New at Reason

May 18, 2007

In a review from our June issue, W. James Antle III susses out whether fundamentalist Christians can join (or re-join) freedom's choir.

Comments

robc|5.18.07 @ 10:14AM|#

As an evangelical christian (I dont use the term fundamentalist, becuase Ive never read the book The Fundamentals, so I dont know if I agree with it or not) and a libertarian, I have never found anything contradictory between them.

YMMV

Grotius|5.18.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Except that the specific government Paul described as "God's servant" was a pagan one that permitted abortion and prostitution while funding forms of idolatry.

Well, at least the author is reading the work within its historical context (the only appropriate way to read it from my perspective). Of course it should be noted that use of the government to enforce orthodoxy was on the Christian agenda long before Christians ever came to power in the Roman state.

Grotius|5.18.07 @ 10:29AM|#

Really a lot of where one comes down on issues like this depends on what you think the nature of man in human society is. Is man an individual who has contracted with other men to curb the excesses of the state of nature, or is man an "Aristotelian man," a man naturally made or evolved to live in a polis?

It is probably an ultimately unproveable issue.

Grotius|5.18.07 @ 10:34AM|#

Olree counters that this is directly contrary to a Christian understanding of virtue, which requires "right heart" (correct intentions) as much as the right outward behavior. By taking away opportunities to sin, you are also taking away chances to behave in ways that please God. Consequently, secular law can only advance the appearance of virtue, not virtue itself.

Of course the point of such laws would be to eventually induce such virtue. Plus, the Christian understanding of virtue comes in a lot of varied forms.

Rhywun|5.18.07 @ 10:35AM|#

Reed ... described the religious right as part of an anti-statist "Leave Us Alone Coalition"

Ha ha ha - I almost blew coffee out my nose at that howler.

MikeT|5.18.07 @ 10:45AM|#

Human society bears out the Christian teachings on human nature. Everything from petty sins such as despising someone for being different, to acts of collective savagery such as this. For my money as a Christian and a libertarian, you can't get much closer to proving what the Bible says about the natural wickedness of human behavior than to watch small children **naturally** behave in ways that seem cruel toward one another in the sort of leaderless environment that public schools foster.

If you believe in the Bible, then you have to believe that there is a God who is, even now, watching and judging sins. Many people don't seem to believe that, while espousing profound faith. If they did believe that, then they could differentiate between crimes that the state can handle, and those that, in order to be prosecuted, would have to give too much power to sinful men and women.

There is a powerful argument against Bush's security policies based on the Bible. Evil flourishes in darkness, which is what is created when the rule of law is voided and security trumps transparency. To paraphrase Jesus, there is nothing done in the darkness that won't be exposed to the light. Evil fears the light of public scrutiny and the rule of law because then it can be punished and eliminated.

|5.18.07 @ 10:51AM|#

At the end of the day, if you're a real-ass Christian you should give your belongings to the poor, live in a voluntary commune, and spend your time trying to help those who need it. It's much easier to be a fake-ass Christian. Also, as far as laws, a real-ass Christian shouldn't be concerned with the laws of man, but with the laws of God written in his heart which he follows because he loves God.
I know there was the Great Commission and all, but it never made sense to me that some Christians think that you need to convert everyone in the world to Christianity. If that were possible, who would be left to stick around with the Beast during that crappy 10,000 years at the end of time? It's sort of implicit in Christianity that not everyone will be Christian.

jet|5.18.07 @ 10:54AM|#

"If you believe in the Bible, then you have to believe that there is a God who is, even now, watching and judging sins."

Or as Hitchens would say -- a spiritual North Korea.

|5.18.07 @ 11:01AM|#

I know a number of Christians that are at least moderately libertarian. They also spend a lot of time doing charitable work. Evangelicals can be really good people. I dislike Fundies, though. They scare me.

Brian|5.18.07 @ 11:21AM|#

Dobson has some group that lead the anti-same-sex-marriage votes and now is pushing to regulate strip clubs to a greater degree in Ohio. It's getting bad here. This new law is called the "Community Defense Act". Pretty disturbing. There's a huge difference between libertarians and the fundamentalists, or we'd just call ourselves Republicans.

|5.18.07 @ 11:22AM|#

The teachings of Christ don't strike me as being compatable with the narcissitic and self-serving philosophy of libertarianism.

Grotius|5.18.07 @ 11:37AM|#

Dan T.,

I want greater liberty for everyone. How is that narcissitic? I will admit that it is self-serving.

M|5.18.07 @ 11:37AM|#

Dan T. (or his impostor) - Which teachings of Christ particularly are you referring to?

|5.18.07 @ 11:49AM|#

"I know a number of Christians that are at least moderately libertarian. They also spend a lot of time doing charitable work."

Or as Hitchens would say -- Hamas do a lot of charitable work. Are they libertarians?

|5.18.07 @ 11:52AM|#

Dan T. (or his impostor) - Which teachings of Christ particularly are you referring to?

Caring for the poor, putting serving God and humanity over material possesions, that kind of thing.

|5.18.07 @ 11:54AM|#

Caring for the poor, putting serving God and humanity over material possesions, that kind of thing.

And libertarians want to prevent you from doing these things how, exactly?

|5.18.07 @ 11:54AM|#

Those that believe they're moral superiority entitles them to rule over those they deem morally inferior, are wrong about that.

D.A. Ridgely|5.18.07 @ 11:54AM|#

Historically, I'd say it is a fair generalization that organized religions lose interest in religious tolerance when they come to believe they can dominate politics and regain it when they come to believe they can't. That is certainly true of Christianity as a human institution historically and I expect Islam will follow suit eventually.

Simply taking Christian doctrine at face value, there is much to be said not only for the notion that a libertarian form of government best facilitates Christianity but also that what Christians profess to believe they understand about God suggests He leans rather strongly toward a libertarian perspective as well. That is to say, if God believes free will is a necessary condition of the sort of love He desires from us and that salvation freely offered must nonetheless be freely accepted, involving the state in such matters can only interfere. That is to say, then, that while there may well be all sorts of reasons of a secular nature to ban X or encourage Y, X or Y's status as a sin or virtue are not particularly good reasons even from a theological perspective to make them the objects of state attention.

Grotius|5.18.07 @ 12:07PM|#

D.A.R.,

Simply taking Christian doctrine at face value...

Which body of Christian doctrine exactly? That's the major problem at the heart of this issue - whose Christianity are we talking about here?

Grotius|5.18.07 @ 12:08PM|#

D.A.R.,

That is to say, if God believes free will is a necessary condition of the sort of love He desires from us and that salvation freely offered must nonetheless be freely accepted, involving the state in such matters can only interfere.

So much for those who ascribe to predestination.

MikeT|5.18.07 @ 12:09PM|#

At the end of the day, if you're a real-ass Christian you should give your belongings to the poor, live in a voluntary commune, and spend your time trying to help those who need it. It's much easier to be a fake-ass Christian.

It's really funny being told by a non-Christian what it takes to be a Christian. For your next act, are you going to go out on the street telling secular Jews to just give up since they're not Jewish in your book?

MikeT|5.18.07 @ 12:11PM|#

It's ironic to see many libertarians quoting a socialist like Hitchens, as though he would be any authority on human freedom. Well, beside being a socialist he would be well-versed in how to bring about an end to human freedom.

M|5.18.07 @ 12:12PM|#

Dan T. (whose tone seems authentically Dan T.'s) - The state deprives individuals of both incentive and resources that would support their caring for the poor. The incentive because the state's promising to care for the poor relieves the burden of conscience, and (too many of the resources) by taxing away private wealth that could otherwise be freely given to others.

Any deed that someone thinks good enough to compel others to perform is better performed voluntarily. Paying taxes (at the point of a gun) is not charitable work.

As for acquisitiveness vs. altruism, by backing citizens against various material walls, the state forcibly directs the attention of individuals to material concerns, attention that they might otherwise autonomously direct, Christian works numbering among their available options.

How is acquiring wealth not a condition for caring for the poor?

I don't see the contradiction; rather, the opposite.

Brian Sorgatz|5.18.07 @ 12:28PM|#

Human society bears out the Christian teachings on human nature. Everything from petty sins such as despising someone for being different, to acts of collective savagery such as this. For my money as a Christian and a libertarian, you can't get much closer to proving what the Bible says about the natural wickedness of human behavior than to watch small children **naturally** behave in ways that seem cruel toward one another in the sort of leaderless environment that public schools foster.

Here I go again:

The teachings on human nature you describe have generally been vindicated by libertarian atheist Steven Pinker, too. Religious or secular, libertarians should not be utopians. An enlightened cynicism is healthy for political discourse.

|5.18.07 @ 12:43PM|#

I am a christian, just not a particularly good one. And I think that if most Christians look at their lives, they are rarely living up to the standard that God set. And that's fine, we are humans after all.

|5.18.07 @ 12:43PM|#

And yes, if you are a secular Jew then you are not Jewish enough. Religion precludes secularity, no?

|5.18.07 @ 12:46PM|#

I don't know about Fundamentalism, but the Roman Catholic catechism includes a number of socialistic-seeming guidelines. E.g.:

The most complete realization of the common good is found in those political communities which defend and promote the good of their citizens and of intermediate groups without forgetting the universal good of the entire human family.

* * *

Society ensures social justice when it respects the dignity and the rights of the person as the proper end of society itself. Furthermore, society pursues social justice, which is linked to the common good and to the exercise of authority, when it provides the conditions that allow associations and individuals to obtain what is their due.

* * *

Solidarity, which springs from human and Christian brotherhood, is manifested in the first place by the just distribution of goods, by a fair remuneration for work and by zeal for a more just social order.

* * *

FWIW, the first self-professed libertarian I ever met was also an evangelical Christian.

Robert|5.18.07 @ 1:00PM|#

"it is a fair generalization that organized religions lose interest in religious tolerance when they come to believe they can dominate politics and regain it when they come to believe they can't."

Doesn't that generalize even further to groups & isms beyond religions?

Fluffy|5.18.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Here's the real problem: Christianity becomes more antithetical to freedom the more seriously its adherents take its basic premises.

It's only by watering it down or rejecting key elements of it that it becomes compatible with freedom.

The Christian moral system postulates the existence of an afterlife where one is ETERNALLY rewarded or punished for what takes place on this Earth, including one's thoughts while living on this Earth. [How many of the Ten Commandments deal with thoughtcrime? A bunch.] Because the reward or punishment faced by the soul in the afterlife it eternal, the relative value or importance of anything that happens in this life approaches zero. [Your worldly life]/[Eternity] = approaches zero.

That means that no worldly value, including freedom, can remotely compare with the importance of preventing people from risking their eternal souls. If heretics come along that threaten to lead people into damnation, those heretics must die. If too much freedom leads people to forget the Sabbath, or covet their neighbor's goods or wife, or to fail to honor their parents, that freedom has to go too.

Christians never loved mankind so much or took their religion so seriously as during the Inquisition. The Inquisition was the perfect expression of the moral beliefs of Christianity taken to their logical conclusion.

|5.18.07 @ 1:25PM|#

Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God with is God's." The problem with much of the religious right is that they're rendering far too much to Caesar. They've stopped trusting Jesus, and are placing their faith in mortal pastor-politicians. They've grown impatience with Jesus, and are now praying to the state to deliver them.

There is only one Biblical mission for government, and that is to keep the peace between men. When government has honest policemen and defensive armies, it is doing God's work. When it goes beyond this mandate, it is exceeding its mission. Government may be God's servant, but that doesn't mean it is a good or faithful servant. It rarely is.

There is no disagreement between Christianity and the ideas of limited government. If the religious right would stop trying to place the state between God and Man, they would see that.

|5.18.07 @ 1:25PM|#

I must say I thank God every day that I live in the U.S. We are free to believe as we see fit and openly support or ridicule each others beliefs.
America.....what a country!

♪♪♫♫►¿◄

|5.18.07 @ 1:27PM|#

God bless you all and may everyone have a beautiful weekend!





>puts on cup and waits quietly for akira

robc|5.18.07 @ 1:30PM|#

Fluffy,

those heretics must die

Other than that being completely antithetical to Christ's teachings.

Christianity becomes more antithetical to freedom the more seriously its adherents take its basic premises.

I would say the exact opposite. The more serious you take the basic premises, the more it supports freedom.
Heck, even he who WAS without sin chose not to throw the first stone.

|5.18.07 @ 1:55PM|#

I was reared among fundamentalists, and I respect the sincerity and devotion shown by many followers of Jesus. Many "fundamentalist" leaders, however, more nearly resemble the Pharisees whom Jesus chastised. Indeed, Jesus reserved his most forceful physical action for the moneychangers who profiteered from religion.

Jesus distinguished between temporal and political matters--"that which is Caesar's"--and spiritual mattters--"That which is God's". What part of "My Kingdom is not of this world" do Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard and their ilk not understand?

Many "fundamentalist" preachers/wardheelers, who talk of God but walk with Mammon, have unfortunately persuaded their congregants that God is such a weenie that He needs Caesar's help. Any deity so weak as that is simply not worthy of devotion.

Grotius|5.18.07 @ 2:58PM|#

John In Nashville,

There are a multitude of interpretations of that particular phrase. I'd say though that the current political regime didn't much matter to Jesus (if he was a real person) because he was an apocalypticist; meaning that he was convinced that the current order would soon - as in the lifetime of his followers - be swept away and a "new kingdom" based on his principles would arise in its place.

|5.18.07 @ 3:56PM|#

The liberation theologists had it right. Christianity was an early form of socialism. Reason enough to throw it on the same ash-heap.

Ventifact|5.18.07 @ 4:06PM|#

Just thinking back to the article itself:

Olree posits that because the Bible teaches individuals not to seek revenge, God needs a "servant" to "execute wrath on the wrongdoer." He argues that "what is forbidden is individualized vengeance. The first verses of Romans 13 strongly imply collective vengeance through the civil government is not only permissible, but part of God's plan."

THEN

"In fact, in most contexts of wrongdoing, we should probably assume that the moral nature of an act does not change, no matter who the wrongdoer is." Olree's ideal government is at least presumptively bound by the same ethical rules as its subjects.

HELLO? "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills."

Vent|5.18.07 @ 4:07PM|#

oops

ascribe that last quote to Zoolander

|5.18.07 @ 4:09PM|#

I always took "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God with is God's." as follows:

I look at what I have. None of it is ceasar's, therefore I render unto ceasar nothing. If I have something of Ceasar's, I'll surely render it unto him. Until that time, beat it ceasar.

|5.18.07 @ 6:29PM|#

There is a great deal of diversity among Christians about the role of the state, just as there is great diversity among (oh, for example) atheists.

Consider the divisions among atheists among big-government types (scientific socialism, etc.), Randians (altruism is evil, but supposedly it should be legal if done by consenting adults) to libertarianism, to anarchism.

|5.18.07 @ 7:31PM|#

Bishop: You never ask a navy man if he'll have another drink, because it's nobody's goddamned business how much he's had already.
Judge Smails: Wrong, you're drinking too much your Excellency.
Bishop: Excellency, fiddlesticks, my name's Fred and I'm a man, same as you.
Judge Smails: You're not a man, you're a bishop, for God's sakes.
Bishop: There is no God...

Pretty much sums it up.

Quiet_Desperation|5.19.07 @ 12:23AM|#

>>> A law professor makes a case for a libertarian Christianity

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha heeeeeee!

Ah, you guys! C'mon, seriously...

|5.19.07 @ 4:40AM|#

The Christian moral system postulates the existence of an afterlife where one is ETERNALLY rewarded or punished for what takes place on this Earth, including one's thoughts while living on this Earth. [How many of the Ten Commandments deal with thoughtcrime? A bunch.] Because the reward or punishment faced by the soul in the afterlife it eternal, the relative value or importance of anything that happens in this life approaches zero. [Your worldly life]/[Eternity] = approaches zero.

That means that no worldly value, including freedom, can remotely compare with the importance of preventing people from risking their eternal souls. If heretics come along that threaten to lead people into damnation, those heretics must die. If too much freedom leads people to forget the Sabbath, or covet their neighbor's goods or wife, or to fail to honor their parents, that freedom has to go too.

You're ignoring something. How do people "risk their eternal souls"?

By choosing to do evil.

And simply refraining from evil is not enough. Christians are also called to do good works.

Without the capacity for humans to exercise choice, there is no good or evil. Freedom is essential to virtue.

Giving to the poor at gunpoint isn't compassion, any more than having sex with someone at knife point is an expression of love.

You can't march people into heaven at bayonet-point.

Grotius|5.19.07 @ 7:53AM|#

Stevo Darkly,

You can't march people into heaven at bayonet-point.

It has long been an hallmark of some of the elements of Western political philosophy that political systems and political leaders can teach virtue. A lot of Christian sects plug into this (knowingly or not).

|5.19.07 @ 8:47AM|#

It has long been an hallmark of some of the elements of Western political philosophy that political systems and political leaders can teach virtue. A lot of Christian sects plug into this (knowingly or not).

Yes, and this is where they go tragically wrong. Coercion corrupts.

M|5.19.07 @ 8:53AM|#

Grotius - Spot on. But does any political philosophy, western or otherwise, fail to do so? Even libertarianism and anarchism, maybe even late Taoism, seem to train individuals to respect others' rights.

Grotius|5.19.07 @ 10:09AM|#

Stevo Darkly,

So you say. The alternative notion is that man is either already corrupted and thus needs to be taught virtue or that man lacks virtue outside of the city (outside of the polis).

Grotius|5.19.07 @ 10:12AM|#

stevo Darkly,

In other words your position seems to be based on a particular notion of the nature of man that has yet to be substantiated. Is man at heart an atomized individual who joins societies to counter his Hobbesian fears?

|5.19.07 @ 4:42PM|#

http://www.break.com/index/this-pastor-is-insane.html

LarryA|5.19.07 @ 6:59PM|#

By taking away opportunities to sin, you are also taking away chances to behave in ways that please God. Consequently, secular law can only advance the appearance of virtue, not virtue itself.

Bingo. The purpose of law is not to enforce morality, but to secure individual rights.

The post-Reed Christian Coalition has been roiled by debates between members who want to maintain their alliance with free market supporters and those who wish to apply their political muscle to an even longer list of issues, ranging from broadcast decency standards to global warming. The rift cost the coalition four state chapters last year. Similar discussions have been reported within the National Association of Evangelicals. The Christians coming down on the small-government side of these arguments are fiscal conservatives but seldom consistent anti-statists. They are also at a disadvantage without a theological tradition robust enough to compete with the Social Gospel on the left or Christian Reconstructionism on the extreme right. Olree's book is an early step toward furnishing one, exposing evangelicals to the arguments of a nascent Christian libertarian movement.

This paragraph unconsciously points out another problem with "Christian government." The U.S. lacks a Christian majority. What it has instead is a collection of Christian minorities. Those who look forward to a government based on the beliefs and traditions of their church are almost certainly going to end up with a government based on the beliefs and traditions of someone else's church.

Before turning to government, an evangelical must ask why God Himself did not choose to remove the opportunities to sin that trouble so many social conservatives.

There are two obvious alternatives:
1. Either the evangelicals are wrong,
2. Or God screwed up.

The teachings of Christ don't strike me as being compatible with the narcissistic and self-serving philosophy of libertarianism.

What are the New Testament Great Commandments?
1. Love God.
2. Love other people as you love yourself.

Libertarian to the core.

The Christian moral system postulates the existence of an afterlife where one is ETERNALLY rewarded or punished for what takes place on this Earth, including one's thoughts while living on this Earth.

Nope. The "Christian moral system" postulates that every one sins, therefore everyone requires the grace of God to forgive those sins. Once you accept the grace, the sin is washed away.

How many of the Ten Commandments deal with thoughtcrime? A bunch.

Irrelevant, as the Ten Commandments were superceded by the Great Commandment. See above. Once you love God, your fellow man, and yourself you will choose (free will) to behave in ways that won't lead you afoul of the Old Testament rules.

That means that no worldly value, including freedom, can remotely compare with the importance of preventing people from risking their eternal souls.

Nope again. People must choose to accept grace. You cannot, by preventing sinning, save their souls because saving their souls doesn't depend on not sinning.

The Inquisition was the perfect expression of the moral beliefs of Christianity taken to their logical conclusion.

The Inquisition was the perfect expression of the moral beliefs of the Old Testament taken to their logical conclusion. It is antithetical to the New Testament teaching of Jesus Christ.

Many "fundamentalist" leaders, however, more nearly resemble the Pharisees whom Jesus chastised.

Bingo. And the Pharisees were also the folks who caused Jesus the most trouble.

|5.20.07 @ 2:40AM|#

Re: Dan T's comment, "The teachings of Christ don't strike me as being compatable with the narcissitic and self-serving philosophy of libertarianism."

Please quote me ANY passage in the New Testament where Jesus advocates involuntary confiscation of income, or advocated that the government (or the Pharisees that functioned as de facto governmental rulers) set moral standards, or in any way promulagated statist views. I can't find even one. We have the scene where He tries to persuade a rich man to voluntarily give up all his wealth to the poor; we have the scene where He says to give back to Caesar the coin with Caesar's face on it, but to give the important stuff to the service of God; we have the scene where he stops a bunch of statist priests from stoning a woman to death by reminding them of their own sins. The only state that Jesus recognized as worth following was a heavenly kingdom.

The guy sure seems like a libertarian to me.

Tim|5.20.07 @ 10:16AM|#

Reading the article and the comments leads me to a sad conculsion: Too many individuals see libertarianism as incompatible with a compassionate society.

Was Andrew Carnegie coerced by government to give so much of his wealth to charitable works? Too far back for you? How about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both of whom have tens of billions of dollars of their personal wealth for charitable purposes?

There is nothing inherent about libertarianism that discourages charity, good works and concern for the less fortunate. One could make a real argument that high taxation for inefficient "anti-poverty" programs prevents individuals from making even greater personal donations to more efficient ones. I know when I give to a charity, I look at how effective it is and how much actually goes to the core mission of the charity rather than fund-raising and administration. With the government programs we have no such choice, so what market-based incentive to they have to become more efficient?

Libertarianism doesn't say people shouldn't support good works -- merely that using the force of government is not the correct avenue for pursuing those works.

As a libertarian Christian, I can read Scripture and see government policy as "rendering unto Caesar," not God. It is clear to me that judgment about what we do (and don't do) is left to God, not the state -- at least where consensual acts and "victimless crimes" are concerned.

As a Christian I may not personally approve of such acts. But as a libertarian I absolutely support the *legal* right of individuals to do what they want with their bodies; with respect to their own bodies they are absolute sovereigns over it. I support the right of consenting adults to do whatever they want with each other and to each other. And if these are incompatible with Christian teachings and belief, then it is up to God -- not us as individuals and certainly not the state -- to pass judgment and determine the "punishment" (if any) for it.

I believe the neocons and the morality police have usurped Christianity, and I for one would like to take it back.

|5.20.07 @ 1:56PM|#

"Before turning to government, an evangelical must ask why God Himself did not choose to remove the opportunities to sin that trouble so many social conservatives.

There are two obvious alternatives:
1. Either the evangelicals are wrong,
2. Or God screwed up."

From a Mormon perspective, the point of our lives on earth is to live righteously so we can show our worthiness to return to God, and that therefore God chose not to take away temptation. This is echoed in the Old Testament in the Garden of Eden story, where God created temptation and allowed Adam and Eve to choose. This would seem to argue against the state taking away our freedom to choose via laws against victimless crimes, though unfortunately many Christians, Mormons included, don't seem to grasp this principle.

|5.21.07 @ 2:36AM|#

Sigh... I've said it once, I'll say it again...

I find that Christianity, indeed most organized religions, are incompatible with libertarian notions of freedom because they merely replace the intrusive meddling of government with the authoritarian mandates of an unaccountable (not to mention, nonexistent) deity.

According to his believers, the commands of the God of Abraham are absolute and beyond reproach. You don't get to question it without ending up in Hell (so much for his unending benevolence). You don't get to vote for another, albeit equally impossible, deity should you find the one you worship oppressive. These so call "evangelical libertarians" would not tolerate this sort of behavior from a worldly ruler, why would they tolerate it from alleged ruler of the entire universe? (And if you take their Holy Book seriously, the acts of Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah makes Hitler and Stalin look like jaywalkers in comparison.)

In short, why is "Big God" any better than "Big Government?"

The only religion that comes close to libertarianism that I can think of is Wicca with their tenet of "An it harm none, do what ye will." Not bad, but like all religions, you still have to deal with all the irrational, mystical, supernatural, baggage that comes with it.

Tim|5.21.07 @ 3:03PM|#

In short, why is "Big God" any better than "Big Government?"

Because you can choose to break the victimless laws of "Big God" and not wind up getting a visit from men with guns to put you in jail?

That's a start, anyway.