Why Self-Reliance is in Retreat

In a recent column Cal Thomas wonders what happened to self-reliance. Unfortunately the answer is far more dreadful than Mr. Thomas wants to hear. Self-reliance died for reasons not that easy to undo. Our forbears practiced self-reliance because they lived in a society far different from our own. We can’t practice self-reliance unless we want to go back to that society. More people don’t want to go back. In any event we couldn’t go back to that kind of society even if we wanted to.

Our economy is built on overspending, satisfying desires, pretense, envy, greed and a sense of entitlement because that is how we avoided a second great depression for sixty years. Our present economic difficulties come from the fact we can no longer operate our economy on the principles of convincing people to buy things they do not need with money they do not have using natural resources that cannot be replaced. The borrowed money cannot be repaid; the resources used cannot be replaced. Because of this a greater reliance on government for our economic welfare is inevitable.

Unfortunately the idea of self-reliant individuals fending for themselves without the help and support of the government makes life easier for the greediest persons among us. Imagine a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves. The wolves are greedy powerful corporations. The sheep are self-reliant individuals trying to make their way in the world by themselves. The wolves can attack individual sheep because the wolves have sharper claws, sharper teeth, and can run just as fast as the sheep. Unless a shepherd comes to protect them the sheep are helpless. The only thing their self-reliance will get them is killed.

In order to protect themselves the sheep need a shepherd. The only shepherd available is the government. Only big government can stand up to big business. Regulating business is necessary. Government sponsored health care is necessary because otherwise only the wealthy will be able to afford health care at all. If we aren’t going to be able to stimulate the private sector by encouraging people to overspend on wants to satisfy manufactured desires we are going to have to have a far larger proportion of our population employed by the government. In order to pay for this we will have to tax the rich. Yes thee will be less freedom. But there is going to be less freedom anyway. In a society of self-reliant individuals the vast majority will have the freedom poverty gives them. The powerful will take what they can and self-reliant individuals will be left with the little there is left. And that as they say is that.

Why Roe vs Wade is Divisive

Yesterday we marked the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs Wade, the case that made abortion legal. Advocates of women’s rights see this as the capstone of the movement for women’s liberation. Those who believe human life begins at the moment of conception see Roe vs Wade as permitting mass murder on a scale not seen since the Nazis. And the real problem is both sides are correct. Absolutely correct.

The idea human life begins at the moment of conception becomes easier to defend with every advance in genetic science. If we are going to define humanity by reference to the human genome it is obvious a human being comes into existence at the moment its genome comes into existence. That is the moment a sperm cell enters an egg cell to form a human zygote. So while genetic science can’t prove human life begins at the moment of conception it leads to the conclusion the most inclusive definition of humanness is one, which requires us to conclude human life does begin at the moment of conception.

From this point the argument for the criminalization of both abortion and contraception comes forth with the precision of a mathematical proof. Given the humanness of the zygote we must conclude the entire growth process from one celled organism to fully developed adult is that of a human with full rights including the right to life. Since this life has done nothing to warrant death we must conclude killing it is wrong. Indeed we must conclude killing it is an act of murder since murder is defined as the taking of human life without justification. Punishing murders is a moral duty of the government. If government is not going to punish murderers why have a government at all? Abortion kills the unborn since they can’t live outside their mother’s bodies. Contraception kills by permitting the union of sperm and egg but not permitting the resulting conceptus to implant itself in the mother’s uterus.

So we have concluded the following: the pre-born are human, the pre-born are innocent. Abortion and contraception both kill the unborn. One of government’s primary moral duties is the punishment of those who kill other human beings. Therefore we must conclude one of the moral duties of those who hold authority over the government is to enact and enforce laws making both abortion and contraception illegal. QED.

In the above argument the only thing missing is he abode of all these pre-born human beings. They all live in the bodies of adult human females. So what happens of one of these women doesn’t want to remain pregnant? What happens if for some reason it is bad for a woman’s health for her to remain pregnant? We can’t simply transport the unwanted pre-born out of her body and into a willing one. That happens only on Star Trek. In the real world a pregnancy can end in only one of two ways. A woman either carries her pregnancy to birth or she has an abortion. If abortion is illegal then a woman is legally required to carry her pregnancy to term.

The dilemma of abortion is a law that protects the right to life of the pre-born and a law that compels a woman to become and remain pregnant against her will is exactly the same law. You simply can’t pass a law which protects the right to life of the pre-born without passing a law that compels a woman to become and remain pregnant against her will. Can’t be done. The two laws are identical in effect. Removing the pre-born from their mother’s bodies kills them Therefore in order to protect their lives we must prevent that removal. But this is the same as using the government to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Sometimes this is the same as compelling a woman to remain pregnant even when it not healthy for her to do so. This is one reason why people of good will oppose laws against abortion.

Postmodern societies are feminist societies. Feminism requires legalized abortion. More to the point laws against abortion, especially laws against both abortion and contraception are laws that establish patriarchy as the preferred form of social organization. To force women to remain pregnant against their will is to restrict their role in society. Clearly society is giving men authority over women when says a woman’s ability to bear young is so important she can’t be allowed to terminate her own pregnancy. To say moral law requires this is just to make moral law itself patriarchal in character. The patriarchal leanings of all arguments against a woman’s right to abortion and contraception are the primary reason those who defend a woman’s right to choose claim their opponents advocate patriarchy.

Abortion is the most divisive of issues because we are dealing with two of a modern society’s most important needs and these needs are in direct and inescapable conflict. All societies must be based on commonly accepted moral principles. Natural Law is the best source of such moral principles. Natural Law labels both abortion and contraception evils of such magnitude as to compel government to outlaw them. But modern societies must be pro-feminist societies. They just can’t survive any other way. Feminists must have legalized abortion and contraception. There is just no way around it. But giving feminists what they need defies the laws of nature and nature’s God. There is just no getting around that either.

The Problem With Faith

The problem with religion is the problem of faith. The problem of faith is faith’s blindness. Faith is blind. That blindness is what causes problems with religious belief.

Faith is the belief a statements is true without any other reason to believe the statement is actually true. The faithful know the ideas they believe in are true. They just know it. They do not need reasons to believe. They can give rationalizations, sometimes good rationalizations, to defend their beliefs. But in the end they do not need these rationalizations. They know the ideas they believe in are true. They just know it.

Which causes problems when these ideas are inaccurate representations of reality as it actually exists. The faithful cannot face reality because they have no way of seeing reality. If one believes the ideas one believes in are true then to accept the ideas of others is to replace truth with error. Furthermore one cannot question the truth of the ideas one believes in without questioning the idea of faith. This means losing the confidence which the illusion of having certain knowledge gives. It is easier for the faithful to ignore reality until the pain of doing so becomes so hard to bear as to make ignoring reality impossible.

The blindness of faith is what makes ideology so dangerous. No ideology is a perfect description of reality as it actually exists. So at some point the ideologue must attempt to force reality to conform to the teachings of a particular ideology. When reality refuses to do so, and reality almost always refuses to do so, the ideologue is in trouble. If ideologues hold positions of political power then the people over which the ideologues hold power are it trouble. Ideologues simply cannot admit they are wrong. Their sense of self worth requires their ideology to be an absolutely correct description of reality.

Many of the problems facing the United States today come from the fact the conservative movement which has held power over the past seven years is an ideologically based movement. In recent years, as the fallacies of their ideology have become more apparent, they have tried to force reality to obey the teachings of the ideology. Today’s Republicans are blind. They are blind because they are ideologues. They are blind because they have replaced wisdom with faith. And faith is blind.

The Problem With Theocracy

Theocracy has become a popular idea as a proper form of government. It is easy to see its appeal. What better ruler could their possible be than one who is all-powerful, all wise, and totally good. Unfortunately the ruler in question is a terrible communicator. We don’t even know for certain that He exists. His will is a thing we must discern from Scriptures, which are inconsistent with each other both internally and externally. When He does speak to individuals He does it in a way that makes it impossible for others to know if He has actually spoken to the person in question.

For these reasons, and I suspect others can be added to this list, Theocracy in practice is a terrible form of government. Claims to understanding God’s will are subject to misuse in order to support the agenda and power grabbing of particular individuals and groups. Oppression of those who disagree with the holders of absolute power becomes the norm. God becomes a brute responsible for all sorts of evil. Like it or not, and there are clearly those among the believers who don’t like it, temporal government can’t be a solution to the problem of evil.

At this point it is appropriate to quote the parable of the wheat and weeds. As told by Matthew it reads as follows

“ The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep an enemies came and sowed weeds among the wheat and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field.? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he replied, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until t he harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind t hem in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”
(Matthew 13:24-30 NRSV)

The point of this parable for theocrats should be obvious. The wheat represents good people and the weeds represents bad people. The householder is God; and advocates of theocracy are the slaves. The idea behind theocracy is the use of the power of the state to reward good people and punish bad people. But you can’t use the power of the state to punish bad people without the risk of things getting out of control. When it gets out of control good people will be harmed. So the lesson of this parable is the impossibility of creating perfection on earth. Certainly perfection on earth can’t be accomplished by use of the police power of the state. So much for theocracy in practice.

The above should serve as a warning for Christian theocrats. And since Jesus is a very important prophet for Muslims, it should serve as a warning for Muslims as well.