Granite State of Mind

I note this week the Free State Project (FSP) seeks to recruit 20,000 souls to move to New Hampshire. To participate, you must sign you agree "government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people, nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else." As well as low tax rates, the FSP touts there's no mandatory seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws in New Hampshire or smoking bans in restaurants.

Sounds attractive, eh? I admit I'm torn. While a classic FDR/RFK liberal, my time working in homeless shelters altered deeply held beliefs. Do I still believe a Christian's first duty is to assist the poor? Yes. Do I still hold fast that Christians should exist as an ethical conscience in the world and speak truth to power? Yes.

Here's the hard part. What of the people I met at the shelter who had no intention of ever leading more positive less harmful lives? I don't mean folks too far mentally or physically gone but those relatively young and visibly able-bodied. I watched some die violently, needlessly. I saw some inflict grievous harm on others. To what extent should Christians still house, feed and offer sanctuary to those involved? Is Government responsible for their welfare in any way? Does assistance to help those who truly can't help themselves harm more than hurt those who can help themselves? If only two out of two hundred gain jobs and housing while one hundred and ninety eight stay the same, die or go to jail, what exactly did we accomplish? Would I be willing to pay higher taxes to build more homeless shelters? I don't know.

What I do know is that the ethical quandaries, some with life or death consequences, were the most trying this Peter Pan ever faced. Returning to New Hampshire, I know that regardless of low state taxes, elderly residents still receive Social Security and Medicare, and citizens are still protected by our armed forces. At what point are we willing to pay resonably higher taxes for those items, and schools and roads for the general good even if we have no kids or take public transportation, or conversely, help pay for commuter trains even if we drive to work, or will never step foot in a homeless shelter?

These questions pertain to good government costs. What about bad government? I note this week a letter from Changing Attitudes Nigeria (CAN) leader Davis Mac-Iyalla regarding the likely passage by the end of March of legislation that criminalizes and imposes penalties for anyone reading pro-gay materials in public or at home, and which bans meetings between two gay persons. Mr. Mac-Iyalla writes:

"I've been talking with friends and supporters of how to go to a safe place. The bill to ban us is moving fast to become law. The worst of all is that Akinola is the master and brain behind the bill; recently he has been lobbying the Presidency to put pressure on the Senate and House of Representatives to speed up the process in passing the bill. Members of Akinola's staff are boasting that CAN will soon be illegal and I will be sent to prison. Most of my members are now calling and sending me mail to ask what will become of them if this bill is passed. If tears can change things, I think by now I would have changed the situations of Nigerian LGBT Christians."

As I grow older, the spirit of the FSP and Thomas Paine's edict that the government that governs least governs best look more and more tempting at least at first glance. In the immortal words of Charley Daniels, "I aint asking nobody for nothin' if I can get it on my own. If you don't like the way I'm a'livin' you just leave this long-haired country boy alone." I live in the country. The long hair is long gone, though not out of choice. I desire to a great curmudgeonly extent to be left alone but just like George Washington and Michael Corelone, "just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in."

The FSP reflects the last gasp of a post World War II conservative Republican wing overtaken by Rovian Statists who desire government that governs more, not less, for example, like enshrining language that defines marriage and family in the Constitution. That would be at odds with an FSP that describes itself as "neighborly, productive and tolerant." So if you're against seat belt laws, for low taxes, but for marriage amendments, can you be a Free Stater in good standing?

It parallels the struggle within our Church. There are those like the FSP that desire the traditional loose governance of the Federation of Anglicans and Episcopalian Dioceses, and those who desire much more central authority, even a powerful Pope-like Archbishop of Canterbury. So if you're for the mandatory use of the 1928 Prayer Book, and liturgy in Latin, but for Bishop Robinson, can you be an Episcopalian in good standing?

Perhaps we're seeing consensus emerge on some issues like the evangelical creation care movement that respects a need for greater governance on the environment and recognizes mutual areas of interest encompassing what are both traditionally liberal and conservative concerns. Am I at the point where I could support the abolition of capital punishment, abortion and euthanasia, and a comprehensive conscientious objection and pacifism, as consistent 'culture of life' issues despite the political persuasion in which I was born and raised? No, but it's not that simple, nor is it, I'm afraid, the way that the FSP addresses the issues.

When I was in seminary, I questioned a Dominican monk who taught a strict universalism. I asked how it was possible to compare a woman using birth control and protection in Western Europe for recreational purposes as opposed to a woman living in Africa who's married to a man with AIDS. His reply addressed the value of life in both cases. I've thought about it alot over the years. My primary concern still lies with existing life rather than potential life. Perhaps that's the difference between us. An internal conscience-based situational ethics, formed by readings in Scripture and other historical and philosophical texts, faith, reason, tradition and personal experience, still trump in my mind, an imposed external literal universalism based on the authority of Church, Scripture, and a theology above and removed from life on the ground, alone.

I know without any doubt, I'm vehemently opposed to the horrendous legislation the government of Nigeria is enacting with the implicit if not complicit support of American allies of Akinola's. That certainly validates Tom Paine's theory of over-governance. On the other hand, the State Department has condemned the pending legislation as a gross violation of human rights, and the taxes that support that stance, are well paid.

I know I'm willing to pay higher taxes if it's for the general good even if I don't directly benefit. I know promoting justice and fighting the imminent imprisonment of Mr. Mac-Iyalla is more important than an absence of motorcycle helmet laws. I suppose I won't be moving to New Hampshire.