Hope for the Dead

When the government takes away our free will, the government steals a gift from God; it violates the natural law; it prevents us from having and utilizing the means to the truth.


Ecce Homo
Tintoretto/Public Domain

What is the connection between freedom and rising from the dead?

When America was in its infancy and struggling to find a culture and frustrated at governance from Great Britain, the word most frequently uttered in speeches and pamphlets and editorials was not safety or taxes or peace; it was freedom.

Two acts of Parliament broke the bonds with the mother country irreparably. The first was the Stamp Act, which was enforced by British soldiers, who used general search warrants issued by a secret court in London to rummage through the personal possessions of any colonists they chose, ostensibly looking to see whether those colonists had purchased the government's stamps. The second intolerable act was the imposition of a tax to pay for the Church of England, which all adult male property-owning colonists were forced to pay, no matter their religious beliefs.

The Stamp Act assaulted the right to be left alone in the home, and the Church of England tax assaulted the freedom to retain one's earnings and to choose to support one's own means of worship. The two taxes caused many colonists to realize they needed to secede from England and form their own country in which freedom would be protected by the government, not assaulted by it.

Today, it seems the power of the government continues to expand and the freedom of the individual continues to shrink. The loss of freedom comes in many forms. Sometimes, it is direct and profound, as when the government forces you to buy a health insurance policy for yourself or your employees that pays for contraceptive services, euthanasia, and abortion, no matter your core religious beliefs. Sometimes, it is more subtle, like when the government prints money to pay its bills, and as a result, all the money and assets you already have lose much of their value.

Sometimes the government steals freedom without you knowing it, like when NSA agents in defiance of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold read your email and text messages and listen to your phone calls. Sometimes the government's assaults on freedom are just plain inexplicable, like when the president wins political support by lying repeatedly about keeping your doctor and your health insurance and about the government's not reading your emails or listening to your phone calls.

Freedom is the ability of every person to exercise his own free will, rather than be subject to the will of the government or anyone else. Free will is a characteristic we share in common with God. He created us in His image and likeness. As He is perfectly free, so are we.

When the government takes away our free will, the government steals a gift from God; it violates the natural law; it prevents us from having and utilizing the means to the truth. The moral ability to exercise free will to seek the truth is a natural right that all humans possess, and the government may only morally interfere with the exercise of that right when one affirmatively has given it away by using fraud or force to interfere with the exercise of someone else's natural rights.

We know from the events 2,000 years ago, which Christians commemorate and celebrate this week, that freedom is the essential means to discover and unite with the truth. And to Christians, the personification, the incarnation, the perfect manifestation of truth is Jesus—who is the Christ, the Son of God and the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

On the first Holy Thursday, Jesus attended a traditional Jewish Passover Seder. Catholics believe that at His last supper, He performed two miracles so that we could stay united to Him. He transformed ordinary bread and wine into His own body, blood, soul and divinity, and He empowered His disciples and their successors to do the same.

On the first Good Friday, the Romans executed Jesus because they were persuaded that by claiming to be the Son of God, He might foment a revolution against them. The revolution He fomented was in the hearts of men and women. The Romans had not heard of a revolution of the heart; nevertheless they feared a revolution that would disrupt their worldly power, and so they condemned Him to death by crucifixion.

Jesus had the freedom to reject this horrific event, but He exercised His freedom so that we might know the truth. The truth He manifested is that His acceptance of the destruction of His body would enable Him to die so that He could rise from the dead. On Easter, three days after He died, that manifestation was complete when He rose from the dead. By doing that, he demonstrated to us that while living we can liberate our souls from the slavery of sin and our free wills from the oppression of the government, and after death we can rise to be with Him.

Easter—which manifests our own immortality—is the linchpin of human existence. With it, life is worth living, no matter its costs or pains. Without it, life is meaningless, no matter its fleeting joys or triumphs. Easter has a meaning that is both incomprehensible and simple. It is incomprehensible that a human being had the freedom to rise from the dead. It is simple because that human being was and is God.

Jesus is the hypostatic union: not half-God and half-man, not just a godly good man, but truly and fully God and at the same time truly and fully man. When the Romans killed Jesus, they killed God. When the dead Jesus rose from His tomb, God rose from the dead.

What does Easter mean? Easter means that there is hope for the dead. If there's hope for the dead, there's hope for the living. But, like the colonists who fought the oppression of the king, we the living can only achieve our hopes if we have freedom. And that requires a government that protects freedom, not one that assaults it.

Happy Easter.

NEXT: Brickbat: The Fugitive

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, I’m not in the mood, but I guess I’ll exercise my free will to get going to my first appointment today.

  2. The Judge is right. The current government should take lesson from the Stamp Act. And by that I mean the government should issue watermarked – or stamped – emails and texts to be purchased in case anyone is doing business through that form of correspondence. That way they can raid inboxes and cell phone data to verify that everyone is paying their fair share in taxes. Viola, super legal justification.

    1. I prefer super legal justification via the cello.

      Of course, the government preferes it via percussion instruments. 🙁

  3. But what if I don’t want to join a death cult?

    1. Then don’t become an environmentalist.

      1. Well that’s a given.

    2. But what if I don’t want to join a death cult?

      The specific cutoff varies from state to state, but you have to opt out sometime before conception and delivery. Otherwise, you’re in the death cult with the rest of us, but (increasingly less) free to come up with your own narrative about it.

  4. I celebrate my freedom from Friday Funnies! Well, so far…

    1. …understanding that they may still show up tomorrow morning. I am merely celebrating being free of them the REST of the week.


      1. Do not Profane Thor’s Day with mention of what comes after!

        1. But why do we have to profane Frigg’s day with such abominations?

      2. There’s a difference between reading FF because you’re afraid of punishment and reading FF because you believe. reason sees into your heart and knows the truth.

        1. what are the consequences?

          1. You will be banned from the AM Links ritual until such time as you recite 20 “Our Welch”s and 15 “Hail Jacket”s.

        2. I thought we all read the Friday “Funnies” for the purpose of making fun of Chip Bok and Henry Payne.

          1. Oh, poor miguided Ted. How can you not understand the importance of a weekly confessional?

  5. Today, we agitate not for freedom but for permission.

    1. Is that your saying or a quote from somewhere? So sadly true.

  6. The Stamp Act assaulted the right to be left alone in the home, and the Church of England tax assaulted the freedom to retain one’s earnings and to choose to support one’s own means of worship.

    A right is a right if and only if it’s a property right. Everything else is derivative.

  7. It’s be nice if Jesus would use that lightning bolt of his and zap a stack of D.C. assholes.

    1. ‘It’d’

    2. That’s Zeus. YHWH/Yehoshua uses fire.

  8. First Century Christians celebrated the Passover, not Easter. In fact, many were still celebrating Passover in the 2nd Century and on, not Easter. But all those former pagans liked their old ways, and decided to adopt them to their new faith.

    1. The Last Supper was a Passover seder. True story.

      1. Maybe, but the timing is a bit off. It may have been seder-lite.

      2. If English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.

        1. I’ve heard “If King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.” lol

          And they were being serious.

          1. ugh

          2. UGH. The best thing about the King James Bible is that it was written by committee and the committee included all kinds of rogues and cronies. The committee produced one of the greatest examples of the use of the English language in history.

            If we did it today, it would be done by “professionals” and “top men” would be utterly tedious and awful.

      3. Nope. Seder developed during the Rabbinic period. So whatever was celebrated for Passover was not Seder, which some scholars actually claim developed as a reaction to the Christian Communion in order to give Jews their own liturgic meal. That Christians then reinterpreted Seder as justifying their own Communion meal is just a little irony.

    2. Good for them.
      Don’t knucle under to Judeo cultural hegemony.

  9. Now all people, property owners and the rest of us alike, pay a tax to support the church of mother earth and another to support the church of the holy public employee union.

    1. Amen, brother. Preach it.

      1. I think we need a Protestant great awakening in this country. What the last 100 years has proven is that our Puritan elite will always be Puritan. It is just a question of what the objects of their Puritanism are going to be. As bad as the old Protestant Puritanism was, the new Progressive Puritanism is worse. We are never going to change these people. We can only hope to channel their efforts to where it will do the least damage.

        1. Why not just a ‘Great Awakening?’ Why must it be Protestant?

          1. I think we need a general Re-Enlightenment.

            1. The Enlightenment was in response to the excesses of religion in the Reformation and the reaction to it. We need another in reaction to the excesses of our current government religion.

              1. Yes, they have a name for that as well… revolution.

          2. It doesn’t have to be. I just called it that because that is what these people used to be. The point is that they have to find some other expression for their Puritanical natures besides Progressivism. I am open for suggestions as to what that could be.

            1. Puritanical minding-their-own-fucking-business is out of the question I spose.

                1. This is why I don’t understand libertarians who preach their atheism.

                  Atheism is all fine and dandy if you’re capable and intelligent enough to understand the concepts of the NAP and freedom and free will.

                  Sadly, there are very few people like that, and it is best if they put their faith in God rather than in government. Why preach atheism to the masses when it is so much more destructive than a belief in modern Christianity?

    2. Yea, verily – thou doth speaketh truth.

  10. “…British soldiers, who used general search warrants issued by a secret court…”

    Hmmm…what other government uses general warrants issued by a secret court to rummage around citizen’s communications?

    1. But these are cops dressed like soldiers acting under rules of engagement that are so permissive we would never allow our soldiers in Afghanistan to operate under them. So this is totally different.

      1. Yeah, it’s totally different because the 9 old fucks in black robes decided that the Constitution allows things like this, even though it was specifically written to prevent such violations of liberty. Because it is a living breathing document.

        1. It is a “living document” you know. The founders never had terrorists and the evil drugs to deal with.

          1. Of course all the “living document” idiots conveniently ignore the fact that the Constitution allows for change through the amendment process. But it’s just too hard to get their way through proper legal channels, so they’ll reinterpret it as needed. Whenever I hear someone make the living document argument, I like to point out it is in effect a contract between the government and the people, and how would they like it if other contracts, such as their mortgage, were living documents that could be reinterpreted and revised at will by the bank.

            1. The living document idiots ignore that society won’t forever embrace more freedom. The pendulum can swing the other way. It was all fun and games in the 1960s when they were rewriting the Constitution to give everyone a pony. Not so much in the 00s when it is being rewritten to kill off the 4th Amendment.

              Saying it is a “living document” is just saying “it means nothing except what the judges decide it means”. I don’t think that will ever end well.

              1. “living document” completely ignores the entire precept of the document. There are three points to the Constitution
                1) Outline the scope of power of the federal government
                2) Outline the relationship between the federal government and state/local governments
                3) affirm and codify some of the natural rights of man

                To steal a programming pretext, a “living document” Constitution that addresses points 1 and 2 is like APIs that don’t preserve backward compatibility. It’s worthless. Just like breaking APIs, amending the Constitution is designed to be done only rarely, where absolutely necessary, and where all parties consent.

                A “living document” on point 3 is meaningless. If one’s natural rights change over time, then they were never rights in the first place. We may discover that some natural rights are now more important than in past times, but we have an amendment process to explicitly include those rights in the Constitution if we deem it necessary.

            2. Have you ever read a credit card contract ?

              It is definately a living document.

              1. I understand your point, but no it is actually not. It is just an over-complicated contract that is heavily in their facor and that most cannot understand.

                Yet, if a credit card company violates that contract, you do have legal recourse.

        2. Sadly, though, the 9 old fucks are the only ones who even occasionally pretend to care about the Constitution. Otherwise the Congress and Great Leader O. would inflict absolutely everything they wanted to on us.

  11. Instapundit linked to a guy who made a great point about this Nevada BLM thing. Yes, the guy’s legal claim is pretty much crap. That, however, is just the point. The law sucks. The problem is not that his legal claim is bad it is that the BLM owns nearly all of Nevada. This is civil disobedience. Of course the law is against them. That is the whole point. The law is unjust.

    Mass civil disobedience is really the only option right now. The colonists couldn’t just petition Parliament anymore than we can just petition Congress. That is the point we have reached.

    1. It could be argued that the millions of illegal immigrants here are en masse disobeying crummy immigration laws. Of course, Harry Reid and his bedfellows and Jeb Bush think that sort of law-breaking activity is loving and should be overlooked.

      Bundy should clone himself about 10 million times, grow a mex-stache, and speak Spanish. He’d likely get a collective blowjob from the Progressive cabal rather than their boot on his disobedient and White cowboy neck.

      I have empathy for the undocumented but the hypocrisy here is almost nuclear.

      1. It is interesting. They’re cracking down on this guy yet are prepping to give driver’s license to ILLEGAL citizens.

        1. MILLIONS of licenses!

          We are talking about MILLIONS of immigrants who’ve broken myriad laws being treated like kings and queens while an old white cowboy is treated like a steaming pile of worthless shit because he had the temerity to graze a few hundred head of cows on federal land without shoving dollars into the bottomless ass of BLM.

          The feds certainly can be infinitely flexible when the need arises and when the political climate can be massaged to benefit them.

          Like I said, I’m not anti-immigration. Nor do I wish to see illegal aliens treated like scum. The fact is we do have laws for a reason but it is without question that many of those laws have flaws and at times they will be subverted in favor of alternative outcomes. Clearly the feds recognize this or else millions of undocumented people would be rounded up and sent packing like so much Bundy cattle.

          1. When did the state of Nevada sell all that land to the Federal government?

        2. Who is this “they”?
          Does this refer to the millions of people employed by you and I to enforce laws which are on the books?

          And does one thing really relate to the other?

          Based on that, no laws of any sort should even be enforced because “they” let someone get away with murder or made a plea deal or something else.

          My guess is that the folks in the BLM are not the same people as the folks in ICE.

          Should the President declare marshall law and suspect enforcement of the laws and regs we have put together over hundreds of years?

          In particular, should he rescind the law that Reagan wrote – the executive order?

    2. I read that, it is a really good point. He rightly noted that the Fugitive Slave Act was also the law of the land, and anyone who violated it were therefore criminals. People today seem to have lost sight of the fact that blind obedience to unjust laws is evil.

      1. He is right that the Republicans should run on making the government sell a certain percentage of its land every year for the foreseeable future.

        1. Exactly! Help pay off this massive debt we have accrued.

        2. I would go for that. While we’re at it, make the states and localities sell too. Every government agency should have to rent space.

          1. Outside of monuments, military bases and a few public parks, the government should as a genera rule own very little land.

            The entire BLM should over time be abolished. It owns land that is not worthy of being made into a national park, which means it should be in private hands.

        3. That almost reads weirdly. We the people should elect other people that can try to force that government up there to sell land it ‘owns’.

          The gaping canyon of distance between the people and the thing called ‘federal government’ is startling.

    3. Unless I’m wrong, he’s not campaigning for the BLM to liquidate its assets. He’s campaigning to not have to pay the feds for grazing rights.

      1. He is basically just claiming the land as his. I doubt selling the land will satisfy him. I don’t think it is “his land”. I don’t think it should be the BLM’s either. If it is sold, then I think he loses his moral claim.

    4. How is the law unjust?

      You know what is a perversion on justice? Private citizens making “law” literally at the point of a gun. The militia retards who showed up to defend these inbreds were doing everything you accuse liberals of: asserting that might makes right.

      But the fact that the guy is not allowed to steal from the government is what’s unjust?

      1. How is the law unjust?

        Because his family has been grandfathered into use of that land by a contract dating back hundreds of years, the very contract that the government used in order to get his family to settle there in the first place, and the government arbitrarily voids that contract on the basis of what?

        The fact that it is “legal” means nothing. It is wrong, and everyone except the morally deviant like yourself understand this.

        1. What grandfathering? What contract? The various legal channels that the family has failed to win through recognize no such thing. They have been breaking the law.

          If you think it’s wrong to steal then I don’t see why you’re on the side of the guys who’s stealing.

          The guy doesn’t believe in the authority of the United States. Godspeed to him, but it’s simply a fact that the United States does exist.

          1. Tony, why even reply if you can’t even summon the tiniest bit of reading comprehension?

            The government enticed his family to move there by allowing use of the land. Now it wants to take that away arbitrarily. This destroys his means of life, and for what? Because Big Brother said so?

            1. He’s free to use the land so long as he pays for the right just like everyone else. Was the land given to him? I could make a killing if I could take whatever I wanted from whomever arbitrarily.

              1. Tony, are you this fucking retarded?

                Honestly, man.

                His family agreed to move there with the stipulation that they could use the land.

                It was an agreement that is being reneged by the government. His family’s payment for the land was moving there in the first place as the government wanted him to do. It was not free, fucktard.

      2. When did the state of Nevada sell all that land to the Federal government?

        1. Probably as a result of the State of Nevada petitioning to join the USA and our system….

      3. I agree 100%.
        Reagan signed the executive order.
        The only reason some folks here support breaking the law is that they want to destroy this country (they champion anarchy) and the guy bundy is white and has angry white guys with guns marching with him.

        Or, they have fantasies that the world is just like the Marlboro Man portrayed it and we 310 million real Americans need not follow rules or guidelines.

        Isn’t Reagan a hero of some of these guys?…..rder_12548

  12. Maybe the Judge hasn’t heard but God has been replaced by the government. Government is a warm gun.

    As for his analogy, it should be noted the Founding Fathers agreed with this position. Notably that the rights of man flowed not from humans but from God. Every word they wrote, they believed, was from the authority of God. I know this may ruffle atheists and progressives alike but I think they made this rather clear in the writings (personal and public alike) they left behind.

    1. It doesn’t ruffle me, and I’m a non-believer. Whether rights flow from God or a Creator, or from evolution – logically they are implied by our nature as beings who depend on our conceptual mode of consciousness for survival.

      1. So right! There is really only one way to analyze “rights flow from God” so that it makes sense: Even if it were possible for a god to create intelligent beings, once this is done, the beings automatically have rights no matter what the god’s opinion is. Just like if somebody makes an object with four sides, nothing you, I, or Jehovah says about it will make it a triangle. That’s what “natural rights” really means, not some hooey made up by the Church. Thinking about it this way gives a different flavor and makes it possible to reason about it instead of just religiously stamping one’s feet.

  13. In the name of Allah, the most gracious and merciful,

    I find Qadi al-Napolitano’s fatwa to be confusing. Yes, the actions of Prohpet Isa ibn Maryam are noted in both the ijma al-ummah and the ijma al-aimmah; however, the consensus is that while our republic does receive its rights from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), those “rights” are clearly delineated within sharia. Furthermore, the Holy Qu’ran is clear that while Isa did reveal a new message, al-Injil, claims that he was crucified and resurrected are falsehoods. I refer you to surat al-Baqarah 87, and surat Maryam 34.

    It is clear that Qadi al-Napolitano is erroneous in his interpretation of fiqh, and urge him to repent before he crosses the line into zindiq, thusly risking not only his life now, but his place in the pleasure gardens of the afterlife.

    1. You should make that Heroic Imamulatto

      1. Isn’t Imamulatto a sandwich they have in New Orleans?

        1. You may be confusing that with the Imamulatte, a drink they have in Dearborn.

        2. I think it’s called the Immaculatto. Very heavy on the cheesy. You can also order a creamy Imamulatte on the side. Maybe this is what you are referring to?

    2. Imam has spoken.

  14. Being instated as an archangel, Satan made himself multifariously objectionable and was finally expelled from Heaven. Halfway in his descent he paused, bent his head in thought a moment and at last went back. “There is one favor that I should like to ask,” said he.
    “Name it.”
    “Man, I understand, is about to be created. He will need laws.”
    “What, wretch! you his appointed adversary, charged from the dawn of eternity with hatred of his soul — you ask for the right to make his laws?”
    “Pardon; what I have to ask is that he be permitted to make them himself.”
    It was so ordered.

    — Ambrose Bierce

  15. We know from the events 2,000 years ago, which Christians commemorate and celebrate this week, that freedom is the essential means to discover and unite with the truth. And to Christians, the personification, the incarnation, the perfect manifestation of truth is Jesus?who is the Christ, the Son of God and the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    I just face-palmed so hard I think I broke my nose.

    1. Same here. I sighed and face-palmed. It would have been nice if he would at least have qualified his statement by stating that Christians like himself take their beliefs on faith. If there were facts to back up the claims, faith wouldn’t be necessary.

      Religion doesn’t really help us find the answers to questions, but rather it presents us with answers that can’t be questioned.

      1. I just face palmed at your ignorance.

        There are very few people in world’s history that are almost perfect to emulate. Jesus was one of them. Guatama Buddha is another.

        Sad for you, as such men are an incredible source of wisdom and truth, whether you believe in their ideas of heaven and earth or not.

        Whether you take it on faith that they existed or not, we know the truths because they are of the hearts of men, not because religion says so.

        1. Jesus was supposedly a person who supposedly said he was the son of a god that supposedly routinely and frequently ordered the murder of babies and the mass rape and torture of women. I have sincere reservations about the wisdom and truth of this guy and of the moral compass of all Christians for that matter.

          1. I’m pretty sure he never claimed to be the Son of God. He often refers to himself as the son of man, actually.

            Son of God is a man made perversion, as far as I can tell. Feel free to refute me on that if you can.

            When I said emulate, that is what I meant, emulate. Show me where Jesus murders babies or puts plagues upon people. Show me where he said that is a cool thing to do of his followers?

            1. And I mean literally God screwed his mom. It seems to me he is mostly saying that yes he is the Son of God, but he never claims that the rest of us are not, or could not be.

            2. Son of God is a man made perversion, as far as I can tell. Feel free to refute me on that if you can.

              Last I checked, the burden of proof rests square on the shoulders of the person making supernatural claims. More so that your claim rests squarely outside of every mainstream Christian church that advocates trinity.

              how me where Jesus murders babies or puts plagues upon people. Show me where he said that is a cool thing to do of his followers?

              I didn’t say Jesus killed babies. I said he was claiming to be the follower and son of a god who supposedly did kill babies and ordered a number of genocides. All Hail, Son of Sky Hitler, our Lord.

              1. I said he was claiming to be the follower and son of a god who supposedly did kill babies and ordered a number of genocides.

                Isn’t that what mankind’s gods generally do – all of them?

                1. Did Norse morals hinge on the infallibility of Thor? I’m not so sure all proposed deities are equally as psychopathic as Yahweh.

                  For the Semitic god of Jews, Christians and Muslims their god (Yahweh) is infallible and thus everything this Sky Hitler does is considered perfectly moral. Yet I fail to recognize, how under any circumstances at all, anywhere, anytime, any place, whereby the murder of babies could be considered moral. I’m more moral than every Christian on that basis alone.

  16. Since Tony is not here, I guess he agrees with everything that was said here.

    1. Oh sweet Jesus, OM – you just had to say that? (points downward)

  17. That libertarians consistently impose modern libertarian motivations on the American Revolution and consistently refuse to discuss the primary issue of representation and the lack thereof exposes a disturbing reality: you guys actually distrust democracy and would prefer it be replaced with a tyranny of your ideas. This is nothing new, and it’s been confirmed in countless debates had here.

    That the Judge explicitly places his deity as the supreme authority (instead of the people) is, I guess, to be commended for its honesty about the matter.

    1. The tyranny of freedom, free will, freedom from aggression, and free association! Oh how do we libertarians live with ourselves?

      Tony, you are fucking retard to the highest standard.

      1. We impose our philosophy of non-imposition on others?

      2. I have a hard time believing that Tony could be anything but a parody. I picture a middle-aged white guy with a skullet driving his Suburban around Alabama, with “W” stickers all over it, blasting Toby Keith with the windows down. He then creates an online caricature to “make them librul queers look stoopid”.

    2. Damned right we distrust democracy – so did the founding fathers. They equated it – classical Greek democracy – with mob rule. Maybe that’s why the word is mentioned nowhere in the constitution.

      1. Neither is the word “capitalism.”

        Nobody is talking about mob rule, for the millionth time. I accuse you of being against democracy in principle, against the rule of the people and in favor of a tyranny of sorts.

        1. The word “capitalism” hadn’t been invented yet.

          The Founders knew democracy was tyranny of the majority.

        2. Of course he is against democracy in principle. That’s exactly what he’s saying. If 51% of your neighbors vote to murder, does it cease to be murder and become justifiable?

        3. Keep at it Tony. These guys will curse you, call you worthless, ignorant, etc. – because, frankly, they really don’t have any reason or logic.

          This entire site is a Koch Funded Right Wing echo chamber – masquerading as something which follows “reason” – when the only reason is really something called $$$.

          Reason magazine started as a mouthpiece for big cigarette manufacturers and now is, like many such publications, bought by the Kochs and used to champion free to cheap resource extraction….for oil men and guys like Bundy.

          Backwards Bizzarro world. It’s the equivalent of us teaching our sons to go out and rape people and telling them it’s “freedom” of their feelings….you know, because it was “grandfathered”. Rape and pillage created much of the modern world. Let’s go back to those “good old days”.

    3. Nowhere do I see Judge Nap advocating for legislation derived from his religious beliefs so how the fuck is he placing his deity as “the supreme authority”, you
      dirtbag cunt?

  18. So, to the judge, invoking freedom along with religion, and most likely his religion, and its interpretation of God is proper. Really? Let’s see, you can start off with the 10 Commandments. Those were commandments, judge, not suggestions. And then follow that with what you can eat (maybe that’s where Bloomberg got it from), what combination of foods you can eat, what sexual acts are accepted, prohibitions on birth control, and even what oaths you can utter. And it goes on.

    Yeah, religion and INDIVIDUAL freedom…the two really go together.

    By the way, what irked the colonists was a tax policy imposed by Britain with no representation from the colonies.

    1. It is almost Easter, that you take offense to an Easter theme seems almost childish.

      1. You want an Easter theme, Paul? Here you go:

        “One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.”

        Said by the one who Easter is all about. That’s an Easter theme, not that gibberish by the judge.

        1. “But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”

          I’m not sure if you had a point to using that quote, perhaps that Jesus was a communist?

          Either way, that next line gives it context.

          1. Just as the judge was saddened by the words from the Pope.

          2. Do you think he was a capitalist?

            1. I am not religious, I can look up quotes on Google and that is about it.

              Perhaps he is a capitalist, show me otherwise if it is important to you, I will look up on Google and show you why you took it out of context, as every hater is wont to do.

              1. Your the one who needed to bring up communism, so that clearly is important to you, not me. All I did was quote him.

      2. And I might add, when the Pope dared to suggest more should be done for the poor, it was the judge who took him to task for it…for emphasizing what the one who Easter is all about had said.

        So much for consistency on the Easter theme from the judge.

        1. The emphasis is a perversion.

          The point was that the man valued his worldly goods over all else. Jesus, in recognizing this, basically told him that happiness was not from those possessions.

          I find it funny how the wisdom of some of his teachings is so easily lost on people. To me, it is pretty clear. It is not a call to be a communist, it is a call to value things in their order.

          1. What’s funny is that you are all about context, but yet ignore it. Do you know what question Jesus was responding to? Here:

            “And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”

            So it being Easter, which is all about eternal life according to Jesus, the instruction was clear…have no possessions, if its heaven you desire. Its an instruction on how to earn it…its got nothing to do with things in order.

            The communist thing is something in your head. Are you fearful they are closer to his teaching?

            1. /sigh

              Yes, that is the question that was asked, your conclusion is that to get to heaven you must give up worldly possessions according to Jesus.

              I get that, I’m telling you that you are not understanding the context in which Jesus was teaching. You insist on being 100% literal, but the whole point is that valuing riches over all else, including being a good person, does not get you closer to God.

              I’m not a preacher, and I do not feel comfortable in this role, I’m just a guy who is irritated by disdainful ignorance.

              1. Enjoy your Easter weekend, Paul.

                1. You as well, my friend.

                  1. I might add that I am also mindful of the fact that he also instructed us Christians to leave our differences at the door before entering to worship. Hopefully you and I have done that.

                    1. Of course, no hard feelings at all, sir.

                      Besides, I’m sure you and I agree on far more than we disagree on.

  19. It is great to see an article on FREE WILL. I love it; it is indeed a gift from God.

    I am not concerned about laws that limit our freedom, as Free Will does include the responsibility to bear the brunt of society and government’s disdain and persecution. As a Christian, I must obey those laws as long as it does not conflict with God’s laws, even if the are corrupt.

    I do see the how government UNDERMINES Free Will by saving folks from the consequences of their poor decisions and actions. How will they ever learn if gov is always bailing them out?

    Here’s the formula:

    Free Will = Personal Responsibility = Limited Government.

  20. The Cato Institute alone has enough evidence to show that civil liberties and capitalism are superior to any alternative, and minus foreign policy the Heritage Foundation also has enough mathematical evidence by itself to show that capitalism is the best economic system. Even the anarchist Mises Institute has sufficient evidence albeit heavily muddied-up by kooks.

    There is however no evidence that an invisible man sitting on a cloud over Israel exists.

    1. Foreign policy in a monetary context, because it’s a contradiction to call for lower taxes and less spending while being a warmonger, which Heritage is loaded with, thus they’re not as good at math as Cato.

    2. “the anarchist Mises Institute has sufficient evidence albeit heavily muddied-up by kooks”

      Which ones are kooks and why? Would love to know how to avoid kooks.

      1. Justin Raimondo (I like but not every single person who posts on there) and anyone who posts regularly at LRC.

  21. Am I the only non religious libertarian who gets upset at the profound ignorance and zealotry of the atheist who uses man’s perversions of the teachings, while ignoring the underlying principles of various religions, as an excuse to dismiss them?

    It seems to me to be a jealousy of the faith that others have, and ironically, the same sort of jealousy that perverts the minds of progressives.

  22. So what is this article by the good Judge supposed to be? I’m impressed by his academic credentials (Princeton and Notre Dame). However, his attempt to mix American/U.S. History with the celebration of Easter gets lost in the writing.

    As I recall, the Judge is a Traditionalist Roman Catholic (hardly a libertarian theology). TRCs tend to be very autocratic when it comes to religion, and the Pope as John Julius Norwich will tell you is an “Absolute Monarch”. So I’m not getting what the message is here.

    The U.S. Colonies were mostly Protestant anyway, and the British were Church of England (Anglican). The Romans who crucified Jesus were Pagans, and the Jews who have been wrongly persecuted as “Christ Killers” through the centuries were (and remain) strict monotheists by comparison with Trinitarian Catholicism as well as most Protestantism.

    So what’s the lesson here? Anyway, the Happy Easter part was in order.

    1. Is this the same dude who sells out to Fauz News on a constant basis?

      Those are fine credentials. Give just about anyone a fat paycheck and they’ll come up with something to justify their existence.

      True story – I once had an inside look at politics including the appointment of judges….at the county level. These judges tried murder cases, etc.

      The political parties (both) actually appointed to judgeships…folks who either did VERY profitable favors for them (at lower levels) or else folks they needed to get rid of. That is, appointing a troublemaker to be a judge for life assured the party that they would never be in political office.

      I watched an alcoholic low-life lawyer….really one of the ultimate snakes I’ve ever met – get appointed to this office. Now people rise when he enters the room in his robes.

      Truly amazing. One thing most of us here can probably agree on is that politics has been perverted by the two party system.

    1. Fuck Reason squirrels.

      Correct second link

  23. Create government. It oppresses you. Fact.

  24. You see, even though I’m an atheist, I much prefer this article to Richman’s piffle.

    Andrew Napolitano talks a lot of Christian nonsense, but gets around to an argument for Libertarianism in there. Fine. Let him appeal to Christians to support LIbertarianism. Convincing Christians to support freedom is a good thing.

    Richman, meanwhile, says we can’t be real libertarians if we don’t believe in his Church. Screw him. He’s the theocrat, not Napolitano.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.