Church

Nomodiphas: What are you advocating here: a rule of the state by the church? A lot of people accuse Christians of wanting a theocracy—of wanting the church to rule. They say that the Bible advocates this and that this was the system of Old Testament Israel. What do you make of those claims?

Philosophos: I think that the claim that that ancient Israel was a theocracy is completely false. I don’t think many Christians want a theocracy, and if they do they are wrong for wanting one. I for one do not want a theocracy, but I do want our government to be just and I believe that only a government founded on the truth found in God’s Word can be just. The church and the government are two separate spheres with two separate functions. The government is to administer justice while the church is to bestow mercy. When the government takes on functions outside of its sphere it corrupts both itself and the function it has taken on. The same goes with the church. When the church seeks to rule and administer justice it corrupts not only itself, but also justice. One need not look far into history to find examples of the church being more concerned with power than with the Gospel. These times tarnished the image of the church and corrupted the notion of justice.

Nomodiphas: But what about the Old Testament, wasn’t there a significant merging between state and religion? Isn’t that the ideal setup?

Philosophos: No I do not think that ancient Israel had theocratic system. I do not think there was any significant merging between religion and state. Did the state of Israel have an ‘official’ religion of sorts? Yes. That was because of their special status as God’s chosen people. They made a specific covenant with God (and renewed it a number of times) in which they agreed to worship only Him. Because of that Israel had only one legitimate religion. All other religions (such as witchcraft) were illegal and where thereby outlawed by the state. This appears radical to us, but it was not at all radical for the time. Most states in this period had state religions. Rome had its Gods and Greece had theirs. It was common. Why do we assume that our current system is right and theirs was wrong?

God worked through the existing system of that time and chose one people through which to reveal Himself to the world. His goal was to the show the world that they may have their gods, but Israel had the one true God. Government was involved in religion to the extent of protecting the one true religion. And one could say the Hebrew government had an obligation to do this, that this was justice because the people had made a covenant with God and it is the duty of the government to uphold freely willed covenants.

Religion did influence politics, this is true. Prophets advised the rulers, rebuked the kings, and at times were persecuted by the kings of Israel. These godly men counseled their rulers then just as Christian men can and should do now. And godly men did rule as well: Moses, David, Hezekiah, Josiah—just as men who know God can and should rule now.

It is true that some men held more offices than one. Samuel was both a prophet and a political leader. David was a worship leader and a king. Just as today one could be a prophet or a worshiper and be involved in government. What is key to notice is that the high priest was never a ruler. From its very conception the nation of Israel had a distinction (though not a separation) between church and state: Moses was the law giver and political leader, while his brother Aaron was the high priest. The rulers and the priests had separate functions. The state and religion had separate duties. These roles were not to be confused. King Saul was heavily rebuked by Samuel for merging these separate fields and confusing their functions, when he as king offered a sacrifice before a battle that only a priest should offer.

Anyone who thinks that Israel had a theocracy is very ignorant in my opinion. Yes the laws given to the Israelites were from God, but all good law systems agree with the truths found in the Hebrew law code. All good laws come from God, for God is just and wants us to understand justice. Why is it somehow better to rely on abstract reasoning or popular opinion as the source of our laws? The Law of Moses is tried and tested and found to work. It seems to me to be as legitimate a source as any for the foundation of laws.

Yes religion influenced their government, but religion influences every government! Yes the state protected the religion, but in doing so it was enforcing a contract. God never intended religion and government to merge or to have the same roles. They are two separate fields with two distinct functions. This is true, but it is also true that God never intended for us to have one part of our life that is sacred and another part that is secular. Our lives are to filled with constant awareness and communion with the sacred and the sacred is to influence every thought and action in our lives. There was always a distinction between the fields, but never a separation.

As far as things go now I think the church and state should remain distinct, but not separate. Why is it that people’s faith in secular humanism can and should influence how they act in office, but their faith in God is somehow an illegitimate influence on their decision making process? The same people that want the church out of the government are the ones that are most keen to have the government take on the church’s functions.

Our founders were not concerned about religion influencing the government. Many of the founders were deeply religious and those who were not recognized the value that religion has for a country. There is nothing in the Constitution that says church and state must be separate. The Constitution simply says that ‘Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.’ They were most worried about state involvement in religion. They did not want the government dictating what is or is not orthodox. They knew about Constantine’s involvement in the early church as well as the post-reformation wars. They worried that the government would involve itself in religion and attempt to influence it in the most advantageous way to itself.

Nomodiphas: So Christians can and should both serve in and advise the government. The church and state should maintain their distinct functions but need not remain separate. So the church may not rule, but it may advise rulers and yet there is a danger of governmental involvement within the church (though the state was involved in Israel’s religion in order to enforce a covenant). I am clear about your thoughts about how the church should be involved in the government, but to what degree should the government be involved in religion today?

Philosophos: I don’t think it does any good to force people into the church. When Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome he forced millions of unbelievers into the church and thereby corrupted the doctrines of the church. This also led the church to become dependant on the state (which prevented the church from acting in its proper role of advising or criticizing the state). Further, there is also a worry about the state getting involved in matters of orthodoxy and persecuting true believers (as happened many times in Europe). I don’t think state involvement in religion is a good idea, even if it means we must tolerate false religions. Christianity is the truth and after all sides are said and heard the Truth will win out. Looking at things from that perspective, false religions seem tolerable.

Nomodiphas: But one must ask: does one have a right to believe in a falsehood?

Philosophos: I think so, God gave us the ability to choose our beliefs, but we will be held accountable for what we choose to believe.

Nomodiphas: And does one have a right to advocate false beliefs?

Philosophos: No, one does not.

Nomodiphas: Then doesn’t it follow that the government has no obligation to protect the rights of those who desire to preach falsehoods?

Philosophos: No, you are correct in asserting that it does not, but I also think that it is not within the government’s power to decide what is true and false for us. God presents us with the truth and leaves it up to us to reject or accept it. I don’t think the government may take that choice from us by imposing a state religion. I believe we should have freedom of religion to a great extent (thought I don’t believe in complete freedom of religion, I think those that cast spells on others should be punished. Witchcraft was a capital crime in Israel. Today we don’t make laws like this not because we think it is ok, but because we don’t think it is possible. I think it is very much possible to cast spells and it should be illegal, though enforcement would be a challenge). It is true that the state did protect religion in Israel, but I think they did so because of the covenant the people had freely and repeatedly made with God. We have no such covenant with God. We have made many good decisions and have thereby been blessed by God, but we are not God’s chosen people. So choosing religion, or more appropriately, choosing to accept or reject God’s gift of salvation should not be done by the government. It is to be left up to the individual, for every individual will be held responsible for what he chooses.

Family

Philosophos: What about the relation of the government to the family structure?

Nomodiphas: Like the individual and the other fields we have been discussing, the family appears to me to be a distinct field. The government should respect the liberty and autonomy of the structure of the family. For example, people should be free to have children when they wish and they should be free to raise their children as they wish. These are freedoms that we largely enjoy and take for granted. We’ve talked a little about the state overstepping some of the boundaries of family autonomy in areas like health and education—instances where the state either tells the family how it should operate, or takes children away from their parents and directly performs a role of the family. I understand the injustice of these infringements, but it seems to me that there is no absolute right, no despotic power that parents have over their children or husbands have over their wives and there are therefore times when the state should interfere in the family, like if the parents are violently beating their children.

Philosophos: It is tragedy but it is true that many parents do a poor job in raising their children, but this is the system that God ordained and it would be imprudent of us to think we know better. The state is not permitted to interfere and take on the role of the parents in raising children. We have seen this occur to a large part in our schools. Our schools teach our children religion and morals (evolution and humanism), teach them about sex (be safe), and how to interact with one another (tolerate all sorts of evil and celebrate sin as diversity). Though I may be wrong, these appear to me to be core responsibilities of parents.

The state has also taken on determining decisions regarding children’s health—mandating HPV vaccines for young girls for example and controlling the foods that kids have access to at school—shouldn’t it be the parent’s decision to inoculate their kids from STDs and to determine their children’s diet? The state has also begun to prevent parents from spanking their children as a means of punishment—a form of punishment clearly permitted in the Bible.

That being said there are times when the government must interfere in the family. Because the family is a God ordained institution, the state should be slow to interfere. However, whenever the right of an individual is threatened or violated the government has a duty to interfere. When kids or a spouse are being beat or molested and having their right to bodily sanctity violated, the government should become involved and protect the rights of the victim. We’ll talk more about this later, but I believe that the single greatest injustice that our government is currently promulgating is not intervening enough in the family and protecting the rights of our most fragile citizens: the right to life of the unborn.

I want to bring up one more issue. The individual has natural liberty and rights and the government is instituted to protect his liberty and rights. The family too has natural autonomy and rights. The government has a duty to protect these things—to protect the institution of the family. This is an area where our government could use some improvement. Our divorce laws allow men to leave their wives with ease and saddle them with the responsibilities of rearing and providing for children. Permitting fornication produces the same result. By failing to enforce sexual morality the government has allowed the disintegration, to some degree, of the family. More children are raised in single or unmarried parent families, then in married families. We will talk of this later, but for now I want you to realize undermining the system that God instituted has consequences. Further, programs like social security weaken natural communal and familial cooperation, which in turn leads to a further breaking apart of the family structure. The government has a duty to protect the liberty and the rights of the family. It does this by leaving the responsibilities that God gave families to families (that of provision and care—both by parents and of parents, discipline, and child rearing) as well as promulgating sexual morality (limiting sex to within marriage, making divorce more difficult to attain, and holding those responsible for the consequences that their sex outside of marriage produces).

Health Care

Philosophos: Interesting thoughts. I most definitely agree with you on the need to be vigilant and on guard against even minor breaches of our liberty by the government. Let’s transition from general thoughts on health to specific thoughts about health care. First question: do we have a right to health care?

Nomodiphas: No we don’t. And I’m going to guess that by making this into a right we will further corrupt the field as well as further corrupt the government.

Philosophos: Exactly. Benevolence in the field of medicine used to be common. Just as lawyers do pro bono work doctors used to provide free services for patients who could not afford treatment. This phenomenon has largely disappeared with the advent of programs like Medicare and social security. Further the government is a non market participant and its involvement in the field increases prices across the board. Hospitals can charge limitless amounts for procedures that the government will fund through these programs. This cuts against efficiency.

Nomodiphas: I understand the problems of governmental involvement, but you can’t begin to defend the current system.

Philosophos: Of course the current system is full of problems, I simply believe that there are better solutions to it than state sponsored universal health care and that further government involvement in health care would make matters worse and not better. Look at the countries that have universal health care. Because everything is covered (notice I use the word covered and not free because these systems do cost money, lots of money like ours, the only difference is that it is paid collectively rather than individually) there is less incentive to take care of yourself or administer home remedies. So people over use the system. This creates a strain on the system. Just the other day I read that a woman died in labor in Japan after an ambulance took her to nearly 30 hospitals. Not one hospital had sufficient room to take her, so she died in the ambulance after hours of searching in vain.

Now the government can respond in a couple of different ways to this strain. It can hire more doctors and raise the cost of the system. This in turn costs tax payers more money. Or the government can require doctors to do more with less and have them try to visit more patients. Visits then become less comprehensive and effective. Further in both cases patients are often required to wait longer for visits (often months at a time). This extra time can complicate some disorders and sicknesses and people may in fact die in the extra time it takes for them to see a doctor. When the people resist paying higher taxes for their inefficient, overused health care system, the government has to cut costs. They give less money to research companies (with less money for research there is less innovation in medicine and procedures and a decline in cures) and less money to doctors (when doctors make less money there is less incentive for our best and brightest to invest themselves in a field that requires years of extra education, long hours, and high levels of stress).

I visited Prague a few years back. While I was there I took a tour of the city. I asked the guide if this was a full time or part time job. She said she was only working part time as a tour guide, but she was hoping it would become a full time job. At that time her full time job was that of a doctor, but she could make more money being a tour guide. She explained to me that the Czech Republic has a nationalized health care system. The government provides health care for all, but also determines the pay of those working in the health care field. In order to keep taxes down it must keep costs down and it does that by keeping wages down. This tour guide told me she regretted investing ten years of her life into becoming a doctor when it turns out she can’t make good money. She said that in response to the inadequate compensation, the youth of her country were wizening up and not going into the medical field as they were before. This of course will hurt the country’s health care long term as the best and the brightest go into different fields.

Nomodiphas: If state sponsored health care is not a viable option, what is the solution?

Philosophos: I’ll be honest, I am by no means an expert in this field, but I do have a few hunches. First and foremost there should be more of a focus on prevention, rather than fixing problems after the fact. Simply eating healthy and exercising prevent a whole host of problems. Second, more health care should be performed at the family level. When I was growing up my parents took care of most of my health problems. Instead of the doctor being our first choice, it was a last resort saved for emergencies. I think people are too quick to run to the doctor. Prevention coupled with home remedies would probably solve most of our health problems. As for the problems that prevention and home remedies can’t solve, I would leave them to the market. The market will ensure that doctors are adequately compensated for the time they invest in their education, as well as for the hours they work and the stress involved in their job. The market encourages innovation and research to create quicker and more efficient ways to cure problems. The market ensures that people will not overuse and abuse the system. Further, if there is a shortage of doctors the market will make sure that more doctors join the field, thereby reducing wait times.

Nomodiphas: But what of those who can’t afford health care?

Philosophos: First off I doubt there are many people in this country that truly cannot afford health care. I would bet that many people who ‘can’t afford health care’ have money for cable TV, money to go out to eat, have money to spend at the bars, or on cigarettes—they have money for health care they just choose to spend it on other things. If health care was a priority, they would save money for it or get insurance, but it isn’t and why should the government require others to pay for their health care when they have money for everything else they want? Why should we through our government subsidize their irresponsible lifestyles?

Second, you have to remember that government action stifles acts of mercy. If the government today would stop paying for people’s health care I promise you that private individuals and communities would come together and through acts of charity take care of the weak in their midst. Further doctors would resume the abandoned practice of providing free care to the truly needy.

I am not surprised at all that people want the government to provide health care for them and that people even go as far as to say that health care is a right. People have been conditioned to think that it is the government’s job to keep them from the negative consequences of their decisions. They think the government must rehabilitate criminals and give drug treatment to addicts. They think that if people make poor choices and fall into poverty it is the government’s responsibility to provide them with food and shelter. The government takes money from people when they are young so if they fail to have the foresight to save for their retirement they don’t have to suffer the consequences. Why should the field of health be any different?

You see this all the time. How often do you hear about people that smoke or are obese, people that completely fail to take care of themselves? And when they get sick they think the government has a responsibility to take care of them. Or someone that has reckless sex and contracts AIDS and complains that the government does not do enough for them. The same goes with those mentioned before that have money to go out drinking every week, but when they are sick they curse the government for not providing health care for them. Justice requires us to be held responsible for our actions. The government should encourage responsibility instead of engaging in acts of mercy that prevent people from facing the consequences of their choices. What will compel people to repent and live Godly lives if they can live as they wish and face no consequences?

Lastly, the government’s involvement in the field of health care destroys liberty. Instead of people taking responsibility for their actions and taking care of themselves, they rely on the government to take care of them. They see the government less and less as their creation and servant and more and more as their good intentioned big brother, their savior. When people look to and rely on the government for the solution to their self induced problems they accept injustice and restrictions on their liberty so long as the government takes care of them. They cease to be citizens and at once become slaves. They accept all the government says without question so long as their needs and desires are met.

Once again we see how government involvement in a field not its own corrupts the field and makes it inefficient, drives out mercy, and corrupts the main function of the government itself.

Science

Nomodiphas: What topic are we unto now?

Philosophos: How about science? How should the government be involved with the field of science and what is wrong with the way the government is interacting with it now?

Nomodiphas: Science is its own sphere with its own function so it should remain distinct from the government.

Philosophos: And is that the current situation?

Nomodiphas: Well, I think government is involved in science, but not to the degree that it is involved in education.

Philosophos: Give me an example of governmental involvement in the field of science.

Nomodiphas: How about NASA?

Philosophos: And what are the consequences of governmental involvement in this organization.

Nomodiphas: Well the organization has to pursue programs and topics that the government approves of. Also because this is a non-market institution it suffers the fault of all governmental organization: it is inefficient and too costly. Further, because it is government funded it is not focused so much on a gaining of knowledge as producing products that its sponsor desires. But then again, that is how most of the scientific field operates. It used to be that scientists sought to discover the principles of the natural world so that men could live according to them, now science seems to be focused solely on manipulating the principles of the natural world to make life more convenient for men (like designing better phones or ipods for example). When science is so market driven and focused only on results that create a profit, it loses sight of its primary function—that of discovering knowledge in the world.

Philosophos: Very good observation. It is true that government funded science is too focused on results, but so is market driven science. Few are the men who seek to discover knowledge for its own sake. Does a program like NASA infringe on our liberty?
Nomodiphas: Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t see how NASA infringes on our liberty. This probably has something to do with the fact that NASA does a lot of military research and the military is a valid function of the government. So by having NASA the government has not strayed too far from its function of protecting people. A scientific group that I think does infringe on our liberty is the FDA. Its function may be valid (that of protecting us by ensuring minimum standards of food and drug quality), but I think it goes too far at times. However, the biggest problem that I see in the FDA is that it often treats people like kids—it fails to respect their autonomy.

Philosophos: When does it do that?

Nomodiphas: I imagine you’ve read about those programs and initiatives they have to raise awareness about trans fat or to encourage people to exercise. This seems like an unnecessary and inappropriate use of tax dollars. They also do things that seem to undermine the autonomy of the family with their programs to encourage kids to play outside and eat their vegetables. It seems that this type of thing is the responsibility of the parents. It makes me a little nervous when the federal government tells me to go outside and to be sure I wear a hat and sunscreen! It has not happened yet, but there is always talk about banning certain fatty foods or sugary soda. It is up to the individual to decide what food they will eat and whether or not they will exercise. It makes me nervous when the government says we are making wrong choices with harsh consequences (namely obesity) so they must step in and keep us from making these decisions. These types of decisions are in the realm of individual liberty—a realm the government should not invade. I would rather have a country filled with fat and free men than a live in a country of healthy slaves! So far the invasions of freedom have been slight. I do not worry that this is a slippery slope of sorts (though it may well be) I just think we need to be on guard against even the smallest infractions of our liberty.

Education

Philosophos: How should government relate to the field of education?

Nomodiphas: Well education is obviously a good thing. It is especially important in a democracy like ours where the people are required to make important decisions. It seems to be a necessity for a society. . . .

Philosophos: Let me interrupt you to ask you this: does anyone have a right to education?

Nomodiphas: Well, no.

Philosophos: Then why do we assume that the government has an obligation to provide it? Why do we assume that education is a function of the government?

Nomodiphas: Well what about kids who can’t afford education? Isn’t it unfair to put them at a disadvantage because of the shortcomings of their parents?

Philosophos: First off if kids are in poverty it is probably because of some mistake (like laziness or a debaucherous lifestyle) of their parents. The mistakes of their parents are likely going to affect them more than their lack of education. Second, education isn’t a fix all for poverty. You know what pulls people out of poverty? Hard work, frugal living, and marriage.

And speaking of unfair, how fair is it for people without kids to provide for the education of others? What do they owe others? Education is a privilege, not a right. When we treat it as a right, people abuse it.

Think of the behavioral problems that teachers must endure because kids have a right to education and schools can’t kick them out. These kids sabotage learning for others. How fair is it to you or me to pay for some brat to go to school and screw off, disrespect his teachers, and keep other kids from learning? And why do we force kids to go to school that don’t want to? Education is a privilege, but making it into a right has had terrible results. Look at drop out rates and illiteracy rates among graduates. We see these results most in low income areas, the very areas that free education is supposed to help! Education is not in any way leveling the playing field or helping disadvantaged kids succeed. Our education system throws a bunch of kids who don’t want to be in school and learn in with a few kids that do—the result is bad for everyone. If education was treated as the privilege that it is people would take it more seriously, sacrifice for it, and not let their children go to school and screw off.

Nomodiphas: So you would just have poor kids go completely without an education. I really don’t see how that will solve any problems.

Philosophos: You are wrong to assume that if the government doesn’t educate kids, then they won’t get educated. Before the government ran education people got educated! And they got better educations than they do now. What are the results of government run education? It has more or less destroyed acts of charity in this field. No longer do people teach for free or support students with a will to learn that lack the means—rather the government takes care of everyone.

We force kids to ride on buses for hours in order to achieve acceptable levels of diversity at our schools. The race neutral standard that Brown v. Board of Education imposed quickly turned into an obsession with race. Diversity became the focus of education; and this destroyed the community basis of schools. Cities were forced to bus kids from different areas to reach a quota. In Kansas City in the 1990’s for example, a judge said the city schools must lure more white kids into the school system to achieve proper integration. He doubled the property taxes in order to add computers, a UN room, a jury room, and pools to the school at an incredible cost of an additional $36,000 per student. The result? White enrollment continued to decrease, while attendance and drop out rates continued to increase. Money does not solve all problems!

Why is there such a push for diversity. The main reason diversity is valued within in schools is to raise the self esteem of children. But there is no connection between self esteem and performance. Of all industrial countries Korean students did the best in math, while our students did the worst. 23% of Korean students said they were good at math while over 2/3 of our students thought they were good at math. We have a high level of self esteem, but we lack knowledge. It is not the function of schools to make sure kids have high self esteem; rather their job is to impart knowledge.

Walk through a government run school and take a look at things—you’ll find many distractions, but little imparting of knowledge. In many schools are security guards and metal detectors. Despite this there still is a large amount of violence. Why do we tolerate kids that bring gang rivalries to school? In addition to this our schools have a carnival like atmosphere of constant distraction. Clubs, sports, regular dances—ask the average student what they are most concerned about and I guarantee nothing that has anything to do with education will make their top ten list. The football game or the prom are their primary concerns. As is fashion. There is a need to be trendy, to fit in—the hallways are like miniature runways. Everybody is concerned about who is hooking up with who and most invest the majority of their time and effort into getting action or having mini marriages.

Drugs and drinking are rampant. From fear of violence, to sports and romance—there are many things to keep kids from learning at these government sponsored institutions. And this is probably a good thing for whenever schools try to teach kids something they never impart wisdom. Schools are brainwashing and indoctrinating our kids with gross falsehoods. They never mention God or true religion, but instead preach to them the false religions of this world. Our schools indoctrinate our children daily with the tenants of humanism. They tell them they must tolerate and accept all the choices of their peers. They preach to them the philosophy of Darwin: we are all nothing more than molecules and swirling atoms. We should therefore live to cultivate pleasure—nothing is right wrong so long as you do not hurt another person. We have the government, through their schools, teaching our children about sex! Why on earth would we want the federal government determining how and what our kids learn about sex! This is the state of the public education system. Many proponents of public education admit the faults of our system, but their solution is always the same: more money. If only we had more money for this or that we could solve these problems. That is how bureaucracies work. They are stifled, unable to be creative, and they constantly require more and more money but fail to produce results.

Nomodiphas: Ok, I think your little rant about public schools is justified. It seems you are probably right that forcing kids to go to school that don’t want to corrupts learning for all and that if education was not free people would take it more seriously. But what about college? The state gives its universities some money and students pay the rest. People go there by choice. Are colleges any different?

Philosophos: You tell me, you’ve been there more recently than I have; though I doubt that my experience was unique. Learning while at college, in my experience, was more the exception than the rule. During my first week of college a guy on my hall gave me a good piece of advice, he said: don’t ever let this university get in the way of your learning. I think the distractions at college are worse than those in high school. There is more partying, drug use, drinking, a greater devotion to the athletic teams, more groups and clubs to be involved with, and an even greater focus on hooking up. For most students college is like Pinocchio’s play land. Everything is acceptable. College is viewed as a time when you are to ‘have fun’ and ‘experiment.’ Kids are finally out of the eyes of their parents and they indulge themselves in the party scene.

Why should tax payers subsidize this lifestyle? If students had to pay their own way I would bet less people would go to college and those that did would take their learning more seriously. Yes we need doctors, scientists, and lawyers, but with the current system these professions are being watered down. When a good portion of students go to college for four (or more commonly now, five or six years) of getting drunk and hooking up the top of the class is not required to work as hard to be at the top of the class. I think we put too much importance on institutionalized education. The majority of what I learned I learned outside of the classroom.
We tell kids they have to go to college to get a good job, so many go not because they want to, but because they feel they have to. This is no accident; higher education is a multi billion dollar business. Think of all the graft and extra positions we have that have nothing to do with education. LGBT counselors, advisors for out of class groups, and million dollar football coaches to name a few. Those running the education system tell us how important it is to get an education and because it is so important, they tell us how they deserve to make more money. If kids don’t want to go to higher education we should not compel them. Why is that we can’t impart the necessary basic knowledge in twelve years? Why do we need sixteen? Can’t we make better use of the time when kids are younger so they need not go to school years into adulthood? Most people graduate with a degree in one thing and end up being retrained and working in a wholly unrelated field. What is the profit in this? We should make our earlier education better and allow younger people to specialize. We should put more focus on apprenticeship type training as well. Higher education should be reserved for professional types of degrees. Those who are able and have a desire should get these degrees and they should pay their own way so they take their studies serous.

Nomodiphas: I understand your position on higher education, but what about lower education? If the current system is inefficient and unjust, what is the solution?

Philosophos: Our schools should be family/community based. Instead of taking from some and giving to others we should make families responsible for the education and wellbeing of their children. Within this context education could take a number of forms. It could be done solely by the parents, by groups of people, or communities could hire teachers and establish centers of learning. They would be responsible for funding these centers, would control the curriculum, and be responsible for discipline.

Nomodiphas: What about cases in which the parents don’t take education seriously and don’t invest in their children? Or what if the community lacks the resources to hire quality teachers for their learning centers?

Philosophos: What are you advocating? That the government should take children from their parents and raise them because parents might do a bad job? Shouldn’t the government just decide who may breed and who may not to prohibit potentially bad parents from mating? How will this solve any problems? When the government takes on a function that is not its own it creates even more problems then it solves and undermines its own function.

Raising children (which our education system attempts to do to a large degree) not only indoctrinates children with a number of falsehoods and presents them with a plethora of distractions to keep them from learning, but it undermines the family structure and the liberty of parents to raise their children. Protecting our liberty is one of the primary things the government is entrusted to do, when the government takes on things outside of its sphere it ends up corrupting its primary functions and undermining the functions of other spheres.

Poverty

Nomodiphas: I believe that people through their government have a duty to eradicate poverty. In Deuteronomy 10:18 Moses told the people of Israel to imitate God “who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.” The people were told to take the initiative and be sure the poor were taken care of. This command was not qualified in any way.

We know there are different sources for poverty. Some people are poor due to their bad work ethic, others are poor because of disabilities, and still others are poor because of oppression. The burden of poverty was not laid on the poor, but rather on the rich. The poor were not instructed to take care of themselves, but instead the rich were commanded to provide for them. For example in the Law of Moses the rich, who benefit from the structure of society, were on multiple occasions warned to provide and care for the poor and needy. In Deuteronomy 15:7-8 Moses said: “If there is among you anyone in need. . . . You should . . . open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be.” In verses 10-11 Moses further instructed the rich to “give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so . . . I therefore command you: Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.” It was the responsibility of the rich to ensure that there was “no one in need among [them].” There was no inquiry into the origin of poverty and no justification for its presence in society. Poverty was treated as an evil that the prosperous in society must do all they could to minimize and relieve.

Philosophos: Indeed that is true, but these principles must be balanced with other verses. First off, the Law of Moses also states that if there was a young man who was able to work, but refused to and instead spent his time drinking and hanging out with friends, the community was to stone him. So yes the Israelites were to take care of the poor, but they were not to tolerate people among them who chose not to work when able, living idly with the expectation that others should provide for them. They were to take care of the poor, but the poor would mainly be comprised of the sick, elderly, widowed, and orphans. Poverty is an evil and yes we should be working against its existence, but we should also not tolerate those who live idle lives and leach off of those that work. We are not obliged to give them anything and their presence acts as a disincentive to work and when they are taken care of by us we actually encourage poverty. When one can have their needs met without working there is less incentive to work and without working one cannot escape poverty.

What is the cause of poverty in our country? It is cultural. Less than 1% of our poor finish high school, get married and stay married, and work full time for one year at the same job. These are the things needed to escape poverty. Our social welfare programs work against the elimination of poverty for they allow people to have the basic securities of life without marriage or work—they do not encourage good decisions. Couple this with the fact that our government has worked hard to remove the sigma of welfare. If the government provides basic securities and there is no shame of not working, why work? The continuation of poverty brought about by governmental aid is demonstrated in the fact that welfare rates have gone up even in times of huge job growth! Welfare is not need based and it in fact prevents people from entering the job market.

Nomodiphas: I am confused, how does government involvement keep people from working?

Philosophos: Look, today we have a situation where minimum wage, entry level jobs are held in contempt and welfare is a right (we are entitled to the wealth of others). A good work ethic is not natural. Economic incentive (or economic necessity) coupled with social stigma produces hard workers. The government has sought to eliminate both. There is no longer any reason for our poor to not choose leisure and immediate gratification over work.

Nomodiphas: Well sure, but in the Bible business was subordinated to the charge of caring for the poor. In this sphere there was no unbridled free market; rather the Law of Moses trumped any business plan. In Deuteronomy 24:13-14 Moses warned employers to “not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers,” and to return all pledges given for loans by sundown. Furthermore, in verse 19 Moses said to the landowners “when you reap your harvest in the field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow.” This was to allow the poor to provide for themselves. This same principle was applied to olive trees and vineyards in the next verse. Business could only function within the limits established by the law and the law was limited in such a way so that care for the poor was the priority instead of secondary to the profitability of business.

Philosophos: I don’t at all see that as a repudiation of the free market. These are just conditions to allow the market to work. The state did not assign jobs to its citizens; it allowed them to freely contract their labor—this is the free market at work. The restrictions you mentioned were put into place to prevent abuse. They did not limit what type of job one could work at or how much one had to be paid. They merely ensured that wages were given in an appropriate amount of time.

Second, I want you to notice how it is not the government that is told to care for the poor, but rather the citizens that are told to care for the poor. The government was not given the power to take from those with wealth and give to those with less wealth. Instead it was the citizens who were commanded to be generous for God had been generous to them. Further, though sometimes there is a need for it, the people were not to just give the poor a handout—the primary way they were to help the poor was by allowing or giving the poor an opportunity to help themselves. The people were not told to harvest their gleanings and give it to the poor, but instead to leave the gleanings so that people without property would have an opportunity to work and provide for themselves.

As for the limits on business, they were to prevent oppression. A core function for the government, a truth about justice, is that the strong should not take advantage of the weak (that is justice while mercy would be the request that the strong actively take care of the weak). The Bible is very serious about preventing oppression of the weak, by the strong. The Book of Amos, for example, is full of warnings of impending judgment for the oppressors of the poor. In 8:4-10 Amos wrote:

Hear this, you that trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land . . . buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. . . . The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their deeds . . . I [God] will make the sun go down at noon, and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation.

Nomodiphas: You make good points. The rich were commanded to not oppress the poor and were required to not take from the poor the ability to provide for themselves. But there are other ways the Law of Moses subordinated business to the end of preventing poverty. Even more effective than caring for the poor and needy were the institutions and laws that prevented poverty from even taking root within society. The first such provision was a ban on usury. In Exodus 22:25 Moses wrote that “if you lend money to . . . the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them.” In addition to this Deuteronomy Chapter 15 states that every seven years all debts were cancelled and people who hired themselves out as laborers were released from there obligations. This prevented people from falling into inescapable debt where they would exist under the power of their debt holder.

Another provision to keep members of the Hebrew nation from falling into poverty was the year of jubilee. When the Hebrew people first occupied Israel under Joshua the land was divided and each family was given a hereditary tract of land. Leviticus 25:28 pronounces that during difficult times people were allowed to sell their land, but at the end of fifty years, in the year of jubilee, all property was to be given back to the original inhabitants. These measures were exactly what Rousseau had in mind when he wrote that “it is therefore one of the most important functions of government to prevent extreme inequality of fortunes; not by taking away wealth from its possessors, but by providing all men the means to accumulate it . . . [this prevents] the citizens from becoming poor.”

These measures that God instituted through Moses prevented any family or group from gaining large tracts of land and through this a dominating position in the nation. In a largely agrarian society, land was essential to provide for oneself. Through the natural cycle of weather some land owners could be lucky, while others unlucky. The lucky ones, in difficult times, could buy the land of the unlucky and soon amass huge tracks of land and wealth for their families. This, however, would put everyone else at a disadvantage and they would likely be hired as laborers who would only be paid a portion of what their work produced, causing them to fall deeper into poverty while enriching those with land.

As economic stratification widens, not only is there a risk of class antagonism and civil war, but more likely, a tyranny is bound to emerge. The rich invent a philosophy to justify their wealth. They say they are fairly rich; they work hard and are cleverer than the rest of society and therefore merit their wealth. If only the poor would work harder, then they too could enjoy the same lifestyle as the rich. Because the wealthy hold a larger stake in society, they come to think that they alone should rule. Soon a government of the rich and powerful few emerges that oppresses the poor, weak masses. The rich claim they know best and have society’s best interest in mind, but they rule in order to hold their position, to keep themselves and their children elevated in society and keep the poor trampled under foot.

Liberty cannot exist without some form of economic equality. Rousseau wrote that the essential duty of government is “above all in protecting the poor against the tyranny of the rich.” Moses shared this notion and for this reason instituted these economic measures. Banning usury, canceling debts, and returning land so that every family may provide for itself and no family may amass a fortune, all these provisions promoted a degree of economic equality while preventing a stratification of wealth in order to safeguard the freedom of the people.

Philosophos: I would agree that these laws were put into place primarily to prevent social stratification. I believe that these are wise and good laws; however given that there is not penalty attached to these proscriptions I would argue that these are prudential and not moral, necessary laws. A large middle class is better because of the problems that you mentioned that often accompany wealth concentration. You are right about the fact that as wealth becomes more and more concentrated those with wealth are more likely to control politics. But you must keep in mind that wealth in and of itself is not bad. God blessed Abraham, Job, and King Solomon among others with great wealth.

There is a Christian man in my city that is very wealth and he gives the majority of his wealth away. He is doing more for the church and the poor than anyone else I know. He works primarily to make money to help advance the Kingdom of God. I have very deep respect for him. If all men were like him, I would encourage the concentration of wealth for when a few men control wealth they can be decisive with it and be well organized and fund projects that large, contentious groups can’t. The problem is that this good man is a rarity, he is not the norm. Most men that make money make it for their own benefit. Still, it is not morally wrong to have lots of wealth, what is right or wrong is how you use it.

Still, as you mentioned earlier today, the government is not entitled to tell you how to use your wealth. We have a right to the fruits of our labor. The government may tax to further its legitimate purposes, but taking from some and giving to others is not a legitimate government function. The government should have laws in place that help the poor provide for themselves and prevent the rich from oppressing the poor, but it may not justly take from some and give to others and it may not force others to give. It is wise for a government to have laws in place that work against the concentration of wealth, but this is merely a prudential law and not a morally necessary one.

Nomodiphas: What about Jesus? Didn’t he warn in Mathew 25:40-43 that on the final judgment he will tell the righteous “just as you did to one of the least . . . you did it to me.” And to the wicked he will say “you that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire . . . for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Jesus said that not only is it unjust to oppress the poor, as most people agree with, but it is also unjust to ignore the plight of the poor and not actively care for them.

There are many other passages within the Bible that confirm this principle of caring for the poor. The prophet Isaiah in 1:17 told the Hebrew nation to “learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.” Again, there is no qualifier to help only those who could not prevent their poverty and ignore those whose poverty is self inflicted. No matter their circumstances people have value and must be treated with dignity and respect. Jesus affirmed the principle that at all times everyone must be treated as ends in themselves, rather than as collateral means so others may live a more comfortable life.

Philosophos: Of course we are to treat all people with dignity and respect and not as collateral means so that we may live a comfortable life. With power comes responsibility and those with wealth in this life ought to use it to help those who have less. But let me ask you this, are we saved by works?

Nomodiphas: Of course not, we are saved by God’s grace alone.

Philosophos: So when Jesus is talking about taking care of the poor he is not saying that our salvation is hinging on it?

Nomodiphas: Not at all.

Philosophos: Then what is he saying?

Nomodiphas: I suppose he is saying that our acts of mercy are evidence that we follow him.

Philosophos: I think you are correct. God saved us out of mercy. After receiving his mercy we are expected to give it to others. We need to keep in mind who Jesus is talking to here. He is not addressing some governor telling him to care for the poor, nor is he telling non-believing merchants that they’ll be judged based on how they care for the poor, rather He is talking to his followers telling them that He expects them to be merciful as He was and that their mercy is evidence that they are true followers. It is not unjust to withhold aid to the poor, rather it is unmerciful. The government deals with justice and not mercy and therefore care to the poor is outside of its function. Are you in agreement with this?

Nomodiphas: Yes.

Philosophos: Now, how do we relate all of this back to our society?

Nomodiphas: Well, we should not tolerate those who are able to work, but choose not to and instead live from the work of others. Based off of the principle of gleaning, there should be laws in place that prevent the rich from taking away people’s ability to provide for themselves. The government must have laws in place to prevent oppression and it is wise, though not necessary, to have laws in place which encourage the growth of a large middle class and prevent the growth of wealth disparity. The government cannot force people to give nor can it take from some and give to others. As Christians we are expected to be merciful, it does not save us, but is the correct response given the mercy that Christ gave to us. As we know mercy is different from justice. Care for the poor is an act of mercy and is therefore beyond the realm of government and the government in no way can compel it.

Philosophos: What are the consequences of the government either directly or indirectly providing for the poor?

Nomodiphas: Well, given the conclusions we have come to, it is unjust. The government does not have the power to take from some and give to others. Second it corrupts notions of justice and mercy thereby perverts the gospel message. Finally it costs a lot. Taxes are raised and a bureaucracy must be created to administer this massive act of mercy. A giant bureaucracy is less efficient then individuals at dispensing charity. The government is set up to treat people as faceless citizens, not as individuals, but mercy requires individualization and that is why the government fails at it. It seems that people (at least as in the case of America where there are not structural injustices) are responsible for their poverty. Only the poor themselves, by taking responsibility for their poverty and dealing with it, are able to overcome it. And now that I think of it, even in cases where government oppression creates poverty, we are responsible for our government and in that way in responsible for our own poverty. Because we are responsible for our governments, even if they are bad, we should give wisely and give in such a way so that our giving may bring change (mainly increased liberty) instead of allowing injustice to perpetuate.

Philosophos: Very good and true. Today, wanting someone else’s money is called ‘need,’ wanting to keep your own money is called ‘greed,’ and ‘compassion’ is when politicians arrange the transfer.” In the 1980’s, when the tax rates were lowered, charitable giving rose at a rate 55% faster than the last 25 years. Government involvement in care for the poor stifles private giving and care. We lose personalized charity for a charity that is dispensed by a faceless organization. Further, because charity is forced it loses its goodness.

Because mercy is outside of its function, the government is not good at providing mercy. A good example of a failed attempt by the government to help the poor is the Job Corps. The Job Corps took 100,000 young people and provided them with free job training. 2/3 never finished this free program financed by the people at a cost of over $21,000 per participant. Those that did finish often worked in a field outside of their training. This program cost a lot and did no real good. But outside of inefficiency I want you to consider one more aspect of the government aiding the poor. How does it affect our liberty?

Nomodiphas: Popular involvement in government assumes that people are free. As they become more reliant on the government they become less free and well, more reliant. As their liberty lessens, they don’t function as independent of the government. They cannot step back and look at what is best for the government for they need a government, just or not, that will continue to provide for them. They don’t see the government as their creation, but rather like a father. They cease to be free citizens that run the government and instead become children of the state unable to rule themselves. Reliance destroys self rule. They put up with its injustices so long as it continues to provide them with the things they believe they are entitled to. They have lower opinions of themselves for taking handouts, which prevents them from self governance and leads them to accept the government’s impositions. They are less likely to start up new businesses, wealth decreases, and then further poverty sets in. They take less initiative in the field of science or health always waiting for the government to solve their problems. These fields lag as well. It definitely hurts liberty and we know that one of the primary functions of government is to further and protect our natural liberty. Wealth production is not the primary purpose of government and government should not be involved in it especially if it jeopardizes the liberty of its citizens.

Philosophos: Good thoughts. Here is my last question on this topic, what is poverty in our society? Specifically how do we define poverty and does it even exist in our country?

Nomodiphas: I can think of two different types of poverty or two different types of poor people, one is subjective or comparative poverty the other is absolute poverty (destitution). Comparative poverty is common in our country and in every country. It means I am rich or poor compared to those around me. For example if I lived in a half million dollar house in a community where everyone else lives in ten million dollar houses I would be poor. While I am poor in this sense, I am not destitute.

Destitution is when one lives without the basic needs of life: food, water, clothing, and shelter. From what I can tell destitution does not exist in this country. I do not know of anyone who starves to death in this country. There are people without shelter, but groups provide temporary shelter for them—the reason many people reject these shelters is because they are not willing to obey the rules of them (like staying drug free). Poverty in this country is a very elusive term. You can see people who are considered poor that wear designer clothes and carry cell phones. I read about a woman complaining that by the time she spends her government aid on her rent, cable TV, and her cell phone bill, she barely has any left! Cable TV! Cell phones! And you consider yourself poor and oppressed? People who are poor in this country live like kings compared to the rest of the world. They have running water, electricity, refrigerators, and phones; often they own cars and sometimes even houses!

Philosophos: Very true. Lets take a look at what poor people look like in our country. 41% own homes, 75% own cars and VCR’s, 2/3 have air conditioning and microwaves, most have a TV, refrigerator, and a phone. The average poor person in our country has more living space and is more likely to own a car than the average European. Our poor would be wealthy in many other places and ages. In fact if you compared our poor to the rich during the time of Jesus I bet our poor across the board live better. I would wager that they have better access to food, clean water, health care, cleaner living conditions, fairness in the courts of law, and even more opportunity for non-essential forms of entertainment. If our poor live better then the rich at the time of Jesus, who was Jesus telling us to help when he said help the poor?

Nomodiphas: He was referring to the destitute. I don’t think he wanted us to make sure that all of our neighbors had DVD players or new cars. Rather Jesus told us to help those without the basic necessities of life. Destitution does not exist in the United States. However, real poverty affects hundreds of millions around the world. There are countless people who lack the necessities of life. These people do starve to death, live without clean water, adequate shelter and clothing, and die due to a lack of medicine. Not that we should ignore our neighbors, rather we need to expand our conception of who are neighbors are. I believe too much focus is put on those in the US and this takes the focus off of those who live in the most need.