A Question of Privacy

“Then the LORD said to Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’ ‘I don’t know,’ he replied. ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’”

MAN’S FIRST QUESTION
It is noteworthy that man’s first recorded question was asked by man’s first murderer. After lying about his brother’s whereabouts, Cain shrugs, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Think of the modern slack-jawed youth who rolls eyes and sneers, “Whatever,” and you begin to sense some attitude behind that response.

Cain’s reaction to a probing God stands in dramatic contrast with that of his parents. Whereas Adam and Eve tried to cover their guilt with fig leaves pleading they were victims of deceit, Cain tried to cover his with deceit pleading ignorance. The whole posture of Cain suggests a staggering level of arrogance.

But annoyance with a watchful God, one who meddles in one’s private affairs, is something we saw coming. Earlier, when God counseled him about his sacrifice and attitude, Cain seethed with anger at being reminded of his creatureliness. And things are no different today.

ORWELLIAN FEARS
There is perhaps no right more fiercely guarded than the “right to privacy.” The mere mention of government interest in the private sphere is enough to bring on vapors for civil libertarians; the connection with George Orwell’s novel, 1984, is too overwhelming.

Orwell’s classic depicts a dystopian society in which every aspect of life, including thought, is under government control. Roving Thought Police and omnipresent “telescreens” ensure that nothing escapes the watchful eye of Big Brother who is always ready to “help” those troubled by unhealthy attitudes and behaviors.

1984 is an effective portrayal of the limitless potential for human corruption. When man dethrones God, man takes up the divine vacancy not to care for his brother, but to condition him. But does that mean the private sphere should be free from societal concern and control? Should there be an absolute “right to privacy?” Cain seemed to think so. And since the dawn of man, consensus has been building.

THE EVOLUTION OF PRIVACY
It surprises many to learn that although U.S. Constitution contains certain protections from unreasonable searches and seizures, it includes no explicit right of privacy. Nevertheless, a modern doctrine of privacy began in 1965 with Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case, the Supreme Court determined that marital privacy was a liberty guaranteed under the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights, making laws that banned contraception unconstitutional.

By 1973 (Roe v. Wade), the Court ruled that “This right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” Privacy, thus expanded, led to the legalization of abortion at the cost of four thousand children per day. But by 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), the Court declared this right so sacred that a woman was not compelled to even inform the baby’s father of her intent.

As appalling as that decision was, more troubling was the majority opinion rendered by Justice Kennedy: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Although no one but Big Brother would suggest we shouldn’t have the freedom to hold our own understandings about life, Kennedy’s implication is that actions derived from those understandings should be exempt from governmental interference. Taken to its logical end, Kennedy’s opinion is moral chaos.

Little wonder that the “sweet mystery of life” (as it’s been called) led to our next descent. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court broadened the right of privacy to include the sexual activities of consenting adults, regardless of gender or marital status. Ruling that a Texas law forbidding sexual intimacy between same-sex persons was unconstitutional, the Court stated, “[The] Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention.”

In a span of less than forty years, the explicit protections of the Constitution swelled into an absolute right of private conduct. In effect, the Courts declared that what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults, and what one does with one’s body and the life growing inside it, is nobody’s business. Or is it?

FLAWED LOGIC
If the right to privacy is absolute, it is reasonable to ask why seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws are constitutional, while abortion bans are not. Both exist to save lives. Also, if homosexual sodomy is legal, why not prostitution, if done privately and by mutual consent? Why should growing marijuana in my organic garden for private use be illegal? What about a husband who intervenes in his wife’s suicide attempt? Shouldn’t it be unlawful for him to interfere with her understanding of Justice Kennedy’s “mystery of life”?

Despite the modern evolution of privacy, there are numerous regulations governing the private sphere. Those laws exist because of the Magistrate’s high calling to protect the citizenry. For example, according to 2002 U.S. Department of Transportation statistics, safety belts prevented 135,000 vehicular fatalities and 3.8 million injuries since 1976; and, had all occupants used safety belts, almost three times as many fatalities could have been prevented.

Although mandatory seat belt laws are an intrusion into the life of the individual, it is the individual who directly benefits from seat belt use. At the same time, such laws do not take away the individual’s freedom of choice. He is free to disregard the law at any time and assume his increased risk of fatality. But the risk of being fined by a state trooper adds an immediate incentive to exercise his freedom in a way that is most beneficial to him.

A COSTLY RIGHT
According to data from the CDC, AIDS claims the lives of over 18,000 Americans per year, with a cumulative loss of life during the last 25 years of over 500,000. Since male homosexual sex is responsible for over 50 percent of AIDS cases, how is it in the best interest of the homosexual community, or society at large, for government to overturn homosexual sodomy laws?

Although such laws would likely have little effect on the activities of existing homosexuals, they would be a reproof to those considering the gay lifestyle. Alternatively, the absence of law, with the declaration that such acts are constitutionally protected, is a de facto endorsement of practices proven to be a detriment to individual and public health.

The thousands of lives lost because of the growing cultural acceptance of homosexual behavior and the erosion of governmental deterrents should grieve us; as should the 40 million unborn children whose explicit right to life has been overridden by an invented “right of privacy.”

A STRANGE CHRISTIAN NOTION
For the Christian, the idea of an absolute “right of privacy” is a strange notion indeed. Anyone thinking otherwise is sure to be offended by Jesus. Jesus meddled; Jesus intruded; Jesus pried into the inner sanctum of people’s lives.

In an age of “going along to get along,” Jesus’s confrontation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well stands as a matchless example of downright rudeness. Not only did Jesus challenge the morality of her licentious life, but, reminiscent of Yahweh’s reproach of Cain, He had the nerve of criticizing her beliefs about worship. Talk about arrogance and invasion of privacy!

If that weren’t enough, Jesus instructed His disciples to do likewise: “If your brother sins, rebuke him.” Where are the comforting words of tolerance and affirmation? Where is the exemption for acts committed in private and between consenting adults?

If we are tempted to consider this an oversight, we need only recall that Jesus reserved His harshest words for those whose external behavior was used to cover their corrupt interior. Jesus even had the insensitivity to refer to their lifestyle as yeast: an insidious agent moving invisibly and inexorably, corrupting everything in its path. Jesus’s point is clear: actions, whether done publicly or privately have an impact on the global village and, thus, should be a Christian concern born out of love.

Take the private use of pornography, for example. Various studies have shown that frequent porn use is correlated with a tendency to trivialize sexual abuse, leading to a greater tendency for rape and child molestation. In fact, over 80 percent of convicted pedophiles were habitual porn users.

All the same, we, like Cain, chafe at the idea of being our brother’s keeper, of bearing some responsibility for his conduct. Admitting such responsibility suggests the similar duty of others for us. It’s a troubling suggestion, conjuring up visions of meddlers prying open those closed doors we keep locked from outside eyes. How ready we are to play down the words of Paul, “You are not your own, you were bought at a price.”

We may be building a culture of absolute privacy and moral autonomy, but it’s a culture that is both illusionary and short-lived.

“There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.” (Jesus Christ)

Regis Nicoll is a freelance writer and a Centurion of the Wilberforce Forum. His "All Things Examined" column appears on BreakPoint every other Friday. Serving as men’s ministry leader and worldview teacher in his community, Regis publishes a free weekly commentary to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him at: centurion51@aol.com.