Jim DeMint: Republicans Not Libertarian Enough

[Diogenes]

It is my belief that people should only be required to pay for the NECESSARY expenditures of government. Pretty much nothing but defense and law enforcement. All of this other Liberal social engineering crap is NOT a legitimate function of Government, and people ought to be allowed to refuse to pay for it from their taxes.

If people only had to pay for LEGITIMATE expenditures by government, the Democrat party would cease to exist.

So save your lunch money and move to Somalia where the libertarian ideal of minimalist government is fulfilled. You'll be free of all those horrible communistic Democrats. FREE, FREE, FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

If we keep putting up with them, we are going to have a Somalia right here. One only need look at the impending bankruptcies of states which have followed Democrat Ideas to realize that they are idiocy.

[KitemanSA]

So save your lunch money and move to Somalia where the libertarian ideal of minimalist government is fulfilled. You'll be free of all those horrible communistic Democrats. FREE, FREE, FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Really? Last time I looked they had 10 or 15 competing governments, each wanting to dictate their way to everyone else. Hardly "libertarian" in my understanding. Nonetheless, there are interesting developments that may, in time, actually make Somalia more libertarian than the US, if they can get rid of Shari'a like the US rejected the Inquisition.

(Ok, only about 6, but still)

[Diogenes]

Di,
Too bad you aren't as wise as your namesake

I would point out that eventually even the real Diogenes would have to learn something. He couldn't remain ignorant about everything forever.

When you claim you "know" something, you block any possibility that you may be wrong. He seems to have thought that he MIGHT know things but left the door open to being wrong, he left the door open to learning better. You don't seem to share that wisdom.

You just haven't read enough of my posts. The fact that you so seldom see me admitting i'm wrong is because it is so seldom that I am.

But I am wrong occasionally, and when that happens I say so.

The US was formed as a statistical democatic republic (or vice versa if you wish). The "republic" part was how how governments CRAFTED law, the statistical democracy (rule by concent of the governed) was the fully informed jury. Well, the "statistical democracy" part was killed in the late 1800s by the "republic" part which has been working since that time to enslave us.

Gobbledygook that I don't have the time or inclination to decipher.

Another demonstration that you are not as wise as the man who's name you have besmirtched.

Obviously not. I respond to the prattling of fools. Diogenes wouldn't bother.

Those would be wrong. While it is true that the majority of the people who LIVED in these united States were some form of "Christian", most of the leaders who FORMED these united States into a nation were deist at most, agnostic in the main.

Jefferson was alleged to be a Deist; a charge which he vehemently denied. Thomas Paine was open about his Deism, and of course he was pretty much ran out of the country in fear of his life.

Which seems to be a good reason why most leaders kept their mouths shut in public!

Actually they didn't. Franklin and Washington were quite robust in their praise of God and Providence, as were others. John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Now this is pretty Generic, and not indicative of a Christian bias, but this link pretty much covers Statements of Christianity from the Founders.Let's take Jefferson for Example. Who would have thought the man who was thought to have been a Deist would have said this?

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.64

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.65

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.66

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.67

Just which of the founders are you suggesting were agnostics or Deists? I would point out that in the US Constitution they Exempted the President from working on the Sunday Sabbath and Ended the Document with a reference to Jesus.

I didn't say "totally". No shades of grey in your thought process?

One is either a Deist, or one is not. Where is there room for a shade of gray between one and the other?

By the way, can you point out said "reference to "Jesus". Are you silly enough to equate the use of the term "Year of Our Lord" as a reference to "Jesus" rather than just a standard dating convention? Man, that would be an asinine stretch.

Not at all. It is indicative of just how deeply the Christian philosophy had penetrated through the conscious of that society. It is only "asinine" to you modern wits with your imagined wisdom to whom it is merely a quaint leftover of a bygone era. During that time period it was a genuine recognition of the Supremacy of a Heavenly power above that of the mundane rule by men.

The fact that everything was dated from the time of Christ ought to be a clue to you as to how thoroughly this doctrine penetrated all of European society. It doesn't resonate nowadays, and people no longer remember how things got this way, but at that time, it was the air they breathed.

I find it amusing that Courts can continuously object to Christian influence in government, while "Year of our Lord" is on countless legal documents in their archives.

People misunderstand this issue a lot. The founders took it for granted the nation was "Christian" but they were very much aware that different States were composed of different Christian Denominations, such as the Quakers in Pennsylvania, the Anglicans in Virginia, the Puritans in Massachusetts, and the Catholics in Maryland. The prohibition against Congress making a law "respecting an establishment of religion" was really a practical matter to insure that the fledgling republic would not blow itself apart from Denominational conflicts. (To avoid the Denominational strife which had so rent Europe.)

It was accepted that each state had the right and authority to impose it's own state religion on the population within it's borders, and it wasn't until 1833 that the last state (Massachusetts) gave up it's official establishment of a state religion.

They were very much aware that in the main the inhabitants were some form of "Christian". They were wise to nip what Christians so often do in the bud. People mired in "Christian" thought probably wouldn't have seen the issue.

They knew that to survive as a nation at all, they would have to stick together. As Benjamin Disraeli once said:

"Said Waldershare, 'Sensible men are all of the same religion.' 'And pray what is that' ... 'Sensible men never tell."

The Founders probably all thought they were personally saved, but their good friends and comrades of a different denomination were probably going to h3ll...

If one is arguing with a believer in Islam, it is pointless to cite scripture from the Bible. Arguments are more effective if made in the frame of reference of the recipient. MSimon has long railed about the "progressives" tampering with existing conditions and producing unfortunate results which they did not foresee.

Can I help it if his efforts remind me of theirs? From my perspective, he is behaving like just another "progressive", but with a different agenda.

A soldier acts just like a murderer but with a different agenda. Comparing the two is most questionable logic.

So why then, would you compare the two?

So is comparing someone working toward morality (voluntary action) and someone working toward immorality (subjugation of the populous). But then you seem to be unable to distinguish between the two. So sad.

You may not realize this, but your position on what is or is not morality is a subjective opinion held by yourself, and is not innate in the nature of humanity.

You keep arguing "voluntary action" on the part of those who would use drugs, and I keep arguing that drugs suspend the ability to engage in voluntary action. Any phenomena which shorts circuits the pleasure center of your brain will prohibit you from making rational decisions. If you think i'm wrong about this, just try reciting the pledge of allegiance while an attractive someone is giving you a blowjob.

[Diogenes]

Jefferson was alleged to be a Deist; a charge which he vehemently denied. Thomas Paine was open about his Deism, and of course he was pretty much ran out of the country in fear of his life. Just which of the founders are you suggesting were agnostics or Deists? I would point out that in the US Constitution they Exempted the President from working on the Sunday Sabbath and Ended the Document with a reference to Jesus

Just as you noted, if you deny religion or religous beliefs, you get the Thomas Paine treatment. Jefferson probably denied the charge to save himself socially, politically, and physically. He was known to rework the bible, removing references to "supernatural" events and sections of the New Testament. That generally would be the definition of a deist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

I have no issues with "Deism". When I was young, I never understood the point of Jesus when we supposedly had God the father. (Yahweh)

So God had a son. Why should we pay more attention to the son than the father? It never made any sense to me.

I would not be surprised if Jefferson was actually a deist (like I said, it didn't make sense to me either) but made efforts to hide this from his constituency.

I will say that it is not unusual for the pervasive public opinion on something to overwhelm the rest of the population who may not be convinced, to go along with it because to do otherwise will cause them problems. (Indeed, this is why people used to regard both Homosexuality and Pedophilia as sicknesses, but now they only do so for Pedophilia. The Common consensus has shifted, and people better agree with it (even though it is inconsistent) or they will be ostracized.)

Christianity (or some other equivalent) is an example of such a phenomena which I think serves more benefit than detriment. A lot of more mainstream Christian denominations have nothing but disdain for the Later Day Saints (Mormons) but from everything i've seen about them, they are doing an admirable job at taking care of their earthly responsibilities. They are Generous and Hard working, and more often than not, successful.

Many other denominations would do well to follow the example set by the Mormons. Because of the benefits their religion yields, does it really matter or not if Joseph Smith actually was given gold plates by the Angel Moroni ?

The Santa Clause effect works. People shouldn't interfere with it when it is benevolent.

[ScottL]

If you have no issue with Kite's claim that many founding fathers were Deists, then why did you bring this up? You neither furthered nor refuted the case for seperation. Seemed like an off-topic remark I suppose.

[Diogenes]

If you have no issue with Kite's claim that many founding fathers were Deists, then why did you bring this up?

I said it wouldn't bother me if it were true. I didn't say it was true.

You neither furthered nor refuted the case for seperation. Seemed like an off-topic remark I suppose.

These postings are all continuations of ongoing discussions. Often more than one component at a time is examined, and the focus often drifts from one aspect to another.

My commentary was a continuation of my point that Judeo-Christian principles and philosophy is how we reached this pinnacle of human achievement in the first place. I have long argued that if we didn't have these principles, we would have remained in the same sort of social (and technological) stagnation as did the Romans or the Chinese.

I further point out that the source of these principles does not need to be true, it is only necessary that people believe it to be true. Whether Moses parted the Red sea, or Christ walked on water doesn't really matter so long as the effect of believing such a thing causes people to behave themselves and form civil societies.

It is the "Santa Clause effect," and it's a good thing.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

You just haven't read enough of my posts. The fact that you so seldom see me admitting i'm wrong is because it is so seldom that I am.

No one is so blind as he who WILL not see.

Jefferson was alleged to be a Deist; a charge which he vehemently denied. Thomas Paine was open about his Deism, and of course he was pretty much ran out of the country in fear of his life.

Which seems to be a good reason why most leaders kept their mouths shut in public!

Actually they didn't. Franklin and Washington were quite robust in their praise of God and Providence, as were others. John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Now this is pretty Generic, and not indicative of a Christian bias, but this link pretty much covers Statements of Christianity from the Founders.Let's take Jefferson for Example. Who would have thought the man who was thought to have been a Deist would have said this?

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.64

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.65

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.66

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.67

Sounds like quotes from his day book. If so, they are sayings by OTHER people that he thought interesting.
And read in its whole, it suggests that since he found such saying interesting, he was NOT what was considered "Christian" at the time. He was the follower of a thought, a philosophy, one that can be found in the teachings of Christ (and several others) but which has been lost to the Roman church and it's devolutionary ilk. Every quote makes a specific clarification about the meaning of the writer that deviated from what was typically CALLED Christian.

Just which of the founders are you suggesting were agnostics or Deists? I would point out that in the US Constitution they Exempted the President from working on the Sunday Sabbath and Ended the Document with a reference to Jesus.

I didn't say "totally". No shades of grey in your thought process?

One is either a Deist, or one is not. Where is there room for a shade of gray between one and the other?

Right, but "leaders" is PLURAL, not singular. MANY can be part deist and part Christian. I didn't say that EVERY leader was deist, but on the whole they were not "Christian" as was understood at the time.

By the way, can you point out said "reference to "Jesus". Are you silly enough to equate the use of the term "Year of Our Lord" as a reference to "Jesus" rather than just a standard dating convention? Man, that would be an asinine stretch.

Not at all. It is indicative of just how deeply the Christian philosophy had penetrated through the conscious of that society. It is only "asinine" to you modern wits with your imagined wisdom to whom it is merely a quaint leftover of a bygone era. During that time period it was a genuine recognition of the Supremacy of a Heavenly power above that of the mundane rule by men.

It was the standard way of defining the year. It is equivalent to my saying 1962 AD. AD means "Anno Domini" or year of our lord. It is JUST a lable.
It wasn't until VERY recently that enough NON-Christians got sick of it and the world of science settled on CE (Common Era or Christian Era, depending on the intent of the writer.) Saying that I am "Christian" because I use the symology AD is ludicrous. Imputing anything about the state of the religious belief of the writer of that particular passage of the Constitution is equally ludicrous.

The fact that everything was dated from the time of Christ ought to be a clue to you as to how thoroughly this doctrine penetrated all of European society. It doesn't resonate nowadays, and people no longer remember how things got this way, but at that time, it was the air they breathed.

To a LARGE extent, it was the air they were ESCAPING.

I find it amusing that Courts can continuously object to Christian influence in government, while "Year of our Lord" is on countless legal documents in their archives.

And here I thought that "Ludacris" was a rapper.