Modern libertarianism is Godless

John Lofton is a recovering Republican, editor of TheAmericanView.com, and co-host of “The American View” radio show.

On that radio show he has interviewed Bob Barr on topics such as God, government, Barr’s atheist hero Ayn Rand, abortion, homosexuality, and Terri Schiavo—”not his favorite subjects,” Lofton surmises.

Lofton’s conclusion after the interview:


Bob Barr’s answers during my interview of him illustrate perfectly what’s wrong with modern Libertarianism - it is a Godless, bread-alone, don’t-seek-God’s-Kingdom-at-all philosophy. There are, I have been told, exceptions, to what I say. I have been told there are Christian Libertarians. I have, however, not met any - by which I mean I have met no Libertarians who are Christians first. If such an individual exists, he would, of course, be a Christian. A Libertarian, as I see it, is one who puts the Libertarian philosophy first and all other things next.

Hear this radio interview here.

35 Responses to “Modern libertarianism is Godless”

  1. Thomas J. Says:

    Guess he didn’t see this from the LP blog:

    http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000719.shtml

  2. svf Says:

    what an ass.

  3. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    I’ve considered myself a an anarcho-Christian for decades.

    There is a reason why those of us that consider ourselves Christians, even as Christians first, do not seek God’s Kingdom on earth. In my case, it is because that NOWHERE in the Holy Bible does the text proscribe what a “Christian” government would look like.

    The contemporary problems that the author asks about, such as homosexuality, abortion, etc., are problems which we as Christians sometimes struggle with, either personally, or in contemplation and prayer.

    And with each of these contemporary “problems”, a devout Libertarian Christian (or Christian Libertarian) can find different Biblical answers to the same questions.

    If a person comes to the LP looking for the Christian equivalent of the Taliban, they have come to the wrong place.

    PEACE
    Steve

  4. Open Letter to Reasonable People Says:

    Nothing wrong with ‘god less’ people in SECULAR government!

  5. Richard Says:

    Lofton’s point of view is his, and his only. It is self preserving, and is designed to prevent real discussion on how much power a government should be given and to which Christian principles should be enforced upon government or the people. One Christian principle is the God given ability of free agency. Freedom to choose who we want to be. I’m a Christian first, and as a Christian I feel it is not governments business to get involved in people’s personal lives. I believe in teaching people to be independent and allow them to make choices regarding their own lives. I believe in teaching correct principles and then allowing them to govern themselves.

    Those who invoke God in government only do so at the high risk of tyranny. For their God will be the government. As humans, we have learned by sad experience that when a man is given power, it is at that very moment in which he abuses that power to exert control over another. Thus it is even with those who claim to be Christian and yet desire to inflict pain and sorrow on those who disagree with them.

  6. Nexus Says:

    Lofton was talking about the death penalty for a woman who gets an abortion and for the doctor that performs one. What could Barr have possibly hoped to gain by granting him an interview?

  7. Mysterio Says:

    I welcome the dawn of a new era free of gods and religion, where men are equal and undivided by bronze age myths.

  8. George Phillies Says:

    Mr. Lofton is a Christian Dominionist of some flavor, much like his friend Ron Paul, who he interviewed a while back. He stand for a substantial part of that cesspit of bigotry—his opinion of himself doubtless differs—that is at the core of American conservative dogma. Lofton asserted that in his opinion when the Bible and the Constitution differ, the Bible overrides the Constitution, and Congressman Paul can on the interview recording be heard agreeing. Congressman Paul expresses on that interview a wide range of other opinions which make very clear that for all the bluster of his supporters he is a conservative of a particular sort, one who starts with his profession of faith in that interview that he believes that the Bible is inerrant and infallible.

  9. DeeDeeT Says:

    Lofton whines about their not being any Libertarians who are Christians first, and Libertarians second .

    Hell, I don’t know any Christians who are Christians first … today’s Christian is a moral relativist just as much as any other secular progressive.

  10. Bill Woolsey Says:

    A Christian libertarian is someone whose religious beliefs are Christian and whose political views are libertarian. Contrary to Lofton, I believe that just about all Christian libertarians hold their Christian beliefs to be primary. If they came to believe that Christian moral values required government policies inconsistent with libertarian views, then they would cease being libertarians.

    They are libertarians because they believe that Christian moral views either allow for or require libertarian political views. My own view is that general Christian values combined with a undestanding of the actual workings of political economy implies that one must adopt libertarian political views. Many Christians, however, fail to understand political economy and hence support many policies that “sound good” from the point of view of Christian values. Leaving out an understanding of political economy, many political views are consistent with Christianity.

    The “social gospel” approach mostly involves a failure to undestand the market economic system. The “Christian right” approach fails to understand the consequences of the prohibition of vice. Or, perhaps, a theological problem—confusing the role of a Christian ruler (or voter) in modern (or Roman) society with the duty of the Jews in ancient Israel.

    As I see it, Christian statists start with the ancient understanding of the role of politics, which was to create virtuous citizens. And then, the understanding of virtue is modified based upon Christian values. And so, the laws should then require people to behave as good Christians (rather than as the warrior-pagans valued by ancient society.) I don’t see any mandate for this in the Gospels.

    More importantly, it is difficult to see any evidence that Jesus or the Apostles were proposing to either stamp out Roman influence in Palestine and return to traditional practices mandated by the law. Or else, to spread those practices over all the people in the world.

    The entire perspective of the Gospels is that Christian people live in a nonChristian soceity. When Christianity was adopted as the state religion of Rome, that created some difficulty. The solution was to take traditional political philosophy of enforced virtue and modify it to make it Christian (and to some degree, Jewish) virtue that would be promoted by the law.

    I don’t think that the result was very good either for the lives of the people or for Christianity.

    But making Christianity the state religion explicitly or implicitly, is a trap
    Christians fall into time and time again. Playing lip service to Christianity becomes necessary for economic and political success. Faithful Christian people become like the pharisees, self-satisfied in that they aren’t flagrant sinners. And the true spirit of Christianity only remains in the hearts of marginal dissent sects. Until one of them takes over… and on and on…..

    As more and more Chrstians have come to recognize that the U.S. (and Europe especially) is post-Christian, their faith has actually strengthened.
    I believe that the Christian right reaction (moral majority, for example)
    his counter productive.

    But, Loften and his ilk like to play the role of the ancient Jewish prophets.
    Return to our traditional ways mandated by God in the desert. Stop adopting all the ways of our civilized neighbors. If you keep this up, God will fail to protect us from foreigners and bad weather. And national security and material prosperity will be destroyed…..

    Of course, they never listened. And they did suffer collective judgement. But Jesus didn’t repeat the same message. He shared the good news. National prosperity and power didn’t require keeping to the letter of the law. In fact, that wasn’t the point….

  11. DeeDeeT Says:

    good post Mr. Woolsey.

  12. Justin Grover Says:

    Very good post, Mr. Woosley.

  13. Eric Garris Says:

    I was in charge of the press room at the 1979 LP national convention (hired by Ed Crane). Over 70 non-libertarian journalists attended.

    I smoked (medical?) marijuana most of the time I was working, and only one journalist complained: John Lofton. Ed Crane told him he was free to leave.

    Lofton was also complained about other hedonistic activities he witnessed during the convention, and he put on quite a show. The other reporters found him to be a very entertaining guy.

  14. disinter Says:

    I have been told there are Christian Libertarians. I have, however, not met any - by which I mean I have met no Libertarians who are Christians first.

    Ron Paul.

  15. Rich Says:

    Last time I looked, Libertarianism wasn’t a religion.

    Sure, there are religious Libertarians, and athiest Libertarians, and philosophical Libertarians, and all other sorts.

    Perhaps the problem is that when one talks about politics, one is talking about that which you would force on others. Since a Libertarian who wants to force his religion on others is a contradiction in terms, perhaps we just don’t talk much about religion at political events.

  16. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Some great comments here.

    As a former Catholic, I can say that my own political and spiritual views evolved in tandem. As I grew out of organized religion into my own more personal spirituality, my political views grew out of left-statism into libertarianism.

    I tend to equate the two somewhat, because as I left organized groupthink religion (Catholicism) for a more individualistic approach, I left behind the dogma of predestination (and kept its contraindicator of “free will”). I started to think things through and not rely on the Catechism or “the church says so” as a reason for doing or believing things. at the same time politically I got out of the government-cure-for-all-ills-through-strict-regulation mentality that plagued me (must’ve been the German part of me longing for order in everything) and started to think things through better there as well. I left behind the dogma of modern liberalism, and my politicla pendulum swung hard right to conservatism for a while, where I found the same dogma with different applications, and once I noticed the parallels with modern liberalism, I realized that the problem was statism. That’s when I found libertarianism—not by reading Rand (never have, never will), or other writers. I found those later. It was by simple experiences and a lot of thought.

    Now, I realize that not everyone gets here the way I did, and I am by no means disparaging others’ beliefs here. I am sharing what I went through.

    Ironically enough, the Libertarain Pledge “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving
    political or social goals.” and the Wiccan Rede “As ye go, harm ye none.” are completely compatible, so the LP is a perfect fit for me both politically and spiritually.

    As for Christians in the LP, if they truly follow the two Commandments of the Christ, then they are in great shape. If they fall into the Paulian system (which IMO is a fraud), then they have to come to grips with the inherent contradictions of the Paulian teachings and those of the Christ. but that’s a religious, not a political discussion, and only my opinion.

    There are plenty of Christians in the LP, as there are pagans, Jews, and so on. Unlike the CP, we are a religious big tent. We keep religion out of the politics, becuase that is the best way to work it (and one of the motivating factors behind SOCAS!). That doesn’t mean we’re amoral. It does mean that we keep things in proper perspective. Lofton misses that point entirely because he cannot keep the two separate.

  17. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    Yes, there are Christian Libertarians out there.

    A great example would be Lt.Col. Dr. Biff Baker, (Retired) who is a Baptist by faith, a Libertarian politically, and has the honor of about ten samurai. Oh yeah, they exist, alright.

    As I understand it from him, there isn’t any friction there. The Pledge is as much a part of his life as the Bible. I don’t know how he irons out the details, precisely but I have to say, he’s never approached me (and we are extremely good friends) with a “well I agree with the LP except on…”. For him, there just isn’t a problem.

    As for me, there is so little difference in my mind between the Wiccan Rede and the Libertarian Pledge that there is no clear border, instead they act like Celtic knotwork. (no, I’m NOT primarily Wiccan, I’m primarily a greenwitch. But the Rede is one rule I can live by)

    I think this just goes to show that the Pledge strikes deep at a moral chord—like Dr. Ruwart would say, the Good Neighbor Principle. It’s a moral underpinning that crosses religious boundaries and is applicable no matter where you’re at on Sunday morning.

  18. RealityCheck Says:

    From “The Theme is Freedom” by M Stanton Evans

    “For freedom to exist, there have to be certain assumptions about the intrinsic worth of the individual, the respect that is owing to all human beings, the need to limit the compulsions that can be used by one person or a group against another. When such assumptions are firmly held and embodied in political institutions, freedom to greater or lesser degree can flourish. Where they are rejected, freedom will never come into being in the first place, or else will be progressively lost where it once existed. What is common to these libertarian precepts is that all of them are axiomatic, moral statements.

    “It was Nietzsche’s view that the only reason our society thought human beings entitled to dignity and freedom was that Christian morality had taught this weak-kneed doctrine down through the ages. Take away Christian morality, he said, and the presumption of dignity, freedom or equality would collapse; men would simply be phenomena in the realm of nature, where the rule of the strongest was the only standard. The Nazis made a cult of Nietzsche.

    “Lenin said, “We repudiate all morality derived from non-human and non-class concepts. We say it is a deception, a fraud in the interest of the landlords and the capitalists. We say that morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat…We say: morality is what serves to destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the oilers around the proletariat, which is creating a new communist society… We do not believe in an eternal morality.”

    Why should Christians be considered intellectually inferior to libertarians? As the passages above point out, there is ample proof that with a denial of religion comes despotism, tyranny and totalitarianism.

    At the founding of our country, there were atheists, agnostics, deists, and Christians (Protestant & Catholic) who came together with one goal in mind: to bring about a nation that was based on liberty and freedom. They should be able to work together again…..

  19. Michael Seebeck Says:

    RealityCheck, no one is considering Christians intellectually inferior to libertarians.

    What we are considering is that they occupy different spheres of influence that should only overlap in the application of human behavior.

  20. John Lowell Says:

    Ah, yes, the quintessentially adolescent Michael Seebeck, the only commentator here quite supercilious enough to hold up the tragedy of his personal intellectual development as an example for others to follow. If there’s anything worse than a former Catholic arrogant enough to imagine that he’s “grown” out the faith, its one like you, Seebeck, who never quite understood the faith well enough to grasp what he supposedly “grew” beyond in the first place.

    Now, if you knew anything at all about Catholicism, Seebeck, you’d realize that the Church has never held to a doctrine of predestinationism. The theological question to which you refer here rather so sloppily and amateurishly was hotly debated among experts for centuries without the Church ever having coming down in favor of one position or another. Only in the last century was the question recast in terms that surpassed the limitations the earlier discussion had encountered. I’d tell you more about it, but that would be like offering a flower to Beavis and Butthead.

    A little recommendation before you pop off again about what you think you know about Catholicism, pal: Learn it, and don’t ever again presume to talk down to it. I’ll be here to make sure you don’t, count on it.

  21. DeeDeeT Says:

    RealityCheck draws a false conclusion based on incomplete data: “As the passages above point out, there is ample proof that with a denial of religion comes despotism, tyranny and totalitarianism.”

    He has omitted the tyrannies that have arisen under the semblance of religion. Since the acceptance of religion has also often led to despotism, tyranny, and totalitarianism under the dictatorship of ‘The Church”, the logic of his hypthesis fails … i.e., denial or acceptance of religion is not the prime factor in the development of despots, tyrannies, and totalitarian regimes. Some other dominant factor must indeed exist.

    ******************
    “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
    -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

    *********************

    The principles on which this nation was based … the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness coupled with a very slightly alienable right to own private property [as covered in our 5th amendment] are the product of millenia of trial and error… which basically sums to tradition … which were developed and propagated by men of reason who learned that they have a choice between those actions which are detrimental to man and his well-being, and those things that are beneficial to man and his continued existence and happiness. Only the insane would choose unhappiness, death, and death as the ‘proper’ order of existence … and no rational person is bound to follow the rantings of an insane man.

    Not all the tenets of the various religions are included in America’s nation’s founding principles [which derive from natural law]—- many of the specific codes of the various religions are excluded, as those tenets are logically inconsistent with the founding principles of America … and of man. From those simple founding principles, which are fundamental to the nature of man and his existence as man, a complete system of ethics and politics is derived. The ethics and politics are dependent on the fundamental principles and determined by those prionciples, the principles are NOT a consequence of the ethics and politics. Once a society chooses to permit and protect by law the ownership of private property by individuals, and accepts John Locke’s principle that an individual owns his/her own body [as out Founding Fathers accepted it], then there exists only a very narrow and specific set of ethics, laws, and economic system that allows for the sustenance of those founding principles. Statism, collectivism, socialism of any form are not compatible with those principles, be they from Marxist or Fascist ideologues or religious dogmatists.

    If people who believe in the various religions wish to impose upon themselves additional codes of conduct beyond those required by the ethics/politics derived from our founding [and pre-existing] unalienable principles, then those people may freely choose to abide by those additonal restraints on their own personal behavior. They MAY NOT however, require or compel any other human anywhere to abide by those additional constraints. That is the free choice of each individual.

  22. DeeDeeT Says:

    should read: Only the insane would choose unhappiness, slavery, and death as the ‘proper’ order of existence …

  23. Sean Scallon Says:

    I don’t know why Barr consented ot be interviewed by a man who represents a minority of a minority of a minority of a minority. Regardless of whether Lofton likes libertarians or not it’s doubtless he would do anything for Barr or any other candidate since he believes that God directly controls elections and that campaigning is useless since, well, “his will be done.”

    And why Lofton seems to be fascinated by the masturbation habits of Allen Ginsburg, well we’ll never know. Perhaps there’s a libertarian in him somewhere.

  24. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Oh, it’s John Lowell again, spewing more venomous diatribe, with the anti-venom mixed in by me to compensate…

    “Ah, yes, the quintessentially adolescent Michael Seebeck, the only commentator here quite supercilious enough to hold up the tragedy of his personal intellectual development as an example for others to follow. If there’s anything worse than a former Catholic arrogant enough to imagine that he’s “grown” out the faith, its one like you, Seebeck, who never quite understood the faith well enough to grasp what he supposedly “grew” beyond in the first place.”

    First, the namecalling from the get-go undermines you. You are what you speak.

    Second, my own development over my own life is no tragedy. It is a triumph! It is never a tragedy for one to learn and grow and become a better person, throwing off one’s own chains and exceeding their limitations.

    Third, perhaps, I never did understand it.

    I never did understand why I was indoctrinated without any choice by a control-freak divorcee-mother into a religious viewpoint that projects the idea that some unprovable deity created everything, including us, set up rules for us to live by that we have the choice to follow them, but will ultimately fail in them (predestination to “sin”) since we can’t possibly know what the predestined plan that deity has for us.

    I never did understand why when that inevitable failure came (called “sin”) we had to seek something called “reconciliation” from some guy in funny robes who claimed to know what that deity wanted when they really didn’t know either, all so we could again engage in the ritual cannibalism (Eat My Body, Drink My Blood) called Eucharist.

    I never did understand why we had to try to live by (and always eventually fail to live by) these rules in order to maybe not wind up in some spiritual netherworld called Limbo/Purgatory while waiting on the benevolence of others to decide my own fate to get into some place called Heaven or wind up in some other place called Hell, all of which are unproven to exist and cannot be found on any map, for some life after this one that is also unproven (not to mention the inherent logical contradiction that our free will leads us into a position of being at the mercy and control of others in this alleged afterlife!).

    Even as an acolyte I never understood the ritual cannibalism, the rote memorization of prayers that robbed them of any meaning, and the perpetual focus of the Church not on the words and teaching of the Christ but the words and teachings of Paul and the endless obsession with money, unborns, and birth control by older men who had no concept of marriage, family, or their supposed vow of poverty.

    I never understood why my best Christian role model, an honorable and loving man who DID understand these things from a much better and more positive perspective because he was a Lutheran pastor, husband, father, and my grandfather, was taken from me by God when I was three. If there’s any tragedy here, that’s it.

    But I tried to understand it. I read the Catechism. I read the Bible. I took religious classes. I talked with ministers. I talked with good Christian laypersons. But I failed. I didn’t understand it, and the more I studied it the less I understood it and the more I realized it didn;t make any sense TO ME.

    So I moved on to something I could understand, the simple concept of live your life the best you can, appreciate what you have, help others, and hope for the best. In other words, the two commandments of the Christ. I found them to be universally applicable in all religions, not just Christianity. I found words to live by there, but I found that the Christian part of it was just one means of many to express it. So I investigated those other means until I found one that connected with me, in the same way that Born-Again Christians feel that connection when they are Born Again.

    BTW, it was never the concept or the message of the Christ. It was the bureaucracy and structure of the church that was the problem.

    “Now, if you knew anything at all about Catholicism, Seebeck, you’d realize that the Church has never held to a doctrine of predestinationism.”

    As a 35-year-old man with a background as a Confirmed Catholic and Catholic college graduate, I say bullshit. I heard every freaking Sunday “God has a plan for us”, “God knows what we’re going to do before we do it” and all of that. If that’s not Catholic predestination, then WTF is? And we supposedly had “original sin” like it’s some sort of passed-down genetic defect whether we wanted it or not. How is that not predestination?

    “The theological question to which you refer here rather so sloppily and amateurishly was hotly debated among experts for centuries without the Church ever having coming down in favor of one position or another.”

    Again, I call bullshit. The Church has ALWAYS come down on the side that bolsters its own membership and political power. The Church is not intellectually honest enough to do otherwise. If it were then it would not stick to the antiquated positions it has held for centuries without acknowledging the evolution and advances of society and civilization. Remember, it took the Vatican how long to finally admit what Galileo, Kepler, Brahe, and Newton (and Copernicus before them) all knew and what science knows is true? (over 360 years!)

    Engage yourself in an intellectual exercise if you can muster it: Cross-reference the symbolism in the Ghost Dance vision of Black Elk (Black Elk Speaks, by John Neidhart), who had never seen, heard, or read a Bible in his life, with the symbolism in John’s visions of the Apocalypse in Revelations. The results should startle you. I did it as a senior term paper on the New Testament while in college (I got an A+ on it, too!). It changed my life for the better and showed me there was a helluvalot more out there than just Christianity, Judiasm, etc. It moved me to a broader spiritual experience and perspective, and it put me on the way to discovering the more positive path I have now, one without fear of doing wrong, but confidence and hope in doing right.

    “Only in the last century was the question recast in terms that surpassed the limitations the earlier discussion had encountered. I’d tell you more about it, but that would be like offering a flower to Beavis and Butthead.”

    More insults, and you neglect your undertanding of history. The question was addressed by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas long before any of us were born. The “recast” of the question in recent times has nothing to do with suprassing earlier limitations, but instead had to do with an attempt (that failed) to move the Church out of the Dark Ages and into the modern world.

    “A little recommendation before you pop off again about what you think you know about Catholicism, pal: Learn it, and don’t ever again presume to talk down to it. I’ll be here to make sure you don’t, count on it.”

    In other words, you will claim the papal bull pulpit (aptly named) to question my own personal experiences and background, me, the child of a catholic and Protestant and grandson of a Lutheran pastor, who was a far more honorable man than you can even aspire to be?

    That will be hilarious. Mine has been a journey of discovery.

    I feel kind of sorry for you that you have to resort to insults and cannot address another’s points rationally and reasonably, and that you seem incapable of respecting the views of others.

    So much for Christ’s Second Commandment, I guess.

  25. RealityCheck Says:

    DeeDeeT said:

    The principles on which this nation was based … the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness coupled with a very slightly alienable right to own private property [as covered in our 5th amendment] are the product of millenia of trial and error… which basically sums to tradition … which were developed and propagated by men of reason who learned that they have a choice between those actions which are detrimental to man and his well-being, and those things that are beneficial to man and his continued existence and happiness.”

    Hitler’s version was that the masses could attain what is best for them “only under the leadership of those whom Nature has endowed with special gifts”; Lenin opined that “the will of a class is at times best expressed by a dictator.”

    While most people in our society would doubtless agree in condemning the likes of Lenin, Hitler or Mussolini, the extent to which their way of thinking has intermingled with our own is seldom noticed. The linkages, however, are plainly there—and stem directly from the moral relativism that is said to be the basis of our freedom.

  26. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Apologies for the long response above. I won’t back down on my own beliefs for anybody, and I won’t apologize for them either.

    And I will emphasize again, those are my opinions. People can REPSECTFULLY disagree with them.

  27. tgsmoore Says:

    My opinion is that the Libertarian Party can never become large enough to win significant elections so long as they continue to throw their lack of religious belief in America’s face. The American people are just too religious to support such a secular/atheistic party. This is a shame since there is much good in the libertarian philosophy that could be of great benefit to America.

  28. DeeDeeT Says:

    RealityCheck …
    right … Hitler followed Nietsche’s ‘Will to Power’ and extrapolated it to himself as a superman [ubermensch] who was destined to rule inferiors.

    Lenin sought to speed up the pace of his revolution, which was stalled, and decided a Vanguard Party was necessary to lead the masses who weren’t quite smart or ambitious enough to know what was best for them.

    you wrote: “While most people in our society would doubtless agree in condemning the likes of Lenin, Hitler or Mussolini, the extent to which their way of thinking has intermingled with our own is seldom noticed. The linkages, however, are plainly there—and stem directly from the moral relativism that is said to be the basis of our freedom.”

    I agree wholeheartedly—- two books I highly recommend on the very subject of Nazism and Fascism … and fascism’s American counterpart, Progressivism

    “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg published just this past Jan—-a must-read !!
    —- this is the best book I’ve read on the history of fascism in America. It debunks the leftist argument that fascism is a movement of the right—- fascism has always been a product of the left, evovling from National Socialism. The Communists defined Fascism in Italty as being ‘right’ of their view of proper socialsim, which was International Communism. Leftisats adopted the definition and perverted it to include American conservatism, even libertarianism—- which is a toital crock of BS as American conservatism and libertarianism are in no way socilaist movements.

    second

    “The Ominous Parallels” by Leonard Peikoff, Published in 1982 reprinted 1993, a great philosophical-historical analysis of the development of Nazism and Fascism as a natural outcome of 19th century German philosophy, and how it relates to America.

  29. DeeDeeT Says:

    TG … you are very wrong in your understanding of the very concept underlying America—- Libertarians have no problem with your religious freedom, as long as you do not require us to accept your religion or its tenets.

    The secular system of laws in our Constitution were put in place by our founders to be just that … Secular !! Secular does not mean Progressive !! There is a minimum set of laws [our unalienable natural rights] that allow us to coexist peacefully and still believe as we each see appropriate. That is the set of laws we live by … to compel someone to go beyond that breaks down the secularism and leads to the very sectarian religious strife we see everywhere in the world—- like Iraq.

  30. John Lowell Says:

    Seebeck,

    Did I just manage to reach right into the heart of all that arrogant posturing and kick the literal shit out of all of that phony, blame-the-Church self-pity you advertise as the basis of your fantasied
    intellectual development, Seebeck? I mean twenty plus paragraphs of the most vacuous incomprehension and all you can manage here is to whine mournfully about how you’ve been treated? Why you haven’t even the most infinitesimal clue of what it was that I’d referrenced concerning theology earlier, that’s rather more than evident. Its time for you to take off that anti-Catholic bedsheet you make a business of parading around in, little man. Take it off or I’ll take it off for you every time I see you wearing it.

  31. Michael Seebeck Says:

    yada yada yada, Lowell. I was relating my own experiences. No whining from me at all, and it appears that my sarcasm was lost on you. That’s not surprising, because you have repeatedly shown an inability to comprehend much of anything and resort only to gratituous threats and insults. I could insult you until the cows come home and wouldn’t do a damned thing except waste time and electrons, so I’m not going to bother, even though it would be immensely personally satisfying.

    It’s pretty clear that you have no understanding of the differences between fact, personal opinion, and relating a personal experience, and it is equally obvious that you get hyper-offended by someone who has found Catholicism personally lacking and moved on to something else and has the guts to say it. My complaint is with the Church itself and its practices and policies, not the teachings of the Christ. You, however, seem to have overdosed on the Vatican Kool-Aid, which is why you get offended. That hyper-offensiveness indicates you have a great insecurity about your own beliefs, because if you were secure in those beliefs, then you wouldn’t be so hyper-offended! In other words, if you truly Believed, then what I say would make no difference. But it does make a difference to you, based on your shrill reactions, so you need to look at yourself before you start to berate others. I’m comfortable in my spirituality, and it’s pretty clear you aren’t.

    And no, you didn’t “manage to reach right into the heart of all that arrogant posturing and kick the literal shit out of all of that phony, blame-the-Church self-pity you advertise as the basis of your fantasied
    intellectual development”. Why not? Because A) there was no arrogance, B) it wasn’t posturing, C) it isn’t phony or self-pity, it was SARCASM, D) it isn’t blame-the-church, it’s the church presented a message that was incompatible with the message of its own professed leader (which is a viewpoint shared by many around the world!), E) my intellectual development is not fantasized (but there’s no way to prove that without looking arrogant), and F) The only one posturing and ranting here like a fool is YOU.

    If you couldn’t comprehend what I wrote, then you are the one with the problem. Making an implicit KKK reference just proves the point. Calling me a racist, either directly or indirectly, is an insult and patently false. I’ve never called for the disbanding or destruction of the Catholic Church as those hooded clowns do. What I have said, and was apparently lost on you, was that the Vatican way was not for me. Well, guess what, Lowell, it also not the way for billions of others as well! They, too, have different spiritual paths. So do us all a favor and go rage on them for a while, and preferably not here.

    And what you can complain about me concerning theology wouldn’t fill a thimble of water at the beachfront. I CHALLENGE YOU to do that Black Elk Exercise, to get outside you own box. Do you have the brains and the guts and the open mind to put up, or will you do us all a favor and just shut up?

    Some Christian you are…

    I apologize to everyone else. It’s people like Lowell, who can’t seem to understand that everyone has to follow their own path and that people will disagree on those path specifics, who give the rest of the crowd a bad name. I make no such conclusions here, since almost everyone else here can engage in rational discussion and thought. He also fails to understand that none of us truly know if we have the right path, and if there is a Judgement after our life in this plane ends, then and only then will we know the answer. In the meantime all we can do is our best.

    And that’s not arrogance, John, it’s the cold, hard facts of reality.

  32. Cody Quirk Says:

    That’s John Lofton, the man that throws American flags into trash-cans and speaks from that little hole in his rear end.

    Eventually, he’ll be the cause of his own demise.

  33. Craig Says:

    I would rather support a party that doesn’t preach to me about seeking God’s Kingdom than one that does. It’s not the role of government to push religion, thank God.

  34. Stefan Says:

    One does not have to have significant human knowledge to know that Barr
    was not too enthused witht he interview, and neither would Paul be. Lofton come across as very repetitive, accusing and aggressive. Barr remained quite calm and love his formulations. Lofton does not understand that Paul and Barr’s opinion of making abortion a states issue, not federal issue, is because the states decide over murder etc. Just like the FBI should not (always) have the power over local police, also as local police know about the situation much better and can deal with it.

    Dr. Phillies clearly does not understand the issue and how both Paul and Barr handles Lofton. He constantly exposes himself as being bigoted against “consevatives”, whom he false describes as being bigoted. There can be sore conservatives that are bigoted, but nearly not all and just as with libertarian, there are also different definitions about what
    “conservatism: means. Both Barr and Paul stand on the constitution, as Baldwin also BTW. There is a difference between church and state, but there can never be a total separation or a total unification. Paul understands the complexity well. Within the Christian theology there are different models. Luther saw very much a two kingdom role, the heavan and secular state, while others like Calvin stressed the kingdom of God (of both). Ultimately it is a way of speaking and using words. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein witht he “linguistic turn” had profound insights. On the homosexuals in the military and elsewhere, both Paul and Barr - as Christians - have the right insight. Here is Lofton’s interview with Paul on homosexuality:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

    It is a complicated issue. I believe some can really be born (genetically) as homosexuals, while others “develop” it later. I symphathize with the first
    group, not the second group. In the Bible there are only two passages dealing with homosexuality. One can say we are ALL born in sin, homosexuality is one sin. Homosexuals - those that are born this way (disnter, as you one of them?) can also be Christians and they can also be good people. It is wrong of Lofton and others to despise them. I can cite a passage win Matthew etc. where Lofton should really ask himself if he is such a good person, one should always be humble.. which also amplies tolerance (which is a central libertarian principle)..and there especially Paul sets the example to me.

    Lofton is wrong that there are few Christian Libertarians, but some in the LP are also wrong to demise all Christians and open their eyes to viewing Christian beliefs as positive freedom in love and develop a sort of solidarity
    This is the thing that Rothbard saw vs. Rand and others, that the LP should be a populist (in the good sense) political movement, not a debating society. It is best to be a political party with strong internal debating and factions. Good debate is always stimulating and opens up new perspectives, and then one should be tolerant of other views…

  35. Clark Says:

    ..one wonders why lowell is such a shill for the catholic ooga booga, peepee-puffers with funny hats, etc..

    ..perhaps he is an ‘altered’ boy!.. ;o)

Leave a Reply