“GO VIRTUAL YOUNG MAN!”

Claiming Property in a Placeless World

Due to fundamental changes in technology, demographics, industry, the economy and the world, we are embarking on an era where people participate in the economy like never before. Americans find themselves increasingly re-aligned through multilateral interactions and foreign associations.

Although opportunities are expanding and efficiency is increasing, traditional conceptions of freedom and democracy must realize an impending inadequacy within the global marketplace. This marketplace—the World Wide Web—has produced a fiat existence, a virtual frontier, and a torrent of lawlessness. Because warrant-less surveillance is considered incompatible with democratic principles of liberty and privacy, the United States has little governing influence in this realm. Although property ownership is quantifiable and apparent in the physical world, it remains a comparatively nebulous concept in the virtual world. The indefinite nature of virtual property rights will only be reconciled through the collaborative-rule of primary virtual actors. This union—while taking the law into its own hands—must define and implement a mechanism for the enforcement of virtual property rights in the expanding global market.

The Globalization of Common Sense

American democracy has always valued innovative information and expanding associations. Thomas Paine described this characteristic in its earliest form, “In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them…and every different want will call…a different way.”[1] Alexis De Tocqueville later praised the application of these desires: “I have often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and get them to advance it freely.”[2] The equality present in American society requires the corporate pursuit of common desires if any measurable result is to be achieved. While this mechanism advances social progress, “sentiments and ideas renew themselves, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal action of men upon one another.”[3] Democratic associations, by definition, promote community through the gathering of individuals with shared desires. Furthermore, they improve society through the sharpening nature of competition, and contribute to society through the consensus required therein.

Private property is the benefit which gives value to enterprise. Paine explained that once it had been established, society required governance: “Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it answerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to insure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”[4] De Tocqueville described the nature of this goal within democracy: “In a constituted and peaceful democracy like that of the United States, where one can enrich oneself neither by war nor by public posts nor by political confiscations, love of wealth directs men principally toward industry.”[5] Furthermore, “it is the very violence of their desires that renders Americans so methodical. It troubles their souls, but it arranges their lives.”[6]

Now, more than two hundred years since the nation’s birth, enterprise is still propelled through collaborative efforts, and property rights remain formative to American consciousness. Since the founding, however, the nature of these interests has changed. Although collaborative associations have been expanded and improved, claims to private property have been correspondingly blurred.

When admiring the efficiency and vastness of collaborative associations in America, De Tocqueville was responding to physical collaborations—for the production of theatres, publishing of books, construction of churches, sending of missionaries, representation of politics, etc. The World Wide Web, however, has vastly expanded American associations—to the extent that they are no longer American. Peer production has harnessed human skill, intelligence, and ingenuity within a synthetic global marketplace. We are now “participating in the rise of a global, ubiquitous platform for computation and collaboration that is reshaping nearly every aspect of human affairs.”[7] Although substantive values are sought by individuals and groups within respective states, the realm in which they are sought is largely—if not entirely—separate from the state. As explained by authors, Tapscott and Williams, “A new kind of business is emerging—one that opens its doors to the world, co-innovates with everyone (especially with customers), shares resources that were previously closely guarded, harnesses the power of mass collaboration, and behaves not as a multinational but as something new: a truly global firm.”[8] With society as its primary interest—as predicated by Thomas Paine—this virtual market is now grafted as a cosmopolitan common sense for the world.

The Fourth Amendment

The virtual economy—as grafted by the internet—has imputed macro issues into a micro world. Instead of in an open/visible marketplace, transactions and associations are now conducted within the privacy of the home; global interactions exist within the seclusion of domestic privacy. For democratic peoples, this has produced an increasingly fluid conception of private property—that which can be owned, protected, and sold. Democratic governments have been handicapped in their most fundamental role: the protection of private property. As explained by economist Arye Hillman, the first responsibility of government is to protect competitive markets and the rule of law (property rights), and the second is to correct inefficiencies and preserve social justice.[9] Because virtual property is created and acquired, in a marketplace that is “separate from” and “other than” the traditional state economy, conventional governments experience difficulty here. The American Constitution, specifically, precludes its own effectiveness in fulfilling these responsibilities.

As stated in the Fourth Amendment: “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.” Furthermore, this “right to privacy” is applied to virtual global interactions in Supreme Court cases: Ex Parte Quirin, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, U.S. v. U.S. District Court, and others. The personal computer (PC), when combined with the World Wide Web, produced a form of (virtual) property which is simply ungovernable. The right to privacy is a firewall for lawlessness—rather than protecting private property, it protects those who steal it. Because warrant-less surveillance is considered unconstitutional, the United States has little governing influence in this realm.

Piracy Restrained

Whether for music, movies, books, etc., nearly every PC in the world is used for the pirating and storage of stolen property. Although different countries have different standards and some are more active than others, no nation can fully regulate the legality of an individual’s internet use: “Despite attempts to increase protection for intellectual property on a global level, countries vary widely in their implementation and enforcement of international agreements. The result it piracy on a widespread scale.”[10] Not only is piracy protected, the internet is also replete with file-sharing programs that aid in the embezzling of virtual properties. The lawless tendencies of this new territory could be compared, in some respects, to the early days of the Wild West. Although expansive, untamed, and filled with fortune seekers, the World Wide Web differs in that it is unclaimed by national boundaries. In the virtual economy, no one man, business, or nation, is an island, “and the bona fide new business rule for competitiveness, ‘collaborate or perish,’ is a global one.”[11]

As explained by Thomas Paine, “Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices.”[12] Although alluding to the colonization of the New World, Paine clearly attributes broad scope to the definition of society. Society can be described as any grouping of individuals characterized by common interests. Within the intricacy of associations and virtual transactions, global collaboration is the unifying interest of the World Wide Web. Virtual society, however established, expanding, and rampant with lawlessness, has yet to produce any adequacy of governing restraints. Because enterprise—the acquisition of property—is the unifying desire, and the security for such is its primary deficiency, virtual society will inevitably produce a government for its correction, “and whatever form thereof appears most likely to insure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”[13]

Coase Economy

When market forces take on the characteristics of a public good, free-riders can only be restrained through the assigning of legal rights to the use of goods and entities therein. This theory, as argued by Ronald Coase, explains that, in the absence of transaction costs, all government allocations of property rights are equally efficient, because interested groups will negotiate privately to correct negative externalities.[14] Furthermore, property rights should initially be given to those gaining the most utility from them. Because of contrasting interests and high information costs, traditional governments are unable to establish the most valued use of virtual resources. Because the marketplace is the best mechanism for matching supply with demand and establishing prices, virtual actors “are turning to collaborative self-organizing business-web models where masses of consumers, employees, suppliers, business partners, and even competitors cocreate value in the absence of direct managerial control.”[15] Although written long before the internet became widely known, Coase’s theories predicated the collaborative rule of primary actors within the virtual marketplace.

Because traditional governments are inadequate, primary virtual actors (i.e. Google, Apple, Yahoo, News Corp., Citigroup, and others) must rise to the task. These companies, while offering efficiency through mass collaboration, will gradually accrue power—naturally monopolizing their respective spheres. As market portals are increasingly filled, primary actors will inevitably collaborate in the establishing of property rights and for the further protection thereof. This oligarchic union, while establishing property rights and policing the virtual world, can only exist to the measure that it is valued within society.

- Abram Olmstead

MICRO-WELFARE FOR MACRO-EFFICIENCY

Whether from deficient signaling, institutional myopia, or congested interests, no government has ever succeeded in eliminating poverty. Many have attempted and all have failed. Although elimination poses an extreme—even impossible—goal, it is not unreasonable to expect greater efficiency. When considering the history of welfare programs, authors Smith and Thurman question the role of governments in the war on poverty. In response, the authors posit inefficiency as natural: “That’s because poverty is about money” (Smith & Thurman, 2007). Furthermore, “Who knows how to handle money? Business people. And the more successful they are in business, the more creative they can be in philanthropy” (Smith & Thurman, 2007). Among the many forces maintaining third-world poverty, one constant is the absence of capital funds. Without available capital, market failure is self perpetuating; people remain dependent on their respective governments, with no chance of growing their businesses. One recent trend promises hope to these stagnate groups. Microfinancing, while still developing, offers a market mechanism for the allocation of resources to where they will achieve the greatest public good. While providing capital to individuals, this system encourages interpersonal efficiency through cost/benefit analysis and provides natural incentive through long-range planning.

Microfinancing describes the practice of offering financial services, such as microcredit, microsavings, or microinsurance to the lowest socio-economic bracket. While allowing poor people to access usable sums of money, this expands their options and reduces their risks. In terms of a public good, microfinancing provides a Lindahl equilibrium in that individuals pay for the provision of the good according to their marginal willingness to pay. While allowing for diverse environments, microfinancing requires knowledge of demand from the borrower; the organization or individual must weigh demand before assessing a rate of return. In contrast with classical conceptions of voluntary provision, this good is incentive compatible; microcredit produces a system wherein participants are best served through honest interchange. Although security for lenders is largely unstable, allowing for temporary free-riders, microcredit provides a mechanism for weeding the unprofitable from the profitable. The impetus for aiding such impoverished classes has arisen from the awareness, among various multinational companies and global organizations, that they need new markets as wealthier classes reach saturation point. As stated by Smith and Thurman, “success in the financial world [can] be applied to helping the economies of poor countries anywhere in the world” (Smith & Thurman, 2007).

Philanthropic welfare has been a staple within government programs and domestic budgets for years. For example, “By the time you put together all of the donations, dues, fees, and government grants, the total budget for U.S. nonprofits tops $900 billion a year. These nonprofit groups employ more people than the real estate, insurance, and finance industries combined” (Smith & Thurman, 2007). While suggesting the need for greater scrutiny, the authors note that money is ignorantly thrown at problems even when there are no lasting improvements. Unintended consequences arise when, due to misplaced resources, these organizations further perpetuate the shortages they intended to eradicate. Rather than independent growth, they propagate humanitarian dependency. Microfinancing, in contrast, seeks to impute liability and incentive, while encouraging greater self-sufficiency.

Initiated by humanitarian organizations like Opportunity International, World Vision, and USAID, microfinancing later became an investment mechanism for the greater business world. Recently gaining attention from some of the world’s largest companies, CNBC reports a few: “From Google to Yahoo! and YouTube, Sequoia Capital provided venture capital funding to some of the biggest cutting-edge talent in recent memory. Now the private equity fund is making a big bet on microlending, with its $11.5 million investment in India's SKS Microfinance” (CNBC, 2007). Commercial banks like Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and others are also entering the market. The growing interest of global players demonstrates both achieved success and future potential for microfinancing. “In the world of philanthropy, as in the world of business, the terms are critical to the success of the transaction” (Smith & Thurman, 2007). Welfare should promote sustained growth, cost should predicate benefit, and provision should mirror demand. As each of these principles is inherent to good business, it seems the authors are correct in desiring a more personalized system.

Microfinancing creates a structure in which this is possible; in sum, it produces micro-efficiency for the macro-benefit. Rather than free money, microfinancing offers loans, credit potential, and banking services to individuals who have never experienced such luxuries. With capital potential and “sweat equity” poor people can now change their lives. This system precludes government despotism in that loans are too small to be of any temptation, and security is insured through microsavings. While accompanied by clear and measurable results, time will surely reveal the facility of this new welfare mechanism.

only moments

asher


a few of them


the tea garden

there and back again...

branches

two, four, six...no time for counting
each day ended before night had time to begin.

reaching for soft skin, every dream faded
surreal desires crushed my alarm again.
grasping for mere abstractions, another page turned
ink stains and coffee guided me through each night.

still counting...praying for some new light
there is no end until I begin, perhaps begin again.

branching out, trying harder
hoping tomorrow would be more than new.
while riding the metro, I paid the bills
exhaustion and procrastination became my muse.

fourteen, sixteen, seventeen...I mean eighteen
not even days nor years, even moments are gone.

staring at a new year, wondering what I've learned
wishing the cursor would do more than blink.
sitting, thinking, waiting, I look deep this time
silence follows.

twenty, twenty-two, crap...do I have time; do I care?
tomorrow I'll eat a cucumber, maybe eat a peach
maybe tomorrow will be new.

something vague

after seventy some pages (written)
loads of coffee and Red Bull (consumed)
and the same 9 crimes (repeated)
this photo embellishes my mood
***
now, for the last five exams

A Foundation Lost: Oh the Terror

If democratic politics is not guided by virtue and justice, liberty will destroy political community and action. The French, in revolting against a repressive tyranny, refused to establish even moderate restraints and succeeded only in creating a worse despotism. Robespierre’s Justification of the Use of Terror demonstrates the inevitable tyranny that arises from Rousseau’s singular adherence to the social contract. To avoid the negative consequences of revolution, Edmund Burke argued, a distinct veneration for the moral conscience and a reverence for traditional social consensus must be paramount.

One of the leading intellects behind the French revolution, Rousseau conceived a social contract theory wherein man’s liberty is predicated upon the consent of the majority. He explains, “The social order is a sacred right which serves as the foundation for all other rights.”[1] Rousseau’s social contract replaces traditional virtue and individual liberty with communal sovereignty. “What man loses through the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything that tempts him and that he can acquire. What he gains is civil liberty and the proprietary ownership of all he possesses.”[2] Because the moral imagination is commensurate to the individual, it was deemed disruptive, and thus surrendered to the sovereignty of the whole. “This passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a quite remarkable change in man, for it substitutes justice for instinct in his behavior and gives his actions a moral quality they previously lacked.”[3] Denying the legitimacy of conscience and instinct, this moral quality is one of abstraction and consent. The social contract holds no authority beyond that which society is prepared to recognize and establish.

The fragility of this system was most actively recognized by Robespierre, a principle leader during the French Revolution. While describing democratic virtue as the “love of the state and its laws,” he recognized a deteriorating tendency. People must “be regulated by the stormy circumstances in which the republic is placed.”[4] The intensity of these circumstances is expressed in his pamphlet entitled Justification of the Use of Terror. An overarching objective of any state is the maintenance of established government. Robespierre’s method is manipulation through terror. The purpose of terror is to preserve and even promulgate democratic virtue. When citizens are not exhibiting public virtue as defined above, they should be addressed with swift and severe force. In short, those who dissent are considered the state’s enemies and must be crushed with unflinching violence, to protect the public interest and thus the social order itself.

The glaring error in Robespierre’s use of terror is its lack of guidelines. Unconstrained violence naturally escalates to senseless brutality. Robespierre attaches one qualification to his theory, stating that virtue without terror is fatal: “terror, without which virtue is powerless.”[5] Virtue, in this case, however, is merely blind support for and submission to the state and its laws. Due to Rousseau’s denial of any other basis in his contract theory, Robespierre was unable to provide virtue a foundation in any other principle. Government was given absolute freedom to harshly punish or simply exterminate anyone who did not exhibit complete devotion to the state and its laws. This condition is clearly identified as despotism: “It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed.” Robespierre explains that the “government of the revolution is liberty’s despotism against tyranny.”[6] Thus, with virtue embodied in consensus, justice becomes a fluid construct—a despotism for the continued ordering of society. As the initial incentive and practical consequence for this rebellion, tyranny was both the beginning and end of revolution in France.

First virtue then justice, in the traditional sense, was “dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason.” Thus Burke observes, “In the groves of their academy, at the end of every visto, you see nothing but the gallows.”[7] With no great surprise, Burke maintains: “Such must be the consequence of losing in the splendor of these triumphs of the rights of men, all natural sense of wrong and right.”[8] This sort of reason, which discounts virtue and tradition, is incapable of engaging the affections of the commonwealth. “When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated. From that moment we have no compass to govern us; nor can we know distinctly what port to steer.”[9] Unconstrained terror does not bring justice to a democracy, but rather creates injustice.

The fires of liberty have great power to warm the mores of men, but left unchecked, liberty will destroy society under the flames of despotism. Burke harshly criticized the French for refusing to establish even moderate restraints: “But you, who began with refusing to submit to the most moderate restraints, have ended by establishing an unheard of despotism.”[10] Burke condemned France for failing to adequately restrain liberty through just laws, for not creating a balance of power among the different branches of government, and for not promoting religious tolerance to encourage justice and virtue. He states that justice and virtue are necessary: “Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”[11] Justice and virtue in politics encourage citizens to obey the law out of love and veneration rather than only responsive fear.

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” In exploring the impetus for this change, Rousseau ascribes supremacy to the social contract as the “foundation for all else.”[12] Deprived of prior foundation or external purpose, social order becomes both the means and the destination. As seen in the Justification of the Use of Terror and establishment of tyranny in France, society can go in any direction. The act of consensus in decision is the virtue justifying the actions of society. Society can thereby become whatever it chooses. Denied prior virtue or external purpose, and in response to subsequent disorder, France adopted the use of terror for the purpose of the maintenance of order. Aristocratic tyranny was simply exchanged for the new tyranny of the masses. Because virtue was founded in the social contract, anything that society chose was naturally justified, including the reinstatement of despotism. The failure of the French revolution, as described by Burke, was initiated by the undermining of virtue and reinforced by the destruction of justice. Because virtue was established by contract, justice became the will of the majority; because the majority had no foundation for virtue, they had nothing more than base instincts with which to choose justice, resulting in chaos and disorder.

Burke propounds two principles as foundational to the entire European political tradition: “the spirit of a gentleman, and the spirit of religion.”[13] These two things, for Burke, represent the characteristics that maintain a constructive, moral, and stable social and political order. The spirit of religion provides an outside foundation for the maintenance of justice and morality, and the spirit of a gentleman provides the reverence for societal structures and institutions that prevents the revolutionary character leading to tyranny that Burke witnessed in the French revolution. The destruction of tradition leads to the radical overthrow of societal institutions and the opportunity for the destruction and terror witnessed in the French attempt at liberty. While specific cultural context may vary, it is clear that the moral conscience must retain distinct and liberal veneration alongside reverence for social consensus, if a revolution is to succeed.

***

take this and apply it to the spread of Western Democracy...it was the straw that broke my back...I could sleep for a week...but no, two more papers due tomorrow.

friendship

Forever demanding community
Whenever deprived, it ceases to become.

I thought I saw your eyes last night
In the fragments
Between thoughts of moments
An impending future (past)
With distant smile (almost half a grin)
I chronicled the moment
And turning, walked again.

as it was yesterday

Because today and tomorrow are lost within pages and assignments, I’ve decided to reminisce with a bit of yesterday (err, last year). Once again:

Dad,

Happy birthday! It’s interesting; this has always seemed like such a trite and meaningless salutation to me. What does it mean anyway? It’s not even a complete sentence... I suppose there are different levels of meaning and importance for everybody. For me, your birthday is the perfect chance to remember...to sit down and remember the best days of my life. Not only to remember; but also to be inspired, end even more; to be excited. I am beyond excited when thinking about the years to come.

Remember that old song by Tony Elenburg? It goes something like: “my fondest memory, as a little child, is that precious piece of my father’s time he gave to me.” It would be impossible to fully express the how true this statement is for me. I’ve just been going through some of the memories...there are so many! One recurring memory is that of sitting next to you while traveling; on the way to work, to the hospital, going south for vacations, to conferences, picking up trailers, learning to drive, going to Canada, driving to school in Virginia, etc... From the time that my legs dangled...till now, today, it’s always been the same; I have always learned something new. I love how predictable you are! Not only have you always talked, but you have always made me talk...made me think and made me feel.

The song goes on to say, “I want to be just like him, faithful and true, I want to be just like him, in everything I do.” I have a confession to make. When I was very little, living in the Lakeland house (I think), I used to sing this song when thinking about you. Although slightly embarrassing, it’s more than true! The first time I read a newspaper...I was bored to death…but continued reading because I wanted to be like you. I learned how to shave long before necessary... figured it out after watching you. Dad, you have been so many examples for me; father, judge, provider, hero, teacher, mentor, employer, friend, etc... Now, years later, although I read the newspaper out of interest and shave out of necessity, I still find myself wanting to be like you. I want to create a family, build businesses, to be a man of God, to be faithful and true...to be like you. Dad, you are a “giant in my eyes.”

While studying here in Madrid, I’ve done a lot of thinking and praying about the future. There are times when life seems ridiculously complicated and the future seems very fragile and distant. Amidst all the worries and struggles, I am always encouraged by the knowledge of a family that loves and cares about me. I’m so glad that we’ve been able to continue talking regularly...thank God for Google Talk! I can’t wait to be home for Christmas...I can’t wait to see your current projects take shape...I can’t wait until our next coffee run...I can’t wait for tomorrow—for everything. I miss and love you Dad. Happy Birthday!

now and always,

YOUR son

victory 06

after 9000 phone calls, and 13,000 doors

Michele is now elected

we've learned so many things (new)

I got to see my family

and life moves on (blinding as it always is)

the most excellent way

Encompassing a vast and bloody history, the concept of religious freedom historically has existed on a perpetual pendulum of contention. Christianity was first persecuted in early Rome, but later became the state sponsored religion for the entire empire. It was the persecuting force of the medieval crusades and the Spanish inquisition, but went on to become the bedrock of Western democracy, a society which has boasted the broadest expansion and maintenance of religious freedom in the history of the world. Finally, and most recently, religious freedom has reemerged as an issue with the increase in militant Islamic terrorism.
When considering religious freedom, it is important to make a distinction between thought and practice. Furthermore, it is necessary to recognize the differing responsibilities of the church and the state. While these categories definitely overlap, the church is predominantly responsible for thought (the life of the soul) and the state is predominantly responsible for action (the outward expression of the soul). A proper Biblical understanding contains no justification for coercion of the soul, and minimal justification for coercion of action. Rather than legislation and force, scripture provides “the most excellent way.”

It is first necessary to recognize differing expressions of the soul. Inwardly, the soul is expressed through reason and desire; the core of man’s individuality is developed through contemplation and emotion. As explained in John 18:36, Christ’s “kingdom is not of this world.” All who belong to the truth hear his voice and repent. Matthew 6:33 further explains, “But seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” Because it is developed in an eternal context (the kingdom of heaven), inward thought, or knowledge of the truth, is naturally responsible for man’s participation in eternity. Whether in truth or deception, the varying thoughts of men are inwardly definitive of the order or disorder in their souls, and by extension, their placement in eternity.
Outwardly, the soul is expressed through action and interaction; fundamental thoughts, beliefs, and appetites become transparent through both individual and communal practice. Because they are performed in the “kingdom of this world,” outward practices are clearly accountable for the progression of both good and evil in society. Solomon describes the danger of evil influences in Proverbs 4:15-16, “Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. For they cannot sleep till they do evil; they are robbed of slumber till they make someone fall.” Whether good or evil, the varying actions of individuals are outwardly definitive of both order and disorder in society.
Because thought is a precursor to action, and action an outward demonstration of thought, neither activity can be entirely removed from the other (NIV, Matthew 6:21). While recognizing important distinctions between the two kingdoms, heaven and earth, we see that they are intrinsically connected. As such, neither thought nor action can be completely separated, or entirely relegated to a respective realm.

In the beginning, man was given dominion over all earthly things. Hebrews 2:7-8 explains that man was made a little lower than the angels, and everything was placed under his rule. “In putting everything under him, God left nothing that was not subject to him.” Man was given responsibility for the continued order of creation. The Old Testament is replete with codes and laws legislating both religious and non-religious activity. While everything, including religion, was once subject to man’s rule (under the written law), this changed with the death of Christ. “Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (NIV, Hebrews 2:9). Where justice once required men to govern each other in all things, Christ took on the penalty of man’s sin through his death—providing justification by faith (NIV, Romans 3:24). With the introduction of the new covenant, man was given the opportunity of eternal forgiveness, entirely removed from earthly governance, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast” (NIV, Ephesians 2:8-9). Christ’s atonement symbolizes the enactment of a new law over the souls of men, the law of love. Romans 13:8 explains “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” For Christians, love is the fulfillment of the law, and religious coercion is no longer necessary for the life of the soul.
The church was created for the encouragement and shepherding, rather than the legislation, of thought. 1 Peter 5:2-3 calls for the church to be shepherds of God's flock, “serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing…not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.” Under the new law, the church was created as a protector and educator of the soul. As the “bride of Christ,” the church was created to be the embodiment of Christ’s love. Not by physical force, but rather through honest confession and humble submission, are Christians commanded to submit themselves to the guidance of the church. While speaking of religious authority, the author of Hebrews commands: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you” (NIV, Hebrews 13:17). Because its authority is based on Christ’s love, the church guides and the congregation submits to each other out of mutual love. 1 John 1:9 provides the best summary, “We love because he first loved us.” Religious freedom exists in the church; in that, all are free to submit to or be separate from the church, depending on their love.
All who are not Christians (as described above) remain in the earthly kingdom, and are under its laws. 1 Timothy 1:9 explains that the “law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious.” Those who do not act under the law of love are left to earthly subjugation, and must be restrained accordingly. In this way, religious actions that are visibly apposed to this new law (i.e. Islamic terrorism) are not protected under religious freedom. While it is impossible and unnecessary to judge the soul of man, including his religious orientation or lack thereof, it remains necessary to regulate his outward actions and interactions. Where man’s social practices are not commensurate with the law of love, they must be recognized as such, and judged accordingly. As described in Romans 13:1-4, secular authority was created for this purpose, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” The passage goes on to label secular authority as “God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” However disordered a secular government may be it is clearly an institution created and appointed by God, for the continued ordering of sinful man.
Finally, it is necessary that these expressions of the soul (inward and outward), and their respective kingdoms (heavenly and earthly), remain distinct and be allowed to continue in their responsibilities. While both kingdoms are mutually interconnected, one is primarily responsible for order in the soul and the other for order in the outward expression of the soul. Until Christ’s return, neither one is complete without the other.

Where religious action was once legislated by civil government, New Testament law removes this mandate. As described in Galatians 3:23-25, religious freedom became a necessary aspect of man’s relationship with God, “Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” Faith is first knowledge and then choice. As such, it can be neither legislated nor forced upon any one man by another. The only religious actions that can be controlled by civil government are those not commensurate with the law of love. Anything beyond this is the responsibility of the church, and again can be neither legislated nor forced. As described in Romans 10:17, the church is meant for the propagation and protection of the truth, “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.” Those that belong to the earthly kingdom are free live and act outside of the church and its authority.
As religious action is no longer governed under civil rule, even more so, religious thought is not and never was governed by anyone other than God. Where the soul is concerned, God cannot and does not allow anyone but himself to rule. Thus, where any government attempts to legislate for the soul, it intrudes on heavenly authority, and does nothing but harm to the soul. As described in John 10:27, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” No one should influence the soul except those who, in doing so, are pointing in the direction of the eternal kingdom. Furthermore, nothing should be taught or accepted as truth except God’s word. This is the responsibility of the church; rather than the enforcement the gospel, the church is commanded to spread the gospel.

Church and state have separate yet compatible functions. Each should seek to fulfill their respective functions as commanded—the church guiding the life of the soul and the state being concerned with the outward expression. Because faith and religion are aspects of the heavenly kingdom, neither church nor state are responsible for the enforcement thereof. Rather than by force or legislation, man is now responsible to work out his own salvation under the new law. The role of civil authority has changed and the role of the church has developed with introduction of “a more excellent way”, as described by the new law in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

If religious coercion were necessary Christ would have come with a sword, rather than as a sacrifice. In the propagation of religion, we are called to emulate Christ’s sacrifice. Love should be the primary guide by which all Christians think, act, and live.

*this was one of my recent projects -- let me know if you disagree with any of it*