Liberaltariansim

Reason's Stephanie Slade to Speak About the First Amendment

The second annual Christians for Liberty conference is August 7-8 in Austin.

|

Last week, an order of Catholic nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor formally appealed to the Supreme Court a federal requirement that they facilitate the provision of birth control for their empoyees. In June, a ruling from the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the land opened the door to the possibility that religious schools, businesses, and other organizations might be punished by the government for refusing to put their stamp of approval on the practice. The intersection of religion and libertarianism is a busy place right now, and skirmishing over what the First Amendment really does is only going to intensify. If you're interested in these issues—or if you're among the growing number of people of faith who also identify as libertarians—you might want to check out the Christians for Liberty conference next month in Austin, Texas. Speakers will include Lawrence Reed, T.K. Coleman, Wes Benedict, and Reason's own Stephanie Slade.

More information on the conference can be found here.

NEXT: The Short, Strange Trump-for-President Campaign of 1987

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 7 10’s of minutes.

    Seriously. GREAT to have something in Texas.

    (secondly… Christians can’t really be for liberty… *grabs popcorn*)

    1. *lights the * Eddie signal *

      1. Heh, heh…nice try.

        Let me urge Ms. Slade to make sure she uses the terms “Sky Daddy” and “bleevers” in her talk, it will certainly impress her audience.

        1. 🙂

        2. I mean, she should certainly ask how one can believe in liberty if one also believes they must save others from going to hell…

      1. You really should see an eye doctor, Swiss.

        1. needs moar abortion

          1. This was not supposed to go here. But luckily abortion is always relevant to every topic.

            1. Hitler?

              1. you know who else hitlered?

                1. Godwin?

    2. I concur 100%, Spencer. I have always stated that religion and liberty are diametrically opposing ideas. As an example, the bible states that prostitution wrong, therefore how can a “religious Libertarian” be in favor of legalizing sex work? The entire philosophy of any religion is that you must behave a certain way or be damned in the afterlife. How does that philosophy promote liberty?

      1. There are a handful of aspects of Christianity that are most certainly anti-liberty. You either discard them or become a hypocrite and invent reasons to make exceptions to the philosophy.

        1. You either discard them or become a hypocrite and invent reasons to make exceptions to the philosophy.

          Or you say, “These are constraints that I have to live as a Christian, and I believe that other people should also be Christians, but I oppose using the power of the State to enforce my beliefs.”

          1. Looks like Raven expressed the same sentiment while I was typing, albeit more completely than I did.

      2. how can a “religious Libertarian” be in favor of legalizing sex work?

        So Jews want to outlaw bacon?

        Sheesh.

      3. I’m not suggesting I’m going to persuade you, but here’s how I approach it.

        I do not believe the state has a role in enforcing any kind of religious orthodoxy or practice. I also don’t think the state should enforce moral behavior. This is partly because of my libertarian beliefs, but also because of my religious beliefs. Coming from the Protestant angle, I do not believe that living a moral life leads to salvation. Because of that, encouraging people to live a moral life can actually hinder salvation because. If you use the power of the state to enforce morality, then the state is actually involved in hindering salvation (again, from my perspective).

        Now, if someone wants to engage with me one-on-one and ask me what they think is best for their life, then I am happy to share my views. BUT, I firmly believe that using the coercive power of the state is far worse than any consequences that may stem from personal behavior that does not cause harm to another person. Many who post on this board but are not Christians follow a similar principle.

        I fully realize that this is a minority opinion among Christians. But my point is not that Christians as a majority live this way but that it is possible to be both a Christian and someone who supports liberty.

        1. Very well stated. I came on here to say something similar but you covered it better than I would have.

          I fully realize that this is a minority opinion among Christians. But my point is not that Christians as a majority live this way but that it is possible to be both a Christian and someone who supports liberty.

          Which is precisely why Jesus states in Matt 7:14 that the way to life is narrow and few find it. The broad path is the way off personal behavioral modification, which is the basis of every religion since the beginning of time. The narrow path is of a life lived in ever-deepening relationship with God that supernaturally empowers a portion to live righteously.

        2. I applaud your take on it RN. As an atheist I am more than happy to support any theist who takes that position.

        3. Christians are supposed to love the sinner. How exactly is throwing someone in prison loving the sinner?

          The modern idea of prisons came from Christians who thought they were God and could forcibly transform and redeem people. Prisons are called “penitentiaries”, because they were supposed to be places where people literally payed “penance” for their sins, as in realized they were wrong and made right with God for their sins.

          That needless to say hasn’t worked out very well. Locking people in cages doesn’t seem to be a very good way to get them to reform.

          1. John, not sure (because of Reason’s threading), if you’re responding to me but I’ll take a shot at responding.

            On the origin of prisons: just because a group that I associate with did something in the past, doesn’t mean I support it now (and, of course, it gets more complicated with a broad and diverse group such as Christians who can’t even agree on fundamental aspects of their faith). I would also note that the modern idea of reform was considered to be more humane than the punishments that then existed.

            On crime & punishment today: I would reserve prisons for violent felons only (and, yes, that’s a whole other debate). Any crime that does not hurt someone else or their property should probably not be a crime. Property crimes should be punished by requiring restitution not incarceration (the late Charles Colson was a proponent of this). Preferably, restitution should be in the form of some kind of contract monitored by a private organization.

            And, keep in mind, my point was not a general defense of Christianity but a response to the claim that one could not be both a Christian and a supporter of liberty.

            1. I agree with you. My point was two fold. First, throwing people in prison is a total failure form a Christian perspective. It doesn’t as a general rule get them to repent. Second, since we still clearly need prisons, the basis for it is out of the practical concerns of protecting the public from dangerous individuals and deterring people from breaking the law, not any for of Christian morality.

      4. I concur 100%, Spencer. I have always stated that religion and liberty are diametrically opposing ideas. As an example, the bible states that prostitution wrong, therefore how can a “religious Libertarian” be in favor of legalizing sex work?

        Because morality and the law are two different things. Just because you believe something is wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean you think everyone who does it should be thrown in prison. In fact, from a Christian perspective, forcing someone to refrain from immorality is no good, since forcing someone to do something doesn’t get them to repent and realize it was wrong.

        Christian morality is extralegal. It exists whether or not the law recognizes it and is in no way dependent on the law. Sure, it often is the same as the law and can serve as a basis for law, but that doesn’t mean it must be law.

      5. The entire philosophy of any religion is that you must behave a certain way or be damned in the afterlife.

        This is gibberish.

        1. To elaborate: some religions believe that, most do not, and religion and philosophy only barely overlap in any case.

  2. The intersection of religion and libertarianism is a busy place right now…

    When in doubt, default to your feelings.

    1. Whoa….I just had a Libertarian Moment….

      *steadies self*

      There. It’s passed….

  3. First Amendment

    It was written by white, slave-owning, racists and is only used by white men to enhance their privilege.

    //sarc

  4. In June, a ruling from the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the land opened the door to the possibility that religious schools, businesses, and other organizations might be punished by the government for refusing to put their stamp of approval on the practice. The intersection of religion and libertarianism is a busy place right now, and skirmishing over what the First Amendment really does is only going to intensify.

    Nuh, uh! Totally separate issue! No one saw it coming! It was totally unintended and unforeseen! Besides, it’s a separate issue that no one intended or saw coming! Nobody! Separate issue! Did I mention that it’s a separate issue and no one saw it coming? Anyone who says otherwise hates the gays!

    /True Libertarian

    1. one should point out that because the foreseeable consequence to a freedom is someone else trying to manipulate said freedom to control others… is NOT a reason to repress said freedom.

      1. Because no one is free unless they have the government’s stamp of approval. Gotcha.

        1. I don’t see how that follows…

          1. Spencer, meet sarcasmic. sarcasmic, Spencer.

          2. That’s not how this works Spencer. You object to something sarcasmic says, he’ll respond with a barely related bon mot of his, you’ll wonder what’s going on and then he’ll claim that you’re attacking him personally.

            At some point some commenter you’ve never heard of will start defending him and his good work, and then you’ll close the window and move on to another thread or engage in some masochistic lunacy.

            1. See, look. Here comes the GAYYYYYSTAPPPPPOOOOOOO.

              1. Oh god not again… I can’t take any more after yesterday.

            2. We call sarc “Dumb John.”

              1. I thought John was Dumb John?

                1. No! John is “Red Tony”!

                  1. I am only Red Tony when I point out fact that dumb people like Frank don’t like but being stupid can’t respond to.

                2. Yeah Frank, you are a real genius.

    2. UHAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULS

    3. PRINCIPALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLS

    4. TAKINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG

    5. GAYYYYYYSTAPOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      1. Now look what you bastards have done, you’ve given Warty an aneurism.

        1. Naw, just a sticky keyboard. Might have to start calling him sqwerty.

          1. I just snorted Mountain Dew out my nose. I hold you PERSONALLY responsible.

            sqwerty….pfffffttt baaaaaaahahahahaha!

    6. Ha, I read that segment and thought “wow, I bet sarcasmic is going to rub one out to this” and here you are doing just that.

      I have foreseen it so it was intended or something.

      1. Wait a minute. It was revealed to you?

        1. REVEALED MORALITY IS NOT PRINCIPLED

        2. I just assumed it was specifically phrased to fire up the yokel rage machine and get a bunch of comments on an otherwise pedestrian little blurb.

          Wait, if it was revealed to me do I get nubile followers? I need all the facts before my final answer.

          1. I believe prophets get to have harems, yes.

    7. Pretty much everyone saw it coming and expected it, because, you know, it was already happening. You’d have to be a industrial grade idiot to think otherwise.

      I’ll let you return to cutting yourself in protest.

      1. I see. So you saw it coming and didn’t care. At least that’s more honest than the comments personal attacks I usually get.

        1. SPENCER SPENCER SPENCER LOOOOOOOOK.

          1. Yuck, yuck, yuck! You just scored some points with that zinger! Zowie! You sure proved me wrong! Wowsers! Your intellect is beyond my comprehension! I feel humbled to be in your presence!

            Actually, I don’t. Grow the fuck up.

            1. I’m pretty sure that my response to your use of “personal attacks” was easily foreseeable, so I just assumed you intended for me to respond that way.

              *High five*

              1. God, will you two just get a Uhaul already?

            2. Your intellect is beyond my comprehension!

  5. What exactly is this wankfest? Slade goes to speak at an Xian event and you’re…not happy about it?

    Oh, wait, wanking is how you express your happiness, I guess.

    1. You’d understand if you had a penis.

      1. She does. Don’t ask, it’s a horrifying story.

        1. I didn’t mean one in a pickle jar.

          1. Oh, never mind then.

    2. I think the complaint is that atheists exist? It’s not clear.

      1. It’s a common one.

      2. Very few actual atheists exist. Most people who call themselves “atheists” are just theists who don’t like the word God. They worship plenty of things outside of this world. They just call those things “justice” and “morality” and “human rights” instead of God.

        1. Yes, if you define things narrowly enough, you can win at all your conversations.

          1. It is the same thing. What are “natural rights” other than made up supra natural entities that people like? Nature doesn’t give me any rights. Nature doesn’t give me anything. Nature doesn’t care if I get stepped on. It just is.

            People make up things like that because they like them not because they are real. They are not. It is like equality. It is nice to think everyone is equal in some ultimate sense, but in the real world it is not true. Some really are smarter and better and more valuable than others. We are not equal, at least if we judge by this world. But people like to pretend we are and it makes them feel good. Doing that is any different than “pretending” there is a God.

            1. While I don’t dispute this, “natural rights” does have some use insofar as it suggests that our rights are a product of our nature.

              E.g., because we are frail, mortal, and yet long-lived and not very fertile as species’ go, we value life greatly and place it highly in the ranking of rights. If we were immortal, we wouldn’t consider the question at all, and if our lives were individually short and meaningless, like ants, we would place much more emphasis on hive success. If we respawned like videogame characters, murder would just be a more serious form of assault.

              1. The problem is that in nature things are really nasty to the handicapped or the unfit. Nature doesn’t come and save you if you are born unfit. It kills you before you have a chance to procreate. I really don’t see how nature endows us with any rights beyond some general utilitarian allegiance to other humans.

                If you believe in a God and a higher power, things like equality and human dignity follow easily. Compared to God, our differences are so small as to be completely immaterial. And if there is a God every individual was created by that God and has a claim on dignity and equality and human rights by virtue of there being a human being, not because of what they can or cannot do.

                Take that away and you are left with nature. And nature is not equal, not caring and pretty harsh.

                1. “There is only one way to make up stories about how the world isn’t terrible.”

                  1. No Nikki, there is endless ways to make up stories about how the world isn’t terrible. And Atheists are really good at it. And on top of that, they make up the best story of all, they convince themselves they are the only ones not doing it. It is an extra level of delusion and smugness.

                    1. they convince themselves they are the only ones not doing it.

                      Umm, have you talked to any truly devoted Christians, John? They certainly believe that their interpretation of the world is correct and everyone else is just justifying their sins or otherwise deluding themselves rather than give their lives over to God.

                    2. Yes Jesse, Atheists are convinced they are the only ones not doing it. You just made my point.

                    3. Wut? No. I didn’t. Christians don’t believe they’re telling themselves pretty stories. They believe that they know the truth and everyone else is wrong. Atheists don’t believe they’re telling themselves pretty stories. They believe that they know the truth and everyone else is wrong.

                      If that’s making your point, then you didn’t do a very good job expressing it because your point seemed to be that religious people know they’re telling themselves pretty stories, but atheists believe they aren’t telling themselves pretty stories.

            2. Just because nature will trample you given the chance doesn’t mean you can’t outsmart it. In a world with no one else, you could just as much be master of nature as victim to it. That’s the funny thing about rights, they’re not guarantees of success.

              More importantly, natural rights aren’t “supra natural entities”. They are abstract concepts but they are inferred through observation not invented out of convenience. In the same way, given empiricism as a premise, one can infer gravity through observation.

              The real issue is what do natural rights mean in a world with other people. This is why libertarians have the NAP. Other people reach different conclusions; for example, “might makes right”. But remove other people (hopefully just as a mental exercise there, Pol Pot) and you can see the rights plain as day–nature might kill you, but nobody is going to stop you from conquering her, as well.

              1. That’s the funny thing about rights, they’re not guarantees of success.

                In fact, they are often roadblocks to success. Life is easy when you can just kill off the sick or run over anyone that gets in the way of progress. Respecting people’s rights is hard. If it were easy, people would be more naturally inclined to do it.

                More importantly, natural rights aren’t “supra natural entities”. They are abstract concepts but they are inferred through observation not invented out of convenience.

                That is laughable. You are not inferring anything from observation. You are starting with a bunch of assumptions, not the least of which is that you owe a duty to anything or anyone beyond yourself and your own happiness, and then going out and finding things to justify it. That is it.

                ut remove other people (hopefully just as a mental exercise there, Pol Pot) and you can see the rights plain as day–nature might kill you, but nobody is going to stop you from conquering her, as well.

                No you can’t. And in a sense Pol Pot was right. He was just incompetent. If you really think that killing off a bunch of people will create heaven on earth, how isn’t that the right thing to do? Why should future generations have to suffer outside of paradise because these idiots stood in the way?

                Nature is if nothing else utilitarian. And you can’t get natural rights from utilitarian calculations.

                1. If you really think that killing off a bunch of people will create heaven on earth, how isn’t that the right thing to do?

                  This is exactly the issue presented to sentient people after recognizing the existence of natural rights and it is why libertarians have the NAP.

                  You are starting with a bunch of assumptions, not the least of which is that you owe a duty to anything or anyone beyond yourself and your own happiness

                  Now again you’re talking about the NAP, which is indeed a choice not an observation.

                  Nature is if nothing else utilitarian.

                  The practical exercise of nature favors utility, but without some freedom of action, utility is meaningless.

                  And you can’t get natural rights from utilitarian calculations.

                  On the contrary, you can’t get “utilitarian calculations” without natural rights. If you have no freedom of action, then utility is irrelevant. In order to maximize your utility, you have to be able to make more than one choice. Natural rights is just a codification of freedom of action in the context of sentient beings.

                  1. This is exactly the issue presented to sentient people after recognizing the existence of natural rights and it is why libertarians have the NAP.

                    You are just begging the question. You think it is it bad, but why? We make utilitarian calculations all of the time. Sometimes life forces us to. Beyond that, why is it wrong to sacrifice people for the greater good? You can’t tell me other than you don’t like it. That is nice and all but it is not an answer.

                    Now again you’re talking about the NAP, which is indeed a choice not an observation.

                    It is totally a choice. In fact, a lot of people don’t abide by the NAP and have done pretty well in life. How in the world could you observe life and history and conclude the NAP is anything but an excuse to get your head kicked in? History is almost entirely the story of those who can taking from those who can’t stop them. The NAP is nothing but a fancy way of saying “crime doesn’t pay”, bullshit it doesn’t pay.

                  2. In order to maximize your utility, you have to be able to make more than one choice. Natural rights is just a codification of freedom of action in the context of sentient beings.

                    That makes no sense. My freedom of action has nothing to do with you and my concern for you just restricts my freedom not expands it. I am more free if I am free to victimize you. Respect for your rights restricts me from what my base and natural instincts. There is nothing respectful or restricting about nature. Nature is the strong surviving as they take from the weak.

                    1. I give up.

                    2. I am more free if I am free to victimize you.

                      No, you aren’t. Because I will punish you for doing so, either by killing you, locking you up or maintaining a state of constant war against you. You do not enjoy liberty when I lock you up or when you must make every decision in your life based upon the knowledge that someone is out to kill you.

                2. You are starting with a bunch of assumptions, not the least of which is that you owe a duty to anything or anyone beyond yourself and your own happiness, and then going out and finding things to justify it.

                  Wrong again. In a free market, absent coercion, the only way to attain wealth and profits is to produce goods and services that make others happy. So the seeking profits for your own happiness necessitates making others happy. That’s not exactly intuitive, but it’s true. Show me someone who got rich in a free market, someone who looked out for their own self and their own happiness, and I’ll show you someone created wealth for all of society by making thousands if not millions of other people happy.

                  So, absent the use of force, seeking one’s own happiness creates wealth and happiness for others.

                  That’s that part of Austrian economics that so many people don’t get. They, like he-who-shall-not-be-named say it’s just rationalized selfishness, and call such people greedy and evil because they object to using force to make themselves happy. Which I find to be rather odd. As if force and coercion are virtues while cooperation is evil. I guess it’s all about intentions, right? If the intentions of those who use force are pure, and the intentions of those who seek cooperation are selfish, then damn the results.

                  1. In a free market, absent coercion, the only way to attain wealth and profits is to produce goods and services that make others happy.

                    Which part of absent coercion did you not understand when you typed that? Coercion is a really great option as long as you are the one doing it. And if you can do it, why shouldn’t you?

                    Show me someone who got rich in a free market, someone who looked out for their own self and their own happiness, and I’ll show you someone created wealth for all of society by making thousands if not millions of other people happy.

                    Sure but who cares? Show me someone who got rich by stealing it and I will show you someone who is just as happy. Who gives a shit which person you are? Since when is making other people happy a good thing? You just assume it is. And that is a fine assumption but it is just that, an assumption and one you make based on faith not any connection to any absolute truth.

                    And you are missing my point. I am not saying there is anything wrong with selfishness. In fact, I am saying that anyone who says there is, is doing so because they have some “god” they worship in the form of some made up morality. That is all it is made up morality.

        2. Sure, John. You, only capable of seeing things through a lens of faith, are exactly the same a progressive liberal who sees everything through a lens of force. Just as progressives are incapable of comprehending liberty (a lack of force), you are incapable of comprehending atheism (a lack of faith). So, just like progressives who must define liberty (a lack of force) as force, you must define atheism (a lack of faith) as faith.

          1. No. I just understand that what you call “reason” is just rationalization. Reason is only as good as the assumptions you make. You can reason anything as long as you start with the right assumptions. And you can’t use reason to justify the assumptions it starts with. See Godel for an explanation of that. You just make up a bunch of assumptions, call them “rights” or “reason” and then pretend you are not acting on faith. No, you are.

            1. As someone said in a comment above, abstract concepts based upon observations are not the same as faith based upon the teachings of people who claim to be in communication with an invisible man. I start with basic principles, like the NAP, not because of faith, but because it can be easily shown that society functions a lot better when people a cooperate with each other instead of getting what they want with force. So yeah, I think many of these assumptions can be easily explained with something much more rational than “God said so.” That’s not faith, John. That’s cold logic based upon provable premises. But like I said, I don’t expect you to understand anymore than I would expect he-who-shall-not-be-named can understand the concept of liberty.

    3. Wait, there was a meeting of immortal Taoists? No wei.

  6. I won’t try to persuade right now to be Christian, or even to *like* Christians.

    I’ll just point out that unless you impose strict purity tests on you allies, you should be open to working with anyone, *even Christians,* on matters of common interest.

    I mean, you’d work with a socialist hippie commune in promoting legalized dope, wouldn’t you? That doesn’t make you socialist hippies, does it?

    And Reason is happy to work with “Belle Knox,” who the coed porn star who joined her local Libertarian Party. Does that mean that all Reason writers are porn stars (I mean, I know Gillespie is, but not the others).

    Y’all give talks at the Museum of Sex – that doesn’t mean that Reason writers are prostitutes. Not *all* of them, anyway.

    So be open minded – consider reaching out to the Christian contingent.

    1. Is that not exactly what Slade is doing? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

      1. From the comments you’d think she was going to watch some Christians get thrown to lions, not speak at their own event.

        1. What worries me is that this is such new and uncharted territory for the Reason people I don’t know if she’ll know what to say.

          Maybe I’m wrong.

        2. It is going to be interesting watching Libertarians stand up for the rights of people they don’t like. For the last 50 years, standing up for rights has meant standing up for groups that Libertarians liked; drug users, hookers, gays, women, black people, business people, poor people who get harassed by the cops and so forth. In the coming years standing up for rights is going to mean standing up for religious people getting stepped on by the public accommodation laws and shit like Obamacare. And that is going to be a new experience for Libertarians. It is not going to be fun or fashionable or really very pleasant. It is not fun to stand up for the rights of legitimately unpopular people.

          1. Eh, I think you’re ignoring the sizeable Ron Paul contingent that lives on the libertarian side of the libertarian-paleocon border.

            And if you think standing up for druggies and hookers makes you friends on either side, or that siding with teh gays was fashionable when libertarians started doing it, I think you’re mistaken. And whiny.

            1. Standing up for those things totally makes you friends on the other side. Standing up for the dreaded SOCONS? Never.

          2. Yep, because religious people are “legitimately unpopular” as compared to drug users and hookers. The real world says hi.

            1. Not among Libertarians. Those people are very popular in Libertarian circles. Religious people are in contrast loathed. You hate religious people Niki. You hate everyone so it won’t be so bad for you. But it is funny as shit watching most of these posers defend religious rights. They hate it. They always change the subject and talk around it if they can. I think a good number of them are not going to be up to it.

              1. “Not among Libertarians.” Well, I don’t know about you, John, but I don’t spend most of my life among libertarians. Do libertarians actually dominate your world outside H&R? They sure don’t mine, and most people I know (a) are religious and (b) don’t like drug users and prostitutes.

              2. “Not among Libertarians.”

                Bullshit, you know damn well you weren’t talking about what was fashionable or popular among libertarians, or you wouldn’t have said “It is not fun to stand up for the rights of legitimately unpopular people.” Or what, we’ll be mean to ourselves?

          3. John, I take it that either you don’t read much or that you have severe memory loss. Question: do you use aluminum cookware?

            1. Go find me one post on here where religious people are anything but despised. Libertarians liked the people I list there and they hate religious people. They can’t stand them. And defending their rights is going to be utterly distasteful for most Libertarians. In fact, I can’t see it happening other than some chin scratching about what a shame it all is.

              1. There’s a bunch right in this thread. So either you can’t read or you’re brain damaged.

          4. For the last 50 years, standing up for rights has meant standing up for groups that Libertarians liked; drug users, hookers, gays, women, black people, business people, poor people who get harassed by the cops and so forth. In the coming years standing up for rights is going to mean standing up for religious people getting stepped on by the public accommodation laws and shit like Obamacare. And that is going to be a new experience for Libertarians.

            And once again, the village idiot proves he doesn’t understand libertarianism or is willfully ignorant.

            Or simply a fucking troll.

            1. Go fuck yourself Frank. Seriously, you are nasty and horrible to any sort of religious person on here. You don’t’ give a fuck about free exercise. You just mouth the words. Talk is cheap but you would never actually do anything to defend it.

              No way are simple minded posers like you going to take the wrath of the popular culture and stand up for religious free exercise. The moment someone calls you intolerant, you will skulk off and go talk about something else.

              You only get angry because it is true. Nice to see I hit a nerve since you are exactly the kind of idiot I am talking about.

              1. Seriously, you are nasty and horrible to any sort of religious person on here.

                Yes, he sure tore Raven Nation a new asshole up above. Jesus fucking christ on a pogo stick, John, you used to be a reasonably smart guy. Is it Alzheimer’s?

                1. Are you illiterate old man?

                  Francisco d’Anconia|7.28.15 @ 11:41AM|#

                  There are a handful of aspects of Christianity that are most certainly anti-liberty. You either discard them or become a hypocrite and invent reasons to make exceptions to the philosophy.

                  Seriously, you are a dumb as Frank. And Frank is a fucking moron who literally understands nothing and knows just enough about everything to be dangerous.

                  1. OK, you’re totally brain damaged. But I guess we knew that.

                    Francisco d’Anconia|7.28.15 @ 11:52AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                    I applaud your take on it RN. As an atheist I am more than happy to support any theist who takes that position.

                    reply to this

                    1. So Frank is a nut who says incoherent things. I already knew that. Look at what he said in my post.

                    2. Cool story, bro.

              2. Seriously, you are nasty and horrible to any sort of religious person on here.

                No John, I’m horrible to you and the other shitbags who use their mystical beliefs as justification to limit the liberty of others.

                You, Eddie and your little band of yokels will find any excuse to stomp on liberty when it conflicts with your old book. Which is often.

                I have absolutely no problem with people like Raven Nation above, who do not attempt to do so. I don’t agree with them about religion and yes I think religion is silly, but they have every right to believe as they wish and I respect their beliefs provided they aren’t infringing on the rights of others like you do.

                So, fuck you and all the other little statist pricks right in the ass with a chainsaw.

                1. “You, Eddie and your little band of yokels will find any excuse to stomp on liberty when it conflicts with your old book. Which is often.”

                  Got any links showing where I said this?

                  (for that matter, got any links showing where John said it, though I ask only to discredit you, not to white-knight John who can take care of himself)

                  1. Why as a matter of fact, I do.

                    SSM should not be recognized by the government, actual marriage should be.

                    1. Because it’s self-evident to anyone with good faith who isn’t in the pay of Opus Dei that having the government recognize same-sex relationships enhances liberty.

                      It doesn’t lead to any awkward problems with religious freedom or freedom of association. Nobody could believe that in good faith.

                      Therefore, anyone who’s against same-sex marriage recognition is simply part of the Pope’s secret Jesuit army and wants to bring in the Inquisition.

                    2. /sarc

                    3. And the fact that that quote is the best you’ve got shows that you’re full of it.

                    4. On banning speech.

                      Notorious G.K.C.|6.16.15 @ 11:31AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I like these laws in principle, I’m just not sure I trust the cops to apply the laws fairly.

                      From all the police videos, I hear them cursing and even invoking the Lord’s name without penalty. So I’m skeptical that they’ll evenhandedly enforce these laws against “civilians.” The law might simply be employed as a weapon against people who complain about police misconduct.

                    5. Expressing an opinion is stomping on liberty?

                    6. Yes, cav, wanting government to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us (who are not harming anyone) is stomping on liberty.

                    7. Are you happy that the government is forcing Christians to accept that same-sex marriages are equivalent to definitional marriages?

                    8. I don’t even know what the term “forcing to accept” even means. No one is forcing you to accept shit. It’s impossible to “force you to accept” something.

                      You have every right to disagree with it. But the government may not provide unequal protection under the law. If you can marry, gays can marry…period.

                      Now if you’d like to talk about eliminating entitlements, for everyone, or the immorality/unconstitutionality of public accommodation laws, I’m right there with you. But if you want the law to reflect your religious beliefs at the expense of liberty for certain groups, you do not have my support.

  7. I have no idea what’s goin’ on…..

    /Towelie

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.