Mark Vogl writes that Christianity is the basis of liberty. I disagree. by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The notion that what Mark Vogl calls the "Christian God" is the basis for liberty is false. Even worse, it presents a very typically false idea of what liberty is.
He begins by saying:
"Liberty is only good if it calls to the goodness in people."
That's patently false. Liberty is good regardless of whether people behave in a good manner or not. The suggestion that the goodness of liberty is dependent upon the behavior of people implies that if people behave badly, then liberty is a bad idea. To the contrary, liberty is always a good idea, regardless of how people behave individually. A lot of what Mark considers "good" and "bad" behavior has much more to do with his religious beliefs than with what might be more objectively termed "good" or "evil". Like many Christians, he needs to learn the difference between his own beliefs and a more objectively honest viewpoint.
So let's define our terms. In a "political liberty" sense, "good" is anything that people choose to do that doesn't directly harm another, while "bad" is anything that people choose to do that directly harms another. The essence of liberty, therefore, is to be free to do what one wants with one's own life, regardless of whether others approve of one's personal choices. The only restriction is that one is not permitted to harm someone else in the process.
Mark doesn't like that definition because he wants to control what other people do in their lives in those cases where he doesn't approve of their choices. So, if they take drugs, he wants to block them from doing so, and he claims a religious duty as a basis for government to act in that way. If they engage in sexual behavior that he doesn't like, he claims the right to block their behavior via government. In these ways, Mark (and other self-described Christians who take the same approach) display their own tendencies toward statism and authoritarianism.
He goes on to ignore history while claiming to recognize it when he writes:
"The known world, prior to Columbus, had been mostly a dismal failure. Wars, monarchies, and oppression had dominated most lives since humans began to organize into communities. Only Christ, through his appearance on earth to provide a route of salvation for the individual soul, offered both a peaceful way of living and a path for eternal life. For the Christian, we are here on this earth to love God, to be His children, and to seek His will and path for us."
What a rose-colored view he has! He seems to have forgotten that most of those wars he detests so much that appeared prior to 1492 were initiated and fought by Christians, usually in the service of increasing the church's influence and power! Many writers, most recently Dan Brown, have written extensively about the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church and by kings and governments acting either under the banner of the church or at the church's behest from the time of Christ's birth through the middle ages up until the Renaissance. If one intends to discuss the role of war in history with a nod toward Christianity, one does his readers a disservice by ignoring Christianity's own culpability in the matter.
Mark goes on to say:
"Christians embrace liberty as a gift from God because it allows us to develop our potential for His purpose."
The notion that the Christian God is the origin of liberty is repugnant to anyone who honestly reads the Bible. Of course, trying to explain this key point to a Christian zealot is futile. People are extraordinarily capable of reading and understanding only those parts of the Bible that they want to read and understand. If parts of that book conflict with the views they express, the solution is easy: just ignore or pooh-pooh those inconvenient points.
In point of fact, liberty exists independently of the Christian God, because the Christian God is not everyone's God. Many of the tenets of liberty were developed independently of Christianity, although Mark will never admit that fact. My own sense of God is quite different from what most Christians espouse. Unlike many, I normally don't make it a point to lather my rhetoric with the language of my spiritual beliefs. Just as I find the Muslim tendency to use such phrasing in their own rhetoric to be distasteful, so also I feel the same way about Christians who do the same thing. Unlike them, I don't believe in imposing my religious views on my neighbors.
Mark continues:
"People from all European nations came to America for a new start, and the great majority of those who came saw God and the Christian faith as the basis for their new start."
Well, that's certainly a convenient viewpoint. According to Mark, the only immigrants that count when analyzing American liberty came from Europe, and they only came for religious reasons. How revoltingly limited that view is! First, most European immigrants came because they wanted liberty in all its forms. Religious liberty was only one in a long list of forms of liberty. Second, immigrants have come to this country from the entire world. We have extensive Asian, Middle Eastern, South American, and African immigrants here as well (some of whose ancestors did not come here by choice, but rather came in order to work the fields of some of those same Christians Mark waxes poetic about who ran plantations in the south).
But then he makes his worst point of all when he writes:
"For those without a belief in Christian God, it is easy to see how they would misunderstand and misuse liberty. And if those people have no foundation in human history they might not have any knowledge of the hurt caused by the tyranny of the majority when allowed to roam free without constraints."
The arrogance behind that remark is almost beyond belief. So, those of us who don't believe in the Christian God misuse liberty? And this is the same God who (as displayed in many stories included in the Bible) has a long history of bringing harm and abuse on the people he supposedly created like some kind of overbearing parent? My reply: go take a long walk off a short pier, Mark! You don't have the first clue about what liberty really is; nor do you seem to have any clear idea of what justice is. Given these fact, you are certainly not qualified to judge the understanding of liberty held by non-Christians. When you propose to judge us by your perverse religious views, you only bring disgrace and well-earned ridicule upon yourself.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Mike Blevins
Date: June 10, 2010 10:06:04 PM
Well, most people would say that liberty is good whether it calls to goodness or not. Mr. Vogl, is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he'll have to forgive us libertarians if we see liberty a bit differently. One cannot say liberty is 'bad' just because people might use their liberty to do something one doesn't like. If the church (or the government) can take away liberty just because someone has acted in an 'unapproved' manner, then such 'liberty' is not liberty at all.
I am a Christian, too--and I guarantee you that I see people all the time who use liberty in ways I don't like. That doesn't make their liberty any less valuable. It's their life and their choice--so long as they aren't hurting another. As for the consequences of their use of liberty? Well, that's between them and the god (or no god) of their choice.
Like Mr. Vogl, I believe the God of the Bible will ultimately have the last say, but in the meantime, I will leave others free to own their own lives. I hope he will do the same.
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: June 10, 2010 11:52:08 PM
I concur with Walt's analysis. The only sorts of government recognized in the Bible are absolute monarchies or theocracies, and BOTH are by nature authoritarian or statist governments, the polar opposite of the libertarian attitude that represented the founding of the United States as an independent country.
So whenever I hear someone on the far right claim that the USA was founded on "Christian" or "Biblical" values, I know they are either lying or badly deluded!
Posted By: Bentree
Date: June 11, 2010 10:06:54 AM
Walt's response highlights the problem inherent in Orthodoxy, a propensity of fervor over reason. The Founders were men of reason which enabled them to coalesce divergent opinions and beliefs into a set of Principals now under attack by the , I'm sorry, forces of Darkness.
Personally I don't care where the founders got their inspiration, their Principals. Divine inspiration, Christ, Buddha, Tao, Mohamed, whatever the Prophets name was. The important thing is men musts acknowledge the Principals of the Founders from wherever derived if we want to survive as the nation conceived. A man's actions in respect for the rights of others far outweigh their religious propensities. If Madison fell in a mud puddle and came up with our founding documents okay by me. They can stand alone just fine, thank you.
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: June 14, 2010 12:04:33 PM
Boy Walt, you really had me in almost total agreement until you pulled that idiot Dan Brown's name out of the hat. This guy's "findings" around and regarding the Catholic Church (and most everything else about which he writes) have been widely discredited. You may honestly have a beef, or many, with organized Christianity (some perhaps justified and some obviously not) but puleeze do all Christians and non-Christians alike a favor and do not use Brown's writing as a basis for any serious discussion of anything, ok? Thanks!
Posted By: Mike Foster
Date: June 16, 2010 09:29:17 PM
Walt, with all due respect... the ad hominems detract from what would otherwise be a very logical refutation (except for that part about Dan Brown). I assume you have no personal problem with Mark, but rather are responding to the concepts presented in his article ;-)
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: December 21, 2010 08:34:41 AM
Walt, let me say that I was surprised when I found this article, and am truly honored that you would take the time to respond to my article in such detail. I will take considerable time to read and study your response and hopefully provide a worthy response. One thing seems clear. One of us is wrong. If your atheism is correct you are right, but we both end up as nothing in eternity. If I am correct, there is an Almighty God, an eternity for our souls and because of His grace your error may not be held against you. Merry Christmas.
Posted By: Walt
Date: December 22, 2010 11:05:31 AM
Walt, with all due respect... the ad hominems detract from what would otherwise be a very logical refutation (except for that part about Dan Brown). I assume you have no personal problem with Mark, but rather are responding to the concepts presented in his article ;-)
On the contrary, it is Mark Vogl who engages in personal attacks when he claims that his theology defines my liberty. I merely defend myself when I point out the arrogance of his position.
Posted By: Walt
Date: December 22, 2010 11:06:35 AM
Walt, let me say that I was surprised when I found this article, and am truly honored that you would take the time to respond to my article in such detail. I will take considerable time to read and study your response and hopefully provide a worthy response. One thing seems clear. One of us is wrong. If your atheism is correct you are right, but we both end up as nothing in eternity. If I am correct, there is an Almighty God, an eternity for our souls and because of His grace your error may not be held against you. Merry Christmas.
More arrogance. Just because I reject your theology does not mean that I reject God. I merely reject your twisted version of God. The real God exists regardless of your distortions of him.
