Jon Rowe has a post about the WorldNutDaily called Antistatism Makes for Strange Bedfellows. He says:
I think the strangest case of antistatist politics—in fact, libertarian politics—making for strange bedfellows is how the Christian Reconstructionists have managed to infiltrate libertarian circles, indeed calling themselves “Christian libertarians.” Like real libertarians, they too want to eliminate today’s big-government.
And he goes on to note that the “christian libertarians” want to replace this big government with, of course, a biblical theocracy. I thought I’d add a little information to this, by way of our old pal Andrew Sandlin (see my previous hammering of him here). Sandlin is a dyed-in-the-wool theocrat who seeks to impose biblical law as the civil and criminal law of the land, but in perhaps the most staggering example of Orwellian doublespeak in history, he calls this “Christian libertarianism”. He laid out his plans in an article entitled The Christian Libertarian Idea. He offers this definition:
What is Christian libertarianism? Christian libertarianism is the view that mature individuals (professing Christians in the church, and all externally obedient men in the state) are permitted maximum freedom under God’s law.
Any similarity to any libertarian idea, living or dead, is purely rhetorical, if not downright delusional. Under libertarian standards, each individual is free to live their life as they see fit as long as they do not impose harm on another person against their will. Under “Christian libertarian” standards, only Christian men are free and they are only free to do what is not forbidden in the bible. Which means, of course, that they are not free at all, they are strictly controlled under pain of death. Sandlin apparently recognizes the difference,as he condemns libertarianism because it “repeats the Original Sin of lust for human autonomy.” We can’t have autonomy. I mean, what’s next? Liberty and justice? As Don Knotts might say, best to nip it in the bud. But despite this stark difference between libertarianism and “Christian libertarianism”, Sandlin still tries to draw this fanciful connection:
Nevertheless, libertarianism manifests certain distinct features of biblical-Reformed religion, and, when anchored to biblical Faith and shorn of its sinfully autonomous impulses, points toward a fully legitimate orientation to life: maximum freedom under God’s law. Indeed, one may argue that libertarianism is a secularized version of certain critical aspects of the Christian conception of freedom, which sees human authority strictly limited by divine authority as expressed in Holy Scripture.
Yes, one may argue that. But only if one is a blithering idiot. This is Sandlin’s position in a nutshell: if you ignore the whole idea of individual rights and human freedom, the two ideas are almost identical. Which is a bit like saying war is just like peace, just without all the death and destruction and stuff. How on earth does someone write something that unbelievably stupid and still manage to dress themselves in the morning?
And then there’s this little gem. First, he says:
In the sphere of civil authority, it means the state may not impose any law not expressed in or deduced from Scripture. It means no warrant exists for the state’s regulation of the economy (beyond the assurance of just weights and measures). It means the state may not tax citizens to furnish education, welfare, or health benefits. Holy Scripture alone marks out civil and criminal laws. It does not create the impression that additional law or regulation is necessary or permissible; indeed, it conveys the opposite impression (Dt. 4:2). Even the judiciary must operate within the bounds of biblical revelation (Dt. 1:13-18). The civil magistrate is bound to enforce the inscripturated law of God apposite to the civil sphere–and nothing beyond…
Thus, the state must punish murder (Ex. 21:12), theft (Ex. 22:1-4), idolatry (Ex. 22:20), and other sins that the Scriptures explicitly requires it to punish. Since we may deduce from Scripture that abortion is murder (see Ex. 21:22, 23), that copyright infringement is theft, and that the public worship of the Earth by New Age advocates is idolatry, the state may suppress these crimes.
But then he howls at how unfairly he is portrayed by his enemies:
It bears mentioning that the charge that Christian reconstructionists and theocrats are intent to gain political power in order to coerce the unbelieving population to accept Christianity is slanderous. In the civil sphere, we want and work for one thing and one thing thing alone: the enforcement of bibical law apposite to the civil sphere, and nothing else. The civil and criminal law of the Bible is punitive. Christianizing society is the role of the family and church, not the role of the state. The state’s role is to maintain public order, which includes the punishment of evildoers (Rom. 13:1-7).
Yeah, see! It’s slanderous to suggest that they want to coerce the unbelieving population to accept Christianity…they only want to stone them to death if they do anything the bible disapproves of. Get it right! Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, where do they get these guys? This bit of insanity should easily qualify Andrew Sandlin for the finals of the Idiot of the Decade competition.