Theism.net
Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
e-mail: j
Meet Pat Goltz (Christian, Libertarian)
Ms. Goltz is a fellow member of a Christian/libertarian E-Group
and maintains a political E-Group of her own. She maintains a steadfast
personal walk with Christ I much admire. Pat scores “Libertarian”
on the World’s
Smallest Political Quiz. We have
encountered disagreements as to harmonizing Christian religiosity with
political libertarianism. It would benefit
the newcomer to first read my essay Casting the Stone, which is the material we challenge here. My comments are in this
font color.
From: Pat Goltz
pgoltz@nexiliscom.com , Web: http://www.seghea.com/purpose.html ,
E-group: libdissent@topica.com .
Hi, Jordan,
I read your essay.
You say that Christian fundamentalists insist that only creation be taught. I
haven't run into anybody like that.
Indeed,
many fair-minded Christians do support the teaching of both creationism and
evolution as theories. Nonetheless, extremists exist in both theistic and
atheist camps. We do agree though that separation of school and state is the
sensible and legal approach (http://www.sepschool.org).
You also say that if we use a
certain argument to outlaw drugs and other vices, then we have opened the door
for things like a fat tax.
There are degrees, and it requires discernment. No one with any sense has
advocated a fat tax. What you are doing is called
equivocation. It's a fallacy. All harmful activities are not equal.
Depriving
liberty is depriving liberty is depriving liberty. By claiming all harmful activities
are not equal, someone may as well consider the idea of someone being “a
little bit pregnant.” There are victim-producing crimes, which any civil,
freedom-loving, liberty-oriented society should prosecute. U.S.
Constitutionally speaking, there is no such thing as “victimless
crimes.” Any American facing a trial has a right to know the accuser and
the damage.
You cite an article by Mary Ruwart on abortion. There
are several flaws in her argument. First of all, if a person causes another
person
to come into being, that person may not aggress against the person who came
into being. Abortion isn't merely asking an unborn baby to
leave. It's using deadly violence to force him or her to leave. So calling the
abortion choice position "principled" obviously misses
the mark. She's ignoring what abortion really is. Principles have to be based
on reality. Secondly, most people do NOT believe outlawing
abortion will only drive it underground. Besides, we know who the abortionists
are, so if we make it illegal, we just have to go after
them if they keep practicing. The current law really protects abortionists, not
women. People are beginning to realize that abortion is
medical rape, not a right. As things stand, women are defenseless against those
who would compel or coerce them into abortion. Also, she
says that if we had a libertarian society, interracial adoption wouldn't by
discouraged by government social services agencies. I
adopted interracially, twice. The problem isn't the government agencies. It's
the organization of black social workers, and as far as I
know, it's not a government group. It's forces in
society that make interracial adoption unpopular, not government edict. You
also have
to be careful with adoption contracts. Some contracts I've seen proposed would
trade in human flesh and sell babies like chattel. My
reaction would be to tend not to mention Dr. Ruwart's
article. It's an embarrassment.
I
agree. I changed from “Pro-Choice,” i.e.,
“Pro-Abortion” two years prior to my conversion to Christ. My
change was based on the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be deprived of
. . . life without due process of law.” Further, our legal system is
based on, “Err on the side of caution.” Therefore, so long as
medical/scientific/legal arguments exist as to personhood, it should remain
illegal. If pro-abortionists are concerned about underground abortions, I
suggest they demand that all victimless-crimes inmates be released and pardoned
to make room of their jail cells to house abortionists until their executions
for first-degree murder convictions. In fact, after drugs are RE-legalized and
the drug-related crime rate returns to its non-existent level prior to the
“war,” shucks, we don’t want all those well-trained DEA folks
out of jobs, do we? Not to worry, they can be trained to find baby killers
instead, i.e., real criminals. In fact, America would have enough cells
available to house the abortion advise-givers convicted of aiding, abetting and
conspiracy to murder convictions.
Interracial
Again,
I have to agree. There is no shortage of babies needing adoption. There is,
however, a shortage of non-bigots. If white couples want a baby, there are
plenty non-white ones available. If others could get past their egos and adopt
rather than artificially inseminate to maintain at least one of the
partner’s God’s-gift-to-the-human-gene-pool, even more could have
homes. I make no apology for my sarcasm. In fact, I can even claim to practice
what I preach on the matter. I have no progeny. I made it a point to take
precautions to prevent such for I had no desire to rear children, and though I
would never harm a child, I did not want to be around them. I found them dirty,
demanding, expensive and loud. Nonetheless, when my wife’s unwed daughter
became pregnant, I assured my wife that if her daughter birthed the child, I
would assist the baby’s support and even learn to rear the child if
needed. By the way, I am white; my wife is black. Our grandson is a handsomely
designed baby whom has introduced me to the pleasures of
“baby-ness” in a home. Frankly, I hope my wife and I eventually
enjoy full custody or outright adoption.
Actually, I am a step-grandfather three times over.
Here are the other two: 
I
confess, I appreciate I escaped parenthood but I REALLY like being a grandpa.
You say, "By claiming
victimless-crime sin should not be illegal is not to condone or encourage such
behavior; it is to claim that jails
are no solution."
I don't agree with this statement for the simple fact that people who want to
engage in such behavior see making their behavior legal as
condoning it, and with our attitude about pluralism,
society at large is basically condoning their behavior, too. I am perfectly
comfortable with using the practice of vice as an aggravating factor when harm
is committed against another, rather than a separate
crime. I am also comfortable with leaving most vice users alone (if they
neglect their family duties because they are expending
themselves and their resources on vices, then I would throw the book at them).
My position, after much reflection, is that we should
throw the book at vice DEALERS and pretty much leave the users alone. Vice
dealers ARE harming others.
There
need not be any “Vice Dealers.” Merely RE-legalize drugs, gambling
and prostitution, and the only “victims” will be those who file
civil and criminal suits against those persons who allowed their vices to
victimize another person (i.e., husband brings home a communicable disease to
wife, gets sued by wife for damages; drug addict burglarizes a home for drug
money faces criminal charges by the victims; gambler doesn’t pay house
note gets sued by spouse, mortgager, etc.; the list goes on). Honoring our U.S.
Constitution does not mean ignoring victim-producing crime. It merely keeps
rights, liberties, freedoms and responsibilities in perspective.
Believing
something does not make that something so. Disbelieving something does not make
that something not so. Therefore, should society perceive a legal act as
something moral and ethical because of its legality, it is no basis for
de-legalizing a lawful act. It is, however, reason to increase public awareness
regarding the act’s potential dangers. One point my essay presents is
that we do not outlaw churches because of sex offenders behind the pulpits. We
prosecute those who abuse their clerical trust and authority. Nor do we jail pharmacists for selling nasal
inhalers to persons who will break them down and inject the contents into their
veins for a speed high. My essay further presents and cites St. Paul’s
direction that we live in a world where things are legal but we in the body
reject. He also instructs that believers have no business monitoring the
behaviors of persons outside the Body of Christ.
You say, "However, would you take it upon yourself to barge into a prostitute’s
home then lock her in a basement until she sees her evil
ways? If not, why then would you hire persons wearing badges, and carrying guns
to do it for you?"
How about this scenario: the prostitute has sex with a married man. The wife of
that man has a cause of action for alienation of
affection and breach of her marriage covenant, the former against the
prostitute, and the latter against her husband. If the husband
brings home an STD, and his wife gets it, she has a further cause of action against
both of them. Prostitution with a married man is NOT
a victimless crime. This is a far cry from asking the government to lock the
prostitute in the basement.
Again,
that is an issue of a man breaching his marital contract. The victim, his wife,
has grounds to pursue him civilly and criminally for his behavior. Put another
way, if I were to spend all of my earnings purchasing baseball cards that I
considered sure winners one day, and even traded all of my home’s
valuables to purchase more cards then faced foreclosure and debtor lawsuits, we
would not arrest the baseball card dealers and outlaw baseball card trading
transactions and personal possession of baseball cards, would we? The above
example you present reminds me of the Hot Coffee Mother At
McDonalds stupidity being blamed on McDonalds.
Other than as stated, I'm pretty comfortable with your essay.
Pat
Our Holy Bible commands us to obey the law of the land and to accommodate ruling authorities when not in conflict with God’s commands to us as believers. Our U.S. Constitution, which serves as the law of our land, is not in conflict with our commands from God while it protects rights for fellow citizens not in our body of Christ. We as Christians should be grateful for what we have—count our blessings—for it may not force non-believers to our religiosity but it protects our right to practice that religiosity.
Jordan
Old saying: A puritan is someone who cannot
sleep at night knowing that someone, somewhere, somehow might be having a nice
time.
e-mail:
j
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster