Libertarianism and Religious Freedom (Christians and Liberty)

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.

and this has ALWAYS been my conviction.
for this I am the "antichrist" because I believe in the same dangers... ones that the founders alluded to often and incorporated into our laws as best they could.

we will get all the laws in place to enforce righteousness, just in time for the prince of unrighteousness to take power and use them against us and our children.

libertarian leaning pubbies get this.
bible thumpers often... do not... but the writer of this essay... seems to.

Thanks for the *PING*.

I do not consider myself a libertarian, little "l" or big "L"; I am not sure what I consider myself to be...which may be a good thing.

The author talks about the possibility of the loss of tax-exempt status that the Church may face as a result of taking stances against the encroachment of government into the traditional fields of influence that Faith has held for so many hundreds of years, I think that the Church should voluntarily give up their tax-exempt status.

They need to do that, and whatever else they can do to remove from themselves the vestiges of intrusion into their sphere of influence by the laws of man. I agree with the author in that respect.

This whole Ten Commandments thing has forced me to do a lot of reading, trying to figure out what the Founders thought about Church and State, and their co-existence in the American experiment; frankly, I was surprised at what I found…and delighted.

I guess the best way that I can summarize what I read in the letters and thoughts of men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al. is that at the junction between civil government and religion lies corruption. One will corrupt the other, and both will stop performing their assigned duties becoming something other that what they are intended to be.

These visionaries feared men who would mouth scripture to gain political power, equally as they feared those who would guide God’s sheep in the direction of he who would provide the most political support for their sect. When you blur the lines between tending to the needs of government and tending to the soul of man tyranny raises its head, when you eliminate those lines altogether and both institutions become as one, it rules the day.

Thanks again for calling this to my attention.

I think that the author makes some valid points, though I think his motivation is wrong. He seems to be outlining a change in strategy for a certain movement, to act more righteously, in order to experience less suffering at the hands of the government. I have always believed that one should do the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do.

Aside from that, to address a few issues that were mentioned in the text...

Government using coercion to influence a citizens behavior is wrong, if not used to prevent the citizen from violating the rights of another. Likewise, it is wrong for a faction to lobby the government to engage in said coercion. What does this mean?

Homosexual behavior between consenting adults, within the privacy of their private property is nobody's business but theirs. Do not outlaw it - it is none of our business. Such activity in a public rest area IS the business of other people - outlaw it and enforce the law through prevention and/or punishment.

Abortion, if you believe that life begins at conception, as I do, is a violation of the rights of the child. Therefore government coercion to prevent or punish this act is proper. Yes, even in instances of rape and incest - it is still a child.

Government has no business regulating who consenting adults may marry or how many of them may marry. Marriage is a religious union, not a government program. On that same note, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals have any business lobbying the state to recognize their marriage/union - your personal life is not my business, so don't force it upon me.

In the case of Georgetown University, both parties were wrong, but the government had the upper hand, because GU sold its soul for the government's dirty money.

I agree. He is suggesting that Christians make a bargain with the devil to keep the money (their exempt tax status).

The first amendment is why religious groups are tax exempt.

Congress can make NO law respecting an establishment of religion.

How can you pass a law to tax religions, when you're forbidden to make any kind of law about religion?

My sense is that people misunderstand the 1st amendment for the same reason they misunderstand the 2nd amendment. They don't read what it actually says.

"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. Instead of trying to use the police powers of the state to arrest homosexuals, Christians should be willing to protect the freedoms of individuals who engage in peaceful conduct on their own property that all parties have freely agreed to do – even if that conduct may seem to be disgusting to many people."

I have to say that I agree, and that the responses by many in this thread is precisely why I no longer vote Republican.

To expect others to respect our rights to things such as gun ownership, while at the same time trying to infringe upon their rights is amusing at best.

And honestly.....is it really "our" or "their" rights that we're talking about?

We have a Constitution in this country. Either we support and defend it completely, or we can use it for toilet paper as the "liberals" have done for years.

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. Instead of trying to use the police powers of the state to arrest homosexuals, Christians should be willing to protect the freedoms of individuals who engage in peaceful conduct on their own property that all parties have freely agreed to do – even if that conduct may seem to be disgusting to many people. By protecting private property rights, Christians will help protect their own freedoms to worship.

He seems a little behind the curve. It's not a question of homosexuals who "engage in peaceful conduct on their own property" (in private I assume), but rather of those imposing their lifestyle and values on society and in the public schools.

At my daughters' highschool, 3-6 years ago it was cool to be gay. To rebel against parents, or to seek attention when not getting it from parents, Teens chose to claim gay behavior.

It is similar to when teens do unnatural things like pierce their bodies in unnatural ways. It doesn't make sense but they do it. These teens were praised by the teachers, administration and human relations staff for their progressive breaking down of barriers and prejudice.

Most of those gay teens from my older daughter's class are now dead. My older daughter's closest friend killed himself this summer, despite being accepted and praised for choosing the gay life.

Now my youngest daughter reports that between her freshman year and current senior year there has been a big shift in opinion. It is no longer cool to be gay among the students. In fact, it is now cool to ridicule the gay lifestyle with words like loser and deathwish.

But gay is still the preferred position of the administration and teachers. This leads to a lot of disrespect of elders and authority that teachers want to cram down the students' throats.

The catalyst for homosexuals having any ability to "impose" their lifestyle on us is due to us using our government to define what is normal. We require marriage licenses and our government officially recognizes marriages and takes that official recognition into consideration for purposes of taxation, income redistribution, and other legal procedures. It is none of the government's business to approve or not approve of who marries who. The government exists to secure our rights. Because our government has overstepped its bounds, we find ourselves in the midst of a battle to determine which "unions" the government will recognize and which ones it will not. Had government stayed in its lane, in the first place, this would not be a problem. Government should not recognize any marriage or "union", whether it be a man and woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a bunch of men and/or women. It is none of the government's business. When we allow our government to expand into those areas that do not involve the defense of our rights, we run into problems - and we deserve it.

Government should not recognize any marriage or "union", whether it be a man and woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a bunch of men and/or women. It is none of the government's business.

I agree. Regarding homosexual 'marriage', if anything is done in the name of 'equality', it makes much more sense to simply not recognize any unions of any kind, instead of giving, in this case, homosexual 'unions' the same right as traditional marriage. You then have to address polygamous unions, incestuous unions, etc.

And yes, the main problem is that government has continually imposed itself into more and more things. Government can not be neutral. It must side with some worldview, some philosophy of 'the way things should be'. This is why I'm in favor of a more federal and decentralized government, so people could all have their own states where they can believe what they want without government dictating what that is. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen, so the only alternative is to fight for one's own beliefs. The only question is what kind of centralized too-powerful government we'll have, not whether we'll have one.

And yes, the main problem is that government has continually imposed itself into more and more things. Government can not be neutral. It must side with some worldview... The only question is what kind of centralized too-powerful government we'll have, not whether we'll have one.

In other words, a goal of perpetual conflict over using the tools of power between individuals, societies, and states, as weapon technologies progress to simpler and simpler means of development, till we all kill each other. Such defeatism.

I for one believe there's a better way.

It's not a goal. I feel it's just the natural tendency of human beings to want to control their environment, which leads to a desire to control other human beings, which leads to larger government. You can't ignore human nature. Government in the past has been limited by the technology of the time, so the only sure long-term way of truly reducing government is to reduce technology and I like my computer too much. :-)

'Pacifism is an ideal, war is a fact.'

I don't recall who said it (I think Napolean or possibly Thomas Carlyle), but I thought you would appreciate it. I of course recognize the truth of it. I also recognize the truism of your Nietzschean "Will to Power" outlook, as well as the reality that such does lead to larger government. Where we part company, is on the "human nature" end of it. I see human nature as much more dynamic, with a great many more tendencies competing for control of both the individual as well as the state (of things, to include government). Thus I lack your pessimism.

Government in the past has been limited by the technology of the time, so the only sure long-term way of truly reducing government is to reduce technology and I like my computer too much.

But equally, so also have individuals been limited by technology. As I see it, technology of today enables the individual with strengths and potentials never before imagined. With that, comes a power that government will not be able to keep up with. I see a much, much smaller government coming in the next few decades. The only fear is what new kinds of violence government will perpetrate, as it gasps to maintain its hold on people.

In short, government as we have known it in the past is obsolete. Its services are for the most part no longer needed. Its power base has cracked.

This man is delusional, anyone that thinks that conservative christians have hurt this country with their ideas, policies and actions fail to realize this country was started by conservative christians.

I think you misinterpret the thrust of the essay. The author is not saying that conservative christians have hurt this country, but rather that they have hurt, and continue to hurt, themselves in two ways -- both their ability to practice their faith without government interference and their ability to influence the hearts and minds of others in a positive way.

Lead by example, not by coersion.

Below are some of the Communist Goals for destroying America (published way back in the 60's) look how closely they mirror the libertarian agenda today.

--------------------------------------------

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch.

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." Recall article 52 of the Soviet Constitution: "The church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state and the school from the church." (Article 52)

Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Compare the above list to some of the libertarian party's platform: -----------------------------------

the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;

the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards";

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning: Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;

We advocate a strict separation of church and State.

We condemn the attempts by parents... to force children to conform to any religious views.

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.

I agree. The trouble I see with Conservative Christians is they believe on the one hand that they can use law to enforce behavior they find in violation of their religious beliefs. Moreover, they generally believe that rule of law will solve these societal ills.

On the other hand, they preach that law (Mosaic or otherwise) cannot save them from themselves. Well, then, why are they trying to force people to behave through our system of law?

The trend I see as a result of Conservative Christian policy-making is exactly what the Congregationalists were trying to escape from our English brothers-state sanctioned religion. The real danger of this is it's insatiable draw toward a fascist regime.

While I truly believe that our Founders built our system of government upon Christian principles, and while I also believe that their moral life was intricately connected to their political life, there is no evidence whatsoever of the kind of policy-making we see coming from the influence of the Christian Right today.

Their type of activity in policy-making suggests to me that first, they having little understanding of the true message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and second, how that understanding is the very essence of freedom. This whole spiritual as well as political war we all suffer is ultimately related to one side who wants to force obedience to what they believe is right to the other who understands that freedom does not hinge on forced obedience.

The latter understands that there is opposition in all things. Forcing the evil to be good is an evil within itself. Good i.e. freedom, is best expressed by the example one sets and the fruits he receives as a result. Evil is persuaded by good acts, and not force of law.

Arrowhead------lawless laws----->

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.