The argument over gay marriage, like many arguments in America, has been falsely presented as a single, binary issue: one is either for or against legalizing gay marriage.
On one side of the dichotomy are the "social conservatives" who believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, and that the law should reflect that reality.
On the other side are gay marriage proponents, who believe that two people of the same gender have every right to disagree with social conservatives about what marriage is, and that our nation's laws should include their definition of marriage as well.
But one thing that pundits, activists, and politicians often fail to consider is that the legal debate over gay marriage is distinct from the philosophical debate.
Whatever your view of the nature of marriage, it is not necessary to legally force that view on the rest of us.
Instead of legalizing gay marriage, what if each state de-legalized straight marriage? Why after all, should the state define what many consider to be a private, religious question?
Read my entire article here.
Great article, Wesley!
While I disagree that any form of government (State or Federal) should be able to qualify what is or is not considered "marriage"; I do recognize a State's right to make a private issue such as marriage a public one.
I've written a good bit about this from a Christian perspective. I'd encourage social conservatives to consider these arguments.
Good piece, Norman! =)
I think Wesley's perspective on this problem is very reasonable. But I'm not sure government would ever be completely removed from marriage since it implies sexual permission, and most communities are going to want to forbid marrying one's own children, animals, etc.
But I find the notion of Christian Libertarians a curious philosophical mix. Obviously Christians can and do redefine their beliefs over time, but, historically speaking, Christianity and Judaism have been very much at odds with Libertarianism.
I'll ignore the later Roman Catholic Church and the much later Protestant minglings with government which I guess you'd condemn as corrupt or at least astray from proper practice. But Judaism was extremely coercive on sexual issues and religious practice. And early Christianity was an extension of Judaism in pretty much every way.
However you slice and dice the obligations of early Christians to the Jewish Law, the gospels paint Jesus as a supporter of every little part of the Law, and that would include capital punishment for improper sexual behavior. Admittedly he is also painted as a fair and cautious administrator of that extreme justice (even ignoring the famous throw-the-first-stone story considered apocryphal by most scholars), but a supporter nonetheless.
The proper role of the early Biblical church in politics is vague, but it wasn't in a position that necessitated defining such a role. Christians were instructed to support the State as the appointed servant of God, even in regard to slavery and execution. The early church assumed God would bring about a new rule delegated in some sense to the extremely faithful, a rule inaugurated by the execution or torture (depending on your interpretation) of all the unfaithful non-citizens. When the situation to participate in earthly government arose, the church aggressively coerced other Christians concerning technical matters of the Faith.
Nowhere that I can think of in Christian scriptures is there an example or instruction for anything remotely like Libertarianism unless you consider some of the free-wheeling behavior of patriarchs to be a legal blueprint. Christians, IMO, were never given any legal right to property or the self beyond what God or the State allowed.
I disagree please see http://www.hisholychurch.net/
Well, like I said, Christian beliefs evolve over time.
The article expresses views of the Law and history that I doubt few if any practicing Jews would agree with. Example:
"The Israelites wandered in the desert under a new system of government, not like the system of Egypt which held them in bondage. They were told never to go back to that type of system again. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes under the supreme law of the land, the Ten Commandments."
The 'right in his own eyes' phrase is actually a statement of condemnation that begins and ends a passage recounting some despicable behavior by the Jewish tribes (rape, murder, civil war, genocide, kidnapping). It is not a Libertarian model.
It's not my place to say what Christians should or shouldn't believe today. But I don't think that article matches the beliefs of the early church as portrayed in the Bible. The New Testament contains some rather clear statements concerning the State that seem to contradict the basic thrust of the article.
I have to disagree with your perception based on this excerpt. We need to remember that the separate books of the Old Testament were written be separate authors and often after the fact. The book in question was no doubt written after the reign of the judges when kings had risen to their supremacy (it makes mention of the captivity of the 10 tribes). Perhaps it was a piece of propaganda utilizing some of the worse stories from the era. Speculation aside however, we have the word of the Lord Himself only a few books later in which he explicitly disdains kings and kingships (1Sam 8).
So you see that it's not so simple a matter to untangle. I'd be interested to see what passages you have in mind from the New Testament that add credence to your rebuttal.
I agree with most of your disagreement. My response to intrude313 is from what I would consider a generic Christian POV that the entire Bible is authoritative and, in some sense, the word of God. The referenced website seems to assume something along those lines. Your comment suggests you accept a more humble origin for some of the material. Typically OT scholars assume multiple sources with different agendas. Your choice to dismiss a source with opinions you don't like and accept others as the word of God seems a little arbitrary, IMO.
"So you see that it's not so simple a matter to untangle."
I'd say nothing is simple about Bible history or criticism. However, I think it's safe to say that the Bible does not promote Libertarian philosophy. Whatever the real history, Israel is described as a loose confederation of tribes governed by judges and a priesthood that is later subverted mostly by a king. I'm not aware of any evidence that the tribes had a contractual right to choose common rulers or revise their 'constitution' (which was in no way devised by them). They had taxation and a detailed Legal system. It told you what you could and could not eat, something of a nanny state in that regard. They also had legal obligations to charity beyond their system of taxes/tithes. Some of their laws socialized property to a degree. That is if you take the Bible as accurate history.
"I'd be interested to see what passages you have in mind from the New Testament..."
Here are a few to consider regarding the state:
Matthew 22:17-21, Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-15, Titus 3:1-2
"Speculation aside however, we have the word of the Lord Himself only a few books later in which he explicitly disdains kings and kingships (1Sam 8)."
Libertarians may dislike kings, and YHWH (and his judges and prophets) may have disliked appointing a king for Israel, but are the reasons the same? I don't think so. YHWH was considered the king with his priests and judges as administrators. A human king was a second, competing central authority with an additional set of tax obligations to boot, not the evil turn away from self-rule to a central authority.
But if you do feel that the pre-king arrangement is a model of Libertarianism, consider that the elders thought it was a failed system due to corruption and military weakness.
Perhaps my choice as to which OT records are more authoritative is a slight arbitrary. I tend to lend more credence to the records in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles due to the fact that the are compilations of accounts recorded elsewhere and thus roughly substantiated. The books read as an honest history while Judges just reeks of propaganda to me (very Victorian-Era England).
As for the rest, I must agree that my own views are quite out of lock-step with contemporary Christianity and cannot be fully substantiated within the confines of the Old and New Testaments alone. My understanding of their origins leaves too much room for error and misreading on the part of both the compiler and the modern reader. There are many authentic records available which paint a more detailed picture of the faith and its roots that are now widely rejected by both Christianity and Judaism. In context with such records, it's easier to draw the conclusion that the teachings of Christ and his predecessors were firmly based on principles of liberty and later extrapolated to serve the needs of authoritarians. Seeing as you are not drawing your conclusions so wide as to include those sources, I have to concede then that the current reading and understanding of those of the Christian faith fleshes out a system more comfortable with statism than libertarianism. I jumped too soon in my defense. Your rebuttal is well stated.
(Though the references you gave in Matt and Romans do not give so strong a defense when taken in context with their Greek versions. I can explain more if you're interested.)
Yeah, that discussion becomes a lot different once you step out of the simpler POV of mainstream, orthodox Christianity. You could argue either way regarding Jesus. Depending on which elements you filter, he could have been a lot of things. Maybe even a Libertarian. Gnostics definitely embraced liberation of a sort.
As for the OT, you have to look through a lot of crumbly layers of refined tales-as-history. It's hard to sort the real from the legend from the shameless propaganda. The website that was referenced felt like a bad effort to mold that material into the shape of an a priori political philosophy. However, the Israelites would have felt at home with the gold standard...so long as their leader wasn't forcing them to drink their gold before cutting them down with a sword. That might send stocks down for the day.
Haha, agreed on the last bit there.
Post new comment