Lutherans for Liberty

Comment by John M Smith on February 10, 2009 at 2:04pm

James, I thought I once read that the definition of Liberty is "Freedom with responsibility". I have since tried to find this quote and have failed. It was in reference to the founders and whats words meant when they wrote the founding documents and how the meaning of words have changed to mean different things now. Do you agree with my definition of Liberty as it pertained to the Founding Documents or can I not find this again because I just imagined it.

Comment by James Robertson on February 10, 2009 at 2:43pm

This group is the successor to Lutherans for Ron Paul. Liberty is Freedom with Responsibility. The opposite of liberty is license.

Comment by Steve Martin on February 10, 2009 at 6:01pm

Thanks, James for inviting me in!

I'll catch up to you guys soon!

Thanks again!

Liberty! I'm all for it!

Comment by Larry Hughes on February 12, 2009 at 5:31pm

James,

Thanks for the invite. I'm honored by your friendship and brotherhood. I'll try to keep my post down to 10,000 words. Hahaha.

Larry

Comment by James Robertson on February 14, 2009 at 10:03am

For anyone wondering why I chose the image of the Statue of Liberty against the backdrop of the World Trade Center twin towers, I cannot express it better than Rudyard Kipling. Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet.
Lest we forget - lest we forget!
- Recessional

Comment by James Robertson on February 17, 2009 at 9:47am

George Bernard Shaw said: "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."

Comment by J.W. on February 18, 2009 at 2:11am

Dear liberty-lovers,
Greetings in Christ.
I am thankful to Mr. Robertson for inviting me to this group, though I must state that I do not conceive of liberty in the post-Endarkenment way that Servais Pinckaers has described as "freedom of indifference," but rather in the Christian (Augustinian, Anselmian, Thomist) way as conformity to God's will (read St. Anselm's De Libertate Arbitrii at cla.umn.edu/jhopkins for more info.). So, I do not advocate religious pluralism and regard the idea of culture as it is defined by T.S. Eliot in 'Notes toward a definition of culture' as "the embodiment of a religious worldview." So, I do not advocate 'multiculturalism,' either, though I do affirm that 15th c. European painting is better than any other and that SouthEast Asian cuisine is better than any other and that both should hold sway in a revived Christendom. A nation or empire in which traditional Christianity was the religion and cultural seed and billboards were replaced with Van Eyck altarpieces and Lutheran sausage suppers were replaced with Pad Kee Mao would be the closest thing to New Jerusalem the world has yet to see, though certainly not inconceivable, even in the current fallen world.

Comment by J.W. on February 18, 2009 at 11:53am

Regarding Shaw, he must have been speaking from experience, as he was quite an irresponsible author, and an advocate of everything bad in his century (itself one of the worst centuries in history, though this one is catching up fast). G.K. Chesterton, who is one of the best thinkers in any century, once said something to the effect that, if he was ever uncertain of the truth on some complicated matter, he could always safely believe the exact opposite of whatever George Bernard Shaw believed and he would eventually find such opposition to at least have led him in the general direction of the truth. (a paraphrase from 'The Superstitions of the Skeptic).

Comment by Michael Mapus on March 1, 2009 at 3:14pm

Nice to be around like minded people during this time of exile. Thanks for the invite.

Comment by James Robertson on June 3, 2009 at 5:23am

Declaration Go to for Principles of Liberty

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page