Conservatives have terrible, horrible, despicable opinions. Even more so than liberals. Like, obviously it pisses me off that the state steals my money, but it pisses me off even more that the state then uses my money to murder people. On the scale of moral outrage, getting a massive boner for war is more appalling than getting a massive boner for wealth redistribution.

But despite all that, at the end of the day, given the choice between hanging out with a conservative or a liberal, 9 times out of 10 I’d still take the conservative. Putting aside their war/police boners, conservatives are much nicer as people. Liberals definitely have a monopoly on being disagreeable and generally unpleasant to be around.

A conservative friend will make you suicidal by expressing his opinions, but a liberal friend will make you suicidal by merely existing.

Frequent Bible Reading Can Turn You Liberal

“A recent poll from LifeWay Research found that 89 percent of American households still own a Bible, with the average home having 4.1 Bibles. But owning a Bible is different from reading it—and pollsters might be surprised by what happens when many Americans do.

We’ve often assumed that questions [about what happens when one actually reads the Bible] would be redundant, merely one more measure of religiosity, along with how often one attends church, how literally one views the Bible, and how much one prays. When researchers look at these indicators, they usually find a correlation with both political and moral conservativism. It’s not always the case, but it is a trend. Reading the Bible on one’s own makes a difference, too. The interesting part, however, is the unexpected difference it makes.

Frequent Bible reading has some predictable effects on the reader. It increases opposition to abortion as well as homosexual marriage and unions. It boosts a belief that science helps reveal God’s glory. It diminishes hopes that science will eventually solve humanity’s problems. But unlike some other religious practices, reading the Bible more often has some liberalizing effects—or at least makes the reader more prone to agree with liberals on certain issues. This is true even when accounting for factors such as political beliefs, education level, income level, gender, race, and religious measures (like which religious tradition one affiliates with, and one’s views of biblical literalism).

Terrorism, Justice, and Science

In 2007, the Baylor Religion Survey asked Americans how often they read the Bible on their own. (It was a five-point scale in this study, ranging from “never” to “several times a week.”) It also asked whether the federal government should expand its authority to fight terrorism—a reference to the Patriot Act. For each increased level of Bible-reading frequency, support for the Patriot Act decreased by about 13 percent.

Frequent Bible reading also influences views on criminal justice. As might be expected, respondents who were more politically liberal were prone to disagree with the statement, “The government should punish criminals more harshly.” Unexpectedly (at least given the conservative stereotype), the more frequently people read the Bible, the more they too are prone to disagree with the statement. This is not an anomalous finding: Support for abolishing the death penalty increased by about 45 percent for each increase on the five-point scale measuring Bible-reading frequency.

Reading the Bible affects attitudes toward science as well. If you just ask people about biblical literalism, you don’t find statistically significant differences in views of whether science and religion are compatible. But the more someone reads the Bible, the more likely he or she is to believe science and religion are compatible. (For each increase on the five-point scale, the odds that they see religion and science as incompatible decrease by 22 percent.)

Why The Bible Pushes You Leftward

The discussion becomes even more interesting when we consider who is most likely to read the Bible frequently. It’s evangelicals and biblical literalists, those who tend to be more conservative on these topics. In other words, those who read the Bible most often are more conservative, but the more they read the Bible, the more likely it is that their views will change, at least on these topics.

Why does this happen? One possible explanation is that readers tend to have expectations of a text prior to reading it. Given the Bible’s prominence in our society, it’s little wonder that many people think they know what’s in it before they open it up. But once they start reading it on their own, they are bound to be surprised by something, and this surprising new content is then integrated and grafted on to the familiar. Beliefs do change with the addition of new information.

But it doesn’t have to be unfamiliar content to surprise the reader. It just has to be personally relevant. Frequent Bible readers may have different views of biblical authority, but they tend to read it devotionally, looking for ways in which Scripture is speaking directly to them. They will read until struck by something that sticks out in the text. Even if the reader thinks the Bible has some error or needs a lot of interpretation, this thunderbolt moment can take on tremendous personal significance.

But frequent Bible readers don’t just see the Bible as personal. They also see it as authoritative, written by an author who had a specific context and intent, and they want to conform to its message. After all, why read the Bible with no desire to embrace what it teaches?

In short, sometimes reading the Bible can change views and attitudes because readers are surprised by what’s in it. Other times, it’s just a matter of discipleship.”

This is really fascinating because I feel like I’m part of that demographic whose changing political views coincided with a more thorough reading of the Bible.

As someone who used to say disgusting things like “the US should just carpet bomb the entire Middle East to rid us of these problems,” I now find any views that favor or advocate war to be completely abhorrent, and I wonder if pro-war or pro-military Christians would similarly change their minds if only they spent more time reading the Bible, or if church leaders began to disassociate themselves from the American civic religion.

Let us relate libertarianism to the issues of prostitution, pimping, and drugging. As a political philosophy, libertarianism says nothing about culture, mores, morality, or ethics. To repeat: It asks only one question, and gives only one answer. It asks, “Does the act necessarily involve initiatory invasive violence?”If so, it is justified to use (legal) force to stop it or punish the act; if not, this is improper. Since none of the aforementioned activities involves “border crossings,” they may not be legally proscribed. And, as a practical matter, as I maintain in ‘Defending the Undefendable,’ these prohibitions have all sorts of deleterious effects.

What is the view of libertarianism toward these activities, which I shall label “perverse”? Apart from advocating their legalization, the libertarian, qua libertarian, has absolutely no view of them at all. To the extent that he takes a position on them, he does so as a non-libertarian.

In order to make this point perfectly clear, let us consider an analogy. The germ theory of disease maintains that it is not “demons,” or “spirits,” or the disfavor of the gods that causes sickness, but rather germs. What, then, is the view of this theory of disease on the propriety of quarantining an infected individual? On the electron theory of chemistry, or of astronomy?How does it weigh in on the abortion issue? What position do germ theoreticians take on the Balkan War? On deviant sexual practices? None whatsoever, of course. It is not that those who believe germs cause disease are inclined, however, slightly, toward one side or the other in these disputes. Nor is the germ theorist necessarily indifferent to these disputes. On the contrary, the germ-ists, qua germ-ists, take no position at all on these important issues of the day. The point is, the germ theory is completely and totally irrelevant to these other issues, no matter how important they may be.

In like manner, the libertarian view takes absolutely no moral or valuative position on the perverse actions under discussion. The only concern is whether the actions constitute uninvited initiatory aggression. If they do, the libertarian position advocates the use of force to stop them; not because of their depravity, but because they have violated the one and only libertarian axiom: non-agression against non-aggressors. If they do not involve coercive force, the libertarian philosophy denies the claim that violence may properly be used to oppose them, no matter how weird, exotic, or despicable they may be.

Walter Block (via statehate)

(via laliberty)

Source: statehate

My dashboard has been sorely lacking libertarian infighting lately, and it’s a shame because infighting is what libertarians do best.

It seems that even my snide remarks and sly digs don’t succeed in provoking anyone anymore, despite the fact that we all know that when libertarians piss each other off, everyone has fun.

For my part though, I do take pleasure in knowing that deontological libertarianism seems to have won the fight against consequentialism. Nearly every recent convert I know and have met doesn’t waste time reading Reason or BHL, but they sure as hell do read Mises.org.

The Rise of Christian Libertarians

mysticpolitics:

Birth of a Libertarian

“[Having] discovered Libertarianism more than a decade ago…, by now I’m used to my friends and foes on either side of the aisle telling me I’m crazy, uncaring, naïve or ill-informed for my Libertine views. But it stings a bit when my brothers and sisters in Christ take it a step further: asking how I can call myself a Christian and lean Libertarian.

Democrats ask how Libertarians can ignore the poor, the oppressed. How they can leave them at the mercy of selfish individuals and greedy corporations. They wonder how Christians can claim to love and follow Jesus and not vote for people who’d propose measures to force us to do what Jesus said—give to the poor and fight for justice for all.  

Republicans ask how Libertarians can ignore “traditional” families, traditional values. They wonder how they can claim to love and follow Jesus and not vote for people who’d propose measures that force people to adhere to biblical principals, to keep marriage between one man and one woman, to, say, keep marijuana and prostitution illegal.

To be a “social Liberal” and a “fiscal Conservative” makes little sense to many Christians. To Jesus-loving Democrats and Republicans, Libertarian views seem to contrast sharply with their views of Gospel-infused politics. But as evidenced by your Facebook news feed, it seems many are beginning to feel differently.

Why Are So Many Christians Drawn to Libertarianism Right Now?

God expects much from His people—especially those who’ve been given freedom and wealth unlike most of the world has ever seen. Far from wanting to see people left to suffer on their own, many Libertarians believe so deeply in the calls to seek justice and love mercy and to love our neighbors that they are unwilling to let a bloated, inefficient, distant government get in the way of that calling.

Contrary to popular belief, being Libertarian does not mean wanting poor people to starve. It does not mean wanting corporations to abuse their employees. It does not mean wanting mountaintops removed and earth scorched. It does not mean wanting more guns on the street. It does not mean wanting churches to be forced to marry same-sex couples. It does not mean we want laissez faire views of family or more smoking of pot. 

Many Libertarians would argue that it’s hard to love our homosexual neighbors when we’re railing in disgust at their longing for marriage. They’d say it’s hard to love our impoverished neighbors if we’re simply letting social services take care of them; it’s hard to be just when we say only the most powerful—the government—can protect themselves. They wonder how to be merciful when we punish thoughts; how to give cheerfully and generously when the giving is deducted from paychecks.

Probably one of the biggest disgraces of this “one nation under God” is that the government has had to step in to help those the Church should’ve been helping, to do what the Church was called to do. The Church failed—and government stepped in. Perhaps the reason many now lean Libertarian is because they’d like the Church to take back—and take seriously—its calling to transform this world. It’s Jesus—not Uncle Sam—that people should see and know whenever blessings flow and mercy, justice and love roll.

There is No “Christian Party”

The bottom line is following Jesus is supposed to be something we do—not vote for. Especially since no political philosophy or party will ever align perfectly with Scripture. Nor should it—in a free society. Our political leanings have as much to do with our personalities, our experiences, our families of origin, our callings—as they do our faith. Let’s be honest.

Be glad for Christian friends all over the political spectrum. It keeps us all thinking, all sharp. If we’re all open to listening to one another, open to seeking the best solutions, and understanding that God gave us these different political perspectives, then maybe—somehow—they can all work together. In some wild, beyond-the Beltway, Sprit-led way, we can be those hands and feet we’re called to be.

Read more: The Rise of Christian Libertarians