20 votes

Judge Napolitano: Why You Can Be a Libertarian And Still Be Religious

Judge Napolitano: Why You Can Be a Libertarian And Still Be Religious

http://youtu.be/jzBvex-AxJ8

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Perfect Law

James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

The problem isn't Faith, the problem is the way the Church, and other institutions, have turned themselves away from their writings and have become the Pharisees and Saducees.

Christ was maligned for silly things, like hanging out with Wine Drinkers, when His 1st miracle was to turn water to wine. Today, many churches look down their noses at Drink... they are hypocrites.
They are too quick to judge on stupid crap, yet allow their churches to go into debt, which has actual guidance against in the Word.

It boils down to whether or not ones actions constitute a sin against another.
If there is no sin, there is no rationale for concern.

would the Libertarian Party of Illinois then..

....put me up as a candidate against Dick Durbin for US Senator in 2014?

I know enough about the fundamentals of my personal faith, that I have plenty in common with agnostics and atheists who are disgusted with the obvious hypocrisy of Christian Republicans.

My faith helps me practice personal self-restraint, that's all...it also helps me discern how and why the simple are deceived by men who serve not God(or their own constituents), but their own bellies, in both religious and political circles.

i can't down-vote the judge but

i won't up-vote him on this.
it seems so obvious to me. if you were born in america and are born to christian parents you will probably be Christian too unless you reject religion all together or marry into another religion ie g beck. if you were born in Israel to Jewish parents you and your kids will most likely worship the same. if you were born in the middle east to Muslims parents then there is a very high probability you will be a Muslim when you grow up. it gets worse because depending on what particular region of these places you were born often times determines what sect of Muslim (Wohabist, Sunni or Shiite) you will be and think all the other sects are wrong and your sect is right. same with America and southern baptist and the 10,000's of other Christian sects/denominations that all think they have it figured out and everyone else is wrong and may go to hell for not doing things exactly like they do.

"National institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Thomas Paine

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

Most of what you said is true, but...

If you were born in the Soviet Union, you would be a lot more likely to support Marxism than if you were born in the U.S. If you were born in China, you would most likely grow up with a respect and admiration for Chairman Mao (I know my Chinese roommate has from being brainwashed in school), if you grew up in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Africa, your political views would most likely lean theocratic, if you grew up in Norway, you would most likely be a democratic socialist. Furthermore, a person that grows up in a libertarian home is a lot more likely to support libertarianism as an adult than someone who grows up in a non-libertarian home.

Just because a person is taught classical liberalism at home and becomes a libertarian does not make libertarian truth irrelevant. True - if that libertarian had grown up in a pro-welfare, pro-Keynesian, Progressive home, that person's political views would most likely match the politics of the environment in which he grew up. The same goes for faith. Just because you're raised a certain way doesn't mean your parents had the truth about God. Likewise, just because you grew up to believe a certain way doesn't mean you have the truth (just like the libertarian with libertarian parents).

Agnostic here...

I was wondering if someone religious could address the similarities/differences between state worship and religious worship. For me, the questioning of the state and questioning religion are similar endeavors. It surprises me that many libertarians are extremely successful when it comes to using logic and evidence to debunk the state, but choose not apply the same methods when it comes to religion.

I am not attempting to be confrontational here, I simply don't understand. I truly would like to understand, and if someone could help me see why religion is different than other forms of "blind faith", such as blind allegiance to a nation, perhaps it would help me to feel more comfortable when standing alongside my fellow libertarians that happen to be Christian. Thanks.

Governments are

made of mortal, sinful men. God is holy, pure, righteous, and just. It's easy to question government since governments are run by sinners like us. But, the Creator if the universe cannot sin since obviously, the Creator being in charge defines sin. So, how do we know there is a Creator in the first place? I see it plain in the fact that we have a conscience.

Romans 1:19-20
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [people]; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

You may find Lee Strobel's

You may find Lee Strobel's books like 'The Case for Christ' interesting. I would recommend them if for nothing more then to get a different point of view. Mr. Strobel worked for the Chicago Tribune as a journalist and spent two years researching the evidence for Christ. He was not a Christian when he undertook his research on the subject, but grew curious because his girlfriend happened to be a Christian and he wanted to challenge the belief system I guess. Something like that :P Anyway, I recommend his books because I found them pretty interesting.

tasmlab's picture

With all the sweetness and respect...

This is a secondary, counter-recommendation for AtticusDeep:

My sister requested that I read "The case for Christ' and "The Case for a Creator" and I found them dreadful. They are full of logical fallacies, simplistic emotionalism, unconvincing facts, mostly written for children.

The worst part, though, is that Christians who are supposed to rely on 'faith' suddenly get excited or support somebody trying to use fact-based, sensual evidence to make cases for Christ or God. Which way are we trying to go?

Please don't take this as an attack, I know we all have different opinions and preferences.

If you must do Strobel, skip to the summary in the back of the book. He'll neatly outline all of his key points and arguments, and you can skip the tedium of "The professor I was interviewing was bespectacled, with a wise old look on his face. In his office were many scholarly books. He appeared to be a smart man..." etc.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

GoodSamaritan's picture

I think you ask an important question

and I upvoted you for it. Christians are not to follow blindly. In fact, we are commanded in Scripture to question our faith:

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you — unless indeed you fail the test?" 2 Corinthians 13:5

I see little difference between state worship and religious worship or any other kind of worship as far as how we value and act towards the object of our worship. The question becomes, in what or whom does a person place their highest faith and trust? The most common form of worship, IMO, is self-worship. That is, making one's self the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, which replaces God with self.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Since you asked nicely

The fundamental flaw in your question though, is assuming that belief in God/religion must be "blind faith". While there may certainly be those who cling to their religion "blindly" out of a sense of tradition or for other reasons, in my experience, the majority of us believers consider our faith anything but blind. Our dedication comes from experiencing God on various level, in various ways at various times in our lives. Just because this evidence supporting our belief in deity can't be experimented on in a lab doesn't make our faith "blind".

As a result of that, those who have a spiritual conviction regarding their God or religion will not scrutinize it in the same way as they would a secular organization such as government. If for no other reason, it's because they accept on some level that the ways of an omniscient, omnipotent being won't always make sense to mere humans, so it's counterproductive to be overly critical.

That's my 2 paragraph summary of something you could write a book about, but I hope it helps.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" -Thomas Jefferson

Thanks.

I appreciate the reply.

The difference.

The difference is that no one forces you to have faith - that is choosen upon your yourself although yes greatly influenced in ones upbringing. So someone of faith can surely be a Liberterian - that does not mean that someone of faith would endorse gay marriage and such but also does not beleive the government should have the power to shape morals through force. After all God did give us free will - that does not give us a blank check without any laws however the more laws we allow the State to dictate whether moral, social justice or whatever term we like we end up with what we currently have.
Blind faith in the State is fine by me as long as the blindness does not force me to have to support that faith monetarily, socially and such....That is the difference because the state only know how to take and redistribute where as religion you can walk away as your subject may indicate you have done. Not too hard to do but try the same with the State and you may end up in jail.
The State is force!

I appreciate the response.

While I agree that one is not forced and the other is, I do not see that this answers all my questions. For what makes Hinduism, Buddism, and other voluntary religions wrong and Christianity correct. To me they seem to all be manifistations of the same phenomenon.

That aside, thanks for responding, as opposed to just downvoting, as seems to be popular.

GoodSamaritan's picture

There are two very significant differences

between Christianity and every other religion:

1) The truth of Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection of the dead. The Apostle Paul explained this best:

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

2) All religions except Christianity require good works for salvation, however salvation is defined within each religion. The Apostle Paul taught that salvation to eternal life has nothing to do with good works:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

It's what you beleive.

If you beleive in Christianity then you beleive that to be the true faith and there are splits within certain Christain sects as well.
At the end of the day God will be the Judge - As I beleive many, so called Christians are living more against the will of God then those that do not believe nor practice the faith - But who knows what goes throughs ones mind as they take their last breath a possible transformation and enlightenment perhaps?
Whatever you believe live a righteous life.

I can certainly

share the sentiment in your last sentence. If we are in some way "judged" in the end, I imagine the most important factor will be HOW one lived, not where. Thanks for the comment.

The Creed,,,,

“Creed” on the World By Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin

We believe everything is OK as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy’s OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes UFO’s and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher though we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-at least the one that we read was.

They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.

If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson

What’s selected is average.

What’s average is normal.

What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.

We believe there are direct links between warfare and

bloodshed.

Americans should beat their guns into tractors .

And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.

It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.

Society is the fault of conditions.

Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that

is right for him.

Reality will adapt accordingly.

The universe will readjust.

History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth

excepting the truth

that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,

And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be

the Father of all flesh,

disaster is his rainbow in the sky

and when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man

worshipping his maker.

Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? [must read in parenthesis - www.rzim.org]

A good way to defend your freedoms: www.libertymagazine.org

LOL

I like how someone already down voted this post without replying. That's exactly what I am talking about. You'd think I mentioned the Packers on the Patriot's blog or something.

Thanks Judge

Always a pleasure to hear your views.

donvino

I was hoping for more

honestly,

all he did was say that libertarian is not synonymous with atheist.

that he considers himself personally religious

and that jefferson (a historical libertarian) gave credit to the creator when he penned the decl of indp.

that's nice and all.

but it didn't really add much to the discussion for me personally.

I was expecting something along the lines of... libertarians believe whatever they want (religiously speaking). And wouldn't interfere with another's right to the same, as well as their rights to act on those beliefs. So long as such action would not infringe on the liberties of another.