Technically speaking, you might be conflating libertinism with libertarianism.  
The latter is concerned with freedom from the state while the former is a 
looser freedom concept.  If you listen closely to Paul, for instance, he's not 
a libertine person necessarily but he is very much libertarian, like the 
Founders etc.  They were men of virtue who believed in a community morality.

Kevin


  11/22/2011  [email protected] writes:
    Well, I obviously do not see it as the Reconstructionist sees it. I don't 
believe that we are going to convert every soul on the planet and then rule as 
a Christian Theocracy for 1000 years before Jesus comes back. 


    "Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than 
people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke 

    On 11/21/2011 6:52 AM, [email protected] wrote: 
      Christianity is a missionary religion. This statement ought to be 
non-controversial.
      Unfortunately, I think because of libertarian influence more than any 
other factor,
      this viewpoint is denied.  That is, at least as I understand it, 
Libertarians tell us that
      religion should be a private affair, that no-one should seek to convert 
others,
      and especially should keep their noses out of non-Christian cultures 
because
      what Muslims or Hindus, etc, may do, is their own business and Christians
      should respect their rights to practice their traditional faiths.
    DRB: Odd, but I have not heard this from Libertarians, but rather leftist 
Democrats. The same ones who see Christianity as a problem and not Islam. This 
also sounds as though one was hearing a sermon at a Fundamentalist Christian 
separatist church.  

    OK. If you say so. But suppose we switch this around. Do you know of any 
Libertarian
    statements ( or even one ) which says that it is OK to proselytize and 
maybe even a
    good thing ?  Wish I could remember where I heard this, but my mind is 
drawing blanks
    at the moment. There are two other groups., for sure, that are 
anti-proselytization,
    Orthodox Jews --a significant % anyway-- and the Parsis of India  --again, a
    clear majority , if not all.




      Indeed, some ( or most ) Libertarians go further and deny any value to 
religion
      whatsoever, and hence want religious believers not to proselytize at all. 
Murray Rothbard
      noted this kind of attitude at one time :

      "...I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has 
long been endemic 
      to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as imbecilic 
at best, 
      inherently evil at worst. The greatest and most creative minds in the 
history 
      of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them 
Christian.”
    DRB: This is more along the lines of what I have heard and read, except 
from a few radical Atheists. 

    Maybe this is the tie-in. In other words, "religion is bad, evil, 
obsolete," etc, therefore
    religious believers should shut up and not seek to convert others to their 
sickness.
    NOT my view, obviously, but the view of Atheists. Since there are a large 
number
    of Atheists among Libertarians, could be where the anti-proselytizing 
sentiment
    comes from.

    Related question, how do religious people and Atheists get along within 
Libertarian
    ranks ?  Or do they get along ?




      At any rate, I have heard the refrain from Libertarians that seeking to 
convert others
      to one's religion is objectionable. Leaving aside the fact that Buddhism 
is also a missionary religion, as is Islam, the Baha'i Faith, that in the past 
so was Judaism, that sometimes Hinduism has a missionary dimension, etc., this 
prohibition effects Christians directly and is most relevant here.
    DRB: REFRAIN??? Really??? I haven't heard the first note. Coercive 
conversion is objectionable. You know, like "Convert or die, Infidel!!!" They 
realize that folks are "converted" to Libertarianism as a political ideology 
and they're not against that. Catholics and Southern Baptists together on a 
libertarian e-mail list. OH MY. Meanwhile the pushy Atheist gets pummeled. 


      It so happens, of course, that the New Testament commands believers to 
seek to convert
      others AND to persuade everyone to follow Biblical morality. Here ( 
emphasis added )
      is the quote :

      Matthew 28:16-20

      So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had 
designated.  When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. Then 
Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been 
given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to obey 
everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end 
of the age” 

      Libertarians are fond of citing other verses, and while other passages 
are clear that people should not be coerced into religion nor in any way 
sacrifice their legitimate personal freedoms, the Great Commission carries 
special weight. Christians who actually believe in the Bible are supposed to 
convert others. Not only this, they are supposed to seek to bring about a 
massive social movement that converts the world to Biblical morality. That is, 
rather than being "morally libertarian" the New Testament commands Christians 
to seek a common morality for everyone.

    DRB: THERE'S the word!! "Coerced." Exactly. If one wants to take a religion 
that forces them to surrender a personal liberty, that is their prerogative. 
When I think "coerced," I'm thinking gun-point, knife-point, thumbscrews and 
the rack, cat-o-nine tails, etc. What do you consider to be "coerced?" 

    There are all kinds of ways to be coerced. For example : You like working 
here ? 
    Then do X. Or, you want me to keep this secret ? Then I want X.  Take it 
from here. 
    All kinds of pressures can be brought to bear to compel others to do things 
that
    otherwise they would not do. Can be social pressure, too. Mostly this might 
be
    called "soft coercion," but same effect. You want to get ahead. Then you 
know
    what you've gotta do even if your morals get compromised in the process.
    Pretty rare when someone has not experienced some form of coercion
    in life, as a matter of fact.





      To make this clear all you need to do is read I Corinthians some time. 
The Apostle Paul criticized the Corinthian congregation for tolerating 
"anything goes" morality. To Paul such liberty was the exact opposite of what 
Christian faith should be all about.

      I simply do not see where actual Christian faith, or actual Buddhist 
faith, etc., can be compatible with Libertarianism. The foundation of 
Libertarianism is anything goes ( minus punching out the other guy ).

    DRB: So we should not tolerate pedophilia, homosexuality, adultery, and 
many others, but should immediately kill them all and let God sort them out?? 
If we let them live, aren't we tolerating it?? Can't tolerate them is what i"m 
hearing.

    Don't follow you here. We should not tolerate homosexuality, pedophilia, 
etc, 
    is my view.

    A heckova lot of Libertarians say we SHOULD tolerate these things. Where 
does
    the killing come in ? In the USA, before 1973, actually more like 1983, we 
did
    not tolerate homosexuality, and theoretically we still do not tolerate 
pedophilia,
    although even that is now eroding. I don't seem to recall that homosexuals 
were 
    being killed by the state in large numbers. Or any numbers. We let them live
    but either demanded that they enter therapy to cease being homosexual,
    or sent them to prison, as still happens to pedophiles.

    By bringing up a non-existing horror, you completely evade the question.
    The morality of any religion you can name, well, most religions,  is 
strongly
    anti-homosexual, anti-child sex, etc, Yet, at least for homosexuality,
    the vast majority of Libertarians get really pixxed off if you say
    that homosexuals do not have a right to be homosexual. That is,
    and surely you know exactly what I am talking about, the entry price
    for being a libertarian is to toss out parts of Bible-based morality.
    But, hey, why not ?  That morality is obsolete anyway.
    Besides, easy enough to rationalize this away, I'm not really
    giving up my morality because I still am opposed to abortion.
    This kind of reasoning , uhhh, lacks something.




      The foundation of Christian faith is the over-reaching goal of converting 
the world to faith in Christ and to observance of a clearly defined set of 
moral principles. It is not OK by this morality to do or favor any number of 
things that Libertarians say are perfectly OK. In fact, Christians are supposed 
to oppose a number of the things Libertarians advocate. 

    DRB: Like what? Smoking weed?

    Like tolerating homosexuality, this is the main thing . And you simply 
cannot tell me
    that something well in excess of 90% of Libertarians aren't pro-homosexual.
    As for weed, I don't see where that is much different than drinking wine or 
beer,
    But what about hard drugs ?  That is a different matter, with very 
different consequences. What % of Libertarians tolerate hard drug use I cannot 
say,  
    but it would seem safe to say that a much higher number than among others.



      Such as anti-statism. The great model of society that we are presented 
with in the Bible is the Hebrew monarchy, after all. Jesus, furthermore, seeks 
to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to the world and partly is justified as messiah 
because of his royal lineage, a descendent of King David. The subtext surely is 
that any state to which we give authority ought to be as well-conceived and 
well-managed as the Kingdom of Israel in Solomonic times. That, as model for 
political order, is a far cry from Libertarian preachments about a minimalist 
state with no ( or very little ) centralized authority. The entire book of 
Deuteronomy is about the necessity of establishing a centralized state with a 
virtuous and strong government.

    DRB: That's right, let's let government destroy our freedom. SIEG HEIL, 
BABY!!! 

    The book of Deuteronomy is Nazi ?  That seems to be what you are saying.
    You want to tell me that the Solomonic system was Fascist ? 

    Well, I do have some issues with the book of Deuteronomy, even with some
    aspects of Solomonic Israel, but the charge of Nazism never occurred to me.




      So it seems to me

      Billy







  -- 
  Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
  Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
  Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to