Get E-Mail Updates

How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?

The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one. Like the Democratic and Republican parties it seeks to challenge, it is a secular movement, not a Christian one. As with both major political parties, people who regard themselves as Christians may be involved in, or sympathetic to, the new Tea Party; but that doesn't make it "Christian." But like the philosophies and policies of the major political parties, the Tea Party can legitimately be examined on the basis of Christian principles -- and it should be.

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Since the Tea Party is getting such national attention, our God's Politics blog is going to begin a dialogue on this question: Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement -- and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it? Let me start the dialogue here. And please join in.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual rights as its supreme value and considers government the major obstacle. It tends to be liberal on cultural and moral issues and conservative on fiscal, economic, and foreign policy. This "just leave me alone and don't spend my money" option is growing quickly in American life, as we have seen in the Tea Party movement. Libertarianism has been an undercurrent in the Republican Party for some time, and has been in the news lately due to the primary election win of Rand Paul as the Republican candidate for a Senate seat in Kentucky. Paul has spoken like a true Libertarian, as evidenced by some of his comments since that election last week.

He cited the Civil Rights Act as an example of government interference with the rights of private business. Paul told an interviewer that he would have tried to change the provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. He answered a specific question about desegregating lunch counters by countering, "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"

A few days later, he spoke about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Referring to the Obama administration's criticisms of BP, Paul said, "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

Is such a philosophy Christian? In several major aspects of biblical ethics, I would suggest that Libertarianism falls short.

1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition. The Christian answer to the question "Are we our brother's keeper?" is decidedly "Yes." Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy. Both Christians on the Right and the Left have raised questions about Libertarian abandonment of the most vulnerable -- whether that means unborn lives or the poor.

Just look at the biblical prophets in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and how they frequently follow those statements by requiring the king (the government) to act justly (a requirement that applied both to the kings of Israel and to foreign potentates). Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well" (Jeremiah 22:16). Amos instructs the courts (the government) to "Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts" (Amos 5:15). The prophets hold kings, rulers, judges, and employers accountable to the demands of justice and mercy.

2. An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical. In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God's plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes! Sorry, Tea Party. Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to "big" or "small" government.

Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast -- a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se -- to see government as the central problem in society -- is simply not a biblical position.

3. The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social sectors, and in particular, the market. When government regulation is the enemy, the market is set free to pursue its own self-interest without regard for public safety, the common good, and the protection of the environment -- which Christians regard as God's creation. Libertarians seem to believe in the myth of the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society; and if they don't, it's not government's role to correct it.

But such theorizing ignores the practical issues that the public sector has to solve. Should big oil companies like BP simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make sure our kids' toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to decide whom they will or won't serve, or should liquor store owners also be able to sell alcohol to our kids? Given the reality of sin in all human institutions, doesn't a political process that provides both accountability and checks and balances make both theological and practical sense? C.S. Lewis once said that we need democracy not because people are essentially good, but because they often are not. Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: PASTOR JEFF

06-07-2010 @ 6:00pm

"You bore me with this inane jibberish just the same as Wallis does."

Then why are you here?

by: SpleenyRobert

05-28-2010 @ 1:08am

1. "The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue."

Individual choice, called "free will" in biblical discussions, is not merely "not pre-eminent" but totally anti-biblical. Martin Luther's "The Bondage Of The Will" agrees with John Calvin on this point; a sinner can't "decide" to change of their own free will any more than a dropped rock can fall up, the power of sin is it won't let you not sin, only God can change a person's will. Only God could change Saul of Tarsus into Saint Paul. As Jesus said to the disciples: you did not choose me, but I chose you.

2. "An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical."

Not only Paul's comment in Romans 13, but Jesus himself addressed the issue of taxation in the famous Matthew 22:15-22 passage. In the context of the Israel of Jesus' day, not only was the tax system extremely unfair, making the poor pay as much as the rich, but it was to a foreign conqueror or a client king who was the servant to the conqueror. To make matters worse, the tax collectors were not salaried employees of the government but got their wages from however much they could overcharge the citizens. Still in these conditions, Jesus said to pay the tax. Not only that, but it could be argued that in Matthew 5:40-42, part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says to give more that what is required of you.

3. "The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin."

The idea that how much you succeed or fail is in direct proportion you did conflicts with both Jewish and Christian scripture. In the book of Job, the so-called friends of Job debated over what Job had done wrong to bring all his misfortune when in fact Job was righteous. It is the same the 9th chapter of the gospel of John; at the beginning the disciples, seeing a man born blind, are arguing over whose sin caused the blindness: his father's, his mother's, or the man's own sin. It is typical of humans to debate over somebody's suffering and if they caused it themselves, I can image that the whole town had their say over whose fault it was, throughout that man's life. Jesus rejects all that nonsense and tells them that the man was born blind, and lived all his life blind, not for somebody's extra sinfulness but that Jesus would show everyone around God's power on that particular day; and healed the man right on the spot.

4. "The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian."

The most obvious scriptural condemnation of this Libertarian idea is Paul's First letter to the Corinthians 1:27, "God chose to weak in the world to shame the strong." Another is his command in Galatians 6:2 to "Bear each other's burden and so fulfil the law of Christ." The words of Jesus are especially critical of greed and love of money, in Matthew 6:24-34, Matthew 19:16-26, and Matthew 25:31-46. The parable of the "rich fool" in Luke 12:13-21 calls into question the concept of private ownership of anything itself by the fact that when he dies he can't take it him, it's somebody else's then.

by: PASTOR JEFF

06-07-2010 @ 6:00pm

"You bore me with this inane jibberish just the same as Wallis does."

Then why are you here?

by: Patricia

06-01-2010 @ 10:37pm

I did not say either of these programs were perfect - that wasn't the original charge. The original charge was "government programs don't work." That is patently untrue.

We could make adjustments to both medicare and social security, including new tax revenue, that would make them both solvent for the long term. It is the lack of political will to fix the problem that is the cause of the current state of both programs. They are good programs; they've worked for millions of citizens; they can continue to work if we are willing to make the changes needed both in income (taxes) and outflow (benefits).

by: Steve Pennypacker Williams

06-04-2010 @ 6:01pm

BTW, Jim Wallis, are you going to respond to William Anderson's article posted on LRC?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson288...

Anyone else care to respond as well?

by: michaelbigley1

05-29-2010 @ 5:40pm

Good point WaveTossed!

If I may.......in my short (59 year) lifetime, there have been many Eminent Domain cases (cant' immediately quote them specifically) where people lost what they had worked for all their lives. So it would seem that this is not so "rarely used".

Where have all the homes gone that used to stand where major freeways now stand? Where major skyscrapers now loom tall? How about the Civil War? Whose "domain" was that?

Even in my part of the world, there is currently a case in Beaverton Oregon where the Mayor wants "Eminent Domain" over an entire business park so that the local minor league baseball team can build its new stadium on that site to bring revenue to the City.

The most powerful WILL take from those with less power, no matter what the cause, as long as those with the most power wins. Sorry!

Hope I didn't miss your point.

All said, if we as "Christians", that is true Follower of Christ, are going to affect our society, we MUST be Christ-like. We must do what we are told by Christ, and by God through His word. we must be consistent in the eyes of those who do not know Jesus to prove that His Way is the only Way to live a life "worthy of our calling as sons and daughters of our Most High God".

To be so, ("You are my friends if you so whatsoever I commandeth thee" - to quote just one), the choice whether to be involved or not is not ours (which is the case in every aspect of a true Follower's life). Which takes us back to Romans 13, the best "command" of how we are to be involved in government ("authority").

The great Apostle Paul tells us that we must "Live in peace with everyone" (Romans 12:18 - and others). In 1 Thess 4:11, he again tells us to not only live "quietly" (in peace), but "to mind your own affairs".

At least for me, and I'm not that different from others, we have our hands full living a life in Christ. Libertarianism, Tea Party, Democrat, Republican........we are all citizens of this world, but as Christians, we are told NOT to be "OF" this world.

It always comes down to this: We are strangers and foreigners in a strange land. How can we be "involved" in the affairs of this world, this government, this worldly authority and not be of it? We cannot. And the penalty is marked out for us in Romans 13 "...he who rebels against the authority (government) is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves".

Isn't a Christian's involvement in any movement (e.g. Tea Party) rebelling against Authority? Of course it is.

Michael

by: maestas

06-03-2010 @ 5:51am

what do you mean by giving up a tax cut. The implication here is that the government owns my earnings and allowing me to keep a larger share of it is somehow a benefit to me. I look at it the other way around...i work hard, earn money, and fight the government to allow me to keep as much of it as I possibly can.

by: ThalesTheWise

06-07-2010 @ 5:23pm

Sure, I'll do it. But, what's the point? You're trying to say that we want lower taxes out of greed. You're equating taxes to charity, and trying to get us to pledge to do so mathematically. That's rediculous. The government is incredibly inefficient at divvying out tax monies as charity. How about I pledge to give to charity the equivalent of what the government gives out, after their overhead? That would make more sense, and speak better to your argument.

Here's a scenario for you. Let's say that I'm falling behind on my debts because the government is taxing me so much. If I were to take your pledge, I would have to get a tax cut, then give that money away rather than taking care of my own family. Is that what you'd like? Would you still consider me greedy if I refused your pledge?

by: AllenSkillicorn

05-28-2010 @ 1:53am

"The Bush II administration did everything it could to eliminate regulation."

Please cite your source.

by: Patricia

06-01-2010 @ 10:41pm

"I believe in the free market approach: the best person to figure out what risks are appropriate is the patient."

Unfortunately, I don't believe that's true. As a result of free market advertising, the majority of patients are convinced that only the newest, most high-tech, most expensive treatments are worthwhile. The "free market" always wants more profit, and an irrational, uneducated, death-fearing citizenry suits that end just fine.

by: Steve Pennypacker Williams

06-04-2010 @ 5:57pm

I gotta tell ya, the twisting and contorting that I have read on several of these topics related to Libertarianism is disgusting.

The Civil Rights Act commerce clause dilemma has been answered hundreds of times, yet is ignored time and time again.

Abridging civil rights (or more importantly liberties) of some reduces civil rights for all. When fed gov attempts to force people to do things by abridging their liberties, it stands to reason that resistance will be the logical outcome. For a century or more, blacks in this country suffered from having their rights and liberties abridged; they subsequently resisted and protested. The reverse is also true. Private property is a basis tenet of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Property owner's had their liberties abridged by improper use of the commerce clause in the CRA of 1964. Resistence has come in the form of pepetuation of racism that, I firmly believe, could have been avoided had fed gov not become thought police.

The one blairing success of the CRA of 1964 is forced integration of public schools. I was born in 1968 and was privy to this success. Had fed gov's tentacles stopped there, I believe we would be a better society today. I can't imagine that there would be many racially discriminating businesses that would have survived up until today. There would be a few, but that's ok, we would all know who the real racists are, and not would not have to make ridiculous, inaccurate assumptions as have many pundits have made toward Libertarians recently.

by: michaelbigley1

05-29-2010 @ 5:40pm

Good point WaveTossed!

If I may.......in my short (59 year) lifetime, there have been many Eminent Domain cases (cant' immediately quote them specifically) where people lost what they had worked for all their lives. So it would seem that this is not so "rarely used".

Where have all the homes gone that used to stand where major freeways now stand? Where major skyscrapers now loom tall? How about the Civil War? Whose "domain" was that?

Even in my part of the world, there is currently a case in Beaverton Oregon where the Mayor wants "Eminent Domain" over an entire business park so that the local minor league baseball team can build its new stadium on that site to bring revenue to the City.

The most powerful WILL take from those with less power, no matter what the cause, as long as those with the most power wins. Sorry!

Hope I didn't miss your point.

All said, if we as "Christians", that is true Follower of Christ, are going to affect our society, we MUST be Christ-like. We must do what we are told by Christ, and by God through His word. we must be consistent in the eyes of those who do not know Jesus to prove that His Way is the only Way to live a life "worthy of our calling as sons and daughters of our Most High God".

To be so, ("You are my friends if you so whatsoever I commandeth thee" - to quote just one), the choice whether to be involved or not is not ours (which is the case in every aspect of a true Follower's life). Which takes us back to Romans 13, the best "command" of how we are to be involved in government ("authority").

The great Apostle Paul tells us that we must "Live in peace with everyone" (Romans 12:18 - and others). In 1 Thess 4:11, he again tells us to not only live "quietly" (in peace), but "to mind your own affairs".

At least for me, and I'm not that different from others, we have our hands full living a life in Christ. Libertarianism, Tea Party, Democrat, Republican........we are all citizens of this world, but as Christians, we are told NOT to be "OF" this world.

It always comes down to this: We are strangers and foreigners in a strange land. How can we be "involved" in the affairs of this world, this government, this worldly authority and not be of it? We cannot. And the penalty is marked out for us in Romans 13 "...he who rebels against the authority (government) is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves".

Isn't a Christian's involvement in any movement (e.g. Tea Party) rebelling against Authority? Of course it is.

Michael

by: maestas

06-03-2010 @ 5:51am

what do you mean by giving up a tax cut. The implication here is that the government owns my earnings and allowing me to keep a larger share of it is somehow a benefit to me. I look at it the other way around...i work hard, earn money, and fight the government to allow me to keep as much of it as I possibly can.

by: ThalesTheWise

06-07-2010 @ 5:23pm

Sure, I'll do it. But, what's the point? You're trying to say that we want lower taxes out of greed. You're equating taxes to charity, and trying to get us to pledge to do so mathematically. That's rediculous. The government is incredibly inefficient at divvying out tax monies as charity. How about I pledge to give to charity the equivalent of what the government gives out, after their overhead? That would make more sense, and speak better to your argument.

Here's a scenario for you. Let's say that I'm falling behind on my debts because the government is taxing me so much. If I were to take your pledge, I would have to get a tax cut, then give that money away rather than taking care of my own family. Is that what you'd like? Would you still consider me greedy if I refused your pledge?

by: AllenSkillicorn

05-28-2010 @ 1:53am

So we are going to live in caves? Energy plows fields, get single moms to work, and keeps people from freezing to death.

by: Eaglerock

07-26-2010 @ 1:57am

If God is the socialist you seem to be making him out to be, what did God mean in what he says to the people through Samuel;

But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us, this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the lord. And the LORD told him "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their King". (1Sam 6-7 NIV)

He then gives a warning about all the evils this king will visit upon the people, and ends with the following;

"When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."(1Sam 8:18)

Socialism has that form of godliness, but denies the power thereof. from such we SHOULD turn away. It only enhances faith in the state, not faith in God. It also renders to Caesar the things that are Gods.

by: MikeRussellMcK

06-01-2010 @ 8:43pm

I am not a tea-partier, but would gladly take this deal. And in fact I do effectively the same thing through charitable deductions every year.

by: thlipsis29

05-28-2010 @ 2:31am

One other point should be made in regard to race and libertarianism. The libertarian places value upon the individual as an individual instead of her/his association with any particular group whether that be based on race, gender or creed, and in that regard, libertarianism is egalitarian, which seems strikingly similar to what Paul says in Galatians 3:28. Now please understand that I'm not suggesting that the majority of libertarians root their value of the individual in Scripture because I don't believe that to be the case. But it would seem to me that a belief system which recognizes the destructive and divisive nature of identity-based collectivism is much closer to biblical truth than some of the other political ideologies floating around out there.

by: SamHamilton

05-29-2010 @ 6:32pm

We're now past 300 comments to Jim's original post. Something tells me he touched a nerve. While I consider myself neither a libertarian nor a tea partier, there are aspects of both philosophies that I care for. And while I haven't read all the comments, there appears to be two major critiques of his post:

1) Conflating the tea party movement and libertarianism is problematic.

2) Wallis has misrepresented what libertarians actually believe.

As Wallis wants to have a dialogue, which I presume means a back and forth conversation and not a one-time lecture, I'd suggest he read some of the comments here and respond to some of the points made. And in regard to the first critique, before Wallis responds, he needs to decide whether he wants to criticize the tea partiers or libertarians or both. If he chooses both, I recommend he separate the critiques.

I'd also recommend dropping the racial angle.

by: MikeRussellMcK

06-01-2010 @ 8:43pm

I am not a tea-partier, but would gladly take this deal. And in fact I do effectively the same thing through charitable deductions every year.

by: Mike Burkart

05-28-2010 @ 2:17am

My guess is you are right. Most "tea partiers" are not libertarians..

by: SamHamilton

05-29-2010 @ 6:32pm

We're now past 300 comments to Jim's original post. Something tells me he touched a nerve. While I consider myself neither a libertarian nor a tea partier, there are aspects of both philosophies that I care for. And while I haven't read all the comments, there appears to be two major critiques of his post:

1) Conflating the tea party movement and libertarianism is problematic.

2) Wallis has misrepresented what libertarians actually believe.

As Wallis wants to have a dialogue, which I presume means a back and forth conversation and not a one-time lecture, I'd suggest he read some of the comments here and respond to some of the points made. And in regard to the first critique, before Wallis responds, he needs to decide whether he wants to criticize the tea partiers or libertarians or both. If he chooses both, I recommend he separate the critiques.

I'd also recommend dropping the racial angle.

by: Kentucky Packrat

06-01-2010 @ 8:06pm

Social security works. Medicare works.

Social Security will pay out more than it earns this year. Medicare pays providers less than cost for most services now. Both will take more than half of all government receipts within 20 years, around the time that interest for government debt takes the other half.

It isn't enough to say "it works". It is foolish to bankrupt a society for momentary benefits.

by: dubld

06-07-2010 @ 6:30pm

Ha You're a pastor!?!?!

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass

What do you think these are about? Making conscious decisions to live a principled life. Not to take as much as good people will give. I drive by our local Sacred Heart everyday and see whole families waiting in line for a free meal while talking on cell phones. This is of course because the government and your local pastor have the same mission. Give people free stuff until they are devoted to you no matter what you do. This is why you are all so venomous towards people adovcating a greater level of freedom and self sufficiency. I'm no fool.

To answer your question I'm here to dispel the dispicible implications the author made about Libertarians. Not to be lectured by yet another pastor who is more interested in feeding his God complex than understanding the meaning of the bible. Jesus died to absolve us of our many sins resulting from our failure to NOT practice the things I've mentioned. What is YOUR understanding of why Jesus died, seeing as how you are (or at least claim to be) in the business of usurping his name for credibility and a paycheck? Does everyone need to know you are a Pastor? Christianity is not something you put on a business card. Shameful...

by: Mike Burkart

05-28-2010 @ 2:16am

#1 Submitting to God is different from forcing everyone to submit to government. I believe mathew 6:24 even says something about 2 masters.

#2 Libertarians are limited government, not anti-government. rest of argument you give is moot because of this.

#3 Freedom is what we want, we do not say the poor and the infirmed do not need help, just FEDERAL government should not be the one doing it. We as people should be... And honestly if everyone gave HALF of their federal income tax to charity... *about the same as used for DEATH currently overseas by our military!* We could take care of the poor and the sick and the infirmed... Of course what would even be better is if we could take some of that and give it away as time... Teach a man to fish and all...

#4 Argument based on a fallacy.. For the argument to be worthwhile libertarians would have to abandon the weak, instead we say their rights and freedoms must be protected as much as anyone's. Saying it is not the federal governments place to dole out our money does not mean we believe it is no one's place. Just we argue it is our own responsibility not some mystical bureaucracy that somehow will make all the right choices and have no one gaming the system.

by: michaelbigley1

06-01-2010 @ 11:45pm

If you would like to get a snapshot of Jim from a Christian perspective, please go here (halfway down the page): http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newslet...

His "Comment Code of Conduct" is riddled with scriptural context. Unfortunately, it does not appear that his life is as well. So, why start a blog on the "Christian" values, or lack thereof, of the Tea Party?

Although I've not gone back through all 400+ Posts, Jim is still seems absent from his own "dialog", as he also seems "absent from the truth".

by: Patricia

05-29-2010 @ 6:38pm

agree with all your points except the "racial angle." I know too many tea partiers who are not in the slightest hesitant to voice their "disgust" that a (unprintable) got into the White House. Not all, of course, but way too many for me to dismiss as a fringe element.

Actually, I believe if the Tea Party wants to disassociate itself from the racist charge, it ought to be much more open, public and vocal about challenging those within the movement who are motivated by their prejudice.

That said, again, I agree this whole "discussion" - or lecture and response - has been problematic from the lack of clarity regarding the beliefs of libertarians, and the conflation of libertarianism with tea party-ism.

Thanks for pointing that out - again.

by: Kentucky Packrat

06-01-2010 @ 8:06pm

Social security works. Medicare works.

Social Security will pay out more than it earns this year. Medicare pays providers less than cost for most services now. Both will take more than half of all government receipts within 20 years, around the time that interest for government debt takes the other half.

It isn't enough to say "it works". It is foolish to bankrupt a society for momentary benefits.

by: dubld

06-07-2010 @ 6:30pm

Ha You're a pastor!?!?!

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass

What do you think these are about? Making conscious decisions to live a principled life. Not to take as much as good people will give. I drive by our local Sacred Heart everyday and see whole families waiting in line for a free meal while talking on cell phones. This is of course because the government and your local pastor have the same mission. Give people free stuff until they are devoted to you no matter what you do. This is why you are all so venomous towards people adovcating a greater level of freedom and self sufficiency. I'm no fool.

To answer your question I'm here to dispel the dispicible implications the author made about Libertarians. Not to be lectured by yet another pastor who is more interested in feeding his God complex than understanding the meaning of the bible. Jesus died to absolve us of our many sins resulting from our failure to NOT practice the things I've mentioned. What is YOUR understanding of why Jesus died, seeing as how you are (or at least claim to be) in the business of usurping his name for credibility and a paycheck? Does everyone need to know you are a Pastor? Christianity is not something you put on a business card. Shameful...

by: Mike Burkart

05-28-2010 @ 2:43am

I would just like to say as a libertarian this is indeed what we strive for. Not everyone hits the mark of course, but the basis of the political ideals state that everyone is born with rights and those rights should not be infringed by anyone else.

We if we follow what we have said about what we want as a country and government, would see everyone as an individual, not even recognizing a difference between anyone and protecting everyone's rights the same. This of course will not always happen because of human failings, but it is what we strive for.

by: peter777

10-06-2010 @ 7:06pm

God did not call us not to judge. He called Christians to judge righteously (and to govern righteously, I might extend), such as in this passage:

"Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." (Prov 31:9)

by: Patricia

05-29-2010 @ 6:38pm

agree with all your points except the "racial angle." I know too many tea partiers who are not in the slightest hesitant to voice their "disgust" that a (unprintable) got into the White House. Not all, of course, but way too many for me to dismiss as a fringe element.

Actually, I believe if the Tea Party wants to disassociate itself from the racist charge, it ought to be much more open, public and vocal about challenging those within the movement who are motivated by their prejudice.

That said, again, I agree this whole "discussion" - or lecture and response - has been problematic from the lack of clarity regarding the beliefs of libertarians, and the conflation of libertarianism with tea party-ism.

Thanks for pointing that out - again.

by: prgrs_ev

06-01-2010 @ 8:27pm

The funding of medicare is not related to its efficacy and it has been effective for more than a "moment". It's debatable whether medicare reimbursement for providers is less than cost...it surely less than they want...they are for profit businesses by and large. Having 35 years experience with healthcare providers and reimbursement models, your comments are simplistic at best.

The financial fix for Medicare is not that complicated but will take political will on both sides of the aisle as will true cost containment in healthcare...what we need is for the electorate to really become educated regarding the matter and not just be spoon fed misinformation...the financing of healthcare, insuring risk and healthcare cost-containment knowledge basics will need to understood by the elctorate if real progress in this area is to be made....it will require difficult decisions.

by: Steve Pennypacker Williams

06-04-2010 @ 6:01pm

BTW, Jim Wallis, are you going to respond to William Anderson's article posted on LRC?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson288...

Anyone else care to respond as well?

by: SamHamilton

05-29-2010 @ 6:14pm

I think your analysis is good here. The one thing I'd like to correct though is your statement: "Rand Paul provided the only answer that a True Libertarian could possibly provide."

I don't necessarily think this is true. Discrimination in the South wasn't just about private businesses discriminating against blacks. Local and state governments and their law enforcement agencies had a hand in it too.

Charles Lane makes a point here that is worth considering.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2...

You can read the whole thing, but the key paragraph is this:

Conversely, it is precisely because of this nexus between private discrimination and public enforcement that the larger community, through the political and judicial process, acquires a valid interest in legislating against discrimination. The public is entitled to say whether their tax money should pay for arresting black trespassers on whites-only property.

I think an honest libertarian can make the argument that he supports the Civil Rights Act because he doesn't want his tax dollars being used to enforce discriminatory practices.

Ilya Somin, a libertarian himself, makes a related point here.
http://volokh.com/2010/05/21/libertarianism-fed...

He writes: ...libertarianism is a theory of the relationship between individuals and government, not a theory of the relationship between different levels of government. Thus, there is nothing unlibertarian about one level of government (the federal) intervening to curb the racist oppression of another (state or local). Indeed, such policies actually promote libertarian ends to the extent that they prevent state or local governments from taking away the freedom of blacks or or other minority groups.

And other libertarians have made the point that, while in an ideal world we wouldn't need a Civil Rights Act, there are some cases where exceptions can be made to libertarian principles because of great historical injustices, and the treatment of blacks in America is one of them. All in all, I think "True Libertarians" can both support the Civil Rights Act and remain true to their belief about government at the same time.

I'm not a libertarian, so I'm willing to be corrected by the libertarians who post here.

by: prgrs_ev

06-01-2010 @ 8:27pm

The funding of medicare is not related to its efficacy and it has been effective for more than a "moment". It's debatable whether medicare reimbursement for providers is less than cost...it surely less than they want...they are for profit businesses by and large. Having 35 years experience with healthcare providers and reimbursement models, your comments are simplistic at best.

The financial fix for Medicare is not that complicated but will take political will on both sides of the aisle as will true cost containment in healthcare...what we need is for the electorate to really become educated regarding the matter and not just be spoon fed misinformation...the financing of healthcare, insuring risk and healthcare cost-containment knowledge basics will need to understood by the elctorate if real progress in this area is to be made....it will require difficult decisions.

by: Steve Pennypacker Williams

06-04-2010 @ 6:01pm

BTW, Jim Wallis, are you going to respond to William Anderson's article posted on LRC?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson288...

Anyone else care to respond as well?

by: Patricia Mikkelson

05-28-2010 @ 3:55am

As a person who poured my life for 6 months in working to help get Ron Paul elected, I know first hand what the Tea Party Movement is about--because the "Ron Paul Revolution" is where it all got started.

Tea Party folks are not perfect--yet at the same time I believe that they sincerely care about their fellow man--and they just don't think that the government can solve our problems. They believe that people working together using their ingenuity and compassion can solve problems. Rand Paul is not perfect either--yet I believe that he has more compassion, intelligence, caring and integrity than most politicians--as does his father, Ron Paul.

I have not yet met a racist Tea Party person.

The Tea Party movement is made up of a huge cross section of people--I was amazed at the different backgrounds of all the people who supported Ron Paul. No, there were not a lot of people of color--it seems that we still have problems getting all races involved in just about anything--yes?

I could go on and on--but I will just conclude by saying that I think Jim Wallis is rather biased in his approach, and taking his information from a very poor source--main stream media, and not looking deeper into the situation.

by: SamHamilton

05-29-2010 @ 6:14pm

I think your analysis is good here. The one thing I'd like to correct though is your statement: "Rand Paul provided the only answer that a True Libertarian could possibly provide."

I don't necessarily think this is true. Discrimination in the South wasn't just about private businesses discriminating against blacks. Local and state governments and their law enforcement agencies had a hand in it too.

Charles Lane makes a point here that is worth considering.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2...

You can read the whole thing, but the key paragraph is this:

Conversely, it is precisely because of this nexus between private discrimination and public enforcement that the larger community, through the political and judicial process, acquires a valid interest in legislating against discrimination. The public is entitled to say whether their tax money should pay for arresting black trespassers on whites-only property.

I think an honest libertarian can make the argument that he supports the Civil Rights Act because he doesn't want his tax dollars being used to enforce discriminatory practices.

Ilya Somin, a libertarian himself, makes a related point here.
http://volokh.com/2010/05/21/libertarianism-fed...

He writes: ...libertarianism is a theory of the relationship between individuals and government, not a theory of the relationship between different levels of government. Thus, there is nothing unlibertarian about one level of government (the federal) intervening to curb the racist oppression of another (state or local). Indeed, such policies actually promote libertarian ends to the extent that they prevent state or local governments from taking away the freedom of blacks or or other minority groups.

And other libertarians have made the point that, while in an ideal world we wouldn't need a Civil Rights Act, there are some cases where exceptions can be made to libertarian principles because of great historical injustices, and the treatment of blacks in America is one of them. All in all, I think "True Libertarians" can both support the Civil Rights Act and remain true to their belief about government at the same time.

I'm not a libertarian, so I'm willing to be corrected by the libertarians who post here.

by: Kentucky Packrat

06-01-2010 @ 8:43pm

To point 1: How do we cut Medicare costs? We either spend less per activity or we do less activities. Less cost per activity is dangerous; unless you wish to enslave doctors, there is only so much one can pay a person until they just quit. Many providers are reaching this point now.

If you wish to do less, then you raise the "death panel" specter ala the right wing nutjobs. This is where the National Health Service has been moving in England.

I happen to believe in doing less. 80% of people on cholesterol medicine don't need it. We shouldn't pay for them. It's just really, really hard to figure out which of the people are on it are the 20% without letting them have that massive heart attack.

I believe in the free market approach: the best person to figure out what risks are appropriate is the patient. Price the risk correctly and fairly, and then make them pay it.

by: Steve Pennypacker Williams

06-04-2010 @ 5:57pm

I gotta tell ya, the twisting and contorting that I have read on several of these topics related to Libertarianism is disgusting.

The Civil Rights Act commerce clause dilemma has been answered hundreds of times, yet is ignored time and time again.

Abridging civil rights (or more importantly liberties) of some reduces civil rights for all. When fed gov attempts to force people to do things by abridging their liberties, it stands to reason that resistance will be the logical outcome. For a century or more, blacks in this country suffered from having their rights and liberties abridged; they subsequently resisted and protested. The reverse is also true. Private property is a basis tenet of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Property owner's had their liberties abridged by improper use of the commerce clause in the CRA of 1964. Resistence has come in the form of pepetuation of racism that, I firmly believe, could have been avoided had fed gov not become thought police.

The one blairing success of the CRA of 1964 is forced integration of public schools. I was born in 1968 and was privy to this success. Had fed gov's tentacles stopped there, I believe we would be a better society today. I can't imagine that there would be many racially discriminating businesses that would have survived up until today. There would be a few, but that's ok, we would all know who the real racists are, and not would not have to make ridiculous, inaccurate assumptions as have many pundits have made toward Libertarians recently.

by: tedbear

05-28-2010 @ 5:43am

I think a positive position is the most important issue of a political party. The Democrats do have many supporters who are in favor of or believe for whatever reason in abortion rights. Other than that, I truly believe the Dems are the best party because Democrats are not of the greddy thinking of Libertarians and Republicans. Jesus believed there was plenty for everyone and these Libertarians and Republicans want small government so that they can take as much as they can and not give back except if it puts more money in their pockets ie supporting charaties to get tax breaks.

The Democratic Party is the party of the people, the little guy and thus unions have backed the party and truly, you can see everyday that yes, the Dems might have to play politics but the underlying idea behind the party is to help the poor and disabled and the little person. If you aren't wealthy or in that greedy mindset, the Republican and Libertarian Parties have nothing to offer you.

by: PASTOR JEFF

06-02-2010 @ 12:50am

From the link: "Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine, is one of the top "change agents" today, and the timing of his surge in popularity should not be ignored, considering 1) the ideology of our current administration, 2) the advance of liberal theology via the emerging church and church growth movements, and 3) the current state of apostasy the church finds itself in today."

1. Thank God for a doer of the Word" in the White House.
2. Hooray that liberal theology is advancing
3. Apostasy in the Church is evident in the fundamentalist wing of the church as well. (As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be..)

"Keep this in mind when you watch the extreme changes going on in our country today

by: liberalinlove

05-29-2010 @ 7:14pm

If words were dollars, who could we feed? If thoughts were gold what would we need?

Sometimes I wonder how to proceed. The most creative times in my marriage were when my back was up against the wall, with no place else to go except God. I became extremely creative and far more dependent on Him.

Jesus had no problem healing and feeding even those who may have never become believers. I am not worried about tax dollars being used for compassionate care even for those who will never take hold and rise above their circumstances and especially for those who may never be able to do so.

I do want to be a wise steward of what God gives me. I want to help, not hinder. I want to pave the way, not make the way. I never want to enable, but always seek and assume the best for others. I am willing to squander love on others, showing God without becoming their God.

Righteous government, benefits everyone involved. So for me the question is, does how I vote benefit everyone or just me?

It just seems to me withholding good to those who need it, in order to line my own pockets, not only hurts others, it eventually will destroy the market for which so many want to draw their lifeblood from. You need people who can participate as consumers and as producers. If only a few hold all the resources, then its like having the basketball, the court, the hoops, the referee, the scoreboard, and no one to play your game.

But then what do I know? I wish commonsense became the next topic of discussion.

If Palin can build a hockey stadium that continues to lose money at the expense of the tax payers and yet be considered a tea partier, I'm thinking the moon is made of cheese.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905...

by: Kentucky Packrat

06-01-2010 @ 8:43pm

To point 1: How do we cut Medicare costs? We either spend less per activity or we do less activities. Less cost per activity is dangerous; unless you wish to enslave doctors, there is only so much one can pay a person until they just quit. Many providers are reaching this point now.

If you wish to do less, then you raise the "death panel" specter ala the right wing nutjobs. This is where the National Health Service has been moving in England.

I happen to believe in doing less. 80% of people on cholesterol medicine don't need it. We shouldn't pay for them. It's just really, really hard to figure out which of the people are on it are the 20% without letting them have that massive heart attack.

I believe in the free market approach: the best person to figure out what risks are appropriate is the patient. Price the risk correctly and fairly, and then make them pay it.

by: Steve Pennypacker Williams

06-04-2010 @ 5:57pm

I gotta tell ya, the twisting and contorting that I have read on several of these topics related to Libertarianism is disgusting.

The Civil Rights Act commerce clause dilemma has been answered hundreds of times, yet is ignored time and time again.

Abridging civil rights (or more importantly liberties) of some reduces civil rights for all. When fed gov attempts to force people to do things by abridging their liberties, it stands to reason that resistance will be the logical outcome. For a century or more, blacks in this country suffered from having their rights and liberties abridged; they subsequently resisted and protested. The reverse is also true. Private property is a basis tenet of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Property owner's had their liberties abridged by improper use of the commerce clause in the CRA of 1964. Resistence has come in the form of pepetuation of racism that, I firmly believe, could have been avoided had fed gov not become thought police.

The one blairing success of the CRA of 1964 is forced integration of public schools. I was born in 1968 and was privy to this success. Had fed gov's tentacles stopped there, I believe we would be a better society today. I can't imagine that there would be many racially discriminating businesses that would have survived up until today. There would be a few, but that's ok, we would all know who the real racists are, and not would not have to make ridiculous, inaccurate assumptions as have many pundits have made toward Libertarians recently.

by: Andrew S. Meredith

05-28-2010 @ 5:12am

Thank you, Jim, for flatly pointing out the problems with Libertarianism from a Christian perspective. I agree that Libertarianism is simply not an option for the Christian. With passages such as Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2, which teach submission to government, and the biblical concepts of compassion and justice, I do not see any room for Libertarianism in a Christian worldview.

It is a pity that in many conservative evangelical circles, Christianity and Libertarianism are often seen as mutually dependent, if not identical. I pray that over the next several decades the Lord would open the eyes of many of His people to see the importance of compassion and justice and the relative triviality of "big" versus "small" government.

by: liberalinlove

05-29-2010 @ 7:14pm

If words were dollars, who could we feed? If thoughts were gold what would we need?

Sometimes I wonder how to proceed. The most creative times in my marriage were when my back was up against the wall, with no place else to go except God. I became extremely creative and far more dependent on Him.

Jesus had no problem healing and feeding even those who may have never become believers. I am not worried about tax dollars being used for compassionate care even for those who will never take hold and rise above their circumstances and especially for those who may never be able to do so.

I do want to be a wise steward of what God gives me. I want to help, not hinder. I want to pave the way, not make the way. I never want to enable, but always seek and assume the best for others. I am willing to squander love on others, showing God without becoming their God.

Righteous government, benefits everyone involved. So for me the question is, does how I vote benefit everyone or just me?

It just seems to me withholding good to those who need it, in order to line my own pockets, not only hurts others, it eventually will destroy the market for which so many want to draw their lifeblood from. You need people who can participate as consumers and as producers. If only a few hold all the resources, then its like having the basketball, the court, the hoops, the referee, the scoreboard, and no one to play your game.

But then what do I know? I wish commonsense became the next topic of discussion.

If Palin can build a hockey stadium that continues to lose money at the expense of the tax payers and yet be considered a tea partier, I'm thinking the moon is made of cheese.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905...

by: Kentucky Packrat

06-01-2010 @ 8:34pm

You ignore half of my statement. My kids and grandkids are not choosing to pay for Medicare or Social Security. Nonetheless, we are borrowing 1 trillion USD plus this year, and neither Social Security nor Medicare will change their downward spiral without major and irreversible cuts.

The US had the cash to pay for Social Security when it was started. It arguably even had the cash to pay for Medicare when it was started (it just didn't have enough for both guns and butter).

The simple fact is that we are now broke. We are not paying for either now out of our own income, but instead committing our children and grandchildren to paying an unpayable debt.

That isn't charity, or love. That is theft.

by: kentuckypackrat

05-28-2010 @ 5:03am

I managed to have a very nice post. Unfortunately, disqus proceeded to eat it.

Mr. Wallis, you commit the same error you claim to detest in the Christian right: you are defining the True Christian.

I am a Christian, and I am a Libertarian. God does not compel giving by the sword; the Law showed us that that doesn't work. We are instead to give freely, of our own will. Government does not ask; it takes.

If the church cannot meet God's will, then the church is in sin. God no more needs a government to feed His people than he needs it to convert the sinner.

There is no racism or hypocrisy in pointing out that the government is broke. The federal government will borrow 1 trillion USD this year. Illinois can't pay its bills at all; California is next. Social Security will spend more this year than it draws in, and Medicare is only solvent on paper because it systematically abuses and underpays doctors in the system. If we do not default on the US sovereign debt before then, the US will need 100% of our GDP just to service the debt before my children grow old.

Moreover, the government is inefficient. The government has around 70% overhead rates (for every .30 going to the poor, the government spends around .70 to do so). Good charities manage 10% overhead or less (.1 overhead for every .9 spent), and any charity with more than 25% overhead is probably a scam.

Facts aren't racist or classist. They are still the facts.

The libertarian doesn't favor the strong; the libertarian KNOWS that the strong regularly abuse the weak, and they usually use the government to do so. To paraphrase Lewis, at least give me a petty tyrant. He will sleep or might grow lazy. God save us from the righteous tyrant; he will never sleep for fear of someone harming themselves.

We have a government of righteous tyrants, afraid that one type of "marriage" will corrupt me, or that my incandescent lights will ruin the world. Neither "side" has the least compunction from using the same means; they just argue over goals.

The Libertarian believes in the law of unintended consequences. Pass a minimum wage law, and fewer people get jobs. Regulate companies, and they can't compete with their foreign competitors. The government that has the power to take over GM is the same government with the power to shoot the workers (coal miners and railroad workers of the 1800s). The government that can force a waiter to serve a black man is the same government that can force a waiter to not serve a Christian, or a Jew, etc.

I do not believe that Government is evil; it is worldly and flawed. The Mosaic Law failed when it attempted to impose charity just as it failed when it tried to impose Godly behavior. Our brethren who want to outlaw sin are just as flawed as those who want to outlaw poverty.

As for racism: Mr. Wallis, might I suggest you attend a Tea Party rally? Or perhaps look at the pictures from the right-wing nut job blogs. The people showing you the lilly-white pictures have an agenda to keep them looking that way.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: SpleenyRobert

05-28-2010 @ 1:08am

1. "The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue."

Individual choice, called "free will" in biblical discussions, is not merely "not pre-eminent" but totally anti-biblical. Martin Luther's "The Bondage Of The Will" agrees with John Calvin on this point; a sinner can't "decide" to change of their own free will any more than a dropped rock can fall up, the power of sin is it won't let you not sin, only God can change a person's will. Only God could change Saul of Tarsus into Saint Paul. As Jesus said to the disciples: you did not choose me, but I chose you.

2. "An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical."

Not only Paul's comment in Romans 13, but Jesus himself addressed the issue of taxation in the famous Matthew 22:15-22 passage. In the context of the Israel of Jesus' day, not only was the tax system extremely unfair, making the poor pay as much as the rich, but it was to a foreign conqueror or a client king who was the servant to the conqueror. To make matters worse, the tax collectors were not salaried employees of the government but got their wages from however much they could overcharge the citizens. Still in these conditions, Jesus said to pay the tax. Not only that, but it could be argued that in Matthew 5:40-42, part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says to give more that what is required of you.

3. "The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin."

The idea that how much you succeed or fail is in direct proportion you did conflicts with both Jewish and Christian scripture. In the book of Job, the so-called friends of Job debated over what Job had done wrong to bring all his misfortune when in fact Job was righteous. It is the same the 9th chapter of the gospel of John; at the beginning the disciples, seeing a man born blind, are arguing over whose sin caused the blindness: his father's, his mother's, or the man's own sin. It is typical of humans to debate over somebody's suffering and if they caused it themselves, I can image that the whole town had their say over whose fault it was, throughout that man's life. Jesus rejects all that nonsense and tells them that the man was born blind, and lived all his life blind, not for somebody's extra sinfulness but that Jesus would show everyone around God's power on that particular day; and healed the man right on the spot.

4. "The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian."

The most obvious scriptural condemnation of this Libertarian idea is Paul's First letter to the Corinthians 1:27, "God chose to weak in the world to shame the strong." Another is his command in Galatians 6:2 to "Bear each other's burden and so fulfil the law of Christ." The words of Jesus are especially critical of greed and love of money, in Matthew 6:24-34, Matthew 19:16-26, and Matthew 25:31-46. The parable of the "rich fool" in Luke 12:13-21 calls into question the concept of private ownership of anything itself by the fact that when he dies he can't take it him, it's somebody else's then.

by: AllenSkillicorn

05-28-2010 @ 1:53am

"The Bush II administration did everything it could to eliminate regulation."

Please cite your source.

by: Patricia

06-01-2010 @ 10:37pm

I did not say either of these programs were perfect - that wasn't the original charge. The original charge was "government programs don't work." That is patently untrue.

We could make adjustments to both medicare and social security, including new tax revenue, that would make them both solvent for the long term. It is the lack of political will to fix the problem that is the cause of the current state of both programs. They are good programs; they've worked for millions of citizens; they can continue to work if we are willing to make the changes needed both in income (taxes) and outflow (benefits).

by: Patricia

06-01-2010 @ 10:41pm

"I believe in the free market approach: the best person to figure out what risks are appropriate is the patient."

Unfortunately, I don't believe that's true. As a result of free market advertising, the majority of patients are convinced that only the newest, most high-tech, most expensive treatments are worthwhile. The "free market" always wants more profit, and an irrational, uneducated, death-fearing citizenry suits that end just fine.

by: Steve Pennypacker Williams

06-04-2010 @ 5:57pm

I gotta tell ya, the twisting and contorting that I have read on several of these topics related to Libertarianism is disgusting.

The Civil Rights Act commerce clause dilemma has been answered hundreds of times, yet is ignored time and time again.

Abridging civil rights (or more importantly liberties) of some reduces civil rights for all. When fed gov attempts to force people to do things by abridging their liberties, it stands to reason that resistance will be the logical outcome. For a century or more, blacks in this country suffered from having their rights and liberties abridged; they subsequently resisted and protested. The reverse is also true. Private property is a basis tenet of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Property owner's had their liberties abridged by improper use of the commerce clause in the CRA of 1964. Resistence has come in the form of pepetuation of racism that, I firmly believe, could have been avoided had fed gov not become thought police.

The one blairing success of the CRA of 1964 is forced integration of public schools. I was born in 1968 and was privy to this success. Had fed gov's tentacles stopped there, I believe we would be a better society today. I can't imagine that there would be many racially discriminating businesses that would have survived up until today. There would be a few, but that's ok, we would all know who the real racists are, and not would not have to make ridiculous, inaccurate assumptions as have many pundits have made toward Libertarians recently.

by: PASTOR JEFF

06-07-2010 @ 6:00pm

"You bore me with this inane jibberish just the same as Wallis does."

Then why are you here?

by: PASTOR JEFF

06-07-2010 @ 6:00pm

"You bore me with this inane jibberish just the same as Wallis does."

Then why are you here?

by: jesse3

05-27-2010 @ 5:50pm

I don't consider myself a libertarian but I see straw men everywhere in this post. Not the best way to start a conversation.

You said you wanted to start a 'dialogue' here. Does that mean you'll be inviting Christian libertarians to contribute?

by: jesse3

05-27-2010 @ 5:50pm

I don't consider myself a libertarian but I see straw men everywhere in this post. Not the best way to start a conversation.

You said you wanted to start a 'dialogue' here. Does that mean you'll be inviting Christian libertarians to contribute?

by: jesse3

05-27-2010 @ 5:50pm

I don't consider myself a libertarian but I see straw men everywhere in this post. Not the best way to start a conversation.

You said you wanted to start a 'dialogue' here. Does that mean you'll be inviting Christian libertarians to contribute?

by: jesse3

05-27-2010 @ 9:50pm

I don't consider myself a libertarian but I see straw men everywhere in this post. Not the best way to start a conversation.

You said you wanted to start a 'dialogue' here. Does that mean you'll be inviting Christian libertarians to contribute?

by: jesse3

05-27-2010 @ 9:50pm

I don't consider myself a libertarian but I see straw men everywhere in this post. Not the best way to start a conversation.

You said you wanted to start a 'dialogue' here. Does that mean you'll be inviting Christian libertarians to contribute?

by: jesse3

05-27-2010 @ 9:50pm

I don't consider myself a libertarian but I see straw men everywhere in this post. Not the best way to start a conversation.

You said you wanted to start a 'dialogue' here. Does that mean you'll be inviting Christian libertarians to contribute?

by: LFT

05-27-2010 @ 9:59pm

I will answer your questions with a question:

How wise is it for any government, individual, or Christian to spend more than they have? (Please answer it Biblically).

by: LFT

05-27-2010 @ 9:59pm

I will answer your questions with a question:

How wise is it for any government, individual, or Christian to spend more than they have? (Please answer it Biblically).

by: Scott Eppler

05-27-2010 @ 10:02pm

I'm not so sure about number 5 as the Tea Party really started as a response to TARP (Which was one of Bush's plans) and just grew expansively in 2009. Now I'm not going to say that some members might not have joined due to a "black" president but the movement isn't inherently racist. I think Obama just came in at a tough time and the movement would still be here even if McCain would have won.

In any event, although I do agree with some points of the Tea Party, I will not "join the movement" because it does seem to be pretty hard-line Libertarian which can be a pretty dangerous form of government.

by: Scott Eppler

05-27-2010 @ 10:02pm

I'm not so sure about number 5 as the Tea Party really started as a response to TARP (Which was one of Bush's plans) and just grew expansively in 2009. Now I'm not going to say that some members might not have joined due to a "black" president but the movement isn't inherently racist. I think Obama just came in at a tough time and the movement would still be here even if McCain would have won.

In any event, although I do agree with some points of the Tea Party, I will not "join the movement" because it does seem to be pretty hard-line Libertarian which can be a pretty dangerous form of government.

by: Scott Eppler

05-27-2010 @ 10:02pm

I'm not so sure about number 5 as the Tea Party really started as a response to TARP (Which was one of Bush's plans) and just grew expansively in 2009. Now I'm not going to say that some members might not have joined due to a "black" president but the movement isn't inherently racist. I think Obama just came in at a tough time and the movement would still be here even if McCain would have won.

In any event, although I do agree with some points of the Tea Party, I will not "join the movement" because it does seem to be pretty hard-line Libertarian which can be a pretty dangerous form of government.

by: WaveTossed

05-27-2010 @ 10:05pm

"The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one."

I'm going to say it again. It's not getting through: The vast majority of Tea Partiers are about as Libertarian as George W. Bush is Libertarian. Which (to explain the rather obvious) means that the vast majority of Tea Partiers aren't really Libertarian at all; they are mostly neo-conservative Republicans.

The Tea Partiers are fond of stating that they stand for "small, inobtrusive government." Which is absolutely not true. They are for large, obtrusive government; they just want a large, obtrusive government to support their pet agendas.

Here are some examples:

The war in Iraq: the vast majority of Libertarians, including Ron Paul, have emphatically opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. Here is a Libertarian anti-war site: www.antiwar.com

Whereas most Tea Partiers, including Sarah Palin, support even more troops galavanting all over the world to "spread freedom" i.e. impose big, intrusive U.S. government in foreign lands.

The war on drugs: Most Libertarians believe that the so-called "war on drugs" is a wasteful exercise in futility that violates too many innocent peoples' civil liberties. Alcohol prohibition didn't work and drug prohibition isn't working either.

Whereas most Tea Partiers support the "war on drugs," which is one of many reasons why they mostly support the new Arizona law -- they believe that this will be a new weapon in the "war on drugs."

Immigration: Unfortunately, Paul, both father and son, take a neo-conservative protectionist stance about immigration. However, the vast majority of Libertarians take the stance that having big, intrusive protectionist government interferes with the free trade of workers who want to work and employers who want to hire them legally. So most Libertarians would oppose the Arizona law; they want to break down the barriers and achieve immigration reform, including allowing "illegals" to attain legal status. To find out what a representative Libertarian organization supports as far as immigration, go to the Cato Institute's website and read the following:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6599

Most of the Tea Partiers, in contrast, want big, intrusive government to build bigger and more fortified fences along the borders. They want to send more and more troops into Mexico. Some of them use the "war on drugs" as an excuse (see above) but for the most part, they want big, intrusive protectionist government to stop immigration.

The so-called "war on terror:" This is one place where Ron Paul (the father) disagrees with Rand Paul (the son). Ron Paul wants to close Gitmo down and stop holding people without trials. Rand Paul wants to keep Gitmo open and not hold these trials but hold these people indefinitely. Which is what most of the Tea Partiers believe.

Rand Paul may very well be an ideal Tea Party candidate. But he is moving away more and more from Libertarianism.

by: WaveTossed

05-27-2010 @ 10:05pm

"The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one."

I'm going to say it again. It's not getting through: The vast majority of Tea Partiers are about as Libertarian as George W. Bush is Libertarian. Which (to explain the rather obvious) means that the vast majority of Tea Partiers aren't really Libertarian at all; they are mostly neo-conservative Republicans.

The Tea Partiers are fond of stating that they stand for "small, inobtrusive government." Which is absolutely not true. They are for large, obtrusive government; they just want a large, obtrusive government to support their pet agendas.

Here are some examples:

The war in Iraq: the vast majority of Libertarians, including Ron Paul, have emphatically opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. Here is a Libertarian anti-war site: www.antiwar.com

Whereas most Tea Partiers, including Sarah Palin, support even more troops galavanting all over the world to "spread freedom" i.e. impose big, intrusive U.S. government in foreign lands.

The war on drugs: Most Libertarians believe that the so-called "war on drugs" is a wasteful exercise in futility that violates too many innocent peoples' civil liberties. Alcohol prohibition didn't work and drug prohibition isn't working either.

Whereas most Tea Partiers support the "war on drugs," which is one of many reasons why they mostly support the new Arizona law -- they believe that this will be a new weapon in the "war on drugs."

Immigration: Unfortunately, Paul, both father and son, take a neo-conservative protectionist stance about immigration. However, the vast majority of Libertarians take the stance that having big, intrusive protectionist government interferes with the free trade of workers who want to work and employers who want to hire them legally. So most Libertarians would oppose the Arizona law; they want to break down the barriers and achieve immigration reform, including allowing "illegals" to attain legal status. To find out what a representative Libertarian organization supports as far as immigration, go to the Cato Institute's website and read the following:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6599

Most of the Tea Partiers, in contrast, want big, intrusive government to build bigger and more fortified fences along the borders. They want to send more and more troops into Mexico. Some of them use the "war on drugs" as an excuse (see above) but for the most part, they want big, intrusive protectionist government to stop immigration.

The so-called "war on terror:" This is one place where Ron Paul (the father) disagrees with Rand Paul (the son). Ron Paul wants to close Gitmo down and stop holding people without trials. Rand Paul wants to keep Gitmo open and not hold these trials but hold these people indefinitely. Which is what most of the Tea Partiers believe.

Rand Paul may very well be an ideal Tea Party candidate. But he is moving away more and more from Libertarianism.

by: WaveTossed

05-27-2010 @ 10:05pm

"The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one."

I'm going to say it again. It's not getting through: The vast majority of Tea Partiers are about as Libertarian as George W. Bush is Libertarian. Which (to explain the rather obvious) means that the vast majority of Tea Partiers aren't really Libertarian at all; they are mostly neo-conservative Republicans.

The Tea Partiers are fond of stating that they stand for "small, inobtrusive government." Which is absolutely not true. They are for large, obtrusive government; they just want a large, obtrusive government to support their pet agendas.

Here are some examples:

The war in Iraq: the vast majority of Libertarians, including Ron Paul, have emphatically opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. Here is a Libertarian anti-war site: www.antiwar.com

Whereas most Tea Partiers, including Sarah Palin, support even more troops galavanting all over the world to "spread freedom" i.e. impose big, intrusive U.S. government in foreign lands.

The war on drugs: Most Libertarians believe that the so-called "war on drugs" is a wasteful exercise in futility that violates too many innocent peoples' civil liberties. Alcohol prohibition didn't work and drug prohibition isn't working either.

Whereas most Tea Partiers support the "war on drugs," which is one of many reasons why they mostly support the new Arizona law -- they believe that this will be a new weapon in the "war on drugs."

Immigration: Unfortunately, Paul, both father and son, take a neo-conservative protectionist stance about immigration. However, the vast majority of Libertarians take the stance that having big, intrusive protectionist government interferes with the free trade of workers who want to work and employers who want to hire them legally. So most Libertarians would oppose the Arizona law; they want to break down the barriers and achieve immigration reform, including allowing "illegals" to attain legal status. To find out what a representative Libertarian organization supports as far as immigration, go to the Cato Institute's website and read the following:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6599

Most of the Tea Partiers, in contrast, want big, intrusive government to build bigger and more fortified fences along the borders. They want to send more and more troops into Mexico. Some of them use the "war on drugs" as an excuse (see above) but for the most part, they want big, intrusive protectionist government to stop immigration.

The so-called "war on terror:" This is one place where Ron Paul (the father) disagrees with Rand Paul (the son). Ron Paul wants to close Gitmo down and stop holding people without trials. Rand Paul wants to keep Gitmo open and not hold these trials but hold these people indefinitely. Which is what most of the Tea Partiers believe.

Rand Paul may very well be an ideal Tea Party candidate. But he is moving away more and more from Libertarianism.

by: rjwalker

05-27-2010 @ 10:13pm

>>The oil industry is regulated, yet the BP oil spill still happened, it was an accident.

There has been an diminution of effective regulation since at least the Reagan Administration (and that includes the Clinton administration.)

The Bush II administration did everything it could to eliminate regulation.

In the face of that history, to pretend that there has been effective regulation (and effective governance) is, I believe, misguided.

by: rjwalker

05-27-2010 @ 10:13pm

>>The oil industry is regulated, yet the BP oil spill still happened, it was an accident.

There has been an diminution of effective regulation since at least the Reagan Administration (and that includes the Clinton administration.)

The Bush II administration did everything it could to eliminate regulation.

In the face of that history, to pretend that there has been effective regulation (and effective governance) is, I believe, misguided.

by: rjwalker

05-27-2010 @ 10:13pm

>>The oil industry is regulated, yet the BP oil spill still happened, it was an accident.

There has been an diminution of effective regulation since at least the Reagan Administration (and that includes the Clinton administration.)

The Bush II administration did everything it could to eliminate regulation.

In the face of that history, to pretend that there has been effective regulation (and effective governance) is, I believe, misguided.

by: LFT

05-27-2010 @ 10:35pm

God established as an example, in the government of Israel a free market economy based on the private ownership of property (Exodus 20:15,17; Deut 19:14) and individual free enterprise (Eccl 5:19; Prov. 10:2-4; 12:24: 13:4,11). Any taxation of 10% or higher was defined as oppression (1 Samuel 8:10-18), and any taxation of property, or of inheritance, was strictly forbidden! (1 Kings 21:3). Institutions and individuals involved in the full time service of the Lord were not allowed to be taxed (Ezra 7:23,24). Any unequal or progressive system of taxation was expressly forbidden (Ex. 30:14-15; Leviticus 19:15). Biblical economics also forbids unjust weights (unbacked currency) and measures (inflation) (Leviticus 19:35-36; Prov. 11:1; 20:10; Amos 8:5-7; Micah 6:11,12).

by: LFT

05-27-2010 @ 10:35pm

God established as an example, in the government of Israel a free market economy based on the private ownership of property (Exodus 20:15,17; Deut 19:14) and individual free enterprise (Eccl 5:19; Prov. 10:2-4; 12:24: 13:4,11). Any taxation of 10% or higher was defined as oppression (1 Samuel 8:10-18), and any taxation of property, or of inheritance, was strictly forbidden! (1 Kings 21:3). Institutions and individuals involved in the full time service of the Lord were not allowed to be taxed (Ezra 7:23,24). Any unequal or progressive system of taxation was expressly forbidden (Ex. 30:14-15; Leviticus 19:15). Biblical economics also forbids unjust weights (unbacked currency) and measures (inflation) (Leviticus 19:35-36; Prov. 11:1; 20:10; Amos 8:5-7; Micah 6:11,12).

by: LFT

05-27-2010 @ 10:35pm

God established as an example, in the government of Israel a free market economy based on the private ownership of property (Exodus 20:15,17; Deut 19:14) and individual free enterprise (Eccl 5:19; Prov. 10:2-4; 12:24: 13:4,11). Any taxation of 10% or higher was defined as oppression (1 Samuel 8:10-18), and any taxation of property, or of inheritance, was strictly forbidden! (1 Kings 21:3). Institutions and individuals involved in the full time service of the Lord were not allowed to be taxed (Ezra 7:23,24). Any unequal or progressive system of taxation was expressly forbidden (Ex. 30:14-15; Leviticus 19:15). Biblical economics also forbids unjust weights (unbacked currency) and measures (inflation) (Leviticus 19:35-36; Prov. 11:1; 20:10; Amos 8:5-7; Micah 6:11,12).

by: Randall Urban

05-27-2010 @ 11:16pm

Wow, do you have it wrong Mr. Wallis. Libertarianism is not Christianity, nor does it impose it on anyone. Is imposing Christianity the best way to win hearts and minds to Christ? I think freedom to choose is a pretty natural state of being. It seems that God gives us the freedom to choose. After getting the run around so thoroughly from these actors we call our political leaders, perhaps letting the people have some hope of democracy is not such a bad thing! Who do you work for? Support the same rotten deal? People in debt slavery with no hope! Hmmm... Perhaps people in general cannot be trusted to do the right thing?
I unsubscribe

by: Randall Urban

05-27-2010 @ 11:16pm

Wow, do you have it wrong Mr. Wallis. Libertarianism is not Christianity, nor does it impose it on anyone. Is imposing Christianity the best way to win hearts and minds to Christ? I think freedom to choose is a pretty natural state of being. It seems that God gives us the freedom to choose. After getting the run around so thoroughly from these actors we call our political leaders, perhaps letting the people have some hope of democracy is not such a bad thing! Who do you work for? Support the same rotten deal? People in debt slavery with no hope! Hmmm... Perhaps people in general cannot be trusted to do the right thing?
I unsubscribe

by: Randall Urban

05-27-2010 @ 11:16pm

Wow, do you have it wrong Mr. Wallis. Libertarianism is not Christianity, nor does it impose it on anyone. Is imposing Christianity the best way to win hearts and minds to Christ? I think freedom to choose is a pretty natural state of being. It seems that God gives us the freedom to choose. After getting the run around so thoroughly from these actors we call our political leaders, perhaps letting the people have some hope of democracy is not such a bad thing! Who do you work for? Support the same rotten deal? People in debt slavery with no hope! Hmmm... Perhaps people in general cannot be trusted to do the right thing?
I unsubscribe

by: Frank

05-27-2010 @ 11:42pm

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned but a distinction must be drawn between forms of libertarianism - what is being talked about here is the individualistic capitalist brand of libertarianism.

There is another form of libertarianism that is more communal in nature and far from favouring the strong over the weak through the centralization of power (the problem with both capitalism and authoritarian, state driven communism), does the opposite - libertarian socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

As with any political construct, it is not Christian, but examined against Christian principles I think libertarian socialism (as opposed to the socialism that scares many Americans) has a lot going for it.

by: Frank

05-27-2010 @ 11:42pm

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned but a distinction must be drawn between forms of libertarianism - what is being talked about here is the individualistic capitalist brand of libertarianism.

There is another form of libertarianism that is more communal in nature and far from favouring the strong over the weak through the centralization of power (the problem with both capitalism and authoritarian, state driven communism), does the opposite - libertarian socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

As with any political construct, it is not Christian, but examined against Christian principles I think libertarian socialism (as opposed to the socialism that scares many Americans) has a lot going for it.

by: Frank

05-27-2010 @ 11:42pm

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned but a distinction must be drawn between forms of libertarianism - what is being talked about here is the individualistic capitalist brand of libertarianism.

There is another form of libertarianism that is more communal in nature and far from favouring the strong over the weak through the centralization of power (the problem with both capitalism and authoritarian, state driven communism), does the opposite - libertarian socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

As with any political construct, it is not Christian, but examined against Christian principles I think libertarian socialism (as opposed to the socialism that scares many Americans) has a lot going for it.

by: Yeshuan

05-27-2010 @ 11:44pm

Liberal:

favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Libertarian:

advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

maintaining the doctrine of free will.

Liberty:

freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint

First we all must agree on the actual meanings of words. We must look at the etymology of words. We must stop changing the meaning of words in service to our own manipulations and machinations.

So, let me confuse you with a truth: I am an extremely liberal libertarian who believes in the liberty to believe in God and Yeshua in a spiritual and mystical manner that has not to date, and can not be contained within the little box called religion. Religion is of man, by man; for man. Sadly, it is also the source of 'woman as the gateway through which evil gained entry to the world' (Pandora as mother to Eve).

Over the past 10,000 years, what God is has changed many, many times. Before the patriarchal social structure began, the world was ruled by women and God was a woman, Gaia. Yahweh was a minor deity in the pantheon of Gaia. Then, after the story of Electra, the temples of Gaia were all destroyed and replaced by temples of Yahweh. In another thousand years we may very well be a Matriarchy again with Magdalene as the true descendant of Yeshua. My point being that, as long as we declare that what is has always been and will always be, we are failing the one and only, true and universal God at the very first step.

With all due respect to Mr. Wallis, he is stepping into dangerous territory here be making concrete statements based upon his personal religious views.

As an American citizen, I declare the right to do and say and think and believe as I please; so long as I do not hurt anyone else. To not be subjected to (or subjugated by) any monarchy in politics, religion, and thought/belief.

Now, for the most part, I agree with the article, but - - - at a few points Mr. Wallis steps into the territory of Religious bigotry. There are certain sub-sects of "Christianity" who believe that they 'own' the one and only way to heaven. That is religious bigotry, plain and simple. I fully believe in God, and I fully believe in Yeshua, but I cannot join "Christianity" until it gets out of bed with Government and ends the era of Pharisaic culture wars begun in the 1980s. As much as I like all that Mr. Wallis is doing, I do not see him defending the individual's right to have a personal and private relationship with God that is not dictated by the narrow dogma of an organization (a distinct lack of imagination from my personal point of view).

When we see the conservative "Christians" on the far-right working to establish a dominionist, theocratic, totalitarian dictatorship that wants to replace the constitution with the ten commandments, I can not fail to see sedition against the Constitution, and a betrayal of the intent of the founding fathers. Those who want to rewrite history and claim that America was created as a "Christian" nation are obviously lacking (obstinately oblivious to) the facts of the time these men lived in. They were deists in the age of enlightenment. Many of them were members of the pagan Freemasons movement. It was the time of Voltaire and Diderot. Their intent was to free the individual from the unbridled monarchies of King AND Church.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness declares the freedom to believe and interpret as the singular soul chooses; because at the end of the day (life) all that a soul does ( and fails to do through omission and fails to allow to be accomplished by way of obstruction) is between that soul and God alone. It is not for any one man, or any group of men who have enshrined themselves within the anthropomorphizing of God (to create God in their own image), to judge. Judge not lest ye be judged.

And here we find ourselves in this time's greatest quandary: To be intolerant of the intolerant. Do we allow abject stupidity to reign simply because they have a petroleum-powered super-megaphone? Do we declare someone great just because they are famous? Do we allow the lunatics to run the asylum?

We are losing our way because we are allowing the magic of words to be robbed away from us. We are allowing the present-day Pharisees to resurrect the tower of Babel by way of a 4th estate that has betrayed its mission, its sole (soul) purpose, and we the people.

Everyone rails at the abstract generalization called 'big government' when it is we the people who are 'big government'. We allow the corrupt, multinational, corporate cabals to dictate our reality to us. We allow the insurance industry to pay to have laws created in service to their own greed. We allow the banking industry to blackmail we the people. We allow the 4th estate to become the voice of the few and mighty. To betray we the people. To allow the corporate media conglomerates to become the gatekeepers of information and the digital marketplace.

We scream and cry about too big too fail, but no-one says anything about JUST TOO BIG! When 99% of all the money in America is consolidated into the hands of 1% of the people, and those people choose who will run for office, and pay for them to be elected, and re-elected, and re-elected ad infinitum; ad nauseum, it is we the people who are to blame. It is we the people who allow these 'professional politicians' to spend their entire lives entrenched in government; owned by these owner, plutocrat, oligarchs. We allow them to obfuscate whit they occupy the space best filled by a newer and younger voice of the present era. And for good measure and a great show, they pretty much all go to church on Sunday, or Saturday . . . They use religion as a cloak. They pray for one hour a week and then go right back to preying (serving only the almighty dollar).

Religions cannot keep government and business honest as long as they are in bed with them. The separation between church and state needs to be a million miles wide - to protect the spiritual belief systems from being corrupted by politicians.

Benjamin Disraeli said that "A conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy." Well, a "Christian Conservative" is the ultimate hypocrisy imaginable. Just look at Yeshua's mandates from the Sermon on the Mount and what we see, very clearly is a (small 's') socialist. "Do Unto others" "Love thy Neighbor". Those are the very core tenets of socialism (small 's'). But there is no-one worth a Damn in this nation who will stand up and say, "Yeshua was a (small 's') socialist, so what's all the hubbub about socialism?"

Right now the left-wing is walking the walk while the right-wing continues its eternal path of just talking the talk. They say one thing and then always do the exact opposite (how does one reconcile fiscal responsibility with economic anarchy?). They wreak havoc and refuse to apologize. They refuse to be humbled, and this declares one thing very clearly: they are incapable of learning from the past and their history of mistakes (which is probably why they all want to live and/or dwell in the past). They claim to worship "Jesus Christ" and then spread, continuously, endlessly, emotional terror through their fear-mongering machinery. Does this at all represent Yeshua? Does this "the glass is eternally half-empty" philosophy and approach to life at all sound like Yeshua?

These so-called "Christians" stand in judgment 24/7. They live the lie of always trying to cure the symptoms instead of curing the underlying dis-ease. It's a ruse. A political game. And we are all being played! It is said that all politicians are cut from the same cloth. Yeah . . . and that cloth is the American flag. The white (the 1% owner class) has created a divide & conquer (the red versus the blue) so we will waste our entire lifetimes railing at one-another in total and utter dysfunction while they just loot us all. And they do it endlessly under the guise of 'religious righteousness' and utterly phony political self-righteousness. There is no-one anywhere on this planet that has less right to the term 'righteous' than a politician. They are, indeed, all cut from the same cloth. And with every passing day, there is less and less of that flag left.

If Yeshua were here right now, there wouldn't be a table standing. He rode into Jerusalem to find hypocritical religious leaders in bed with politicians. He found the religion itself had become nothing more than marketing machinery. A political marketing machinery. Does any of this sound familiar? It's as if we have come around full circle and we are right back at the beginning. If we have learned anything at all, if we have become at all even the slightest bit more enlightened, if our culture has in the least evolved a bit more, it has all been lost again since the 1980s. We are being dragged into the past by emotionally infantile individuals who are seeking some sort of romantic nostalgia (and a right to unrestricted violence). Is the goal of the right-wing "Christian conservatives" to return America to being a 19th century loose confederation of experimental 'agrarian' republics allowed to do whatever they want? Or are we headed even farther back into the past? The dark ages? Women enslaved with no rights and no choice?

Does "Christianity" want to become, once again, what Islam remains? A patriarchal social structure terrified of women?

So, when Mr. Wallis rails against conservative libertarianism and calls it simply libertarianism, he is failing to see that there is also a liberal form of libertarianism that actually expends the intellectual energy to think things out to their logical conclusions, and so buffers or curbs itself with compassion. At any point where my liberties infringe on the liberties of others, I must step back and ask myself, "Is taking better than giving?' Yeshua's answer: NO!

The conservative form of libertarianism wants the states to protect us from the feds. The liberal form of libertarianism wants the feds to protect us from the states. If we allow states to engage in a conservative form of libertarianism, we are going to descend into the next generation of civil war. It may not always be violent in the way of guns, but it will be violent in the way of economic warfare. The battle of the boycotts. What we will end up with is segregated enclaves of petty and narrow ideologies. This is already happening to the detriment of our national, state, and local economies. If any one place suffers from just one idea, that place is going to suffer economically. By now, this fact would seem pretty apparent.

The American populace needs an education that leads to social enlightenment and cultural evolution. This is the only way to end willful ignorance and all the social dysfunctions that go along with willful ignorance: Racism, bigotry, fascism, exclusionary exclusivity; Really, they are all just forms of bigotry born of an inner fear that represents the 'littleness' of the bigot; no matter how 'color-blind' the bigots declare themselves to be.

How do we all create jobs for the many when the few are acting as gatekeepers? How can we Americans realize the American Dream when the exclusive can exclude us for any reason at all? How do we enter markets that the few hold dominion over? How do new voices get heard in our government when the few hold dominion over it? Does our election system really have any greater value than merely an empty, hollow show?

The enemy is NOT 'big government'! The enemy is the plutocratic oligarchy of corrupt corporate cabals that own and manipulate the government. The enemy is special interest lobbying and lobbyists (and I include religious 'movements' here as well). We need to put strict term limits on every aspect of government. Two terms and then you must be out for one term before you can re-enter. You can not go straight from one political job to another. There must be a time-out in between. We must end lobbying and lobbyists (at least as it is today). We must declare that Corporations are not citizens and do not have the same rights as individual American citizens. We must end the fact that Corporations are powerful enough to own and control the citizenry. Just as the founding fathers made sure that no monarchy, religious or otherwise could dictate or manipulate the masses, we must also do to the corporations.Now! even if it requires a constitutional convention.

And finally, we must all, including all religions, agree that the constitutional freedom of religion also guarantees the freedom FROM religion. No-one should have to be forced to join any GANG, no matter how flowery their presentation. Because, ultimately, who knows what really exists behind all those flowers? We all need to be free to have personal and private relationships between God and our souls exactly the way we personally see fit. As long as religions are behaving badly, we need to be able to say so by our refusal to partake. And all these "Christian" movements need to stop misbehaving like dictatorial bullies and judgmental hypocrites.

There is much good in the teachings and examples set by Yeshua. There is much good in compassionate Libertarianism. But as long as they both choose to engage in cultural carpet bombing, then neither have the right to speak out.

When Mr. Wallis points out Glenn beck's obvious mistakes; the oversights created within him by his own myopia, then that is fine. He is merely being intolerant of the intolerant. But to declare your own religious beliefs as somehow sacrosanct and self-righteous, ultimately fails the true test of liberty and true liberalism. Each and every right-wing wacko hypocrite has every right in the world to be as loony as they want. The rest of us have the right to marginalize them with humor, or by simply ignoring their individual socio-pathologies (as long as they do not threaten the common-good). And this is clearly why there must be an enormous separation between church and state: The dictatorial dogma you may want to put into place in order to control or destroy your perceive and imagined enemies may very well one day be used right back at ya! Ala, "Sorry Mr, Paul, but we don't serve your type in here . . . now get on, boy . . ." Now just apply this type of 'thinking' to Muslims, Jews, Christians . . . or in Arizona's case in about 15 years: "No Whites Allowed" and it will be nobody's fault but there own because they opened up this can of worms not realizing that eventually it could and would be used against them. We need to really think things through before we go all knee-jerk reactionary (which is ultimately a state of emotional infantilism).

Mr. Wallis can call out the individually willfully ignorant all he wants, but when he (or any of us) resorts to generalized abstractions, then we have all stepped on a slippery slope that, at the bottom, is going to find us all very badly harmed. And we will have no-one to blame but ourselves. So, let us all agree: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do what you want, believe what you want, think and say what you want, but keep it private. In general society we all need to maintain a social contract that is civil and tolerant, humane and respectful; that respects the rights and liberties of others. If you really do not like anything, tell the dog. If someone like Palin or Beck or Bachmann gets on the public megaphone and says intolerant things or untrue things, then they have opened themselves to being countered. But remember this: They are not doing it for any other reason than money. They open their mouths without engaging their brains for one purpose, to serve themselves and their quest fro greed and power. The more upsetting they are, the more money they make. And why? Because we the people allow it. We the people have invited the circus to come to town. Soon enough they will all move on, and in the end, God will deal with the liars and hypocrites, and the corrupt calumniates.

Go forth with peace and love and positivity. The glass is half-full. The future is not doom and gloom. The future is the possibility and opportunity of challenge. Our descendants are not going to suffer anymore from us than we did from our predecessors. We will find a way. There are technological wonders coming that will create an enormous paradigm shift for humanity moving forward into the future. In less than a century, molecular replication will end the need for money on earth and the human race will finally be free from the prison of money. Just imagine all the things that were not realized so far because the inventor/entrepreneur was excluded by mere money (or the lack of it, or access to it). Imagine how much farther along the human race would be evolved if the lack of money had not ended the dreams of millions. Imagine how many less wars there would have been if we had evolved beyond money. And this technology IS coming. And then all these petty arguments will be mute.

Humans a century from now will look back at us and just shake their heads. They will see us as we see other ancient cultures. And so we really need to ask ourselves, "Why so serious?" Why so virulent and venomous? Why so mean-spirited and black-hearted? Especially within a so-called Judeo-Christian society . . . Why are our actions in direct opposition to the things we say we believe? Why have our religions become so material? What became of mysticism and metaphysics? And why do we keep electing to office (in politics and religion) six year-olds masquerading as sixty year-olds? Why do we elevate emotional infantiles who behave like truculent school-yard bullies? Why do we hand the reins of power to psychological archetypes that are wracked with fear and guilt? Why do we listen to and enrich emotional terrorists? And sadly, there are more than too many "Christian" leaders who are a part of this corrupt cabal that seeks to enslave individuals in prisons of petty, arrogant, and myopic ideas they constantly mislabel as 'ideals'.

Beware the log in your own eye. Do not be like the hypocrite on the corner. End the culture wars (taboos do nothing but create and spread the forbidden fruits). End all wars, physical, emotional, and economic. End the exclusion by the exclusives. End the arrogance of actually believing any man or any group of men can KNOW what God wants or thinks or what God's plans are. That is delusional beyond imagination. End the attempted dictatorship by dominionist movements such as the "American family Research Councils" and the "Chosen Ones" attempting to create armies of "Christian Soldiers" by the quiverfull. There is no "Chosen People" and no "Super Race" (history has shown us all ver clearly where this insanity leads); there is no right religion. There are only people, earthlings, fearful, lashing out in fear -in the land of the free and the home of the brave - of all places. Declaring self-righteousness; only to prove that they are the most hypocritical and most guilty (I refuse to use the infantile terminology of 'sin'). The concept of 'sin' is a cop-out. "The Devil Made Me Do It!" No. It's simply a lack of emotional maturity. A lack of social enlightenment, and a lack of cultural evolution. The blame lays squarely on the shoulder of the individual who was too emotionally and mentally lazy to engage the lessons of life on earth fully. This is why willful ignorance is so attractive: It's so easy. It's easier to burn books than to read and learn from them. It's so much easier to commit calumny (character assassination) than to be tolerant. And calumny really pissed Yeshua off, by the way!

It would be so nice to be reborn 300 years from now and find a human race that has finally grown up. Because at this point, relatively speaking, the human race is a 'tween'. With antediluvian troglodytes running the show right back into the past. Give me a world that is beyond money and beyond religion (because ending those two things will end war). Give me a world of humane spirituality. Give me a world where the most ignorant are not raised upon technological dais and showered with unimaginable wealth and the power to influence their own ilk and incite them to violence in every form imaginable. Give me a world where women and children are no longer possessions and men no longer believe they have the right to some form or another of control. Live and let live. Do whatever you want, as long as you do not harm or infringe upon those same rights of another. Evolve, mature, progress forward. That is liberalism. That is liberal libertarianism, and that is the liberty the Constitution of the USA guarantees each and every soul born in this land. This great nations that is being threatened from within by pettiness, blind arrogance, and willful ignorance. We must end the venomnous virulence that is fueling the divide and conquer culture war.

We must come together, clasp hands and agree to disagree, but disagree to part. if the right-wing want to continue to embrace neanderthalism, then do not war against it. Kill the willful ignorance with kindness, understanding, compassion, and peaceful love. Mother Theresa once said that she would never attend an anti-war demonstration, but would always attend pro-peace demonstrations. This statement of hers simply proved that she got it. She grasped the psychological philosophy of Yeshua. Launch a war and make your enemy stronger. Manufacture enemies at your own peril. We need to end the war on drugs, the war on a woman's right to chose (we have no idea what the 'mechanism' of the soul is and little do we care when it comes to blood-lust). It just may be that the soul of an aborted fetus is raised upon high . . . is there anyone on earth who KNOWS? Maybe it simply gets put back in line for the next body. I have no idea, and I am surely not going to be so arrogant as to say I KNOW. But the one thing I do know is that those who say they do know are lying through their teeth, and ultimately using those lies to raise themselves into a position of superiority. And that is how this all began. The divide between superiority and inferiority. The divide between religion and secular. Being secular does not make one less spiritual. It just says that no religion is superior over any other religion. So, Mr. Wallis is wrong in degrading secularism and declaring libertarianism as secular in opposition to spirituality. There is not just one form of generalized libertarianism; not just one type of generalized religion; not just one type of generalized secularism. In the hands of conservatives, religion can be just as guilty. So, these abstract generalizations are offensive even to people like me who strongly support the work Mr. Wallis is doing is standing up against the intolerant.

So let me close with a quote from my personal favorite American artist; like me, a secular progressive, liberal, libertarian who was extremely spiritual and used music as his personal religion to fight for civil rights and personal liberty: "White collar conservative, flashing down the street; pointing their plastic finger at me. They're hoping soon my kind will drop and die; but I'm going to wave my freak flag, high! High! Look out!" AND ". . . Point on Mr. Businessman, you can't dress like me . . ." (and if you do not know who this is, let me give you a hint: He was half-black and half Cherokee Indian)

Peace and Love and Tolerance in the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

by: Yeshuan

05-27-2010 @ 11:44pm

Liberal:

favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Libertarian:

advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

maintaining the doctrine of free will.

Liberty:

freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint

First we all must agree on the actual meanings of words. We must look at the etymology of words. We must stop changing the meaning of words in service to our own manipulations and machinations.

So, let me confuse you with a truth: I am an extremely liberal libertarian who believes in the liberty to believe in God and Yeshua in a spiritual and mystical manner that has not to date, and can not be contained within the little box called religion. Religion is of man, by man; for man. Sadly, it is also the source of 'woman as the gateway through which evil gained entry to the world' (Pandora as mother to Eve).

Over the past 10,000 years, what God is has changed many, many times. Before the patriarchal social structure began, the world was ruled by women and God was a woman, Gaia. Yahweh was a minor deity in the pantheon of Gaia. Then, after the story of Electra, the temples of Gaia were all destroyed and replaced by temples of Yahweh. In another thousand years we may very well be a Matriarchy again with Magdalene as the true descendant of Yeshua. My point being that, as long as we declare that what is has always been and will always be, we are failing the one and only, true and universal God at the very first step.

With all due respect to Mr. Wallis, he is stepping into dangerous territory here be making concrete statements based upon his personal religious views.

As an American citizen, I declare the right to do and say and think and believe as I please; so long as I do not hurt anyone else. To not be subjected to (or subjugated by) any monarchy in politics, religion, and thought/belief.

Now, for the most part, I agree with the article, but - - - at a few points Mr. Wallis steps into the territory of Religious bigotry. There are certain sub-sects of "Christianity" who believe that they 'own' the one and only way to heaven. That is religious bigotry, plain and simple. I fully believe in God, and I fully believe in Yeshua, but I cannot join "Christianity" until it gets out of bed with Government and ends the era of Pharisaic culture wars begun in the 1980s. As much as I like all that Mr. Wallis is doing, I do not see him defending the individual's right to have a personal and private relationship with God that is not dictated by the narrow dogma of an organization (a distinct lack of imagination from my personal point of view).

When we see the conservative "Christians" on the far-right working to establish a dominionist, theocratic, totalitarian dictatorship that wants to replace the constitution with the ten commandments, I can not fail to see sedition against the Constitution, and a betrayal of the intent of the founding fathers. Those who want to rewrite history and claim that America was created as a "Christian" nation are obviously lacking (obstinately oblivious to) the facts of the time these men lived in. They were deists in the age of enlightenment. Many of them were members of the pagan Freemasons movement. It was the time of Voltaire and Diderot. Their intent was to free the individual from the unbridled monarchies of King AND Church.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness declares the freedom to believe and interpret as the singular soul chooses; because at the end of the day (life) all that a soul does ( and fails to do through omission and fails to allow to be accomplished by way of obstruction) is between that soul and God alone. It is not for any one man, or any group of men who have enshrined themselves within the anthropomorphizing of God (to create God in their own image), to judge. Judge not lest ye be judged.

And here we find ourselves in this time's greatest quandary: To be intolerant of the intolerant. Do we allow abject stupidity to reign simply because they have a petroleum-powered super-megaphone? Do we declare someone great just because they are famous? Do we allow the lunatics to run the asylum?

We are losing our way because we are allowing the magic of words to be robbed away from us. We are allowing the present-day Pharisees to resurrect the tower of Babel by way of a 4th estate that has betrayed its mission, its sole (soul) purpose, and we the people.

Everyone rails at the abstract generalization called 'big government' when it is we the people who are 'big government'. We allow the corrupt, multinational, corporate cabals to dictate our reality to us. We allow the insurance industry to pay to have laws created in service to their own greed. We allow the banking industry to blackmail we the people. We allow the 4th estate to become the voice of the few and mighty. To betray we the people. To allow the corporate media conglomerates to become the gatekeepers of information and the digital marketplace.

We scream and cry about too big too fail, but no-one says anything about JUST TOO BIG! When 99% of all the money in America is consolidated into the hands of 1% of the people, and those people choose who will run for office, and pay for them to be elected, and re-elected, and re-elected ad infinitum; ad nauseum, it is we the people who are to blame. It is we the people who allow these 'professional politicians' to spend their entire lives entrenched in government; owned by these owner, plutocrat, oligarchs. We allow them to obfuscate whit they occupy the space best filled by a newer and younger voice of the present era. And for good measure and a great show, they pretty much all go to church on Sunday, or Saturday . . . They use religion as a cloak. They pray for one hour a week and then go right back to preying (serving only the almighty dollar).

Religions cannot keep government and business honest as long as they are in bed with them. The separation between church and state needs to be a million miles wide - to protect the spiritual belief systems from being corrupted by politicians.

Benjamin Disraeli said that "A conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy." Well, a "Christian Conservative" is the ultimate hypocrisy imaginable. Just look at Yeshua's mandates from the Sermon on the Mount and what we see, very clearly is a (small 's') socialist. "Do Unto others" "Love thy Neighbor". Those are the very core tenets of socialism (small 's'). But there is no-one worth a Damn in this nation who will stand up and say, "Yeshua was a (small 's') socialist, so what's all the hubbub about socialism?"

Right now the left-wing is walking the walk while the right-wing continues its eternal path of just talking the talk. They say one thing and then always do the exact opposite (how does one reconcile fiscal responsibility with economic anarchy?). They wreak havoc and refuse to apologize. They refuse to be humbled, and this declares one thing very clearly: they are incapable of learning from the past and their history of mistakes (which is probably why they all want to live and/or dwell in the past). They claim to worship "Jesus Christ" and then spread, continuously, endlessly, emotional terror through their fear-mongering machinery. Does this at all represent Yeshua? Does this "the glass is eternally half-empty" philosophy and approach to life at all sound like Yeshua?

These so-called "Christians" stand in judgment 24/7. They live the lie of always trying to cure the symptoms instead of curing the underlying dis-ease. It's a ruse. A political game. And we are all being played! It is said that all politicians are cut from the same cloth. Yeah . . . and that cloth is the American flag. The white (the 1% owner class) has created a divide & conquer (the red versus the blue) so we will waste our entire lifetimes railing at one-another in total and utter dysfunction while they just loot us all. And they do it endlessly under the guise of 'religious righteousness' and utterly phony political self-righteousness. There is no-one anywhere on this planet that has less right to the term 'righteous' than a politician. They are, indeed, all cut from the same cloth. And with every passing day, there is less and less of that flag left.

If Yeshua were here right now, there wouldn't be a table standing. He rode into Jerusalem to find hypocritical religious leaders in bed with politicians. He found the religion itself had become nothing more than marketing machinery. A political marketing machinery. Does any of this sound familiar? It's as if we have come around full circle and we are right back at the beginning. If we have learned anything at all, if we have become at all even the slightest bit more enlightened, if our culture has in the least evolved a bit more, it has all been lost again since the 1980s. We are being dragged into the past by emotionally infantile individuals who are seeking some sort of romantic nostalgia (and a right to unrestricted violence). Is the goal of the right-wing "Christian conservatives" to return America to being a 19th century loose confederation of experimental 'agrarian' republics allowed to do whatever they want? Or are we headed even farther back into the past? The dark ages? Women enslaved with no rights and no choice?

Does "Christianity" want to become, once again, what Islam remains? A patriarchal social structure terrified of women?

So, when Mr. Wallis rails against conservative libertarianism and calls it simply libertarianism, he is failing to see that there is also a liberal form of libertarianism that actually expends the intellectual energy to think things out to their logical conclusions, and so buffers or curbs itself with compassion. At any point where my liberties infringe on the liberties of others, I must step back and ask myself, "Is taking better than giving?' Yeshua's answer: NO!

The conservative form of libertarianism wants the states to protect us from the feds. The liberal form of libertarianism wants the feds to protect us from the states. If we allow states to engage in a conservative form of libertarianism, we are going to descend into the next generation of civil war. It may not always be violent in the way of guns, but it will be violent in the way of economic warfare. The battle of the boycotts. What we will end up with is segregated enclaves of petty and narrow ideologies. This is already happening to the detriment of our national, state, and local economies. If any one place suffers from just one idea, that place is going to suffer economically. By now, this fact would seem pretty apparent.

The American populace needs an education that leads to social enlightenment and cultural evolution. This is the only way to end willful ignorance and all the social dysfunctions that go along with willful ignorance: Racism, bigotry, fascism, exclusionary exclusivity; Really, they are all just forms of bigotry born of an inner fear that represents the 'littleness' of the bigot; no matter how 'color-blind' the bigots declare themselves to be.

How do we all create jobs for the many when the few are acting as gatekeepers? How can we Americans realize the American Dream when the exclusive can exclude us for any reason at all? How do we enter markets that the few hold dominion over? How do new voices get heard in our government when the few hold dominion over it? Does our election system really have any greater value than merely an empty, hollow show?

The enemy is NOT 'big government'! The enemy is the plutocratic oligarchy of corrupt corporate cabals that own and manipulate the government. The enemy is special interest lobbying and lobbyists (and I include religious 'movements' here as well). We need to put strict term limits on every aspect of government. Two terms and then you must be out for one term before you can re-enter. You can not go straight from one political job to another. There must be a time-out in between. We must end lobbying and lobbyists (at least as it is today). We must declare that Corporations are not citizens and do not have the same rights as individual American citizens. We must end the fact that Corporations are powerful enough to own and control the citizenry. Just as the founding fathers made sure that no monarchy, religious or otherwise could dictate or manipulate the masses, we must also do to the corporations.Now! even if it requires a constitutional convention.

And finally, we must all, including all religions, agree that the constitutional freedom of religion also guarantees the freedom FROM religion. No-one should have to be forced to join any GANG, no matter how flowery their presentation. Because, ultimately, who knows what really exists behind all those flowers? We all need to be free to have personal and private relationships between God and our souls exactly the way we personally see fit. As long as religions are behaving badly, we need to be able to say so by our refusal to partake. And all these "Christian" movements need to stop misbehaving like dictatorial bullies and judgmental hypocrites.

There is much good in the teachings and examples set by Yeshua. There is much good in compassionate Libertarianism. But as long as they both choose to engage in cultural carpet bombing, then neither have the right to speak out.

When Mr. Wallis points out Glenn beck's obvious mistakes; the oversights created within him by his own myopia, then that is fine. He is merely being intolerant of the intolerant. But to declare your own religious beliefs as somehow sacrosanct and self-righteous, ultimately fails the true test of liberty and true liberalism. Each and every right-wing wacko hypocrite has every right in the world to be as loony as they want. The rest of us have the right to marginalize them with humor, or by simply ignoring their individual socio-pathologies (as long as they do not threaten the common-good). And this is clearly why there must be an enormous separation between church and state: The dictatorial dogma you may want to put into place in order to control or destroy your perceive and imagined enemies may very well one day be used right back at ya! Ala, "Sorry Mr, Paul, but we don't serve your type in here . . . now get on, boy . . ." Now just apply this type of 'thinking' to Muslims, Jews, Christians . . . or in Arizona's case in about 15 years: "No Whites Allowed" and it will be nobody's fault but there own because they opened up this can of worms not realizing that eventually it could and would be used against them. We need to really think things through before we go all knee-jerk reactionary (which is ultimately a state of emotional infantilism).

Mr. Wallis can call out the individually willfully ignorant all he wants, but when he (or any of us) resorts to generalized abstractions, then we have all stepped on a slippery slope that, at the bottom, is going to find us all very badly harmed. And we will have no-one to blame but ourselves. So, let us all agree: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do what you want, believe what you want, think and say what you want, but keep it private. In general society we all need to maintain a social contract that is civil and tolerant, humane and respectful; that respects the rights and liberties of others. If you really do not like anything, tell the dog. If someone like Palin or Beck or Bachmann gets on the public megaphone and says intolerant things or untrue things, then they have opened themselves to being countered. But remember this: They are not doing it for any other reason than money. They open their mouths without engaging their brains for one purpose, to serve themselves and their quest fro greed and power. The more upsetting they are, the more money they make. And why? Because we the people allow it. We the people have invited the circus to come to town. Soon enough they will all move on, and in the end, God will deal with the liars and hypocrites, and the corrupt calumniates.

Go forth with peace and love and positivity. The glass is half-full. The future is not doom and gloom. The future is the possibility and opportunity of challenge. Our descendants are not going to suffer anymore from us than we did from our predecessors. We will find a way. There are technological wonders coming that will create an enormous paradigm shift for humanity moving forward into the future. In less than a century, molecular replication will end the need for money on earth and the human race will finally be free from the prison of money. Just imagine all the things that were not realized so far because the inventor/entrepreneur was excluded by mere money (or the lack of it, or access to it). Imagine how much farther along the human race would be evolved if the lack of money had not ended the dreams of millions. Imagine how many less wars there would have been if we had evolved beyond money. And this technology IS coming. And then all these petty arguments will be mute.

Humans a century from now will look back at us and just shake their heads. They will see us as we see other ancient cultures. And so we really need to ask ourselves, "Why so serious?" Why so virulent and venomous? Why so mean-spirited and black-hearted? Especially within a so-called Judeo-Christian society . . . Why are our actions in direct opposition to the things we say we believe? Why have our religions become so material? What became of mysticism and metaphysics? And why do we keep electing to office (in politics and religion) six year-olds masquerading as sixty year-olds? Why do we elevate emotional infantiles who behave like truculent school-yard bullies? Why do we hand the reins of power to psychological archetypes that are wracked with fear and guilt? Why do we listen to and enrich emotional terrorists? And sadly, there are more than too many "Christian" leaders who are a part of this corrupt cabal that seeks to enslave individuals in prisons of petty, arrogant, and myopic ideas they constantly mislabel as 'ideals'.

Beware the log in your own eye. Do not be like the hypocrite on the corner. End the culture wars (taboos do nothing but create and spread the forbidden fruits). End all wars, physical, emotional, and economic. End the exclusion by the exclusives. End the arrogance of actually believing any man or any group of men can KNOW what God wants or thinks or what God's plans are. That is delusional beyond imagination. End the attempted dictatorship by dominionist movements such as the "American family Research Councils" and the "Chosen Ones" attempting to create armies of "Christian Soldiers" by the quiverfull. There is no "Chosen People" and no "Super Race" (history has shown us all ver clearly where this insanity leads); there is no right religion. There are only people, earthlings, fearful, lashing out in fear -in the land of the free and the home of the brave - of all places. Declaring self-righteousness; only to prove that they are the most hypocritical and most guilty (I refuse to use the infantile terminology of 'sin'). The concept of 'sin' is a cop-out. "The Devil Made Me Do It!" No. It's simply a lack of emotional maturity. A lack of social enlightenment, and a lack of cultural evolution. The blame lays squarely on the shoulder of the individual who was too emotionally and mentally lazy to engage the lessons of life on earth fully. This is why willful ignorance is so attractive: It's so easy. It's easier to burn books than to read and learn from them. It's so much easier to commit calumny (character assassination) than to be tolerant. And calumny really pissed Yeshua off, by the way!

It would be so nice to be reborn 300 years from now and find a human race that has finally grown up. Because at this point, relatively speaking, the human race is a 'tween'. With antediluvian troglodytes running the show right back into the past. Give me a world that is beyond money and beyond religion (because ending those two things will end war). Give me a world of humane spirituality. Give me a world where the most ignorant are not raised upon technological dais and showered with unimaginable wealth and the power to influence their own ilk and incite them to violence in every form imaginable. Give me a world where women and children are no longer possessions and men no longer believe they have the right to some form or another of control. Live and let live. Do whatever you want, as long as you do not harm or infringe upon those same rights of another. Evolve, mature, progress forward. That is liberalism. That is liberal libertarianism, and that is the liberty the Constitution of the USA guarantees each and every soul born in this land. This great nations that is being threatened from within by pettiness, blind arrogance, and willful ignorance. We must end the venomnous virulence that is fueling the divide and conquer culture war.

We must come together, clasp hands and agree to disagree, but disagree to part. if the right-wing want to continue to embrace neanderthalism, then do not war against it. Kill the willful ignorance with kindness, understanding, compassion, and peaceful love. Mother Theresa once said that she would never attend an anti-war demonstration, but would always attend pro-peace demonstrations. This statement of hers simply proved that she got it. She grasped the psychological philosophy of Yeshua. Launch a war and make your enemy stronger. Manufacture enemies at your own peril. We need to end the war on drugs, the war on a woman's right to chose (we have no idea what the 'mechanism' of the soul is and little do we care when it comes to blood-lust). It just may be that the soul of an aborted fetus is raised upon high . . . is there anyone on earth who KNOWS? Maybe it simply gets put back in line for the next body. I have no idea, and I am surely not going to be so arrogant as to say I KNOW. But the one thing I do know is that those who say they do know are lying through their teeth, and ultimately using those lies to raise themselves into a position of superiority. And that is how this all began. The divide between superiority and inferiority. The divide between religion and secular. Being secular does not make one less spiritual. It just says that no religion is superior over any other religion. So, Mr. Wallis is wrong in degrading secularism and declaring libertarianism as secular in opposition to spirituality. There is not just one form of generalized libertarianism; not just one type of generalized religion; not just one type of generalized secularism. In the hands of conservatives, religion can be just as guilty. So, these abstract generalizations are offensive even to people like me who strongly support the work Mr. Wallis is doing is standing up against the intolerant.

So let me close with a quote from my personal favorite American artist; like me, a secular progressive, liberal, libertarian who was extremely spiritual and used music as his personal religion to fight for civil rights and personal liberty: "White collar conservative, flashing down the street; pointing their plastic finger at me. They're hoping soon my kind will drop and die; but I'm going to wave my freak flag, high! High! Look out!" AND ". . . Point on Mr. Businessman, you can't dress like me . . ." (and if you do not know who this is, let me give you a hint: He was half-black and half Cherokee Indian)

Peace and Love and Tolerance in the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

by: Yeshuan

05-27-2010 @ 11:44pm

Liberal:

favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Libertarian:

advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

maintaining the doctrine of free will.

Liberty:

freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint

First we all must agree on the actual meanings of words. We must look at the etymology of words. We must stop changing the meaning of words in service to our own manipulations and machinations.

So, let me confuse you with a truth: I am an extremely liberal libertarian who believes in the liberty to believe in God and Yeshua in a spiritual and mystical manner that has not to date, and can not be contained within the little box called religion. Religion is of man, by man; for man. Sadly, it is also the source of 'woman as the gateway through which evil gained entry to the world' (Pandora as mother to Eve).

Over the past 10,000 years, what God is has changed many, many times. Before the patriarchal social structure began, the world was ruled by women and God was a woman, Gaia. Yahweh was a minor deity in the pantheon of Gaia. Then, after the story of Electra, the temples of Gaia were all destroyed and replaced by temples of Yahweh. In another thousand years we may very well be a Matriarchy again with Magdalene as the true descendant of Yeshua. My point being that, as long as we declare that what is has always been and will always be, we are failing the one and only, true and universal God at the very first step.

With all due respect to Mr. Wallis, he is stepping into dangerous territory here be making concrete statements based upon his personal religious views.

As an American citizen, I declare the right to do and say and think and believe as I please; so long as I do not hurt anyone else. To not be subjected to (or subjugated by) any monarchy in politics, religion, and thought/belief.

Now, for the most part, I agree with the article, but - - - at a few points Mr. Wallis steps into the territory of Religious bigotry. There are certain sub-sects of "Christianity" who believe that they 'own' the one and only way to heaven. That is religious bigotry, plain and simple. I fully believe in God, and I fully believe in Yeshua, but I cannot join "Christianity" until it gets out of bed with Government and ends the era of Pharisaic culture wars begun in the 1980s. As much as I like all that Mr. Wallis is doing, I do not see him defending the individual's right to have a personal and private relationship with God that is not dictated by the narrow dogma of an organization (a distinct lack of imagination from my personal point of view).

When we see the conservative "Christians" on the far-right working to establish a dominionist, theocratic, totalitarian dictatorship that wants to replace the constitution with the ten commandments, I can not fail to see sedition against the Constitution, and a betrayal of the intent of the founding fathers. Those who want to rewrite history and claim that America was created as a "Christian" nation are obviously lacking (obstinately oblivious to) the facts of the time these men lived in. They were deists in the age of enlightenment. Many of them were members of the pagan Freemasons movement. It was the time of Voltaire and Diderot. Their intent was to free the individual from the unbridled monarchies of King AND Church.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness declares the freedom to believe and interpret as the singular soul chooses; because at the end of the day (life) all that a soul does ( and fails to do through omission and fails to allow to be accomplished by way of obstruction) is between that soul and God alone. It is not for any one man, or any group of men who have enshrined themselves within the anthropomorphizing of God (to create God in their own image), to judge. Judge not lest ye be judged.

And here we find ourselves in this time's greatest quandary: To be intolerant of the intolerant. Do we allow abject stupidity to reign simply because they have a petroleum-powered super-megaphone? Do we declare someone great just because they are famous? Do we allow the lunatics to run the asylum?

We are losing our way because we are allowing the magic of words to be robbed away from us. We are allowing the present-day Pharisees to resurrect the tower of Babel by way of a 4th estate that has betrayed its mission, its sole (soul) purpose, and we the people.

Everyone rails at the abstract generalization called 'big government' when it is we the people who are 'big government'. We allow the corrupt, multinational, corporate cabals to dictate our reality to us. We allow the insurance industry to pay to have laws created in service to their own greed. We allow the banking industry to blackmail we the people. We allow the 4th estate to become the voice of the few and mighty. To betray we the people. To allow the corporate media conglomerates to become the gatekeepers of information and the digital marketplace.

We scream and cry about too big too fail, but no-one says anything about JUST TOO BIG! When 99% of all the money in America is consolidated into the hands of 1% of the people, and those people choose who will run for office, and pay for them to be elected, and re-elected, and re-elected ad infinitum; ad nauseum, it is we the people who are to blame. It is we the people who allow these 'professional politicians' to spend their entire lives entrenched in government; owned by these owner, plutocrat, oligarchs. We allow them to obfuscate whit they occupy the space best filled by a newer and younger voice of the present era. And for good measure and a great show, they pretty much all go to church on Sunday, or Saturday . . . They use religion as a cloak. They pray for one hour a week and then go right back to preying (serving only the almighty dollar).

Religions cannot keep government and business honest as long as they are in bed with them. The separation between church and state needs to be a million miles wide - to protect the spiritual belief systems from being corrupted by politicians.

Benjamin Disraeli said that "A conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy." Well, a "Christian Conservative" is the ultimate hypocrisy imaginable. Just look at Yeshua's mandates from the Sermon on the Mount and what we see, very clearly is a (small 's') socialist. "Do Unto others" "Love thy Neighbor". Those are the very core tenets of socialism (small 's'). But there is no-one worth a Damn in this nation who will stand up and say, "Yeshua was a (small 's') socialist, so what's all the hubbub about socialism?"

Right now the left-wing is walking the walk while the right-wing continues its eternal path of just talking the talk. They say one thing and then always do the exact opposite (how does one reconcile fiscal responsibility with economic anarchy?). They wreak havoc and refuse to apologize. They refuse to be humbled, and this declares one thing very clearly: they are incapable of learning from the past and their history of mistakes (which is probably why they all want to live and/or dwell in the past). They claim to worship "Jesus Christ" and then spread, continuously, endlessly, emotional terror through their fear-mongering machinery. Does this at all represent Yeshua? Does this "the glass is eternally half-empty" philosophy and approach to life at all sound like Yeshua?

These so-called "Christians" stand in judgment 24/7. They live the lie of always trying to cure the symptoms instead of curing the underlying dis-ease. It's a ruse. A political game. And we are all being played! It is said that all politicians are cut from the same cloth. Yeah . . . and that cloth is the American flag. The white (the 1% owner class) has created a divide & conquer (the red versus the blue) so we will waste our entire lifetimes railing at one-another in total and utter dysfunction while they just loot us all. And they do it endlessly under the guise of 'religious righteousness' and utterly phony political self-righteousness. There is no-one anywhere on this planet that has less right to the term 'righteous' than a politician. They are, indeed, all cut from the same cloth. And with every passing day, there is less and less of that flag left.

If Yeshua were here right now, there wouldn't be a table standing. He rode into Jerusalem to find hypocritical religious leaders in bed with politicians. He found the religion itself had become nothing more than marketing machinery. A political marketing machinery. Does any of this sound familiar? It's as if we have come around full circle and we are right back at the beginning. If we have learned anything at all, if we have become at all even the slightest bit more enlightened, if our culture has in the least evolved a bit more, it has all been lost again since the 1980s. We are being dragged into the past by emotionally infantile individuals who are seeking some sort of romantic nostalgia (and a right to unrestricted violence). Is the goal of the right-wing "Christian conservatives" to return America to being a 19th century loose confederation of experimental 'agrarian' republics allowed to do whatever they want? Or are we headed even farther back into the past? The dark ages? Women enslaved with no rights and no choice?

Does "Christianity" want to become, once again, what Islam remains? A patriarchal social structure terrified of women?

So, when Mr. Wallis rails against conservative libertarianism and calls it simply libertarianism, he is failing to see that there is also a liberal form of libertarianism that actually expends the intellectual energy to think things out to their logical conclusions, and so buffers or curbs itself with compassion. At any point where my liberties infringe on the liberties of others, I must step back and ask myself, "Is taking better than giving?' Yeshua's answer: NO!

The conservative form of libertarianism wants the states to protect us from the feds. The liberal form of libertarianism wants the feds to protect us from the states. If we allow states to engage in a conservative form of libertarianism, we are going to descend into the next generation of civil war. It may not always be violent in the way of guns, but it will be violent in the way of economic warfare. The battle of the boycotts. What we will end up with is segregated enclaves of petty and narrow ideologies. This is already happening to the detriment of our national, state, and local economies. If any one place suffers from just one idea, that place is going to suffer economically. By now, this fact would seem pretty apparent.

The American populace needs an education that leads to social enlightenment and cultural evolution. This is the only way to end willful ignorance and all the social dysfunctions that go along with willful ignorance: Racism, bigotry, fascism, exclusionary exclusivity; Really, they are all just forms of bigotry born of an inner fear that represents the 'littleness' of the bigot; no matter how 'color-blind' the bigots declare themselves to be.

How do we all create jobs for the many when the few are acting as gatekeepers? How can we Americans realize the American Dream when the exclusive can exclude us for any reason at all? How do we enter markets that the few hold dominion over? How do new voices get heard in our government when the few hold dominion over it? Does our election system really have any greater value than merely an empty, hollow show?

The enemy is NOT 'big government'! The enemy is the plutocratic oligarchy of corrupt corporate cabals that own and manipulate the government. The enemy is special interest lobbying and lobbyists (and I include religious 'movements' here as well). We need to put strict term limits on every aspect of government. Two terms and then you must be out for one term before you can re-enter. You can not go straight from one political job to another. There must be a time-out in between. We must end lobbying and lobbyists (at least as it is today). We must declare that Corporations are not citizens and do not have the same rights as individual American citizens. We must end the fact that Corporations are powerful enough to own and control the citizenry. Just as the founding fathers made sure that no monarchy, religious or otherwise could dictate or manipulate the masses, we must also do to the corporations.Now! even if it requires a constitutional convention.

And finally, we must all, including all religions, agree that the constitutional freedom of religion also guarantees the freedom FROM religion. No-one should have to be forced to join any GANG, no matter how flowery their presentation. Because, ultimately, who knows what really exists behind all those flowers? We all need to be free to have personal and private relationships between God and our souls exactly the way we personally see fit. As long as religions are behaving badly, we need to be able to say so by our refusal to partake. And all these "Christian" movements need to stop misbehaving like dictatorial bullies and judgmental hypocrites.

There is much good in the teachings and examples set by Yeshua. There is much good in compassionate Libertarianism. But as long as they both choose to engage in cultural carpet bombing, then neither have the right to speak out.

When Mr. Wallis points out Glenn beck's obvious mistakes; the oversights created within him by his own myopia, then that is fine. He is merely being intolerant of the intolerant. But to declare your own religious beliefs as somehow sacrosanct and self-righteous, ultimately fails the true test of liberty and true liberalism. Each and every right-wing wacko hypocrite has every right in the world to be as loony as they want. The rest of us have the right to marginalize them with humor, or by simply ignoring their individual socio-pathologies (as long as they do not threaten the common-good). And this is clearly why there must be an enormous separation between church and state: The dictatorial dogma you may want to put into place in order to control or destroy your perceive and imagined enemies may very well one day be used right back at ya! Ala, "Sorry Mr, Paul, but we don't serve your type in here . . . now get on, boy . . ." Now just apply this type of 'thinking' to Muslims, Jews, Christians . . . or in Arizona's case in about 15 years: "No Whites Allowed" and it will be nobody's fault but there own because they opened up this can of worms not realizing that eventually it could and would be used against them. We need to really think things through before we go all knee-jerk reactionary (which is ultimately a state of emotional infantilism).

Mr. Wallis can call out the individually willfully ignorant all he wants, but when he (or any of us) resorts to generalized abstractions, then we have all stepped on a slippery slope that, at the bottom, is going to find us all very badly harmed. And we will have no-one to blame but ourselves. So, let us all agree: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do what you want, believe what you want, think and say what you want, but keep it private. In general society we all need to maintain a social contract that is civil and tolerant, humane and respectful; that respects the rights and liberties of others. If you really do not like anything, tell the dog. If someone like Palin or Beck or Bachmann gets on the public megaphone and says intolerant things or untrue things, then they have opened themselves to being countered. But remember this: They are not doing it for any other reason than money. They open their mouths without engaging their brains for one purpose, to serve themselves and their quest fro greed and power. The more upsetting they are, the more money they make. And why? Because we the people allow it. We the people have invited the circus to come to town. Soon enough they will all move on, and in the end, God will deal with the liars and hypocrites, and the corrupt calumniates.

Go forth with peace and love and positivity. The glass is half-full. The future is not doom and gloom. The future is the possibility and opportunity of challenge. Our descendants are not going to suffer anymore from us than we did from our predecessors. We will find a way. There are technological wonders coming that will create an enormous paradigm shift for humanity moving forward into the future. In less than a century, molecular replication will end the need for money on earth and the human race will finally be free from the prison of money. Just imagine all the things that were not realized so far because the inventor/entrepreneur was excluded by mere money (or the lack of it, or access to it). Imagine how much farther along the human race would be evolved if the lack of money had not ended the dreams of millions. Imagine how many less wars there would have been if we had evolved beyond money. And this technology IS coming. And then all these petty arguments will be mute.

Humans a century from now will look back at us and just shake their heads. They will see us as we see other ancient cultures. And so we really need to ask ourselves, "Why so serious?" Why so virulent and venomous? Why so mean-spirited and black-hearted? Especially within a so-called Judeo-Christian society . . . Why are our actions in direct opposition to the things we say we believe? Why have our religions become so material? What became of mysticism and metaphysics? And why do we keep electing to office (in politics and religion) six year-olds masquerading as sixty year-olds? Why do we elevate emotional infantiles who behave like truculent school-yard bullies? Why do we hand the reins of power to psychological archetypes that are wracked with fear and guilt? Why do we listen to and enrich emotional terrorists? And sadly, there are more than too many "Christian" leaders who are a part of this corrupt cabal that seeks to enslave individuals in prisons of petty, arrogant, and myopic ideas they constantly mislabel as 'ideals'.

Beware the log in your own eye. Do not be like the hypocrite on the corner. End the culture wars (taboos do nothing but create and spread the forbidden fruits). End all wars, physical, emotional, and economic. End the exclusion by the exclusives. End the arrogance of actually believing any man or any group of men can KNOW what God wants or thinks or what God's plans are. That is delusional beyond imagination. End the attempted dictatorship by dominionist movements such as the "American family Research Councils" and the "Chosen Ones" attempting to create armies of "Christian Soldiers" by the quiverfull. There is no "Chosen People" and no "Super Race" (history has shown us all ver clearly where this insanity leads); there is no right religion. There are only people, earthlings, fearful, lashing out in fear -in the land of the free and the home of the brave - of all places. Declaring self-righteousness; only to prove that they are the most hypocritical and most guilty (I refuse to use the infantile terminology of 'sin'). The concept of 'sin' is a cop-out. "The Devil Made Me Do It!" No. It's simply a lack of emotional maturity. A lack of social enlightenment, and a lack of cultural evolution. The blame lays squarely on the shoulder of the individual who was too emotionally and mentally lazy to engage the lessons of life on earth fully. This is why willful ignorance is so attractive: It's so easy. It's easier to burn books than to read and learn from them. It's so much easier to commit calumny (character assassination) than to be tolerant. And calumny really pissed Yeshua off, by the way!

It would be so nice to be reborn 300 years from now and find a human race that has finally grown up. Because at this point, relatively speaking, the human race is a 'tween'. With antediluvian troglodytes running the show right back into the past. Give me a world that is beyond money and beyond religion (because ending those two things will end war). Give me a world of humane spirituality. Give me a world where the most ignorant are not raised upon technological dais and showered with unimaginable wealth and the power to influence their own ilk and incite them to violence in every form imaginable. Give me a world where women and children are no longer possessions and men no longer believe they have the right to some form or another of control. Live and let live. Do whatever you want, as long as you do not harm or infringe upon those same rights of another. Evolve, mature, progress forward. That is liberalism. That is liberal libertarianism, and that is the liberty the Constitution of the USA guarantees each and every soul born in this land. This great nations that is being threatened from within by pettiness, blind arrogance, and willful ignorance. We must end the venomnous virulence that is fueling the divide and conquer culture war.

We must come together, clasp hands and agree to disagree, but disagree to part. if the right-wing want to continue to embrace neanderthalism, then do not war against it. Kill the willful ignorance with kindness, understanding, compassion, and peaceful love. Mother Theresa once said that she would never attend an anti-war demonstration, but would always attend pro-peace demonstrations. This statement of hers simply proved that she got it. She grasped the psychological philosophy of Yeshua. Launch a war and make your enemy stronger. Manufacture enemies at your own peril. We need to end the war on drugs, the war on a woman's right to chose (we have no idea what the 'mechanism' of the soul is and little do we care when it comes to blood-lust). It just may be that the soul of an aborted fetus is raised upon high . . . is there anyone on earth who KNOWS? Maybe it simply gets put back in line for the next body. I have no idea, and I am surely not going to be so arrogant as to say I KNOW. But the one thing I do know is that those who say they do know are lying through their teeth, and ultimately using those lies to raise themselves into a position of superiority. And that is how this all began. The divide between superiority and inferiority. The divide between religion and secular. Being secular does not make one less spiritual. It just says that no religion is superior over any other religion. So, Mr. Wallis is wrong in degrading secularism and declaring libertarianism as secular in opposition to spirituality. There is not just one form of generalized libertarianism; not just one type of generalized religion; not just one type of generalized secularism. In the hands of conservatives, religion can be just as guilty. So, these abstract generalizations are offensive even to people like me who strongly support the work Mr. Wallis is doing is standing up against the intolerant.

So let me close with a quote from my personal favorite American artist; like me, a secular progressive, liberal, libertarian who was extremely spiritual and used music as his personal religion to fight for civil rights and personal liberty: "White collar conservative, flashing down the street; pointing their plastic finger at me. They're hoping soon my kind will drop and die; but I'm going to wave my freak flag, high! High! Look out!" AND ". . . Point on Mr. Businessman, you can't dress like me . . ." (and if you do not know who this is, let me give you a hint: He was half-black and half Cherokee Indian)

Peace and Love and Tolerance in the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

by: Frank

05-27-2010 @ 11:48pm

That "free market economy" in the Bible carried with it responsibilities - private ownership of property was not absolute and the law had measures written into it that made sure that land owners were meeting the needs of the poor because it was ultimately understood that land was not the possession of people, but a gift from God for the benefit of all of humanity - the law reflected that and when the nation of Israel shifted to serving private desires (including through the use of land) rather than the public good... God came down on them like a hammer.

What was established in Israel was not a total free market economy but a system that was there to serve all people - with special attention given to the welfare of the poor.

by: Frank

05-27-2010 @ 11:48pm

That "free market economy" in the Bible carried with it responsibilities - private ownership of property was not absolute and the law had measures written into it that made sure that land owners were meeting the needs of the poor because it was ultimately understood that land was not the possession of people, but a gift from God for the benefit of all of humanity - the law reflected that and when the nation of Israel shifted to serving private desires (including through the use of land) rather than the public good... God came down on them like a hammer.

What was established in Israel was not a total free market economy but a system that was there to serve all people - with special attention given to the welfare of the poor.

by: Frank

05-27-2010 @ 11:48pm

That "free market economy" in the Bible carried with it responsibilities - private ownership of property was not absolute and the law had measures written into it that made sure that land owners were meeting the needs of the poor because it was ultimately understood that land was not the possession of people, but a gift from God for the benefit of all of humanity - the law reflected that and when the nation of Israel shifted to serving private desires (including through the use of land) rather than the public good... God came down on them like a hammer.

What was established in Israel was not a total free market economy but a system that was there to serve all people - with special attention given to the welfare of the poor.

by: Doug Gaff

05-28-2010 @ 12:00am

Jim, I'm a big fan of yours. I loved "God's Politics", and I generally think you're on target.

But, you completely missed the mark on this one.

While it's true that the Tea Party was started by a couple of Libertarians, the Tea Party has veered very far away from Libertarian thinking. The Tea Party is now just an extension of neo-conservative thinking with a hollow claim of smaller government. Several comments have already covered this.

Further, to equate Libertarians as somehow un-Christian or uninterested in helping their fellow man is equivalent to Republican's claiming that all Democrats are heathens going to hell. It's name-calling.

Libertarians don't believe that the government is the best organization for solving social problems. Just like they don't believe the government should be enforcing one particular group's view of morality, e.g. Republican views that drugs should be illegal and gay marriage should be banned.

Libertarians refer to the "market" in a more philosophical sense than just an economic engine. Private institutions (part of said "market") whose purpose is strictly charity work are not only welcomed by Libertarians, they are critical to replacing the services that today's government doesn't do efficiently or effectively.

Libertarians don't want people starving in the streets! They want well-run private institutions that can stretch the charity dollar further than a bloated, bureaucratic organization like the government can. Would you also criticize the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or other similar organization? In the Libertarian world view, many more of these institutions will be necessary.

You need to start at lp.org and really try to understand the philosophy before you mistakenly equate it to something it's not.

Bottom line, you didn't do your homework on this one, and you lost a little bit of respect from me.

by: Doug Gaff

05-28-2010 @ 12:00am

Jim, I'm a big fan of yours. I loved "God's Politics", and I generally think you're on target.

But, you completely missed the mark on this one.

While it's true that the Tea Party was started by a couple of Libertarians, the Tea Party has veered very far away from Libertarian thinking. The Tea Party is now just an extension of neo-conservative thinking with a hollow claim of smaller government. Several comments have already covered this.

Further, to equate Libertarians as somehow un-Christian or uninterested in helping their fellow man is equivalent to Republican's claiming that all Democrats are heathens going to hell. It's name-calling.

Libertarians don't believe that the government is the best organization for solving social problems. Just like they don't believe the government should be enforcing one particular group's view of morality, e.g. Republican views that drugs should be illegal and gay marriage should be banned.

Libertarians refer to the "market" in a more philosophical sense than just an economic engine. Private institutions (part of said "market") whose purpose is strictly charity work are not only welcomed by Libertarians, they are critical to replacing the services that today's government doesn't do efficiently or effectively.

Libertarians don't want people starving in the streets! They want well-run private institutions that can stretch the charity dollar further than a bloated, bureaucratic organization like the government can. Would you also criticize the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or other similar organization? In the Libertarian world view, many more of these institutions will be necessary.

You need to start at lp.org and really try to understand the philosophy before you mistakenly equate it to something it's not.

Bottom line, you didn't do your homework on this one, and you lost a little bit of respect from me.

by: Doug Gaff

05-28-2010 @ 12:00am

Jim, I'm a big fan of yours. I loved "God's Politics", and I generally think you're on target.

But, you completely missed the mark on this one.

While it's true that the Tea Party was started by a couple of Libertarians, the Tea Party has veered very far away from Libertarian thinking. The Tea Party is now just an extension of neo-conservative thinking with a hollow claim of smaller government. Several comments have already covered this.

Further, to equate Libertarians as somehow un-Christian or uninterested in helping their fellow man is equivalent to Republican's claiming that all Democrats are heathens going to hell. It's name-calling.

Libertarians don't believe that the government is the best organization for solving social problems. Just like they don't believe the government should be enforcing one particular group's view of morality, e.g. Republican views that drugs should be illegal and gay marriage should be banned.

Libertarians refer to the "market" in a more philosophical sense than just an economic engine. Private institutions (part of said "market") whose purpose is strictly charity work are not only welcomed by Libertarians, they are critical to replacing the services that today's government doesn't do efficiently or effectively.

Libertarians don't want people starving in the streets! They want well-run private institutions that can stretch the charity dollar further than a bloated, bureaucratic organization like the government can. Would you also criticize the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or other similar organization? In the Libertarian world view, many more of these institutions will be necessary.

You need to start at lp.org and really try to understand the philosophy before you mistakenly equate it to something it's not.

Bottom line, you didn't do your homework on this one, and you lost a little bit of respect from me.

by: Patricia

05-28-2010 @ 12:13am

Sorry - I couldn't wade through that - you might consider some condensation?

by: Patricia

05-28-2010 @ 12:13am

Sorry - I couldn't wade through that - you might consider some condensation?

by: Patricia

05-28-2010 @ 12:13am

Sorry - I couldn't wade through that - you might consider some condensation?

by: weneedjohngalt

05-28-2010 @ 12:36am

Is Jim's affinity for Marxism consistent with Christianity?

by: weneedjohngalt

05-28-2010 @ 12:36am

Is Jim's affinity for Marxism consistent with Christianity?

by: weneedjohngalt

05-28-2010 @ 12:36am

Is Jim's affinity for Marxism consistent with Christianity?

by: janinec

05-28-2010 @ 12:41am

Sorry, but Wallis is an apologist for wealth redistribution. He doesn't understand economics and his characterizing Tea Partiers as libertarians (while describing anarchist views for theirs) is completely wrong. And no, they are NOT "neo-cons" either...the poster who said that doesn't even know what a "neo-con" is. It is a term of SELF-description (you can't use it on anyone else) for people who used to be marxists who have decided to move to the other side toward "conservatism". No, I have't read this book, but I have heard Wallis speak and seen various other things he has written besides this article. Jesus would not have supported stealing from one person's hard labor to support another person --regardless of what Wallis believes. And if Wallis is so concerned about human nature, then why doesn't he realize that in socialist and communist societies, human nature will always reward those who will not work or will take advantage of others simply because they can...that is not Christian ethics.

by: janinec

05-28-2010 @ 12:41am

Sorry, but Wallis is an apologist for wealth redistribution. He doesn't understand economics and his characterizing Tea Partiers as libertarians (while describing anarchist views for theirs) is completely wrong. And no, they are NOT "neo-cons" either...the poster who said that doesn't even know what a "neo-con" is. It is a term of SELF-description (you can't use it on anyone else) for people who used to be marxists who have decided to move to the other side toward "conservatism". No, I have't read this book, but I have heard Wallis speak and seen various other things he has written besides this article. Jesus would not have supported stealing from one person's hard labor to support another person --regardless of what Wallis believes. And if Wallis is so concerned about human nature, then why doesn't he realize that in socialist and communist societies, human nature will always reward those who will not work or will take advantage of others simply because they can...that is not Christian ethics.