On Separation of Church and State

I recently had a discussion with another blogger (Tony) over at WWWtW on the issue of separation of church and state.  I was arguing for separation and he was arguing against it (both of us from a Christian perspective BTW).  Unfortunately I was away from my computer for several days and when I returned, the thread had been closed so I never got a chance to respond to his last comment.  (You can read the entire thread here.)

Here's where we left off:

Me:  I think it is possible to have a wall of separation between church and state without one entity having to go away. Sure, the two realms will cross paths, but if their boundaries are set in stone, they can coexist without encroaching on each other.

Tony: Yeah, you think it is possible, and I don't. The matter isn't about whether the "boundaries" are set in stone or more fluid, the problem is that any stated "boundary" between them cannot even in principle work for all cases and scenarios. The reason is that both the civil and the spiritual encroach on each other in the human person, who is subject to both.

Christians generally believe that the human person is ordered to a civil order and also to a spiritual order, but that this bi-fold directedness is ITSELF ordered: the one is related to the other as superior to inferior. (If that weren't the case, there would be no guarantee that the two directions are mutually and universally compatible, there would logically be the possibility that one direction results in a fundamentally incompatible requirement compared to the other.) In particular, the spiritual end of man is his permanent, eternal end, whereas the civic end is for this life only, which leads to the eternal end, and so the latter is subservient to the former.

This ordering principle, however, is more integrated into man than merely referring to those actions that are about his final end(s). Man attains his spiritual good even in and amidst attaining his civic end, because ALL of his human acts are spiritual acts. To make a truly human voluntary choice is to act using the spiritual aspect of man, his reason and his free will, and to do so with some recognition (or moral failure thereof) to choose in reference to one's final goal - either comforming [sic] to the final goal of unity with God or in adhering ultimatelhy [sic] to some created which is incompatible with union with God alone. Thus, regulating one's daily civic life is, itself, a spiritual act.

This affects all of civic life, in little ways as well as big. For example: The state sees it as a common good that all citizens be educated. In order to be able to mandate this, the state sees it as necessary to have schools paid by the state. But (in our case) the state considers itself forbidden to actively promote any specific religion, and mandates that its schools refuse to promote any religious perspective at all. The net result, then, is promotion of an ANTI-religious perspective in state schools. It is literally impossible to have a complete educational system from grades k to 12 that fails to promote some perspective about human nature, and if it fails to promote one that says humans are ordered to an end with respect to God it will perforce promote the opposite.

More generally, civic life as a whole and laws in particular have to be molded to be in conformity with the ends that society and the government see as the ends for its human beings. Because humans are integrated, the ends for civic government must be made and maintained as compatible with the spiritual end of man, which requires constant reflection back and forth between the two to keep them working together.  

My response then, is this:
 
Sure, humans are spiritual creatures with both a spiritual and a civil end, and sure, everything we do has some spiritual component to it...  BUT... that does not mean that we need the government to meddle in areas of spiritual behavior and beliefs in order to have civil order.

This notion that the two are somehow "inseparable" if we want to have civil law and order is demonstrably false.  We know, for instance, that there are people who have no regard whatsoever for God's law, and have no inclination at all towards the "spiritual good", yet prove themselves perfectly capable of adhering to a civil code of conduct every day.   The most die-hard atheist may well live his entire life having never once been arrested, or reprimanded, by civil authorities.  This without spiritual foundation.

We know also that there are governments all over this world that are completely without Christian foundation and yet manage to maintain civil order quite admirably - despite this deficiency.   This too, we see demonstrated every day.

So the notion that you cannot have one without the other is entirely without basis.

In this, we find scripture in agreement as well.  Look at Paul's words from Romans 13:3-5:

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.  Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?  Then do what is right and you will be commended.  For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.  

Now what kind of government did Paul have in mind when he made this statement?  Surely his readers would know that he was referring to the Roman government circa 40 AD (or thereabouts).  This was a pagan government, not Christian in any sense.  Yet Paul called them "God’s servants" and commanded that his readers submit to their authority.  Did that mean that Paul thought that Christians should get their spiritual direction from the Roman government or that he recognized the Roman government as authoritative on spiritual matters?  Obviously not!  If so, he was a hypocrite for it is a matter of record that Paul and the early Christians were often jailed for disobedience to the spiritual directives of the various civil authorities in the region.  No, Paul did not hold or teach that civil magistrates were to be submitted to in spiritual matters.  He was specifically talking about civil authority over civil matters and advocating adherence and submission to civil laws.

So we do find a scriptural basis for separation of church and state in Paul's teaching and in the early church's way of life.  We also find that, when church and state combine, as has often happened in the past, a theocratic nightmare often ensues - with civil authorities making declarations of "heresy" and the like, and with punishments doled out for all manner of "incorrect" beliefs.

The fundamental question then is this:  Do you really want the government involved in settling spiritual matters for us?  Do you really want the government teaching our kids (their version of) man's spiritual ends? 

I don't!

What if the Federal Government Just Went Away?

Here's a thought experiment: What if the federal government were suddenly dissolved?  What would happen then?  What would we actually lose?

All the hand-wringing and crocodile tears being shed over the federal "sequester" (with its draconian "cuts" into projected increases in bloated federal spending) would lead one to believe that without the federal government, society would immediately descend into lawlessness, anarchy and chaos - after all what would we do without a government?

But wait a minute... if the federal government closed its doors tomorrow, we would still have, (according to the 2010 census,) 90,740 state and local governments in this country!  And, each of these governments has its own laws and public safety infrastructure.  So would there be lawlessness, anarchy and chaos?  Nope, not at all - far from it actually.  How much "order" does the federal government keep anyway?  We would lose the FBI and Homeland Security, but the 50 states and all the local law enforcement apparatus would stay in place.  They could still share information and extradite prisoners.  So what would we really lose?

Well, what about national security?  Surely we would immediately be vulnerable to attack!  Would we?  Wouldn't we still have National Guard units in all 50 states?  And couldn't these 50 states come to some kind of agreement to jointly fund a combined military if they so desired?  We may lose the capability to strike anywhere in the world at any time - but do we really need that to be safe?  Isn't it more important to protect our own borders and our own shores rather than policing the world for democracy?  Of course we would no longer have the TSA so travel would be more pleasant!  The airlines themselves could go back to providing passenger security.  Other than that, what do we lose?

Yeah but what about the terrorists who "hate us for our freedom"?  Won't they be emboldened and run amok causing untold chaos?  Well, first off, when the federal government goes away, all the troops come home, the CIA closes its doors (and stops overthrowing other people's governments), and the tentacles of US government intervention into foreign affairs are permanently withdrawn.  So the terrorists, who don't really "hate us for our freedoms" but actually hate us for all the crap we do, would have less reason to hate us at all.  Do they hate Switzerland?  Does Switzerland need a leviathan Homeland Security Department aggressively encroaching upon the civil liberties of the Swiss people in order to "protect" them?  Do they need drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan?  No.  If we weren't constantly meddling in the middle east, the terrorists would have little reason to think about America.

But, you ask, what about immigration?  Seriously?  Does anyone think the federal government does a good job with immigration?  Every state and local jurisdiction has its own immigration policy anyway, - many in direct opposition to federal laws - so what would change?  The illegal immigrant population in Arizona might go down, but California will gladly absorb it!

But what about the war on drugs?  Who will stop drugs from permeating society if not the feds?  Again - seriously?  Each state would have its own drug policy.  Maybe - once some states lifted the prohibition and gave us concrete figures to work with - we'd get some definitive answers as to the effectiveness of the war on drugs.

But what about the poor?  What about the safety net?  Well, for one, you mean "the enslaved" not "the poor".  Government programs subsidize and perpetuate a permanent lower class.  But, that notwithstanding, even if the people decide they want to continue government "aid" to the poor - again we'd have 50 states - 50 laboratories - through which to try different approaches to the age old problem of poverty.   All we lose when the federal government goes away is one way of doing things.  The states handle the majority of the actual workings of welfare, medicaid, medicare, etc. anyway.

Which brings me to healthcare.  What would happen if Obamacare, medicaid, medicare, etc. go away?  Well, the hospitals and other healthcare providers would be free to negotiate prices.  That's right: before the federal government asserted its domination over the healthcare industry - with all of its regulations and payment plans - hospitals, doctors and other healthcare professionals were negotiable as to price.  I'm sure you've heard the stories how, in the old days, doctors actually made house calls and were often paid in livestock!  Well, that can't happen today because the government has stepped in to "save" you!  (Imagine if they got out of the way!)

But what about our money?  Who's going to make all the dollar bills?  Well that's another interesting story.  While the federal government still technically coins money (they run the mints and the printing presses) they no longer set its value or determine how much of it there is.  You see, in 1913, our illustrious federal government proved that they have our best interests at heart when they handed that responsibility over to the banking industry!  Yeah that's right, the banking industry (in the form of the Federal Reserve) is in control of the money supply in this country.  What's most interesting about that is: from 1813 to 1913, a US dollar bought exactly the same amount of goods and services.  But, from 1913 to 2013, that same dollar has gone down in value like a Himalayan avalanche!  So, in 1913, if grandma said, "I remember when a loaf of bread was a nickel," all her grandkids would laugh and say, "grandma, a loaf of bread is still a nickel!"  Needless to say, that conversation can't happen today.  Maybe, just maybe, 50 competing currencies would be better.  Heaven knows it couldn't be worse!

What about education?  Who's going to teach our kids if not the feds?  Well, the feds don't teach our kids - they just mandate what we teach them.  The actual teaching is all local (that's what school districts are for).   Sure, we would lose some federal funding, but we would gain local control over what our kids are learning.  In other words, local communities would be free to teach the kids as they see fit - as opposed to how the Department of Education mandates.  Which is more important in the end - money or freedom?

But what about higher education?  Students can't get a college degree without student loans!  Blatantly false.  Student loans, i.e. government regulation of tuition, has only made college more expensive.  Tuition levels are through the roof precisely because institutions of higher learning have a big pot of federal money at the end of the rainbow - not some poor student.   Like with healthcare, if the government were to butt out, the prices would level off via the mechanisms of the market. 

Now I've only covered a few of the bases here.  There's much more to be said and thought about in this thought experiment.  But let me ask the question again: what would we actually lose if the federal government were dissolved tomorrow?  I'm sure someone out there can think of something!

We Live in a Libertarian World

One argument I’ve often heard against libertarianism goes something like this: “we’ve never seen a libertarian government in actual practice, so there’s no way to know if it would even work”. Well, I think I may have an answer (and a big one at that!)

My answer? Well, to understand my answer we first have to lay some groundwork. Traditionally, libertarianism has been all about the individual and the relationship of the individual to the government. But, libertarian concepts also apply as we go up the ladder of the various levels of government. A county government’s relationships to its constituent cities can be libertarian, for instance, if the county gives the cities freedom to do as they choose. Likewise, a state government can be libertarian in its relationship to counties, and the federal government in its relationship to the states. So libertarian principles apply - not only to the individual - but also wherever there is the possibility for one group to have authority over another.

Which brings me to my answer: the world government. But wait, you say, there is no world government! Well that’s kinda the point. Because there is no central government for the entire world (though some are pushing for one) the world essentially runs on libertarian principles between the constituent nations. Now some would say that "no government = anarchy", but that’s not really what we have. There are several “one-world” organizations like the U.N., the W.T.O., etc., but these organization’s power is derived solely from the willingness of the participating nations. In other words they are like private, voluntary organizations that take the place of a strong central government – just like libertarians advocate for. If enough nations decide to ignore a U.N. or a W.T.O. “order”, and if there are a few powerful nations among the dissenters, the order goes unheeded.

So the world basically runs on libertarian principles –chief among them, the principle of a market driven society: If a nation gets along well with other nations and produces things other nations want, their status as a nation goes up – if they don’t get along or are unproductive, their status diminishes. These are libertarian concepts – only “the individual” (the cornerstone of libertarian philosophy) is replaced by “the nation”. Yet we can see working in the macro what could also work in the micro. In the world, nations have to form coalitions; they have to come to agreements and sign treaties, they have to learn to work together without a behemoth centralized government forcing them to do so.

That, my friends, is libertarianism.

Why I’m a Libertarian

I frequent a conservative Christian website called “What’s Wrong With The World” (WWWTW) where my Libertarianism is often challenged on the basis of Natural Law theory, the “common good”, or on some other philosophical footing.  Now I have to admit that their views of Libertarianism are so worked out that most of them describe it in terms completely foreign to me.  I’m often confronted with “doomsday scenarios” where, in some theoretical Libertarian society, all societal structures break down (even the family) and all that is left is individuals battling other individuals in a barren wasteland.  (The only thing missing is the zombies!)  Now, I’m only a recent convert to Libertarian thinking and as such am not well versed in its history or philosophical underpinnings.  I will say this though: the Libertarianism I have learned about from Libertarians themselves differs dramatically from that described by the WWWTW sages – so I’m not sure what exactly they’re against, but I’m fairly certain what I am for…  For simple-minded me, Libertarianism is all about the nature and proper role of government. 

First, the nature of government:  Government is the only entity in society (other than parents) that can legitimately exercise coercive control over individuals.  The government can come to your house, break down your door, confiscate your property, drag you and your family into the street and beat you to a pulp if you resist – all with relative impunity (even if it turns out later that it was the wrong address).  Individuals (even parents) cannot legally do that.  We, as a society, have collectively agreed to submit to an authority with the power of life and death over us.  We do this because we believe in the necessity of government for order and peace.   Everything the government does (and this is important), ultimately resolves in the threat of lawful force if resisted.  Even the most innocent of crimes---say parking tickets---if ignored long enough will result in the government forcing its will upon you.  The nature of government then, is ‘legitimized tyranny’.  Or, in the words of Thomas Paine, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

So, given the tyrannical nature of government, the question then becomes “over what areas of society should we grant such tyrannical authority?”  In other words: “what is the proper role of government?”   The pure Libertarian answer is that the role of government is solely to protect the innocent from force and fraud.   Coercive force, in a Libertarian society, is legitimate only for keeping the peace and protecting the innocent.  A Libertarian State then, would have departments of Defense, Corrections, Law Enforcement, and not much else.  Other shades of Libertarianism will add other areas into the mix such as Immigration, Environmental Protection, or whatever.  But each area added moves the State one step further from pure Libertarianism.  (Of course you'd still have an independant Judiciary and a Legislative branch - though the legislators would have much less to do in a Libertarian society!)  For me then, the answer to the question of 'areas to grant tyrannical authority over' is: “as few as possible”.  I’m not a pure Libertarian.  I think that a nation should have borders and an immigration policy.  I also think there needs to be environmental protections of some sort.  And, I know that many Libertarians are pro-abortion – I’m not.  I think that the primary function of government is to protect innocent life.  For me, that means life at conception (see: Science, more specifically: Biology, even more specifically: Genetics, for further information).

So where are we at in this country?  Well, currently in this country, we have allowed the government tyrannical access to so many areas the list is dizzying!  (For a list of just the federal departments of government see here.)   We have collectively agreed that we are willing to submit ourselves to coercive force in the areas of health care, transportation, agriculture, retirement, education, commerce, the environment, housing, wages, labor relations… the list goes on and on and on!  And, if you doubt that these departments would ever use force against us, think again.  Many of these departments have “enforcement divisions” consisting of armed officers.  The Department of Education, for instance, has its own law enforcement arm (the “U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General” or “OIG”) that, on June 7, 2011 broke down a door to a Stockton, CA residence, dragged a man and his three children out of their home, handcuffed the man and detained all of them for several hours in squad cars for the “crime” of living in the previous residence of the man’s ex-wife (who was wanted on some warrant having to do with student loan fraud).

Such is the nature of government.  Something as seemingly innocuous as the Department of Education can, when provoked, turn quite ugly!

Interestingly, the one area from which the government has voluntarily withdrawn its tyranny is in the area of the US currency.   This, in spite of the constitutional mandate stating that “only Congress” can coin money and set its value!  So who does the government trust to create currency and set its value?  Believe it or not it has given that power over to the banking industry!  Yes, the Federal Reserve Bank (a private bank over which the government appoints officers – but oddly refuses to audit) is in charge of the money supply in this country!  It’s a little like letting the fox guard the hen house.  (Of course that's another issue worthy of its own thread!)

So - build a house without a permit: the government steps in, condemns your house and kicks you out on the street; forget to pay your parking tickets long enough: they haul you off to jail; arbitrarily devalue the US dollar so your buddies in the banking industry can profit: government winks, extends their open hand and looks the other way! 

This then, is the nature and role of government in this country.  It’s time people, to think Libertarian thoughts and get ourselves free!

I'm Out!

No, not in that way.  I am officially out of the Republican party.  So what did it?  Well, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the GOP's shameful treatment of Ron Paul, and by extension all of his followers (which includes me!)  Why should I be part of a political party that actively campaigns against the things I hold dear?  That's just stupid - right? 

So I am now a registered Libertarian.  It was only a matter of time anyway.  I've been attracted to the Libertarian party ever since I read the voter's pamphlet entry by the Libertarian candidate for President back in 2000 (who I voted for by the way).  He said (paraphrasing) "we have a Department of Transportation that doesn't transport anything, a Department of Energy that produces no energy, a Department of Agriculture that produces no crops..." well, you get the idea.  All of these government agencies tend to get in the way of the producers who want to transport things, and give us energy and food.

Now, I don't agree with everything the Libertarians believe (I am decidedly pro-life) but I agree with way more Libertarian ideals than Republican ideals (do they have any?)

So that's it.  34 years (plus or minus) as a Republican.  Seems weird.  I think I'll get used to it though.