Mandeville, LA - UPDATED (see below for comments) On today's Mike Church Show the question arose as to whether the "Tea Party" was using the term "conservative" to sell memberships, products, convention attendance or promote a lifestyle? Mike told producer "AG" that the answer was the former, "AG" then asked if "Libertarians"  were thus the new "conservatives?"

You are using an old, antiquated stereotype to describe my party that is just not true any longer. In fact, most of us (myself included) became libertarians BECAUSE of our Christian faith NOT in spite of it.

Mike responded "no (see transcript of this conversation here) because most Libertarians I know reject a transcendant order and are anarchists at heart." Mike then said that "I do not mean to generalize here and I know people will take it that way and the hate mail will flow." Well, the mail did begin to flow but it is thoughtful and worthy of printing here.


I have to fundamentally disagree with your statement on Libertarians. Every state is different. We are all like independent franchises. Each state is under no compulsion to follow what the other states are doing. 

Own your AUTOGRAPHED copy of THE book on the American Union's realignment

Own your AUTOGRAPHED copy of THE book on the American Union's realignment

Having said that, in Florida (the only state I can account for) we are MORE Christian based than atheist or agnostic. Yes we do have some in the party that are not believers but that is the vast minority. Our state chair (and candidate for governor as well as my great friend) Adrian Wyllie, is a devout Christian. As is myself, our entire legislative review committee, 85% of our state executive committee and nearly all of our members. In fact, when we wrote our state platform we made sure to have a devout Christian (Tom Rhodes) write it. 

We abhor the faction of our party that are anarchists and work very hard to dispel that very wrong stigma and stereotype. We do have what we call the "old guard" libertarians who do lean towards anarchy or atheism, however the party has grown by leaps and bounds since the 70's and it is just not true of our party any longer. As I travel around the state campaigning with Adrian I have seen this first hand. Our people are Constitutionalists and not by any means anarchists. 

You are using an old, antiquated stereotype to describe my party that is just not true any longer. In fact, most of us (myself included) became libertarians BECAUSE of our Christian faith NOT in spite of it. I go to an amazing church every Sunday that is ALL libertarian and there are many more like that around our state. 

Adrian wrote about it over the weekend because we had noticed what a stigma Republicans and Democrats still had against us when it came to religion and how wrong they actually were as we have been traveling to every LP affiliate around the state. 

His article is here and his reasoning is the exact reason why I personally became a libertarian. I could just not read the bible and follow the teachings of Jesus and be anything but in the LP! 

In Liberty, 

Danielle Alexandre

UPDATE I - A note I received from Brandon in SC

On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Brandon  wrote:

Mr. Church,

Listenr_Hate_MailI'm writing you an email in the beyond remote hope that you may read it and actually consider it. I only spare this effort with you now because up until today I have had the utmost respect for you. I certainly doubt you will dedicate any effort to it considering what I'm now finding to be your entertainer status a la Rush. This is a shame to say since after all, up until this morning, I have had nothing but praise for you to my fiends and colleagues.

I have heard you mention "libertarian double-speak" before, but unfortunately during those mentions I had not tuned in sufficiently to understand your context, so I was willing to give you a pass as by and large your message has seemed to be the correct one. However, this morning when you stereotyped those that call themselves libertarians to be atheists and anarchists, you crossed the line into intellectual dishonesty and downright laziness. I realize you qualified this by saying some such comment as perhaps not all of them, but this does not negate your incorrect and destructive assumption.

I consider myself of the libertarian philosophy precisely BECAUSE I am a Christian, and I am certainly no anarchist. There is no political ideology compatible with Christianity other than libertarianism. Do unto others, remember? Turn the other cheek, remember? Let he who hath no sin, remember? These are the ideals of Jesus, and these are the ideals of both libertarianism AND the little 'r' republicanism you claim to support. Personal responsibility. Freedom and liberty. These are the pillars of the founders, and you only serve to weaken the foundations of these pillars with remarks such as these that suggest there are any real differences between the two, which there ARE NOT. Do you support the jailing of drug users and prostitutes? If so , how is this in keeping with the teachings of Jesus when he told the prostitute "Go and sin no more"? If not, you ARE libertarian, despite whatever nit your trying to pick. Furthermore, just because I do not support the jailing of these people does not mean I would partake in this behavior. It is because I possess the same morals you tried to claim I do not possess this morning. Shame on you for this.

Yes, there ARE atheists that call themselves libertarians. There are also atheists that call themselves every other political label in existence. However, despite the presence or absence of any spiritual beliefs an individual has, if you believed a shred of what you preach, you must acknowledge that libertarianism IS moral. What is immoral is for you to suggest that it is not.


Brandon in SC

Mike Church's Response

Dear Brandon,

I knew this letter was coming when I didn't ABSOLUTELY and beyond an ABSOLUTIST'S shadow of doubt state that my comments were not to be taken as a blanket assertion and yet here I am! How dare you impune my morality in this instance, Sir, when I plainly stated, honestly, both my intent for the statement and a qualification of it as stated above!?

Criticize the conclusions I arrived at all you like but leave YOUR Solomonizing to Solomon (and Jesus). Anyone who would throw the words of Our Lord & Savior (ever heard me say that on-air, Brandon!?) Jesus Christ up into my face as though I have not read them, publicly (at great risk to my career) promoted and defended them is either A. a dubious egomaniac bent on the assertion of their own necessity or B. NOT a listener of any frequency or C. just a plain old liar.

If the "conclusions" You have reached are so well grounded in what you believe are facts, I bid you anon, do not trouble me with further deceits.


Mike Church