I am a Christian. I make no secret of that. And I have very strong opinions about what I believe in and practice. If you don't like my views, tough. I might not like yours either, and that's tough on me. But I am at least willing to get along with you in peace and mutual respect. Or are you a precocious child who insists on having your own way in everything? If you are, then grow up. Sorry, there is no other way I can put it.
However, unlike fundamentalist Islam which has openly declared it wants to take over the world and establish Sharia Law everywhere - by force and violence if necessary - and unlike some fundamentalist Christians of the so-called 'Christian Right' who want to make their countries Christian using political means, such things hold no interest for me personally. I am no neo-con however much lefties try to make me out to be one because they exist in a mental universe of childish dichotomies.
In fact, I don't think Christians should get involved in politics at all unless they absolutely have to and as I am now in order to defend my way of life that is under threat by a totalitarian mindset that has proven it is willing to use force and violence (see the stories of Domenic Johansson and Anne Edner). As soon as this anti-homeschooling and anti-family business is over, I mean to pull right out of political engagement as quickly as I entered into it in 2009 when homeschooling was originally threatened with extinction.
In fact, I would say that the International and National Socialist Utopians, whom, as you will see, I maintain are very religious and evangelistic in an atheistic sort of way, have more in common with extremist Islam and Christianity than I do. And whilst I do believe in Utopia, I do not believe man is capable of setting it up, nor that he should try to. Nearly every utopian system - religious (Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) and political (Communist, Fascist and now so-called 'Europeist') - has resulted in tyranny. I am very firmly a libertarian. I believe that if Utopia is ever going to be set up that it can only be by supernatural, divine intervention, in which case the debate and discussion will be at an end for all of us. And, yes, I do believe in the physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ. However, I have absolutely no intention of trying to make that happen myself. That is in God's sovereign will. I have other things to be getting on with.
I do not believe in dictatorship of any kind because I believe that God alone is capable of such rule. Popes and Ayatollahs have already shown what they are capable of. I believe that everyone should be able to express and live religious and non-religious views of their own free will and that the state should exist to protect this right. I believe that everyone should have the right to propagate and defend his political or religious views, convert others, and criticise those systems he does not agree with without being arraigned as a 'hate criminal' because of stupid, liberal laws. Therefore I subscribe to this philosophical view:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot righfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (John Stuart Mill).
The state's business is to protect citizens against violence and threats of violence. I believe in direct, grass-roots democracy and decentralised government. Government needs to be kept small because:
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have...The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases" (Thomas Jefferson)
Sadly that is exactly what is happening in Sweden and elsewhere today. There are even nutty laws about socialising your pets here. Indeed, the state machinery is today so intrusive that the Länsstyrelsen publicly states that they make 23,000 animal inspections every year, which is 700 per day. The reasons given for these inspections can be anything from making sure that your tortoise has the state-approved dimensions of living space to ensuring your dog has so many hours of human contact per day. Government needs to be trimmed right back and more power devolved to the people (for real, and not just in name, as in communism and socialism). What we have in Sweden is a frightening echo of national socialist, fascist statism from the last century:
"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" (Benito Mussolini).
Libertarianism is the only safety in a pluralist society where there isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) an official state religion. People are not as stupid as statists seems to believe they are or to want them to be in order to justify and satisfy their own totalitarian temptations - there is more than enough common sense around for people to manage their own lives. The details of a minimum, common ethic (such as protecting children from violence and sexual abuse) can be worked out by the people themselves in political dialogue. Those who want individual-based, family-based or more kibbutz-type mini-societies can then choose how and where they live and have the freedom to change their religion, lifestyle or philosophy without threat or constraint. Such lifestyles should, of course, include the kind of sexual lifestyle consenting adults want to live, with the proper safeguards for children. And whilst they should be free to agree or disagree on different sexual lifestyles, no one should be forced to live one against their will.
Though my religion teaches a very narrowly defined lifestyle which I choose to live, it also teaches that the freedom of choice and personal will are the fundamental right of all people. And yes, while my God does indeed teach the way mankind should live, He also grants the right of humans to choose for themselves as individuals. That is the nature of the God I worship and serve. And that is why I can make common cause with libertarians or all religious, or no religious, persuasion with a clear conscience.
I count amongst my friends fellow Christians of different beliefs along with Muslims, atheists, Hindus, new Agers, agnostics and others. I also have friends who are heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, polyamorists and celibates. And whilst I personally believe some of these lifestyles are wrong - and I will tell them so - that doesn't prevent me from getting a long with them so long as they don't try to force their lifestyle on me or usurp my right to teach my children as I see fit. Likewise I respect their right to do the same. In a truly libertarian society people should be mature enough to live side by side with others of different beliefs and lifestyles without being forced to conform to only 'one way'.
Dictatorships do not, in any case, work. They only produce oppression, suffering and misery. They polarise society into warring factions. People naturally revolt against them in time because, I believe, of the spirit of liberty the Creator has put in all of us. He wants us to come to Him by attraction and personal choice, not by compulsion. When the Soviet Union collapsed, only a third of people were Christian. Once they were given their free choice back, they expressed their real hearts. Two-thirds now claim to be Christian (Russian Orthodox). Today Estonia and the Czech Republic, freed from the Soviet Union, now have atheists in the majority (the only European countries that do). The point being, people must be allowed to choose for themselves - naturally.
I also believe in the independent nation state where different variations of libertarianism can be tried as determined by the natural populace. There should always be choice. The popular concensus - not the artificial one forced by states like Sweden - should then determine the unique makeup of its libertarian laws.
I am not so naïve as to believe there is a perfect solution. Problems will always exist but where there is good will, things can be worked out intelligently and reasonably that maximise people's freedoms. Nigel Farage (who as far as I know is an atheist or perhaps an agnostic), whose political views I more-or-less subscribe to, puts it this way:
"The most dangerous politicians depend on the Great Lie. Once the Great Lie has been ingested, it readily and rapidly grows into doctrine. Then a political preference becomes a religion, its champion a demigod and any aberration heresy. The politician excuses himself for abominations because he has seen the way clear to that shining city upon a hill. He has a duty to follow that path and to shepherd or lash others onto it for their own good. The Great Lie is just this: one day, time will stop...for Marxists, [it is] the Worker State, for romancers, the Happy Ever After, for buyers of cosmetics, Eternal Youth, for childish idealism, John Lennon's Magic Roundabout Elysium where there are no countries, no religions (and hence, presumably, no customs or loyalties) and all the people live (half-)life in peace...It is, of course, irresponsible gibberish. It serves only to make life's rich and only occasionally disgusting stew...appear unsatisfactory and affords nearly infinite power to the man with the hastily scrawled treasure map...The leaps of faith whereby these were turned into the Great Lie, however, initiated centuries of totalitarianism and intolerance...As for Lennon's brutal nightmare world, by what grotesque means is its survival for more than a split second to be assured? Brutal regimentation and compulsory unisexing, I assume" (Nigel Farage, Fighting Bull, pp.232-233)
By charting a moderate - libertarian, of course - life for everyone (and not just for those of a political or religious class) can then be made "rich with only occasional disgusting stew". So long as man is in charge, that is the best we can expect. I am willing to co-exist with people of radically different views to my own provided we can agree to a humane, and mutually tolerant libertarian agenda that maximises individual freedoms whilst protecting minorities without imposing reverse discrimination on the majority. We ought, in the 21st century, to be mature enough to do that. That is my agenda and what I want to talk about in the next few articles.
All of that, I suppose, makes me a classical libertarian 'Christian Humanist' of sorts (if you want to find a label).