Kevin : What I was most referring to was Atheist Libertarians. Yes, I know the difference between Libertarians and libertines. What troubles me is something that even Murray Rothbard worried about, a strong anti-religion element in the Libertarian movement. Indeed, this is not --from what I can tell-- simply a small disgruntled minority but at least a plurality of Libertarians. I certainly think that Atheists have freedom of belief and would defend that freedom for them, even while disagreeing, but when Atheists attack my beliefs or the beliefs of my friends gratuitously, well, that is a different matter. Billy ------------------------------------------------------------- 11/24/2011 5:58:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
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]_ (mailto:[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]_ (mailto:[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_ (javascript:{}) 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
