Would you not agree that in the minds and through the actions of the majority of libertarians, that Christ and His Father’s laws play a very insignificant role (if any)?
You're talking as if all libertarians practice a form of groupthink. Libertarians believe in the sovereignty of the individual. The individual is left to determine faith's role in his own life, or whether he will have faith at all, and what in.
If man needs a savior, as the article you quoted touts, libertarians believe he must be left to find that savior on his own. It is not the role of government to lead him to it, or even nudge him in a direction. If the individual is truly sovereign, then he must be left to find the path by his own doing. It is not a choice between Christ or the state. That is a very narrow view to say the least. There are many paths that can be chosen, and not all will lead to salvation for sure. But man must be left to his own device to choose his path.
This is antithical to what theocrats believe. Look at Islam. In an Islamic state, you are coereced by the state into finding what the state deems as appropriate salvation. The penalty for refusing to take the path that the state has chosen for you is usually severe.
Your statement that Liberty did not exist prior to the 'claim of the state to be man's savior was denied'. That's not entirely accurate, but some of the cornerstones of the foundation of the philosophy of liberty itself were indeed laid by Christians. But the point that you didn't make, is that some the earliest ideals of libety came from individuals who wished to break with the traditions and mandates of the church itself. In later years, many of the ideas of liberty as it relates to intellectual freedom began to conflict directly with the church - such as during the Renaissance (the church would very frequently put to death anyone who proposed an idea that did not confirm to it's dogma). Even in early Colonial America, the philosophy of 'self-ownership' took root. See the following example regarding Sir Henry Vane (an early Massachusetts governor):
http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_liberal_en_80.php
Born into the English landed gentry, Sir Henry Vane early rejected the advantages of his class, becoming a Protestant Dissenter. This set him against the government of Charles I and Archbishop Laud and their desire for an absolutist state coupled with a government-sanctioned church based on the European model.
At age twenty two, Henry went out to live with his co-religionists in the newly-established American colonies. The Bostonians soon recognized his merits and elected him governor. But once again Vane saw himself at odds with the mainstream dissenters, who often saw freedom as no more than the right to belong to an approved dissenting church, and a free government as one that put down blasphemy and sin. Vane, however, believed in freedom in its liberal sense, as the right to use oneself as one pleased. Government's function was to protect this right, and if it went beyond this, the people might properly change it. He wrote, “All just executive power [arises] from the free will and gift of the people, [who might] either keep the power in themselves or give up their subjection into the hands and will of another, if they judge that thereby they shall better answer the end of government, to wit, the welfare and safety of the whole.”
If you want to get into a more extreme example, read up on John Locke. Jefferson (a devout deist) publicly scoffed at the dogma prescribed by some religions, but he also recognized the moral role that law had to play.
There is some great information at the Acton institute on how religion and the philosophy of liberty have intertwined over the years.
http://www.acton.org/about/a_history_of_liberty.php
My ultimate point is: real libertarians do not put stake in issues. Real libertarians are propoents of the philosophy of individual soveriegnty and self-ownership. A politcal party focuses on issues. Not all libertarians march in lockstep with a party.
You're talking as if all libertarians practice a form of groupthink. Libertarians believe in the sovereignty of the individual. The individual is left to determine faith's role in his own life, or whether he will have faith at all, and what in.If you're talking about personal salvation, then I agree. But as shown in R.J. Rushdoony's quote that I provided for Sloth, immoral acts (true moral behavior is based on God's laws and only God's laws) effects the lives of others.
If man needs a savior, as the article you quoted touts, libertarians believe he must be left to find that savior on his own. It is not the role of government to lead him to it, or even nudge him in a direction
Au contraire my friend. Again, if we're talking about personal salvation, i.e. a "ticket"to the afterlife, then you are correct. However, it is the role of government to do good. Attached is an excellent link by Dr. Archie P. Jones entitled "Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry".
"The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions. The performance — or lack of performance — of each inescapably influences the functioning of the other two."
"...the magistrate, the ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good" (vs. 4). The ruler is God's minister, His diakonos. He is a deacon, a laborer, a ministrant, an attendant to people for God. As the derivation of diakonos shows, he is one who runs errands: God's errands. In particular, he is to be a Christian teacher and pastor."
Link to Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry
This is antithical to what theocrats believe. Look at Islam. In an Islamic state, you are coereced by the state into finding what the state deems as appropriate salvation. The penalty for refusing to take the path that the state has chosen for you is usually severe.
As shown in the post to Sloth, "Christianity is held to be the most restrictive with its emphasis upon Biblical law as the foundation for morality and liberty."
I deal with comparisons of Christianity and Islam almost on a daily basis. The following link will hopefully help you understand the MAJOR differences between the two:
Link to Christianity vs Islam
If that's not convincing enough, I have a link that talks about rampant homosexuality in Afghanistan: "U.S. troops in Afghanistan are having a hard time understanding what is a strange Afghan cultural practice to them. The practice can be summed up in the ages old Afghan phrase, “women are for children, boys are for pleasure.”
Jefferson (a devout deist) publicly scoffed at the dogma prescribed by some religions, but he also recognized the moral role that law had to play
Yes, Jeffeson loathed the dogma of the Church of England, but truly did recognize God's moral laws and the role they played in the Christian nation that he help found.
My ultimate point is: real libertarians do not put stake in issues. Real libertarians are propoents of the philosophy of individual soveriegnty and self-ownership
You're confusing real liberty with what libertarians define as liberty in today's world. As shown in R. J. Rushdoony's statement in my reply to sloth: " Humanistic man wants total liberty, but he does not realize that total liberty leads only to total anarchy, and that leads to the death of law and liberty. Unless every man’s liberty is limited by law, no liberty is possible for any one."