Religion and Liberty

Dec 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM

By Matt Cockerill

Regarding the heavily critical feedback by folks objecting to this reference of Christianity on the blog, I have something to say:

There is no conflict between private, non-coercive practice of religion and libertarianism. In fact, so long as religious folks practice their faith in a manner consistent with the non-aggression principle, religious organizations will be essential to maintaining the strength and integrity of the free society.

I say this as a nominally Catholic secularist, who, having read Murray Rothbard and Thomas Woods, acknowledges the objectively profound contribution of Christianity to the philosophy of liberty. Non-believers are more than welcome to personally reject God in all forms -- and they certainly don't have to adopt the quirky Blockian position I find myself inclined towards -- but if a libertarian Christian seeks to express his personal opinion on religion, I see no reason for adherents to a "live-and-let live" philosophy to be outraged over it.

If someone were advocating the coercive imposition of religious values on people, folks would be right to blow the "unlibertarian," whistle... But it was just a picture, guys. :/

Posted in:

Blog Policy
Login or register to post comments

Those guys were ridiculous. After reading their arguments on facebook it was clear that they only wanted attention. Any levelheaded individual can see that your intention was to encourage all Libertarians and to remind Christians of their duty. The message of that post was clearly one of "love" and of "liberty". I was encouraged by it. Good job!

Submitted by Jeff (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

What do you say to the idea that Christianity is a principally evangelistic religion?

As a former Christian I always struggled with the idea of evangelism myself. Seems to directly counteract the "live and let live" mentality.

Submitted by Vnonymous (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

Vnonymous... there is nothing contradicatory here. It is one thing to go out and evangelize, presenting your views, making your case with reasoned arguments, and letting people take from it what they will. One would hope they come to believe the same, but ultimately the evangelizer's job is simply to present the case for Christ... not to actually MAKE the other person accept their (the evangelist's) views.

Whether the other person comes to faith is between them and God.

Somehow, it has come to be that it is considerded being forcefully coercive in modern America simply to present your views and associated arguments. In reality, this is NOT coercive by any means. It is in fact the very freedom of speech which America was built on. There is a huge difference between voicing your opinion and coercing another to accept it.

For example, a Christian standing on the corner "shouting it from the mountaintop" as it were, is simply voicing their opinion. They are not FORCING anyone to accept their views.

On the other hand someone like Al Gore (as one example among many) IS coercing others to buy into his views, by forcibly demanding our money, time and livelihood be co-opted to support HIS favored causes.

When a Christian is engaging people in reasoned conversation to discuss belief in Christ, you always have the right and option to walk away at any time and so "no thank you." When Al gets his friends to legislate new taxes to take our money to support the causes HE believes should be invested in, you have no recourse to opt-out. One exhibits liberty, the other coercion.

I hope that has made it a little clearer.

In liberty, cheers!

Submitted by eidylon (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

I agree with everything you say. Indeed religion isn't necessarily unlibertarian if non-aggression principle is consistently followed.

However as an atheist I understand the discomfort people have with religious references in public. I am an atheist for a reason and that reason goes beyond my adherence to the non-aggression principle. I ask why is it exactly that people condone aggression to begin with? What is it about individuals that makes them want to force other humans to live by their opinion?

The answer can seldom be anything other than psychological and memetic, which religion has heavily affected throughout human history. It has typically tended to inspire collectivist "us" vs. "them" mentality and such concepts as just and holy wars and they do so to this very day in modern politics. Religious people were all too many times seen to fall into a habit of messing up their ethics by means of some "higher truths" ordained by God. A line between accepting non-aggression and rejecting it is very thin when all that is necessary for you to do the latter is some sort of a religious revelation.

Bottom line is, as religious people who explicitly believe in non-aggression, you are a small minority. When a non-believer sees religious images he is thus more likely to associate it with those who DO push this on them violently than with people like you and therefore be inclined to react negatively.

I'm also a humanist and I personally have serious doubts that a person can ever be truly honest, without self-contradiction and pretension and believe that some other being (whether God or human) has a moral right to override his natural self (indeed many christians consider "human nature" to be inherently flawed if not evil and ripe for rectification at the time of second coming).

That's at least what I think.

Submitted by Daniel Memenode (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

This is a rather ridiculous generalization that I hear all the time, especially this part,

"Bottom line is, as religious people who explicitly believe in non-aggression, you are a small minority."

I've never met any religious person in my life who believed in aggressively forcing his beliefs on others. Which is perfectly understandable, because Christianity and most other religions contain explicit commands such as "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal." So, in the occurrence that a Christian (or follower of another peaceful religion) does commit some act of violence, he is doing so in spite of his religion, not because of it. Often they will attempt to rationalize their action in terms of their religion, but religion is rarely, if ever, the motivating force behind the aggressive act.

I constantly hear the example of the Crusades used to support this idea that "religion is dangerous." If you think about it, which sounds better for the crusaders to explain their actions, "We're going to kill and plunder get all sorts of land and money and loot," or "We're fighting a holy war in God's name against his enemies"? Obviously the second one. It's a rationalization for a true motive of greed and thirst for power.

That said, it is religious morality which lays the foundation for libertarian belief in the first place. The "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill" that I mentioned earlier stem from the God-given rights of humanity to life and property. If there is no God, then human beings have no intrinsic value, they have no rights (except for those established by meaningless social convention, probably by those "aggresssive" religious people). And without rights there really is no moral basis for libertarianism.

This does not mean that atheists can't be libertarians. I would imagine many atheists, as a simple preference, would rather be left alone by the government. But since they have no basis for any moral principles (What is a principle? What gives it any value? Why value these religious delusions called "rights" for these people that are just a mere accident of nature?), they would have no reason to remain libertarians should their preferences change, or should they come to hold a position in which there is a strong incentive to sell out to special interests.

And as a last note, anyone who does NOT believe that human nature is seriously flawed, whether Christian or otherwise, is living in a fantasy world...

Submitted by Chris (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

I've never met any religious person in my life who believed in aggressively forcing his beliefs on others.

I think in terms of "forcing beliefs" Daniel was considering the laws prohibiting drinking, drug use, prostitution, and gambling, which are largely supported by religious interests who view these activities as sins that must be forcibly prevented.

If there is no God, then human beings have no intrinsic value, they have no rights (except for those established by meaningless social convention, probably by those "aggresssive" religious people). And without rights there really is no moral basis for libertarianism.

There is actually an entire doctrine of law and philosophy called "natural rights", which, thanks to the contributions of the great St. Thomas Aquinas, are considered entirely separated from divine law and religion. As Rothbard eloquently illustrated in his magnum opus on libertarian philosophy, Ethics of Liberty, one doesn't need to be religious to believe in natural law/rights and the moral principles that accompany them. Rothbard himself, albeit married to a devout Christian, was agnostic.

Moreover, as you alluded to, there are other reasons to be a libertarian which are far removed from the deontological dichotomies of good and evil. There is the rational egoist/objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, which values the individual's interests above all others, which greatly coincides with the Christian notion of the "free will". Finally, there are utilitarian premises for libertarian philosophy, that can be viewed through austrian economics, which shows all government interferences in the affairs of man as inconducive to the greater good of society.

And as a last note, anyone who does NOT believe that human nature is seriously flawed, whether Christian or otherwise, is living in a fantasy world...

: ) Reminds me of my favorite poem.

Submitted by John M (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

Seeing as how he described it as "aggression" and "holy wars" and didn't say a thing about prohibition laws, etc., he was actually talking about aggression. And frankly it's a very small minority of people, religious or otherwise, who believe that the government should not continue at least some such paternalistic policies. If you don't believe me, see how many people you can find (other than in your libertarian circle) who don't think that heroin ought to be legalized.

I haven't read either Aquinas' or Rothbard's moral philosophies. I probably will eventually, but until then merely telling me they had a contrary opinion without explaining their reasoning isn't very convincing.

I addressed "egoist" libertarianism, which is solely based on advancing one's own self interests, and thus falls apart when tested by other interests. This reminds me of Alan Greenspan, who was a very outspoken capitalist/libertarian before he was given the position of Fed chairman, and then rejected it when it got in the way of him increasing his power. Greenspan was, ironically, an avid follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

I also find the utilitarian view to be entirely incompatible with libertarianism. And with atheism for that matter. The main idea of utilitarianism is that the moral action is that which does the most good for the greatest number of people. Therefore if I was to steal all of Bill Gates' money and give it to the poor, I would be doing a good deed. Obvioulsy libertarians don't believe that. Utilitarianism is also inconsistent with an atheist position, because it assumes that human happiness or utility as a whole has some intrinsic value, which is obviously a baseless assertion from an atheistic perspective.

I like your poem :)

Submitted by Chris (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

Nor sure if you will ever read this but:

Seeing as how he described it as "aggression" and "holy wars" and didn't say a thing about prohibition laws, etc., he was actually talking about aggression

1) Laws prohibiting drinking/gambling/etc are acts aggression. War isn't the only form of aggression. To punish someone for taking a sip of alcohol is committing an act of aggression against that individual.

frankly it's a very small minority of people, religious or otherwise, who believe that the government should not continue at least some such paternalistic policies

That's fine, I'm not particulary interested in what the majority thinks, not a big fan of those guys, kinda why I joined YAL. However, let's not pretend governmental "paternalism" is Christian. A free will only exists when people are free to sin. When you institute laws banning sins people no longer have a choice, thus can never truly earn their salvation according to Christian theology. Leo Tolstoy is an example of a a great Christian philospher, who understood the meaning of Christ's Sermon on the Mount.

I haven't read either Aquinas' or Rothbard's moral philosophies. I probably will eventually, but until then merely telling me they had a contrary opinion without explaining their reasoning isn't very convincing.

I linked to them and their works for that reason. I dont have the time to explain the entire natural law doctrine to you. If you think only religious people can have moral principles you should really read their work.

I addressed "egoist" libertarianism, which is solely based on advancing one's own self interests, and thus falls apart when tested by other interests.

You argued that there are no moral principles not founded upon religion, I gave you an example of one that isn't: egoism. You may disagree with it's moral tenets, but its fundamentals are quite sound. Alan Greenspan is not even a good objectivist, let alone economist. Bad example.

I also find the utilitarian view to be entirely incompatible with libertarianism. And with atheism for that matter. The main idea of utilitarianism is that the moral action is that which does the most good for the greatest number of people. Therefore if I was to steal all of Bill Gates' money and give it to the poor, I would be doing a good deed. Obvioulsy libertarians don't believe that. Utilitarianism is also inconsistent with an atheist position, because it assumes that human happiness or utility as a whole has some intrinsic value, which is obviously a baseless assertion from an atheistic perspective.

There are a lot of faulty premises in this passage. Wealth redistribution isn't in the interest of the "greater good", therefore your example of stealing from Bill Gates is unsound. This is shown through austrian economics, which I linked to in my first reply, which is a school of economics that shows that all forms of coercion are detrimental to the economy, and thus the greater good of society. Again, I don't have the time to explain to you why wealth redistribution isn't utilitarian, you should visit the Mises Institue website and read the literature for yourself. They have thousands of books and essays you can download and read for free.

Submitted by John M (not verified) on December 13, 2009.

Excellent post here, I particularly liked the Block article you linked to.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I do know that I'm a moderate conservative libertarian, and my Catholic faith is vital to my personal life and is well-entwined with my libertarian views. As well, the YAL chapter I've headed at the University of Washington has a great mix of members, the majority of active members being some form of Christian.

The New Testament is like any other text, it's easily misinterpreted. The same way two economists can look at the numbers behind the economic development of America, and one can turn out Keynesian, the other a free market believer, many Evangelicals misinterpret what Jesus is really saying. Myself, and many other Christians, find it quite clear that Jesus espoused a rather 'libertarian' set of ideals. This being in the sense that he supported a conservative lifestyle (as I myself do), but made it extremely clear that one shouldn't force others to follow it (throw the first stone, etc).

Submitted by Steve Heidenreich (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

Scripture (the Prophets) tell us the Messiah will create a FREE Israel state (not the current one that's for sure... I'm NOT a fan of Zionism in the least) and the world will be goverened under the same principals... in other words liberty under His law will be universal. The who premise of the "Old" Testament is freedom from bondage and oppression, not just for the "soul" but for the living breathing inhabitants of the Earth... even G-d's animals. Any Christian who says different needs to actually read his Scripture. Even the Amish, Quaker and Mennonites, very devoted Christians, refuse to go to war because they actually beieve murder is wrong... how unpatriotic, right???

Submitted by James (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

"...liberty under His law will be universal."

I am not sure where you've heard that God's law brings liberty, but that is very far from true. In fact, the Scriptures say that the law condemns us, and Christ was sent to "set us free". Just to let you know, Scripturally speaking: Law=condemnation; Christ=liberty.

"The who premise of the "Old" Testament is freedom from bondage and oppression, not just for the "soul" but for the living breathing inhabitants of the Earth... even G-d's animals."

Again, the premise of the OT is condemnation; that no matter how hard we try, we cannot be good enough to undo our wrongs. The message of the OT is not "freedom from bondage and oppression", but it is the message of the new covenant, under Christ. And as far as the rest of that sentence is concerned... as one who went to school for theology (if that provides me any credibility at all), I can honestly say that I have never heard anything like that before.

"Any Christian who says different needs to actually read his Scripture."

I say different, and I consider myself to be very well-read in the Scriptures.

Even the Amish, Quaker and Mennonites, very devoted Christians, refuse to go to war because they actually beieve murder is wrong... how unpatriotic, right???

Just because a large number of people (and yet even these groups can hardly be considered "large". But then again, that is only relevant to what it is being compared to) agree on something does not make it true, nor does one's devotion to any set of scriptures or any sort of spirituality. After all, Timothy McVeigh was also very devoted, but that certainly doesn't give his beliefs or actions any credibility.
Killing someone does not always amount to murder. Murder is taking the life of an innocent person. Putting someone to death on behalf of justice, as well as to prevent crimes from happening in the future, is very Biblical. If you equate all "killing" with "murder", then you must admit that God has "murdered" scores upon scores of people, as noted throughout Scripture, violating His own Law. So the question I have for you is this: Is God a murderer? Because the Scriptures give a number of accounts where He took it upon Himself to kill people, or where He called on the Hebrews to do it.

Submitted by Jeff (not verified) on December 12, 2009.

Alrighty then, here's my two cents.

Libertarianism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive belief systems. Scripture never gives any moral responsibility to the state (except to the nation of Israel more on that in a minute). The responsibility is placed firmly on believers and the Church. For example, Jesus Christ did not directly address the Roman Government and ask it to crack down on homosexuals, adulteresses, or even murderers. He didn't even ask the Jewish government to do so. In fact, he strongly discouraged God's chosen people from stoning an adulteress.

The bottom line is this: God is not concerned with outward appearances, He's only concerned with the Heart. He hates sin, but He did not commission the modern state with dealing with it. That responsibility lies within the churches, and the people themselves.

The passages that talk about murdering prostitutes, homosexuals, and the like are directed specifically at pre-crucifixion Israel who were essentially slaves to the Law. When Christ died on the Cross, it was no longer necessary for such measures to be in place. That's part of what Paul means when he says we were dead to sin.

In summary, Scripture does not give the state the power or the authority to regulate individual behavior. Nor does it give the state the power to institute religion. So, Christianity and Libertarianism can live in happy harmony (if we cast aside idiots and power-mongering whores who misuse and abuse Scripture for personal gain).

With that in mind, I don't see anything wrong with the picture we're all arguing over. The message is consistent with Libertarian philosophy, and it comes from a very powerful and influential source (and I would argue the ultimate source of real truth) the Bible. So... what are we arguing about again? Ask yourself this, would we be arguing so strongly if it was a quote from the Koran or the Vedas? Seriously, lets try to be consistent here. We need unity in our movement not petty matters to divide us. Believe what you will and get on with life.

Submitted by Andrew Smith on December 12, 2009.

lets be honest. i dont really think the whole christianity-and-libertarianism thing matters. i understand the positions of both sides, but the posts are really out there to remind people of the reasons why they should be pro-peace. if scripture works for the christians, thats great, it still promotes the cause. would you try to keep a socialist president from being pro-peace just because he believes war is a consequences of capitalism? different strokes for different folks. we're all out for the same end goal.