Perhaps President Bush is teaching a most unintentional lesson to Christians with the ear to hear. I'm obviously upset with his SCHIP decisions and have written about it here and here and here and here.
But read what Pudge writes:
I've heard no one -- not you, not Jim Wallis, not anyone -- who advocates a Christian-compassion justification for government charity ever justify why government should be used as the agent of that charity. Indeed, to me, charity is love, and government charity is forced charity, which is an oxymoron. If I may be so blunt: there is nothing Christian about forcing someone to give to someone else.
And then read to what my friend Greg Boyd writes about Christian political obsession:
...instead of confessing our greed and ungodly divisiveness and sacrificially pooling our resources to serve the poor, we tend to rather point the finger at government while positioning ourselves as people who are smarter at spending public funds and solving tough issues and more righteous in caring about the needy. I suspect the American Church has been so divided, so influenced by American greed and thus so impotent for so long, most can't even imagine it being otherwise. Related to this, we've relinquished so much responsibility for caring for the poor to the government for so long, most American Christians can't picture the Church itself, without the aid of government, taking responsibility for this.Due to this impoverished imagination, we sadly assume our highest calling is to be the high priests of Caesar's court, telling it how God allegedly wants it to spend its money.
Both are speaking truth.
While there is obviously a vital role for government in caring for people, that role is greater than it need be because the Church of Jesus Christ (all the millions of churches) in the United States isn't fulfilling its mission to sacrificially love and give to those who need the help.
If the church were really, truly being the church we wouldn't have huge debates and discussions about funding faith-based programs because, frankly, those programs would be so flush in cash the last thing they would need is more money.
Isn't it time that we start talking at least as much about the revolution that needs to occur in the church as we do about the changes that need to occur in government?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
PudgeZero-Equals-Infinity, I am grateful for your response and you've helped me gain insight, and I hope that I've helped you gain some as well, and that this conversation continues productive.
I am pretty open-minded, (or like to think of myself that way at least). Your views are engaging and not without merit, and they also invite a more basic set of questions that need to be discussed.
Specifically:
0) What are the natural limits to freedom?
1) What is or should be the role of the government / state?
2) What is or should be the role of non-government collectives?
3) What is or should be the limits of freedom upon the individual?
a) Are there events and subsets of activities that require the
restriction of rights beyond the norm?
i) What are they, and to whom can the individual appeal to
redress and adjudicate these exceptions?
4) Does or should the state act on behalf of its citizens and with
regard to what set of activities?
5) To expand on 4), what is the social contract between a person and
the state, and how is that social contract negotiated?
6) Inalienable rights, (see http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)
This is a good start, (and the examination of these alone could consume many lifetimes, but let's look at these and see where it leads.)
Starting with 0), what are the natural limits to freedom? I won't dwell too long on this one, except to state the usual considerations.
Some things are simply not possible due to physical and biological constraints. (i.e. I cannot regenerate my arm if it is hacked off.)
Nobody will argue with limits to freedom which require a means that does not exist.
Philosophically, the major discussion is: Does free will exist, or is it a persistent illusion experienced by all but the insane, (including hard determinists?)
For purposes of any discussion on the limits of freedom, we have to accept the premise that freedom either does exist or must be treated as though it exists. (For the record, I hold to the hard determinist view, and view freedom as a persistent illusion. That said: I live my life as though I have real freedom, even while being aware that my state is shaped by events both conscious and unconscious over which I have no control.) And so for purposes of discussions on the limits of freedom let us proceed as though we are free in fact within the constraints of what it is possible to do.
And so we move on to what is or should be the role of government? On the face of it the role of government is to govern, to establish the rules by which the governed must subscribe or face sanction of varying degrees and forms. It must have authority to act on hahalf of the citizenry and the means to carry out what it is authorized to do. Government also has obligations to the citizen, and must itself follow rules as established by its constitution and adjudicated by an independent judiciary. Hence, government and the individual have limits of freedom, and it is the judiciary that adjudicates disputes.
In theory, government should facilitate freedom and security without prejudice, and act responsibly on behalf of the citizens that elect it or be held accountable to that citizenry. It must abide by law that protects the inalienable rights of the individual (and not merely the citizen). (i.e. If Habeus Corpus is deemed to be an inalienable right, it should apply to aliens and citizens alike.)
Government has a role in establishing law and rules that inhibit individual freedoms, (though not inalienable ones), for a variety of reasons. These include incarceration for criminal acts, and restrictions that are necessary for safety and the common interest. Courts exist to adjudicate between the government and the individual. (For example, laws and rules exist as determined by government by which the pilots of aircraft must engage in controlled air spaces. It is reasonable and necessary that such rules and laws exist to facilitate safe air travel, even though this necessarily inhibits the freedom of a pilot to act in certain ways that he may feel are necessary and justified. The restriction is necessary for the greater good of safe air travel, and would be necessary even if each pilot was totally altruistic.) Other areas are less clear, and subject to debate and adjudication by the courts and judgment by the electorate.
Does government have a role in the distribution of services to the citizenry and the collection of revenues to facilitate its operations? Yes, and here is the big can of worms that we will spend most of our time examining. What services and to what level should government be involved? What services can a government legitimately deliver and impose obligation on the citizen to contribute to? (This is not just monetary, but includes things like the draft.)
(I will leave it here for now. This could easily become a book just to introduce. If you wish to comment on any of this feel free to. I have the sense that to do this properly is going to involve a very long discussion, which is fine. Just don't expect it to resolve clearly in all cases and circumstances, or quickly.)
Thanks once again for your thoughtful engagement. We may very well end up disagreeing, but I am sure we will stimulate each other to think about this creatively and ethically.
Larry Parker:
I understand what you are saying, but as I said: no, I support the public schools as long as they exist. When I lived in Southern California, there were significant inequities there in the public schools, and while I was not one to try to make things "equal" (which would be impossible, unless you prevented the very richest neighborhoods from just pouring money into their schools, which would take away their local rights), I did advocate more state money to helping those communities that were incredibly poor and simply couldn't fund basic requirements.
As long as those programs are "the way things are done," I won't try to undermine them, and I won't tell poor kids they just have to deal with whatever scraps the government has left over.
As to SCHIP, I realize it is administered by the states. But the Tenth Amendment even forbids the giving of federal money for such purposes. Madison spoke not just of federal government "doing," but also of federal government using money, saying things like "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare ... it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America ..."
That said, no, I wouldn't be overjoyed by making SCHIP a state program, though it would be better than a federal program. But since it would be in New Jersey, I wouldn't have to care. :-)
Zero-Equals-Infinity:
What are the natural limits to freedom?
There are none. I do not consider "regeneration" a limit on freedom. I am naturally free to do whatever is in my power to do.
Free will does not enter into this debate, as far as I am concerned. If we have no free will, then why does it matter? And if we do, then it must be respected. So our only reasonable choice is to act like we do, as you say: whether or not it exists, we act like it does.
What is or should be the role of the government / state?
To organize our individual self-defense of our rights to person and property.
What is or should be the role of non-government collectives?
Whatever they wish it to be, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
What is or should be the limits of freedom upon the individual?
Where the expression of your rights infringes on the rights of another. The old "right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
Are there events and subsets of activities that require the restriction of rights beyond the norm?
Yes, but very few.
What are they, and to whom can the individual appeal to redress and adjudicate these exceptions?
The only exceptions have to do with the aforementioned role of government: organizing our collective defense of our rights to person and property. If my right to person and property is to be restricted as an exception, then it must be in order to defend a greater related interest (e.g., significantly greater number of people or properties being affected, or destroying my property to save my life, etc.).
As to whom we can appeal: the courts.
I do not consider incarceration for criminal acts an "exception." That's justice. That's part of the job. Yes, it restricts liberty of the criminal, but only because the criminal was judged to have done so first. So I don't consider this an "exception."
Does or should the state act on behalf of its citizens and with regard to what set of activities?
Only in order to perform an activity directly related to the defense of our rights to person and property.
what is the social contract between a person and the state, and how is that social contract negotiated?
Aye, there's the rub: if we believe in liberty, each individual should be able to negotiate such a social contract for himself. But that's not possible. Therefore government should be limited only to protecting liberty (unless, of course, you have some sort of a "closed" system, where each person can enter and exit the system freely, so that it only operates on people who choose it willingly).
It is reasonable and necessary that such rules and laws exist to facilitate safe air travel
I disagree. Reasonable, perhaps. Necessary, no, obviously not. Perhaps you do not mean "necessary" as I do, but I think it is quite obvious that it is not necessary for government to have such laws. What would be the result if we did not? Chances are, we would be just fine. If someone does fly unsafely, that can fall under a broader rule to not threaten the safety of others through reckless behavior.
Does government have a role in the distribution of services to the citizenry and the collection of revenues to facilitate its operations?
No.
Yes
No.
You've not supported this claim at all, though I've no doubt you could attempt it, and I look forward to that support. But you appear to me to be attempting to dictate that the terms of the debate will be "what services, and how much," but I am rejecting the premise that government has such a role to begin with.
What services can a government legitimately deliver and impose obligation on the citizen to contribute to? (This is not just monetary, but includes things like the draft.)
Only those that support the organization of our collective defense of person and property.
That said, even though the military is obviously a support of that purpose of government, the military draft is one of the greatest crimes against liberty, after slavery and abortion, that our country has ever known.
Quick side note on habeas corpus: whether or not there is a constitutional right to habeas corpus, the Military Commissions Act, contrary to popular belief, did not take that constitutional right away from alien unalawful enemy combatants. It only took away the stautory additions to habeas corpus, which cannot be considered part of the inalienable right to habeas corpus. (There are some questions as to whether the MCA adequately protects the right to habeas, but that is a distinct issue, regarding the formal processes for status determinations, and not the text of the law that refers explicitly to habeas corpus.)
So the Dems have passed what amounts to welfare for the rich to be paid by higher taxes on the poor. That sounds very Christian.
I don't understand your comment, TP. Care to give your evidence for it?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.