What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

New Mexico cracks down on Christian business owners

Here's a story that shouldn't surprise any of our readers: a court in New Mexico has ruled that wedding photographers cannot decline to photograph same-sex "commitment ceremonies".

(On a related note: A New Dark Age)

I keep wondering when the American people will say "enough is enough", but then I remember that the American people really don't care much. Most can barely manage a shrug. Like all the outrages that have come before it, this too will be forgotten - just another nail in the coffin of a great nation that was once the world's most vigorous defender of Christian freedom.

Comments (55)

The American people won't be saying "enough is enough" anytime soon, because they actually SUPPORT this kind of thing.

In our [vulgarity deleted, please mind your language here. JC] society, what matters most is that no one's (at least anyone but straight white males) pwecious widdle feewings ever, ever, get hurt, and that life be all bliss, all the time.

This will be solved only with force.

The case itself is several years old and has been during that time in the repertoire of people like me who collect such outrages. It's coming back now because of the failure of an appeal effort.

Here are some things I've learned from the case and from discussing it in the blogosphere:

1) Liberals may tell you that they aren't really proposing anything that coercive, but presenting them with this case will demonstrate that they are liars on that point. They consistently support forcing this photographer to take pictures that celebrate a lesbian relationship.

2) Homosexual "marriage" will only make for fewer loopholes and will only expand the coercion. Coercion takes a giant leap forward already in any jurisdiction (state, local, or, God forbid, federal) where homosexuality is added as a protected class against which one may not "discriminate." Indeed, this most recent ruling demonstrates this, as the judge expressly dismissed the parallel to making a black photographer take pictures of a KKK rally on the grounds that being a member of the KKK is not a "protected class status." So much for equality under the law. The moral: Anti-discrimination laws on the basis of "sexual orientation" must be fought and fought and fought again, wherever they rear their heads. If someone proposes bringing them to your town or state, fight against them hard. Don't think you can give in on that and then draw the line at homosexual "marriage." This photographer is being fined for refusal to photograph a *purely informal* ceremony in a state that does not even recognize civil unions!

3) Liberal policy makers are not even willing to distinguish between non-expressive forms of public accommodation like serving meals at a restaurant and expressive and artistic services such as photography. This just shows their extremism. All who offer any service or product to the public for money must be willing to make their talents available to promote the homosexual agenda, period.

4) Unless some higher court reverses, it seems that our current set of legal precedents places "non-discrimination" against those who have "protected class status" even above rights to freedom of religion. This despite the fact that the latter is mentioned in the Constitution and the former is not. When it comes to "non-discrimination," we should not count on court rulings on First Amendment grounds to provide a shelter for religious people.

Ron Paul (and son Rand) were blasted for opposing civil rights laws on the grounds that such laws grant special rights to certain groups and restrict the freedoms of individuals (they both hold that groups don't have "rights" - only individuals do). We are seeing the effects of such laws now. Maybe, just maybe, the Pauls were right about something!

Oh, I should add

5) The same liberal establishment that declares that nude dancing is "expressive behavior" and cannot be outlawed on pain of violating First Amendment rights to freedom of speech is willing to impose enforced "expressive behavior" on a photographer, who is now given the positive duty of exercising her artistic gifts (which must be a form of "speech" if dancing is a form of "speech") to express the wonderfulness of a lesbian relationship. And, yes, there are precedents according to which the First Amendment applies not only to banning speech but also to coercing speech as a positive matter. I forget what sophistry was used to get around that in this case (the Volokh site had a discussion of it, I seem to recall).

The couple should have said, "Sure, we'll photograph your abomination ceremony wearing T-Shirts quoting Deuteronomy and such. Still want us to perform this service? You see, we don't grant clients the right to curtail our freedom of expression as independent contractors."

Yes, here is a recent Volokh post.

http://volokh.com/2012/06/04/wedding-photographer-may-be-required-on-pain-of-liability-to-photograph-same-sex-commitment-ceremonies/

Evidently the obviously biased court held that photography is not really an expressive activity and hence not protected by First Amendment precedents concerning speech. What a load of malarkey, especially given past precedents about what _is_ protected on First Amendment grounds. Volokh is quite good, in his dry, legal fashion. Here's a sample:

[T]he reason people pay lots of money to hire wedding photographers is precisely that photography, including commercial wedding photography, involves a substantial degree of artistic judgment and expression on the photographer’s part. Elane Huguenin doesn’t create the things she photographs, but she stages the scenes, chooses the angles and lighting, and decides how to best create an artistic representation that is beautiful, and that properly celebrates the event being photographed. That is why photography is protected by copyright, which protects only creative expression; and even if she surrenders the copyright, or never exploits it, she will still have engaged in the creative expression that is protected by copyright — and by the First Amendment.

Mark, they could have added "And, of course, you have to realize that there is a high likelihood that I will be puking my guts out at just the critical moment. So, if you will simply sign this hold-harmless release form stating that you will not sue if I am retching while you are kissing and hugging, we can get on with it. Did I mention that I am REALLY, REALLY LOUD when I undergo projectile hurling?"

As an interested spectator, I used to believe that the Constitution of the United States was a very effective instrument for protecting liberty. Now it seems equally effective in protecting licence.

A state law - like the one in New Mexico which in effect makes it illegal to abide by a Christian conscience - presumably avoids conflict with the supreme law of the United States because nobody can say for certain what was the original intentions of those who framed the document. If so, 'coaches and horses' will be driven through the Constitution (unless it's amended again) forever more.

Tony & Mark, since the analogy they wish to make is to serving someone in a restaurant, they would of course have been fined just the same in that case. The analogy would have been to saying similar things to try to get someone (and *of course* the analogy would have been made to blacks) to feel unwelcome and not eat at your restaurant, giving them deliberately bad service, etc.

Alex, the non-discrimination laws and their application are the strongest evidence that the Constitution will not sufficiently stand in the way of such coercion. The odd thing is that the way things are segregated in American law and precedent, there are still other areas (such as attempted "hate speech" laws) where I'm guessing *for now* the Constitution will be some bar. What will happen however is that the bar for an "underlying crime" will be dropped so low and the penalties for otherwise utterly trivial "crimes" raised so high if accompanied by a "motivation of hatred" for a "specially protected group" that we will move insensibly towards outright Euro- and UK-style hate speech laws. I would have to look it up, but a couple of years ago there was actually some state agency that seemed to be under the impression that its state had plain old "hate speech" laws. Evidently they'd never heard of that "underlying crime" thingy.

that we will move insensibly towards outright Euro- and UK-style hate speech laws

From an online game chat box last night:

Canadian: I'm sitting in Canada now laughing at you [Americans] and your hate speech crackdowns.

Me: Don't laugh too hard or the Canadian Human Rights Committee will get you.

Canadian: LOL. Touché Scott.

...the non-discrimination laws and their application are the strongest evidence that the Constitution will not sufficiently stand in the way of such coercion.

Lydia: Since the Constitution of the United States isn't really a Christian document, aren't Christians bound to be disappointed and even outraged when it's interpreted, in an age of liberalism, so that abominable sins, special interests, and grotesque state laws can worm their way under its aegis?

You may have been asked this before: Suppose a solemn reference to the Creator (such as written into the Declaration of Independence) had been repeated in the preamble to the Constitution, would that make a difference to your confidence in the future? If you had grounds for arguing that what's contrary to God's law is also unconstitutional….well, you wouldn't be living in America.

Maybe your answer would be that the U.S wouldn't be so far down the road to perdition had the Constitutional Convention anticipated the lunatic folly of our times. With a Constitution suffused with Christian sentiment perhaps you'd be living, as was hoped, in a shining city upon a hill.

My reply is that we have needed more honest judges in interpreting the Constitution. The document didn't need to be Christian per se in order not to include special protection for insanity. Documents should not be infinitely malleable. Our judges have been willing to lie about the meaning of the document for decades and have excused themselves under the postmodern concept of the "living Constitution."


People say its all about no one's feelings getting hurt.

But reality is that the photographers feelings DO get hurt, along with freedom of choice, conscience and belief, and the diminution of his values.

I am insulted and offended every day by many of the opinions and attitudes in the MSM.


And I think envy is a key dynamic here. ENVY.

It is a shameful thing to be exposed for having, and embarrassing to admit to.

How to use that fact I’m still not clear on. But I think liberals, anti-racists, people who preach equality are primarily ENVIOUS. And will bring down the world and those they envy in that goal..

BUT for shame the ENVY must never be revealed or pointed out, for it admits what it most wants to DENY. That there are gradations of value, that some things are superior to others, that discrimination is necessary to pursue and protect the good, that there is morality in distinctions, and that they themselves (as with anyone) may NOT measure up to that.

I think this was important in communism, and in the pervasive ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’ rhetoric.

It is why victimhood has become a coveted position rather than something to avoid. Victims have the power–and legitimacy in the public’s mind– to exact revenge and engage in aggressive behavior against those they hate–or perhaps envy. Hence we have a whole victim industry today.

Destroy Western civilization, white countries and white ethnic groups around the world so that no one should feel envy towards them?---

Hell yes, the anti-racists even think its a NOBLE ideal!!!

Although this article is focused on the HHS mandate, the author does an excellent job dissecting the reasoning that is behind the liberal idea of "equal sexual liberty" that appears to drive the kind of decision the NM court made. It is worth looking at.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5562

It's a tell-tale sign that we're always fighting over which way the government leans on us rather than fighting against government leaning on us at all!! Until we get the government OUT of our business (and yes that means allowing obscene speech too), we'll never be truly free again. So many are afraid of freedom in a modern world - since sin and obscenity are so prevalent. I'm of the opinion however, that unbridled obscenity is a self-destructive force. People will eventually tire of it if it's unrestricted. It's the restrictors and the threat they pose via their restrictions that help to galvanize its adherents.

I think the same thing about Islamic terrorism. I think the best strategy against the radical Islamists is to allow their insane ideas to spread and die their own death. Once radical Islamists get free reign in a country or a society, the people of that country soon grow sick of living under such repressive conditions. It, like communism before it, will collapse under its own weight - if we allow it to (that is: if we don't give it credence and a common enemy.) Of course the same fears overcome us here as well: "we can't allow that ideology to spread - it will overtake the world!" (They said the same thing about communism too - remember?)

In both cases, the unintended consequences of opposing something can actually push society farther down the road we were trying to avoid in the first place.

I think the best strategy against the radical Islamists is to allow their insane ideas to spread and die their own death...Of course the same fears overcome us here as well: "we can't allow that ideology to spread - it will overtake the world!" (They said the same thing about communism too - remember?)

That's kind of hard on the 20 million kulaks and other peasants murdered by the Soviets, the 30 million Jews and Christians hounded into one form of oblivion or another, and the remaining masses turned into atheistic nihilists who (now) have neither God nor State to look to, isn't it?

Forget the "the world" stuff, I don't want me or my children to live under the unrestricted licentiousness period for the 3 generations it takes to burn out. Or the 8 to 10 generations other such evils have taken, like the Moloch worshippers, or the Iroquois crud, the Aztec horrors, etc. For one thing, there is too much likelihood that some of my children will imbibe that degenerate culture, when with a better example surrounding them they might not. But apart from that, it is just too much evil to willingly contemplate living up against for an indefinitely long period. If we can stand such a prospect as that, then there is no point in having government to begin with. I know you're a libertarian about government, Chucky, but I didn't think you were a anarcho-libertarian.

"Ron Paul (and son Rand) were blasted for opposing civil rights laws on the grounds that such laws grant special rights to certain groups and restrict the freedoms of individuals (they both hold that groups don't have "rights" - only individuals do). We are seeing the effects of such laws now. Maybe, just maybe, the Pauls were right about something!"

Hardly. Aside from having to walk back some of the comments that implied opposition to Civil Rights Act laws, the elder Paul has an odd position on marriage: Abolish it.

That's right. Ron Paul's 'solution' to stop gay marriage is to simply end ALL marriage under law. That'll learn 'em! Trouble is, it leaves the whole point of marriage - the protection of children under law - at the courthouse steps. It's a lunatic position, akin to the infamous quote made during Vietnam "We had to destroy this village in order to save it."

I keep wondering when the American people will say "enough is enough"

Assuming many haven't already had it with the abusive behavior of civil governments across the US, what precisely do you suggest?

"Assuming many haven't already had it with the abusive behavior of civil governments across the US, what precisely do you suggest?"

In response, I'll repeat a recent comment I made elsewhere:

"If only to prevent us from falling into despair, there needs to be some temporal action in the world in addition to prayer and patience. Insofar as Christian civilization has any strength for survival in the future - apart from the miraculous conversion of America - the remnant will need to be concentrated geographically ... [T]here needs to be a place, a region, however small, where grown ups are still in charge, where we can preserve and rebuild. The 'Free Staters' had the right idea but the wrong ideology."

We are scattered and ineffective. We can't change anything where we are, because we are everywhere a minority. The only solution - apart from conversion - is geographical consolidation.

A geographical region with several hundred thousand people - along with their governments, businesses, and institutions - who are willing to stand up to the federal and state authorities, willing to take the threats, to lose the funding, to suffer whatever consequences, might just succeed in getting the vandals to back off. But scattered as we are, we can never be effective.

Jeff, such a community would never be able to exist for long within the US. Your suggestion, while good, necessarily requires secession. You and I both know that even if the region didn't secede, it would be met with draconian violence and restrictions from the states/federal government.

Jeff, such a community would never be able to exist for long within the US.

I don't think we can say this with any certainty. Assuming that such a consolidation actually happened, I give it a 50-50 chance of survival. This isn't the 1860s. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that - for most people, for the rank and file - convictions don't run very deep on the other side of the cultural divide. The lunatics in charge are another story, but they are restrained by the lukewarmness of the majority.

Your suggestion, while good, necessarily requires secession. You and I both know that even if the region didn't secede, it would be met with draconian violence and restrictions from the states/federal government.

Maybe, maybe not. But if secession is the only solution, then regional concentration is all the more necessary. Certainly such a region would face loss of funding, fines and penalties, and all kinds of legal and economic persecution, at least in the short term. The region could survive this. I would expect it to be short lived. However, there's always a chance the stand-off could escalate, resulting in arrests and destruction of property and outright violence. If it came to that, regional authorities must be prepared to draw a line in the sand.

I think you need to get in touch with Tom Monaghan about his town in Florida, Jeff. :-) Word on the street is that he's as mad as a hatter. Along with money, that's probably about what's needed here! :-)

I'm pretty familiar with Monaghan's Ave Maria Town. There are ... issues ... with this project, but conceptually that's exactly the idea. I wish it well. Unfortunately one has to be "mad as a hatter" to choose the drained swampland of Hurricane Alley for such a place. South Florida is probably the most vulnerable piece of real estate in the entire country - weather extremes, climate change, social unrest, exposure to foreign interests, etc. Sigh.

Jeff, you would have to have a community of that several hundred thousand that is geographically identifiable as one entity - preferably both in political terms, and in geographic and economic terms, so that it can stand being shunned and ostracized by turning inwards somewhat.

I can imagine locations for a few such places, but to be honest, I cannot imagine a mechanism under which the needed, committed few hundred thousand can be brought to move there. Biggest problem is that most would have to acquire a completely new career in fields they now know little about, and much more often than not it would be a field that is considerably less lucrative than what they have now. In the long run, the trade-off would be worth it. In the short term, they would be taking a big cut in standard of living, and (often) going bankrupt technically because they cannot pay off their pre-existing debt. Huge social and economic risks.

All that said, I am not closed to the idea of trying it. The hurdles are huge, but the potential benefits are huge too.

If y'all get your new community up and running, let me know if you need an English teacher. :)

I can imagine locations for a few such places, but to be honest, I cannot imagine a mechanism under which the needed, committed few hundred thousand can be brought to move there.

That is certainly the nut to crack, as we say here in almond country.

It would help if such a place already had a decent concentration of like-minded people, to get things off the ground.

Incentives would be tricky. A city could offer free or discounted lots, rents, and so forth, but there would need to be a way to properly qualify applicants at first that doesn't upset the anti-discrimination police. Another idea is the founding of a large, Mondagron-type company that is classified as a religious non-profit and can therefore hire more freely. Not sure what the rules would be in that case.

Here's a little thought experiment: Let's say the county government of this imaginary place defies federal courts, outlaws abortion, and then proceeds to arrest a local abortionist. How do the feds react? Would they invade the sheriff's headquarters, arrest the county sheriff, and free the abortionist by force? How would the county respond, or head this off? Quite a chess game here.

If y'all get your new community up and running, let me know if you need an English teacher. :)

Got you on speed dial, m'lady.

Let's say the county government of this imaginary place defies federal courts, outlaws abortion, and then proceeds to arrest a local abortionist.

Well, first, if the whole point is to set it up full of like-minded individuals, presumably you aren't going to have an abortionist there in the first place. It's not like you want to recruit an abortionist just so you can have one to arrest as a test case!

How do the feds react? Would they invade the sheriff's headquarters, arrest the county sheriff, and free the abortionist by force?

(Waiving the previous point.) Yes. After the requisite legal be-bopping around, with a relevant court order in place and defied, the answer is yes.

How would the county respond, or head this off?

If there's a fight, various people get killed, and the abortionist is freed by force.

By the way, I'm sure I posted somewhere my suggestion for a radical presidential candidate simply to say that he wouldn't send in federal marshals to enforce any such court order. The consensus among the legal eagles was that in that case whether the marshals were sent in would depend on whether they acted as a private army of the federal courts--a question that is in somewhat of a legal grey area.

Had St. Paul the same idea, that Christians ought to sequester themselves away from corrupt society and government, how would Rome have ever been converted and become the seat of Western Christianity? If a person does not believe in the power of what they believe then they are easily discouraged by setbacks and they tend to run. There is no Utopia (a liberal dream, btw) on earth. There is only the Kingdom come, hoped for and prayed for by the Lord's people in exile.

Apparently, marshals serve the federal courts and execute the orders of the court officials (generally the judges) for those matters within the duties of marshals. However, marshals are political appointees by the President, and "serve at the pleasure of the President". As such, I suspect that the President technically can immediately dismiss any marshall at any time. However, he could put his career on ropes doing so.

The best-case scenario I see is this: a governor of a conservative state orders the state to follow through with state law against abortion. The abortionist takes it to federal court. A federal judge issues something to declare the state court decision invalid, and order the prisoner released. The state governor orders the prison chief to ignore the federal judge. The judge then sends out marshals to force the prison chief to come to court and answer. The governor comes to the prison and orders the state militia to protect the prison warders carrying out their official duties as explicitly ordered to by their superiors. If the governor has any sense, he also gets a couple thousand innocent bystanders to stand in the way. The governor gets on the phone to the president, who (in the interests of peace and cool-headedness) immediately terminates the service of "every marshal who steps within 200 yards of the prison." Then the governor says: "the militia will not fire on US marshals first, but they will defend the citizens of this state. Marshals, you can start a civil war here, but without firing your weapons you cannot take our citizens off to Judge's X's court to face false charges when they are obeying valid state law and the governor's orders. You cannot carry out the judge's orders legally, because you cease to be marshals if you try. Go home and tell the judge that because of the checks and balance of powers, your obedience to the courts is checked by your service to the president, who does not find making war on fellow citizens to be of service to the country."

You would have to have a whole bunch of state-level players who are totally committed to seeing it through. As well as a sympathetic president. And even then you only have a shot at it, no better. Oh, and the state officials (governor, prison chief, etc) cannot leave the protection of the militia.

Following something Lydia said earlier in this thread: if a lack of honest judges is at the heart of the demoralization of America, then surely the best hope of reversing 'progressive' laws rests in the appointment of a Supreme Court that deliberates on the basis of Christian values. It might take a couple of generations to turn the corner.

There are so many reasons why this reversal won't or can't happen, one hardly knows where to begin. The best option for Jeff and like-minded citizens seems to be 'internal migration' on a personal level. Even if it's possible to establish small self-sufficient communities (maybe like the Amish?) that will resist the spirit of the age as best they can, nobody can opt out of the national economy.

surely the best hope of reversing 'progressive' laws rests in the appointment of a Supreme Court that deliberates on the basis of Christian values.

Couple of things: First, as I said, justices who simply tell the truth about the Constitution. I won't agree that it has to be ruling "on the basis of Christian values." Remember, we're talking about *statutory* law here, including the Constitution, which is not the same thing as an English judge's engaging in common-law reasoning. There _are_ areas of American law governed by common law, but my own belief is that it is something too much like common-law reasoning that has given us horrible rulings on the meaning of the Constitution and that Con-law should be regarded as statutory interpretation.

Second, even from the perspective of getting constitutionalist judges, that's not worked very well, I'm sorry to say, and we've been trying for decades. What happens is that the Democrats in the Senate, who must confirm them, play absolute hardball and refuse to confirm anybody they deem "conservative" (which can just mean not agreeing with their insane interps. of the Constitution). Republican Presidents only play hardball on their side to a certain extent. They won't, for example, appoint judges and justices who would be _really_ odious on recess appointments. And Republican senators consider themselves professionally honor-bound to have no "litmus test" for confirming the appointees of Democrat presidents, so the court never moves as far in a constitutionalist direction as we hope during Republican administrations and always gets more and more insane judges and justices during a Democrat one.

Third, we need good state legislators. This New Mexico law in the main post is a state law. The first and obvious thing for the people of New Mexico to do in the light of this ruling is rise up and get their legislators to overturn it post haste.

Apparently, marshals serve the federal courts and execute the orders of the court officials (generally the judges) for those matters within the duties of marshals. However, marshals are political appointees by the President, and "serve at the pleasure of the President". As such, I suspect that the President technically can immediately dismiss any marshall at any time. However, he could put his career on ropes doing so.

The highest leadership of the US Marshals Service, perhaps, but not the deputies themselves. The deputies are civil service and thus their employment is subject to civil service law, not the President's whim. Our government would probably function better if it actually were true that all federal employees in the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the President.

There _are_ areas of American law governed by common law, but my own belief is that it is something too much like common-law reasoning that has given us horrible rulings on the meaning of the Constitution and that Con-law should be regarded as statutory interpretation.

Lydia, I think you are absolutely right on this. If the Constitution were interpreted properly, only a handful of federal functions would survive. The Constitution, taken at face value, is a very austere document at the federal level. The route the federal courts typically take with ambiguity is "when in doubt, meaningful ambiguity is unconstitonality." If a similar attitude were applied across the board, it would make most federal cases black and white. The typical ruling would be "unconstitutional; case dismissed; GTFO my court room."

but not the deputies themselves. The deputies are civil service and thus their employment is subject to civil service law, not the President's whim.

Mike, that's interesting. I guess that the 94 US Marshals are the appointees. The US Marshal Service is now under the Department of Justice, though originally it was independent. Most civil servants serve under the administrative / executive branch of the government, and the DoJ is specifically part of the executive branch. If the deputy marshals are under the DoJ, then presumably they are within the sphere under which the president can tell them what to do, or he can place them on administrative leave, or suspend their duties, or re-assign them to other duties. Although the president cannot simply fire civil servants at whim, he can change their duties or suspend their actions at whim. So, should we understand the marshals and deputies members of the executive branch whose assigned (by the executive) duties are to carry out the security needs and orders of the judicial branch?

Tony:

That's kind of hard on the 20 million kulaks and other peasants murdered by the Soviets, the 30 million Jews and Christians hounded into one form of oblivion or another, and the remaining masses turned into atheistic nihilists who (now) have neither God nor State to look to, isn't it?

Didn't all those people suffer under the hand of government? Didn't all those people suffer in spite of the efforts of the USA? What is your solution - invade and conquer every country that persecutes its own citizens?

Forget the "the world" stuff, I don't want me or my children to live under the unrestricted licentiousness period for the 3 generations it takes to burn out. Or the 8 to 10 generations other such evils have taken, like the Moloch worshippers, or the Iroquois crud, the Aztec horrors, etc. For one thing, there is too much likelihood that some of my children will imbibe that degenerate culture, when with a better example surrounding them they might not. But apart from that, it is just too much evil to willingly contemplate living up against for an indefinitely long period. If we can stand such a prospect as that, then there is no point in having government to begin with. I know you're a libertarian about government, Chucky, but I didn't think you were a anarcho-libertarian.

We as Christians are constantly reminded in scripture that the world is full of evil. The only weapons we are given against such evils are spiritual. We are not told to harness the force of government in order to impose righteousness on others. What you and others are proposing here on this website is decidedly un-Christian (in my view).

Patrick:

Hardly. Aside from having to walk back some of the comments that implied opposition to Civil Rights Act laws, the elder Paul has an odd position on marriage: Abolish it.
That's right. Ron Paul's 'solution' to stop gay marriage is to simply end ALL marriage under law. That'll learn 'em! Trouble is, it leaves the whole point of marriage - the protection of children under law - at the courthouse steps. It's a lunatic position, akin to the infamous quote made during Vietnam "We had to destroy this village in order to save it."

For starters - that's NOT Ron Paul's position on marriage. He wants the Federal government to leave marriage to the States. He does think that, even at the State level, you can have the institution of marriage without government involvement, but he's not advocating the abolition of marriage by any means.

Secondly, his solution is not meant to "stop gay marriage" - it is meant to keep the government out of our lives (it's a concept called "liberty").

Third, he and son Rand didn't "walk back" their opposition to civil rights laws. Every time I've heard them talk about it, they've consistently restated why they feel it is wrong for the government to impose "views" on individuals.


Alphonsus:

Had St. Paul the same idea, that Christians ought to sequester themselves away from corrupt society and government, how would Rome have ever been converted and become the seat of Western Christianity? If a person does not believe in the power of what they believe then they are easily discouraged by setbacks and they tend to run. There is no Utopia (a liberal dream, btw) on earth. There is only the Kingdom come, hoped for and prayed for by the Lord's people in exile.

This.

So, should we understand the marshals and deputies members of the executive branch whose assigned (by the executive) duties are to carry out the security needs and orders of the judicial branch?

My understanding is that they originally were an arm of the judiciary branch and were reassigned by act of Congress to be under the Department of Justice. Their purpose hasn't changed, only their management.

It's a real shame. Each branch should have its own law enforcement agency. The Marshals should have stayed under their judiciary and the Inspectors General should have been created as a single agency under the authority of Congress with root access to everything the executive branch does.

We as Christians are constantly reminded in scripture that the world is full of evil. The only weapons we are given against such evils are spiritual. We are not told to harness the force of government in order to impose righteousness on others. What you and others are proposing here on this website is decidedly un-Christian (in my view).

No, that's not even Biblical. The early community of the Church (look in Acts) addresses evils by a number of methods, some of them not spiritual. For example, they got together and supported widows and orphans, out of contributed wealth. That's not an act in the spiritual arena alone, it's an act in the world with _physical_ hands and _worldly_ wealth.

Looking further back, the prophets did indeed address some evils by spiritual means. Then again, sometimes they used their hands and their spears and swords: Samson slew the Philistines, David did the same, and Elijah had the people put the priests of Baal to death. They did not rely on spiritual means only, they relied on God helping them to use their other resources.

Nor is this limited to non-state actors:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and you shall have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil.

St. Paul thought that it belongs to the prince and to the state to act on God's behalf, wielding God's authority for good. The only question is whether that authority ought to extend to the state itself supporting God's own definition of marriage. You won't find anything in the Bible that says it isn't.

There has never been a state in the history of mankind that was fully neutral about religion. Most states, before 1800, incorporated the religion into the very structure of the government, either as a theocracy, or as (in Christendom) some other mechanism of religious and religious interplay. The Roman state had its officially appointed priests. The United States was founded upon Christian principles. Embedded in that founding were numerous customs and practices in which the governments (both state and federal) supported religious sentiment, even when it did not officially proscribe contrary sentiment. The liberal progressives of the last 100 years have insisted that the formal structure of the United States is supposed to be neutral to religion, but in point of fact, what they mean by it is that the government gets to suppress religion (as this New Mexico decision shows), and is _obliged_ to stop providing governmental support for those immemorial customs and practices of religion within which the people crafted the governmental form itself.

Since it is impossible for government to be absolutely neutral about religion, we should not pretend that's what we are about, and we should defend and proclaim the proposition that it is right for the government to support and promote Christian principles, especially those principles upon which the constitutional order of the United States is crafted.

We are not told to harness the force of government in order to impose righteousness on others

Imposing righteousness is a theologically ludicrous argument because of how Christianity defines righteousness. The strongest thing you can say against them is that they assign too high of a threshold for the state to impose order and punish immoral behavior.

It's a real shame. Each branch should have its own law enforcement agency.

Mike, I am puzzled. I thought the original idea of the division of powers was to make it so that neither the Congress, nor the judiciary, had any enforcement arm, only the executive did. That makes it so that you don't get a truly evil law being enforced all by one arm, it takes 2 and even 3 to manage it. The old saw of Andy Jackson's comes to mind:

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Although I do kind of agree that Congress might ought to have total access to information, I don't think they should have their own police.

Tony:

No, that's not even Biblical. The early community of the Church (look in Acts) addresses evils by a number of methods, some of them not spiritual. For example, they got together and supported widows and orphans, out of contributed wealth. That's not an act in the spiritual arena alone, it's an act in the world with _physical_ hands and _worldly_ wealth.

That was internal - in the Church - not external (they didn't try to get the Roman government to take care of orphans and widows.)

Looking further back, the prophets did indeed address some evils by spiritual means. Then again, sometimes they used their hands and their spears and swords: Samson slew the Philistines, David did the same, and Elijah had the people put the priests of Baal to death. They did not rely on spiritual means only, they relied on God helping them to use their other resources.

We are a New Testament religion. I hope you're not advocating a return to OT practices within the Church?

St. Paul thought that it belongs to the prince and to the state to act on God's behalf, wielding God's authority for good.

He is not telling Christians to harness the power of the state for Christian ends - he is telling them to behave righteously to avoid the sword!

The only question is whether that authority ought to extend to the state itself supporting God's own definition of marriage. You won't find anything in the Bible that says it isn't.
There has never been a state in the history of mankind that was fully neutral about religion. Most states, before 1800, incorporated the religion into the very structure of the government, either as a theocracy, or as (in Christendom) some other mechanism of religious and religious interplay. The Roman state had its officially appointed priests. The United States was founded upon Christian principles. Embedded in that founding were numerous customs and practices in which the governments (both state and federal) supported religious sentiment, even when it did not officially proscribe contrary sentiment.

Even though it is true that every government before ours was decidedly religious - even to the point of forcing people to convert or be executed - the United States was formed as a reaction to that. Our form of government was about religious liberty. All previous forms of government also outlawed dissent to some degree - even executing those who dared to speak out against the King, Caesar, or whomever - but ours was founded with the freedom of speech. Surely you're not advocating that we should abandon the first amendment because previous forms of government didn't have that?

The liberal progressives of the last 100 years have insisted that the formal structure of the United States is supposed to be neutral to religion, but in point of fact, what they mean by it is that the government gets to suppress religion (as this New Mexico decision shows), and is _obliged_ to stop providing governmental support for those immemorial customs and practices of religion within which the people crafted the governmental form itself.

The problem is not that the progressives are harnessing government power for their own ends; the problem is that we have allowed the government to have power over these areas to begin with!! We have, through the constant need to "do something about the problem", slowly allowed our constitutional protections against government tyranny to be eroded to the point where we are today.

Since it is impossible for government to be absolutely neutral about religion, we should not pretend that's what we are about, and we should defend and proclaim the proposition that it is right for the government to support and promote Christian principles, especially those principles upon which the constitutional order of the United States is crafted.

Like it or not, this government was founded on the principle of individual liberty - and that just is the freedom from government tyranny in non-essential areas. The government was created to protect our liberties - we've allowed it to morph into an entity that favors one group's interests over another - depending on which way the political winds are blowing.

Like it or not, this government was founded on the principle of individual liberty - and that just is the freedom from government tyranny in non-essential areas.

Like it or not, that very government you speak of was founded on Christian principles, and cannot long be maintained separated from those principles. It has yet to be shown how a government can be maintained without explicit access to its own founding principles.

The government was created to protect our liberties

Funny, that: the very same government, when it WAS created, also had numerous little ways of supporting Christians in their Christian customs and practices, not least because it was viewed as protecting our liberties when those liberties are understood in a Christian light. (NB: supporting a good religious custom is not the same as proscribing other religious practices.) Separate the liberties from their Christian perspective, and they can become dead weights of viciousness, and kill the polity at the same time. Are you saying that the founders didn't realize that their principles on which they founded the nation were opposed to all those little ways of protecting and supporting Christian customs, all those ways the government had been and continued to work with religious practices all through the early years?

What I'm saying is that a government that cares nothing for promoting religion will be better for Christians than a government bent on promoting religion.

Under the former, every Christian will be free to practice his religion as he/she sees fit.

Under the latter, only those whose Christianity is aligned with the version of religion the government happens to support at the time will be free to practice their religion.

It's pretty simple.

What I'm saying is that a government that cares nothing for promoting religion will be better for Christians than a government bent on promoting religion.

Yes, you are saying it, but you have no argument and no good evidence for it. There aren't any governments which care nothing about religion. There are only governments that are for it and governments that are against it. We are currently going through a process of revolution in which progressives are trying to turn the American system into a government against religion from the founding state being a government for religion.

Under the latter, only those whose Christianity is aligned with the version of religion the government happens to support at the time will be free to practice their religion.

You don't get distinctions, do you. Like the distinction between government promoting a religion by protecting a custom well conformed to religious teaching, and a government directly enforcing that religious teaching. You don't have to proscribe someone's religion to be a promoter of another religion.

I get the distinctions you're making Tony. Perhaps it will help if we don't call it "religion" but instead call it "morals" or "ethics". The government has, for centuries, been progressively dictating morals and ethics (based on the will of the majority) to the population. We Christians were OK with it - so long as these ethics reflected a "Christian" flavor. Now however, the morals and ethics being dictated are progressively more godless, politically correct, and anti-Christian (reflecting the changing character of the majority - like it or not). Now, we're not OK with it. My point is that the solution to the problem is not to change the flavor of the government imposed ethics (to fight the majority), but rather to fight to eliminate government dictated ethics altogether. Allowing government to impose ethics, based on the will of the majority, IS the problem.

One distinction I'd like to make here is the distinction between personal libertarianism and support for political libertarianism. I am not a personal libertarian; I didn't raise my kids without rules, I don't agree with that philosophy at all. I believe, however, that the government should not dictate to people how to raise their kids - thus I support political libertarianism. The thing about political libertarianism is that it actually allows me to be a stricter parent - because it doesn't impose "no spanking" rules and such on me. So one can be both a strict conservative and a political libertarian. These are not contradictory positions at all, in fact they are complimentary.

My point is that the solution to the problem is not to change the flavor of the government imposed ethics (to fight the majority), but rather to fight to eliminate government dictated ethics altogether. Allowing government to impose ethics, based on the will of the majority, IS the problem.

Can't be done. Not and still have any government at all.

For example, classic libertarian rule is that the government can tell me not to hurt someone else, but cannot tell me not to hurt myself. OK, take 2 simple examples: (1) suppose Bob is a white southerner born in 1700, and Bob defines as "human" a being with white skin. Since those blacks over there are not human, he says he can beat them when they don't obey him, just like his dog. Libertarian imposition of the rule "don't hurt other persons" depends on a definition of persons, which does not take place in a moral/ethical/religious vacuum. You cannot prove to Bob (absent ethics) he has the wrong definition of human, all you can do is impose a rule about it by majority vote, which is no better than the above ethics-imposing that you said was improper.

(2) Ben has 3 young kids, and a heroin habit, and he regularly gets high and forget all about the kids. Libertarian rules say he can use heroin if the only person he hurts is himself. But when he does this, he hurts the kids by neglect (even to the point of putting their lives at risk). Any decent state will want to take the kids away from Ben. But why? Because he is hurting others? Of course he is, by his neglect. But libertarian theory does not allow "neglect" to be a basis for calling what A does in relation to B "hurting B". A doesn't touch B, so A cannot be hurting B. Ben goes to the state and says "listen you libertarian bitches you have no right to tell me I have some pie-in-the-sky ethical duty to "not neglect" someone, and I never signed a contract with them to take care of them, so I am not breaking any contractual right and I am not hurting anyone. You cannot possibly have any business here, so leave my family alone and get out of my life."

Not to mention (3), the sheer libertarian notion that the state can tell Bob or Ben not to hurt others is in fact another form of imposing an ethical theory. That's rooted in a theory of what's ethical that not everyone shares. Nietzsche said otherwise: the gettin's for them as have the audacity and the strength to do it, and foolish notions of "fair play" are irrelevant. Without a philosophy of human nature lying deeper behind it, libertarianism is just feeding off of the remains of other sources of morality, and pretending that it doesn't "impose" morality on others. (And if it tries to bring in just such a deeper philosophy of human nature, then it is doing ethics and imposing ethics in its own right.) Bushwa.

Here's a good NRO article, just posted this morning, on the New Mexico case: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302764/new-mexico-assaults-religious-liberty-ian-tuttle

Thanks Tony. I knew I could count on you to take things to extremes. Obviously both of your scenarios are beyond the kind of libertarianism I support. The first because "person" is definable without majority approval, the second because, quite obviously, neglect hurts kids. Both of those are strawman arguments that ignore completely my points about what's best for Christians.

Let me ask you a direct question - what is the absolute least amount of government you would deem "necessary"?

Chucky, the "absolute least" cannot be determined apart from circumstances, and it certainly cannot be in general terms of "X and no further", without at least narrowing it down to a specific field at issue: driving? medicine? weapons? copyright? building codes? money?

How about this: the absolute least is that amount of law that is necessary to achieve the common good, taking into account that men need to be self-guided actors in much of their lives in order to flourish, and taking into account that men are social beings and need multi-level societies to flourish. Yeah, I didn't think that's the kind of answer you were looking for.

I knew I could count on you to take things to extremes.

Maybe you haven't been exposed to this, but one of the ways to test a principle is to see if it can be disproven, falsified, or generate a "reduction ad absurdum" result by...taking it to the extreme case. You may have some way of pulling your version of libertarianism back from these extremes, by the use of some kind of additional conditions or extra principles, but some libertarians simply don't. They are OK with accepting these results as implied by the libertarian principle that the only thing government can forbid is, effectively, an action where you hurt someone else. (Typically, they accept this standard because it fits with a simple application of the Golden Rule and with the Kantian categorical imperative.) If you have additional principles that you think are necessary for libertarianism, that's great, let's hear them. Especially if you have evidence that other and well-regarded libertarians generally promote the same principles.

The first because "person" is definable without majority approval

Definable to your personal satisfaction? Sure. Definable to everyone's? Nope, not a chance. Not without a prior establishment of what constitutes human nature and personhood, which perforce constitutes the beginning of a moral / ethical framework. Since people notoriously DON'T agree on that, the only way you can "establish" such a framework is to impose it even without people's agreement.

Maybe you haven't been exposed to this, but one of the ways to test a principle is to see if it can be disproven, falsified, or generate a "reduction ad absurdum" result by...taking it to the extreme case.

Well Tony, I've given you several insights into my version of libertarianism, I even tried to start a conversation about how the form of government I advocate would be beneficial to Christians.

You've ignored most of my arguments and instead and went for, what I take to be, your stock anti-libertarian, (quasi-anarchist) argument. If you're going to ignore what I actually say and argue against things that I'm not saying - how can we intelligently communicate?

FYI - I'm not a full blown libertarian. I'm a Rebublican who sees the wisdom of libertarian thought in regards to much of what government does.

I also see "liberty" as a "common good".

I will also point out that whenever I take your arguments to the extreme case---talking about government imposed religion etc.---you react the same way I do, so I'm not sure how we're accomplishing anything here.

You've ignored most of my arguments and instead and went for, what I take to be, your stock anti-libertarian, (quasi-anarchist) argument. If you're going to ignore what I actually say and argue against things that I'm not saying - how can we intelligently communicate?

Get a grip and stop whining, Chucky. For your information, I was commenting directly in response to your claims that

We are not told to harness the force of government in order to impose righteousness on others....

My point is that the solution to the problem is not to change the flavor of the government imposed ethics (to fight the majority), but rather to fight to eliminate government dictated ethics altogether.

I don't know what version of political Republican libertarianism you want to stand beside, but if it is represented by those two statements above, (things YOU said), I think that it is incoherent. All governments, in order to BE government, impose constraints about what is allowable and not allowable. Even so simple and limited an imposition as "do not kill innocent children" imposes a set of ethics on Baal worshipers that they object to. And any form of government that issues laws backed up by punishment (any law backed up by any punishment) offends the morals of radical nihilists and principled anarchists. There hasn't been a law in the history of mankind that didn't have someone somewhere object to it as a law they didn't think they should have to follow (that's why it had to be stated as a law, instead of leaving it to personal preference - not everyone's preference lines up the right way). The only way to not governmentally impose a particular set of rules on people is to not have a government. And those rules imply an ethic, they are the muscles and bones and sinews of ethics in the public arena.

OK Tony, you win.

From now on we are taking things to their logical extremes: I'm an anarchist who wants all laws abolished; and you want to live in a rigid theocracy with human beings dictating "what God wants" down to the minutest detail.

There that's settled... NEXT!!

Ah, yes, the "I don't know how to deal with the point reasonably so I will deal with it unreasonably, all the while charging "you're unreasonable" at the top of my lungs" defense.

I'm not the one claiming that government should stay out of ethics, you are. I am merely pointing out the ramifications: Baal worshipers think sacrificing small children is ethical, so if you don't want the government involved in ethics you can't have government telling Baal worshipers they can't sacrifice small children.

So, which position is extreme? Telling Baal worshipers to leave children alone? Or telling the government to get off their backs?

Oh, wait, you think it is extreme to even TALK about Baal worshipers, because, c'mon, how the hell many of them are around here these days? Well, I admit, not many.* But that might be, just possibly, because the authorities have been firmly behind the stance that you can't worship Baal by killing children, and have enforced that point of view for a long, long time. Since at least 325 in the Old World, and then did the same to the Aztecs in the 1500s in the New World. So, you want to live off the patrimony of having generations of civil authorities stop human sacrificers (with extreme prejudice) , and ditch having government be able to speak about human sacrifice NOW because the government got rid of the practice a while ago. And I'm an extremist for pointing this out. Yeah, sure.

*The rise of Wiccans (who explicitly are open to Satanic involvement) and other pagan worshipers in the last 30 years, and the speed with which we went from overturning laws against sodomy to open debate in favor of gay "marriage", should give even the naive a moment of pause about predicting how long it would be before we have open discussion of child sacrifice. Does the fact that we ALREADY have people openly advocating not using the term "person" for born infants mean anything?

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.