For all those interested, here’s a debate that took place on September 9 2008 between Frank Turek of crossexamined.org and Christopher Hitchens, who has been getting the occasional mention here lately. The subject of the debate – what else: Does God Exist?

Enjoy.

Just a quick note on something that happened today:

I’ve been following with some interest the arguments about California’s proposition 8 that defined marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, ruling out same-sex marriage. One disturbing development that has emerged is the wave of personal harassment, vandalism and even death threats that some conservative Christians are receiving by those who opposed proposition 8 and the religious convictions of many who supported it. For a couple of examples see here or here, for plenty more, as they say, “just google it.”

And then what should happen, but I get an email from an atheist with whom I’ve had some email exchanges recently, who wrote me an email just for the purposes of saying, and I quote: “Funny how it’s always the religious who send the death threats.” He wasn’t talking about proposition 8, he was saying this because of a court case involving evolution where a judge received threats purporting to come from the opponents of evolution.

Funny how it’s always the religious? Is this the point where I say “funny how it’s ALWAYS THE ATHEISTS” who make untrue and stupid generalizations at points in history where the headlines scream at them just how wrong they are”?

But no, that would be to make a generalisation, I admit. Still, it did make me shake my head in disbelief. Nice going, Edward.

Should we reject Christianity because of the harmful deeds done in its name? Some have said so. This episode explains what is wrong with that line of reasoning.

Here are the notes.

Glenn Peoples

Episode 020: The Argument from Atrocity [ 43:54 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

It might seem like a very odd connection until you consider… well, actually no matter what you consider it still seems like an odd connection, but in the recent song and dance about Proposition 8 in California, that very odd connect has been reinforced yet again. I’m sure that there are plenty of homosexual people who don’t choose to identify as socialist, so don’t take me to be saying that they all do. But when it comes to the public scrap about marriage, for some of them the red comes to the surface quicker than you can drop a hat.

As evidenced here, here, here, here and in many many other places, some outspoken homosexuals actually believe the following slogan:

Marriage is a civil right.

Now let me be very clear what’s being said here. They’re not saying that they have the right to live together as a couple. They already have that right in California, and it was not under threat. They mean legal marriage, and I don’t mean a relationship that is legally permitted (again, they already have this, which is why Keith Olbermann is lying in the second link above when he says that all homosexuals in California who opposed proposition 8 want is the ability to be “a little less alone in the world” by having a relationship”), I mean a relationship that is created by law. What they are actually saying is this:

I have a basic right for the government to create a type of legal relationship and to confer upon my relationship the status of being one of those relationships.

Excuse me? There exists no such civil right, for anyone – homosexual, heterosexual…. or otherwise! What kind of nannyish rubbish is this? The government does currently create such a relationship and confer upon many heterosexual relationships the status of being one of those relationships (and it refuses to do so for others – e.g. close relatives, relationships with more than two people etc, which is why Representative Anthony D. Weiner is lying in the third link above when he says “We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage”). It’s like thinking that the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arms, that is, the government has the duty to buy you a gun!

If I stood up in public and said that my wife and I had a civil right to a free house from the government, what would you say? And how crazy do you think I would look if I went further and said that if the government did not provide one then it was somehow displaying hatred or contempt for me or for my relationship?

I’m a conservative Christian, and I take very seriously the teaching of the Bible. So if you tell me that I have no choice and I must accept the fact that all marriages must be state-endorsed, then obviously I’m going to think in terms of my traditional understanding of marriage, since I don’t want the government creating and then endorsing things that are immoral. We’re going to clash and war over that. But here’s a radical thought: If you want to get married then get married, and let’s not let the government have a part of it at all! But what about incest, polygamy etc? Well firstly, people in the USA are already legally permitted to have sexual relations with multiple people and commit adultery. If you think that’s so horrific, then support a law banning it. And incest is already illegal, so the question of incestuous marriage isn’t an issue. The act is banned. Let’s just say that anyone can get married, as long as they don’t commit any acts that are themselves illegal (like incest or marrying a minor or any other illegal sexual practices). Enter into whatever property contracts you like, regardless of sexuality. Issues of sexual practices are determined on their own (e.g. the notorious “anti-sodomy law” issue in Texas). But the suggestion that you have a civil right for the government to come into your bedroom and give you a nice certificate and pat your relationship on the back (so to speak)…. Please don’t do that to my language. “Rights” are important things, and you’re dragging that word through the mud when you use it like that.

(This is to say nothing of the misleading claim that currently, different individuals have different rights based on their sexuality. They don’t. No individual is excluded from getting married in California based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. That’s why emotive comparisons to interracial marriage being banned just have no substance. But that’s a whole other kettle of fish.)

Now that the pre-election madness is over, the podcast will be swinging back into action. The next episode will be on the “argument from atrocity,” where some argue that we should all reject Christianity because of its involvement with atrocities in history like the inquisition or the crusades.

Stay tuned!

… Ok, it’s basically history. There are still some special votes to count, but the outcome is pretty clear.

John Key will be our new Prime Minister, and the National party will work in coalition with the ACT party as well as with Peter Dunne, the only Member of Parliament for the United Future party. See the official results here. Prime Minister Helen Clark is standing down as leader of the Labour Party. Of some concern is that the Green Party did increase its number of seats, but thankfully they won’t be able to do any further damage from the opposition benches.

Is it the dream government? Not at all. Is it an improvement? Yes, absolutely, and I am very thankful for the change. Let’s see what happens next.

Tomorrow on November 8th New Zealand voters will decide who will govern this country for the next three years. In the last few blog entries I’ve given a fairly good idea of where I stand and the kind of government I would like to emerge from that election. Today I will not say anything at all about that. What I say today will hopefully have relevance well beyond the New Zealand election. It is as relevant for us as it is for the recent American election and Canadian election (whenever that is) as well as any other country’s election.

I know what I want in a government, but I also know that political salvation is not merely wishful thinking, it is idolatry.

Although I have my disagreements with the late Cornelius Van Til as I have mentioned in a previous podcast episode, when he was right, he was right (and while I’m at it I may as well add that A = A). In a slightly different but related context (namely that of philosophical ethics), Van Til made this pronouncement:

“There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy”

(Christian Theistic Ethics).

In this context, “theonomy” means deriving our standard of right and wrong from God, and “autonomy” means deriving our standard of right and wrong from ourselves, either individually or collectively.

The election has the potential to do some good for our economy, for our levels of (un)employment, for the overall financial wellbeing of New Zealand families and their incentive to better their lot, for the way we treat the environment, to provide us with greater choice when it comes to education, along with many other things. But that’s it. That’s all it will do and that’s all it can do. Some of things, I am sure, really are more in keeping with a Christian outlook than others, but let’s be realistic. The next government may be tougher on crime, but it will not and cannot overcome the self serving spirit, answering only to itself. It might punish revenge, but it cannot curb hatred or malice. It might give money to families, but it cannot make them good families, make them wise in how they use that money, give parents the mind to love and raise their children as they ought, give children the wisdom to follow their parents’ instruction, or cause parents to be faithful to one another. It might tax people to the hilt, but we might end up with resentment and envy rather than a caring society that wants to look after its poor. It might cut taxes, but it cannot cause people to value what they earn and exercise godly stewardship with what we are provided with. It might give us freedom of religion and the ability to serve God with no fear of censorship or government reprisal, but it cannot do a thing to cause us to actually serve God at all. This is what I think is wrong with many laws that we already have in New Zealand. They exist because of the hopeless delusion that they can actually make us better people. This is not the role of our government. That is the role of the Holy Spirit.

The next government, I hope, will allow us more freedom to follow God and to not serve or enable an agenda that is contrary to our faith. But in our country, that is as much as we should think that we can ask or expect. There are people for whom, as far as I can tell, politics is their religion (making it ironic that they think that religion and politics have nothing to do with one another). Placards and megaphones replace pulpits and pews, but the actual form their religion takes is immaterial. They labour away under the illusion that by screaming, shoving, waving and voting as they are, they are ushering in the kingdom of God (albeit with a different name). What else is there for them to look to? If values are not enshrined in the law of the land, then they are not enshrined at all, right?

No government, prime minister, president, congress, parliament, queen or king can be the messiah that some people are looking for in this election. The consequences of rejecting theonomy in the broad sense that Van Til meant are tragic. His view, and mine, is that human rule-making vacillates and changes, having no bedrock foundation and is often a product of whatever group of people happens to hold power. What is constant, what is based in fact, what is the measure of our endeavours, is the word (in the sense of the will or decree) of our creator. What we ultimately need can never be delivered by our government, it can only be given to us by our God because of the work of His Son. This is as true in a free market liberty loving society as it is under an oppressive communist dictatorship. For those familiar with the work of Augustine, we should not invest our life and aspirations in erecting the city of man in the hope that it will give us what the Kingdom of God promises.

I want a good government. I really do. In fact I think a government that knows its limits and realises that it is only the law of God that provides a moral framework within which all of us operate (either in line with it or in rebellion against it) is better than any other. But a government is just a government. If you look to it the way so many starry eyed, expectant voters are when it comes to tomorrow’s election, you will be let down. You will either realise that you’ve been let down when the government fails to deliver that which you most need, or you will not realise it at all, and you will replace God with an idol, thinking that it has given you that which you most need.

In a democracy, a good government does not ultimately make a better country. This is to put the cart before the horse. The fact that we live in a democracy means that a good country produces a good government. They come from among us, and we vote them in, remember? Whoever wins this election, let’s work on a better country – that is, better people – so that we will have a better government. And that is something that the government simply cannot produce. This is the task of the Church and the power of God.

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity.

Ecclesiastes 12:13

Glenn Peoples

Actually I’m not telling who I’m voting for. But I will tell you what reasons I think you should have for voting for any party.

Basic Human rights/freedoms

There are some bottom line human rights and liberties that should always be protected. They’re sometimes called “first generation” human rights. Whatever you call them, here are the big basic things that no government anywhere should neglect, and which no state has any right to diminish. These are the non-negotiables, the rejection of which means that you’re simply morally deficient and unfit to be in power.

- Right to life

Christians believe that human life is sacred. Humanity is made in the image of God, and as such taking life is a serious matter. Prima facie, we have a duty to not kill. That is to say, if there are no other factors to consider, then killing human beings is always wrong. Some times, of course, there are other factors to consider. Sometimes people are attacked (or their families, friends etc), and in the course of defending themselves they kill the attacker. This is rare, since self defense usually does not require killing anyone, but sometimes it happens. Sometimes this happens not merely on a personal level, but a national one, where your country is attacked by another. Here too, most of us recognise that although we may not want to kill anyone, that may be an unavoidable outcome of defending our country. Even in the controversial case of abortion, many conservative Christians accept that – although it is a terrible thing to have to do – there are cases where the very existence of the unborn child poses a clear and imminent threat to the life of the woman carrying the child, and removing the child at an early stage of gestation involves ending the life of that child. It’s the doctrine of double effect – you save life and prevent both mother and child from dying, but a consequence of this is that one of them dies. A more controversial example still for some Christians is the issue of capital punishment. Here, while we have a prima facie duty not to kill people, a person is deemed to have done something so terrible that they give up their right to life itself, and they are put to death.

None of these scenarios, of course, involves rejecting the right to life, since the right to life imposes only a prima facie duty. But it is still a duty, and the fact that there are a few rare cases where we can take life should not allow us to trivialise this right or duty. For that reason, abortion should be regarded as prima facie wrong (even if there could conceivably be isolated cases where it is permissible), and not merely wrong but such an abridgment of human rights that it ought not be permitted. Similarly, because of the value of human life, most forms of euthanasia are likewise not permissible. I say “most forms” because there are some forms of euthanasia that are arguably not killing, or which are sufficiently indirect that they are not morally on par with killing (such as withdrawal of extraordinary means, or death as a double effect resulting from pain relief). Firstly then, I think that any party that has a permissive policy on abortion or euthanasia has a big black mark against it when it comes to being a party worth voting for. I know of only two parties in the election race who pass this hurdle, namely the two Christian parties: The Kiwi party and the Family Party.

- Free speech

The right to freedom of speech means that if I want to say it, and if I am able to say it, then I must be free to say it and the state should not prevent me from doing so. As with the right to life, this is a prima facie right, and there are limits on what I can and cannot say. Sellers are not allowed to mislead people about products and services they sell, for example. I am not allowed to defame somebody: Say things that are not true or reasonable to believe and which damage another person (for example, I cannot spread rumours that a local retailer is a paedophile in order to get people to come to my store instead). But the right to free speech means that it is wrong for the state to censor or inhibit the propagation of any point of view in society. If I want to print and distribute fliers telling people who I think they should vote for, or if I want to rent billboard space to do the same thing – no strings attached, it is something I have a right to do. Of course, nobody has a duty to promote or protect my views, so another person can refuse to use her private property to promote my views (e.g. if I leave comments on her blog she may delete them, because it’s her blog), but that’s an issue of that person’s private property rights, and it doesn’t mean I no longer have a right to free speech. What’s more, free speech doesn’t come with extra conditions. For example, the state can’t say “sure, you can voice your political opinion and attack our policies, but if you do then you must wear this big bullseye so that people can identify you in public,” or “OK, so tell people that you’re opposed to our regime, but you’ll have to attach this big yellow star to the front door of your house so that our goons know where to look for you.” That’s not free speech because it’s not free. All it would do is discourage people from expressing themselves via intimidation or fear of reprisal.

Generally speaking, free speech exists in New Zealand, and few parties pose any sort of threat to it. As far as I know, none of the parties listed in this blog entry would threaten free speech. I haven’t listed the Labour Party or the minor parties on the far left, as they tend to fail just about every single criterion I present here. Free speech is no exception for Labour, who are responsible for the “electoral finance act” that I discussed recently. The act in effect does the same thing as would a law that says you can have free speech as long as you paint a bulls-eye on the door of your family home. Check out my earlier blog entry to see why.

- Property rights

People have certain rights over their own property. What they earn belongs to them, and it cannot be taken from them without due process and given to others. The government cannot commandeer land that you own for its own projects, and if it requires land you own, you must be compensated at market value. This has implications for taxation as well. Prima facie, the government cannot tax you at all. Only after good grounds have been given for obliging you to pay tax can the government take money from you, and it must be transparently accountable to you for what it does with that money, and continually justify the level of tax taken. Remember, “thou shalt not steal.”

In addition to what we might think of as basic human rights and freedoms, there are a few other important principles of government that have in common the pursuit of justice and/or the reduction of corruption by state interference.

Separation of powers / due process

By “separation of powers” I mean that Parliament, while it has the authority to make laws, has absolutely no authority to enforce those laws, and no role whatsoever in the judicial process. It will respect the decision of the courts, it will not commandeer the police to do its bidding, and it will not influence the likelihood of a person facing (or not facing) charges, among other things. The Labour government and its ministers have blatantly violated each of these principles as I have noted elsewhere.

Small government / non intervention

This is really the broad principle underlying many of the rights and principles I’ve outlined here. In a pluralistic society, we all have our own agendas. Some will get married, others will not, some are happy with one type of school or educational method, some prefer others, some people might like one insurance company, some prefer others, some people take fewer risks, and so end up having fewer accidents and less accident related expense, some people make foolish choices and end up disadvantaging themselves and so forth. You get the idea. Small government means that the government does not intrude into private life, and it lets people make their own choices and bear responsibility for the consequences of those choices. People will save money or waste money depending on the options they choose, they will have more or fewer accidents, they will spend more or less on education, and so forth. Likewise, the government might not like the values that parents instill in their children, but it is not the job of government to raise children, that is the role of parents. Likewise again, the government might not like the fact that a court reaches a certain decision, but it is not the job of the government to settle cases, that is the role of the courts.

In the political tradition that I am partial to, namely the Christian classical liberal tradition, the role of the state is limited by the law of nature. It should only do what the basic precepts of the law of nature (that is, minimal standards of justice and upright living) require of it, and beyond this, it usurps the role of the private sector.

Safety net for the poor

Why am I listing this last? Doesn’t the Bible say more about caring for the poor than it does about free trade or property rights? Yes it does. It also says more about worshipping God in song than it does about free speech, but that doesn’t mean we should only vote for a party that promises to create taxpayer funded hymn singing squads. The fact that something is encouraged in the Bible does not automatically mean that we are justified in saying that the Bible advocates it as a duty of the government. Just about every time the Bible says anything at all about caring for the poor, it is clearly speaking about the duty that we as people have, rather than describing government spending programmes. I’m also listing it last to deliberately contrast myself from some Christians who (as far as I can tell) seriously believe that social justice just is wealth redistribution to the poor. Those who think this are somewhat selective in their reading of the Bible. For some reason none of them ever seem to quote 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

That being said, there does need to be a safety net for those who fall into genuine hardship. People who are genuinely unable to earn a living (or who are demonstrably doing all that they can to obtain work) and who have no other means of support should be assisted for as long as is necessary. Although by no means a desirable state of affairs, it’s like the Proverb says, “people do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry.”

Far from being some sort of socialism, this has always been a part of a conservative or classical liberal outlook. John Locke gives his rationale for limited welfare in his treatise on government, book 1, paragraph 42:

But we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God, the Lord and Father of all, has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it: and therefore no man could ever have a just power over the life of another by right of property in land or possessions; since it would always be a sin, in any man of estate, to let his brother perish for want of affording him relief out of his plenty. As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him; so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise.

Likewise in biblical law, allowance was made for those in genuine need to receive something from the surplus of those with plenty. See Leviticus 19:9-10 – “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.”

This has particular relevance here because it is not simply moral instruction but law, and therefore enforceable by the authorities.

What should be pretty obvious in all this is that having basic safety nets for those in genuine need has little (if anything) to do with enormous wealth redistribution programmes to equalise all middle class families and give them advantages over people with no children. One other reason for listing this criteria last is that it really serves no value as a means of distinguishing between political parties in this election. There is no party that stands any chance of being in Parliament that does not meet this criterion in some way. Most parties go well beyond a safety net, and end up pursuing admirable ends by immoral means.

So how do these parties measure up?

I won’t say much about National, other than to say that they have painted themselves into a political corner. In order to attract Labour voters, they have become as much like Labour as its own supporters will let it, which is quite a lot unfortunately. Think enormous government, duplicating Labour’s massive welfare programmes, shaving tiny amounts off tax for most people, and calling it a change. There’s no principled stance on matters of human life that I can see, and little to redeem the party apart from the fact that they could be worse (e.g. they could be Labour). It does, however, have two redeeming features (I said there’s little to redeem them, not nothing). One, they aren’t Labour, and two, Stephen Franks (one of the finest politicians in this country, and a former ACT MP).

Ditto for United Future, but add to the mix a leader (Peter Dunne) who will literally support any other party no matter how bad, as long as it gets him leverage as a minister and coalition power broker. This is the man who was happy to prop up the minority Labour Government in exchange for a ministerial portfolio.

The Kiwi party presents a strong Christian image, opposing abortion and the legal manufacturing of same sex marriage, but they are a bit of a political Frankenstein – sometimes appearing to favour a socialist state (when it comes to, for example, spending taxpayer funds on pre-marriage counselling), sometimes appearing to favour a more limited state (opposing the so-called “anti-smacking bill” as a government intrusion into the home). There’s a statist approach to employment (and effectively job cuts), advocating raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, which is a big nod to leftist voters, and then they’re back in the lower tax camp by advocating income splitting for couples. On the whole they certainly seem to advocate more of a limited government/personal responsibility stance than the current government (additional policies like tax rebates for private health insurance bear this out). So while I like them when it comes to a few specific issues, on the whole I just don’t see them as having a particular political vision or unifying set of principles, and they fail quite badly in some cases when it comes to the scope and power of the government. An improvement? Sure. Will I vote for them? No.

On the whole, the ACT party score very well in regard to the principles that I look for in government, as outlined here. It’s such a shame that they do so abysmally poor when it comes to issues of human life. As a party perceived as being fairly extreme (only because most New Zealand parties contain so many socialistic elements that any party that lacks them appears very different and therefore extreme), it attracts extreme supporters, and like Labour it has managed to capture the affections of some young voters very hostile to Christianity. There’s great potential in what the party quite self-consciously stands for; individual rights and responsibilities, personal liberty, strong policies on justice and other things, but the fly in the ointment – terrible policies that lack regard for the sanctity of life and a support base that contains some crazies – is pretty distracting.

Lastly there’s the youngest of the parties that have my interest, the Family Party. OK, least important things first: I hate their party name. It gives the unfortunate and misleading impression that they want to benefit families and forget everyone else. There are people who wouldn’t vote for a party with a name like that. Their policy statements reveal that their concern is much broader than this, so they should have a different name. But that aside, I like what I see. They’re the second explicitly Christian party. They have what I think are some great policies on taxation. They advocate removing sales tax on necessities like food and gasoline. Freedom of choice in education is a priority, a welfare policy designed to get people away from welfare, a clearly pro-life stance on abortion, and policies across the board that as far as I can tell line up very well with the values that I outlined at the start of this post. So what’s the drawback? Why am I not coming out in full force telling everyone that this is who I will vote for? The answer lies in a fairly embarrassing pragmatism. In order for a party to get into parliament at all in New Zealand’s electoral system, they must either have one candidate who wins an electorate seat, or they must win at least 5% of the party vote, and I’m not sure that the Family party will do this. If I knew that the party I vote for would definitely get into parliament, I would vote for them in a second. As it is, I still might do so, but my mind hasn’t been made up.

Ask me who I’m not going to vote for, however, and I’m as clear as day (they aren’t listed here).