Creeping Liberalism

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,404
5,021
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,711.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Well, if the posts are being read, then the "obsession" wouldn't be there, right?
Well, if people would actually read my GKC quotes, instead of seeing the name and averting their eyes, they would see that what was said then is relevant to what we are talking about today. It's not about a man who died 80 years ago. It's about truth that matters now. And then my "obsession" wouldn't be one, either, right?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,404
5,021
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,711.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I should have added, gzt, it depends on one's perspective.

I am looking very narrowly - young unmarried people in the US over the past few decades. If one expands one's view over history, there are certainly far more scandalous attitudes and activities at various times and places.

I'm not sure we can at all say that attitudes are "getting worse" across history.
Quite right, but we CAN say that attitudes are degrading over the past century or three (though that degradation is a very long process). I have charted out, rather thoroughly, the fall of sexual morality over the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. What really sucks is that predictions I made from the trajectories I saw a decade ago, that I thought would take two or three decades to arrive at, have already come to pass.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,404
5,021
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,711.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Glad you apologized Rus, but you also need to stop blaming psychology so much. Sure, just as anything else in the world, the field of psychology gets hijacked by the powers that be in our culture and society. But please remember that psychology is the scientific study of human behavior. Therapy, while a part of the field, isn't the only thing it does. I would say it actually only plays a small role in the field in general. Most psychologist spend their time doing research and running statistical analyses.
Generally speaking, the field of psychology is a modern, and generally anti-Christian and anti-Orthodox thing in both its origins and most of its applications, for it really purports to replace the Church as the means of treating the soul of man. That Christians, even Orthodox ones, have managed to turn some of its tendencies to good use doesn't change the overall concept, that man's behavior may be predicted, controlled, and separated from his spiritual life, that it need have no connection to religious Truth. You've got it wrong. It gasn't been hijacked. It IS a hijack, and it is Christian hijacking of the anti-Christian thing that can sometimes be justified.
So I'll go on bashing psychology. I look at its history, what it arose among, when and why, and why much more intelligent men of earlier centuries saw no such thing, and have decided that it needs to be bashed. The psych "sciences" are pseudo-sciences, that are only right coincidentally, insofar as they align with the truth about the human soul.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Gurney, i'm disappointed that you didn't take the obvious opportunity to reference Wayne's World

... of course, i've never been able to understand how what he plays sounds like Stairway ...
 
Upvote 0

MilesVitae

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2012
473
61
Massachusetts, New England
✟9,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, take one issue....

legalizing dope....

"It's none of my business what people do in their own homes! If they want to snort coke, shoot up some smack, suck on a doobie (or ten), suck in the pipe with some crack, maybe partake of a magic mushroom, even though I hate drugs, I'm a libertarian and that stuff is none of my dang business."

I hear this nonsense constantly.

Do I want the parents of my students in my class doing this at home? Do I want my students exposed to this tripe? Do I want a bus driver driving kids after having partied it up last night? Do I want teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, cops, IRS tax folks, and other people that can screw us all up taking drugs? Are drugs ever good for society? Would Christ approve? Would Orthodoxy approve? Is there really a good argument here unless you take Cain's position?

"Hey, gay 'marriage' is a victimless crime, baby! Libertarian all the way!"

Is it really? My kids see it. The children adopted by these folks see it and live around it. Society is warped by it. It's unbiblical, un-Orthodox, and perverse. Why should I have a live and let live societal shoulder shrug here?

Abortion..."hey, bro, none of my business? I ain't gonna tell a chick what to do with her body!"

Libertarians have this "mind my own business" mentality not just with government but with society in general. They epitomize the Ayn Rand selfishness rooted in a type of atheistic egotism and they encapsulate the stupidity of secular humanism. "You have your truth, I have mine. Let's leave it at that." Boloney.

I think your last paragraph summarizes what I took with issue with in your original comment. Granted, such an attitude may be the case with a lot of libertarians in this country, but I don't think indifferent selfishness and relativism is what defines libertarianism - Tolkien, if I remember correctly, once commented that anarchism appealed to him a great deal. Tolkien certainly wasn't an atheist, a secularist, stupid, or a follower of Rand, and I doubt he was exceptionally more selfish or egotistical than the rest of us.
My point is that libertarianism is a question of the proper level of involvement in society on the part of coercive state power, with the answer that it is better (even imperative) that the state not be the instrument by which we address a lot of issues. So, it's unfair to reject it as unchristian if you're doing so on the basis that's it's founded in relativism, apathy, and selfishness.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,273
Central California
✟274,079.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The posts are being read. People have assured you as much. I read your posts, and most folks in here are pretty bright. Your continued insistence that people don't read them on one hand insults the other poster, and secondly it implies reading comprehension deficits on the other. It also points to the fact that you want a certain response you're not getting, and when you don't like the response, you assume it's due to the inadequacies of the reader. Sometimes that could be true, but with the frequency you get frustrated about it, it's questionable. At the very least, one would think you'd quit it because you've been lampooned up the yin yang for it by jckstraw alone! LOL

Well, if the posts are being read, then the "obsession" wouldn't be there, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,273
Central California
✟274,079.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I disagree. A Christian should demand his government live Christian ethics. You can say that's unrealistic. Fine. I don't care. Christians are called to bring Christian morality to the world. The government SHOULD encourage good Christian morality. Libertarianism is by its very nature secular humanist, Miles, and you know it. You go your way---I go mine is the very core of this! It must needs include apathy. If I don't want the government getting into the marriage business, I am saying that I will just have to agree to let lesbians "marry." Hence the apathy. Marriage has consequences legally. Marriage is a factor in social security benefits, pensions, visitations in hospitals, and many other "family"-driven items. The government really has to get involved in marriage to some degree for legal reasons, not moral ones. So if you're libertarian and want marriage to be a "you do your thing, I'll do mine," you're expressing a type of passing the buck apathy. I never said you're "stupid" to be libertarian. If I did, then I apologize. Libertarians aren't stupid, they're misguided and wrong.

Also, I am not sure why you're using Tolkien as your political metric? Been reading the Hobbit lately? :sorry::sorry::sorry:^_^ Would C.S. Lewis approve? Would Father Schmemman? Would Chesterton be ok with it? Would Tolkien be ok with lesbian wedding cakes, marijuana-toking legally, and a host of other nonsense? Hard telling....

Libertarianism is rooted in relativism and apathy. It's obvious.

I think your last paragraph summarizes what I took with issue with in your original comment. Granted, such an attitude may be the case with a lot of libertarians in this country, but I don't think indifferent selfishness and relativism is what defines libertarianism - Tolkien, if I remember correctly, once commented that anarchism appealed to him a great deal. Tolkien certainly wasn't an atheist, a secularist, stupid, or a follower of Rand, and I doubt he was exceptionally more selfish or egotistical than the rest of us.
My point is that libertarianism is a question of the proper level of involvement in society on the part of coercive state power, with the answer that it is better (even imperative) that the state not be the instrument by which we address a lot of issues. So, it's unfair to reject it as unchristian if you're doing so on the basis that's it's founded in relativism, apathy, and selfishness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

MilesVitae

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2012
473
61
Massachusetts, New England
✟9,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I disagree. A Christian should demand his government live Christian ethics. You can say that's unrealistic. Fine. I don't care. Christians are called to bring Christian morality to the world. The government SHOULD encourage good Christian morality.

Yes, a government should live Christian ethics in the sense that it ought not to promote evil, but not in the sense that it must legally enforce morality in all cases - I, for one would, certainly not want to live under a state with that kind of totalitarian control, Christian or not.
We must bring Christian morality to the world, but that does not mean that we must use the state to do it in all cases. If I don't believe drug use, adultery, fornication, masturbation, lying, cruelty, lack of charity, or what have you should be illegal, that doesn't mean I'm apathetic on those issues and don't seek to change the culture and lead people to the truth - just that I don't think it's right/a good idea for the government to be the one to do that. It's a mistake to think "this is bad, the government ought to be prevent it/this is good, the government ought to do it." After all, the full implementation of that idea would be totalitarian socialism...

Libertarianism is by its very nature secular humanist, Miles, and you know it.

I disagree.

You go your way---I go mine is the very core of this! It must needs include apathy.

If one believes it's better that the state not being involved in something, why does that imply he is apathetic on the matter and doesn't think it should be addressed in other ways? It's one thing to tolerate something (in the proper sense of that word) at a legal level and abstain from using a particular means of addressing it - that's not necessarily founded in relativism or apathy.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on all the issues you mentioned (abortion I certainly agree with you on, and I agree as regards gay marriage to the extent that the state does recognize marriage to begin with).

If I don't want the government getting into the marriage business, I am saying that I will just have to agree to let lesbians "marry." Hence the apathy. Marriage has consequences legally. Marriage is a factor in social security benefits, pensions, visitations in hospitals, and many other "family"-driven items. The government really has to get involved in marriage to some degree for legal reasons, not moral ones. So if you're libertarian and want marriage to be a "you do your thing, I'll do mine," you're expressing a type of passing the buck apathy.

Are you talking about people who think legal marriage should not be limited to men and women couples, or people who think there simply shouldn't be civil marriage?

I never said you're "stupid" to be libertarian. If I did, then I apologize. Libertarians aren't stupid, they're misguided and wrong.

I was referring to your statement that it encapsulates the stupidity of secular humanism. Didn't take it as a personal slight - no worries =).

Also, I am not sure why you're using Tolkien as your political metric? Been reading the Hobbit lately? :sorry::sorry::sorry:^_^ Would C.S. Lewis approve? Would Father Schmemman? Would Chesterton be ok with it? Would Tolkien be ok with lesbian wedding cakes, marijuana-toking legally, and a host of other nonsense? Hard telling....

Haha making my way through The Two Towers at the moment, actually. My point was simply to use Tolkien as an example of a great Christian figure who seems to have had libertarian or anarchist leanings (which was, as such, not founded in moral apathy or secular humanism).
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,273
Central California
✟274,079.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm at work. I don't want to discuss this further. I disagree, and I could keep debating it. You won't change your mind, neither will I. I feel libertarianism is Ayn Rand on steroids. I see nothing to convince me otherwise. God bless.

Yes, a government should live Christian ethics in the sense that it ought not to promote evil, but not in the sense that it must legally enforce morality in all cases - I, for one would, certainly not want to live under a state with that kind of totalitarian control, Christian or not.
We must bring Christian morality to the world, but that does not mean that we must use the state to do it in all cases. If I don't believe drug use, adultery, fornication, masturbation, lying, cruelty, lack of charity, or what have you should be illegal, that doesn't mean I'm apathetic on those issues and don't seek to change the culture and lead people to the truth - just that I don't think it's right/a good idea for the government to be the one to do that. It's a mistake to think "this is bad, the government ought to be prevent it/this is good, the government ought to do it." After all, the full implementation of that idea would be totalitarian socialism...



I disagree.



If one believes it's better that the state not being involved in something, why does that imply he is apathetic on the matter and doesn't think it should be addressed in other ways? It's one thing to tolerate something (in the proper sense of that word) at a legal level and abstain from using a particular means of addressing it - that's not necessarily founded in relativism or apathy.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on all the issues you mentioned (abortion I certainly agree with you on, and I agree as regards gay marriage to the extent that the state does recognize marriage to begin with).



Are you talking about people who think legal marriage should not be limited to men and women couples, or people who think there simply shouldn't be civil marriage?



I was referring to your statement that it encapsulates the stupidity of secular humanism. Didn't take it as a personal slight - no worries =).



Haha making my way through The Two Towers at the moment, actually. My point was simply to use Tolkien as an example of a great Christian figure who seems to have had libertarian or anarchist leanings (which was, as such, not founded in moral apathy or secular humanism).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZaidaBoBaida
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seashale76

Unapologetic Iconodule
Dec 29, 2004
14,003
4,400
✟173,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm at work. I don't want to discuss this further. I disagree, and I could keep debating it. You won't change your mind, neither will I. I feel libertarianism is Ayn Rand on steroids. I see nothing to convince me otherwise. God bless.
There are different types of libertarianism. Right wing libertarianism is Ayn Randism. Left wing is a whole other kettle of fish.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,273
Central California
✟274,079.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think, and perhaps Rus will concur, that any philosophical system is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity. Even monarchy to some degree. We DO need government, but not to the extent liberals want it! We DO need private sector, but NOT to the extent conservatives need it. We do need a certain degree of a libertarian angle, but not as much as libertarians would like.

Take me for example. My dad had $600,000 invested in the stock market after having been forced retired and rolling his stock from his company into private sector accounts. The company, AG Edwards, that managed my dad's money lost it! They mismanaged my dad's dough so badly that he lost $400,000 in a matter of just a few months! Needless to say, a class action lawsuit by a group of the retirees ensued. As my dad got pummeled, he was SAVED financially by Social Security. I mean SAVED. If Republicans had gotten their way back in the New Deal era, my dad would be broke and borderline homeless. Many Republicans believe social security is a ponzi scheme, big government crookedness, etc. It was my dad's lifeline $$$-wise.

But in my state, California, government is bankrupting us. The pension system is out of control. I personally am going to be a beneficiary of the pension system, but despite that, I admit it needs drastic reform and it's unacceptable how the state is thrashing people with taxes for this at such a rate.

The liberals are great on the environment, pensions, social services, animal rights, protecting the worker, etc. But they're awful when it comes to trying to strip us of our 2nd amendment rights, taxing businesses until they're suffocating, and spreading the vile moral decay of the LGBT fascists and abortion, euthanasia, etc.

The Republicans love war. They crave it. They're positively entrenched in the military-industrial complex. They thrive off war and mayhem. They're also corporate goons and they love big business far more than the little guy at the small business level.

So really I like to think about movies to imagine the parties. Anybody remember the movie "Alien"? Anyone? Well, the premise is fascinating. You take a giant spaceship. You pay a small crew to go far into the edge of the galaxy to a planet rich in mineral ore. The miners on the planet load the ore into your ship. You carry it back to Earth. It's a super long haul that takes literally over a year to travel, so you have to sleep during the return trip. You get a decent paycheck upon return. But what you don't expect is the ship is detoured to a mysterious planet by the ship's computer. The crew is told to go down to the planet and help the people on the surface since there is a distress call. It's absolutely required. What ensues is a crewman is afflicted with an alien parasite that gets into his chest and the alien comes aboard and wrecks total hell on everyone...one slaughter after another. We find out that the alien was WANTED by the company that sent the ship there! They intended for a crewman to get infected and die, and they want the alien as a bio-weapon for pure profit on Earth. $$$$$$$$$$$.

THAT IS THE REPUBLICANS. Profit comes first. Death is just an unfortunate side effect of profit margins. Worker is expendable.

When you watch "The Goonies," those TOTAL JERK real estate scumbags trying to take away all the homes of the Goonies' parents, kicking them out on the streets so they can build a rich man's racket club there, THOSE ARE REPUBLICANS!

Or take a movie like Erin Brockovich....PG&E are obviously the Republican scumbags in that flick!

If an insurance company is trying to not cover someone or worm out and let someone die, it's pretty Republican.
The government wanting to register mutants in the X-MEN and you have the GOP ^_^

The dirtbags in "Jaws" who know there is a great white killer shark in the waters, but want to keep the beach open for business anyway? Republicans! ^_^

Then let's take the Democrats!

Basically any movie you can think of where the government spies on people, there is communism, or societal degenerates, and you have liberals.

American Pie--liberals
Ed Wood--cross-dressing film director---liberal LOL
The entire Federation of Star Fleet in Star Trek
All the police chiefs and powers-that-be in the Dirty Harry movies who try to stop Harry from doing anything to catch cold-blooded killers
The morons in the Road Warrior who are willing to give up their oil refinery and gas trusting the Humungous hordes will give them safe passage into the waste land! :confused::eek::p:p:p
All the horny camp counselors of the Friday the 13th flicks
The government jerks in E.T. that wanted to capture the poor alien
The crazy mystic lady in Poltergeist
All the big government conspirators in all X-Files shows and flicks
Any and everyone even loosely related to "The Crying Game"
The E.P.A. jerk, "Peck" in Ghostbusters who wanted to shut down their reactor
All the liberal morons in "Red Dawn"
Any corrupt trial lawyer you've ever seen in any movie ever
All of the characters from Fifty Shades of Grey

Honestly, if you look at liberals and conservatives, they're pretty bizarre. Normalcy, balance, equilibrium, peace, truth lay somewhere in the middle. Hudge and Pudge, right, Rus? ;)

In the end the Fed, the petrodollar, international bankers all run the country. The illusion is thinking our votes matter anyway!





There are different types of libertarianism. Right wing libertarianism is Ayn Randism. Left wing is a whole other kettle of fish.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,273
Central California
✟274,079.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, those "some" folks are real jerks. I hear ya, Greg! To heck with those people! So narrow minded! It's a good thing the others complaining about conservatives don't feel their position is the only one!

I'm bowing out too, some here just don't want to listen and think their position is the only possible one.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,404
5,021
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,711.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm bowing out too, some here just don't want to listen and think their position is the only possible one.
Everyone thinks they are right. As someone (ahem!) once said,
At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic
and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one
comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not
be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it his not his view.
I don't think ANYONE here thinks their own position "the only possible one". We know there are other positions. What you seem to be complaining about is that other people besides yourself have the temerity to think they are right. We ALL think we are right. That is given. It may be, that two or three times a decade, someone here may come to be convinced by words that he or she was wrong, and change how they think. I know that Steve Robinson positively convinced me that I was wrong about the death penalty, so I know it can happen - even to me. I am not shocked that you think you are right, or that gzt thinks he is right, etc. the positions are not equal; one is pretty certainly more mistaken than the other. We merely disagree on which one that is. We either present an effective argument, or we deny the claim, a la Luke Skywalker's anguished "No! That's not true! That's impossible!" (I'd note that Vader's argument of " search your feelings" is highly dependent on a mystical Force that will really tell us the truth through our feelings, something always affirmed in our Holy... Uh, wait. Never mind.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,404
5,021
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,711.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I think, and perhaps Rus will concur, that any philosophical system is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.
I think you mean political system here, but yes.
We speak of "the Kingdom of Heaven". A "monarchy" with God as the Monarch is obviously what is intended. But not even really a human monarchy in the Fallen order.
Look at the OT.
God tries to set up the Israelites under Judges. But they won't have it. They want to copy the kingdoms and kings of this world.
Democracy can only work as long as the people acknowledge God. When that ceases, the democracy crumbles. And under individualism in our time, it is simply disastrous. All human efforts must fail like the Tower of Babel.

Hudge and Pudge, right, Rus? ;)
I oughtta clobber you!! ;)
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
haha, i always chuckle when people frustratedly tell me "you think your opinion is right!" -- well yes, lil' lassie, that's why it's my opinion ;). what they're really saying is "i'm so angry that you won't just roll over and accept anything i say!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,404
5,021
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,711.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I think your last paragraph summarizes what I took with issue with in your original comment. Granted, such an attitude may be the case with a lot of libertarians in this country, but I don't think indifferent selfishness and relativism is what defines libertarianism - Tolkien, if I remember correctly, once commented that anarchism appealed to him a great deal. Tolkien certainly wasn't an atheist, a secularist, stupid, or a follower of Rand, and I doubt he was exceptionally more selfish or egotistical than the rest of us.
My point is that libertarianism is a question of the proper level of involvement in society on the part of coercive state power, with the answer that it is better (even imperative) that the state not be the instrument by which we address a lot of issues. So, it's unfair to reject it as unchristian if you're doing so on the basis that's it's founded in relativism, apathy, and selfishness.

What Tolkien meant was that we ought to govern ourselves. That is what we are called to do, especially as Christians. But in the Fallen order, anarchy doesn't work. As an ideal, it is useless without Christ and submission to God, and so, whoever are the strongest around will still wind up ruling, only lawlessly. I think even Tolkien was assuming an environment of general Christian morality, if not faith.
All law is coercion, or it means nothing. Men OUGHT to be coerced not to steal, etc, and very few men are actually committed to the Christian ideal; still fewer fulfill it. And we must live among them, and raise our children among them. The libertarian idea is based solidly on the individual with no consideration of community; I think the concept is ultimately even anti-Catholic, as individualism is a product of the so-called Reformation that reformed nothing. THAT is the basis I would reject it on. Any society MUST coerce its members, either in compulsion or restraint, in order to maintain the society. And if one thinks society need not be maintained, there are always barbarians ready to convince one otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,404
5,021
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟434,711.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes, a government should live Christian ethics in the sense that it ought not to promote evil, but not in the sense that it must legally enforce morality in all cases - I, for one would, certainly not want to live under a state with that kind of totalitarian control, Christian or not.
We must bring Christian morality to the world, but that does not mean that we must use the state to do it in all cases. If I don't believe drug use, adultery, fornication, masturbation, lying, cruelty, lack of charity, or what have you should be illegal, that doesn't mean I'm apathetic on those issues and don't seek to change the culture and lead people to the truth - just that I don't think it's right/a good idea for the government to be the one to do that. It's a mistake to think "this is bad, the government ought to be prevent it/this is good, the government ought to do it." After all, the full implementation of that idea would be totalitarian socialism...



I disagree.



If one believes it's better that the state not being involved in something, why does that imply he is apathetic on the matter and doesn't think it should be addressed in other ways? It's one thing to tolerate something (in the proper sense of that word) at a legal level and abstain from using a particular means of addressing it - that's not necessarily founded in relativism or apathy.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on all the issues you mentioned (abortion I certainly agree with you on, and I agree as regards gay marriage to the extent that the state does recognize marriage to begin with).



Are you talking about people who think legal marriage should not be limited to men and women couples, or people who think there simply shouldn't be civil marriage?



I was referring to your statement that it encapsulates the stupidity of secular humanism. Didn't take it as a personal slight - no worries =).



Haha making my way through The Two Towers at the moment, actually. My point was simply to use Tolkien as an example of a great Christian figure who seems to have had libertarian or anarchist leanings (which was, as such, not founded in moral apathy or secular humanism).

The thing that it seems everyone is missing is that law is a secondary thing. The first barrier against the proliferation of public tolerance of immorality is social disapproval; as long as a people has the common sense to recognize that a behavior is wrong and harmful (speaking of the evils that don't have immediate and obvious victims), people will do the evils in secret, in closets and in darkness. Law becomes necessary only when they insist on performing them in public. So we do not desire governmental interference as a rule, we require it as a desperate and exceptional measure when the first barrier begins to break down, when public disapproval cannot or will not restrain the public practice of the evil, or disappears altogether (in which case both the law's and the society's days are numbered).

And we're NOT talking about public disapproval of Joe Schmoe, we're talking about public disapproval of masturbation, drunkenness and so on, what I spoke of as social stigma directed against behaviors, not individuals. When that fails, the society is threatened by moral breakdown, and appeal to law to restrain that, governmental force to discourage it, is legitimate.

This need is always going to exist, as long as we have a Fallen nature, simply to escape chaos in the temporal world. And that's not totalitarianism, that's just the law and order of normal human civilization. Sure, it can become totalitarianism, just as it can become anarchy, and I'll add here that genuine anarchy is the most fearsome of states, for it means no law and order. So I am not saying we need or want the government to regulate all matters of public morality; generally speaking, it should only do so when breakdown is evident.

On the family and marriage, the state has a vested interest in the family (as defined in the Christian sense), and so it is clear why the state would normally be expected to recognize and support legitimate marriage, though not to be the determiner of marriage. It ought to go without saying that there ought be no such thing as "civil unions"; a need to say that would indicate a loss of the Christian sense of the family.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums