Today we remember and we celebrate July 4, 1776:You might be interested in that post, but here I want to emphasize the view of government I think is expressed in our Declaration of Independence. It is a view I hold.WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that amoung these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . . . .
The view of government I find as the framework for the Declaration of Independence is of a government that does not come before the rights of individuals, but rather, is a government that is formed out of the rights of individuals. On this view, government does not grant rights and privileges to individuals, rather, individuals grant to government certain powers (eventually expressly enumerated by Article 1, Section 8 of our constitution) over their individual rights and liberties.
Where do the individual rights come from? Well, some might say individuals have natural rights as individuals. This view seems to be expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but, I think we can note here that there is something more. Thomas Jefferson wrote in this Declaration, and another 55 people agreed by signing this Declaration, that the rights of each individual are thought to be endowned by their Creator. On this view, it seems to me, God has given us liberty (I like to think of this in terms of the scripture in Genesis about God giving us dominion), God has left each of us to choose for ourselves. Many would choose to use their liberty to act in ways that harmed others. Thus, understanding this, the Declaration of Independence notes that we (individually) choose to join together to form a government the purpose of which will be to SECURE our individual "unalienable rights" given to us by God.
I would also note just how great is the reliance on God throughout the Declaration of Independence. I espeically make note that the Declaration's final sentence seems to include a bit of prayer that those 56 people who signed the Declaration were relying on the "Protection of divine Providence," and that they were pledging, not just their honor to each other, but they were pledging their sacred honor to each other.
Of course, I do not see in all this an interest in a theocratic form of government. Government is inherently coercive, and in my view coercion and faith (or religion) do not fit together. We form our government for the purpose of securing our God given "unalienable rights" as individuals against the ways in which others might use their individual liberty to harm or to take from us. We do not form our government to coerce others to follow our God, or to follow the ethics and morals we learn from the teachings of Jesus. We do not form our government to force others to do what is right. God leaves us to our own choices, and as I think the Declaration of Independence suggests, our government should be formed in a way that largely leaves us to our own individual choices as well.
4 comments:
I agree with the understanding that government is not formed to coerce specific values or morals for that matter. But my latest subject of interest regarding legislation and morality is the duality of "rights for the homosexual."
I have a lesbian aunt who, despite being the daughter of a Christian minister, my grandfather, has chosen the homosexual lifestyle. As a Christian, I love my aunt dearly, but do not agree with the sin she lives in. However, my questions come up in regard to the legislation, for and against, homosexual lifestyle.
What role if any does government have in legalizing or outlawing her lifestyle? As both an economist and a Christian I seem to struggle with this concept. Individual liberty suggests that her lifestyle is merely a choice that doesn't harm others and in some states is still legal. (Thought the laws may not adhere to individual liberty themselves.)
Yet many politicians and elected officials run on the platforms of morality, and as a Christian it is not always easy to ignore or decipher the stance one may have on such subjects.
How can legislative power exist without playing the morality card?
Hi Noel,
You've pointed to a very important range of questions. I'm off on vacation with family, and I don't think I'm prepared to go very far with this until later.
I think that you are perhaps asked at minimum 2 types of questions. You ask have will can have a legislature and avoid the "morality card?" As a practical matter this is probably very difficult. I suspect the answer in our system is to say government is one of only specifically enumerated powers (whether at the national, state or local leves of government), and then to have a judicial branch of government that believes this and is committed to limiting government's actions to be consistent with this view.
Your 2nd question is about faith and politics, and I think I might think of the question as: "Does my faith suggest I should say the purpose of government includes using its coercive force in an effort to keep people from choosing to sin?" Perhaps a related question (opposite side of the same coin?) would be: "Does my faith suggest I should say the purpose of government includes usings it's coercive force in an effort to make people do good to others?"
On the second question, and my related third question, I may have written on this earlier on the blog. It seems to me God gives dominion to each of us, and God allows us to choose to act in good ways as well as bad. Because of this, it seems to me on matters of my faith, I can't be comfortable advocating government policies that would seek to use force to keep people from choosing sin, nor should I seek to use government's coercive power to force others to do good things. How does this sound to you?
I'm also curious about what we might find in the gospels and in the teachings of Jesus that might relate to these issues. Do you think there are any aspects of the gospels that would suggest we should try to force others to do good, or force others not to sin?
"Where do the individual rights come from?"
A most excellent question, but one which I'm afraid you do not quite understand the answer to.
"Well, some might say individuals have natural rights as individuals.
This view seems to be expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but, I think we can note here that there is something more."
Yes it does seem so, but not in the full light of reason.
"Thomas Jefferson wrote in this Declaration, and another 55 people agreed by signing this Declaration, that the rights of each individual are thought to be endowed by their Creator.
On this view, it seems to me, God has given us liberty (I like to think of this in terms of the scripture in Genesis about God giving us dominion), God has left each of us to choose for ourselves."
As many Bible students have come to know, the God of the Bible does 'give,' or perhaps assign may be the better term, what many often refer to as 'the right of self-determination,' but which after a relative comparison seems to be more accurately considered to be the right of 'Free Will.'
That is, Man may choose to follow any course that is open to him, in the sense that as long as its actually some action Man can really perform, then that course of action is within his 'rights.' Of course this infers that Man can not actually choose a course that is well and truly outside of his abilities to perform.
As to God giving or assigning 'dominion,' it must of necessity be of a very deliberate and limited nature, since in its originating form in included within it every fish, fowl, beast, and even insect, and which just as obviously is not what we plainly see in the world today.
As to your statement that "God has left each of us to choose for ourselves," here I also would diverge from your line of thought, if for no other reason than the statement that Satan is credited for making to Eve, that if she would partake of the 'forbidden fruit,' she 'would become like God, knowing good & evil." Is this not the origin of the doctrine of "Self-Determination," or self-rule? For what it may be worth, I remain thoroughly unconvinced of either of Man's Right, or mans' right, to 'rule,' nor of even of his ability in this matter.
And in light of what diligent study reveals concerning God's opinion, his Rights, so to speak, I would most strongly caution against making such a, shall I say libelous statement, or charge, or indictment against God, regardless of whatever you may perceive him to be. Clearly, to falsely give credit where its NOT due is relatively the same as falsely placing blame where none is determined.
"Many would choose to use their liberty to act in ways that harmed others."
You aptly describe Man's apparently innate selfishness and its obvious and inevitable outcome.
"Thus, understanding this, the Declaration of Independence notes that we (individually) choose to join together to form a government the purpose of which will be to SECURE our individual "unalienable rights" given to us by God."
Here is what I find to be one of the most amazingly contrived, illogical, and specious statements ever falsely attributed to God. That humans have ""unalienable rights" given to us by God." First, if these are in fact, inalienable, how is it that these rights are ever removed from Man? Thusly, IF a man, or Man in the more absolute sense, has such an "unalienable right," as the Declaration states, 'to Life,' I must ask, whence does it proceed to, when it must, MUST cease to be an "unalienable right," in order for a man, or Man, to die? For it appears quite clear to one and all that since men do in point of fact die, what happened to that 'Right,' to cause it to perish, along with its owner?
No, but again, study of this subject in the holy writings indicates that the fault is not with God, nor should he be impugned for the results of the actions of others, but most especially not for the actions of mere men, with whom the fault seems to rest. No, but for these "rights" to be "inalienable," then it stands to reason that not only could they not be transferred, but neither could they be removed from their 'natural' possessor.
...
"Of course, I do not see in all this an interest in a theocratic form of government. Government is inherently coercive, and in my view coercion and faith (or religion) do not fit together."
In this regard, I would agree with you, not because you espouse my own view, but as a supporter of God's Rights, & in support of his viewpoint.
As for the term 'theocratic,' I find that almost without exception, no one knows what it means; Yes, they all suppose it means allowing or requiring some human representatives of one religion or another to 'be in charge' of the government, & yet it was never so in that most original form of theocratic government, in ancient Israel. In point of fact, the 'holy writings' state that "God is love." Therefor, I suggest that a true 'theocratic' government would be one that rules on, & by, the basis of God, id est, love.
"We form our government for the purpose of securing our God given "unalienable rights" as individuals against the ways in which others might use their individual liberty to harm or to take from us. We do not form our government to coerce others to follow our God, or to follow the ethics and morals we learn from the teachings of Jesus. We do not form our government to force others to do what is right. God leaves us to our own choices, and as I think the Declaration of Independence suggests, our government should be formed in a way that largely leaves us to our own individual choices as well.
Now I warm to the brilliant portion of your essay, for although the "unalienable rights" aspect holds to no advantage in exploring the logic of your statement, the limitations on your idyllic government are fitting, in that it is proposed to allow each individual person the opportunity to decide for themselves how they will not only determine what is 'right,' but then act in accord with their own individual decisions.
For while we yet possess our own consciences & our own opinions, it seems clear that God also has his own opinion, and even expresses such in the writings attributed to him. For as much as it seems that God "leaves us to our own choices," it could be stated that he has determined to allow each one of us to decide for ourselves, whether we will obey or whether instead we shall disobey. And all the while laying out a relative yardstick by which we may, if so inclined, attempt 'measure' if we are actually accomplishing anything of lasting value with the life that we have been entrusted with.
"Therefor, I suggest that a true 'theocratic' government would be one that rules on, & by, the basis of God, id est, love."
Would such a government be coercive or not? Can love be coercive?
I don't think that I can say, based upon your comment, what you think is the appropriate nature of government, and what you think is the appropriate use of government's coercive power in our lives. I don't know what pointing out "God is love" tells me specifically about these questions. Perhaps you would add a response that explains?
Why do you choose to post as anonymous?
Post a Comment