"We've already seen what the world looks like when the Church runs it, no one wants to go back to that"

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Much of the world does want to go back to that.

Some folks say that the various Marxist states are states where an extremely jealous Church (Marxism) runs things.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

EVERY book of law is a collection of "imposed values".

The bogeyman of religious coercion is usually trotted out by leftist True Believers who are even more intent on imposing THEIR values on The Rest of Us - unrestrained by Judeo-Christian notions of individual conscience and dignity.

Ben-David,

Actually there are some universal values found in all law codes.

1. Don't murder
2. Don't steal
3. Don't perpetrate fraud

It is when codes stray from universal values that they get in trouble. Especially in a nation that is not a nation of relatives.

Yes M, I read every day that even Atheists have derived their moral values from the J-C religions, and that no code of morality could exist without religion. How is one to answer people who preach this ?

Do they believe there were no morals before 6000 BCE?

A suggestion for anyone one who wants to use the Bible for justification of Libertarianism ought to actually read it. For example, St. Paul spent a lot of time lecturing the folks at Corinth on sexual morality. Likewise, when a rich man came to Jesus and asked what should he do inherit eternal life, Jesus did in fact tell him what to do. And repeatedly through out the Gospels Jesus tells people to "go and sin no more."

While I personally like libertarianism, the reality is that in the world freedom is simply not allowed. You either have to choose between the absolutism of those evil religious people or that of the Stalin's of the world. Me, I'll take those evil religious people over Stalin any day.

rick,

You don't get it. Did Jesus try to become a political leader so he could have enforcers work over those who didn't behave? Or did he encourage people to do the right thing?

In fact if you believe the story of Jesus and the adulteress he seems to have been against enforcers.

I dunno. Some people seem unable to read. I blame our secular school system. Or maybe religion makes people stupid. I haven't come to a definite conclusion on that question as of this time.

I might take my chances with the Christians over the Marxists/Socialists except Jews were persecuted under both systems. I guess it is our lot in life.

Jesus rebuked sin whether high or low. You seem to have delusions about Judea at the time. Judea was run by people who enforced the Jewish Law. A law that by the way Jesus said that the law would not pass away. Likewise, when the rich man came to ask how to inherit eternal life, Jesus started quoting the ten commandments. Do you think that Jesus took the law seriously. Like I said, read the Bible!

It might amuse you to know that the story of the adultress was an addition that shows up both old copies of both John and Luke before it settled down into John. My point is if you really want to quote the Bible, perhaps it would be a good thing to know something about it. But I repeat myself.

There tons of reason to support libertarianism. Unfortunately, the Bible isn't one of them no matter how much you like one story. Actually, I find it astonundingly funny how many people who don't actually like Christianity want to quote the Bible when it suits their purposes. Unfortunately, Jesus is either the Son of God or someone who was nuts. If you think He is nuts, then for pete sake don't quote him to support your points.

who don't actually like Christianity want to quote the Bible when it suits their purposes

That's universal. My favorite was a tattoo I saw a couple days ago.
The guy had tattoo that was a quote from Leviticus about how you shouldn't be gay.
He left out the line later on in Leviticus that said you shouldn't get tattoos.

We learned to keep religion out of government or you get stuff like the 30 Years War. That's one of the fundamental things about America's gov't, no religion. Period.

Public schools are the established state religion in America.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Judea was run by people who enforced the Jewish Law.

Well DUH. And it seems like Jesus was not to pleased with the way Jewish law was administered.

OK rick. I have made up my mind. Religion makes people stupid. Thanks for the help.

Of course there is one little flaw in your tasty ointment. If Muslims ever get the upper hand I don't think it is going to be all unicorns and rainbows for you if they can run on your precedent.

===

Well rick. I'm afraid my knowledge of Christianity comes from the King James Version. What you need to do is get a right proper book burning going so folks won't get the wrong idea about Real Christianity as opposed to all these fake versions going about.

But we all know that Christianity is is a false religion anyway. I say it is time to get back to the Old Time Religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me. But maybe not. There are a lot of strange Jewish sects about these days. As I understand it though that has been a common feature of the Jews for a very long time.

Wait a minute: if the story of the adulteress was in other versions is it or is it not part of the Christian exegesis?

And you know all the stuff in the Christian Bible was written down after Jesus was long gone. So maybe it is all a hoax.

From what I do know there was a considerable question as to whether Jesus was God or not and it wasn't settled until several hundred years after the death of Jesus. Maybe they got that one wrong too.

I mean really - when it comes to religion - trust no one.

Catholic schools began in the United States as a reaction against a growing publicly-funded school system that was essentially Protestant. In 1839, the American Bible Society announced its intention to make certain that the Bible was read in every classroom in America.1 There was no disagreement in a country that was essentially Protestant. It was widely � virtually universally � held that education without a religious foundation in the Bible was no education at all. As Horace Mann of Massachusetts, the so-called "father" of the public school system wrote, "Our system earnestly inculcates all Christian morals. It welcomes the religion of the Bible; and in receiving the Bible, it allows it to do what is allowed by no other system � to speak for itself."

The Bible � specifically the King James Version � was seen in Protestant America as a universal document that stood above doctrinal divisions within Protestantism. Therefore, use of Scripture in public schools would be viewed as "non-sectarian," meaning that interpretation of the Bible would not be prejudiced toward a specific Protestant denomination. The public schools would not be Presbyterian or Congregationalist. However, use of the King James translation of the Bible accepted by all Protestants � and with underlying Protestant assumptions � would be the foundation of the public school system.

This became a key understanding in establishing very early in the history of American public schools the definition of "sectarian." Today, when the word "sectarian" is used in a political or judicial environment, the connotation is religion in general. "Sectarian" would not have that meaning in the 19th century and in the development of the public school system and the laws � as well as the judicial interpretation � that derived from it. In that development, the word sectarian did not refer to a general Protestant outlook. It would mean, in the beginning, sects within Protestantism. Very quickly, however, sectarian would be narrowed to take on a more specific definition as the debate over public school funding began: Catholic.

You got a beef with the public schools? Take it up with your Christian forebears. It was their idea. Maybe they got that one wrong too. Pity.

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/schoolfunding.htm

I will go further. The public school system is the Makers revenge for mixing religion and government. And a tasty revenge it is.

It looks fair to bring the country down. Heh.

Here is a bit I wrote on it in a slightly different context:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-is-democrat-party.html

Separate Roman Catholic and Jewish schools come to be established in the mid-nineteenth century, first in New York City and later across the country. This was in response to the overly anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish positions presented by most textbooks used in public schools throughout the nation, in the interest of promoting Protestant hegemony throughout the United States.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080407081648AA9YxKa

Hilarious isn't it.

Well it looks like the Marxists got control of the indoctrination centers and voila. Heh.

Evidently the Maker was not too pleased by that move and is now smiting you heavily about the head and shoulders. Verily.

And you still think religion is the answer in Government? How big a whack is it going to take to wise you up?

For the sake of argument let me grant that the story was planted in the Bible for nefarious purposes.

So should we start killing (by court order) adulterers? If not, why not? It is the law (or ought to be)? Unless of course you are one of those who does not actually believe.

And have you burned all your mixed fiber clothes? And followed all the 613 other commandments? Do you eat pork? Shell fish? And other forbidden food? Do you mix milk and meat at meals? Do you celebrate Passover as Jesus did? Or do you follow that Pagan Easter tradition?

And supposing you are a Christian. Do you follow what the Pope says or are you a schismatic?

===

If the Roman Catholic Church had stayed the predominate church there would likely never have been a question over the inclusion of this passage in John, even though they held a number of manuscripts that did not have it, or called it into question. Why? That church for more than a thousand years had used manuscripts based on Jerome's Latin vulgate, which included the account. Ironically, it was the Protestant Reformation, with its call for people to read Scriptures, and its subsequent drive to make sure that the Bible was translated properly into common languages such as German and English that led to searching out manuscripts in the original languages.

http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/disputedjohn.htm

=====

So where do I stand on all this? If I'm going to be oppressed I'd prefer it be done by goddless communists so The Maker doesn't get the onus.

I have made up my mind. Religion makes people stupid.

I have made up my mind. The desire to make strong categorical statements makes people stupid. ;)

The public school system is the Makers revenge for mixing religion and government.

So you claim to know the will of the Maker in this matter? That's odd. All but one of the preachers I know personally are unwilling to make claims like that. Are you planning to start a new libertine religion of your own with your mad prophetic skillz? History shows you can make a *lot* of money doing that. Probably enough to build your own Polywell. Paging L. Ron Hubbard....

You got a beef with the public schools? Take it up with your Christian forebears.

I know. And my Christian forebears were wrong to allow the children of Christian parents to attend Sunday school as well.

Well it looks like the Marxists got control of the indoctrination centers and voila.

I know. Marxism is the arsenic of the masses.

And you still think religion is the answer in Government?

Don't know whether this really is rick's position, but religion is not the answer in government. Neither is aggressive secularization.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Actually, having reviewed the thread, M. Simon, rick is not making the claim that religion is the answer in Government. He is making the much narrower claim that interpreting the Bible to support libertarianism is a mistake. You appear to be putting words in someone's mouth. (Not sure who.) You don't like it when you think others are putting words in your mouth.

Don't you owe someone some kind of snarky internet non-apology apology at the least? ;) Unless it was me who you thought wanted religion in government. If it was me, I must not be writing clearly.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Tom,

Sunday school attendance is not government enforced.

It would be really nice if you could think clearly about the difference between voluntary and coerced. Of course for a worshiper of the State I understand making such distinctions is quite difficult.

It was your forebears thinking that coercion would solve heir "problems" with Catholics and Jews that got us the public school system. That coercion thing often gets away from you. Too bad.

===

So are you telling me that the Maker wants Church and State Co-Joined? Doesn't that lead to religious friction and in the extreme case religious wars?

Let me just say that given the choice between Communist Obama and Theocon Keyes I voted for the Communist. Keyes got 27% of the vote in a State that GW Bush got 45% of the vote. Obama got 70% of the vote. Do the math.

===

Now personally I like Sarah Palin. She was endorsed by the Alaska Libertarian Party. Why? She can tell the difference between her private life and government. A shame that more conservatives can't make that distinction. It would make a great alliance. Gallup says that 23% of the population is libertarian. With Keyes' 27% socons (of course there is some overlap) that makes a heck of a base to win elections.

So what do we have in common:

1. Small government
2. Fiscally conservative

Isn't that enough for you? Why overlay a Culture War on that which will drive away the 23% ? You going to win many elections with a 27% base vs a 40% to 50% base?

You know on this blog we are anti-culture war. Look at the mast head.

So you are telling me (via rick) that Jesus was a supporter of government solutions? News to me. I always thought he was an anti-government guy.

People all the time tell me I'm arrogant and snarky (even my mate tells me that). Well it is true.

A man has got to know his limitations.

Jesus wasn't an anti-gov't type, give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and give to God that which belongs to God and all that.

What he didn't like was overbearing "leaders" who were more interested in their own power than in doing what was "right".
You know, like the Pharisees and the money-changers in the Temple.

So far as I remember, he never railed against the Romans, he railed against the Rino's and how they ignored what was... err.... the Pharisees and how they ignored what was required by their religion and just worried about their prerogatives and power.

Jesus always appeared to me to be a "live and let live guy".
His two commandments were do unto others and honor God.
I don't honor God, but I really like the first one, I try to live my life that way.

Sunday school attendance is not government enforced.

I know.

It would be really nice if you could think clearly about the difference between voluntary and coerced. Of course for a worshiper of the State I understand making such distinctions is quite difficult.

I know the difference and I am thinking clearly. I'd say that I think more clearly than you do. You jump to conclusions about what other people think. OTOH, this is another writing issue many people have, including me. We like to throw in asides that are not directly related to the topic. Do you ever do that? ;) In this case I was giving an example of how the church got it's own organization wrong. Most Protestants are quite happy to complain about all sorts of in church matters. How is this germaine to our topic? Well I thought you might be interested to know that I think religious people get all sorts of things wrong, including the proper relation of chuch and state.

If you think I worship the State, well, you aren't paying attention. Clearly I prefer state solutions in some cases. So do libertarians. It distinguishes them from anarchists. Is that clear thought?

Why overlay a Culture War on that which will drive away the 23%?

Why deny the cultural war so the 27% stay home? You look at what I have proposed on various threads on this blog, including this one. Sometimes I have proposed libertarian solutions to culture war issues - like school choice - a very classical value, that if adopted would go a very long way towards ending the culture war. Sometimes I have proposed horse trading that gives you some wins in the culture war in exchange for some wins on my side - like comprehensive marriage reform - marriage is a very classical value. Sometimes I have proposed searching for technological solutions which render the problem moot - like abortions which terminate the pregnancy not the baby. Hey, the Greeks were all about using technos to solve problems! Golly, sounds like the picture of theocratic statist repression! (I can do snark myself.)

Here's your problem, M. A lot of that socon base has read the part of the Bible where it talks about the need for the rich and the powerful to take care of the poor and the weak. They are completely susceptible to big state solutions to the problem. Christiin Socialism is real. Read the first few chapters of Acts, where the believers lived in a big commune. Take away the cultural issues and they drift either Democratic or Don't Care.

Here's a case where you need to think clearly about coalition building. I haven't asked you to completely side with the socons on the culture war. I've asked you to find a way to address their concerns / make some compromises. Umm. Dude. That's how you build a coalition!

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Sorry. I suspect you prefer Simon over M., since you changed to just Simon. A failed experiment on my part, except that the results do support a useful hypothesis.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi