A few hundred years into the Christian era, the merger of the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church blurred the lines between church and state; it corrupted both, injured one and killed the other. Thomas Jefferson didn’t have to be genius to figure this one out; he just needed to be moderately well-read.
The consequence of secularizing the Church while sanctifying the State back in those three-digit years plunged the world into a millennium of misery, ignorance, and oppression – the Dark Ages. I often wonder how far advanced our medical technologies would be today if we had not hit the pause button on science for a thousand years. The medical miracles of 3012 would have been with us today – just think about that for a moment. How sad.
The Church/state monopoly on authority was broken in 1517 when Martin Luther’s theological differences with the Roman Catholic Church caused him to leave it. He did not lobby the State to force the Church to conform to his beliefs, he simply confessed his own faith and left it to individual conscience and belief to follow him or not. Was Luther the first libertarian? Perhaps – his notion of Free Will is indistinguishable from our idea of Volition, save for Divine authorship.
Luther’s protest in Wittenberg ignited the Protestant Reformation, which introduced choice and competition to the practice of faith, revolutionized Western thought, and lifted the world out of the Dark Ages. As it turns out, choice and competition even makes religion better, although my Roman Catholic friends may not agree with me on that.
The Protestants gave us our modern understandings of free will, work ethic, commerce, equal individual rights, and self-evident truths. They also gave us universal literacy, accessible books, the industrial revolution, democracy, private property, private charity, the abolitionist movement, and this great nation we all love.
And this great nation’s first important contribution to the development of civilization was the separation of church and state, the thing that allowed all other freedoms to flourish. Freedom of religion - specifically freedom from government regulation of religion - is the very reason our nation exists. The Pilgrims did not come here for the benefits; they came to free their religion from their state.
The wisdom of separating church and state seems obvious - government is a collective enterprise, while salvation is a personal relationship. The need for both church and state seems obvious too; one without the other has proven to be extremely hazardous to humans.
In the last century, the communists thought religion to be the “opiate of the masses” and banned religious practice outright when they seized power. Wherever it was practiced, atheistic communism imposed localized Dark Ages upon its own people before it started killing them by the millions.
At the other extreme, theocracies like the Iranian clerics and the Taliban banned secular government when they seized power, and the oppression they delivered in the name of God was every bit as harsh as that meted out by the communists who denied His existence.
Humans thrive when secular authority and spiritual authority both exist but are separated from each other; render under Caesar and all that. The President’s decision to regulate the Catholic Church, no matter what other words he uses to disguise his intent, ignores the lessons of history and imperils our liberties unnecessarily. The dispute over contraceptive “rights” is a contrivance intended to divert attention from the Constitutional challenge he has (again) laid down.
Libertarians are purists who believe in complete freedom of choice and complete responsibility for the consequences of those choices. Conservatives balk at the former and liberals gasp at the latter; that’s how you can tell us all apart. We are also purists when it comes to Constitutional constraints and the separation of powers that keeps us free.
We don’t apologize for those “extreme” positions. The big lie of the progressive century is that group entitlements and group consequences have made us a better people than we were when we were individually free and personally responsible – i.e. when the libertarian dinosaurs still roamed the nation in large herds.
We are not better; we are less giving, we are more violent, we are less tolerant, we are less educated, and are weaker of mind and lower of character. We have denied spiritual truth and then demanded government fill the void we created for ourselves. Our attempts to sanctify the state have only proven that righteousness cannot be legislated and that government is an inadequate substitute for virtue.
It is consequence - not law - that moderates the human appetite for self-destructive excess. Socializing consequence invites destructive choices, whether personal, economic, moral, or political. If I could force you to share my bar tabs, I would probably still be drinking; if I could force you to share my hangovers, I know I would.
I’m not a Catholic, so it is not my place to tell Catholics what to believe, how to practice their faith, or how to run their charitable institutions. That is the difference between libertarians and liberals – we lack that gene that incites random acts of tyranny passed off as humanitarian do-goodery by people who coo and purr and admire themselves for telling someone else what to do.
But I am a citizen, so it is my place to tell my elected representatives to back off. Government has no authority to regulate church teachings or practice; it is the only duty of government to uphold the Constitution and defend our individual rights. Fix a bridge and go lay by your dish…and leave those Catholics alone.
There are over 600 identified religions, denominations, and sects in this country; the U.S. Government is not one of them. If the Catholics want President Obama to be their Pope and tell them how to run their schools and hospitals, they know where to find him. And he should be available to report for work in less than a year.
But in those few months that he has left, the President should stick to running the government and let the Pope run his Church. And leave the rest of us out of it.
“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. Visit Tim’s website www.timnerenz.com to find your moment and order Tim’s new book, “BRING IT!”
The consequence of secularizing the Church while sanctifying the State back in those three-digit years plunged the world into a millennium of misery, ignorance, and oppression – the Dark Ages. I often wonder how far advanced our medical technologies would be today if we had not hit the pause button on science for a thousand years. The medical miracles of 3012 would have been with us today – just think about that for a moment. How sad.
The Church/state monopoly on authority was broken in 1517 when Martin Luther’s theological differences with the Roman Catholic Church caused him to leave it. He did not lobby the State to force the Church to conform to his beliefs, he simply confessed his own faith and left it to individual conscience and belief to follow him or not. Was Luther the first libertarian? Perhaps – his notion of Free Will is indistinguishable from our idea of Volition, save for Divine authorship.
Luther’s protest in Wittenberg ignited the Protestant Reformation, which introduced choice and competition to the practice of faith, revolutionized Western thought, and lifted the world out of the Dark Ages. As it turns out, choice and competition even makes religion better, although my Roman Catholic friends may not agree with me on that.
The Protestants gave us our modern understandings of free will, work ethic, commerce, equal individual rights, and self-evident truths. They also gave us universal literacy, accessible books, the industrial revolution, democracy, private property, private charity, the abolitionist movement, and this great nation we all love.
And this great nation’s first important contribution to the development of civilization was the separation of church and state, the thing that allowed all other freedoms to flourish. Freedom of religion - specifically freedom from government regulation of religion - is the very reason our nation exists. The Pilgrims did not come here for the benefits; they came to free their religion from their state.
The wisdom of separating church and state seems obvious - government is a collective enterprise, while salvation is a personal relationship. The need for both church and state seems obvious too; one without the other has proven to be extremely hazardous to humans.
In the last century, the communists thought religion to be the “opiate of the masses” and banned religious practice outright when they seized power. Wherever it was practiced, atheistic communism imposed localized Dark Ages upon its own people before it started killing them by the millions.
At the other extreme, theocracies like the Iranian clerics and the Taliban banned secular government when they seized power, and the oppression they delivered in the name of God was every bit as harsh as that meted out by the communists who denied His existence.
Humans thrive when secular authority and spiritual authority both exist but are separated from each other; render under Caesar and all that. The President’s decision to regulate the Catholic Church, no matter what other words he uses to disguise his intent, ignores the lessons of history and imperils our liberties unnecessarily. The dispute over contraceptive “rights” is a contrivance intended to divert attention from the Constitutional challenge he has (again) laid down.
Libertarians are purists who believe in complete freedom of choice and complete responsibility for the consequences of those choices. Conservatives balk at the former and liberals gasp at the latter; that’s how you can tell us all apart. We are also purists when it comes to Constitutional constraints and the separation of powers that keeps us free.
We don’t apologize for those “extreme” positions. The big lie of the progressive century is that group entitlements and group consequences have made us a better people than we were when we were individually free and personally responsible – i.e. when the libertarian dinosaurs still roamed the nation in large herds.
We are not better; we are less giving, we are more violent, we are less tolerant, we are less educated, and are weaker of mind and lower of character. We have denied spiritual truth and then demanded government fill the void we created for ourselves. Our attempts to sanctify the state have only proven that righteousness cannot be legislated and that government is an inadequate substitute for virtue.
It is consequence - not law - that moderates the human appetite for self-destructive excess. Socializing consequence invites destructive choices, whether personal, economic, moral, or political. If I could force you to share my bar tabs, I would probably still be drinking; if I could force you to share my hangovers, I know I would.
I’m not a Catholic, so it is not my place to tell Catholics what to believe, how to practice their faith, or how to run their charitable institutions. That is the difference between libertarians and liberals – we lack that gene that incites random acts of tyranny passed off as humanitarian do-goodery by people who coo and purr and admire themselves for telling someone else what to do.
But I am a citizen, so it is my place to tell my elected representatives to back off. Government has no authority to regulate church teachings or practice; it is the only duty of government to uphold the Constitution and defend our individual rights. Fix a bridge and go lay by your dish…and leave those Catholics alone.
There are over 600 identified religions, denominations, and sects in this country; the U.S. Government is not one of them. If the Catholics want President Obama to be their Pope and tell them how to run their schools and hospitals, they know where to find him. And he should be available to report for work in less than a year.
But in those few months that he has left, the President should stick to running the government and let the Pope run his Church. And leave the rest of us out of it.
“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. Visit Tim’s website www.timnerenz.com to find your moment and order Tim’s new book, “BRING IT!”
One of your best Dr Tim.
ReplyDeleteHave I ever told you how much I love your posts? Well, I do!
ReplyDeleteSpot on, my good man!! Thank you! ~g~
ReplyDeleteAnother great post Tim.
ReplyDeletejefferson's comments on "seperation of church and state" meant that the government was not to endorse any certain religion. (protestant-catholic;methodist. it doesnt mean that the government should be devoid of religion. this is NOT in the constitution but a reflection on it by jefferson.
ReplyDeletejefferson's comments on "seperation of church and state" meant that the government was not to endorse any certain religion. (protestant-catholic;methodist. it doesnt mean that the government should be devoid of religion. this is NOT in the constitution but a reflection on it by jefferson.
ReplyDeleteDr. Tim,
ReplyDeleteBrilliant as always. In regards to your comments on the degradation of character in this country I point to a terrific article in The New American. I'm sure you have most likely read it, but for the sake of others I will include the address.
Thanks
http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/9842-moral-relativism-and-the-crisis-of-contemporary-education
@mark - the Constitution forbids the government from regulating religion in two ways. It grants no authority and then expressly forbids interference "congress shall pass no law..." in the first amendment of the bill of rights. Jefferson provided clarification in his letter, which has been misrepresented by anti-theists and atheists to "ban" religion in theublic square. As you point out, he merely affirmed that the state could not designate an official religion.
ReplyDeleteI'm a conservative with libertarian leanings, and I very much enjoy your weekly posts. But I question your assertion that "we are less giving, we are more violent, we are less tolerant, we less educated..."
ReplyDeleteLook at American life in the 18th and 19th centuries. Racism was practically - if not technically - institutionalized, most people were illiterate or uneducated, and violence, while different in form from that of today, was unquestionably present. Things like public school funding make it hard for me to become a full libertarian purist. Help me understand your point of view.
Love your blogs Tim.
ReplyDelete"we less educated", if that line was on purpose it's hilarious, if not then it's even funnier :)
@max - a weasel would say it was on purpose, and I was tempted, but it was a doof goof. I told ya we less educated.
ReplyDelete@norightbranleft. tribal and racial slavery has been practiced since the earliest days of human history. It was the Americans who eradicated it; banned it in the North in the 18th, and ultimately fought the civil war in the 19th centuries over it. to my larger point, it was churches who confronted government to end slavery and later jim crow; government did not reform itself willingly. It is my understanding that inner city crime rates are orders of magnitude higher today than in the 19th century - our incarceration rates are the highest in the world. Our public schools are declining, measured against world test scores. On many issues, conservatives and libertarians agree on trajectory and differ over degree. On the key question of liberty or government, we are on the same side. All the best. Tim
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comments about separation of church and state, but think you miss the mark in accusing the government of intruding on religious turf. Arguments for a "religious employer" exemption have gone from wrong to ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteQuestions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have occasionally confronted such issues and have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, fraud, negligence, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them.
When the application of laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace, add provisions to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors.
The real question here then is not whether the First Amendment precludes the government from enforcing generally applicable laws regarding health insurance (it does not), but rather whether there is any need to exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences.
Those demanding such an exemption initially worked themselves into a lather with the false claim that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers' religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law's requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs.
Some nonetheless continued clamoring for an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments they would be paying for things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma akin to being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to most taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.
In any event, those wanting an exemption put up enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required. Problem solved–again, even more.
Nonetheless, some continue to complain. They fret that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They counter what they call the government’s “accounting gimmick” with one of their own: the “Catholic dollar.” These dollars remain true to an employer’s religious beliefs, it seems, even after paid by the employer to others, e.g., insurers or employees, in that they can be used only for things the religious employer would approve.
I wonder what they would think of their tag-the-dollar theory if they realized that I have loosed some of my “atheist dollars” into society and they have some in their wallets. Those dollars can be used only for ungodly purposes, lest I suffer the indignity of paying for things I disbelieve.
@Doug. Your argument does make sense. However, most (all?) widespread recognized and respected religions do not establish nor condone values and practices not popular to the general consensus. Nor do they condone the constitution. Knowing that, there is no reason or excuse for government to be tiptoeing within a mile of religious teachings to even spark the argument in the first place.
ReplyDeleteCouple quick points:
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther never left the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church provided and supported the infrastructure of Western Civilisation when and where civil institutions where weak or broken down due to wars and various other disasters because it was always a source of at least somewhat literate and educated people to sustain those institutions.
That said, I enjoyed the piece!