Gary Johnson’s Religious Freedom Position Needs Some Critical Analysis

Gary Johnson’s Religious Freedom Position Needs Some Critical Analysis -A better argument is required than a fear of a slippery slope. If it is a slippery slope Mr. Johnson is worried about he would do well to fear the one beginning with an assumption that some citizens have the right to make other citizens their servants.

Kip Hooker:

View Comments (28)

  • @sifi

    I believe we will have to agree to disagree on that point. To my way of thinking the notion of a divine right of empire (or hegemony, if you prefer) is no more valid than the notion of a divine right of kings. I no more believe that Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, The Greek States, Rome, Britain or the Soviet Union were raised up to be the policemen of the world than I believe that George III, Louis XIV, Genghis Khan or Mohammad were raised up to be the policemen over “their” people.

    And while we may be at a point in which a conflict is inevitable we should remember that if it hadn't been for police actions destabilizing Libya and Syria and an administration that, with the stated goal of creating a fundamentalist military organization powerful enough to counter Assad, armed and trained terrorists that awful group would actually still be a JV team, if it existed at all .

    • Nazis could very well have been the policemen of the world if not for the intervention of the US and all others concerned. My argument is that there are evil ones that want to rule the world. Yes, including many in our own government. They are the ones we must police, inside and out. If not our city on a hill will crumble. It is full of cracks right now. We need strong leadership. Someone that will try to mend those cracks. I'm not saying Trump is the one, but I know for sure Hitlary is a wreaking ball in wait. I'm just hoping Trump will seek the right advisors, I know Hitlary and what she will do. I know ISIS and what they are doing to the world including US citizens.

      • And my argument is that no nation has the right to decide it will rule over other nations. Yes the Nazi's could have been the policemen of the world, being the policemen of the world is inherent to their ideology. It is not inherent to ours. We believe in self determination and self sovereignty there is no mandate in the Constitution or the Declaration for fixing the problems of the world. And yes we had to stop the Nazi's. That was in response to their aggression and declaration of war against us. But every precious life we lost to that war (and all the other tens of millions of lives that were lost to it) might never been lost to such a destructive conflict had Woodrow Wilson not decided that he was going to go out and bring democracy and justice to the planet.

        • We are the only ones preventing ISIS from proliferating. Are you saying we should pull completely out and let them have their way with the middle east, Europe and the world?

          • As I have maintained through this discussion we may very well be at a point where we must do something about ISIS -in fact we likely are and may well have been for some time- however action now is a response to their aggression against us. That is a very different thing from preemptive measures. Preemptive measures like our actions in Libya and Syria. We allowed for their creation in general by destabilizing the region. We fostered their creation specifically by purposely calling to create an ISIS like group and then training, arming and mobilizing fundamentalist forces that the White House wanted to be powerful enough "to counter Assad". How much better would the entire world be had we not decided to play police?

          • I contribute the actions in Libya and Syria to evil forces within our own government that need to be purged. We need a true conservative, like Cruz. Someone that will follow our Constitution and make the right decisions when it comes to foreign affairs. But that's not happening. We need to do what we can now to keep Hitlary from continuing preemptive measures in the middle east. That, right now, is my main concern.

            Good discussion, but I've got to go do some work.

  • He's a friggin' idiot. He's worried about "allowing discrimination for religious groups" because ALL HE CAN TALK ABOUT IS THE GODDAMNED GAYS!

    If I don't want to photograph a wedding of a guy and his robot, or a woman who wants to marry a cardboard cutout of Brad Pitt, or two people in rubber animal costumes... or, hell, if I just don't want to photograph a wedding between two ugly people, I don't have to do it.

    If I turn down work, I'm turning down money. There. That's my punishment. That's my "fine."

    If I turn down a job, I don't have to goddamned explain it to anyone! GOT IT?!

    I hate the living f*ck out of Gary Johnson.

    • I don't know the guy. But I'm gonna go by your descriptors and thank you for saving me time finding out about this guy.

    • The whole open borders thing dismisses any consideration for me. I have some libertarian leanings, but they go over the cliff with certain issues.

        • A classical liberal. The other sort are more than happy to use the police power of the state to force you to bake a cake, censor your speech, confiscate your wealth and decide what you cannot do or what you must do with your property up to and including carrying insurance on your body as if it were a public space.

          • That's a problem with the left in general. Most of the right have problems with the Libertarian platform for other reasons.

          • Adherence to the non aggression principle is libertarianism. There is nothing to it beyond that.

          • And therein lies the problem. This world has to be policed. God raised up this mighty nation for a purpose. It was not to sit back and let evil triumph. Although, the outside threat is beginning to worry me less than the inside. The left has become a very present danger to our liberty. They must be stopped or at least slowed down. Trump is the only one that can beat Hillary. The only one, but the right has to unite.

          • I agree up to the point where we're supposed to be the world:s cop. Wilson caved an embroiled us in the affairs of others when we ought to have been strictly non interventionist and kept this nation on a hilltop.

          • I can't imagine where we would be if not for world intervention during and after WW2. I'm not saying we should have to police it alone but I would rather fight with our allies over there instead of just ourselves here. When we are the last stronghold there will be no one to help.

          • Wilson's intervention into WW1 was one of the leading causes of WW2. And of course WW1 was essentially an argument over which Empire had the "right" to tell all the others what to do. It ended in needless death, destruction and the creation of the Soviet Union.

          • Agreed, but I still feel intervention is necessary in this day and age.
            Also a better format for long threads on this forum.

    • They're so worried about their "lack-of-virtue-signalling" and getting their atheist street cred that they don't ever give a damn if they're making sense.

      • That, and their foreign policy. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

  • People like Andy Levy are idiots. They don't understand the dangers of a man like this.

    He is not a Libertarian. The ability to discriminate is inherently Constitutional. We can't be forced to participate or not participate in activities that go counter to our speech and belief systems.

    • There is a lot I agree with him on but at the end of the day he is their own Trump. Principle has been sacrificed for some hoped for political gain. I was hoping for Austen Peterson.