All of you who said there was no difference b/w D &R...

Nothing hardcore about Jerry's ideas...

"JerryM, our resident hardcore theocrat, writes:" -- Beez

Spend a little time with the inaugural addresses of our presidents from Washington to Reagan and assess *their* attitudes on God and religion. Are they all "hardcore"? Naw, by your measure, they'd most assuredly be "extreme".

Bless their radical souls! All that talk of Freedom, Liberty and God-given Rights! :cool:

I've no idea why anyone would criticize Jerry or me for believing in a benevolent and loving God; seems to me that's much more rational than presuming that we're all just a huge cosmic accident arising from a speck of meteorite detritus.

RE: the Libertarian [or classic liberal] philosophy and mainstream religion...

With certain glaring examples [support of abortion, for instance], I find a lot of compatibility. We are flawed humans who should be [will be?] allowed to make our mistakes and suffer the consequences for them.

To me, a life lived by certain principles is much to be desired. As a Christian, beyond the obvious and single most important, I can pretty well sum them up into one: the Golden Rule.

And not even the Clinton Administration could be saddled with the infamous "natural law"...although they certainly gave it their best [worst] shot.

Tell me, do you think the world would be better or worse off if everyone lived by the Ten Commandments?

"...preparing for the dark days towards which both parties are leading us, albeit at different speeds."

If by this you are implying that we are headed downhill as a country and a civilization, I regretfully agree...we are most definitely on the downslope past the apogee.

Even a casual student of history would have to agree.

Nevertheless, I am an optimist; and fervently hope my children and grandchildren are more so than I.
 
I believe that we should live by the ten commandments, but I fear a government that expects the same. How many commandments have you broken? I know I have broken many in my life, and will probably break more (unintentionally). My spiritual life is mine, not the governments.
I pay for my sins, and will no doubt pay even more. I do not need the government to add to my payments. Laws against murder and theft are fine. Laws against graven images are questionable. See the faces on the coins in your pocket? -- Graven images. I see a need for people to strive for the biblical standard, but I see no need for the government to enforce that standard. The libertarian party has more correct answers than the other two.
I also agree that abortion is murder. One has but two choices though from a legal standpoint: Abortion is murder (a state crime), or abortion is a medical proceedure (medical licensing is also the prerogotive of the states), so the Federal government should have never stepped in that one. I would enjoy seeing abortion banned in the state of Texas. The DOI guarantees us a right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property). I believe that abortion is the taking of human life, but I am also a rabid libertarian and if I had to take freedom with abortions being legal, I'd take it over slavery with abortions being legal (what we have now).
Only one party believes in the sacredness of my firearms and my right to keep them. I will go with that party until they prove otherwise. The Republicans believe in freedom that comes in degrees. I believe that freedom is all or nothing. Only slavery comes in degrees.
 
You have them reversed...

"I am also a rabid libertarian and if I had to take freedom with abortions being legal, I'd take it over slavery with abortions being legal (what we have now)."

Not me. Nothing is worse, IMO, than killing a helpless child.

I try not to let PC philosophy influence my adherence to principle, especially if that philosophy is based on a "right" fashioned by judicial fiat.
 
"My spiritual life is mine, not the governments". I agree
"Laws against graven images are questionable." I would not have such laws.

"One has but two choices though from a legal standpoint: Abortion is murder (a state crime), or abortion is a medical procedure (medical licensing is also the prerogative of the states), so the
Federal government should have never stepped in that one. I would enjoy seeing abortion banned in the state of Texas. The DOI guarantees us a right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property). I believe that abortion is the taking of human life, but I am also a rabid libertarian and if I had to take freedom with abortions being legal, I'd take it over slavery with abortions being legal (what we have now).I believe that freedom is all or nothing. Only slavery comes in degrees."
Here we disagree. Would it be fair to say that you are willing to compromise your moral beliefs for more freedom? I am not. However, there is no need to make a choice regarding the two. I find both unacceptable and would not accept either.
My take on the Libertarians is that they are willing to "sell out" on their moral beliefs if they conflict with doing what they desire. That is the problem with mankind as a whole. I might have to modify that statement based on Zander's post.
Jerry (The holly roller, whatever that is, and the resident theocrat.)
.
 
Morality ceases to be an issue when it is enforced at the point of a gun. Government doen't enforce it's laws with a feather duster, it ultimately enforces ALL laws at the point of a gun. I don't sell my liberties to anyone moral or not. I don't sell my morality either.

Do you like your taxes supporting abortions?
Do you like your taxes supporting "alternate lifestyle
education of your kids?
Do you like your taxes (taken at the point of a gun) going
to folks who speak of killing Americans and encourage
others to do so?
Do you like your money going to support folks who make
babies they cannot feed?
Do you like your money going to support HCI, CPHV, and
other such groups?

That is what happens now. That is what is going on, and YOU support it whether you like it or not. If abortion is a sin, and you are so moral, when did you stop paying all your taxes? -- See my point? Without freedom, morality is simply academic. You can discuss what you'd like, but right now you are being forced at the threat of violent death or loss of property to pay for those things which you abhore.
Liberty only works with morality. Liberty destroys imorality as there are no government payments to prop up imorality. Either you believe in personal responsibility, or you do not.
 
kjm,
I don'tlike any of those things. However, that doesn't give me the right to stop paying taxes. I am told to obey the law. When Jesus was asked about paying taxes his answer was to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." No doubt the government was doing many things which were wrong and were sinful. When the Apostle Paul wrote about paying tribute to the government Romans 13:6  "For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing" Nero was in power. The fact that the government does that which is evil does not excuse me from paying taxes. I can and should seek to prevent or stop those things through the legal process. I admit I/we haven't been very successful, but I can continue to try. The only party which is against abortion is the Republicans. I continue to point out the fact that Libertarians don't really belive in responsibility or consequences for one's actions. ABORTION. To stop paying taxes would not make me moral, but immoral. Jerry
 
If a few hundred Florida voters had voted for Libertarian instead of Republican, Gore would be in office right now and that would be bad.

I agree with the previous poster who said that the way for Libertarians to win is to get local officials elected first, then "move upstream".

It is MUCH easier to get libertarians elected to state legislatures, city councils, school boards, etc.

Get it done at the local level, then influence the national picture. But don't do what the Green Party did for Gore.
 
As mentioned earlier, the last 3rd party political pary to win a national election was the Republican Pary and Abe Lincoln. And, I believe that was a three way race and Lincoln won more votes than the other two candidates did individually.

But look at the circumstances of the Republican party won in. The nation was in great turmoil. It was slavery pitted against abolition. It was States rights pitted against Federal power. It was the North against the South. It was pro-tariffs and anti-tariffs.

It helped too that the Republicans had a good candidate for President in Lincoln.

My point is, that it is extremely unlikely any 3rd party is going to upset the Democratic and Republican stranglehold on national politics unless there is some dominating national issue/s that the 3rd party is on the right side of and can capitalize.

Since the Civil War, the one great value of 3rd parties is that they change the subject. Like Ross Perot and the Reform Party and pushing for Federal budget discipline and eliminating the Federal budget deficit. We all saw how fast the Dems and Republicans adopted (stool) that Reform party issue.

And, look at the Reform party now. It is near death. It has no leader with national prestige and no real issues to call its own. And, no money since Perot pulled out.

Finally, the current polictical process cannot change. Too many voters and accomodating politicans have found that they can raid the public treasury and pay for it by soaking the rich and the near rich. Unless a politial party is part of the "bidding the bennies" contest, they cannot win.
 
If a few hundred Florida voters had voted for Libertarian instead of Republican, Gore would be in office right now and that would be bad. -----

True but if they had worked together and voted
in a libertarian congressmen Bush would have more support
when he took a stand on our gunrights if ever.
But then you all must make it about a president and
shout out the idea of more hardcore second amendment
congressmen and senators that would likely come from the
libertarian party that we so desperately need.
 
Jerry M.
The Libertarians and to a much lessor extent the Republicans are all about personal responsibility. If there were an catch phrase to sum up the libertarian party's beliefs it would be Personal Responsiblity. I think that you may have got the wrong message about the LP. The libertarians of this world both Republican and Libertarian are the ones who just want to be left alone to live their lives and suffer the consequences and the triumphs of their own personal choices.
I appreciate paying taxes and I agree with paying for the things that the founders deemed absolutely necessary for the Republic like postal roads (highways), and a full-time naval force to protect our commerce. I believe in many things that we should all support without hesitation being necessary to "provide a more perfect union..."

It turns my stomach to think that my tax dollars which are taken without my consent are used to kill unborn citizens. It is not only unfair, but immoral, and the only party that has a solution that hasn't been tried is the LP. Personal Responsibility will work, but not if we don't try it, and not if we (taxpayers) keep providing a safety net for the stupid. I resent being taxed for those things I find morally repugnant, and so I therefore find myself squarely with the libertarian party as they won't force me to support the immoral behavior of the few. If nobody is supporting the stupidity of the few, then the few will have to either start supporting it themselves or we'll be able to strangle the stupid with their own stupidity.
 
In general I agree.If I may let me make one more point. You can have morality without liberty, but liberty doesn't work without morality. Jerry
 
Let's all remember that RKBA is our unifying cause. Abortion and religion are important, but not necessarily the best topics for TFL. And the High Road does not leave room for calling fellow members names.

Carry on...politely. :)
 
Jerry, you hit the nail on the head.

Freedom demands responsibility. Responsibility comes only from a moral code. You cannot legislate responsibility. Morality demands responsibility. Ergo, Freedom demands morality. It's a simple equation, one long forgotten by an immoral government far from it's roots.

Thou shalt not kill.
Why? Because it's against the law? Who's law?
You'd be amazed at the laws based on God's law. Your right to life is unalienable because it is given to you by God.

Do you really want a Government to NOT be based on morality?

I don't.

Bob
 
This is about the best thing I've read on the topic

From TFL's own RLK:


My Quarrel with Religion in America
by Robert L. Kocher
I am not a member of any religious denomination and have no personal theological interests other than curiosity and analysis of how religious theology and institutions affect individuals or the country psychologically or politically. I believe in separation of church and state. I do not believe the United States should have a single nationally adopted religion. Neither do I believe separation of church and state requires deletion of reference to religion or God.
There are people who believe rejection of God or rejection of religion confers unlimited license for them to do whatever it is they want to do that religion prohibits or makes inconvenient. Hence, atheism has come to have a dishonest appeal. It is believed that if we do away with God, we can do away with responsibility or morality. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Religion is not the sole reason or method for conducting a sane existence. Those who follow the road of serious agnosticism or atheism (that means serious, not just some rebellious jackass trying to synthesize personality for himself as a professional provocateur or trying to pursue irresponsibility) are required to carry a heavy intellectual load and a level of serious introspection regarding personal responsibility.

For the above reasons, along with others—including lives of personal bitterness—there has been an obvious attempt to repress or disassemble religious institutions in this country.

At those times when I become involved in discussion of American law, I am prepared to argue implicit ratification of Constitutional meaning was established by uncontested or authoritative private or public behavior and practice at the time the Constitution was written, and since it was written. The closer the prevalence of the social and governmental practice to the time of the founding, the more probable the review by the founders, or those closer to the founders, and the more one can argue that public or governmental practice was authoritative Constitutional ratification. In specific instance, reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution established a acceptability level of reference to God. If the phrase, "In God We Trust" has appeared on our coinage or paper currency for one hundred or two hundred years, it is unreasonable to believe such appearance seriously conflicted with the Constitutionally-intended meaning of separation of church and state.

As a heathen, I still find the determined attempt to expunge all reference to God in governmental and public life to be unConstitutional, contrived, primarily sadistically defiant in nature, and addressing a condition not needing remedy or correction. Fifty or sixty years ago, before the recent open anti-religious crusade, this country was under no danger of falling into religiously imposed repression. My observation is that we are under a far more serious threat of oppression at the present from an anti-religious fanaticism that increasingly demands to scrutinize our public and private lives and institutions for compliance to its agenda.



for the rest, click below:

http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.19/religion.html
 
People on TFL, and everywhere else I've been seem to have the really important values in common with most other people. I call them values because the word "Morals" connotes a religious origin that may not exist in some cases. Tell me if I'm wrong about these:

FIRST: We own ourselves, and as such, should be able to do whatever we want so long as we hurt no one else.

Hurting others can include non physical harm:

1, Stealing (taking without permission) or harming people's property is uncool.
2, Cheating people is uncool.
3, Hurting people is uncool.
4 ,Killing people is unacceptable with a very few exceptions for defensive purposes.

Most responsible people who take the time to think through the way people interact will probably agree that the above rules are a common-sense way of existing.

Where Libertarians depart from the "main stream" is in the ideal (No it will never be achieved completely) that the above values should bind the government too. It's a radical idea in its implications, but the idea of freedom is pretty enticing to me.
 
Morality from the people vs. morality from the government:

The Romans, doubtlessly one of the most civically savvy peoples in history, said:

CORRUPTA CIVES, PLURIMAE LEGES (The more corrupt the society, the higher the number of laws).

When morals are interwoven within the fabric of a society, as they were in the eighteenth century at the dawn of the Revolution, their dictates are tacitly embraced by the people as common sense (or "right vs. wrong").

When a society is no longer moral, or when, like in our times, morals are being shunned as "square" by a pseudo-culture of post-hippy nihilists, the Government must supply in meticulous detail a list of behaviors that will go punished.

Whether the Government does so in the name of "morality" or in the name of a "social contract" is immaterial. When the fabric of society is so frail because it is not strengthened by the fiber of morality, Government becomes authoritative and tyrannical, hence the reference to the "high number of laws" the Romans made.

Therefore, a people who abandons morality necessarily delegates the definition of "right vs wrong" to an oligarchy of elected officials, in turn represented by the tyrannical majority. In other words, an amoral society is a society which enslaves itself.
 
416Rigby,
"In other words, an amoral society is a society which
enslaves itself."
EXACTLY! History proves it and our own nation reinforces the truth of that statement. Jerry
 
How else can you explain a president getting elected who sends troops into Bosnia while eating pizza and getting his knob polished at the exact same time?! :mad:

That, plus the fact that Bush didn't, couldn't win by a landslide is enough to drive any sane man to distraction.

Sanity and morality are only a threat to lunatics and sadists. Don't let anyone fool you. People who slam the faith of our fathers have it in for us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top