There are some who say that equality is the greatest of the American virtues. In a sense it is true since "all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights......life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The idea of intrinsic human worth broke the bonds of slavery, and is the cornerstone principle of all the noble gains of the early civil rights movement. But the voices who are championing equality nowadays seem to be arguing something other than intrinsic worth and therefore equal opportunities. They are not trying to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They're fighting for equal outcomes, and there is a very subtle, dangerous distinction to be made. In essence they are demanding the aquirement of happiness - not the pursuit - as an unalienable right. They demand racial and gender quotas, economic equity, universal healthcare and education (even for non-citizens). All of these things are in line with socialism and communism which absolutely names "equity" as it's bedrock principle. Of course never mind that communism doesn't work.
Let me state a fact, not an opinion - LIFE IS NOT FAIR and fair outcomes can never be guaranteed, anyone that tells you they can is LYING. I just want a system of government that ensures a Fair Process, not "fair outcomes". In my opinion the most overlooked unalienable right we have is the RIGHT TO PROPERTY (pursuit of happiness). The government has no right based on the Constitution to my property. Yes, that's right - payroll taxes are illegitimate. Consumer taxes are the only legitimate mode of taxation provided by the founders, (except in wartime).
I have no problem with taxes, they just need to be levied in a non-coercive way, thereby preserving the power with the people. If we wanted a tax break in a consumer tax scenario, we would just control our spending. It's that simple. Once again, understanding the founding principles will keep us off all the philosophical slippery slopes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Hey Paul, What's Up?
I have a question regarding your post. You said that we all have inalienable rights, mainly (Property Rights). (14th Amendment) While I agree with the the fact that the government has no right to "forcefully take property", it does everyday, and has done since the inception of this country.
I am slowly getting to my question.:)
Do you see Thomas Jefferson as someone to be trusted in regards to his line of reasoning? Are we all created equal? Do we have a level playing field? Should we have one? This country was created as a "liberal democracy", yet we are no longer one.
Are Deism and Christianity separate, or do they work together? Jefferson was not a Christian, he believed that God was an "absentee landlord" and was detached from his creation. He believed that religion is something people do in the privacy of churches and homes, allowing the public sphere of politics to reign supreme. So if I choose to fight a war, it is thought of a good, because God is absent anyways. He was a product of the Enlightenment, in which nature will continually work itself out until we reach a kind of Utopian existence.
I am simply making for debate on this topic, because you are right, "Life is not fair", so how can the gospel of Christ flip our politics upside down? We follow the Politics of Jesus, because he was extremely political in everything he did. That is my question. Thanks, I really enjoy your blog.
I'm sorry Paul P. , I don't understand your question. What I do know is that the founders believed through their understanding of the Bible that two of the hallmark characteristics of the Christianity are Freedom and Liberty. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Freedom" 2 Corinthians 3:17 They wanted to create a system of government that reflected God's dealings with man. That is why they went completely opposite from any of the Totalitarian brands of Government and chose to form one that valued self-government. They understood that our salvation was not institutional, but personal and therefore self-government was preferred over Big Government.
I don't know if that addresses what you wrote, but restate it again if you can.
-Paul B.
It should be noted that according to Christopher Hitchens, who wrote the book on Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery in the Declaration of Independence but the New York delegation would not allow it. So I would say that Jefferson did believe we are all created equal.
-Jeremy
In reference to the book on Jefferson, I never read it, but I do know that Jefferson thought that this country needed to address slavery, or else it would become a serious problem in the future. I guess he was right. This does not mean necessarily that he thought we are all created equal, but from a biblical point of view, he has no real view of evil, mainly due to his well to do lifestyle.
Paul B.-You have mentioned self-government two separate times. What do you mean by self-government? Do you mean that we govern ourselves as citizens, or that the government is chosen by citizens? The second question is what I meant by "liberal democracy" and the fact that the U.S. is no longer one, because our political and corporate structures are too vast for our voices to be heard sometimes.
I just wanted to know if you thought that Jefferson's Deistic ways of thinking about God contradict our understanding of Christ, the Church, and the kingdom of God? That is what I meant by the Politics of Jesus, which constitutes Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, in proclaiming a new way of living, which is outside of our current political agendas, yet seeks to redeem them from within.
I don't think that the Founding Fathers cared that much about religion, they simply wanted to make sure that England did not usurp their freedom and land, with the Monarchy.
The Enlightenment relegated nature as supreme, i.e. David Hume, and that nothing is understood outside of what can be determined by our reason, which is the progress of our nature.
I just went back over the Declaration of Independence and it could be written today by those to whom our society as a whole does not provide equal rights under the law, i.e. the poor, the underprivileged, immigrants (mainly from South of the Border), and those housed in prisons and projects.
Sorry this is so long.
Paul P. I'm not sure where you get the liberal democracy thing from. Our founders set up a democratic republic. It was the best way to balance out the desires of the majority without them becoming tyrannical........(the electoral college).
Also, our founders were very religiously motivated. I highly recommend you read any historical book by David Barton. He only uses primary source documents so his opinions are solidly based on facts. The amazing thing is that because of their theological understanding of the Bible they understood that God loves FREEDOM and didn't legislate that everyone must be a Christian or something else. They preserved a person's right to choose or not what religion they wanted to be. The Free Exercise clause guarantees our right to practice our faith publicly or privately or wherever. "Congress shall make no law abridging......." FREE EXERCISE.
I'm not sure what you mean about Jesus being political. Certainly everything He did had political ramifications, but are you saying that he was politically motivated? Jesus definitely wanted to change the hearts of men, but he always tried to do it spiritually, not politically. A political Messiah would have sought to have an uprising or effect change through the pressure of the masses. I can't think of one place where Jesus sought to changes things through the pressure of the masses. He simply spoke to the hearts of men.
Furthermore, those that tried or proposed change through political or coercive means Jesus rebuked. (Peter and Judas)
Finally, the Enlightenment did focus on the natural order of things. But you'll find that many of the greatest minds of the Enlightenment were motivated by the hypothesis that understanding Science and Nature would help us understand God's Nature since He created it. (Issac Newton.....and others)
I hope these comments help, and I do love the different points of view.
-Paul B.
Hey Paul B., thanks for the dialogue. The reason that I say Jesus is political is because I don't believe there is the dualistic split between what 1st Century Judaism taught concerning God restoring all things, such as what the prophets proclaimed and our understanding today of a two kingdoms philosophy, such as what Luther taught.
I believe that Jesus himself is the kingdom of God, so if a disciple then, or a disciple now, goes in a different direction than bearing the cross, it contradicts where jesus himself was/is going, therefore making the disciple to go astray. I then think that would be the reason that Jesus rebuked Peter and Judas.
Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, and asks that we participate with the kingdom. The kingdom in my understanding is greater than simply personal renewal, but usually starts with a personal relationship. So, in essence Jesus was political because there was no split, between what is political and personal--heaven and earth, (as we define it today, post-Enlightenment)
I do want to retract my statement about the Founding Fathers not being religious, which you correctly stated,:) because some of them were very religious, and devout Christians. I think though that the founding of this country on property rights, has worked out fairly well for some, not so well for others.
When I start to take on the role of ownership, I can get into a slippery slope of denying that God alone owns the earth, we are never called to own it, because I can't own what isn't mine. I have been given more of a 'land grant', or an 'entitlement' to the land by God himself. That is why in the Torah, there is never wording about ownership of the land, but "possessing it".
I also want you to know I agree with you wholeheartedly that God loves Freedom, and we can not and must not legislate Christianity, so I hope you understand that what I am saying in no way means that. :)
Anyways, another long post. Thanks.
Hey Paul P. good dialogue we have going here. A couple of Biblical thoughts come to mind about the Kingdom of God. "The Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit". We are to pray, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on EARTH as it is in HEAVEN". We are to preach, "The Gospel of the Kingdom" (not just the Gospel of Salvation). As I've studied out what is meant by "The Kingdom" I've come to this conclusion: the Kingdom of God is literally the culture of Heaven. That has enormous ramifications if you think of how broad that is. If we ask ourselves, "what is the attitude of Heaven towards something, or what are the resources of Heaven for this situation" we begin to behave as citizens of Heaven using Divine authority to help situations and people change in incredible ways. This is what Jesus did all day every day.
"Jesus there's no wine left"..........really.....in Heaven there's no lack. "Jesus this man has been crippled since birth"...........really.........in Heaven there's no sickness or disease. "Jesus this woman was caught in adultery, stone her"..........really.......not in Heaven. In Heaven a contrite person receives forgiveness.
If we think of an American embassy in a 3rd world nation it depicts very well what we should be like amidst the people of this world. That nation might be a mess, corrupt, oppressive, without any safe water or electricity. But not the American Embassy. It will have the culture and benefits of America.
We are the Light of the World, and the Salt of the Earth.
Now as for property right and us "owning" something. Yes, in the our attitudes we must always feel like stewards over what God has given us. But in the legal sense it is great that we can own things, and no other person has a right to coerce it away from us. Think of the alternative.....if we don't own things, the government will. A very bad scenario. The concentration of government power in Communism, and Socialism have lead to some of the most corrupt, oppressive regimes in history.
And lastly, be careful with the statement that Property Rights have been good for some and not for others. Remember, good Government should focus on fair processes, not "fair outcomes".
Hey Paul, this is an extremely good dialogue. In the Heaven and Earth analogy you were using, are you saying that Jesus was showing us what Heaven will look like, meaning when we die, or that we should live in the earth as citizens of heaven? I agree with it if it say's that humans should experience healing, forgiveness, mercy, while on earth, just the same as I have experienced it.
I liked the examples you used, right up until the American Embassy example. There are reasons why people live in poverty, war, famine, and I am confused about what an American Embassy has to do with the whole picture. There is something called Debt Relief, which Bono is a part of to relieve 3rd World Nations of the Debt they have incurred. It has also been called "Millenium Jubilee".
I do not think we attempt to Colonize people with our American systems, because they are not Americans, nor do they want to be, nor should they be. Their culture is no better, nor no worse than ours, in need of redemption by God, just like our culture is in need of redemption.
Also, I don't agree with Communism, because it really is a Dictatorship, and the U.S. for all intents and purposes is a Socialist nation, because of the mere size and scope of our government, which I do think needs a radical transformation.
Communism places to much emphasis upon human beings, which can only result in horrendous evils, when ONE human gains power, which has of course happened.
The last comment you made about "fair processes", not "fair outcomes", is not to promote socialism, it is to curb human greed. When push comes to shove, humans will attempt at all costs to preserve what they have, thwarting any opportunity for others to participate in the "process". If there truly were fair processes, people wouldn't care so much about the outcomes.
Appreciate the dialogue. It always helps me to become clearer in my thinking, because I need various perspectives.
A very good dialogue, Paul. I'm sorry you got hung up on my embassy example. I thought it was great. I was trying to depict the stark difference between the environment of a third world nation and an American Embassy within that nation. I sited things like unclean water, and no electricity, oppressive conditions in contrast to a well decorated, hotel-like embassy with all of the amenities and benefits we're used to. That's not to say that poor people are bad. I'm just saying that having a nice toilet is better than pooping in the corner of a bombed out building. I then followed it up with we are the light of the world, the salt of the earth.
There should be something distinctively illuminating about a Christian. We should be the most joyful, creative, wisest, generous people on the planet, because the God of the Universe lives in us and He is all of those things and more. There should be an obvious difference in the way we run our businesses, raise our children, relate to our spouses.......etc. The embassy thing wasn't a political statement as much as an example to contrast two opposite environments that are within each other. We are called to "be in the world, but not of it."
You're right about human greed. It will always be there. However, the founders knew that the worst form of human greed is when it flows unchecked through the coercive power of Government. That's why they were so careful with checks and balances. The free market is it's own check on corporate greed. Unless it's a monopoly situation, or there's wide-spread collusion within an industry it can't really happen with any large impact. (the gov't watches for that very carefully - oil industry hearings) In a normal situation the guy down the street will just sell the same product for less.
By the way do you know how Bono wants to free these third world nations from there debts? (which by the way is a good cause with bad methods) By the governments of industrialized nations taxing their people more. He wants to free one group by enslaving another. NOT GOOD. These countries with huge debt usually have tremendous undeveloped natural resources. With a good free market economy and investment banking system to support entrepreneurship these countries could make incredible reforms themselves. But many of them have corrupt, tyrannical leaders. Once again, fair processes and good governments that values FREEDOM can greatly change any society.
Jason Hills writes:
This is a great dialogue taking place on so many levels. I'd like to chime in about the Enlightenment. One of the problems with "the Enlightenment" as a term is that it refers to not a movement, but the collective ideas of a large mass of thinkers, from different regions of Europe. The time spans from the 1600's all the way up to the doorstep of the French Revolution. These men often disagreed with each other, especially when it came to religion. Take for instance, Locke vs. Hobbes. The latter wrote, much earlier, that Absolute Monarchies (the "Leviathan") are the best forms of government. He bases his ideas on the Biblical model of fall nature. Locke says no, because of the whole inalienable rights idea previously discussed: but he too is very religious--a devout Anglican. In fact, his Protestantism may have been the biggest factor in his entire "Two Treatises on Government." Which came first, the chicken of the egg? Did his arguments follow his beliefs? Anyway, the French thinkers made the Enlightenment more of a Deist, anti-Christian movement. In summary, I caution us to use the term Enlightenment less as a momolithic force affecting us, and more as the jumbled, contradictory set of ideas that it really was.
PS> Paul P. - Tell me more about Luthers two kingdom idea....that is very intriguing. It may clear up a lot of missing pieces for all of us in terms of understanding the way that Portestants in this country think oubt the Old Testament and the role of Government in world affairs.
Paul B.-thanks for posting Jay's comments for him, that is great, it will allow for him to correct bring his incredible historical knowledge to the table. :) When Jay writes, I think of that line from "Good Will Hunting", when Ben Affleck is complementing Matt Damon when they were in the bar, by saying, "My boy is wicked smart." (Done with a deep Boston accent)
Jay: the two kingdoms philosophy of Luther was that he saw the kingdoms of this world as being under God, being in "the law" as he defined "law"; and then there was the kingdom of Christ, which he saw as a kingdom of grace, not "under the law". In my opinion, impossible and dangerous. Luther relegated politics into the kingdoms of the world, then placed grace in the kingdom of the church of Christ. Luther though did not have a problem with war, because he believed that war is used by God as his law to "curb sin".
My thoughts on grace is that it is something which is present in the world, as it is in the church, as it is in our personal lives, which should be proclaimed to all.
Luther lived with a huge amount of tension between the two kingdoms, which probably affected the way he interacted with certain groups of people, because how could he possibly see God's grace displayed to groups of people if they lived in the world?
He split the sacred and secular, making Christ into a Pietistic belief, where we can ONLY experience his transformation individually, not corporately, nationally, politically.
The last thing is that you mentioned the O.T., and applying things directly from it to our present society, which can be dangerous. There was a man named Marcion from the 2nd or 3rd century, I have to check; who taught that Christ was merciful and loving, but the God of the O.T. was wrathful. The Church obviously did not accept this teaching. I say all that to say that Luther could have swayed towards that side, but he also was very much like Augustine in seeing God as being a part of all of creation. I think he simply lacked ways to articulate that.
Post a Comment