And this is Radio Free Liberty calling....

There's a recent thread over at BostonTea.com, the web site of Thomas Knapp's Boston Tea Party (See Radio Free Liberty dot com and look for episode 28) This thread asks the question: "Why Do (most) Christians Support US Government?".  The author of this post begins by making the point, "One group of people who continue to disappoint me with their support and approval of the emerging US police state is Christians. You would think that any group based on the life and teachings of Jesus would recognize that the US government is way off track. Perhaps they do realize it. The main argument I have heard is that 'God put our leaders where they are so it is His will. We must support our leaders.' "

As illustrated in the opening segment there truly are many evangelicals who support the president and ally themselves with the government, and quite frankly try to use legislation to promote their agenda through the force of the government. I'm one Christian who does not...and I will explain why not, and I will explain why every person of faith in America, no matter what faith, must of necessity be a principled libertarian; any other political or philosophical alignment is ultimately self destructive.  We'll get started right after this brief message.-

<message>

There's a famous quote by Lutheran minister and German war veteran Martin Niemoller that goes like this:  “First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.  Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.  Then they came for me, and by then there was no one left to speak up for me.” 

In a piece written by Garnet Peet on the history of the Christian church in Nazi Germany, the following points prove enlightening:
  Hitler and his Nazis had been agitating throughout the twenties, but they did not become influential until the stock market crash of 1929 had introduced the great depression. That depression hit Germany hard and caused many to look for a strong man to pull them out of the morass. Hitler grasped the opportunities offered by the depression and the general feeling of malaise. He not only promised jobs and renewed prosperity, but also all the other things the majority of Germans wanted: a restoration of Germany's greatness, revenge on the allies for the Versailles treaty, a war to the death on socialists and communists, law and order, strict discipline, and strict public morality. A revival of the old, conservative, paternalistic and imperial Germany was beckoning - and it would be a Christian Germany once more. At least, so Hitler promised.

In fact, Hitler hated Christianity and was convinced that it was incompatible with National Socialism. He was enough of an opportunist, however, to realize that the Christian tradition was still strong in Germany, and that he would be wise to begin by courting the churches' favor. If they trusted him, they could be excellent supporters in his rise to power; if he alienated them, they could be formidable enemies. But although he courted them, he never intended to allow them any independent power in the totalitarian Nazi state: they were to be merely his tools, to be discarded when no longer needed.

The fact is Hitler came to a tenuous relationship with the church in Nazi Germany, and as Niemoller later lamented, they did not speak up.

My point here is not to question the sincerity of George Bush's avowed Christian faith. Real or not, today's evangelical churches, much like those of 1930s Germany are just not speaking up in the face of horrible assaults on our civil rights. In fact, it seems they are promoting the destruction of the very rights that they will surely regret losing when the political pendulum swings against them as it will inevitably do. Consider these examples of current policy statements from several Christian organizations' web sites:

National Association of Evangelicals

AIDS
We believe appropriate legislation regarding AIDS would require testing of high risk groups, reporting of those with the disease to local health officials on the same basis as other sexually-transmitted diseases, and closing of bathhouses and other facilities that permit promiscuous sexual activity.

OK, Let's parse this out: The National Association of Evangelicals, which claims a membership of 30 million Americans and over 60 mainstream denominations, including the Assemblies of God, Christ Community Church, Evangelical Free Church of North America, Free Methodist Church of North America, Presbyterian Church in America, and many, many others, is presently advocating, among other things, forced testing of people in, quote, high risk groups for HIV.

They want the government to identify a group of people, many of which will be innocent law abiding citizens, round them up, and force them to submit to a medical procedure whether they agree to do it or not. And when this legislation is in place, we will have the same laws that allowed Nazis to tattoo a number on the arms of Jews and enter their personal information into a database. As a person of faith, can you advocate this?

Here are some more positions of the NAE:
 
Alcohol on Airlines
If it is against the law to sell alcoholic beverages in the presence of minors on the ground, then this should not be done in the air. And the freedom of a non-drinker to enjoy his trip without personal affront is at least as great as the freedom of the drinker to indulge. All factors considered it is the judgment of the NAE that the in-flight dispensing of alcoholic beverages is a practice that can be terminated to the benefit of the greatest number. Therefore, the National Association of Evangelicals calls upon Congress to enact appropriate legislation which will preclude the offering of alcoholic beverages whether complimentary or for sale to patrons abroad commercial airlines.

OK, disregarding the collectivist rhetoric here (a practice that can be terminated to the benefit of the greatest number), is it really necessary for the National Association of Evangelicals to call for a government ban on selling a legal product on airplanes?
And then there's alcohol sales in general:
The time has come for the National Association of Evangelicals to Promote congressional legislation that would label alcohol as a dangerous drug which can result in personal and social harm ...

So Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into a dangerous drug which can result in personal and social harm? Interesting...I think Jesus had more to fear from his outspokenness and iconoclastism than a sip or two of wine. What do the evangelicals wish to accomplish by asking government to label alcohol a dangerous drug? Have we learned nothing from the social, economic, and spiritual disaster that was alcohol prohibition? Have we learned nothing from the almost 40 years of horror of the disaster that is the “War on Drugs”? Do they want to see the DEA busting down the doors of the few churches left that are willing to dispense real wine for the sacrament of Communion instead of the grape juice that is done so often here in the bible belt? Can a fundamentalist Christian really have communion with grape juice when the scripture calls for wine? Shall I start bringing my own bottle to my local teetotaling church?

Here's the National Association of Evangelicals' statement on capital punishment:
We call upon congress and state legislatures to enact legislation which will direct the death penalty for such horrendous crimes as premeditated murder, the killing of a police officer or guard, murder in connection with any other crime, hijacking, skyjacking, or kidnapping where persons are physically harmed in the process.
We urge that legislation which re-establishes the death penalty also include safeguards to eliminate any inequities.

I wonder what that last sentence means. If everyone were killed equally, there would be no inequities.
Interestingly, the policy statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America states that they are against the death penalty, while the National Association of Evangelicals claims that the Evangelical Lutheran Conference is a member. So are the Evangelical Lutherans both for and against the death penalty? Go figure. Let's recall, Jesus himself was a victim of state imposed capital punishment demanded by the church leaders of the time. I just don't understand how his church can advocate it now under any circumstance. The same laws will eventually be used, by the state, against evangelical Christians. Guaranteed.

And to again quote the National Association of Evangelicals own words, the death penalty should be directed as punishment for such horrendous crimes as killing a police officer or guard...Do you not foresee even the most remote possibility where a Christian might kill a policeman or guard in personal defense against the threat of death or imprisonment in more totalitarian times? Jesus taught tolerance and forgiveness, but few Christian doctrines advocate no use of force for self defense. Shall we apply this doctrine to people like Cory Maye who, cowering next to his toddler daughter and thinking his home was being invaded by criminals, shot a cop breaking  into his home early one morning on a drug raid to the wrong place? Your death penalty statement would essentially crucify Cory Maye. After you have all this legislation in place, to quote the famous COPS theme song, “Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?”

Pornography:
... draft legislation to combat current inroads of businesses which center on the pornographic or prurient and thus lower community standards of decency .
In other words you wish to give the State the authority to decide which business may operate and which may not. Tell me, dear evangelicals, what will you do when the authority you have given the state to keep your business districts porn free is used against a bible store? You have to know it's coming.

Physician Assisted Suicide:
We pray earnestly that the Supreme Court will not attempt to interpret the Constitution as giving a right to physician-assisted suicide.

I do too. But not for the same reason. You see, that statement belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Constitution is for. Don't feel bad, you are not alone in your error, NAE. The Constitution gives no rights. What rights we have are given to us from God- if you're a deist, and I assume that you of the NAE are deists, or from Nature if you're not a deist. In either case, the rights you have are what you have just for being human. No person or political entity such as a government can give you rights. So the constitution doesn't give rights. It enumerates powers. It tells the government what limited powers it has over people who are already endowed, by their creator, with certain unalienable rights. Which include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now the right to life does not imply the duty to live, any more than the second amendment right to keep and bear arms requires every American to own a gun. Rights are something that can't be taken away from you by anyone, but their practice can't be forced on anyone either. You have the right to opt-out, so to speak, of any right that you choose to no longer assert. If I no longer wish liberty I can certainly check into a jail and consign my daily living decisions over to another if we both agree to the arrangement. If I no longer desire happiness I can become a sour puss of my own volition, just like so many department of motor vehicle clerks. Therefore there is nothing, nothing- to support anyone's assertion that they have a moral or legal basis on which to prevent anyone, any time, from entering into a mutual agreement with another to voluntarily end that person's life. For any reason. That person has the right to live, or not. He has the liberty to make his own choices. And he has the right to pursue happiness, even if that happiness is to be found in ending his life. Under the natural rights requirement of equal protection under the law, his only obligation is that his decision does not impinge on another's equal rights.

We also pray that the Court will not leave this matter to the States, which would mean each State would be free to pass legislation permitting doctors to end the lives of their patients under certain circumstances.

So  not only does the National Association of Evangelicals wish to prevent you from relinquishing your right to life if you so desire, it also wants to further impose, by federal legislation, a national government authority over the several states, further eroding what little state sovereignty there is left. So why not extend this logic one step further? If the national courts don't implement what the NAE wants, shall they go to international courts? Why stop at the US Government if they can't get what we want? Why not go to the World Court and call in the United Nations? Are you shuddering yet?

As evangelicals, we deny that there are any circumstances which justify euthanasia, with or without consent. Therefore, the National Association of Evangelicals. (NAE); expresses its firm opposition to State legislation which would legalize physician-assisted suicide.

God save us from the NAE.
Let's hear from other churches.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:
The position of this church is that government has a legitimate role in regulating abortion.

See episode 10 for our stand on abortion- What you'll get is a very carefully crafted, rational, objective presentation of one small part of the abortion question where Cat and I think it goes beyond a personal choice. But you'll also see that we believe in persuasion and not forced legislation. You certainly won't get a quick, cursory blanket statement like this.  Again- If the government has a legitimate role in regulating abortion under the initiation of the church, what is to keep it from have a legitimate role in regulating everything else that should, as a matter of Natural Rights be an individual issue? And what will prevent the state from legislating against the church later under a different interpretation of the same laws?

The United Methodist Church:
...we recognize the harmful effects of passive smoke and support the restriction of smoking in public areas and workplaces.

And when someone has enough political clout and it becomes politically correct, praying in public places will be next.

We support the strict administration of laws regulating the sale and distribution of alcohol and controlled substances.

Again, the Communion argument applies. Do you, as a church, really want to back a government that can, at its whim, declare that communion with wine is illegal?

We support regulations that protect society from users of drugs of any kind, including alcohol, where it can be shown that a clear and present social danger exists.

But beyond that, what will you do when government decides that just being a United Methodist is a clear and present social danger?

...we support the regulation of media communication technologies to ensure a variety of independent information sources and provides for the public good. While the Internet can be used to nurture minds and spirits of children and adults, it is in danger of being overrun with commercial interests and is used by some to distribute inappropriate and illegal material. Therefore, the Internet must be managed responsibly in order to maximize its benefits while minimizing its risks, especially for children.

Holy crap! What are you, a bunch of socialists? You support the regulation of media communication technologies? Do you really think the government has your best interest at heart? What will you do when it decides your message doesn't make the cut?

While the Internet can be used to nurture minds and spirits of children and adults, it is in danger of being overrun with commercial interests and is used by some to distribute inappropriate and illegal material.

Oh my god! It's in danger of being overrun with commercial interests! How horrible! I just ordered some stuff from Amazon dot com and it'll be here day after tomorrow. And it's stuff that's actually legal and moral. But you know what? It's stuff that wasn't available here in the third largest city in Missouri. I couldn't have gotten it before the Internet came along. The Internet is anarchy and agorism, and it's one of the most wonderful commercial phenomenons in the history of mankind. It's the closest thing Americans can come to the wild and woolly unregulated marketplaces of Europe and the middle east. Caviat emptor! And I pray that that never changes.   What is our alternative to the overrunning of the Internet with commercial interests?  Oh yeah... government interests! Come on. The Internet isn't limited in space and time. It's an unending, unregulated, unrepentant free-for-all that is the greatest source of information, fact, fiction, and fraud that ever hit planet Earth. And it scares the crap out of those who want to monopolize information. Whether they're dictators or church leaders. Yes, you are quite correct- it is used by some to distribute inappropriate and illegal material. So is the press. Shall we shred the first amendment as well?

We also recognize the role of governments in ensuring that each individual has access to those elements necessary to good health. We affirm the right of men and women to have access to comprehensive reproductive health/family planning information and services which will serve as a means to prevent unplanned pregnancies, reduce abortions and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Where does government get the role of ensuring access to elements necessary to good health? Please tell me where that authority or duty comes from? How is it derived from either the Constitution or Natural Law? There are a lot of people, government entities, academicians, and company spokespersons lately who claim we have a quote "right" to this or “right” to that. If it's the liberal agenda, it's the "right" to a "living wage" or a job or “personal dignity" or health care, some such nonsense. If it's the conservative agenda, it's the “right” to work, to live in a safe society, be free from terrorism, not to have to compete with immigrant labor, and so forth. They're all wrong. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, interestingly enough, so does the Mexican coming in under the wire, and so does the Shiite and so does the Kurd and so does the Catholic and so does the Quaker. You see, the rights guaranteed by the constitution aren't guaranteed only to flag waving, ID carrying Americans. They are guaranteed by our creator to all men (and we now understand “men” to include women, black people, Indians, and all other human beings) who are legally able to enter into voluntary contracts.

We affirm women and men to be equal in every aspect of their common life. We support affirmative action as one method of addressing the inequalities and discriminatory practices within our Church and society. We urge governments to enact policies that protect women against all forms of violence and discrimination in any sector of society.

We affirm someone's equality and in the next breath invoke government to treat them differently? Same thing Jim Crow laws did for African Americans. Based on my previous statement, all that the Methodists say here is superfluous. But that's what politically correct political statements get you.

Here's the problem as I see it. Today's mainstream Christian churches are aligning themselves with a government which they hope will enact legislation to save what they see as the moral underpinnings of this nation. They are in a hurry to push through law after law which they hope will force this nation to mold itself into some sort of moral theocracy that will bring back God's blessings all the while claiming that the only chosen people are the Jews of Israel. The Evangelicals are working hard to create an America that reflects their values from the bottom up and they don't recognize a fundamental flaw in their strategy:

Once laws are in place to regulate what a person can do, think, write, watch, grow, eat, drink, smoke, and say, it doesn't take but a burp by a politician and all those laws will be used against the ones who wanted them in the first place. There is no way to guarantee that the intent of a law, any law, will be there when the law is used for a different application. The moment Harry Potter books are banned by well-meaning Christians, the works of C.S. Lewis will be banned after the next election using the same laws.

Christians, can't you see? Your only hope to transform this country is to enact legislation that will allow you to spread your gospel regardless of the political winds that may be blowing tomorrow or in ten years. Your only hope of spreading the gospel in America is to quit trying to transform America into some kind of Christian totalitarian government that regulates what people you don't like can do and say and think because it will be used against you! There will, undoubtedly come a time when those in power don't like you!

Your only hope to transform this country is to embrace the only social and political philosophy that will allow you to operate no matter what kind of leadership we have, and that is small-L libertarianism. What that means to you is you have to stop, right now, trying to enact laws to force people not to act in ways you deem inappropriate! You must get out of the legislation business and into the persuasion business. In my opinion, that is the message that Jesus delivered when he replied to Pharisees who asked him whether it was OK to pay financial tribute to totalitarian Rome. When one of them held up a coin with Caesar's likeness, Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Jesus didn't advocate political lobbying as much as he did civil disobedience (He was all about getting one's ass out of a ditch even if it was illegal to do so on the Sabbath). His answer to the Pharisees clearly drew a line between the things that were expected of a person functioning in the venal world and the heavenly domain. The evangelicals of today are blurring that line.

Christians must come to grips with the fact that if they want a society in which they can openly function, they must be willing to accept a society in which Jews, Muslims, Atheists, homosexuals, and Democrats can also openly function. Tolerance is by definition all-inclusive. And Christians must have the confidence that in such an environment their message is strong enough to carry the day. Any Christians who feel they need the deck stacked against all other ideologies and philosophies lest their children get corrupted have not enough faith in their own belief system to allow a free society. And the society they are trying to build by legislating morality is absolutely bound to be turned against them. Guaranteed.

Many principled libertarians hold the view that to be true to the underpinnings of libertarianism you must be atheist. Indeed Ayn Rand, the Thomas Jefferson of American objectivist thought, was an outspoken atheist. Her philosophy had no room for conclusions or actions based on such amorphous ideas as faith or God or the supernatural. But, in my opinion, pure atheistic rational objectivism is a nasty way to live. You are left with nothing but your own wit and intellect with which to negotiate a cold and brutal world, and that's a lonely place to be. In Molon Labe', and as he alluded to in his interview in RFL Episode 043, the author Boston T. Party has said that “Ayn Rand was a seminal thinker and a mighty champion for individual rights. However she died a bitter and lonely woman which suggests that Objectivism was lacking. Her work is a fine place to begin, but not to end.”

I wholeheartedly agree. Like Spock of Star Trek, you can function very well on pure logic and rational thought, but you will never be a complete human. On the other hand, many of us continuously function on an irrational, emotional level and make decisions that may seem prudent at the time but will obviously come back to bite us later. That is where many evangelical Christians are operating today. There is room in principled libertarianism for people of faith. There is room for people who are objective and rational in their dealings with others, but round out their personalities with a healthy acceptance and belief that there are forces and powers in this universe that are bigger than them. They have the humility to know that they don't know everything and the compassion necessary to allow other people who might think differently than them the space to express those differences without feeling threatened. They can separate their objective, rational libertarianism from their faith. They don't force their beliefs, philosophies, or world view on their neighbor. And they are generally happy individuals.

What we need for leadership in this country and this world is people who are wise enough to accept their own positions as human beings in a world that they can't necessarily control or fully understand, but are strongly enough grounded in their own belief system, whatever that may be, to allow the next person to act according to their own belief system- as long as it doesn't impinge on their own equal rights . That's all it takes to create a fair and prosperous society. Christians who think that we need strong Christian leadership and laws to enforce our values will be enacting the same kind of state that imprisoned and executed people who didn't see things the way the Third Reich did. You can't change a person's philosophy by making his philosophy illegal. It never worked before and it won't now. All it'll do is allow you to legally punish him for thinking that way. And when you can do that, someone else will soon be able to do the same to you.

This has been Radio Free Liberty...