Posted on 03/28/2002 11:30:11 AM PST by afuturegovernor
The Druidic Candidate
Can California deal with a Druid for governor?
by Victor D. Infante
In a country just now coming to grips with its millions of Muslim residents, and in a county that not long ago freaked out about the construction of a Hindu temple in Buena Park, a Druid running for governor is bound to raise eyebrows. But Libertarian gubernatorial candidate and Druid Gary Copeland doesnt just tolerate the flak: he welcomes it, like a guy who wrote the kick-me note he stuck on his own backeven when the flak is fired by fellow Libertarians.
"It doesnt bother me at all," says Copeland. "Its not an issue with me. Its their issue, not mine. When people speak, they speak for who they are. . . . Its my path to serve, and Im doing that. I know not everyones going to agree, but thats okay."
But everythings not entirely okay. Copeland doesnt mask his annoyance at a Newsweek article that dismissed him as a "whacko" or with postings on a Libertarian e-mail list that chastised him for noting that hes a Druid in the California voters guide, although he didnt note that he once advocated the use of LSD for spiritual purposes.
Indeed, it seems theres unease within the party over Copelands unconventional religious beliefsa "culture of peer pressure," Copeland calls itthat one wouldnt expect from the liberty-loving Libs. Its as if its all right for Copeland to harbor unusual religious beliefs so long as he doesnt talk much about them.
"Since Libertarians are a third party, we find it difficult to be taken seriously or to be considered by voters," says Mark Murphy, director of a group called Libertarian Activists and a former member of the Orange County Libertarian Party Central Committee. "Obviously, we want voters to see we arent any different from many of them. So, when Garywhos a friend of mine, by the waydeclares himself a Druid, theres a concern that trying to be taken seriously just went out the window."
Doug Scribner disagrees. "Im upset that people would find his beliefs a setback to his candidacy. After all, how many Christian politicians openly proclaim their beliefs in ballot guides?" says Scribner, vice chairman of the countys Libertarian Party.
Copeland remains philosophical about the criticism; indeed, he remains philosophical about everything. When you talk to him, hes philosophical at a hundred miles per hour and will frequently answer questions as if hes reading from a Celtic I Ching. Why is he running for governor, for instance? "Because the path brought me here," he says.
It can be kind of frustrating. But beneath it, theres a refreshing sense that Copeland is deeply invested in his beliefs, both as a Druid and a Libertarian.
"Its an asset," he says. "I love my Druidry as much as I love my Libertarianism. I describe myself as an existentialist libertarian Druid. If I cant find an answer from one philosophy, I go to another. Anything thats indefinable, I go to Druidry."
Copeland says Druidry is a Celtic philosophy of magic, similar to the more popular Wicca. Its a circle of logic and spirituality based on the ideal of service to otherslike The Lion King minus the cheesy soundtrack. One of the central tenets of Druidry is that no one should have authority over anyone but himself or herselfa point Copeland illustrates with a reference to The Lord of the Rings, noting that the ring Frodo carries has "so much power that, even if you did good things with it, it would pervert, subvert and seduce you."
"That is the basis of all Celtic philosophy: that absolute power corrupts absolutely."
That idea led Copeland to the steadfastly secular Libertarian Party. Around 1980, Copeland was working with Timothy Learys Brotherhood of Eternal Love to spread the gospel of LSD and enlightenment when he got busted. Fortunately for him, he says, he was screwing the narcotics agent. Not wanting to deal with that, he says, the cops charged him only with low-level possession.
"I was using LSD to be spiritually enlightened," he says. "I was one of those peyote people who for thousands of years had been using hallucinogens to connect to the spiritual world. Who were the cops to tell me I couldnt?"
Soon after, he began running the Orange County branch of NORML, the marijuana-legalization folks, and soon after that, he fell in with the anti-prohibitionist Libertarians. In 1992, he ran for Congress against Dana Rohrabacherhimself a former Libertarianand got killed, garnering just 7.7 percent of the vote. In 96, he ran for county supervisor, beating the Democrat in the racewhich tells you something about the state of the Democratic Party in Orange County. He has worked in computers and recently founded his own company, NextCure, which will distribute information on drugs under FDA review.
None of this really gives him a leg up in the gubernatorial race against überbland rivals Davis and Simon, but Copeland would rather run as he is than tailor his biography and message for the mainstream.
"The problem with most politicians is that theyre pretending to be something theyre not," he says. "Theyre trying to be something outside their natures. They think people wont like them if theyre different. But people like to go to a taco stand and try different tacos. Im not stupid; when I put the Druid thing in, I knew it would be a hook. If I hadnt done it, I wouldnt be talking to you right now."
Then without any possibility of proving it, the original claim that I was responding to, that what the bible states is 100% accurate, is insupportable.
So, you posed a question that you know can't be proved and then you use that impossibility to state that the event could not have happened only because it can't be proved to you. Thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty, goat.
I don't make naked assertions. I'm a scientist. Actually, an engineer...which is even better. ;-)
There is absolutely nothing that the Bible affirms that is even remotely mythical. What the Bible affirms is 100% true.
Well, I don't know what the Bible is "asserting" and what it's simply joking. But if the Bible is "asserting" that a boat was built on which 2 of ALL the animals on earth were kept, for 40 days and 40 nights, ~4000 year ago...that's simply nonsense.
And if you think it's anything BUT nonsense, I challenge you and your like-minded brethren to build such a boat, and get 2 of EVERY animal on earth, and put them on that boat, for 40 days and 40 nights. You couldn't come even CLOSE to building such a boat...even with today's technology. Plus, you would spend more than 1 lifetime (I guess that was easy for Noah, because he lived 400+ years? ;-)) even collecting all those animals. By the time you collected the last two polar bears, the first two giraffes would be dead.
The literal story of the Ark is absolute nonsense. Simple myth. Maybe some old guy and his family lived on a boat with a handful of animals, 4000 years ago. But the very idea of building a boat and putting two of ALL the animals on earth on that boat, for 40 days and 40 nights, 4000 years ago, is nonsens. Or a matter of faith. Take your pick.
If you ever get serious, what you are scoffing at the edges of has been worked out, and there is nothing incredible about Noah and his ark whatever.
Engineer, eh? That's great. My two year old loves trains. (c;
Dan
What does this even mean? Are you attempting to tell me that the myth of Noah and the Ark does NOT involve a man and his family and friends building a ship 4000 years ago, and finding two of EVERY animal on earth, and putting it on that ship for 40 days and 40 nights, while the rain flooded and killed EVERY ANIMAL and EVERY PERSON who wasn't on that Ark? If you ever get serious, what you are scoffing at the edges of has been worked out, and there is nothing incredible about Noah and his ark whatever.
Unless you are saying that my knowledge of the Ark myth is faulty, that you don't find the Ark myth even slightly incredible shows that you are blinded to reason and to any shred of skepticism by your religious faith.
If my understanding of the Ark myth is correct, and you think it's NOT incredible, then why the hell don't you and your nutty friends get together and build another Ark, and put 2 of EVERY ANIMAL on earth into that Ark, for 40 days and 40 nights?
If you did that, THAT would be science. When Thor Heyerdahl did his Kon Tiki and Win Tiki voyages, THAT was science. (Something that *I* know about.) Science involves demonstrating something is possible. And the more bizarre the claim--and the Ark claim is pretty bizarre, unless I don't know the "real" myth--the MORE evidence is needed.
Noah and his Ark are myth. Not science. That's why scientists don't debate it.
FormerLib: ...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. An important omission on your part.
The alleged resurrection of Christ is the only claim of truth in the Bible? Therefore, we can all (properly!) regard Noah and his Ark as mere myth?
And now that YOU brought the alleged resurrection into the debate (I was going to leave that one alone)...just how has the resurrection been proven?
None of us posting here really exist. What you read is actually coming from God. She's playing with your mind.
Look, I didn't start this. The person who started it was a Christian, who claimed that Christianity was The Truth, and Druidism merely mythology.
But while we're on the subject...I have NO beliefs. I'm merely persuaded into thinking various assertions are true, based on evidence. The evidence that the assertion that Noah and the Ark are mere mythology is overwhelming. That's why Noah and the Ark isn't taught in any science class.
You can keep on saying it, until you're blue in the face. What you say is completely meritless, UNLESS, 1) you can point to someone OUTSIDE the donors to Harry Browne's campaign who was hurt by the alleged corruption, or 2) you yourself gave to Harry Browne's campaign.
As I'm fairly certain neither is the case, I really don't care what you say. OUR Party took absolutely ZERO taxpayer money in 2000. That action of principle was LEAD by Harry Browne, who refused $1 MILLION in taxpayer funding...even though he only had $2 million without that money. The Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party were the ONLY parties that refused taxpayer funds. I say that makes us principled.
You seem to be looking for a reason not to vote Libertarian. There are any number of reasons not to vote Libertarian. We are the ONLY party that will work to: 1) completely legalize all drugs, 2) abolish ALL federal government departments, agencies, and programs that are unconstitutional (which is probably nearly 90% of what the federal government does), 3) bring ALL troops back from foreign lands, except during times of war, 4) work to sell or give away ALL federal government lands, and many more controversial things. We will work to do that because THAT is our principle...that the government's ONLY legitimate function is to protect people from physical harm or fraud.
I mean, the Damnocrats had their Clinton. The Republican'ts had their Nixon.
Why didn't you write, "The Republican'ts have their G.W. Bush?" Do you not think that G.W. Bush has been MUCH more corrupt than Harry Browne???
G.W. Bush pledged during his campaign to veto Campaign Finance Reform as unconstitutional. Much more important, he swore an OATH (on the Bible) to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." He shamelessly and corruptly violated that oath. Why aren't you counting THAT?
But I was entirely unaware, as I cast my vote for Mr. Browne, of the matters I enunciated above (I did not learn about them until about two or three months following the election). Had I been aware of them, I would probably not have voted for him.
And you would have instead voted for a corpse? Now THAT would be a quite puzzling message to the man who was actually elected! (In reality, the man who was elected would probably never know you cast your vote for a corpse, because the reported election results don't usually include nutty votes.)
Once again: power corrupts. If you saw Harry Browne at the Judicial Watch debate on ethics in government, he said (as usual) one of the most perceptive and true statements. He said that power corrupts. So people in power are corrupt. Even if they are "good guys," the power corrupts them. (Just like in the #1 libertarian film of 2001, "Lord of the Rings.")
The SOLUTION is to give the people in power as little power as possible. To keep the power with The People. To quote Jefferson (not exactly, I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote, "Let no be heard of confidence in men, but let us bind them from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."
Harry Browne, more than ANY candidate, would have attempted to do that. There is NO doubt in my mind about that. (Howard Phillips wouldn't have been so awful in that regard...but he wouldn't have been as good as Harry Browne.)
You voted correctly. If you gave money to the Browne campaign, or can figure out how people who did NOT give money to his campaign were hurt by his ALLEGED actions, then you have a legitimate beef. But, speaking as a person who DID give money to both the Libertarian Party AND the Browne campaign, I'm still absolutely convinced that I did the right thing. We need to be aware of the problem, and attempt to make sure it doesn't happen again, but it's nothing like corruption that has already been evidenced from the G.W. Bush administration. (And I'm sure would have been evidenced in the Gore administration.)
I'll take a limited government Druid over a big government RINO most any day.
But if, on the other hand, this has nothing to do with evidence, if you just think that the history of the Ark is an easy target to make excuses for avoiding God and whatever personal ways you find Him and His word inconvenient, then I shall expect another blustering, billowing, contentless outburst.
Which is it to be?
Dan
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.