Some other professor and I spoke today about the question of evolution and whether or not it is logical to believe in it.
A couple of the philosophy professors said that Occam's razor requires us to conclude that God had nothing to do with the origin of species. (As one of them put it, if you lose one of your socks when you do laundry, you don't have to resort to the "sock monster" to explain it.)
As is so often the case in such conversations, this begs the question. She is assuming that the naturalistic explanation is adequate to explain the origin of species. But that is the very thing to be proved. In the case of the missing sock, between the dryer itself and the possibility of dropping the sock somewhere between the dryer and your dresser, there are plenty of natural explanations for how the sock disappeared.
But this is not the case with evolution. What in our experience would lead us to conclude that after making love for millions of years, the ancestors of apes finally succeeded in giving birth to a human being? What is the evidence that natural processes are capable of producing a diversity of species? She did not say.
Until someone can demonstrate that, Occam's razor does not apply.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Evolution and Reason
As a philosopher, I like to see people putting together thoughts in a logical sequence. For example:
1. All men are mortal. (This is known as the major premise.)
2. Socrates is a man. (This is known as the minor premise)
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (This is the conclusion)
It is a beautiful thing when scientists use reason and experience to reach a conclusion in this way. For example:
1. Spectral lines shift to red when objects are moving away from us.
2. The spectral lines of most objects in the universe shift to red.
3. Therefore, the universe is probably expanding.
Unfortunately, I do not see people who believe in evolution reasoning in this way.
I recently spoke with the husband of a colleague of mine, an engineer. I mentioned to him my desire to hear a reasonable explanation of evolution, using scientific evidence.
"Animals have analogous structures," he said.
Animals have similar structures. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise that would allow one to reach that conclusion? He had no answer.
"E. Coli and fruit flies adapt to their environments in the laboratory," he said.
E. Coli and fruit flied adapt to their environments in the laboratory. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise? No answer. (This is besides the fact that, after all their adaptations, e. Coli are still bacteria and fruit flies are still flies.)
"Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs," he said.
Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs. Therefore, tetrapods that walk on land are descended from fish. Major premise? None. (This is besides the fact that there are four-limbed fish swimming around to this day: they use their limbs to push themselves off the bottom of the sea or swamp.)
This is not logic, it is superstition. ("I wore this sweaty cap three saves in a row," thinks the closer, "so wearing a sweaty cap will help me get the next save.)
Now how might someone, using reason and experience, use the example of homologous structures to reach a different conclusion?
1. In the case of works of art and music, similarities in structure usually indicate a common author.
2. Animals have similarities in structure.
3. Therefore, animals probably have a common author--namely, God.
How about fruit flies and e. Coli?
1. An intelligent Creator would create animals capable of adapting to their environments.
2. Fruit flies and e. Coli adapt to their environments in a laboratory.
3. Therefore, fruit flies and e. Coli probably were probably created by an intelligent Creator.
These are not definitive proofs, but at least they make use of actual observations and take the form of a logical series of statements. That is more than can be said for the ideas of evolutionists, at least in the way that I have seen them presented.
Until someone can do better, I'll need to assume that the theory of evolution is unsupported either by reason or experience.
1. All men are mortal. (This is known as the major premise.)
2. Socrates is a man. (This is known as the minor premise)
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (This is the conclusion)
It is a beautiful thing when scientists use reason and experience to reach a conclusion in this way. For example:
1. Spectral lines shift to red when objects are moving away from us.
2. The spectral lines of most objects in the universe shift to red.
3. Therefore, the universe is probably expanding.
Unfortunately, I do not see people who believe in evolution reasoning in this way.
I recently spoke with the husband of a colleague of mine, an engineer. I mentioned to him my desire to hear a reasonable explanation of evolution, using scientific evidence.
"Animals have analogous structures," he said.
Animals have similar structures. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise that would allow one to reach that conclusion? He had no answer.
"E. Coli and fruit flies adapt to their environments in the laboratory," he said.
E. Coli and fruit flied adapt to their environments in the laboratory. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise? No answer. (This is besides the fact that, after all their adaptations, e. Coli are still bacteria and fruit flies are still flies.)
"Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs," he said.
Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs. Therefore, tetrapods that walk on land are descended from fish. Major premise? None. (This is besides the fact that there are four-limbed fish swimming around to this day: they use their limbs to push themselves off the bottom of the sea or swamp.)
This is not logic, it is superstition. ("I wore this sweaty cap three saves in a row," thinks the closer, "so wearing a sweaty cap will help me get the next save.)
Now how might someone, using reason and experience, use the example of homologous structures to reach a different conclusion?
1. In the case of works of art and music, similarities in structure usually indicate a common author.
2. Animals have similarities in structure.
3. Therefore, animals probably have a common author--namely, God.
How about fruit flies and e. Coli?
1. An intelligent Creator would create animals capable of adapting to their environments.
2. Fruit flies and e. Coli adapt to their environments in a laboratory.
3. Therefore, fruit flies and e. Coli probably were probably created by an intelligent Creator.
These are not definitive proofs, but at least they make use of actual observations and take the form of a logical series of statements. That is more than can be said for the ideas of evolutionists, at least in the way that I have seen them presented.
Until someone can do better, I'll need to assume that the theory of evolution is unsupported either by reason or experience.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A Plea to Social Conservatives
Social conservatives need to stop focusing on social issues and start focusing on constitutional issues. This is not because the social issues are not important. It is because all the social issues that conservatives care about have become constitutional issues. So if social conservatives wish to prevail, they will need to master the constitutional issues first. At the risk of repeating what some may already know, I will first define how the constitution applies to these social issues and then propose a way of advancing toward the goal of a legal arrangment that reflects conservative moral values.
To begin, let us define what a constitution is. In addition to establishing a government, a constitution sets limits on the powers of that government. The capacity of government to harm the citizens it was designed to protect is the essential underlying assumption of the American system of government and the necessity of constitutionally limited government follows from that. The U.S. Constitution primarily sets limits on the power of the Federal government, but in a few places it places limits on the State governments as well. For our purposes, it is the limits on the State governments that concern us and, in particular, the limits that the Fourteenth Amendment places on the State governments. As we will see, the legal status of every social issue that is of concern to social conservatives has to do with Supreme Court rulings based on this amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three amendments ratified within five years of the end of the civil war and, like the other two, was designed to address problems arising from the end of that war. In particular, all three were designed to address problems having to do with the rights of the African-Americans who had until recently been enslaved. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) required States to protect the person and property of the newly freed slaves, and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to African-American men. Because the Fourteenth Amendment is so critical to our discussion, it will be necessary to consider it at some length, in order to place its meaning beyond any doubt.
The Republican Party held a majority in Congress at the end of the civil war and many Republicans were greatly concerned about the safety and well-being of the newly freed slaves in the southern states. The congressional debates in early 1866 are full of of this time are full of details gathered by the U.S. military as to the condition of the freedmen. A congressional committee also began to gather testimony to provide a basis for appropriate legislation. The testimony is full of stories documenting the vulnerable condition of the freedmen. In Louisiana, for example, they were not permitted to own land. If an employer refused to pay them, they had no recourse because they could not make contracts and were unable to sue. In Virginia, the courts refused to punish whites who committed violence against blacks. In many states, black men received harsher punishments for crimes than whites. Many Republicans in Congress were concerned that the abolition of slavery would be of no benefit to the freedmen unless this situation was addressed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed in March 1866, is the remedy that Congress provided for the freedmen. As this act has a direct bearing on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it will be useful to quote the relevant part of this act in full:
To begin, let us define what a constitution is. In addition to establishing a government, a constitution sets limits on the powers of that government. The capacity of government to harm the citizens it was designed to protect is the essential underlying assumption of the American system of government and the necessity of constitutionally limited government follows from that. The U.S. Constitution primarily sets limits on the power of the Federal government, but in a few places it places limits on the State governments as well. For our purposes, it is the limits on the State governments that concern us and, in particular, the limits that the Fourteenth Amendment places on the State governments. As we will see, the legal status of every social issue that is of concern to social conservatives has to do with Supreme Court rulings based on this amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three amendments ratified within five years of the end of the civil war and, like the other two, was designed to address problems arising from the end of that war. In particular, all three were designed to address problems having to do with the rights of the African-Americans who had until recently been enslaved. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) required States to protect the person and property of the newly freed slaves, and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to African-American men. Because the Fourteenth Amendment is so critical to our discussion, it will be necessary to consider it at some length, in order to place its meaning beyond any doubt.
The Republican Party held a majority in Congress at the end of the civil war and many Republicans were greatly concerned about the safety and well-being of the newly freed slaves in the southern states. The congressional debates in early 1866 are full of of this time are full of details gathered by the U.S. military as to the condition of the freedmen. A congressional committee also began to gather testimony to provide a basis for appropriate legislation. The testimony is full of stories documenting the vulnerable condition of the freedmen. In Louisiana, for example, they were not permitted to own land. If an employer refused to pay them, they had no recourse because they could not make contracts and were unable to sue. In Virginia, the courts refused to punish whites who committed violence against blacks. In many states, black men received harsher punishments for crimes than whites. Many Republicans in Congress were concerned that the abolition of slavery would be of no benefit to the freedmen unless this situation was addressed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed in March 1866, is the remedy that Congress provided for the freedmen. As this act has a direct bearing on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it will be useful to quote the relevant part of this act in full:
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Difficulty of Knowing Cause and Effect in the Past and Future
"If, for example," I said, "there is a small child who throws a ball up in the air and is struck in the head. On the next day, if he throws the ball into the air again, his mother might say to him, 'Son, do you remember what happened to you yesterday when you threw the ball into the air? It struck you in the head.' Now, will the child be able to remember what happened the day before and avoid it in the present?"
"Perhaps not, if it is a very small child," he said.
"But if the child is old enough, then he will?"
"Yes," he said.
"Isn't that because it is not too difficult to be able to remember what happened in the past and apply it to the present time" I asked.
"Yes," he said, "that is the reason."
"But what about the future If a boy threw a ball into the air yesterday and it hit him in the head, will it do the same thing a year from now and the year after?"
"I suppose it will," he said.
"Are you as certain of that as you were about the present, that what happened yesterday will happen today as well?" I asked.
"No," he said, "I am not as certain."
"Neither am I," I said. "Perhaps this is because we are accustomed to applying what happened in the past to the present moment, but we are not as used to applying what happened in the past to what will happen in the future."
"Perhaps," he said.
"What, then, about the past?" I asked. "If the boy threw a ball up in the air yesterday and it struck him in the head, would it have done the same thing a year ago and the year before that?"
"I suppose it would have," he said.
"Of which are you more certain, that it would have done so in the past, or in the future?"
"Perhaps not, if it is a very small child," he said.
"But if the child is old enough, then he will?"
"Yes," he said.
"Isn't that because it is not too difficult to be able to remember what happened in the past and apply it to the present time" I asked.
"Yes," he said, "that is the reason."
"But what about the future If a boy threw a ball into the air yesterday and it hit him in the head, will it do the same thing a year from now and the year after?"
"I suppose it will," he said.
"Are you as certain of that as you were about the present, that what happened yesterday will happen today as well?" I asked.
"No," he said, "I am not as certain."
"Neither am I," I said. "Perhaps this is because we are accustomed to applying what happened in the past to the present moment, but we are not as used to applying what happened in the past to what will happen in the future."
"Perhaps," he said.
"What, then, about the past?" I asked. "If the boy threw a ball up in the air yesterday and it struck him in the head, would it have done the same thing a year ago and the year before that?"
"I suppose it would have," he said.
"Of which are you more certain, that it would have done so in the past, or in the future?"
Thursday, September 4, 2008
In Response to Ortberg
A response to "John Ortberg on Religion AND Politics: Why the human race needs an administration of another kind."
In a recent article on "Religion AND Politics," John Ortberg would persuade Christians that we should "vote, be educated, be involved," yet be careful not to take politics too seriously, because politics does not have the power to bring about the "perfection" that is the deepest desire of the human heart. Christians, he says, should also take care not to apply simplistic ideas about right and wrong to politics and, above all, should not presume to think that God favors one political party over another. In saying these things, I would suggest that Ortberg fails to understand the purpose of politics, the value of liberty, and the role that God requires Christians to play in a political system such as ours.
In the first place, the purpose of politics is not to bring about perfection, but simply to make it possible for human beings to live in peace, without being harmed by others or by their own government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, the reason why "Governments are instituted among men" is to secure "certain unalienable Rights" with which we have been endowed by our Creator. By establishing laws that protect people and by punishing those who harm them, government prevents something that God hates (the misery that wicked human beings would otherwise bring upon their fellow men) and makes possible something that God loves (our enjoyment of the world that He has created).
The Apostle Paul ascribes the same purpose to government. In his letter to the Romans, Paul describes a ruler as "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (13:4). In "executing wrath," the ruler fulfils the demands of justice and also discourages others from doing harm. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul urges Timothy and his flock to pray "for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence" (1 Timothy 2:2). In this request, Paul acknowledges that it is government that makes it possible for human beings to live out their lives in peace and, in the case of Christians, to live out their lives in a way that is pleasing to God. If governments, as Paul says, are "appointed by God" and a ruler is "God's minister," then Ortberg is wrong to belittle their importance just because they fail to achieve a purpose that God never intended for them.
Yet there is another reason why Christians in the United States need to take politics seriously. In a free society such as ours, Christians share in the exercise of the powers of government and so we ourselves are God's ministers. In the words of the First Continental Congress, “The first grand right, is that of the people having a share in their own government by their representatives chosen by themselves." If, as Paul says, "there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God," then as Americans each one of us is appointed by God to share in the responsibility of government. By our participation in the political process, we do our part to make sure that government fulfils the purpose for which God ordained it. We also do our part to make sure that government itself does not violate the God-given rights that it was established to defend.
Ortberg is also wrong when he suggests that God does not favor any political party. In trying to prove this, Ortberg quotes a passage from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, in which Lincoln observes that the people of the North and the South read the same Bible and pray to the same God. Yet he leaves out the next sentence, in which Lincoln makes it clear that there is little doubt whose side God is on when it comes to the wicked institution of slavery: "If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?" God does take sides in politics: He is on the side of those who want government to secure the rights that He has given to human beings and He is opposed to those who would have government violate those rights. It is not so much that God favors a particular political party; it is that God stands for certain principles and favors the political party that promotes the principles that He Himself approves.
So how does this apply to American politics and the political disagreements of our day? To answer this question, we will need to consider a brief definition of liberty.
The idea of liberty begins with the "self-evident" (and Biblical) truth that God gives all men the three basic rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property--or, in the words of the U.S. Constitution, life, liberty, and property. (In the context of this sacred triangle of rights, the word "liberty" is defined as freedom from physical restraint--that is, not being a slave or being wrongly imprisoned without due process of law.)
This leads to the first requirement of liberty, which is to live under a government that protects the rights of person and property. "Liberty," says Locke, "is to be free from restraint and violence from others." This part of liberty would include the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect the American people from those who would harm us as well as the responsibility of State governments to protect the lives of the unborn.
It leads also to the second requirement of liberty--that of living under a government that does not itself violate the rights of person and property. In the words of James Madison, "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." This part of liberty would require, among other things, that government refrain from taking the property of a few members of society and giving it to the rest--whether in the form of gas rebates or medical care. “The invasion of private rights," says Madison, "is chiefly to be apprehended...from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.”
The third requirement of liberty is that of having a large area of personal choice without interference from government. "Civil liberty," as William Blackstone defines it, requires that people refrain from harming others in their person and property, but otherwise "leaves the subject entire master of his own conduct, except in those points wherein the public good requires some direction or restraint." This part of liberty is not, however, a license to do as we please. As Justice Field explains in the Slaughterhouse Cases, "the police power of the State...extends to all regulations affecting the health, good order, morals, peace, and safety of society." Personal liberties do not, therefore, include a personal choice to take the life of an unborn child, engage in sexual behavior that typically leads to health epidemics, or attend a public high school football game without hearing someone pray--recent Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.
The fourth requirement of liberty is self-government--that is, having input into the laws under which we live through our representatives in a legislature. This right serves two purposes. In the first place, it protects us from our own government. "Security [for our lives and property]," explains Alexander Hamilton, "can never exist, while we have no part in making the laws, that are to bind us." This right also makes it possible for local communities to live under laws that reflect their own values and judgments. The principle of federalism leaves a large area of authority in the hands of the State governments and provides many opportunities for the people of the several States to live under the laws that seem best to them. As Samuel Adams observed, in a country as large and diverse as the United States, the people "under one consolidated Governmt. can not long remain free, or indeed under any Kind of Governmt. but Despotism." This means that liberty requires that the Federal government stay within its limited jurisdiction, as defined by Article I.8 of the U.S. Constitution, and also requires that the U.S. Supreme Court stop usurping authority that the U.S. Constitution leaves in the hands of the State governments.
The fifth requirement of liberty is constitutionally limited government. The right to a constitutionally limited government is an additional barrier protecting us from our own government. In the words of the Representatives of Berkshire County, "the fundamental Constitution is the basis... of legislation...circumscribing and defining the powers of the rulers, and so affoarding a sacred barrier against tyranny and despotism.” This part of liberty requires that the U.S. Supreme Court understand the U.S. Constitution not as a "living document," but in the same sense in which the people understood it when they ratified it. If the Federal government can redefine its own limits simply by giving new meanings to words, then the Constitution, as Jefferson says, becomes a "blank paper" and the power of the Federal government becomes "boundless." This means, among other things, that the U.S. Supreme Court must stop re-defining the 14th Amendment in such a way as to give itself power over decisions concerning abortion, homosexuality, and the role of religion in a free society--all issues that the U.S. Constitution reserves to the several States.
The sixth requirement of liberty is having a large area of personal responsibility without help from government. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville describes a form of despotism in which government does not harm people, but rather takes care of them. Government "provides for their security, anticipates and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, [and] manages their most important affairs," but the people end up in "slavery" and "gradually fall below the level of humanity." In a free society, government supports the widow and the orphan, but does not otherwise support able-bodied adults who simply choose not to work, nor does it enable people to continue to live irresponsibly without suffering any consequences.
The seventh and final requirement of liberty is independence, or not being ruled by foreigners. In 1776, it became necessary for Americans to throw off the rule of Great Britain and assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The reason why independence is so crucial is that other countries do not have our best interests at heart and our person and property will be in danger so long as they continue to rule us. Now that we have gained our independence, this part of liberty requires, among other things, that the U.S. and not countries like Russia, China, and France must decide what the U.S. needs to do in the defense of its own citizens. It also requires that U.S. judges make decisions based on the American legal tradition, rather than adopting European standards of right and wrong.
The two parties in the United States take nearly opposite positions on each one of these parts of liberty. In fact, one party seeks to preserve liberty as a goal of American politics and the other has more or less abandoned this goal and seeks to replace it with another. If God, in fact, gives the rights of person and property to human beings, it is hard to understand how He can be indifferent to liberty, which is the only political arrangement that has proven capable of safeguarding these rights. If this is so, then it would seem likely that God would favor the political party that stands for liberty to the extent that it continues to do so.
In a recent article on "Religion AND Politics," John Ortberg would persuade Christians that we should "vote, be educated, be involved," yet be careful not to take politics too seriously, because politics does not have the power to bring about the "perfection" that is the deepest desire of the human heart. Christians, he says, should also take care not to apply simplistic ideas about right and wrong to politics and, above all, should not presume to think that God favors one political party over another. In saying these things, I would suggest that Ortberg fails to understand the purpose of politics, the value of liberty, and the role that God requires Christians to play in a political system such as ours.
In the first place, the purpose of politics is not to bring about perfection, but simply to make it possible for human beings to live in peace, without being harmed by others or by their own government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, the reason why "Governments are instituted among men" is to secure "certain unalienable Rights" with which we have been endowed by our Creator. By establishing laws that protect people and by punishing those who harm them, government prevents something that God hates (the misery that wicked human beings would otherwise bring upon their fellow men) and makes possible something that God loves (our enjoyment of the world that He has created).
The Apostle Paul ascribes the same purpose to government. In his letter to the Romans, Paul describes a ruler as "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (13:4). In "executing wrath," the ruler fulfils the demands of justice and also discourages others from doing harm. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul urges Timothy and his flock to pray "for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence" (1 Timothy 2:2). In this request, Paul acknowledges that it is government that makes it possible for human beings to live out their lives in peace and, in the case of Christians, to live out their lives in a way that is pleasing to God. If governments, as Paul says, are "appointed by God" and a ruler is "God's minister," then Ortberg is wrong to belittle their importance just because they fail to achieve a purpose that God never intended for them.
Yet there is another reason why Christians in the United States need to take politics seriously. In a free society such as ours, Christians share in the exercise of the powers of government and so we ourselves are God's ministers. In the words of the First Continental Congress, “The first grand right, is that of the people having a share in their own government by their representatives chosen by themselves." If, as Paul says, "there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God," then as Americans each one of us is appointed by God to share in the responsibility of government. By our participation in the political process, we do our part to make sure that government fulfils the purpose for which God ordained it. We also do our part to make sure that government itself does not violate the God-given rights that it was established to defend.
Ortberg is also wrong when he suggests that God does not favor any political party. In trying to prove this, Ortberg quotes a passage from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, in which Lincoln observes that the people of the North and the South read the same Bible and pray to the same God. Yet he leaves out the next sentence, in which Lincoln makes it clear that there is little doubt whose side God is on when it comes to the wicked institution of slavery: "If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?" God does take sides in politics: He is on the side of those who want government to secure the rights that He has given to human beings and He is opposed to those who would have government violate those rights. It is not so much that God favors a particular political party; it is that God stands for certain principles and favors the political party that promotes the principles that He Himself approves.
So how does this apply to American politics and the political disagreements of our day? To answer this question, we will need to consider a brief definition of liberty.
The idea of liberty begins with the "self-evident" (and Biblical) truth that God gives all men the three basic rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property--or, in the words of the U.S. Constitution, life, liberty, and property. (In the context of this sacred triangle of rights, the word "liberty" is defined as freedom from physical restraint--that is, not being a slave or being wrongly imprisoned without due process of law.)
This leads to the first requirement of liberty, which is to live under a government that protects the rights of person and property. "Liberty," says Locke, "is to be free from restraint and violence from others." This part of liberty would include the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect the American people from those who would harm us as well as the responsibility of State governments to protect the lives of the unborn.
It leads also to the second requirement of liberty--that of living under a government that does not itself violate the rights of person and property. In the words of James Madison, "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." This part of liberty would require, among other things, that government refrain from taking the property of a few members of society and giving it to the rest--whether in the form of gas rebates or medical care. “The invasion of private rights," says Madison, "is chiefly to be apprehended...from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.”
The third requirement of liberty is that of having a large area of personal choice without interference from government. "Civil liberty," as William Blackstone defines it, requires that people refrain from harming others in their person and property, but otherwise "leaves the subject entire master of his own conduct, except in those points wherein the public good requires some direction or restraint." This part of liberty is not, however, a license to do as we please. As Justice Field explains in the Slaughterhouse Cases, "the police power of the State...extends to all regulations affecting the health, good order, morals, peace, and safety of society." Personal liberties do not, therefore, include a personal choice to take the life of an unborn child, engage in sexual behavior that typically leads to health epidemics, or attend a public high school football game without hearing someone pray--recent Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.
The fourth requirement of liberty is self-government--that is, having input into the laws under which we live through our representatives in a legislature. This right serves two purposes. In the first place, it protects us from our own government. "Security [for our lives and property]," explains Alexander Hamilton, "can never exist, while we have no part in making the laws, that are to bind us." This right also makes it possible for local communities to live under laws that reflect their own values and judgments. The principle of federalism leaves a large area of authority in the hands of the State governments and provides many opportunities for the people of the several States to live under the laws that seem best to them. As Samuel Adams observed, in a country as large and diverse as the United States, the people "under one consolidated Governmt. can not long remain free, or indeed under any Kind of Governmt. but Despotism." This means that liberty requires that the Federal government stay within its limited jurisdiction, as defined by Article I.8 of the U.S. Constitution, and also requires that the U.S. Supreme Court stop usurping authority that the U.S. Constitution leaves in the hands of the State governments.
The fifth requirement of liberty is constitutionally limited government. The right to a constitutionally limited government is an additional barrier protecting us from our own government. In the words of the Representatives of Berkshire County, "the fundamental Constitution is the basis... of legislation...circumscribing and defining the powers of the rulers, and so affoarding a sacred barrier against tyranny and despotism.” This part of liberty requires that the U.S. Supreme Court understand the U.S. Constitution not as a "living document," but in the same sense in which the people understood it when they ratified it. If the Federal government can redefine its own limits simply by giving new meanings to words, then the Constitution, as Jefferson says, becomes a "blank paper" and the power of the Federal government becomes "boundless." This means, among other things, that the U.S. Supreme Court must stop re-defining the 14th Amendment in such a way as to give itself power over decisions concerning abortion, homosexuality, and the role of religion in a free society--all issues that the U.S. Constitution reserves to the several States.
The sixth requirement of liberty is having a large area of personal responsibility without help from government. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville describes a form of despotism in which government does not harm people, but rather takes care of them. Government "provides for their security, anticipates and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, [and] manages their most important affairs," but the people end up in "slavery" and "gradually fall below the level of humanity." In a free society, government supports the widow and the orphan, but does not otherwise support able-bodied adults who simply choose not to work, nor does it enable people to continue to live irresponsibly without suffering any consequences.
The seventh and final requirement of liberty is independence, or not being ruled by foreigners. In 1776, it became necessary for Americans to throw off the rule of Great Britain and assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The reason why independence is so crucial is that other countries do not have our best interests at heart and our person and property will be in danger so long as they continue to rule us. Now that we have gained our independence, this part of liberty requires, among other things, that the U.S. and not countries like Russia, China, and France must decide what the U.S. needs to do in the defense of its own citizens. It also requires that U.S. judges make decisions based on the American legal tradition, rather than adopting European standards of right and wrong.
The two parties in the United States take nearly opposite positions on each one of these parts of liberty. In fact, one party seeks to preserve liberty as a goal of American politics and the other has more or less abandoned this goal and seeks to replace it with another. If God, in fact, gives the rights of person and property to human beings, it is hard to understand how He can be indifferent to liberty, which is the only political arrangement that has proven capable of safeguarding these rights. If this is so, then it would seem likely that God would favor the political party that stands for liberty to the extent that it continues to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
