Have you ever struggled with contradictions between your religion and your politics? Have you had to bend your religious views to reconcile them with your political views? Perhaps a glimpse into how libertarianism harmonizes with Christianity can help.
As seen in the Washington Post:
Can a Christian be a libertarian?
by Norman Horn
December 27, 2011
Christians in American politics have argued for years that God endorses the political agenda of Republicans or Democrats, but is there a third way to think about the relationship between God and government?
Christians from the left and the right are increasingly turning to libertarianism not because it is a “middle ground,” but because it is an entirely different way of thinking about government and power.
The core of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle: that the initiation of force against person and property is immoral, and it is in many respects a kind of political corollary to the Golden Rule. Thus, Christian libertarians think that government power should be limited, sound money and truly free markets should return, aggressive war must cease and civil liberties must be preserved. Despite objections raised by other Christians, many Christian libertarians have found a friend in Texas congressional representative, presidential candidate, and lifelong Christian Dr. Ron Paul, because he also believes in these important principles.
Libertarianism treats man’s sinful nature realistically. James Madison famously quipped that if men were angels no government would be necessary. Christian libertarians take this a step further, saying that it is precisely because men are not angels that government must have extraordinarily limited powers. God does not show favoritism nor does he give special privileges of position. Everyone is accountable to the moral law in the same way. When governments and politicians extend their power so that they can abridge people’s natural rights with impunity, they have crossed the line into immorality. Rep. Paul’s message is that the United States government has been far across this line for decades and the remedy is to follow the Constitution. The Founders created the boldest attempt in history to limit state power, yet presidents and congresses, both Republican and Democratic, have repeatedly refused to adhere to their own rules. True, lasting change can only be found in reducing the power of the federal government.
Libertarians talk a lot about economics, and rightfully so. Money is central to a healthy economy. Christians are also concerned about money; in fact God talks frequently about money in the Bible. God’s warning against unjust “weights and measures” in Leviticus 19 is a warning not to tamper with the market ecosystem of money and trade. Rep. Paul acknowledges the Bible’s concern for honest money as well in End the Fed : “The Bible is clear that altering the quality of money is an immoral act… It is dishonesty in money that has been a major source of evil throughout history.” If the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, as 1 Timothy 6:10 says, how much more seriously ought we to take how our society views the control over the supply of money? If it is true, as many libertarians contend, that the Federal Reserve is the primary cause of the economic crisis we have today, then the only solution is to restore honest, sound commodity money, free from political machinations and special interests.
It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same. Rep. Paul wrote in Liberty Defined : “It’s a far stretch and a great distortion to use Christianity in any way to justify aggression and violence.” War kills the innocent, destroys property, and bankrupts nations. Christian libertarians believe that a non-interventionist foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship is more consistent with how God expects us to interact with world neighbors.
Libertarians think that everyone should be free to do as they will provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Christians can recognize the importance of this principle by simply observing history, recognizing how often that other Christians have been prevented from practicing their religion as their conscience requires of them. If we do not afford others the freedom to live their lives as they choose, how can we expect to receive the same freedom to do as we choose? Rep. Paul explains that government does not make people good in The Revolution: “The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous… God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.” God created us to be free to carry out the dictates of conscience. We cannot continue to demand state control to restrict people’s personal activity and yet assume our liberty is safe.
Through libertarianism, many Christians have found a way to move past their previous beliefs about politics and embrace a more consistent, more biblical political philosophy. The message of abolishing government power is powerful on its own. In Ron Paul, many Christian libertarians see a leader who points to principles that conservatives and liberals have long forgotten: “A system of government without limit, if unchecked, will destroy production and impoverish the nation. The only answer is to better understand economics and monetary systems, as well as social and foreign policies, with the hope that they will change once it becomes clear that government policies are a threat to all of us.” Libertarianism is not going away, and it surely will take an increasingly prominent place in the political discussion of Christians for years to come.
Norman Horn is the founder and editor of LibertarianChristians.com.
—
Tom Woods makes the Christian case for Ron Paul on the Steve Deace radio show:
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
23 Comments
- •
-
Flag
-
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Close
-
- •
Follow BSspotter
Comments
BSspotter,
Sorry for the delay. What I would like to see is a definition of terms of some sort. I see Christians railing on libertarian views of freedom to do whatever (assuming non-aggresison principle) which Christians don't call freedom but rather utilizing free will. In this sense, a human is accountable (responsible) for his actions, good or bad, and to be so they must be freely chosen meaning the law may arrest me for harming property even because I did so but the law cannot tell if I was forced to do so by another whereas God can read the heart of man.
I have found, at least classically, freedom comes from making good choices and it is this that is protected and precedes the state. Localized problem solving is of course better and respects the human person. I am also assuming the state ought to hamper those actions that it ought to, those that are appropriate to its nature, for example, crimes that inflict grave harm.
January 1, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.Writin,
December 31, 2011 at 9:06 a.m.I am ambarrassed to admit that I didn't know such a group existed! That being said,it doesn't matter how the group is described,the fact that they profess to be Libertariens explains ther position on most issues. It sounds good on paper but I really don't believe the country could survive the transition to a Libertarian government from what we have now. Another American Civil War(The War for Southern Independence where I came from) to ssettle it?
Pat Barnes
Can any one tell me why Osama Bin Laden bombed the twin towers??
I doubt most here can tell me off the top of there head what his reasons were, & that is part of our/ U.S. problem.
Keep in mind I am not a suporter of many of Islamist countries, they live for the chance to murder Jews, but also understand that they like any one else want there soverinty respected.
December 30, 2011 at 6:33 p.m.BS Spotter.
Your post, the second sentence, reminds me of a certain Presidential candidate.
”Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”.
What is liberty? Your meaning of liberty is different than anyone else’s. Ron Paul’s views and beliefs is based on the Gilded Age or worse back to 1776. Most of the platform of the libertarian wing of the Democratic Party, I happen to agree with; although, I am pro-social justice on some economic issues and conservative on some social issues. The problem with ideology like liberalism, conservatism, Libertarianism, and progressivism is that they want one side to fit all. As for me being in the Radical Middle, I have the freedom to pick and choose (within reason) to solve the problem.
Mr. Williams
December 30, 2011 at 1:20 p.m.Writein,
I support anyone's lean or leap toward libertarianism (promotion of liberty). That being said, moderate liberty is not liberty at all. Economic & personal liberties should not be viewed as mutually exclusive concepts. They are inseparable.
The crux of the debate will always lead to how much gov't we should have at the top versus bottom. I contend that a large, homogeneous national gov't diminishes liberty by its very nature. I support erring on the side of self-determination and self-government. I want us to have the courage to experiment with freedom again.
December 30, 2011 at 12:51 p.m.Pat and BS Spotter.
Since we are talking about Libertarianism, what are your thoughts on Libertarian Democrats (http://libertariandemocraticcaucus.org/ & http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.or... )?
December 30, 2011 at 12:41 p.m.PatB asks: "Do you mean Libertarian or libertarian?"
I was referring to lower-case libertarianism, although the LP is a rough reflection of that philosophy (some would say Beltway LPers have lost their way). Libertarianism does not promote ANY type of social behavior over another. It simply states we should be free to do as we please as long as it doesn't infringe upon another's rights. No initiation of force or fraud!! You can be a Christian (be Christ-like) and not feel compelled to legislate from on-high how others live their lives. Many Christians are driven to cleanse the country—by FORCE of new laws—of behaviors they disagree with. There are sufficient laws on the books to deal with the infringement of Christians' liberties, yet they still feel threatened by others' freedoms to not live a Christian lifestyle. (Note: I'm talking about behaviors, not the life issue)
December 30, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.I don't think expecting government to legislate morality makes anyone more Christian.
December 30, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.Late again. Was busy and missed this post. Only thing I can comment is:
December 30, 2011 at 8:22 a.m.Do you mean Libertarian or libertarian? If you go to the Libertarian Party web site and read their platform there are a lot of issues with which Christians have and issue mostly the current hot button conflicts about morality and personal reproductive freedom and marriage. Just saying...
Pat Barnes
Gary.
What you said made no sense. It sounds like you are listening too much from George Noory and Alex Jones.
December 29, 2011 at 10:11 p.m.This maybe to simply put but our mission is attack/concur all nations that do not want to be team players with OUR vision. After devastating the rouge (so called) nation we insert our puppets. We encourage these concurred nations with fact that we will help them to progress financially, medically, etc. with our help & benevolence they will be so much better off in life, even receiving acceptance by other civilized nations in the world community. And as a special bonus for bowing to us & our agenda all in the Name of the Lord of course we in our great concern for human rights will promise to not kill them & there children any more. Its a win win situation.
Maybe our mission is know completed in one nation so that our money & troops can be redeployed, redirected to other areas that need to be taught about the advantages of our advanced society.
It almost sounds like a one world govt in progress.
December 29, 2011 at 7:21 p.m.Dale Zuck.
As much as I respect you and your opinion, but you are wrong. If President Obama is a socialist, then how come the left wing and socialist of the Democratic Party are bashing him? By the way, I am a Democrat so I know what I am talking about. Thank you for the “encouragement” and the “offer” the other day.
Mr. Williams
December 29, 2011 at 4:24 p.m.Gary.
Wait, Global dominion? We are not the NAZIs. I do not hear you mention anything about the withdrawing troops in Iraq by President Obama, which I may add John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Senator Graham were protesting about. I do not see you mention anything about the death of Osama bin Linden. Why is that?
December 29, 2011 at 4:19 p.m.Really an odd question. If politics or wealth is introduced into the equation we have to ask if bankers can be Christian. I would have to guess it depends on what kind of Christian you are talking about. One that walks the walk or one that talks the talk.
December 29, 2011 at 1:43 p.m.Spoter
I am saying that I am impressed with this article. But I am sugesting that if he will not cary on with buisiness as usual (global dominion) then the powers that rig our elections will not alow him to be president.
December 29, 2011 at 1:21 p.m.Jared,
Liberty is the natural right to make choices that don't infringe on another's natural rights. One can choose the "good, beautiful, and true" or the bad, ugly, and false. You should have the freedom to make bad choices for yourself, but it carries the weight of personal responsibility. In any society, individuals will skirt their personal responsibilities, and safety nets emerge out of necessity. In order to maximize everyone's liberties and not penalize the majority, that safety net should not infringe upon others by force. Such a support system should be voluntary and as localized and hands-on as possible. Many believe—as you may—that voluntary support of a safety net would be highest at the local level where the problems are at your doorstep and greater oversight of recourses is possible.
Judge Andrew Napolitano puts it as well as anyone when he says "our rights come from our humanity". We shouldn't be able to form a surrogate group that diminishes those natural rights by force.
Your thoughts?
December 29, 2011 at 10:39 a.m.BSspotter, is liberty found in the ability to choose or the ability to choose the good, beautiful, and true? I would be interesed to hear your response, thanks.
December 29, 2011 at 5:56 a.m.Gary, please take an open-minded look at this:
December 28, 2011 at 10:53 p.m.www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblogs/para...
Gary,
Could you elaborate on how the article misrepresents Paul?
Are you suggesting you want your President to initiate offensive, preemptive, unjust, mismatched wars/conflicts like recent Presidents? Which plank(s) of Just War Theory are satisfied by such satanic acts, keeping in mind that we haven't yet tried withdrawing from Muslim holy lands or ceasing the orchestration of coups that overthrow their leaders and/or destabilize their nations?
In light of our 50+ years of meddling in their internal affairs, try checking off the Just War justifications:
1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) there must be serious prospects of success;
4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Do you think Paul isn't capable of defending our soil?
December 28, 2011 at 10:25 p.m.If Ron Paul is all that this article says he is, I would be tempted to vote for him. But I feel I can give a 100% guarantee that he will never make it if he is not willing to attack other nations like our current & previous presidents.
December 28, 2011 at 7:39 p.m.Dale,
Nice circular argument. We all know who the libertarian/real Republican is, and he's the only one whose Christian values transpose perfectly onto his policies — in means AND ends. Others want to impose social values top-down by force and take innocent life in unjust wars.
Libertarianism (promotion of liberty) has been wrongly assigned an ignorant negative connotation by the media, but I believe its most basic tenet of not initiating force or fraud is the most Christian of all political views.
December 28, 2011 at 5:18 p.m.BSspotter,
Your title could be no further from reality. We do not have a libertarian running any either the d or r primary. But, neither do we have a true d running in the Democrat Primary and we have only one/possibly two true r's running in the Republican Party.
Barack Obama is not a "d", he is a Franco Socialist from the 60s. Newt, like many of the (what they like to call themselves "Mainstream") Republicans are no longer Republicans in the 20-60's philosophical. And these same Establishment (Mainstream) Republicans do not reflect grassroot Republicans of the last 40 years.
I can not recall a Democrat Platform advocating the socialization of the US's industrial or medical sectors. This socialization concept places Obama clearly outside his grassroot democratic party membership.
Ron Paul and possibly Santorium are the only ones who can be supported by a traditional Republican base, at least those who help write the Party Platform starting at the Precinct Level.
I can say based on the most recent CNN polls, http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/ima...
the the real grassroot Republican voter has finally awaken to the true meaning of what the Establishment Republican is.
As far as "libertarian", show me one who is running for President and then I can prove to you who is the only Real Republican running today.
December 28, 2011 at 4:56 p.m.Could this be the epiphany Iowans are having?
December 28, 2011 at 3:20 p.m.