Category Archives: Reflections

Why I Write What I Write

By | | ,
Leave a comment

The following is actually drawn from an email I wrote about why I started this project, especially from a Christian perspective that might find my “pen” better used to write exhortations on Scripture and the Christian life (which I do, as well, in other venues). I think it serves as a helpful mission statement or manifesto, if you will.

What I see is a world desperately in need of Jesus. I see a world that looks to political solutions where only spiritual solutions will suffice. I see a Christian community of conservatives that believe false narratives about the American government and that idolizes parts of it and demonizes others, and I believe there is a destructive dissonance in that approach because it abandons the simplicity of the Gospel: that all people need Christ, and that political solutions don’t–and can’t–work.

I seek to break down the idolization of political solutions because of that: they just don’t work. They never have. Like Israel begged for a king against God’s warning that they would abuse power, and He saw it as a personal rejection of His sovereignty, so we too look to government power for solutions that only Christ can provide.

I also am passionate about seeing the church fill the void in proclaiming the truth of God’s Gospel–which is wholly apolitical–where they think that the government should step in. I really do want to help people understand the reality of the political and economic sphere, the inherent brokenness in it, and to help destroy the idolatry of the “king.” To Christians, I would say and do say that this is an opportunity to return attention to the true King. 

That’s ultimately why I write what I write.

(If this resonates with you, I would STRONGLY encourage you to check out my capstone project to this end: The Tale of Two Gospels.)

A “Sort Of” Win for the Cake Baker

By | | , , , ,
Leave a comment

A “win” for the Colorado Christian cake baker?

Yes.

Sort of.

(This originally was sent out as an email. While I typically reserve special additional content like this just for subscribers, I decided this one would become a blog post.)

As I teach my Government students, it is often not the immediate decision of the Supreme Court that matters in the long run, but the implications of the decision.

On the surface, the Court might seem to be a significant win for religious (and specifically Christian) liberty supporters, like myself. After all, the Court claimed that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which brought the original charge against the cake bakers, had expressed extreme anti-religious bias against the cake-baker, and accordingly not ruled fairly.

The ruling declares that “as the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and … compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

So far, so good. Right?

What the opinion says here is factually correct, and for us Christians, the charge against the cake baker by the Commission is concerning. So shouldn’t we sigh a sigh of relief if the Commission is not allowed to get away with this based on their anti-Christian sentiments?

Justice Kagan, in a concurring opinion, confirmed that the Civil Rights Commission was not being neutral enough.

Does anyone see the problem with this, however?

The Court was saying, in essence that, “because the Civil Rights Commission was too biased against something we think they should not have been biased against, we will not allow them to force the bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding.”

Or, in other words, “pick something that we feel is more neutral or a more just cause, and next time we will let you control the labor of another person.”

So, while I agree with the ruling, it leaves the door wide open, based on the values of the Court majority. And even though I firmly agree with that value in this ruling, all it takes is another Court composition to find a slightly modified decision and use the brilliantly tangled language of legalese to declare similar cases to be not too-biased. “Just be nicer,” says the Court, “don’t be so mean, and next time we might rule in your favor.” Or, “we feel like the bigoted behavior of the Commission was worse than the alleged ‘bigoted’ behavior of the cake baker.”

In other words, it missed the whole issue, which is one of property rights, as I lay out in my post, “Bake the Cake…? Property and Discrimination.”It’s a subjective weighing of the Commission’s bigotry against the alleged ‘bigotry’ of the cake baker that only takes a later court to “feel” differently about.

I have studied law and jurisprudence long enough to know that this case will not serve as a protection against similar lawsuits in the future with a more progressive Supreme Court. The language of the decision alone is hardly enough to prevent future Court decisions from getting around it easily. And, on top of that, it’s squishy enough that other Civil Rights Commissions will be happy to “give it another go”, spend plenty of money putting Christians businesses out of business and casting a chilling effect for those who might just refuse to serve someone with whom they choose not to association. More such charges will be forthcoming.

To some readers, of course, this will bolster the justification for electing presidents who appoint legally-conservative justices, such as the recent appointment of Gorsuch (who I have very-much liked, so far). That is fine as far as it goes, but that’s a band aid on a hemorrhage. The real issue is one of property rights. Unless that black-and-white and principled position becomes the topic of debate, this case is necessarily a temporary win.

It is more than likely that, as culture changes and the state becomes more powerful, more of this sort of thing will happen. Don’t forget that litigation takes years and millions of dollars. So let me change the tone right here before the end of my email.

Will we Christians be bold enough to face the legal persecution anyway? Will we fight to persuade those around of the truth of God’s love and standards? Or will we cave to “respectable opinion” in order to avoid ostracism and possible legal battles?

I’ll leave you with two articles. The first is an eye-opener and not to be read lightly; it’s not an easy read, but I think very important for my Christian readers (but not for younger readers).

“State Enforced Paganism in America” (from The American Thinker)

The second is also important. If you haven’t, give it a look. (This one is safe for younger readers.) As I continue with this education and thought-provocation project, I am led more and more away from just clarifying the issues, but to challenging Christians, in light of the dismal realities, to be bold witnesses for Christ. That is what is truly important:

“Will They Know We Are Christians?”

Thumbnail photo credit goes to foxnews.com.

Will They Know We Are Christians?

By | | ,
Leave a comment

In an age where major data companies like Facebook and Google have massive databases of information on all of us, will they know we are Christians?

(This post is a bit off the “beaten path” of most of my commentary, but for my Christian readers, it is in many ways more important.)

Ours is an age in which we are increasingly known more by these companies than we are known by our own families. Facebook makes money by selling our information to other companies to help cater their advertising. But Facebook is not the only data-collection company, and perhaps not even the largest. Google—the search engine used in 75% of searches—also holds incredible amounts of information based on our internet activity, the emails we send, the searches we make, et cetera. Netflix, Amazon and others have records of the shows and movies we listen to. Pandora and Spotify know our music tastes. Though our smartphones have been doing so already, even our cars now record where we go down to exact locations. There is also some speculation that smartphones record and process audio from our day-to-day lives. Whether or not real or speculative, it is all but certain that the data companies we use (Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Yahoo, Bing, Microsoft, et cetera) can paint an incredibly accurate picture of our tastes, styles, likes, dislikes and ambitions.

For many of us, we spend massive portions of our day interacting with software and programs created by these companies.

What are we looking at online? What are we liking on social media? What are we searching for? Where does our internet activity take us?

Add to this that all our credit card transactions are linked specifically with each of us, completing a picture of who we are by where we exchange our money and what we exchange it for.

What are we buying? What do we spend our money on? What are we giving our money to?

What if you add to that all of your text messages and an algorithm that used your phone calls to learn more about you? Or if these companies were obliged by the government to compile the data so that on any given day, they can pull out a file on Lukas Keagy and learn just about everything about me.

There was a day in which much of we did in life would only be known between us and the Lord. Those days are long gone.

So I pose the question again: will they know we are Christians?

Let me ask this question another way. If you could look at all the data collected about you, would you clearly recognize yourself as a Christian? Or would the vast and extraordinarily complete record cast doubt on this claim?

When I define the word “integrity” to my students, I define it as “doing the right thing all the time even if no one will ever find out about it.” But ours is a day that the last part of that definition is becoming more and more something of the past. Certainly, the motive for integrity should not purely be the accountability created by the massive data collection on us, but rather from our love for the Lord and our obedience toward him. Still, I cannot help but face the deeply challenging reality that a picture of who I am is so abundantly complete through my digital and online activity. This reality ought to be sobering.

Am I far too preoccupied with an unnecessary concern?

Consider that China recently implemented a Social Credit System, whereby the Chinese government uses digital information and the personal observation of peers and government officials to give every Chinese citizen a social credit score—a score placing them on a scale between a “good” and “bad” citizen. Or consider that the U.K. government purchased massive amounts of data from Facebook on millions of users. Or that the U.S. government keeps huge servers full of data from phone and internet companies in warehouses around the country.

Or consider that right now, Google’s Project Maven is working with the U.S. military to create artificial intelligence that would be equipped on drones to strike individuals that their computers had decided were enemy combatants based on “patterns of life.” Or that technology is being developed that would equip cameras mounted to police cars to continually scan the faces of people in the vicinity. Given all the data collected on individuals, a facial recognition system could link a face to almost an entire portrait of who that person is in the blink of an eye.

Many will react to such developments and realities with an understandable horror and knee-jerk repulsion, and certainly not without due cause! But there is no stopping this trend, and for the average person who will not drop off the “radar” to live life entirely “off the grid,” we return to the question we began with: will they know we are Christians?

The thought itself brings its own fears. In China, where public Christianity is formally outlawed, Christians who are bold about their relationship with Christ no doubt will find themselves landed with a social credit score barring nearly any profitable employment, and possible ostracism from civil society. We already see such realities confronting many in the United States, where a business owner who tweets a comment not in line with a given agenda, such as the LGBT social goals, will quickly find himself at the blunt end of expulsion from “polite society”.

Will they know we are Christians?

When a complete picture of who I am is revealed, will the record of my online and social media activity, where I go, my communication and the way I spend my money declare boldly that I am follower of Jesus Christ? Or will my complete profile look eerily similar to that of non-believer?

And I take this beyond just asking if we will have a clean record that says we avoid the sexually explicit and perverse. Will our comprehensive profiles—beyond presenting merely a “good” person—present those who follow Jesus above all else?

I want my record to, regardless of the consequences it brings. And because it will—now or in time—very likely bring consequences, makes this reality more potent, more dangerous, more crucial. It tears superficiality away. The whole of our lives are increasingly being recorded, collected and shared. Will that record present a person of the world, or a person deeply passionate about following Jesus above all else? And are we willing to accept the increasingly risky consequences that will bring?

Just War Theory

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

Among conservatives and liberals alike, we love war. Well, actually, we love winning war. War heroes are praised with celebrity. Great victories are glorified in textbooks. Sweeping successes in combat are taught as inspirational life lessons. The great Roman victories over Hannibal delight our imagination. The surprising and total British triumph over Napoleon at Waterloo is studied with captivating inspiration. And many of us still enjoy re-watching the victory of D-Day in films like Saving Private Ryan as we cheer on our team.

In many ways, the love of military victory is comparable to our love of the sports team dominating the field. It is a powerful element of human psyche to cheer for our team, whether it’s the soccer team our boys are on, our high school basketball team, our college football team, or the United States military (I suggest some of the potential dangers of such modes of thinking in this post). We love the crushing defeat of our enemies.

And that is not to say that all these battles do not merit our study or inspiration. I am simply demonstrating the powerful effect that military prowess and victory has on our psyche.

Sometimes (and often), this effect results in cheers for acts that are less than virtuous, to speak in understatement, or downright deplorable. Or in the least, we make excuses when our side does it. For example, there is no shortage of moral indignation against the German blitz of London, which, over fifty-seven days, left 30,000 dead. But we shrug a bit at the American fire-bombing of the German city of Dresden, an entirely non-military city, which killed 25,000 in a single night, or the American bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945, which killed 80-100,000 civilians. “Well, those were necessary,” comes the ready excuse.

Of course, anything is excused by those who take part in war. It has always been so. The British hunger blockade of Germany in World War I led to the starvation of anywhere from 250,000 to 600,000 German civilians. And yet, Woodrow Wilson refused the German plea to pressure the British to end the blockade, which was a violation of international rules of war and had prompted the merciless German u-boat attacks on enemy and neutral vessels.

Okay, enough of all this introductory rambling, lest I go on forever. Now, to the point: Just War Theory.

Many will simply dismiss Just War Theory as impractical or illogical. But why? If rejected, what are the implications? I raise these questions first so that as you read through the tenets of Just War Theory, you might consider the moral or ethical implications of deciding on a less “rigid” justification for war or action in war.

First, a very brief history of Just War Theory. Originally developed under Saint Augustine, the formalization of the theory was completed officially in Saint Thomas Aquinas’ comprehensive volume, Summa Theologica (1485). Drawing on various elements of Augustine’s theological interpretations, bits and pieces of Roman Law (ironically), and his own study of Scripture and reason, Aquinas lays out a list of conditions for both jus ad bellum – what constitutes a just war – and jus in bello – what constitutes just action in the act of war. (Note that different sources will offer slightly different criteria, but they are all holistically similar.)

Jus ad bellum … What constitutes a just cause for war?

  1. Last Resort: A war may only be waged after all peaceful options have been considered, tried and exhausted.
  2. Legitimate Authority: War may only be waged by a legitimate authority or government.
  3. Just Cause: War must be waged for a just cause, which according to Just War Theory, is a response to wrongs suffered. In other words, war must be waged in self-defense, not offense. This, of course, rules out preemptive war.
  4. Probability of Success: War must be waged only if, upon reasonable observation, there is a strong likelihood of success.

Jus in bello … What constitutes just action in war?

  1. Right Intention: Related very much to #3: War must be fought with the primary objective of reestablishing peace with the least amount of force necessary. Once peace is re-established, further aggressive action against the initial aggressor is not allowed.
  2. Proportionality: The violence used in war must be directly proportional to casualties suffered. For example, if one nation is attached, retaliation must not exceed the extent of the original aggression. Only the amount of force absolutely necessary may be used.
  3. Civilian Casualties: All efforts must be taken to avoid civilian deaths, and these deaths must be absolutely unavoidable and accidental when pursuing all other criteria of Just War Theory. Certainly, no direct targeting of civilians is justified.

Of course, many of you reading this will think this a delightful fantasy of some other world. After all, following such criteria would rule out nearly every war engaged in by the United States for the violation of one item or another. Some of them are still rather subjective. Was there a strong likelihood of success when the 13 American colonies rebelled in 1776? Probably not. What constitutes a legitimate authority? This, of course, is extremely open to debate.

Nevertheless, the criteria for Just War ought to be considered and pondered. If you decide that any of these criteria ought to be relaxed or removed from the list, then why? As I ask my students, if this list does not satisfy, then what list would propose and how would you justify it? And I urge caution with this. For example, was the fire-bombing of Dresden, a deliberate targeting of civilians (not to mention Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki), justified because our team did it? If not, and if excuses are made for our military, then what justifies different standards for us versus them? Are there limits in warfare? Do the ends justify the means?

In a culture that tends to delight in crushing military victories (after all, what cultures don’t?) and a nation engaged in nearly continuous warfare of one sort or another for decades, should we not at least consider the Just War Theory and what the implications of not following such a theory might be? Sadly, we often just take the word of those who go to war (and, I might add, profit from it) that war is necessary. Is it so unreasonable to suggest that we might give such decisions a great deal of scrutiny before accepting them all as justified?

Thumbnail image credit goes to thoughtco.com.

Reflections on Possible War in Syria

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

As many Americans, led in part by advisers closest to the president (and celebrated by the media), begin to itch for another war to overthrow Assad in Syria, there will be many among my peers and friends who disagree with me. So let me clear a few items.

First, I may be adamantly opposed to your position on the matter, but I will still treat you respectfully and respect our friendship.

Second, there is a moral contradiction in any war that attempts to “export American freedom and democracy.” Nations like Syria have virtually no tradition of democracy. And even the great visionaries of the world must deal with the cultural realities of the places in which they seek to intervene.

Third, U.S. interventionist policy in the Middle East, from replacing the semi-democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953 and bolstering the power of the king, to supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the 1980s, to supporting Saddam Hussein that same decade in war against Iran, to then throwing him out and placing Iran’s allies in power in Iraq, to throwing out Ghadaffi in Libya… have all resulted in serious unintended (to give the benefit of the doubt) consequences. Fighting against Assad is, in effect, fighting with Salafist (Islamic extremists) groups such as ISIS.

Fourth, the number of people killed in nations where the U.S. has intervened is far higher since these interventions (see video in the comments). Especially for Christians, moral consistency means that while we are pro-life of the unborn here, we are also pro-life globally. American bombs and drones have also killed thousands of men, women and children. That doesn’t mean we must be pacifists, but the Christian view of war ought to be considerably more aligned with what Augustine and later thinkers developed into the Just War Theory (which I discuss here), or the theories of modern conservatives of the 1940s, such as Russell Kirk.

Fifth, strikes against Russian-backed Assad lure the U.S. closer to direct conflict with Russia, which has also been strengthening ties with China and Iran. Given points three through five, even if we abandon principle and do a simple and pragmatic “cost-benefit” analysis, intervention still has a far less-than-stellar record. Is it worth the risk?

Sixth, if you have not, PLEASE read up on the history of the Middle East and the history of American interventionism. Here is my series on the modern Middle East, well worth the time to read if you want to understand what is going on much better:

Modern Middle East Series

Part 1: Under the Ottomans

Part 2: Protectorates to Military Rule

Part 3: Roots of Radical Islamic Movements

Part 4: The Current Mess in Syria

 

Also, Watch the Following:

The Potency of Christmas

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

Many of us have already (or will on Christmas Eve) sat through a reading of the powerful prediction of Isaiah 9:6-7. Or we’ve heard it in song in some classic or modern rendition of Handel’s epic Messiah.

For unto us a child is born.

Unto us a Son is given.

The government will rest upon His shoulders.

His names? Wonderful Counselor. Mighty God. Everlasting Father. Prince of Peace.

His government and its peace will never end. He will rule with fairness and justice.[1]

Polite and cute fireside stories aside, even of those of the baby Christ in the stable hay, this is the story of Christmas. If history has a pinnacle, a grand point upon which the rest of history rests, it was this: his coming, his death and his resurrection.

Yes, its depth and meaning are often best captured in childlike imagination, for Christ scolded his disciples, warning the adults present—those too smart for their own good—that true faith carried a certain innocence and childlike dependency.[2]

But it is, in the end, not a story for the faint of heart. And how we embrace the tale it would begin is the difference between life and death.

And for Christians in the current political climate, it is a higher call than we often make it. To embrace it is far more potent, demanding and rewarding than the cheeky refusal to say “happy holidays” and our swell of pride as we walk away from the cashier register having proudly boasted a “Merry Christmas” in defiance of the cultural trends.

I’m boldly standing up for my faith, we congratulate ourselves.

Don’t get me wrong; any aptitude in this description is the result of personal experience.

But is that extent of our public and verbal boldness?

The story of Christ’s coming into the world is the very cornerstone of history. The colloquial quaintness of his birth story—deeply inspiring as it is—is only the beginning of a life that demands a response. To truly embrace the child in the manger is to also embrace the sobering words he would later speak: “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross daily, and follow me.”[3]

Publicly. Boldly. Under the sobering reality that “everyone who acknowledges me here on earth, the Son of Man will also acknowledge in the presence of God’s angels,” but “anyone who denies me here on earth will also be denied before God’s angels.”[4]

The politically incorrect response to the political correctness around Christmas lies in these little rebellions against culture—the “merry Christmas” reply to “happy holidays,” the refusal to write Xmas[5] and spell out Christ’s name fully (see endnote for the beautiful irony in this!). These are fine—and often very important! Bowing to the culturally correct language is in and of itself worthy of critique and appropriate warning. But the call of Christ goes far beyond. It goes to a boldness that will lead us into scorn, ridicule, possible loss of employment, court, and perhaps even prison and death if we are called (and obey) to places where these are likely outcomes.

Are we committed enough for that? Or will we keep our heads down and try to smother that level of dedication, seeking a delicate balance between being a cheeky Christian, but not so unacceptable as to risk our reputation and careers?

Let’s remember the baby, meek and mild, and then move on and remember also to “be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe. For our God is a devouring fire.”[6] The child born was the “visible image” of this awesome, powerful “invisible God.” He was the one through whom “God created everything.”[7] He is the “one who mediates the new covenant between God and people.”[8] The one who, in the end, “will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power,” and having reigned “until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.”[9]

The one for whom Mary cried out, “Oh, how my soul praises the Lord! … He shows mercy from generation to generation to all who fear him. His mighty arm has done tremendous things! He has scattered the proud and haughty ones. He has brought down princes from their thrones and exalted the humble.”[10]

The one who will “rule with fairness and justice” and whose government’s “peace will never end.”[11]

The one who we who believe and obey will worship for eternity: “worth is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and praise!”[12]

At Christmas—and then throughout the year—, are we going to take halfhearted measures to find a nice balance between our affiliation with this King of kings and cultural respectability? Or will we proclaim boldly, as his cousin John did, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” …?[13]

This is the only true and lasting government. This is the true King we serve, and the incredible, powerful, challenging, potent, awesome, no-middle-ground message of Christmas.

[1] Taken from Isaiah 9:6-7

[2] Matthew 18:2-4

[3] Luke 9:23 (italics mine)

[4] Luke 12:8-9

[5] Ironically, for those who think they are cleverly eliminating Christ from the word Christmas with the shortened X-mas, X is the Greek symbol for the name of Christ. So the joke’s on them.

[6] Hebrews 12:28b-29

[7] Colossians 1:15-16

[8] Hebrews 12:24

[9] 1 Corinthians 15:23-25

[10] Luke 1:46-52

[11] Ibid endnote 1.

[12] Revelation 5:12

[13] John 1:29

Bake the Cake…?! Property & Discrimination

By | | , , , ,
Leave a comment

“It’s a violation of religious freedom!”

“How dare you discriminate against gay people; that’s a violation of their civil rights!”

So which is it? Is forcing the cake baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding a violation of their religious rights? Or is refusing to serve a gay couple a violation of their civil rights? Which is the real issue?

Neither.

I’m speaking, of course, of the recent case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a class action suit challenging business discrimination of services for gay events (or gay people more generally).

Let me break this down as concisely as I can in a series of points that will, I hope, give a clear picture of what the real issue is here, and the implications.

  1. First, is this a religious liberties issue? Yes and no. The first amendment of the Constitution contains five major protections: speech, religion, press, assembly and petition. Regarding religion, there are two clauses. The first states that government may not infringe on the “free exercise of religion,” and the second bars the government from “establishing” a religion. So it is my contention that the first amendment alone is not enough to argue this case. The real argument carries far more leverage. The 9th amendment alone does a better job.

 

  1. Is this a civil rights issue? Well, again, I will refrain from answering this directly; stick with me to the end as I make my case. Still, what would be the constitutional argument for this position? The argument for this would be premised on the 14th Amendment, an often misinterpreted amendment that protects peoples’ rights to the “equal protection of the laws.” This has been the Amendment used to argue for an end to discrimination based on race, gender, et cetera. The ACLU will certainly disagree, but I find it hard to make the connection between ensuring that all people are treated equally under the law (ie, the law cannot make different provisions for different classes of people) and give the government the power to force an individual to serve another individual against their wishes.

 

  1. So if the real issue isn’t either of these, what is the real issue? This is an issue of property rights. Who owns you and your labor? A Facebook critic and debater claimed that, while I own my own labor, the government can force me to use that labor equally for those they believe I should serve, effectively preventing me from discriminating. But if I can be forced to use my labor to serve someone I choose not to—for whatever reason—is that not, in so far as it goes—government owning my labor?

 

  1. Or you can look at it another way. To force a person to sell their labor to another is to say that the customer owns the labor of the other. Do you really own your own labor? To the extent that someone must use their time, resources and labor to serve you, is that not a violation of their property—themselves and their labor? In most places, we’d call that servitude.

 

  1. If someone says they refuse to serve balding red-heads, I may be upset and offended. But I am not entitled to their labor. On what moral basis can my demand that they serve me overrule their right to their own time, labor and resources? They may be foolish, petty and even morally stunted, but that does not give me title to force them to serve me or quit work altogether.

 

  1. But what about the argument: “You’re not forced to offer that labor; you can go out of business instead.” Yes, this is a frequently-used argument, though it’s put in more humanitarian terms: “We only ask [demand] that if you choose to sell your labor, you sell it equally to everyone [who we chose].” Okay, okay, so I put in my interpretation. Well, isn’t it re-assuring that our labor is only owned by the government (or the person being served) if we choose to … work? Catch the sarcasm.

 

  1. And the other argument. “It’s only servitude if it’s uncompensated. The cake-baker would still have been compensated, so it’s not actually servitude if we tell him how to use his labor and resources.” So we can choose to work or not. If we choose to work, we are forced to use our resources and labor to serve whoever the government says we should. But not to worry; we’ll get paid for it. Argument settled, they say. Really?

 

  1. “But discrimination is terrible! We must use the power of the state to end it!” Well, discrimination can be terrible. It can be morally reprehensible. It can be immature. It can be rather benign and inconsequential. And many times, it can be quite prudent. Not serve someone because of the pigment in their skin? Not serve someone because you’re supporting a lifestyle you believe is immoral? Not serve someone because you think they’re dangerous? Not serve someone because you don’t like them? The rationale for discrimination can run from idiotic to prudent, to a mere question of moral belief.

 

  1. We all discriminate all the time. Discrimination has become a deeply negative word due to its historical association with racial discrimination. But discrimination is simply freedom of association: there are people we would rather associate with and there are those we don’t. As I said, unfortunately, some people have foolish and morally decrepit rational for their choices of association. Sometimes its quite prudent (I won’t employ a child molester to babysit). Sometimes, it’s a question of moral belief, such as the case with the cake baker refusing to use their time, money and labor to make a cake for a gay wedding.

 

  1. Exchanging your goods and services with others (ie, starting a business) does not suddenly remove your property rights and give control over your labor to the government or society at large. This point addressed again a bit later.

 

  1. Consider my response to a Facebook debater who spouted many of these arguments I’ve discussed: “Are you okay with the logical extension of that argument? On that line of reasoning, anyone who exchanges goods or services with anyone else may no longer choose who to exchange those goods or services with… I presume here that you wouldn’t make exceptions [in order to remain consistent]. For example, you must also offer your services to pedophiles, Nazis, child porn marketers, et cetera, according to your argument, if the government saw fit. Either that or quit offering goods or services to anyone. … My point is that it doesn’t really matter what the reasoning is for discrimination. If you force someone to offer their (even compensated) labor to someone they disagree with, you have to equalize it everywhere and to EVERYONE. Unless, of course, using the power of the state to force people to offer their services to people they would rather not is really just subjective and based on whoever the state (and their constituents) want to.” I later reiterated my question: “So, you’re okay with the government forcing you to sell your labor to Nazis, pedophiles, people who sell child porn (so long as you’re not assisting them in something illegal, as you said), et cetera, fill-in-the-blank? You never and would never discriminate for any reason, and if you did, you’d be okay with the government using force to stop you?” He never answered.

 

  1. I was finally able to get my debater to cede something: After claiming multiple times that we do own our labor, but not offering for a justification on why we could be forced to use that labor against our wishes, he finally admitted that we really don’t own our labor 100% because we are in “contract” with society, and thereby have already agreed to give up full power over our labor because of this. In his words, “entering that contract [offering services for sale] does give the government some say in how you distribute and sell your labor. “ What I couldn’t get from him was how, in fact, we agree to any such “contract” simply by exchanging goods or services with others.

 

  1. Besides, do we really want to equip the government with the subjective power of determining who has a right to your time, labor and resources?

 

  1. If you haven’t, yet, there are two other key posts you have to read related to this: “Negative v. Positive Rights” and “The Tale of the Slave.”

 

  1. A couple of closing points. First, it is the trademark of progressivism to use the power of the state to force whatever change on society that its adherents see fit. This was true during the French Revolution, during which Robespierre and others thought anyone who did not actively (even beyond passively) support “the civil state” were guilty of treason and ought to face capital punishment. It is still seen today when Progressives destroy property in their attempt to silence speech that they do not like. Or try to create “safe spaces” on college campuses where “offensive” things cannot be said.

 

  1. On that last point and as my final point, that is why arguing a case like Masterpiece on religion alone is insufficient. If your religious views do not align with the vision of progressivism, there is no moral or religious argument that can satisfy. But when it is understood correctly that the real issue is the violation of property rights (which is the basis of religious liberty, anyway), then the argument in favor of refusing the gay couple the services of the cake-maker are property bolstered and understood.

Thumbnail photo credit goes to bustle.com. 

 

Catalonia & Secession

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

As the Catalan pursuit of independence crisis heats up and edges ever closer toward significant violence in that pursuit, it seems a prime time to share some thoughts on secession.

To premise, I have a strong patriotic streak for both my countries–the United States and Peru. And so that may premise (and hopefully alleviate opposition to) what many people might find radical. Not that I care primarily about alleviating strong opposition; I expect to come across plenty of it in this and other posts.

But nevertheless, here are five key points I want to point out in the discussion of Catalan secession/independence. As usual, I am not here on a soap box, but rather hope to provoke thought.

First, the notion that we are one nation, rather than a collection of nations, wasn’t the original vision of the United States held by the Founders (with perhaps a few exceptions), and yet I don’t think anyone would accuse them of lack of patriotism. It’s just that their patriotism lie first with their country (state) (or perhaps even moreso with their local communities) and then with the federal union of their states, and last of all with Great Britain, even though nearly 1/3rd of all Americans were still quite patriotic to Great Britain and opposed secession. (That means fewer Americans were for secession from GB, and yet even more–apparently–prepared to fight, die and kill to gain it, than those in Catalonia.)

Second, true and historical conservatism emphasizes the natural, organic and (traditionally, as it were) Biblical concepts of loyalty and relationship. Whereas political boundaries are fundamentally arbitrary (from a human standpoint), as the case in Spain points out (the Catalans don’t even speak Spanish as their primary language), the true and valuable relationship and groups and bonds have nothing to do with political boundaries. The Father of Conservatism and English politician, Edmund Burke (who I discuss here), supported the American Revolution because he believed they were fighting to preserve their political, legal and economic traditions of localism and self-government. If California seceded, my relationship with people in California (where most of my extended family lives) remains unchanged (it may take a few more steps to visit them, but then, should we have a one-world government so I can more easily visit my family members who live all over the world?) For myself, per Philippians 4, I am a citizen of heaven, loyal first to the Lord (at least, that is my striving), then my family, my local church, my associations (ie, the school where I teach), and the global church. Only after those come my town, state, and country. That’s a large part of what it meant originally to be conservative. True, meaningful and genuine relationship does not change based on where we draw a political boundary.

Third, large centralized states are the antithesis to liberty. Take the one-world government example. The more distant the seat of power and the larger the jurisdiction, the less important an impact the local regions and the people in them hold. Hitler hated states rights, and writes openly so in Mein Kampf, because he understood that he could not achieve his agenda if he did not have absolute and total control. Germany had been a federation of sovereign nations until unification in 1870-1, but even then the German states still had numerous elements of sovereignty that Hitler sought to dissolve entirely. Consider the contrast between the words of British Politician Lord Acton and German Nazi Leader Adolph Hitler.

“I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will…. ” – Lord Acton

Nearly 60 years later, Hitler would write:

“[The Nazis] would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether: Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests.” – Adolph Hitler

In addition to the last point, smaller political jurisdictions are more prone to facilitate liberty for the same reason Hitler hated them. Don’t like the system here? Move over there. That’s obviously easier said than done (though the smaller the units, the easier it is), but it’s certainly easier than escaping the oppression of a distant government, such as the Tibetans in China.

Fourth, there is no need for a change in political boundaries to have a long-term negative effect on economics, so long as people can trade freely across political lines. You see this clearly in the European Union, the Pacific Free Trade Zone, et cetera. If Catalonia secedes, for example, there would be no natural reason (though there could be artificial ones) that they couldn’t continue to trade with Spain and the rest of Europe, in or out of the EU. The same goes, in theory, for Great Britain with regard to Brexit, though the EU may impose various tariffs as a way to “punish” them. There will be temporary economic decisions to be made that might unsettle the waters for a bit, but is that enough justification to force a people–against their will–to remain within a certain political boundary? The same argument could be made of the American Revolutionaries, who openly declared they would go to war for what the Catalan people have so far tried to achieve through peaceful referendum (the violence there a tragic result, but not intent, yet). If California seceded and no artificial barriers were imposed, resources would flow across the border just as before and we would still get much of our produce from California, just like we do from Mexico, Guatemala, Chile, et cetera.

Fifth, where do we place the burden of proof? One social media comment raised an interesting point: our perspective tends to change when we consider our own country.  This person made the point that it’s easy to sympathize with the Catalan people, but reject any such notions shared by our neighbors. “I favor Catalan independence, but heaven forbid Texan independence.” But how do we justify he discrepancy? If the U.N. suddenly becomes more powerful and declares all countries involved to be the U.N. Nation, for example, does the burden of proof suddenly fall on the U.S. to demonstrate overwhelmingly why it has a right to secede? Do you assume that the central government always has a right to maintain the peoples within its borders unless they can either fight for or 100% prove “why” they should be independent? Is there any objective measure that can be used to say, “this group has the right to secede and this group doesn’t”? Where do you draw the line? On economic grounds? On grounds of patriotism? At what point does the larger political unit no longer get to subordinate the smaller to its control? Can we both favor Kurdish secession because of the oppression they have experienced under the Iraqi Arabs and at the same time oppose Catalan secession, or Californian secession, because we don’t think they have a good enough reason? Or is any form of disallowing political secession a form of oppression?

Thumbnail photo credit: bbc.com

Alcohol, Drugs, Guns, Violence and… the Real Issue?

By | |
Leave a comment

Alcoholism is blamed for violence.

Ban alcohol. They tried that.

Drugs are blamed for violence.

Ban drugs. They tried that.

Guns are blamed for violence.

Ban guns. They’re trying that.

As for that last point, yes, I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment in its originalist intent: that weapons are one of the best defense against tyranny. Over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. How many of those governments might have been far more hesitant to take such action had their populations been armed?

But no, this is not a post to go over why an armed population is so important. This is also not a post to discuss the well-argued case that banning guns is an ineffective way to reduce violence. Cars and knives have been perfectly effective weapons in Europe.

This post calls attention to what is often forgotten, ignored or otherwise not generally considered. And like all those calls for action I started with, I, too, have a call for action. A much different one. One that gets to the heart of the issue.

Journalist Johann Hari spent years studying the global war on drugs in countries all over the world. In an interview he did with Tom Woods, he noted a significant conclusion of his research. It was one of those conclusions that is both so obvious and so apparent that you wonder why it strikes you with such profundity.

The real issue with violence or malicious behavior of the sort that causes events like the tragic Las Vegas shooting is not alcohol, drugs or guns.

Studies have revealed that about 10% of alcohol users use to abuse and the violence that tends to come with that. (According to a study done by Professor David Nutt and published in British The Lancet, alcohol was rated as the most harmful drug.) Interestingly, the statistic for drug abuse is about the same: 10%. So what makes about 90% of users to use these drugs in a way that we don’t typically consider “abuse” and the other 10% to do so?

Now, before I go on, I am also not using this post to push my opinion on drug laws. These are but a few of many destructive things in this world, and what we choose to try and legislate against or not is not my purpose here.

So what is the most common factor causing about 10% of users to use into abuse and violence?

As study after study has shown (and logic should lead us to even without statistical analysis), the answer is: a lack of meaningful relationships. Isolation. A lack of love and care by and for those around them. Or trauma without loving support to help them through.

The issue isn’t the thing that is abused. The issue is broken relationships.*

Logic follows that line of reasoning to anything else with which people can cause harm, such as guns or other weapons.

So this is a call to action. Want to really concentrate your efforts in a meaningful way? Love, care for and cherish those who are vulnerable. Those who are isolated. Those who are hurting and broken. Those without friends. Those who face prejudice. Be a friend to those nobody else will. A mentor to those who are shunned. Those who have no meaningful relationships in their lives.

Don’t tell me you really care while you spend your time calling your representative, lobbying them to sign anti-gun regulation, or to pour more money into drug-bust squads, until you start addressing the real issue that causes the violence. No larger police force, more prison cells, more stringent gun regulations or prohibition campaigns will solve the issue. As a friend recently posted, “People, not programs, change people.”

To the Church and fellow Christians: there is no excuse for acting in any fashion other than Christ did to the individual who fits the descriptions above. Be the Samaritan who was willing to credit all expenses of the dying man on the side of the road to his own account. Only Christ can change people’s hearts, but His love through you can often change their minds and through that access their hearts.

Remember when I said this wouldn’t be a soap-box blog? Well, I did say “usually.”

Recognize the real issue. Legislation and police action may be able to change the source and tool of abuse and violence, but it cannot bring meaningful change to the real issue. That is up to individuals — you and I — loving and caring for and treating with dignity … other individuals.

*And because there is always that person who makes entirely illogical conclusions and delights in flimsy assumptions, no, I don’t think this absolves anyone of the responsibility of their actions. Each individual is entirely responsible for their actions and should be held accountable as necessary. But as “love covers a multitude of sins,” so love can act against the inclinations of abuse and violence far better than any law prohibiting it.

Also, I’m not delusional with expectations that if we just “love” enough, all our problems will go away. Attacks that claim I am that naive will likely come. I’m just saying that we understand the real problem, then we can better concentrate on what really matters. 

For those who raise the argument that much violence is committed by those who more committed to ideology than suffering isolation (for example, those inclined to violence in the KKK, Neo-Nazi groups, Antifa, Neo-Communists, the radical ideologies of Islam, et cetera), I will cede that it is probably true for some. Still, even for many driven by ideology, many often arrive at those conclusions because of the comradery and sense of “belonging” they find–even if superficially–within those groups that they felt lacking prior. This is often true for gang members, as well.

I’ve discussed individual responsibility here. 

I’ve discussed the fallacy and foolishness of collectivist thinking here.

Thumbnail photo credit goes to mashable.com.

Do You Aspire for Political Power?

By | | ,
Leave a comment

I was recently having a conversation with someone who explained to me her interest in politics. Her ultimate goal she said: to become president. She was quite convinced of it, too.  A self-described “control freak,” she had a plan for moving up the political ladder and ultimately emerging in that prized executive position.

Now, I pledge to never disparage anyone with the terribly powerful weapon and tool of my metaphorical pen, and that is not my purpose here. But the interaction struck me and I had to hold my tongue politely in the setting that did not allow for further discussion of the matter. Still, I managed one bit of cordially-delivered advice.

The advice? That politicians are the only people with the legal authority to use force, violence and the threat of each, and the reality of that ought to be sobering.

And as I said, I spoke with lighthearted understatement that somewhat masked the formidable reminder. I will not mince my words here.

Do you aspire for political power?

Please remember the same.

This is not a treatise on political power and its proper role or extent. It is merely a warning.

Saint Augustine theorized that those in power are by and large those who are already inclined to such an abuse of that power, as those not so inclined are most often found in the more docile of vocations. This, of course, is quite counter to the general perspective we are taught of government officials from our youngest days: that those bearing our team label are sacrificial benefactors out for our own good. (You already know how I feel about “team politics” from my post, “I Am Not Partisan”.)

Sure, in response to some of your protests, there are politicians who are not naturally those already inclined to seek the position for its own sake. But am I really that far out on a limb to suggest that these are by far the exception rather than the norm? Saint Augustine and many others would not think so. When the Hebrews demanded a king, the Lord told Samuel to warn them of the ways the kings would turn the people into his very slaves.1 If the vocation of painting draws those who naturally tend to be artistic, then why are we so ready to proclaim that the vocation of power must be a great a sacrifice born by those in its pursuit for the greater good of those they have power over? Does it not likewise tend to draw those who are naturally “control freaks”?

In one of the first posts of this project (“What is the State?”), I made the assertion that the state is a monopoly on force.

Do you aspire for political power? Do you aspire to be a member of this prestigious monopoly with the power to hold the metaphorical gun of legal force?

There is an old adage that we all knew from a young age: “power corrupts.” And when we learned about the kings of France, we added, “and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And there may be some truth here in a colloquial sense, as some who seek political office often find their benevolent aspirations twisted cruelly into an activity of self-advancement. But perhaps it is a far more accurate reality that power draws out the natural corruption of human nature and gives it far more dangerous an impact than the more benign professions.

Again, this is not a treatise on the role or legitimacy of power. It is, to sound like a broken record, a caution. A warning.

Indeed, I am not altogether opposed to a pragmatic pursuit of political position (and on this, there will be divided opinion among my readers), so long as all such pursuits are used for the advancement of liberty, anchored in the most unshakable of moral caliber. Such pursuit and integrity is a rare find among the political class.

We have come so far from God’s warning to the Hebrews that a king would “draft your sons,” force some to “plow in his fields and harvest his crops,” “take away the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his own officials,” and “take a tenth of your grain and your grape harvest.”2 Indeed, we have come to revere the very power that God told Samuel was a rejection of His sovereignty.3

This is the power to tax. The power to wage war. The power to wield the only legal metaphorical gun and the power to use it.

And for those who want to add, “the power to build up or to destroy,” do not be misled. The power of government cannot build up. It cannot create. It can only feed on the productivity and creativity of others. All true conservatives have understood that truth and beauty can never be the product of force. As the great conservative Edmund Burke (who I discuss here) wrote,

“In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing, the Thing itself is the Abuse!”4

And the great 20th Century writer, conservative and libertarian-leaning J.R.R. Tolkien, expressing his views in The Lord of the Rings, expresses his views in Gandalf’s reply to Frodo’s suggestion that he take the Ring (which in a later letter, Tolkien says symbolizes power itself):

“No! With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly! Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused.”5

Do you aspire for this power?

Then be sobered by the reality of this danger and proceed with humility, integrity and a deep and abiding fear of what the weapon and tool in your hands really means.

1 1 Samuel 8

2 Ibid, verses 11-15

3 Ibid, verse 7.

4 This comes from one of his early essays, though it was repeated as a motto throughout much of Burke’s political life. Numerous commentaries can be found on it with a simple Google search.

5 The Lord of the Rings, page 60. A very interesting and thorough look at Tolkien’s views on power as expressed through The Lord of the Rings can be found here.