption for land usage, and is now paying the price for its foolhardiness.

There are, however, attacks that this organization could not have protected itself from. Churches cannot prevent doctrine from being decided in civil courts if the courts force their way into what are entirely internal decisions of religious bodies. This is a horrendous abuse of government power which does indeed violate, as the defendants argue, the First Amendment. Nevertheless, we can expect that some gay rights advocates will use whatever means at their disposal to push their agenda through mainline denominations. That's why I predict that within two years, there will be a successful suit in civil court against United Methodist standards for ordination with regards to sexual orientation.

To those United Methodists who support the legal action against the camp, I say: beware of making use of government power. Just because the state is your friend today does not mean that it will be tomorrow. A government powerful enough to force doctrinal changes on your church that you like is powerful enough to make doctrinal changes that you won't like.

The Robert A. Heinlein Centennial

Yesterday was the centennial of the birth of science fiction author Robert Anson Heinlein (1907-1988). Heinlein was one of the greatest innovators in the field. In the Golden Age of science fiction, alongside Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, Heinlein mainstreamed science fiction and elevated it from pulp fiction to serious literature. A graduate of the Naval Academy, he served until tuberculosis led to his medical discharge. Later he became involved in Socialist politics and unsuccessfully ran for the California State Assembly. Over time, he embraced a more libertarian political ideology, as many of his works demonstrated.

Last week, Heinlein's literary contributions were celebrated at the Heinlein Centennial Convention in Kansas City.

My favorite of his works is the 1959 classic Starship Troopers. It is a great yarn about a radically different future earth in which military service is a prerequisite for citizenship, and a highly sought-after honor. This novel follows the life of trooper Johnny Rico as Earth battles an alien insect race across interstellar space. Controversial at its release, Heinlein wrote the work in response to a growing advocacy for appeasement with the Communist Bloc among science fiction authors.



I first read Job: A Comedy of Justice about fifteen years ago. It is a satire of evangelical Christianity (at least, an evangelicism from two generations ago, even though it was written in 1984). The main character is a minister who suddenly finds himself in an alternate universe and then experiences the eschaton. The Final Judgment separates him from the woman he loves, and he goes on a quest to find her. This book is theologically preposterous, but a great love story.



What Heinlein books have you read and enjoyed?