Robert P. George: "Thank God for the Latter-day Saints"

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.

Am I a Glenn-Beck-ificator Too?

So I got in a debate with some libertarian-types who were bemoaning the state of our country.  "How did we get here?", they ask.  "If we could just pull the government out of everything then our creative abilities would be set free to solve everything and we would reach the state of libertarian nirvana!"  So I pitched my now fairly firm belief that this is IMPOSSIBLE unless we start rebuilding the family and other institutions to take care of the social welfare needs of society.  Something has to take its place!  I added a bit about my view that social liberalism and its views on sexuality (I think I called it sexual anarchy in the debate) are incompatible with a free society.  Social liberalism participates in the destruction of families, churches and other institutions that HAVE to be strong if we ever hope to get off the government teat.  Here was Smitty's response:

SMITTY:You're a Fruit-Bat. What a bunch of Bunk. No wonder Mormons are persecuted... the sh** you're peddling doesn't square with reality.

You just invent non-sense to square with your non-sensical views. You just throw around terms; 'Leftist', 'Liberalism', 'Welfarism'... you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. This is the Glenn Beck-ification of American discourse. You just talk sh**.

Individualism is what the US is all about. Just because one is individualistic doesn't mean that they are anarchists.

The Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.. and sexual morality laid down by Mormons, would be a pretty comical, but deserving fate, for an America that would subscribe to your vacuous prattling.

Who are you, to be fit to determine what a 'norm' or a 'standard' would be?... You believe in 'fairy tales'... and follow a Religion invented by a two bit Con Man...

Anyone who brings 'sexual morality' and 'family values' into a conversation about the Constitution, is clearly a Dogmatic Bunko Salesman.

The Pea-Brains that are proliferating at an alarming rate...who follow to the nit-wittery that you subscribe to, are the primary reason the United States is becoming a laughing stock.


SAM: Pretty good for an ad hominem attack Smitty but you didn't even address anything I talked about, and I don't even think you tried to understand what I am saying.

In his initial post Occam despaired the loss of the constitution due to the fact that the government is doing too much for us now. A HUGE chunk of that is related to social welfare expenses. I see a direct connection between the breakdown of institutions such as the family, the church, community institutions and the rise of the government to fill those roles. Maybe that is a stretch...it seems pretty obvious to me. Anyone who wants to advocate a decline in government expenditure on welfare, but not propose anything to fill the void is kidding themselves. I'm proposing some things that are necessary to fill the void.

I'm all for an 'individualistic' society. Fine. But there are social welfare needs that can only be addressed collectively. We either choose to come together as individuals, or we let the government take over those social welfare needs. And when we give the government control over greater and greater pieces of the national wealth we shouldn't be surprised when they do things we don't agree with.


SMITTY: You post bunk.. I throw To-Mah-Toes... there are no rules.

There's no sense in debating your assertions. You put forth no evidence or logic... you simply make sh** up and present it as fact.

Like everything you post.. it's circular logic.. you believe things.. and you speciously substitute your beliefs, for something that could be debated.

Your POV is not an argument... you offer no facts to be debated.

This is the state of American discourse... people pull stuff out of the a** and run with it, as if it is something for debate... or as if they are seeking some sort of 'understanding'...

Basically, ideologues push their Dogma.. until you the shoot them. would I bother to have a debate with Mohammed Atta? Osama Bin Laden? Pat Robertson? Marshal Applewhite? No. There's no point in debating dogma or faith or non-sense...

You would just keep presenting more bunk.. and more dogma.. and more of your self acclaimed assertions, as being some sort of evidence... it would be pointless.

You get the point.  The more I thought about it though, he's kinda right.  I do just make assertions.  Most of my assertions are extensions of my gospel testimony.  They aren't open to refutation.  Now do not misunderstand me...there is nothing wrong with bearing a testimony or even advocating political postitions based on spiritual testimony of truth.  But, as Elder Oaks reminded us in his speech at BYU Idaho last fall,

"...religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society."

Smitty's criticisms of my argument actually reminded me of the criticism that the BYU professors (cited in an earlier post) made about Glenn Beck:

"Most of the books of Beck's I've picked up … are like his manic, ADHD television personality," said BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock. "He's just throwing stuff out there. They're not meant to be read as discursive arguments. They're just thrown out there to try to entertain people who would rather be Twittering or playing video games."
I find in [Beck] a trace of anti-intellectualism," Hancock said. "My interest is to help connect a certain LDS conservative impulse or mood with a more deeply grounded intellectual conservatism. We can't enter the political field with the argument that all the bad, but smart people think X, but we good dumb people think Y."

 So I suppose I am a bit of a Glenn-Beck-ificator...no apologies but definitely a wake up call to do better!

The Dumb Conservative

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."    - John Stuart Mill

That statement made in the 19th century rings (alas) somewhat true in our ears today.  My thoughts today are inspired by a variety of recent events:  Sarah Palin's performance at the Tea Party Convention, , a Deseret News article dated 12/4/09 about Glenn Beck (link here), and Jon Stewart's interview of Newt Gingrich (link here).

Let's start with Sarah Palin.  I do not know a lot about her.  I have listened to a speech or two, heard some soundbites, and watched a couple of interviews.  The truth is she has not caught my interest.  Can someone please help me understand the fascination??  She has that kind of down-home, hot mom next door (sort of) thing going, but I really do not get it.  She strikes me as, well, not that smart.  Or better said, she strikes me as someone with a native intelligence, but who has never taken the time to read books.  Maybe ill-informed is a better descriptor.  And even when she does speak on an issue it all seems a bit rehearsed, like someone told her what to say.  Or to put it another way, I sense that I have a better grasp on history and the current issues than Sarah Palin does.  That may or may not be true, but nevertheless I feel that way when I listen to her.  And to me, that is a problem. 

If Sarah Palin is the next great hope of the Republican party, conservatives are in trouble.  To me she is the embodiment of the anti-intellectual thread that runs through the conservative movement.  In the previously referenced Deseret News article, several BYU professors address this issue as it relates to the wild popularity of Glenn Beck (not coincidentally, Beck is a HUGE fan of Sarah Palin).  Here is the most relevant piece of the article:

The discussion organized by BYU's Tocqueville Project included three BYU professors and Paul Skousen, the son of the late, prolific political writer who was formerly best known for his best-selling book "The Naked Communist."

However, Skousen has gained renewed interest since Fox News pundit Beck began touting Skousen's book "The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, Principles of Freedom 101."

"It's easy for me to see why (Beck) would have picked up on Cleon Skousen's book and found it inspiring," Davis said. "It fit in with his own performance."

And that's a lot of what Beck does — perform, the professors said.

"Most of the books of Beck's I've picked up … are like his manic, ADHD television personality," said BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock. "He's just throwing stuff out there. They're not meant to be read as discursive arguments. They're just thrown out there to try to entertain people who would rather be Twittering or playing video games."

Hancock said he agrees with some points made by Beck and Skousen but overall finds their arguments lacking in substance and scholarly research.

"I find in both a trace of anti-intellectualism," Hancock said. "My interest is to help connect a certain LDS conservative impulse or mood with a more deeply grounded intellectual conservatism. We can't enter the political field with the argument that all the bad, but smart people think X, but we good dumb people think Y."

Hancock told students that if they are serious about conservatism, they, and he, need to "study diligently to increase our confidence that our intense feelings are common sense … and can be rationally articulated."

"(There are many) superior alternatives to the kind of proof-texting, quote-listing approach that too many LDS stop with," Hancock said. "I wish (Skousen's books) would point a little more beyond themselves to this literature that is more substantial and sound and teaches us how to do battle with a certain intellectual mainstream in a more substantial and coherent way."   (a list of recommended reading is provided in the article)

I think this is what Elder Dallin H. Oaks had in mind when he spoke at BYU Idaho last fall on the topic of religious freedom.  He said:

"The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society."

So with all of these thoughts running through my head, I watched an interview that Jon Stewart did with Newt Gingrich a few days ago.  Newt is a guy that is clearly informed, very articulate, and a passionate conservative.  I do not know much about his stands on particular issues, but I certainly do not feel like I know more than him.  And for me that is a starting point.  And when conservatives are looking for the next leader of the free world, is asking for the whole package really all that unreasonable?  Newt for president in 2012?  Hmm....

Encore! Law and Morality Part II

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 ^aSatan ^brebelled 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.

8: The Mormon Proposition

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."

Hard to argue with that.

Law and Morality

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 20th entitled "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."

Charity or Extortion?

I'll be eating a bit of crow on this post.  Maybe.  In an earlier post I cited Catholic Charities as an example of the threat to religious liberty posed by redefining marriage to include same sex couples.  In March of 2006 Catholic Charities of Boston got out of the adoption business they had been in since 1903.  State anti-discrimination laws required them to provide adoption services to gay couples that were legally married.  They chose to stick to their religious principles rather than provide adoption services to gays.  When I first heard about this it seemed like a clear cut case of religious discrimination:  a privately funded adoption agency was being forced to compromise their religious position.  Well, it turns out that is not quite the whole story.  A Washington Post article dated Dec. 18th 2009 (link to article here) discusses a similar standoff ensuing in Washington D.C.  The mayor of Washington D.C. just made gay marriage legal in D.C.  So now Catholic Charities is in the same dilemma:  provide benefits to same sex couples or get out of the business.  What this article makes clear, however, is that "city-church contracts" are threatened if Catholic Charities doesn't comply.  Wait a minute, I thought they were a Charity.  You mean to tell me they get their funding from the city??  I did a bit of research and found the Annual Report for Catholic Charities in D.C. for 2008 (see report here).  It turns out they get 72.24% of their funding from 'grants and government contracts'.

That changes things in my mind.  If your so called 'charity' is actually a government contractor 3/4 of the time then of course you have to comply with whatever terms the government sets if you want to keep the funds flowing.  This issue highlights the problem with government run 'charity'.  How does the government get its charitable funds?  Through extortion.  Does that sound too harsh?  Think about it:  Government gets the funds through taxes.  You pay those taxes or you go to jail.  Does that sound like charity to you?  I thought a charity operated through funds that people willingly donated because of the warm fuzzies they got inside.

This story actually eases my mind about certain threats to religious liberty posed by gay marriage.  I'm LDS so I was concerned that these anti-discrimination laws could be used to put LDS Social Services out of the adoption business as well.  The difference is that LDS social services actually operates using donated funds.  Its actually a charity.  So maybe we're safe.  But just maybe.

There is plenty of precedence for the state violating private property rights when it comes to anti- discrimination laws.  Just look at the racial discrimination laws.  These laws apply to private business owners as well as government agencies.  I believe that private property is so sacred that people should have the right to discriminate against whoever they want for whatever reason if they own the property.  We may think a particular restaurant owner is ridiculous for not allowing a particular race in his restaurant, but its HIS RESTAURANT!  And if the general public finds his stance vile they will stop going to his restaurant.  These things have a way of sorting themselves out in the marketplace.  Once we give the government the power to prohibit discrimination for reasons most of us agree with, they may very well use that power in ways we don't all agree with in the future.

And no post of mine would be complete without a morally charged appeal:  If we want the government out of their so-called 'charity' business, we've gotta start actually donating money to charities.  Once our charitable institutions are healthy, demand for government 'charity' will decline.  An impossible notion?  Maybe, but its the only real solution.

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

A common question posed to defenders of traditional marriage is, "How would gay marriage hurt your marriage? What does it matter to you?".  Many of us are stumped by the question.  The following post is an attempt to answer this question:

The answer is: it doesn't hurt my marriage (if I were married of course!).  But changing the definition of marriage to include same sex partnerships will hurt society and potentially my freedom.  Government support of traditional marriage implicitly supports the particular family structure that emerges from such marriages.  The structure of mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandfather, grandmother and so on is the natural institution that flows from the foundation of marriage. When such marriages remain intact, this 'family tree' can become quite large where each branch has a blood tie to other branches of the tree with a resulting natural affection and concern for each member's welfare.  To quote Professor Robert P. George from Princeton, "This structure is the original and best department of health, education and welfare."

If government were to support gay marriage, they would essentially be withdrawing their support of this traditional family structure.  Children are not a natural extension of gay relationships, so if government supported the formation of gay 'families' they would be supporting the idea that it is perfectly healthy and morally neutral to willfully bring children into a non-traditional family setting.  They would essentially be saying that there is no ideal family structure.  It is true that single mothers exist, gay couples end up with children from previous relationships or through invitro, and other alternative family situations arise.  But should government be encouraging  these scenarios?  Are we really to believe that a position of neutrality would produce no ill effects on society as a whole?

As indicated in my previous post 'A Defense of Traditional Marriage', such natural institutions as the traditional family are critical if we are to maintain the American ideal of limited government.  As the family structure breaks down,  someone must step in to fill the role.  Politicians are only too happy to fill this role as they can secure power in governmental spheres by promising to take care of the victims. This leads to the deprivation of liberty in various forms.  I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that come most easily to mind:

1) Property rights violations.  Politicians begin participating in schemes of wealth redistribution to care for the poor and the needy.  Although they are trumpeted as acts of fairness, these schemes are really the inevitable result of a people who have failed to take care of their own.

2) Loss of religious liberty.  Marriage and the traditional family structure are pre-political  institutions.  Government did not invent marriage, but government has chosen to promote and recognize this natural institution in every culture we are aware of.  When a legal definition is pitted against a pre-political and religious definition, attacks on religious liberty are certain to follow.  Take the example of Catholic Charities in Boston.  This group was forced out of the adoption business because church leaders refused to allow adoption to gay couples.  Rather than compromise their religious convictions, they gave up their adoption license.  Gay marriage activists have, and will use anti-discrimination laws to whip the masses into line.

I would appreciate it if anyone can challenge my assertions, or post arguments supporting the idea of gay marriage.  If I am missing something, I would like to understand the other side of the argument more clearly.

A Defense of Traditional Marriage

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.