1. Classically Liberal: Welcome to the Twilight Zone
Check his "answers" to some questions I raised. [That's a mandatory link.] This blogger is unquestionably cut from the same psychological cloth as Fred Phelps, but turned inside out. Same emotions, same unethical, unChristian demonization and de-personalization of "the bad guys," just reversed "bad guys."
2. Delaware Libertarian: More of the Sonny Landham wing of the Libertarian Party checks in
I confess I had never heard of "Sonny Landham."
3. KNaPPSTER: About Kevin Craig
I greatly appreciate Tom Knapp's moderating influence ("fair and balanced"!), at least insofar as he strives to accurately represent the totality of my views (even though he still works to keep me off the ballot because of some of them). I respect that 100% (because I respect walking the talk), even if I disagree with Tom (obviously I think I'm an asset to the Libertarian Party, assuming the LP wants to connect with tens of millions of church-going Christians -- or non church-going Christians):
OK, let's see if we can sort this out.
Any rational person who reads my webpages with an unbiased mind can see that I believe that violence is sinful, and therefore "gay-bashing" is sinful -- unless "gay-bashing" is defined as the belief or the public articulation of the belief that God has revealed the standard of sin and righteousness (what the Declaration of Independence calls "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"), and that by this standard homosexuality is sinful. If believing that homosexuality is contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is "gay-bashing," then not only am I a "gay-basher," but so is every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I suspect that a majority of people in the years before the Kinsey Report who could be called "libertarian" or "classical liberals" would also be called "gay-bashers" under this definition. Would anybody be surprised to find that Hayek and Mises thought homosexuality was "deviant," even if they opposed criminal sanctions against it? (I don't know what they thought about homosexuality per se. But I think I can say what Friedrich Hayek can teach us about state-mandated homosexual "marriages." )
To say that every one of America's Founding Fathers was a "gay-basher" simply because he believed homosexuality was sinful is, in principle, "Christian-bashing." It leads to statism, as I argued here, and it leads to violence, as the "Classically Liberal" blogger leads us to suspect.
The "Classically Liberal" blogger is vicious and hate-filled. He loves quoting my line about "hating" homosexuals -- to my surprise, leaving the word "hate" in quotation marks as I originally put it, indicating "not to be taken literally or seriously," as when John McCain speaks of "quote first amendment rights." If the quotation marks were not enough, there's this, never quoted by "Classically Liberal," from the same page as quote-hate:
There is an egregious "gay-bashing" which is obnoxious and unChristian even if it is not overtly violent. But belief in the Christian account of the creation of male and female, the Christian ordinance of marriage, and the immorality of homosexuality is not "homophobia."
Some of My Best Friends are Gay
Stand to Reason Commentaries -- Homosexuality
Christians should go out of their way to be gracious, inviting, charitable, and hospitable to homosexuals. I have extended hospitality to homosexuals in my home. Even those diagnosed with AIDS. One died while a guest in my home. I spent hours with him in the hospital before his own family could be notified of his condition and come to his side. Christianity teaches love for enemies, not hatred (where "hatred" takes the form of making sinners suffer, violence, vengeance, or "vigilante justice").
But we must take up "sides," and not be on the "side" of those who are dedicated to rebelling against God's commandments.
We are commanded to be at their side, even if we are not "on their side."
My position represents the thinking of every single person who signed the Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- unless my position is more libertarian than theirs.
But too many libertarian bloggers cannot analyze or comment on my position (to wit, homosexuality is sinful, but should not be met with the inherently violent criminal sanctions of the State) with cool, rational, level-headed thinking. I'm not sure why the traditional view of homosexuality -- completely apart from state-imposed sanctions -- brings on paroxysms of venom, hatred, and the urge to censor and abridge liberties.
Are these Fred Phelps-like emotions the foundation of liberty, or the root of violence and tyranny?
The universal charge of these bloggers is that someone who believes in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and other "religious theories" of America's Founding Fathers is "bad" for the Libertarian Party. I suggest rather that a "libertarian" who does not believe in liberty for Christians and publicly and profanely slanders them is the one doing damage to the Libertarian Party.
Unless the Libertarian Party rejects the support of Christians and only wants the support of homosexuals.
5 comments:
I'd like to add a little to the last line of my post.
90% of Americans would not refuse to join the Libertarian Party (LP) if the LP allowed Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin to join the LP. 10% of Americans would refuse to join the LP if the LP allowed Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin to join the LP.
There are libertarians, and then there are libertarians who are members of the Libertarian Party. The LP should want as many libertarians as possible to become members of the LP.
What is the LP position regarding people who believe that (1) homosexuality is a sin, but (2) so is the initiation of force against them?
Let's consider "Group A," representing 80% of the electorate, and believing that (1) homosexuality is a sin, or deviant, or problematic (poll response: "No, I wouldn't want my son or daughter to become a homosexual"), but (2) so is the initiation of force against those who commit homosexual acts.
Let's further consider "Group B," representing 10% of the electorate, and believing that all members of "Group A" are guilty of the "initiation of force" against homosexuals simply by believing that homosexuality is a sin, that is, that the mere belief that homosexuality is a sin IS (constitutes) an "initiation of force," or "hate speech" if the belief is publicly articulated.
(Group C represents the 10% who believe homosexuality is a sin and also that the intitiation of force against them -- perhaps in the form of criminal penal sanctions following due process -- is appropriate. These are not libertarians, and are ineligible for LP membership.)
If Group A controls the Libertarian Party, libertarians who believe that homosexuality is not a sin will be permitted to be members of the LP. But if Group A controls the LP, Group B will walk out of the Party, since it is controlled by those whom Group B believes advocate the intitiation of force.
80% of the electorate are therefore potential members of the LP if Group A controls.
If the Libertarian Party is controlled by Group B, Group A will be excluded from the Party. The LP will never be more than the size of Group B.
It seems to me that every political party has to "write-off" a certain demographic segment. The LP has to "write-off" those who want to initiate force. People who want to initiate force against others are not libertarians, and cannot become members of the Libertarian Party, unless the LP changes the standard of party membership. If the LP refuses to change its position, the LP will just have to write them off.
(I'm not saying the LP shouldn't try to convert them away from their support of the initiation of force; I'm saying that as long as they hold that view, they can't join the Libertarian Party, and the LP shouldn't change its platform to include them in "the big tent.")
80% of Americans would not refuse to join the LP if the LP allowed Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin to join the LP. 10% of Americans would refuse to join the LP if the LP allowed Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin to join the LP.
So which demographic segment should the LP be willing to write off?
Did you really say, "God hates them [homosexuals]"?
I also said God hates murderers and embezzlers:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Don't you agree?
We too must hate evil, as Jesus says:
Revelation 2:6
Yet this is to your credit: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
But we're also commanded to love the ones we hate, just as God treats those who hate Him better than they deserve:
Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
It's easy to take a line or two out of context and make it look real bad. Here's the context. And that page was intended to balance out or answer the charge that those who believe homosexuality is a sin are engaged in "hate crimes." Trying to think and act the way Jesus tells us to think and act is not a "hate crime." But if some people want to say that following Jesus is "hate," then we should "hate" more often.
Christians who think being gay is a sin are welcome in the LP as are rational people who don't think so. But to campaign on the issue is to substiute your religious values for the LP's political ones. There is a difference between what you believe and what you are campaigning on. And your platform is a religious one not the LP platform. Show me one plank in the LP platform, now or at any time in the past, where it pretends to speak as to what God wants.
As for whether God hates embezzlers, killers and gays -- well that is is theology. As a libertarian I note that you mix two groups that can only exist by violating the rights of others with a third group which can exist without violating anyone's rights.
Of course you said more than the God you created hating gays. You also said that Congress should hate homosexuals. Can you tell me exactly how Congress would express that hatred? Congress legislates and I assume the only way for that body to express hatred for one group of people, as you advocate, would be to legislate. In other words, to use the state against them. If not, can you tell me how Congress can express hatred agaisnt homosexuals without violating the rights of anyone?
I will end there. Unlike you I don't think verbosity is a substitute for logic.
Anonymous, have you actually read the page where I say Congress should "hate" homosexuals?
Post a Comment