I don’t think I need to belabour these points. As to free markets and conservatism, the two are often found together, but with tensions, as I said. I certainly prefer the capitalist option over the socialist one, and I think Scripture does too. That is not to argue that complete laissez faire economics is without problems.

No one denies that care for the poor and oppressed is biblical. What is disputed is the best economic and political means of dealing with these problems. I think statism, welfarism and socialism are not the best options here, and that generally speaking, the free market set up best deals with these issues. But if you want more on that, I will have to pen yet another article for yet another day!

Finally, as should be clear from now, I find radical civil libertarianism to be of real concern, or dangerous, and I also find atheism to be so. So if both are combined in one person or one ideology, I just see double trouble, that’s all. As I said, a better title could have been used.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Thanks for clarifying your views, but I still disagree with your terminology. Your “second understanding” of civil liberties is a very narrow one. Most civil liberties groups in Australia with which I am familiar embrace the full spectrum of freedoms that you call “classical liberalism” and are not concerned purely with “moral issues”.

I also challenge your generalisation that “civil libertarians tend to want no restrictions on such things as human sexuality, drug use, pornography, absolute freedom of speech”. I don’t know of any civil libertarians who are absolutist in these matters. The more usual position is to recognise that there are limits to freedom of speech, child pornography and incitement to violence being common examples.

I also find it puzzling that you think social conservatives would be comfortable with fiscal libertarianism, which is a rather extreme and essentially impractical free market ideology. The unbiblical “God helps those who help themselves” is at odds with much of Christian belief, e.g. Isaiah 25:4 “For You have been a defense for the helpless, a defense for the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat…”

And you have yet to explain why (civil) libertarianism and atheism are a “dangerous mix”.

Daniel Farrelly

Yes, the term ‘libertarian’ has different connotations, so further clarification is needed. There are at least three main understandings of the word. One has to do simply with the belief in freedom of the will, in a more philosophical and theological sense. That is not my concern here.

A second understanding is more of a political one. It refers to those who want maximum liberty and a minimum amount of regulation, especially on moral and cultural issues. John Stuart Mill of course comes to mind here (or, as in this case, Phillip Adams). Anarchists would be the extreme version, but civil libertarians tend to want no restrictions on such things as human sexuality, drug use, pornography, absolute freedom of speech, and so on. Thus they tend to oppose all forms of censorship. Their views are often quite at odds with those of cultural conservatives.

The third main usage refers to economic libertarianism, as in various free market ideologies, laissez-faire capitalism, etc. Names such as Hayek and Friedman would be included here. Cultural conservatives have less problems here, and tend to be advocates of the free market as well. But there can still be tensions.

For what it is worth, I am a cultural conservative, and generally supportive of free-market economics. But I realize that often unbridled capitalism can work against some of my conservative principles. Thus I am not happy the way the corporate world targets kids, say in suggestive clothing and the like. As another example, I would generally agree with someone like Friedman on preferring capitalism over socialism, but would disagree with him on the issue of drug legalization.

The items you list in your second paragraph are what might be properly called the features of classical liberalism. Of course I support all of these, and see no problem with them. They are not to be confused with the demands of the radical civil libertarians however

As to the headline, yes I could have used something else, perhaps something more clear. And I did try to suggest that there is often a connection between non-believers and civil libertarianism (in the second sense of the term).

As to those examples, I did say they were “extreme scenarios”.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

You have used the term “libertarian” throughout your piece as if it means the same thing as “civil libertarian”, when they have entirely different connotations.

And how can you justify the sweeping generalisations and disparaging comments you make about civil libertarians? Civil liberties include freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to due process, the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy. Surely you don’t oppose these rights? Would you prefer an authoritarian society?

I’m also at a loss to understand your headline. You haven’t explained why civil liberties and atheism are a dangerous mix. Your assertions about snuff films, child porn, heroin in K-mart etc. are exaggerations.

Daniel Farrelly, Sydney

Whilst I agree with your overall point, I suggest that we take care with over-statements – they can come back to bite us, especially if wielded by a libertine respondent.

I would add to Bill’s reply that such folk often choose research-type positions where they have access to lots of data. Then they can play various games such as “I’m an expert” and “Blinding the masses with [pseudo-]science” to reinforce their case.

His list (to which I would add the bureaucracies, separately from politics) covers all the major research-driven callings apart from advertising.

John Angelico