Posted on 10/01/2013 12:06:37 PM PDT by shego
For better or for worse, libertarianism is on the upswing in the Republican Party....
...."68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents agree with the statement that 'individuals should be free to do as they like as long as they don't hurt others, and that the government should keep out of people's day-to-day lives.'....
"Some fundamentalist Christians are very libertarian in their beliefs," explained Dave Nalle, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, to The Washington Times Communities earlier this year....
"They understand that the governmental restraint which is central to libertarianism works to their benefit in protecting them from government interference in their religious life," he continued. "Like Ron Paul, who is very religious, they value the independence of their churches and want to keep government from promoting any ideology through the schools or its other programs. While they do not support social libertarianism they understand that if government can dictate lifestyle decisions it's a knife which cuts both ways."
During the same interview, Nalle mentioned that "(w)here we do run into problems with the religious right is with those small but influential groups which believe that they should promote their beliefs by using government as an instrument to impose them on other people.
"They don't understand that this is a terrible practice which can be turned against them and they use tactics which are essentially the same as the secular humanists from the left who are their greatest enemies. Ultimately I don't see much future for this element in the Republican Party or even in mainstream politics.
"When they are fanatical about forcing their beliefs on everyone through legislation they make themselves so unpopular that they become a political liability which no party can afford to get involved with...
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
Now, what was it I once heard on this subject... lemme check my Bible; I'm pretty sure I highlighted it... oh, yeah, there it is:
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)
HMMMM - who are those in that small but influential group?
Somebody’s morality is always enforced, it’s the difference in opinion as to whose it will be. We can see just that in the effect in turning sodomites loose in the military. They did not want merely “government out of their bedrooms”, they want government in every aspect of the lives of others enforcing not merely “tolerance” of their lifestyles but acceptance and even celebration.
It could be. And it also could be (definitely is) Shego is a liberal newbie troll here to agitate.
IBTZ.
That was my sense also. But I thought that I might be “paranoid”, as I also believe that the GOP is riddled with leftist agitators, including in Congress.
Never a good sign when they label you as a "fundamentalist" right from the beginning.
Fundamentalist: A term created during the turn-of-the-20th-century Protestant church splits to define those who held to the “fundamentals” of Christianity—the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus and his literal resurrection from the dead. The term is now considered pejorative. (Wheaton College philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga famously observed, “The full meaning of the term...can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.’”)
-- from the thread New Kids In The Flock
Correct.
Shego has been pushing Robert Sarvis for governor of Virginia. Sarvis is a libertarian who is pro-abortion, pro-manmade global warming, and pro-queer. In fact, Sarvis has promised to push “marriage equality” on Virginia, and says that his many queer friends would be a credit to the institution.
Shego repeatedly refuses to respond when I ask him if he agrees with his candidate’s pro-queer views.
IMHO: the proper role of an earthly government under God is pretty much limited to keeping basic order. It’s acknowledged as consisting largely of unbelievers — and to expect them, as such, to behave like a church is unrealistic and in fact invites the curse of “a form of religion, yet denying its power.” The essays of the church in embracing a government caused their gospel message to get debased from a message that spiritually sold itself in a plane that man cannot dominate, to something that could be coerced by the earthly sword. “Jesus saves you from getting shot or jailed by the government” is a weirded out gospel indeed. And if it implies an analogy to heaven as well as hell, that “heaven” becomes a nanny government. Not the way to go. Not at all.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with Christians offering wise, biblical advice or serving in government, short of expecting unbelievers to act like believers. And if they get flak for that they needn’t apologize at all. The order of earth serves, though not to save from sin, as an illustration of what God is about. So it remains a useful thing on this mortal coil.
the libertarians can have what’s left of the rep party. if it’s His will, so be it.
with God’s permission, then we’ll sooner have our own.
(as always, the true meaning of scripture is completely lost to them. they get stuck on their desired on interpretation.)
Even blind squirrels find acorns. I find it useful when dealing with all manner of unbelief, to start (duh) where they are. God never ever leaves Himself sans a witness, even in the most debased situations on this earth. However it takes a Christian who is firm enough in the faith not to get put off by externals, to be able to walk into that situation and point to that witness. Think of how Jesus ministered to the winebibbers and gluttons....
I’m a fundamentalist (Independent Baptist) and happy to be so. They’re trying to stretch/change the meaning of that word in order to include us, or even exchange us, for the Muslim extremists who go around killing others in order to foist their beliefs upon the world.
The libertarians called for homosexual equality in the military for both serving and marriage, and got it.
Do you think that America was wrong and too Christian in it’s first 233 years of laws regarding that issue and the military?
To clarify, the statement you highlighted does not call all Christians “fundamentalists” - which is almost always a slur - it talks specifically about “fundamentalist Christians” - and certainly, there are some, and some here on FR, who do seem to be oblivious at times about how they will readily use big government when it suits them.
As a Christian conservative, I find some problems with some fundamentalists, and some problems with the hard core libertarians. Having said that, there is a swath of ideas, issues and philosophies that all groups share, and which are in opposition to the Obama express. I focus on those....
I (as well as many others) are checking her posting history. Can you believe it? She is still on that “Ted Cruz is a liberal” thread she started several days ago.
She is most certainly a retread. Bona fide newbies would not be so clever and would have been zotted by now. But she evidently knows what NOT to say to avoid the zot. But it won’t be long.
~~~~ Zzzzt! ~~~~~~
Point taken, but right now I am concerned with someone who is pushing a queer lover on my state one month before an election.
Amen
A political “Christ party” would not work short of the Lord Himself being physically here ruling and reigning. That ALWAYS is asking the church to take pastoral care of unbelievers. No can do, no is in mission.
The libertarians have picked up on that truth.
How many times does Limbaugh have to tell us that when he attends elite GOP cocktail parties they’re embarrassed by us and can’t wait to get rid of us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.