My response to Laurence Vance's "Should a Christian support criminalizing prostitution"

[Christian Liberty]

Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.) For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you.

https://reconvenantersassanach.wordp...-its-problems/

This was my response to Vance's article today.

[jmdrake]

Here's the result of prostitution being criminal. The women who get arrested for prostitution get criminal records then they can't get real jobs, cause who's going to hire a criminal, so the resort to more prostitution.

Edit: Just read your article. So you're seriously going to run with the "rape victims must marry their rapists" argument to argue for the continued criminalization of prostitution? Seriously?

Here's what you should be looking at. When Jesus' disciples asked Him if they could call down fire on the Samaritan town that rejected Him, He told them "The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save." (Luke 9:56)

According to the writer of Hebrews, the most gravest sin one can commit is rejecting Jesus.

Hebrews 10:28-31 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I know that I have no power to convict you of your error on this. But you are in error. Under the new covenant it is God who is to meet out the death penalty for moral failings and only at the end time. Blasphemy was a sin punishable by death, so technically Jesus was wrong for telling His disciples that it was wrong for them to want to call down fire on those rejecting Him, and rejecting God is a form of blasphemy, if your belief that the death penalty for moral failings should be in effect were true. Murder is more than a moral failing.

Finally, the reason Moses gave for Deut. 22:28-29 wasn't so that there would be a reason to punish prostitutes. Rather it was a way to protect rape victims. It doesn't make sense in modern times, but it made sense back then because of how women were treated in the ancient world among most cultures. It was important for a woman to be able to marry because there were few opportunities for women. And the most important thing a woman could offer her future husband was her virginity. A rapist of a virgin would have stolen that from her. So, as punishment, he wasn't allowed to divorce her even if he got tired of her later. It was a "You broke it, you bought it" rule. If you will pay attention to the story of Absalom you will see this born out. Absalom's half brother raped Absalom's sister, then refused to marry her even though she begged him to marry her and "take away my shame." In modern culture where rapists are sent to prison, her asking him to marry her made no sense. But in Old Testament times it made perfect sense. It was the only way she could be made "whole."

[Jamesiv1]

Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.) For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you.

https://reconvenantersassanach.wordp...-its-problems/

This was my response to Vance's article today.

your isolation is showing.

[Sonny Tufts]

Are you really willing to have the government enforce these edicts?

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.

And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16.

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exodus 35:2.

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

[William Tell]

Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.) For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you.

https://reconvenantersassanach.wordp...-its-problems/

This was my response to Vance's article today.

You really don't understand biblical law. Like, at all. You are projecting modern western church views back on the OT, which allowed concubines and such arrangements. It was a totally different culture. And yet you say you want to enforce OT law.

if two unmarried people sleep together, the punishment was that they had to get married.

No, it wasn't. The passage you are thinking of is very clear that the girl doesn't have to marry the guy.

[Christian Liberty]

Here's the result of prostitution being criminal. The women who get arrested for prostitution get criminal records then they can't get real jobs, cause who's going to hire a criminal, so the resort to more prostitution.

Edit: Just read your article. So you're seriously going to run with the "rape victims must marry their rapists" argument to argue for the continued criminalization of prostitution? Seriously?

Here's what you should be looking at. When Jesus' disciples asked Him if they could call down fire on the Samaritan town that rejected Him, He told them "The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save." (Luke 9:56)

According to the writer of Hebrews, the most gravest sin one can commit is rejecting Jesus.

Hebrews 10:28-31 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I know that I have no power to convict you of your error on this. But you are in error. Under the new covenant it is God who is to meet out the death penalty for moral failings and only at the end time. Blasphemy was a sin punishable by death, so technically Jesus was wrong for telling His disciples that it was wrong for them to want to call down fire on those rejecting Him, and rejecting God is a form of blasphemy, if your belief that the death penalty for moral failings should be in effect were true. Murder is more than a moral failing.

Finally, the reason Moses gave for Deut. 22:28-29 wasn't so that there would be a reason to punish prostitutes. Rather it was a way to protect rape victims. It doesn't make sense in modern times, but it made sense back then because of how women were treated in the ancient world among most cultures. It was important for a woman to be able to marry because there were few opportunities for women. And the most important thing a woman could offer her future husband was her virginity. A rapist of a virgin would have stolen that from her. So, as punishment, he wasn't allowed to divorce her even if he got tired of her later. It was a "You broke it, you bought it" rule. If you will pay attention to the story of Absalom you will see this born out. Absalom's half brother raped Absalom's sister, then refused to marry her even though she begged him to marry her and "take away my shame." In modern culture where rapists are sent to prison, her asking him to marry her made no sense. But in Old Testament times it made perfect sense. It was the only way she could be made "whole."

I think that if you were correct about the interpretation of that law, I'd be inclined to agree that its equity is also particular to the circumstances. But I don't think that's what that law was saying. Earlier in the passage rapists are shown as being killed because "it is like a man who attacks and murders his neighbor." So I think a better understanding of that passage is that a man who SEDUCES a woman into sex must marry her, while a rapist is killed. See here for further discussion (This one was not written by me) https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.c...-translations/

As for rejecting Jesus, I understand your point but I don't think that's the way the OT law was intended to work. Personal heart problems were not punishable by the State. External blasphemy (which is more than personally professing unbelief) is. As is preaching false gospels to other people. I know that seems harsh to people today but that's more because of modern norms than anything else. The Reformers did not think so and even often took it for granted (if you read men like Gillespie and Rutherford you'll know what I'm talking about, not to mention the often twisted matter of Michael Servetus, who absolutely deserved the penalty the Genevan Council gave him)

Are you really willing to have the government enforce these edicts?

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.

And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16.

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exodus 35:2.

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

Yes. I am. Because that's what God says, and I care more about what God thinks than other people

You really don't understand biblical law. Like, at all. You are projecting your modern church views back on the OT, which allowed concubines and such arrangements. And yet you say you want to enforce OT law.

I don't see how concubinage, whatever we might say about it, is relevant here. You're talking about a case where a man arranges a marriage (ie. makes a covenant with) more than one woman. I don't really see Biblical basis to criminalize these, and while I think they go against normative Biblical design, they are irregularly valid once entered into. But prostitution is not that. Prostitution is a form of fornication or adultery,both of which were criminal offenses.

Perhaps it warrants more discussion how a man who actually takes more than one woman in marriage (a behavior which I think was a sin but not a crime in the OT) should be viewed, but its not relevant to this.

No, it wasn't. The passage you are thinking of is very clear that the girl doesn't have to marry the guy.

The father could refuse for her yes. The man is held more responsible in this cases as the leader (so much for the Bible being anti-women, LOL!). However I believe the text in the clarifying case is "absolutely refuses" to marry her, implying that it was an extreme reaction and probably not supposed to be normative. I also, again, don't think this was ever about forcible rape, and I think we have good evidence elsewhere that rapists were to be executed.

I wasn't necessarily exhaustively listing out exceptions there though. The normative principle is that if two (unmarried) people had sex they were supposed to get married. Though the father, as the girl's covenant head, could refuse on her behalf. I suspect this is an application of the same principle as Numbers 30 (father being able to nullify a woman's vows if she was unmarried.)

At the end of the day though, I'm still not sure how an imperfect man's real covenantal relationship with multiple women is comparable to just seeing a prostitute, but perhaps you could enlighten me there.

[William Tell]

I actually didn't say anything here about men having more than one wife. There is at least one figure in the Bible who was mentioned to have a concubine, and it didn't say if he had more than one. My point was just that there were concubines, in addition to wives in the culture.

I think the fact that you admit she didn't actually have to marry the guy shows that marriage wasn't a one size fits all "punishment" for premarital sex. I am not saying prostitution was condoned, just that I can't think of any specific OT law that would have technically outlawed it in the sense of having a civil or criminal penalty.

You said:

Deuteronomy 4 forbids us to add to or subtract from what he has revealed, so we must follow all of it except for the ceremonial law, which the New Testament teaches is no longer binding on Christians as a complete unit. Perhaps there could be further discussion on what is an is not ceremonial, but that is for another post. For those who say it was totally just to punish certain things in the Old Testament but not now they must explain what has changed. Surely it must be something other than the character of God, for that always remains the same.
Should Christians support the criminalization of prostitution? Yes, not only because it is a sin but because God has taught that it should be a crime.

So how would criminalizing prostitution not be adding to the OT law? And what would be the modern penalty, from your perspective?

[Sonny Tufts]

Yes. I am. Because that's what God says, and I care more about what God thinks than other people

Then I suggest you change your name to Christian Theocrat, Christian Imam, or some other name suggesting that religious observance will be enforced by death, because the word liberty has nothing to do with such a view.

[jmdrake]

I think that if you were correct about the interpretation of that law, I'd be inclined to agree that its equity is also particular to the circumstances. But I don't think that's what that law was saying. Earlier in the passage rapists are shown as being killed because "it is like a man who attacks and murders his neighbor." So I think a better understanding of that passage is that a man who SEDUCES a woman into sex must marry her, while a rapist is killed. See here for further discussion (This one was not written by me) https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.c...-translations/

You are grossly misquoting Deut 22. It has nothing to do with seduction. The man is put to death if he rapes a woman who is engaged to another man. He is not put to death if he rapes a virgin. Please read again:

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


If your theology requires you to misquote the Bible in order to support it, then you need to rethink it. (You really really need to rethink it actually.)

As for rejecting Jesus, I understand your point but I don't think that's the way the OT law was intended to work. Personal heart problems were not punishable by the State. External blasphemy (which is more than personally professing unbelief) is. As is preaching false gospels to other people. I know that seems harsh to people today but that's more because of modern norms than anything else. The Reformers did not think so and even often took it for granted (if you read men like Gillespie and Rutherford you'll know what I'm talking about, not to mention the often twisted matter of Michael Servetus, who absolutely deserved the penalty the Genevan Council gave him)

What the Samaritans did in Luke 9 what not a "personal heart problem." It was an entire city telling Jesus and His disciples "Get out of our town you are not welcome here."

Again, please read:

51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53 but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[b]?” 55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them. 56 Then he and his disciples went to another village.

Note that Jesus had already given instruction in this same chapter about what to do if people openly reject Him.

5 If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”

And sure, some "reformers" did the work of Satan by putting Christians who disagreed with them to death. Your point is? We are not called as Christians to follow "reformers" any more than we are called to follow "church fathers." We are called to follow Christ. If a reformer, or a church father, or anyone else strays from the clear teachings of Christ, we are not supposed to look to that person for inspiration. And the clear teaching of Christ is that He came not to destroy but to save. The clear teaching of Christ is that if someone rejects Him and His message, the job of the Christian is to "shake the dust off your feet" and move on to the next person. You're not even supposed to hang around and argue with such a person, let alone put him to death or seek to have the civil authorities put him to death. You might say "But what about false teachers who are leading others astray?" Well while you're worried about trying to stop that false teacher, there are 100 other people who haven't heard anything about Jesus that you could be out witnessing to.

I find it very odd (and somewhat disturbing) that some of the very people that speak the most against "the law" are the biggest legalists.

[fisharmor]

I am not saying prostitution was condoned, just that I can't think of any specific OT law that would have technically outlawed it in the sense of having a civil or criminal penalty.

I am likewise not saying prostitution was condoned, but if there was either a civil or criminal penalty for it, it was ignored in Hosea's case.

The emphasis there is clearly on redeeming the woman, forgiving her. A theology informed by a Church guided by the Holy Spirit would focus on that, and make that the point of the religion.
A theology informed by a desire to punish and push people around would focus on... the original post.

[Christian Liberty]

JM, you're confusing the evangelists role with that of civil authority.

[helmuth_hubener]

The second reason is that it offers a way out of the culture war, suggesting the government need not pick a side.

I don't think it does offer a way out. You still must pick a side. Everyone must pick a side (or sides, as it's multidimensional). Government is just one tool, and one quite distant and unchangeable (and thus irrelevant) for most people. But are you going to shun people who live together? Are you going to shun dishonest people? Are you going to live a wholesome virtuous life yourself? These are the kind of questions that are actually relevant in a culture war, not "what government policy do you support?".

But back to libertarianism, the major problem with trying to make it work Biblically is that it requires an unbiblical assumption that the New Testament is the only rule of faith for Christians.

Libertarianism does not require that assumption. It has nothing to do with that assumption.

[jmdrake]

JM, you're confusing the evangelists role with that of civil authority.

I see that you aren't even going to address the fact that you totally got Deut 22 wrong. Sad. Your theology is intellectually deficient, factually wrong, and morally bankrupt.

Edit: Furthermore Jesus never called His followers to be part of any civil authority. He called them all to be evangelists. Paul never endorsed Christians being part of any civil authority either.

[Christian Liberty]

I actually didn't say anything here about men having more than one wife. There is at least one figure in the Bible who was mentioned to have a concubine, and it didn't say if he had more than one. My point was just that there were concubines, in addition to wives in the culture.

A concubine was still a wife though (albeit one with lesser privleges) which again is not the same as fornication.

I think the fact that you admit she didn't actually have to marry the guy shows that marriage wasn't a one size fits all "punishment" for premarital sex. I am not saying prostitution was condoned, just that I can't think of any specific OT law that would have technically outlawed it in the sense of having a civil or criminal penalty.

You said:
So how would criminalizing prostitution not be adding to the OT law? And what would be the modern penalty, from your perspective?

It would be criminalized and punished by either the woman having to marry (in a case of fornication) unless her father refused, or death if it was adultery (either party was married to someone else)

[bunklocoempire]

What are these "domestic disturbances" that law enforcement respond to all night and all day long?

"Long term" prostitution arrangements hitting a snag, is what this Christian is thinking when I hear the police dispatch, and the slew of domestic disturbances.

The state will go to bat for that form of prostitution all day and all night long -so how exactly does the state focusing on one sin, but ignoring the other sins, make sense to a Christian?

Government "force", isn't a tool a Christian should mess with. I do know a former prostitute who still struggles with the results of her choices some 25+ years later. Come to think of it, years ago when we met, she offered some interesting insight into her own police/prostitute relationships that she got to deal with in the S.F. Bay area 1970's - mid 80's. Turns out police have "needs" too.

From what I've seen, prostitution is incredibly destructive, even 25+ years after the fact.

From what I've seen, anything a Christian wants the state to do through force, is some sort of a cruel joke that ultimately backfires on the Christian.

[euphemia]

No, Christians should not support the government criminalizing prostitution. I think the Bible teaches it is wrong, and the Bible teaches infidelity in marriage is wrong. Please understand that. But the primary responsibility for the church is to deal with sin in the congregation. The church doesn't know what to do with a gossip, so I guess it should not be telling government to criminalize anything the church hasn't dealt with in itself.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think it does offer a way out. You still must pick a side. Everyone must pick a side (or sides, as it's multidimensional). Government is just one tool, and one quite distant and unchangeable (and thus irrelevant) for most people. But are you going to shun people who live together? Are you going to shun dishonest people? Are you going to live a wholesome virtuous life yourself? These are the kind of questions that are actually relevant in a culture war, not "what government policy do you support?".

I still think many (though I don't think so much the more radical/ancap ones) do think this way but you have a point. I think government policy matters too, especially in a world where the government does have a substantial role (which I wish didn't exist.)

Libertarianism does not require that assumption. It has nothing to do with that assumption.

Mormonism is nowhere remotely near my orthodoxy radar but I'm still very curious how you would make any kind of Christian libertarianism work without that assumption. If you see the OT as authoritative on moral issues, it majorly presents problems for libertarian assumptions. On the other hand if you're talking the extra mormon books, that wasnt my point

Though, in fairness, I was mostly addressing Laurence Vance's libertarianism and his arguments, not necessarily those of all others.

[jmdrake]

A concubine was still a wife though (albeit one with lesser privleges) which again is not the same as fornication.

A concubine was basically a sex slave. Think Hagar. And in the Old Testament wives or concubines who were "put away" could legal be married to someone else, no questions asked, no issue of needing an "adultery escape clause" nothing. Wives you had to give a writ of divorcement. Concubines you could just put out.

So...the upshot of that is, under the Old Testament law that you seem so hell bent on enforcing a man could "marry" a concubine just by buying her, have her for as long as he wanted (a week, a day, a few hours), then "divorce" her by putting her out. What would you call that?

[jmdrake]

I still think many (though I don't think so much the more radical/ancap ones) do think this way but you have a point. I think government policy matters too, especially in a world where the government does have a substantial role (which I wish didn't exist.)



Mormonism is nowhere remotely near my orthodoxy radar but I'm still very curious how you would make any kind of Christian libertarianism work without that assumption. If you see the OT as authoritative on moral issues, it majorly presents problems for libertarian assumptions. On the other hand if you're talking the extra mormon books, that wasnt my point

Though, in fairness, I was mostly addressing Laurence Vance's libertarianism and his arguments, not necessarily those of all others.

I'm still trying to understand how you make Christianity work without understanding that the words of Jesus are superior to your personal mis-interpretations of the words of Moses. (And you're still not addressing the fact that you got Deuteronomy 22 flat wrong when it came to rape and marriage between the rapist and the victim.)

[tod evans]

A concubine was still a wife though (albeit one with lesser privleges) which again is not the same as fornication.



It would be criminalized and punished by either the woman having to marry (in a case of fornication) unless her father refused, or death if it was adultery (either party was married to someone else)

Other peoples sexuality sure does seem to cause you lots of stress.

Maybe try focusing only on yourself and your own behavior.

This need to pass judgement on others is really quite disturbing......

[Theocrat]

Other peoples sexuality sure does seem to cause you lots of stress.

Maybe try focusing only on yourself and your own behavior.

This need to pass judgement on others is really quite disturbing......

Oh, so it's not okay for Christian Liberty to pass judgment on other people's sexuality, but it's okay for you to do so when it comes to bestiality? Remember this?

Yup!

I'm a bigot...

I'm also a sexist, a racist and a classest depending on who you ask.

And quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn........

[presence]

it takes firmness in libertarian principle to make sure to confine one's pietistic moral crusade to crime (e.g., slavery, statism), and not have it spill over to what anyone might designate as "vice." Fortunately, we have the immortal Lysander Spooner, in his life and in his works, to guide us along the correct path.

Now, it might seem as if the pietistic emphasis on the individual might lead to a political individualism, to the belief that the State may not interfere in each individual's moral choices and actions. In 17th century pietism, it often meant just that. But by the 19th century, unfortunately, such was not the case. Most pietists took the following view: Since we can't gauge an individual's morality by his following rituals or even by his professed adherence to creed, we must watch his actions and see if he is really moral.

From there the pietists concluded that it was everyone's moral duty to his own salvation to see to it that his fellow men as well as himself are kept out of temptation's path. That is, it was supposed to be the State's business to enforce compulsory morality, to create the proper moral climate for maximizing salvation. In short, instead of an individualist, the pietist now tended to become a pest, a busybody, a moral watchdog for his fellow man, and a compulsory moralist using the State to outlaw "vice" as well as crime.

The liturgicals, on the other hand, took the view that morality and salvation were to be achieved by following the creed and the rituals of their church. The experts on those church beliefs and practices were, of course, not the State but the priests or bishops of the church (or, in the case of the few orthodox Calvinists, the ministers.) The liturgicals, secure in their church teachings and practices, simply wanted to be left alone to follow the counsel of their priests; they were not interested in pestering or forcing their fellow human beings into being saved. And they believed profoundly that morality was not the business of the State, but only of their own church mentors.

https://mises.org/library/lysander-s...tarian-pietist



VICES ARE NOT CRIMES
Lysander Spooner (1875)

I suggest you read the whole thing and meditate upon it

https://mises.org/library/vices-are-not-crimes

I

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime — that is, the design to injure the person or property of another — is wanting.

It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.
Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property — no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.

This is what every one wants, and has a right to, as a human being. And though we all make many mistakes, and necessarily must make them, from the imperfection of our knowledge, yet these mistakes are no argument against the right; because they all tend to give us the very knowledge we need, and are in pursuit of, and can get in no other way.

The object aimed at in the punishment of crimes, therefore, is not only wholly different from, but it is directly opposed to, that aimed at in the punishment of vices.

The object aimed at in the punishment of crimes is to secure, to each and every man alike, the fullest liberty he possibly can have — consistently with the equal rights of others — to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own property. On the other hand, the object aimed at in the punishment of vices is to deprive every man of his natural right and liberty to pursue his own happiness under the guidance of his own judgment and by the use of his own property.

But if he chooses to go on to what other men call destruction, he must be permitted to do so. And all that can be said of him, so far as this life is concerned, is that he made a great mistake in his search after happiness, and that others will do well to take warning by his fate. As to what may be his condition in another life, that is a theological question with which the law, in this world, has no more to do than it has with any other theological question, touching men's condition in a future life.

Can one make a moral choice if option A is compulsory?
If we can ban prostitution because its immoral, should we also ban corsets? Where does it end?

God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

[presence]

Immanuel Kant (1780)
The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics

The notion of duty is in itself already the notion of a constraint of the free elective will by the law; whether this constraint be an external one or be self-constraint. The moral imperative, by its categorical (the unconditional ought) announces this constraint, which therefore does not apply to all rational beings (for there may also be holy beings), but applies to men as rational physical beings who are unholy enough to be seduced by pleasure to the transgression of the moral law, although they themselves recognize its authority; and when they do obey it, to obey it unwillingly (with resistance of their inclination); and it is in this that the constraint properly consists. [Man, however, as at the same time a moral being, when he considers himself objectively, which he is qualified to do by his pure practical reason, (i.e., according to humanity in his own person). finds himself holy enough to transgress the law only unwillingly; for there is no man so depraved who in this transgression would not feel a resistance and an abhorrence of himself, so that he must put a force on himself. It is impossible to explain the phenomenon that at this parting of the ways (where the beautiful fable places Hercules between virtue and sensuality) man shows more propensity to obey inclination than the law. For, we can only explain what happens by tracing it to a cause according to physical laws; but then we should not be able to conceive the elective will as free. Now this mutually opposed self-constraint and the inevitability of it makes us recognize the incomprehensible property of freedom.] Now, as man is a free (moral) being, the notion of duty can contain only self-constraint (by the idea of the law itself), when we look to the internal determination of the will (the spring), for thus only is it possible to combine that constraint (even if it were external) with the freedom of the elective will. The notion of duty then must be an ethical one.
The impulses of nature, then, contain hindrances to the fulfilment of duty in the mind of man, and resisting forces, some of them powerful; and he must judge himself able to combat these and to conquer them by means of reason, not in the future, but in the present, simultaneously with the thought; he must judge that he can do what the law unconditionally commands that be ought. Now the power and resolved purpose to resist a strong but unjust opponent is called fortitude (fortitudo), and when concerned with the opponent of the moral character within us, it is virtue (virtus, fortitudo moralis). Accordingly, general deontology, in that part which brings not external, but internal, freedom under laws is the doctrine of virtue. Jurisprudence had to do only with the formal condition of external freedom (the condition of consistency with itself, if its maxim became a universal law), that is, with law. Ethics, on the contrary, supplies us with a matter (an object of the free elective will), an end of pure reason which is at the same time conceived as an objectively necessary end, i.e., as duty for all men. For, as the sensible inclinations mislead us to ends (which are the matter of the elective will) that may contradict duty, the legislating reason cannot otherwise guard against their influence than by an opposite moral end, which therefore must be given a priori independently on inclination. An end is an object of the elective will (of a rational being) by the idea of which this will is determined to an action for the production of this object. Now I may be forced by others to actions which are directed to an end as means, but I cannot be forced to have an end; I can only make something an end to myself. If, however, I am also bound to make something which lies in the notions of practical reason an end to myself, and therefore besides the formal determining principle of the elective will (as contained in law) to have also a material principle, an end which can be opposed to the end derived from sensible impulses; then this gives the notion of an end which is in itself a duty.

[]

Virtue requires, first of all, Command over Oneself

Emotions and passions are essentially distinct; the former belong to feeling in so far as this coming before reflection makes it more difficult or even impossible. Hence emotion is called hasty (animus praeceps). And reason declares through the notion of virtue that a man should collect himself; but this weakness in the life of one’s understanding, joined with the strength of a mental excitement, is only a lack of virtue (Untugend), and as it were a weak and childish thing, which may very well consist with the best will, and has further this one good thing in it, that this storm soon subsides. A propensity to emotion (e.g., resentment) is therefore not so closely related to vice as passion is. Passion, on the other hand, is the sensible appetite grown into a permanent inclination (e. g., hatred in contrast to resentment). The calmness with which one indulges it leaves room for reflection and allows the mind to frame principles thereon for itself; and thus when the inclination falls upon what contradicts the law, to brood on it, to allow it to root itself deeply, and thereby to take up evil (as of set purpose) into one’s maxim; and this is then specifically evil, that is, it is a true vice. Virtue, therefore, in so far as it is based on internal freedom, contains a positive command for man, namely, that he should bring all his powers and inclinations under his rule (that of reason); and this is a positive precept of command over himself which is additional to the prohibition, namely, that he should not allow himself to be governed by his feelings and inclinations (the duty of apathy); since, unless reason takes the reins of government into its own hands, the feelings and inclinations play the master over the man.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/s...orals/ch01.htm

[helmuth_hubener]

I still think many (though I don't think so much the more radical/ancap ones) do think this way but you have a point. I think government policy matters too, especially in a world where the government does have a substantial role (which I wish didn't exist.)

True statement 1: Government policy matters. It matters a lot. That is true.
True statement 2: You, CL, do not and cannot really affect government policy. That is also very true.

Put the two statements together = this is something irrelevant to your life. Irrelevant is the perfect word. If you can't affect it, can't do anything about it, then....... there you have it.

Mormonism is nowhere remotely near my orthodoxy radar

He, he, I know!

but I'm still very curious how you would make any kind of Christian libertarianism work without that assumption. If you see the OT as authoritative on moral issues, it majorly presents problems for libertarian assumptions.

Oh, people are very creative when it comes to reconciling and integrating and apologeticizing. Sometimes it seems it all amounts to linguistic jiu-jitsu.

Off the top of my head (and this is not my own view, but it just goes to show how easy it is to come up with these things): All these verses where God is commanding seemingly non-libertarian laws and penalties, to whom is he directing the commands, hmm? Oh, that's right: to Israel! Did he command that Assyria follow the same legal code? Greece? Any other nation? Nope, nope He did not.

So, to follow God's law and take it seriously and literally, what should we do? We should have Israel's legal system following Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy to a T. What should all the other Gentile nations' legal system look like? God has no comment. Well, He has lots of comments throughout the Bible, actually, that could be applied. But the specific legal code He gave Israel was, well, a legal code He gave Israel. It's for Israel. Let's not wrest the scriptures and pretend it was anything but what it clearly and literally is: a legal code God gave to Israel.

[tod evans]

Oh, so it's not okay for Christian Liberty to pass judgment on other people's sexuality, but it's okay for you to do so when it comes to bestiality? Remember this?

Of course I remember that post, 'twas only a few days ago I made it.......

That said, have you ever seen me cry for government to do anything to another person because of who or what they screw?

How 'bout, have you ever seen me try to justify government behavior I'd like to see by quoting scripture?

And finally have you seen me ever call for government to kill a person in God's name because of who they screw?

I may be a bigot, or homophobe, or any number of P/C labels but I can assure you that other peoples bed partners that don't directly affect me and mine don't cause me any stress at all...

And........Any "judgement" of another that spews forth from my lips will NEVER condemn someone to hell in the name of God.

[edit]

I've read and reread my post you quoted and can't in any way see how it could be construed as me passing judgement........

Help me out here......

[tod evans]

//

[RJB]

Mormonism is nowhere remotely near my orthodoxy radar

Only Orthodoxy is near orthodoxy on my radar

(Just stirring the pot)

[jmdrake]

I am likewise not saying prostitution was condoned, but if there was either a civil or criminal penalty for it, it was ignored in Hosea's case.

The emphasis there is clearly on redeeming the woman, forgiving her. A theology informed by a Church guided by the Holy Spirit would focus on that, and make that the point of the religion.
A theology informed by a desire to punish and push people around would focus on... the original post.

You know, I forgot about Hosea. The fact that God told Hosea to marry a known prostitute shows that either God was telling Hosea to commit adultery or the "Sex = automatic marriage" that Sola_Fide depended on for his "rape = marriage" thesis and Christian Liberty is depending on for his "a prostitute is married to her first client" thesis is a total fallacy.

[jmdrake]

Oh, so it's not okay for Christian Liberty to pass judgment on other people's sexuality, but it's okay for you to do so when it comes to bestiality? Remember this?

Pass judgment as in saying "Ewww" or saying "That's wrong" or "that's a sin" or pass judgment as in saying "Time him and the animal up while I find some large stones?"

Again I point you and Christian Liberty to the Samaritan village. They were rejecting God in the flesh! Yet when Jesus was asked to send down fire He declined and said he did not come to destroy but to save.

[Christian Liberty]

Only Orthodoxy is near orthodoxy on my radar

(Just stirring the pot)

LOL!
[QUOTE=helmuth_hubener;6245518]True statement 1: Government policy matters. It matters a lot. That is true.
True statement 2: You, CL, do not and cannot really affect government policy. That is also very true.

Put the two statements together = this is something irrelevant to your life. Irrelevant is the perfect word. If you can't affect it, can't do anything about it, then....... there you have it.

He, he, I know! [/QUOTE}

I'm primarily concerned about this from a theological perspective at the moment. I don't expect to see the BIblical model implemented in my lifetime, though I believe eventually it will be implemented everywhere.

Oh, people are very creative when it comes to reconciling and integrating and apologeticizing. Sometimes it seems it all amounts to linguistic jiu-jitsu.

This is one of my major problems with Christianity these days. At the risk of being blunt I think Mormonism is a different thing entirely, and expecting a Mormon to interpret scripture "correctly' is kind of like expecting a Muslim to do so in my mind. Essentially both parties have other works that trump the Bible and you interpret scripture through that lens, so of course you're going to come up with wacky conclusions. Evangelicalism on the other hand has no such things explicitly but nevertheless has a habit of making scriptures basically say everything but what they actually ay.

Off the top of my head (and this is not my own view, but it just goes to show how easy it is to come up with these things): All these verses where God is commanding seemingly non-libertarian laws and penalties, to whom is he directing the commands, hmm? Oh, that's right: to Israel! Did he command that Assyria follow the same legal code? Greece? Any other nation? Nope, nope He did not.

So, to follow God's law and take it seriously and literally, what should we do? We should have Israel's legal system following Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy to a T. What should all the other Gentile nations' legal system look like? God has no comment. Well, He has lots of comments throughout the Bible, actually, that could be applied. But the specific legal code He gave Israel was, well, a legal code He gave Israel. It's for Israel. Let's not wrest the scriptures and pretend it was anything but what it clearly and literally is: a legal code God gave to Israel.

I think philosophically its problematic to say that God really just wants people to follow the non-aggression principle when actually the only legal code he ever gave wasnt nearly compatible with it.

But the deeper theological problem is really dispensationalism. Dispensationalism sees Israel as one thing and the church as a completely different thing. So dispensationalists see little, if any, actual value in the Old Testament and its specific commands. By contrast covenant theology in its purest form sees Israel as the proto-church with its own institutional separation between the ministry of the sword* (State) and ministry of the Word (church) and as such we think all Christian magistrates should rule similarly or the same way. THere are plenty of prophetic passages that describe the nations doing things like that too. Though again, the problem is that premillennialists make these things irrelevant to our own situation.

SO yeah, if we saw Israel as the church and the moral law as holistically being the same that would fix a lot of the theological issues here.

*I do not mean to say that THIS state is God's minister of the sword anymore than I would say the Pope is a true pastor, but the institution of the State was created FOR THE PURPOSE OF being a minister of God (Romans 13:4) just as the office of pastor was created to be God's minister in the church.