A leading libertarian media outlet is making the argument that it's growing government, not atheists, that represents a bigger threat to Christians.
“The growing state, after all—not the atheist—is religion's biggest rival,” wrote Reason's David Harsanyi. “And intentionally or not, government is crowding out parts of community life that have traditionally been taken care of by civil society. It’s draining resources once used by communities to implement services and take care of their own. And even more destructive, perhaps, is that government is becoming a source of moral authority for so many.”
The piece defended a speech by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to the American Principles Project, where he said, “Libertarian and liberty doesn't mean libertine.”
Harsanyi referenced critics who claimed libertarianism and Christianity are not compatible, before dismissing these notions.
“I'm no theological scholar, but I tend to believe that one can do good works without supporting a top marginal tax rate increase,” Harsanyi wrote.
“Christians commit themselves to God, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't prohibit them from supporting a political philosophy that emphasizes free will over a state-ordained ‘morality,’” he continued. “No doubt, most Christians appreciate that our collective national political decisions and their personal moral compasses will not always be synchronized. That's where the religious freedom comes into play.”
Harsanyi is the author of several books, including "Obama’s Four Horsemen: The Disasters Unleashed by Obama’s Reelection."
“Paul is right to advocate sentencing reform and a more judicious foreign policy, but he's also right when he says that libertarianism doesn't mean: ‘Do whatever you want. There is a role for government; there's a role for family; there's a role for marriage; there's a role for the protection of life,’” he wrote.
He added, “Abortion is a debate about when life is worth protecting. Despite the misconception by many in the media, there is no single libertarian position.”
He wrote, “Admittedly, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that social conservatives embrace a laissez-faire political philosophy” before explaining why a statist view is a bigger threat to people of faith.
“Should social conservatives ‘commit themselves’ to a political philosophy that not only strives for gay equality but also seeks to impel others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections?” he wrote. “Should they commit to a philosophy that impels them to fund contraception coverage and abortions—through either direct funding or fungible dollars? A philosophy that continues to force them to send their kids to crappy public schools that often undermine their faith-based beliefs? A philosophy that attacks parents who seek alternative means of education, such as home schooling? Or should they be more interested in wedding themselves to a political philosophy that downgrades the importance of politics in everyday life and allows citizens to work together to structure their communities without interference?”