Replies

This reminds me of one of my favorite Jefferson quotes: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

I really should have posted the revised sentence of Rushdoony's statement that I added to Sloth's post to make it even clearer: "Unless every man's liberty is limited by either self restraint through God's laws, or limited through coercion by man's laws, no liberty is possible for anyone."

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson: this is also the same man that said "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gifts of God?-that they are not to be violated except with his wrath?" (Page 167 of the 1060 page book entitled "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States".).

While Jefferson by today's standards might be called a liberal unitarian, he by no standards was a moral relativist atheist.

Which brings me to my next point: Christians and libertarians have different defintions when it comes to the word "liberty" (i.e. "freedom"). Libertarians at worst are moral relativist atheists that believe all moral decisions should be made in their "sovereign" mind. Those decisions usually come from the mindset (as I'd mentioned before) involving direct injury to another person due to said libertarians actions.

At best, libertarians (like yourself) are "ala carte" Christians, they get to "pick and choose" which of God's laws they want to abide by. Your statement of being pro-life; followed by your stance on the legalization of drugs proves just that.

Now we've come to the "nitty gritty" part of the debate: I consider myself a Christian conservative. I feel "free" because I don't partake in things like pornography, prostitution or drug abuse. While all human beings constantly struggle with sinful temptations, through my "moral self restraint" I don't need laws to keep me from hurting others; hence I feel "free" in two senses of the word (free from the sinful behavior itself, and free from man's laws).

Libertarians on the other hand think that they're "free" if they have the freedom to do pretty much anything, as long as it doesn't directly hurt another person. They fail to see that they are "slaves" to those things that God see's as sinful; and they fail to see that they are indeed slaves to a government that esentially has a cop on every corner, a camera in every public area and a metal detector in every doorway; all due to their immoral behavior, which indeed DOES hurt society in general.

They get to "pick and choose" which of God's laws they want to abide by. Your statement of being pro-life; followed by your stance on the legalization of drugs proves just that.

Please enlighten me on which of God's laws calls for the prohibition of drugs by the state. I don't recall reading that anywhere. Does it explicitly state this?

A similar tact was taken by the prohibitionists, who attempted to scrub all references to alcohol from the Bible. Verses like 1 Timothy 5:23 didn't fit with their dogma (Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.)

They fail to see that they are "slaves" to those things that God see's as sinful; and they fail to see that they are indeed slaves to a government that esentially has a cop on every corner, a camera in every public area and a metal detector in every doorway; all due to their immoral behavior, which indeed DOES hurt society in general.

Wow...where to begin. Someone is only a slave to something insofar as much as their free will allows it to control their lives in excess. Even the verse above suggests that God did not abhor the consumption of alcohol in moderation. Alcohol is a drug. For most people, in moderation, it does absolutely no harm.

I'll ask again, where does the scripture expressly prohibit the consumption of an herb? How do you factor Genisis 1:29 into that non-existent statement of prohbition?

And do you really think that 'metal detectors' are the fruit of immoral libertarian behavior? So it's now immoral to concealed carry? I thought we were having an intelligent conversation here ;) Maybe this 'nanny-state' is a place in which you care to live. But me? No thanks.

While Jefferson by today's standards might be called a liberal unitarian, he by no standards was a moral relativist atheist.

I never said he was. Jefferson was pretty much an Anglican and also a self proclaimed 'diest'. But this again reminds me of a favorite quote of his:

I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. -- Thomas Jefferson

He also VEHEMENTLY rejected your notion of the goal that Christianity, or that any religious law be used to produce a citizenry with such uniform behavior patterns as you describe:

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. -- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson did believe in moral law (see the quote on my FR page), but he absolutely did not believe in government endorsing the moral dictates of a particular religion, that is EXACLTY the opposite of what Jefferson believed.

The impious presumption of legislators and and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;... -- Thomas Jefferson

Few listened to him, or his words were forgotten. For this is how we have arrived at the nanny-state you so eloquently described in your last paragraph.