[ Originally Published June 25th, 2018 on Wordpress]
Introduction:
Over the past couple of weeks I have been reading the 2012 book, Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late. Much about the authors' ideological leanings, James Robison and Jay W. Richards, is quite conspicuous from the title. While I am a fiscal and Constitutional conservative, I am far from a social or theological conservative. Many of you are most likely pondering, why would I read this book? Well for starters, I found it at a Dollar Tree store in Chandler, AZ for $1.00, plus tax, approximately four years ago. A dollar and change for a New York Times bestseller is one hell of a deal! However, this is not nearly as important as the necessity to diversify your exposure to different points of view on social, economic, religious, and even political issues. If you continually envelop your mind in ideas you already agree with unconditionally you become a stagnate thinker and live in a reverberating echo chamber of confirmation bias. This a phenomenon that is far too common in the current political climate in the United States and that is equally as flawed as not inoculating yourself against faulty and pernicious thinking patterns. I am a religious skeptic and socially liberal individual read this book to challenge myself and to gain a better comprehension of the perspective of social conservatives.
For the record, this post is not about whether or not I agree with the political and religious messages conveyed in this book. What I am attempting to communicate without attribution or judgment and with goodwill is an observation that I found to be quite compelling. It is more an analysis of ideological congruence than it is a debate or judgment of whether the authors are correct in their values, beliefs, and assumptions. Basically, I am exploring philosophical nuance within social and religious conservatism in the United States, above all. However, for all the agnostics and atheists out there, please note that whether you agree with the gentlemen who authored this book or not does not give you the right to look down upon them with intellectual derision. The book was eloquently written and was not watered down to conform to the stereotypical anti-intellectual image that non-believers tend to smear on practitioners of Christian faith. Author Jay W. Richards holds a PH.D and is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. Even if he is incorrect in placing unconditional faith in the reality of a higher power, he is far from a dumb man. Even though I disagree with him on several topics, I would still grant him full respect as a seasoned academic and a Christian intellectual.
The one concept that I found to be the most compelling was the book's perspective on the line delineated between murder and killing. As well all know "Thou shall not kill" is one of the most obvious of the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament. However, many religious conservatives are generally in favor of violent intervention abroad, gun ownership, and stand-your-ground laws. However, they tend to immensely oppose abortion and other forms of contraceptives, viewing it as murder. The logical question becomes what separates capital punishment and war from abortion. Obviously, from this political/philosophical perspective, there is a deep moral chasm between one form of killing and the other. I feel that form many who do not completely subscribe to this style of thought patterns are often at a loss of understanding where they are coming from. Wouldn't all forms of killing, regardless of the intent be prohibited by the Bible? Also, what precisely makes war just and abortion sheer murder? Without the biblical context, it would appear to be a selective game of semantics gone awry. However, I can assure you that is not the intention, there is actually a biblical argument discerning such distinctions. Whether I agree with it or not is immaterial, I am merely presenting what I have learned from reading this book.
NATURAL GOD GIVEN RIGHTS:
Much of the rights granted in the United States Constitution to American Citizens is based on the concept of natural rights. During the era of the Great Enlightenment in European history, the concept of natural rights, the rationality of egalitarian self-sovereignty, and property rights manifested itself into Lockean political philosophy. Which focused on the rights and autonomy of the individual, versus being subjected to the tyrannical whims of royalty. Considering the vast majority of Enlightenment philosophers during this time were Christians, most social conservatives operate under the assumption that natural rights are analogous to be god given. This notion is reinforced by the Christian perception of free will, we are given the ability to reason. Which in turn amounts to the ability to determine right from wrong. If we such ability to rationalize and make choice, therefore, our government should allow us the ability to speak freely, own property, etc. If a higher power gave us these abilities it is only fair to have policies that protect our ability to exercise our free will without imposing on others.
For many of that subscribe to this theological/ political paradigm perceive the right to live as being one of those paramount natural rights. How this intersects with the contemporary reproductive rights championed by those in the feminist movement, engenders the contemptuous controversy we observe in the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Even many in the libertarian movement are divided into the fault lines of property rights versus the right to life. While typically this topic is too complex to distill down to such broad dichotomies due to the plethora of ethical and biological contingencies. Generally, in order to discuss this topic, we need to place our flag on one side of the proverbial fence.
Social conservatives such as Robinson and Richards contend that being pro-life in the abortion debate is the only just position. This point is substantiated by the fact that the word of god is greater than the law of the land.
The authors quoted the book of Romans:
"..... Let Every Person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God (Romans 13:1-6)...." [3]
With no surprises here, this biblical passage clearly expresses how while the government may permit that what is sinful or even contrary to natural rights, we must abide by what protects the word of god. Which would, in turn, be what guarantees natural rights. Which proves to be logically congruent only if you believe in a higher power. However, the authors find the primacy of divine law to be so significant due to the fact that it is what maintains legal and cosmic order. Without rules and consequences for transgressions, we as a society or as humans cannot be stable enough to guarantee our rights and privileges we are granted in American society. Which is part of the reason why many of our ethereal laws or man-made laws tend to have a biblical pretext or influence. Obviously, this pertains to our more basic laws involving property rights than the abstractions of tariffs and tax codes. We need to maintain legal and moral order so we can protect the way of life that we enjoy as Americans. Without any limitations, we lose our natural rights to the throes of anarchy. Wanton looting, murder, etc does not exemplify absolute freedom but rather the ashes of a failed state. [4]
WHAT MAKES ABORTION WRONG, HOWEVER, WAR IS JUSTIFIED:
On a superficial level, we could operate under the assumption that killing is wrong and is even prohibited per the bible. Naturally, abortion is perceived as a moral failing in the Christian tradition. For anyone familiar with the moral tenants of Christianity far cry from being shocking. Not so much shocking as intriguing has always been the support of Conservative Christians for capital punishment, foreign wars/ military actions, stand-your-ground laws. If someone is Pro-life wouldn't they shun the concept of state-sanctioned executions? A life is a life, right? This is where the philosophical consistency of Conservative Christians have always gotten murky for me personally. Individuals of a more cynical mindset could say that many who oppose abortion, but champion the typical Neo-Conservative foreign policies are manipulating semantics to accommodate their ideological agenda and worldview. Personally, I feel that it is more complex than merely shape-shifting definitions for political or social gain. I feel that (especially after reading Indivisible) that there is more philosophical nuance than diametrical and linear understand of the terms murder and let's say self-defense. The moral question becomes when does the act taking a life veer into the realm of the sinister? Again is a moral question that can only be obtusely answered, if done so in absolutist terms.
However, the authors do address to what appears to some to be a paradoxical position for someone who is Pro-life to hold. The authors examine the stance of Progressive Christian organizations such as Sojourners, a group of hardliner pacifists. The authors expound upon how this is misguided. While the Bible does preach to not murder people and to "turn the other cheek", it does not directly prohibit self-defense or use of force. The authors even state that the "... most conspicuous forms of cohesion are violence..." if we never use force our world would be ripe with anarchy (P. 61) Even when faced with the prospect of war the rationale behind our involvement or the criterion for a "Just War". In a sense, do we have the moral duty to use force, would the ramification of not intervening outweigh us becoming engaged in the conflict? [5]
I am personally not a fan of war, however, I am a big proponent of gun rights and stand-your-ground laws. While pacifism is a noble stance, it is not necessarily the most pragmatic or realistic. In regards to understanding the more base aspects of the human condition, Conservatives do an excellent job not ignoring this aspect of humanity. The realist stance is not necessarily antithetical to Christianity, depending on how you interpret the bible but embracing the unfortunate aspects of humanity. Hence why rules and prescriptions such as the Ten Commandments exist. However, the Bible itself does not depict merely love and kindness, but also the more menacing aspects of human life. With graphic depictions of war, execution, disease, etc. It is certainly a written body of work with its share of literary illustration of gore. If you think about it, because of the ills of human nature, it is necessary to depict use aspects of reality, in order to be sincere. Especially when striving to be a literary companion of a theological philosophy that strives to the Universal and true beacon of moral guidance.
FOOT NOTES:
1. (Video) https://youtu.be/YXl7lJtnkwo
2.https://invertedlogicblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/political-opinions-52-conservative-perception-of-killing-and-murder
3. Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late (2012) Robison & Richards, Pages: 23-24.
4.Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late (2012) Robison & Richards, Page 17.
5.Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late (2012) Robison & Richards, Pages 60-65.
Comments