Topic: Religion and Government
The Christ-itution Party Secular libertarianism is a better guarantor of Liberty and religious freedom than religion-based libertarianism.by Lojiko
(Libertarian)
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Ron Paul Revolution is experiencing the hangover after the party. Although we are all fond of Ron Paul, without a leader, the Paulistas have factionalized. Ron Paul fans are now comprised of the Bob Barr Libertarians, the Chuck Baldwin Constitutionalists, and the Ron Paul Hold-outs.
Of the aforementioned factions, two stand out as "viable" options, considering even the Paul-ster himself has said that writing in his name would be a bad idea.
Bob Barr represents a tough pill to swallow for many Liberty-lovers, with a voting record that would make most neo-cons proud to call him "Brother". However, to his credit, Barr has been speaking out against the Patriot Act almost as soon as his vote was counted, working with the ACLU and the American Conservative Union to repeal said Act. In addition, he has taken strides to amend his drug warrior past by earning the respect of Rob Kampia - of the Marijuana Policy Project - going so far as to lobby for them in Congress against the prohibitionist amendment that bears his name. Given there is little to gain by being the LP presidential nominee, Barr has either completely lost his marbles or has had a genuine change of heart.
Given Barr's voting record, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party has become the Paul substitute for many. His platform, like Barr's, is almost identical to Dr. Paul's, and with no voting record to speak of, his past is squeaky clean. However, one key component of the Constitution Party's agenda stands in stark opposition to its freedom-espousing platform the CP is founded not so much on the principles of Liberty, but on the Bible.
"So what's wrong with that?" one might ask. "The Bible is the basis of western morality." Well, that is actually part of the problem.
Whether one believes in the Bible God or not, one has to admit that basing ones society on the idea that there is one god, one truth, and everyone else is not only wrong, but EVIL, possessed of a diabolical force that seeks the destruction of all creation, it is very easy to go from "love thy neighbor" to "abolish the threat within our midst," especially when the people who believe that are in power. Granted, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Christianity when it keeps to itself unfortunately it, like many religions, is rarely content to do so. In fact, Christians are commandednotto keep to themselves, but to convert the entire planet to their religion. (Matthew 28:19-20)
Enter the Constitution Party.
The Constitution Party platform sounds identical to that of the Libertarian Party at first. The CP supports limited government, private property rights, and an end to the Federal Reserve. However, the CP is what the LP would be if it were taken over by the Religious Right. Tossed in amongst the good stuff is some decidedly UN-Libertarian flotsam such as banning gambling, pornography, and supporting the drug war. The fact is that the Constitution Party is only concerned with freedom as far as it isguaranteed through their interpretation of the Bible.
The CP makes its dedication to Christianity - and its founding principles - very clear in the preamble to its platform:
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.
This great nation was founded by Christians on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law
To make ones rights to life, liberty, and property contingent on the rules laid out in a 1700 year old holy book is arguably just as bad as making such rights contingent on a benevolent state, as laid out in European social democracy systems.
Make no mistake, the Bible is not a freedom manual. In fact, it is quite the opposite it is an obedience manual.
The Bible does not permit religious tolerance. (Exodus 20:3 - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.)
The Bible is quick to condemn insurrection against authority. (Romans 13:2 - Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.)
The Bible even demands complete submission to one of the most abhorable, freedom-hating institutions of our species slavery. If someone is trying to use the Bible to support their abolitionist cause, they will quickly find they are on Biblically shaky grounds. The Bible is quick to regulate and condone slavery in all its forms. (Titus 2:9-10 - Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.)
To think that freedom is borne from this book as anything more than coincidence is to either not fully understand the Bible or to engage in willful ignorance of its edicts.
Let's face it - the Bible is a tome of intolerance. It demands complete compliance by virtue of the "fact" that it was supposedly given to us by an unseen, unheard from, absentee-landlord of a god. It condones some of the most despicable acts known to humans, to include genocide (1 Samuel 15:2-3), discrimination against women (too many to mention, but start with I Corinthians 14:34-35), and blind obedience to the state (Romans 13:1-2). To base a "freedom" movement on this book is only slightly better than basing that same movement on the ramblings of Pol Pot.
It is in the shadow of this book not the rights of humanity - that the Constitution Party platform lies.
Ironically, secular government is one of the best guarantees of religious freedom. When the government remains neutral, all religions are allowed to flourish, so long as they respect the boundaries of individual liberty. In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville French historian and author of Democracy in America (1835) once reasoned that it was the absence of a state-sponsored religion that caused Americans to be more religious than their European counterparts. In the United States, religions compete with one another in the free market of ideas for converts, delivering religion best suited to the People in much the same way as the free market delivers the best product at the best price from a capitalistic perspective, free from government meddling.
This is certainly not what the Bible demands, but the Constitution Party seems to embrace the idea in principle, at least. For instance, the CP respects the Constitution's demand in Article VI, Section 3, that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." However, one might wonder how long it would be - were the CP to take power - before precedents set by early American legislatures requiring those elected to public office to declare themselves to be Christian were used to require modern office-holders to declare the same.
For instance, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) explicitly declares the United States to be a Christian nation. In Updegraph v. The Commonwealth (1824), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the conviction of a man accused of blasphemy against Christianity because "Christianity is part of the laws of the land." In fact, to this day, the States of Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee have language in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that State office-holders must have certain religious beliefs.
Dr. Paul is a tough act to follow, there is no doubt about that. His voting record is superb, his personal life is exemplary, and his dedication to Liberty is above reproach. He is easily the most consistently principled libertarian in Congress.
The choice we face now is whether we vote for someone with a poor voting - record who has arguably done a great deal to try to make amends for his past mistakes (admittedly grave, grave errors in judgment) - or someone with no voting record at all. Do we choose someone chosen from the ranks of America's most principled secular defenders of Liberty or the nominee of a party committed to Liberty so long as it is OK with the Bible?
If Instant Ron-off voting were the law of the land, Chuck Baldwin would easily be my second choice; I would greatly prefer Pastor Baldwin to Obama, McCain or anyone other than Barr and I will, in fact, support those who support Baldwin as close allies in the fight for Liberty. In the end, however, the deciding factor in my book, is whether we choose a secular path to Liberty or one obviously wrapped in the trappings of the Bible. Baldwin and Barr are easily better candidates than any of the others, but 1600 years of religious dogma, oppression, and persecution weighs more heavily on my mind than eight years of poor choices in Congress. As such, I will be voting for Barr and encourage others to do the same.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 18 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Lojiko only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lojiko is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You're right that Ron Paul is a tough act to follow. But I can hardly see how Chuck Baldwin can be disqualified as the most amenable candidate to Ron Paul's ideas on the basis of espousing the very same religious beliefs Ron Paul does.
I agree with the writer's conclusion, though not based on exactly the same reasoning. I am somewhat socially conservative, but not to a fault (meaning I firmly believe that it is neither appropriate nor desirable to attempt to legislate morality). I am, of course, fiscally conservative. Most importantly of all, though, I am constitutionally conservative, and it is for this reason that I cannot and will not support McCain under ANY circumstances. However, I would not have supported a Democrat or Ron Paul under any circumstances either. While I do not generally advocate interventionism, neither am I a "wuss." As a veteran and life member of the VFW, I DO recognize when it really is in our best interest to send a message by eliminating certain foreign threats.
I am a committed constitutional conservative. Two hundred years ago we would have been known as "federalists." These days we're frequently referred to as "libertarian leaning" conservatives. While we are unquestionably dedicated to the principles of limited government, we still tend to be a bit more hawkish on defense issues and somewhat less "laissez-faire" than many of the more purist members of the Libertarian Party. I guess that makes us "small-L" libertarians rather than "big-L" libertarians. Whichever label you might choose, I am one and I am voting for Bob Barr!
Posted By: R. A. Griffith
Date: 2008-06-19 23:07:49
I'm not comfortable with the CP's biblical commitment, nor am I impressed with the role religious dogma has played when its influence is channelled into the manipulation of government policy and politics.
In his comprehensive (815 page) evaluation of "The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society" Peter McWilliams' masterpiece, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do," identifies and categorically analizes the relentless interventionism and judgemental bias that has plagued the free enjoyment of our Constitutional rights and liberties. Namely, the process of legislating morality.
To those who suffer from a feeling of intolerance toward people like Bob Barr, whose past actions and beliefs are inconsistent with where they stand right now, I offer this quote from McWilliams' Epilogue: "Time and again, something I thought was true turned out to be false, and what I feared might be true turned out to be truer than I feared."
We're all still learning and if we want to grow, we'll be learning for the rest of our lives. What this movement is about is change and change won't take place without people coming to realizations. Should we then look at them and say, "we cannot accept you because, though you do now, you have not always realized this truth so you're not to be trusted." Be conscious! Observe the man! Do you detect a fascade? A manufactured "persona?"
At this point in history, the need for convergence is urgent. If we cannot bear to combine our resources for this most important cause; if any form of compromise is too painful, then we value liberty less than our attachment to our own idealistic inclinations.
It is the religious aspect of Baldwin that gives me pause as well. However, it is something I can manage to tolerate since his faith is as unblind as can be. I feel more honesty from Baldwin than Barr, but then I keep considering the reality that no matter how sincere Barr may be, the feeling of shady will always be there. Of course, Root pretty much damages Barr's stature in my voting view.
I'm currently leaning towards Baldwin, but am keeping an eye and ear open in case that one thing comes around to sway me in Barr's direction. I doubt it'll come, but I won't say never.
From a prior comment: "I'm not comfortable with the CP's biblical commitment, nor am I impressed with the role religious dogma has played when its influence is channelled into the manipulation of government policy and politics."
Yeah, well, me either. That is an issue I had with Huckabee. That was not the only one, but I came from the GOP side looking at our candidates, despising McCain and Guiliani, and seeing 'who was better' for a primary vote. That made me reserve judgment about Huckabee and look into Ron Paul. THAT made me realize that options were still available, and worth fighting for.
However, what inspired me about Ron Paul was not what he 'says' but that in the face of unpopularity of his message at any given time, he still walks the walk. Obama was not an acceptable choice, even with better rhetoric on civil liberties and foreign policy than McCain, in large part because his record (both in political action and in contributions) leads me to think he is a phony. (I don't like his huge government side either, of course.)
Barr may be better than that, but I find it hard to vote for someone who in time for an election says what we want to hear, but voted the opposite when the chips were down.
I may still end up supporting Barr if a Ron Paul vote won't be counted in November. I am just starting to really look into the difference between Barr and Baldwin. The religious profile of Baldwin's message does make me uncomfortable, and concerned that the first amendment separation of church and state might be disfavored, and to me that isn't acceptable. (I happen to be Christian, but know well that there are many disagreements even under that umbrella, and believe none of them belong as a matter of law.)
But I think, as the party name implies, that Baldwin is a CONSTITUTIONALIST. Given that, he is as entitled to his religious views, in MY mind, whether he is Christian, Muslim or whatever. So long as he agrees that is his personal realm and not to be imposed on me, that's what liberty is about, isn't it? To say otherwise is to discriminate by religious belief.
In any event, I haven't made up my mind but sincerity is a huge deal with me, and I am leaning towards Baldwin due to Barr's record and what seems to me Barr's very careful phrasing of language in response to questions. It just seems, right now, like politics as usual, which is NOT the reason I plan to vote third party for the first time in my life, and to seek out third party candidates, if better, in the future.
The comments of Lojiko and various others here express the same threadbare antichristian bigotry that we're accustomed to hearing from the Democratic Party and others on the left. As libertarians, that should give you pause. As a Christian, it is amazing to me how libertarians can greet with open arms such diverse groups as GLBT and the NRA--but suddenly become hostile and inhospitable as soon as anyone mentions the Bible. Lojiko, I don't even know where to start in deconstructing your erroneous views on the Bible as related to the development of our Western democratic institutions. Like many in the Democratic Party and the far left, you equate biblical values with intolerance. This will not serve well if you have any hope of building a libertarian America. I assume that is your hope, but maybe you guys just want to bash the "religious right." Understand that there are many Christians who value biblical values and yet also highly value liberty--liberty for all. We arrive at that conclusion through our interpretation of the Bible, which I firmly believe to be much more libertarian in its conclusions than most apparently understand. Lojiko, the LP has been a tiny minority party for many decades now. If you have any hope of building it into a viable movement that is going to change the face of this nation and turn it back to founding principles, you are going to need us like-minded Christians. It might interest you to know that I am more comfortable with the secular approach of the LP than that of the CP myself. How can that possibly be? I'm a member of the hated "religious right." I guess you don't know as much about us or the Bible as you think you do.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-06-20 13:05:28
"The comments of Lojiko and various others here express the same threadbare antichristian bigotry that we're accustomed to hearing from the Democratic Party and others on the left. As libertarians, that should give you pause. As a Christian, it is amazing to me how libertarians can greet with open arms such diverse groups as GLBT and the NRA--but suddenly become hostile and inhospitable as soon as anyone mentions the Bible."
The trouble is, the bible is an absurd book full of absurdities that is touted by nutjobbers as a moral guide.
It has no business anywhere near politics.
Jesus was not "the son" of any god. He did not perform miracles. The lies in the bible are so plain and obvious to a rational person, they question the very sanity of those who allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking the bible has any relevant truth in it at all.
Posted By: R. A. Griffith
Date: 2008-06-20 19:33:39
I'm not comfortable with the CP's biblical commitment, nor am I impressed with the role religious dogma has played when its influence is channelled into the manipulation of government policy and politics.
In his comprehensive (815 page) evaluation of "The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society" Peter McWilliams' masterpiece, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do," identifies and categorically analizes the relentless interventionism and judgemental bias that has plagued the free enjoyment of our Constitutional rights and liberties. Namely, the process of legislating morality.
To those who suffer from a feeling of intolerance toward people like Bob Barr, whose past actions and beliefs are inconsistent with where they stand right now, I offer this quote from McWilliams' Epilogue: "Time and again, something I thought was true turned out to be false, and what I feared might be true turned out to be truer than I feared."
We're all still learning and if we want to grow, we'll be learning for the rest of our lives. What this movement is about is change and change won't take place without people coming to realizations. Should we then look at them and say, "we cannot accept you because, though you do now, you have not always realized this truth so you're not to be trusted." Be conscious! Observe the man! Do you detect a fascade? A manufactured "persona?"
At this point in history, the need for convergence is urgent. If we cannot bear to combine our resources for this most important cause; if any form of compromise is too painful, then we value liberty less than our attachment to our own idealistic inclinations.
Yes, I agree that a convergence and pooling of resources is necessary if we are to take the nation in a libertarian direction. Though I am a Christian, I agree wholeheartedly that the Bible has no place in politics--and that the founders intended that institutional religion and government be 100% seperate. I regret, though, that so many people of libertarian bent seem to be so hostile to the idea of Christians being libertarians also. Ok, I realize that the "religious right" has wrongfully wielded the power of big government statism for the purpose of establishing their supposedly bible-based views of how other people should live. I'm not talking about accepting that nonsense into the LP, since it is by definition anti-libertarian. I'm talking about people like myself who are Christians but who are also 100% libertarian. I have a strong desire to be a part of the LP's future, because I believe it's the way to go for the nation. But I have to admit the hostility I hear from some LP quarters gives me serious pause. I don't want to be a part of a party that hates me before I even walk through the door. If we're going to build a truly national movement that has a chance of taking this nation in a new direction, we're going to need to draw from every sector of society. Religous people need to feel welcome in the LP, just as other groups do.
"Let's face it - the Bible is a tome of intolerance. It demands complete compliance by virtue of the "fact" that it was supposedly given to us by an unseen, unheard from, absentee-landlord of a god. It condones some of the most despicable acts known to humans, to include genocide (1 Samuel 15:2-3), discrimination against women (too many to mention, but start with I Corinthians 14:34-35), and blind obedience to the state (Romans 13:1-2). To base a "freedom" movement on this book is only slightly better than basing that same movement on the ramblings of Pol Pot. " How true! Just think of all the unconscionable groups and movements inspired by the Bible. We have such horrendous groups as the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the YMCA, YWCA, Boy Scouts of America, and World Vision all who try to undermine the worlds peace . Every one of these groups were inspired by that ""book of intolerance". Why when Katrina hit, those infected with propaganda from the Bible sent so much in material and physical help that the bastions of intolerance (churchs) were asked to stop sending help for a while. Also, people are forced virtually at gun point to sacrific there lives by going to poor nations around the world helping the sick, teaching the uneducated vocations, drilling wells in areas where there are no wells, and various other nafarious duties to decieve the ignorant into following this slavery. Even our founding fathers were decieved by this book of lies! When they wrote the first ten amendments to our Constitution they mistakenly thought that the One who gave us the rights of "life, liberty, and the prusuit of happiness" was "natures God" i. e. The Lord Jesus Christ. How could they possibly have gotten that from such a book of intolerance? There are only two likely answers. One is that they and millions of other people of all races, genders, ages, and nations, some who have started great colleges, been presidents, signers of the constitution, created businesses such as Walmart and J. C. Pennys are wrong! These folks either can not read, they have limited abilities, they are decieved or else they are in the plot to enslave even more poor souls. Two is that Lajiko and his ilk are bias toward the Bible or ignorant of the true freedom that untolds millions of people have experienced. Yes, Pol Pot would be proud of the ramblings, just who's ramblings is the question.
Well, whether theist or atheist, whether Christian or Buddist, as libertarians we're going to have to be willing to respect one another and stand shoulder to shoulder on those ideals in which we are in agreement. Though we must not compromise our libertarian principles, we must realize that people from many walks of life are discovering (and will discover) the elegant loveliness of libertarianism. I was a member of the so-called "religious right" for a couple of decades, but I was gradually moving in the direction of liberty little by little. It took many years almost like food slowly cooking in a crock pot--but the ideal was forming gradually. Then one day I discovered a "crack pot" named Ron Paul who was running for President--and I was totally hooked! I'm no less a Christian because I have become a libertarian. I'm no less dedicated to biblical morality than I was before--but I'm content now to let my fellow man and woman be the owners of their own lives. As a libertarian, I will be 100% dedicated to protecting the liberty of others. As an evangelical Christian, I will be honest with people about what I think of how they use their liberty--but I will do so outside of the political process.
Sadly this diatribe is the normal stuff you get out of a large segment of the LP, being heavily committed to Ayn Rand (whom I can't comment on, since I've never read anything by her).
Libertarians usually start by preaching self-ownership and lead from their into strong anti-state views. Obviously Christians can't accept that. They start from the idea of being owned by God and then when some of them start wondering why the state holds them responsible when they are only really responsible to God they find that the LP won't accept them.
Honestly the monologue we've read above sounds more like something Lenin or Stalin would say... religion as opiate of the masses.
If there are any committed Christians who are also libertarians--or are at least curious about libertarianism and how it relates to our faith--I would like to correspond with you. Please email me at liberty08@lycos.com. Only true Christians with teachable spririts please! Thanks.
The biggest problem I have with Barr is his running mate. Root thinks terrorists hate us for our freedom. I've never seen any authoritative source that makes that claim, its just plain wrong. Besides the fact that Al Qaeda is CIA, the moron patsies who think their "Al Qaeda" don't want to attack us because we are free. We're not even that free. I don't know who I'll vote for in November, Barr or Baldwin, but can we admit that if your more likely to die chocking on a peanut than by a terrorist, fearing terrorism is just down right irrational.
Any Rand wrote a wonderful novel called Atlas Shrugged. There is another novel called The Fountainhead, which I have not yet read but both books express Rand's objectivist ideals. Libertarians draw much of their basic inspiration from objectivism, although Rand herself did not regard herself as a libertarian. In fact, she despised and rejected libertarianism. Objectivists are by definition non-theist in their views since the existance of a supreme being cannot be objectified. So to be objectivist is to be atheist; however, that does not hold true for libertarianism. Libertarianism does not require an objectivist view, therefore, libertarians do not have to be atheists. Atheism tends to work counter to libertarianism. If you need proof, just look at the crushing, overbearing statism that is embraced by most atheists and secular progressives. The Democratic Party is full of them, and they believe the government is the solution for everything. And let us not overlook the superstates of the Soviet Union and red China--both run by atheists.
I tend to side with Jefferson on this matter of religion mixed with government:
An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom
This bill, drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777, first appeared in the form of a broadside, printed in Williamsburg in 1779. The only known copy of the original broadside belongs to the Boston Public Library.
I. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of the tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment; and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
II. Be it enacted by the General assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, not shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, that that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
III. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
Although I am a long time supporter of Ron Paul, I am not a true Libertarian, and I lean more closely to the Constitution Party, having voted for Peroutka last election. As much as it pains me, I am leaning towards voting for John McCain this time. Here's why.
With Barr and Baldwin splitting the movementon the Presidential side, and neither with any chance, especially being divided, I believe there is a big enough difference between Obama and McCain that I can vote for McCain. There will be close states and MCCain needs every vote. Obama would be a disaster, he's a real Communist and Globalist, even worse than McCain. The taxes and the Supreme Court issues are enough for me in this election now.
I realize this is definitely a lesser of two evils choice, but I really am convinced that McCain is the lesser of two evils.
Ron D: the lesser of two evils is still evil. If you vote for McCain, you should accept responsibility for having voted for a probably war with Iran and an enormous blowback. As Scott Ritter has said, you can pick you city to be destroyed then.
In any case McCain will not make it. If he polls so low by September vs. Obama, the RNC may well reconsider nominating him. I understand your views, but consider this: if McCain would - by some miracle - win, the Republicans would be forced to accept all his proposals, and he is no man of his word. If he is to nominate judges like Roberts or Alito, the judge would be against McCain-Feingold. Come on, do you really trust flip-flip McCain? There are Romney and Huckabee supporters who say they will rather write Romney in, and not vote for McCain. If Obama wins, then the GOP would be forced to reorganize and Dr. Paul will well play a major role, perhaps as minority leader in congress and can lead to a retake of congress and senate in 2010. With such a situation, Obama would be very restricted in what he can do and who to appoint and in 2012 a conservative-libertarian GOP leader/nominee could win by a landslide.
What you can do is vote for the GOP congressman/woman. The president does not have all the power. McCain will grossly make misuse of power and may start with the draft - although he would deny it. I mean with limited and overstretched troops already and being active in also Iran, Syria etc. etc. and more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, how on earth would this be possible without a draft?
"Dr. Paul is a tough act to follow, there is no doubt about that. His voting record is superb, his personal life is exemplary, and his dedication to Liberty is above reproach. He is easily the most consistently principled libertarian in Congress."
Very true, and this is about the only sensible remarks you have written. Newsflash: Dr. Paul conscience, personal moral life etc. is based on the Biblical principals every good Christian adheres to.
As a Christian conservative-libertarian, I am deeply offended by some inaccurate remarks. The whole issue of a Christian just war theory rejects the very basis of any pre-emptive war. Many wars, including those of Pol Pot has been fought in the name of atheism and by atheists, with no regard for human life. If you take a biblical text out of context, you can "justify" about anything on earth. It is clear that the writer is just nidpicking without really understanding the meaning of the text etc. There are passages in the Bible that describe casualistic practises, especially in the Old Testament, that are NOT normative for today. The principles like faith, love, sin etc. are universal.
In fact the Christian message of freedom has lead to the abolishment of slavery, for instance.
"The Bible does not permit religious tolerance": what utter nonsense. Not worshipping other gods does not mean or imply that you should despise or attack non-believers in any way. Let us take a practical example/illustartion that you can understand: if you are married to a woman, your marriage oath disctates that you should be truthful to OBLY your wife, not other woman. This does not mean you are intolerate towards any other woman in any way.
The writer refers to Romans 13, without thinking about the context. The text is actually a prime example that Christians should obey a state that could be non-religious in nature, for instance in obeying laws, pay taxes etc., but if that state goes against the very essense of Christianity and presecuting, then the issue of Apocalips of John 13 (last book of the New Testament) is relevant, which is extremely "anti-statist" in your language.
The Bible is in the first place a book of faith, love and hope and not any scientific, political textbook etc. The Bible is all about POSITIVE freedom, the freedom to.... and not only about NEGATIVE freedom, e.g. the freedom from ...... state oppression and atheists would say, freedom from religion/belief.
The values of Christianity have meaning in all aspects of life, including politics. Values like honesty, dedication, kindness, friendliness, tolerance, understanding, feelings for the other, true love etc. etc. and those values have EVERYTHING to do and to be applied in politics as well, as an example to other in humbleness and grace.
Concrete: I find Dr. Paul's political platform most acceptable and desirable. It is not exactly the same as the CP's platform, nor of the LP's platform. His platform can actually unify with the CP and the LP, in any case most (not all) of the supporters. No wonder Dr. Paul was asked by both the CP and LP to be their leader. And Barr and Baldwin are also very much on the same basis personally.
Stephan hit the nail squarely on the head. No promise made by John McCain to placate conservatives can be trusted. McCain will not nominate court justices who will rule against his "pet" projects, such as McCain/Feingold, which has yet to have its day in court. Good people voting for "the lesser of two evils" is what got us in the mess we're in. Never again will I vote for a man or woman who does not boldly profess ideals I believe are good for the nation. McCain is a closet liberal in conservative clothing. He will increase the size of government and the stifling statist grip over all of our lives will grow ever tigher under his command. By all means, there are some fine Republican conservatives at the state and congressional levels--so conservatives should certainly feel free to vote for them. But at the presidential level, it is time to take a stand. It is time to break out of the cycle of futility created by the "two party system." It is time to show Washington that we are people of principle and that we will no longer support someone with poisonous ideas just because he's (or she's) not as bad as the other candidate.
I couldn't agree more that without adopting a more Christian-friendly standpoint, Libertarians are doomed to wallow in the same political meaninglessness they've enjoyed for decades.
One thing that Dr. Paul apparently hasn't hammered home sufficiently is the evils of identity politics. You can write all the big words you can find, but when you say "Christian", you're assigning me to a political group against which you have an irrational dislike, and I probably don't even belong in that group. I see this time and again on this board - every time the topic comes up I get placed in a group which is blamed for all the ills in society.
Here's the thing you seem to forget: Chuck Baldwin is a heretic. That's right, I'll go there. You in the problem-with-God crowd seem to forget that large numbers of people professing to be Christians came over to this country precisely because they were tired of being persecuted and killed by other people professing to be Christians.
We are not one big happy family and only a fool would assume that we are. Even if we took it for granted that everyone claiming to be Christian believed in the resurrection of Christ - and we can't, because lots of other heretics don't - we don't even universally agree on when to celebrate that event.
Chuck Baldwin invites me to evaluate him on the basis of his Christianity, which means he's going to fail. Period. It's like McCain asking me to judge him on his conservativeness.
The only reason this country ever worked is because we agreed to this idea of being treated like individuals. I had thought that this was Libertarian dogma, but certain Libertarians seem hellbent on dispelling that idea.
When you dump us all in the same category you are no better than democrats pontificating on the importance of getting the "black vote". The only difference is that we've made a voluntary association with our group. That doesn't make your comments any less prejudiced.
The Republicans don't want us, the Libertarians don't want us, and the CPs aren't going to get us. I hope you three figure something out by 2012, because everyone I've gotten involved in the Revolution is one of those nasty Christians.
I suppose whenever libertarians hear the words "Christian" or "Bible" they immediately hear "religious right." So the idea of Christians coming into the Libertarian Party is disturbing because they believe our agenda will be to transform it into something that doesn't conform with traditional libertarian ideals. Perhaps they believe that we want to turn it into an arm of the religious right and make it a sectarian party like CP. I can't speak for other Christians who are bolting the Republican Party, but I will say that my intentions are pure from a libertarian standpoint. The candidacy of John McCain has created a flashpoint that has motivated me to act at this time, but actually my personal journey of migration over to libertarian thinking goes back several years. The writings of Ayn Rand have certainly had an impact. Most of all, I have grown frustrated with the political games being played by the DP and RP. The two party system may have served America well (or at least fairly well) to a certain point in history--but no longer. Both DP and RP are just different versions of the same thing. The same 'get government involved in every aspect of national life' thing. They are in our pockets, our bedrooms, our gun cabinets and our libraries. They take away our liberties and tell us it will make us safer. They tell us what to eat and not eat. They tell us to wear seatbelts or pay a big fine. I could go on and on, but why bother? We all know its happening. Back to the point at hand. I am a Christian who has seen the libertarian light. I don't want to make the LP an arm of the religious right. I want everyone to the know true liberty--and to know the joy of owning one's own life and not having to fear the government confiscating the fruits of their labors.
As independent-minded as Ron Paul REvolutionaries like to say they are, I'm astonished how many say things like, "I am leaning towards [X] because ... I get this feeling Ron Paul wants me to."
Well, as for me, I don't vote one way or another because I think 'so and so wants me to.' I don't give a rip what Ron Paul wants. I am excited by the ideas he so forcefully and courageously expounded during the debates. I will always admire him for his willingness to go into those debates knowing that he was surrounded by men who called themselves Republicans--but had not one shred of libertarian fervor among them. As Dr. Paul correctly pointed out, the RP used to be based on libertarian ideals. Sadly, that is no longer the case, as it has become the haunt of big spending, big government elitists who are isolated in their minds and experience from the life the average American lives. As I mentioned previously, I am not comfortable with the sectarian emphasis of Chuck Baldwin and the CP. Thus far, the LP presents a face I'm much more in sinc with. I think Bob Barr is going to surprize a lot of people, and I believe the libertarian cause is going to be strengthened by his candidacy.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
