Posted on 08/14/2003 12:57:16 PM PDT by Korth
I believe we can do better, and I think that the best way to preserve religious freedom is to be willing to preserve freedoms for people whose lifestyles and beliefs often seem antithetical to Christianity....
Conservative Christians, I believe, will come to regret their foray into coercive politics, as though the modern American state can even be used to promote and protect liberty – or even civilization, for that matter. Unfortunately, when they come to regret giving the state increasing powers, that epiphany will come long after the state has used those same political powers to disenfranchise Christians.
Outstanding essay, Korth. Thank you so much for posting it.
The Libertarian Party does not equal libertarianism.
... anti constitutional repression (( isn't that in regards to religious liberty the mother of all oxymorons - contradictions ))
b ...
I keep bringing it up all over FR, but PA passed a bill 12/02 "Ethnic Intimidation" which outlaws perceived offenses by communication or address. Essentially, it outlaws things like those 4 scriptures in the posted article. Thus, it is anti-Constitutional by limiting free speech and freedom of religion - and all through our state gov who is to uphold the Constitution. Where's the ... outrage?
Spectator article by Peter Hitchens ...
"After the case of Dr David Kelly and all that has followed, this is not terribly reassuring. Others might suggest that democracy itself is the rock on which our society is built. But democracy, without the restraint of law and tradition, easily turns into a tyranny of the majority. It has no special virtue of its own, and with its intolerance of minorities and its tendency to elective dictatorship and crowd-pleasing it often threatens liberty, without which democracy is not all that much use. The Thatcherites seemed to think that the market could replace religion, a folly that hastened their downfall and left them morally and culturally empty. As for the left-wing virtues of the egalitarian social conscience, unlike individual conscience this tends to lead people to think that their acts of power and war are justified, not restrained, by the higher good they serve. In many ways they are ... more autocratic — if they get the chance — then any mediaeval Christian monarch would have dared to be. History, they proclaim, will forgive them."
Our choice is ...
# 1 - the invisible hand --- ' markets ' ...
or ...
# 2 - the sock puppets ... social engineers - freaks with the iron (( pink )) fist (( 3rdwayers - liberals )) !
In England - Australia ... classical conservatives are aptly call liberals which is accurate ---
the social engineers require activism - FORCE (( nazis )) and are called socialists - conservatives - ' reformers ' - CONTROLLERS !
"No" from what he wrote on Roe v. Wade, "yes" from what he wrote on the sodomy decision.
Either one can come out either way depending on the foundations of the libertarian position one espouses. Since the U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about sex (or laws pertaining to it) then a libertarian can consistantly argue that the recent Lawrence sodomy decision was unconstitutional...(while a full bore libertarian would oppose state and local laws on sodomy as none of the governments business).
Roe v. Wade was clearly an unconstitutional decision....again, since the Constitution is silent on issues of sex and abortion. A libertarian who believes life begins at conception is just as pro-life as a conservative...as one of government's sole functions is to protect innocent life. That's fully consistant with libertarian principles.
At the same time most libertarians oppose (using J. Stuart Mill's priniciples) sodomy laws, or any laws that affect private behavior--when other than the voluntary participants, no one else is directly affected. Mr. Williams is saying if we want to keep government's nose out of religious life, we should then also keep it out of people's sex lives.
Personally I'm not fully libertarian--however small "l" libertarian arguments are very consistant, and make a lot of sense, once you take the time to get past the "conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues" stereotype.
Most libertarians I know think the Libertarian Party is something of a joke, by the way....
For example, I'm sure it came as an amusing surprize to many Americans a couple months ago when they learned, due to the Supreme Court's sodomy decision, that certain consensual sex acts were illegal in several states. Amusing, of course, because the idea of anyone being sent to prison for such things is so absurd as to be laughable. Even more laughable is the idea that such silly laws would actually prevent anyone from engaging in these acts if they were so disposed. But by supporting and defending these kinds of unenforceable laws -- and by making them central to their social/cultural plan of action -- social conservatives damage their own credibility. Meanwhile, there may be other, less coercive, but more effective, ways to deal with perceived social problems that go unconsidered due to the focus being at a different level.
And when people know that law enforcement either can't or won't enforce a law, they will engage in the prohibited activity with gusto if they wish to. The law then becomes a joke. How that serves any purpose other than reducing general respect for the law is unknown to me.
I respect religious people and even share many of their values, but this tendency to want to use the criminal justice system as a social reformer of first resort is very disturbing.
Boy, if that doesn't ring true.
Wow, you're a real deep thinker.
Take your place with FR's other anti-libertarian automatons. It's getting really boring.
Eerie...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.