New article on Johannes Kepler

The next article in the series "Christians who Changed their World" is up at the Colson Center. It's on Johannes Kepler.

Scott Sonnon's Recuper8

I posted a while back on the importance of joint mobility work for health. Most of what I know about that subject I learned from Scott Sonnon. Lately, Scott's been doing a lot of work with the tactical community--first responders, military personnel, etc.--on the specific types of fitness that they need. He's come up with a program called Recuper8 that's designed to help them relieve stress after action. It's a simple joint mobility style program that is good for anyone. And what's more, he's giving it away free. I do not get anything from this, and I don't endorse everything Scott says, but this is a great opportunity to get hold of a free downloadable program that can help release tension in the parts of the body where we tend to hold it. There are also a few free bonuses he's giving with it, including a complete book on joint mobility. I encourage you to check it out.

Conservatives, Libertarians, and Progressives on Same Sex Relationships

In several previous blog posts, I talked about some of the different assumptions that I see as underlying conservative and progressive political ideas. I wanted to address what I think will be the final aspect of this issue in this post, adding libertarians into the mix as well. To get at these differences, we’ll at the three groups’ reactions to so-called same sex marriage.

First, a word about libertarians. Libertarians believe that the government should keep out of people’s lives, that they should be left on their own to make their own decisions, and that governmental power should be strictly limited to things like defense, protection of people and property, etc. They are frequently isolationists, arguing against U.S. involvement with other nations militarily or otherwise except for free trade. There is a great deal of overlap with conservative thought, except that conservatives tend to be more open to “foreign entanglements.” And they frequently differ on social policy as well.

Looking at the issue of whether or not homosexual relationships should be accorded the status of marriage, progressives argue that this is an issue of justice and equal rights. They see homosexuals as an oppressed minority, and as such their rights must be protected and extended to equal those of the non-oppressed heterosexual majority. What this means is that their relationships have to be accorded the same status in every way as heterosexuals, which means they have to be allowed to marry.

To date, though some state legislatures have passed laws recognizing same sex relationships as marriages, same sex laws, every time the public has had a chance to fote on the issue, it has failed. The net result is that its progressive advocates have taken to the courts to enforce their vision of society. They have won in some states, even overturning a constitutional amendment in California. Democratic processes and the will of the people matter much less than the presumed human rights of homosexuals to marry whom they will, though it should be noted that whether this is a human right is hardly clear even among groups normally allied with progressives. The European Court of Human Rights rejected the idea that same sex marriage is a human right, for example, and they can hardly be seen as a conservative body.

Libertarians end up in much the same place as progressives with respect to same sex relationships, though for different reasons. For libertarians, the government has no business being involved in marriage at all, and in the name of personal freedom anyone should be allowed to marry whomever they want to regardless of gender. They don’t see this as redressing a historical grievance against an oppressed minority as much as an issue of people’s freedom to live their own lives any way they want to.

Conservatives tend to oppose recognition of same sex relationships as marriage. At this point, the tendency of conservatives to emphasize individual rights over group rights exists in tension with the idea that government exists in part to promote the general welfare. Put simply, conservatives do not believe that recognizing same sex relationships as marriages is good for society.

Conservatives do not see marriage as a purely private relationship. In all cultures, marriage performs a critical public function: it ties mothers and fathers to their children and provides a stable foundation for children to be brought into the world and raised. This is why it is given a privileged position with respect to other kinds of relationships in all cultures throughout human history. Without this public function, the libertarian argument would hold. In light of this role, however, redefining marriage to include same sex relationships makes no sense at all. For more on the definition of marriage, you can read my article at the Colson Center.

In practical terms, it is worth noting that children living with their biological parents do better in a host of areas than children in other types of living arrangements, vindicating the traditional understanding of marriage as the best arrangement for raising children. Conservatives argue that putting the personal desires of adults ahead of the interests of children is bad for society and bodes ill for the future.

Many conservatives, of course, also see homosexual activity as a moral issue, but in my experience most do not favor legislating against it. There are exceptions, but most see it as a matter of private behavior and thus as a place where individual rights should be upheld. Recognizing homosexual relationships as marriages moves them beyond private behavior into the public sphere, however, and at that point the public role of marriage becomes the key issue.

There are other arguments on all sides of this issue, and there’s no way I can cover all of them. The point here is that this issue can illustrate some of the underlying ideas of the different political philosophies. To sum up: progressives tend to frame this in terms of civil rights, which ties in to their emphasis on group identity and their emphasis on the centrality of the state (which in this case defines and bestows rights and benefits); libertarians see this as a matter of personal freedom, which means that the government has no business being involved with it; conservatives believe marriage is something that is foundational to human society, predates governments, and thus cannot be redefined by legislative or judicial fiat (tying into their ideas about limitations on government power), which in this case acts as a counterbalance to individual rights.

New article: Roger Bacon

The fourteenth article in the series "Christians who Changed their World" is up at the Colson Center. This one is on Roger Bacon, the thirteenth century Franciscan whose work in science has made him a figure in fantasy (as a wizard) and science fiction (as a time traveller). My article talks about who he really was and how he fit into the world of his day.

Conservatives and Progressives on Identity and Rights

In my two previous blog posts on political theory (here and here), I explored some of the fundamental ideas that separate conservatives and progressives. Here, I want to examine one other difference and add libertarians into the mix: the question of the relationship between primary identity and rights.

I argued in Conservatives and Progressives redux that conservatives and progressives have fundamentally different concepts of identity: conservatives see identity primarily as an individual matter defined principally by our choices; progressives tend to see identity primarily in terms of membership in a group, typically defined by involuntary, generally immutable characteristics. While there is much more that can be said about this (such as whether some of these “groups” really exist over time or whether the characteristics are in fact immutable), here I want to look at the implications of identity on conceptions of rights.

Conservatives argue that rights are an individual matter, and that true rights are beyond the reach of government. In the language of the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights—that is, rights that cannot be taken away by government. These rights come to us as individuals, not as members of any particular group. Thus equal protection under law is a vitally important principle to the true conservative.

Progressives acknowledge individual rights but tend to argue primarily in terms of group rights. Membership in a group can give special rights that are conferred on the group by the government, particularly if the group can claim past oppression. These group rights trump individual rights when the two come into conflict. As a result, equal protection under law is not a useful concept to progressives.

As an example, look at hate crimes legislation. A conservative says, if I murder you, it doesn’t matter whether the motive is robbery, a thrill kill, revenge for a perceived wrong, or race; I am guilty of murder, and I should be punished accordingly. A progressive says, no, if the motive is race, it’s more serious, as long as the person is in a protected category. Thus whites that attack blacks are presumed to be guilty of a hate crime, but blacks who target whites are not. Equal protection under law does not apply—some people get more protection than others.

Similarly, affirmative action laws say that members of protected groups have to be given special consideration in hiring or admissions to school. All other things being equal, if it comes down to a choice, the minority gets in and the member of the non-protected group does not. This is usually justified on the grounds that it is a remedy for past discrimination, but the person who is not admitted is not the one who was guilty of discrimination. In other words, to ensure equality, some candidates are given preferences based on race or gender, while others are in effect disadvantaged for the same reasons through no fault of their own.

Unionization is another example. If I want to work for a unionized company, I must join the union whether I want to or not. The union’s rights as an identity group trump my right to free association and to enter into a contract freely with my employer. And what’s more, I have to pay for the privilege of joining the group that I am forced into if I want my job.

All of these are defended on the grounds that without them, we would be back in the bad old days when racial discrimination was rife and when businesses routinely abused their employees. The conservative response is that you do not fix one kind of discrimination by instituting another: violating individual rights is wrong, no matter what the reason and no matter who the victim.

The conflict between group and individual rights can get very complicated. Same sex relationships are a case in point. How do the different groups negotiate the balance between individual rights, group rights, and other social considerations in this case? I will explore this issue in a future article or blog post.

New article: Biblical Succession

My new article is up at the Colson Center. It's about biblical models of succession and is based on a devotional I did at the Centurions graduation this year.

Echoes of Eden

I’ve been away for five of the last six weekends, with the sixth being Easter, and the end of the semester hit this past week, so my blogging has been almost non-existent lately. I have been thinking about different things, though, and so I’d like to put in a bit of theological speculation here.

I have a friend from China whom I’ll call “Faith” (not her real name). She was visiting us at one point and commented that she couldn’t figure out why Americans like to have animals in their houses—it struck her as a strange thing to do. I don’t know if that was just Faith, or if there was something in her cultural background that led her to that conclusion.

She’s not alone. Some Puritan divines thought that having pets was a frivolous waste of resources.

As the owner of an Australian shepherd and two cats, I must admit that there are times when I’m inclined to agree with Faith. I didn’t grow up with normal pets—all of ours were cold-blooded, invertebrates, or rodents. And sometimes, they can be a pain. But I would genuinely miss the animals if they were gone, especially Scooby (our Aussie), who is getting on in years.

So I began wondering about pets. I know they exist in lots of cultures. Dogs are used for hunting and herding; people keep birds and sometimes hunt with them; cats have been used to control vermin and even as guard animals. But even aside from working animals, people around the world keep animals for companionship. Shar Peis were bred to be companions in China, as were Pekinese. Dogs and cats are common pets in all European cultures, and our Compassion International child in India had a pet goat. I know very few young children who aren’t fascinated by animals and want to pet them.

So what is it about animals that so intrigues us?

I think the answer lies in our past and our future.

The Bible tells us that with the fall of humanity into sin, it estranged us from God, from our neighbor, from ourselves, and from nature. The vision the Bible gives us of Eden suggests a place and time where people lived in perfect harmony with the natural world, a harmony that is now broken.

The harmony of Eden is something we long for, and its restoration is promised in Scripture. Isaiah gives us a picture of our eschatological hope, a redeemed world in which:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. (Is. 11:6-9)

In other words, in the New Heavens and New Earth promised in Scripture, the harmony of nature will be restored. The Gospel of the Kingdom promises no less than Jesus, who is Lord of all, making all things new and restoring and redeeming our broken world to wholeness once again.

In light of this, I suggest that our love for animals is a distant echo of Eden and an anticipation of the redemption of all Creation in Christ. It’s something people are instinctively drawn to, as the image of God in us cries out for its fulfillment in being stewards of God’s Creation.

So I’m sorry, I can’t agree with the Puritan divines on this one. Hopefully, Faith, if she reads this, will understand a little better the charm in having animals. And for those of you who do have pets, I encourage you to see yourself as stewards of Creation before God as you take care of them, and look forward to the day when the harmony of nature is fully restored by Christ.