LXXIII – Political Ideology vs. Christian Doctrine

Titular clarification inspired by suggestions from JMSmith in the comments on my previous article.

---

I previously wrote two articles about the distinctions to be drawn between political ideology, which necessarily must change depending on the political circumstances of a given time, and Christian Morality as codified in Doctrine, sometimes referred to as the Magisterium.

In the first, I assert that “Ideology is Jealous, Morality is Just”. That is to say: Ideology demands conformity. Ideology will change until a sufficient number have adopted it, and then Ideology will demand that you conform to it. Political ideology is defined by rivalry. Likewise I assert that Morality, as codified in the Magisterium, does not change and requires only that we conform to it, or more accurately, that we conform to God.

In the second, I expand on the idea that modern forces are trying to turn faith into a political ideology, thereby changing it so it would be acceptable to more people. I further state that doing so is wrong.

A Case Study in Ideologization of Religion

Please see this article, and read it in full: “Christian Group warns against rise of Christian Nationalism”.

Lets take this point by point.

• “Merging of American and Christian Identities poses a threat to US Democracy and religious communities.”

America was founded by Christians, this is a fact. Christian values inform the underlying structure of our government, as documented by the Constitution. This is also a fact. Christianity does not pose a threat to religious communities, except in wishing that they would convert to Christianity. There is no threat of bodily harm to these communities inso far as Christianity is concerned. This is a fact. Nationalism is a political ideology. Christianity is a religion. The commingling of the two concepts is dangerous only to Christianity, not to anyone else.

• “As Christians we are bound by Christ (…) whether we worship at a Church, Mosque, Synagogue, or Temple, America has no second class faiths.”

Both of these claims cannot be true. Christianity–specifically, Catholicism, from which all other schismatic sects are born, is true. This is not a political claim. Catholic worship involves celebrating the Sacraments, at a Church. It is to this we are bound by Christ. We can do whatever we want, politically, insofar as it does not interfere with our obligations to Christ. No other religion acknowledges this obligation, therefore no other religion is true.

The rest of the article is a political treatise barely worth analysis. This group is a political organization trying to use a religious banner to make a political point. The point they want to make is this: Whites should be denigrated, borders should be open, and the Orange Man is Bad.

Christianity makes none of those claims.

³⁶Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
³⁷ Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.
³⁸ This is the greatest and the first commandment.
³⁹ And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
⁴⁰ On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

^{Matthew, 22:36-40}

¹⁷ Tell us therefore what dost thou think, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
¹⁸ But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites?
¹⁹ Shew me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny.
²⁰ And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this?
²¹ They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.

^{Matthew, 22:17-21}

Any Christian who claims that a political obligation supersedes an obligation rooted in the Magisterium is wrong.

AMDG

LXX – Tonlieu

Kristor wrote another excellent article over at Orthosphere which I have been stewing on for some time. Rather than write another essay in the comments, I’ll keep my remarks here. Read it first, before reading this!

---

It’s a Privilege To Be Here

On it’s face, I like the premise of Tonlieux.  It is coherent with my past expressions regarding rights and authority. In short: That Authority is derived from God via the Sovereign^[1], and rights are a logical fallacy and not helpful in determining who is owed what duties by a government. A wayfaring stranger crossing the border from another country has no claims on the hospitality of his newfound host. A sovereign owes to that stranger no obligations; the stranger has no privileges in this land. That same stranger, crossing at a legal point of entry, presenting valid identification does have a claim on the host, the minimum claim of hospitality in exchange for an agreement to abide by the laws and customs of the host.

The present immigration system is designed to work like that, provided our subordinate authorities actually enforce the rules. The basic framework is complicated by questions of human rights, which don’t exist: Are we treating wayfaring strangers well when they wander into our land? There is a puzzling question of Justice: Are we allowing them due process? We technically do not owe them this, non-citizens aren’t bound by the constitution in the same way, but as far as I can tell this is extended as a courtesy to all those within our borders.

Tonlieu works to put a monetary value on access. Kristor explains his suggestion for an Optimal Tonlieu. I cannot dispute the economics of his proposal. I do, however, see a problem: Enforcement.

An Invisible Wall Made of Money

Our border is such that there are millions of illegal immigrants – that is to say, Sovereign citizens of a nation other than ours – who presently reside in and lay claim to the accidents of citizenship without any of the essences. Furthermore, there is such a volume of incoming foreign citizens that the mind boggles. A tonlieu is effective for travel that is limited by some mechanism, but when I can walk from A to B, how does it prevent our present situation? How can it help resolve it?

It seems Kristors primary suggestion is deterrence. Not being bound by law, the foreign citizen is thus in danger of disappearing into the abyss of human evil. One challenge is that I am not sure how our present system, even without tonlieu, isn’t also designed this way. Does the Constitution protect foreign citizens? I don’t believe it does^[2], or if it does only in passing. So fundamental to this proposal of tonlieu is a society which behaves somewhat differently than it does today.

Second, if foreign citizens arrive en masse, and begins perpetrating human evil against it’s host, what can a tonlieu do against it? Certainly there is more money to be made in illegally and repeatedly crossing a border, perhaps smuggling goods, than in abiding by the law. Nothing short of an organized and concerted effort by the host sovereign can reclaim any land physically held by the group of foreign citizens–some might refer to that process as “repelling an invading force”.

A Solution

It seems to me that tonlieu, while an effective solution for people the world over who already abide by the law, is deficient in the practical reality only insofar as it doesn’t address or prevent the problems that exist right now, and adds assumptions which aren’t supported by experience.

One solution, with or without tonlieu, is to enforce the laws as written, and expurgate the foreign citizens residing illegally. This presents the same deterrent force proposed in Kristor’s Optimal Tonlieu. Another solution is to reduce the size and scope of government to minimum constitutionally enshrined services. Fully private healthcare may produce enough of a profit to charitably fund certain needs of illegal immigrants prior to their swift deportation. Never let it be said that America treats it’s visitors, welcome or unwelcome, without dignity. Charity can also pick up much of the slack in service of the needy, without the need for government as arbitrator. In fact, the 10th Amendment may be a justification for 100% of the proceeds of Tonlieu to go towards the state a person enters. This would provide a profit motive for State’s to maximize collected proceeds by Tonlieu.

“But Scoot, why does that profit motive not exist when managed federally?”

The Federal government is in such deep debt, the money would be immediately leveraged or appropriated. I have no confidence in our administrators to effectively manage the money. Further still, subsidiarity would dictate that the enforcement of the tonlieu and thus the benefit thereof go to the closest possible unit of society.

We can enforce immigration if we enforce our laws. The number one problem is not how our structure is designed, but in how it is being administered.

---

^{[1] – I am still puzzling over how the Chain of Authority, i.e. legitimacy, functions in a democratic society, expect writings on this in the future.}

^{[2] – The 14th Amendment includes language “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”–the language of “person” vs. Citizen is at issue here, and this is why Illegal Immigrants enjoy such comfortable lifestyles. So, in my article, I am wrong, but begrudgingly so.}