In a discussion on a political forum with some folks who could be regarded as moderately theocratic if not borderline Dominionist a poster named Inibo mentioned his admiration for Chuck Baldwin, but his misgivings about the Constitution Party itself. Part of their platform reads:
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Inibo remarked that for those of us who are not Christians, and for some who are, that is some scary stuff.
A fellow named WRellim replied:
Go read some history then... it is not altogether that different from the various speeches and writings of a number of "classic" American political figures (including many of the founding fathers).
Inibo said he had no problem with people who believe that Jesus is King of America, he used to believe it himself. His problem is with people who want to enshrine it in law. The Constitution Party is flirting with Dominion Theology. Judged by R.J. Rushdoony's standards Inibo said he would be regarded as a heretic at best, more than likely an apostate, and his spiritual practice would be classified as sorcery or witchcraft. He said to excuse him if he's a little reluctant to lend his support to an ideology that says he should be put to death for something that is none of anyone's business but his own.
Someone named Peace&Freedom joined in:
Actually, Christian/biblical doctrines WERE enshrined in early American law, in the early treaties and several state constitutions. Somehow the galaxies didn't explode, and liberty flourished. The founders (except for Paine) were probably closer to the Dominionism you speak of than the draconian secular theocracy being pushed nowadays. How is the modern high holy doctrine of mass abortion, that legalized child-killing is all hunky-dory, an improvement over extreme opposition to sorcery?
Yes, it's true Jefferson supported a law in 1786 calling for the castration of male homosexuals, but that's about as bad as it ever got. Biblically based government is not incompatible with liberty, in fact it is structurally the foundation for the liberty concepts founding America and the English common law. It is the current authoritarian version peddled by the Huckabees et al that is the problem. The assertion of man-based tyranny merely CLOAKED in Christian or secular garb leads to disaster, whether humanist or God-based in rhetoric.
A bit of potent reality from UnReconstructed cut right to the core for probably more people than anyone cares to realize:
Why even have a party? I'm not a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian or a Constitutionite (don't know what they call themselves). I'm just me... a pissed off Southern White Male that wants to be left the hell alone.
None of these groups represent me fully so I subscribe to none of them.
That was curiously refreshing.
Inibo said he had problems with both the CP and the LP (not to mention the Democrats or a Republicans).
He said his partners in this conversation seem to have set up a false dichotomy were the only alternatives are either abortion-on-demand or "extreme opposition to sorcery." How about neither?
He asks straight out: should consensual homosexual behavior, non-violent witchcraft and recreational drug use be considered crimes under civil law?
Actually, the dichotomy you are citing is set up by the parties, not by me.
Inibo pointed it was Peace&Freedom who asked "How is the modern high holy doctrine of mass abortion, that legalized child-killing is all hunky-dory, an improvement over extreme opposition to sorcery?" He said whether intentional or not that certainly seems to imply that the only way to be safe from one is to allow the other and WRellim seemed to be in agreement with him--at least generally speaking.
And I think you are the one constructing fabricated extreme scenarios... but for the sake of debate, I will play along.
Civil law at what level, Federal, State, or Local?
Inibo said any level. At what level does government have a right to interfere in non-violent consensual behavior?
Inibo said that he subscribed to the Zero Aggression Principle and the Philosophy of Liberty.
Next Inibo gave an exposition on the libertarian nature of the Ten Commandments:
In that respect I do accept Biblical principles in that those of the (Protestant) Ten Commandments which apply to relations between people--6, 8 and 9 (violence, theft and fraud)--are crimes against life, liberty and property and should be either punished or recompensed. These things are crimes, not because the Bible tells me so, but because they violate individual sovereignty. Had the Bible never been written they would still be crimes.
The others which are not specifically Godward--5, 7 and 10 (filial and maternal piety, adultery and envy)--are simply a good way to live and conducive to a harmonious life. Violating them brings their own punishment in the form of misery and discord. Again, had the Bible never been written this would still be true. In that respect they are spiritual failings, but not crimes--though it could be argued adultery has to do with fraud if it involves deception or the violation of a voluntary contract.
1, 2, 3 and 4 (Faithfulness, idolatry, blasphemy and ritual observance) are matters of one's understanding of and relation to deity and consequently the concern of the individual and deity and nobody else's business, especially not the business of someone who has a different opinion of what they comprise.
I do not discount the Bible, I just do not regard it in accordance with the Five Fundamentals.
For the reader who has gotten thus far Inibo's Ten Commandments are the point of this post. Can they be stripped of their obvious cultural and religious context and stand alone as a monument to libertarian ideals in and of themselves? More particularly do they convey the same core ethos of the One Rule?