What is the proper role of government? Individual Morality

The next question is what role should the government play in personal morality? The answer is, I am just not sure.

Again, we know what the Bible asks of us. It is typically clear. Many denominations disagree about what to believe more than about how to act. Most evangelical Christians would believe the following: do not do drugs for recreational purposes, do not have any sexual relationships other than that between a man and wife, watch what you read, watch, and listen to (although there are disagreements based on degrees).

But...the question is, to what degree should the government be an enforcer of morality in these respects. Most Christians would argue that the government should play an active role in enforcing moral behaviors, such as outlawing homosexuality, prostitution, etc... Other Christians think this moral enforcement is important but focus more on "social justice" issues, so they side with the Democrats, who focus less on individual morality. A small minority of Christians argue for libertarianism, essentially, saying that the government should not be an enlisted agent by Christians. In Common Ground Between the Philosophies of Christianity and Libertarianism the author, D. Eric Schansberg, makes a few good points.

1) He argues that people with a great deal of power are likely to abuse it. In 1 Sam. 8:11–18:

"Â… he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.Â… He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers Â… the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves.Â…"

2) He argues that man can put too much faith on government, as opposed to God, and people can do that by depending on government to enforce moral laws.

3) He mentions several opportunities where Jesus turns down opportunities for political power and does not use force to establish his kingdom on earth. This argument may have some merit, but you also have to consider what Jesus was on earth to do at that time. However, the author also argues that if political power was important to God, that he would have sent Jesus at perhaps a different time and different place. It is an argument worth thinking about.

4) Also, the author states "Finally, Christians should recognize that the State has made martyrs out of many of ChristÂ’s followers, and it was the State along with religious authorities that put Christ to death. That Christ was killed by a combination of religious and State authorities was no accident." This is a very interesting argument, and I think one of the more important ones. Many times when religious authorities have been in charge, bad things have happened, namely, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and Constantine's established religion of Christianity that caused many Pagan elements to be introduced into certain branches of Christianity. History shows that bad things can happen when religion is established by government.

5) Schansberg also discusses the fallen nature of man, although he may not have phrased his argument the same way I am doing here. When we give men the power to enforce what we want them to do, we also give them the power to do what we do not want them to do. The same government that today taxes cigarettes because we think they are bad, also have the same power to tax fast food tomorrow, which many of us would not be so crazy about. We cannot always trust those in charge to do what is virtuous with the power we have given them. When we limit the power of officials to keep the peace and enforce protective measures, they are less likely to become corrupt. This is not only an argument against legislating individual morality, but collective morality as well.

6) The silence of the Bible with respect to using human government to enforce morality, in light of the previous and following arguments.

7) The way God interacts with us as humans allows for a high degree of freedom. The author points out that the New Testament focuses on the idea of freedom, and the fact that God gives us free will to obey or disobey him, despite the possible hurt caused by our disobedience. God, who hates sin, and causes no sin, still gives us free will to do good or evil.

8) He argues that the freedom to choose is a prerequisite for virtue.

9) He also states that "This activity [legislating morality] promotes judgmentalism (judging people rather than behaviors) or at least the perception thereof. It often amounts to legalism (elevating gray issues to black-and-white or imposing personal preferences on others). It enhances the perception that Christianity is a works-based religion. ...Too, it is often applied inconsistently (legislating against some sins without pursuing legal prohibitions against more destructive sins)."

I think he makes some interesting points here. The question is, once we have decided to legislate morality, to what extent should we do so, and what sins should we choose? We try to outlaw homosexuality but leave premarital sex and divorce alone. We outlaw marijuana without outlawing alchohol, which kills far more people. Again, whether we should do these things or not is not the issue, but the fact that decisions have to be made about which sins to outlaw.

Now, one thing I must mention. I believe abortion, undoubtedly, should be outlawed. The term "legislating morality" refers typically to "victimless" actions, things that directly affect only the person involved. Abortion is a crime against other people, in this case, the unborn baby. Most libertarians support abortion, but one can be a philosophical libertarian and be pro-life. Unfortunately, many people do not consider the fetus a human. I also do not consider legalizing gay marriage okay, either. It is one thing to allow people to engage in such behavior, it is another thing to give the governmental stamp of approval.

The purpose of this article is not to promote social libertarianism, it is just stuff I am thinking about. I personally hate the idea of legalizing prostitution and drugs, these are really the areas I get hung up on. However, I feel that I do not have a resolution in my mind as to what extent the government should get involved in issues of morality. I also wanted to discuss the ideas of someone who is Christian and libertarian and see what they had to say about the subject.