This is an excellent piece. I can't even begin to tell you how concerned I am about this issue.

Thanks you Paul.

I'm concerned about these fanatical wackos myself,
considering the fact that I live in Louisiana and I'm 20 years old.

I think we have to be careful to remain objective here. The one side of the argument we have people like Delay stating that we have no separation of state.To these people we have to explain that the first amendment and the no national religion clause represents this separation. We also have to defend Christians who are being forced out of the public square when they practice their faith.

Matt mentions christians being forced out of the public square - I don't see this at all. I think there is a profound point of confusion in State/church debates - I think pro-religious people think that government speech and public speech are one and the same, but I say that government speech should be controlled when we are talking about opinions that have no bases of fact such as Atheism and god belief. I would be opposed to "one Nation Under Atheism " as much as "One Nation Under god " or judges ruling based on their own personal spirit opinion.

This professor seems to know his stuff, so if he says there is an ideological war going on within christianity, then I believe him. I just wish they would keep their war between them, and not let it spill onto the rest of us non-believers.

To the conservative religious right I have this message: Keep your hands off my constitution (which I have sworn to defend) and my country!

By grouping individuals into categories such as religious zealots, we remove the face and identity of a person and assign to them the stereotypes that we believe are true about them. I have a nagging suspicion that the founding fathers never intended for the people to form divisive factions that war in the political and social arena, but that is exactly what we have today. I think the constitution was a document of privacy; a licencse for people to accomplish their own will without interfering with other's rights. The nature of factions are intrusive and controlling, they are an attempt to meddle in the affairs of others using whatever method or medium possible. This professor recognizes that the "religious right" has considerable influence and a specific agenda for the government of this nation, but what this professor does not realize is that religous zealots are the same as radical liberals or moderate democrats, in the respect that they are a threat to the constitutional liberty afforded to us. Our political electoral process, which was once a judge of a person's character and his ability to execute the duties of his office, have been turned into an idealogical war, with two equally manned factions of zealots. Take the Terri Shaivo case as an example of misplaced zeal. The christians who cried against the injustice done to Terri Shaivo could have taken a this approach to the matter: What Michael Shaivo did was on his conscience and he will bear the full responsibility of his actions when his time of reckoning comes. In this case, a grouping of intrusive people sought to impose their agenda upon another person with no respect to his rights or liberty. To be fair, I'll give an example from the other side of the political/social spectrum. Liberal activists seek increased welfare benefits for the poor and misfortunate. They lobby the government to pay for welfare by raising taxes. In this case, a group of intrusive people seek to impose their agenda upon the rest of the populace with no respect to the financial freedom of an individual. What America needs is a dose of reality and individualism, a kick in the pants to get us to realize that we shouldn't infringe upon other people's rights, liberties, privacy and so on.

I do see some problems, I was told by some people that my reading a bible in school before classes started was illegal, I then brought in a copy of the constitution and shown my attackers the first amendment and that federaly funded education was unconstitutional. I then told them "If you can prove to me that what I am doing is illegal, I will quit, and if you don't like what I say to d*** bad it is my right and I will say it.

My point is that if Christians are being attacked they can stand up and win, the people I debated knew nothing about the constitution, they think we live in a democracy, and think you have to let a police officer check your vehicle if they ask.

I haven't had any more problems with them.

I forgot to mention that two years before someone brought in a book of witchcraft and guess what no one complained. I didn't complain because I knew his first amendment right and would gladly defend it even though I disagree with his beliefs.

I couldn't agree with Brad more. One sure way to destroy any vestige of freedom and liberty is to allow religious leaders to start pulling the strings of government. Religion is all about telling a person how to live their life. Government is all about the power to force people to do things. Man, that's a bad combination. The thought of it should make any libertarian shudder. Having said that though, I believe everyone has the right to practice any religion they want to, or none at all for that matter! That's what brought the pilgrams here in the first place. The freedom to believe in whatever religion they wanted to - without the interference of the state. How soon we forget. This country has done so well and grown so fast, I'm afraid we've forgotten have to look back and remember what got us here in the first place. The bigger our government grows the less our country will resemble what our founding fathers envisioned. And the further away we will get from being a free society. I don't care if it's the Democrats, the Republicans, the religious right, the neocons, it all means the same thing - more government and less freedom!

Libertarians can't let this happen. Talk to people, even people that you don't think would care to hear anything you have to say. Remind people what this country is supposed to be all about. Educate them if you have to. And trust me, there's a lot of educating to do. But do it! We talk about how kids today can't image life without computers. For those of us that have been around awhile, we can. But just like today's kids, most people can't imagine what life would be like without big government. We've all been brainwashed to think that government is the answer to everything. Our public schools don't teach about free enterprise and capitalism and how to be a responsible, free thinking individual. Our public schools teach us about all the good government has done for us, why we need it in our lives, how society would fall into total chaos if it wasn't for the government. We're taught that we have the power to make life safer and better for "society" by exercising our will through our elected officials. In other words, the more government, the better off everyone is. We know better and we can't let it happen! The only way to stop it is by standing up for what we believe in. Get active with politics, in whatever capacity you feel comfortable with. Even if it's just blogging. At least it's getting the word out there. And you'll be surprised by how many people will respond well to your ideas. Everyone loses with big government. Everyone, but a small group of people that profit from controlling the government. And who do you think those types of people might be? People that profit from being able to tell you what to do. Those aren't the kind of people I want to be giving my money to. But those are the kind of people your going to deal with when the government controls so much of what goes on in the country. A free market economy and an all intrusive government can not co-exist - it's got to be one or the other. I'm voting for what made America great in the first place. I'm voting for limited government and the free market. Now the trick is to figure out how to get everyone else to think that way. You wouldn't think it would be that hard. After all, this is The United States of America...(right)?

Mark, well said, can I quote that on my blog.

Mark,
I couldn't sum up my own opinions better if I had 50 pages. Great post. That is exactly the issue. It's not about Democrats and Republicans, it's about us and our freedom.

I have a certain passion for freedom - I guess it shows now and then. Glad you guys agree. And feel free to quote anything I say, anytime.

Thanks Mark, I don't know anyone who could have said that better.

On a similar topic. Law & Order tonight (5/11). A judge recused himself as an "anti-christian" to avoid possible prosecution problems where the accused could get away with the crime.

The evidence presented that made him anti-christian included the fact that his campaign accepted money from the Libertarian Party.

WE HAVE BEEN LINKED ON A MAJOR PROGRAM ON NATIONAL TV AS AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT!

one more time

The evidence presented included that his campaign accepted money from the Libertarian Party.

As a member of the party, I am insulted. My choice of beliefs in no way influenced by the party - or vise versa. I am writing to NBC, and to the writers of Law & Order, I believe we all should. An obvious smear to all of us.

I'm on the other side of the issue. The so called "religious right" is only fighting because people are fighting them.

Find me the part the constitution that was passed with the historical intent to ban God or protect abortion and I'll change my mind.

The declaration of independance reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

Yes, the nation was founded on separation of church and state but only in the sense that the government can't force you to be religious. If the government can not acknowledge that their is a God what happens to all the rights protected in the Constitution that the founders thought came from God?

Gordon, I saw the same episode and was totally appalled by the fact that a character on the show would simply link us to something that isn't even a fact.

Now to the issue on hand. Whether you be Christain, Muslim, Protestant, even Buddhist, you, by the writings of the hands of the founding fathers, have every right to practice and preach your religion, as long as you do not force your opinion on someone else. Now, we look at the government, who is now trying to regulate "religion" in a sense saying it is unconstitutional and offensive to others to have the word "God" associtated to anything. Isn't that religious persecution??? Isn't that forcing the belief of something else onto someone else???
We have awide variety of religions in this country, due to our right to practice. Our constitution is the most wonderful document ever written in human history. Yet, as the people are the government, aren't we persecuting ourselves???

That's just the thing -- most people seem to think that many of the measures being taken in the name of church-state separation are really thinly veiled attacks on the church in the name of the state. Many right-wing Christians misinterpret or deliberately misrepresent these measures to get an emotional response, but either way the measures are misunderstood.

It's not true that a Christian cannot practice his faith in public. The Big Bad Humanists aren't trying to keep kids from praying or reading the Bible in school (it's TEACHER-LED praying or Bible study in PUBLIC school that's under attack here, and, I think, rightly so). It's about neutrality in taxpayer-supported insitutions, and that's all. It's about a Muslim/atheist/Buddhist/pagan parent's tax dollars not going toward the indoctrination of her children into Christianity in school, and it likewise protects the Christian parents from having their tax dollars funding the indoctrination of their children into Islam/atheism/Buddhism/paganism, should any of those become the norm. If a Christian statue (i.e., a replica of the Ten Commandments) is taken out of a courthouse in Alabama, nobody's being prevented from practicing his religion; it's just that many non-Judaeo-Christians also paid for that land, and certainly wouldn't want their tax dollars going toward the promotion of (in their minds, faulty) Abrahamic beliefs.

Steve McDougal said "Now, we look at the government, who is now trying to regulate 'religion' in a sense saying it is unconstitutional and offensive to others to have the word 'God' associtated to anything."
But I don't think that's what's going on. It would certainly be silly for the government, almost entirely made up of Christians, to attack religion in such a manner. Like I said, it's all about religious neutrality in tax-supported institutions, not hostility to religion.

Gordon,

Thanks for the heads up on the "Law and Order" episode that dissed the party. For what it's worth, I think the series' title is misleading. From what I've seen of the few episodes I've watched, the lead characters are constantly trying to find ways around the "law" to suit their own, personal sense of "order".

There is one, small positive side to their distortion of our party's beliefs. Some powerful producer, director, or writer in Hollywood is so afraid of us that they're willing to lie about us on their TV show in order to disuade people from checking us out in the first place.

To Tom Swift:

I understand that the christian right is fighting because they feel threatened. I have listened to some religious radio in my car (driving through NC get boring) and they seem to believe that their christian values and the morals in the US are going downhill. Its totally understandable that they would want to fight for their beliefs. What you need to understand, however, is that the government is not against you. It is the government's role to remain neutral and to enforce law. From what I have seen, the government has not been persecuting religion. Like I said before, try to keep the fight amongst yourselves. Oh, and by the way, the constitution is a legal document, not a religious document. It does not require the belief in god in order to function.

For everyone: About Law and Order, I also saw the show and heard the comment in the judge's chambers. I would excersise restraint in attacking NBC. The comment about the libertarian party was made by the defence lawyer, who was retained by the religous group. I interpreted it as a desparate attempt to get him to rescind, and I just thought she was using any bit of ammunition, however trivial, irrelevent, or untrue, to advance her motion. I know it might have offended some of us, but lets remember that it is a TV show and is fiction.

Concerning the Law & Order episode: As Brad pointed out, it was a desperate attempt to get the judge to recuse himself. The show made that VERY clear. The defense only managed to infuriate the judge and the ADA. And the viewer (at least this one) was not lead to believe that the Libertarian Party, the ACLU and the judge were "anti-christian".

I'm just happy that the Libertarian Party is getting big enough that it is being referenced in the same sentence as the ACLU. Much better than the the usual rare news article where we get to share time with the Natural Law Party and the Constitution Party. You don't see many references to the Peace and Freedom Party in main stream television.

All,

Regarding the "Law and Order" episode last night, this is the response that I have sent to NBC and plan to issue as a press release:

------------------------------

I write this as a fan of "Law and Order", a Libertarian, and a Catholic.

In tonight№s episode of "Law and Order" a judge is asked to recuse himself
from a case due to alleged anti-Christian sentiments. As proof of bias
against Christians, they cite that he was supported by the Libertarian
Party in his election.

I have been a member of the Catholic faith from baptism, as an alter boy,
as a student in Catholic schools, and as a member of our church choir for
two masses every Sunday. I take my faith very seriously. I do not look to
Ted Kennedy, Tom Delay, or Bill Clinton as role models. My role model in
life is Jesus Christ.

I am also the leader of the 3rd largest political party in the United
States in its 2nd largest state. Like the many Christians in the
Libertarian Party I believe faith is a personal relationship between God
and myself. Though as our founding fathers stated that we are all endowed
by our creator with unalienable rights, we must also render to Caeser what
is Caesar№s and to the Lord what is the Lord№s. Government is intended to
protect our rights and property, but is no substitute for God.

I defend the freedom of speech of NBC and its producers, regardless of
whether I like its content. I am often grateful for any mention of the
Libertarian Party. However, I respectfully request that they set the
record straight. Associating the Libertarian Party with anti-Christian bias
is both insulting and factually incorrect.

Patrick J Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas
www.LPTexas.org

I like you guys for protecting what made this country great: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I have one question about this site though; What happened to your press release archive?

The fight within in the Christian movement seems to be part and parcel with the similar fight regarding fundamentalism within nearly every major religion. In particular I have read that the real purpose of many Muslim terrorists groups is to win the hearts and minds of less militant and less fundamentalist Muslims. The U.S. is merely a convenient target for them as, on the face of it, attacking us seems particularly foolhardly and therefore, in those circles, brave and perhaps righteous.

Interestingly this suggests that those terrorists might have been prone to attack the U.S. no matter what foreign policy the USA had promulgated. This in turn reminds us that readiness should be the vanguard of our government. Sadly a stray Cessna is all it takes to demonstrate that the government remains unequal to the task of ensuring our safety even as they work to forfeit our liberties rather than safeguard them.

We need new leadership that gets it. That means that we need new voters who are willing to stand up and be counted as part of the solution rather than part of the continuing problem. Please urge your friends and neighbors to make a difference and vote Libertarian!

On one of the other threads here, I had someone tell me he feels the two biggest threats to freedom and liberty here is the UN and Democrats. That's his views and I respect them. However, I personally feel it's the religious right who are the biggest threat to individual liberty and freedom here.

I'm very sick of hearing from people like Pat Robertson saying there's "no such thing as seperation of church and state in the constitution". I could read you some quotes from our founding fathers stating that seperation was fully intended:

JOHN ADAMS: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religions in it."

JOHN ADAMS: Letters to F.A. Van Der Kamp 1809-1816. "How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been
blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?"

THOMAS JEFFERSON: Notes on Religion, passed in the Assembly of Virginia, in the Year, 1786. "Millions of innocent men, women and
children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: Letter to Thomas Whittemore, June 5, 1822: "Christian creeds and doctrines, the clergy's own fatal inventions, through all the ages has made of Christendom a slaughterhouse, and divided it into sects of inextinguishable hatred for one another."

JAMES MADISON: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

GEORGE WASHINGTON--Treaty of Tripoli 1796: The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

Since people are speaking of our school system, I am a little irked that our seperation of church and state has gotten to the point that our public schools won't allow people to personally pray before lunch (repeat: PERSONALLY), or won't sing the religious Christmas carols anymore. Though I truly support the seperation, even I think that's going too far.

I have nothing against the public schools, but they need to get back to teaching the most important things that need to be teached; READING, WRITING, and ARITHMETIC. Plus history, and science. I'm also not that disturbed that they teach sex ed in schools now (hell I wish they taught that to ME when I was there. lol), but in reality neither sex ed nor forced prayer belong in our public schools.

I think the reason I support public schools is because if we totally privatize our education system in America, then just what would be the ratio of religious and non-religious schools? I feel there needs to truly be a choice between religion and non-religion with a child's education. Hell, maybe a federal law stating for every religious school, there needs to be a similar non-religious school.

At bare minimum, I feel the Department of Education should go away, and the public schools should be fully state-run.

I didn't mean for it to go a little off-topic here, but the education system is at the tug-of-war between the religious demagogues and the mainstream and non-religious people, so I felt my personal feelings should be shown.

Yes I saw Law and Order-was thoroughly pissed for the rest of the episode. I couldn't agree more with the bloger who claime it was really, "the lead characters are constantly trying to find ways around the "law" to suit their own, personal sense of "order"." I couldn't help nod my head in agreement.

As far as religious content banned from schools... I must disagree. I know people who make a point to pray before lunch, and before going up on stage to pray. There are ardent debates between students on this, and whereas the religious mass is divided politically in my school, the majority is showing true rightist colors. Many wish for their ideals to be spread via law, and a good minority wishes for people to choose.

I once brought a book on Wicca to school, and everyone had rapid-launch-questioning for me. I had many accusations, disgusted stares, and a few comments of "that book shouldn't be allowed in here".

I can also see, however, the persecution (benign, yet still persecution) of Christain rights. In California, for example, a pharmacist must now cooperate with those seeking a morning after pill. Whereas I am pro-choice, this law infringes on two peoples' rights. The first is the pharmacist. He must now perscribe a drug that kills the unborn, or lead the person to someone who will. This immediately puts them into the abortion process, and leaves them no way out aside from a career change. The Employer is the second. His corporate policies are now being changed by the government... again.

I believe in a total seperation of church and state. What I think this article hinted at, was that there wouldn't be if these 'religious zealots' were in the way. Admittedly, they have become an opponnet to our constitutional rights-yet I believe the author forgot to mention the otherside of the story. Many Christains are have religious rights taken away.

Erika, I agree with you, rights from all religous groups are being taken away. The conservatives often take away non believers, or believers in something other that Christianity's rights, and the liberals often take away christian's rights.

"That book shouldn't be allowed in here." That comment is offensive, I am a Christian and the same thing happened to me with the Bible, I brought in the Constitution and won. The point is that I was attacked by the left and you were attacked by the right both times were wrong you had every right to bring that book in even if I and many others disagree with it. I don't care if a majority of the students and teachers voted to not allow you to bring in the book, we are a republic and the majority never takes away the minority's rights.

I would also like to remind Christians you won't gain followers if you take their rights away, and treat them poorly.

Well written paper. The religious right has an avowed intent of taking control of the entire country - through the judiciary, schools, culture, and any other means they can use. They are the Taliban of Christianity. Their goal is a theocracy of their own making - just like the Puritans of England in 1640-1660, making it virtually illegal to hold any ideas or practice any form of worship with which they did not approve.

To allow the Christian far right to gain this control means that we will lose our liberty, not just over religious matters, but in all areas of life. They will become the "thought police" of 1984, yet claiming they are doing it in the name of God. It is one short step from creating a theocracy to establishing tribunals, and demonizing those who have differing opinions, and finally eradicating them.

We have seen this happen among the Moslems, attempts of it among Hindu nationalists in India, and elsewhere.

America is in a very dangerous position right now, and unless we are vigilant and stop this menace before it worsens, we shall lose all of our freedoms.

Jonathan,
I think we need a sepration of school and state. I agree as their is no enumerated powers for the federal government when dealing with public education
their should be no federal involvment. I think federalism would prove that you are wrong about public schools even if ran by the state it would not be as good as private schools. It would be wasteful and the same politiciana would try to use tax money to push socialism or relgion down our throat.

Christianity is not the problem, most if not all of the founding fathers were Christians. The problem is when Christians begin forcing their beliefs on others; forcing people to pray, say the pledge, attend church, or regulate speech on the radio or tv because it goes against our country's Christian backgroun or because the majority dosen't want to see or hear it.

I am a Christian and I will never tell someone what they will believe. I may discuss Christianity with you but will never try to get the government to pass laws and regulations to make you believe like I do. Jesus never forced anyone to accept him.

Instead of stopping religon we need to allow religon, all religon. Instead of removing religous books from schools we need to allow these books, and allow the first amendment to be used.

Why the hell am I reading such a blatantly anti-christian biased article on LP.ORG?

What the hell do you mean the attacks on the Judiciary System (about the Schiavo case)were "fruitless" and "fanatical"?

I thought Libertarians believe Government MUST protect men and women's basic human and political rights. Don't give me this Bullcrap about "It was her choice." Believe me, I'm all for euthanasia. BUT ONLY IF THERE'S PROOF! I don't give a damn if her Husband says that's what she wanted. Hell, are you going to justify murder all over the United States because the spouse says "that's what he/she wanted"? Jesus Christ!

When it comes to issues such as Abortion and the Schiavo case, AT LEAST BE OBJECTIVE! I didn't pay money to the LP to be indoctrinated with democrat talking points.

other than that, I agree with our need of more Separation between Church and State.

The tenor of this article might be a prime example of why the Libertarian Party could be linked in popular culture with anti-Christian sentiments. Libertarianism represents freedom; freedom FOR Christians as well as anybody else. That needs to be remembered by the author. As a case in point, I am a conservative Christian, and my politics are Libertarian- with a caveat on the "open border" issue. I'm also surprised at how naive the author seems to be; there seems to be a "leftists good; fundamentalists bad" mind-set here which I wouldn't have expected from a Libertarian- we tend to be on the smarter side.
On another topic, conservative Christians see the religious institutions which would foster such life destroying (and hence, rights nullifying) policies as socialism, Darwinism, abortion, euthanasia, Etc. as invaded and occupied by non-Christian elements; tottering old structures deeply in need of a new Reformation, not rival expressions of the faith. A book entitled "Christianity and Liberalism" written by J. Gresham Machen early last century summed up the pretentiousness of leftists in attempting to claim the name of Christ quite well. "Socialist Christians" would be something like "Nazi Jews"; it just can't happen.

Shane wanted to know where the press releases can be found on this new version of the website. They're at http://www.lp.org/press.shtml

To Brandon D:
You did see the "No profanity or inappropriate comments" notice, right? Calm down, please. Libertarians don't need to shout; we make actual sense when we talk. :)
Is not the right of the husband to make that decision for his wife one of the many powers and privileges that the institution of marriage grants? Is this right to make make such decisions not one of the core issues in the gay marriage fight? (BTW: Civil unions for hetero&homo alike; marriage for religions.) If we're going to give government the power to interfere in a "sacred institution" like marriage whenever it's supported by public opinion polls, then where does the sacred part come in? I can't track it. And if we do give government those intrusive powers, why not make gay marriage legal? It won't mean anything to the government anyway. They'll still step in and trample all over your rights.
Sickening: all of it. I've said for years that I should move to Iceland. You don't hear about Iceland bothering anybody; nobody ever read a headline that said, "Iceland bombs whoever!" I suppose I could take up fishing.

"I thought Libertarians believe Government MUST protect men and women's basic human and political rights."

I have often as other libertarians have said is that the only proper role of government would be to protect people's life, liberty and property of which I add in the absent of private alternatives.

But I can't recall anyone ever saying that it is a must or that it is even a necessity. Government protecting us is a misnomer given that it constantly violates our life, liberties and property. Therefore, it is a poor substitute for us exercising our own personal responsibility to protect our own lives, liberties and property as well as assisting others.

I never liked the Leftists and the Fanatics; one way or another, they are finding ways to infringe on our rights. To Me, moving out of this country isn't the solution because that shows that you are a coward. Wouldn't it be better if we actually solved problems instead of whining about them?

Sorry RW, I consider myself a Christian and a Social Democrat, and under my skewed and statist belief system it makes perfect sense.

Just to show how dumb my beliefs are, if this site were owned in common as I believe, the (No profanity or inappropriate comments) policy would be decided by a constitutional republic system of governance rather than by some autocratic individual.

While I disagree with libertarian beliefs strongly, I highly admire the libertarian individual, and I hope that the Libertarian Party becomes a first or second party in the future.

Guys, there are bigger issues than this. Remember social security? CAFTA? The new chance for liberalized drug laws? I'm not even sure why we have this blog subject...

I can't blame the Christian right for being upset and feeling that the Democrats are applying a religious test to the judicial nominees. When you have Dem. Senator Charles Schumer from New York stating about Bill Pryor that 'His beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it's very hard to believe, very hard to believe, that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, `I will follow the law.'' This certainly sounds like a litmus test against anyone who has strong religious beliefs. I thought we were not supposed to discriminate based upon religion in this country?

Keep in mind that this is the same Bill Pryor that, even though he disagreed with the ruling, handled the high profile removal of a Ten Commandments monument from an Alabama courthouse. This hardly sounds like someone who is going to force Christianity down anyone's throat.

I personally am excited about some of President Bush's nominees. Just one or two more judges like these nominees on the Supreme Court and the absolute foolishness of a 'living' Constitution will be dead. A 'living' Constitution that can be changed on the whim of a judge is a meaningless Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court could start to hold the federal government to its Constitutional limits instead of inventing clauses that allow the federal government to expand at will and infringe on our freedom.

With Bush's future nominees, I am excited about the possibility of the evil Roe vs Wade decision that has lead to the deaths of millions of the most innocent being overturned. Stepping back from my obviously strong feelings on the abortion issue, the whole invention of a right to privacy in the Constitution was bad constitutional law and another example of judges inventing things in the Constitution that are not there. The Constitution is silent about abortion and thus, as the Constitution states, should be 'reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

Many Libertarians forget that it is God that gives us the rights secured by the Constitution. Regardless of the believes of a few of the "Founding Fathers" this country was setup on the foundations of the Christian religion, which is identifiable in many of our laws.

The supermajority of our Founding Fathers had no difficulty with the idea of the government operating on Christian principles. We still have many Christian references on our most prized monuments and chaplains in the Senate and House. You can be certain that many modern interpretations of "freedom" were not on the minds of our Founding Fathers...

It is logically inconsistent to be a Libertarian and support a portion of the viewpoints of our forefathers without supporting their actual views as they practiced them in the early U.S. Religion in the public sector was commonplace, and was not rejected by our forefathers.

It is logically inconsistent to be a Libertarian and support our founding documents which acknowledge that there is a God and that our rights derive from God if one does not believe in God and wants to separate God from the government. Nothing is worse than a secular humanist government, as is evidenced by the spectacular success of such in Communist Russia and China.

It IS, however, wise to insist that our government give no special privileges nor prohibit equal access to any and all religions that recognize the general moral values that our country was founded upon.

Eugene V Debs wrote: "While I disagree with libertarian beliefs strongly, I highly admire the libertarian individual, and I hope that the Libertarian Party becomes a first or second party in the future."

That's typical for a "social democrat." They believe that who a person is should be divorced from what they think.

Our libertarian beliefs make us true individuals, EVD. That which you "highly admire" about us as individuals derives directly from our beliefs. This is true even though you don't see the connection. More accurately, you don't want to see the connection, because it would cause you to reevaluate the schism that derives from your belief that the individual is subserviant to the group.

Contrary to the Ben Franklin post " THE " Founding Father THOMAS PAINE had no use for christianity and challenged it on a regular basis. His legacy and credibility have paid dearly because christians have controlled public schools up to this day and kept him out of American history as much as possible.

This country exists because of the Puritans that came here seeking religious freedom from government control ( unfortunately they became the grandest of hypocrits - to be discussed another day )and because of the grandest champion of LIBERTY - diest THOMAS PAINE.

Before one can say our rights came from a god thing - prove the god thing exists !

I know this isn't partial to the subject on-hand about Christain judge nominee's, but if anyone would like to argue this book, [please feel free to do so....For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto...written by Murray N. Rothbard...it will give ya some kind of understanding of what the principles of this country were founded on and give some an idea that religion should have no part in politics, just as the Constitution states. These judges should be free to worship God, pencils, rocks, whatever. Just don't let it be the "moral" judgement of the court to "interpret" what was already written and said after a war was fought.

"Many Libertarians forget that it is God that gives us the rights secured by the Constitution. Regardless of the believes of a few of the "Founding Fathers" this country was setup on the foundations of the Christian religion, which is identifiable in many of our laws."

I find this oft repeated nonsense to be deeply offensive, as well as historically inaccurate. The Founding Fathers and the American revolution in general were all part of the Enlightenment, regardless of how often the religious zealots claim otherwise.

To suggest that our country was founded on the "Christian religion" implies a single Christian doctrine which does not exist. The fundamentalists may wish to force their narrow doctrines down our collective throats. I just wish that they would stop distorting both the history and basic principles of the American revolution in the process.

Libertarian TV, other people's beliefs do not define who I am. Using that logic as you just did, I supposedly believe "who a person is should be divorced from what they think" because other social democrats "they", think so. And you are a libertarian because "our" beliefs make "us" individuals?

I believe a person should not be coerced to subservience by the group or another individual. And a human being is an individual no matter what he or she thinks, to say there are "true individuals" is to devalue the individual which creates the "us" and "them" that leads to tyranny.

I use the word social democrat or socialist to define my own beliefs because I believe that voluntarily forming, joining, or leaving a credit union, a homeowner's association, consumer controled solar power utility or a farmer's cooperative etc enables the most freedom for an individual in an institution, just as a constitutional democracy limits the state to necessary functions and infringes upon least liberty of any other form of government.

I believe in God and the Christian religion and through my conscience and faith do my best to be a follower of Christ, and it is faith from which I derive my socialist beliefs. The seperation of church and state protects my and the differing beliefs of all individuals from coercion.

Notwithstanding the first sentence of my last post which was a joke; social democrat, socialist, and Christian are not synonyms of "statist".

to TC:

yes I saw the profanity sign.

However, I am not a socialist sheep who will go about my day calmly as if nothing happened when, in my belief, an innocent lady was murdered and then later I read on lp.org that attacks on this happening were "fanatical" and "fruitless". I'm sorry, but I will show my feelings whenever and however I feel like it. If you like cencorship, this is not the place for you. Besides, my language was mild compared to what I COULD have said. :)

Here is my main point: Most libertarians, like myself, believe in Euthanasia. I believe it is your right to do with your own body whatever you wish as long as you do not interfere with anyone else's Rights, as Abe LIncoln once said.

However, many have used the Schiavo case to push their euthanasia beliefs. Although I agree with their ultimate intent, this case was NOT a good choice to do this. There was great doubt of her wanting to die. euthanasia only works correctly if the person actually agrees to being put to death and there is clear proof of them wanting this. Nobody can, with a straight face, claim Terri Schiavo "clearly" wanted to die. That is utter BS.

You said the government shouldn't have the right to regulate "sacred" institutions because the MAJORITY likes them? I'm sorry, but we are not a democracy, thank god. We are a constitutional republic. the Majority doesn't decide squat except which leader they want. Just because these sacred institutions let a spouse decide whether or not their companion should die does not mean the government shouldn't step in and stop it.

I am not an anarchist, I am a libertarian. I DO believe in a government; one with a single role: to prevent criminals from stealing others' rights and prosecute those who do.

And whenever someone's ight is unwillingly taken away, it is the Government's Duty to step in.

In my opinion, this applies to abortion and the schiavo case.

You cant blame the religious nuts for wanting to get rid of the Courts. After all, without the pesky Courts, it sure would be a hell of a lot cheaper to sweep everything under the rug when one of their priests molests a kid.

Eugene V. Debs, you deliberately missed my point entirely. You twisted it into something I did NOT say. I never said that other people's beliefs should define who you are. Just the opposite. I said that your own beliefs defines who you are, and that our libertarian beliefs define who we are. My point wasn't that you should change who you are because of what we are. My point was that we are who we are because of what we believe, not in spite of it.

The far right is always doing something horrific under the disguise of promoting Christian ideals in this day and age. These overzealous Christians are starting to sound like a bunch of immature, spoiled toddlers who just don't want to be weened from the far-right bottle.

"Contrary to the Ben Franklin post " THE " Founding Father THOMAS PAINE had no use for christianity and challenged it on a regular basis. His legacy and credibility have paid dearly because christians have controlled public schools up to this day and kept him out of American history as much as possible.... Before one can say our rights came from a god thing - prove the god thing exists!"

"Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism." Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone." Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist."

The Founding Fathers and Deism

http://wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29

Ami, you may think that Franklin doesn't fit the definition of a deist, but he certainly thought he did. Franklin wrote, "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

http://www.deism.com/DeistAmerica.htm

Why can't people wake up and see the belief in god for what it is? - A tool which is used by some to control others. How much more obvious can it be? I realize this might be slightly off topic but I believe as stated above "Before one can say our rights came from a god thing - prove the god thing exists!"
Most religious people would say that they believe their particular religion is the right one while another's religion is false. Why can't they see that they ALL are false! It's some sort of mental quantum leap that most people are too afraid to make. However it's not the religions themselves that are the problem, but the fact that people would still be willing to believe in such nonsense is what scares me. It just goes to show how easily people are manipulated.
"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." Adolf Hitler

I won't speak for others, but my own belief in God has nothing to do with any religion or any religious teachings. Nor does it have to do with being soft-headed or being afraid of making a quantum leap. Nor do I believe in God because I am the victim of some tool, which allows others to control me.

Mark, my belief in God has to do with only one thing. I believe (but cannot prove) that I have communicated directly with God and he with me. I believe in God because I have come to know God in some small measure. Am I crazy? Perhaps. Nevertheless, I believe it is true.

I don't ask that you should believe in God. That's up to you. All I ask is that you don't berate me for what I believe.

Separation of Church and State:
My understanding (history) of this big problem (Christian wars) in that in Europe, the Catholics and Lutherans just could not co-exist (about three centuries ago) and the 'Mennonites' (from Switzerland) petitioned the 'heads-of-state' in the Netherlands (as we now call it) to be tolerate of others whose belief system is different, a concept our founding fathers embraced and expanded on (two centuries ago).
HOWEVER: here in the US, we hve ZERO tolerance for almost anything, INCLUDING religion. We even think that we INVENTED separation of church-and-state!
Re: Thomas Paine
He had quite a background as a Christian preacher, along with his father (in England).

It's proof once again that the Republican Party is NOT the party of limited government. Usurping the Constitution to satisfy a small yet loud group of constituents is not a show of their limits.

As a Catholic, I have my own private, individual beliefs. I apply them as often as I can in my life. I don't think that forcing my beliefs on others is appropriate. If someone asks however, I will inform them.

Republicans want to tell you how to live your life, but not call them on their prior transgressions. Look at Tom DeLay, he wanted to prolong Terri Schiavo's life, yet he had a feeding tube removed from his own father.

Democrats I know are saying that anyone of faith is a conservative whack job, then want to tax you to death.

We have a great opportunity before us to promote our core principles. Whether or not we take the next step is up to us.

Chris Ward
Chair, Libertarian Party of Hancock County (Indiana)

C. Al Currier: we may not have invented the idea of separating Church and State, but we were certainly the first to implement the idea.

I agree that America is relatively intolerant toward religion (in relation to where we should be), but compared to the rest of the world's views on religion we're almost Unitarian Universalists.

I also think it's inaccurate to say we have zero tolerance for anything. There's actually still a lot of tolerance in this country for a lot of stuff. It's one of the hallmarks of this country.

To my mind, the big danger is that we're steadily moving toward greater intolerance. You can only move toward intolerance if you're already at least somewhat tolerant. If you're 100% intolerant, you can't become more intolerant.

Real Liberals fight tyranny.

PS: It's nice to see that the boys from Moveon.org have found this blog.

Well, first of all I am a fundamentalist Christian. However, I am not a right winger. I am a Libertarian.

Personally, I have severely strict and well-defined biblical values. I am against homosexuality, pre-maritual sex, drug abuse, profanity, and the many other issues current Republicans are against. I am more conservative in this area than most of my fundamentalist friends an in ultra-fundamentalist church.

But the difference is that as a Libertarian I feel that I can have these beliefs personally, but it is not my right to force them on others.

If someone wants to be homosexual, fornicate with a hundred different people each day, swear up and down and left and right on TV, use drugs, claim that they are married to someone of the same sex, or so fourth then that is their right.

As long as they don't harm anyone else they have the right to live their life however they see fit!

But I also have the right to state my beliefs, tell them to others, call out those that are sinning, proclaim homosexuality an abomination, and witness to others about Jesus Christ.

However, I can't force them to do anything. It is not my place to FORCE anyone to do anything. But just as much as they have the right to proclaim gay values, have raunchy TV shows, swear, and do all kinds of sinful things (as long as they are not violating anyone elses rights) I have the right to speak up about my beliefs.

Now, I am NOT saying I have the right to harass anyone. But if they can peacefully protest, have gay day parades, have raunchy garbage on TV, fornicate, and so fourth then I can do the same but for my values.

I am proud to be a Libertarian. Because unlike many of my friends who think I am crazy the truth is clear to me.

Everyone has the right to live their life however they see fit. The government also has no right to tell us how to live.

But NO ONE has the right NOT to be offended.

If someone just offends me but does not violate my rights I have to live with it.

If I offend someone else but do not violate any of their rights then they have to live with it.

Also, unlike the current Republican politicians in Washington I am totally AGAINST a theocracy. The only time one would work is when Jesus comes back.

I don't trust Bush or for that matter any of the Reps or Dems.

I really don't even trust Rep. Ron Paul because he joined the devils when he joined the Republican Party.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with fundamentalism. If you loose your FUNDAMENTALS then you really do not stand for anything! What good is a Christian without the FUNDAMENTALS of the Bible!

The only problem is when you FORCE your beliefs (fundamental or otherwise) on anyone.

And by the way, there are fundamentalist Vegans, fundamentalist Enviromentalist, fundamentalist of all different religions, and even fundamentalist atheists.

William Hand, I completely agree with your post. This reminds me of attempts by the government to punish preachers for speaking out against the gay lifestyle from the pulpit. This has nothing to do even with separation of church and state: this is a blatant disregard for freedom of speech. I agree with you that although no one should be able to force their views on another person, everyone should have the right to express those views in whatever form of noncoercive communication they see fit.

I have stated many times before on my blog site www.bigexpensiveanimal.blogspot.com that Christians should be careful for what they wish. I do agree with some commentators who remind us that the establishment clause in the constitution does not separate us from religion, but rather ensures that the government will not establish a state sponsored religion. From the historical context of the framers of our constitution, this meant that they would not be required to follow a theological program, nor would they be harassed on any theological grounds. The language is simply stated: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

How should Christians participate in the political process? By advocating an active role for the church in government, even to the extent of promoting a moral agenda favored by Christianity, the Christian runs the risk of violating the very protections that allow him to worship freely. The same government that this year advances his faith may later reject those principles in favor of another, possibly hostile doctrine. Taken in that light, it is easy to see the wisdom of Jefferson, Madison and Black and the fact that we need a “separation.” Christians should promote neutrality in government so that they can be free to worship as they please, in any way they please, and thus guaranteeing their rights the same as others to do the same. We should elect moral representatives, and I will be honest and say that I would favor a Christian over a non-believer. However, I would expect that same elected representative to act from a sense of love and duty to all constituents, Christian or other.

Finally, as a Christian myself, I feel the teachings of Christ and by extension, Paul, dictate a personal demonstration of faith. Jesus did not lobby for greater representation but rather sought personal relationships founded upon personal choices and responsibilities. To expect, or even allow a government to act out this responsibility is an assignment of our own responsibilities.

This country was founded on christian beliefs, by christians. When christianity was the main, most often practiced religion, the problems this nation faced were almost inconsequential as compared to today.
If you look all throughout history, some of the main precursors of a civilizations fall were the acceptance of homosexuality and sexual immorality. This country seems to have embraced both with open arms. Coupled with the fact that satanism, a religion that teaches nothing but hedonism and self centeredness, is allowed to be practiced. The founding fathers never envisioned this abuse of the bill of rights, or else they may have rethought their wording. Folks, wake up, open your eyes and turn to the God that has blessed us for over 200 years, but may be having second thoughts about now.