- Government should protect its citizen's individual freedom foremost.
- Government should accomplish this by:
a. Protecting citizens from outside entities (other countries' armies, terrorist, etc.)
b. Protecting citizens from each other
For example, I have recently taken up exercising my right explained by the 2nd Constitution Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. (I say "explained" because the right of self-defence is God given. The 2nd Amendment does not give us this right, just explains it.) Many would have you believe that guns are evil tools used by evil people and that a #2b type law should be enacted to remove guns from all citizens at the expense of principle #1. Not only do I disagree with this trespass of principle #1, it has been shown time and time again to not work. I would propose instead, a total arming of the American people. Places in Georgia and Arizona have tried this resulting in a dramatic drop in violent crimes. We should also look to history to see that Germany, Russia, and Cambodia enforced citizen gun bans prior to and enabling the genocides of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
A second place that my principles of government go can be slightly uncomfortable Christians. People are evil. Most laws are there to hedge in our evil natures. There is no question that any act of evil that harms a fellow citizen should be outlawed by government. Murder, for example would is evil enacted on one person by another. But what about mutual acts of evil by consent of all parties (gambling, committing sexual sins of both homo and hetero type, etc.) and acts of evil against oneself (using drugs, overeating, committing suicide, viewing pornography, etc.)? My principles of government certainly suggest that laws against gambling, adultery, and drug use should be done away with to uphold principle #1. Part of me says that this is okay and that it is the Church's (not the government's) job through the power of Jesus Christ to write God's moral law on the hearts of a country's citizens. Besides, a law against over eating is ridiculous and would put restaurants like Ryan's out of business. On the other hand, an argument can and often is made that the latter two forms of evil acts do not affect only those involved but also the offenders' family, friends, and acquaintances. It is certainly true that America's ability to protect itself would be severely weakened if all of the citizens were "strung up" on heroine.
In spite of difficulties that might arise, I do not retreat from my overarching principles of government. Careful choices must be made in the fleshing out of laws of #2a and #2b type and laws that protect a citizen from him or herself.
1 comment:
I agree with the right to self-defense as being God given. This is seen more in natural law probably than in special revelation. In fact, it is probably easier to deny the right to self-defense with Scripture, though the effort of proper exegesis will show otherwise. I do wonder about the right to self-defense when it comes to defending one’s self from harm or death when it is specifically for one’s belief in Christ. Commendation is given in Hebrews 11 to those who not only did not defend themselves against persecution, but even refused release in order to gain a better resurrection. Certainly Christ waived whatever natural right he had to self-defense (though he did escape death and injury a time or two by flight). So if someone comes into my house at night with intent to steal my things or harm my family, I have a 9mm hollow point with his name on it. Actually I have 14 and one in the chamber. In my Sig Sauer 2022. I love my gun. But what if the government knocks on my door to take my children because I am teaching them “hate speech” in saying homosexuality is a sin? My first reaction is that I have a responsibility to protect my family, but what good would it do to shoot the government officials anyway, even if I were in the right to do so? By the way, this is going to happen. It already has happened in Germany, and the United States of freaking America not only did not condemn it, they in fact condoned it by denying the asylum that this German family sought from religious persecution. They could not allow the precedent to be set that families had the right to educate their children according to their own beliefs because part of the progressive agenda is the abolishment of the traditional family and complete control of education, eg Common Core. Google this story or find it at www.theblaze.com. The country that began because a few pilgrims sought nothing more than religious freedom now condemns a family to lose its children or allow them to be educated by the secular state. Anyway, I agree also with the idea that the government is not to legislate morality, but to protect personal freedom. I mean, that is pretty much the bottom line of the US Constitution. I believe that the ideal society is the one where the most freedom exists and the church ministers most freely. And does all that it is called to do from taking care of the poor to providing a framework for the stewardship of wealth.
Post a Comment