[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

Thanks for the clarification Mike, now I think I understand where you stand.
I also know some of these devoutly religious christian families who
also are libertarians. Let's call them libertarian christians for
short. But I also know, as I am sure do you, many christians of a very
different sort, who launch jihads against everyone who does not think
exactly like them, and want to subject everyone else to their rule.
Let's call them totalitarian christians (for those who don't like my
using the term taliban).
Actually, I know many more totalitarian christians than libertarian
christians. That may depend on the fact that I live in Southern
Europe, where they had a majority for centuries. Now, I am sure you
will remind me that this is perhaps not the case in Northern Europe,
and definitely not the case in the US. I don't know enough American
history to answer that but, on the basis of what I read in the press
of both sides of the Atlantic, I fear that totalitarian christians
have much more influences than libertarian christians on the policies
of the current US administration.
When you say "no taxes for abortion and stem cell research", as a
libertarian you only object to forcing people to pay taxes to support
things they don't like, not to abortion and stem cell research as
such. But I have the unpleasant feeling that those who currently shape
policies in the US are only against abortion and stem cell research,
and not at all against forcing people to pay taxes to support things
they don't like. Just give them power and time, and they will force
citizens to pay MORE taxes to support developing creationist curricula
for high schools, monitoring who goes to church and who does not, and
launching holy wars against infidels.
Think of it.
G.


On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:25:34 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I also stand behind anybody who peacefully practices their faith
> > (including atheism).
> > My main  point, which perhaps I have not expressed clearly enough, is
> > this: politics created strange bedfellows, and I have the impression
> > that you are now seeing christian *fundamentalists* as allies of
> > libertarians in US politics (a couple of weeks ago a guy posted a
> > very interesting explanation of how christian *fundamentalists* and
> > libertarians manage to peacefully coexist in the Republican party).
> > And I wish to warn you that, in my opinion, some of them, including
> > some very close to the political powers that be, do not limit
> > themselves to peacefully practicing their faith, but actively try
> > to force their faith
> > upon everyone else. The fact that they are in power makes them
> > dangerous. Especially dangerous for Extropians when they try to shut
> > down all medical research which could lead to human enhancement.
> 
> I know several devoutly religious christian families who also are
> libertarians. In their opinion, a true christian SHOULD be a
> libertarian, and in their opinion is why one can believe that the US
> was founded by christians, based on christian precepts, while at the
> same time embracing tolerance and respect for other faiths. They find
> that christianity is:
> a) an inherently personal faith of a personal relationship with christ,
> which cannot be imposed by government, but at the same time cannot be
> suppressed by government restrictions on people testifying to their
> faith.
> b) a faith that requires that individuals be free to choose to sin or
> not, provided only that they do not harm others (an incredibly
> important caveat). Victimless "crimes" therefore, should not be
> regulated or prosecuted by the state, morality should not be
> legislated. If you are prevented by the state from choosing to sin or
> not, then you cannot attain grace through virtue.
> 
> Just as it is wrong for the state to impose morality, it is even more
> wrong for the state to impose sin upon persons of faith. Forcing a
> person to pay money in taxes, which are spent on what that persons
> faith tells them is murder, is inherently wrong. For that reason, state
> subsidies for abortion or stem cell research that aborts fetuses, is
> also inherently wrong, no matter how beneficial you or I believe that
> research is. If you believe it is beneficial, you should pay for it.
> 
> At the same time, until science can prove that a fetus is a person, it
> would be wrong for government to impose the morality of banning
> abortion. Because of the prevalence of premee births, third trimester
> abortion is rightly regulated and/or banned. Because of the proven lack
> of neural development in first trimester fetuses, abortion is rightly
> unregulated during that period. The rest is grey area left to science
> to prove or disprove.
> 
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
>                                       -William Pitt (1759-1806)
> Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism