who's your nanny?

All Christians Have the Right to Force People to Live as Christians Wish

That is what I infer from Rick Santorum's latest comments on the separation of church and state:

On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum whether he stood by his statement last year, noting that Santorum’s rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), delivered an address on religion during the 2008 campaign that garnered comparisons to Kennedy’s address.

Santorum defended his remarks, telling Stephanopoulos that “the first line, first substantive line in the speech, says, ‘I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.’”

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

He went on to note that the First Amendment “says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square.”

“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”

Later in the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Santorum, “You think you wanted to throw up?”

“Well, yes, absolutely,” Santorum replied. “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

The quote that makes me want to throw up is this one: “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.” I realize that most people do not see the State as a criminal institution. However, most do realize that the State uses violence to compel its subjects to follow its edicts. Santorum is quite aware of this. He wants to pass laws influenced by the tenets of his faith to force everyone, Christian and non-Christian, Catholic and non-Catholic, to live as he wants them to. He thinks that it is unfair for just non-Christians to have access to State power. Christians should be just as corrupt.

Let me clear. I am not arguing that Christians or people of any faith (or no faith) should not bring their opinions to the public square. However, such discussions should take place without the threat of aggression for those who disagree. The Christian should use peaceful means to persuade others to live as he does. The non-Christian should use peaceful means to persuade others to live as he does. However, the democratic State precludes such peaceful means. Instead of peacefully persuading others to live as he wishes while accepting the fact that many will not live as he wishes, the statist Christian aims to persuade enough people to pass a law which will compel everyone to live as the Christian wishes. And it never occurs to the statist Christian that forcing people against their will to live a Christian life is itself unChristian.

It is discouraging that so many Christians are so blinded by democracy that they cannot see the State for what it is. They have convinced themselves that an entity that cannot operate without aggressive violence is part of God's design for humanity. Yet there is nothing I can find in Jesus's actions that would support this belief. Jesus did not send his disciples to beat up the rich man who did not sell his possessions to the poor. Nor did he stone the woman who was caught in adultery. That he did not use violence does not compromise his beliefs. Yet today there are Christians who want to steal from rich people to give to the poor. Some want to arrest people for adultery. Others want to ban pornography. Most favor the drug war. In each of these cases, these Christians want to use the State to force others to live as they wish. My question to these Christians is simple: What would Jesus do?

Pay Your Taxes

The president charges $180,000 an hour to fly around.

Many People Have a Rudimentary Understanding of Liberty, But They Don't Like the Consequences

Thanks to Ron Paul, I'm noticing that many of his critics see through a glass darkly. That is, while they do not have a philosophical understanding of liberty, they can see some of the results that liberty would lead to. Here's an example. Sid Davis writes:

Ron Paul tries to sell the idea that there is one firm definition of the word “liberty.” But liberty for one person is tyranny for another. To understand this conflict, consider an example regarding Paul’s stance against civil rights. Imagine that Libertarianism becomes the law of the land. Once that law is passed it becomes the mandate of the state to enforce it. Let’s say there is a restaurant, and the owner doesn’t want to serve a certain type of person. Let’s say green people. And let’s say the restaurant has a sign that makes this clear. No green people. As a Libertarian, that is now the restaurant owner’s right, and that right is backed by the power of the state.

Now, let’s say a few green people come in and want to eat. The owner tells them no. The green people get all Rosa Parks about it and refuse to leave. The restaurant owner can ron paul tea party libertarianismeither resort to violence, or call the police. And of course, calling the authorities is the logical solution. Libertarianism is the law of the land, remember, and thus is backed by state power. So now we have the spectacle of green people being carted to jail because they’ve broken the law, yes, but also unavoidably because of what they are. We lived that era already. It was called Nazi Germany, or if you prefer a more recent example, Jim Crow, or even more recently, Apartheid. Those did not work out so well, yet while the green people would call that tyranny, the restaurant owner would call it liberty.

Mr. Davis makes a philosophical error in this excerpt. That error is assertion is that libertarianism would be enforced by the State if it became law of the land. Libertarianism is the antithesis of the State. If libertarianism were to become the law of the land, the State would necessarily be abolished. Property rights would still be enforced, but they would not be enforced by a monopoly of violence. Thus, he does not have rigorous understanding of libertarian philosophy.

However, Mr. Davis does understand that a result of liberty is that a restaurant owner would be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason because the restaurant is his private property. The restaurant owner has the right to decide whom he will serve. His decision might offend most people, but this is his property. And this is what really offends many opponents of libertarianism. Many opponents of libertarianism argue from preferences, not principles. A principled argument for property rights recognizes that some people will use their property in ways that the proponent might not like. As a black man, I might be offended that a restaurant owner does not want to serve blacks, but I do not have the right to sit and eat in his establishment. However, our opponents prefer that restaurants owners serve anyone regardless of skin color. If the restaurant owner will not comply with our opponents' preferences, the owner should be forced by the State to do so. It is this freedom that our opponents cannot tolerate.

Liberty in a democratic State will never be achieved while the people living in that State will not tolerate other people's choices. If the people believe that property rights can be abrogated due to race or gender or sexual orientation or age or any reason that simply offends someone somewhere, freedom has no chance. While most people do not have a systematic philosophical view of freedom, they understand enough to see the potential results. And many of them simply do not like what they see.