Christian, why Ron Paul?
This primary season, evangelicals have been thrashing around in the political marketplace looking for a consistent conservative who can restrain the government, revive the economy, and, of course, defeat Barack Obama. Their support has moved from Tim Pawlenty to Michele Bachmann, then to Rick Perry, followed by Herman Cain. After Cain’s departure, many evangelicals broke for Newt Gingrich, and many remain there. But that’s where it gets really interesting. David French at Patheos.com marvels at this alliance. He asks, “If evangelicals choose to reject numerous alternatives and wrap both arms around a serial philandering, hopelessly grandiose politician, then what is our distinctive witness in this process?”
An equally unlikely beneficiary of evangelical backing (or what should be unlikely), but for different reasons, is Ron Paul. The Texas congressman and libertarian icon has been rising in the polls as some jaded Newt supporters have been joining his ardent base of devotees, many of whom are evangelical Christians.
One good reason for evangelicals to support Paul is that he unambiguously advocates a restrictive view of what government should do at a time when the growth and reach of government are out of control. The Bible tells us that God established government for a limited purpose—to punish evil and praise well-doing (Romans 13:1-10; 1 Peter 2:14)—giving other responsibilities to individuals, families, and churches. For two generations or so, beginning with the New Deal, evangelicals had been comfortable with government overstepping these boundaries. But they discovered the biblical beauty of small government when the New Left moved into power in the 1970s and government became aggressively secular and began championing immorality. Today, after the Bush-Obama government blowout, evangelicals are taking the limited role of government even more seriously.
Another strong evangelical case in favor of Ron Paul is his consistent stand in favor of a closely related good: the rule of law and, in particular, constitutionalism. God governs the universe by law. When He called one people from among the nations to be holy, He gave them a law that would have prospered them had they followed it. Christ died to fulfill every jot and tittle of that law. Christians’ support for the rule of law flows from their love for God.
It flows also from their love for neighbor: Equality before the law follows from the Christian view of people as created equally in the image of God and is essential to political equality. The left talks a great deal about equality, but what they establish is the superiority of the governing class (especially unaccountable activist judges and government bureaucrats) and of government-favored groups, like unions and dependents of the welfare state. Ron Paul is a fierce defender of political equality under law.
But when it comes to substantive moral questions, a Ron Paul-directed government would be hands-off. So it is odd that Paul won the Oct. 8 Values Voter Summit straw poll. Perhaps this was on account of his laudable pro-life voting record, a substantive point of agreement between Dr. Paul and conservative evangelicals. Perhaps it is because his strong organization bussed in 600 of the 2,000 participants.
Paul’s opposition to moral legislation betrays his failure to appreciate the government’s divine mandate to punish evil and praise good. Domestically, that’s a mandate to make moral distinctions between good and evil behavior. To restrict what government can punish simply to whatever limits the freedom of others to chart their personal courses has no basis in Scripture, and is more akin to the 17th century liberalism of John Locke or the 19th century utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill.
Biblical government not only secures us in our lives and property so that “we may lead a peaceful and quiet life.” It also actively cultivates a moral environment that facilitates people’s ability to live their lives “godly and dignified in every way” and pass such moral habits along to their children (1 Timothy 2:2). Libertarians like Ron Paul deny this fundamental biblical political principle. As a result, Ron Paul’s America would look more like It’s a Wonderful Life’s Potterville than Bedford Falls. What is worst in us, unchecked and undiscountenanced, would flourish among us, freely chosen but encouraged by those who would exploit their neighbor’s moral weakness for gain.
Internationally, Rep. Paul also underestimates people’s capacity for evil and the government’s responsibility to protect American citizens, as we see in the video clip below from the final GOP debate before the Iowa caucus. He is correct that war making should proceed only from a congressional declaration of war. But he appears to think naively that if we leave the world alone, the world will leave us alone. A biblical guard dog is more watchful than that.
Though Ron Paul is confessedly a believer in Christ, he views his faith as entirely private and unrelated to public policy (see video clip below). It is instead his libertarianism that drives his politics, and so he would withhold most of the substance of the good that God intends for us in government. But Christians are accountable to God to help elevate to office the person who will govern in the godliest manner for purposes that most fully conform to the functions that God has assigned to government.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top539 Comments to “Christian, why Ron Paul?”
Ron Paul would open the door for same sex marriage to be the law of the land and open the door for drug use to be legal.
In my view Christian’s should beware and concern in supporting such a man..
Report comment to moderator
The door is already open for same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana. No president can do any of that on his own.
I do not think Ron Paul would even come close to winning against Barack Obama.
From yesterday: Paul Enjoying View From Top of the Polls.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/paul-enjoying-view-from-top-of-polls
The question is whether Mr. Paul can translate his appeal into votes.
In 2008, that wasn’t the case. He poured millions of dollars into Iowa but managed only a fifth-place showing with 9.9 percent of the votes cast.
His latest warnings involve the recent defense policy bill that passed Congress, which Mr. Paul said effectively repeals Posse Comitatus rules restricting U.S. military action within the nation’s borders, and he said another pending bill on Internet piracy would let the government “take over the Internet.”
He foresees “violence in the street” if the nation doesn’t turn around.
Report comment to moderator
I think Paul’s Libertarian theme meshes well with the prevalent attitude of most Americans: Do your own thing (but don’t expect me to pay for it). More and more voters are chafing at the entire “one size fits all” approach to government. One size doesnt fit all.
The common cultural/moral consensus that made big interventionist government acceptable to many simply no longer exists.
If we didnt live in a dangerous world (Putin, Iran, the various Islamic terror groups) Paul would be acceptable to most Americans.
I dont think I could vote for him but I laud his consistent proLife stand
Report comment to moderator
D.C.’s entire argument is based on this premise:
This tortured and politically motivated eisegesis (to borrow a term from another thread here) entirely ignores logic, context, and other Scripture.
There is an enormous unwarranted leap in logic here. From a Scripture passage that commands believers to obey the governing authorities because all authority comes ultimately from God who grants it to earthly servants to punish evil, it in no way follows that God thinks punishing evil is government’s only function. In other words, to say that X is a function of Y in no way implies that X is the ONLY function of Y.
D.C. entirely ignores the context. Paul is not writing a political tract like some 18th century philosophe justifying government and delimiting its powers. He is addressing believers who were being persecuted by the Roman government and exhorting them to obedience anyway. He may have been countering a rebellious impulse in the early church, who recoiled against the recent proclamation (some 50 years prior) that Caesar was a god. You cannot pretend that Paul’s audience in this passage is political philosophers and his intent is to define the scope of government.
Finally, D.C. ignores other Scripture in his gospel of conservatism. You cannot argue that government’s only biblical roles are punishing evil and praising good when the only government for which God directly and explicitly crafted rules (Old Testament Israel) had many other functions. Relevant to our discussion, God gave Israel rules about providing for the poor and the widows. These are precisely the sort of thing evangelical conservatives like Innes are saying fall outside the proper scope of government. I would not argue that because God commanded them for ancient Israel, they are likewise commanded for modern America; but since God established those rules himself, you cannot say that such rules are unbiblical because God likes small governments.
The biblical case for small government must begin with the corruption of human nature and argue that small governments are most effective given that corruption. The difficulty there is that you must use reasons and facts accessible to all. But this is an abuse of Scripture, to argue that Romans 13 is intended to limit the powers of government.
Finally, I will point out that if you want a government that “actively cultivates a moral environment that facilitates people’s ability to live their lives ‘godly and dignified in every way’”, then you do not want a small government! A government that is responsible for the “moral environment” of people’s private lives cannot possibly be “small” by any definition. You want the Puritan government of early Massachusetts. Though it was perhaps a “Biblical” government, it was most certainly not a “small” government.
Report comment to moderator
Great post D.C. Innes, but all conservative Christians do not think like you. None of our founding fathers did either, as far as I know, but were more closely aligned with John Locke and John Stuart Mill.
How can you oppose big oppressive government and yet advocate the need for moral policing? If you would put central planners in charge of personal morals, then how far would you go? Should adulterers be prosecuted? Should homosexuals be jailed? Where do you draw the line?
Oops, sorry about the block quotes.
Report comment to moderator
D.C. INNES opened his article thusly: “This primary season, evangelicals have been thrashing around in the political marketplace looking for a consistent conservative who can restrain the government…”
Good for evangelicals! The primary season is just the right time for considering a wide range of candidates and keeping an open mind. Iowa is just the first stae of fifty.
However, I hope they were looking for such a conservative. Unfortunately, too many weak and easily manipulated young evangelicals fell for Obama as a messianic figure last time around.
Report comment to moderator
XION asked; “How can you oppose big oppressive government and yet advocate the need for moral policing?”
Easy.
First, “policing” is an unnecessary pejorative here that poisons serious discourse.
Second, by following the Constitutional process for advocating for BOTH limited gov’t and fundamental moral concerns and essentials. The Constitution does NOT ban advocacy for morality either in the private or public sectors. It provides a process for such advocacy on an equal level with others.
Murder is a moral issue. Rape is too. So is theft, fraud, swindle, perjury, pedophilia, federal funding for homosexualism taughtin public schools, abortion, the definition of marriage, safe driving, respect for property and more. So is national defense.
“Where do you draw the line? Easy: Where the people and their representatives draw it; representatives who will be accountable for their line-drawing AND for their FAILURE to draw necessary lines. The Constitution is NOT an a-moral or anti-moral document and niether is the government of the USA that follows that Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Serous evangelicals are getting more and more hopeful about Rick Santorum; a decent, faithful, responsible small government conservative candidate who will not fall for irresponsible anarchy or isolationism (libertarianism) or for utopian messianic socialism (liberalism).
Report comment to moderator
Joel – I like Rick Santorum, the problem I saw was during the debates he was not given the chance to share his views as other were given.
Report comment to moderator
This is the libertarian position. We would rather live under robber barons than moralists with tremendous power. Christianity is not about the state.
—
If you promote and vote for someone who will lead to anti-christian values as the standard of a Nation. Is right for a Christian to vote for such a person?
At what point do we, as Christian’s in America, draw a line an say my Faith will not permit me to vote for such a person.
Report comment to moderator
JJF @4: Very well said. God uses government in many ways. The Romans 13 passage actually says that any government that exists, is ordained by God (v.1). That would include both good and bad systems. He alters the course of nations for His own purposes, “to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will” (Daniel 4:17).
Report comment to moderator
To me ,2012 is going to test that line as a Christian in America.
Report comment to moderator
Roy, I have to make compromise decisions all the time. I must choose the better candidate among the choices God has given me. We know that there are no perfect candidates – Christian or otherwise. I have to keep in mind exactly what any President has the power to do and how accountable he would feel to The People.
Report comment to moderator
A number of years ago, I read something – I’m pretty sure in WORLD Magazine – that pointed out a significant problem with government punishing people for immoral behavior (i.e. punishing behavior because it was immoral as opposed to because it hurt other people). It contrasted Muslim societies, where they have many such laws, and Western society where today we generally do not.
Where people avoid immoral behavior because it will get them in trouble with the law, they tend to desire the behavior and only restrain themselves because of the trouble it will get them into. The laws are written in the lawbooks but not in people’s hearts, and the laws on the books tend to multiply because people do not develop the moral sense to choose what is right apart from obeying outward laws.
Where people have more legal freedom to act immorally, some certainly will take advantage of that, but many others cultivate a moral sense within and do what is right because it is right. They need far fewer laws to govern their behavior because they govern it themselves.
I thought that made a lot of sense, and I still do.
Report comment to moderator
I’d say that 2012 is another year in which Christians must stand strong in order to keep our country strong for religious freedoms and demonstrate where their in alienable rights come from. Just as our founding fathers believed.
Report comment to moderator
Roy, I have to make compromise decisions all the time.
—
Louise,
At what point do we compromise our faith?
Report comment to moderator
#8 Joel, “First, “policing” is an unnecessary pejorative here that poisons serious discourse.”
A law without enforcement is the same as having no law.
Calling everything a moral issue is not incorrect, but it is not helpful when determining the limits of government. Liberals use the moral argument just as strongly to redistribute wealth, control the food you eat, your health care, your retirement, what you can say, how much carbon you emit and so on.
So you have two sets of moralists, both of whom want to empower central planners to impose their own morality by taking away freedom through enforcement. Both sides claim the moral imperative yet vehemently disagree.
So more is required to determine the limits of government than just claiming to be moral. Leaving it to legislators will not work, since they will always vote to increase their own power. What we need are principles. Ron Paul is one of the few who consistently sticks to a set of well known principles which advocate liberty, a concept which is mostly forgotten these days.
Those who oppose legislating personal moral decisions do NOT oppose morality. As a doctor, Ron Paul opposes drug abuse strongly without advocating that the police round them up.
Report comment to moderator
#4 JJF, I agree with Phos. That was an excellent post! Very well said.
Report comment to moderator
Louise – The reason I am asking these question, I know good Christian’s who vote for the Dem Party Every time. When challenged, they use the same argument I hear from Christian, Who are promoting Ron Paul and Romney.
I am left with the troubling question at what point are we compromising our faith in casting our votes. When we cross this line how do we aproach God, with out having to repent.
Report comment to moderator
Paul’s opposition to moral legislation betrays his failure to appreciate the government’s divine mandate to punish evil and praise good.
This is an issue near and dear to my heart, and one on which I agree with Ron Paul and disagree with the majority of “conservative evangelicals”. Some thoughts on the government’s “divine mandate to punish evil and praise good”, which I’m assuming you derive from Romans 13:1-4:
Was Paul speaking descriptively here or prescriptively? That is to say is he describing what governments do (to one extent or another) or is he prescribing what governments should do?
Is there any reason we should understand Paul’s words to obligate believers living under a system of representative government to seek to strengthen their government’s function as a “terror to bad conduct”?
Are there guidelines for what “bad conduct” a government should “be a terror to” and which it shouldn’t? Or should the believer in a democratic system seek to legislate against all sins without distinction?
Are there other Biblical principles that should inform the believer’s when deciding whether to support a candidate who would seek to legislate against (or remove legislation against) a particular sin?
Consider the government of Israel in antiquity, which was instituted by God directly and yet lacked legislation to address several forms of sin. Does argue against the view (from Romans 13) that state regulation of moral behavior is something the believer is obligated to support?
My feeling is that “regulating moral behavior” is not a legitimate function of the state. However, in pursuing its legitimate functions (such as protecting personal liberty and promoting general welfare) the state frequently winds up prohibiting certain types of immoral behavior (e.g. murder, rape, theft, etc.)
These are prohibited not because they’re immoral, but because they infringe on the liberty of their victims. Those who commit these crimes are punished not as retribution, but as a deterrent and a safeguard against future offenses (e.g. death penalty and/or life imprisonment).
Report comment to moderator
Xion – two great posts. I couldn’t have said things better myself.
And I agree that “policing” is exactly the right term. Any time something becomes a legal issue, then policing is how it gets enforced.
Report comment to moderator
Ugh. So many typos. Need to edit myself before hitting “Post”.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus spoke consistently that morality comes from the inside out. It is between an individual and God. He criticized the Pharisees who legislated ridiculous rules and regulations of outward behavior which had nothing to do with actual righteousness in the heart. Jesus essentially ignored Rome. The mission of the church is the edification of the body, not the policing of unbelievers.
Government certainly has a role in keeping the peace, but once Christians begin advocating the enforcement of heart issues by central planners they have crossed over into legalism and right-wing Utopianism, otherwise known as Dominionism.
Report comment to moderator
Roy, wiwth the greatest respect, I believe I understand what you mean by that. To me, it depends on the office, our choices and the issues – just as all voters make their judgements. I know you know that elections are not choose the best Christians. It’s a complex formulation when we have to admit that a lot of it depends on the, “It depends,” principle. I’m not good at explaining myself and hope you won’t condemn me for not holding fast to what comes across as your all-or-nothing criteria. Values, morals and priorities all come into the mix of voting and rendering unto Caeser.
I do hold fast to supporting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Report comment to moderator
Just having read Xion, I have to whole-heartedly agree.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I just don’t get Paul’s popularity. I would like your opinion on this piece. Is the author correct? Is this where your support of him is coming from? Not tryin’ to pick a fight, but I’d like your take on this. Same goes for any other Paul supporters who would care to indulge me.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577126711408360798.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
“As if they didn’t have troubles enough, the Republicans have not one, but two Ron Paul problems.
The first is a cranky congressman from Texas named Ron Paul who won’t disown a third-party spoiler candidacy. The second problem is the Ron Paul vote, which as we’ll see has little to do with Ron Paul.
The congressman named Ron Paul has served in the House off and on since the 1970s to no discernible effect. Every four years he runs for president, tapping into a vestigial base of Newsletter Libertarians, whose support qualifies him for the debates.”
“Is this surge a vote for the congressman named Ron Paul? Impossible. It’s in fact the Republican Party protest vote. Since summer, this block of votes has jumped from one candidate to another, desperate for an anti-Obama champion whose anti-Washington intensity matches its own.
In July the Republican protest vote fixed on Michele Bachmann, who materialized in the No. 2 spot. In September it became the Perry vote, cresting at 31%. He couldn’t debate, so in October it became the Cain vote. When he collapsed, the “left for dead” Gingrich candidacy miraculously rose to 35%. With Newt carpet-bombed and again left for dead, the GOP protest vote mounted its last pony, the Ron Paul campaign.
The policy set of any of these candidates has been of minimal importance to voters who’ve boiled down their beef with Washington to one idea: Attack.
Meanwhile Mitt the Whale swims serenely onward at 25%, month after month, dipping occasionally to feed on these pilot fish. But the whale should be worried. These Republican protest fish have sharp teeth. Unless fed something soon, they may tear the Romney campaign to pieces. And there are a lot of them.”
Report comment to moderator
XION, obviously, some policing is required for laws once passed. Your word choice is not inaccurate but I still think it was an pejorative in the context of this discussion. Fine. I am talking about moral advocacy and honoring the Constitution in that process. Some plicing is required and I support it. So does the Constitution.
The worst government possible is one that removes or ignores moralists and morality. The fact that leftists (often immoral clearly themselves) use moralistic claims calls not for the disparagement of moralism but for better moral discernment.
If two or more sides claim a moral imperative, then we must show discernment and wisdom rather than take the irresponsible option of just dismissing all moral imperatives from the public sector.
The Constitution does not prohibit moralism, moral advocacy, or moral imperatives but is DOES makes sure that representatives will be accountable to the people for their decisions. This is why the writers of the Constitution warned us that constitutions, documents and parchments are WORTHLESS if the people are not moral and religious.
Report comment to moderator
AJ, re Ron Paul’s popularity, especially among younger adults – I wonder if it’s because he makes it wound as though we have clear cut laws and regulations that make it simpler to decide his simplified take on issues. No nuances, no difficult considerations – especially on foreign policy.
Report comment to moderator
*you know what my typos meant
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is the most leftist ideologue in the primary race, in my view. He is horrific on nearly6 ever issue that touches morality, except his calls for less spending. Worse, he is a poisonous liar. He hates America even more than Obama as well.
In the last debate, he accused America of killing a million Iraqis. That’s a blod-faced anti-America lie.
He said in the last debate; “But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all muslims are the same, is dangerous talk.”
That is actually true, but he disingenuously was pretending that someone on earth or in the race has actually ever said that. No one has ever said that. This use of cheap straw is typical for Obama too.
He thinks that the attacks of terrorists were caused by us (he uyses the terms “blowback”) and he symapthizes with the attackers. He thinks that if Iran had nukes, we would finally respect them more.
With all due respect, please get a clue, XION!
Report comment to moderator
#27 AJ, I have to run, but a few quick comments. I mostly agree with your link, though they are wrong about Israel. Ron Paul wants to stop arming all other nations, including Israel’s enemies. He isn’t anti-Israel.
Ron Paul cannot win. He is an old, stubborn, whiny, cranky Congressman with radical ideas. They just happen to be ideas I mostly agree with.
I also respect Paul for being one of the few people in Washington willing to speak the truth out loud in broad daylight, even if it means being called a nut.
I can’t speak for others, but I am NOT siding with Paul to protest Republicans. I simply agree with many of his principles. I believe that Christians and Americans in general would be better off by getting back to the Constitutional principles that made America great. Ron Paul is one of the few people these days to advocate capitalism without being embarrassed about it or apologizing.
Notice how I avoided saying that my position is the biblical one. The Bible does not advocate small government, or big government, or capitalism, or socialism, or communism, or any other kind of -ism. Christianity is apolitical and transcendent. It can thrive under any political system and advocates none of them.
If government is a necessary evil, then I want as little as possible, thank you. It has nothing to do with my Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
I hope I ca explain my self clear here.
To me Ron Paul’s views on same sex marriage and drug use is the same as Mr. Obama voting present.
I see this happen if Ron Paul’s view of same sex marriage is left up to States to decide. A same sex couple get married in CA where it is permitted. Then they move to Texas where it is not permitted. They fill out their State Tax’s paper work as being married. The State of Texas rejects their paper work.
They turn to the GLBT Community and their lawyer who file in Federal COurt to force the State of Texas to change their laws on marriage. Why? Because of the lack of leadership in the White House on this issue.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Xion.
Report comment to moderator
I thought JJF and Xion wrote well.
Report comment to moderator
The same with the drug use. A couple from CA go to visit family memeber in TX. The Couple from CA brings their drugs with them because it is legal in CA.
They get arrest in TX for the drugs. What happens a lawyer goes to Federal Court to get them off. Why? How dare the State of TX force their laws on drug against people from CA where it is legal.
Report comment to moderator
Withour good leadership in the White House, we could end up with a State’s Rights versus other State’s Rights.
Report comment to moderator
I guess I don’t understand. With Ron Paul, we would get what our Constitution actually calls for.
And, the very thing that Conservative Christians always advocate vociferously for — small government with all decisions not designated to the Federal Government specifically by the Constitution designated to the States.
We whine for it. We pine for it. EXCEPT when it doesn’t go our way.
We we have the power, we want huge government, a police state in the other direction, and nothing to do with the Constitution.
But, when the Liberals are in power, we’re all about how they have too big a government, want a police state (to enforce their version of morality) and want nothing to do with the Constitution.
We can’t have it both ways: Constitutional when THEY are in power, and BIG Nanny government when WE are in power.
Perhaps the Liberals are right when they accuse us of hypocrisy?
And, that’s what I love about Ron Paul. He is consistent in his beliefs, EVEN WHEN that consistency means he can’t have his personal way all the time.
I think the ship has sailed in this historical time period to have a fully Christian government in the U.S. But, we CAN have a fully Constitutional one that gives everyone the rights and responsibilities to which they are entitled.
Report comment to moderator
When we have the power…
Report comment to moderator
I disagree somewhat Pastor Roy. It’s because of the courts, which gets us back to what kind of judges a president will appoint. And they must be approved by the Senate.
We have a government of separated powers that are also shared! Any president needs to be supported by his political party in the legislature to get his policies enacted.
Report comment to moderator
Roy 29, we already have that.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is one of the few (only?) Candidates that could actually unite this country. He appeals to the non-Statist: Conservative, Liberal, and Independent.
It would be nice to stop all the bickering over every little thing and simply say, “What does the Constitution say? Okay, then that’s what we’ll do.”
At this time, should Obama win again, we have half the country hating him. And, should one of the “Conservative” candidates win, we’ll have half the country hating him.
So, we really need someone who can point to an objective standard and be known for his integrity and willingness to stick by that standard — even against his own personal beliefs.
I would LOVE to be able (for once) to vote my conscience rather than for the “only one who can beat __________.”
Report comment to moderator
The article on Ron Paul was fairly well-reasoned. However, as an Evangelical who has been on the full-time staff of the Ron Paul campaign in 2008, I need to correct some misconceptions either stated or implied in the article (or in some comments). First just let me say that no man is perfect. So Ron Paul could arguably be mistaken on certain things. Second, Paul is neither an isolationist nor a pacifist. He does advocate a very strong American defense (defense being the operative term). He does NOT advocate the U.S. playing the role of “globocop”, meddling in every revolution, dictatorship, civil war, or hot spot in the world, or where some “tin-horn” regime says belligerent things about the U.S.. Nor does he believe Israel needs the U.S. to take care of itself. Third, on “social issues”, in many cases, Paul is merely saying that the Constitution leaves such issues to the States, not the Federal Government. He is strongly pro-life and opposes same-sex marriage. But these things and many more are State matters under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. (Let me throw in gratuitously that Michelle Bachmann would be my # 2 choice. I disagree with her on some foreign policy issues. But she is by far, except for Ron Paul, the strongest and most obvious Evangelical and Constitutionalist.)
Report comment to moderator
You can write him in in November Tammy.
Report comment to moderator
Louise – I see no different between Mr. Obama voting present and Mr. Paul shipping ever thing back to the States. Which would put us back to where it is States versus States.
Report comment to moderator
So, Kevin, we should let Iran block the Strait of Hormuz?
Report comment to moderator
This is not a conservative, republican (small r), or constitutionalist position. You’re left of Jefferson here. Even he spoke of the necessity of protecting the minority from the overreaching of the majority. What you are advocating is Robespierre-style pure democracy: government is the expression of Will of The People.
The problem with such a concept is that it will (as it did for Robespierre) inevitably turn against you. As a member of the “Moral Majority” right now, you might be comfortable letting “the people and their representatives” draw lines about jailing homosexuals or adulterers or pornographers or obscene artists or church truants or workmen who take the day off to celebrate Christmas rather than undertake their godly labor (Puritan Governor Bradford).
But the day is coming when the majority in America will feel that spanking is child abuse and calling homosexuality a sin is a hate crime. Having established The Will of the People as the final authority in the legislation of morality, you will have no just complaint. Having having passed that inheritance on to the next generation, your complaint (just or unjust) will not matter.
Report comment to moderator
I guess what I’m saying is that — realistically — we’re NOT going to get a government that refers to the Bible as the objective standard. And, if we had it, then wouldn’t that simply open the door to another party to dictate our laws on something else very offensive to me (the Quran, maybe?) if they got in power?
I’m not sure that we ever had a truly Biblical government anyway (although closer, to be sure), and I’m not sure that I would want that. Being part of the homeschool community, I can tell you that there are all sorts of moral interpretations of Scripture that I would not be comfortable with. And, while I’m certainly not a feminist, I would start with “women CAN’T work outside the home” and “a woman should never vote differently than her husband.”
Closely following those are the ideas that “reading fantasy is evil,” “dancing is evil,” “doing anything on the Sabbath is evil,” and “wearing a bathing suit that shows your form at all or any skin” is evil.
While I’m not going to stop those people who believe those things from living them out in their lives, I certainly don’t want their convictions deciding how I live my life.
And, there’s the rub.
Yes, all laws are moral ones in the long run, but truly, most morality is written on the heart, or it’s pretty useless. So, IMO, the government’s role is to make laws that protect me and mine from infringement or hurt due to the exercise of liberty by others.
Thus, the government has the right to say “no murder” (I would actually consider abortion to be in that category) and “no stealing,” but it doesn’t have the right to say “no sleeping with so-and-so” or “no eating meat on Fridays.”
Government’s job is to protect me, protect society, and protect common resources. Otherwise, it needs to butt out — even when I don’t personally approve of someone else’s conduct. If it isn’t hurting anyone else, then it isn’t the role of government to prohibit it.
And, yes, different States can rule differently on the “grey” areas, and that is okay too. That is how our Constitution set it up to be. In fact, if you go and look at the original 13 states, you will find that they had some very different laws and didn’t see that as a problem. It is only problematic now because we’ve gotten away from a Constitutional perspective. The GLBT community should not have the right to take a State issue to the Federal courts at all, unless it is due to an issue that is within the Federal government’s realm as per the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
There are two parts to the answer. One is that PART of the Strait is international waters, and like the case of piracy, a nation-state has the legal authority to protect its shipping from interference in international waters. But the other part calls for caution. If Iran wants to block its own oil supply (only), that is its business. The oil is not ours. It is up to each country what it does with its own oil. So long as international shipping is protected, there would not necessarily be any reason to escalate this to a full-fledged war with Iran. (The fact that Iran MIGHT develop a nuclear weapon in the future should have no bearing in this. A number of countries have such weapons, some of those countries dangerous or unstable. The U.S. needs to deploy an extensive missle defense system ASAP–something Paul has advocated for years.)
Report comment to moderator
@Roy: They get arrest in TX for the drugs. What happens a lawyer goes to Federal Court to get them off. Why? How dare the State of TX force their laws on drug against people from CA where it is legal.
I’m not a lawyer, but how would a lawyer “go to federal court to get them off”? What does that even mean? If the couple were convicted in Texas under Texas statutes then it’s a Texas matter. If the case went all the way to the Texas Supreme Court then the couple could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
All sorts of laws work this way. For instance, the states have different laws on the minimum age of consent. What if a couple for whom sexual relations would be legal in one state cross into a different state and have consensual sex that would be illegal in the latter state. Why does that not pose a problem for you? You seem to be arguing that all criminal law should be federal. Or, at least, that drug law is a “special case” that should be handled at the federal level rather than at the state level. Is that what you’re arguing? If so, why are illicit drugs a special case?
@Louise: So, Kevin, we should let Iran block the Strait of Hormuz?
If the Straits are Iran’s territorial waters (shared with Oman, from what I can tell given a cursory google search), then what basis would the U.S. have to stop them?
Report comment to moderator
#47
I think that JJF and I are in agreement here. If we say that the government has the right to dictate OUR morality to others, then — should the majority elect another very different government — it too will have the right to dictate ITS morality. And, that morality may make what I believe is right illegal.
Where we may part ways (I don’t know) is in the area of minority rights. I do believe that the government has the responsibility to protect the rights of the minority (especially since I may belong to one in the near future!!), but not at the expense of the majority.
So, for example, I’m okay with saying “The people have voted in their community for gay marriage,” so this State allows it.
But, I’m not okay with forcing a photographer to photograph that marriage. I think government ought to butt out and let the market handle it. I’m absolutely convinced that gay couple can find another photographer with no objections to the green of their money. So, the government needs to butt out unless they are being actually hurt, not just getting their feelings hurt.
IMO, the government has no place in protecting someone’s “feelings” or helping someone not to “be offended.”
Report comment to moderator
In his web site, Ron Paul wants to undo Roe v. Wade, which act belongs to the Supreme Court branch of government, not the POTUS. He simply can’t do this.
Also, he wants to end the Fed. I think this is impossible to do, especially within a four-year term.
These goals are too ambitious to fulfill.
Report comment to moderator
First, Ron Paul doesn’t understand that positive law plays an important part in upholding the moral quality of a culture. When a culture’s law makes, for example, homosexual marriage and pornography simply a matter of choice, the cultural atmosphere becomes depraved. Public deviancy gets defined down.Libertarians like Paul are willing to allow the worse elements in our country do their own thing in a way that causes a public moral depravity and decadence that has an especially corrosive effect on young people.
Also, having positive law that disfavors fornication, adultery, homosexual marriage, etc. can be administered humanely and prudently. The New England Puritans had good laws, though they lacked the savoir faire to administer them urbanely.
Second, Paul’s extreme isolationism would allow the worst actors on the international stage to get away with behavior that would severely hatm America’s vital interests. Just now Iran is seriously threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz and to develop nuclear weapons with missiles. While the diplomacy around these issues is complex and difficult, it is important that we play a strong hand and make a credible threat to take military action.
In 1988 when Pres. Reagan dealt with a serious threat to the Strait of Hormuz, he sank or crippled six Iranian ships and damaged a couple of their oil rigs. Iran, knowing they were dealing with a strong American leader, quickly backed off. Reagan, also, through tough diplomacy and military strength, succeeded [ along with John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher] in defeating the Soviet Union.
Fortunately, only a small minority of the American people, estimated at about 8%, favor the sort of moral and international isolationism that Paul stands for. The biggest danger would be for Paul to succumb to his more fanatic followers who want him to run as a Third Party candidate.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy,
Sorry. I’m conservative, and he doesn’t appeal to me at all. The only way he gets my vote is if he wins the nomination. He’s still better than Obama, so he’ll have my vote if I must. I just hope it doesn’t come to that.
Kevin L. Clauson,
Nice to see a Paul supporter who seems reasonable. Sadly, many others who support Paul don’t act the same. What really put me off to Paul was the treatment of some regulars here by the Paul mob that always accompanies the Who Won the Debate posts here. Mean, nasty, and namecalling children was the impression they left me with. Since you work with the campaign, perhaps you can inform your fellow supporters that this is not the way to sway undecided evangelicals to your point of view. It has quite the opposite effect. If he wins the nomination, this will be the biggest roadblock to me getting behind him. Some of you are reasonable, but a much larger section aren’t. You guys might wanna work on that. Just sayin’.
Report comment to moderator
Of course Dr. Paul knows he cannot alone, without Congress, “undo” Roe v . Wade or the Federal Reserve. He has already introduced legislation to take jurisdiction away from the federal judiciary on abortion (effectively nullifying Roe). All Congress has to do is pass it and many states could (some would) end abortion. The Fed is tougher. But several other R candidates are already suspicious of the Fed. (Just look at the recent artificial rise in prices.) What can be done quickly (and Paul has introduced legislation on this too) is to open the Fed to Congressional and public scrutiny (he calls it an “audit”).
Report comment to moderator
17.
Roy, I have to make compromise decisions all the time.
—
Louise,
At what point do we compromise our faith?
Roy, this isn’t hard to answer. If after the primary we get a Republican you did not vote for, and he goes against Obama, that’s when you vote for the lesser of the two evils. Is this a compromise? I don’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
@JJF: What you are advocating is Robespierre-style pure democracy: government is the expression of Will of The People.
This seems like a good a time as any to re-post my list of “Things The People Want”:
1. Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire (either in part or completely).
2. Allowing the federal govt. to fund embryonic stem cell research.
3. Granting legal recognition (either marriage or civil unions) to same-sex couples.
4. Allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
5. Legalizing marijuana for medicinal uses when prescribed by a doctor.
6. Keeping abortion legal (either completely or in cases of rape and incest).
7. Allowing women to join ground combat units.
8. Allowing the federal government to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
All of the above is supported by polling data.
Report comment to moderator
To The Real AJ:
There ae some Paul supporters we used to call “turbo-libertarians”, because they were so truly libertarian (which Paul is not) that they were undisciplined. When you go out on a limb like Ron Paul has, you get some weird hangers-on. We tried to make them “behave” in public events (and sometimes succeeded).
Report comment to moderator
Tammy,
“So, for example, I’m okay with saying “The people have voted in their community for gay marriage,” so this State allows it.”
You do realize that it’s not that simple right? That’s the problem with Paul. Nothing is usually that black and white. The Full Faith and Credit Clause would be a huge issue. How do you deal with a gay couple married in a state where it’s legal, and then moving to a state where it’s not? Do you force the other state to recognize it, or declare it invalid when they leave the state? You covered black and white, but how will you deal with the gray?
Report comment to moderator
the real Aj
I, myself, could not vote for Ron Paul.. Which would mean for the first time I will not vote. The reason I see no different in views between Ron Paul extremism and Mr. Obama’s extremism.
Report comment to moderator
And, I have to admit, while I truly think abortion is evil (and should be regulated as murdering a person) I’m not nearly as strong on drugs or gay marriage.
Some of the stronger drugs … I think we could make an argument that they hurt society and hurt others. But, I’m wondering how marijuana, for example (something, I want to point out, that I have never tried and don’t intend to) is different from liquor? And, being similar, aren’t we seeing some of the same problems from outlawing it as we did during prohibition with outlawing liquor? (Just asking. I think it bears some discussion, even if not on this thread.)
As for gay marriage … no I don’t really think it is truly marriage. Yes, I think it is an immoral life-style. BUT, the only real concern I have about government making it legal is that they will do so over MY rights.
In other words, I don’t really care if gay “marriage” is legal so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others (for religious reasons) to refuse to participate (i.e. the photographer, the church, the small bed & breakfast.), nor on the rights of others to proclaim the life-style immoral and against God’s law.
In other words, I don’t think THEIR civil rights take precedence over MY religious rights. That is where my concern lies, and such concerns are made real by observing what is happening in Canada and in Europe with “hate laws” and “hate speech” and religious rights being trampled in the name of civil rights.
I also think it is a slippery slope, and I’m wondering how we can work to keep it from becoming one. I don’t see much difference between the arguments for homosexual “marriage” vs. those for polygamous or poly-amorous marriages.
Personally, I would like to keep “marriage” something the church/mosque/synagogue grants and what God approves, and the rest to be civil unions or some such. And, I do think that a real “line” needs to be discussed before people are marrying (and demanding recognition of such “marriages”) their cats and their toasters. (Yes, it’s laughable now, but look at same sex marriage and what people thought 100 years ago.)
But, the Federal Government? It should butt out, except as it relates to collecting (legal) federal taxes.
Report comment to moderator
The Full Faith and Credit Clause would be a huge issue. How do you deal with a gay couple married in a state where it’s legal, and then moving to a state where it’s not? Do you force the other state to recognize it, or declare it invalid when they leave the state? You covered black and white, but how will you deal with the gray?
—
Entry Federal Courts
Report comment to moderator
““turbo-libertarians””
That sounds so much nicer than nutjobs, the term I prefer.
Thanks for your response. It’s good that you at least realize this can be a problem for Paul. He may want to consider speaking out publicly about this behavior by some supporters. At least then we might know that he doesn’t hold the same thoughts as them. It would help him I think.
Report comment to moderator
If you read all of Article IV Full Faith and Credit clause you will see that Congress can by law “exempt” States from having to recognize the legality of a gay “marriage” in another State. This is precisely what part of the DOMA law does already. Even without DOMA, there is precedent for States to refuse to accept other States’ legal acts (going way back).
Report comment to moderator
37.
Withour good leadership in the White House, we could end up with a State’s Rights versus other State’s Rights.
Roy, the problem is that it goes both ways. Put too much power in the WH, with a President you disagree with, and the chaos will be spread over all 50 states quickly!
Put the power with the people in each state and you have the opportunity of enjoying the rights you want to enjoy in your own state.
Report comment to moderator
The Real AJ,
How do you deal with the gray?
Well, how do we deal with the gray now? You don’t think that there aren’t tons of gray areas now????
But, now, we scream at each other. And, nothing gets done. And, people feel trampled and disrespected.
Perhaps if we had someone in there who stuck by his convictions (and has done so for years and years and years) and who was referring to an objective standard that most of us (I hope) can agree on (i.e. the Constitution), then we have real ground to start TALKING and compromise.
Honestly, as I was trying to say in my last post, I don’t think the government ought to be in the business of marriage at all. And, with the advent of all sorts of new (and potential) relationship issues, I think it ought to redefine the whole lot for tax purposes only and butt out on the rest.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy 60, in that case you’d be giving two votes to Obama. I hope you reconsider, or never have to make that choice
There would be a big difference in the majority rule of parties in the legislature.
Report comment to moderator
#55
Thanks! Good to hear.
Report comment to moderator
#54 The Real AJ: I would encourage you to look at the man himself and not his supporters or “followers.” If I looked at the way many Christians behave themselves I would definitely not want to follow Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Put the power with the people in each state and you have the opportunity of enjoying the rights you want to enjoy in your own state.
—
Tell that to the People of CA, who voted for marriage being between one man and one woman. Putting the power with the people in the state of CA ended up with a gay judge telling the people of CA I want my rights. So I am going to rule against you.
Report comment to moderator
#69
Amen! In fact, it would be downright discouraging.
Report comment to moderator
My understanding is that part of the Strait of Hormuz is international waters.
Report comment to moderator
#70
Isn’t that a different issue though? What we have there is an activist (and highly biased) judge ruling on his opinion rather than on the basis of Law. So, that is something else to work on.
I’m not sure how that affects the Presidency. When something in the system doesn’t work like it’s supposed to work (i.e. one guy ruling on his own beliefs rather than by law), then that is an issue that needs addressed. It doesn’t make the philosophy wrong (i.e. State’s rights), but rather its implementation.
Report comment to moderator
Louise – That is why I have the question of At what point do we compromise our faith?
As a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ I can not with a clear mind vote for Mr. Obama or Ron Paul. I see voting for either one as compromising of my faith.
Report comment to moderator
Which puts me in a tough position.
Report comment to moderator
Nope, Sorry Tammy, you’re not gettin’ off that easy.
You and I both know that as christians you cannot say “well gay marriage is OK in some states, but not others”. It’s wrong no matter where, and you know why, and what that stand is based on. Your way does nothing, except pass off sin as OK in some states. Won’t work, and shouldn’t. While the Constitution is great, it does not override what God says. Your way doesn’t stop the fighting, and your compromising gives sin standing it doesn’t deserve. Your argument may pass Constitutional muster, but it’s not biblical. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Integrity. That is what appeals the most to me about Ron Paul. (So, I hope I won’t be disabused of the notion by some sort “revelation.”)
Even when I don’t completely agree with someone (and that really would be amazing, since even my husband and I don’t agree on everything!!!), I really respect someone who has integrity — who believes what he believes with conviction.
Report comment to moderator
And the Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been used to not recognize marriage from another state. It may work with exemptions on other issues, but is not the case with marriage. And good luck getting the Dems in Congress to agree to exemptions. Not gonna happen.
Report comment to moderator
Only read the first 20 or so posts, and will DEFINITELY read the rest. But I just wanted to address the whole “Romans 13/God ordains government to punish evil and praise good” issue:
Even under the OT Mosaic law, all crimes were sins, but not all sins were crimes.
That fundamental principle still applies today, and we ignore it at our peril.
Report comment to moderator
#70
Isn’t that a different issue though? What we have there is an activist (and highly biased) judge ruling on his opinion rather than on the basis of Law. So, that is something else to work on.
—
No, because if Ron Paul has his way an shift things back to the States.. More of these Federal Judges will be able to rule based on their opinion and effect other states.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is worse than Barack Obama. I criticize Obama for being associated for 20 years with with unhinged Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but at least Obama does not say the same sort of insulting and insenely hateful things that Rev. Wright says.
Ron Paul does!!!
Report comment to moderator
The problem we face today is the Federal Courts have declare they are the most powerful branch of the Government. They an only they have the power to force States and the American People to surrender their voting rights,.
Report comment to moderator
Only Newt has a plain to deal with the out of control Federal Judges. Ron Paul has been clear he would do nothing to stop the out of control Federal Judges.
Report comment to moderator
#81
And those things would be?????
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
Every last one if your moral arguments bites the dust when you say you support Newt. Sigh.
Report comment to moderator
TAMMY wrote; “Perhaps the Liberals are right when they accuse us of hypocrisy?”
“Us?” Speak for your self, TAMMY. Ron Paul spouts a poison that infects even decent people like TAMMY and makes them turn on conservatives in ways that delight (and legitimaize) the left. At the last debate, Ron Paul himself admitted to being to the left on Obama on foreign policy.
To the LEFT of Obama. Worse than being to his left, Ron Paul is less honest than Obama on foreign policy. He is unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief.
I am becoming convinced that supports of Ron Paul while claiming to be conservative are willing to lose the latter claim before surrendering their less-then-thoughtful devotion to Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
And our alternative is OBAMA?
Report comment to moderator
Tell us WHO can go up against OBAMA?
Report comment to moderator
Tammy
Pastor Roy,
Every last one if your moral arguments bites the dust when you say you support Newt. Sigh
—
I did not say I support Newt. I stated only Newt had a plain to deal with the out of control Judges.
My support at this moment is for former Senate Rick.
Report comment to moderator
The Full Faith and CRedit Clause has ALREADY been used to pass legislation (Defense of Marriage Act) in 1997 to allow States NT to accept same-sex marriage from another State. that law was signed by a D President (Clinton). It’s a done deal unless Congress abrogates it or the Courts rule against it (which the States could ignore).
On whether the US Constitution tells us what is morally right or wrong, of course it does NOT. But the alternative to not following the Constitutional procedure and instead trying to get the Feds to stop abortion of same-sex marriage is probably to accomplish nothing. If we follow Federalism, we may get 10 States allowing gay marriage and 40 states not, or 10 states allowing abortion and 40 states not. At least on abortion, that’s far far better than what we have now–which is which is zero States preventing (in some way) abortion.
Report comment to moderator
With all due respect to Evangelicals who support sen. Santorum, Santorum is NOT an Evangeical, and furthermore he is a “big government R/Conservative”. Why not at least go with Bachmann, who is much moe serious about following the Constitution. (And that’s from a Ron Paul supporter.)
Report comment to moderator
We have a “Christian” mayor and someone the other day called him a Socialist in the newspaper. It seems he isn’t going to run another term. He’s a “nice guy.”
You get a “Christian” in office who is a nice guy and he won’t cut anyone’s job or a program that some lobbyist has convinced him that many children will die if a certain program isn’t funded.
A lobbyist tells you that many people will get jobs if you put thru HIS special interest group–people with families.
We CAN’T CUT GOV’T JOBS–these people have families.
True, but the guy measuring the speed of ketchup has got to go!!!
Report comment to moderator
We need someone to go in with a hatchet, not a “nice guy” who wants everyone to “love” him.
You love your children, but is it love to give them unlimited access to your credit card?
Report comment to moderator
If we follow Federalism, we may get 10 States allowing gay marriage and 40 states not, or 10 states allowing abortion and 40 states not. At least on abortion, that’s far far better than what we have now–which is which is zero States preventing (in some way) abortion.
—
Then you have a Federal Judges or Judges Ruling the States that have said no to same sex marriage. Are wrong an must change their laws. Like what has happen with Abortion….
Report comment to moderator
TAMMY wrote; ““I think the ship has sailed in this historical time period to have a fully Christian government in the U.S. But, we CAN have a fully Constitutional one that gives everyone the rights and responsibilities to which they are entitled.”
TAMMY, our Founders understood that the Constitution, any documents, parchments, laws, legislators and such were all to no avail if we lack morality and faith as a people.
* “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798.
* “[Morality is] a necessary spring of popular government.” ~ President George Washington.
* “No compact among men… can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and… no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.” ~ George Washington, draft of First Inaugural Address, April 1789.
* “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.” ~ John Adams, June 21, 1776.
Our Founders crafted the Constitution and meant for us to follow it. But first and foremost, they were moralists before they were statesmen.
Report comment to moderator
The conflict I have with Ron Paul’s view on state’s rights (the 10th amendment) is that it is constitutional, BUT some states will have gay marriage or legalized drugs or abortion.
On the other hand, if we apply the argument for a centralized government to those issues then why limit it to the U.S.? Why allow the Netherlands, Iran, India or other nation states to go their own way. New World Order anyone?
I wonder if the elders of Ruben argued for tribe’s rights when David had issues with Dan?
Report comment to moderator
KEVIN L. CLAUSON wrote; “With all due respect to Evangelicals who support sen. Santorum, Santorum is NOT an Evangeical, and furthermore he is a ‘big government R/Conservative’.”
1. So what. Lots of Evangelicals supported Mitt Romney 4 years ago and knew he was a mormon. We look at integrity and policy.
2. Your second claim is just flat-out FALSE. Santorum is the most authentic conservative to run in decades. And he is a politician (yes, that is true) who has plenty of integrity (yes, that is rare). Don ‘t vote for him if your don’t want to, but it is false to call him “big gov’t”. That sounds like a cheap political campaign attempt to re-define him unfairly.
3. If you are a Ron Paul supporter, that explains your use of a cheap political attempt to falsely redefine another candidate.
Yes, I am thoroughly disgusted with Ron Paul supporters. They are poisoning the well, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
It sounds like we are.
Gay marriage is one of those issues that I do not have a firm opinion on. I am unsure what I think about it. Here’s a bit of my thinking process, since you (sort of) asked.
The Bible is clear that gay sex is a sin. The Bible is likewise clear that premarital sex is a sin, but I do not believe there should be laws against premarital sex. Therefore, something being a sexual sin does not mean there must be laws against it.
But we’re not talking about laws against the behavior, we’re talking about an official state sanction of the relationship. The Bible is equally clear that divorce is a sin, and the state officially recognizes that “relationship” (or rather breaking of relationship). For that matter, the Bible is clear that re-marriage after a divorce is adultery (different churches add caveats and conditions, but most would agree in large part), so we do in fact have official recognition of not just one sinful “relationship”, but of two (divorce and then adulterous remarriage).
Ought we to make divorce impossible and remarriage illegal since they are both sinful? No. (But being honest with myself that “no” is culturally conditioned in deep and unconscious ways rather than arrived at rationally.) But if we say “no” here, we must concede this: just because a relationship is sinful does not mean that it cannot be sanctioned by the state.
And with that leg gone, I cannot see an impartial rationale for barring same sex marriage. Any rationale from this point forward must of necessity be discriminatory, since there is no impartial broader principle behind it. We are unable or unwilling (perhaps for good reasons) to apply Biblical sexual morality to the state’s sanction of relationships among heterosexuals, so why should we do it exclusively for homosexuals?
Report comment to moderator
KEVIN L. CLAUSON wrote; “With all due respect to Evangelicals who support sen. Santorum, Santorum is NOT an Evangeical, and furthermore he is a ‘big government R/Conservative’.”
—
I do not know where you got those views, since he has claim to be Christian and supports smaller government.
Report comment to moderator
This very issue of government’s moral authority is why I don’t understand evangelical opposition to Romney. Like Cyrus, an unbeliever who was called “God’s servant” in the Persian empire, Romney could be God’s servant in this time. Plus he knows how to work with a bipartisan which is also important (even though it leads to compromise – it’s important to know which hills to die on).
Report comment to moderator
It would be interesting, if somebody had the time, to go back through earlier blog comments here from people who say that they want small government, a return to the Constitution, a return to states rights, sound money, a balanced budget, and lower taxes.
One candidate stands for those things–one.
I will be more direct that Tammy. I accuse some of you of being hypocrites. If you say you want what Ron Paul advocates and then turn around and refuse to vote for him–or worse, smear him and his good reputation–then you are plainly and simply a hypocrite.
Pastor Roy, you are arguing that the ends justify the means. As long as gay marriage is outlawed, it doesn’t matter to you if it is done constitutionally.
Joel Mark you equate moralism with morality. They are not the same thing. Morality is good, and laws do need to be based on it. But moralism, judging other people’s morality and imposing one’s own morality on them, is not a proper role of a civil government.
You also have failed to explain a biblical basis for an unprovoked strike against a sovereign nation. That’s what Paul is against. He loves America and is in favor of America’s defending itself. He opposes intervening in the affaris of other sovereign nations, which seems soundly biblical and moral to me. After all, we are not Israel and we do not have a Moses or Joshua leading us into battle at God’s command.
In short, some of you, Joel Mark and Roy included, really are statists and you really do want a theocracy. I hope that you do not get it. For all I know, you might outlaw my particular denominational beliefs and practices.
Report comment to moderator
Thru the 100 barrier, quicker than a jackrabbit on a date.
Report comment to moderator
JM (97): … your use of a cheap political attempt to falsely redefine another candidate.
Frank: Pot, meet kettle.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, you are arguing that the ends justify the means. As long as gay marriage is outlawed, it doesn’t matter to you if it is done constitutionally.
—
No, what I am point out is the dangerous veiws of Ron Paul, when he stated, he throw every thing to States, knowing that is will cause more chaso. An will lead to a more Powerful Ferderal Court System. Since he declare he will not stop the out of controll judges.
Report comment to moderator
In short, some of you, Joel Mark and Roy included, really are statists and you really do want a theocracy.
–
I am sorry but Joel or my self have never argued for a theocracy. We have stated that Ron Paul’s views are dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is Lutheran which likely means he has a two kingdom view. In the Presbyterian and Reformed world there is a debate going on with respect to whether a two kingdom view or one kingdom view is appropriate. I’m somewhat in the middle myself. I’m interested in hearing anti-Paulians give their views on the federal government’s role in enforcing the first table of the law and on the extent that the second table ought to be enforced.
Everyone agrees that morality should be legislated, but it basically comes down to where the legislation ought to occur and how far reaching it ought to be.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy (77): On integrity.
Your definition: …[one] who believes what he believes with conviction. allows for serious errors. For example, I knew of a pilot who was convinced that he was flying at 12,000 feet when he struck a mountain peak at 11,000 feet. He was absolutely convinced (unless he was suicidal, which I think highly improbable) that he would clear those peaks in front of him. I believe they were surrounded by clouds and he didn’t read or believe his altimeter. But he was convinced he was safe.
One can be absolutely convinced of his position and yet be absolutely wrong. Here, from Webster, integrity:
I will accept that definition.
–Ken Bland
Report comment to moderator
#98
Well, JJF, we’re more or less in agreement here too. That sounds a lot like my thinking processes on the subject.
Report comment to moderator
Ken,
I did not give my whole definition of integrity. However, I think Ron Paul fits your Webster definition too.
This means that, even when I don’t agree with him on something, I still respect him on it.
And, he has occasionally changed his mind.
He simply does so though out of conviction and a true re-examination of the facts … not due to polls or public opinion surveys.
Report comment to moderator
It would be an interesting exercise to take Innes’ view to a ridiculous logical end. This is essentially what he tries to do with Ron Paul’s views. So let’s have a little look at at it.
After mandating Sabbath observance in the U.S. by requiring church attendance, Innes would then move on to passing a law that would require every child to bow in prayer (while saying the pledge of allegiance no less) around the flag pole at the beginning of the school day. There’s a little of his domestic policy. His foreign policy would essentially have the U.S. conquering most of the nations on earth and thereby forcibly persuade them to bow the knee to Christ. … You get the picture.
Report comment to moderator
I am working to define my own opinions so that they are consistent and not hypocritical. I reserve the right to continue to refine them.
So, I have a rather nuanced (and still in progress) view on homosexual marriage (not the act itself, which I absolutely agree that the Bible condemns). I also have rather nuanced views on the role of government.
And, that’s what I like about Ron Paul. His views tend to be very nuanced and sophisticated. And, this is what gets him into trouble, because they aren’t easily reduced to a sound bite.
I have heard people claim that he is “against Israel,” “for homosexual marriage,” “for illegal drugs,” “racist,” and many other derogatory things … all untrue. However, if you pull out a sound bite here or there you can make it sound true.
And, I think that’s an indictment on our society. Our attention spans are poor. We don’t like to read too much, listen too long, or think too deeply. We want our answers in bullet points that don’t stretch on for long … and so our answers, and our politicians, and our government policies tend to be very shallow, often misunderstood, and, even more often, ineffective.
Report comment to moderator
Honey, I gotta go.
I’ll be marching with Ron Paul, providing of course that I can get my muzzle-loader off the hook over the fireplace, and the mule saddled up. I need to be back before spring planting starts, though. We should be able to drive the Redcoats to their boats, and back across the sea by then, though.
Dear wife, keep a sharp eye out for raiding savages and panthers, hon, and don’t forget to chink the chimney real good and tight with clay, before snow flies.
Now don’t worry none about all those nasty rumors about satellites and nuclear bombs and China and Russia and radical Islam and all them other complicating things you hear about these days.
Good old General Paul is on top of it – why he is bringing up some five-pounders and artillery and is recruiting a whole company of Green Mountain Boys equipped with long rifles, and he even has a detachment of Kentuck sharpshooters on the way from Cumberland who (they say) can drill the eye out of a squirrel from 100 yards.
So please don’t cry, beloved – General Paul says he can get us out of this mess.
Oh forgive me, my Paul-smitten friends, for I am of little faith.
Report comment to moderator
I shared these pieces — both from the blog “Theonomy Resources: Tools for Advancing Christian Civilization” — back in September, but I definitely think they’re worth another mention:
I have heard people claim that he is “against Israel,” “for homosexual marriage,” “for illegal drugs,” “racist,” and many other derogatory things … all untrue. However, if you pull out a sound bite here or there you can make it sound true.
—
The problem is what he says in the debate is what give the impression he is “against Israel,” “for homosexual marriage,” “for illegal drugs,” .
An in his news letter he comes across as being “racist,” ..None of this are based on sound bites, but based on what he says durning the debates.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Louise’s post at No. 2. I don’t think he is electable either. He can’t overturn drug laws or marriage laws by executive order.
Is he right about the Constitution? Pretty much, yes. Limited government? Yes. THAT’S CONSTITUTIONAL! War? Mostly.
Our Constitution establishes a LIMITED government, something many here just can’t admit, can’t see, can’t understand, can’t comprehend, etc., etc.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
I disagree. Perhaps you’ve only heard sound-bites from the debates or clips from his newsletter?
While I don’t normally base my politics on Wikipedia, I did find their site helpful for condensing Paul’s views and making them more accessible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and he’s right about us being bankrupt and the need for drastic fiscal reform, something many here can’t admit, can’t see, can’t understand, can’t comprehend, etc., etc. They’d rather fight, and the way they want to do that is silence those who disagree with them.
Report comment to moderator
And, Pastor Roy, I don’t think that Netanyahu would have come out favorably toward Ron Paul had Paul actually been in any way “anti-Israel.” Do you??
Report comment to moderator
NO I watch the debates and I read the newsletter in question.
Report comment to moderator
… and I just found out that Mr. Halbrook has responded to Mr. Marinov with his 7 Dec. 2011 piec, No, Christians should not vote for Ron Paul; or why Obeying God trumps “Political Victory”.
Offered here in the interest of hearing both sides of the issue.
Report comment to moderator
And lastly, just for some sort of balance (2 fer, 2 agin):
Can a Christian be a libertarian? by Norman Horn, Washington Post, 27 Dec. 2011.
Report comment to moderator
In related news, Bachman’s Iowa chairman, Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola), has left her campaign in order to endorse Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
Examples please!
Every time I hear complaints about Ron Paul’s supposed beliefs, it is always stated as a generality without examples or proof. In fact, it is often stated in complete opposition to what he carefully states on his web site as his official beliefs.
I find that rather annoying. ;-(
Report comment to moderator
Frank, post 120 (and presumably this whole string of articles), I don’t actually see the relevance of a piece on why Ron Paul isn’t biblically qualified to be president . . . by a person who cannot possibly ever endorse any political candidate. (His main argument is that Ron Paul is in favor of freedom of religion, and no Christian leader can support polytheism. Yet obviously no American president can be opposed to freedom of religion–nor does Scripture require that leaders of nations other than Israel be so opposed–so his argument is specious. It’s along the lines of those who say “everything is art,” which means, practically speaking, there is no such thing as art. If all candidates are “disqualified” in his view, then his arguments against Ron Paul are totally irrelevant and he can’t vote, and never will be able to.)
This is extreme theonomy (I’m not a theonomist), and it’s dangerously unbibiblical.
Report comment to moderator
The truth about Ron Paul is that he is naive about international relations,especially Iran, and uncaring about the depravity caused by libertarian homosexual marriage and behavior along with abortion and euthanasia. Libertarians cop out on these issues.
Report comment to moderator
22 years in Congress. 460 bills introduced. 6 passed. When the voters who are fed up with gridlock and stalemate in Congress get a chance to learn about Paul’s abysmal record as a leader and consensus builder they will run screaming the other way. His record of for profit racism and kooky conspiracy theories won’t help either.
But hey: Run Ron run!
Report comment to moderator
Sails,
Ron Paul is against abortion, against same-sex marriage, and against euthanasia.
So, what were you saying again??
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I hear you.
Be sure not to miss the Marinov and Horn pieces, however!
Report comment to moderator
#126
His record of for profit racism and kooky conspiracy theories won’t help either.
******Examples???
Report comment to moderator
This is extreme theonomy (I’m not a theonomist), and it’s dangerously unbibiblical.
******I agree. I’m very leery of any for of theonomy as it is usually applied.
Report comment to moderator
Phoo! That was a TERRIBLE sentence.
Yes. I do speak English. SIGH.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy: Google Ron Paul, newsletters and Whitey. You will find lots of specifics.
Report comment to moderator
I am leery of theonomy. I also think it is unbiblical, and I appreciated Cheryl’s analysis of the article. I was thinking similarly, but obviously am having problems with my words today!!
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I did. The best consensus that I get came from NPR (surely a place you can respect) and an interview they did with a political scientist who said:
“Yeah, these newsletters are troublesome. It’s true that the story has been out for a long time and that I don’t think that Ron Paul personally has a racist bone in his body. But he certainly isn’t terribly sensitive about these issues. And he’s certainly been willing to associate with and accept the support of the sort of people who traffic in this kind of garbage. And so, it’s something that he needs to address in a more forthright way than he has thus far if he ever wants to be taken as something more than as a fringe figure.”
Basically, reading up on it, it seems that Ron Paul has supporters that are racist, but he is not. He seems not to want to hurt these supporters though by completely repudiating them (which, I think, he should).
It is also of note that these newsletters are from a very long time ago. So, at the least, he has stopped whoever it was from writing anything similar.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy: Ron Paul is against abortion, against same-sex marriage, and against euthanasia. So, what were you saying again??
Yes, he is personally against them, though being an ideological libertarian he doesn’t want the laws to be involved. He lacks understanding that without positive law regarding such vices as abortion, sodomy, and euthanasia, the general culture becomes depraved and decadent.
Report comment to moderator
Bottom Line: I’m not happy about the newsletters, but I don’t think they represent Ron Paul’s views.
I do think, at best, that they could be used to call his judgment into question in trusting others to write under his name. And, of course, we have to be able to trust a President to delegate well.
OTOH, I like his stated, official policies the very best of any of them, and would like to see the U.S. get back on track. Personally, I’d have been happiest had a younger, more charismatic person espoused them and ran for President.
However, if he would officially repudiate the statements (which I believe he has … if not vociferously enough, perhaps), and just take responsibility for allowing them to be published and ask for forgiveness, then I still think he’s a better candidate than most.
And, after all, Arcadia, you’re supporting a man who has NEVER repudiated the racist church and leader with which he’s associated.
Report comment to moderator
Ah Sails,
You sound like a theonomist. If so, then we’re simply going to remain in disagreement.
Ron Paul SUPPORTED DOMA and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act.
So, he simply has a more nuanced (and Constitutional) view of the subject.
Report comment to moderator
But sails has a point. There is no difference between Paul saying I am personally opposed and a Dem saying he/she is personally opposed. They do that all the time.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy: Ron Paul SUPPORTED DOMA and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act
Of course, being a politician Paul occasionally advocates for laws that support a moral order, though in truth his basic position is libertarian. We presently live in a depraved, decadent culture that has been largely brought about by the libertarian view.
As to theonomy, I am far from that Shari’ah view, though there is a way of reconciling moral law with positive law in a reasonable, urbane way, something about whuch Paul lacks a clue.
Paul in my view is an exceedingly dangerous moral and international isolationist. Fortunately most people in the country understand this.
Report comment to moderator
Absolutely. As a Christian, I’m glad we’re supporting someone who will go out there and murder millions of innocent people. After all, that’s what we Christians do. Wait a sec… hold on… no… it seems like as Christians we are supposed NOT to like that. Some guy named Josie – oh pardon me, Jesus says that we’re supposed to NOT run over in other people’s places and murder their children with missiles from the sky. Well, imagine that!
Hm. And there’s only ONE guy running that advocates NOT murdering millions of people. But HE says it’s OK for gay people to get married, if they find a church that’ll do it. Well I think our choice here is clear. Pick ANY of the murderers but DON’T let Sammie and Joey have some words said which we won’t acknowledge in OUR church anyway. That’s CLEARLY the Christian thing to do, right?
Report comment to moderator
I am extremely disappointed that World Magazine has jumped on the Ron Paul bashing bandwagon. I used to have tremendous respect for this publication, but now that its editors have chosen to malign the ONLY candidate who would restore our country to constitutional government, I realize that it is no better than the other leftist/socialist rags that are helping to undermine our freedoms and destroy the rule of law. At a time when our federal government is trampling the Constitution and showing nothing but contempt for our God-given rights, World Magazine should be embracing a candidate like Ron Paul instead of attacking him.
Report comment to moderator
@Dad0f5: On the other hand, if we apply the argument for a centralized government to those issues then why limit it to the U.S.? Why allow the Netherlands, Iran, India or other nation states to go their own way. New World Order anyone?
I was going to make this exact same point, but you beat me to it. Glad I kept reading before posting. Some folks are uncomfortable with the fact that the Constitution was structured so as to allow the potential for states to differ on what should be legal and what shouldn’t. That some states might recognize same-sex marriage (or end drug prohibition) is unacceptable. Yes, God trumps the Constitution. That said, if you think the Constitution, as written, runs afoul of God’s design, then the correct remedy is to amend it; not simply to ignore it.
@NJLawyer: There is no difference between Paul saying I am personally opposed and a Dem saying he/she is personally opposed.
Actually there is. So far as I know, Paul wants to criminalize abortion. He would support that in his state. He would most likely support it on a national scale as well if there were some constitutionally legit way to accomplish it. Every Democrat I’ve seen who has claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion nevertheless supports keeping it legal and accessible.
Report comment to moderator
If government is a necessary evil, then I want as little as possible, thank you.
If common purposes are worthy objectives and government is a useful tool to achieve them, then I see no point in diminishing government of the people, by the people, and for the people. (Nor does the Constitution.)
Interestingly, DC Innes’ article bases his purported mandate for “small” government upon the Bible, not the Constitution. Technically, we have divided government, not limited government. The functions of a corporation are divided between administrative, sales, and production, but the annual report promises unlimited growth.
Report comment to moderator
TAMMY, one of the insanely hateful things that Ron Paul says is what he said in the last debate: That Americans killed a million Iraqis. It a sadistic anti-American lie.
He also said that we would respect Iran more if they had nuclear weapons.
Report comment to moderator
#47, JJF wrote; “This is not a conservative, republican (small r), or constitutionalist position.”
My statement, to which your responded, was a clear answer to XION’s question and not ant attemtp to convey an ideological position. But I still disagree with you. What I said about the people getting to draw the line (generally speaking), and that representatives should be held accountable is as conservative as any view we hold.
I was not advocating Robespierre-style pure democracy. That is just something you made up without reference to my general comments. So your post was a straw argument.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, where in the Constitution is any article dealing with marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: Interestingly, DC Innes’ article bases his purported mandate for “small” government upon the Bible, not the Constitution.
The Constitution clearly limits the power of the Federal government, while allowing for general jurisdiction including police power to the states. By all right, we ought to be a truly federalist nation where the states and the cities and towns should have a large part of rule.
The Federalists under Washington and Hamilton properly established a strong federal government, though they never came close to the monstrosity of power of the present Washington government. What has happened is that a combination of congressional, judicial, and presidential elites have become a burdensome ruling class. Though the Democrats leads this, many Republicans fall prey to the inordinate Beltway perquisites.
Paul is quite right to object to the overweening federal government; his problem is that he is a simple-minded libertarian soul who wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A, we define terms differently.
I do link morality with moralism. ‘Morality’ is the study of what is good (or not), and laws do need to be based on the good (morality). And ‘moralism’ is the advocacy for the advance of morality (the good). There are right and wrong ways to do this just as there are principles of right and wrong in morality and I am for advancing them in the best ways we can and according to the process for advocacy we have set up by the Constituion.
‘Judging’ and ‘imposing’ are pejoratives you inserted into the discussion. These things happen but what else is new? All good things are distorted by sinners. Sometimes judging and imposing, however, are justified and reasonable people should be able to discuss this without just throwing out the whole legitimate realm of moralism (advancing morality by reasonbale and legitimate means).
Also, KYLE A, I am no statist and it was silly and ignorant (in the literal sense of the word ignorant) of you to accuse me of being one. We sure use words differently, don’t we?
And KYLE, it was also ignorant of you you say I want a theocracy. That is more than just a different use of words. That is a total perversion of my view and you know it! I am disgusted by your ignorant accusation (I say ignorant because i know for sure what I believe and that you are ignorant about me and my beliefs).
Report comment to moderator
Responding to #24 –
XION, morality is not only between an individual and God. It has huge public and corporate implications and ramifications.
When Jesus criticized the Pharisees, he was actively criticizing civil leaders (every bit politicians as they were religious leaders in that culture). Thus, he was not ignoring local political leaders at all.
XION wrote; “The mission of the church is the edification of the body, not the policing of unbelievers.”
Who on earth ever said it was? Policing both believers and unbelievers is the God-ordained role of the state, not the church. And Christians have a dual citizenship, on earth and in heaven ultimately. So Christians can engage in the concerns of the real world (including political concerns) without re-shaping the mission of the church.
I see no “right-wing Utopianism” or “Dominionism” at play, XION, and I resent the unjustified pejoratives and the misleading implications they hold. It is not fair-minded.
Report comment to moderator
SMALLVILLE,
WORLD Magazine gave you a forum through which to offer your opinion. Why don’t you just use it to offer yours without expressing extreme disappointed that World Magazine has engaged a topic that needs engagement?
Even when I disagree with a columnist or article, I am still grateful for the forum for discussion that WORLD provides here.
If World Magazine embraced Ron Paul I would disagree in the strongest terms possible (he is worse that Obama in my view). But I still would not complain that they chime in with a point of view.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, “worse than Obama” is an extremely strong statement. Obviously you dislike him, but I suspect that you haven’t done any research on him to feel that strongly opposed to a man who is probably on the same side of the issues with you on 95% on things, as opposed to Obama, with whom you’d agree with very few controversial issues. To say he is “worse” than Obama because of a few disagreements, or because you believe a statement or two to be in error, seems misguided. (Do you have hold of military intelligence that prove his statement to be a lie, for example, or have you heard it refuted? You keep saying it as though it is a lie, when in fact it might be (1) true or (2) an accidental misstatement. Do you know for a fact that it is neither of these?)
Again, you can disagree with him, even disagree with him strongly, but “worse than Obama” suggests you are in error about the man’s actual policy statements and the like.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane, Thank you for that series of articles. I don’t agree with any of them, but they were very thought provoking.
The articles highlight what I was getting at in #5 when I pointed out the difficulty Covenant Theologians have with the concept of church and state. After writing that I thought of you, who strongly advocate both Covenant Theology and Ron Paul and so I was wondering why you did not fit my theory. Your articles provided an explanation and for that I thank you.
The reason I don’t agree with any of the articles, even though they disagree with each other, is because of this notion that Christians should only vote for those who conform to biblical law. The articles which promoted voting for Ron Paul was despite his supposed opposition to biblical law in some areas, because he advocated other perhaps more important biblical principles in other areas.
To all of that I say, “How about Christians vote for a candidate that is good for America, despite how well they conform to the peculiar rituals of the theocratic Mosaic law which had nothing to do with providing guidelines for the rule of secular governments”
The purpose of the extremely peculiar Mosaic law was to teach us about Christ, not about civil government!! (Gal 3:24,25) And once he came that was the end of the law. (Gal 3:19) It is dead. (Rom 7:3) Over. Kaput. Finished. (John 19:30)
Theonomy is dominionism on steroids. And as Cheryl said, it is unbiblical, despite how many scriptures they cite. It is contrary to the Gospel of grace as Paul explains in Galatians. While Calvinism is biblical, it is easy to see how theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism spring out of a Covenant Theology mindset, where the law is not dead, but very much alive.
Report comment to moderator
We need to keep in mind that our republican constitutional form of government is that of SHARED POWERS.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Covenantal theology doesn’t have to be tied to theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism. I’m not sure where you are getting that from.
Just because we see a closer connection between the Old and New Testaments doesn’t mean covenantalists (if that is a word) want a theonomic government.
Once again take a look at the issue people have with Westminster Seminary in California on the two kingdom theology.
Report comment to moderator
#106 NoPm “Ron Paul is Lutheran which likely means he has a two kingdom view. In the Presbyterian and Reformed world there is a debate going on with respect to whether a two kingdom view or one kingdom view is appropriate.”
Excellent thoughts! This two kingdom view was actually advocated by Jesus, Paul, Augustine and later by both Luther and Calvin. It is strange, but the more I read Calvin, the less Calvinistic he sounds.
If you follow the reference you can read what Calvin wrote, which was too lengthy to include here.
Report comment to moderator
#154 NoPm “Covenantal theology doesn’t have to be tied to theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism. I’m not sure where you are getting that from.”
I didn’t say that at all. I said, “It is easy to see how theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism spring out of a Covenant Theology mindset”.
In other words, if one believes that the Mosaic law is not finished but is the foundation for civil government, then it is only a tiny step from there to linking American government to Moses.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul was Lutheran, was also Episcopalian for a number of years, but now he is Baptist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/ron-paul-church-abortion-narcotics-marriage.html
Report comment to moderator
#157 Great link BeckyF.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, please, JOEL MARK IS A SERIOUS RESEARCHER while you are less-than-interested in the debates, etc. I think, as a sister in the Lord, you should provide some kind of supporting back up to your opinionated accusations against JOEL MARK’s plain and honest views on Ron Paul.
Suspecting that he hasn’t done any serious research on Paul is such a presumptuous insult, I don’t want to believe that you meant it in that way.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL,
When i say that Ron Paul is worse than Obama, I do so with trepidation. It’s a tough call, to be honest.
But in a way, it rises from my respect for Ron Paul’s consistency regarding his convictions and rhetoric. In the realm of foreign policy, both Ron Paul and CANDIDATE (pre-President) Obama speak of America in accusatory (and false) terms, accusing us of horrific things without basis. Obama’s presidential record shows that he may not have really meant the disgusting he said to get elected. I suspect that Ron Paul actually does mean the disgusting and false things he says about America and that makes him even worse and more dangerous.
Candidate Obama said everything he could to undermine our mission while we were at war. Obama spoke ill of America primarily as if we are criminals in the world. So does Ron Paul.
Obama is playing to his anti-America leftist base. Ron Paul actually believes we are a criminal nation and will lie to make that case, like accusing us falsely of killing a million Iraqis. That makes Ron Paul worse.
Ron Paul actually believes that if Iran had nukes, we would respect them more and that is his argument for letting them have them. That makes him worse than Obama.
Obama has changed his colors often. His anti-America rhetoric was to get elected and it worked (that tells you a lot about the lack of intelligence and the lack of informed patriotism of many Americans).
Ron Paul has a long record of outrageously hateful statements that blame America for terrorist attacks and expressing sympathy for Iran. His lie that Americans killed a million Iraqis does not call for psychoanalysis. It calls for the presumption that he means it and that it fits his long record of America-hating false statements.
When Ron Paul implied that someone was saying that all Muslims are bad, he was being just like Obama, arguing from total straw. no one is saying all Muslims are bad nor do we want war with them. But we do see a real threat and we refuse to live in some weird cloud of fantasy denial.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
I have to agree with Cheryl on this, and it is what puzzles me about a lot of people who really dislike Ron Paul.
If we sat down to brass tacks … discussing his policy positions on each thing, I would not hesitate to guess that you would agree with 95% (or some high similar number) with him.
You (and others), though, will pick out the 5% that you don’t like, and really go to town with it.
Yet, if we were to do the same with just about any other candidate, we would find that you probably really agree with them half or less than half the time. And, yet you (and many others I’ve spoken with) will adamantly insist that this other person (with whom you have *many* disagreements with) would be a much better candidate and all Christians should vote for them.
That is what I don’t get about Ron Paul. People seem to require that the FULLY agree with him — 100% — or they want nothing to do with him.
Yet, they do not hold other candidates to the same standard at all. I find it so puzzling. I really do. It’s almost as if people have some sort of blinders on or something.
Report comment to moderator
All candidates’ opinions are not equal. Paul’s commendable views on our debt is devastated by his utter stubborness in appreciating our responsibiloity to the rest of the globe. His congressional career has only been made possible by the rarified members in his district. He has no, absolutely no legitimate natonal supoort. He would lose overwhelmingly as a candidate against Obama. Sorry to say.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t usually care for Jon Stewart, but this video is hysterical. It explains with humor what I find so puzzling about how Ron Paul is treated.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-rips-media-for-ignoring-ron-paul/
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Louise, if people actually voted on the issues, and not on “who could win” or who is most popular, I actually think Ron Paul could win.
The problem is simply that people do NOT vote their consciences or for the person who agrees the most with them.
Report comment to moderator
I appreciate your post LOUISE, seriously. At the same time, I took no offense at all from Cheryl’s post and her challenge. I realize that i can state things pretty strongly on this blog myself but I don’t mean it personally. I respond to posted comments and I try to keep that in mind–my passions are directed at the comments rather than to the person who i don’t actually know. I hope i can give others the freedom to challenge me or respond to my comments strongly. In fact, I have the highest regard for all that I do know about Cheryl as a participant here, even in disagreement. I feel the same way about XION, and many others–including you (with whom I rarely disagree).
Report comment to moderator
And, of course, there is the whole issue Jon Stewart brings up. The man simply isn’t taken seriously by the media, and we all know that the media controls elections.
Report comment to moderator
TAMMY, your attempt to place a percentage on my agreement with Ron Paul is invalid and irrelevant. Better to simply express with substance why I oppose him and give my reasons clearly as i have tried to do.
Indeed, there are areas of agreement I have with him but that is true of most any candidate. As a congressman, my opposition might not be as strong–except for the fact that I have only recently become convinced that he is hateful toward America. But since he constantly runs for the role of Commander-in-Chief over the last decade, that elevates my opposition to the highest point. He is completely wrong and dangerous for that role.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Joel, I just get so aggravated by unexplained presumptions. At the same time, I’m more than aware of my own accusations that need support. Appreciate your toughtful comments, though, you know, always.
Report comment to moderator
I also have to ask, Louise, what is our “responsibility to the world?” I’m all for responsibility, but what I’ve seen is that we butt in where we’re not wanted. We get embroiled in messes that we can’t clean up. We give money to criminals to keep “someone worse” from getting into power, and we either fail, or we are hated by the people for keeping a monster in power, or both. Then, they want nothing to do with us when they do overthrow their monster, and we have no moral authority to speak to them.
Please name me any countries where we’ve passed on our “American Democracy.” Even countries that do choose democracy/republicanism tend to choose the European version.
We give money to Israel’s enemies … enough that Israel needs money from us to counteract the money that we gave to her enemies. And, of course, that allows us to meddle in their affairs since they “owe” us. Netanyahu actually likes Ron Paul.
Someone tried to argue with me that Ron Paul wouldn’t have gone to war against Hitler, but I disagree. He is all for defense. He voted for military response to Afghanistan. He was in the Air Force. He is for legitimate, voted on, Congressionally approved, defensive engagements, and is ALL for diplomacy, trade, and friendly interaction.
But, he is against the U.S. being the world’s parent, and I agree with him. Exactly what has that gotten us?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
How is he “hateful toward America?”
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, I think most people do vote their consciences – often with difficulty – and they want the better person to win for the greater good of most of the country. If Ron Paul wins the primary votes to get the GOP nomination I will vote for him for president. He would be the lesser of the two evils.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy – South Korea. G’nite.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark — has America legalized abortion? Is abortion murder? Has America killed millions of people? If so then isn’t America criminal on at least some level? Get over the fact that America is somehow the nation of the righteous — You sound like a broken record.
Report comment to moderator
Louise,
I don’t know enough about S. Korea to know how Ron Paul would have voted on it.
But, I have now learned that there is another Presidential republic out there.
Thanks.
I will try to research it more.
Report comment to moderator
Louise,
If it helps any, I too will vote for the “lesser of two evils.” However, I’m just not convinced that Ron Paul is an “evil.”
Obama on the other hand….
Report comment to moderator
Anyone catch Ron Paul on Leno’s rerun last night? I would make the argument, that he had more air time on Leno than he has had in total in all the debates.
Well this has been a fun ride on this topic, hasn’t it?! Yet I find myself thinking of how awful medicine tasted back in the 50’s and 60’s. Most hated the taste to the point that the sickness was preferred to the medicine.
We can blog another 200 post about Paul, but it will do no good in defeating Pres. Obama. As a country we need a complete makeover in our thinking/will. Pres. Obama will be re-elected because as a nation we simply do not have the will to take the strong medicine that conservatives are serving. Pres. Obama will do everything in his power to make 2012 a good year. I’m bankinking on it. But 2013 will be a disaster when once again we see the real person and his policys when the curtain is lifted up.
Report comment to moderator
Well, now, Fives55, that’s depressing.
Report comment to moderator
@Joel: one of the insanely hateful things that Ron Paul says is what he said in the last debate: That Americans killed a million Iraqis. It a sadistic anti-American lie.
So you think Paul knows it’s a false statement and yet claimed it was true anyway? Because that’s what it takes for it to rise to the level of “lie” and not simply be an inaccurate statement. I pointed out on another thread that there was at least one survey of Iraqis that estimated 1 million dead. It was wildly out of whack with the other estimates, but it’s not like Paul pulled the 1 million figure out of a hat.
@Joel: He also said that we would respect Iran more if they had nuclear weapons.
I’m sure he meant respect as in “treat like an equal” and not “regard highly”. And I’m not sure I disagree. Do you not think the United States’ posture toward Iran would be different if it had nuclear weapons?
Report comment to moderator
Okay, where do I start?
First of all, I disagree with the article which claims that small government is demanded by Romans 13. I largely agree with JJF in #4, especially this, “to say that X is a function of Y in no way implies that X is the ONLY function of Y.”
I support conservative economics because I think it works best, not because of Romans 13. However I don’t support hard-line libertarian or Austrian economics. I don’t believe Social Security or Medicare are unconstitutional or unbiblical; however, I do strongly believe they need to be reformed along more free-market lines. I believe in some form of safety net to help the poorest in society, but I support welfare reform to help it work better, and I think expansion of food-stamp programs and actively encouraging people to get on these programs, as the Obama administration has done, is terrible policy.
About JJF’s comment #4, the last paragraph. I don’t know if I want a government that “actively cultivates a moral environment that facilitates people’s ability to live their lives ‘godly and dignified in every way’”. I’d have to think about the ramifications of that statement. But I do know that I disagree with libertarianism. Now, let me point out that there may be several possible viewpoints on social policy. If you reject both liberal social policy and Ron Paul’s libertarianism, the alternative is NOT necessarily “the Puritan government of early Massachusetts” which is theocracy. Most evangelicals don’t actually support that, and I’d be surprised if JJF doesn’t know that.
Consider a column written by Michael Gerson.
Paul was the only candidate at the debate to make news, calling for the repeal of laws against prostitution, cocaine and heroin. The freedom to use drugs, he argued, is equivalent to the freedom of people to “practice their religion and say their prayers.” Liberty must be defended “across the board.” “It is amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way,” he said, “but not when it comes to our personal habits.”
This argument is strangely framed: If you tolerate Zoroastrianism, you must be able to buy heroin at the quickie mart. But it is an authentic application of libertarianism, which reduces the whole of political philosophy to a single slogan: Do what you will — pray or inject or turn a trick — as long as no one else gets hurt.
Even by this permissive standard, drug legalization fails. The de facto decriminalization of drugs in some neighborhoods — say, in Washington, D.C. — has encouraged widespread addiction. Children, freed from the care of their addicted parents, have the liberty to play in parks decorated by used needles. Addicts are liberated into lives of prostitution and homelessness.
But Paul had an answer to this criticism. “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would,” he said to applause and laughter. Paul was claiming that good people — people like the Republicans in the room — would not abuse their freedom, unlike those others who don’t deserve our sympathy.
The problem, of course, is that even people in the room may have had sons or daughters who struggled with addiction. Or maybe even have personal experience with the freedom that comes from alcohol and drug abuse. One imagines they did not laugh or cheer.
Libertarians often cover their views with a powdered wig of 18th- and 19th-century philosophy. They cite Locke, Smith and Mill as advocates of a peaceable kingdom — a utopia of cooperation and spontaneous order. But the reality of libertarianism was on display in South Carolina. Paul concluded his answer by doing a jeering rendition of an addict’s voice: “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.”
This is not “The Wealth of Nations” or the “Second Treatise on Government.” It is Social Darwinism. It is the arrogance of the strong. It is contempt for the vulnerable and suffering.
The conservative alternative to libertarianism is necessarily more complex. It is the teaching of classical political philosophy and the Jewish and Christian traditions that true liberty must be appropriate to human nature. The freedom to enslave oneself with drugs is the freedom of the fish to live on land, or the freedom of birds to inhabit the ocean — which is to say, it is not freedom at all. Responsible, self-governing citizens do not grow wild like blackberries. They are cultivated in institutions — families, religious communities and decent, orderly neighborhoods. And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations — including laws against drugs and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade. (emphasis added)
I totally agree with Gerson here. Furthermore, on same-sex marriage, I believe it will have negative effects on society long-term; besides, “same-sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms. I also believe that no-fault divorce has been bad for society. But that battle has probably been lost at this point, although if it could be reversed, I would support that. The battle against gay marriage isn’t totally lost yet; we’ll see if the tide can be turned.
to be continued…
Report comment to moderator
Matt,
And, how many heroin addicts do we have by making it illegal?
Just curious … because I don’t think that making it illegal keeps a whole lot of people from doing it, it simply supports the illegal industry and massive crime behind it.
However, I’m not particularly adamant about it (although, I am in the case of something like Marijuana, which I believe is no different than alcohol.)
Still, Paul isn’t going to legalize drugs on his own. So, I’m willing to take the chance.
Report comment to moderator
See Matt, your same arguments could be used for alcohol, which has probably destroyed more families, more children, and more lives than all the other drugs combined.
Yet, we learned with prohibition that laws against it only made it worse, with a huge crime and mob problem.
I often wonder if other drugs aren’t the same. Do you know that, in California, leaving the heavily marked trails in the national and state forests can get you killed? All for marijuana.
And, our border crime with gangs involving Mexico? Due to the “war on drugs.”
So, while I’m against addiction, I’m not sure that laws against addiction are what works, and I’m even wondering if such laws actually make the situation worse.
Not sure. Just wondering.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/youth-recruited-for-drug-cartels_n_1173117.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk3&pLid=123826&ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
What the war on drugs has done. How many children’s lives have been ruined?
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass: Ron Paul said that we killed one million Iraqis. Whether or not the high estimate that you cite is correct, we did no such thing. The vast majority of deaths were caused by insurgents’ bombings and sectarian in-fighting. I despise the dishonesty of saying that “we” killed them. What’s more, Iraqis had a much better chance at protection and redress under American troops than under Saddam Hussein’s thugs. Overall, we are leaving Iraq better off than it was before, and without a volatile dictator.
Kyle A: So if people don’t favor Ron Paul’s view of social policy, you think they’re theocrats and fear for your religious freedom? Get a grip, man. That’s ridiculous. Going from “not libertarian” to “theocrat” is a big leap.
Most conservatives are opposed to Paul because of his foreign policy. It is NOT hypocritical to oppose Paul because of that, even if one likes Paul’s other views on smaller government, states’ rights, lower taxes, etc. And just in case you object, defense spending is NOT driving our debt explosion. Nondiscretionary domestic spending (i.e. entitlements) is behind our looming crisis. If ALL military spending (not just the wars, but everything) was cut to $0, we’d save about $664 billion. The deficit is $1.6 trillion. Another way to look at it: the cumulative deficit from 2003 to 2010 was 4,371 billion. The Iraq War was $709 billion according to the CBO. Cut it out, and you still have $4,022 billion. Medicare spending during that time was $2,932 billion. Or to put it yet another way, Obama spent more in 6 months on the stimulus than Bush spent in 6 years of war in Iraq.
And returning to Paul – maybe they want what he wants, at least on domestic policy, but they see that he has accomplished nothing in years of sitting in the House, and they believe that Romney, Perry, Santorum, etc. have better records of accomplishment and leadership, and might actually do more of what Paul wants than he himself would be able to.
Or, maybe Paul’s opponents see that Paul sounds like a conspiracy theorist at times: for example, when he says that a border fence is being designed to “keep us in”, or when he says the CIA has “taken over”, or when he responds to 9/11 Truthers by saying, “I’m too busy to look into that,” rather than outright rejecting it as the ridiculous claptrap that it is. (Sure, later, in front of the right people, he’ll say he doesn’t believe in Trutherism, but in front of his followers, he’s less cautious. He knows how to wink and nod to the nuts). He also speaks to the John Birch Society and has appeared regularly on Alex Jones’s radio show. And if he didn’t write those newsletters, then he hired whoever did – possibly Lew Rockwell – and he promoted the newsletters. In 1996, when challenged, he even defended the newsletters and said that people should look at the context. But no context justifies the racism and weirdness that appeared in those newsletters. If he secretly believes that stuff, he is morally and psychologically unfit for the Presidency. If he doesn’t believe it, but quietly allowed it to stir up his base and profited from it, he is morally unfit for the Presidency. If he let people write whatever they want in his name, for years on end, and promoted the newsletter not knowing what was in it, he’s a fool, and unfit for the Presidency.
Here’s a graph to help you out: The Ron Paul Decision Tree.
As for myself, I am a social conservative. On economics, I am mostly conservative; I support smaller government programs and a simplified tax code, which could involve lower rates, but with fewer loopholes so as to avoid loss of revenue. I’m obviously not libertarian. Nor do I support the gold standard. (It seems to me that the gold standard is a rule that the nation’s monetary stock should be determined by miners, not by bankers. I cannot see why that would be an improvement.) And I completely disagree with Paul on foreign policy. It should be easy, then, to see why I don’t support Paul.
By the way, what would a Ron Paul judicial nominee look like? Would he be like Antonin Scalia? Remember, Paul opposes the way the conservative court has ruled on security issues. Paul will have trouble finding a judge who supports his views on both security and overturning Roe vs. Wade. Either he picks a liberal who will uphold Roe but overturn some of the decisions permitting warrantless wiretapping, etc., or he will appoint a conservative who will do the opposite. He will have a hard time avoiding this conflict. He talks more about his libertarian views on security issues and foreign policy than his opposition to Roe vs. Wade. I wonder which he would prioritize in his judicial nominees…
Report comment to moderator
Buddy, if Ron Paul voted in a legislature on the state level, he could effect criminalizing abortion in ONE state and he’d probably be outvoted. He throws the issues to the states where it properly belongs. But he can’t accomplish that goal no matter what he says.
Report comment to moderator
“Why Ron Paul?” Because Pat Buchanan isn’t running. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y (183): Ron Paul said that we killed one million Iraqis. Whether or not the high estimate that you cite is correct, we did no such thing. The vast majority of deaths were caused by insurgents’ bombings and sectarian in-fighting. I despise the dishonesty of saying that “we” killed them.
Frank: … and the “insurgents’ bombings and sectarian in-fighting” were not occurring until — without legitimate causus belli — we invaded Iraq.
Matt Y (183): What’s more, Iraqis had a much better chance at protection and redress under American troops than under Saddam Hussein’s thugs.
Frank: But absent that legitimate causus belli, it never was the job of US troops to provide protection and redress in the first place.
If the rule of law is important (and it is), it matters whether or not our troops were in Iraq illegally.
No, “we” (i.e., our troops) didn’t kill one million Iraqis, and I think Ron Paul could have worded it better. But our illegal military presence in Iraq certainly led to their deaths.
Let the “isolationist” and “America hater” smears begin.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is a flawed candidate, but his philosophy is the future of the Republican Party. Bankrupt nations can not afford “Wars of Choice”, ever-increasing domestic spending, the “War on Drugs”, or crippling regulations to fight phantom environmental threats.
Report comment to moderator
“Theocracy” is a term too loaded with pejorative force to be useful.
But I do believe that most conservative evangelicals have that Puritan impulse to see morality enforced by the power of the state. They may be more lenient with the moral values to be imposed, but the underlying premise is the same: the power of the state should be used to enforce good morals.
Here’s a solid example from this very thread:
Report comment to moderator
I should have added this:
The underlying premise [of many conservative evangelicals] is the same [as that of the Puritans]: the power of the state should be used to enforce
good moralsBiblical moral standards.I don’t think I’m being unfair to conservative evangelicals with that statement. Do you think I am?
Report comment to moderator
I started reading the book Boomerang, by Michael Lewis that I got for Christmas. It describes the financial collapse of governments around the world as a followup to his book The Big Short about the banking crisis.
In the book he says,
This is how Ron Paul must feel, who has been explaining the future for decades, and has been right about much of it, yet continues to be called a nut.
These few investors who saw the collapse coming went on to research the governments who were bailing out the banks to see how solvent they were and realized that they were going down next. People called them crazy as they invested once again, not in the failures of banks, but whole countries. Then, as sure as the sun comes up, it all happened just like they said it would.
Americans have become numb to all the talk about a future American financial collapse. People who say such things are still called nuts. Obama flat out denies it and explains that things are looking up. Meanwhile these same investors are now buying guns and gold as they foresee the inevitable. America is going down.
But the rest of us will call those few people who are usually right NUTS! and will carry on as everything will be OK. The Frank/Dodd bill totally ignored all of the causes of the collapse and went after the only sane people in the room. Americans hate those few sane people because they were right and made a lot of money.
It is tough being sane in an insane world which is sitting on a volcano that is ready to blow, but no one really cares. Obama will be elected again easily using the billions he’s socked away and then all of the programs he’s delayed taking effect until after the election will begin to strangle us to death.
But let us continue to argue about important things like who is the most Christian in the room.
Report comment to moderator
let see the Ron Paul supports with not change their minds. Those of us who see Ron Paul veiws as dangerous witll not change our minds. Where does it leave us?
Report comment to moderator
JJF, you don’t what you’re talking about when you accuse orthodox and evangelical Christians of some sort of crude theocratic views.
The doctrine of the necessary conformity of civil law to moral truth is one of the pillars of Western civilization and dates back to the greatest of our classic and Christian thinkers including that of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Jonathan Edwards.
Ron Paul’s libertarian view of civil law that allows for autonomous human life styles is one of the more depraved of contemporary ways of thought.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul’s libertarian view of civil law that allows for autonomous human life styles is one of the more depraved of contemporary ways of thought.
—
He support such a view so he does not have to be held accountable for not stopping such actions.
Report comment to moderator
It is Ron Paul’s way of voting present and passing the hard decissions to the States and Courts
Report comment to moderator
It is interesting how ordained ministers are throwing out Revelations 22:10-11. The fact is the church’s job is not to legislate morality on the people, but to preach the Truth, the one and only Truth that can change a man’s heart. I know from personal experience with friends who were drug addicts, throwing them in jail did nothing to aid them, and made the problems worse. Those who were lucky (and from what I have seen, white enough as in being on the lighter end of the spectrum) who were sentenced to rehab, (especially those who went to Teen Challenge) had significant improvements.
On matters of history, the US spurred the Iraq-Iran war, and played both sides of the fence, extended the war, and gave wmd’s to Saddam Hussein. Millions of Iraqi’s and Iranians died indirectly from US action. We did not pull the triggers, but we supplied the ammunition, and indirectly established both totalitarian governments on both sides. That war has generated much blowback. This is the madness in our foreign policy that must end. I am studying international relations with a focus on counter-terrorism (I switched out of engineering) and every class, whether the professor is conservative or liberal, (yes, I do have conservative professors) is teaching about blowback and how the problems we have now are results of past US actions.
The US can be a “light on a hill” with our foreign policy, from the Marshall Plan to the past ten years of our foreign policy in Colombia, or we can be a great source of chaos. The US should stop being those two sides of the coin when it comes to foreign policy. I am all for US defense, but we should not be going beyond that and meddle in other nations internal affairs. Benjamin Netanhayu said as much (at least concerning US meddling in Israeli affairs) in his address before Congress where
he was constantly interrupted by standing ovations.
Also, Ron Paul has stated that he is against government involvement in marriage to begin with (government involvement has only been around for 500 years, before that, the catholic church had complete control of it, and before that it was a contract made and enforced between families, like the covenants in the OT) but if there is to be gov’t involvement, it should be the most decentralized form of government involved, which is the states.
On abortion, he has been entirely clear in his methods and in each sanctity of life act, which removes federal jurisdiction from abortion, nullifying Roe v Wade, allowing states to enforce laws against the murder of the unborn. You may keep pursuing the top down approach of a Constitutional amendment, but that has so far failed.
Concerning the war on drugs yet again, one thing I do know is that after it started under Reagan, the drug cartels in Colombia (especially Escobar) surged in power with the excess profits made from the newly hiked black market premium.
Ending current laws on prostitution are actually quite sane, especially when it comes to fighting human trafficking, because one major problem is that the prostitutes are arrested and jailed (even though many were forced into it on average at the age of 12) while the pimps and the customers face no penalty. It is maddening how our current prostitution laws favor human traffickers and pedophiles. There is nothing moral about the current prostitution laws on the books.
What I do want to say to my fellow believers here is to be careful when it comes to what you support for foreign policy. Defense is a duty of the government, but meddling and playing the role of God in other nations affairs can cause blowback and will have consequences. The same goes with domestic laws. For example prostitution laws which were intended to reduce the practice on the streets have made it easier for human traffickers. The War on Drugs gave much power to the cartels in Latin America because of the black market premium they were earning. The three-strikes your out rules has contributed to our ever expanding prison population that we can’t afford.
It is not our jobs to regulate the exterior like the Pharisees did 2000 years ago, but to preach the Gospel and to the fulfill the Great Commission to all tribes, all peoples and all nations, especially our own. Too many believers have grown dependent on government to enforce morality, when the true way to change the wicked hearts of men is the Way, Jesus. And He is the One who will change the Middle East, not US arms in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at this point based on what I have seen on the debates from every candidate except Paul and Huntsman, Iran.
The Gospel is spreading like wildfire throughout Arabia and Iran, and the mullahs in Iran are especially frightened of this. More Muslims came to Christ when the Passion of the Christ was running in theatres (with government endorsement by the way) than in the previous 1400 years. And this is where I highly recommend caution to everyone here, because the US has indirectly and directly supported the extermination of Christians in the Middle East, under Saddam in Iraq during the 80’s. I hope everyone here can agree that massacring our brothers and sisters in Christ is evil and the US was wrong in doing so 30 years ago.
But back to the conclusion, be careful to accept meddling with foreign nations as national defense, and be wary of laws that attempt to enforce external morality, for our One true Defense and the One who holds us accountable is not Uncle Sam, but is God.
Report comment to moderator
JJF #188,
I missed that comment.
I don’t know what Sails means by “positive law” or by the “good laws” that the Puritans had, nor do I know what “savoir faire” means. I don’t support criminalizing fornication, adultery, or homosexuality. But what about policies that disfavor those things, or that encourage moral behavior?
What if you change “enforce” in #189 to “encourage”? I think it’s a good thing for society and the nation if marriage and strong families can be encouraged by tax policies, etc., and if homosexual marriage is not sanctioned and divorce is not granted at the drop of a hat.
Report comment to moderator
XION, Paul is right on his views of drastically cutting back the federal government; however, he is way out of line with his libertarian views of civil law and international law.
Lewis was writing about a few investors who bet right on the direction of certain financial markets. Your parallel of their loneliness and that of Paul is a stretch.
Paul greatly lacks the wisdom of a true statesman. He is rather correctly regarded by most Washington analysts as a maverick. The really wisest man in this race is Santorum.
Report comment to moderator
An addendum to my previous post (186):
If our invasion of Iraq was illegal (i.e., without legitimate causus belli), then we must bear some degree of blame for the subsequent death and destruction, because of our illegitimate introduction of force into the situation. It’s the same legal principle as “felony murder” laws.
A man holds up a bank, and during the robbery a shootout ensues, during which an armed guard accidentally kills a teller or patron. The robber is caught. While none of the shots he fired killed anybody, he will still be tried for “felony murder,” since the death of the innocent bystander was the result of his illegitimate introduction of force into the situation.
No, it’s hardly a perfect analogy. But if our invasion of (introduction of armed force into) Iraq was not legitimate, we bear some degree of blame for the death and destruction that followed.
Report comment to moderator
The Constitution clearly limits the power of the Federal government . .
Which words limit the power of Congress to borrow, tax, spend, print money, regulate commerce, and pass all such laws as may be necessary and proper to those functions? None that Ron Paul has ever quoted!
As best as I can assess the document, the founders left the size and scope of government to be determined.
We all agree that the Constitution limits the power of the government to censor speech, promote or suppress religion, arbitrarily search and seize property, and so forth.
But the magnitude of the people’s powers under Article I.8 to promote the general welfare is unbounded.
Please note that some prestigious conservative Appeals Court judges have upheld the ACA — they determined that health care was interstate commerce, and constitutionality was a no brainer.
Report comment to moderator
Those on this thread taking potshots at the “Puritans” might reflect on their laying the foundation for the American nation that contributed greatly to its early success. Among the greatest of American statesmen were Colonial men including Winthrop and Bradford. These men would be appalled at the depravity of our period.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul . . has been explaining the future for decades, and has been right about much of it, yet continues to be called a nut.
Ron Paul predicted the financial crash. He’s predicted 10 of the last three. Ridiculously, he also predicted inflation, a collapse of the bond market, and destruction of the value of the dollar. Some economists think inflation may or may not reach 4.5% in the future, which may be good for real GNP, but most working economists think Paul’s expectation of hyperinflation is nutty.
Paul also believes that gold has wonderful intrinsic value. That’s a form of idolatry.
Report comment to moderator
195: I agree with focusing on rehab rather than imprisonment for drug addicts, and I agree with punishing pimps and customers more than prostitutes. But it does not follow that we ought to legalize drugs and prostitution. And it is a fantasy that drug use and prostitution would go down if it were legalized. See link. The consequences of liberalized drug laws have been evident in Alaska, Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland (with its “Needle Park,” a drug Mecca of abuse, addiction, violence and crime), and in the late 1800’s with high rates of addiction to opium and cocaine which were significantly reduced with anti-drug legislation. Libertarian social policy is utopian and impractical.
So is libertarian foreign policy. Far be it from me to defend every U.S. intervention or argue that U.S. foreign policy has been perfect. It hasn’t. But the U.S. has always been an expansionist, hegemony-seeking power, first regionally, now globally. That great libertarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, began America’s first war in the Middle East, against the Barbary Pirates. James Monroe claimed the Western Hemisphere as the U.S. sphere of influence, and the U.S. nearly went to war at times to back this up. Even in the supposed time of American isolationism between the World Wars, there were interventions in Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic, to name a few. On balance, interventionism has worked pretty well and is probably a good thing, as the other potential hegemons don’t have much to recommend themselves at the moment. Noninterventionism has never been deemed a practical foreign policy during our history, and the libertarian notion that the Constitution demands a foreign policy that we’ve never actually held is utterly stupid, not to mention that it would leave the rest of the world to the Russians, the Chinese, and whatever tin-pot dictator decided to go on a conquering spree this week. So is the idea that what happens in the rest of the world doesn’t affect us in the United States. You can’t repeal globalization, or history, or the laws of international relations.
Report comment to moderator
Please name me any countries where we’ve passed on our “American Democracy.” Even countries that do choose democracy/republicanism tend to choose the European version.
It doesn’t really matter whether they have a Presidential Republic or a parliamentary-style democracy, if you’re simply interested in passing on freedom.
Besides South Korea, I would add Germany and Japan. Note that this basically happened “at gunpoint” after WWII. Also, most of Eastern Europe has democracy now, partly due to our meddling in the affairs of another hegemon (the Soviet Union). Another example is Grenada, which had a military/Communist government for a short period in 1983. (The leaders of that government had staged a coup and murdered the leaders of the previous regime). After the invasion, the Grenadan constitution was restored and free elections were held once again.
Report comment to moderator
@MattY #183: Buddyglass: Ron Paul said that we killed one million Iraqis. Whether or not the high estimate that you cite is correct, we did no such thing.
Two thoughts:
First: if the million died because of insurgent activity that was directly precipitated by the U.S. invasion and removal of Hussein then don’t we bear some blame for those deaths?
Second: Even if the one million figure is wrong, does you think Paul’s citing it rises to the level of “lying” as Joel Mark suggests?
@NJLawyer #184: He throws the issues to the states where it properly belongs. But he can’t accomplish that goal no matter what he says.
Unlike Democrats, who you’re comparing him to, Paul at least wants to return the issue to the states with the understanding that many states will criminalize abortion. Moreover, he’s actively looking for some way to ban it on a national scale that passes Constitutional muster (according to his understanding of the Constitution). Again, that is a fundamental difference between Paul and a pro-choice Democrat.
@MattY #202: And it is a fantasy that drug use and prostitution would go down if it were legalized.
See the example of Portugal.
The flip side is that drug use doesn’t have to decrease for liberalization to be a success. If it just stayed constant or rose slightly it would likely still represent a “win”. Less trafficking related violence, less money spent on law enforcement, less money spent housing a ginormous prison population (many of whom are guilty of non-violent drug offenses), etc.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Innes has made a fundamental and serious mistake in his condemnation of Ron Paul for “his failure to appreciate the government’s divine mandate to punish evil and praise good.” Actually, that’s the job of the states – not the federal government. The U.S. Constitution severely limits the power of the federal government and delegates (lists) what it is allowed to do, forbidding all else. This was done to keep federal power from spiraling out of control, as has already happened. So when the federal govt. obeys the Constitution, is isn’t allowed to decide issues of morality, or legislate right and wrong. This is the law, and in his ignorance, Mr. Innes is advocating that Mr. Paul ignore and violate the law of the land – the U.S. Constitution. That isn’t right, and it isn’t God’s way.
Mr. Innes – you owe Ron Paul an apology.
Report comment to moderator
Roy,
Have you read the Constitution?
Do you consider it to be the law of the land in the U.S.?
I pose this question too:If you were to cast your vote based on which candidate would represent Jesus’ teachings the best, who would you vote for?
Ron Paul is the obvious answer in my opinion (it is not even close). Yours will differ and I am not trying to change your opinion (because I cannot), just curious as to why you do not see it this way.
Report comment to moderator
Have you read the Constitution?
Do you consider it to be the law of the land in the U.S.?
—
Yes, an Ron Pauls view of passing the buck to the States and Courts are not based on the Constitution. It is based on not wanting to take leadership. It is the same as Mr. Obama voting present in the Senate.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is the obvious answer in my opinion (it is not even close). Yours will differ and I am not trying to change your opinion (because I cannot), just curious as to why you do not see it this way.
–
Ron Paul views on marriage will open the door to same sex marriage becoming the law of the land..
Ron Paul views on drugs will open the door to legale drug use.
Ron Paul’s view on Iran will lead to Iran getting the Bomb and will lead to more attacks against Isreal
Ron Paul’s view of withdrawing from the world will lead to China and Russia take over the void that is left by our Nation with drawing.
Also by withdrawing all the soldier from around the world is going to casue more people on Government programs due to the lack of jobs for the family memeber of the solders.
All these views are based on what he said during the debates.
Report comment to moderator
@Pastor Roy – As per your statement:
“Ron Paul would open the door for same sex marriage to be the law of the land and open the door for drug use to be legal.In my view Christian’s should beware and concern in supporting such a man..”
You just don’t get it. We are currently living under a lawless and rogue federal government, which despises the law of the land – the U.S. Constitution – and violates it continually. This is the reason our nation is on the verge of bankruptcy and death. The government is ILLEGALLY spending us into oblivion! Lawlessness isn’t God’s way.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who would bring the federal govt. back under the Constitution and make it obey the law. And since all federal drug laws are totally UnConstitutional, of course he would abolish them, and it’s the RIGHT thing to do. You shouldn’t be opposing this.
As for marriage, the Constitution doesn’t actually give the feds authority over it, and Ron Paul would leave it up to the states, just like most things are supposed to be left up to the states.
So, Christians should be SUPPORTING Ron Paul – not dissing him like you are.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who would bring the federal govt. back under the Constitution and make it obey the law. And since all federal drug laws are totally UnConstitutional, of course he would abolish them, and it’s the RIGHT thing to do. You shouldn’t be opposing this.
–
The Federal Drug Laws are Constitutional. An Christian’s should not be support someone who is open the doors to more drug use. By passing this to the States it open such a door.
Report comment to moderator
As for marriage, the Constitution doesn’t actually give the feds authority over it, and Ron Paul would leave it up to the states, just like most things are supposed to be left up to the states.
–
Your problem is the Federal Courts will be the ones deciding what marriage is going to look like not the States.
Report comment to moderator
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You want to play “most like Obama”? Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry all want to see continued killing overseas by pointless wars. This kills American soldiers and foreigners (not to mention bankrupts our country). Want to play most like Jesus? Ron Paul wants to end the pointless killing and always favors life over death.
Report comment to moderator
So, Christians should be SUPPORTING Ron Paul – not dissing him like you are.
—
First, Ron Paul’s views are dangerous for this nation. So yes I am going to speak out against them. Just like I speak out against Mr. Obama views.
Second, are smarter then to fall for Ron Paul’s views on what is Constitutional and what is not,
Report comment to moderator
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
—
The problem again is the Courts are going to rule against you on that view in regards to Marriage. The first time a State tells a couple we are not going accept your marriage from that State. It will end up in Federal Court.
Report comment to moderator
Want to play most like Jesus?
—
Jesus never spoke out against Military Action. He told the Roman Soldiers to do what is right and justy, when doing their duties.
Report comment to moderator
Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry all want to see continued killing overseas by pointless wars.
—
They will defend this Nation and our Allies. Ron Paul will surrender our allies to attack. Because it does not effect us.
Report comment to moderator
If you want to support Ron Paul go right ahead. There is nothing you can say that will change my mine. My Faith will not permit me to vote for someone like Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
Roy,
If you are so concerned about Israel, why do you support us continuing to send money to Israel’s enemies? Ron Paul is the only candidate that will stop this.
It is funny how things change. 10-15 years ago, republicans often feared the “New World Order”. Now it is embraced by many as long as we are the world police.
“Jesus never spoke out against Military Action. He told the Roman Soldiers to do what is right and justy, when doing their duties.”-This is Ron Paul’s philosophy EXACTLY.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy (210): The Federal Drug Laws are Constitutional.
Frank: Really?
According to which constitutional clause or amendment?
Or according to which Supreme Court ruling?
Report comment to moderator
TAMMY asked, “How is he [Ron Paul] “hateful toward America?”
I have explained my view on that multiple times. I don’t want to tax the patience of other readers with repitition. Are you not even reading my posts, TAMMY? It’s fine if you’re not, but why ask questions I have answered (answers you may not like or agree with).
Report comment to moderator
@ PastorRoy – You wrote: “The Federal Drug Laws are Constitutional.”
Wrong. They’re totally UnConstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is power over drugs given to the federal government, therefore it is forbidden, and also forbidden by the 9th and 10th Amendments. If you disagree, show us where this power is delegated to the feds.
Remember Prohibition? The feds wanted to ban alcohol, but knew they had no power to do so. Back then the government was more honest, so instead of simply passing a law to make alcohol illegal, they did it lawfully and got a Constitutional Amendment, the 18th Amendment, which established Prohibition. See how that works?
Today, the feds don’t bother obeying the Constitution, so they don’t bother to get Amendments passed. That’s why they never bothered to get an Amendment giving them power over drugs passed. This is lawlessness – and you should NOT be supporting federal lawlessness!
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t. I don’t accuse them of wanting to stone homosexuals and rebellious children, if that’s what you mean by “crude theocratic views.”
I “accused” (if that is even the right word) evangelical Christians of neo-Puritanical views: of wishing, as the Puritans did, to have a government which enforced Biblical morality. My point was that they share the Puritan’s goals and theory of government, even if they would differ somewhat in their methods.
Is that unfair? You yourself said you admired the Puritan’s laws, but thought “they lacked the savoir faire to administer them urbanely.” I’d like to know what you mean by that. How would one “urbanely” enforce church truancy laws or laws against gossiping and shrewish wives?
But probably you don’t mean all their laws. Those maybe are the “crude theocratic” views you’d disavow, while you would like to keep other views about sexual morality, sobriety, and industry. What then is the distinction you make that the Puritans didn’t? The Puritans had a uniform view of private and civil life — all was under the authority of God and hence Governor. Your view, I’m guessing, is not uniform. Some things, you’d likely say, are in fact matters of private conscience and are not the business of government. So how do you make that distinction?
Yes, but the idea that civil law must conform to moral truth does not mean that all moral truths must be enforced by civil law. No one disputes that laws should be moral. Which morals should be enshrined into law is a matter of much ongoing dispute.
And there’s the rub. What do you do in a time and place where our society has lost its moral consensus? In the 18th century, even cosmopolitan Deists like Franklin and Jefferson agreed that there was a Natural (moral) Law that grounded civil law for everyone, regardless of private religious creed.
With that consensus lost, what sort of government should Christians strive for? One that imposes that lost moral consensus by force? By default, what many Christians are left with is being as Puritan as culture will allow them to be. Legal power to enforce private morality falls away piece by piece, detritus of the crumbling old consensus (alcohol prohibition, sexual promiscuity, pornography, sodomy, drug prohibition). So Christians grasp all the tighter onto the few remaining areas where they think they can still enforce Biblical morality. “Nobody’s talking about church truancy laws,” they reason, “but gay sex is an abomination against God.”
I think it’s much better that the Church consider itself a “set apart” people within a pagan culture. Paul called the early church to sexual purity within its own congregation. He did not rally them to march on Rome against the practice of pederasty.
Let the Church live “a peaceable and quiet life” and save its social action for matters of life and death (like abortion) rather trying to be moral busybodies who make sure no one is smoking pot and being gay.
Or, as Matt Y would like, one that encourages it with “soft power” incentives and rewards rather than penalizing its lack with “hard power” punishments.
Report comment to moderator
If you want to support Ron Paul go right ahead PEOPLE. There is nothing you can say that will change my mine AND THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO CHANGE YOU MIND.
You want to support drug use vote for Ron Paul. You want to support same sex marraige vote for Ron Paul. You want to see China, Russia have more power around the world vote for Ron Paul. You want to see Iran get the Bomb vote for Ron Paul. GO right ahead an vote for Ron Paul.
My Faith will not permit me to vote for someone like Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM wrote; “If so then isn’t America criminal on at least some level?”
Sure. Abortion may not be formally “criminal” since it is legal, but that is a double crime against morality and decency. So, in principle I must agree. But NOPM, please take my posts in context. I was dealing with specific accusations by Ron Paul against America’s military and that blame us for terrorism that are patently false and indecent. We are talking about specific egregious comments (false accusations against America) made by a candidate for Commander-in-Chief that reveal his lack of qualification for that role.
I have never claimed that America is flawless and perfect. And when other statements are made that are true, we can deal with them in context too.
NOPM wrote; “Get over the fact that America is somehow the nation of the righteous — You sound like a broken record.”
That shows serious ignorance of everything I have said in context. I never said America is fully righteous, so you are only listening to a VERY broken record in your own head, NOPM.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS,
I do think Ron Paul knows he is lying when he accuses America of killing million Iraqis. But regardless of that, it is grossly untrue. He has stood by this poinsonous falsehood too.
Report comment to moderator
222: Well said again, JJF. Those are worthwhile thoughts about living in a “post-Christian” society (not that our society ever was Christian – it was an illusion). Some might feel such a course of action is hiding our light. But a light dispels darkness (and we are dwelling in ever deepening darkness of sin) by simply shining in its midst, not by burning the darkness away with heat and flame.
Report comment to moderator
@Pastor Roy – You wrote:
“Ron Pauls view of passing the buck to the States and Courts are not based on the Constitution. It is based on not wanting to take leadership. It is the same as Mr. Obama voting present in the Senate.”
Wow. What hat did you pull that out of? Why would you possibly believe that his views are NOT based on the Constitution? Are you just making this up?
BTW, Israel has atomic weapons, and could wipe Iran off the map if it wanted to. It isn’t our job to invade Iran in order to protect Israel.
Also, Ron Paul doesn’t want us to withdraw from the world, he just wants peaceful trade and negotiation to achieve our ends in the world. He isn’t a warmonger, and since God’s call to Christians is to be “peacemakers,” his position is more Godly than that of many Christians, who seem to love endless war.
And your statement about soldiers and jobs is just plain silly. The military doesn’t exist to provide jobs – it exists to protect America.
Report comment to moderator
Oops. That last line was not supposed to be there. Draft work. It was going to be included in an earlier place in my (too long) post, but I decided against it.
It is an interesting idea worth thinking about, but it is not my conclusion. That is, I’m not saying “either live peaceably and quietly within a pagan culture OR fight for a government that encourages biblical morality through soft power.”
Report comment to moderator
MATT Y, wrote (regarding Ron Paul’s accusation that America killed a million Iraqis–which he has shamefully affirmed again); “I despise the dishonesty of saying that we” killed them. What’s more, Iraqis had a much better chance at protection and redress under American troops than under Saddam Hussein’s thugs.”
I do too. And it is so sad that many young people follow him. Your whole post at #184 was well-reasoned and clear. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
And your statement about soldiers and jobs is just plain silly. The military doesn’t exist to provide jobs – it exists to protect America.
—
Pulling all the troops and their familes home from around the world. Is going to do what to the job market? Where are these troops going to be station at? Where is the families going to leave? who is going to provide jobs for the family memebers? What about the schools for the kids? or day care.
Report comment to moderator
It is easy to say lets bring all of our troops back from around the world. When you are going to past the need of houseing these familes and providing education to their kids back to teh States. That are broke also and can not afford to take care of them.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK in SPOKANE wrote; “…the “insurgents’ bombings and sectarian in-fighting” were not occurring until — without legitimate causus belli — we invaded Iraq.”
1. It was a 30 nation coalition that invaded Iraq to depose Saddam. For our part, we got full authorization from congress to use force. Remember, Madison himself (major author of the Constitution) invaded (sent our military to) North Africa without a declaration of war or full legal consent from congress.
2. It is rotten and ridiculous to blame us for what the insurgents and terrorists did. Just because Al Qaeda and others saw an opportunity to try to create chaos and kill Americans and other innocents is no rational reason to blame the 30 nation coalition that liberated Iraq from a brutal tyrant, or to blame us.
3. Our presence in Iraq was legal both by our terms here and by international standards.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. What hat did you pull that out of? Why would you possibly believe that his views are NOT based on the Constitution? Are you just making this up?
0—
Based on his statements.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Israel has atomic weapons, and could wipe Iran off the map if it wanted to. It isn’t our job to invade Iran in order to protect Israel.
–
So that makes it ok for Iran to get the Bomb.
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote; “‘Theocracy’ is a term too loaded with pejorative force to be useful.”
I agree.
However, consider what Candidate Barack Obama said on October 7, 2007, addressing a church in South Carolina, said:
* “Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics… Sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God… I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.” Senator Barack Obama.
If a Republican said that, he would be branded forever as a “theocrat!”
Report comment to moderator
I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.” Senator Barack Obama.
—
But if you believe in Black Liberation Theology are Mr. Obama does. Then he is trying to create a Kingdom right here on Earth.
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote; “…most conservative evangelicals have that Puritan impulse to see morality enforced by the power of the state.”
The state does have the power to enforce its laws (most rooted in shared moral principles and values) and Christians have just as much right and just as much a responsibility to participate in the legislative process on Constitutional terms.
JUST AS MUCH!!!
I think most leftists and secularists think that they have full rights and responsibilities to participate in the governing and law-making process but cry foul if a Christian does so on equal terms.
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote; “The underlying premise [of many conservative evangelicals] is the same [as that of the Puritans]: the power of the state should be used to enforce good morals Biblical moral standards.”
The power of the state is the power of the people, and it should be available to ALL the people and subject to all the people, EVEN Christians.
Some Puritans went too far in using the local state for moral enforcement. That’s just a historical fact. But they were not monolithic. What conservative Christians today want is the sort of courageous Puritan spirit that led parsons and preachers all over the Boston area in the late 17th century to get into their pulpits and preach hard against the over-reaching judges who spent five months perverting justice during the Salem Withc Trials. They took local politics into their pulpits and made a difference for the better.
Some of the earliest formal opposition against legalized slavery also came from Puritans with moral courage and Puritan pulpits getting both moral and “political.”
Chrisatians should not be silent regarding morality or passive in politics. But our primary citizenship remains in heaven and the main mission of the church is to preach the gospel of eternal salvation.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark
What do you think the cost would be to close all our Military Bases around the world. Relocation all the soldiers and their family, all the equirement?
Report comment to moderator
Where do you think Joel all these people come back going to leave?
Ron Paul has been clear about wtihdrawing the military from around the world.
What do you think the impact will be on Germany, Japan, South Korea?
Report comment to moderator
Drug laws are justified under the Commerce Clause, as drug trafficking and consumption affects the interstate drug market.
Report comment to moderator
How soon do you thing North Korea would launch a Military attack on South Korea after Ron Paul pulls us out?
How soon would China attack Taiwan, after Ron Paul annouce we are pulling all our troops back?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, if we close down abortion clinics, we’ll leave a lot of people unemployed too. In fact, if we’re ever successful in the war on drugs, that too will leave a lot of dealers unemployed.
In other words, what we do about jobs for soldiers is an irrelevant side issue if what they are doing is wrong and we need to bring them home.
I am NOT arguing that such is the case. I’m simply pointing out that employment is irrelevant to this discussion.
Report comment to moderator
SAILS, #192 – good point. Excellent, in fact.
____________
#198, FRANK, your strange need to blame America for terrorism and what terrorists do lies beyond reason.
__________
PASOTR ROY, I agree with you that Ron Paul’s policies would hold the door wide open for all sorts of insane approaches to marriage. It would create an “anything goes” mentality and climate that would destroy whatever anchors we have left to defend genuine marriage. Our culture would eventually erode into chaos, hurting children most of all.
Report comment to moderator
Good questions, ROY. I gotta get soon though. I don’t know the cost. I just know that we need a Commander-in-Chief who will not withdraw into blissfully ignorant isolation living in denial ofreal evils in the world, and we also do not want a Commander-in-Chief who wants to go to war or over-extend us irresponsibly. We need one who understands the complexity of statecraft and is not ready to blame the USA for nearly any ill and evil that takes place in the world.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, what we do about jobs for soldiers is an irrelevant side issue if what they are doing is wrong and we need to bring them home.
—
Ron Paul is not talking about soldiers in War.
Cheryl, he is talking about closing all the Military Post around the world. We have like 30,000 Soldier alone in South Korea. Which Post is going to get these Soldiers?
I can tell you here in Colorado Springs, people get up set when the plain on adding 5,000 more soldiers.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: I think it’s much better that the Church consider itself a “set apart” people within a pagan culture.
The Church should speak truthfully in its catechisms and courageously in reasonable terms in the public square. The presently dominant orthodox secular culture ought to be engaged vigorously by Christians and Jews on all of the relevant moral issues.
Not a few Christians and Jews are strongly engaged in the public square. Your notion that we should fold our tents and concede the ground to the Pagans is mistaken. We daily pray that Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. These words ought not be taken lightly.
The trouble is that, given that the academic, media, and art’s cultural heights are dominated by fundamentalist secularists, all too many Christians want to throw in the towel and to use your terms “set themselves apart.” While, as Joel remarks, Heaven and the love of God are our primarily goals, we must not forget our earthly reality.
Report comment to moderator
Who many people living in South Korea will be out of a job if we pull all of our troops out?
Ron Paul to me does not consider these issues.
Report comment to moderator
How much will cost the nation to break the leasing of these Military Bases, not just money, but the trust build between us and the nation’s we are leasing these bases from
Report comment to moderator
For those of you promoting drug us this is for you.
‘Synthetic’ Marijuana Use Becoming Problem for U.S. Military
Published December 30, 2011
| Associated Press
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/30/synthetic-marijuana-use-becoming-problem-for-us-military/?test=latestnews#ixzz1i3YwkqHq
Report comment to moderator
@Shootist: 10-15 years ago, republicans often feared the “New World Order”. Now it is embraced by many as long as we are the world police.
Exactly. The New World Order was scary because it represented the loss of American sovereignty. Only, when the New World Order is us then there’s no loss of sovereignty. We decide who can have the bomb and who can’t. We decide which governments are too repressive to remain and which can stick around. That’s what people find reassuring. But it does come with a cost.
@MattY: Drug laws are justified under the Commerce Clause, as drug trafficking and consumption affects the interstate drug market.
Why is this logic not applicable to the banning of any substance the federal government might want to ban? Out of curiosity, was the amendment that allowed alcohol prohibition completely superfluous?
Report comment to moderator
@251 Great question about Prohibition! The Eighteenth Amendment was passed at a time (1920) when Congress, the Courts and the people took the Constitution a little more seriously.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy, I don’t think any state would criminalize abortion for the woman. I just don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy, I don’t think any state would criminalize abortion for the woman. I just don’t.
True. But plenty would criminalize the provision of abortion. Let me put it this way: you’re more likely to get a single state willing to put women in jail than you are to get that sort of law passed at the federal level.
Bottom line: Paul’s views on abortion are fundamentally different than your run-of-the-mill pro-choice “personally opposed” Democrat.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I didn’t mention war either, just soldiers. The question whether they are doing the right thing still must be answered before we can answer “What do we do with them if they come home?”
If keeping them in various countries is the right answer, then keep them there. But don’t keep them there just because we don’t have somewhere else to put them! If South Korea (or any other country) had soldiers sitting in America, and someone suggested they had no business being in our country, saying “But it’s the only job we have for them!” wouldn’t be a good answer.
If it isn’t right for military to be in a certain country (because they are unwelcome there or that country’s dealings aren’t really any of our business), the first thing is to get them out; we can figure out what to do with them next after we figure out how to get them home. Paying tax dollars just because we can’t think of anything else to do with them is foolish.
We don’t do that with any other government employees, or at least most Republicans don’t like to do so: “The roads are all finished and none need to be repaired, but let’s keep paying the workmen, because we don’t want to lay them off or move them into another department.” “It’s only old people left in this town, but we need to keep paying the school teachers, because what would they do if they didn’t have this job?”
It isn’t the right way of looking at things. It is the way the government usually looks at them–once a certain line item is in the budget, it’s in there forever–but it isn’t the right way to make decisions, in business or in government.
Report comment to moderator
#222 – JJF – “I think it’s much better that the Church consider itself a “set apart” people within a pagan culture.”
Being “set apart” in the biblical context normally meant quite the opposite of isolation (not that JJF was calling for isolation–I’m just sayin’). We are “set apart” for a purpose. It is a call to actively serve; to be salt and light in the world in all realms of endeavor and concern.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – The Military does not operate that way.. We can not just bring them home. The Military must have a plain in place to reassign these soldiers to post.
Here are some things that go into think aboutr bring them home.
Which Post are you sending them to.
Does the post have the room for the soldiers and their equipment.
Can the City handle the increase in soldiers.
What about housing, jobs for the wives and husbands of the soldiers..
New items know are day care, schools…
then you have to study the impacts on the road systems, community import…
I know this because Fort Carson is set to get 10,000 more soldiers and it has been a fight for the post with those on the far left that view the militray in such a low opion.
Report comment to moderator
The post has paid millions of dollars to fixs roads in the Community, building new house for the married soldiers and day cares, schools, barracks, PX, on and around the post. that is just for the new 10,000 soldiers.
Can you image the impact of bring home 30,000 soldiers.
Report comment to moderator
So Cheryl – in my view Ron Paul talking about bring home the Soldiers and closing down the militaty based over sears is just a way to gets votes.
He knows, It would cost the Nation more money to close the areas and relocate all the troops. Then what we are paying know.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, the military “may not operate” in a way that makes it easy to bring soldiers home, but that doesn’t mean we should leave them forever and never ask the question, “Do they belong in this country at this time?” If they don’t, then yes, figure out what to do with them, but don’t just keep them there endlessly because it is simpler.
And BTW, the little I know about Ron Paul tells me he is absolutely the last politician to propose something just to “get votes.” Others on WORLD have suggested (cynically) that he doesn’t want to be president, because he does so little that is likely to get votes. Whatever his reason for wanting to bring the soldiers home, I can pretty much guarantee it is not to get votes.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, the military “may not operate” in a way that makes it easy to bring soldiers home, but that doesn’t mean we should leave them forever and never ask the question,
–
Those question get asked all the time. When ever the leases of this bases are coming due to reknewed. When the decission was made to pull out of Panama and closes the bases. It took 3 years, to relocate the Soldiers and their Families.
Report comment to moderator
Whatever his reason for wanting to bring the soldiers home, I can pretty much guarantee it is not to get votes.
–
I disagree he has spent how many years in Congress? He is good at hiding it.
Report comment to moderator
#200 Sails, Governor Bradford was not a Puritan. He was a Pilgrim. The Pilgrims where Separatists.
JJF is right when he speaks of Innes’ views as Puritan, not so much that he wants a theocracy, but that he believes that the American government should be biblical. And by biblical he means a mixture of Old and New Testament views of government.
The Puritans with their Calvinistic roots saw the civil aspects of the Mosaic law as laying the groundwork for all civil law. Roger Williams saw it differently and was banished.
All Utopian ideas whether from the left or right encroach on personal liberty, since everyone won’t cooperate with your experiment. Right wing Utopian experiments resulted in torturing people to death. Left wing Utopian experiments resulted in economic collapse and shooting people in the back while trying to escape. Those who try to create heaven on earth by the centralization of power into the hands of the few will create a living hell, because the heart of man is evil.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know anyone anywhere on the right wing in America today who seeks a utopia or thinks it is remotely possible, except maybe some highly isolated people (militia types) who define isolation as utopia. I don’t know any on the right who even have a penchant for this.
I know of many on the left with a utopian penchant, from Obama on down.
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad our Constitution does not restrict Christians from getting involved in politics and addressing political issues out loud in public on the same level as non-Christians can. We would be a much worse country if Christians backed off from legitimate involvement and active concern in legal, social and political matters, as well as primarily spiritual matters. The Salem Witch trials would have lasted much longer than 5 months. Slavery would have lasted much longer. The civil rights movement would have been far more bloody. Abortion would have flourished far far more. Marriage would have been totally trashed and perverted throughout our culture by now. Pornography would be even more rampant.
The problem is, many of these moral pathologies are on the rise as Christians tend to do less and less and as secularists wield more and more power to enforce their immorality on us all.
No more passive “White Flag Christians” please!
Report comment to moderator
@Matt Y &
@Joel Mark – You two wrote: “regarding Ron Paul’s accusation that America killed a million Iraqis–which he has shamefully affirmed again” & “What’s more, Iraqis had a much better chance at protection and redress under American troops”
Since Iraqi casualties may be over 600,000…
“Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualties at over 600,000.”
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
…it isn’t absurd to think that they could be near a million. Casualties are often under reported. So Ron Paul’s numbers might be a little high, but it’s still a HUGE number, and if we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq these people wouldn’t have died. Remember, we went ballistic over a mere 3,000 people being killed in the World Trade Center bombing, and what’s 3,000 compared to 600,000?
As for your belief that the Iraqis are better off because we attacked Iraq, here’s how the Iraqi’s feel about it:
RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)
Iraqis “strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops – 82%
Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security – less than 1%
Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation – 67%
Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces – 72%
So, your attacks on Ron Paul are unjustified, and you would do well to re-think your belief’s about the Iraq war.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder, JM (265). Or perhaps it is because we get scared of losing our freedoms and start using fleshly methods to retain them, that leads to so many problems. The tragic fate of the Huguenots of France is an example. They used the physical weapons of warfare to guaruntee their freedoms in a Catholic state, and scarcely a generation later, lost those freedoms completely and were driven out of France. What if they had simply followed Christ, instead of seeking political power and security?
Christians in Nigeria are now facing the question of whether to take up arms to defend themselves – what will be the consequences of a religious civil war? Why is the church in China growing at a very rapid rate, where Christians have absolutely no political influence? Christian political involvement has been effective, but would simply following the words of Christ, without the compromise that is inevitable in the world of politics, be more effective?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see what’s wrong with Ron Paul making proposals in order to get votes. That’s how he gets elected every two years. Honest and serious politicians have to appeal to the greatest number of people they want to vote fore them. And that is why we vote for them. We’re sold on what they say they’ll give us.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, if he is making proposals of things he has no intention of doing just to get vote, that would be cynical and wrong. I think that is what Pastor Roy is suggesting, that he doesn’t actually believe it is the right thing to do, but is saying it just to get votes. I just don’t think Paul operates that way; even his enemies don’t accuse him of that particular vice.
Report comment to moderator
Wait… your idea is that Ron Paul has, for the past decade or more, stood in front of Republican primary voters … in Texas … and said that he wants to eliminate our foreign military operations … in order to get votes??
Short of “I’d to enter a civil union with Osama bin Laden and rent a loft with him in Manhattan where we’d sit around in yoga pants drinking herbal tea and listening to NPR,” that is the last thing a candidate would say “just to get votes.”
I mean, I know you dislike the guy, but can you at least keep your suspicion of his motives rational, please?
Report comment to moderator
A dose of reality: The number of people in our military is going to be reduced as we shut down foreign bases. China will not contine to loan us money to fund our military. Right now, we are borrowing double the amount of the defense budget every year. I also question whether China wants to continue to fund our War on Drugs which is destabilizing Latin American countries where China is making significant investments.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy wrote:
“Pulling all the troops and their familes home from around the world. Is going to do what to the job market? Where are these troops going to be station at? Where is the families going to leave? who is going to provide jobs for the family memebers? What about the schools for the kids? or day care.”
Ok, lets do the math.
US military personnel stationed overseas: About 132,000 as of Dec. 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Overseas
U.S. Population as of Jul. 21, 2011: About 312 Million
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/uspopulation.htm
So, 132,000 / 312,000,000 = 1/2364 = .000423 = .0423% = approx. 1/20 of 1%
Therefore, bringing ALL the overseas troops home (Note: Ron Paul won’t bring them ALL home) would only increase the population of the USA by about 1/20 of 1%. That’s a VERY small number – no problem at all. And even if these troops weren’t needed anymore and were discharged when their enlistments were up, we would still have a few years to re-integrate them into the population. So this is no big deal at all.
The phrase “making a mountain out of an mole hill” supremely applies to your “worries.”
Report comment to moderator
The idea that Ron Paul does things or says things just to get votes is absolutely absurd. He is one of the few politicians we have had for decades who does things and says things that effectively guarantee FEWER votes. Just look at us here. He could easily appease conservative evangelicals like Joel Mark and Pastor Roy by saying that he would attack Iran and by saying that he would support federal laws against same-sex marriage. Why doesn’t he?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think Ron Paul says things he doesn’t believe just to get votes. But can he really fulfill his campaign proposals on his own? U.S. Presidents do not have that amount of Constitutional power.. He has been a fairly effective voice for his narrow congressional district. That’s how he keeps getting reelected.
He has a record of authoring many bills that go nowhere. That is not to say that I don’t think good arguments can’t be offered simply to make a point. I do. I’ve just observed him as a serial grandstander who doesn’t work well with others to accomplish his goals. Doesn’t strike me as a leadership quality that instills confidence about our country’s economic and international future.
Congress, with the advice of Sec. of Defense Robert Gates,et al., has been working on streamlining the defense and military budget for at least two years now. If you’ve missed the congressional hearings, shame on you. And if Ron Paul hasn’t mentioned that, shame on him.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, Paul keeps getting reelected. He’s saying somethinig right. Eh?
Report comment to moderator
#264 Joel, “I don’t know anyone anywhere on the right wing in America today who seeks a utopia or thinks it is remotely possible.”
Well, the Puritans certainly did. And D.C. Innes calls for a Federal “biblical government” which “actively cultivates a moral environment”. That sounds a bit Puritanical. What exactly would that look like? Would people like Roger Williams be welcome in such a place?
Many of the founding fathers where Christian, yet they did not institute a biblical government. Why not? They weren’t white flag Christians but used tremendous wisdom and followed Luther and Calvin’s advice to not set up a biblical government. Were Luther and Calvin white flag Christians?
The issue is not which kind of statism is best. The problem is statism itself. Liberty does not create a perfect society, but it allows one which is better than all of the alternatives.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, he says things that his constituents like, but consider where he comes from. He has NOT succeeded in coming even close to being elected President.
As you say, many of his bills go nowhere. That’s because he believes in his principles despite opposition from other members of Congress. A person who is only trying to get votes doesn’t do that. He does the opposite. He authors lots of bills that he knows will get passed–especially votes that send money into his home district.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, it sounds like you want to keep sending all our jobs overseas — you don’t ever want the military to come home.
However, I have a simple solution that might please you (although I know it is one Ron Paul has mentioned before). Put the troops on our border with Mexico. In the first place that gives them a job to do. Second there will be more jobs because there are less illegals entering our country. Problem solved.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, understanding and agreeing with your points. Ron Paul does not, and does not care that he does not, appeal to the broad cross-section of our nation. He is not a serious candidate. Just makes points that can be dismissed because he’s grumpy – not because he’s a serious player in the process of geting things done. He seems to delight in criticism.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark #224
The broken record is in reference to all your posts on the subject of Ron Paul’s statements concerning America’s role in the death of so many Iraquis. I think you’ve probably hit on the point at least 10 times in this series of posts.
I’m not sure it is worth mentioning again, but you should be able to get past the way Ron Paul phrased his statement so as to understand his point. Others have spoken to this sufficiently so I don’t feel the need to rehash it.
Report comment to moderator
Louise
I find it difficult to take your post in 279 seriously. I think I will dismiss them because you seem to be grumpy and obviously you take delight in criticism.
Report comment to moderator
Well then, NOPM, please do take me as closely and more sincere that you might want to take a closer objective look at Paul’s record, and I won’t hold you to your premature conclusions.
I’m probably the happiest anti-Paul voter you’ll ever meet. He just isn’t a strong-enough, wise-enough viable leader for our country. It’s nothing personal. It’s been curioius watching him over past decades – just not for the real and dangerous world of this century. I’ve been around too long to buy such simplistic bromides for my great-grand-children.
Report comment to moderator
266 Xander: NO. You do not get to ascribe guilt to the United States for the free-will actions of Iraqi insurgents and sectarian fighters. They had a choice. The United States got rid of a dangerous dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and brought freedom of speech, political activity, and generally freedom of religion to Iraq. The upswing in violence was caused by radical Islamist bombings which stirred up sectarian strife, especially after the bombing of the al-Askariya Shrine “Golden Mosque”. It is immoral to ascribe the guilt for these deaths at the hands of the United States, and anyone who thinks otherwise is not fit for the Presidency.
And as for the poll you cite? FAIL. It tells of what Iraqis thought of coalition forces and the occupation in 2005; that was in the middle of the bulk of sectarian violence from ‘05-07. Furthermore, what they think of the occupation at the present time is not the same as whether they think the initial invasion was justified or whether removal of Saddam was worth it despite the hardships. I also have a couple of polls, from 2007.
The Sunday Times in London published a poll Sunday of 5,019 Iraqis taken by a British firm, Opinion Research Business, from Feb. 10-22. It found that Iraqis by 49%-26% preferred life under the new government to life under Saddam.
In the USA TODAY/ABC News Poll, Iraqis by 43%-36% said life was better than before the invasion. That’s a decline from the optimism in the November 2005 survey, however, when by 51%-29% Iraqis said life was better.
With the further improvements today, the numbers are probably better. I wasn’t able to find anything more recent.
According to this:
Survey after survey has found Iraqis more or less evenly split on whether the 2003 invasion was right or wrong, usually leaning toward “right.” (In 2009, only 28 percent saw it as “absolutely wrong.”) This is remarkable, considering that humans have a strong ingrained instinct to loathe foreign invaders—particularly ones with a different culture and a different dominant religion—and that respondents included people who held privileged positions under Saddam Hussein. In other polls, as many as three out of four Iraqis have agreed that Saddam’s removal was worth it despite the hardships.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Matt Y. Good summary & conclusion.
Report comment to moderator
The idea that Ron Paul does things or says things just to get votes is absolutely absurd.
No it’s not. What’s with the Paul hagiography? He’s not a saint. He’s human, and a politician. All politicians occasionally do or say things just to win votes. Cynical? Maybe, but it’s the way things are. It’s their nature. Some do it more than others, and Paul does it less. Rick Santorum, for one, also does it less.
Report comment to moderator
XANDER wrote; “Since Iraqi casualties may be over 600,000…”
Nonsense. Most estimates of Iraqi casuaties you read about on line or hear from irresponsible politicans are unreliable.
XANDER wrote; “…it isn’t absurd to think that they could be near a million. Casualties are often under reported.”
Ron Paul did not just say (and affirm twice now) there were a million Iraqi causalties. He said America killed a million Iraqis. That’s worse than absurd, XANDER, it’s a dirty lie.
XANDER wrote; “…if we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq these people wouldn’t have died.”
“If” is for children, XANDER. You do NOT know that. It is more likely that far more would have died if the 30 nation coalition did not go in.
Report comment to moderator
XION,
I think the Puritans get a bum rap in the big picture. They were a mixed bag and contradictions abound. But their overall legacy (beyond the stereotypes) was healthy.
But I was not talking about 400 years ago. I was talking about today. I don’t really know any utopiasn groups or leaders or people on the right (as it is today), especially the Christian right. But I know of many on the left.
Puritanical is not necessarily a pejorative to me, not when the whole picture is seen and their legacy is rightly assessed.
As far as liberty, the Constitution, and the rights and responsibilities of Christians, I just don’t sense that you are hearing me, brother.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, Well, the Puritans certainly did. [want a utopia] And D.C. Innes calls for a Federal “biblical government” which “actively cultivates a moral environment”. That sounds a bit Puritanical.
First, I’m well aware of the Puritan/Pilgrim distinction. I used the term Puritan in the generic sense of this thread.
While it’s true that some of the Pilgrims/Puritans were interested in a Bible Commonwealth- Winthrop’s city on a hill- they were on balance very pragmatic set of souls, given the reality of settling in a wilderness with some very real Indian enemies.
A few of their preachers and politicos wanted to redo the British common law, using Biblical Old and New Testament laws, though they were defeated in this by pragmatic English trained lawyers who were well aware of the great practical wisdom of the English Common law. According to Perry Miller, the ablest student of the New England Mind, the early settlers gave up the foolish idea of rewriting the law in strict Biblical terms.
Another point is that Puritans valued learning, both of the secular and theological variety. That’s why they founded the Boston Latin School and Harvard College. One of their biggest fears was that the settlers would lose touch with serious European scholarship. This is hardly the sign of a bunch of utopian fools,
Both Bradford and Winthrop were far from “utopian.” They were sensible, hard-headed men who led the early Massachusetts settlers well through an exceedingly difficult period. Unlike, the libertarian ideologue, Ron Paul, they quite knew how to deal with the hard reality of serious enemies in the world. They, also, would be appalled at Paul’s libertarian view that black-letter law should be morally neutral. English Common law at a deep level reflects the moral views of the English people.
Report comment to moderator
If DC Innes wants a biblical government, he should leave the US and find some land and establish it.
A return to original constitutional principles is fine with me. I welcome it. But that’s not a biblical government, not by a long shot. If DC Innes wants that here, the most he can hope for is a return to biblical principles on the part of The People and Congress then acting on their behalf in a biblical manner.
“English Common law at a deep level reflects the moral views of the English people.” I agree with this most emphatically.
Report comment to moderator
XION @263 The Puritans with their Calvinistic roots saw the civil aspects of the Mosaic law as laying the groundwork for all civil law. Roger Williams saw it differently and was banished.
All Utopian ideas whether from the left or right encroach on personal liberty, since everyone won’t cooperate with your experiment….
If using the civil aspects of the Mosaic law to lay the groundwork for civil law (loosely speaking) is ‘Utopian’ then what is the basis for any law—The Constitution? Why is that view not Utopian? It seems to me that’s exactly what we have now. Look around you—this IS how that Constitutional ‘Utopian’ dream works out amongst flesh and blood. Even the Founders knew the Constitution would not be fit guidelines for the governance of a non-religious (probably non-Christian) population.
Report comment to moderator
Boy, that last sentence is an understatement, Debra!
If we want to turn the US around, we have to turn The People to honesty, decency, personal responsibility, etc.
Report comment to moderator
I found an interesting speech Ron Paul gave at the Veterans Rally in Des Moines, Iowa on Thursday. Buried in the middle is this little tidbit that makes my blood boil—or would if I let it :
Sorry, I didn’t notice the link is missing.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-12-29/ron-pauls-speech-at-the-veterans-rally-in-des-moines-iowa/#more-13175
Report comment to moderator
He’s right about bailing out Europe. We have no idea how much money the Fed gave the European Central Bank.
I thought I read that Obama was going to wait to ask for the debt ceiling being raised because of Congress’ absence so we can have another fight about it.
Report comment to moderator
Louise 282
Apparently Debra (292 and 293) just found another Ron Paul point that should be dismissed because he is not a serious candidate and because he is grumpy.
Report comment to moderator
To those of you who object to Ron Paul’s math—what is the real Iraqi body count?
That whole kerfuffle seems a tempest in a teapot to me. Ron Paul seemed to be dramatizing—at least from the transcript I read—because he’s talking about Michele Bachman dramatizing the threat from Iran (which I think she is). And the sad part is that this rhetoric is being used to set us up for a war with Iran. But I suspect that all the gnashing of teeth over foreign policy is for naught. They will likely have their war or bombing even if Obama retains the WH. Republicans just won’t get the glory, and I suspect that’s what really bites—at least in some quarters.
Meanwhile, back home, ‘Rome’ continues to burn….
Report comment to moderator
Louise
I’ll quit bugging you about this — but I have heard a number of people criticize Ron Paul because he seems grumpy. Does Ron Paul sound grumpy? Sure, but at least get past that and listen to the points he makes. They are serious points even if you don’t like his “style”. (I fully admit he has no polish.) Let’s face it Newt Gingrich comes off as snotty, and Rick Santorum as angry. Michelle Bachmann, like Sarah Palin, tend to annoy me because they sound shrill. Huntsman, Romney, and Perry probably have the best demeanor but are probably the 3 candidates I would be the least likely to vote for.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I don’t know about the timing of the request. I hadn’t heard that from any other source, but admittedly, I’ve been pretty busy the last few weeks and my news is very limited now. Since I cut the cable back, I only get the propaganda…er, news I search out online.
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer, I hope you’re aware of the Princeton legal scholar, Robert P. George. His 2001 book, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis is brilliant on this subject of the moral foundation of law,
More than any writer I’m aware of, George, a devout Christian, understands the relation of morality and law. He is a full Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton with a Harvard Law degree and a PhD in legal theory from Oxford.
In my view George and Mary Ann Glendon, who teaches at Harvard Law, are the best American Christian spokesmen in the field of law.
I have come to appreciate your posts on this blog, as they make clear your knowledge of both religion and law.
Report comment to moderator
I was not aware of this book, Sails, but I have made note of it, and will add it to my reading list.
I appreciate your posts as well and urge you to remain with us.
Debra, I was just looking for an article to post on the timing. I read it yesterday that Obama was going to wait to ask because of Congress’ vacation — he’d look bad if he did an end run that way — and it may be that Ron Paul’s comments had something to do with that. Apparently, now he wants to pit himself against Congress. I guess he doesn’t understand that most people don’t seem him distinct from the Dems in Congress. I think he has to worry about Ron Paul pulling the curtain the way Toto did in the Wizard of Oz.
Report comment to moderator
We often forget that it is PEOPLE who make laws and those laws reflect the morality of the people. Government is comprised of people. We get what we ask for.
Report comment to moderator
Then we must be happy with the bribery and corruption and wars cause that’s what we keep getting. Who knew?
Makes you wonder why some brilliant campaigner doesn’t use the slogan: ‘A vote for me is a vote for corruption!’—and win in a landslide?
Report comment to moderator
According to the WSJ & other news sources, Obama agreed to delay his debt-ceiling request after leaders in both houses asked him to wait until they’re back to vote on it.
Obama can use this as an example of his “working with” Congress, while, in the meantime, his Treasury Dept. is again doing some fancy bookkeeping that I won’t even try to understand today.
Report comment to moderator
@NJLawyer: A return to original constitutional principles is fine with me. I welcome it. But that’s not a biblical government, not by a long shot.
If we go way back in time on our understanding of the Constitution, for instance doing away with the idea that the bill of rights applies to the states, then our constitutional system could very easily accommodate “biblical government”; just at the level of a particular state. I agree that constitutional principles preclude the possibility of criminalizing many activities the Bible clearly describes as being sinful.
On the other hand, my understanding of “biblical government” (i.e. that sort of government the believer is enjoined to support based on Biblical principles) is very “doable” under our current system. Though, most folks here (except maybe JJF and a few of the Paul supporters) would disagree that my view of what constitutes “biblical government” is the correct one.
@NJLawyer: We often forget that it is PEOPLE who make laws and those laws reflect the morality of the people.
And therein lies the problem. Legislating “common morality” is usually somewhat workable because there’s so much overlap in most people’s conception of “morality”. The problems come when there’s disagreement, and there will always be disagreement. Hence my contention that it’s fairer to remove “morality” from the picture altogether and merely seek to protect individual liberty (and possibly to promote the general welfare). (I realize those two goals often conflict.)
Report comment to moderator
Which is why DC Innes should be calling for The People to return to decency, honesty and biblical values.
I am astonished at your idea that morality can be removed from law. All laws are about morality. It’s why we have law in the first place. There is a moral decision even in passing a bill about fixing a road. Think it through. How would they have even written the First Amendment if they didn’t have a moral view of the value of freedom as granted by our Creator? Law is ALL about morality. Always has been, always will be. In our society, it is done by “consensus” and “compromise.” It’s why we have the legal standard of “the community standard” when we’re talking about pornography. As our society has become accepting of so much base behavior, our country has gone down the tubes. That should be evident.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM, constant grumpiness does not inspire people’s support. It is not the quality of a serious candidate to be successful. But it works rhetorically to exaggerate what already is factually bad. And most of Ron Paul’s followers fall right in line with his scoldidng approach to politics.
His followers, voting on who won any of the debates, have earned a nasty reputation for “stuffing the ballot box.” That’s what he seems to inspire more than a positive attitude to tackle problems. It turned me off long ago.
Report comment to moderator
And no, we are not going back in time if we apply the Constitution. There always was a provision for amendments, so the Founders foresaw change — they just required that the people agree to it, and that’s what they did with every amendment. (They were for prohibition before they were against it.) But they went through the amendment process. What we have witnessed in our Congress is a total disregard for the Constitution. Consider the NDAA: they can arrest an American citizen and deny them the right to counsel, the right to a trial. The bill is one big Star Chamber — and Congress agreed to it and overwhelmingly. What we need to do is HONOR what that Constitution says. The right to a trial is BASIC, but no more! Nothing stops Congress anymore, not even the Constitution, and they’ve admitted as much. They’ve said no one considers the Constitution when drafting legislation, just what they want. There are NO checks on them — except US.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul does come across as a grumpy old man, but it’s got to be frustrating for him to be telling the truth about what staring us in the face and having people not get it — until now! And even now, not enough of the people are facing reality. We are on the precipice of bankruptcy, the whole thing can collapse. Young people do seem to be hearing this old man because they have the most to lose. If we could only get enough people in Congress to get it, who would be willing to do what’s needed, we’d survive. But that’s not happening.
Report comment to moderator
I am glad that somebody at World Magazine has finally decided to acknowledge that Ron Paul is actually running for President. And look at the number of responses! It is about time.
It seems to me that there are two camps here: those who have a visceral response to Paul’s image, his personality, and his general attitude and those who actually pay attention to his stated positions, his voting record, and his conformity to Constitutional principles.
I strongly challenge the notion that a person who does not want the United States to wage unjust, undeclared wars is a person who hates America. If a person truly loves America, he would not want America to do such a thing.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, Your points are right on. As you say, our Constitutional government was not a biblical government. The biblical aspect of America was instilled in the people themselves not the government, which is no longer the case.
Sails and Joel and D.C. Innes: The point you all seem to be missing is the distinction between a very limited Federal government intending to maximize liberty vs. one which imposes a biblical world view. Ron Paul is all for a biblical world view, but not one which is legislated.
(Note: State governments were free to impose whatever they wished all the way up until 1947. It wasn’t until 1962 when activist judges turned against all things religious touched by Federal funds. Ron Paul favors getting back to the Constitution where states were freer to do what the people want.)
James Madison explicitly credited Martin Luther as the theorist who “led the way” in providing the proper distinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical spheres.
Here is what Martin Luther said,
That bolded portion is libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. Luther went on to say that prescribing laws for the soul only misleads and destroys that soul. I suppose then we might say,
Left-wing statism destroys countries. Right-wing statism destroys souls.
Report comment to moderator
NJL (#308)–
Exactly. We should all be grumpy. In fact, if people were honest, we evangelicals have been grumpy for about thirty years now–with good reason.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, it’s hard to ignore someone the people have discovered, but all media has been trying to keep this guy under wraps. I’m just glad that there’s somebody willing to say them publicly and get the ideas into the heads of the people. And that’s what Ron Paul has done.
Wouldn’t it be something if the people warmed to a grumpy old man, who seems a little eccentric, and voted for him over the glitz and smoothe talker?
Report comment to moderator
Xion (#310)–
Hear, hear.
If they won’t listen to you or me or NJLawyer or Tammy or Frank, maybe, just maybe, they will listen to Luther.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps it is time for a constitutional convention. I’m just not sure liberty-loving Conservatives will be happy with the outcome.
Report comment to moderator
The Founders were very wise. Sure, the country was comprised of mostly Christians, but the beauty of the Constitution was that ALL were welcome here. Freedom. That’s what makes us unique in the world. We can accommodate everyone’s beliefs if we honor the Constitution. (Sadly, we have atheists who don’t want that.)
It is when we tinker with “Congress shall make NO law…” (especially the NO) that we lose our way.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, what do you want to have a convention about?
Report comment to moderator
Several House Republicans, notably Paul Ryan, are actually doing the necessary work of building coalitions to craft policy and bills to tackle our problem$. Hearings and floor debates are all part of the record. Presidents either enact bills into law or veto them. They need support from their Party in the legislature.
2012 is election year for the House, too, and several Senate seats.
NJL, do you think Obama will actually sign the NDAA?
Report comment to moderator
Some day Christ will return and will establish a biblical government which imposes righteousness by ruling with a rod of iron.
Until that time, all attempts at imposing a biblical government will fail, because you are handing the rod of iron over to unrighteous men.
This is why Calvin, Luther, Locke, Madison, Jefferson and others saw wisdom in giving men as little power as possible, disbursing it widely and with checks and balances. Even with all that look at where we are today.
Report comment to moderator
How about instead of changing the Constitution, we just learn to honor that there are absolutes and we can’t all get what we want because there are others around us and there are just some things we shouldn’t be playing around with.
For example, it should be a no-brainer that mosques can freely exist here, but it should also be a no-brainer that the 6th Am. principle of “confront your accuser” means we don’t allow people in burqas to testify because their honest can’t be judged.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama signs the NDAA, he not only puts himself on the line, but also anyone who voted for it — and a majority did, which is why it is so appalling.
If Obama, the conlaw professor, wants to honor the Constitution, he’d veto it, explain how it robs freedom, and dare Congress to overturn the veto. I’m not seeing that.
I can’t top #318 — well said, Kyle.
Report comment to moderator
A Constitutional Convention would open up a real can of worms. Even states are loathe to do that. Legislation and our amendment processes are sufficient to change anything.
Report comment to moderator
Well, NJ does need a constitutional convention. We need to have term limits to clean up our pension system, if you get my drift.
Report comment to moderator
I do, but it would hard to keep it to those issues. Other interest groups would want their pet topics addressed, or it wouldn’t get approved at all.
I got a kick out of your governor’s support for Romney. How did it play by you?
Report comment to moderator
This is why Calvin, Luther, Locke, Madison, Jefferson and others saw wisdom in giving men as little power as possible
I protest. Calvin and Luther were persecutors. With their blessing, Catholics, Baptists/Anabaptists and any other “heretic” who went against the state-sanctioned church was banished, imprisoned, or killed. Seems incongruous with their being libertarian heroes.
Report comment to moderator
Christie: hey, I hope none of you were offended by his promising to go back to Iowa and take care of things Jersey style. I laughed when I heard that.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, we would never get the amendment approval from the legislature to put it on the ballot — that would be a real declaration against their self-interest. But that’s what we need. I don’t have a problem with a pension system for civil servants, but we need new blood in the legislature, and we in NJ do not get that unless someone retires or dies, and I’ll bet some people get their pension even after they’re dead here.
Report comment to moderator
XION – 318
When Christ returns he won’t need to rule with a rod of iron since that will be the final judgment day.
Report comment to moderator
#324 Matt Y “I protest. Calvin and Luther were persecutors.”
Not exactly, but that is an argument for another time. You’re missing the point. Madison and Locke and others credit them with the beginning of liberal thought toward this two kingdom view, but it actually goes all the way back to Augustine and Christ himself. No one says they were libertarian heroes. The Anabaptists were far more liberal than they were in this regard. This was a progression of thought culminating in the First Amendment.
Report comment to moderator
#327 Nopm “When Christ returns he won’t need to rule with a rod of iron since that will be the final judgment day.”
It depends on one’s eschatology, but scripture explicitly states that Christ shall rule with a rod of iron for 1000 years. People interpret this various ways. That is fine. I am merely stating what scripture says.
Report comment to moderator
Some day Christ will return and will establish a biblical government which imposes righteousness by ruling with a rod of iron.
Until that time, all attempts at imposing a biblical government will fail, because you are handing the rod of iron over to unrighteous men.
I agree. But it does not follow that one must have libertarian social policies. Liberty must be appropriate to human nature. Decent, responsible citizens don’t “grow wild like blackberries.” Institutions like the family and decent neighborhoods are vital to society and ought to be protected and encouraged by government. The state also has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations, including laws against activities which are detrimental to society and the long-term health of the nation, and which foster crime and violence such as drugs and prostitution. One quarter of assailants against law enforcement officers are under the influence of drugs, and around 3/4 have a history of drug convictions. More than half of victims for violent crimes test positive for drugs at the time of their arrest. Hardened criminals with five or more convictions used drugs regularly. Teenage drug users are 5 times more likely to attack someone than non-drug users. The use of cocaine has been linked to high rates of homicide in New York City. Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal. They are illegal because they are dangerous.
Kyle, I have paid attention to Ron Paul’s stated positions, his voting record, his principles, and his past (for some reason you left that out). I don’t oppose Ron Paul because of his image, personality, and general attitude. I think he’s sort of likeable, personally. At least, until he opens his mouth and says something totally off the wall. I oppose him because of his positions.
People can disagree on Paul without being uninformed or having ulterior motives. We are flawed humans. People who are equally well informed and have good intentions can end up with serious disagreements on big issues. It does not follow that one side is evil or not paying attention. That’s what irks me about Paul supporters. They condescendingly act as if all Christians would support Paul if only they had good intentions and paid attention.
Report comment to moderator
“If” is for children, XANDER. You do NOT know that. It is more likely that far more would have died IF the 30 nation coalition did not go in.
{Insert wide-eyed, disbelieving emoticon}
So, let’s stop playing the “IF” game; let’s look solely at what happened. America went in when it should not have. As a result of that move, a really high number of Iraqis died.
Report comment to moderator
XION, Being perfectly content with a properly interpreted Constitution, I’m far from advocating any bizarre, Rushdoonian scheme for Christian theocracy.
Same, as far, as I can tell with Joel and Innes I, also, agree essentially with Luther’s two kingdoms view. My view simply put is that the law at its base ought to conform to moral truth. Justice Anthony Kennedy put this as follows: We must never lose sight of the fact that the law has a moral foundation, and we must never fail to ask ourselves not only what the law is, but what the law should be
Another point is that the framers of the Constitution had no problem with the assorted state laws on such issues as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, abortion, pornography; etc.
Report comment to moderator
JM (286): It is more likely that far more would have died IF the 30 nation coalition did not go in.
Frank: Bull corn.
One thing we know for certain when we compare the history of pre-invasion Iraq to that of post-invasion Iraq:
Innocent Iraqis were not dying at the same rate before we invaded as they died after we invaded.
No ifs, ands or buts.
Report comment to moderator
Quote of the Day:
Human rights organizations have compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. In one operation alone, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam’s needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam’s reign, the numbers paint a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths for each of Saddam’s 8,000-odd days in power.
Report comment to moderator
If the true question is whether or not civilians killed by the war were unnecessary, I wonder if any civilan deaths were necessary at any time. By ousting Hussein the lives were saved that he would have kept on murdering. We did not use atomic bombs as in forcing Japan to surrender or drone attacks that Obama approves of.
Report comment to moderator
#330 Matt Y “Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal. They are illegal because they are dangerous.”
Actually, it can be shown that drugs are MORE dangerous BECAUSE they are illegal. Prohibition is a good example of this.
Ron Paul favors the regulation of drugs by the government, like alcohol and cigarettes. That is hardly an anti-government position. Rather it puts the government role regarding social problems in its proper perspective.
Fewer people will die as a result, not just due to the drug war, but also because they will legally be able to use drugs that could save their lives without waiting for FDA approval after they are dead.
Why should a person who ingests something that is bad for himself be turned into a criminal? That is what liberals are trying to do! They want to control what you eat and what you say and many other things. How is right wing moral omnipotence different from the left wing variety, except in the nature of that morality?
Report comment to moderator
Louise (335): … Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam’s needless war with Iran.
Frank: Would that be the “needless war” we fought with Iran, in which Saddam served as our proxy?
That “needless war” with Iran?
Report comment to moderator
That’s a judgement call Frank and I’m not sure I’d be extremely comfortable with Ron Paul as CIC. But he would certainly be preferable to the one we’re stuck with now. Conspiracy theories aren’t that persuasive. A much more realistic case can be make for the mindsets in consensus decisions.
Report comment to moderator
#332 Sails “XION, Being perfectly content with a properly interpreted Constitution, I’m far from advocating any bizarre, Rushdoonian scheme for Christian theocracy.”
Sure, but as NJLawyer has said, a properly interpreted Constitution isn’t anything like a “biblical government” which “actively cultivates a moral environment” as DC Innes is calling for.
A properly interpreted Constitution is about liberty. Liberty makes both the politically left and the right nervous, much like grace makes the church nervous, because it offers people the freedom to do things you may not like. That is true, but the alternative is always worse.
Report comment to moderator
Bill Buckley used to make the good case for ending the failed war on drugs in order to save lives and make better use of our tax money. He convinced me.
Report comment to moderator
#337 – The situations in Britain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Alaska, etc. show that drug liberalization does not work. See my comment #202. Furthermore, crime would not go down.
Yet, under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain—along with the organized crime that profits from it. After Prohibition ended, did the organized crime in our country go down? No. It continues today in a variety of other criminal enterprises. Legalization would not put the cartels out of business; cartels would simply look to other illegal endeavors.
If only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine. In either case, traffic-related violence would not be ended by legalization.
If only marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were legalized, there would still be a market for PCP and methamphetamine. Where do legalizers want to draw the line? Or do they support legalizing all drugs, no matter how addictive and dangerous?
In addition, any government agency assigned to distribute drugs under a legalization scenario would, for safety purposes, most likely not distribute the most potent drug. The drugs may also be more expensive because of bureaucratic costs of operating such a distribution system. Therefore, until 100 percent pure drugs are given away to anyone, at any age, a black market will remain.
Report comment to moderator
The country will only be as moral as its people. We’ve fallen down on that.
Report comment to moderator
Actually Matt Y and Zion are both wrong.
Drugs, like every other inanimate object, are actually perfectly harmless by themselves. The people who use them are dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
If I voted for Ron Paul, it would be because of his financial views and because I think the Fed should be audited. There’s something creepy about a secret organization in the Republic. Just don’t like it.
That said, I don’t agree with him on social issues, but I would say that he alone could not effect much change. There’s always the Congress. Someone who believes certain issues belong properly in the states won’t issue executive orders in that realm either.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM at 344 — just like guns. We have a lot more druggies who drive than we do crazy people who shoot.
Report comment to moderator
The fruit on the tree of knowledge of good and evil was perfectly harmless as long as Adam and Eve didn’t eat it.
Report comment to moderator
Beyond that the fruit was actually good since everything God created was good. (Enough from me.)
Report comment to moderator
So what are the choices?
Perry who tried to use eminate domain to confiscate millions of acres of Texas for the Transportation Corridor and mandate all 6th grade girls in Texas be vaccinated for an STD? Thankfully Texans shot him down on those choices.
Or Newt who had his chance under Clinton and failed and brought about no great change and morally has lost his credibility and has proven to be just another career politician.
Or Romney who doesn’t believe moral opinions should be forced on others so ends up flip-floping on abortion, gun control, pornography, etc.
I would rather elect a president that I don’t 100% agree with but is clear and honest about what he believes, who doesn’t change his position for electibility and most important who believes the Constiution is the law of the land and will uphold the Oath of Office despite his personal opinions.
We don’t have that in Obama and I don’t think we’ll get that in Gingrich, Romney or Perry.
That’s why I will vote Ron Paul in the primaries, but whatever Republican wins I will join the other lemmings in voting against Obama who I believe is taking America to third world status on a bullet train.
Report comment to moderator
That sounds like a common sense approach.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, the Constitution is about both liberty and law. The liberty part has to do with certain natural rights within the constraints of natural law, the law of nature and of nature’s God, as Jefferson remarked in the Declaration.
Protestants smitten with antinomian grace have been a deadly danger to Christian communities. Winthrop, et al, in Boston quite correctly banished the antinomians Hutchinson and Wheelright.
As to the Grace that to some extent makes us free, that too is within the constraints of divine law that Paul made clear was known to all of us within our hearts and minds. Luther certainly thought Law along with Gospel was crucial having written a catechism that began with the Ten Commandments. Here is what Luther had to say on this matter in the Preface of his Small Catechism:
Especially should you here urge magistrates and parents to rule well and to send their children to school, showing them why it is their duty to do this, and what a damnable sin they are committing if they do not do it. For by such neglect they overthrow and destroy both the kingdom of God and that of the world, acting as the worst enemies both of God and of men. And make it very plain to them what an awful harm they are doing if they will not help to train children to be pastors, preachers, clerks [also for other offices, with which we cannot dispense in this life], etc., and that God will punish them terribly for it. For such preaching is needed. [Verily, I do not know of any other topic that deserves to be treated as much as this.] Parents and magistrates are now sinning unspeakably in this respect. The devil, too, aims at something cruel because of these things [that he may hurl Germany into the greatest distress].
Report comment to moderator
Speaking out
Alcohol consumption declined dramatically during prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.
Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent. Violent crime did not increase dramatically during prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910, but remained roughly constant during prohibition’s 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during prohibition, but it existed before and after.
People who have chosen to lives as criminals won’t stop just because drugs are legalized. They won’t get legitimate jobs and become honest citizens just because drugs are legal. They don’t traffick in drugs because they enjoy the challenge, they do it because it makes them the most money. Regardless of the legality of, say, marijuana, they will continue illegal activities because they can make profits selling other drugs, guns, people, or other contraband. Drug trafficking and its assorted violence won’t stop just because drugs are legalized.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/legalizing-marijuana-why-citizens-should-just-say-no
Legalization advocates claim that marijuana and alcohol are mild intoxicants and so should be regulated similarly; but as the experience of nearly every culture, over the thousands of years of human history, demonstrates, alcohol is different. Nearly every culture has its own alcoholic preparations, and nearly all have successfully regulated alcohol consumption through cultural norms. The same cannot be said of marijuana. There are several possible explanations for alcohol’s unique status: For most people, it is not addictive; it is rarely consumed to the point of intoxication; low-level consumption is consistent with most manual and intellectual tasks; it has several positive health benefits; and it is formed by the fermentation of many common substances and easily metabolized by the body.
To be sure, there are costs associated with alcohol abuse, such as drunk driving and disease associated with excessive consumption. A few cultures—and this nation for a short while during Prohibition—have concluded that the benefits of alcohol consumption are not worth the costs. But they are the exception; most cultures have concluded that it is acceptable in moderation. No other intoxicant shares that status.
Alcohol differs from marijuana in several crucial respects. First, marijuana is far more likely to cause addiction. Second, it is usually consumed to the point of intoxication. Third, it has no known general healthful properties, though it may have some palliative effects. Fourth, it is toxic and deleterious to health. Thus, while it is true that both alcohol and marijuana are less intoxicating than other mood-altering drugs, that is not to say that marijuana is especially similar to alcohol or that its use is healthy or even safe.
In fact, compared to alcohol, marijuana is not safe. Long-term, moderate consumption of alcohol carries few health risks and even offers some significant benefits. For example, a glass of wine (or other alcoholic drink) with dinner actually improves health.[8] Dozens of peer-reviewed medical studies suggest that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol reduces the risk of heart disease, strokes, gallstones, diabetes, and death from a heart attack.[9] According to the Mayo Clinic, among many others, moderate use of alcohol (defined as two drinks a day) “seems to offer some health benefits, particularly for the heart.”[10] Countless articles in medical journals and other scientific literature confirm the positive health effects of moderate alcohol consumption.
The effects of regular marijuana consumption are quite different. For example, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (a division of the National Institutes of Health) has released studies showing that use of marijuana has wide-ranging negative health effects. Long-term marijuana consumption “impairs the ability of T-cells in the lungs’ immune system to fight off some infections.”[11] These studies have also found that marijuana consumption impairs short-term memory, making it difficult to learn and retain information or perform complex tasks; slows reaction time and impairs motor coordination; increases heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent, thus elevating the risk of heart attack; and alters moods, resulting in artificial euphoria, calmness, or (in high doses) anxiety or paranoia.[12] And it gets worse: Marijuana has toxic properties that can result in birth defects, pain, respiratory system damage, brain damage, and stroke.[13]
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y. (283): The United States got rid of a dangerous dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and brought freedom of speech, political activity, and generally freedom of religion to Iraq.
Frank: 1. Don’t forget that America (under Ronald Reagan) sided with that dangerous dictator in our proxy war against Iran.
2. So glad you modified the phrase “freedom of religion to Iraq” with that important word “generally”:
MattY
I’m not saying drugs ought not to be banned or regulated, but always remember that it is people who abuse drugs.
Report comment to moderator
Louise (339): Conspiracy theories aren’t that persuasive.
Frank: ??? Please elaborate …
Report comment to moderator
Well, then, Matt, I might sarcastically and hypothetically suggest that we criminalize all tobacco products based on their effects on our health, especially now that the government wants to get more involved in our health care and its insurance liabilities when we are not healthy. There’s almost no end to rationalizing where this might be going. Or, have I already overreached?
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y.,
Biblically speaking, recreational drug use is undoubtedly sinful.
However, the pertinent questions are:
1. Should the sin of recreational drug use be criminalized? (A question which Christians should be prepared to argue from a biblical perspective.)
And if the answer is “Yes,” …
2. Under our form of government — i.e., one comprised of local, county, state and national jurisdictions — should it be criminalized at the national level?
Report comment to moderator
Louise (357): Well, then, Matt, I might sarcastically and hypothetically suggest that we criminalize all tobacco products based on their effects on our health …
Frank: … and criminalize them at the national level!
Report comment to moderator
Wow. I get busy and can’t come back to the thread for a few days, and I find that you all have moved this thread along by 200 posts or so!
Now, keeping in mind that I’ve only been able to read the last few posts so far….
I’m not necessarily against REGULATING drugs … and some far more than others. But, I still think that alcohol is similar to marijuana (despite Matt’s post) because I don’t think alcohol “magically” become “regulated” by cultural norms.
In fact, its horrific abuse is what caused prohibition in the first place. The problem was that prohibition created a strong mob and criminal class (just as we’re seeing with drugs), and the “cure” was worse than the “disease.”
Our cultural “regulation” is really more the result of MADD along with government tv spots and a whole LOT of education about the negative affects of alcoholism and drunk driving.
And, I wonder if that wouldn’t be more effective in the long run in the U.S. on many of the minor drugs as well. Because I just don’t think that people realize the terrible results we are seeing of the “war on drugs” and the power it has given to criminals, gang members, drug cartels etc.
Report comment to moderator
And, yes, there is a huge difference between FEDERAL laws against drugs etc. and State laws.
Again, our Constitution REQUIRES that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government belong to the States. It’s not that hard. And, you either believe it, or you don’t.
But, don’t claim to be a Conservative if you’re really a Federal Statist.
Report comment to moderator
Well, some would want that to be part of THAT deal Frank, considering Obamacare ;(
Re the other thing, this afternoon I just don’t have the enthusiasm for debating opinions on the Iran-Iraq war. I’m just a country girl playing catch up on other people’s version of history
Report comment to moderator
#349
“I would rather elect a president that I don’t 100% agree with but is clear and honest about what he believes, who doesn’t change his position for electibility and most important who believes the Constiution is the law of the land and will uphold the Oath of Office despite his personal opinions.”
Exactly. I may not agree with everything that Ron Paul believes, but I respect his integrity. I just don’t see that same integrity in any of the other candidates, and I agree with each of them far less anyway!
Report comment to moderator
LordLiarLunatic (349): Or Romney who doesn’t believe moral opinions should be forced on others so ends up flip-floping on abortion, gun control, pornography, etc.
Frank: Well, there’s one moral opinion on which he stands firm: The moral opinion that the government should prosecute and imprison people whose doctors prescribe the use of marijuana.
At a 2007 campaign event in New Hampshire, Romeny’s slogan was “Ask Mitt Anything!” But when this poor fellow asked, “Will you arrest me or my doctors if I get medical marijuana,” the heartless slug refused to give the man a straight answer.
Report comment to moderator
#342
Aw, Matt. There’s always a line. Don’t we have the same problems with underage kids and alcohol and tobacco right now?
Seriously, your arguments (or the person you were quoting) are simply moot. They would apply anywhere anyone chose to draw the line, including where it is right now.
Report comment to moderator
That, Matt, and your argument boiled down is basically: Well, if you take the crime from this area, criminals (who are basically going to remain criminals no matter what) will just find some other area of criminal activity.
Um … that’s rather axiomatic, yeah? But, the War on Drugs has demonstrably been a failure, and, in fact, I’m still not convinced that ending it wouldn’t make a huge dent in many of the crime problems that directly effect the average citizen today: border crime with drug cartels, walking safely in national/state forests, gang wars for control of the lucrative drug trade, smuggling, etc.
Sure, they’ll have to find other avenues (and they probably will) for their nefarious purposes, but drugs have been a HUGE criminal enterprise. I’m not sure that trafficking in other areas will be nearly as lucrative.
And, again, the same argument applies to anything.
So, the bottomline question is should the FEDERAL government be involved in this?
Report comment to moderator
Louise (362): Re the other thing, this afternoon I just don’t have the enthusiasm for debating opinions on the Iran-Iraq war. I’m just a country girl playing catch up on other people’s version of history
Frank: While I respect your not wanting to debate the Iran-Iraq war, there’s really nothing there to “debate. There is no “conspiracy theory,” no “other people’s version of history”:
The Reagan Administration openly, publicly sided with Saddam Hussein in
ourhis war against Iran.(And incidentally, that historical fact illustrates perfectly the validity of Ron Paul’s non-interventionism.)
Report comment to moderator
(Leaving now … I expect this thread will easily breach the 400 mark before the end of the year!)
Report comment to moderator
A properly interpreted Constitution is about liberty. Liberty makes both the politically left and the right nervous, much like grace makes the church nervous, because it offers people the freedom to do things you may not like. That is true, but the alternative is always worse.
******Excellent point.
Report comment to moderator
I have to leave for awhile too. I’d much rather do this than clean house, but I have people coming over to play board games tonight!
Report comment to moderator
Tariq Aziz should have been treated differently because he was a Christian? Really? I don’t agree. He knew what he was participatig in. He didn’t follow Christian principles. That’s his fault and his problem.
Report comment to moderator
To respond to some of the points in the text Matt Y. quoted in #352:
Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922.
How much did arrests for alcohol possession and/or sale and trafficking increase during the period of prohibition?
Violent crime did not increase dramatically during prohibition.
But did it increase, even if not dramatically?
Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during prohibition, but it existed before and after.
Prohibition juiced organized crime. Noted.
They don’t traffick in drugs because they enjoy the challenge, they do it because it makes them the most money.
Exactly. Ending prohibition would make drugs cheaper, and would end the monopoly criminal enterprise holds on their manufacture and sale. This is why we generally don’t see “cigarette dealers” on street corners or “rum runners” smuggling alcohol into the country: because it’s not profitable.
Moreover, even if these guys did keep selling pot on the streets it would no longer be a crime. So by definition they would no longer be committing a crime.
Drug trafficking and its assorted violence won’t stop just because drugs are legalized.
You’re in the minority on this one, even including those who advocate against ending drug prohibition. Most admit that legalization would get rid of much of the violence; they just think the violence is a reasonable cost to pay in order to avoid the alternative.
Report comment to moderator
Christian, why Ron Paul?
Because he’s the best choice of those running for office. Is he without flaws? Certainly not. Would I tinker with some of his views? Of course. Will he save America (whatever that means)? No. Who will be his vice president? That could be interesting.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not convinced that ending the war on drugs will make all those people turn to other criminal professions. Partly because selling drugs is lucrative and “classy” in a way many other criminal activities are not–and also fails to carry the black-and-white moral issues some other crimes do. In other words, it draws in some people who might not be inclined to do violent, clearly harmful things . . . or at least who wouldn’t be inclined to do those things until they’re already under the spell of what the drug world can offer that other “careers” can’t.
What do I mean by that? First off, every kid in the hood knows who the biggest drug dealers are–they drive the flashiest cars, wear expensive jewelry, have their choice of women, etc. They are the royalty of the inner city. They are its heroes. Many young boys aspire either to be the next Michael Jordan or the next best thing, the person who has wealth and glamour and all of it–and that usually means the drug dealers.
“But surely they know that selling drugs is a bad thing to do.” Not necessarily–you’re selling a product people want, and who is it who is trying to stop you? The cops. The ones who can’t necessarily be trusted. Who knows but that their lines about drugs being bad for you might not be a lie, too. (I’m not saying cops are all evil–I’m saying that every child in drug-infested neighborhoods knows stories, true or not, of relatives badly treated by the police.)
Add to that the fact that the employability of poorly educated people with limited transportation options who do not live near businesses that are likely to employ them is pretty weak, and drug-dealing becomes attractive on a different level (in the way that even prostitution offers an employment option–an option of desperation, but an option nonetheless). The unemployment rates of minority youth who have no college is very, very high.
In other words, many people enter the drug underbelly who aren’t choosing among many criminal careers and that is the one they settle on. Given other options, many would choose those other options.
Report comment to moderator
Christian, why Ron Paul?
Because he’s the most Constitutional of all candidates, he’s undeniably pro-life, he’s small government, he wants to get rid of the IRS and the Department of Education (no, he won’t be able to do it on his own, but he wants to, and will try, which is enough for me), he’s non-interventionist, he has integrity and honesty, he wants to audit the Fed (yay!), etc.
Report comment to moderator
NJL (371): Tariq Aziz should have been treated differently because he was a Christian?
Frank: Really?!
Please, NJL, re-read my post.
And if there’s anything in there that argues (or even suggests) “Aziz should have been treated differently because he was a Christian,” please point it out to me.
The point of the posts was the decline in religious freedom (particularly for Christians) in pre- vs. post-invasion Iraq.
Report comment to moderator
… and NOW I must go! (33 more posts until 400. EASILY achievable in the next few hours!)
Report comment to moderator
(Oops! Make that 23 more posts! My math is about as good as NJL’s reading comprehension!)
Report comment to moderator
Hey — I took this to mean that you were unhappy with the fact that he was handed over:
“Tariq Aziz’s complicity in the regime of Saddam Hussein undoubtedly disqualifies him from receiving a “humanitarian of the year” award. However, the disinterested manner in which the United States handed him over to the al-Maliki government — which has cozied up to the militant Islamic leaders of Iran while failing to protect Iraq’s Christians — only magnifies the disregard our government has had for Middle Eastern Christians in general.”
Handing him over had nothing to do with the general disregard our govt. has for ME Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Do you know what a snotball is?
Report comment to moderator
The guy was guilty. I would have handed him over without turning a hair.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA (see #296) – What you call a tempest in a teapot, I call a shameless and poisonous falsehood, stated persistently and perniciously by Ron Paul. I happen to despise lies spoken against my imperfect but great country.
Michelle Bachmann was not dramatizing anything but she did state facts that ARE themselves dramatic, facts that Ron Paul and his followers insist on willfully ignoring while demonizing those who take them seriously.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA at #296 wrote; “…this rhetoric is being used to set us up for a war with Iran.”
Without basis, you seem to question the sincerity of those who are taking the threat of Iran seriously, and you refuse to question the sincerity of a politican (Ron Paul) who lies outright with zero proof about America as if we were horrific killers of a million Iraqis (our allies).
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA, we don’t want war with Iran but the fact remains that Iran is ALREADY at war with us. Can’t you get that?
DEBRA at #296 wrote; “They will likely have their war or bombing even if Obama retains the WH. Republicans just won’t get the glory, and I suspect that’s what really bites—at least in some quarters.”
You think some Republicans want a war just for “glory”? Name them please. Back up your generalization. That’s unwarranted, DEBRA. Such bitter and cynical unjustified partisan judgmentalism is not like you, DEBRA.
Report comment to moderator
SAILS,
I have a copy of Robert P. George’s book “The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis” but never got around to reading it. You just made it jump up on my reading list.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A at #309 wrote; “It seems to me that there are two camps here: those who have a visceral response to Paul’s image, his personality, and his general attitude and those who actually pay attention to his stated positions…”
I am definitely and completely in the latter group. I have paid attention to him and listened to his words carefully and that is the sole reason I oppose Ron Paul as a dishonest and poisonous politican.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A at #309 wrote; “I strongly challenge the notion that a person who does not want the United States to wage unjust, undeclared wars is a person who hates America.”
Fine. Me too. But I claim that Ron Paul hates America because he tells vicious lies about America, blameing her for things she did not do, like killing a million Iraqis. And he does so without an ounce of evidence or justification. He also sympathizes with enemies like Iran and declares that if they hade nuclear weapons (which they have said they would use to wipe out Israel and seek a world without the United States), they we would respect them more.
That’s why I think Ron Paul hates America.
Report comment to moderator
As you probably know Joel, and FYI everyone, Robert P. George’s columns are published by many: WSJ, NY Post, National Review and many more. Good food for thought.
Report comment to moderator
MATT Y, #324 – “Calvin and Luther were persecutors.”
Good point, MATT. Calvin was absolutelyu actively a persecutor and Luther allowed and supported persecution of others. Both had their rationales for it, which we must judge in their own context. But all of us (including Luther, Calvin and others) are, in part, products of our time and context and flawed. This does not invalidate their brilliance on many levels but it does put isolated quotes (applied in a wholly different context) into perspective.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
Paul’s statements, which you have quoted many, many times, have been explained pretty carefully.
However, even if the statements didn’t have nuanced meanings, and didn’t have obvious other ways to take them, I still wouldn’t categorize them as “vicious lies about America” nor as sympathizing with enemies.
They are two statements which are FAR less obnoxious than many things said by Gingrich (especially) or Romney (on occasion). They do not define the man nor his stated, official position on things.
I certainly wouldn’t want my entire philosophy of life summarized in two statements … ESPECIALLY when you are interpreting them unfairly and not as was meant as has been repeatedly explained to you.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
Would you be in favor of Congress declaring war on Iran?
Report comment to moderator
People who see things in black and white have a very difficult time with Ron Paul, because he tends to have very nuanced (and some would say, even sophisticated) positions on things. Thus, it is not possible with Paul (if you want to be accurate and fair) to use soundbites to judge him.
Report comment to moderator
#351 Sails, “Protestants smitten with antinomian grace have been a deadly danger to Christian communities. Winthrop, et al, in Boston quite correctly banished the antinomians Hutchinson and Wheelright.”
Oh, my! Banishment? Sails, say it isn’t so! How is this line of thinking not Puritanical? If Baptists were banished at the Federal level, where would they go? Guantanamo?
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, honestly, I don’t get that impression at all from Ron Paul. His positions strike me as being starkly black & white — take it or leave it. But unless he elaborates for broader appeal, I think he’s so unelectable now that it might not matter if he does explain himself better. That’s unfortunate since he also makes good points on auditing the Federal Reserve. But we do not need a president to accomplish that. That’s just me, sincerely.
Report comment to moderator
Looks like we have 4 Republican candidates that don’t want to play by the rules in Virginia. Go figure – a Libertarian and a Mormon do follow the rules.
Report comment to moderator
#387 Joel “That’s why I think Ron Paul hates America.”
You call people who agree with Calvin and Luther “white flag Christians” and you call people who side most closely with America’s founding fathers “America haters”.
Brother, do you think that maybe you might be overreaching a bit? You can disagree with Jefferson or Madison, who held these same views, without saying they hate America, right?
Report comment to moderator
“Christian, why Ron Paul?”
Who is John Galt?
Report comment to moderator
XION: Oh, my! Banishment? Sails, say it isn’t so!
Had you been governor of a fragile Christian community in the Massachusetts wilderness in the early seventeenth-century, you might have looked at a bevy of romantic antinomians full of enthusiastic grace a bit differently.
It’s bad enough in our era dealing with breathless “mainstream” Christian antinomian and evangelical liberals who have caved to the secular fundamentalists.
Winthrop banished Hutchinson and Wheelright. Bradford executed a fellow for bestiality. Good on them. As mentioned earlier, these were hardly ignorant folk; they in the same period established the Boston Latin School and Harvard College.
Christians nowadays lack the cojones to rule. You apparently, like Paul, wish to escape from all this evil by some sort of isolationism, though that’s hardly the way the world works. Faced with a threat from both fundamentalist secularists and Islamists, it would be well for Christians along with secular conservatives to man up and fight rather than whining and seeking easy consolation.
Report comment to moderator
Executions for the love of sheep is “good on them”? Wow! If you ever invite me for dinner, I will try to never mention the words “Sola fide” for fear of my own life.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I can’t resist. 400!
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand, I still love you Sails, especially since you used the word ‘cojones’. Happy New Year!
Report comment to moderator
#395 — how hard could it have been to get 10,000 signatures on time?
Report comment to moderator
TAMMY wrote; “[Ron] Paul’s statements, which you have quoted many, many times, have been explained pretty carefully.”
But not adequately. In fact, he has stood by his false statements and still has no proof. They have not been explained to my satisfaction on this thread or anywhere. And I do listen. I mentioned two statements but Ron Paul has made many disconcerting statements that comport with the two I mentioned.
Report comment to moderator
Happy New Year to you XION! I hope during 2012 to convince you of the virtue of strenuous Christianity. Should I have dinner with you, I shall be careful to avoid my love of the hymn,Onward Christian Soldiers.
I’m tres impressed that you have a son in the Corps and pray that his wife will stay with him.
Report comment to moderator
“Would you be in favor of Congress declaring war on Iran?”
No, not at the present moment. Other measures are still available. But Iran should shake in fear that we might at any time. Ron Paul’s statements have the OPPOSITE effect. He thinks we don’t respect them enough and that if they had nukes we would respect them more. Is Ron Paul running for President of Iran or what?
Report comment to moderator
TAMMY wrote; “People who see things in black and white have a very difficult time with Ron Paul…”
So do peiople who actually listen to him objectively.
Report comment to moderator
XION wrote; “You call people who agree with Calvin and Luther ‘white flag Christians’ and you call people who side most closely with America’s founding fathers ‘America haters’.”
XION, I am disappointed in your comments and losing respect for your comments. That is a ridiculous misrepresentation of me and what I have said. I tried to be fair with Luther and Calvin and my phrase “white flag Christians” was not applied to them at all. You made that up and made your own inaccurate application.
Worse, your reference my stance on to people who side with America’s founding fathers was an ungly smear unworthy of you. It’s a falsehood too. And your wierd attempt to pit me against Jefferson and Madison was childish.
You do better when you speak for yourself than when you try to speak for me.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, actually, Ron Paul’s fundamental problem is that he tends to see issues in black and white terms. His critics, including Joel, have a hard time dealing with his essentially simplistic solutions to America’s complex problems. Fortunately, most Americans understand this. The man is a maverick, lacking both gravitas and wisdom.
Report comment to moderator
Complex problem: We have too much debt.
Complex solution: Maybe we shouldn’t borrow and spend so much money.
Complex problem: Lots of countries hate us and want to wipe us off the face of the earth.
Complex solution: Maybe if we didn’t meddle in their affairs, but simply traded with them they might not want to kill us. Nevertheless if they still make a move to hurt us we can try some diplomacy, but ultimately we are free to defend ourselves by declaring war on them and by killing them. This doesn’t mean we should not have allies or closer relationships with countries that share a similar set of values. Neither does it mean that we should not come to the aid of countries with whom we are allies. Trading is not an isolationist act. We may, however, choose to not trade with a country if we don’t like their policies just as they are free not to trade with us.
Report comment to moderator
JoelMark @384 You think some Republicans want a war just for “glory”? Name them please. Back up your generalization. That’s unwarranted, DEBRA. Such bitter and cynical unjustified partisan judgmentalism is not like you, DEBRA.
Okay. I suppose that on occasion I can be as cynical as the next person, and that statement may be a bit over the top. But not by much. Perhaps I’ve just listened too long to militant pundits (such as Sean Hannity and other talking heads), and I’m weary of the arrogant indignation. We don’t even seem to care that our own government is growing more tyrannical by the year (Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 to name a couple of ways) yet so many people are convinced we have the authority and capacity to leash the mad dogs of the world. But we don’t have the capacity, and it’s not right to put our children in debtor’s bondage attempting to do so. To me, it just smacks of ego.
Report comment to moderator
[410 comments in 3 days?? What's the matter, people? Don't any of you have a life either? :--) ]
Report comment to moderator
#407 Dear Joel, I was afraid that would happen. Love ya anywho! Happy New Year!
Report comment to moderator
#404 Sails, I am laughing very hard. Having a little difficulty breathing, as a matter of fact. Thank you so much for your passion. I love people who can disagree civilly. It may be my favorite thing of all time. Have a wonderful 2012!
Report comment to moderator
#404 Sails, I am laughing very hard. Having a little difficulty breathing, as a matter of fact. Thank you so much for your passion. I love people who can disagree civilly. It may be my favorite thing of all time. Have a wonderful 2012!
Report comment to moderator
Complex problem: Lots of countries hate us and want to wipe us off the face of the earth.
Complex solution: Let them have nuclear weapons. Pretend that they don’t mean what they say. Blame America for the fact that they hate us and accuse America of all sorts of horrific holocaust-like abuses without evidence. Show them we hate ourselves even more than they hate us. Sympathize with our enemy’s stated grievances (no matter what they are), take their side and presume they will love us for it, since we are the reason for their hate in the first place. When they attack us, call it “blowback” and say our chickens are coming home to roost. Deny that their hate has anything to do with their jihadist mission which their radical religion mandates. Smear and disgrace our allies while placating and appeasing our enemies. Accuse all right-wingers of being drama-queen wear-mongers and torturers.
Report comment to moderator
# “war-mongers”, not “wear-mongers.”
Happy New Year to all too.
Report comment to moderator
You know, at my new job, I am working with a former loan officer — yes, one of those boys who brought us this mess by offering those subprime loans to people who shouldn’t have had them. (Of course, he claims that he told them the consequences, that if things went south, they’d lose their homes.) I mention him because he “accuses” me of being idealistic and therefore not realistic. I tell him we need standards.
Ron Paul can believe what he believes about foreign policy all he wants, but he’s not in a position to put those “ideals” into a working policy, and if he were in that position, he would soon find that his “ideals” are just that — “ideals.” I can’t think of any of us who wouldn’t have to compromise are ideals in the face of practicality. Things aren’t black and white for anyone.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with him that we should stop meddling, but remember, that meddling includes all sorts of things — and he’s said he’d cut back on foreign aid, too. That’s not a bad thing. I do wonder, however, if it came down to it, if he would have the flexibility needed to deal with some really bad people.
Consider the Taliban situation. They don’t want to hurt us, but I wouldn’t go Biden’s route and turn a blind eye to their evil and still give them and the Afghan govt. money. Bin Laden is dead. We can leave Afghanistan now, and we can take our money with us — we should NOT support that evil.
Report comment to moderator
Does Ron Paul know when to give foreign aid and when not to, or is it just an entry on a ledger for him?
Report comment to moderator
If he can help plot a sane course at home, I don’t care if he gives our allies a dime over the next 4 years. If our friends abroad can’t survive without additional financial leverage let them do what we do: borrow it from China.
Report comment to moderator
I must say that I was deeply offended and appalled to learn on the news that we give foreign aid to China — money we have borrowed from China! That is beyond stupid. And I am so sick of stupid.
Report comment to moderator
And doesn’t Ron Paul want to eliminate the Dept. of Education?
This says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DIy-C4cQ-M
Report comment to moderator
#421
Grrrr. I didn’t know that!
Definitely S-T-U-P-I-D.
Report comment to moderator
I still think that Ron Paul’s policies are nuanced and not black and white. I think people who see them in black and white tend to be missing all the nuance … perhaps because they see things too black and white themselves?
And, honestly, Joel, at the very least, your repeated comments about Iran and nuclear weapons and Ron Paul’s remarks are just wrong. Even without the context, I could tell exactly what he meant, and your interpretation isn’t it at all.
It kind of derails any real communication when you insist he said something that means X, when just about anyone else can see that he means Y, and when he himself would tell you he means Y.
Finally, I went ahead and ordered Ron Paul’s latest book and Mitt Romney’s latest books (because one of them is free on the Kindle and is just on the economy) and I plan on educating myself on them further.
I will only get a book on Gingrich if I absolutely have to. I can’t stand him as a person, and don’t want to see him in the White House.
But, if it comes to that, I’ll read what he has to say too.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, we pay it back — with interest!
I was playing with youtube today and found Margaret Thatcher. I really liked those videos. Also saw some of Ron Paul, and if you listen to longer videos, you get quite a good impression of him. I would urge you all to watch some.
I’m going to watch Downton Abbey now on PBS — again. I confess, I really like these characters.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, I don’t think you have to worry about Gingrich in the WH. I think he’s done. And I agree with you.
Report comment to moderator
There is a video of Paul on Iran and nuclear weapons — and it made sense. I’ll see if I can find it.
Report comment to moderator
Here is one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8n4FhG2GlA
Report comment to moderator
We have been “at war” with Iran since 1979. Enough. Don’t fuel those whackos.
Report comment to moderator
Iran may have a nuclear fuel rod — let’s go bomb them. Sarcasm off.
Report comment to moderator
Jonahan Tobin has an excellent article in “Commentary” explaining that Ron Paul’s extreme views have made him popular with the far Left. The summary paragraph is as follows:
The nexus of the far right and the far left has always been a dangerous place where extremists of all kinds, including racists and anti-Semites, linger. So it’s no surprise that Paul has pandered to these groups with his newsletters as well as his isolationism and conspiracy theories about 9/11. While he may be enjoying a momentary surge in Iowa, his politics of destruction are part of a long-failed tradition of populist extremism that has little appeal to most Republicans or mainstream America.
The article is at:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul-occupy-tea-party-extreme/#more-779211
Report comment to moderator
Iran says it test fired radar-evading missile — let’s go bomb them. I can’t really say sarcasm off b/c that’s what a number of the candidates want to do.
Report comment to moderator
XION, I must say that I respect your comments very much. Always have. I was just ticked off at your attempt to characterize me and my view in ways that I did not recognize at all and did not agree with.
TAMMY, I have listened well and often to Ron Paul and I think my take on his remarks, his views and his policies is correct. You’re right, I do insist that he said what he said and that he means it. That’s why I oppose him so strongly. Unlike with Obama, at least I think Ron Paul means what he says. But that only makes it much WORSE when what he says is so outrageous.
Report comment to moderator
#433 Joel “Always have. I was just ticked off at your attempt to characterize me and my view in ways that I did not recognize at all and did not agree with.”
I knew it would tick you off, but I said it anyway as a friend. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” (Pr 27:6)
In many of our debates you insinuate that libertarian Christians or those of us who don’t want “biblical government” are “white flag Christians”. What I have been trying to point out is a distinction between “biblical government” as you or Innes or Puritans or Catholics or Mormons or others might view it and a “biblical perspective on secular government” as Jesus or Paul or Luther or Calvin, etc. described.
You would like to use the strong arm of government to make America more moral. Liberals would like to do the same, only their morals are different. Innes view (and your own) run counter to Jefferson and Madison who looked to Locke and Luther for wisdom. Sorry, but I am speaking the truth. I have provided references.
Innes says,
Well, the truth is that Locke and Mill and Rousseau and Luther and Calvin and Augustine all influenced America’s founding fathers, not to set up a biblical government, but a secular Federal government for biblical people. The states were free to do what the Federal government could not, at least until 1947 and 1962, when the Supreme Court began to lose its mind.
The problem with moral busibodies, whether evangelical or liberal, is that they place their moral agenda above the success of the nation. For example, properly defining marriage is good, but it has nothing to do with running a country. What do the acts that people do in their bedrooms have to do with infrastructure, foreign relations, trade or the national economy?
For some reason, evangelicals cling to an Old Testament mindset that all a country needs to do is please God and he will bend nature to take care of the rest. America is not Israel. What God did with Israel was specifically related to preparing for the Messiah’s arrival in Bethlehem. It was not a general prescription for all nations to follow.
The seductive danger is that by handing over more and more power to central government, no matter how moral the person seams now, eventually that power will be used against us. The wisdom of America’s founding fathers was to prefer liberty over a strong Federal government and let the people themselves be in charge of good morals, even if it means they won’t.
Report comment to moderator
All nations rise and fall. As a nation we have gone as far as our Constitution and a godly heritage can take us. Clamoring for a return to the Constitution is pointless unless we first return to God. Without that, we’re just France…less really, because we are more diverse, larger, and our lack of common culture and common sense of history makes us more prone to division and anarchy. We won’t hold together without a widespread Great Awakening.
Report comment to moderator
XION: What I have been trying to point out is a distinction between “biblical government” as you or Innes or Puritans or Catholics or Mormons or others might view it and a “biblical perspective on secular government” as Jesus or Paul or Luther or Calvin, etc. described.
Here you have Luther and Calvin quite wrong. Both understood the proper distinction between the Two Kingdoms, the spiritual and the civil. Neither advocated any sort of a theocracy that tightly binds the two, though they firmly understood the necessary conformity of civil government law and moral law.
Among the best analyses of the distinction between the Two Kingdoms, along with the moral basis for civil government, is found in Calvin’s Institutes, Book Four, Chapter Twenty.
Report comment to moderator
Government is best that governs least.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, the Framers of the Constitution wanted a strong Federal government that could correct the national weakness that developed during the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist Party of Washington, Hamilton, and Adams, established a strong federal government.
However, these men would be appalled at the present monstrous federal bureaucratic government along with a Supreme Court that has given the feds the power to establish this bureaucracy. The Roberts court is in the process of mitigating this, though it will take one more conservative justice to make real progress.
We need to be careful not to weaken the federal government’s legitimate functions including defense, diplomacy, federal justice, and the regulation of truly inter-state commerce.
The pleasant notion that government is best that governs least ignores the reality of life in a rather fallen, wicked world, something that our Judeo-Christian forebears including the Framers understood well.
Report comment to moderator
I thought Alexander Hamilton lost.
Report comment to moderator
Alexander Hamilton was a key player in framing the Constitution and Secretary of the Treasury during the Washington administration. He and John Adams were the major Federalist thinkers. He was very influential in making sure America had a strong federal government along with strong commerce and manufacturing.
There is nothing wrong with a strong federal government that exercises vast American power wisely in the world. Our problem just now is our federal spending is way out of line and threatening a major fiscal crisis. I agree with Romney’s view that we need to reduce federal spending from the present roughly 25% of GDP to about 20%, though he wants stronger military spending that would increase the size of the Navy and provide the military at least 4% of GDP.
Ron Paul’s drastic spending cuts would seriously diminish our military and make us vulnerable in a world with nations and terrorists that would love to see a weakened America. The hard-left and the Islamic Jihadists must view Ron Paul very favorably.
Report comment to moderator
Aren’t you being a little unrealistic when you think there’s wisdom in government? Have ya seen any?
Alexander Hamilton wanted a central government more powerful than the states, and since Lincoln he has prevailed. But he didn’t initially.
Report comment to moderator
May small government prevail on its own merits without spurious appeal to textual authority.
As a leftist, I heartily congratulate libertarians for wanting to lower taxes, eliminate government agencies, legalize manners of conduct, and so on. This is democracy. Libertarians have a perfect right to vote to reduce government as much as they can. Let policies be contested.
As an American, however, I fault libertarians for spreading the false and poisonous notion that the Constitution requires small government. What if big government is more desirable, hypothetically? Don’t free people have the right to adopt that alternative? Have the people no power?
Report comment to moderator
#453 Debra “As a nation we have gone as far as our Constitution and a godly heritage can take us. Clamoring for a return to the Constitution is pointless unless we first return to God. Without that, we’re just France…”
You are right to say Constitution AND godly heritage, the two being distinct. America should return to its godly heritage, just not at the end of gun. Winning a few moral battles in the legislature will not make America godly.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, at 441. America has produced three great statesmen, namely Lincoln Washington, and Jefferson. Other creditable statesmen were Hamilton, the Adams, Madison, and in recent time Coolidge, the Roosevelts, Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan. Though it will depend on the outcome of Middle-East affairs, George W. Bush might join this group.
Among the present Republican candidates, Romney and Santorum have the potential to become statesmen.
The best of Judeo-Christian thinkers including Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin taught that strong government is necessary in a fallen, wicked world. They, also, counseled not to be routinely cynical about civil rule. Paul regarded civil rule, including Romans with their sword to be divinely founded.
Report comment to moderator
The Constitution requires limited government. It enumerates powers and reserves everything else to the states. That has not been honored.
The People are always free to amend the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
The Constitution requires limited government. It enumerates powers and reserves everything else to the states. That has not been honored.
The People are always free to amend the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
#438 Sails “We need to be careful not to weaken the federal government’s legitimate functions including defense, diplomacy, federal justice, and the regulation of truly inter-state commerce.”
The operative words there are ‘federal government’s legitimate functions’. No one here wants to weaken those. Let’s strengthen them. But how is that anything like creating a ‘biblical government’ through the strong arm of Federal law? History has shown that empowering politicians to enforce good morals is the road to tyranny.
The authoritarian left would control men’s lives. Religious authoritarians are after the soul.
Report comment to moderator
The Constitution enumerates powers without limiting those powers, so the enumerated powers to tax, borrow, spend, print money, and regulate commerce under Article I.8 are unbounded.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t understand why more evangelicals have not supported Bachmann. Other than Perry, she is the only open evangelical in the race. She seems intelligent, articulate in debate, and doesn’t waver on important biblical issues like the sodomite agenda and the right to life. Perhaps some are hesitant because she is a woman, but I see nothing scripturally that would prohibit a woman from holding public office. She seems most consistent across the board on the issues near and dear to our hearts. Frankly, it appears most Christian voters have allowed the media to lead them around in terms of which candidate is most popular, rather than picking the best candidate regardless of media attention. Finally, although she lags in the GOP polls, I think she ironically would have the most appeal in a general election against Obama. She would likely receive greater support from independents and women than any of the other GOP candidates, and I think would fare very well against Obama in debate. But alas, once again the evangelical vote is fractured in three or four directions, and Santorum, the candidate currently receiving all the attention, lacks charisma and was not even able to win in his home state in his last election.
Report comment to moderator
One more thing on Ron Paul, should it bother his Christian supporters that Dr. Paul doesn’t consider homosexuality a sin? If you listen to this interview, he is given a very clear opportunity to accept and endorse the Biblical position that this behavior is sin, but he refuses to do so. He also says “everybody’s God’s child,” which at its worst sounds like universalism, but at least makes it sound like he believes a person can be a practicing unrepentant homosexual and also a Christian. As we know, the Bible clearly states otherwise (1 Corinthians 6:9 and others).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
Report comment to moderator
#449 Moman, Bachmann is a fine person, but ‘important biblical issues like the sodomite agenda and the right to life’ have nothing to do with running the country. That is the grand disconnect, which the last 450 posts have been addressing.
For example, evangelicals disapprove of the homosexual agenda because the Bible disapproves. I disapprove of giving people special benefits based on how bizarre their sexual tastes are. See the difference?
Report comment to moderator
#450 Moman, “One more thing on Ron Paul, should it bother his Christian supporters that Dr. Paul doesn’t consider homosexuality a sin?”
The video doesn’t work for me. All I get is 6 minutes of Ron Paul smiling. Homosexuality is sin, but so isn’t hatred of them. Ron Paul is not without sin, nor is he right about everything. No candidate is.
Since they are all sinners, can you vote at all? Will you vote for a man that believes he will become like Yahweh and control his own planet some day if it means beating a socialist who thinks he is God’s gift to the world?
Report comment to moderator
Xion, Check out this piece by Alan Keyes on why Ron Paul’s approach to “constitutional government” is misguided.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/12/243145/
Report comment to moderator
My point on the Youtube video/audio is to show that those who are promoting Ron Paul as a “godly Christian man” clearly don’t know what they’re talking about. Any person who fails to see the clear sinful nature of homosexual behavior, as well as the wide-ranging social effects that the radical sodomite agenda is having and will continue to have, is not morally fit to lead this nation. Many have stated that persecution is not far off in our land, and the wedge issue that will likely bring it on is the sodomite agenda. Already this issue is being used to criminalize free speech and suppress opposition. If Dr. Paul doubts the immorality of sodomy, how can we expect him to speak and act to discourage this behavior. He has no problem with gays openly serving in the military. This shows a flaw in this thinking. To him, everything is essentially reducible to economics. Economics devoid of Christian morality is oppression.
Report comment to moderator
Moman, I definitely don’t think evangelicals are letting the media tell them who to choose, or Paul wouldn’t be so popular in spite of the media pretending not to know he’s running at all.
Re Bachmann, I think there is some problem with a woman being president, biblically–it certainly isn’t set up as an ideal. Is it outright wrong to vote for a woman as president, probably not–but it is at best a “lesser of two evils” vote.
I personally have seen very little about her, not enough to know how well I like her or don’t. But one thing I did see was her being asked about whether as president she’d need to submit to her husband, and her response to that one was really bad, as though the question flustered and embarrassed her. Surely it had occurred to her that someone might have asked such a question? If she’s unprepared to answer a question like that, I do wonder how well she’d do in heavier “competition,” like being the actual candidate, or being the president. Not a disqualifying blunder for sure, but one that made me hesitate to have confidence in her, in addition to my reluctance (not refusal) to vote for a woman for that office. (I would not vote for Palin for President, BTW, though I did vote for her for VP–I think her being president would mean her putting her most important roles, wife and mother, secondary, and thus I can’t “hire” her.)
Report comment to moderator
Moman, I’m not sure how it is a president’s role to speak and act to discourage immoral behavior. (Do presidents normally “speak out” against adultery? Theft?) It’s a pastor’s job to speak on sin, a policeman’s job to arrest criminals. None of that is the president’s job.
Report comment to moderator
Oh yes, and it’s Congress’s job to write laws and a judge’s job to conduct a trial, and a jury’s job to find a defendant guilty or not. The president is the commander in chief, the one who represents our nation to others, the one who signs legislation. Yes, he must be a moral man, and his conversation and speeches should back that up, but giving speeches about what is or isn’t moral isn’t part of his job.
Report comment to moderator
#454 Moman “If Dr. Paul doubts the immorality of sodomy, how can we expect him to speak and act to discourage this behavior.”
Why should any president do that? That is the role of the church, not the state. What the state should do is treat everyone equal under the law, despite what they do in their bedrooms. What Ron Paul would do is to stop rewarding people for deviant behavior or skin color or any other reason. Treating all people equally is a biblical principle and an American principle.
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy, as usual, you miss the point with the Constitution. It is a LIMITING document. And it’s short.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a really brief summary of the arguments against a woman being president, as I understand them.
First, God has created three “institutions” for order in society: the family, the church, and the government. Each has a line of authority; the Bible actually clearly addresses the responsibilities of each, and is somewhat specific about who is qualified to lead, and how. For example, a man is the head of his wife, and both husband and wife have authority over their children. Elders are also given special responsibilities, both in who is qualified and in how they are to lead; they also are to be men. The Bible speaks of the responsibilities of leaders of government. Details as to form of government are not given; for example, many would say that a constitutional republic is the most legitimate form of government, and yet Israel was a theocracy with a monarch, and we know that isn’t appropriate for a nation today.
So there are a couple of issues: First, if it is correct that there are three, and only three, institutions of authority, and God has clearly put the first two under men, can we infer that the third should also be led by men? Second, does the Bible itself imply or state such directly?
I don’t think there is any clear statement of such (others would disagree). But I do think that biblically (1) male leadership of government is assumed; (2) female leadership is spoken of disparagingly (a land is called weak if it has female leadership); (3) Israel and Judah only had kings, and the one queen was an impostor who stole the throne by murdering the male heirs; and (4) male leadership as the norm in the family and the church can be construed to mean male leadership is the norm. (”Norm” isn’t proof of moral absolutes; if a father dies or deserts the family, then a family is led by a woman, by default. But we know that it isn’t an ideal for a family to have only a female parent.)
In addition, we do have the legitimate question (skirted by Bachmann) of how a woman can be both under her husband’s authority and in top leadership over a country. Must a woman president be single, or does marriage give her (at least potentially) a huge problem with priorities? (If her husband is sick, or needs her for some other reason, can she take time off? What about if they have children?)
I personally think that Margaret Thatcher seemed to be a wonderful leader of a country. I would gladly have voted for her. But I do have some hesitations at a woman being president, and I think those are doubled if she is married, tripled if she is married with children still in the home.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I think clearly many evangelicals (but not the Paul supporters) are relying too much on media reporting. They’re obviously not choosing and sticking with one candidate. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be such wild swings in poll numbers from week to week.
My preference would be to have male leadership in government as well, but I don’t see that as a requirement. History (biblical and otherwise, i.e., Deborah) attests to some wise women who have ruled well. The character of the individual is the key issue, and between Paul and Bachmann, I definitely trust the latter more.
Regarding Bachmann’s submission question, we must have watched a different debate. Here’s the actual clip. Judge for yourself whether she appears flustered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0EVDq64rKE
I thought she was very gracious in the way she responded to such a mocker. Notice she did not back track on the earlier statement she made regarding the need to submit to her husband. Unlike Dr. Paul, she appears to know the Bible well and frequently references it.
I disagree about your contention that Presidents should not speak for morality and against immorality. For one, everything involves morality. Taxation involves morality, military decisions involve morality, social policy concerns morality. That’s the point: Dr. Paul draws these artificial distinctions between public/private faith and morality. Rep. Bachmann appears to understand you cannot separate the two. That doesn’t mean we try to impose Christian doctrines (i.e., verbal profession) on the nation. But a candidate who cannot even affirm the sinfulness of homosexuality based on his personal faith (i.e., Dr. Paul, in the interview above) is unfit to sit in the highest elected position in our land.
Report comment to moderator
Here ya go, Scroopy.
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm19.html
Report comment to moderator
I’d take a Maggie Thatcher any day over any of these clowns.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, Please don’t take this the wrong way, but by publicly posting and arguing, aren’t you violating the principles you advocate? Shouldn’t you just leave such matters to your husband? Really, I’m not trying to provoke you, but surely you see this?
Report comment to moderator
I think it could be her Minnesotan accent.
I’ve tended to be underwhelmed by Bachman (and Perry) in the debates. She tends to debate like she is giving a speech. In other words she isn’t able to speak off the cuff and she uses a lot off political sound bite language. For instance, “When I was in the legislature I led the charge…” comes from her lips about 10 times in each debate.
Report comment to moderator
XION, at 447: Religious authoritarians are after the soul
There is no serious Christian movement in this country to establish Shari’ah like theocracy. Ross Douthat in a 2004 First Things Article, Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy did a fine job of dispelling the paranoia among mainly secularists that religious authoritarians are out to take over the country. He writes:
In today’s America, these arguments are constantly taking place—over issues ranging from abortion to foreign policy; over the potential, and potential limits, of interfaith cooperation; over the past and future of the Religious Right. But they are increasingly drowned out by cries of “theocracy, theocracy, theocracy” and by a zeal, among ostensibly religious intellectuals, to read their fellow believers out of public life and sell their birthright for the blessing of the New York Times.
The real problem with many other Christians is that like the Anabaptists that Calvin severely criticized you want to somehow isolate Judeo- Christian morality from fallen civil government in order to keep your religion pure. Christians would do well to raise their voice clearly and civilly in the public square in order to counter the secular fundamentalists that command the heights of academia, the media, and the arts. If you wish an example of a Christian leader doing brilliantly in the public square think of Martin Luther King, despite his moral faults.
Report comment to moderator
Paul the Apostle spoke of a quality which is more important than Christianity itself, namely truth. (1 Cor 15:12-20) In other words, if Christianity were not true, then it would be worthless. Therefore truth is a higher principle (perhaps the highest), which even Christianity is subservient to.
For this reason, the most important quality in a President is not his particular leaning on certain moral issues, but a willingness to speak the truth about important national ones.
Our current president routinely says things which are not true, purposely deceiving the nation in order to advance his agenda. Most politicians are willing to do the same from either party. But can anyone honestly find any candidate more willing to speak the hard truths which no one wants to hear than Ron Paul to the detriment of himself?
I am not sure I would want Ron Paul to be president. He makes me nervous, because his ideas are so radical. That makes it even stranger that I agree with so much of what he says. But I love to hear the man just say it like it is, even though the entire world is against him. This is a quality I loved about another man who spoke 2000 years ago in a world of lies.
Truth matters. If Americans could have an honest debate about socialism and liberty and issues which actually mattered then America would actually advance as a nation. If truth reigned supreme, then issues like abortion and homosexuality would take care of themselves, because facing the horrors of abortion honestly would end it and the homosexuality agenda would be exposed for the lie that it is. But the world loves darkness rather than light.
Report comment to moderator
Sails (431): Jonathan Tobin has an excellent article in “Commentary” explaining that Ron Paul’s extreme views have made him popular with the far Left.
Frank: Honestly, Sails, why should we seriously consider anything that Commentary — the flagship journal of neoconservatism — has to say about Ron Paul?
They lie about his positions (e.g., “isolationism and conspiracy theories about 9/11″), just like they helped lied America into the unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
“Isolationism”? Hah! We’ve had countless discussions here over the years re. the distinctions between genuine isolationism and Ron Paul’s non-interventionism.
So perhaps you’d care to cite some evidence that Ron Paul propounds “conspiracy theories about 9/11.”
That neocon rags like Commentary are pulling out all the stops against Dr. Paul is no surprise. His genuine American ideology poses a fundamental threat to the (false) neocon “American greatness” program that claims we must actively — nay, forcefully — spread liberty about the globe, rather than commending liberty to the world (as John Quincy Adams said) “by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”
Report comment to moderator
Xion (476),
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” ~ Ron Paul
Report comment to moderator
( … and onward we chug to 500 … )
Report comment to moderator
Xion, Paul’s point in 1 Cor. 15 is not that truth is higher than the Christian faith but that the faith is true because it is based on Truth, which is a person, Jesus Christ, the way, truth and life.
That’s my concern with Dr. Paul. If he didn’t claim to be a follower of the Truth, I wouldn’t be so hard on him. But on the one hand he publicly states he is a Christian, yet he waffles and supports positions antithetical to that very Truth, most obviously (but there are likely others) related to homosexuality. If he were an atheist and said, “No, homosexuality is not a sin,” I would not be surprised or concerned. But to say, “Yes, I’m a Christian, but I’m not willing to say homosexual behavior is sinful.” Hold on here! That’s major dissonance!
Either the traditional understanding of the clear teaching of Scripture is true and sodomite behavior is wrong, OR it isn’t. It can’t be both ways. Dr. Paul is majorly confused on this question, and it shows in his support of public policy issues like DADT and gay marriage. Ideas have consequences. Dr. Paul’s confused ideas on this and other issues will have significant public policy implications.
That’s why I and many others do not support him. He has little to no chance of winning the nomination, and even less chance of winning the general election. That’s the truth.
Report comment to moderator
Re. Michele Bachmann:
1. The no. 1 thing that turned me against her — and early on — was her dispensational premillinnial devotion to contemporary Israel.
(Based on the standard dispy-premil misapplication of Genesis 12:3, no doubt.)
2. Isn’t it odd that, as an allegedly “free-market, small-government” candidate for the US presidency, she proudly touts her experiences both on an Israeli commune and as a lawyer for the IRS?
3. It’s embarrassing — no, troubling — that she was unaware (until last November) that the US hasn’t had an embassy in Iran since the hostage crisis.
Report comment to moderator
MOMan (464): Cheryl … by publicly posting and arguing, aren’t you violating the principles you advocate? Shouldn’t you just leave such matters to your husband? Really, I’m not trying to provoke you, but surely you see this?
Frank: You’re kidding, right?
How do you equate a woman participating in a public discourse with holding a leadership position in either the civil government or the church?
Report comment to moderator
Gee, that sounds like the Dowager Countess in Downton Abbey who says her granddaughters should have no opinion, but when they are married their husbands will tell them what their opinions are.
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s great that people are listening to Paul. He must be on to something if both the GOP and the Dems dis him.
Report comment to moderator
“The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be to us if they were stationed in Texas.“
Report comment to moderator
FIS, on the subject of Ron Paul’s 9/11 view, a former senior aide, Eric Dondero, wrote the following:
He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration….
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
I’m aware that a member of Paul’s staff has denied Dondero’s remarks, though I find them rather plausible.
As to Commentary, though I too have reservations about neo-conservatism, I find it to be an excellent journal.
Report comment to moderator
“But America has a right — nay, a duty — to station our troops on foreign soil. America is, after all, exceptional.”
Report comment to moderator
Frank (468): So perhaps you’d care to cite some evidence that Ron Paul propounds “conspiracy theories about 9/11.”
Sails (477): FIS, on the subject of Ron Paul’s 9/11 view, a former senior aide, Eric Dondero, wrote …
Frank: … hearsay?
Let me rephrase my question:
Technically hearsay, though from a former senior aide who was privy to his private views.
Report comment to moderator
#471 Moman “Xion, Paul’s point in 1 Cor. 15 is not that truth is higher than the Christian faith but that the faith is true because it is based on Truth…”
OK, now read back what you wrote very slowly and concentrate. Is that not tautology the way you state it? The strength of Christianity is that it IS TRUE. The power of the resurrection is that it IS TRUE. If it weren’t than you would just be worm food and so would your religion.
Your argument is that if a candidate claims to be a Christian, but is incorrect on even a single point, no matter how obscure, that he is not worthy to be president.
Regardless of how any president thinks about a moral issue like what kind of sex people should engage in, everyone should be treated equally under the law (c.f. 14th amendment). So your point is moot. If the outcome should be the same, then it does not matter what he thinks about it. Why not instead vote for someone who understands how to run a country?
Would you vote for a man who anticipates being Lord over his own planet some day? If not, then your only alternative may be one who already thinks he is.
Report comment to moderator
Sails (477) [citing Eric Dondero]: Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
Frank: Seems like Dondero is sensationalizing/dramatizing the matter:
Incidentally, even my brief investigation into this one charge seems to negate the charge that Ron Paul is “black-and-white,” lacking in any subtlety or nuance. Whatever discussions occurred with his staff immediately following 9/11, he did vote in favor of the AUMF. And even his preference to issue a Letter of M&R seems to demonstrate that he wasn’t opposed to any military reaction to 9/11.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, forgot a cite in my last post: That’s from the WikiPedia entry, “Political positions of Ron Paul: Terrorism.”
Report comment to moderator
Moman, first off, I didn’t watch the debate in which Bachmann was asked about submission. I saw a soundbite later in an interview in which she was asked about it, and her response then was pretty lame. She basically was saying yeah, she believes in submission, but submission means respect and it works both ways, or something along that line. (Kinda soft-pedaling the idea that her husband has authority over her.) I didn’t get the sense that she doesn’t believe in submission, but that it felt awkward to defend it, and so she was trying to word it in a way that would be “acceptable” to a secular audience.
Moman, surely I see what? I don’t see at all how interacting with issues is coming out from under my husband’s leadership. In the first place, I’m not publicly espousing issues he disagrees with; in the second, I am not on here without his knowledge or against his desires (he has chosen not to “check out” this blog, but he knows of my engagement here, and I often mention it, and the fact that I write and am interested in theological and intellectual discussions is part of what drew him to me); and I am not taking time “from him” to be on here. If I was neglecting my wifely responsibilities, coming on here secretly without his knowledge or consent, or otherwise representing him poorly (e.g., arguing issues he’d disagree with without at least pointing out that my husband would not affirm this or showing a spirit that would shame him–rudeness for example), that would be a problem. But being a wife who thinks and who writes is not coming out from under his authority; he has expressly told me (more than once) that it is part of what drew him to me.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. I wrote most of 484 a couple of hours ago, but then had other things I had to do (including a phone call from a brother) before I had finished it, so I have not read any intervening posts.
Report comment to moderator
Submitted for your consideration (then I must skeedaddle for now!)
A few … ahem, “alternative” perspectives to Commentary’s/Jonathan Tibor’s
smearopinion of Ron Paul:Xion, You pulled my statement out of context (or missed it), but the bigger point is that neither you or any of the other Paul supporters (I’ll try to resist some of the labels like Paulites, NeoPaulitans, etc.) can convincingly explain away his major inconsistency between his public profession of Christian faith and his public words and actions (specifically dealing with homosexuality) that belie that profession.
All of us operate within a worldview based on that which we hold to be true. Dr. Paul’s worldview, while occasionally coinciding with the Biblical one, is really more in line with the Enlightenment. Does it ever occur to Paul’s Christian supporters to question why so many atheists, free thinkers, pacifists, gays, etc., are in support of his campaign? What do they view in him that makes them admire him as a fellow traveler? If you doubt any of my assertions above, take a minute to read this very enlightening exchange between Alan Keyes and a leading Paul supporter:
http://www.dailypaul.com/152960/dr-alan-keyes-ron-pauls-anti-constitution-vote-final-update
I don’t support all of the fine details of Keyes’ view, but overall he hits the nail on the head, and the fact that the Paul supporter glories (even in jest) in his resonance with the French Revolution shows the philosophical background that animates Paul’s political theology.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to continue this interesting discussion. I would just encourage believers in Jesus Christ who are tempted by Ron Paul’s campaign to consider what a fully libertarian society might truly look like (unchecked legalized drug use, prostitution, gay marriage, military vulnerability, etc.). What we have now isn’t pretty, but that would truly be a nightmare.
I don’t ultimately look to politics for salvation in any sense, but the almost religious fervor with with Paul’s supporters back him, and their unwillingness as a whole to consider glaring inconsistencies in his positions, makes me think they view him as a political savior. When he goes down (as he must), what will they do then?
I am reposting this Youtube link in case anyone missed it previously. In this interview, Dr. Paul refuses to agree with the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is a sin. Can any true follower of Jesus agree with this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I don’t blame Bachmann for being careful in how she publicly discusses submission. She clearly understands it (thus the basis for the original question to her), but in this God-hating, feminist-influenced society, she is seeking to be wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove. This is not the same (see discussion above) as the interview where Ron Paul was asked if he agrees that homosexuality is a sin, and he refuses to do so.
Regarding your participation in a forum such as this where you make your case and seek to persuade others (including men), I welcome your participation and think you make some good points. You state you are doing this under your husband’s headship and with his agreement. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Rep. Bachmann is campaigning with the full support and participation of her husband. She frequently speaks publicly of him in glowing terms. They have been married 30-some years. If he fully supports her participation in public affairs, where’s the problem? Although he is her head and they agree on the issues, he recognizes that she has certain talents and abilities that he does not have, and so he encourages her to use those for the public good.
As I stated previously, my general preference is for male leadership in every area, but we would be fools not to recognize the valuable contributions of women in every area, including civil government. In evaluating the pros and cons of each of the Republican candidates, I believe Bachmann’s positions are most consistent with a Biblical worldview. In addition, she is articulate, intelligent, and (as must be considered in our day) telegenic. I actually think she would make the strongest candidate against Obama, and would attract many voters that none of the male candidates could.
Unfortunately, most evangelicals have been led by the nose by the mainstream media (thus the wildly wavering poll results from week to week), so Bachmann stands little chance to gain the nomination.
We need thinking Christian women like Bachmann and you. Stay submitted, but don’t stay silent in the public square.
Report comment to moderator
Moman, some of your arguments are made by those who believe in women in the pastorate (this woman is “gifted” and should thus do it); they aren’t relevant if it is actually a biblical wrong. As I’ve pointed out, I am not fully convinced a woman should not be president; I don’t see any such “absolutes” in Scripture. But I do think a plausible biblical case can be made for it being wrong (in other words, some can hold such a view credibly, even if I am not myself fully convinced), and I definitely think there’s a case for it being far from ideal. Given a choice between two equally qualified candidates, one of them being a married woman, I will definitely choose the man (or even the single woman). Given a choice between a well-qualified woman and a clearly less qualified man, I’d probably choose the woman–but with quite a bit of hesitation. (”Probably” means that in some cases, such as Palin, I would not vote for the woman even if I did believe her to be more qualified, because I think her other responsibilities rise to the level of disqualifying her.)
I’m not at all convinced Bachmann rises to the top of the pack. Homestly, the candidate who drew me most strongly so far (Cain) has withdrawn from the race.
My husband is definitely a Paul supporter, and that makes Paul my “default” candidate. He and I have discussed it a bit. He would not insist I vote his way–he would not want me to vote for someone just because he is–but unless I have a strong preference of my own, which at this point I do not, then yes, I will vote his preference. Before Cain dropped out, the choice for me was Cain or Paul, and I hadn’t decided. Right now it’s “Paul unless I’m convinced otherwise.”
Basically I’m not really seeing anyone–including Paul–who excites me. I think Paul is too old; that’s my main hesitation with him–he’d need a very good VP. I haven’t really followed the race very closely; I’m a newlywed, and it’s an unusually large slate of candidates. But there are an amazingly large number of people I’d never vote for (Gingrich) or would probably not vote for (Romney) and others I know little about (Santorum). So far I know the most about Paul (since a lot of my favorite people are his supporters) and what I have seen from Paul himself, not from other sources, has mostly been good. If he was 15 years younger, he’d probably be my decided choice by now.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and I also don’t blame Bachman for being careful about how she discusses submission; I haven’t watched the Paul video, but if he simply refuses to answer the questions about whether homosexuality is a sin, I don’t blame him either. (The Bible commends being “wise as a serpent,” and I would think that would qualify.) If he directly says it is not, I would strongly disagree, but I wouldn’t say that disqualifies him from the presidency. From the pulpit, yes, but that’s a different issue entirely.
But I do think there is a difference between being publicly careful with how one discusses submission and answering the question badly; I think she did the second. And I think it matters that she should be able to answer controversial questions well, even if it is refusing to answer. (”Listen, what you’re asking is basically a theological question, and I’m just not going to get into that; I’m not a theologian. But in terms of the question of whether I can be president, or whether the necessity of submission to my husband would make it impossible for me to be president . . .” and answer that question, which is really what they need to know.)
Report comment to moderator
#487 Moman, Let me try to summarize your points:
1) A person who gets some aspect of Christian doctrine wrong cannot be a Christian.
2) Non-Christians are unworthy of the highest office.
Who then is worthy? Even Augustine, Calvin and Luther would not qualify, since even they weren’t right about everything.
Report comment to moderator
And, following up on Xion, I also wouldn’t say Bachmann’s poor showing is disqualifying. It was simply the first time I’d heard her with my own ears, and I was heartily unimpressed. I haven’t “written her off.” I just haven’t heard any reason to choose her that is stronger than my own caution at voting for a woman combined with a bad first impression.
Report comment to moderator
Moman, I am not trying to be snarky or anything, but I am honestly curious if you have you ever voted for anyone before? If so, who were they?
Report comment to moderator
XION,
Your misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of my views are tiresome. You should know better. Instead, you admit that you knew that what you wrote would tick me off. My friend, you are not putting out an effort to be fair-minded with me.
When I say that I do not want Christians banned (either by each other or by the gov’t) from equal and legitimate Constitutional participation in our political process, you twist it into: “You would like to use the strong arm of government to make America more moral.”
That’s not fair-minded.
Gov’t, by definition has a strong arm. I want it limited. But I also want Christians to have am equal say and a hand in its development and practice in America. We would be for worse off if all Christians refused to enjoin the process–on equal ground with other citizens.
As for morality, EVERYONE who participates in the political process is pursuing aims that they consider to be moral. But you seem to single out Christians as if we should butt out and not participate or employ moral values in the political arena. And you mischaracterize and stigmatize us for trying.
That’s not fair-minded, XION.
Report comment to moderator
XION wrote; “Innes view (and your own) run counter to Jefferson and Madison who looked to Locke and Luther for wisdom. Sorry, but I am speaking the truth.”
No, XION, it is not the truth when you arrogate to yourself the presumed right to tell me what I believe and then call your characterization “truth.” That’s arrogant.
I don’t mind you referring to Jefferson and Madison, but let their words and positions stand on their own. Don’t put things into my mouth or mind and think you are “telling the truth.” When you communicate with me, take my words on their own merits. As for Jefferson and Madison, many of their views sprung from differnt times and contexts and they took widely different positions in different curcumstances in different times in their lives. They are mixed bags and it is dangerous to generalize too broadly (and label others) from a few quotes or a few particular circumstances.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, yeah I love Bachmann and Palin as examples of strong Christian women who speak their mind. Both have been savaged by the media for that very reason. I suspect a lot of men would consider a woman who hangs out of a helicopter to shoot wild elk and then goes home and bakes bread quite the woman. Or maybe I am the only one.
But Bachmann was downright vicious against her opponents, which I thought was unnecessary and not entirely factual. She does much better when she pushes conservative philosophy.
Washington is a cesspool of lies, deceit, corruption, manipulation of power and downright savagery. Some women do OK there, especially those whose gender is questionable. But I would hesitate to send anyone I like there.
The kind of people we should send to Washington are barbarians who can actually take on the savages or maybe someone crazy enough like little ol’ wirey Ron Paul (picture Woody Allen fighting the Philistines) to face the onslaught anyway. He may not make America better, but there is no question he would stir up the hornets nest of deceit like no other. Politics would certainly get interesting.
Report comment to moderator
We have treaties with various countries. I would expect Ron Paul to honor those agreements. I don’t have a problem with live and let live and minding our own business, I don’t get the feeling from him that he understands why Islam is such a threat to the US or that they use our freedoms against us. I think he’d let them walk through the front door.
Report comment to moderator
My favorite moralist was Jesus. He was wise enough NOT to make some theoretical separation between morality and politics too.
Since he did not keep his morality or his moral values to himself at all, you can call him a moral busybody if your wish too, XION. And his moral agenda conflicted starkly with the local politicians and civil leaders of his day (Sadducees, scribes, Pharisees, etc.), and Jesus did not back down either.
Christ-like believers may carry their moral agenda into different realms and in different ways, but they need to understand that they will be attacked for it and marginalized. And we need to do it with grace, love and dignity. When we lose or fail, politically or in the public arena, we lose with grace and take stock in our ultimate citizenship in heaven. But we try. We let a sane voice be heard. Even fellow Christians will bitterly attack us as if we have no right to speak out or have a moral cause in public, but like Jesus, we speak out and claim a cause anyway.
The 1st century local politicians did not like Jesus for taking his moral agneda so far and they used political means to get rid of him.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke?). I am not saying you want us to do nothing, but I am just explaining my own sentiment.
Report comment to moderator
Are we really going to take this to 500?
Report comment to moderator
Five hundred!
Report comment to moderator
@443 Xion, our constitution and our godly heritage are not a distinct as you want to make them appear. Our constitution would look very different without the godly heritage. And while I agree that I don’t want religion forced at gunpoint, I don’t believe Christians must necessarily reject the social elements of their faith as valid reasons for preferring and advocating for laws and policies they perceive as good. In other words it’s nice that you have secular reasons for not wanting homosexual marriage legalized (I do too), but the religious reasons are not disqualified by virtue of being religious.
Report comment to moderator
XION, Here is where we differ most:
XION wrote; “For example, properly defining marriage is good, but it has nothing to do with running a country.”
“Nothing?” You could not be more wrong. No matter what else anyone does in running a country, it will all be to no avail (or for the worse) if we cannot properly define marriage.
XION wrote; “What do the acts that people do in their bedrooms have to do with infrastructure, foreign relations, trade or the national economy?”
Get a clue, XION, marriage is so much more than just what people do in their bedrooms. Lose the cheap clichés and think!!!
Important issues of infrastructure, foreign relations, trade or the national economy all pale in significance if marriage is anything anyone wants it to be. What a travesty! That’s the worst from of anarchy and it will destroy genuine liberty. And what a rotten injustice for the children we bring into this culture!
Today’s Libertarians are poorly named. I think they are becoming more and more anarchists.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, This is just a friendly discussion, right? Nothing personal, right?
I assumed you agreed with DC Innes’ statements above which call for a biblical government to create a moral environment by electing the godliest candidate possible. If not, I apologize.
Oh, and would you mind citing any instance of anyone on this web site ever saying anything even remotely like Christians should not participate in public life? Isn’t Ron Paul participating? Aren’t we all participating by voting and debating here?
Report comment to moderator
XION, you need to understand that on such issues as abortion and marriage when libertarians prevail public morality is endangered. This is why great Protestant theologians, Luther Calvin, and Edwards, paid careful attention to civil authorities, trying to make sure that public morality was solid.
Your Christian isolationist, indeed white flag, position is mistaken. Serious Christians know that when a culture becomesd publicly depraved with libertarian decadence, then, especially Christian young people are place in severe temptation and harm’s way.
Report comment to moderator
The president has the bully pulpit. What he says about issues sets the tone for the nation. I appreciate that the Obamas project a positive family image. So did GWB.
Report comment to moderator
Also, as long as there are federally supplied benefits for marriage (such as social security, housing for military personnel, or healthcare for spouses of congressional members, etc) here must be some kind of definition for it. I admit that Ron Paul does seem to fall down miserably on this point.
Report comment to moderator
#504 Sails, So not only am I a mistaken, isolationist, white flag advocate of public immorality, but I am not a serious Christian? Really? All because I agree with Jefferson and Madison on the reach of the Federal government?
The American system was to give more power, the further you get from Washington. For example, the states were allowed to have a state-church funded by the taxpayers. They could impose whatever moral codes they saw fit.
Sails, since you said you favored the banishment of antinomians and I presume all non-Reformed thinkers to other states, where does one go if this is done at the Federal level? Where would you send a person like me who in your view is not a serious Christian? What punishment would non-Christians face?
Report comment to moderator
I agree, Debra. He’s got the fiscal thing down, and I appreciate that he is not afraid to stand up for what he believes. Because of that, we know he won’t stand up for the “right” thing when it comes to moral decisions. He won’t take a stand. He doesn’t now.
Report comment to moderator
XION, I understand you hail from Massachusetts, meaning that you have already been banished to a liberal Hades. Be careful, unless you repent of your Paulian heresy, we intolerant Christians shall consider exiling you next to Los Angeles.
Report comment to moderator
No, not that!
Report comment to moderator
Ha. And that is precisely the intolerant meddling he’s so worried will ooze out of his busy-body brethren and sisteren in Christ. Sorry, Xion, but you know what they say—you can chose your friends, but family you’re just stuck with. :–)
Report comment to moderator
LOL! Love you gals too! But actually I hail from the great state of New Hampshire not Marxachusetts. Live Free or Die!
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I’ve been too busy to jump in the fray. Just a few closing thoughts, in case anyone stumbles back here at this late hour. In this recent clip from the Jay Leno Show, Ron Paul’s harshest comments concerning his GOP rivals are reserved for the most conservative candidates, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Mr. Paul claims that Mrs. Bachmann “hates Muslims,” presumably in part because she views Iran’s nuclear threat as a very serious and imminent danger to Israel and the US. He then goes on to laugh along with Jay Leno about Mr. Santorum’s concerns over homosexuality. Frankly, this seems rather immature behavior on the part of a man who wants to serve in the highest office in our land. Ron Paul is not a moral conservative.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-michele-bachmann-to-ron-paul-i-dont-hate-muslims-video-20111219,0,4465867.story?track=icymi
Report comment to moderator
MOMAN
Really, this video is the best you can do?
Report comment to moderator
XION wrote, “…would you mind citing any instance of anyone on this web site ever saying anything even remotely like Christians should not participate in public life?”
I have indeed gotten that impression often on this blog from some but it’s too late to search out past quotes. Suffice it to say that on this thread, I don’t think I have specifically claimed that anyone thought that but I am just speaking for myself stating my own conviction that Christians should feel free to do so on an equal level with others.
Which makes me a theocratic Dominionist, right?! (just kidding).
Report comment to moderator
#515 Joel, my brahzoh! I am here to tell you that no one here has ever, ever, ever said anything even close to the idea that Christians should not participate in public life. So I think its time to give that a rest, my friend!
“Which makes me a theocratic Dominionist, right?! (just kidding).”
Um … heh, heh …
Report comment to moderator
Are you kidding?? Gone for a few days, and this is what happens. My ? 100’s of posts ago and I believe what I said still stands– Has anyone’s mind/will been changed? Are we any closer to the phrase “The former Pres. Obama?”
Xion I have one you might like— “The fellow that can only see a week ahead is always the popular fellow, for he is looking with the crowd.
But the one that can see years ahead, he has a telescope but he can’t make anybody believe he has it.”
Will Rogers
Report comment to moderator
There are no “if’s” in reality. Once one road is traveled down, the other roads are gone. But in the “Land of Utopia” there is always the hope of a “Do-over.”
One road we have just taken, If anyone is interested — We have moved against Iran’s currency. Depending on your information source— Iranians hate “The little Nut Job” for bringing more hardship to them. Or The US for putting sanctions on.
What would Paul have done? Reality has a way of clarifying right moves from wrong ones. Given enough time we will know.(See Roger’s quote just above)
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have time (and I’m sick) to read all the comments tonight, but Paul does not believe in same sex marriage. But, like many things, he believes that such things are NOT the role of the Federal Government.
Report comment to moderator
In fact, if you actually read his positions on “gay rights” they are quite nuanced. And, I don’t see anywhere that he thinks they are Biblically okay, simply that people have the right of “free association” but also that they do NOT have the right to then impose themselves on others.
Report comment to moderator
The way many of these ‘conservative’ commentators talk about Ron Paul as if he’s come from another planet, instead of viewing him as a serious candidate, only makes him all the more attractive.
Report comment to moderator
That’s #521 at 5:21!
Report comment to moderator
After 522 comments I am left with the same view of Ron Paul. That his views are very dangerous for the Nation.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting and substantive discussion on these matters over at Doug Wilson’s blog:
So Cold, So Sweet, So Sweet, So Fair
It’s definitely making me think more about these issues.
Report comment to moderator
Almost time for me to vote for Ron Paul in Iowa.
Report comment to moderator
XION wrote; “I am here to tell you that no one here has ever, ever, ever said anything even close to the idea that Christians should not participate in public life.”
Again and again, XION, I did not make that claim in the first place. Is that clear? But when asked, I can speak for myself in stating that I have read some “coming close” to such expressions. I think the atheist leftists on this blog especially would love for Christians to bow out or away from politics. This has been my perception at times (I am speaking for myself) and your denials don’t change that, XION.
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote; “I think it’s much better that the Church consider itself a “set apart” people within a pagan culture.”
XION, that seems to veer a bit close to the notion that Christians should not participate in public life (or to do so less than others). Just an impression from a comment. I am not stating that JJF takes that extreme view, but yur claim that no one here has “ever, ever, ever said anything even close to the idea that Christians should not participate in public life” is just a matter of your opinion.
Report comment to moderator
#517 I love that quote Fives55. I think about how hated God’s prophets were for speaking the truth and always being right.
Ron Paul is no prophet, but he is usually right. Someone who actually understands the economy will have little problem predicting the inevitable. How many times does a guy have to be right before people will stop calling him a nut?
For those of you interested in this sort of thing, I am really enjoying the book Boomerang, by Michael Lewis who wrote Moneyball and Blind Side. Boomerang is about the worldwide financial collapse through the eyes of the few people who saw it coming.
Report comment to moderator
#524
I’m not a fan of Doug Wilson, but I thought his article was interesting and not sarcastic (which is something I really dislike about his articles).
I thought the comments below the article were even more interesting.
Thanks, a good read.
Report comment to moderator
“Paul’s opposition to moral legislation betrays his failure to appreciate the government’s divine mandate to punish evil and praise good.”
So I missed all 530 posts I think, but good grief Innes, Paul’s view here is in relation to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
He has no trouble with the state government punishing evil and praising good.
Do you see this INNES?? Can you retract your statement now?
Report comment to moderator
We feel Ron Paul has been grossly misrepresented by the media in that they simply stop with statements such as, “He wants to legalize drugs”. This is true… he does want them legalized, but AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. Constitutionally, the Federal government is not to have those powers, but the States. He wants the States to decide and have those powers, as is outlined in the Constitution. He isn’t suggesting a free-for-all society, but a Constitutional one that spreads the power. To us, this sticking to the Constitution shows much wisdom from Scripture. The Bible speaks in no uncertain terms about the wickedness of man and our never-ending thirst for power. To allow one group of sinful men too much power sends us into the big centralized government mess we see today. Spreading that control out between the federal and state governments places restraints that the founding fathers saw as necessary. It is unfair to simply say, “He wants to legalize this or that” when he also says he wants that power decided by the people through the individual States. If we had a perfect human beings leading this country, then we’d be all for the federal government overstepping It’s Constitutional boundaries and having centralized power, but as we have sinners, we agree that the power needs to be distributed.
Report comment to moderator
#532
Agreed. Good post.
Report comment to moderator
This article is could just as well argue why Libertarians have a irrational view of mankind–denying evil, and disqualifying anyone from serious office–yet in our post-modern New Pluralism, Paul and others, much worse, find a way to get elected–by an electorate who fit into Cal Thomas’s article: http://online.worldmag.com/2012/01/03/living-in-idiotville/
Report comment to moderator
I would challenge anyone to find a single thing Ron Paul says that one of America’s founding fathers would disagree with.
The point being how far America has drifted from its roots.
Report comment to moderator
Xion you are right on and those who would disagree with your views need to realize is that America is no longer a moral majority. When we give such sweeping powers to government we are literally “cutting our own throat”. These moral police “Christians” are calling for will be the very ones to take away YOUR freedom of religion.
The article states, “It also actively cultivates a moral environment that facilitates people’s ability to live their lives “godly and dignified in every way” and pass such moral habits along to their children (1 Timothy 2:2). Libertarians like Ron Paul deny this fundamental biblical political principle.” The solution for this problem isn’t more government control of personal choices but people who call themselves Christians taking their charge to raise a godly heritage seriously and quit shirking their responsibility of raising that godly heritage and expecting the government to accomplish this for us. Quit griping about public schools and teach your own children or support Christian schools by enrolling your children.
The article also goes on to state,”What is worst in us, unchecked and undiscountenanced, would flourish among us, freely chosen but encouraged by those who would exploit their neighbor’s moral weakness for gain.” This argument destroys the very idea he’s trying to promote by citing man’s depravity as a reason to support government enforced morality. This is the very reason we DON’T need more regulation! Man is depraved and will always corrupt what is good thus entrusting our morality to a bunch of politicians will be the downfall of biblical Christianity. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Ron Paul understands this, so don’t be duped into voting for some so called social conservative who is using Christianity to garner votes and look at the fruits of that person’s life to determine if they actually practice what they preach. Love your neighbor as yourself, Paul tries to live by that commandment as well as any born again Christian can.
Report comment to moderator
So we will vote for one of the others who are obvious liars and Establishment political figures rather than an honest man like RON PAUL; strikes me as maddness on the part of the Christians!
Report comment to moderator
Americans. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate worth a vote. Unfortunately in Australia we have NO Ron Pauls. We have noone to vote for. Unfortunately Ron Paul’s message is not a popular one so there is no chance of his being elected. He stands for what is right. The trouble with Christians is that they want to force their views on the populace just like every other vested interest group. This is a statist approach. Jesus would never legislate a moral code. God gave a moral code to be followed by his followers. To force non-followers to live by this code is against Christianity. Man is NOT the ultimate judge, GOD is! Christians who try to force the populace to live by their code are doing the devil’s work. People do not come to GOD through force. They come when GOD chooses them! Ron Paul is undoubtedly not perfect, but he is definitely talking the right talk. He promotes a free economy, a shrinking of Government (GovT) (Gang ov Thieves) and promotes individual choice, not state coercion and compulsion. The free market is not free to exploit, it is freedom to exchange and contract. We have all been brainwashed by having been brought up in Socialist institutions! Read what Ron Paul advocates and you will see he promotes honesty, integrity, freedom and responsibility.
Unfortunately this is wasted on the brain washed.
Optimism is born of blissful ignorance.
Pessimism is the product of bitter experience.
Report comment to moderator
Note: Kyle with comment number 101 is worth reading. Kyle encapsulates reality well. The State is an evil institution, it promotes Central Banking (Federal Reserve Bank) and the Fractional Reserve Banking system which together with their GovT priviledges can defraud the populace. Capitalism has such a bad press when all that true capitalism is is the accummulation of productive capacity which leads to improvements in productivity. The banking system is corrupted by its protection by the Federal Reserve and Goverment legislation. If banking was the lending of resources to productive enterprise and to consumers to build their productive capacity it would NOT be inflationary but would infact be deflationary as there would be productivity gains. This is why Ron Paul wants to END THE FED. THe FED & GovT caused the GFC but blamed the banks and anyone else they could dream of. The banks turn the other cheek when blamed because they know that they are priviledged by the GovT and you DON’T BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU!
Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge is misery!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!