Here I discuss theology and national events from a distinctly Reformed Christian and conservative Libertarian political perspective. I believe the best government is the least amount of government. I believe the State exists along the narrow function of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts and so on. Any more of an extensive state will violate persons’ rights and is hence unwarranted.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
“Sorry Mom, I am Voting for Rand Paul”
“The only proper purpose of a
government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from
physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent
of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who
start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the
police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign
invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or
fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective
law."
Ayn Rand "The New
Intellectual"
I guess I need to come clean.
While there are a lot of good people running for the Republican nomination for
President, there is only one person so far that I can get behind and that
person is Rand Paul. I know this will disappoint
many of my Evangelical friends out there who love Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and
Ben Carson based on their strong Christian convictions. While I love and
respect these guys and everyone running for the GOP nomination, this is not a
popularity contest and this is most definitely not a vote for who is the best
Christian.
I have been a Republican all
my life and since the days of my Ronald Reagan loving youth I have lived,
breathed, and died for the Grand Old Party. This will never change but I have
increasingly become more Libertarian over the last few years. I will no longer
vote for Republican Rhino’s like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Nor will I vote
for middle of the road, wishy washy politicians like Jeb Bush and Lindsey
Graham.
Over the last few years I have undergone a fundamental
change in my views on human life, politics and society. While I have been
relatively conservative my entire life, I really did not have a solid and
objective foundation for my conservatism. After much personal hardship,
reflection and study, I have come to believe that “Libertarianism” best
summarizes my personal beliefs. By “Libertarianism” I mean the worldview that essentially
postulates the legitimacy of human autonomy and individualism.
For most of my life I have been a conformist. I have craved acceptance by certain artificial boundaries of conformity in my conservative circles and attempted to conform to what the Republican Party and various Evangelical Church leaders have deemed to be true. I have tried to organize and live my life by what others have deemed to be best for my life. This is no longer the case. I now believe that I am the ultimate arbiter of what is best for my own life.
For most of my life I have been a conformist. I have craved acceptance by certain artificial boundaries of conformity in my conservative circles and attempted to conform to what the Republican Party and various Evangelical Church leaders have deemed to be true. I have tried to organize and live my life by what others have deemed to be best for my life. This is no longer the case. I now believe that I am the ultimate arbiter of what is best for my own life.
I am going to start voting
for and supporting candidates like Rand Paul who want to actually do something
to limit the size of government, protect our civil liberties and work on
eradicating our 19 trillion dollar national deficit. I believe the best
government is the least amount of government and for this reason I am voting
for Rand Paul.
For this reason, I am writing a small book entitled, The Case for Rand Paul.
Monday, June 1, 2015
The Patriot Act and the Paradigm of Suspicion
Can America be Safe without
the Violation of our Civil Liberties?
By Lee Enochs
Princeton, New Jersey
“The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (The Fourth Amendment).
Last night the US Senate allowed certain provisions of
the Patriot Act to expire and I think this is a good thing. In fact, like Rand
Paul, I believe the Patriot Act should be abolished. I believe there is a way
to keep America safe from terrorist attack without violating our constitutional
rights to privacy and unlawful searches and seizures.
Like many Americans, I will remember September 11,
2001 for the rest of my life. I was living and going to school in Los Angeles
at the time and still recall the surreal and apocalyptic experience of driving
around the streets of LA with my friend, wondering if we were safe from
terrorist attack.
I also recall the tremendous sense of pride and
patriotism I felt when I watched President Bush address the country later that
night on national television. I am an
American and I love this country with all my heart. As a life-long Republican,
I voted for George W. Bush twice and respect the enormous efforts he took to
keep America safe in one of nation’s greatest hours of need.
Yet, I am an implacable opponent of the Patriot Act
Bush and the American Congress enacted in response to the terrorist attacks on
the grounds that its government enforcers often violate our constitutional rights.
I personally do not like the idea of being spied on by
my government and believe it should be
in the business of monitoring the phone calls and emails of innocent citizens
and that such efforts violates our right to privacy and fundamental civil
liberties.
For these reasons alone I believe the Patriot Act
should be abolished and our nation’s leaders should go back to the drawing
board on how to keep this nation safe without violating our cherished rights.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Friday, May 1, 2015
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Calling Out Matt Walsh
An Appeal for Charity and Moderation:
Addressing Blogger Matt Walsh’s Comments on Bruce Jenner
Addressing Blogger Matt Walsh’s Comments on Bruce Jenner
At some point last fall, An Evangelical pastor
friend of mine turned me on to a conservative blogger named Matt Walsh. Due to
my rigorous academic work here in Princeton, New Jersey, I normally do not have
time to surf the blogosphere to get the latest social and political takes of
non-academicians. A cursory examination of current trends on the worldwide web
will conclusively demonstrate that there are a lot of people on line espousing
a multiplicity of views from a myriad of ideological, sociological and
theological perspectives.
However, in my estimation there is something
unique and admirable about this young man named Matt Walsh. I personally like
the guy and think his earnest theologically informed perspective is refreshing
in a world filled with substance free rhetoric. It is very obvious that Matt
Walsh a young man on the move. He is a real mover and shaker in the American
world of ideas with a bright future as a public intellectual.
Having said this, it greatly pains me to be
an interloper and rain on his ever increasing parade. However, in diametrical
counter-distinction to many American conservatives who are praising Walsh for
his bold take on the Bruce Jenner issue, I believe Walsh’s recent Op-Ed piece
on the Blaze entitled, “Bruce Jenner is not a woman. He is a sick and
delusional man,” is pejorative and most certainly not helpful in fostering
civil and conciliatory discourse in a world awash in vitriol and polarization.
You can read Matt Walsh’s Op-Ed on Bruce
Jenner at: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/bruce-jenner-is-not-a-woman-he-is-a-sick-and-delusional-man/
I think it is important from the onset to
communicate that I am a conservative who understands full well the audience
that appreciates this sort of rhetoric. As a younger man, I think I would have
been more appreciative of Walsh’s commentary, but as I get older, I think this
sort of cultural militancy is not serving the American people very well. Sure,
it gets conservatives fired up, but I am just not certain there will be a positive
outcome from increasing the saddening divisions already tearing this storied
nation apart.
As a an Evangelical Christian who very much
wants to honor Christ with my words and actions, I am concerned that Mr. Walsh’s
view that Bruce Jenner is little more than a “sick and delusional cross dresser,”
will hurt those who are struggling with gender related issues and only confirm
popular suspicions and commonly held societal stereotypes about Evangelicals
and other social conservatives. It is a
fact that many people in secular society believe that Evangelicals hate them.
While I am sympathetic to the idea that God
intended human beings to remain in the gender that He originally created them
to be, I believe the issue is far more complex than Mr. Walsh and others
crusading against Bruce Jenner and other transgendered individuals make it out
to be. Since time immemorial, human beings have struggled with their gender and
Mr. Walsh’s pejorative laden commentary will not change that, but will serve to
divide America further and further.
There are deep divisions in contemporary
American society as the current smoldering riots and ruins of Baltimore can
attest to, we all must do our part to be ambassadors of peace and
reconciliation to a hurting world. I am just not certain that Mr. Walsh’s
comments on Bruce Jenner are very Christian. I do not hear the authentic voice of
Jesus in his comments about Bruce Jenner.
The Bible teaches us to love our enemies and
if Mr. Walsh perceives Bruce Jenner to be his cultural enemy, I think he would
be better served to use words of compassion towards Bruce Jenner in a manner
that could potentially win him over to Walsh’s position on gender identity and
the historic Christian faith.
I am not attempting to squelch Mr. Walsh’s
considerable gifts and zeal for his conception of truth, far from it. I just
want to see a gifted man like Matt Walsh love Bruce Jenner as Christ would. I
am just not certain that Mr. Walsh’s comments meet Jesus’ criterion of loving
our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:39).
Lee Edward “Ed” Enochs (B.A. Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary) is an Evangelical Christian with distinctive
Libertarian views on politics and the US Constitution. Lee has also studied at
such noted schools as the Moody Bible Institute and Westminster Theological
Seminary in California and is currently a full-time graduate student in
Princeton, New Jersey. Lee is also the author of a book on the relationship
between economics and Christianity entitled, “A Biblical Defense of Capitalism”
which can be purchased at: http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Defense-Capitalism-Lee-Enochs/dp/1505809061
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




