Most "Austrians" I know, including Walter Block--whom I have always found to be quite a nice and sincere man--are confused about who decides what. Like most libertarians, they uphold such human rights as the right to read or view pornography or have whatever consensual sex they like with whomever they are drawn to--though most would probably set an age limit. But what happens when a local sheriff cracks down on porn parlors or gay bars? They want to sue in Federal court. That's right, by following their patently untrue theory, they end up actually increasing the power of the central state. I used to argue this--actually discuss would be a better word--with Rothbard, who quickly came to agree with me, and he and I once debated a Big Government libertarian team that included Justin R, who broke down in the debate and joined our side. That is what happens when rational minds debate: errors are corrected and minds are clarified. If I influenced Murray a bit, I am also quite proud to say that he influenced me much more, not philosophically of course, but in his acute analysis of political issues from a principled point of view. His mind was razor-sharp and it cut through a lot of pseudo-pragmatic junk that tends to short-circuit honest thought. He also had guts and did not care if he lost money or support by telling what he thought was the truth.

It doesn't matter what you "think"; the question at hand is what Mises said, and what his purpose was in saying it. That is quite clear from the text of Socialism.

The Church cannot "retain its once liberal tradition," because the Church never had a "liberal tradition." Indeed, again, you're arguing against Mises as much as you're arguing against me—Mises believed that the Church needed to be "transformed" into a liberal institution, rather than to recover something She once had in the past.

"Some of the first communist societies in the west"

This would be relevant if it was what Mises was discussing. It wasn't; as I noted above, he is discussing the Church, and he more than once makes it clear that the Church in question is the Catholic Church.

"So you theorize that Rothbard first hated the Church"

Please do not put words in my mouth. I have said no such thing.

"you have obviously taken the discussion away from its original premise which is that Mises wanted to destroy Christianity because now you are invoking Rothbard’s writings, not Mises’."

Yes, because you invoked Rothbard. Please try to keep up with the line of your own arguments; that will help you understand my replies to them.

"Second, Rothbard wasn’t a theologian."

Finally, we agree completely on something.

"He was very fond of individuals who progressed individual liberty and disliked those who retarded or tried to extinguish it. The Church played home to both these mentalities at different times and sometimes at the same time."

But then you had to go and blow it. The Church is concerned with the only liberty that matters—the freedom of the will that, in cooperation with God's grace, allows us freely to choose to accept the salvation offered by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

"The Church is not a single entity with a singular position or idea on a matter."

Precisely wrong, if you're speaking of the Catholic Church, which, as I've mentioned repeatedly, Mises clearly is, and if you're speaking of matters of faith and morals.

Rothbard’s favorite was St. Aquinas who was second only to Aristotle.

I avoided saying this bluntly earlier, but I'm afraid I cannot avoid it now. As much as I admire some of Rothbard's writings, especially from his later years, when I say that he is guilty of special pleading, I mean that he used history as a weapon. Like Tom Paine, who cited historical examples in The Rights of Man, Rothbard did not approach the history of Christianity with an historical sense. Rather, he cherry-picked to find examples that could be used to advance his argument, and discarded the rest.

In that sense, he was less outwardly antagonistic toward Christianity than Mises, but Mises was more honest about what his liberalism entailed. Mises' belief that the Church needed to "transform" Herself into a liberal institution was not an "incorrect comment"; it was what he sincerely believed. And being not just a non-Christian but a nonbeliever, it did not bother him in the least to believe it.

For those of us who believe, however, that single statement should be enough to make us question whether the rest of Mises' thought could possibly be compatible with the faith of our fathers.