Replies

Based on his [Jefferson's] quotes, he did not support your belief that it is the duty of government to support God's law, an particluarly the moral dictates of certain sects of Christianity.

Back to Dr. Archie P. Jones' article entitled "Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry:

The teaching, pastoring function of the ruler or magistrate is of crucial importance. We are popularly told today that the government should not seek to enforce morality — especially (Surprise!) Christian morality — because "you can't legislate morality." Clearly, this contention is at best a half-truth, and as such is a dangerous distortion. It is a distortion which fits quite well with the Humanist canard that "you can't mix religion and politics." All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another. By teaching men to obey the ruler or lawgiver's commands, via the punishment of those who disobey, who break the law, and by his personal example, the magistrate can do nothing else than teach people moral principles."

I highly doubt that Mr. Jefferson would disagree with that my friend, as the constitutional republic that he help found was based on the rule of law (God's laws, not the whims of man and his laws).

If Mr. Jefferson didn't agree with this statement: "All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword." would that not make him an anarchist?

My arguement to you was that the prohibiton of certain substances for consumption is the fruit of specific brands of religous dogma...not God's specific, codified law in the Bible -ie: Thou shalt not kill, thou shall not committ adultery, etc. You haven't really provided any proof to the contrary on that.

Genesis 9:20-27 A ”man of distinction” and the tragic consequences of his drunkenness. Genesis 19:30-38 Drinking results in Lot’s debauchery of his own daughters. Leviticus 10:8-11 The Lord commanded Aaron and his sons not to drink either wine or strong drink while rendering service for God. Numbers 6:3 The vow of the Nazarite excluded drinking wine and strong drink. Deuteronomy 21:20 "Drinking is one of the attributes of a stubborn, rebellious, and disobedient son." Judges 13:4, 7, 14 Samson’s mother was expressly commanded by the angel of the Lord not to drink wine or strong drink. I Samuel 25: 36-38 "Nabal, an evil, drinking man was smitten by the Lord." II Samuel 11:13 "By the use of strong drink, David led Uriah into a fatal trap." (there's many many more).
Bible and Alcohol

Speaking of which - if it's government's job to legislate God's law...why is there no federal statute making adultrey a crime? Since this is more noticably codified in God's law than the consumption of substances...it would reason based on your logic, that there would be a federal mandate against it.

You know as well as I do that those laws were left up to the individual States:
Adultery - Criminal Laws, Enforcement Of Statutes, As A Defense, Divorce, Cross-references

Regarding your link showing statistics from the 1920's and Prohibition: Remember we were dealing with largely a religious people back then. This was pre 1963 when atheist Madeline Murray O'Hare had God removed from our public school system. Since then, God has been removed from many sectors of public life. It wasn't like that back then. How about we look at what alcohol has done to our society post 1920...more specifically, today:

•In the U.S. on an annual basis, more than one third of pedestrians killed by automobiles were legally drunk.
•As many as 3 million Americans over the age of 60 are alcoholics or have serious drinking problems.
•In the United States, research has demonstrated that continued alcohol abuse is one of the major risk factors for violence in intimate relationships.
•According to recent studies, it has been discovered that approximately 53% of adults in the United States have reported that one or more of their close relatives has a drinking problem.
•Studies have shown that the drinking patterns of employed women are different from those of women not employed outside the home, with less abstinence, increased consumption and greater frequency of drinking occasions observed among employed women.
•There are approximately 14 million people in the United States addicted to alcohol and millions more who display symptoms of alcohol abuse, including binge drinking.
•Low to moderate doses of alcohol can increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse.
•Twenty one percent of workers reported being injured or put in danger, having to re-do work or to cover for a co-worker or needing to work harder due to others' drinking. •Approximately 14 million Americans, about 7.4 percent of the adult population, meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or alcoholism.
•Alcoholism and alcohol abuse are the third leading cause of the preventable deaths in the United States. •Nearly one-fourth of all U.S. people who are admitted to general hospitals have alcohol problems or are undiagnosed alcoholics being treated for the consequences of their drinking.
•In one U.S. study, employees who were in serious trouble with alcohol showed significant improvement in drinking behavior and job adjustment during the months immediately following an intervention to confront the alcohol abuse that was negatively affecting their work.
•American work roles with little or no supervision and those characterized by high mobility are associated with increased rates of problem drinking.
•One of every 130 licensed drivers in the United States has been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
•Up to 40 percent of the U.S. industrial fatalities and 47 percent of industrial injuries can be linked to alcohol abuse and alcoholism.
•In the U.S., 25% of all emergency room admissions, 33% of all suicides, and more than 50% of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol-related. •In the United States, the correlation between the battering of women and alcohol abuse is the highest for men who believe that male control and power over women are acceptable in various situations.
(They always neglect to state one of my favorites: those poor innocent little babies that are born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (I'll spare the pictures my friend).
Alcohol abuse statistics

An overbearing, energetic government that makes criminals out of people for their exercise of free will and human nature what we libertarians refer to a 'moral tyranny', and we have plenty of statistics to back up that notion.

As shown, by legislating something that is against God's word, you only "urge particular actions".

Look at what other unGodly legislation besides alcohol has done to our society: Pornography, hugely responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family, an institution that is the nucleus of our society.

Abortion: Not only responsible for the murder of 45+ million innocent unborns in the past 37 years, but has also ruined many lives (and marriages) through the guilt that both the women and men involved carry with them.

Man is sinful by nature. We all battle the desire to commit sinful acts; acts that God disapproves of.

The major difference between a Christian conservative like me, and a libertarian like you, is that I don't want to legislate sin.

The major difference between a Christian conservative like me, and a libertarian like you, is that I don't want to legislate sin.

Not quite friend :) The differences between you and I as that I have awoken to the repeated failings of the attempt to legislate against human free will, nature, and behavior. And I have provided hard statistics to back up it's failure, vs. the simple pontification of clergymen who, in their individual interpretation of God's word, feel it is morally justified. Religious interpretation is best left up to the clergy, not lawmakers.

If Mr. Jefferson didn't agree with this statement: "All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword." would that not make him an anarchist?

Mr. Jefferson SAW THE NEED for the separation of government from the enforcement of the moral dictates of particular sects of religion. That is the point you are failing to see. I'll offer another three quotes to back this up:

Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:545

We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church.-- Thomas Jefferson,

The clergy ... [wishing to establish their particular form of Christianity] ... believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

Earlier, you suggested that I was twisting the word libertarian to suit my needs. Well, I'll counter that you are similary smudging the meaning of atheist into a word meaning 'one witout morals.', when in actuality, it means 'one without belief'. In fact, Jefferson was keen to point out that even the majority of atheists seem to be bound by a basic moral code despite the lack of faith in a particluar relgiion, despite the lack of a code of religious law to adhere to

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law,

My last Jefferson quotation, which is probably his most eloquent statement on stripping the dogma and dictates from the so called 'word' of particular sects of religion and codifying it federal law:

We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select even from the very words of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led by forgetting often or not understanding what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. -- Thomas Jefferson,

The moral tyranny that you promote has utterly failed as a political initiative. It's failed as much the same way as socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, and has left us with the framework of a nanny state that you described very well a few posts back. The statistics I've provided wholly prove my statement and my stance. And yet, to my shock and chagrin, there is still a contigent of so called 'conservatives' that insists it will work if only 'tried a different way'. I disagree, and I've heard that before, friend.