The term fanatic can apply in many ways; I'm not sure if that applys to me so much as the term "passionate". If I had my way, everyone would be follower of Christ, and try to follow the "Big 10" as well as they could. But, I cannot bring that about except for talking, persuading, and sharing. I WOULD NEVER for one minute FORCE some one to make a statement of faith, and as far as the 10 commandments go, heck, most of 'em are written into the judicial codes anyway.
I can go with you to your point - and state my belief that the worst thing to happen to Christianity was the melding of the Church into a decaying State. We do a LOT better when we have "just" G-d in our corner :-)
And there you have it. This is a recipe for a civilised - and civil - society. Civilised human beings rely upon education, moral suasion and above all, leading by example to make their points.
Watching Alan Keyes deal with that harridan witch Gloria Alred last night on the subject of forced government indoctriniation of homosexual 'tolerance' in California public schools was quite interesting. Keyes pointed out that, regardless of what had happened in the past, the issue of 'tolerance' was a matter that belonged in the realm of conscience and free will. He pointed out that enforcement of this sort of indoctrination required the tacit and implicit destruction of the very principles upon which the country was founded, and that it made mock of the Bill of Rights andh the Constitution. He also pointed out that if homosexuality was forbidden by another's religious beliefs, then wasn't cuompulsory indoctrination in the desirability and normalcy of he homosexual lifestyle a form of religious intolerance also?
Allred's response was to dodge the question and respond with the "every student has the right to learn in a 'safe' environment" mantra. She was clearly angry at Keyes' clear and logical presentation, and could offer nothing to refute it. Allred's the type who prefers to do by legal manipulation what she clearly could not do by any other means save that ofa gun. She was utterly untroubled by the fact that getting her way would have meant the further division of our society into yet another 'protected class'. She could have cared less about the destruction of hte foundation of our liberty, because that is precisely what she - and her Gramscian/Marcusian ilk - desires.
The Empire lasted until 1453, albeit shorn of its Western provinces by barbarian invasions, and slowly dwindling to a city-state in its last years. The so called "Fall of Rome" in 476 was nothing but the retirement of the last Western Augustus. It may have been imprudent of the Emperor to trust the affairs of the Western Empire to Germanic chieftains raised to the rank of "Patrician of the Romans", but that's what was done.
Incidentally, having introduced the subject of Orthodox Christianity into a thread on libertarianism, I would point you all to the bioethical writings of H. Tristram Englehardt, Jr. In Foundations of Christian Bioethics he makes a very good case for a libertarian ethical arrangement in societies in which uniformity of content-full moral judgement does not exit precisely because it allows those who hold traditional morals to live by them free from state hinderance.
I hope both libertarian and anti-libertarian conservatives on this thread read carefully the ideas of the use of state power the author of the original article proposed. They include on both attacks tradition and the market. The strain of anti-libertarianism proposed in the article should be anathema to all American conservatives whether we are trying to conserve the classical liberalism of the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment and the American Founding or a longer tradition from Christendom or a broadly defined "Judeo-Christian tradition."