Count me first in.
The worst thing that ever happened to Christianity is when the cause was taken up by Constantine, beginning the persecution of pagans by “Christians”, of Christians by each other and wars to spread “Chritianity”.
The legitimate use of government is to protect people from each other, not to protect people from themselves regardless of the indirect effects. It is the responsibility of the churches without coercion to save bodies and souls.
So that makes me a Christian who politically is for a Constitutional Republic and economically a Libertarian.
Happy New Year to all
"Oh yeah," says Barack Obama/Cass Sunstein's libertarian paternalism.
Libertarianism that comes with czar and fetters.
Obama's regulatory czar Cass R. Sunstein (a former employee of the U.of Chicago and Harvard) writes:
"The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice."
more..
"Often people's preferences are ill-formed . . . In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided [to overcome the decision-makers' limited knowledge and just plain stupidity otherwise known as] bounded rationality . . . libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice . . . It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer." [End of quotes]
IOW Cass R. Sunstein and the Obamanists decide the options from among which you are permitted to choose. You get to be a libertarian! and they get to be the czar and fetters. What a deal!
Libertarian paternalism comes with "nudging" -- another of czar Sunstein's fetters.
The regulatory czar intends us to be "nudged" into choosing the "correct" option from the limited options presented to us by the government. Both Parties will love this, I am sure.
Aided by the MSM and all aspects of "the Establishment" -- they will not publicize unacceptable options. So if we do not hear of them do they exist? No.
And I remember. It was pretty much that way in the days of the "Fairness Doctrine" with three TV networks being the source of "news" for the major portion of the public. I have read many comments wishing to return to those days when there was very little "divisiveness."
BTW, Sunstein has in the past specifically condemned Free Republic as bad for democracy.
I have to disagree with him, inasmuch as in the United States, we, the people are the ruler. And according to Romans 13, we would not be so, unless God willed it.
/johnny
I am a Christian. I base my faith on the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word.
I can also be called a Conservative, but only because my beliefs come from Christ and the Scripture, and they produce in me what can only be described as a Conservative worldview.
Jesus is not a Conservative. He is not a Progressive.
He is the Word made flesh - the Way, the Truth and the Life. The one and only God.
I understand that when Jesus told us to render unto Caeser that which belonged to Caeser, he used the man's image on the coin to illustrate, and that it merely meant that the earthly things were of no meaningful consequence compared to the eternal afterlife.
Consider my politics as Constitutional conservative, libertarianism. Defend original Constitution context to the letter, biased with maximum liberty for all.
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and executive editor of The Christian Post, said that “of course libertarians can be Christians – but so can racists.”
How "generous" of Dr. Land.
I'm tempted to haul out my copy of Jacques Ellul's Anarchy and Christianity, to make his head thoroughly spin. (Ellul's anarchy was the Euroleft communitarian claptrap type, not American style an-cap.)
I have libertarian sympathies, in this era of ever growing state power, but libertarianism has a utopian streak that needs to take account of the Christian teachings of the Fall, original sin and depravity.
Will I ever learn that there’ll be no peace,
that the war won’t cease Until He returns?
“it is the only political philosophy that is truly in accordance with Christianity,”
In line with one of the basic Baptist concepts, i.e., “personal (or individual) soul liberty”.
Iowa’s most popular and influential radio talk show host, Jan Mickelson, describes himself as a ‘Christian Libertarian’.
http://www.whoradio.com/pages/pp_janmickelson.html
Christian libertarian is an oxymoron, as explained here:
http://offgridblogger.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/a-critical-review-of-libertarianism/
Pope John Paul II in a wide ranging Centesimus Magnus 1991
...By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need...
Are there really that many Christian Libertarians? Most Libertarians I know are agnostics or atheists.
Whoever wrote this piece must have been a progressive /leftist Christian. the piece sounded squishy ok until they gave the Biblical justification for Christian libertarianism
speaking of Love.But ignoring the manifold passages of Scripture that speak of “marriage” in terms solely of the union of one man and one woman _as did Moses in Genesis 1: and 2: ; In the fullness of time Jesus ,that Rabbi from Nazareth,
cites Moses ,at the beginning in speaking o f”marriage” and “divorce” , and the Apostle Paul likewise cites the Genesis
model in his to the Church at Corinth. (1 Corinthians 6: ) and again in his letter to the Church at Ephasis ,Ephesians 5: -None of them can be understood to defend same sex marriage. That “marriage was originally a States Rights issue —and that every State originally penalized sodomy and
followed the Biblical penalty for such .And as every State seems to have in their establishment seems to have adopted the Biblical model of Matrimony being defined as the union of a man and a woman. And as the series of legal decisions 1878-1890 that seem to have led the Mormon Church to revelation they claimed from God /via their Prophets to reconsider the Church position concerning Marriage thus allowing Utah enter the union of States as equal. I am sorry but this article seems so full of holes that the boat wont float.The passage quoted as Bible justification for the
position supposed the term was NOT understood as it is too often abused today (Love being confused-sometimes deliberately with lust/ or convenience/ or political- social power and acceptance) I cannot claim to Love one in
danger of being consumed in the fire Unless I do whatever necessary to pull them out of harms way.Hating the very garment defiled by sin.
bttt
To me, this sounds much like what a friend noted some years ago. Many people who self-identify as “anarchists” are inclined to hyphenate “what kind” of anarchist they claim to be, often in very oxymoronic ways.
For example: “socialist-anarchist”, “communist-anarchist”, “capitalist-anarchist”, “libertarian-anarchist”, “democratic-anarchist”, etc. And yes, “Christian-anarchist” as well.
The term anarchist itself is from the time of the English Civil War, and was meant as a term of derision by the Royalists against their Roundhead opponents. It really got legs in the revolutions of 1848, no longer a term of derision, but as a generalized anti-government meaning.
However, Christianity has similar hyphenation corruptions, one of which, I suppose, could be called “Christian-libertarianism”. But that is very divorced from Christianity at its roots.
Early Christianity had in its early centuries only two forms: hierarchical and gnostic. Any accurate modern hyphenation has to take these two forms into account. Either they are directed from the Christian hierarchy, or they are individual interpretations to only apply to those who choose to follow them.
Such behavior should perhaps be shunned, participants ostracized from polite society and spoken against openly and vigorously, both in the public and in private spheres.
Just an opinion
Oldplayer
bttt