[682] in libertarians
Re: The Religious Right - Threat, Menace, or ...?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kathryn Moakler )
Tue Feb 14 14:10:14 1995
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:03:11 EST
From: moakler@ICD.teradyne.com (Kathryn Moakler )
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU, rosed@world.std.com
Cc: lfb@panix.com, Todd_Seavey@kaplan.com, libernet@dartmouth.edu
>
> "The reasons for this remarkable unity are numerous -- the visionary
> leadership of Newt Gingrich, the growing savvy and sophistication of
> religious conservatives, and a consensus across ideological lines on the
> need for values that inform our private and public lives. But even more
> important is a new respect for a rather old-fashioned wisdom: that in an
> essentially conservative society, traditionalist ends can be advanced
> through libertarian means.
But these _aren't_ libertarian means... Traditionalist ends (meaning
'family values' etc) are exclusive of personal liberties (meaning, freedom
to have an abortion, use birth control, be a single parent, be gay, etc.).
If the Libertarian party endorses traditionalist values in personal lives,
then how is it different than the GOP? I don't understand why anyone would
fight for the rights to keep their own earnings from the government's
re-distribution plan, just so they could forfeit them to some religious
organization's re-distribution plan. The only answer I can come up with
is that they want the money to go to Christian missionaries, who give
money out to needy peoples, along with a sermon on how to run their lives.
How is this different than big government and tightly controlled public
education? These people are NOT for personal liberties. Don't be
fooled into thinking they are.
>
> of government. Therefore, anything that reduces the role of the Washington
> bureacracy in the lives of families is a step in the right direction."
Yes, so the churches can step in and take over that role ...
> 1. make gov't the friend not the foe of the family; specifically, end
> subsidies for divorce, planned parenthood, and CPB, NEH, NEA, etc.
No. Government should be the friend of liberty. It should not be any
friendlier to Cleavers and the Bundies as it should to the Murphy Brown types.
If anything, the government should be more of a friend to people who earn
their living, and less to people who steal it.
> 3. replacing the welfare state w/ a community and faith-based opportunity
> society.
Just what is a 'community, faith-based opportunity society?' The only
thing we should be replacing the welfare state with is a reason-based
collection of individuals.
> 4. secure religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all citizens,
> including voluntary school prayer and the right to freely express ones
> faith in public places.
This really shows their hidden agenda in its true colors... Any type of
school prayer is the government endorsing religious values for everyone.
The government's role should not be to endorse anything. Period.
>
> As a libertarian, the only thing I really disagree with is his endorsement
> of the Contract w/ America's proposed tougher laws against pornography,
Once again, forcefully removing the personal liberty to whack off to a
picture if one wants to. The removal of liberty is far more obscene than
the human body, IMHO.
Kathryn
Disclaimer: These are not necessarily the opinions of my employer.
