- Why I am a Christian libertarian
- Why I Am Not An Anarchist
- Why I am not an Objectivist
- Why I Am Not A Libertarian Party Member
- Why I am not a Democrat
This essay responds to the common objection that libertarian ideology is inconsistent with a biblical worldview.
Isn’t that unchristian?
When I tell people I’m a libertarian, they look at me like I’m crazy. “Isn’t that unchristian?” they ask. “How can you support legalized drugs and gay marriage and immoral stuff? What about morality and God’s law?”
What about morality?
Good question. What about morality? I’m a proponent of biblical morality. It’s God’s law, after all. I believe that mind-altering drugs are bad, that homosexual acts are detestable to God, and that God hates sin. I don’t support sin. I just don’t think the government should get involved in punishing it. Let’s let God sort it out on judgement day. The government doesn’t need to enforce morality.
Shouldn’t governments enforce morality?
When I explain that, I get a response something like this: “But governments have to enforce morality. That’s why God gave us governments–to keep justice. Governments can’t condone sin.” That’s true. God did give us governments and he expects us to obey them. But do you really want the government to enforce God’s moral law? Many Christians will say yes, but they’re inconsistent about it. Let’s try this thought experiment.
- Do you think freedom of religion is a good idea? Most American Christians do. But idolatry is a sin. If the government enforces God’s morality, all religions except Christianity should be illegal. Many Protestants would like to outlaw the Catholic church. While we’re at it, we should outlaw some of the wishy-washy Protestant denominations too.
- Do you think freedom of speech is a good thing? Of course! It’s one of the basic civil liberties listed in the US Constitution. But God considers lying lips an abomination. If the government enforces God’s morality, lying–not just perjury under oath, but all forms of lying–should be illegal.
- Do you think gay marriage should be permitted? The standard Christian response is “Of course not, homosexuality is a sin.”
Does a “morality-enforcing” government really enforce God’s moral standard?
So to recap:
- Idolatry is a sin, but we should have freedom of religion.
- Lying is a sin, but we shouldn’t throw people in prison for lying.
- Homosexuality is a sin, so gay marriage should be illegal.
One of these things is not like the other one. Clearly, most Christians accept the fact that the government is not an instrument to enforce God’s laws–except for the particular moral laws that they find really, really important. That’s not consistent. There’s no biblical basis for permitting idolatry but erecting legal barriers to homosexuality.
Libertarianism is just more consistent, that’s all
So I don’t see any contradiction between being a Bible-believing Christian and an advocate for a minimalist libertarian government. I don’t support sin, but–like most other Christians–I don’t think the government needs to be the morality policeman. I’m just like most non-libertarian Christians, except my political philosophy is more consistent than theirs.
Should you be a libertarian?
Maybe. You don’t have to be. You can be a good Christian without being libertarian. The Bible doesn’t talk about political philosophy, so as Christians we have a great deal of freedom in this area. I won’t question your salvation or your theology if you’re a staunch Republican or a Democrat or a socialist. I hope you won’t question mine just because I’m a libertarian.
You may also be interested in:
TheEngineer, I fail to see how speeding is an aggression against others. Speeding will definitely increase the risk and pottential for aggression, but the act itslef is not an aggression. Same with drunk driving – there is nothing inherently aggressive about putting others at *risk* – however, as soons as the drunk driver damages property or life, then he is fully responsible and a criminal.
Interesting topic and the responses are equally as interesting.
Moral or immoral are close calls in the law. Is it immoral to drive 80 MPH in a 60 zone? No. It is illegal, not immoral. This example is a safety issue in which a driver is endangering others.
Is it biblically immoral for two dudes to get married? Perhaps. Is it dangerous? No.
Should states ban this based on the claim, it will destroy the institution of marriage or it is immoral? No.
A civil marriage ceremony is simply a contract whereas a Church Wedding is a Biblical Contract. So long as there is never an attempt to ‘force’ churches to perform or recognize gay marriage churches should have no problem with this, the separation between government and religion is maintained, as it should be in all matters.
I believe in letting my or your church speak for God (though the message conveyed may not be the same) and the Constitution speak to law.
obg
The driving question is an interesting one as the skills levels are so vastly different. I think it would be cool to have private, voluntary evaluations from high performance groups like Bob Bondurant or some highly skilled group. Highly skilled drivers could have a special sticker on their car allowing them great latitude in driving, even under modest alcohol levels. At the low end of the scale, I think folks that have no knowledge of the Laws of Physics should be identified as such. At least then I could avoid them on the road as I pass at high speeds. I’m only half serious
, but it would be a lot more fun.
“TheEngineer, I fail to see how speeding is an aggression against others. Speeding will definitely increase the risk and pottential for aggression, but the act itslef is not an aggression.”
I didn’t say it was an aggression (nor did I mean to imply that I even agree with the law). I said the law in question was passed based on rights of others, rather than on morality (i.e., the people who passed the law did so on the basis of public safety, and not on driving at 80 mph being “wrong”.
So, I was expressing the difference between laws on morality (like drinking in your own home) vs. laws that protect rights (murder, theft, ect). Nanny-staters often get confused by this distinction. It seems they respsond to Libertarian argument with statements like “well, I guess I’ll rob your house while you’re at work, since you don’t want morality legislated”. I think it’s sad that people think that way.
TheEngineer,
Have you really made a differentiation? Is not the basis of Public Safety a morality of some sort? Where does morality start and end? Who decides what morality is? The whole idea of public safety is still someone’s concept of right and wrong…therefore morality. Not to say that there aren’t plenty of bad laws, but just to make the point that all laws are some concept of morality. It was a lot more clear years ago when they were tied in a more logical way to Natural Law, in my opinion.
This seems like a better basis for Law and a solution than Anarchy, IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be evoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.
Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[2] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence.
Mike in OK wrote:
Do you mean the blockquotes like above? I make them by typing a markup code like this:
Mike in OK wrote:
<blockquote>First I need to ask you how you do those “cool” quote marks, so I can clearly show what I am referencing.</blockquote>
Mike in OK wrote:
Mike in OK wrote:
Here’s a story that you Libertarians could appreciate:
My oldest son just turned 21 today. We always like to take our children out for dinner on their “big” birthdays: 16, 18 and especially 21.
Well here in Oklahoma, restaurants are not allowed to serve alcohol on Sundays, for some reason that escapes me. I would be in favor of having most shops closed on Sunday, but no alcohol on Sunday doesn’t make sense to me.
Anyway, we decided to take him out to Dinner last night, the night before his actual birthday for a great steak dinner and we were hoping that it would be close enough where they would allow him to enjoy a glass of good Pinot Noir with us. I guess they have pressure to comply or risk losing their license, but this did seem a bit ridiculous. I asked for a bottle of wine and three glasses and I served him (my Son), and the young server asked to see his ID, but I guess the server had mentioned something to the owner, so she came over and said he shouldn’t have any alcohol and something about some official in the restaurant. I think she was pretty befuddled. It wasn’t a big deal and he had some good drinks back at the house. But, it was quite silly and took something away from the evening. Usually the people at the restaurant are excited about a big birthday. I guess it must happen to about 1/7th of the people who turn 21, and Monday isn’t the best night for a birthday Dinner. I think I’ll give some politicians grief about this one.
This is the problem with laws is that they need some common sense. I guess they need to update the law to correct the inadvertent mess they created by banning the alcohol on Sundays in the first place.
Of course, I would like a lower drinking age if any at all. It would be healthier to teach moderate drinking with Dinner in the teen years so that alcohol wouldn’t be such a big deal. If you would let your 16 year old have a glass of wine with Dinner, at least on Sundays then they would develop a healthier mindset about alcohol than when they run off with their high school friends and find a place to drink as an act of defiance in some covert activity.