In an Islamic culture, the existence of a truly democratic state (including, but not limited to, liberty of conscience, freedom of association, religious liberty, etc.) is impossible. To be fair, it was also impossible in the time of Joshua. And, it will be impossible again when the True Joshua returns to take, not the land of Palestine, but the entire cosmos, thus ushering in the theocratic Kingdom of God. Then, the church will again bear the sword, and the kingdom of priests will go about their duty of cleansing the cosmic temple of the enemies of God. Then, there will be no notions of “religious liberty.” But not yet.
The only culture in which a democracy can truly function is one which is founded on Judeo-Christian morals, and which (therefore) sees itself in an already-not yet stage of redemptive history. So, while we’re here, what should be our response, as Christians, to an encroaching Islamic theocratic state? They believe that we’re infecting their land, and that we ought to be driven out of it, for not bowing the knee to Allah, and his Prophet Mohammed. How should we respond 1) as citizens of heaven, and 2) as citizens of the United States of America?
As 1) citizens of heaven, we are not yet to take up the sword. We are to love our neighbors, and our enemies. We are to bless them that spitefully use us and persecute us, and pray for them who say all manner of evil against us falsely for Christ’s name’s sake. We are to preach and plead and, if necessary, lay down our lives for our friends. We are to “overcome by the blood of the lamb, and the word of our testimony [note: not yet by the sword], not loving our lives–even unto death.”
But the answer to 2) isn’t quite so easy. In the common-grace age, justice is to be upheld by the State. And, part of that justice is the lex talionis of Genesis 9:6. The Muslim believes, as the ambassador and ground-taker of the Islamic theocratic State, that to convert out of, or reject, Islam is a crime–and their “justice” requires death. (For they think they’re doing the work of God - .) But for the Christian, justice (in this age) calls all religiously-motivated execution an unjust death, one which necessarily provokes retributive capital punishment. His “justice” provokes our justice; his religious ethic provokes our civil ethic; his response to a religious crime is met with our response to a civil crime.
But even our civil law is at least inspired by a Judeo-Christian ethic. True, it may only be a waning residual momentum from a worldview recently fallen out of fashion - similar to the motion a circular saw after it’s been unplugged - but today that standard of law still functions. The point is this: at bottom, these two definitions of justice are religiously motivated, fundamentally irreconcilable, and therefore destined for an epic clash. So what should we do?
It is in everyone’s best interest here that the powers of the State (the one whose definition of justice is inspired by a Judeo-Christian ethic) be supported and defended (perhaps even pro-actively?). (Here enters the discussion of “just war.”) But bottom line, there can only be democracy, and religious liberty, when the Judeo-Christian definition of justice inspires the State.
So, what measures are we willing to take to see that that power is protected? Is true “liberty and Justice for All” worth war? Because against an expanding Islamic theocratic State, we have the same options RWR gave us when we dealt with Communism: “War or Slavery.”
…your thoughts are welcome.
gmail.com
16 responses so far ↓
1 The Flim Flam Man // Mar 29, 2006 at 10:02 am
We’ve discussed this already so I’ll keep quiet. But since you quoted Regan, here are some wonderful additions.
“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.”
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant: It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
“Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”
“I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandment’s would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.”
“The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”
“Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”
“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
“The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.”
“I’ve laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it’s in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.”
“It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.”
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
“Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.”
“No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”
2 Aron // Mar 29, 2006 at 10:09 am
Classic.
3 The Flim Flam Man // Mar 29, 2006 at 10:43 am
Lex talionis? I guess the examples of the Palestinians and Israelis blasting each other, the shi-ites and sunnis, the American Indians and settlers after the Easter Massacre, the Democrats and Republicans, and for that matter, the Hatfields and McCoys - leave me suspect. An eye for an eye leaves too much passion and potential vengence on the table in my opinion.
“Democracies” have a tendency to spiral into socialism and a peoples yearning for a strong executive. Our Constitution is the best example of how to create a gov’t in the Democratic ideal. Through federalism and a separation of passion from legislation, we have an ‘idea’ of the only medicine for typical results after the torrent of Democratic ideals wanes in peoples minds. Look to the French Revolution and the guillotine justice that resulted there
4 Aron // Mar 29, 2006 at 11:03 am
Regarding the power of lex talionis, it’s the State that is to bear the sword, not the Hatfields and the McCoys. Enter the need for police, courts, etc. Justice is, by definition, “exact retribution” — whether for good or evil — according to the agreed upon terms of the law, contract, etc.. But that justice is for the courts to determine and administer, not for embittered vigilantes. [added: They would be called outlaws, subject to civil and criminal penalty for taking the law (determination and administration of the lex talionis) into their own hands - a usurpation of the State’s authority and thus a crime against the State.]
Regarding the French Revolution; I just read somewhere that religious motives aren’t the only ones that lead to the death penalty; that even within secularism sectarianism can get just as harsh. Which is yet another reason why true liberty cannot be divorced from true justice–and neither liberty nor justice can be divorced from a Judeo-Christian common-grace understanding/definition of both liberty and justice. Interesting stuff.
So, should I be using the term “constitutional republic” instead of “democracy”?
5 The Flim Flam Man // Mar 29, 2006 at 11:21 am
Right, I know, you explained the State bearing the sword. That being the case, it is just my opinion, that it still can promote too much personal and public emotion. The State administers justice yes, not the individuals - agreed. It is just the eye for an eye thing that I question.
I think ‘democracy’ is fine, unless you want to be academically precise about everything! Which I don’t think is necessary unless you are writing a textbook or the like.
Impeach Logan.
6 Aron // Mar 29, 2006 at 11:31 am
I see where you’re coming from…but how do you get out of Genesis 9:6?
And yes - I emphatically agree with you. Logan should be impeached.
7 The Flim Flam Man // Mar 29, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Romans 13 - If those ordinances don’t call for the death of one man for the murder of another (or the death of a heffer if you can’t find the murderer - that’s if you counsel Deut.).
Old in light of the new, right? Or no?
Interesting questions you raise O’hagan. The good citizens responsibility is to think about this stuff, at least occasionaly, as we go about our busy lives.
8 Aron // Mar 29, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Hm…nice parry (Rom. 13), and nice riposte (”Old in light of the new, right? Or no?” - they would’ve cheered).
Well, given that we have a hand in the making of those ordinances, and given Romans 13:4 and Genesis 9:6, bottom-line: should we be (and vote) for or against capital punishment?
(Oh, and I’m not for the strict form of lex talionis [where even accidental death is met with retribution], but specifically for cases where murder [whether premeditated or “passionate”] is discovered/determined by the court.)
9 The Flim Flam Man // Apr 11, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Is murder the only crime you’re talking about in light of Gen 9 and eye for an eye?
10 Aron // Apr 11, 2006 at 5:59 pm
No, not really. The general principle of exact retribution - for example, if I damage something that belongs to you while it’s in my care, I should replace it (or give you its replacement value). Basically, if I take something from your side of the scales, it should be replaced by something from my side of the scales, so there’s balance. That’s justice. Does that make sense?
11 The Flim Flam Man // Apr 11, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Ok, I think I understand your viewpoint now. From your previous comment it seemed you were applying this scriptural guidance to criminal cases and civil cases, which you are, I think. I’m all for old school common law correcting the type of situation of private property and small claims, but not for state vs. citizen criminal cases such as murder, or even negligent homocide / manslaughter. It would be a lot easier to defend such a stance if our jails did a better job of taking care of the justice such instances demand. I’m just for Life in all cases.
12 Aron // Apr 12, 2006 at 12:24 am
Interesting…so, the state should “bear the
sword[jail cell]”. (And a portion of our wages should pay for their stay, I would assume.) I understand. But, I must ask: on what standard of authority do you base this principle of “Life in all cases”?13 The Flim Flam Man // Apr 12, 2006 at 8:24 am
On my own personal level, I would use the sermon on the mount, which (I think) doesn’t forbid the death penalty, but teaches us temperance and forgiveness in all crime against our person or property - allowing the state to administer the sword adhearing to their civil ordinances. Then, we can look to all man’s rights, but specifically the self evident right to life, given to us by God, and part of our universal Declaration to the world. By not diminishing life of the accused and convicted, it allows for a consistent argument against other life diminishing issues that haunt our society.
Also, I have issues with the ability of the government to put her citizens to death. We are so lucky to have had the experience this nation affords. Most are so blind and simply don’t bother to learn the history of other nations old and new where justice was or is administered for revenge or personal amusement. Look at the abuse of such power in Iran, China, Soviet satellites and Sudan for a scary reminder.
Nice stab at the cost of our prison system but you are preaching to the choir. First of all, part of your responsibility as a citizen is to pay taxes for such public works. Secondly, prison reform is a much needed result of our courts being turned upside down in the 60s (ACLU et all) and 70s - preventing ‘hard’ time calling it cruel and unusual. Let’s bring back the days of Shawshank, or Alcatraz!
14 Aron // Apr 12, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Sure, I agree about the personal ethic of Matt. 5 (Romans 12:17-19, etc.), but I don’t see how we could justify upholding scripture as the criterion for personal, but not civil, ethics. We either look to divine revelation, or human reason, for the interpretation of reality - including the definition of ‘justice.’ Preventing exact retribution for murder leaves the scales of justice imbalanced, at best, and at worst, is rebellion against the common-grace law of the High King of heaven and earth. (And treason is a capital crime in his kingdom, too.)
That self-evident “right to life” endowed by the Creator speaks of the right of individuals to not be put to death at the whim of other individuals. But “governments are instituted among men to secure these rights,” meaning that any vigilante-style alienation of that right-to-life will be met with swift justice from the state. Sure, there have been abuses of such power in history. Sure, it may make our arguments against abortion in any case appear less consistent to the secular (or theistic) humanists. But that hardly gives us the right to displace divine wisdom with human…don’t you think?
15 The Flim Flam Man // Apr 12, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Yeah, that’s why I said ‘on a personal level’.
Treason, by the way, is no longer a capital crime in our country.
Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
16 Aron // Apr 12, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Oh, sorry - I meant ‘And [as in most kingdoms,] treason is a captial crime in his kingdom, too.’
Fair enough - thanks for the dialogue! I certainly appreciate the caliber of thought you bring to the discussion, Mr. FFM. BTW, when are you going to put up a blog of your own? I’d visit daily.
Leave a Comment