Tag Archive for 'abortion'

Christians And Employers

This entry is part 3 of 6 in the series Christianity and Covenants

Christians And Employers

I want to preface by saying that some may find this article offensive. However, my goal here is not to judge the decisions that others have made or to condemn them, but to try and look at some biblical passages and consider what they mean with regard to the topic of employment. Let me also state that I am not coming at this from a position of compliance or adherence, my own employment history is full of disregard for biblical principles, and the course to right it is ongoing and has required many sacrifices. So please consider this as a word from one sinner saved by grace to another.

The most fundamental question to ask in working out the mess or the relationship between Christians and their employers is this: what kind of contract do Christians have with their employers?

The Greco-Roman cultural context of the new testament had several classes of labour relationships: slaves/masters, employees/employers, patrons/clients, heads of house/family and others. So when Peter writes “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear…”(1 Peter 2:18-20) or Paul writes “Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters…” (Ephesians 6:5), we have to keep it in it’s proper historical and cultural context.

Modern employees most certainly are not in the same category as ancient slaves. This is because employees are freely contracted – and they have been able to do this because our culture views a contract as an agreement between two or more parties or equal status. In the ancient world, slaves (and to a lesser extent: debtors and clients) had an inferior status to their masters – and this includes bond-slaves. It’s a concept entirely radical in a modern society which holds equality as a fundamental part of humanity.

Slavery is a relationship also defined by force – that is the threatening or delivering of aggressive violence. People who are being forced to work against their will, without an explicit contract, are slaves. In this sense, the relation of most people to their governments then, is a slave/master relationship – but this will have to be dealt with elsewhere, as we are focussing on employment. However, employment is a voluntary contract – not a coercive or forced one. We choose to work for an employer.

But the point is this: that the biblical language about slaves/servants and masters in not applicable to most employment. You boss is not your master and your co-workers aren’t slaves. However, this doesn’t mean that the bible has nothing to say about employees.

Making Employment Contracts
Because contracts with employers are voluntary, that is, we make them by our own free choice and as people of equal status with our employers, then we are responsible for our decisions. These relationships fall under the same kind of categories as “vows” in the bible – verbal (or written) agreements, often involving mutual obligation. And the bible has plenty to say about these relationships. A few examples:

Proverbs 20:25 – It is a snare for a man to devote rashly something as holy, And afterward to reconsider his vows.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 – Pay what you have vowed— Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.

Luke 16:9-13 – And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home. He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own? No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

If we agree to do something for our employer, then we should do it, and we should do it with quality and diligence. We need to leave no question that we have fulfilled our vows.

But implied here is a bigger principle – the place where the most care is needed is before we even make an employment contract. We should make vows that can exist in harmony with our Christian lifestyle and worship of God. Before even entering into an employment contract, we need to be asking basic questions:

Could this job interfere with my Christian obligations? As Christians, we are to be part of a local church, sharing the gospel and ministering to the body. It would not be wise to get a job which interferes with these things. Would my workplace be a gospel-free zone? Would my work schedule cause dramatic conflicts with fellowship and ministry in my local church? Does my job place undue burdens on my family, and my ability to lead/serve them? Are my children or spouse lacking in the reception of my biblical role/responsibilities because of this job?

Could this job require me to engage in immoral/unbiblical activities? We might be surprised, if we thought about it, that there are a large number of culturally acceptable jobs which might go against biblical principles. I wonder how many soldiers ask themselves if what they are doing is defending against aggression or if they are actually engaging in a hostile initiation of violence against others. Could my my job be exploiting others? Might it promote, fund or contribute towards advocacy or endorsement of sinful or immoral lifestyle?

Could this job stifle my worship? We need to beware of taking on so much responsibility to our employer that it affects our mental and emotional capacity to engage meaningfully with God. Again the best solution is pro-active: could this job/promotion lead to me not having enough time to pray, to read my bible or consider who God is and what he has done for me?

It’s Never Too Late
We often don’t realise we’ve bit off more than we can chew with our employers until we’ve already made the contract. The bible takes this into account in other places – such as with divorces or marrying an unbeliever. We’re commanded not to do these things, but God has foreseen our inability – and yet he still sent his son to die on the cross for us. He knows that we are but dust. Just because we can’t share the gospel at work, have neglected the raising of our children or find ourselves “too busy” to commune with God does not mean we are hopeless or “outside” of God’s capacity to work with us. My family needs this word just as much as anyone – as we have both taken on plenty of contracts which have interfered with our Christian faith.

Many jobs and responsibilities can be drawn down, altered and amended to provide more time for more important things. However, this could mean that our material lifestyles must also be drawn down. My wife and I will likely never own a house or have a new car – but that is a small sacrifice. And Christians are not entitled to a middle or even lower-middle class lifestyle.

Ideally, a person who is working in an unethical profession would quit as soon as contractually possible. With some military jobs – this may not be possible, but even the military often allows for transfers/demotions to positions which are not directly contributing to the killing or harming of others.

Its easy for a person with a blog to say what should and shouldn’t be, and then throw out life-altering solutions. Trust me, it’s impacting me as well (just wait until I talk about debt!). But the point is that biblical principles aren’t measured relative to the contracts and vows we’ve made – rather, our life needs to conform to these principles.

Links: Healthcare, Homosexual Conversion, and Microsoft

As a quick aside, this website has some interest in the current US healthcare debate. Myself, as well as Chris R. are both Americans who live in the UK, and have developed some thoughts on healthcare and how it should be provided. We’re looking forward to writing about these thoughts (which I expect will be different from one another) in the coming weeks.

In the meantime… LINKS!

The American Psychological Association (APA) recently released a report opposing conversation therapy for homosexuals. The report states that “efforts to produce [a change in sexual orientation] could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.”

Julia Duin at the Washington Times informs us that the APA task force was stacked with gay rights activists, and that nobody with dissenting opinions was permitted on the team. The task force started with the assumption that homosexuality is a normal form of human sexuality.

Perinatal hospice offers an alternative to the trauma of aborting a disabled child

Microsoft in hot water again. This time, it’s in the US for infringing upon someone else’s patent. As a result, Microsoft is banned from selling and importing Word 2007.

An American expat’s thoughts on the NHS

Daniel Hannan (Conservative MP) has ticked off a ton of Brits for criticising the NHS.

How To Sabotage An Argument, Part 2

This is the second and final article in a series on how to basically lose an argument before you start it [part 1 here]. This line of reasoning is based on the premise that people who engage in an argument are doing to so in order to discover and communicate truth.

Hence, four more ways to sabotage your argument:

Ascribe Nefarious Intentions and Motives to the Other Side
This is quite prevalent in large, seemingly irreconcilable debates: abortion, religion, left versus right, etc… People who are pro-choice are not seen as intelligent people who are making a self-ownership case for abortion (although this would be wrong), but as “baby killers” or people who “support murder” or “do not support life.”This is ridiculous. Aside from the negligible portion of the population who are homicidal, no one else wants to see babies being killed. These people are not wrongly motivated – rather, they are wrong in methods.

Political leaders are called evil all the time – some of them are. George W. Bush has been hailed as the great Satan for the last seven years or so (and Obama has not been treated any different – except by the media), but it is very realistic that Bush has pursued what he has out of good motives and intentions. He has been sincerely wrong, probably criminally so, but he is not necessarily out there to thwart humanity and bring about apocalypse.

Attack the Personal Actions of Your Opponent
This line of reasoning follows from a very valid principle – practice what you preach. But at the same time, for the purposes of arguing things that aren’t always liveable (or if they are, aren’t lived anyway) it is completely useless. Ron Paul was attacked in the 2008 election for being one of the higher proposers of appropriations (earmarks) in congress. It was alleged that because Paul put forward earmarks, that someone this discounted what he said about fiscal responsibility. But truth isn’t dependent on our acting it out (Paul also voted down every single earmark he proposed). Just because someone doesn’t stop at stop signs, doesn’t mean they would be wrong to suggest that stopping at them is a good idea.

Become Self-Righteous About Your Arguments, Facts and Case
This is an easy mistake to make. After all, if we didn’t think we were right, then why would we argue? But this is not a problem with being right, it is a problem with believing one is infallible or that a morally neutral position is somehow “right” in the sense that it is good, while the other side is bad/evil. But more than that, it is a condescending attitude toward your opponent and/or his ideas. This is presuming a certain argument before your opponent makes it. With your own ideas, it is a blind refusal to allow them to be penetrated by other’s reason, logic or facts.

Forget That You Are Speaking With A Person
This is the most important thing, and the summary of the article.  We aren’t arguing with robots, with brainwashed automatons, with ideologies – we are arguing with people. People deserve to be respected and treated as people – they are intelligent, rational beings – despite how silly, ignorant or radical their worldview is.

Links: We All Know What Is Being Covered This Week

Nixon’s Reaction to Roe v. Wade / Nixon’s racism:

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases — like interracial pregnancies, he said.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”

Abolish the Bank of England

List of Christian Libertarian websites

Links: Bush’s Economic Numbers, Spiders and Google

The numbers are in and Bush’s incredible spending was unprecedented in the recent history of the United States (link to a bunch of awesome/geeky graphs).

Why increased bank lending to bad borrowers (as being demanded by the US government) will worsen the crisis:

The issue of the good quality of borrowers cannot be fixed by an artificial cleansing of banks’ balance sheets or by nationalizing the banks. What is required is the expansion of the pool of real savings. Monetary pumping and credit created out of thin air cannot fix this.
Dear AIG, I Quit!

Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion

Hundreds of Iowans thrown out of public hearing: “More than 500 people who are upset with a plan to change Iowa’s tax laws were cleared from a hearing tonight at the Iowa House after they interrupted multiple times…”

More Links
World’s Deadliest Spider Found in Whole Foods Produce. This Brazilian spider’s venom can kill in 25 minutes. But it’s not all bad news if you get bit: “Researchers have found its venom also stimulates an hours-long erection in men.”

Some Catholics are disappointed in Obama. Really! I wonder why? Oh, it’s because he “[lifted] restrictions on abortion and stem cell research.” You know, exactly as he promised to do.

UK village to Google: we don’t want Street View!American’s are Tea’d Off

Links: No Bad Ones, I Promise!

From a Rasmussen poll: “Forty-four percent (44%) [of American] voters also think a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress, but 37% disagree. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.”

From Chris Andrews at Gutenberg.com: 20 Reasons Why 2009 Will Be The Year of the Ebook. The gist is that current Ebook readers are cheap enough and good enough to overcome previous objections, and that Ebooks themselves are freely and widely available. Jew’s response: No.

Cop steals donuts. Jew’s response: The AP stylebook says to spell it doughnut.

Pro-Abortion Marie Stopes Eager for American Funds to Promote Abortion in Kenya

Vatican endorses Darwin, slights intelligent design‏

The popular uprising against central banking‏

The Libertarian Paradox

Is Libertarian philosophy Biblical? The contention generally arises from Libertarian Christians promoting prostitution and drugs (or other un-Godly actions), according to Libertarian philosophy. Does a Biblical motive exist for such a position? Or the contrary? The question is:

… which biblical imperatives justify that moral laws against sins (such as lying, adultery, and drug use) be automatically codified into secular laws in governments of men? For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?

It’s going to take a bit to get to the answer as suitable groundwork must be laid. The question (and answer) isn’t actually the interesting part of this issue as it will turn out.

The Libertarian Problem
Libertarianism is liberal on foreign policy and social policy, while conservative fiscally. We’ll discuss motives in a bit, but for now just note Libertarians may not agree with the left’s motives, but they do agree on actions (legal drugs, and so on). On foreign policy, it’s because the Democrats aren’t far enough left which disturbs some Libertarians.

Libertarianism and Christianity — a combination rejected decades ago as it’s just not possible to justify promoting certain actions while ignoring others — Liberal social policy is anathema to Conservatives. But what is promote? Some argue doing nothing is not promotion, others argue doing nothing is. The reality is simple — if you’re a senator, and a bill comes across your desk about issue “x”, you are either supporting it or not by your vote. In the case of Libertarian morals, by actively opposing certain laws, they de-facto promote the activity.

It’s just not possible as a senator to be neutral. It’s either for or against. Just as some say “I don’t really want to think about Jesus, so I’m not saying no, I’m just neutral” — you must make a decision, either for or against. Avoiding the issue just means a decision will be made without your action, but that won’t remove your responsibility.

Obviously Libertarians disagree.

Nebo
The base nature of Libertarianism is self-contradicting. It’s not possible to state “Government can’t legislate morality”, just as “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars (Titus 1:12 KJV)” is also self-contradicting. Morality is just right and wrong, good and bad. You can’t drive 90mph on the freeway because someone thought it’s bad — that’s a moral judgment. The only thing government can legislate is morality.

Thus, when a Libertarian states Government can’t legislate morality, they’re really promoting anarchy — if moral laws can’t be made, no laws can be made, as they’re all some idea of right and wrong.

It’s entertaining to watch the verbal twister played by Libertarians when this basic self-contradiction is pointed out. Most people (Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans and Democrats) at some point admit their position isn’t totally logical and consistent, but that’s the way they want it anyway. That’s honest.

But some worship knowledge and intellectualism — it’s their god. Ancient Babylon had their god of knowledge (Nebo) and it remains today in intellectual circles to those who worship logic, knowledge and intellectualism. It’s what Paul encountered in Athens in Acts 17 as the Greeks desired to argue about something new (what it was didn’t really matter). The idol may not exist anymore, but satan doesn’t change tactics much, he just adapts them to current times. Man is just as susceptible to the worship of Nebo today as in Babylon.

And that’s why some fight vigorously to defend an absurdity — they’re worshipers of Nebo, and a worse fate than hell is for them to admit their hallowed intellectualism and logic is really a house of cards, built on sand, as the tide comes in.

Motives, Actions, Results

COLIN: Prostitution and drugs are not libertarian ideals. But freedom is – which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil.

Let’s consider three concepts surrounding actions. You are motivated to do something, you act, and a certain result is obtained (pre-action, action, post-action).

Results (post-action) are God’s problem, so that’s all that needs to be said.

Motives and actions, however, are your responsibility (and under your control), and accountable to God. By allowing prostitution, your motive may be good (liberty), but your actions aren’t. And half right is totally wrong.

This repeatedly comes up by people equating motives and actions. They are different. If you have good intentions you can’t justify poor actions (gee, to solve world hunger, if we have enough abortions we’ll have less people, and the food can feed more). Good motive, poor action. (Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, for example, even though satire)

Similarly, you can have poor motives, but good actions. It doesn’t matter why a senator supports your law, as long as he votes for it — he could give his support due to a back room deal, but that has no effect on the inherit nature of the legislation as good or bad (that’s classic politics). Nobody cares in 20 years why a law was passed — we have to live with the action, not the motive; motive is irrelevant to politics (save that it causes action).

Actions differ from motives. Politics concerns itself with actions and results (motives only because they cause action), God deals with actions and motives (and handles the results Himself). For the Christian, it’s important to consider both actions and motives. For the politician, only actions impact society.
Continue reading ‘The Libertarian Paradox’

Why I am not a Democrat

This entry is part 5 of 5 in the series Christian libertarianism

This is part of my Christian libertarianism series, which is a description of my beliefs. I do not claim to speak for all Christians, all libertarians, or all Christian libertarians. In previous articles I explained how:

  1. My libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview
  2. Why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government)
  3. Why I appreciate Ayn Rand but cannot be an Objectivist
  4. Why I am not a Libertarian Party member

Today I will discuss why I cannot in good conscience join the Democratic Party.

In my last article, I explained why I believe the Libertarian Party (LP) is not a serious political party. If the LP isn’t the answer, maybe I can have an impact in one of the major political parties. Let’s look at the Democratic party. At a surface the Democratic party appears more congruent with libertarian values than the Republican party is. The Constitutional Conservative explains:

There are three areas to conservatism (or liberalism, if you prefer):

  1. Foreign Policy
  2. Social Policy
  3. Fiscal Policy

Libertarians will generally be liberal on foreign policy (isolationist, anti-military, many are anti-Israel, etc), and liberal on social policy (legalize drugs and so on), while conservative fiscally (return to gold standard, etc).

Foreign policy
Our own Colin Elliott has written an article explaining that libertarian policy is not isolationist, but is rather based on the non-aggression principle. The Democratic party may sometimes support policies that coincide with libertarian values, but this does not indicate any real agreement in principle. You might think that a libertarian would be eager to vote for Barack Obama, a candidate who has steadfastly voiced opposition to the war in Iraq. You would be wrong: Obama objects to the war in Iraq, but he’s no friend to libertarians. Just this past Monday (July 14) he vowed to send 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan while reducing the troop levels in Iraq. Democratic foreign policy is unacceptable to a libertarian.

Social policy
This is the tricky one. As a libertarian, I support liberal social policy. That is, I can agree with legalizing drugs, permitting gay marriage, and so forth. However, as a Christian I cannot condone those same activities. I’m not advocating sin, I just want the government to get out of people’s lives. So although I sometimes agree with the policies the Democratic party advocates, I can’t agree with their reasons for advocating them. I can’t associate with an organization that asks me to accept sin as a legitimate lifestyle.

Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society and reaffirm our Party’s commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive. Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.

[Democrats.org]

Sure, I agree that everyone should have “full equality under the law,” but I cannot agree with the implicit assumption that Americans must accept the homosexual lifestyle as morally acceptable in order to have an “inclusive” society. I can advocate full equality under the law while also speaking out against sin.

Oh, and the Democratic party’s support for abortion rights doesn’t help much.

Fiscal policy
This is an easy one. Democrats typically favor increasing the scope of government programs, a more progressive income tax, and all manner of wealth redistribution programs. No principled libertarian can support Democratic fiscal policy.

To sum up
So, while libertarianism might appear to match with Democratic values, on closer inspection it is a poor fit. Libertarian principles are at odds with Democratic values in foreign policy and fiscal policy. On social policy, the Democratic party’s policies are often congruent with libertarian principles, but the underlying Democratic agenda is antithetical to biblical values. As a Christian libertarian, I disagree with the Democrats about foreign policy, fiscal policy, and social policy. Three strikes, you’re out.

Abortion as Eviction: Property Rights, the Child and the Womb – Part I

Dr. Walter Block, one of the foremost modern economists in this humble author’s opinion, has come up with a “solution” to the now age-old abortion debate.

For reference, Dr. Block is an anarcho-capitalist – he believes that there is no need for a government and that people can solve all problems through voluntary cooperation. In his view, private property rights (as found in nature, not in government) are the fundamental building blocks of civilized society. By respecting these rights, and cooperating and trading with each other, mankind can attain a relatively peaceful and cohesive existence.

Dr. Block’s views on abortion follow this basic framework – holding private property rights as the ultimate judge between two individuals. In a series of articles, I would like to 1) look at Dr. Block’s solution 2) critique it 3) offer a pro-life argument based on the same set of anarcho-capitalist values.

The Child is a Unique and Independent Life
Yes, according to Dr. Block, we are dealing with two individuals in the case of a pregnant woman – he believes life begins at conception. The mother and child coexist on the same property – the mother’s body, and as long as both are satisfied with that arrangement the pregnancy runs it’s course, the child is born and life moves on. But the conflict invariably occurs when the mother, who owns her body, no longer wants to permit the child in her body.

Evictionism
At this point, according to Dr Block, the mother has the right to “evict” the child. In other words, just like a trespasser on property, the mother has the right to evict the child out of her womb. He calls this third option “evictionism” and summarizes the basic differences between the three options as follows:

Evictionism is a compromise position. It lies part way between the status quo, where babies are slaughtered with as much compunction as we would swat a fly, and the present official goal of the pro-life movement, which is to force all pregnant women to carry their unborn child for nine months and then deliver them.

In other words, not only does pro-choice philosophy advocate eviction, but it also advocates killing innocent children (such as in partial-birth abortions and other circumstances). But the pro-life position violates the mother’s property rights, even though it does preserve the life of the child.

With evictionism, the fact the the child dies is a tragedy, Dr. Block says, but that is not the mother’s fault. But Dr. Block sees this as a long-term positive:

How will embracing the evictionism analysis help with saving precious human lives? Simple. With advanced medical technology, based on breakthroughs which are even now almost an everyday occurrence, it is extremely likely that a greater and greater number of fetuses will be able to be safely transported from the (original) mother’s womb to another safe and supportive place: to a surrogate mother, to the uterus of an animal, to a mechanical or laboratory contrivance (“test tube”), to some other alternative which cannot even be imagined today. Is there any doubt that this will come to pass if it has not yet already occurred – in twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred years from now?

In other words, as medical technology advances, more and more children would be saved from the dire effects of eviction until all of them are saved. But as it stands right now, despite the tragedy of lost life – the mother has every right to evict according to Dr. Block.

But is it possible that eviction is an unjustified position in natural law? Is it possible that the child and mother have a contract? What about the father’s role in the equation? We’ll look at these concerns in the next part of this analysis.