Christian Libertarians???

[mat1583]

I thought maybe this would get the attention of at least a few people who are interested in political topics. Of course, this deals with a bit more than just that. Here's my predicament...

I have a few close Christian brothers who are Libertarians. For those of you that don't know who they are, it's the 'political' group that's associated with wanting to legalize marijuana, prostitution, etc etc. That puts quite a negative light on Libertarians from the Christian perspective though, and I think maybe unfairly.

A libertarian's basis is upon the Constitution, which is based on the protection of our natural rights. The Constitution wasn't made to give us right, it was made to protect our rights. In other words, it is the government's job to protect our natural rights as defined in the constitution and nothing more. If you want to know more about natural rights, wikipedia is your friend.

I do believe, as humans, we do have certain natural rights that should be protected. I don't think many people can argue against that. One of the natural rights as defined in the constitution is the 'pursuit of happiness'. For some, the pursuit of happiness may be eating and ice cream cone. For others, it could mean more morally weighted activities...smoking, drinking, prostitution, drugs, etc. A Libertarian would say that it is the natural right for anyone to choose to do these things as long as it is not infringing on the natural rights of others (as long as it is not harming them).

However, as Christians we tend to look at it the opposite way. People shouldn't do some of those things because it is "bad". God said it's bad. It's sinful. So here's my question. As Christians, should we lobby to create laws that restrict the natural rights of Americans based on our own moral understanding, OR is it OK for Christians to take a Libertarian stance - one that allows for immoral behavior as long as it does not infringe on others' natural rights. In a way I'm asking, "Should we allow non-believers to participate in what Christians think is morally unacceptable behavior since it is their natural right to choose, or does God want us to be active in government to prohibit these actions even though non-believers may not agree with our reasoning"

I know it's a loaded question, but I've been struggling with it for a few months now and still can't come up with a clear answer. One point my friend brought up is that even if we restrict people from certain activities, that does not necessarily make them a better person. Non-believers may reject our moral reasoning, thus still rejecting God. If these behaviors are allowed (for instance smoking marijuana), we as Christians should still tell them that it's wrong and the reasons why, but we have no right to control their lives and take away their natural rights as the government does today.

Phew, I think that's it for right now.

-washboard

[smittie_3d]

is democracy a mandate from God?

it seems like the answer should be yes!
isnt democracy how freedom flourishes?

Yes

But is it a biblical standard? - no
God's ideal would be to have us live in a theocracy - God governed - that is what was established at sinai and that is why he was reluctant to give Isreal a king. our desire to rule ourselves is a result of the fall - it is part of our naural rebellion against God and his rule - and therefore anything stemming from this democracy is open to error and falleness because is was created by fallen sinful men.

controversial? perhaps

we must obey Gods law first and THEN mans law - we must not obey mans law if it contradicts Gods law.

i have no problem with the "persuit of happiness" statement - but what needs defined is what happiness actually is

is it a warm fuzzy feeling?
is it purely emotional?
is it something materialistic like possessions or eating and ice cream cone?
is happiness self centred hedonism?

no

ture happiness is being declaired right with God, to be counted as his Child and to know him as your father

as our father God knows what is best for us and we should trust him when he says - not to eat too much or drin too much or have sex outside of marrige - he is not some legalistic restrictive judge but our loving father who cares for us!

Liberatarians need to recognise that the on true and perfect law is Gods law

i wish to talk about this further its a very relevant and interesting topic

In Christ


Smittie

[Howlin' Wolf]

i'm a libertarian

[middletree]

On many issues, I agree with Libertarians. I am not sure, however, if they would walk the walk if elected to office. Republicans say one thing in their platform and promises, then when given control of the White House and Congress, act just like tax & spend liberals. So while I agree with much of the Libertarian ideals, I am not convinced that they would live up to them if givne the opportunity.

For the record, I disagree with L's position on keeping abortion legal.

[Howlin' Wolf]

On many issues, I agree with Libertarians. I am not sure, however, if they would walk the walk if elected to office. Republicans say one thing in their platform and promises, then when given control of the White House and Congress, act just like tax & spend liberals. So while I agree with much of the Libertarian ideals, I am not convinced that they would live up to them if givne the opportunity.

For the record, I disagree with L's position on keeping abortion legal.

the abortion issue is not one that is set in stone. i am a libertarian and i think abortion should be illegal. i, however, am not an idealist, and like you, realize that abortion isnt the real problem, only a symptom of a bigger issue.

God's ideal would be to have us live in a theocracy - God governed - that is what was established at sinai and that is why he was reluctant to give Isreal a king. our desire to rule ourselves is a result of the fall - it is part of our naural rebellion against God and his rule - and therefore anything stemming from this democracy is open to error and falleness because is was created by fallen sinful men
if that was God's desire, then that would be so. God has set up every governement this world has seen. to imply otherwise, would say that God isnt in control.


we must obey Gods law first and THEN mans law - we must not obey mans law if it contradicts Gods law
you are right. however, to expect non-believers to be governed by a god they dont follow and accept that is idealistic and unrealistic.

[mat1583]

the abortion issue is not one that is set in stone. i am a libertarian and i think abortion should be illegal. i, however, am not an idealist, and like you, realize that abortion isnt the real problem, only a symptom of a bigger issue.


if that was God's desire, then that would be so. God has set up every governement this world has seen. to imply otherwise, would say that God isnt in control.



you are right. however, to expect non-believers to be governed by a god they dont follow and accept that is idealistic and unrealistic.

You are right, abortion is not the real problem. And I also know many Libertarians who are against abortion because they believe that the fetus is a life, and that life has natural rights as well. In this case, the right to live.


I also agree that requiring non-believers to be governed by a god they don't follow is idealistic and unrealistic. So now we can't tell people that we're making these things illegal because it is sinful. They don't know God, they don't care that it is sinful in our or God's eyes. It makes no difference to their lives.

Another example my friend presented was this: Suppose there's a cookie jar sitting on a counter top that a little kid could easily reach. His parents tell him not to steal a cookie from the jar, but when they are not around he does steal a cookie. Most would agree that this boy is bad (or is being bad). Now, suppose the parents decide to put the jar on top of the fridge, out of the reach of the child. The child longs to steal a cookie and tries with all his might, but cannot reach the jar. Is the child any better of a person than he was before just because he cannot possibly reach the jar, yet he longs to and tries his best?

I still really haven't gotten a good answer yet, but this discussion is still young. Oh, and while listening to the new CD this song came on right as i was typing this. he he, pretty ironic...

Third Day - How Do You Know

"How do you know, how do you know
What I'm supposed to be doing
Why do you go, why do you go on
Thinking you know my fate
So many times I've lost my step
But I never lost my way
How do you know, how do you know
When I don't know myself"

I know that the song wasn't meant to be about this topic (or at least i think), but it does fit in this instance.

interesting :)

-washboard

[Howlin' Wolf]

i dont know if this the type of answer you want, but i lived in the muslim world for 2 years. i was "governed" by islam. it didnt make me want to become a muslim, instead the flaws of islam were amplified to me. during ramadan, it is illegal to eat or drink in public. i respected their laws, so i ate in my house. do you see how this could apply?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Obligating someone to do the right thing (with the exception of your own children) is just as effective as someone mutering the so called "sinner's prayer" at gun point. The only change this poor indiviual will have is a change of pants. If God looks at the heart, what difference does it make if someone does what's morally wrong, or not? Lets go beyond that, what difference does it make if they're not saved?

One of the biggest frustrations I have with the Christian religion is that a large percentage of it is based on the external. What do I do that makes me Christian, or what do Christians do that I should do? Or let me surround myself with "Christian merchandise" so that I may "remain in His Glory". These are the very houses built on the sand, looks pretty, but there's nothing to support it. In other words, no reason, no purpose to do what it does, it just does it because it looks and feels good. Yet the slightest gust of wind, will give it no reason to remain standing.

Apply that to a government. In fact, it can be applied to our very own government. Make people do the christian thing with laws and red-scare tactics and we get the later 1950's and 60's. Those days seemed moraly straight right? it is after all, the very reason there's conservatives.

Then comes the 70's and 80's, abortion becomes legal, prayer is removed from school, people start realising that they have no reason to follow these rules. Why? because they were obligated before. They merely looked pretty. Sudenly they have a choice to do what's moraly wrong, and they take it. Because they never decided to do what's right in the first place. The government did.

[mat1583]

Hmm...from the looks of it, maybe this board is more Libertarian than i originally thought. Either that or maybe the others just aren't speaking up.

My other question deals a little bit with how God dealt with immoral nations in the Old Testament. And this is where I think my own decision making is going to come in. In the Old Testament, we find many examples of God destroying or allowing to be destroyed a city that was lliving constantly in sin- the most well-known example being that of Sodom and Gomorrah. We've also heard in the Old Testament that God blessed certain cities and leaders for following Him. Now that the law has been abolished and we no longer live under it, should we still seek to have a nation that is more righteous even if it means going against some natural rights.

I believe now that we don't live under the law anymore, the answer is that yes...we should seek to have a nation that is more righteous...BUT that does not mean we should try to make people more righteous by changing laws or going against natural rights. We should do this simply by spreading the gospel and reaching out to the lost. As most of you have said, forcing someone to live by a Christian's moral ground is not going to make them a better person, and I don't believe God expects us to govern others by that rational either.

Any other thoughts?

-washboard

[Gandalf]

Personally, I think the Libertarians generally interpret the right to pursue happiness a bit more broadly than the writers of the Constitution (and Declaration). The federal government has no authority to make many of the laws that it currently does, but the Constitution allows state and local governments broad latitude to make laws about almost any specific behavior, so long as basic freedoms are not unduly disregarded. As to whether some such laws should be made or not, it depends on the particular case. But, state and local authorities aren't outside their rights in making laws banning marijuana, sodomy, etc. Laws must generally be moral and just, and morality is not relative. At the same time, we shouldn't needlessly restrict freedom.

[smittie_3d]

how do we understand freedom?

is it the ability to go out wherever you want?
is it the ability to do what you want (as long as it doesnt hurt others)?

is this how the bible understands freedom?

is freedom not released from the bondage of sin? is freedom not being restored to God?

i recon this whole viewpoint appleas entirely to the flesh and not to the spirit

old relitivism is rearing its ugly head again as well
why can be make laws in accordance to the will of God?
what would be so terrible about that?
is his will not perfect?
ok people dont believe in Him but untimately his laws are for our good is nothing else

i agree that we are no longer bound by the law of sin and death (OT law) but we do live by the spirit of the law and christian leaders and people in authority should make decisions accordingly


let me just address this from tulip 5points

"if that was God's desire, then that would be so. God has set up every governement this world has seen. to imply otherwise, would say that God isnt in control."

this is a difficult area and i am tempted to post a thread in da word

if you read exodus with Israel at Mt sinai you will see that what is established there is a theocracy - God comes down and lives amoung the people and gives them the law by which he will govern.

as the move into the promised land - judges are set up but this only works for a while and the people call for a king (so they can be like other nations) God is reluctant to give them a king and in 1 sam sees it as a rejection of him.
however - does this mean he is not in control?
no it doesnt
what he does is submits to giving them a king and shows them just how flawed earthly kings are and how the need YHWH as their God - this also sets up the covenant with david - of the eternal throne - so God uses these events to bring about his purposes just like he uses the actions of wicked men which act against his will - well...... they try to haha

[Howlin' Wolf]

is america OT israel? has God done that with any other nation? why do you assume he desires that now? did you see him open up the heavens and send a dove to GW Bush?

[coldcupofjoe]

is america OT israel? has God done that with any other nation? why do you assume he desires that now? did you see him open up the heavens and send a dove to GW Bush?

If he did i missed it.

[Howlin' Wolf]

If he did i missed it.

yeah, me too

[Pouye]

An Atheist once told me on a forum:

"The only theocracy (government ruled by or subject to religious authority) I would submit to is if God himself came down and ruled."

I replied:

"And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day there will be one LORD—his name alone will be worshiped." Zech. 14:9

And...

"Because of this, God raised him [Jesus] up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name that is above every other name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-

Rock

[Gandalf]

That will be a good day. :)

[mcgreen311]

However, as Christians we tend to look at it the opposite way. People shouldn't do some of those things because it is "bad". God said it's bad. It's sinful. So here's my question. As Christians, should we lobby to create laws that restrict the natural rights of Americans based on our own moral understanding, OR is it OK for Christians to take a Libertarian stance - one that allows for immoral behavior as long as it does not infringe on others' natural rights. In a way I'm asking, "Should we allow non-believers to participate in what Christians think is morally unacceptable behavior since it is their natural right to choose, or does God want us to be active in government to prohibit these actions even though non-believers may not agree with our reasoning"

I know it's a loaded question, but I've been struggling with it for a few months now and still can't come up with a clear answer. One point my friend brought up is that even if we restrict people from certain activities, that does not necessarily make them a better person. Non-believers may reject our moral reasoning, thus still rejecting God. If these behaviors are allowed (for instance smoking marijuana), we as Christians should still tell them that it's wrong and the reasons why, but we have no right to control their lives and take away their natural rights as the government does today.

Phew, I think that's it for right now.

-washboard

I've got nothing concrete to add (so I don't know why I'm posting) :), but I've been pondering this lately too. I think Tulip and Weasel (and probably others elsewhere) brought up a great point that forcing someone to abide by certain laws won't change the person, but will probably turn them off altogether.

This point of view challenges me to focus less on the outside of making America (or any other nation) seem righteous. The focus lately seems to be on fixing moral depravity from the top as opposed to working up from the bottom with individuals, being witnesses and showing love. It seems to be a form of armchair activism: click this button to send a petition, sign this paper and mail it in. It's definitely easier to do those things than to get out and work with/serve people. There's more anonymity, less of a chance to fall flat on your face.

[larryl]

i say, and will continue to say........

when christians start realize if they change people the gov't would change, instead of thinking that they need to change the gov't and then people will change, things will be a lot better.

i agree with the libertarians almost totally.....i don't agree with their stance on war, but that is one of few.......

as far as abortion, drugs, homosexuality, etc.....again, that's not the gov't's place to change; it's our's, as christians

[Healing Oil]

I read the original post of this thread but not the rest (Ill get to those posts later, it is late).

My opinion is I do agree with the Liberitarians. I believe that much of the reason why Christians are so frowned upon in America is because so many non-believers receive the impression that we are out to change the law, or make laws. They are right many of the times. It really saddens me to see Christian groups or other religious groups marching down streets with signs saying "God hates fags, no to gay marriage, etc...". I dont think that is what we are here to do. It is really no wonder why we are not liked very much. I think if we spent more time just loving sinners and take a step back from trying to be superman and woman, then we would make a bigger difference.

I believe in the freedom to drink. I dont believe in the freedom to drink and drive, because than the driver is infringing on my right to get home safely.

[Howlin' Wolf]

i say, and will continue to say........

when christians start realize if they change people the gov't would change, instead of thinking that they need to change the gov't and then people will change, things will be a lot better.

i agree with the libertarians almost totally.....i don't agree with their stance on war, but that is one of few.......

as far as abortion, drugs, homosexuality, etc.....again, that's not the gov't's place to change; it's our's, as christians

brilliant post
just brilliant

[Gandalf]

as far as abortion, drugs, homosexuality, etc.....again, that's not the gov't's place to change; it's our's, as christians
With drugs, you may have a point, as that's not necessarily something people are doing to others directly. But abortion? Isn't the primary purpose of the government mutual defense of the life and liberties of the people? I can't see how allowing abortion or other murders is not a failure of the government to fulfill its responsibility to protect the lives of the people. Ensuring social order and due penalty for wrongdoing is a Biblical mandate to governments - it's why they have the authority to use force.

[larryl]

With drugs, you may have a point, as that's not necessarily something people are doing to others directly. But abortion? Isn't the primary purpose of the government mutual defense of the life and liberties of the people? I can't see how allowing abortion or other murders is not a failure of the government to fulfill its responsibility to protect the lives of the people. Ensuring social order and due penalty for wrongdoing is a Biblical mandate to governments - it's why they have the authority to use force.


christians are in the minority when it comes to believing life starts at conception. therefore we are trying to legislate our views when with abortion laws. change people. the rest will take care of itself.

[Gandalf]

If Christians were in the minority in believing life is sacred and worth protecting in general, or that women should be protected from rape, would that change the truth of the matter? Morality is not relative. I agree people's hearts need to change. But that is no excuse for the government to promote injustice.

As for life beginning at conception... the child is genetically different from its parents - seems rather scientifically obvious that it's a separate life. The teaching of the Catholic church, and others, before science stepped in was that the child was considered alive once it had blood flowing. Science is what's pushed our view of the matter to an earlier beginning of life.

[larryl]

to most folks, ones i talk to anyway, there is no child, so it can't be murder (not my opinion, btw)...

believing life is sacred is a little different.....and yes. if the general public gets to a point that rape and murder are considered normal, and legal, then it will be up to us to change people, not to change the government, or expect the gov't to make people live by our standards....

[Gandalf]

The government has an obligation to protect its citizens and punish wrongdoing, whether or not everyone fully understands the matter. Sociopathic killers are just as guilty of murder as those who believe that what they did is wrong. If people didn't all understand that rape is wrong, it would still be the government's duty to protect the people from rape. The same is true of murder, including abortion. The government doesn't exist merely to enforce the will of the majority on the minority. It is commissioned by God to enforce social order.