Subject:  Re: Brainwashing children for a fantasy world. |
Author:
Kevin Tull
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:09:45 11/12/02 Tue
In reply to:
JohnE
's message, "Re: Brainwashing children for a fantasy world." on 08:03:56 11/12/02 Tue
We tend to agree on most everything about the mixture of religion and government. Also I would mention another thing that I believe you might have noticed and yet I doubt many people of faith have realized and that is the Constitution is a strictly secular document. Notice it was carefully crafted to make sure that oaths and affirmations were not of a religious nature so as not to discriminate against or advocate any faith or lack of faith. And of course the first amendment is a reiteration of this stance in case the legislators didn’t get it the first time. Of course like children that is not good enough for our legislators who want it their way, regardless of how many times their hopefully wiser parents say no.
This is one of the great things about the document for people of faith or persons who express no religious preference or who deny the existence of God. I still have difficulties with the idea that a contract that I did not sign, written by dead men is supposed to be applied to me and others without our consent. I realize that the constitution applies to government, but many people perceive all Americans to be bound by it.
Call it an anarchistic hair up my backside, but this is the same government that in the private sector would deny a contract to be binding upon the children of the persons who signed it. That same government recognizing that it is immoral and criminal to bind children to the contracts of their parents thinks nothing of imposing its own social contracts against all persons that have not signed and agreed to those contracts. This wrong is not made any less wrong if the leaders in our government are religious or secular.
The article that bothered you was an appeal to Christians and I did not agree entirely with its presentation because it seemed to appeal to that "better than thou" attitude to encourage Christians to become Libertarians. This I’m sure was not its intent, nor do I believe that most people who read it perceived it this way. I don’t believe it was meant to promote an idea that Christians were better than others, just that much of what Christians claim to believe in is mirrored in the way Libertarians believe government should behave. So based upon that idea if one considers themselves a Christian then it makes sense that they politically should be Libertarians.
The same sort of idea could be applied to most people in society to encourage them to join Libertarians. If you have read any of Dr. Mary Ruwart’s work you will find the same method of persuasion. E.g. why environmentalists should be Libertarians; why New-Agers should be Libertarians; why Liberals should be Libertarians; why Judeo-Christians should be Libertarians or even why Atheist should be Libertarians.
There is of course problems with being an all inclusive party because if we are not careful then we find our message being diluted and our members taking actions like happened in Alabama. This sort of thing is not only occurring in Alabama, if you check any Libertarian email lists like those on YahooGroups then you will see much of the same sort of thing, and even worse, is being promoted and carried out by Libertarians.
I personally believe that the Libertarians have the best political philosophy going, but they don’t always stand by their principles. I wish that no Libertarian ever engaged in the promotion of religion through government, but Libertarians being human are going to make a lot of mistakes that are not in the best interest of the individuals rights. I would rather know that there is a Libertarian in office that is working to decrease taxes and government influence in our lives, increasing the ability of individuals to exercise their private property rights, RKBA, etc., even if they make an error in judgment about a granite block with religious dogma etched into it. I would rather they never made that error, and better yet I wish they had protested against it, but we gain our liberties back little by little at best. And I would rather if the government or Libertarians made a mistake that that was the worst, unfortunately we both know that is not the case.
I, like you, feel that Libertarians don’t raise Cain enough about the influx of religion in government, in fact I will probably do an article here soon about that very topic.
It is a corrosive issue and Libertarians are goring their own ox if they continue to support such blatant violations of the first amendment, regardless of any politically expedient goals they believe it may accomplish, even if it supports their own religious biases.
I also take pleasure in pissing off religious zealots who believe in pushing their bovine manure with a government shovel. When it’s done by someone with the label of Libertarian it makes it all the worse, but at that point I derive no pleasure from chastising them because it is like bitching at a family member.
Into the light together,
Kevin
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 