The Right to Say No
In his book Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, German philosopher Immanuel Kant deduced the axiomatic case for why theft is wrong. Because man should act, at all times, as if his behavior can be made universal in law, he should not commit contradictions. For laws, contradictions are the stuff of error and grift. They should, by all means, be avoided in order to live morally. This is what Kant called the categorical imperative. Taking the proposition of “thou shalt not steal,” the Kantian method of logical deduction says theft must acknowledge the existence of property. If there is no such thing as property rights, then there is no such thing as robbery. It sounds overly tautological, but property is a requirement for the forceful taking property.
On a recent panel discussion convened by the ultra lefty Center for American Progress (CAP), the topic of religious liberty was the focal point of debate. And by debate, I mean a veritable thrashing and misrepresentation that pegged spiritual beliefs as guilty before proven innocent. For all their talk of tolerance, progressives are wont to hide their prejudices as a form of open-mindedness. They know their ideological case is made more powerful by preaching from the high rock of cosmopolitan acceptance. So they cover their overtly intolerant viewpoints by deploying language filled with pleas for niceties and kindness.
CAP’s panel on religious liberty was convened under the title of “Religious Liberty for Some or Religious Liberty for All?” Right off the bat, the proposition stinks with treachery. The left’s view of liberty is almost always perverted with notions of unfairness and demanded concessions. For them, someone’s freedom is somehow a burden on another’s. Thus, liberty becomes a zero-sum game where everyone’s quest for autonomy interferes with everyone else’s. As if by magic, the progressive then always proposes government action to correct this make-believe injustice.
As an introduction to the event, the CAP websites reads:
“Under the guise of religious liberty, conservatives are organizing to impose their theological doctrines on others while carving out broad exemptions from a wide variety of laws with which they disagree.”
In a worthy effort to uphold the progressive doctrine of fair-minded opinion, the panel was completely occupied by representatives from leftist organizations. Not a peep was given to any conservative or libertarian voices. The “Other” side was not given a chance to make its case. It was all the better to win the non-debate.
The whole religious liberty business is getting the spotlight due to a number of recent incidents. First, as the creeping socialization of American medicine takes place with the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, the issue of contraception coverage has been the spark of much consternation. The healthcare law mandates that insurance, specifically provided by employers, pay for certain forms of birth control and abortion-inducing drugs. Religious dissenters, in all their childish angst, are horrified that a democratically-elected government would force them to violate their own moral code. How dare they disagree with those more enlightened! Many groups – including the selfish, women-hating Little Sisters of the Poor who thoughtlessly take care of the destitute, sick, and elderly in hospices all over the world – are currently embroiled in lawsuits over the mandate. Progressives decry this seemingly innocuous band of old ladies who won’t submit to government-enforced fairness. Again, rebellion like this is a sure sign of a treasonous streak – or at least that’s how the left wants it shown. That these women dedicate their lives to taking care of the uncared for is given no bother.
The second instance is the recent ordering of a wedding photographer to take pictures of a gay ceremony by the New Mexico Supreme Court. The photographer invoked her right to refuse surface on the grounds that gay nuptials violate her understanding of teleological law. The oh-so-tolerant class was not so accepting of her claim. Force was employed to correct her grievous misunderstanding that her personal beliefs matter to the agenda of anointed rule makers.
Advocates of the liberal utopia will often make vocal concessions to the subject of religious liberty. They always claim no one will be forced to take part in the grand remaking of society if it goes against moral Scripture. But practice paints a different picture. Government is force, so it inevitably becomes a tool of manipulation. Since spiritual beliefs are often at odds with righteous egalitarianism, they must therefore be smashed into obedience. The deed isn’t done by crass strength, but rather careful wordplay.
The CAP panel was no different as far as that goes. To justify her support of forced participation in a gay wedding, Sarah Wareblow of Human Rights Watch declared nobody “should be humiliated at the dry cleaners.” Her statement implies that there is a right to feeling good about oneself – a ludicrous claim when all possibilities are considered. Eunice Rho of the American Civil Liberties Union offered the pithy argument that everyone likes “religious freedom, but this is about discrimination.” That claim might be intelligent if freedom and discrimination were truly at loggerheads. But liberty ultimately means the right to disagree, long as that disagreement doesn’t work itself into aggression.
Writing in First Things, Christian environmentalist John Murdock is unsure of how to combat the malicious claims brought up during the CAP discussion. He asks: “should we continue to argue our case, like Paul the Roman citizen appealing to Caesar?” Or, he avers, perhaps he and his fellow believers should “turn and offer the other cheek” to their soon-to-be oppressors. Neither really gets to the bottom of why government intrusion on religious liberty is wrong. One thing is for sure: appeals to voters is no way to secure rights. In modern democracy, the ballot box is often used as an excuse to push a doctrine rather than protect the interests of a minority.
The unfortunate truth is that there is not much to do to combat state violence. But there is one defense that denies legitimacy to the coercive nature of government. Making the case for genuine property rights doesn’t stop tanks, but it at least puts the defender on the right side of the moral divide.
Mosaic Law inscribed into law that “thou shalt not steal.” As Kant showed, this was a recognition of man’s natural right to property – at least in terms of relating to other men. Since property is a well recognized tenant of natural law, those persecuted for their beliefs need only reassert their rights. Either the state authorities listen or not. At least the truth will be out there for the ears of the masses.
The war on private morality currently being waged by statists of all stripes is unlikely to be won by the opposition. Force will easily crush nonviolence. Those who maintain the right to their property can rest easy in knowing they are doing what is right and true. Even the common person understands what real religious liberty means: that individuals should be free to worship whichever god they see fit. It’s a simple notion. But leftists do not allow for basic ethical precepts to interfere with their glorious agenda of erecting an egalitarian paradise. There is to be no deviation in the progressive kingdom. Just allegiance to the state, and all for the state as Mussolini liked to say.
James E. Miller is editor-in-chief of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, where this article was originally published.
Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!
