or "The Government is Supposed to Protect You, Not Provide For You"
The following is a series of rambling thoughts based on ideas discussed in my Social and Political Philosophy class.
For those of you familiar with the Declaration of Independence, you are probably aware of the Lockean influences on the formation of our great nation.
"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 among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
These are perhaps some of the most famous words in the American consciousness. Here, Thomas Jefferson clearly echoes John Locke, who instead names life, liberty, and property. Locke was most definitely in the minds of our Founding Fathers when they were forming our great nation.
Further investigation into Locke reveals what he believes the purpose of government to be, and I do believe that our Founding Fathers shared that same belief.
From Chapter Nine of Locke's Second Treatise of Government, entitled "Of the Ends of Political Society and Government", Locke states that
"The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property".
This requires further understanding of what Locke's definition of property is. While Locke often describes property as distinct from life and liberty, at the same time property also encompasses the both of them. Above and before all else, the first thing that is your property is yourself, your life, and by extension, your labor. It is by mixing your labor with things that you come to own them. This is also known as the "labor theory of property".
This leads to the necessity of liberty. Liberty is defined as "freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, and hampering conditions". Every American is familiar with the idea of liberty. It is, of course, one of the core values upon which American was founded. It is the idea of the American individual, free from the constrains of government, able to do what he wishes and create his own life.
Liberty is what we will call "negative rights", or "rights of non-interference". When the idea of natural rights is discussed, I believe that it is these negative rights that are being spoken of.
In contrast, we have "positive rights", or "rights of being provided with something". As an example, in modern American society, the right to a public education is a positive right. In contrast, the right to not be stopped from acquiring a private education is a negative right.
It is my view that the business of government is, for the most part, to deal with negative, not positive, rights.
In the view of Locke, there are three necessary aspects for a government to exist. These are not subject to a majority opinion, for to infringe upon them would be the remove the ability of a government to achieve its chief end. These three items are an independent and impartial judiciary, a police force to deal with domestic threats to liberty, and a military to deal with foreign threats to the same.
Through these three institutions, a government is able to achieve its chief end, the preservation of the property of its citizens, or, upholding the negative rights of its citizens.
If you will look at the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, you will find that by and large these amendments concern statements of negative rights.
In the early days of our country, or even fifty years ago, these negative rights used to be enough for Americans. We were free to go about and make lives for ourselves, to mix our labor with objects and accumulate our property, and the government was there to make sure these actions were free and protected.
However, not it seems as if these liberties are not enough. These days, it seems that Americans are interested not in being protected, but in being provided for. There are those crying that Americans have a right to health care, a right to housing, and rights to all sorts of things.
And by a right to health care or housing, they do not mean that they have a right not to be interfered with in their pursuit of ownership of these goods. They mean that they have a right to be provided with these things.
Now, should the majority of Americans (or I suppose, the majority of American legislators) decide that the government should provide such a thing to its citizens, then of course the government would be obliged to do so. But such a thing would never be a right in the sense that it is inalienable, like our liberties are.
Our liberties exist to allow us us to follow whatever actions we chose (excepting, of course, when these actions infringe upon the rights of others), and are not given to us at the leisure of the government. They have always been ours, and they always will be.
However, such a "right" as health care is something that is bestowed by the government, and only at the whim of the majority. Should there come such a time when the majority no longer believes it is within the government's responsibility to provide such a benefit, then such a "right" would cease to exist.
Is a right that exists only at the whim of the voting public (or legislators) truly a right? Or is it merely a fleeting benefit, one that can drift away to sea with changing political tides?
Those that stand upon liberties, those inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator, build their house on the solid ground.
Those that stand upon these "rights" to benefits, those that are given as gifts by the government, build their house on sand.
And when the storm comes, which will still stand?
Friday, July 3, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Doug Kmiec on the Colbert Report
Doug Kmiec was on the Colbert Report recently. He was there to get some publicity for his book, entitled "Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama".
I shared Colbert's initial thought, "I assume it's a very short book, and the answer is no". I'm not sure if Colbert really believes that (I pray to the Lord that he does), but Colbert's Catholic authenticity is a question for another time.
The interview focused on the issue of gay marriage, and Kmiec presented his view that government should remove themselves entirely from the business of marriage. His opinion is that marriage is a matter of faith, like baptism and confirmation, and therefore should be handled by religious institutions. In this scenario, the government would no longer provide marriage but instead merely provide the legal/contractual benefits of what we typically call marriage in the form of civil unions, which would be open to all people, and include same-sex couples.
Kmiec states that state has an interest in officially recognizing "some relationships" (marriage) in order to make sure that society is well organized. I agree with him here. However, he goes on to say that the state's interest is just that "property is owned properly, that it's distributed well at death, that people can make decisions for each other in health circumstances".
Colbert correctly jumps in to note that while those are all benefits that come along with marriage, the state's REAL interest in supporting and recognizing marriage is the fact that the union of a man and a woman is the only way in which we can reproduce our society. We can have all the laws making sure that property is passed on correctly at death, but it will do no good if we have no one to pass it on to.
This is where my real issue with those who would seek to compromise with those in favor of gay marriage lies. Many intelligent people with good-intentions see getting the government out of the business of marriage as a good way to give our homosexual brothers and sisters "equality", and still retain our sacred institution of marriage.
Colbert also correctly points out that if all government does is provide contractual and legal unions to couples, then why should they not provide these same benefits to larger groups (for example, polygamous unions)? Many do not see that the same stigma that they have for polygamous unions is akin to the reservations many have about homosexual ones.
Marriage is not a right, it's a vocation. Not all are called to marriage. If the government decided that they were no longer going to provide marriage, to anyone, I would not say that I have had a right taken away from me. However, the government does have many good reasons to recognize and provide incentives for marrying, and I would fight on the basis that I believe they should continue to do so, in the best interest of the nation. The basic family unit, a man, a woman, and their children, is the most basic building block of any successful society. To alter that is to alter the very foundations that civilization rests upon.
The United States is the only Western nation at replacement rate, and just barely. Do we really want to follow the example of Europe, as so many in our country think we should? These are the nations that have lost their history, lost their faith, and are now losing their citizens. I don't think that's a good model for the United States.
So no, I do not believe that government should get out of the business of marriage. I believe the government should continue to be a firm supporter of this sacred and ancient institution, as it was in the past. Only through strong pro-life and pro-family policies can we secure a future for our great nation. To aim for anything less is to aim for national suicide.
I shared Colbert's initial thought, "I assume it's a very short book, and the answer is no". I'm not sure if Colbert really believes that (I pray to the Lord that he does), but Colbert's Catholic authenticity is a question for another time.
The interview focused on the issue of gay marriage, and Kmiec presented his view that government should remove themselves entirely from the business of marriage. His opinion is that marriage is a matter of faith, like baptism and confirmation, and therefore should be handled by religious institutions. In this scenario, the government would no longer provide marriage but instead merely provide the legal/contractual benefits of what we typically call marriage in the form of civil unions, which would be open to all people, and include same-sex couples.
Kmiec states that state has an interest in officially recognizing "some relationships" (marriage) in order to make sure that society is well organized. I agree with him here. However, he goes on to say that the state's interest is just that "property is owned properly, that it's distributed well at death, that people can make decisions for each other in health circumstances".
Colbert correctly jumps in to note that while those are all benefits that come along with marriage, the state's REAL interest in supporting and recognizing marriage is the fact that the union of a man and a woman is the only way in which we can reproduce our society. We can have all the laws making sure that property is passed on correctly at death, but it will do no good if we have no one to pass it on to.
This is where my real issue with those who would seek to compromise with those in favor of gay marriage lies. Many intelligent people with good-intentions see getting the government out of the business of marriage as a good way to give our homosexual brothers and sisters "equality", and still retain our sacred institution of marriage.
Colbert also correctly points out that if all government does is provide contractual and legal unions to couples, then why should they not provide these same benefits to larger groups (for example, polygamous unions)? Many do not see that the same stigma that they have for polygamous unions is akin to the reservations many have about homosexual ones.
Marriage is not a right, it's a vocation. Not all are called to marriage. If the government decided that they were no longer going to provide marriage, to anyone, I would not say that I have had a right taken away from me. However, the government does have many good reasons to recognize and provide incentives for marrying, and I would fight on the basis that I believe they should continue to do so, in the best interest of the nation. The basic family unit, a man, a woman, and their children, is the most basic building block of any successful society. To alter that is to alter the very foundations that civilization rests upon.
The United States is the only Western nation at replacement rate, and just barely. Do we really want to follow the example of Europe, as so many in our country think we should? These are the nations that have lost their history, lost their faith, and are now losing their citizens. I don't think that's a good model for the United States.
So no, I do not believe that government should get out of the business of marriage. I believe the government should continue to be a firm supporter of this sacred and ancient institution, as it was in the past. Only through strong pro-life and pro-family policies can we secure a future for our great nation. To aim for anything less is to aim for national suicide.
It Begins
Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will proclaim your praise.
All Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.
My goal here is for this blog to serve as a place for me, a young lay Catholic, to provide commentary on events that pertain to the Catholics here in America. I don't expect a large (or even small) base of readers, so for the most part I will be merely using this space as a way for me to vent and get my thoughts out into the open.
So, let it begin.
All Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.
My goal here is for this blog to serve as a place for me, a young lay Catholic, to provide commentary on events that pertain to the Catholics here in America. I don't expect a large (or even small) base of readers, so for the most part I will be merely using this space as a way for me to vent and get my thoughts out into the open.
So, let it begin.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Pro-Woman, Pro-Life
Repost from Sunday, January 18, 2009.
In addition to the radio show on Thursday night, I spent my Saturday driving to Columbia for the South Carolina Rally for Life. The rally was an inspirational event and I enjoyed it immensely.
With these two big events in the past couple days, I have been thinking a lot about the pro-life movement (even more so than usual). A number of small moments in these two big events inspired me to write on this topic.
The abortion debate is framed in many ways.
On one side, you have those who like to call themselves pro-choice. They see themselves as the advocates of women and the defenders of the rights of these women. They see those on the opposing side as wanting to oppress these women, to take this right of abortion away. If you aren't pro-choice, you are against women, they say.
On the other side, there are those who are called pro-life. Though they see themselves as the advocates of the unborn children, those who have no voice. They see those on the opposing side as killers. You aren't pro-choice, you are either pro-life or pro-abortion, they say.
So there the debate is framed. Pro-woman vs. Pro-tyranny. Pro-life vs. Pro-abortion. Those on different sides will see each other differently.
I am here to argue that in order to truly be pro-woman, you must also be pro-life.
At the rally on Saturday, we were blessed to have a speaker from Silent No More, an awareness campaign for women who have had abortions. The speaker was a French immigrant who had two abortions. The first came when she was 18 years old and new to college. She ended up pregnant, and everyone around her told her she should abort the child. "You won't be able to finish college if you have a baby", they told her. And so she listened to the only advice she had, and chemically aborted the child. Well, aborting the child didn't help her finish college. After the abortion she was overcome with such feelings of loss, guilt, and severe depression that she was unable to finish her degree. Over the years she ended up becoming pregnant again, and still thinking it her only option, she once again had the child aborted, this time surgically. She said, as she awoke from the procedure with blood on her legs, that once again the horrible depression set upon her, as did thoughts of suicide. Thankfully, she soon found a husband who led her to Christ and showed her that she could live on, and even bring life into this world. She now has a son. Yet she cries daily for the siblings that her son could have had, her children that she never knew.
Many women at the rally carried signs reading simply, "I regret my abortion."
Many pro-choice advocates bring up the issue of rape. "How can you make a woman who suffered rape carry that child? Make them live with a constant reminder of that horrible event in their life?"
To them I reply, "How can you make a woman who suffered rape undergo an abortion? One of the most invasive procedures a woman can undergo, one of the most dangerous...how can you have them go through that?". While abortion can be a damaging physical procedure, its dangers are even more severe when it comes to the emotional trauma which results from abortion. I won't even try to go into the spiritual damage.
To be truly pro-life is to be pro-woman. Not to shun and censure, but to love and educate. Being pro-life is not about shouting down those who are pro-choice, or damning them to hell. We need to ask ourselves not how many women we made feel terrible about themselves, we need to ask what are we doing for these women, and what are we doing for the women still to come?
What are we doing to educate them, to let them know that there are other choices besides killing their child? What are we doing to make adoption a more loving option, to enable women who may not want or be able to support a child to still bring that precious life into this world?
This doesn't mean we need to weaken our resolve. While loving these women, we still need to show them the error of their ways. You cant sugarcoat abortion. The baby didn't just go away, to come back later when the woman decides she is ready to finally welcome him or her. And the baby didn't just simply die. That baby was murdered.
So, while still holding in our hearts the seriousness of abortion, we need to open these same hearts to these women. They need to know that though they may have made dark choices in the past, we are here to shine a light for them to follow. We love these women. It's a tough love, but it's a love that is much more real than the the culture of death offers them.
The culture of death offers them comfort, ease, and can enable irresponsibility. It offers them a false choice, and a tempting one at that. The culture of death tells them that what they have is a mistake, and it is a simple matter to relieve themselves of that mistake. It is not until the aftermath that the culture of death deals its damage to the woman. While a physical death is dealt to the child, it is an emotional and spiritual death dealt to the woman.
The culture of life offers women comfort, but not ease. It offers a chance to take up responsibility. It offers women a true choice, but it is surely a tough one to make. Accepting the responsibility of life is a difficult one, even for those prepared for such a task. But this responsibility is itself a gift.
When women come to realize that the culture of life, offers them true happiness, then our world will find itself in a much better state. Each and every life is a gift from God, and life is a gift that keeps on giving.
I am pro-woman, and I am pro-life. I hope the world will one come to see the truth, and the necessity, of these words.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Morals Matter
Repost from Tuesday, October 28, 2008
As the election looms in the not-so-distant future, I see a new wave of attacks coming at those of us who hold conservative viewpoints. Whether the issue is abortion, gay marriage, redistribution of wealth, or any other number of issues, our morals and ideals are under attack.
There is a sickness in America, a dangerous infection that threatens to eat us from the inside-out. We are starting to see symptoms of it now, but many will not realize the true danger until it is much too late.
This disease is known as moral relativism.
Moral relativism argues that “moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.” Such a proposition is extremely dangerous for a society, especially when this moral relativism is disguised as “compassion” or “multiculturalism”. Believing that there is no ultimate and objective moral truth will lead to the downfall of society. Under such a belief, any action can be justified.
It is ALREADY being used to justify the atrocity of abortion. Those who call themselves “pro-choice” say “Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!” This statement is absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine someone driving around with a bumper sticker that said “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one!” Abortion is not something that is wrong for people who hold a certain religious view, abortion is wrong for ALL PEOPLE, in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Many fear the influence of a politician’s religion on their policies. The most frequent objection of those who fear the presence of believers in government is, “What right do you have to impose your morals on us?” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council tells them, “The same right you have to impose your lack of morals on us.”
It is our duty to stand up for our morals in public life. As Archbishop Charles Chaput says,
“People who take God seriously will not remain silent about their faith. They will often disagree about doctrine or policy, but they won’t be quiet. They can’t be. They’ll act on what they believe, sometimes at the cost of their reputations and careers. Obviously the common good demands a respect for other people with different beliefs and a willingness to compromise whenever possible. But for Catholics, the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of human dignity. Christian faith is always personal but never private. This is why any notion of tolerance that tries to reduce faith to private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public, will always fail.”
All law involves a moral decision and imposes some sort of value onto those affected. Whether this value comes from religion or from secularism, it is still imposing on the governed. The question is this; do we want the morals of our leaders to be firm and rooted in the idea that there is a Law above our laws and a Truth our own reason. Or do we want a leader whose morals are as shifting as the sands, who “understands” that people come from different circumstances, and we should therefore try to accommodate everyone.
I know which one I would choose. Sadly, it seems that many others do not.
There is a sickness in America, a dangerous infection that threatens to eat us from the inside-out. We are starting to see symptoms of it now, but many will not realize the true danger until it is much too late.
This disease is known as moral relativism.
Moral relativism argues that “moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.” Such a proposition is extremely dangerous for a society, especially when this moral relativism is disguised as “compassion” or “multiculturalism”. Believing that there is no ultimate and objective moral truth will lead to the downfall of society. Under such a belief, any action can be justified.
It is ALREADY being used to justify the atrocity of abortion. Those who call themselves “pro-choice” say “Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!” This statement is absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine someone driving around with a bumper sticker that said “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one!” Abortion is not something that is wrong for people who hold a certain religious view, abortion is wrong for ALL PEOPLE, in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Many fear the influence of a politician’s religion on their policies. The most frequent objection of those who fear the presence of believers in government is, “What right do you have to impose your morals on us?” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council tells them, “The same right you have to impose your lack of morals on us.”
It is our duty to stand up for our morals in public life. As Archbishop Charles Chaput says,
“People who take God seriously will not remain silent about their faith. They will often disagree about doctrine or policy, but they won’t be quiet. They can’t be. They’ll act on what they believe, sometimes at the cost of their reputations and careers. Obviously the common good demands a respect for other people with different beliefs and a willingness to compromise whenever possible. But for Catholics, the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of human dignity. Christian faith is always personal but never private. This is why any notion of tolerance that tries to reduce faith to private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public, will always fail.”
All law involves a moral decision and imposes some sort of value onto those affected. Whether this value comes from religion or from secularism, it is still imposing on the governed. The question is this; do we want the morals of our leaders to be firm and rooted in the idea that there is a Law above our laws and a Truth our own reason. Or do we want a leader whose morals are as shifting as the sands, who “understands” that people come from different circumstances, and we should therefore try to accommodate everyone.
I know which one I would choose. Sadly, it seems that many others do not.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Homosexual "Marriage" Is Truly a Slippery Slope
Repost from Tuesday, September 30, 2008:
The election is in 34 days, and will be the first I have had the opportunity to participate in. In addition to the usual voting for president and congressional candidates, as a native Californian, I will be voting on Proposition 8 on November 4th.
More specifically, I will be voting YES on Proposition 8 on November 4th. For those who aren’t sure what a YES vote on this proposition means, I will be voting to ensure that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
There are numerous reasons for my position on homosexual “marriage”. A good number of them stem from my religious faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Others are rather secular reasons that do not have their basis in religion.
Now, let me tell you, being a college student opposed to homosexual “marriage” (let alone other pillars of liberal faith like abortion), is quite an experience. This is true even in a university that is located in a very conservative area, such as Clemson University.
I have run up against probably every basic argument in favor of allowing homosexual “marriage” during the past year. The one I have found to be most favored by liberals is this, “Why shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to get married”.
For reasons unknown to me, this argument is supposed to be persuasive. While love is obviously a very important aspect of a successful marriage, the purpose of the institution of marriage is not to give benefits to two lovers. The primary purpose for legal benefits to married couples is because the married couple is both the traditional and ideal way in which a child is raised.
I have found that the favored argument of liberals is also quite easy to turn around and turn them into bumbling idiots.
“Well, if the only requirement for marriage is for people to love each other, then why can’t a man who loves two different women be allowed to marry them both? What about a man and his sister? Or his mother or daughter?”
While it is very easy for a liberal to come out in support of the homosexual community, most will find the idea of polygamy and incest repulsive. (Of course, you will always have those crazed folk who will listen to your point and say, “You know what? That doesn’t sound like such a bad idea now that I think of it.”)
The fear of homosexual “marriage” leading to polygamy and incest is not unreasonable. This is because of what this redefined view of marriage really means.
Liberals start by stating that it is not a mother and father that are important for a child. Instead, they believe that all a child needs is two parents. Well then, if the only important thing is the number of parents, why not three parents? Four? The man loves all of his wives, why shouldn’t he be able to marry them all?
If you remove the aspect of procreation from marriage, then why not allow relatives to marry? The secular argument against incest is that the child is more likely to be born with birth defects. Well, if the couple is able to prevent from having a child (through artificial birth control or abortion), then what’s the problem? I could argue that a father loves his daughter as much if not more than non-related individuals love each other. So why not allow them to marry?
Marriage is a vital institution. It is the basic building block that holds up our society. By redefining this sacred tradition to allow for homosexuals we open the door to many other attacks, until marriage means nothing more than legal benefits.
More specifically, I will be voting YES on Proposition 8 on November 4th. For those who aren’t sure what a YES vote on this proposition means, I will be voting to ensure that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
There are numerous reasons for my position on homosexual “marriage”. A good number of them stem from my religious faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Others are rather secular reasons that do not have their basis in religion.
Now, let me tell you, being a college student opposed to homosexual “marriage” (let alone other pillars of liberal faith like abortion), is quite an experience. This is true even in a university that is located in a very conservative area, such as Clemson University.
I have run up against probably every basic argument in favor of allowing homosexual “marriage” during the past year. The one I have found to be most favored by liberals is this, “Why shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to get married”.
For reasons unknown to me, this argument is supposed to be persuasive. While love is obviously a very important aspect of a successful marriage, the purpose of the institution of marriage is not to give benefits to two lovers. The primary purpose for legal benefits to married couples is because the married couple is both the traditional and ideal way in which a child is raised.
I have found that the favored argument of liberals is also quite easy to turn around and turn them into bumbling idiots.
“Well, if the only requirement for marriage is for people to love each other, then why can’t a man who loves two different women be allowed to marry them both? What about a man and his sister? Or his mother or daughter?”
While it is very easy for a liberal to come out in support of the homosexual community, most will find the idea of polygamy and incest repulsive. (Of course, you will always have those crazed folk who will listen to your point and say, “You know what? That doesn’t sound like such a bad idea now that I think of it.”)
The fear of homosexual “marriage” leading to polygamy and incest is not unreasonable. This is because of what this redefined view of marriage really means.
Liberals start by stating that it is not a mother and father that are important for a child. Instead, they believe that all a child needs is two parents. Well then, if the only important thing is the number of parents, why not three parents? Four? The man loves all of his wives, why shouldn’t he be able to marry them all?
If you remove the aspect of procreation from marriage, then why not allow relatives to marry? The secular argument against incest is that the child is more likely to be born with birth defects. Well, if the couple is able to prevent from having a child (through artificial birth control or abortion), then what’s the problem? I could argue that a father loves his daughter as much if not more than non-related individuals love each other. So why not allow them to marry?
Marriage is a vital institution. It is the basic building block that holds up our society. By redefining this sacred tradition to allow for homosexuals we open the door to many other attacks, until marriage means nothing more than legal benefits.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
