[JamesP81]

The foudning fathers based our nation upon the requirement of a republic to support and foster virtue, as well as to protect rights and liberties.

That hasn't worked well. People who are compelled to be virtuous because of law aren't actually virtuous. I suppose by your standards, adultery and homosexuality should be illegal.

Actually, the both of you are at least somewhat right. Government is instituted among men to secure rights and liberties. See the Declaration of Independence; it says as such in plain language. However, our government and society cannot function without people of virtue in it. Or, as John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Our government depends on people of virtue and, frankly, depends on the Church to be society's moral conscience. The Forefathers understood the necessity of this, which is why much of our legal code is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian ehtics, as it should be. Unfortunately, we are now in this situation where libertarians have difficutly advocated limited government type positions without also helping those who would use their freedom for immorality and debauchery. The Church, seeing this happen, feels obligated to do something to stop it, and since big government is the flavor of the century, mistakenly turns to legislation on some issues to solve it.

You know, people didn't use to smoke crack, get divorced, or committ adultery as frequently as they do now. There was a time when that stuff was socially stigmatized. This was a good thing. Now that that stigma is lost, I'm not sure we can ever get it back.

Libertarians might be right on the function of government, but they don't help their own cause, especially on the abortion issue. It's hard to take seriously someone who talks about liberty and securing rights when they'll allow someone to deprive a totally innocent person of his life through the barbaric act of abortion.

On the other hand, we in the Church have our own problem. At some point, society told the Church it shouldn't involve itself in anything political. The Church incorrectly interpreted the verse about 'rendering unto Caesar' and did as it was told. By doing so we've surrendered our moral authority, one of the threads that holds our republic together. Drugs were legal in this country up until the 20th century, but we didn't have a drug problem. Why? Because it was so looked down upon by society, and rightly so, that few people did it. When the Church gave up the moral authority to stigmatize sinful behavior, we did the greatest disservice we could to this republic and now, it will take nothing short of an act of God to restore that.

[unspun]

Yes, virtue supports liberty. A virtuous government for a virtuous people. I certainly wouldn’t have it to be the opposite.

There is no mutual exclusivity between virtue and the support of rights, although rights depend upon virtue, lest rights be unfortunately relinquished to either chaos or the need to generate order virtuously out of it.

Madison’s quote, “if men were angels” applies. It is not by accident that Adams and Jefferson agreed that the works of Algernon Sidney were as important or moreso, than those of John Locke, to the founding of America.

[unspun]

Appreciate your observations.

BTW, rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar, means that we in America, since we are Caesar, will do our best even there, in responsibility to God. We are mandated to “do our work as unto God.” Doing that which is well done for God is the best way to accomplish anything for oneself.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Our government depends on people of virtue and, frankly, depends on the Church to be society's moral conscience.

Which Church, exactly? About the only thing our Protestant forefathers could agree upon was that it certainly wouldn't be the Catholic church.

Unfortunately, we are now in this situation where libertarians have difficutly advocated limited government type positions without also helping those who would use their freedom for immorality and debauchery. The Church, seeing this happen, feels obligated to do something to stop it, and since big government is the flavor of the century, mistakenly turns to legislation on some issues to solve it.

Helping? Dear God, the "it's for the children" argument rears its ugly head. Freedom is freedom, my friend; what you choose to do with it is of no concern to me, so long as what you do with it does not infringe on my freedom. I am not my brother's keeper. God save me from those who would save me from myself.

[TheKidster]

Excellent post!

I’d only add that another part of the problem is that people, and the Church were seduced into using the force of government to enforce morality, which produced an unfortunate side effect of dependance on this force rather than individual accountability. If govt. is sought after as the ultimate power to protect or hold accountable then there is no need for the individual to exercise this and therefore no expectation that one’s neighbor exercise personal accountability either. We have lost this capacity recently along with the effectiveness of social stigma and shame.

[JTN]

Libertarians might be right on the function of government, but they don't help their own cause, especially on the abortion issue. It's hard to take seriously someone who talks about liberty and securing rights when they'll allow someone to deprive a totally innocent person of his life through the barbaric act of abortion.

I just want to point out that libertarians are hardly monolithic on abortion. I don't doubt that most are pro-choice, but it's a somewhat controversial issue in libertarian circles. For example.