Freedom AND G-d?

For many people, the idea of being a social conservative who believes in G-d and His Law, and also believing in freedom, these things seem inconsistent. And it is not totally irrational that they should think so, though some of the subtleties of those issues may be escaping them. I am not in favor of licentiousness, and to godless people belief in freedom and belief in licentiousness are kind of hard to tell apart. One man's freedom is another man's license, so they may think.

In the final analysis, we are always faced with the decision between having G-d as our King, OR, our king as our god. Or, our government or politics as our god. When G-d delivered the Hebrews from Egypt, who were they delivered from? From an absolute monarch and god-king who had the power of life and death over his subjects. And this was not a situation limited to ancient Egypt: political power always seeks more of the same. Political power always seeks to become the de-facto god, whether it declares itself such or not. Why did the Soviet Union and Communist China ban belief in G-d? Because someone who is loyal to G-d is to that extent not loyal to them.

What I am against is human tyranny. When G-d led the Hebrews away from Egypt, what was He offering as an alternative to Egypt? What He was offering was this: if you keep His law and owe obedience to Him, you don't need a human king.

Power corrupts even the best of men. Humans are sinful and flawed and egotistical and congenitally unfit to rule wisely and justly.

Of course, one day the Hebrews DID have a human king. They demanded one. Of which G-d said to Samuel:

“Listen to all that the people are saying to you;
it is not you they have rejected, but they have

rejected Me as their king."

~1 Samuel 8:7

I am not against order. I am not for license or licentious behavior of any kind. I am a law-and-order kind of guy. What I am saying is that human government is unfit to BE that order beyond a certain limited point. Human government should defend the borders and keep basic moral and social law (do not kill, do not steal, do not go around defrauding people,) facilitate and regulate basic human exchange of goods and ideas (the mail, highways, internet, the fairness and transparency of markets,) ensure equal access to justice and equal respect of basic moral rights, and that's pretty well it.

Now lets take a social conservative issue - pornography. I am against pornography in every way shape and form. It is a violation of the Commandment against adultery. So, am I in favor of it being outlawed? I would say that if the price of my freedom of religion was that other people have freedom of pornography, I could live with that.

The problem is that sooner or later a society that has freedom of pornography, won't have freedom of religion. Belief in G-d and belief in licentiousness are competing and incompatible worldviews. If we lived in a world where banning pornography was even practical, I would say that rather than going to recourse of law and force first thing (all law in the end is backed by force,) we first build consensus that pornography is bad. We educate people that it is bad. When a consensus has been built, then we could apply pressure to stopping it altogether. Right now though we are ridiculously far away from any of that, to the point where it is no longer sensible to even talk about outlawing it.

So we actually have two "freedoms" we are talking about here. One is:

"I am free to do whatever I like up to a certain point,"

and the other is

"the government is not free to use law backed by force to stop me beyond a certain point."

You are never actually free to break G-d's law without consequences. It is actually the latter, based on my absolutely certain knowledge of the folly of human power, that I am arguing in favor of.

In fact, G-d's Law, the only true law, is unavoidable. If you break it, you will pay the consequences, and no law officers are required to enforce it. If you are an otherwise good person who breaks the law, you will pay for it, even if you afterwards repent and are forgiven. If you are a murderer who manages to avoid legal consequences for your crimes, you still will pay for it anyway. Everyone always pays for everything, forgiven or not.

So to say that you believe in limited government (and hence freedom from government beyond a certain point,) and to say that you believe in license ("enjoying" forms of immorality without consequences) are very different things. I DO believe in limited government. I don't believe that the government is fit to be my god or anyone else's. I DO also believe in G-d's law and seek to follow it as best I can and I know that if I fall short in that, I will reap the consequences of disobedience whether there is any government to enforce those consequences or not.

American government and American freedom was born in the sweet spot between a largely G-d fearing populace and a government strictly limited by law. Limited by the Constitution. Without at least a significant minority of people who love and fear G-d, that experiment cannot long continue because license and moral weakness inevitably invites tyranny. In any case, my ultimate loyalties are clear:

G-d Alone Is My King.