Morality, Religion & Philosophy: December 2003 Archives

I know you must often wonder: what is polyamory? Well here's a (nonsensical) guide: "Polyamory - What it is and what it isn't." Aside from being awkwardly written (avoiding some common contractions, but using one in the title, for instance), the essay is dull and boring. Plus, it's not based the slightest bit in reality. Anyway, what is "polyamory"?

Polyamory has been defined as the philosophy and practice of loving more than one person at a time with honesty and integrity. Synonyms for polyamory are responsible, ethical, and intentional, non-monogamy. Because those descriptions are somewhat clumsy, the term Polyamory was coined in the late 80's by a pagan Priestess, Morning Glory Zell, and defines a range of different lifestyle alternatives. In most cases, but not all, this involves some sexual or at least intensely intimate sensual behavior.

Let me summarize: you have sex with lots of people, but there won't be any complications if you all love each other.

The authors purposefully confuse all sorts of different meanings for "love".

Polyamorists say that love is an infinite, not a finite commodity. An example of this is with children. When my oldest daughter was born, I loved her with every ounce of my being. When my son was born, I found that I didn't have to give them half a love each, I could love them both fully. My third child is loved as much, if not more, than the other two.

It's absurd to assert that people love their children in the same way they love their spouse/whatever. You may as well say "I love pizza and I love hamburgers; in the same way, I can love both Jill and Heather." There are all sorts of different kinds of love, as I think we're all well-aware.

The authors also appear to have no understanding of what love really involves.

This also applies to friends - when you meet someone new, you don't have to think about who you are going to drop off to make them fit. As a woman said when explaining why she chose polyamory - "I refuse to accept the myth that I have to stop loving one person before I start loving another."

There's only so much time in the day. I'm sure we've all lost contact with friends due to lack of time. It's absurd to think a person could invest the amount of time necessary for a truly intimate loving relationship with a large number of people. In fact, most humans can't even maintain one healthy relationship (judging from the divorce rate).

And then, "falling in love".

Polyamorists say that love should be unconditional, rather than the monogamous proposition that "I will love you on the condition that you will not love anyone else" - "forsaking all others" is how it usually is put. And as shown by history, monogamy and marriage are no safeguards against falling in love with someone else.

And there's no way we can possibly control our feelings, is there? We're doomed to fall in love with other people and destroy our marriages! Except, of course, that loving someone is far different from "falling in love" (as we say). Loving someone involves a conscious choice, whereas "falling in love" is merely an emotional phenomenon.

The authors blather on a bit and then try to refute the idea that polyamory might displease God by quoting two atheists.

It is sinful - God doesn't like it.

"Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the curious attractiveness of others." Oscar Wilde Chameleon.

"Confusing monogamy with morality has done more to destroy the conscience of the human race than any other error." George Bernard Shaw

The sinfulness and wickedness of sex is based on the assumption that God doesn't like sex. This poison has its roots in Ancient Assyria, and the religions of Mythra and Zoroastrianism, which first put forth the idea of "the obscenity of the flesh." The sex drive, being one that cannot be denied, becomes a rich source of implanted guilt and shame, used to manipulate and degrade the individual. Therefore any sexual (natural) feelings need to be accompanied by shame, and therefore kept secret.

Of course, there's no real indication that God dislikes sex, so they're beating up a straw man. As they note, much of the Bible was written by polygamists. However, the authors aren't advocating polygamous marriage, they're advocating committment-free sexual liasons. The Bible makes it pretty clear that God wasn't thrilled with the idea of polygamy (see Solomon's downfall and Paul's instruction that church elders have at most one wife), even though he doesn't condemn it, but polygamous marriages laid responsibilities on all parties involved identical to the responsibilities in monogamous marriages. They weren't sexual free-for-alls.

Ok, there's a bunch more stuff I won't address directly. It's repetitive.

Their last point is the most absurd. After discussing jealousy at great length, they then ask an apparently rhetorical question that implies monogamy has no biological basis.

If monogamy is so natural and hardwired, why is there such a large relationship industry - the "How to make it right" of magazines, books, TV shows, marriage guidance, etc.?

Hm, could it be because we want successful monogamous relationships, but have trouble making them work? Maybe because we keep "falling in love" and never make a real decision to actually love someone in spite of our frequently fluctuating emotions? Could it be because nonsense like this polyamory paper twists and distorts people's understanding of love?

(HT: Random Walks.)

One of the most fascinating results of the liberation of Iraq is the newfound potential for religious freedom in the Middle East; many Christian missionaries are already there, or on their way.

Some people seem to dislike the idea of witnessing to Muslims, but if you affirm free speech and free religion then there's really no basis for objection.

I was reminded of this topic because Mike at Fly Over Country left on a missionary trip to Beirut today, and I imagine that's a dangerous place to share Jesus Christ. Keep him, and the hundreds of other missionaries in the region in your prayers.

Matthew 9:36-38

When he [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field."

Christmas isn't a story, or even the beginning of a story. Jesus existed long before he humbled himself to take human form as a baby in a manger.

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Jesus' birth was rather the beginning of the end of God's creation, the first of the final steps towards the fulfillment of God's plan and purpose for mankind.

Most people look on Christmas as a happy time, and indeed it is, but many may not truly understand why. It's significant that Jesus lowered himself to our level and lived as a man:

Philippians 2:5-8

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross!

But Jesus didn't only come to give us an example of humility and to teach us how to live together in peace. He came to fight and defeat, utterly and forever, the forces of evil and rebellion.

Jesus' coming -- Immanuel, "God with us" -- was a joyous occasion, but Jesus life was not a happy life. Isaiah prophesied of the messiah:

Isaiah 53:3

He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

How could it be otherwise? Surrounded constantly by sin and evil (as are we, but how insensitive we become!), he was rejected by his closest friends and family, thrown out of towns, chased by bloodthirsty mobs, and finally captured, tortured, and executed as a humiliated criminal for crimes he had never committed.

As I said, Jesus' life was not a happy life, but it was a joyous life -- happiness and joy are not at all the same. While happiness comes from our fleeting circumstances, joy can live in us continually because joy is based on our hope of the future. When Jesus was suffering and dying -- and perhaps Satan thought his own victory was at hand -- the world looked bleak, but just around the corner were the most joyful, triumphant words ever spoken.

John 19:30

When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

It is finished. With those words, the Son of God announced victory over sin, and death, and evil. The battle is over; all that's left is to wrap up some loose ends. There's a victory feast, a huge celebration planned in Heaven, waiting for us, and our only job is to invite our friends and bring along as many as want to come.

In Candace's comment on "Banishing the Ugly" she brings another metaphor to mind.

Humbly, Michael. It's nice to at least feel understood, even more so to feel that one's words resonate with another.

Words are the bait, and ideas are the hook. What does anyone want more than to know and be known? As Paul wrote, knowing is the essence of love.

1 Corinthians 13:11-13

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I wish I could tell you everything I'm thinking (whoever you are). I wish you could know every stray thought that flitters through my mind. I've loved before, and felt the deeply painful need to know and be known, to lay myeslf utterly bare before some other miserably flawed human being and to be loved in return for exactly who I am. It's a longing that sex offers to fulfill, but cannot. God's perfect fellowship will complete it someday, but even when Adam walked in the Garden with his creator God knew it wasn't good for him to be alone.

I know a lot of beautiful women, but what catches my eye more quickly and surely than a pretty face is a knowing glance or tiny smile that tells me she gets it. Some off-hand remarks or inside jokes -- some strung-together words -- that show we're on the same page, that prove my thoughts aren't bouncing off the surface but penetrating the dark, secret place wherein she hides.

Wise counsel; subtle wit; easy laughter; sly, sparkling glances that scream I know! -- these are love to me.

Words are the bait, ideas are the hook. Take a look around, you might find something you like.

Will Baude says that premarital sex is virtuous:

I think it's generally unwise for people (particularly people who view monogamy as generally desirable and divorce as generally undesirable) to get married before they've begun having some sort of sexual relations.

Although he says "some sort of sexual relations", it's pretty clear from further text that he's referring to sexual intercourse itself.

The second part of Ms. Morse's view that I think is bad is her view that sex ought to be kept between spouses, or that sex's job is to bring spouses closer together. I think this is a cause-effect confusion.

Sex shouldn't be used to bring people close together-- it should be used to help us find people with whom we're compatible enough to be or grow close. (And marriage, as I said earlier, isn't always relevant to this closeness-- plenty of pairs unmarried people love each other as much or more than plenty of other pairs of married or ex-married people. Especially in a world where some of these unmarried people are legally forbidden marry the other unmarried the people they love.)

I've heard this argument before, and I'm not at all convinced. First of all, go read my dissection of a non-married love relationship which very clearly is not as intimate as a marriage; your mileage may vary, but I expect that the vast majority of "long-term relationships" are quite similar (maybe even many marriages?).

Secondly, I find it very easy to learn a great deal about women without having sex with them, or even "dating" them. I'm not particularly fond of the whole modern concept of "dating", for a whole host of reasons. To keep it short: I don't think it's possible to build a healthy relationship on romantic emotions. The foundation of dating is romance, and as most of us are probably aware it's quite easy to become attracted to someone we wouldn't particularly care to be friends with. Physical and emotional lust are powerful forces, and we're often eager to be tricked into thinking we actually love someone when it's all just emotional smoke and mirrors.

As I've written before, my strategy is pretty simple:

Mostly, I just live my life and try to make myself into a person that will be "A One" for the type of girl I hope to attract. I've probably got a long ways to go, but I'm working on it.

Dating and sex obscure and confuse the real issues involved with finding a mate in ways that "mere" friendship doesn't. Dating and sex lead to jealousy, lust, pride, selfishness, materialism, conflict, impatience, manipulation, cruelty, resentment, and uncountable other complications. Friendship has its pitfalls as well, but is generally much freer from such distractions.

Friendship allows me to see a woman for who she truly is, when she's not trying to impress anyone; friendship lets me be myself without needing to make an artificially-sculpted good impression. Dating, on the other hand, is all about creating a pretty show, complete with scripted dialogue and special effects. You tell me which is more conducive to really getting to know someone.

Mr. Baude writes further:

Marrying somebody without knowing whether they behave in a good or evil manner in bed is like marrying somebody without knowing what their favorite book is, or what their religion is, without knowing what they think constitutes moralvirtue [sic]. These things are too important, and too central to our very identies, to simply hope that they will work themselves out later like the question of whose parents get the first Christmas.

I agree it's an important issue, but there are a myriad of similarly important topics that are discussed before marriage, but deferred in action until afterwards. How will the children be raised? How will we spend our money? Who will work at what job, when? All of these are critically important issues to a marriage, and all of them (including sex) should be discussed frankly and openly beforehand. But I see no reason to doubt that the question of sex, just like the others, can be explored effectively and sufficiently without actual implementation.

Update:
I'd like to add that, although I've heard many married couples express regret over extra-/pre-marital sexual escapades, no couple who has waited has ever told me that they wish they hadn't.

In response to my "An Open Letter to Hawthorne Police Chief Stephen Port", Barry left a rather poetic comment about why he doesn't want anyone to carry concealed weapons. In part:

If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation. To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, available and ready to be pulled out and used at a moment's notice to possibly kill...a child. A homeless person. An innocent.

Lots of other commenters jumped on him, probably for two reasons: they thought his fears were irrational, and they thought the language he used was a bit over the top. I also think Barry's fears are unfounded, but I'm sure that his beliefs are widely shared by a minority of the general population. Many people simpy don't like guns, and wish they'd all go away.

Barry defends himself later on, and has now responded at greater length on his blog, Inn of the Last Home. Apparently, lots of people on other blogs were attacking him, or at least disagreeing with him in a determined and forceful manner.

I would feel uncomfortable carrying a loaded weapon. Very uncomfortable that I would possibly have the means to end a person's life within arm's reach. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it, or would ever be tempted. Just that fact makes me uncomfortable.

I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person. And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you. That's simply it, I don't trust you. I don't trust a person who is not a licensed law enforcement officer of some kind - someone who, by virtue of their job, I would assume they have proper gun training - to carry a weapon. You may be a great person, love your kids, go to church, would never pull a gun in anger at another person - you may be supremely confident of that fact in your own mind, but I'm not. To me, you would be just as likely to be the one sticking up the fast-food clerk as the one defending him, or - in your possibly untrained and excited state - could be the one who with the best of intentions attempts to intervene but misses and hits someone else. Or you could be the one who gets pissed off at me in traffic and, instead of the flipping me the finger you pop off a few rounds at my back window.

I understood Barry's fears before, and this later explanation reinforces my earlier comprehension. Barry doesn't trust anyone (except, apparently, for some reason, police officers) and doesn't want anyone to carry lethal force around with them.

The problem is that it's precisely because of this lack of trust that other people choose to carry weapons. I sure as heck don't trust the people around me either, which is why I want to have means available to defend myself from them. In particular, the very people most likely to hurt me (violent psychos) are the people least likely to be restrained by laws prohibiting concealed carry.

All you have to do is watch the news and you'll see stories every single day about nuts shooting up schools, churches, movie theaters, bus stops, hospitals, work places, &c. That scares the crap out of me when I think about it! The police don't show up to draw chalk outlines until it's all over, but if I were there and I had a gun there might be something I could do. Maybe not, depending on the circumstances, but maybe yes. At least I'd have the best possible chance.

Furthermore -- and more importantly -- my right to carry a weapon does not in any way depend on Barry's comfort level. As I wrote yesterday, the freedom to keep and bear arms is the foundation of liberty. Without the means to exercise physical force it's impossible to be free: you're a slave to anyone who can overpower you. Others can like it or not, but that's morally irrelevant. Those who think like Barry would prefer to live a perfectly safe, perfectly enslaved life than a life filled with both freedom and the risk that inescapably accompanies it.

Bertrand Russel writes about obsessive love (in relation to Fitzgerald and Nabokov), and it reminds me of a previous thought I'd had: that no man is complete without some unobtainable love.

Those two authors write mostly about obsessive romantic love (or lust), but their characters stand for far more than mere sexuality (or even humanity). All men and women need an object of desire -- moral, spiritual, philisophical, material? -- to yearn for and strive after, knowing it can never be obtained. This is the essence of tragedy, and the foundation of greatness.

No one accomplishes anything great by aiming at the attainable. Greatness is achieved in incremental steps, to be sure, but the ultimate goal must stand forever out of reach or it's not even worth the effort. Greatness springs from tragedy; tragedy puts the accomplishments of life into scale, and reveals their greatness.

As a banal example, consider the SAT. If everyone received perfect scores, what significance would the test have? It would tell us nothing about anyone's abilities, intelligence, knowledge, or determination. Tragedy serves the same purpose; by highlighting the failures and disappointments of life, success can be elevated to the level of greatness. By striving for impossible goals, through obsession with the unattainable, a man is stretched to his fullest extent and his greatness can be rightly judged.

Donald Sensing mentions that web-hostile Bill O'Reilly thinks the internet needs to be made "safe for democracy", but that opinion belies a profound misunderstanding of democracy. As the Iraqis are discovering, democracy doesn't need to be safely provided for: democracy itself constructs a safe environment to exist within by making it hard for the elites to hold power, and by distributing power to the masses.

Democratic power is primarily established by the right to keep and bear arms, and secondarily by the rights to private property, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association, &c. These rights are the foundation of a liberal democratic society, and they don't need any external management to protect them. Naturally, the self-styled "elite" would like to administrate these rights -- for the benefit of all! -- but top-down interference actually ends up making democracy and freedom less secure, rather than more. The "elite" are well-aware of this fact, and they seek to make us all less free so as to accumulate power for themselves. It's fine that they try (that's the essence of competition), but it doesn't mean they're right or that we should let them succeed.

I just wrote a super-long and excellent post on James Taranto's "Roe effect", and then @#$%(&#@!(& Internet Explorer crashed before I could post it. It's been doing that recently, and I don't know why.

I took some statistics from Barna Research and prochoice.org and determined that:

- The "average American woman" has slightly more than 0.5 abortions.
- Christian women have an average of between 0.105 and 0.220 abortions each.
- Non-Christian woman have an average of between 0.695 and 2.735 abortions each.

The data's there, but I'm not going to type it all up again. The largest source of error comes from deciding who is a "Christian", and Barna gives two results -- 85% of people classify themselves as Christians, but only 41% of people actually hold Christian beliefs. Prochoice.org says that 18% of women who get abortions call themselves Christians.

My conclusion: Mr. Taranto's Roe effect definitely has some statistical basis, and it's very likely that the large percentage of anti-abortion youngsters is due in part to the fact that people who are against abortion have more children than people who are in favor of abortion. I only wish I'd thought of the idea myself.

The main reason why posts about religion get so many comments is that the issue of spirituality is the most important question that every human faces. No matter what your beliefs are, you must admit that your answers to:

1. Is there a God?
2. Does he expect something from me?

... are the most important decisions you'll ever make.

If I'm wrong about Christianity, I want to know.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

I've talked to some people about God actually gotten the response: "I don't know, and I guess I don't really care." Anyone who says something like that shows that they don't really understand the question. If God exists, and if he has expectations for us, we'd be foolish to ignore them. We may not like what he wants us to do -- we may not even like him -- but only a fool blinds himself to reality for momentary pleasure.

On the other hand, if God doesn't exist, or if he doesn't care what we do, then we'd be foolish to spend our lives trying to please him. If religion really is just the opiate of the masses, we'd be suckers to buy into the illusion and waste our lives on a fantasy.

If someone is apathetic about God, it means he's already answered one of those two questions with "no", or he's a fool. If it's the former, it's important that he recognize the significance of his decision; if it's the latter... well, more than religion, I think ignorance is the opiate of the masses.

... asks Barry at the Inn of the Last Home. More specifically, he gives us a scenario: "If a friend is walking towards a cliff, do we or do we not have a responsibility to stop them?" I think there's some relevant information missing, so let me fill in the blanks in various ways and then give my answer.

First, whether or not I have a responsibility to stop my friend from walking off a cliff, I would stop him. Even if I were convinced that doing so violated his rights and individual sovereignty, I would stop him -- out of selfishness, if for no other reason. My life would be less enjoyable without my friend around, so I'd want to prevent that. Plus, I might feel guilty if I let him die, and people would probably look down on me for it.

That said, does such a responsibility exist? If so, are we only responsible to protect our friends from themselves, or do we have a responsibility to protect strangers as well?

I don't know if the "friend" relationship is the best angle from which to attack this problem; "friendship" is not very specific, and people all have different definitions of the term. For example, there are certain relationships with built-in responsibility, like parents and teachers. A parent obviously has a responsibility to prevent his child from harming himself.

But the "friend" relationship is generally understood to be a relationship between equals, with neither holding formal dominance over the other, so that's the assumption I'll make. Generally, it must be bilateral -- that is, I cannot be your friend if you are not my friend. I may like you, or even love you, but we're not friends unless we both agree on it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a relationship between equals. (1)

In that light, let's reconsider the situation above. I see my friend acting in a dangerous way that's likely to result in harm to himself; this is Uncertain Situation 1, but let's assume I have a responsibility to stop him. Under this responsibility then, and without any selfishness on my part, I then begin to restrain his actions to protect him. If he doesn't object, then the problem is solved. If he does object, then I am in Uncertain Situation 2. If I persist through US2, my friend may eventually object so strongly that he breaks off our friendship, thus freeing me of any possible responsibility as his "friend".

The difference between US1 and US2 is that in the first case my actions against my friend are really more "advice" than "restraint". My actions may make it more difficult for my friend to carry out his harmful behavior, but he's still free to accept or reject my position. In US2, the question is whether or not I have a responsibility to actually prevent in fact the harmful actions of my friend, despite his objections. Even in US2, however, he is free to ultimately reject my position by renouncing our friendship. This difference is thus a matter of magnitude, rather than a matter of kind; both situations reduce to the same question: should I give potentially unwelcome advice to my friend when he is acting dangerously?

The question of advice seems much less controversial than the question of actual restraint, and by making this reduction I believe the matter is greatly simplified. Additionally, this reduction feels correct intuitively. Some may object to (1) above, and argue that friendship can be unilateral, but I think that would go against the common perception. This argument is also based on the assumption that my friend is acting rationally, and that's another issue entirely. Is it ever rational to hurt yourself? Clearly yes, e.g., if you're protecting someone else.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the question of real restraint doesn't come up in friendships, since the relationship can be dissolved at will by the person being restrained. What about "our fellow man" more generally? Well, protecting people from themselves has generally led to tyranny.

Update:
Jim's comments remind me of a verse.

Proverbs 27:6
Wounds from a friend can be trusted,
but an enemy multiplies kisses.

I'm skeptical of Donald Sensing's description of Jesus' instruction to "turn the other cheek" as an admonishment to resist oppression. Here's the passage in context:

Matthew 5:38-42
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

It seems very clear to me that Jesus is not advocating resistance or even civil disobedience. This passage comes right after the Beatitudes, where Jesus says "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."

Rev. Sensing writes:

In the culture of the day, backhanding someone was a gesture of contempt. It was how you treated someone who was beneath you in class and status. To give someone the back of your hand was to say by gesture, "Remember your place! I am superior to you!" It was how a father rebuked his son, a brother his sister, a husband his wife and a master his slave or servant.

That being so, Jesus’ advice to turn the other, or left, cheek to be struck is loaded with symbolic meaning. It is certainly not advice to be submissive to evil. It has at least two loaded meanings:

- I deny that I am inferior to you and I demand you acknowledge me as your equal by striking me a forehand blow, and

- as your equal, I have the right to strike you back.

Turning the other cheek actually could well have been Jesus’ admonishment to the people under oppression by the Romans and class structures to stop being passive and start resisting, but never to be the aggressor and to provide an opportunity for the oppressor to ponder the evil of his ways.

It's not that I disagree with Donald's conclusions, I just don't think this passage is implying what he says it does. Taken in context with Jesus' other teachings, I don't see any way to infer that he was advocating any resistance to Roman power. Jesus' main concern was spiritual warfare, and he never seemed to worry about physical oppression on this fallen earth.

The use of the word "also" seems significant to me as well, since it implies "in addition to" rather than "instead of".

Update:
Donald posts more, and comments on my post here as well.

My main disagreement with him isn't on whether the social order should change (it should) but rather on the method. Let's look at Ephesians 6 for more insight.

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

19 Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

First, consider the slaves Paul writes about. Does this passage imply that slavery is good? Of course not. But Paul also doesn't tell the slaves to flee -- rather he instructs them to serve their masters in a Godly way, so as to be examples of goodness. Liekwise, masters were reminded that they too had a Master in heaven who would hold them accountable. Paul's focus wasn't on changing the social order, but rather on changing the hearts of those involved.

Secondly, our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Our battle isn't against this world order -- the sinful world we live in is only a symptom of the greater spiritual illness that infects our species. Fighting to change the system isn't bad, but treating the symptoms directly is ultimately useless if the disease isn't cured. Only by fighting in this spiritual battle can hearts be turned to Christ, and the material world will follow. All the equipment Paul lists is spiritual in nature, and this is the front where the real battle for souls is fought.

Thirdly, Paul himself was a prisoner of the oppressive Roman Empire, and he never railed against it. On the contrary, he took every opportunity to work within the system and to subvert the hearts of those he came into contact with. In the book of Acts, he says that while he was held prisoner in Rome many of the emperor's personal guards listened to him and became Christians. Eventually, Paul was put to death for his beliefs, and he never resisted the fate God had in store for him (in fact, he counted it a joy). If he had fought, he might have brought about some change to the government system, but at what cost to the cause of Christ?

Finally, we know the end of our world and everything in it: destruction. The day will come when every man and woman will stand before God to be judged, and on that day our civilization will come to an end. There's no purpose in trying to save it, because it will eventually pass away. The only things of any value are people, because people last forever.

Injustice is bad, oppression is bad, and the Bible constantly warns those in authority to use their power for good, but if we Christians allow ourselves to be distracted from our spiritual war by the battles of this world, we're falling into a trap.

Update 2:
Some further thoughts:

1 Corinthians 7:20-24
Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

Paul says it here pretty clearly: if you can relieve oppression, it's good to do so -- but don't be overly bothered by it. He recasts the physical situation in spiritual terms, and points out that no matter what our earthly circumstances are, they're of far less consequence than our spiritual standing before God.

Although I believe people do have a right to provide for their own defense -- and thus have a right to keep and carry some sorts of weapons -- I'm not opposed to all weapons restrictions. For instance, an argument that may support my right to carry a concealed handgun may not have much weight when I start building a nuclear device next-door. But why not? If my neighbor has a nuclear device of his own, I'll need one too to deter him. Right?

Well, I don't think so, and here's why. As fine a job as many police forces do, their primary purpose isn't to prevent all crime, but to increase the cost of committing crimes. In contrast, an individual's (rightful) primary purpose (if they so desire) is to completely prevent all crimes against their person and their family. The police simply cannot be everywhere all the time, ready to prevent every conceivable crime, and it's not even their job to do so. Most police are under no legal obligation to intervene if they see a crime in progress (link anyone?). Their job is to reduce aggregate crime; although they do that by catching specific criminals, police very rarely actually stop a crime in progress.

Extrapolate those thoughts about the police to the government as a whole, and I think you'll see where I'm going. We as individuals grant some of our right to use force to the government and entrust it with the authority to reduce crime (and even fight wars) on the large scale. It's more efficient and more effective to field an Army division than to field 20,000 individuals. When it comes to large scale violence, the government always knows where, when, what, who, &c., and is generally able to respond within a useful timeframe.

Howver, when it comes to small-scale violence, the police are generally nowhere to be found till after the fact, and it's impossible to envision any alternative system. For that reason, individuals must retain the power and authority to protect themselves from small-scale violence. I know what's happening to me, because I'm there.

Of course, crime-prevention is only half the story behind the 2d Amendment -- the right to keep and bear arms is also important because the populace should have the power to protect itself from a tyrannical government, by force if necessary. So should I have the right to own a nuclear weapon to deter the feds? Well, considering the massive infrastructure that would be required to maintain a useful weapon and delivery system, this option is probably entirely impractical (except perhaps for Bill Gates).

A decent argument might be made for arming state troops with nuclear weapons, but is there really a point? When it comes down to it, the American military is made up of common citizens from all parts of the country, not tribe-or ethnic-based conscript units as are found elsewhere in the world. Our best protection from a military coup or a tyrannical government is the simple fact that our soldiers and officers wouldn't obey an order to nuke their own city. Unlike in many parts of the world, the government is made of us, and there is no real them. Sure, there are ideological differences, but none of them are fixed across time, and most families have members from just about every side of the spectrum.

So-called "liberals" who want to restrict individuals from owning small-arms are living in a fantasyland in which an omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent government solves all our problems. On the other hand, some libertarians I know who advocate completely unrestricted weapon rights are missing the point of liberty also: are you less free now than you'd be if all your neighbors had nuclear weapons?