Self-Ownership, Libertariansim and Christianity

In a discussion with a friend today, I began to think that the issue of self-ownership, which is a principle of liberty, and libertariansim is at odds with conservative Christian thinking. But self-ownership underwrites the principle of individuality, which is of primary importance if we want to defend private property!

Self-ownership is at odds to Christian thinking because "we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus"...."we are no longer our own", 'we are bondservants", etc. etc. God "owns" the indivdiual in Church terms, at least the consecrated ones (Present your bodies as a living sacrifice"). This is athema to the principle of self-governance, and self-ownership and choice. But it is not in opposition to those who believe that humans are to steward the earth and be responsible for it.

The Founders and the Enlightenment believed that we should own private property That people should be rewarded for their labors. No longer was there to be a ruling class that owned all the property, but men could create their own wealth by choosing how they would steward their gifts and talents. The individual mattered when it came to their personal decision about how to live their life and provide for their family.

 The individual mattered when it came to issues of justice. Justice is defined within contexts, but is the basis of law. Law is to limit and to define boundaries around appropriate behavior in given contexts. When people respect the law, then there are no victims of crime. Crime is disregarding the law, or boundaries around entities that are supposed to remain separated.  The individual being the smallest segment of society, so said Thomas Jefferson. In our country we value the 'personal' or the private, because we value the individual and diversity of opinion. We are freethinkers in America, at least at the Founding.

Today, America has become defined by evangelicalism, which is a broad based "heart" experience of "personal relationship" with the Transcendent. The problem is that the foundation of such a movement was fundamentalism, which was resistant to the Academy, and learning itself outside the context of Scripture. Scripture was "God's infallible and inspired Word" which was to guide and guard all of life. What began in our Founders eyes as an experiment of justice and liberty, became defined by a Text that didn't allow for free thinking. Science was viewed as a threat to such a book, because of evolution, and the dismissal of the creation account.

Now, we see our political climate wrought with wars and rumors of wars over whether the definition of the text should be socialized, i.e. humanitarian endeavors, or spiritualized, i.e. guiding life and the political process. It is disheartening to say the least that Americans cannot enjoy the liberties we have in our diversity. But, when things are seen as "God's rightful rule", then, it can become a little uncomfortable!

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that might threaten the fundamentalists because it allows or risks, which might be in opposition to what is considered "God's Command" (The Divine Command Theory). Liberty for such people makes for anxiety because they are so zealous to see "God's Kingdom" come to pass, or bringing in the Kingdom.

Though libertarianism could become libertinism, it doesn't have to, as such a philosophy allows for respect and dignity to diverse views in the public square. Such respect should be the environment of civility and an ability to reason for what American's policy should be about and for....and that calls for self-governance most of all, because of respecting the "other" while disagreeing.

I have hope for America that her people will be grateful for liberty and practice it in their interaction with others, believing (for those that believe) that God can see and know the heart of man and it is only his right to make the judgements ultimately, and for those who feel overly responsible to remember that it was a diverse group of men that created our "Republic", so we don't all have to see things in the same way.

Politicizing the Public Square (con.)

My last post suggested that we must allow diversity of viewpoint, if we want our Republic to survive the "cultural wars". The Establishment clause did NOT discriminate against relgious freedom, but neither did it discriminate against any other form of "being in the world". So, religion cannot be established by the government, that means a certain tradition being sanctioned under governmental power. But, religious people can form the views and opinions and have a right to assemble about political goals. This is appropriate in a free society.

We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.

Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.

Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.

Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.

What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?

Equal

Our thinking is influenced by many factors. What we are exposed to, what interests us, and what values are of most importance influence how we understand and 'put together' our realities. These underlying issues also affect and influence what we choose to read, and educate ourselves and how we understand this information within the context of other understandings in our "world" (reality). So, thinking and one's understanding and commitment to one's values, is a life-long process. One should remain open to new information, as long as one lives.

I have many times underlined our "equal before law" value, here in America. But, the value of "equal", must also understand complementary. We do complement one another when we are open to discussion, dialogue, and defense of our opinions, commitments and values. All of us have something to bring to the 'table" for the whole of society and its betterment.

This got me thinking about marriage. Marriage is a social contract between two people, who decide to commit to one another and share their lives. The religious like to term the agreement as "covenant", as they view the commitment as "an agreement before God", while secularists like to affirm the voluntary nature of the "contract" and its dissolvability. We can agree to disagree about the definitions and understanding of what marriage is about.

But, what should be of value and importance is what constitutes the "best" for society? This is where the social sciences, not just religious convictions, help us to form a better "world". We should listen to what social science has to say, so that we will not be boondoggling our future as a society. Religion can have a voice, if they remain open, otherwise, they will be regulated to the "corner" where they wear a "dunce hat" and the "secularists" will dismiss them as irrelavant.

Religion is equal in the sense of "having a voice". But, it should not remain shrill, angry, prejuidiced, dismissive, condescending, certain, or arrogant. All of us have an opportunity to bring an enlargment of understanding if we agree to agree where we can, change what we see needs changing, and agreeing to disagree where we can't come to resolutions. This way our society, and culture at large can be what the Founders framed for us, "a unified diversity".

Science Is Religion's "Step-Child"?

Some believe that the world functions along separate lines of understanding, religion speaks for God, and science speaks to everything else. The problem of divorcing the two, is it leaves little room for religion and God. This is where the battle lines become fierce, as the exclusivist vent their fears by enforcing a "brittle" understanding of a text, or tradition. In Christian history, this is where fundamentalism was born. But, staunch stands do nothing to endear the Church in the public square.

Others would argue that "religion is science's step-child", because religion is just useful to serve other ends. Religion is to be a useful means to incorporate cooperation from the "feeble minded", who depend on religion. While dependence on religion may be true for identification, or cultural forms that help make the individual feel "at home", I think the attitude of "usefulness" is inappropriate and demeaning to others.

While I agree that tradition limits "free-thought", tradition is useful to serve the purposes of acculturation in a culture. Our American culture does not define itself on a primary religious tradition, as we believe that religion is a private matter. We affirm religious freedom and tolerance in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Just today, while talking with my hairdresser, who just became a deputy in the Episcopol Church, he informed me that the reason the Episcopol Church separated from the Anglican Church was because of the American Revolution. We were not be be subservient to a king, in our religion. This is a challenge today in the Anglican tradition, as well as other organized traditions. Where is authority and by what means are issues to be dicussed and decisions made?

Science has challenged our understanding of man and nature and we will never be finished with exploring all the avenues available in seeking undersanding of our physical world. The challenge for the religious, is to understand their faith within a scientific framework. Faith is not dependent on doctrine, or belief, or text, but on life itself. Therefore, science should not threaten the faithful, it should only challenge our minds in understanding any limitations on science. So, the call to the Church should be in ethics. Ethics brings pertinence to the Church and gives a voice in the public square.