Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul, commenting on the proper function of government, described the civil magistrate in this way, 

he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil (Rom.13:4).

For Paul, the job of government was to punish crime, not prevent it.  This was also the view of the founders of our nation, who established a system of limited, republican government that did not burden the people with endless regulations and red tape.  But as faith in the God of the Bible waned, and faith in the false god of the state grew, people began to demand more and more the government at all levels.  One of these demands was that the government take an active hand in the prevention of wrongdoing, and thus was born the modern regulatory state.

By way of example, I’ll reference something I recently came across while studying for my Series 6 securities license.  In the Kaplan course I used, I found the following paragraph,

Investigation of the conditions that led to the 1929 market crash determined that investors had little protection from fraud in the sale of new issues of securities and that rumors, exaggerations, and unsubstantiated claims led to excessive speculation in newly issued stock.  Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933 to require issuers of new securities to file registration statements with the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] in order to provide investors with complete and accurate information.

The impression left on the reader is that the cause of the crash of 1929 was the lack of proper government supervision of a rowdy, out of control securities industry.  The free market and limited government failed to protect investors; the state had to intervene.   This is perverse for at least two reasons.

No doubt there were then, as there are now, crooked brokers and financial advisers.  But this was not the cause of the crash.  The blame can properly be put on the incompetent central bankers (but I repeat myself) of the Federal Reserve, who erred in contracting the money supply too quickly after having expanded it too much earlier in the 1920s.  Monetary expansion created a bubble in stocks, and when the Fed cut off the money supply, the bubble deflated, leading to the October 1929 crash.  But just as it’s easier today for politicians to heap blame oil companies for high gas prices rather than admit that their policies are largely responsible, so it was easier then for Congress to point the finger at securities dealers instead fessing up to its foolishness in creating the Fed. 

Second, regulating everyone to prevent the wrongdoing of a few violates the biblical principle  no crime, no punishment. The Old Testament required thieves to pay for their crimes, not by jail time, but by restitution plus 20% to their victims (Lev.6:1-7).   The system was just, applying punishment to the guilty and leaving the innocent alone.   On the contrary, the regualtory dragnet ensnares everyone, punishing the honest as though they were guilty, all for the sake of preventing some unknown future crime by some unnamed future ne’er-do-well.   And this is far from biblical justice.

Read Full Post »

When discussing immigration, the conversation usually revolves around immigrant rights.  Rarely is the subject of immigrant responsibilites ever broached.  But what do the Scriptures say?  Do immigrants have responsibilites?  If so, what are they?  To help answer these questions, let’s consider the example of Ruth, one of the clearest examples of immigration in the Bible.

Elimelech and Naomi were a Hebrew couple, natives of Bethlehem, who had fled from Israel to escape a famine then gripping the land.  Along with their two sons, they settled in the neighboring land of Moab.  AFter their arrival Elimelech died, leaving Naomi and her two sons, both of whom married Moabite women.  After about ten years, both the sons died as well, leaving Naomi alone with her two daughters-in-law.   When Naomi set out to return to Israel, she urged her daughters-in-law to return to their people.  One, Orpah, did so.  But the other, Ruth, upon being prodded to return to Moab , answered Naomi,

Entreat me not to leave you, or turn back from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people [shall be] my people, and your God, my God.     Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried.  The LORD do so to me, and more also, if [anything but death] parts you and me.    (Ruth 1:16, 17)

The sum of this passage is that Ruth declares her intention to immigrate to Israel.  She is not planning to sojourn in the land, or go there on a short visit and then return to Moab, but rather she emegrates from Moab with the expressed aim of becoming and Israelite.  Very often in discussing immigration, those who use Scripture point to the Bible’s instructions regarding sojourners and strangers in the land, but these passages do not bear directly on immigration.  But the case of Ruth clearly does.  What can we learn about immigration from this passage?

While declaring her intention to immigrate, Ruth takes a threefold oath of loyalty.  She declares her loyalty to Naomi, “wherever you go, I will go,” to the nation of Israel, “your people [shall be] my people,” and to God, “and your God, my God.”  She even invokes God as a witness to her promises, using the familiar oath, “The LORD do so to me, and more also.”  In short, Ruth was not a social revolutionary who sought to impose Moabite language and religion on the people of  Israel all in the name of cultural diversity, but rather she clearly expressed her desire to adopt the ways of the Israelites and become one of them.

From this short study, we see that while the Bible recognizes the right of people to immigrate, neither Naomi nor anyone else questioned the legality of Ruth’s immigration, it also imposes certain responsibilities on immigrants.  Those who argue that immigrants have a right to impose their ways and their costs on the people of their adopted land are not arguing as Christians, but as cultural Marxists and socialists.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts