Is America a Christian nation?

by | Apr 20, 2015

Religion has no place in government.


Is America a Christian nation?

The premise of the question is wrong. It requires you to accept the idea that the United States government and Constitution are the implementation of any particular religion. In actual fact, the separation of church and state required by the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution could not make it more clear: Religion has no place in government.

Those who insist that America is a Christian nation typically claim that Thomas Jefferson, and other founders of the United States, were deeply faithful Christians. They offer this as proof that America’s founders intended Christianity to be part of the fabric and workings of government, and therefore Christianity should be the guiding philosophy of government today.

How true are these claims? Let’s focus on Jefferson. Here are some things he has been quoted as saying:

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. [Jefferson, in letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814]

It does not sound here like Jefferson is a tremendous fan of religion. We know that Jefferson was a deep believer in liberty and individual rights — perhaps the most passionate in human history. From this statement, it sounds like Jefferson believed religion may have been a major and potential threat to liberty, if anything. His attitude is consistent with his view, along with the view of other Founders, that religion and state must be kept completely separate.

My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there. [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816]

These are not the words of a man who was a major fan of organized religion. In fact, while Jefferson was not an atheist, it does sound like he places a significantly higher value on “those who think for themselves” than following the dictates of any church authority, to say nothing of installing church authorities as part of the government.

As Jefferson wrote elsewhere, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.” [letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787] This suggests that Jefferson believes God created man so that he could think, reason, act freely and be self-responsible. God did not create man to be faithful. Jefferson correctly saw the connection between reason and freedom. I don’t get that impression from today’s religious conservatives, who talk of faith (not reason), obedience to God, and a government which supports (if not requires) such obedience.

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819]

In this statement, Jefferson almost sounds like an agnostic. (In other quotes, he did say he was not an atheist.) He certainly does not sound like the sort of evangelical member of an established church running for office today, working to bring the teachings or beliefs of that established church to government. Imagine George W. Bush, Rick Santorum or Ted Cruz saying, “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.” Today’s religiously oriented politicians are card-carrying members of the fundamentalist evangelical church organizations of their choosing.

In a way, it does not matter what Jefferson’s personal views were on such matters. What matters are the conceptualizations he gave us in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. These ideas, for the first time in human history, set individual rights as the central purpose of government, rather than making individuals the servants of government. This had never happened before, and anything else Jefferson said or did could never take away this accomplishment.

However, people who now claim that government must in some way be a reflection of Christian beliefs and values are the ones backing this up by arguing that America’s founders — of whom Jefferson was the most prominent — were deeply faithful Christians in the manner of today’s religiously conservative preacher-politicians.

If it’s Christian values you honor, then you really cannot — with consistency — condemn or attack the policies of Obama or other progressive-liberals expanding government expenditures on social insurance, social welfare, subsidies for houses, college tuition, business development, and all the rest. You can only oppose those policies by saying, “Obama, it’s not your money. It’s not yours to spend. People’s earnings do not belong to you.” But Obama is taking the money to give to those who need it; isn’t that what Jesus would do, if not demand?

Like it or not, Obama — whatever his personal motives — seeks to implement Jesus’ central moral teaching that the purpose of life is to serve others. Under capitalism, the purpose of life is to make a profit, advance your interests and while refraining from force or fraud, otherwise being entitled to keep any or even all of your earnings if you choose. This is not Christianity, as Obama supporters and Republican Christian conservatives would probably  agree. As Obama sees it, government is a perfectly valid way to ensure that Jesus’ teachings are upheld. Religious conservatives, by the way, don’t seem to be against wealth redistribution so much as the fact it’s done by progressive secular bureaucrats; as George W. Bush’s “faith based” social service government programs illustrated, it’s acceptable when done by churches with government money. The same goes for using government money to finance church schools (as in vouchers).

In foreign policy, it would be hard to find a better representative of Jesus Christ’s well-known pacifism — “turn the other cheek” — than Obama’s proposal to pacify Iran. Obama regularly states that we are all our brother’s keepers, and that we must show humility and compassion to our enemies, not self-defense or strength, because that’s racist, imperialist and war-like — and America has moved beyond that. He’s talking the language of Jesus here, and he means to implement it.

I recognize that the Obama-progressive support for abortion rights and gay marriage offends the Christian principles of the religious conservatives. On these points, they’re arguably consistent, even though Jesus Christ did not necessarily have a position on either of these issues. But the wider point here is this: If Christian conservatives want Jesus Christ’s teachings embodied in government when it comes to sex and marriage, why don’t they want Jesus Christ’s teachings embodied in government policy when it comes to transfers of wealth, punishing rich men who will not ever enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and all the rest?

I know that a lot of people, like myself, support the positions of a religious conservative like Ted Cruz, who has stated, at least, that he wants to hold Iran and other terrorist nations accountable for their actions, rather than appeasing them in Christian-like fashion. But how does someone like this square such tough talk and thinking with his no doubt deeply held faith in all that his lord and savior Jesus Christ taught and held dear? Doesn’t it occur to anyone that once in office, when push comes to shove, that those Christian teachings might carry the day, despite any tough talk from the past? Isn’t that a valid, real and practical concern? Or are we to assume that religious conservatives like this take none of their beliefs seriously? And if that is true, what does that say about their integrity and trustworthiness?

The same goes for economic matters. Ted Cruz says he opposes Obama’s taking over of the private sector. But will Cruz’s deeply Christian beliefs of service to others, and self-sacrifice as the central purpose of life, prevail when it comes time to cut taxes, cut or eliminate social programs, or put Americans on notice that Medicare’s days/years are numbered? It doesn’t seem likely, particularly if experience with other Christian conservatives in power (George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan) come to mind. While these men cut taxes, they didn’t do much else to end the role of government in the economy, nor did they particularly try. Under Bush in particular, the spending and role of government dramatically increased. Why the push to trust yet another Christian conservative to lead us on the path to capitalism, free markets, and individual rights across the board? It seems like fantasy.

These are the questions very few wish to consider. I know these questions arouse anxiety in many, and anxiety often converts to hostility. But if we’d like to survive, we’d do well to start considering them — and soon.

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at:

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.


  1. I have always felt that Ronald Reagan could have done so much more to reduce government as he often said he wanted to do. You may have given the best explanation why he didn’t.

  2. I don’t think this essay is very good.

    1. “In actual fact, the separation of church and state required by the Bill
    of Rights and U.S. Constitution could not make it more clear: Religion
    has no place in government.”

    It was until the twentieth century that the Supreme Court said that the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and thus the first amendment. Prior to that time states were free to have state churches, as Connecticut and Massachusetts did until around 1830. Now, this may be good or bad, but the goal of the founders was in part to establish a separation of the federal government and the state established churches.

    Not even Thomas Jefferson believed that religion had no role in politics. As governor of Virginia he did support some state advancement of religion.

    2 “Those who insist that America is a Christian nation typically claim that
    Thomas Jefferson, and other founders of the United States, were deeply
    faithful Christians.”

    I know hardly anyone who claims that Jefferson was a “deeply faithful Christian.” Some of the founders were not religious in a traditional way (such as Jefferson, Adams and probably Washington) but others were (such as Charles Caroll and Roger Sherman).

    3. “Like it or not, Obama — whatever his personal motives — seeks to
    implement Jesus’ central moral teaching that the purpose of life is to
    serve others. ”

    Hurd seems to know more about Obama’s beliefs than most. I think he attended his anti-white hate church in Chicago more out of political reasons than anything else.

    4. “In foreign policy, it would be hard to find a better representative of
    Jesus Christ’s well-known pacifism — “turn the other cheek” — than
    Obama’s proposal to pacify Iran.”

    I think it’s quite a stretch to take on phrase of Jesus and make it into a foreign policy prescription.

    5. “Today’s religiously oriented politicians are card-carrying members of
    the fundamentalist evangelical church organizations of their choosing.”

    Religious politicians are a mixed variety. Some are catholic, some protestant, some Jewish, some Mormons and other faiths I assume. I know relative few who are “fundamentalists” in that they believe in premellenial dispensationalism.

    Mr. Hurd should stick to psychotherapy.

  3. I think your criticism is fair and well thought out. I am with Dr Hurd in as much as government should not be involved in religion and vice versa, but I find with Dr Hurd and some others on CapMag that their separation-of-church-and-state mantra is simply a veneer covering their hostility to religion as such. They are perfectly entitled to that, of course, but in my opinion it manifests itself in articles that are of noticeably lower quality and they are less thought out than usual. That said, Dr. Hurd has done lots of good work, but this is not one of them.
    As an aside, and if I may be so presumptuous, I find Dr. Hurd’s articles dealing with homosexuality also to be lacking in substance. I suspect that his position on the topic also stems from his hostility to religion and not on having considered the topic on its own.

    Now…there I go playing psychoanalyst! :0)

  4. Dr Hurd, while I agree with your overall point of the essay, I think your grasp of Christian teachings is lacking. The passage comparing Pres. Obama / gov expansion of the entitlements to Christian teachings of taking care of the poor is wrong. Government Taking from people by force to give to the poor is far different than a person freely giving to the poor due to a personal or religious- inspired philosophy.

  5. Thank you, Dr. Hurd. Unfortunately, I fear you are underestimating the thickness of the brick you have addressed.

  6. Hey, you must’ve listened to the music of Jethro Tull, but what you say is true. Mike Kevitt

  7. You’re right, and we don’t wanna try reforming faith, but only religions, secular and theological, which is where faith is expressed. Reforming religions means getting faith outa gvt. and letting people practice faith on their own, privately, within the bounds of individual rights. Mike Kevitt

  8. He gave a good explanation of why Reagan didn’t. Mike Kevitt

  9. You say Mr. Hurd & CapMag are not principled in their opposition of union of ch. & state: they oppose it only because they don’t like religion for whatever reason. They might answer you on that. As for Hurd’s articles about queerism (my term), He might not favor queerism personally, but maybe he says gvt. must respect the right of anybody to engage in it within the bounds of individual rights. That would outlaw the kind of queerism that occurred in Sodom & Gomorrah (Genisis, ~, ~), where queers forced any & all of the same sex to have sex with them. But, if his stand on queerism stems only from his hostility to religion, as you say, then his stand on queerism is not principled. It’s only because he doesn’t like religion for whatever reason. And if Hurd puts his stand on queerism within individual rights, then he doesn’t adhere to individual rights on principle, but only when it suits him. Is this what you say? If it’s what you say, Mr. Hurd might answer you on that if he chooses to do so. Mike Kevitt

  10. That I have. And although I suspect Mr. Anderson and I have opposite politics, his notions regarding dogmatic thought are right on. As for the brick itself, American conservative Christians are under the impression that government needs religion to keep its actions moral. In truth, the moral character of any government official is relevant only to the extent which they remain loyal to the principle of individual rights. One could be the most promiscuous lecher imaginable, and still make a better President than an unfailingly pious man, so long as the lecher defended liberty whereas the pious man did not.

  11. All the historical forests & trees, of who thought or felt what for whatever reasons, don’t change the facts which we DO know and must recognize and heed whether Washington , et al, did or not. We know that law & gvt. is and means justice against initiatory physical force. Within that, religion, drug use, prostitution, pornography, scientific inquiry, invention, technology, engineering, mining, mass production & mkt. distribution, running for fitness or smoking anything, etc. HAS free reign. THAT constitutes separation of gvt. from everything, not just from religion. But then, as per gvt’s. proper function, enforcement of individual rights, gvt. is in union with, is part & parcel with, all human culture as such, with society and with crime, to protect society by stamping out crime at home and abroad. Mike Kevitt

  12. I didn’t carefully read, in detail, this whole article. I often don’t do that.
    America is a nation of individual rights, implying egoism, reason and objectivity as per reality by sensory perception. That implies GUNS ready for the 1st. initiation of force by law. That circumscribes all human action and all human relations. That includes religion, drug use, science, technology, industry, commerce, pornography, etc., to the exclusion of crime (initiatory force) which can & does occur in all of these and outside of these. America is the nation of individual rights. Mike Kevitt

  13. Gvt. needs, it IS, individual rights. Individual rights is gvt.; gvt. is individual rights. Outside individual rights, it ain’t gvt. It’s crime. Outside individual rights, it must not be given physical power.
    Only gvt., individual rights, MUST be given power. Only individual rights, encoded, is law. Anything else, ‘encoded’, is nothing but perverted legislation, to be brushed off by you and by me, and by anybody. Individual rights, by FORCE, responsive, against initiatory force when it occurs, that’s gvt. We’ve got the law to authorize it formally. Let’s brush off the flak and proceed as per individual rights. Mike Kevitt

  14. Sure, I would be happy for Dr Hurd to weigh in on this, if he cares to do so. I do not recall him taking part in the threads in the way that, say, Edward Cline does, so until and unless he does I can only speculate.

    As well, I would *not* suggest that Hurd et al are not principled in their opposition to the union of church and state, which is a principle I share. However, I think their arguments in this regard tend to be less well articulated than are their arguments on other topics. In this I see their hostility to religion as such underlying the main thesis, and then their examples and arguments simply serve to confirm their bias.

    This does not, however, diminish or undermine the value of keeping religion and government separate. That said, Mike, I would be happy if Hurd would elaborate on this in his own words, as you suggest.

  15. Absolutely.

  16. Only thing we’re missing is for liberals and conservatives to get the hell out of the way.

  17. “I know hardly anyone who claims that Jefferson was a “deeply faithful Christian.” Some of the founders were not religious in a traditional way (such as Jefferson, Adams and probably Washington) but others were (such as Charles Caroll and Roger Sherman).”

    Not just non-traditional, but in Jefferson’s case, anti-Christian:

    “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

    Paine was an atheist; most were deists–which point Hurd was making vis a vis evangelical Chrsitians, like Walker or Cruz.

    “Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles.” –James Madison

    “Not even Thomas Jefferson believed that religion had no role in politics. As governor of Virginia he did support some state advancement of religion.”

    Cites, please.

    “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” -Thomas Jefferson


    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

    [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]

    Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    (signed) Thomas Jefferson


    Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America, wrote in 1644 of the need for: “[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”

    This under the “Be Careful What You Wish For” Dept. The separation of church and state keeps religion out of government, to be sure; but it also keeps government out of religion.

    Imagine the ramifications of that, and if you love your religion, you’ll be at the lead to keep solid Jefferson’s (and Williams’) wall.

  18. What we’re missing is law enforcement to get these ‘politicians’ outa the way.

  19. The first is not a quote anywhere in Jefferson’s writing. Go look it up.

  20. Ultimately, it all goes back to the electorate. The only way around them would be a genuine tax revolt. If the Tea Party cared less about birth certificates and more about capitalism, we might have a chance. As it is, capitalism is just an excuse for them to impose their religious views on the rest of us, no different from the liberals and their socialism. They don’t care about taxes so long as they’re paying for social engineering they agree with. They’re happy to be obedient citizens so long as the end result is that everyone else is being forced to obey according to their design.

  21. Okay, I admit my error; here’s my correction, the portion of the quote attributable to Jefferson.

    “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of
    Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned…What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half
    hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”

    Back in 1883–a time apparently less religious than now–the first part was erroneously attributed to Jefferson by John Remsburg in “Words of Wisdom,” Boston Investigator.

    I think my point was made nonetheless.

    Still waiting for your cites.

  22. What cites? I’m not mkkevitt nor Donald.
    No I don’t think it can be maintained that Jefferson was anti Christian. He abhorred the force element that the priest or other religious leaders frequently employed though.

  23. I replied to your post; the queue placed me down here.

    “Not even Thomas Jefferson believed that religion had no role in
    politics. As governor of Virginia he did support some state advancement
    of religion.”

    Cites, please.

    Worth reprising:

    “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

    Or, for that matter, Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, etc.

    Jefferson was a deist (see Aristotle’s Immovable Mover), not a Christian and was anti-Christian–perhaps even anti-religion–by extension, by his emphasis on the supremacy of reason over faith.

    “Fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” — Thomas Jefferson

    “In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance.”

    For him, force was part and parcel of any faith, i.e., emotionalism, because one cannot persuade others by one’s feelings. That is why faith, left unchallenged and untamed, always leads to tyranny and to death and always will–as Jefferson also knew. Just a few reminders, with which I’m certain Jefferson was familiar:


    (Deuteronomy 13: 13)
    Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 15Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

    “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.” — St. Paul: 2 Corinthians 10: 4-6 [New King James Version]).


    (Quran 8:12)
    “I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

    Quran (9:5)
    “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”


    Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156
    If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth.

    Choshen Ha’mishpat 425:50
    Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious [non-Jews] is as acceptable to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God.

    (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
    If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

    Of course, when the deity you worship tells you–“He that loveth his life shall lose it and he that hateth his life in this world shall keepeth it unto life eternal”–then death worship becomes the goal. How do those words of Christ differ in principle from:

    “You should love the other world, and you should not be afraid to die, because to die in the right cause and go to the other world, that’s praiseworthy” (Osama Bin Laden).

    Or from this:

    Each Muslim should have an ambition for martyrdom, be a lover of death. (Every martyr shall have seventy deer-eyed houris as his consorts.) —Muhammad (S.A.A. Maududi & A.H. Siddiqi; Jihad in Islam, Lahore, 1991)

    The diff today among these three religions is that Judaism was tamed by pax Romana, Christianity, by the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment–the Age of Jefferson’s Reason. Islam, though, suffering no such taming, is still in the Dark Ages.

    The ”Empire of Yahweh, Christ & Allah” has ruled mankind for the majority of its history, and for that period human life has been cheap, brief and brutish. Moreover, all that the secular (so called) totalitarians know of despotism and its methods they learned from the kings–and the mythical figurehead–of that Empire.

    And the Founders, especially Jefferson knew it. Too bad so few today do.

    “I have sworn upon the altar of God [a deist “God”], eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” –Thomas Jefferson

  24. Yes, of course the REAL reason the Tea Part failed is because they don’t share (enough) of your own pet Leftest leanings.

    If only they were willing to sell out their own beliefs and put your interest ahead of theirs, I’m sure they could have gotten somewhere.

    Yeah, that what it is…

    …And Mitt Romney lost because he was too much of a hard liner.

    You are no different then all the other mindless Tea Party bashers who are threatened by any alternative to the Liberalization on this country.

    Now go back to whining about how the Republicans are too willing to sellout to the Democrats, I know how much you enjoy that particular dead horse.

  25. What are my leftist leanings, exactly? The Tea Party fails because it doesn’t actually know what it’s doing. It has zero intellectual leadership, and the politicians who have pledged themselves to the Tea Party are not failures because they’re hard-liners. They’re failures because they aren’t. They know how to get your blood up, and how to demonize the things and people that scare you, and that’s about it. When it comes to ideas, they have nothing to offer but watered down liberalism with a cross stuck on top.

  26. You’re Anti-Christian Zealotry.

    You weren’t aware that being anti-religion has long favorite ideal of leftest?

    A Godless utopian society has long been the dream of Marxest.

    So you’re saying that being anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-drug legalization are all Liberal ideas?

    Very interesting.

  27. I’m saying Christianity is a liberal idea. Just left-wing monotheism. The other ones you listed are garden variety bigotry. Nothing special, and nothing remotely capitalist(which is the true right wing).

  28. Ok, now I get it.

    The Tea Party are nothing but a bunch of bigots, how original.

    You do realise there are other religions besides Christianity don’t you?

    I guess I never knew how “Capitalistic” Obama is…

  29. No, I don’t think you do get it. The Tea Party–to the extent that it is capitalist–is the best thing to ever happen to American politics in the past 100 years. To the extent that it attracts all kinds of fringe, conspiracy theorist paranoia and bigotry, it undermines itself root and branch. It gives capitalism a bad name by associating it with things that are anathema to economic liberty, and it gives power to people like Obama and people like ISIL who despise individual rights and wish for nothing more than to destroy them. Maybe you should put down your emotionalist hash of clichés and sound bites and try understanding what the concept means so that you can stop making the rest of us look stupid.

  30. Finally you speak the truth!-it took you awhile, but finally you said what you really think.

    I wish more Libertarians/Objectivist were as honest as you are. You need to make you’re true beliefs absolutely clear to all the actual Conservatives, who have taken you under their wing, because I’m really resent having to accept stealth Liberals like yourself.

  31. Liberalism is not capitalist. Christianity is not capitalist. Capitalism is the selfish pursuit of profit through a system of free, voluntary association, in a free marketplace of goods and ideas. There is no place in capitalism for people who wish to use the law to control goods, or for people who wish to use the law to control ideas. Those two kinds of people are destroying America. No one else. I am not one of those people. I am a capitalist in the radical sense of the word. I believe it is how man was designed by nature to live on this Earth. So did Samuel Adams, James Otis, Paul Revere, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. That’s why they rebelled against 1776 years of tradition: to be free of those people who used the law to control how they thought, and worked, and lived (bureaucrat AND clegy). That is what it means to be American. Jesus and Marx are two sides of the same anti-American penny and it’s high time that it get lost.

  32. Like I said, you need to be more open about what you REALLY believe. For too long you’re ilk have been given a free pass by Conservatives and the “fringe” Tea Party. You need to make sure that Conservatives know exactly what they are getting themselves into whenever they try and find middle ground with you, and that you don’t have their best interest in mind. Any time one of them tries defending you to a liberal, you need to tell them, IN NO UNCERTAIN terms that you don’t share any of their beliefs and that you think they all bigots, insane, and totally irrelevant.

    But above all make sure they know what you think about their religion.

  33. Who gives a damn about what I think of their religion??? What I think is that they have no right to use the law to impose it on the rest of the country. Do you???

  34. i’ve got a better question, who gives a damn what you think about anything? Here’s what you can’t seem to understand, Libertarianism is the answer to a question nobody ever asked. The “Lunatic Fringe” Tea Party agitated the Communist in this country so bad that they put all their efforts into destroying them. Compare this to the “erudite” Libertarian/Objectivist who aren’t even acknowledged by them.

    But here’s the question, is it because they dont’t provide any serious threat to them, or is because they are ideologically similar?

  35. It’s because we’re the only threat to them. You people do most of their work for them. With enemies like the conservatives, why do the liberals need allies?

  36. I don’t even understand you’re last post.

  37. You have understood none of my posts.

  38. That doesn’t speak highly of you does it?

  39. What speaks unhighly of one’s self is making a debate personal when you could answer none of the questions or challenges put to you. Looking to impugn the character of your opponent in lieu of making a genuine argument is one of the lowest indicators of intellectual bankruptcy.

  40. Questions? What questions?

    I see one person painting with the widest brush possible, but I don’t hear any questioning.

    What specifically are these questions you speak of?

  41. I just asked you one, and you evaded it with “I have a better question…” Why am I still engaging you when you can’t even be bothered to read, or to remember what you read?

  42. I guessing its because you are envious of are status and frustrated that your own movement has never held any mainstream popularity.

    This is probably the reason why, at the height of the Tea Party’s popularity, your kind tried desperately to hitch your wagon to their cause. It wasn’t until it was over and its reputation slandered beyond repair that you made your true feelings heard.

  43. The question I asked you before you said “I have a better question…” was ‘do you believe you have a right to use the law to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of the country?’ But if you just want to fabricate reasons to insult me and continue to pretend your grasp of the proper relationship of government and religion has not been challenged, feel free to persist in your delusion.

  44. Ok, ok, so the “challenge” you presented me was to ask my own personal opinion on a particular subject. I chose not to answer, because its not my place to advertise my beliefs when they have no relevance.

    But I’ll do it just to please you.

    It may come as a surprise to you but I’m no fan of Christianity and don’t approve of its influence on government. That’s the reason why I hate it’s “anti-war, turn the other cheek” mentality, the same mentality shared by Godless communist and libertarians. Its why I hate their support of the welfare state.

    It’s also the reason why I REALLY hate it when they openly encouraging illegals to come across the border.

  45. The subject under discussion was the propriety of religion in American government. How is it not relevant?

  46. What right do you have do demand my opinion on anything? ‘My” opinions aren’t up for discussion, and don’t speak for anybody but myself. You keep complaining that I’m making this personal, but you are the one fixated on making it about me.

  47. You’re unhinged. Good day sir.

  48. That’s what you repeatedly say about anyone you disagree with. Now, all you have to do is convince someone, and that would make two of you.

  49. Who am I? You speak as though you have witnessed many discussions involving. myself. Perhaps you are confusing me with others who have called you unhinged when they could follow your scribbles no longer. Perhaps only those you believe to be undermining the fine mixed economic culture that has brought America so far. I’m sure it could be many things. I’m not interested. What concerns me is that you came in here on the offensive, levelling charges of anti-religious zealotry against a philosophy that you’re sure ruined the Tea Party because it caused the radical left to mobilize and worked to subvert the movement from within. You accused Objectivism of being a liberal school of thought. None of what you had to say made any sense and when I sought clarity regarding your position you became defensive, certain that what you believed. was not relevant to your trolling of my beliefs. How could anyone ‘convince’ you? You’re on a witchhunt and the tools you have brought are the right ones for the job.

  50. What I find interesting is, that no matter how many times you belittle my arguments… you still keep coming back. Say what you will about “us’ Tea Party supporters, you couldn’t ignore us, which certainly isn’t true about you and yours.

  51. You have not made any arguments. I’m having a hard time deciding if you’ve actually said anything.

  52. The feelings mutual.

    But I would like to make a statement, your resentment of the Tea Party is reminiscent of the “Politics of Envy”.

  53. It’s not a feeling and if there were something to envy, I would never have been able to draw attention to the Tea Party’s lack of success. However, your nonsense regarding my motives for not believing that the Tea Party can be successful is just that. If you want to understand the error you’re making (using the ideas of a woman who you have already claimed to resent), I would recommend Extremism: The Art of Smearing and Psychologizing the Psychologizers. They may help you to understand how you came to such ridiculous conclusions as my alleged belief that the Tea Party are all bigots, or that I am sad because Ayn Rand’s ideas are not famous.

  54. “such ridiculous conclusions as my alleged belief that the Tea Party are all bigots”

    In other words your starting to hedge…

    Anyway, I find it amusing that you accuse me of using smear tactics, when it was you who attempted to play the race card.

  55. In other words, you don’t know the difference between the words ‘some’ and ‘all’. If you are not aware of the bigots among those claiming kinship with the Tea Party, then you’re ignorant, disingenuine, or both.

  56. Ok, so now its just ‘some’ of them are bigots, “claiming” kinship with the Tea Part.


  57. It was always some. For lack of a clear identity, there is no way to keep out those who see the fight for America as one for a white Protestant utopia. That is not the basis for rights, and it is not the basis employed by the Founders. The real fight for America is the fight for liberty. Conservatives who understand that have nothing to fear from Objectivism’s atheism. Objectivism is the philosophical foundation missing from the 18th century argument for individual rights. And the 19th century argument. And the 20th. Good conservatives know that liberty is right; they don’t know why. It is not becausethe Constitution says so, or becausegod say so. Human being reuire liberty to survive as human beings becauseit is their nature. All human beings. Protestant, Catholic,Jewish, Muslim, gay, straight, black, white, native and foreign. Do you understand?

  58. I don’t understand why you need to resort to such silly historionics as “fighting for a white Protestant Utopia”. When did they ever state such things? I see a group of people who a willing to put their religion aside and run completely contrary to the Church on subjects such as, welfare, war, immigration, no different then the founders.

    Nobody is afraid of you strictly because of your atheism, its you, like most atheist (particularly socialist), criticism’s always cross the line into personal attacks.

    You say,”It is not becausethe Constitution says so, or becausegod say so. Human being reuire liberty to survive as human beings becauseit is their nature. All human beings. Protestant, Catholic,Jewish, Muslim, (wheres the Marxest’s), gay, straight, black, white, native and foreign”.

    Its funny that you include Muslim on the list, seeing as how this website has made its feelings absolutely clear on the subject; its totally incompatible with Western Civilization.

  59. Do you suggest rounding up all the Muslims and Marxists for deportation or imprisonment?

  60. Every single time I ask a question or make an observation, you deflect it and ask me some manipulative question in response.

    You’re are either trying to distract me, or simply trying to get the last word in, I haven’t decided which one.

  61. What alternative is there to recognizing that all people have the right to a sovereign existence, insofar as they do not violate the individual sovereignty of others?

  62. I asked for your opinion point blank and you flat out refused to answer, or to even acknowledge it for that matter.

    In addition to that, it seems like every time we were finished hashing out one topic, you go off on another tangent.

    Its not the fact that you come off so deceitful that irks me, Its because you’re so brazen about it.

  63. You can’t keep up.

  64. Keep up with what you endlessly changing the subject and the rules of the argument, why would I what to? You aren’t even a skilled propagandist, your pure amateur hour.

  65. There would be no Tea Party without Objectivism or Libertariamism.

  66. And once again you go completely off the reservation with some totally irreverent statement.

  67. Your reservation is myopic and the truth reveres nothing but itself.

  68. I take it that you have simply given up trying to be convincing at this point?

  69. I would not presume and I have not thus far. I led you to water. I can’t think for you.

  70. I think that was the most incoherent post yet, you have your work cut out for you to top that one.

  71. You said it.

  72. …and you managed to top yourself, I’m impressed.

  73. Excellent spot on truth – ♡♡♡

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Help Capitalism Magazine get the pro-capitalist message out.

With over 9,000 articles online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

Pin It on Pinterest