ast year, Carlos Morales wrote a piece arguing that Christianity and libertarianism are incompatible.

Well, to be strictly technical, he wrote an article entitled “Christianity and Libertarianism are Incompatible.” Anyone who read the article expecting to see him actually argue this case would have been disappointed; Morales appeared quite uninterested in defending his statement.

Instead, the reader is treated to a lengthy diatribe filled with the usual atheist guff about the supposed injustices and inconsistencies in the Bible. The underlying premise being that, because Morales cannot himself resolve the paradoxes in the Bible, they must in fact be internal contradictions that cannot be resolved.

This, however, is not an argument against Christianity or Christian libertarianism, so much as it is a demonstration that Morales does not know what he is talking about.

As is usually the case with proselytizing atheists of this sort, the rhetoric has far outrun the actual argument. The article smacks of the unearned air of superiority belonging to the atheist who has learned about religion by conversing with other atheists. If you avoid strong intellectual criticism, and instead focus on convincing those who already agree with you, it’s easy to delude yourself into thinking your case is a lot stronger than it is.

What Morales believes are “contradictions” are simply his own interpretive errors, which could be easily resolved by someone with a basic understanding of biblical hermeneutics and interpretation… or in many cases just by being less careless in reading the text.

Offering one’s own ignorance of biblical interpretation as proof of a flawed Bible may earn you backslaps from other atheists; however, if one is also trying to pose as a intellectual critic of Christianity, ignorance is hardly a virtue. But gaining real knowledge of a subject can be oh so tedious, so it makes sense that Morales has opted for the easier road of using strong rhetoric to mask weak understanding.

Irrelevant Examples

Since most of the supposed contradictions Morales tries to point out have nothing to do with libertarianism, it will suffice to address only a few of his cited examples:

God says to love your neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) and then tells Moses to kill his neighbors who are men, women, and children and leave the little virgins to do with whatever you like (1 Samuel 15:3).

This is a prime example of Morales overlooking his own thesis in order to take an irrelevant swipe at the Bible. He could have, if he cared to, advanced the argument that the command God gave to King Saul (whom Morales has mistaken for Moses) to make war on the Amalekites was a violation of the non-aggression principle. But he never bothers to make this criticism, and so I will not bother to respond to it.

Instead he only seems concerned with the fact that he himself cannot reconcile this with the command God gave in Leviticus 19:18. But had he read just the preceding verse, the apparent contradiction would have been reconciled:



In Leviticus, God is instructing Israelites how they should treat other Israelites; in 1 Samuel, God is instructing the King of Israel to make war against the Amalekites, who were a rival, hostile nation. There is no contradiction. Morales may wish to object to the latter command on one basis or another, but that is not the objection he actually raised. Perhaps he should take more care in forming his arguments; intellectual laziness has a cost.

He continues:

The Beatitudes make improvable [sic] promises of external prizes to those who are being screwed over in the here and now. It essentially amounts to, “Look guys, I know the world sucks….I’m going to give you a magical prize when you’re dead that you’ll never be able to test. Plus, those other assholes who you don’t like will be punished in the afterlife. Isn’t god awesome?!”

Even if we accept the premise of Morales’ argument, that the promises of the Beatitudes concerning heaven, hell and the afterlife cannot be proven, this does not lead us to any contradiction with libertarianism.

[Jesus] tells men to rip out their eyes if they lustfully look at a woman. Jesus also claims that men who marry divorced women are adulterers. He does all these things, but most people just remember the nice “love your neighbor” line.

Even if Jesus were advocating self-harm to deal with lust (he isn’t), what difference would that make from a strictly libertarian perspective? In a free society people would be free to harm their bodies by taking drugs or by overeating, wouldn’t they also be free to “rip out their eyes?” Morales seems to have forgotten about self-ownership. He claims to be pointing out contradictions between Christian and libertarian thought, but has succeeded only in pointing out his distaste with Christian sexual ethics. They are not the same.

So, since Morales seems to lack any interest in actually making his case that libertarianism and Christianity cannot be reconciled, what is his real agenda?

“Love your neighbor,” but if you think they’re sexy rip out your eye. Not exactly the kind of love I’m a fan of.

Roughly 850 words in, and finally Morales comes clean: he is “not a fan” of Christianity. There is nothing to argue with here — he can be a “fan” of whatever he wishes. Yet libertarianism and Christianity do not contradict one another simply because he likes the one and does not like the other.

The Slavery Straw-Man

In response to Robert Murphy‘s point that biblical writers were not seeking to reform society (e.g. by seeking to abolish slavery) but to preach the Christian gospel, Morales retorts:

I’d agree if obeying your slave master wasn’t repeated ad nauseam [sic] throughout the entire bible (Joel 3:8). And also if said passages didn’t play a part in the historical justification of chattel slavery in this country and elsewhere.

Here Morales is simply being obtuse and anachronistic. True, the Bible does not outright condemn slavery; but this does not constitute an endorsement of slavery. Only a modern atheist trying to use modern moral judgments to implicate a text written thousands of years before his time would make that mistake.

His proclamation that “the Bible has been used to justify slavery!” is downright petty. Slavery has been an institution throughout human civilization, and has been justified on any grounds, or on no grounds at all. The Bible acknowledges and allows for the existence of slavery, as every ancient book does; at the same time it also, crucially, places limitations on the conduct of masters toward their slaves. Considering the ages in which it was written, the idea of limitations on slave-owners was radical in itself.

In fact, the Bible’s commentary on slavery also sowed the seeds for the abolition of slavery: indeed, the great British abolitionist William Wilberforce considered his work against the slave trade his Christian duty, and excoriated those who used the Bible to justify slavery:

It is however, most of all astonishing, that our opponents attempt to vindicate the slave trade on grounds of religion also. The only argument which they urge with, the slightest color of reason is that slavery was allowed under the Jewish dispensation….


But they who thus urge on us the Divine toleration of slavery under the Jewish Theocracy, should remember that the Jews themselves were expressly commanded not to retain any of their own nation, any of their brethren in slavery….Inasmuch therefore, as we are repeatedly and expressly told that Christ has done away all distinctions of nations, and made all mankind one great family, all our fellow creatures are now our brethren; and therefore the very principles and spirit of the Jewish law itself would forbid our keeping the Africans, any more than our own fellow subjects, in a state of slavery.

Poor Wilberforce; if he had only been able to draw on Morales’ deep insight into the Bible, he would have known he was wasting his efforts.

If Morales rejects the Bible because some people have used it to justify of slavery, he should also embrace the Bible because other people have used it to justify abolition. Perhaps he should worry about his own contradictions.

Not Incompatible

In conclusion, if Morales wishes to persuade Christian libertarians to forsake their religion because it is incompatible with their political beliefs, he should start by obtaining some basic knowledge about the religion he is opposing. Until he does so, he is simply preaching to the atheist choir. This childish, cereal-box caricature of Christianity might garner applause from those who already agree with him, but it does not help him make a strong case — or any case at all — to those whom he claims to be trying to convince.

Christianity and libertarianism are not incompatible; it’s just that Morales lacks enough knowledge of Christianity to reconcile them.

[If anyone is looking for further writings which explain how libertarianism and Christianity are not only compatible, but exactly complementary, check out the LibertarianChristians.com resource page, which contains a wealth of essays on the subject.]