[WackyCanadian]

Heh, I've always thought that Libertarians were just Republicans who didn't want to pay tax!

[Narcil]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Socially, yes, liberals and libertarians are similar. Economically, libertarians are closer to republicans, minus the neo-con foreign relations thing. Of course, the former relationship seems a heck of a lot closer than the latter.

Libertarians are Republicans without a moral foundatation...

[JerryLove]

In what way do you believe liberitarians are amoral?

[Narcil]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

In what way do you believe liberitarians are amoral?

I didn't say that liberitarians are amoral, just that their political philosophy does not have a moral component. Everything they believe politically is justified solely from an economic/freedom perspective. You are/should be free to whatever you want, as long as you are not directly hurting anyone else financially or physically.

They don't believe in legislating for the good of society or regulating things that self-destructive. If you want to read the absolute best piece on the problem with libertarianism, read chapter 2 of Dinesh D'Sousa's "Letters to a Young Conservative." (Which, by the way, I would highly recomend to any person age college student or older who wants to find out how and why conservative think what they do)

[Jeffrey]

I for one would rather live in a society that allowed "to each his own" than one built on democratic selection of morality that may one day prevent me from doing those things essential to my faith.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by PowerofHymn

Gay Marraiges.. lol wow. Never. It even says its a sin in the bible. And eventually it may effect the human race as a whole. While I see what you're trying to say.. I just don't see logic. It is a vulger thing. If we allow this, gay couples will get married all over, gay people can't produce babies, our balance of life and death may become messed up. Gayness is almost being promoted nowadays... it's on MTV, it's in Movies, it's rediculous. They are striving to make it acceptable.. it disgusts me. Now don't get me wrong.. if I see a gay person it's not as if im going to stone them.. they are sinners.. but so am I. I won't cast them away b/c of their lifestyle. I don't agree when someone knows they are sinning but they don't care anyway.. they figure "oh god will forgive me anyway." What gives us the right to abuse something as beautiful as Forgiveness and Mercy?

Though I, as a Bible-believing Christian, agreed that homosexuality is sinful - what about improper divorce and premarital sex? Homosexual sin is indeed clearly spoken against in several places in the Word - and heterosexual sin as well. I think Christians who are crusading against the issue of sexual deviancy need to look at the rising rates of divorce and premarital sex and realize that God is just as displeased with how we broke heterosexuality long before society began supporting homosexuality.

[JerryLove]

I didn't say that liberitarians are amoral, just that their political philosophy does not have a moral component. Everything they believe politically is justified solely from an economic/freedom perspective. You are/should be free to whatever you want, as long as you are not directly hurting anyone else financially or physically.

That sounds like a morality to me. Perhaps it's simply a morailty you disagree with?

They don't believe in legislating for the good of society or regulating things that self-destructive.

What if Christianity was shown to be destructive? Do you think we should outlaw it?

[KingdomHeart44]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That sounds like a morality to me. Perhaps it's simply a morailty you disagree with?

What if Christianity was shown to be destructive? Do you think we should outlaw it?

if Christianity was shown to be destructive then those who found it to be so would try and outlaw it. But of course that will never happen

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by KingdomHeart44

if Christianity was shown to be destructive then those who found it to be so would try and outlaw it. But of course that will never happen

What will never happen? That people will try to outlaw Christianity? Or that Christianity will be shown to be destructive?

The latter is much more likely than the former. Christianity is destructive. Look at the Middle Ages, up through the Rennassaince -- 1,000 years of barbarism and near-constant warfare over which sect of Christianity is right. And millions dead from the Inquisition. And before you start with "Catholics aren't real Christians," Protestants started wars and killed "witches" just as much as the Catholics did. This state of affairs fits every definition of "destructive" that I can think of.

Those who realized this (America's founding fathers) thankfully did not try to outlaw Christianity, they simply made laws prohibiting Christianity from having anything to do with a nation's sovereign government. But since those with the most power in our current government are either themselves Christians or must pander to a huge Christian base, I don't think they will try to outlaw it anytime soon. I don't think atheists would either, if we were to magically seize power in America. Secular governments elsewhere have not outlawed Christianity. The only sort of government that would outlaw Christianity, I think, is a government run by another religion.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Narcil

If you want to read the absolute best piece on the problem with libertarianism, read chapter 2 of Dinesh D'Sousa's "Letters to a Young Conservative." (Which, by the way, I would highly recomend to any person age college student or older who wants to find out how and why conservative think what they do)

Hm ... I read one of D'Souza's books, I think. The one with the chapter "2 cheers for imperialism." I actually liked a lot of what he said, though I don't recall running into any Republican-style conservative domestic policy in what I read. Though I think I either didn't read the whole book very closely or this is my memory failing again. Is D'Souza a traditional Burkian conservative? Or is he a modern Republican conservative, the type more concerned with going to war and regulating morality than what conservatism used to mean (gradual change, economic frugality, isolationism)?

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by Qingu

What will never happen? That people will try to outlaw Christianity? Or that Christianity will be shown to be destructive?

The latter is much more likely than the former. Christianity is destructive. Look at the Middle Ages, up through the Rennassaince -- 1,000 years of barbarism and near-constant warfare over which sect of Christianity is right. And millions dead from the Inquisition. And before you start with "Catholics aren't real Christians," Protestants started wars and killed "witches" just as much as the Catholics did. This state of affairs fits every definition of "destructive" that I can think of.

This is what happens when Christianity is turned into a political institution. Throughout the Middle Ages, Christianity was used as a front for political alliances and personal ambitions in an attempt to justify what kings were doing by appealing to the only authority that was recognised to be higher than themselves - God, represented by the Church (in the same way as the colonial powers of Europe used evangelism, the "civilising" of the African people and inhibiting the "Arab" slave traders from peddling their human product as a front for their own colonial interests [ironically enough, it was the very missionaries who were sent who called the governments on their hypocrisy more than anybody else] during the 19th and early 20th centuries). And eventually (somewhere between 1000 AD and 1200AD), the Church itself mutated into a political entity, which I believe is a total perversion of what Christ intended. And ultimatley, I believe that the Inquisition and Wars of Religion were the price that Europe paid for it. Which is why I so thoroughly reject Christian nationalism and theonomy / theocracy; any possible benefits (if there actually are any) are far outweighed by the consequences of perverting Christianity.

[Narcil]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Hm ... I read one of D'Souza's books, I think. The one with the chapter "2 cheers for imperialism." I actually liked a lot of what he said, though I don't recall running into any Republican-style conservative domestic policy in what I read. Though I think I either didn't read the whole book very closely or this is my memory failing again. Is D'Souza a traditional Burkian conservative? Or is he a modern Republican conservative, the type more concerned with going to war and regulating morality than what conservatism used to mean (gradual change, economic frugality, isolationism)?

If you haven't read "Letters to a Young Conservative," and want to know what traditional conservatives believe and why, I highly recomend it. It's not very long and is etremely well written, and often very funny! It's one of my loaner books, I give it out to a lot of people.

I don't really want to discuss politics (that's not why I come to this board) but I always get a kick out of people making the claim that you can't legislate morality. That's the only thing that should be legislated! If a law doesn't have a moral foundation then it is treading the fine line of despotism!

[Narcil]

Don't get me wrong, I am most certainly not advocating any sort of theocracy...

[Dark Tofu]

But where do you draw the line for morals? I mean, if we use Christian morals, the government will be overwhelmed with laws that many athiests would think were ridiculous. If we use Islamic morals, the government would have laws that would contradict what a lot of Christians believe. There is no way to justify what is 'moral' using your case.