Posted on 02/18/2014 5:28:04 PM PST by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON — Young Evangelicals argued that Christianity and libertarianism are compatible, and some even claimed that Christians should advocate for libertarian causes.
"Christians actually ought to feel outraged that the redemptive power of charity has been taken from us and given to an unfeeling, coercive state," Leah Stiles Hughey declared at a Saturday panel at The International Students for Liberty Conference. She claimed that when government gets involved in giving to the poor it denies the God-given human dignity of both giver and receiver.
Hughey's husband Jason explained that "the Bible is not a book of political theory." Nevertheless, "there are themes we get from the Bible that give a good foundation for Christians to embrace libertarianism or even anarchy," Jason Hughey said.
The Hugheys and three other panelists provided 5 reasons why they believe Christians can be libertarian in their political beliefs.
1. Christianity Celebrates Voluntary Action, Value Creation
Jacqueline Otto Isaacs, a blogger at Values & Capitalism, explained that the Christian worldview also supports libertarianism. "The message of the Gospel, the good news, is that salvation from our sins is offered through Christ — this salvation is voluntary and individual, and this is the core message of Christianity," Isaacs declared.
"Christianity literally starts with the individual, celebrates the individual's dignity and opportunity for salvation, and then grows outwardly into the community and Christ's kingdom," Isaacs said. She focused on the idea that men and women are made in the image of God. "God created everything out of nothing, and we can create economic value out of scarcity," she explained.
Since Christianity is about voluntary action, so much so that God allowed us to sin and fall short of his glory, governments should let individuals make their own decisions, Isaacs argued. "God respects our freedom, even to reject him, so we can respect the freedom of others," she said.
Jeffrey Tucker, CEO of Liberty.me and distinguished fellow of the Foundation for Economic Education, argued that Christianity offered something unique in the world, a universalist ethic. "Christianity should have a universalist, globalist, expansive outlook, always — and that's the free market, too," Tucker told CP in an interview on Saturday. The free market "has this driving force towards globalism, global community, and universal cooperation — in that way, the free market and Christianity totally agree."
2. Big Government Does Not Solve Poverty
Philip Luca, vice president of Social Media at The American Marketing Association, discussed his experience from going up in Eastern Europe. "We really went all in trying to put our goods in a common pot, and letting the state handle distribution and letting there be no poor among us," Luca explained. "What happened is that all of us became poor."
Isaacs cited Federick Bastiat's book The Law, which argues that the best way to bring the poor out of poverty is through free markets. Man in the image of God can participate in the Lord's redemptive work — "God redeems us from our sins and we can work towards redeeming those around us from poverty and ignorance and disease."
3. The Biblical Role of Government
Jason Hughey agreed, citing specific scriptures to argue for a smaller role of government. Hughey pointed to 1 Samuel 8, where the people of Israel asked Samuel for a king. When Samuel went to God, "the Lord was not happy with this – the people of Israel were turning their back on him," Hughey explained. God granted Israel's wish, but warned that their king would conscript their sons, take away their daughters, and tax the people. Hughey ended the reading with the line "and you will be his slaves."
Hughey then pointed to the gospel of Mark, where Christ describes what it means to serve others. "I think it's very interesting that the model of service that Christ points to for the church is stated in direct contrast to the way the political authorities rule and lord it over others," the speaker declared.
Finally, the speaker addressed Jesus' commandment to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's." Hughey argued that the emphasis in this passage is not to dignify government but "about rendering unto God what is God's," since "God is the highest authority, Christ is the highest authority, and not Caesar."
4. The Welfare State Harms Christian Charity
"Christ's example through scripture gives us a model of what charity should look like and government, by stepping in, harms that model and generates tragic consequences for both the givers and the receivers in that situation," Leah Hughey claimed. She emphasized Jesus' declaration in John 18 that no one takes his life from him, but he offers it of his own accord.
Hughey argued that "because his sacrifice was fully voluntary, a bond was established at the cross between Christ the ultimate giver and his people the ultimate receivers." Through charity, Christians partake in this great gift.
But government redistribution ruins this connection, Hughey claimed. "When the government steps in and acts as the giver of what could have been a private gift, instead of having a posture of humility and gratefulness, the receiver actually becomes envious and starts to compare what they have to what the giver has, and feels entitled to the possessions of another human being, which we know from scripture is harmful."
While the receiver feels entitled, the giver becomes angry, Hughey argued. "Instead of getting to decide how their charitable giving is allocated, it's taken from them and redistributed," she said. "They never see where it goes, so they just have a feeling of bitterness towards the welfare state."
5. Wealth Is Not Inherently Sinful
Leah Hughey also argued that scripture does not proclaim wealth as inherently sinful. She addressed a certain reading of Matthew 19:24 — "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God."
"In scripture Jesus has several interactions with wealthy people, but some of them he didn't encourage to sell everything," Hughey argued. She explained that Jesus' warnings are focused on the "heart issue" of whether someone "puts possessions over Christ," and not a mere attack on the rich.
I beg to differ! Mi querido perro anaranjado (a little ess-pan-yole lingo there for my dear orange dog), the effort is absolutely fruitful and useful if lurking or new FReeper conservatives who are themselves moral, Christian-guided small-l libertarians, see it and perceive that the guys who "don't like libertarians" (i.e., guys who are emotionally vested in remaining willfully self-deceived and ignorant as to what small-l libertarianism actually is) are only one small part, and a misguided one, of an overwhelmingly RIGHT-guided and deeply moral Free Republic.
Challenging the divisive "libertarians-are-child-molesting-drug-abusing-abortion-pushing-homosexual-advocating-liberals" is always productive, good effort because it validates those lurkers/newbies who agree with you and me, who might otherwise leave FR if not for posts like yours and mine that help them see that there's a lot more to FR than the lying, deceitful likes of those who have to lie about what libertarianism is in order to advance their agenda.
And yes, I did have one FReeper accuse me in at least 17 posts, on one thread titled "One Nation Under Drugs, of promoting and advancing abortion/opposing pro-lifers, pushing for gays in the military and everywhere else, advocating drug abuse, etc. etc., without a single, solitary proof of my doing so, despite my repeated requests for him to please cut-and-paste my words where I did such things. He couldn't ... because he was LYING. It is so horrifically ironic that these types claim the moral high ground and BEAR FALSE WITNESS in their losing attempts to take it.
It is never wasted effort, it is always fruitful and good, to call such liars out in a public forum because it assures readers/lurkers who agree with us, that they are in good and plentiful company.
It sounds, to me, almost like a
(Luke 7:36-50)
One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment.
Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.”
Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”
“Teacher,” he replied, “speak.”
“A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?”
Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.”
And Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.”
Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.”
Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
By my count the War on Drugs has damaged all but the 3RD Amendment from the Bill of Rights — reposted from a thread on the USSC:
Revel: It is time to understand the USSC is a lawless bunch who rule for political and devilish reasons.So, yeah, IMO it's impossible for one to simultaneously support the War on Drugs and be a Constitutionalist.
Theoria: That was Scalia and crew with Heller. They helped put limitations on gun ‘rights’.Despite what some people think, Scalia is not a Constitutionalist; support of the War on Drugs and Constitutionalism are mutually exclusive, as the War on Drugs has damaged 90% of the Bill of Rights:
Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”Amendment 8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even is you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment 7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment 6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment 5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment 4 — Kentucky v King“The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”In other words:Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!
Amendment 3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment 2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment 1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith ), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed.
Hughey's husband Jason explained that "the Bible is not a book of political theory." Nevertheless, "there are themes we get from the Bible that give a good foundation for Christians to embrace libertarianism or even anarchy," Jason Hughey said.
Why would you say that's nonsense? — A lot of people would classify Constitutionalism under our current Constitution as anarchy, as most of the federal government has no basis in the Constitution as-written (Ag. Dept, DOE, other DOE, DEA, NASA, Air Force, BATFE, NSA, CIA, FBI, HUD, etc.)… it'd probably be easier/quicker to cite those agencies that actually had Constitutional basis:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.