Mere Reflections

Okay, so this is a much needed rebuttal on my end. I want to let all of you know I’ve really appreciated this discussion and the different angles we’ve had from things. I think we’ve all come to a better understanding of each other and of ourselves, and for that I know we are all grateful.

I wanted to clarify some things that I don’t think I made clear in my last post about my views and positions, so I’ll do my best to clarify them here. Some of these points may run together, because they will all tie together somewhat.

Okay, so here goes.

———————————————————-

Concerning Abortion: It’s an Issue of Representation.

Let’s go ahead and get this one out of the way. I understand that Zach and (I assume) Andrew’s approach is to come at the issue practically, which I completely understand and respect. Exempli gratia, whatever way means that practically less abortions will happen in America is the way to go. This is a position that I have come to understand more fully and respect more fully.

My own viewpoint adds an ideological addendum. While I do agree and will consider the practical, government-as-arm approach, another big factor for me is representation. This is where I want to explain myself more fully. In my last, single-issue post, I tried to explain that representation was a big issue for me, id est, if a president publicly and vocally condoned something evil with his platform, and not just silently with his policies, I have a hard time respecting that person and waving their flag. I gave the examples of a president who would be actively and vocally a racist, and that I would know his vocal view would have an affect on his policies. Otherwise, why would he say he was a racist? Furthermore, when I wave that flag, I’m supporting him and, whether I like it or not, making it appear I support his view on that subject. I couldn’t fully side with a president that actively and vocally supported rape, because I would know his vocal view would have an affect on his policies. Otherwise, why would he say he supported it? I then tried to make the connection to abortion issues.

My point is then that abortion is not the only thing I care about, and being pro-life doesn’t mean a pro-life agenda will always be enforced, but that one who makes it a point to be blatantly pro-choice (which at the end of the day either means pro-abortion or pro-ignorance-is-bliss, both of which ignore the severity of the issue and neither of which I would support) will be one who incorporates these into his policies and one who I have trouble waving the banner of. This is in light of a full knowledge that overturning Roe v. Wade is a seeming impossibility right now, and with full knowledge that practically, a pro-choice president might even be able to affect abortion levels for the good. With both of those taken into account, I still will think twice about waving the banner of that president, knowing what they represent.

———————————————————-

Concerning Other Issues: Weigh them in.

So what about the other issues? If I were to support a staunch Republican who opposes healthcare, supports the war, and seems to neglect other issues, aren’t I just pro-death anyways? This is a good question. I will do my best to address it.

Let’s start with the first, yet very sticky issue of innocent death. The opposition to my argument might say “an innocent civilian life lost on the war front is just the same as an innocent life lost in the womb.” I would have to disagree with you on this issue. Now, please don’t pull any Calvinist “we’re all depraved and sinful and deserving of death” stuff on me here, because I know that. But if you can look at a child who hasn’t even had the chance to take her first breath yet; hasn’t even seen the world; hasn’t even had the opportunity to take part in building their own life, and then look at an albeit innocent civilian of another nation, who has made a name for them self, who has established a life, who has battled with the sins of the world and who has (as any other human) lost the battles, who has experienced joy and sorrow and family and love and hatred and breathing and eating, and say that the infant deserves to die more than the innocent civilian, then we have something to talk about. If you call me a hater or one who doesn’t care for the civilian or the innocent adult, then you’re missing my point. And if you say that both the baby and the civilian are both eternally damned for hell without Jesus and so really there is no distinction between the two (which, I’ll give you, on a large, eternal scale the Bible agrees with and so does the Judgment Seat), you’re missing my point. My point is that that baby, curled within the womb, has not even tasted air or food or laughter or the reality of living on its own. To say that it has any reason to deserve to be killed by the powers of this world, I believe is fallacious. We’re not weighing evils. We’re not weighing souls. We’re not weighing innate, depraved value. We’re weighing one death to another death. One killing to another killing. If you must kill one, killing the infant makes little sense to me.

“So, Riley, what about those that do die because of a lack of healthcare? What about those that do die on the war front?” These are truly tragedies that I don’t mean to make light of. “And, Riley, you say that you can’t support someone who condones abortion, but you’ll support someone who opposes national healthcare. What’s up with that?” I’m hopefully getting ready to answer these questions.

So let’s examine the issues, shall we? Let’s look at the candidates. The likely opposition to my position would be “what would you say to a candidate who condones [insert issue] when you won’t support a candidate that condones abortion.” First of all, I would ask them to read the first paragraph of this section on the killing of innocent lives. Second, I would ask them to find me a good, logical reason for a nation’s government to support condoning abortions. Because, here’s the thing. Despite the terrible tragedies that happen because of casualties in war, deaths due to lack of proper healthcare coverage, etc., the political forces behind opposition to national healthcare and support of the war are not forces who desire poor, sick American citizens to not have healthcare, or innocent casualties at war to be lost. Show me a candidate that supports those things. A condoning of a ‘war on terror’ or an opposition to a national healthcare plan are not synonymous with a condoning of killing innocent casualties or harming poor Americans who don’t have healthcare. However, a pr0-choice argument is rarely anything else but a condoning of a mother’s right to choose to murder her child. The opposition to national healthcare is not “no health care at all,” which is what that argument would suggest. Generally the Republican argument is that national healthcare won’t work and will be too corrupted by bureaucracies, too tainted with unfair compromises, too much involving ridiculous deficits, and too damaging to market progress that would help the nation. To defend the Republicans here, the forefront argument has never been “no healthcare,” it’s been “no nationalized healthcare.” To the Republicans, healthcare reform is needed, but not at the cost of state involvement, market progress, fairness, and fiscal budget. So why doesn’t the same principle apply to abortions? Why aren’t abortions better worked out when not handled by the national government? Because, as I have tried to explain, a murder of an unborn child can hardly be justified. There is no overshadowing motive that would inadvertently result in the mass killing of these infants. There is no greater purpose for which these children would be the tragic, but unintended casualties. There is no state solution that would do a better job of outlawing abortions. When one is anti-national-healthcare, one has an option for which he thinks will help people get healthcare better. He has a way for which he will better represent the cause of healthcare and make it happen practically. When one is pro-war-on-terror, he (hopefully) has a greater purpose for which he thinks justice and freedom will be upheld. The casualties are not prescribed, intended, or desired. When one is pro-choice, however, there is no greater purpose. There is no greater option or greater cause. When one is pro-choice, this literally means he does not believe that the killing of unborn children is of great significance. In a war issue, casualties are a (albeit very important) sub-issue. In a healthcare issue, those without healthcare are most always considered to be the ones to be helped. In an abortion issue, there is no sub-issue or some greater cause. In an abortion issue, the issue is “Do you support a mother’s right to kill her child?”

So when one might say “You will be single-issue when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to healthcare, war, poverty, etc.” I would say: I am very concerned with all of these things. But if I do not support nationalized healthcare, I have another plan, perhaps localized, which I think will work better with a candidate who still represents the healthcare cause and knows there is a dire need. And if I support  a war (not talking specifically a certain one), I have reason for which I believe it to be justified and candidates who are pro-freedom and pro-justice, not candidates who are pro-death and pro-civilian-murder. However, if I do not support an anti-abortion cause and rather support a candidate who is pro-choice, I cannot say “this person supports a greater cause: [insert cause] where the death of these children is sometimes the unfortunate, unintended, undesired tragedy.” I have to look at that pro-choice candidate, even if I think he will help my cause, and say “this man supports a mother’s right to kill her cihldren.” A pro-choice candidate has no other cause to hold onto in this area.

——————————————————————-

Single-Issue: A Matter of Importance, not of Exclusivity.

Lastly, I want to explain single-issue. I am not single issue in the sense that I only look to a candidate who will help the anti-abortion cause. It means that I struggle to support a candidate who condones a pro-choice cause. I tried to explain this in the first section of this post, and hope I have conveyed my opinion on the matter. I have many other issues I will consider when I vote. I will consider what will help Americans without healthcare get healthcare, but I will consider the factor of deficit and national corruption. I will consider how to minimize innocent casualties at war, while preserving American freedom and safety here at home and fighting corrupt powers abroad. I will examine the options and decide which candidate will represent the issue and say: “I support the ability of Americans to receive healthcare,” while applying the issue in a practically sound manner, whether it be on a national reform basis or on a more local reform basis. Being single issue means for me that I have a hard time deciding for a candidate who will represent the issue and say: “I support the right of a mother to choose whether to kill or keep her child,” even though he may work practically and inadvertently reduce the abortion count. For me, it’s an issue of representation and practicality. For me, to deny the former denies my ability to truly support him, and to deny the latter denies his ability to make it happen. Both are important to me.

—————————————————————

Conclusion: Reflections on the Aforementioned Statements.

So, I’ve established why abortion is a big issue to me. It denies an unborn infant the ability to experience life outside the womb at all.

I’ve established why not only practicality, but representation as well is a considered issue to me. It enables me to vote with confidence and good conscience, and enables my issue to be represented as wholesome in government.

I’ve established why the issue of abortion is different from the issues of healthcare and the war and the like. It has no greater purpose and no other legal alternative that negates it.

I’ve established what being single-issue means and why it is important. It is a matter of importance, not exclusivity.

———————————————————————-

Hopefully I’ve made myself clear and have been succinct. Feel free to comment and ask questions or for clarifications. I have thoroughly enjoyed these discussions.

May we seek the Spirit in all things, even in that of government.

-Riley

If you haven’t read part 1, you might want to do that first.

Okay, now to try a different track that might be easier to follow: the function of the government–is it the “arm” of a society, or the “head”.

I’ll elaborate: if social contract theory and popular sovereignty are [mostly] true, then the government is not necessarily an autonomous institution, but rather can only do what society wants. The government becomes the means by which society accomplishes its goals: the keeping of order (through laws), the protection of our homes (through the military), and such. And it doesn’t only accomplish these basic functions of a government, it also can accomplish other widely accepted things, like the education of children (hence public schools), or the improvement of the standard of living (through labor laws, building codes, construction of roads). But it doesn’t stop there: through the arm of government, society can also accomplish other goals, like providing for the poor and weak and old. Thus, we have welfare programs. Under the theory of government as an arm of society, forcing people (especially those who live in excessive luxury) to help provide for the less fortunate is not an ignoble idea at all. In fact, it is that Robin Hood principle that everyone loves except when they’re the rich ones, but it’s even better in this case because it’s all done peacefully and [theoretically] with the consent of the people getting robbed. So all is well. Of course, the problem is still the same, because if society decides that things like abortion and homosexuality are cool, then it would make no sense for the arm of society to punish that which the society approves of. And the same for mass genocide.*

Now on to the “head” theory. If the authority of a government is given directly by God, and the government has the responsibility and the right to look after the people, the functions of the government are fewer. The government is then over the people, and decides what is best and what should happen. The role of the government is not to carry out the wishes of the society, but simply to make sure that the society is orderly and safe, and has the opportunity to succeed (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?). To try another analogy, the government is not student council (which does what the students want, at least in theory), but rather the school administration (which does what they’re supposed to do whether the students like it or not). The head theory gets a little tricky when it’s applied to a democracy, because society does have the ability to influence its head, and if the society doesn’t really like its government it can bring in a new one (kind of). So what ends up happening is often the self-same as what happens under the “arm” theory, because society just keeps changing who’s in government until it finds a head that does what it wants, whether that be providing mandatory public education, or creating welfare programs/universal health care, or condoning abortion. But at least under the “head” theory of government, conservatives can try to argue that the government doesn’t have the right to do those things. This is why I think most Christians are usually conservatives and embrace the theory of government as its own autonomous institution that functions as a head over society to rule as God (via the Bible) instructs.

Does this make sense? Are y’all tracking with me? Because I’m about to move on to explaining how this relates to my original question about the view of man, or least I think I am, but I want to make sure everyone understands what I mean here.

*Then there’s also that pesky little issue of “forcing morality” on people, because as Riley pointed out, forcing the rich to give their money to welfare programs for the poor is the same as forcing people to not have abortions, or to put it in an even more extreme light, like the Prohibition. If society is an arm, then it can do whatever it wants, and there’s no more argument about “unalienable rights”.

This is the promised “conclusion” that I’ve reached about economic policy, based on the discussion at the earlier post as well as some other real discussions (as in, not via the internet) with Zach and Riley. Huge disclaimer here that I know little to nothing about politics, and perhaps less about what the Bible says specifically about government (though to Andrews point, I think that would be very little). So we’ll see if I have anything worth saying or not, and if this post resolves any confusion/disagreements, or at least clarifies exactly what the disconnect is. I’m thinking that hopefully this post will bring some resolution to this discussion so that we can all move on past this little political streak we’ve been on. So here we go. I’ve broken this into three parts because it’s really long.

It seemed to me* that most of the disagreement taking place is due to the two “sides” talking past each other. The “liberal” argument is working more on the practical level, thinking mainly about how things will get done, whereas the “conservative”** argument is working more on the abstract, ideological level, thinking mainly about what the government’s role/responsibility is. However, as I discussed this with Riley, I realized that the confusion may actually be rooted deeper than this, that perhaps the disconnect is so foundational as where the sovereignty of rule lies, or to say it a different way, what exactly the nature of government is.

We’ll start with the first track: the issue of sovereignty. Most people (in the US, and from what I can tell in most of the Western world) take for granted the idea of popular sovereignty. If you suggest to someone that perhaps they don’t have the God-given (or nature-given, of whatever atheists say these days) right to have a voice in their government, you’ll probably get crucified as supporting totalitarianism or fascism (what’s the difference, anyways?) and all kinds of oppression and evil. But I’m going to risk it, and suggest that perhaps there is no such “right”, that it is the creation largely of John Locke’s “social contract theory” and whatnot (history check, Andrew?). Further, I’ll go way out on a limb, and say that though everyone says they believe in popular sovereignty, most conservatives don’t really believe it to it’s fullest, or at least don’t take the logic out all the way. Allow me to explain.

If the right to govern lies wholly with the people, then whatever the [majority of the] people want is what needs to happen. So for instance, on a basic level that everyone can agree with: the people decide that society would work a whole lot better if people couldn’t just go around killing each other, because that would not be a safe or orderly society. So they outlaw murder. To take it the next step, the people decide that society would work better if there were some control on the expansion of monopolies, because that destroys local business. So they create anti-trust laws. In the same line of thinking, the people decide that they want the poor cared for, so they create national welfare programs to ensure that it happens. That, I think is where most conservatives get off the popular sovereignty train, and the next step is where I think most Christian liberals get off. The people decide that unborn babies aren’t really humans, so it’s okay to have abortions, so they make it legal; or, the people decide that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, so they make homosexual marriage just as valid as marriage between a man and a woman. And then the next step is where I think perhaps even the wildest liberals get off, because it goes contrary to human nature. The people decide that mass genocide is cool, and so they start killing off all the [fill-in-the-blank]‘s. Now, before anyone freaks out on me to say that I’ve totally distorted the popular sovereignty argument, bear with me for a while, because I’m not saying it’s totally incorrect, I’m just trying to point out that it cannot stand alone, as I will try to also do to the other side.

Conversely, if the right to govern lies in the institution of the government (whether it be a king or a legislature or whatever), then what is right is what needs to happen. And of course, from a Christian perspective the foundation for what is “right” comes from God through the Bible. So to use all the same examples, it can be seen clearly in Scripture that murder is wrong (and that it’s bad for society), so the government outlaws it. Also, it can be seen clearly in Scripture that God hates the oppression of the weak, so the government makes anti-trust laws. Similarly, the Bible is clear that the poor should be cared for, and so the government either encourages its citizens (and the Church especially) to take care of the poor, or in times of dire need starts welfare programs. But then on the issue of abortion and homosexual marriage, the government sees that those things are wrong and thus outlaws them, and punishes those who break the law, as it would in the case of mass genocide. But here are the problems with this theory of government: first of all, i don’t think we have it here, and so it doesn’t really apply to our current discussion on economic/social policy, and secondly, the government doesn’t always take the Bible as its authority, or if it does it often misinterprets it. And then there’s that one problem of taking things out to their logical ends. Because if you sit on this particular merry-go-round for too long, you get into the discussion of other sins like adultery, and lying, and dancing divorce, et cetera. And it’s hard to find a good logical reason to NOT outlaw that stuff, because God clearly hates it and it’s clearly bad for society, so by all means such things should be outlawed by the government. But I don’t think even any Christian conservatives want that, because then you start to look kind of like Puritan New England where things tend to get really legalistic really fast. What I think has ended up happening is that both the liberals and the conservatives have tried to straddle both trains, if you’ll follow that analogy, and have ended up falling off both, though in different directions. In the next post I’ll try to discuss the difference in ideology a slightly different way.

*Notice how masterfully I begin by breaking as many grammar rules as possible in the first clause. Let’s count: unclear pronoun (it) + passive voice (seems) + and first person pronoun (me) = three, which we all know is the number of divinity. Got ‘em.
**From this point on I’m going to drop the quotation marks, but just understand that I’m stereotyping, not trying to say that every conservative believes this, or every liberal believes that. Also, I want to make sure that I establish that these discussions I’m referring to are between real Christians.

So I was thinking about political ideologies, and more specifically their view of man as played out in their policy. I know that sounds vague, but this is what I mean: based off the typical policies of the two major parties in the US, what can we say about how they view man in terms or ability, morality, self-interest, responsibility, etc.?

And so after writing out what I thought pretty fairly described the two sides, I wondered to myself what the Biblical perspective would be. Now, I am usually able to be pretty unbiased/objective in stuff like this so that I would be able to answer the question without considering my own political views, but I thought I would ask other people, who haven’t seen my first two lists and thus don’t know what the “right answer” is, so that I could get some outside help in this little endeavor of mine.

I’ve talked to Riley some about this, and Brian a little I suppose, but I would love to hear your feedback. Please don’t tell me what political party you think is more Biblical, but please do answer the question: what does the Bible say about the nature of man, especially as it relates to how he should be governed? Try your best to be objective, and we’ll compare notes. I’ll summarize my findings when the discussion ends.

Thank you kindly for your feedback.