I have been telling friends lately what a fan I have become of Catholics. Much of this admiration is the direct result of my interest in the writings of Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University. Well, evidently Dr. George feels the same way about the Mormons. He recently posted to the blog Mirror of Justice an article entitled "Thank God for the Latter-day Saints". I have re-posted the article below (link to article here). Thank God for good men like Professor Robert P. George who courageously defend truth and Christian morality in the halls of academia.
April 4, 2010
At Easter mass today, our wonderful chaplain, Fr. Thomas Mullelly of Princeton's Aquinas Institute, invited us to take a few minutes to reflect on, and thank God for, the good things He has sent our way. Among the very first things I found myself praying in gratitude for is the friendship of many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Over the past five or six years, I have been blessed to work alongside several outstanding LDS intellectuals and to get to know a number of the Church's general authorities. They are among the most gifted, dedicated, and inspiring people I've ever known. Their faith is much misunderstood and, alas, there is still a great deal of anti-Mormon prejudice out there. But they bear no resentment or ill will towards those who misunderstand or dishonor them, and they are among the first to enter the field and the last to leave it when it comes to working for justice and the common good.
I initially came to know Latter-day Saints in the marriage movement, some years before same-sex unions and the question of redefining marriage to eliminate the principle of the sexual complementarity of spouses was an issue. They joined Catholics, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox Christians, observant Jews and a fair number of secular folks in the effort to do something about family fragmentation, out-of-wedlock child-bearing, and the growing divorce culture. I've also worked alongside Latter-day Saints in the pro-life cause. Every group has its bad apples, and I'm sure the LDS is no exception. But anyone who knows a large number of Mormons will, I'm sure, be struck as I have been by how many members of the Church really do lead faithful and honorable lives---lives of selfless service to others. As a community, the selflessness, generosity, and public-spiritedness of the Latter-day Saints is extraordinary.
A few weeks ago, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago spoke at Brigham Young University. In the course of his remarks, he noted that:
In recent years, Catholics and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have stood more frequently side-by-side in the public square to defend human life and dignity. In addition to working together to alleviate poverty here and abroad, we have been together in combating the degredations associated with the pornography industry; in promoting respect for the right to life of those who are still waiting to be born in their mother's womb; and in defending marriage as the union of ome man and one woman for the sake of family against various efforts to redefine in civil law that foundational element of God's natural plan for creation. I am personally grateful that, after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see one another as trustworthy partners in the defense of shared moral principles and in the promotion of the common good of our beloved country.
On this Easter Sunday, I would certainly say "amen" to that. The Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints truly share some profound understandings and commitments, especially when it comes to the sanctity of human life and the value and meaning of marriage. 180 years of living "mostly apart" is enough. Catholic and LDS scholars and leaders have a great deal to collaborate on and learn from each other. I know that many LDS law professors, philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, and historians are eager to talk with their Catholic counterparts about natural law and natural rights and more generally about the Catholic tradition of thought and debate concerning morality, politics, and law. These are conversations very much worth having.
I give thanks to God for my LDS friends and for the inspiring and courageous witness of the LDS community.
I recently finished reading "The Clash of Orthodoxies", by Robert P. George. Dr. George describes the clash that is at our doorstep between those who claim the Judeo-Christian worldview and those who have abandoned that worldview in favor of, what he calls, the "secular orthodoxy". "The issues immediately in play," he says, "have mainly, though not exclusively, to do with sexuality, the transmitting and taking of human life, and the place of religion and religiously informed moral judgment in public life."
In this post I want to look at Dr. George's critique of secular views on sexuality as contrasted with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view. Professor George is a philosopher. As such, it might take a few readings of the included quotes to fully grasp what he is saying. If you take the time however, I think you will find his views quite enlightening.
Professor George claims that the liberal misunderstanding of sexual morality is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the human person. He explains it this way:
Implicit in [secular views on sexual morality] is a particular understanding of the human person as an essentially non--bodily being who inhabits a nonpersonal body. According to this understanding--which contrasts with the Judeo--Christian view of the human person as a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit--the "person" is the conscious and desiring "self" as distinct from the body which may exist as a merely "biological," and, thus, sub-personal, reality.
Secularist ideology holds to a 'dualistic' view of the human person. The body is seen as a mere instrument of the true "self". The real "you" is your consciousness. Your body is not truly part of you, but rather an instrument to be used by your consciousness in seeking pleasure and other forms of personal fulfillment. Thus bodily unity, through sex acts that are procreative in type can never be personal unity because the body is not truly part of the person. The most that can ever be achieved between two individuals is emotional unity. Sexual conduct is simply a means to express affection, experience pleasure, and heighten the emotional intensity of a relationship through sex play. This emotional unity through sex play can be achieved as easily by two men or two women as it can by a man and a woman (or as Professor George asks, "...if it is a purely emotional bond, some ask, why only two?)
Contrast the secular view of sexual morality with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view. Professor George describes it as follows:
Rational reflection on marriage as it is participated in by men and women makes it clear: since men and women are essentially embodied (and not simply inhabitors of a suit of flesh [contrasting with the secular view]), the biological union of spouses in reproductive--type acts consummates and actualizes their marriage, making the spouses truly, and not merely metaphorically, "two in one flesh." The sexual union of spouses--far from being something extrinsic to marriage or merely instrumental to procreation, pleasure, the expression of tender feelings, or anything else--is an essential aspect of marriage as an intrinsic human good. Marital acts are the biological matrix of the multi--level (bodily, emotional, dispositional, spiritual) sharing of life and commitment that marriage is.
But, one might ask, is a true bodily or "biological" union of persons possible? Indeed it is. Consider that for most human functions or activities, say, digestion or locomotion, the organism performing the function or act is the individual human being. In respect of the act of reproduction, however, things are different. Reproduction is a single act or function, yet it is performed by a male and female as a mated pair. For purposes of reproduction, the male and female partners become a single organism, they form a single reproductive principle. This organic unity is achieved precisely in the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species--even in cases (such as those of infertile couples) in which the nonbehavioral conditions of reproduction do not obtain.
Properly understood in light of a non--dualistic account of the human person, the goodness of marriage and marital intercourse simply cannot be reduced to the status of a mere means to pleasure, feelings of closeness, or any other extrinsic goal. Indeed, it cannot legitimately be treated (as some Christians have, admittedly, sought to treat it) as a mere means to procreation, though children are among the central purposes of marriage and help to specify its meaning as a moral reality even for married couples who cannot have children. [Marital] acts realize the unity of marriage (italics added), which includes the coming to be of children.
In the Judeo-Christian tradition bodily, sexual union is personal union. Since the body is not seen as a mere instrument of the conscious and desiring "self", sex cannot be reduced to a means of pleasure seeking, expressing affection, or even to the begetting of children. It is properly viewed as a biologically unifying act that forms the foundation of a multi-level (biological, spiritual, emotional, etc.) sharing of life between two individuals. As I have noted in a previous post, this view helps to make sense of the consummation requirement that is part of the legal tradition of all western civilizations. Short of a sex act that was procreative in type, the marriage of a couple was not viewed as legally complete since it lacked the biological unity that was seen as an essential element of a completed marriage.
Why is the liberal view on sexuality so damaging? Because it is a lie. And like all lies, once it is accepted it leads to other lies. Liberal views on abortion are a natural outgrowth of their views on sexual morality. They want sexuality to be an innocent pleasure, but they cannot hide from the fact that quite often, sexual behavior manifests its biologically unitive characteristic in the creation of new life. Rather than recognizing the error of their ways, they claim that the fetus (while human) is not yet a person (lacking the conscious and desiring aspect to qualify as a 'self'). Thus, it is not due full respect under the law and can be discarded at the mother's whim. The mother, buying into the secular lie, is often faced with tremendous guilt following an abortion because she senses the lie at some level of her soul. Once again, rather than acknowledging the lie, secularists hope that by repeating the lie often enough and loud enough, the guilt will be removed.
Sexual activity is immoral, secularists claim, only when it is non-consensual or when the consenting persons do not take proper precaution to avoid unwanted pregnancy or disease. When presented with evidence of continued unwanted pregnancies, disease, and the emotional distress that are a natural outgrowth of their secular dogma (and this in spite of their best efforts to promote safe-sex and abortion as necessary), they blame it on 'Christian Fundamentalists'. These problems are easily solved, they claim. If Christians would stop blocking secular policy efforts and join the secularists in advocating abortion and safe-sex practices, individuals could continue to enjoy the free and easy pleasures of sex without the unpleasant side-effects.
What if secularists achieved their goals? What if all of humanity joined in the crusade to make sex the innocent pleasure that secularists want it to be? What if abortion put an end to all unwanted pregnancy, and safe-sex was practiced so perfectly that sexually transmitted disease was completely eradicated (actually if safe-sex was practiced perfectly I suppose there would be no need for abortion)? Would we have reached the state of sexual nirvana where we could have our proverbial cake and eat it too? Dr. George thinks not:
The psychosomatic integrity (i.e. mind/body unity) of the person is another of the basic or intrinsic goods of the human person. This integrity is disrupted in any sexual act that lacks the common good of marriage as its central specifying point. Where sex is sought purely for pleasure, or as a means of inducing feelings of emotional closeness, or for some other extrinsic end, the body is treated as a sub--personal, purely instrumental, reality. This existential separation of the body and the conscious and desiring part of the self serves literally to dis--integrate the person. It takes the person apart, disrupting the good of acting as the dynamically unified being one truly is.
Did our Christian forebears invent this idea of integrity? Did they dream up the notion that sexual immorality damages integrity by dis--integrating the person? No. Christianity has had, to be sure, a very important role in promoting and enhancing our understanding of sexual morality. But in the dialogues of Plato and the teachings of Aristotle, in the writings of Plutarch and the great Roman stoic Musonius Rufus, and, of course, in Jewish tradition, one can find the core of this central, important teaching about the way sex is so central to integrity, and therefore so central not only to us as individuals but to us as a community. Disintegrated, individual human beings cannot form an integrated community.
Individuals who are 'disintegrated' will be incapable of then integrating with other individuals to form lasting families, and communities that are necessary to the functioning of a free society. The truth of this claim is most easily witnessed in those countries where state sponsored welfare is most prevalent. Is it any coincidence that those countries that are most heavily dependent on the government to provide for basic welfare needs are also those countries most entrenched in secular orthodoxy? As the voluntary forms of social bonding and support break down, it falls to the state to perform these welfare functions. Once again, rather than recognize that this unfortunate result is the natural consequence of secular ideology, secularists pretend that state sponsored welfare is 'enlightened' and 'desired.' This socialist dream, which sounds so wonderful in theory, does not look so rosy when viewed in the light of history. Perhaps it is this destructive state that the leaders of my faith had in mind when they said:
"We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
My post yesterday was a bit heavy going so I thought I should throw something up today in case I scared anyone off :-) Since my original post entitled 'Law and Morality' was such a hit (I got zero comments) I figured this might be a good chance to refine my views.
I am aware that my blog is turning into something of an outlet for the views of Robert P. George. He really is one of my heroes and I am sorry for inundating my readers (all 3 of you) with a constant deluge of Catholic philosophy. But that is the kick I am on lately, so deal with it. I am reading a couple of books by Dr. George right now and he is certainly changing my views on the propriety of legislating personal morality. I'll use an example to illustrate:
As explained in an earlier post (Law and Morality), in my more libertarian days (like 3 weeks ago...yeah I'm that unstable) I considered racial discrimination laws to be immoral because they violate private property rights. Why shouldn't someone have the right to do what they want on their own property? If the general populace finds it vile that a business owner excludes blacks, the populace will not patronize that business and it will lose money.
While I still may think that it is more prudent for the government to refrain from legislating on racial discrimination issues, I do not regard it as immoral for the government to do so. I have come to believe that the whole idea of denying the government the right to 'legislate morality' is a 'practical absurdity' (in the words of Obama). As Obama said in a 2006 speech, "Our law is by definition a codification of morality." The rights that libertarians do esteem as appropriate for government enforcement (defense of life, liberty, property) are so esteemed based on a moral claim. Why are libertarians okay with the government enforcing these moral issues, but not other moral issues?
In the pre-civil rights era, there were states that actually had laws on the books that were meant to promote racism. These laws were clearly unjust. They were not unjust, however, because they legislated personal morality. They were unjust because they embodied a false morality. A racist morality.
There may be prudential reasons for denying the government the power to regulate certain aspects of personal morality, such as:
A concern that the power of the state will grow excessively as a consequence
A high cost to enforce, with minimal or questionable returns on the investment (the war on drugs would be a good example of this one)
I do not believe that one can claim that it is immoral for government to legislate on matters of personal morality though. I think it is better to say that in particular areas of morality it is not prudential for the government to legislate. It is a matter of practical judgment. And what is prudent in one epoch or what is prudent in one culture, may not be prudent in another epoch or culture. The foundational questions when considering a particular piece of morals legislation are: Is the morality being considered for legislation correct? If so, is it prudent to regulate this particular moral truth? In many cases we may answer yes to the first question, but no to the second.
As members of the LDS church, we often sense that morals legislation deprives people of agency. It is often mentioned that, "It was Satan's plan to destroy agency. Forcing people to do good is exactly what Satan wants." I have determined (with the help of a friend, and you KNOW who you are:) that this is a misunderstanding of scripture. Read the verses again: Moses 4:1-3
1 And I, the aLord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That bSatan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the cbeginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely eI will do it; wherefore fgive me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved aSon, which was my Beloved and bChosen from the beginning, said unto me—cFather, thy dwill be done, and the eglory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that aSatanbrebelled against me, and sought to destroy the cagency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be dcast down
Satan made at least two mistakes:
He rebelled against God. God had already presented his plan, and Satan thought he had a better idea. This was Lucifer's pride
He offered to 'redeem all mankind that one soul shall not be lost'. To redeem means to make amends for wrongdoing. It means to remove the consequences. No where do the scriptures tell us that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man by trying to 'make them do the right thing.' Instead, it seems, he sought to destroy the agency of man by promising to remove the consequences of their bad decisions. He was telling God's children that they could come to earth, do whatever they wanted, not repent, and still be saved. Since this plan was clearly an illusion, God recognized that Satan was setting a trap for His children whereby they would become Lucifer's slaves. And we can see that those who did follow Satan are enslaved to him. I highly doubt that Satan is currently depriving any of his followers of agency by employing a tactic whereby he 'forces them to do good.' Their 'loss of agency' is reflected in their inability to make choices whatsoever. They are completely in Satan's control.
The idea that morals legislation takes away agency is a mistaken interpretation. Man is not being controlled by the law. The law is a teacher, and man still has the choice whether or not to obey the law. Those who follow Satan and lose their agency have no power of choice whatsoever. To claim that laws remove agency when legislating personal morality, one would also need to claim that laws prohibiting murder remove agency. But clearly people can still choose to murder.
So to repeat, laws are only immoral when they embody a false morality. That being said, it may very well be prudent for us to deny the government power of enforcement in certain moral spheres.
Yesterday a friend sent me a link to a trailer for an upcoming film at the Sundance Film Festival entitled, 8: The Mormon Proposition. The film is essentially an attack on the LDS church for its support of Prop 8 in California.The person that sent me the link is a supporter of gay-marriage and has read my blog posts on the subject. This person jokingly suggested that I might want to put a link to the trailer on my blog. I chuckled but politely declined. After watching the trailer again, and listening to the comments made on the trailer, I decided this might be a good chance to address some of the claims made by gay-marriage supporters. I wrote down the statements made by several people appearing on the trailer then offered my rebuttals. Tell me what you think. First, check out the youtube clip:
1) “California was the first state in US history to use the constitution to take rights away from people.”
This statement is just dumb on its face. Even if one supposes that the constitution was used to take rights away from people in California (which I do not, but we will get to that), it would clearly not be the first time that had happened. Ever hear of slavery?
2) “What we are seeing happening is the demise of our democracy. These folks want a theocracy.”
I have a hard time even knowing where to start with this statement. What could possibly be more democratic than a referendum? That is the very definition of democracy!! If anything, it is the pro-gay side that was anti-democratic. An LDS Apostle, Elder Dallin H. Oakes, explained it best in his recent speech to students at BYU Idaho:
"Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic."
As for the bit about LDS wanting to create a theocracy, I suppose gay-marriage supporters are implying that LDS are trying to impose their religious morals on others. I will defer to President Obama to address this point. This is from a speech he gave in 2006 (link here...it is an excellent speech if you are inclined to read the whole thing)
"But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."
'nuff said.
3) “You guys aren’t acting like a church. You’re acting like a political action committee.”
According to the Congressional Quarterly (link here), "Political action committees (PACs) are organizations that raise and distribute campaign contributions to candidates for Congress and other offices."
Regarding the LDS church's stand on political matters, the church has posted the following guidelines on their website (link here: lds.org):
The Church does not:
Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.
The Church does:
Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
The LDS church did not, in the case of Proposition 8, assist in acquiring contributions for a political candidate. That is the definition of a PAC. The LDS church did encourage its members to donate their time and financial resources to support a vital moral issue. The LDS Church considers the legal definition of marriage to be a matter of significant moral consequence. What else is the purpose of a church if not to speak out on matters of morality??
4) "We want equal rights. The same equal rights that you have."
Before we address the issue of 'equal rights', I would ask gay-marriage supporters to answer two important questions:
1) What is the definition of marriage?
2) Why should the state regulate marriage thus defined?
Here are my answers:
Marriage is the union of two persons on all levels of life: the spiritual, emotional, dispositional, and biological. What differentiates a marital friendship from other forms of friendship is, however, the capacity for organic, or biological unity. Professor Robert P. George explains it this way (link here):
"Since men and women are essentially embodied (and not simply inhabitors of a suit of flesh), the biological union of spouses in reproductive--type acts consummates and actualizes their marriage, making the spouses truly, and not merely metaphorically, "two in one flesh." The sexual union of spouses--far from being something extrinsic to marriage or merely instrumental to procreation, pleasure, the expression of tender feelings, or anything else--is an essential aspect of marriage as an intrinsic human good. Marital acts are the biological matrix of the multi--level (bodily, emotional, dispositional, spiritual) sharing of life and commitment that marriage is.
But, one might ask, is a true bodily or "biological" union of persons possible? Indeed it is. Consider that for most human functions or activities, say, digestion or locomotion, the organism performing the function or act is the individual human being. In respect of the act of reproduction, however, things are different. Reproduction is a single act or function, yet it is performed by a male and female as a mated pair. For purposes of reproduction, the male and female partners become a single organism, they form a single reproductive principle. This organic unity is achieved precisely in the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species--even in cases (such as those of infertile couples) in which the nonbehavioral conditions of reproduction do not obtain."
The western legal tradition has always held that an essential element of marriage is the capacity for a couple to unite bodily. This is seen most clearly in the historic consummation requirement. If, following the marital vows, a couple engaged in an act of sodomy, or other forms of sex play but never performed a reproductive type sex act the marriage was not viewed as completed. The law did not preemptively inquire as to whether a reproductive act had taken place. However, if either party in the marriage wanted out, and a reproductive type act had not taken place, it was grounds for an annulment of the marriage, not a divorce. In addition, infertility was never seen as grounds to deny marriage as long as the infertile couple was capable of performing an act that fulfilled the reproductive behavior of the human species.
When the historic definition of marriage becomes clear, it is evident that denying marriage to gays is not an act of discrimination. Since gays are incapable of completing the biological unity that is an essential element of marriage, they are incapable of becoming married. No, gays do not want equal rights. What they want is to redefine marriage. And by redefining marriage, they are abolishing marriage.
Fortunately for those who live a homosexual lifestyle, we live in a time where society does not interfere with their sexual preference. It is quite another matter to ask for government to promote and protect their lifestyle as being morally equivalent to a marital lifestyle. My contention is that the traditional side of the debate is the only side with a good answer to the question, "Why should government regulate marriage according to your definition?" Please refer to my first few blogs on marriage for my answer to this question.
5) “I was wanting to drive my jeep off of a cliff.”... “I can’t believe people could hate us this much. They don’t even know us and they hate us. [They say] that you are a pervert. That you are going to burn in hell? They don’t know me. I’m a good person.”
There were a number of these types of statements in the trailer. What they seem to imply is that by teaching that homosexuality is immoral, the LDS church is making people who experience same-sex attraction feel bad about themselves. So bad about themselves that they entertain thoughts of suicide. Since there are clearly examples of gay people who have committed suicide, they would probably even argue that the LDS church is responsible for those suicides.
Suicidal thoughts are a symptom of depression. Having struggled with depression myself, I have learned that depression is the result of distorted thinking patterns. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) teaches that depression results from not seeing things as they really are. It is clearly a distortion of reality to believe that you will never feel good about yourself until society approves of your lifestyle. Such a widespread acceptance and approval of a particular lifestyle is impossible to imagine, whether the lifestyle in question is appropriate or not. There will always be detractors. If a gay person is truly comfortable with their lifestyle, they should not require the approval of others to feel a sense of self-respect, dignity, and self worth.
Once again I turn to Robert P. George in his book Making Men Moral:
"He might regard the law as backward, stupid, insensitive, or unjust. He might express anger toward, or even sorrow for, those responsible for, or supportive of, the law. He might feel as though he is being treated as a second-class citizen for engaging in conduct which he believes to be acceptable or even enriching. He might work for the repeal of the law, and even practise civil disobedience. He might deem himself a martyr if he is punished for engaging in the proscribed conduct. He might do all of these things, but, so long as he regards himself as right and the law as wrong, his sense of self-respect does not suffer."
After finishing my last post, the voice of Robert P. George was ringing in my ears. If you have read any of my previous posts about marriage, you know what a fan I am of Professor George. He has made headlines recently as one of the authors of the "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience" (link here), and as the subject of a piece in the New York Times Magazine December 20thentitled "Robert P. George, the Conservative-Christian Big Thinker" (link to article here). Professor George is a tenured professor at Princeton where he lectures on constitutional interpretation, civil liberties, and the philosophy of law.
In my last post I castigated racial-discrimination laws because they violate private property rights. I was not arguing that racial discrimination is okay. I was arguing that government should not regulate this because it is a matter of moral interpretation and not the place of the government. Here's a clip from a talk that Professor George gave to BYU students in 2008 (link to speech here) where he comments on this topic of law and morality (italics added):
"It is a profound mistake to suppose that the principle of limited government is rooted in the denial of moral truth, or a putative requirement for governments to refrain from acting on the basis of judgments about moral truths. For our commitment to limited government is itself the fruit of moral conviction. It is a moral belief. It is not a belief founded on the idea that nobody can know the moral truth. Quite the opposite. It is an assertion of something held out to be 'the moral truth.' This conviction is ultimately founded upon truths that our nation's founders claimed as self-evident, namely: that all men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. At the foundation is the proposition that each human being, every member of the human family, possesses a profound, inherent, and equal dignity simply by virtue of his nature as a rational creature.
Now to speak of truth frightens some people today. In the type of University environments that I usually spend my time people get very nervous when you talk about 'the truth'. They evidently believe that people who claim to know the truth about anything, and especially about moral matters, are fundamentalists and potential totalitarians. But as my friend, Professor (??), has patiently explained, those on the other side of the great moral debates make truth claims all the time. They assert their positions with no less confidence and no more doubt than one finds in pro-lifers or defenders of conjugal marriage. They proclaim for example, not as some mere matter of abstract opinion, but as something true, that women have a fundamental right even to elective abortion. They maintain, with all the conviction you can have when speaking something you believe to be true, that love makes a family. The question then, is not whether there are truths about such things as the morality of elective abortion and the nature of marriage. The question in each case is, "What is the truth?""
So regarding my stance on private property rights, I think Professor George would ask me this: Why should the government respect property rights? I would answer that it is wrong for the government, or anyone else to tell me what to do with my property. In other words, I would be asking the law to recognize my moral right to my property. Since we have established that I am okay with the law enforcing this particular moral truth, why am I opposed to the law enforcing another moral truth? Namely, the truth that all men are created equal, regardless of their race, and deserve equal treatment as such. Even on someone's private property.
Darn this Professor George and his superior intellect. So now I ask myself these questions: Are there certain moral truths that the government should enforce, and others that it should not? If so, how does a society determine which moral categories are fair game for legal enforcement? And beyond that, what happens when laws enforcing morality come in conflict with each other (i.e. private property rights vs. right to not be discriminated against)? I think a strict libertarian would answer that since the government derives its just power from the consent of the governed, the government can only enforce morals on the citizenry that an individual, in the absence of government, could enforce on his neighbor. In other words, people can only lend to the government powers that they themselves possess.
For example, we all recognize stealing as wrong. If my neighbor steals one of my cars, I have the right to force my neighbor to give it back to me. Since I posess this power, I can empower my agent, the government, to take the car back for me. Now think of a racial discrimination example: What if I observe that my neighbor never lets black people on his property. Do I have the right to force him to let black people on his property? It does not seem so. Therefore I do not have the right to empower my agent, the government, to force my neighbor to allow black people on his property.
It is for this reason that libertarians limit the powers of government to the defense of life, liberty, and property. It all seems quite reasonable until you start reading where this logic takes you by hard core libertarians. A few years ago I was listening to a libertarian podcast entitled Free Talk Live. The host of the show was defending abortion, and even infanticide if I remember right, on the grounds that an embryo, or small baby is not yet a rational creature with the capability of defending its rights. Therefore, an infant cannot logically empower its agent, the state, to defend its rights. Therefore the infant is not guaranteed protection under the law. Or something like that. Like I said, it gets pretty bizarre.
I think Professor George would argue that the libertarian view is nonsense. He would agree with President Obama that, "our law is, by definition, a codification of morality. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." (link to Obama speech here) In his talk to the students at BYU, Professor George says this:
"We must not adopt a merely pragmatic understanding, or speak only of practical considerations, in addressing the pressing, morally charged issues of our day. Sound positions cannot be effectively advanced by citizens and statesmen who are unwilling, or unable, to engage moral arguments. That is why we should, in my opinion, rededicate ourselves to understanding and making the moral argument for, for example, the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, and the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman.
Our task, as I see it, should be to understand the moral truth, and speak it. In season, and out. Speak it lovingly, speak it civilly. Engage those with whom one disagrees in civil discourse, open to hearing counterarguments. Open to hearing the other side's point of view. Yes, speak it lovingly, speak it civily, but speak it firmly, and vigorously. Because so much is at stake."
Elsewhere, Professor George has written (article link here):
"Christians and other believers are right to defend their positions on key moral issues as rationally superior to the alternatives proposed by those who have abandoned traditional moral principles. Opponents of these traditional principles can be shown to be stuck. Not because they have been beaten over the head with the bible, but on the plain where they have made the argument: the plain of rationality."
I am not certain which moral categories are, and are not, fair game for legal regulation. I do know that law will inevitably represent a 'codification' of public morality. Since it is impossible to keep the law out of the moral sphere, it is imperative that we strive to ensure that the law embodies the moral truth. It is imperative that we are able to articulate the rational argument for traditional morality. LDS scripture teaches us about an ancient civilization facing similar circumstances:
"For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted." Helaman 5:2
Laws become 'corrupted' when they embody a false morality. We should rededicate ourselves to understanding the argument for traditional morals because, as Professor George stated, "so much is at stake."
When the leaders of my LDS faith came out in support of Prop 8 last summer, I initially questioned their involovement. I understand our theological position on marriage, but my libertarian leanings led me to the conclusion that the best solution to the marriage question politically might be to get the government out of the business of regulating it entirely. Make it a private matter, like a baptism or bar mitzvah. I continued to think that way through the election. Earlier this year I came across a talk given by Robert P. George from Princeton University at BYU last fall (link to the speech: here ) The talk is entitled On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government. In this speech he touches briefly on what I have since learned are his major themes: the proper role of government, defense of marriage, defense of life, and a warning against the dangers of judicial activism. This is one of those rare speeches that has given me reason to completely rethink my political footings. Particularly my beliefs about the proper role of government and how that relates to the marriage question
The strict libertarian position holds that the government's role ought to be limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property. Any departure from this role represents an unjust usurpation of the rights and liberties of the people. When it comes to issues like marriage, they would say that this is a private matter and the government should stay out. I recall listening to Ron Paul address a group once. He was advocating the abolition of certain Federal agencies like the Department of Education and Health and Welfare I think. Some of the listeners were asking him who would take care of those responsibilities if the government stepped out. He told them these were responsibilities of the family. Later I learned that Ron Paul was against the idea of a constitutional ammendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. I was troubled by the idea that a strict libertarian like Ron Paul could assign responsibility to the family, but deny the government the ability to support the family through the defense of marriage. And yet I found it hard to argue with him.
Then I listened to Professor George. What the libertarian position misses, he argues, is the subsidiary, but just as critical, role that the government plays in promoting what he calls a 'healthy moral culture'. This includes promoting and defending, through incorporation into the legal structure (not necessarily financially supporting) those institutions that shoulder the primary responsibilities of educating, nurturing, and caring for the members of a society. These insitutions include churches, the family, and other civic and charitable organizations such as the Boy Scouts.
Why is this subsidiary role so crucial you might ask? Well, as our founding fathers rightly saw, the key to a free society lies in keeping government limited. For government to remain limited to its primary role of defending life, liberty and property, the citizenry must take care of their primary roles of educating, nurturing, and caring for each other. As the institutions that fill these needs break down, the result is predictable: demand for government grows. When families and churches break down, there are still children that need to be fed, educated, and nurtured. There are mothers, expecially in many of our inner cities, that cannot afford, or emotionally manage the responsibilities. There are still poor people that can't take care of themselves. These unfortunate souls become fodder for eager politicians who seize the opportunity to win votes by promising them that the government will take care of their problems. So government grows, and our liberty is threatened.
So why is it important that the government continue to support traditional marriage? Because our liberty depends on the formation of strong families. The family is founded on marriage. The debate on gay marriage is really just the final act in the destruction of the traditional family that started in the 1960's with the divorce culture. Rather than continuing the madness, its time we reinforce the institution of marriage and restore it to its proper place.
I am a small business owner living in Salt Lake City. I am planning to return to school in the fall to pursue a PhD in Economics. I have accepted an offer to attend the University of California, Irvine. I enjoy studying history, economic theory, statistics & econometrics,and political philosophy. I appreciate your comments!
Posts
