Comment: Liberty ...

(See in situ)

Liberty ...

... is a political movement, not a religious one. I find it interesting that it is almost always the theists who push their views, not atheists, and then theists complain of atheists doing something wrong.

On internet forums, there are trolls on both sides. But when it comes to the real world, it is the theists who are insisting that their prayers be said in Congress, that their god be recognized in government schools, their words be inscribed on government buildings, their symbols be erected on government property, their holidays observed by government decree, their ideas inscribed on government-approved money, their houses of worship be given special government tax privileges, and their "law" being implemented in government's law.

The atheists are not demanding any of these things, but are simply reacting to the theists demands.

You rarely hear atheists standing in the public square shouting their ideas. You don't see them going door-to-door trying to spread their ideas.

It is only theists who push their ideas upon others, using force, if necessary, which is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle.

The American founders struck a reasonable balance: they recognized that many people are religious, have many different views of religion, that not all people are religious, and that history teaches us that theocracies are a bad idea; therefore, government should be neutral.

I find it appalling that theists constantly want to inject their irrational religious views upon others in topics of conversation that have nothing to do with religion, and support the idea that government should promote their brand of religion. Then, they have the gall to whine when other theists (Muslims) want to do the very same thing.

How would Christians feel if Muslims were to get Islamic prayer in the schools and Congress (5 times each day), and Allah on the government money, and mosques getting tax exemptions while churches pay income tax, and Mohammad on government lawns, and Sharia law implemented, and see Muslims act offended anytime a Walmart greeter did not say, "Allah Akbar" when customers enter? Christians b**ch and moan on a regular basis when atheists, Muslims, Hindus and others object to the Christian version of these things that are mandated by government decree or pushed by Christian do-gooders.

If the pursuit is liberty, leave religion out of it because it is counter-productive. I have supported Ron Paul for years, even though I disagree with him about religion, because he NEVER wears his religion on his sleeve. When asked, he gives his honest answer. But he is not the one who brings it up or mentions it in speeches.

If Rick Santorum agreed with every political idea that Ron Paul does, but were to couch it in religious overtones the way he does about his conservative ideas, I would probably not support him.

So, which does a theistic libertarian want more: converts to liberty so that he can live his own life as he chooses, or converts to his brand of theism even though it means he will probably never achieve liberty because other types of theists (Muslims) and atheists will fight against his attempts?