any libertarian who makes public prayer a litmus test isn?t serious about the country?s problems or libertarianism

It’s hypocritical to say that one believes in maximizing freedom, and then disrespect another persons expression of individual liberty.

Of the government choosing winners and losers.

ensuring that this is adhered to requires that government not be in the business of enforcing faux secularism on public officials and students,

Liberty means having the freedom to worship, or not worship, as one pleases. There is nothing wrong with a parents desire for their child to have the freedom to express their faith in the classroom, just as there is nothing wrong with a parent wanting faith to be separate from the classroom.. Unfortunately, because of the government monopoly in education, just like any issue that becomes politicized, one side wins, and one side loses.

(Sorry about the upcoming thread jack)

The debate over school prayer shouldn’t really be about school prayer. The debate should be about the conditions leading to the the debate over school prayer, which is the governments involvement in education, and having an educational system where their is no loser. School choice is the only way to provide that freedom, because a parent who wants religion to become a greater part of their childs education, would have the freedom to do so. A parent who doesn’t want their child exposed to faith, in any way, shape, or form, would have the freedom to send their child to a purely secular school. Both sets of parents get what they want, with out infringing on the freedoms of the other.

After reading over the website, I had no idea the level of which Perry is involved in this event. It’s not as innocent as simply speaking at an event.

Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding. Because Perry is the organizer of this event, if any of the speakers are advocating a greater role for faith in the political arena, as opposed to our private, personal lives, then this is Perry crossing a line.

I would have preferred if Perry had offered to speak at an event sponsored by others, rather than having people speak at an event sponsored by Perry.

Bill, what ever you want to call it, this is Perry’s event. Fine, maybe he’s not officially “organizing” The Response, but it’s his baby in the same way The Restoring Honor rally, was Glenn Beck’s baby.

I’m not disputing your statement about the moral fabric of the country. This absolutely supports the need for more faith in the public arena, but not the political arena. Perry’s faith is not at issue. Perry talking about his faith is not at issue. But, if the message sent from his event advocates a greater role for religious institutions in national affairs, then this is an issue.

Bill, please understand my perspective on this. My position on religion and politics is that the role of government should not suppress the expression of religious faith. Restricted this form of expression, is a restriction on freedom. At the same time, using faith to advocate a political agenda does restrict freedom.

History has proven time, and time again, that political power and the institutions of faith destroys freedom. Monarchs have always claimed to speak on the behalf of God, and the role of the church was highly influential in politics. This has always led to the manipulation of individual faith as a means to a political end.

If their is one thing that is universal regarding politicians, is that they lie and should not be trusted. While their may be a rare exception from time to time, a politician invoking faith is doing so, not because of some deep belief in their faith, but to manipulate those who share the same beliefs into going along with his.her political agenda.

If I need a religious leader, I will go to church. The only faith that Perry, and other political leaders should concern themselves with in the political arena, is faith in the Constitution of the United States.

I think your letting your feelings get in the way, because you have to pile multiple inferences upon each other, to reach the interpretation you have arrived at.

I have a problem when the people evangelizing write the laws

Who writes law? Government

enforce them with guns.

How does the government enforce law? If you or I are suspected of wrong doing, the government will send individuals with guns to our homes.

Are you debating the validity of either of these points? Please explain how you arrive at interpreting either of this points, as me accusing Perry of forcing people to do anything, based on something I have actually said.

Now, you do describe the slippery slope in which the fusion of government and the church can lead. History is riddled with examples of government using faith to justify usurping the freedom of the individual. It has led to war, and genocide. This isn’t a statement about religion. It’s a statement about the corrupt nature of individuals in positions of political power.

I don’t question the relationship you have with God, or the benefits that relationship has brought to your life. That is not the issue.

Using government to advocate an agenda, no matter how noble, is a recipe for disaster. It may not happen today, it may not happen tomorrow, but at some point, it becomes inevitable that man will use any government power for nefarious ends. I doubt that when the Supreme Court ruled that the commerce clause allowed congress to regulate the amount of wheat a person could grow for personal consumption, would ultimately lead to congress attempting to use that power to force people to purchase health insurance, yet here we are.

The fears of including God’s perspective into policy making are not exaggerated, because history has proven time, and time again the dangers of doing so. The Puritan movement in England arose because the monarchy had assumed a leadership role of the Church of England. The crown dictated the teachings of the church, and mandated that individuals must follow the official faith of England. The government should never have the power to shape, or dictate church doctrine, or decide which version of Christianity is acceptable. This is precisely what happens when the power of government is fused with the power of the church.

based on what I have stated, but I promise you that this is not where I’m coming from. I will try to articulate this better, because I never intended my comment to be a criticism of religious faith.

First of, let me state that I don’t trust politicians. I believe that many of them go in well intentioned, and sometimes with the right principles. However, once they have power, and because they really want to do good, it becomes vary difficult to deny themselves using all of the tools of political power at their disposal, even if it goes against their principles. I may like the result of government taking full advantage of it’s power, when it is being done by someone I support. But, if the person I support uses, or expands a power of government, that same power will eventually be wielded by someone I don’t support.

I know, what does this have to do with the current topic? Do I want a government filled with atheists. Absolutely not. I will never use a religious litmus test in politics. The only principles that I an concerned about when it comes to a politician, is how those principles relate to the text of the Constitution, and the principles of liberty that the founders based the Constitution on. I also have no issue when a leader political views are based on their religious faith, as long as these views do not conflict with the Constitution, or the freedom of individuals.

I also have zero issue with a political leader expressing their faith. If Perry wants to speak at a faith based event, and express why he thinks that private individuals should open themselves to Christ, I see no issue with this either.

Where I do become concerned, is when a high ranking political figure organizes an event that calls for a greater role of faith in politics. Let me just say, I am not accusing Perry of doing this. This won’t be known until the event actually takes place. If it turns out to be very similar to Glen Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, then I will fully support Perry’s message, because this would be a call for individuals taking greater responsibility in their personal lives, instead of relying on the government.

The cause of my concern, is that I don’t think the government should have an active role in dictating religious doctrine. This event is Rick Perry’s baby. If there are numerous speakers advocating the fusion of faith and politics, then I can only assume this to be Perry’s view as well. This does not constitute Perry ‘forcing’ his faith on others, but it can be a first step down the slope of government imposing it’s influence on faith.

I’m sure I could have found a much less lengthy way of addressing your comment. I apologize for any pain caused by trying to navigate my response.

I know you are strong in your views, and respect that you have put a lot of time and thought into them. I know nothing I type in the comments section of an internet website is going to change your position, so that was not my intention.

I didn’t mean for my comment to come off as intense as it did. I will try to use a more appropriate caliber next time.

1. The reason I speak of organized religion is because this is what happens when a church gains political power. The Roman Catholic church didn’t start out as the giant entity that ultimately became. The church built over time, and started as a loose network, which coalesced over time. Ultimately, God’s word became what ever the Roman Catholic church taught it to be.

2. I realize that the majority of the founders believed in God, although they didn’t all share the same faith. They also lived under the Church of England, which wasn’t too keen on the Puritan movement. The rift between the Puritan movement in England, and the Church of England led to a civil war. This was why the founders emphasized freedom of religion in the first amendment, and why Jefferson later wrote about a “wall between the church and state”. This wasn’t to suggest that God had no place in the public square, or that things such as school prayer were bad. They were both put into place to protect the individual from the government establishing religious doctrine.

3. Definitely not an anarchist. Government is a necessary evil, which is why it should always remain limited to the confines of the Constitution, and the principles of those who inspired the founders to write the Constitution.

I have no issue with the scenario you have laid out.

As I stated earlier, I won’t place judgement until after the event. The reason I have argued a ‘worst case scenario’, is because of my cynicism regarding the nature of politics.

The first question I have to ask, has Perry ever done anything like this before? If the answer is yes, then feel free to ignore the following comments.

If Perry has never done anything like this, and soon after he announces his intention to run for President, then I begin to have some skepticism.. Other things would go into that thought process, most having to do with his record as Governor, and the consistency between the message of Governor Perry, and candidate Perry.

I fully admit to jumping ahead of the game here. It has occurred to me why I am resisting this. I’m making the assumption that Perry is going to run for President, and I may be viewing Perry’s message as a form of “Compassionate Conservatism”. I admire the intentions behind this brand of Conservatism, but in the end, I feel it just leads to bigger government.

The other source of my resistance, I believe, has to do with my perception that their are a number of Social Conservatives who only focus on the social part of the Conservative platform, and not equal weight on the entire Conservative platform. Their is no reason SoCons should conform to my view of what Conservatism should mean,so that’s something I just need to work out for myself.

It is my belief that the government, though the expansion of the welfare state, entitlements and the department of education, is what has caused the decline of social values in this country. This is why I can’t accept the idea that the government being more involved in our lives will reverse the course.

It is not my intention to bash people of faith. I have nothing but respect for them..

My view is that the government will use what ever tool it can in order to expand government power. Their are numerous times when the church has grown to become a political entity, and the leaders of the church fall victim to the same corruption from power, that any other organization turned political entity becomes subject too. It is that corrupting force I take issue with.

When a church grows to a certain level of political power, it becomes akin to a political party. The corruption of the leadership is not a reflection of the members of the church, just like the corruption of a politician is not a reflection of those who voted for him..

Perry’s event is far from what I have described. However, we open the door to this type of corruption, by willingly accepting a greater merger of the state and the church. Just like any other aspect of politics, when the church can influence politics, politics can influence the church.

I realize how often people of faith are under attack for expressing their views, probably even more so, out in your neck of the woods! Because of this, I understand how a greater meaning can be attached to a comment, other than what may have been intended. I knew before writing my comment, that I was treading close to some ‘loaded’ statements, so offering clarification was no trouble at all.

On a related note, I think this is something Conservatives should try to remember when we are expressing our views to others. When we hold a view to be true, it doesn’t take a lot of words to share that meaning with like minded individuals. Their are many things that we say, that may carry a pre-conceived meaning to non-conservatives, causing them to attack what they think we’re saying, and not what we are really saying.

I appreciate your kind words, and also your willingness to put up with my ranting.