Libertarians and the Witch Problem

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

A very important message from the libertarian presidential candidate!! (I hope you all enjoy)

[i]
Pagan worship at Air Force Academy

6:00 am February 17, 2010, by Bob Barr

A few years back, when I was in the US Congress, I took the Army to task for permitting the practice of Wicca on its bases, including at Ft. Hood in Texas. After speaking with a number of officers and military leaders, and meeting with several former military who adhere to the practice of Wicca, I was convinced that a belief in or practice of witchcraft, was not necessarily incompatible with the good order and discipline essential to a military lifestyle. However, one might legitimately wonder just how far such tolerance should extend.

The US Air Force, at no less a prestigious location than the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, has taken the notion of religious tolerance to a new level, in creating an outdoor worship area for pagans. The site, apparently sacred to pagans, consists of an inner and an outer circle of large stones. Iâ??m sorry, but this truly is hilarious. Donâ??t get me wrong, if someone â??has little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods,â?? which is the definition of a â??pagan,â?? then I say live and let live.

But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of â??paganâ??), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.[/i]

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/02/17/pagan-worship-at-air-force-academy/

2


Another important picture!

Did you ever notice that Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, a white landowning male, looks exactly like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obamaâ??s black Muslim pastor?

3

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
A very important message from the libertarian presidential candidate!! (I hope you all enjoy)

[i]
Pagan worship at Air Force Academy

6:00 am February 17, 2010, by Bob Barr

A few years back, when I was in the US Congress, I took the Army to task for permitting the practice of Wicca on its bases, including at Ft. Hood in Texas. After speaking with a number of officers and military leaders, and meeting with several former military who adhere to the practice of Wicca, I was convinced that a belief in or practice of witchcraft, was not necessarily incompatible with the good order and discipline essential to a military lifestyle. However, one might legitimately wonder just how far such tolerance should extend.

The US Air Force, at no less a prestigious location than the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, has taken the notion of religious tolerance to a new level, in creating an outdoor worship area for pagans. The site, apparently sacred to pagans, consists of an inner and an outer circle of large stones. Iâ??m sorry, but this truly is hilarious. Donâ??t get me wrong, if someone â??has little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods,â?? which is the definition of a â??pagan,â?? then I say live and let live.

But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of â??paganâ??), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.[/i]

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/02/17/pagan-worship-at-air-force-academy/

[/quote]

Seems like a non-issue to me.

4

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
A very important message from the libertarian presidential candidate!! (I hope you all enjoy)

[i]
Pagan worship at Air Force Academy

6:00 am February 17, 2010, by Bob Barr

A few years back, when I was in the US Congress, I took the Army to task for permitting the practice of Wicca on its bases, including at Ft. Hood in Texas. After speaking with a number of officers and military leaders, and meeting with several former military who adhere to the practice of Wicca, I was convinced that a belief in or practice of witchcraft, was not necessarily incompatible with the good order and discipline essential to a military lifestyle. However, one might legitimately wonder just how far such tolerance should extend.

The US Air Force, at no less a prestigious location than the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, has taken the notion of religious tolerance to a new level, in creating an outdoor worship area for pagans. The site, apparently sacred to pagans, consists of an inner and an outer circle of large stones. Iâ??m sorry, but this truly is hilarious. Donâ??t get me wrong, if someone â??has little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods,â?? which is the definition of a â??pagan,â?? then I say live and let live.

But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of â??paganâ??), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.[/i]

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/02/17/pagan-worship-at-air-force-academy/

[/quote]

What is the “it injures me not whether my neighbor worships no god or many gods” quote?

I really don’t care, I do find the situation a little silly though.

I don’t like the tone he is taking though. If you break down any religion into individual practices, they all sound idiotic.

“But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices self sacrifice and turning the other cheek as a religion (another part of the definition of christian), and who chants in front of an alter of stones in there “god house” carrying lighted candles, and symbolically eating flesh and drinking blood, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.”

fixed.

5

Since when was Barr ever considered a libertarian by libertarians that matter?

It takes more than affixing a label to ones self to convince me someone is who they say they are.

6

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Since when was Barr ever considered a libertarian by libertarians that matter?
[/quote]

Good question. I was wondering the same thing.

7

So bottom line, “libertarians that matter” didn’t support the libertarian party this last time around? Am I understanding you gentlemen correctly? I assume you guys like Ron Paul, right? Who are the other “libertarians that matter?” Who are the libertarian party’s leaders? Genuinely curious.

Also, I’m kinda glad you folks didn’t take his back. This sounds extremely un-libertarian to my ears… 'course I’m not a card-carrying member.

8

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
So bottom line, “libertarians that matter” didn’t support the libertarian party this last time around? Am I understanding you gentlemen correctly? I assume you guys like Ron Paul, right? Who are the other “libertarians that matter?” Who are the libertarian party’s leaders? Genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Libertarian leaders? Are you for real? That is an oxymoron if ever there were one.

9

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
So bottom line, “libertarians that matter” didn’t support the libertarian party this last time around? Am I understanding you gentlemen correctly? I assume you guys like Ron Paul, right? Who are the other “libertarians that matter?” Who are the libertarian party’s leaders? Genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Libertarian leaders? Are you for real? That is an oxymoron if ever there were one.[/quote]

You confuse leader with ruler. I assume for humerous affect though, highlighting the tendency of libertarians to be a difficult to steer bunch. What’s that saying about putting 3 jews in a room and getting 7 different opinions? Same for libertarians.

Jeez, the Libertarian Party really took a dive with that guy as the candidate. I still can’t believe he beat Mary Ruwart.

So much for his ‘name recognition’ getting the LP a poll boost.

10

[quote]jacross wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
So bottom line, “libertarians that matter” didn’t support the libertarian party this last time around? Am I understanding you gentlemen correctly? I assume you guys like Ron Paul, right? Who are the other “libertarians that matter?” Who are the libertarian party’s leaders? Genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Libertarian leaders? Are you for real? That is an oxymoron if ever there were one.[/quote]

You confuse leader with ruler. I assume for humerous affect though, highlighting the tendency of libertarians to be a difficult to steer bunch. What’s that saying about putting 3 jews in a room and getting 7 different opinions? Same for libertarians.

Jeez, the Libertarian Party really took a dive with that guy as the candidate. I still can’t believe he beat Mary Ruwart.

So much for his ‘name recognition’ getting the LP a poll boost.[/quote]

No, it wasn’t just for humorous effect.

The whole notion of governmental rulers is inconsistent with the libertarian philosophy.

There is really only one hard and fast rule to libertarianism and that is acting in accordance with the nonaggression axiom. How can one be a governmental leader and still hold fast to the notion of nonaggression? Even to pay his measly salary he must use coercion to expropriate money from private citizens.

Libertarianism is an ethical framework to best bring about a nonagressive society. It precludes the notion of coercive authority.

11

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
A very important message from the libertarian presidential candidate!! (I hope you all enjoy)

[i]
Pagan worship at Air Force Academy

6:00 am February 17, 2010, by Bob Barr

A few years back, when I was in the US Congress, I took the Army to task for permitting the practice of Wicca on its bases, including at Ft. Hood in Texas. After speaking with a number of officers and military leaders, and meeting with several former military who adhere to the practice of Wicca, I was convinced that a belief in or practice of witchcraft, was not necessarily incompatible with the good order and discipline essential to a military lifestyle. However, one might legitimately wonder just how far such tolerance should extend.

The US Air Force, at no less a prestigious location than the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, has taken the notion of religious tolerance to a new level, in creating an outdoor worship area for pagans. The site, apparently sacred to pagans, consists of an inner and an outer circle of large stones. I�¢??m sorry, but this truly is hilarious. Don�¢??t get me wrong, if someone �¢??has little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods,�¢?? which is the definition of a �¢??pagan,�¢?? then I say live and let live.

But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of �¢??pagan�¢??), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.[/i]

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/02/17/pagan-worship-at-air-force-academy/

[/quote]

What is the “it injures me not whether my neighbor worships no god or many gods” quote?

I really don’t care, I do find the situation a little silly though.

I don’t like the tone he is taking though. If you break down any religion into individual practices, they all sound idiotic.

“But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices self sacrifice and turning the other cheek as a religion (another part of the definition of christian), and who chants in front of an alter of stones in there “god house” carrying lighted candles, and symbolically eating flesh and drinking blood, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.”

fixed.[/quote]

Sounds like a bad ass dude, self sacrifices and his humble (wait isn’t that part of being an officer) sounds like good qualities. Plus being a cannibal, the dude is straight mother fucking crazy. Where do I sign up.

  • Catholic Cannibal

P.S. Learn how to capitalize.

12

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
A very important message from the libertarian presidential candidate!! (I hope you all enjoy)

[i]
Pagan worship at Air Force Academy

6:00 am February 17, 2010, by Bob Barr

A few years back, when I was in the US Congress, I took the Army to task for permitting the practice of Wicca on its bases, including at Ft. Hood in Texas. After speaking with a number of officers and military leaders, and meeting with several former military who adhere to the practice of Wicca, I was convinced that a belief in or practice of witchcraft, was not necessarily incompatible with the good order and discipline essential to a military lifestyle. However, one might legitimately wonder just how far such tolerance should extend.

The US Air Force, at no less a prestigious location than the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, has taken the notion of religious tolerance to a new level, in creating an outdoor worship area for pagans. The site, apparently sacred to pagans, consists of an inner and an outer circle of large stones. I�?�¢??m sorry, but this truly is hilarious. Don�?�¢??t get me wrong, if someone �?�¢??has little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods,�?�¢?? which is the definition of a �?�¢??pagan,�?�¢?? then I say live and let live.

But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of �?�¢??pagan�?�¢??), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.[/i]

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/02/17/pagan-worship-at-air-force-academy/

[/quote]

What is the “it injures me not whether my neighbor worships no god or many gods” quote?

I really don’t care, I do find the situation a little silly though.

I don’t like the tone he is taking though. If you break down any religion into individual practices, they all sound idiotic.

“But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices self sacrifice and turning the other cheek as a religion (another part of the definition of christian), and who chants in front of an alter of stones in there “god house” carrying lighted candles, and symbolically eating flesh and drinking blood, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.”

fixed.[/quote]

Sounds like a bad ass dude, self sacrifices and his humble (wait isn’t that part of being an officer) sounds like good qualities. Plus being a cannibal, the dude is straight mother fucking crazy. Where do I sign up.

  • Catholic Cannibal

P.S. Learn how to capitalize. [/quote]

I admit to being horrible with grammar, but what was really wrong with my capitalization? Christian? The word fixed? I did use the wrong “there” but that isn’t what you commented on.

13

[quote]
Sounds like a bad ass dude, self sacrifices and his humble (wait isn’t that part of being an officer) sounds like good qualities. Plus being a cannibal, the dude is straight mother fucking crazy. Where do I sign up.

  • Catholic Cannibal

P.S. Learn how to capitalize. [/quote]

Not one sentence in your post was grammatically correct. Not capitalizing is not as bad as making no sense.

p.s. You do realize that Washington, although an Independent outwardly, was known to be a Federalist at heart.

14

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jacross wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
So bottom line, “libertarians that matter” didn’t support the libertarian party this last time around? Am I understanding you gentlemen correctly? I assume you guys like Ron Paul, right? Who are the other “libertarians that matter?” Who are the libertarian party’s leaders? Genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Libertarian leaders? Are you for real? That is an oxymoron if ever there were one.[/quote]

You confuse leader with ruler. I assume for humerous affect though, highlighting the tendency of libertarians to be a difficult to steer bunch. What’s that saying about putting 3 jews in a room and getting 7 different opinions? Same for libertarians.

Jeez, the Libertarian Party really took a dive with that guy as the candidate. I still can’t believe he beat Mary Ruwart.

So much for his ‘name recognition’ getting the LP a poll boost.[/quote]

No, it wasn’t just for humorous effect.

The whole notion of governmental rulers is inconsistent with the libertarian philosophy.

There is really only one hard and fast rule to libertarianism and that is acting in accordance with the nonaggression axiom. How can one be a governmental leader and still hold fast to the notion of nonaggression? Even to pay his measly salary he must use coercion to expropriate money from private citizens.

Libertarianism is an ethical framework to best bring about a nonagressive society. It precludes the notion of coercive authority.[/quote]

I am familiar with libertarianism, I am a libertarian.

Gambit said nothing about either a governmental or coercive leader or ruler. He said leader. A leader can exist without being coercive. One can voluntarily follow a leader. The part that was not for humour is the part that does not make sense. Please improve your reading comprehension.

15

[quote]jacross wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jacross wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
So bottom line, “libertarians that matter” didn’t support the libertarian party this last time around? Am I understanding you gentlemen correctly? I assume you guys like Ron Paul, right? Who are the other “libertarians that matter?” Who are the libertarian party’s leaders? Genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Libertarian leaders? Are you for real? That is an oxymoron if ever there were one.[/quote]

You confuse leader with ruler. I assume for humerous affect though, highlighting the tendency of libertarians to be a difficult to steer bunch. What’s that saying about putting 3 jews in a room and getting 7 different opinions? Same for libertarians.

Jeez, the Libertarian Party really took a dive with that guy as the candidate. I still can’t believe he beat Mary Ruwart.

So much for his ‘name recognition’ getting the LP a poll boost.[/quote]

No, it wasn’t just for humorous effect.

The whole notion of governmental rulers is inconsistent with the libertarian philosophy.

There is really only one hard and fast rule to libertarianism and that is acting in accordance with the nonaggression axiom. How can one be a governmental leader and still hold fast to the notion of nonaggression? Even to pay his measly salary he must use coercion to expropriate money from private citizens.

Libertarianism is an ethical framework to best bring about a nonagressive society. It precludes the notion of coercive authority.[/quote]

I am familiar with libertarianism, I am a libertarian.

Gambit said nothing about either a governmental or coercive leader or ruler. He said leader. A leader can exist without being coercive. One can voluntarily follow a leader. The part that was not for humour is the part that does not make sense. Please improve your reading comprehension.[/quote]

My reading comprehension can bench 400 lbs.

16

[quote]jacross wrote:
A leader can exist without being coercive.[/quote]

Not in politics, dude.

18

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFT, you continue to mistakenly and implicitly claim that your brand of libertarianism, i.e., anarchism, is the only one. This is just another form of elitism which collides with basic premises of libertarianism. The net effect is you are self-contradictory.[/quote]

There is only one kind of libertarianism. People who claim to be libertarians yet endorse the notion of coercion cannot be called libertarians.

Besides we have had this conversation before. I don’t care what word we use to describe a state of total nonaggression. I only care that we promote it in a consistent manner.

Your elitism argument is a red herring.

20

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFT, you continue to mistakenly and implicitly claim that your brand of libertarianism, i.e., anarchism, is the only one. This is just another form of elitism which collides with basic premises of libertarianism. The net effect is you are self-contradictory.[/quote]

There is only one kind of libertarianism…[/quote]

Thanks. That worked out rather well for me.[/quote]

Wow, outdoing yourself with the same non arguments, once again.

Why don’t you explain your definition of libertarianism so that you can be properly refuted? Or perhaps you don’t really know what it is. At least I have never seen you give one tangible argument that shows you do.

Thanks for proving me right, in advance.