In a post titled “Q&A Friday #16: Do Libertarians Have A Beef With Religion?”, John Hawkins answers reader questions. The question today:
Question: “What beef do libertarians have with religion?” — covok48
“I like covak48’s question, “What beef do libertarians have with religion?” That is a very interesting question.” — dshompe
Answer: Truthfully, I don’t think most libertarians have a problem with religion. What ya gotta understand is that libertarians have a political philosophy that in essence almost boils down to “Anything goes” when it comes to social issues…
Of course, there are a VERY small number of people on the right whom I would categorize as overtly hostile to religion. But, the only two who really stand out in my mind are Andrew Sullivan (whom I don’t consider to be conservative anymore) and John Cole of Balloon Juice who gets linked fawningly by the likes of the Daily Kos.
I am not going to even comment in detail about this smear on Andrew Sullivan, who can take care of himself, but I find it the height of absurdity to label a practicing Catholic distraught by some of the actions of his Church as ‘overtly anti-religion.’
Now granted, it was 3:47 am when he wrote it, so he may have been drunk. But let’s clear some things up anyway:
– Disliking a narrow group of people who are overtly hostile to homosexuals under the guise of religious teachings does not make you anti-religion.
– Thinking that teaching creationism or Intelligent Design alongside evolutionary theory is a broadside against science does not make you anti-religion.
– Not wanting government licensed pharmacists to decide what meds you get because of the pharmacist’s beliefs does not make you anti-religion.
– Disagreeing that Democrats opposing the filibuster makes them ‘against faith’ does not make you anti-religion.
– Thinking that specially crafted legislation designed to overturn established law and to intervene in the tragedy of a family crisis as a clear political ploy is wrong is not anti-religion.
– Believing it is wholly inappropriate for certain evangelicals to proselytize during mandatory sessions and encouraging hostility to non-Christians at the Air Force Academy is wrong does not make you anti-religion.
– Recognizing that excommunicating Democrats is wrong does not make you anti-religion.
– Stating that you have no problem with Hindus, Buddhists, and other individuals who don’t practice a Judeo-Christian becoming judges does not make you anti-religion.
Meanwhile, I have no problem with public displays of the Ten Commandments (if the people of Alabama want that, let them), I have no problem with nativity scenes and celbrations of Easter and Christmas and other religious holidays, I have no problem with invocations of God in government rituals, I have no problem with a moment of silence for prayer or reflection in schools, I have no problem with religious people organizing to advance their beliefs or their political opinions, I have no problem with people proselytizing in private settings like my house (Mormons come to mind) or the public square (just not in schools or in official government capacity), I support faith-based initiatives- as long as all religions are given equal footing- in fact I think there should be more public support for the Salvation Army-like organizations and similar charities, and I think people like Donald Sensing (whose sermon I read every Sunday) and those like him are the salt of the earth.
And when I say I have no problem with, I mean that not only do I have no problem with it, I support most of the above-listed endeavors. Clearly I am overtly hostile to religion.
There is most certainly a role for religion in public life, but there should be no role for demanding doctrinal adherence to a narrow brand of Christianity. I am not attacking religion- I am hostile to some ‘religious’ people who are trying to foist on the public a very narrow, intolerant, mean-spirited, and exclusionary version of religion on the American people. But then again, maybe I am just under the misguided impression that all of the above behaviors are not very ‘Christian’ at all.
Yes, I have been writing almost daily about the atrocious excesses of some individuals- but I don’t make the news, and I most certainly am not responsible for their inappropriate and offensive behavior. I am also dismayed by the people who continue to run political cover for these few vocal zealots (by, say, smearing people who raise legitimate greivances are ‘overtly anti-religion,’) because I recognize where this is heading.
Just my two cents.
*** Update ***
I see I have also caught the attention of the wild-eyed Hundred Percenter, otherwise known as “He with the Spit Fleckled Monitor.” Apparently I am a Republicrat. At any rate, If you want some fun, go poke some fun at the retina-burning layout of his site, which most closely resembles the geocities layouts circa 1994 that are still fashionable with lunatics of all stripes.
J Caesar
Don’t you realize that God gave these people his permission to shove their interpretation of the Bible down your throat. It is there sworn duty, and should they fail they will burn in Hell.
By denying their right to tell you what to do, you are being anti-religious.
LOL!
TJ Jackson
You mean you don’t approve of a government licensed butcher who refuses to sell pork because he adheres to Jewish religious law? How does this differ from a druggist who refuses to sell abortion pills? Or forcing someone to rent to a deviant when that is contrary to a person’s religious beliefs? I guess there are certain types of bigotry that are perfectly acceptable.
When the government decided to engage in social engineering it made for a less civil rather than better society.
RheGirl
Watch him start trolling your comments now. Some “Christian.”
Justin Faulkner
I think that was a remarkably immature and cruel attack on you and Andrew Sullivan. You and he are two of the most coherent and principled bloggers around, and there could be no better spokespersons for conservatism.
Most of that screed depends on one faulty assumption: that all “religion” is right-wing Christian fundamentalism. Unfortunately, it’s an assumption that is gaining traction.
JKC
TJ:
The only “abortion pill” aproved for use in the US is RU-486. I think you are referring to oral contraceptives, which do NOT cause abortions. They prevent pregnancies.
Though you might want to know the difference, lest people think that you’re…. well, stupid or something.
The DV
John Hawkins does not appear to actually serve a purpose beyond being a shill for the conservative movement. Apparently he belongs to the school of thought which holds that you don’t need arguments, only opinionshttp://bhutannica.blogspot.com/.
Rick
Oh, and Sullivan, Instapundit, Kos, Ace, Atrios, Kaus et al–and let’s not forget our esteemed John–serve an elevated purpose?
Please.
Cordially…
John Cole
I am a shill for no one but me.
Beat that.
Orac
Geez, that “Hundred percenter” sure likes strawman arguments. He claims that Libertarians sneer at social conservatives because they believe in “God and country.”
Wrong. Many Libertarians believe in “God and country,” as well.
No, Libertarians sneer at social conservatives of his ilk because they want to force the rest of us to live under laws inspired by an interpretation of the Bible that most of us don’t share.
Libertine
It is very predictable that you got smeared John. If a person resists the wingnuts move to replace the Constitution with the Bible that person becomes “anti-religion”. What the wingnuts, in their infinite ignorance, fail to realize that by wanting to keep religion and government separate is an effort to actually protect all religion. And that is the rub…the pro-religious forces don’t want to see all religions protected, they just want to see their particular religious sect promoted.
I adhere to a libertatian philosophy. I am completely against mixing religion and politics but I will fight for any persons right to worship their religion freely…but what the wingnuts are doing is the exact opposite, they want to limit everybody else’s freedom of religion by wanting government to favor their dogmas.
I enjoy reading your posts…I just wish that the GOP positions were closer to yours., I might actually start voting for GOP candidates But until the GOP changes I will have no choice to vote for the only non-theocratic party, the Democrats.
Justin Faulkner
That’s what I was thinking, Libertine. If the GOP practiced real conservatism (or liberalism for that matter), as opposed to corporatism, I would vote for them. Of course I realize that’s a bit circular, because human beings define ideology. Today’s conservatism in the US is that of the religious right.
Libertine
Ahhhh…real “conservatism”? Didn’t that die with Goldwater?
There is no more conservatism on the political right…just right wing, big government, fiscally irresponsible, military adventurous, activism.
But the wingnuts keep the GOP in power…and also there is money to be made off of them…a la “Passion of the Christ”.
Praise the Lord as the congregation fill the corporate coffers. I am waiting for the Jesus bobblehead dolls craze to happen…because we all know that God wants us to have earthly wealth and power by invoking his name.
Christie S.
::grin:: I’m with Libertine, John…run for some office. I’d vote for you! Common sense, common sense..my vote for some common sense.
Jeff Altemus
John,
Couldn’t agree more.
And you bring up a good point: Why is it that nutjobs insist on cheesily-designed, hard-to-read websites? Is it akin to running into someone with bad breath and no one wants to be the one to tell them? What gives?