"This Is News from WORLD Magazine": Afghan war end date set, NAACP comes out for gay marriage - black pastors push back 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Christians and Ron Paul: A counterpoint
In a recent WORLDmag.com column, D.C. Innes argued against Ron Paul’s candidacy. The main reason: The candidate’s “opposition to moral legislation,” which is swiftly interpreted as a “failure to appreciate the government’s divine mandate to punish evil and praise good.” As tempting as it is to agree uncritically with the idea of “punishing evil,” opposing Paul on these grounds reveals a grave flaw within an influential faction of the conservative evangelical community—a willingness to put secular powers in charge of spiritual wars.
It is one thing to delegate to government the duty to punish crimes against persons and their rightfully acquired property; murder, rape, and theft are some obvious examples. It is quite another matter to advocate the use of the repressive state machinery to punish all kinds of sinful behavior, either the ones that are clearly defined in the Bible (all sexual relationships outside of marriage) or those inferred by the preachers in a particular denomination (such as the drinking of alcoholic beverages). America tried going down that road with Prohibition, and have we forgotten how it ended in multiplying sin and crime?
The tragic history of the 1920s experiment to reform human nature from without is repeating itself now with another form of “moral legislation”: the War on Drugs. And I am sad to say that the observed results are even worse. You can take my word on it—it wouldn’t be any better if we started a war on Halloween candy. The reason is quite simple: Just as God has the ability to turn every evil plot of man into a good outcome for those who love Him, the political process has the propensity to turn every good intention into a social disaster for those who vote to delegate to their government such duties that are best exercised through families and churches—such as teaching and enforcing most aspects of what we call “moral behavior.”
Ron Paul doesn’t promise Christianity government privileges but instead offers a level playing field against all false prophets and deaf idols. His ideas may be too “revolutionary” for his time, but so were the ideas of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman in the 1960s and ’70s until one “great communicator” helped turn the tide in American politics during the ’80s.
back to top160 Comments to “Christians and Ron Paul: A counterpoint”
Thank you Alex for clearly the explaining the difference between advocating biblical behavior as free citizens vs. government enforcement in the form of moral legislation. The former is a civil right; the latter leads to tyranny.
Report comment to moderator
Well, that’s well said Alex. Nice of you to offer a polite rebuttal to Innes.
Report comment to moderator
Good article, I am also a Christian and I don’t like think gambling, drugs, prostitution are good things. As Christians we should live a moral life and be an example to others but this does not mean we should have secede that morality to government to enforce on others, today they might tomorrow someone else is in power and they want to enforce something wickedly immoral on us. It is as though people forget what Christian community is all about. If I say that I need government to enforce morality and Christian values am I not saying that my Church, God and community is powerless? Sometimes I think people are trying to substitute God with government, it is more than an intellectual error; it is a grave sin.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul doesn’t promise Christianity government privileges but instead offers a level playing field against all false prophets and deaf idols.
—
True in RP White Houses drugs would be legal, gay marriage would be the standard of the Nations, Gun Companies would be under attack… Which is the result of sending all things back to the States… Where the Courts will be the ones making laws…
Report comment to moderator
In case anyone missed it:
An excerpt, pertaining to Innes’ and Tokarev’s points:
I am making my view know, I am not going to debate RP Supporters over it, because it is a waste of time.
Report comment to moderator
“True in RP White Houses drugs would be legal, gay marriage would be the standard of the Nations, Gun Companies would be under attack… Which is the result of sending all things back to the States… Where the Courts will be the ones making laws…”
Pastor Roy,
On another thread you argued that a marriage amendment would pass if tried, so why do you think gay marriage would ever become the standard if over 2/3rds of the states still resoundingly approve of traditional marriage?
Alcohol is legal, DUIs are not. Why would that be any different for most drugs?
And we have been over why gun companies would be fine.
Report comment to moderator
“I am making my view know, I am not going to debate RP Supporters over it, because it is a waste of time.”
If the goal is mind-change, it probably is.
Report comment to moderator
I have been thinking along the lines of Alex for some thime. I was also a bit offended by the Innes article. It seemed he was saying I would be voting against my faith if I vote for Paul. That troubled me and didn’t seem to be very well thought out. I have not yet decided who to support, but the more I study the Word and compare it to history and the constitution the more Paul looks like the candidate that will have the backbone to heal our country’s woes.
Report comment to moderator
If RP is going to send marriage back to the States.. Then he must also remove the age of consent laws and open the doors of all the prision to let out those poor people who are there because they had more then on wives of husbands.
As for drugs laws he wants to throw out… He must open the doors to all prision an let out those who are in jail for drug running. He must stop the Military from testing for drugs, since it is no longer a Federal Issue
Report comment to moderator
@Frank in Spokane
Thanks for the exerpt. Baucham usually tells it like it is and very clearly.
Report comment to moderator
Alex has done an articulate job of exposing the two-edged sword. That kind of political dominion will cut us. Don’t know who I’m voting for yet (except not Romney) but I appreciate Alex’s thesis no matter who get my vote.
Report comment to moderator
Voddie’s article is very well done. I encourage others to read it as well.
Report comment to moderator
“—a willingness to put secular powers in charge of spiritual wars.”
It isn’t an issue of putting secular powers in charge of spiritual wars. It’s about maintaining in a Christian country the blessings that a Christian country has received.
We violate God’s law by killing unborn, and sometimes newborn, babies.
We create a new definition of marriage that no nation or culture on earth has done before.
We put the government in charge of the welfare of old people.
We remove crosses from locations where thay have been for decades.
etc., ad nauseum. I’m running out of space here.
Report comment to moderator
On another thread you argued that a marriage amendment would pass if tried, so why do you think gay marriage would ever become the standard if over 2/3rds of the states still resoundingly approve of traditional marriage?
—
RP would be giving more power to the Courts to control the States…
The absent of Federal Guidelines the Courts then will take over and make laws, which will over ride the States laws.
Report comment to moderator
We violate God’s law by killing unborn, and sometimes newborn, babies.
We create a new definition of marriage that no nation or culture on earth has done before.
We remove crosses from locations where thay have been for decades.
etc.,
–
Chas, which branch has being making those laws?
Report comment to moderator
“Then he must also remove the age of consent laws and open the doors of all the prision to let out those poor people who are there because they had more then on wives of husbands.”
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
Consent laws are already by state.
“As for drugs laws he wants to throw out… He must open the doors to all prision an let out those who are in jail for drug running.”
And? Do you think they kept moonshiners in jail after Prohibition was repealed?
By contrast, you wouldn’t have let out someone who DUIed.
I don’t think he would repeal things like crystal meth. That process is entirely a hazardous substance and process, with very significant health issues regardless of consumption, even for 2nd hand people.
I think it would still be better to send someone to rehab instead of jail as well when it comes to substance abuse. Jail doesn’t help the problem.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s about maintaining in a Christian country the blessings that a Christian country has received.”
1st amendment didn’t establish a federal christian religion. It rejects that.
So if you want a christian nation, you must elect christian leaders, which means you need a majority. And your christian leaders must remember to respect the 1st Amendment, and not abolish it for the next leader will turn it around on you.
You can’t maintain it by force. That’s what the Muslims do.
Report comment to moderator
Roy, most of those laws were made by people that presidents have put on the supreme court. Those in charge of misinterpreting the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t maintained by force. It’s changed along the Overton Window by people who don’t understand or care.
Report comment to moderator
“RP would be giving more power to the Courts to control the States”
How so? They are still bound by the Constitution.
Each state court is bound by it’s state constitution and the US constitution.
“The absent of Federal Guidelines the Courts then will take over and make laws, which will over ride the States laws.”
There is no abolishment of the Constitution. The constitution is the FEDERAL GUIDELINE. States must still abide by it.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, Frank’s link is well worth reading. I know, you already have decided where Paul stands in all of his positions, and why, but it really is more credible to look at actual evidence. It isn’t “debating” to keep repeating the same information over and over after we have already told you that you misunderstand Ron Paul. Please read the link.
Report comment to moderator
“It isn’t maintained by force. It’s changed along the Overton Window by people who don’t understand or care.”
Which is never a problem, if you raise people who do care.
The only way to change our society is not by law, but by the gospel. In so doing force isn’t needed.
Give them the gospel, not the sword.
Report comment to moderator
Chas – My point is that RP views of throwing ever thing back to the States will result in the Courts taken more control over the Nation Laws.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – with all due respect I have decided to no longer read his comments.
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t “debating” to keep repeating the same information over and over after we have already told you that you misunderstand Ron Paul.
–
An I have told you and other over and over again that RP views are very dangerous and I am not misunderstanding Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
“My point is that RP views of throwing ever thing back to the States will result in the Courts taken more control over the Nation Laws.”
They C A N ‘ T
They are BOUND by the law themselves.
All sending more power to the states does, is allow them to better govern each region or by state preferences.
If Mississippi wants 16 year old drivers, fine. If California wants 19, fine. That doesn’t change that you must have a licence to drive, that you must do so responsibly and not under influence. Nor should the federal government deny money to them for their choice.
Instead of the federal Dept of Education telling you what your children must learn over the entire nation, you have far greater control as you decentralize that power and leave it to the states. That’s what state’s rights does. It protects the sovereignty of the states, which in turn should disseminate that power locally.
You need to explain how the courts would gain more control when nothing in the constitutions will have changed.
Report comment to moderator
#3 – “If I say that I need government to enforce morality and Christian values am I not saying that my Church, God and community is powerless?”
No, absolutely not. What an absurd thought. Banning perjury, rape, murder, violent drug abuse, fraud, drinking and driving and such sins is a high form of MORALITY being forced upon society by government. And it does NOTHING to imply a powerlessness in the church.
God ordains giv’ts to wield the sward against evil doers and that does not interfere with the church’s mission.
Christians are not called to be apolitical isolationists. We live in the world too and we bring higher moral standards to the table. We are not called to retreat with them behind church walls.
Report comment to moderator
They C A N ‘ T
They are BOUND by the law themselves.
–
What laws? RP would be send eveything back to the States… So the Courts are now free….
Report comment to moderator
You need to explain how the courts would gain more control when nothing in the constitutions will have changed
—
They will take over what the constitutions says and there is nothing you or me can do to stop them.. Why a RP Whtie House will not fight them. He can not because he has surrender everything to the States.
Report comment to moderator
RP also was clear he would do nothing to stop the courts…
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – I think they believe once RP sends ever thing back to the States.. The Courts will stop trying to take control as they are doing know.
Report comment to moderator
The federal government does not issue wedding licenses. There can be no sending powers back to the states that they already have. Education is a different story. Too many apples and oranges being equated here.
But Ron Paul’s minimalist view of the Constitution cannot undo decades of legislation. Presidents are not dictators. His dismal record of failed support among his colleagues for his proposed legislation speaks volumes about his unrealistic approach towards governing. He just seems to enjoy grandstanding.
Report comment to moderator
“His ideas may be too “revolutionary” for his time, but so were the ideas of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman in the 1960s and ’70s until one “great communicator” helped turn the tide in American politics during the ’80s.”
Therein lies the rub. There has not yet risen a “great communicator” that can effectually show us how two hundred years of going away from the Constitution and toward a big centralized government has become the default position of our country.
Many of us who argue against Ron Paul discover that we are arguing with ourselves. The majority of us believe in the Constitution, personal liberty and states rights. However, we have bought in to the conventional wisdom that big problems must be solved at the national level.
Yet it is from the states that the most progress has been made against abortion which was placed by fiat on the entire country at the federal level. Individual states have made the laws that have helped women to see the truth about the dangers of abortion. It is individual states that have made laws that abortion clinics must follow the laws of other medical institutions. Do you remember when some places were discovered that even a doctor wasn’t performing the procedure in some areas?
Gun rights, education, religious liberty, balanced budgets, and many other areas are more protected at the state level than at the federal level.
Ron Paul has not been the “great communicator,” but the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Those of us who oppose him on some areas, find it hard to argue against him in the areas where we have common ground.
I’m greatful for the debate.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, as someone else stated yesterday, his “lack” of passed legislation speaks volumes about his success. He’s not proposing bogus bills, laden with pork, just so they’ll get passed. He’s writing bills that will make a difference, and those are harder to pass because his co-legislators aren’t getting what they want by voting for them.
Report comment to moderator
Alex Tokarev has misjudged the conservative evangelical community unfairly. But such misjudgment is often necessary when you are not willing to meet them on level ground in a fair argument.
The conservative evangelical community, in general, does not advocate putting secular powers in charge of spiritual wars. He accused us of a “grave flaw” but it was simply a false accusation.
For one, the war on drugs (with gov’t enlisted in reasonable ways develed through the consent of the people (a constitutional process) is not necessarily a “spiritual war.”
Fair-minded intellectual honesty was missing in this piece.
Report comment to moderator
Kan-Will-Sal chimed in by harshly accusing people who are allegedly trying to substitute God with government of committing a “grave sin.”
But it would be a false accusation to imply that conservative evangelicals are doing this on any large scale level. The real fact is that people of all stripes have differing views of the role of government (which in all cases advocates some form of morality). When ideologues just write off those who differ with them on the role or extent of government as grave sinners, it gets us nowhere.
All government to enforces morality (and sometimes ours enforces immorality) at all sorts of levels and to different degrees. Our Constitution allows for all the people to participate in the process of government (all of which enforces some sort of morality) in various ways–voting, running for office, advocating for or against a policy, raising money, donating, demonstrating, etc. The Constitution does not restrict Christians from such participation and NEITHER does the Bible.
Now, if I advocate for reasonable laws in the war on drugs (which I certainly do), you can accuse me of engaging in a realm where Christian have no say or substituting God or the church for government or being a grave sinner, but I will not accept your false accusations.
Report comment to moderator
Alex wrote; “As tempting as it is to agree uncritically with the idea of “punishing evil,”…”
I’m not sure I understood Alex’s entire sentence clearly but let me just say that actually, one need not “uncriticially” agree with the idea of “punishing evil.” A very thoughtful Bible student can critically agree with it. Paul writes;
“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:3-4)
I thihnk that’s in the Bible.
The questions of what is “evil” or not and where to draw the line are often difficult. I respect that. I am grateful to live in a country where the governed (the people) have some say in the legislative process (Christians INCLUDED). If I draw the line (regarding “evil”) at a different place from you, it does NOT mean I am putting secular powers “in charge of spiritual wars” in some manner inconsistent with Romans 13:3-4, nor does it make me a grave sinner.
Report comment to moderator
My understand RP is running 4th in SC and it will most likly going to get worst for him.
Report comment to moderator
Alex Tokarev makes an unfair implied practical presumption with a purely academic distinction. He wrote:
“It is one thing to delegate to government the duty to punish crimes against persons and their rightfully acquired property; murder, rape, and theft are some obvious examples. It is quite another matter to advocate the use of the repressive state machinery to punish all kinds of sinful behavior, either the ones that are clearly defined in the Bible (all sexual relationships outside of marriage) or those inferred by the preachers in a particular denomination (such as the drinking of alcoholic beverages). America tried going down that road with Prohibition, and have we forgotten how it ended in multiplying sin and crime?”
Alex is wrong to pretend that this represents a real life distinction. Rather, all this represents is a theoretical spectrum. I know of few (if any) real life conservatives who advocate using “repressive state machinery” to ban “all sexual relationships outside of marriage” nor do I know any who want Prohibition to return in any form. Perhaps a couple exist, but Alex previously generalized about the entire conservative evangelical community with a harsh and unfair blanket accusation (our “grave flaw”) and he used this unreal distinction to illustrate his false accusation.
Serious Christians advocate many different viewpoints and places between these two extremes on Alex’s spectrum of options. It is too easy and too unfair to just presume an entire group of people to be on one radical side of your hypothetical spectrum.
Report comment to moderator
The War on Drugs is no more or less a form of “moral legislation” than the war on rape, murder, abortion, drunken driving, perjury and fraud. It’s just that reasonable people would draw some lines at different places and they should be able to do that without being accused of denying the power of the church, or substituting God with government or putting gov’t in charge of “spiritual wars” or commiting a “grave sin” or supporting a “grave flaw.”
The over-the-top ravings of some religious isolationists get us nowhere that is better.
Report comment to moderator
I see two different questions here: (1) Should the government have certain powers at all; (2) As long as it has them anyway, do Christians have a right to make their voices heard in how to use them?
Christians have the same public rights as everyone else to ensure that any governmental powers are used as wisely as possible. But what RP followers are arguing — and rightly so, in my mind — is that we need to focus strong efforts towards eliminating any illegitimate powers, even more than towards how to use them.
Report comment to moderator
Joel M: “Alex previously generalized about the ENTIRE conservative evangelical community with a harsh and unfair blanket accusation”
Alex T: “grave flaw within an influential FACTION of the conservative evangelical community”
Report comment to moderator
Great article, Alex. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect natural rights to life, liberty and property. All political philosophies pertain to the appropriate role of violence and coercion in society, as all laws presuppose willingness to enforce them, and enforcement of compliance with laws is by definition coercive. Enforcement entails the threat of violence to a person’s life, liberty or property. This fact, combined with the state’s sorry record on discerning what sort of offenses ought to be punished (and how severely) suggest that good governments will tread lightly, restricting laws to the protection of natural rights.
Christians need not feel they are “selling out” or “failing to stand up for what is right” by endorsing severely limited government. One’s political philosophy need not and should not attempt to be an exhaustive worldview.
Scripture teaches us to proclaim and demonstrate the kingdom of God and to persuade men to seek God, not to coerce them into merely external conformity through threats. The ability to choose between good and evil is part of being a human person, and as long as evil behaviors are non-violent, they should not be violently opposed.
Report comment to moderator
“We violate God’s law by killing unborn, and sometimes newborn, babies.”
I think that’s covered in “punish crimes against persons… murder” but you can’t expect a president to do the job of the judges
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – Here they come….
Report comment to moderator
“We create a new definition of marriage that no nation or culture on earth has done before.”
Roy, remind me how many wives David and Solomon had
perhaps we should not expect the government to define something that God has defined at the beginning?
Report comment to moderator
The trouble with Ron Paul is that he takes libertarianism too far. On the subject of homosexual marriage Paul states the following:
I think the government [meaning federal and state] should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument,” he said recently. “Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.
Traditionally in our country state laws defined marriage as strictly between and a man and woman in the overall interest of the society, especially the children.
On major moral issues including marriage and abortion, government has every right to set standards. Those Americans appalled at the states that allow homosexual marriage quite properly advocate an amendment to the Constitution that strictly defines marriage to be between a man and a woman.
I don’t buy Tokarev’s argument that Paul is a man ahead of his time when it comes to social issues. In fact he is an ordinary man of his secular time in advocating autonomous individuality that in the end has caused America to become a rather decadent and depraved nation.
I’m mostly fine with Hayek, Mises, Friedman, and Paul on the subject of economic freedom but have grave reservations about any government that doesn’t pay attention to major moral issues.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!!! Finally, a well reasoned, objective article from World on the election. I love World magazine, and yet have been very disappointed with their obvious bias against Dr. Paul. Thank you, Alex, for your articulate and helpful response.
Report comment to moderator
Sails – We both know by side stepping the issue of marriage RP is putting the issues in the Courts to decide what marriage should look like.
Report comment to moderator
Sounds like RP is running the Obama’s White House
Iranian lawmaker says Obama proposed direct talks in letter
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/18/iranian-lawmaker-says-obama-proposed-direct-talks-in-letter/#ixzz1jq7sQdWk
Report comment to moderator
One way to consider the relationship between laws and morality is to look at incarceration rates.
Does the US have the highest rate of incarceration per capita because we are so moral a nation (wisest laws), so immoral a nation (worst people), or so Progressive a nation?
Beware of all forms of statism. It’s a type of idolatry in our culture, and it’s assumed by Progressives and Neoconservatives alike.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CBEPYZ3-IewJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate+incarceration+per+capita+by+country&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
Report comment to moderator
My kudos to the Ron Paul fans here. It’s neat how an especially ideological candidate draws especially articulate supporters.
Report comment to moderator
I find nothing to disagree with in this article. Tokarev (and Paul) likely take their libertarianism farther than I’m willing to, but when it comes to government punishing (or discriminating against) behaviors purely because they’re sinful…we’re on the same page.
Report comment to moderator
“They will take over what the constitutions says and there is nothing you or me can do to stop them.. Why a RP Whtie House will not fight them. He can not because he has surrender everything to the States.”
The 10th Amendment invests the powers not delegated in the Constitution to the states. The courts whether state or federal, have to still abide by the constitution, PR.
They can’t toss it out, in giving more control to the states. As a part of the USA you still have to abide by the Constitution.
You raise a straw man that ignores the law.
Report comment to moderator
“Traditionally in our country state laws defined marriage as strictly between and a man and woman in the overall interest of the society, especially the children.”
How does that change in a libertarian standpoint? Your state still can remain traditional by the vote of the people.
“On major moral issues including marriage and abortion, government has every right to set standards. Those Americans appalled at the states that allow homosexual marriage quite properly advocate an amendment to the Constitution that strictly defines marriage to be between a man and a woman.”
And how is that against the libertarian, or mainly in Paul’s case outside the confines of what is acceptable procedure under the US Constitution? Amendments are fine and dandy…SO PASS ONE.
Liberarianism, isn’t anarchy. It doesn’t absolve the constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Reader at #43 – Thank you for the correction.
Report comment to moderator
Sails wrote; “Traditionally in our country state laws defined marriage as strictly between and a man and woman in the overall interest of the society, especially the children.”
Right!
“How does that change in a libertarian standpoint?”
If I understand the Libertarian view, the state should just stay out of the entire issue. That’s what many on this blog often advocate. That is detrimental to the children born in the society because fewer and fewer children over time will grow up in families with a married mother and father (which is already the trend). Under Libertarian ideology, if the state is out of the picture, marriage is whatever anyone or any particular “church” wants it to be.
That’s a resipe for decline in all the worst ways.
Report comment to moderator
alex is correct… secular power (the government) cannot be in charge of spiritual wars (the church and religions). However, the converse is also true, spiritual wars (the “church” and “religions” in general) cannot be in charge of secular power (the government). the United States, founding fathers, has taken on the difficult idea of governing without a King or aristocracy, and also governing without a specific religion in “charge.” WHile many readers will state that Christianity is the religion that has informed what and who this country is, i would argue that it does not mean that this is a “Christian” country. I would remind those who say that the USA is, was meant to be, a Christian Country needs to remember what has happened historically when a Church tried to run things, as well as look to those parts of the world today that are governed by religion.
RP and christian beliefs are not necessarily at odds (not mutually exclusive, he would leave the states to do their thing as long as it is within constitutional limits)… so some of his ideas are very very appealing, BUT let us not forget that essentially RP and human rights are at odds – i.e. believing that there should be no civil rights laws at the federal level is a grave concern (on the grounds that we should have no laws telling businesses who they can and cannot serve, for example)…(not to mention his thinking about people of color and African americans specifically).
Report comment to moderator
Here is a link to an excellent article by Dennis Prager on “Ron Paul and America’s Alleged Racism.”
http://jewishworldreview.com/0112/prager011812.php3
______________________
Ron Paul said: “I’m the only one up here … that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system.” (he claims this racism has to do with “enforcing the drug laws”). Ron Paul added: “They [blacks] get the death penalty way disproportionately.”
Prager writes: “The claim that America disproportionately executes blacks is a falsehood, disseminated on virtually every left-wing website, from the ACLU to all the anti-death-penalty sites.”
You can read the rest in context at the link.
Report comment to moderator
IR wrote; “alex is correct… secular power (the government) cannot be in charge of spiritual wars (the church and religions).”
Sure, but he is dead wrong to faslely and unfairly accuse some unnamed conservatives of advocating that. No one I know believes the gov’t should do this. No one!
IR, sincere question (after reading your point after saying, “However, the converse is also true…”): Are you saying that no church member or religious person or organization should involve themselves in secular interests or concerns? Since holding an office means being “in charge” to some degree, IR, are you saying that no true Christian can run for an office? Just asking.
IR, please explain when, where or how any church in America, in your words, “tried to run things?” (and what or who exactly do you meqan by “run things?”). I presume some have tried, but I know of no conservative evangelical churches that have advocated this since colonial times. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Report comment to moderator
“If I understand the Libertarian view, the state should just stay out of the entire issue.”
Do you understand it? And is that actually Paul’s view?
Considering he prefers to divest powers to the states, as suggested by the Constitution, and he’s repeated that several times, to suggest that he’d prefer some anarchous system is an irrational conclusion.
“That is detrimental to the children born in the society because fewer and fewer children over time will grow up in families with a married mother and father (which is already the trend).”
Why is that the trend?
That would just mean more children born to unwed parents. It would not fix the lack of marriage and better upbringing, nor the trend.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, Alex! Thanks for the exchange on this. It is certainly a serious topic of national concern. Robert George wrote a useful article on this subject in First Things back in January 08. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/12/001-law-and-moral-purpose-16. I hope you and the family are doing well.
Report comment to moderator
Essentially, Ron Paul and other extreme libertarians favor a sort of moral anarchy. Let everyone do their own thing and keep the government out of things. While he is evidently a moral person, probably as he’s living from past Christian moral capital and strict civil law, his grandchildren and future generations will pay a wicked price.
St. Paul understood the need for a strong civil sword including with moral matters, as the evil of fallen secular men and some Christians ran deep. Contemporary Americans tend to be optimistic about human nature; their forebears for the most part knew intuitively that without strict civil law society would end up reaping a whirlwind, something that’s rather evident in America of late.
Report comment to moderator
Sails –
Here in Colorado the pot people are trying to get to amendment on the laws.
1. Would make it legal to have small amount pot if you are 21 and that State can tax’s it.
2nd One would make it legal for all amount of pot for anyone at any age with out being taxed.
These people would make a RP White House very happy.
Report comment to moderator
Roy, would you recommend a law that bans cigarettes? Why or why not?
Report comment to moderator
Who died and made you judge, Sails? You are judging Ron Paul’s future generations?
Saying Paul favors moral anarchy would be like me saying that you favor the slaughter of homosexuals and divorcees who don’t hold to proper marriage and it’s vows.
How else do you expect to enforce it, but by the sword?
This is NOT a theocracy. You can feel free to secede and start one if you prefer or amend the Constitution.
In a democracy, the nation goes, as go it’s people. It’s not moral anarchy to allow a homosexual to coexist in your neighborhood.
If you want marriage to stand firm, if you want to render homosexuality as minute as it was in the 1800s, if you want this nation to reflect christian values, then you must raise christians…not slaughter by the sword.
St. Paul’s comments are to respect the civil authority. And he’s right. But it’s not the cry to impose Christianity by the sword.
We are not Islam. We do not force Christianity on others.
So when we have lost the majority, through the degradation of society, and have not applied ourselves to triple our efforts in discipleship and witness and offspring, then this nation will continue to slide into decay.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not going to involve myself in the Ron Paul debate but booing when Paul mentions the Golden Rule in the context of foreign policy? Yikes
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/ron-paul-booed-debate-saying-foreign-policy
Report comment to moderator
#61.
in american history there has been no attempt for a specific religious/christian group to run things. i was referring to european history- including the inquisition, crusades and the like. there is a reason the founding fathers made for the separation of church and state, no?
all of us are informed by values, world view, philosophy, etc, whether they be of a religious/spiritual nature or not. we bring those values to whatever profession we pursue; politics and governance is a profession. so i am not saying that a “christian” or a “muslim” or an “observant” jew, etc. cannot or should not be in government or involve themselves in secular matters. however there is a difference between being informed by our beliefs (just as the founding fathers were) and the christian, mulsim, jew, buddhist imposing their very specific religious laws and rules on all. i have to be very honest and say that i fear evangelist christian “rules” (based on their specific interpretation of the Bible) as much as i fear sharia law. one may be more extreme than the other but in the end the impact can be quite the same. i have a hard time with the idea that people say they want government out of their lives so that they can pursue liberty and freedom and yet those same people are comfortable telling me who i can marry, telling me that folks cannot use contraception for moral reasons, or that a woman has to carry a child that is the result of a destructive and violent act such as rape or incest, etc.
let us remember that “morality” is not based on the bible alone — morality, values, rules, are something every group and every society has worked with and worked on throughout history- the christian bible, the Torah, the K’ran, the Upanishads, etc. are all attempts at organizing and thinking values through… to think that any one group has the ultimate say on morals is where we invariably get into trouble. because then there is no dialogue or exploration, there is only oppression.
Report comment to moderator
” there is a reason the founding fathers made for the separation of church and state, no?”
One could argue the intention was solely for federal or Congressional separation of establishing a religion.
In essence, Mississippi should be just fine if it wanted to adopt a church under the idea, but could not extend that over the whole.
Being said even of he federal level didn’t stop the men from voting according to their beliefs. This is why a guy like Ron Paul can promote state’s rights while voting everytime to end abortion or for DOMA.
Report comment to moderator
Sails, were our nation’s founders in favor of moral anarchy?
Paul is in favor of NOTHING that they would not have supported, as far as I have ever heard. He merely is in favor of returning most powers to the states, as the Constitution is written, not to the federal government.
Report comment to moderator
IR wrote; “i have a hard time with the idea that people say they want government out of their lives so that they can pursue liberty and freedom and yet those same people are comfortable telling me who i can marry…”
Hey IR, you cannot marry my mom. You cannot marry people who are already married. You cannot marry the L.A. Lakers. You cannot marry four people. I am very comfortable telling you that. And I do want some limited gov’t in your life.
There, I am an evangelical Christian who just told you who you can or cannot marry. If you have a hard time with that, you will have to learn to live with it.
Seriously, we all have a hard time with all of life, including politics. Only flat-earth ideologues who live only in theory think we can do politics without having a hard time doing it. The issue must be worked out constitutionally and patiently with the consent of the governed applied over time. one of my priorities is, what is best for our children? The traditional definition of marriage (legally affirmed) is the best political answer (with all its human flaws in application).
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL asked, “Sails, were our nation’s founders in favor of moral anarchy?”
Certainly not. They were clear that morality and religion are far more important and foundational than all human documents, laws, parchments, constitutions and politicians.
____________
SAILS wrote; “Essentially, Ron Paul and other extreme libertarians favor a sort of moral anarchy. Let everyone do their own thing and keep the government out of things.”
Well said. From all I have heard from Ron Paul, I agree with your assessment, Sails.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark #72
There you go again.
Ask yourself this question. Can a marriage amendment be added even if Ron Paul were president?
Do you think Ron Paul would overturn a marriage amendment by force if he were president?
Report comment to moderator
excellent points, Mr. Tokarev
Report comment to moderator
#70 and yet for the past 200 years or so, the separation between church and state has been interpreted in pretty much the same way… do you really want the christian equivalent of sharia law?
# 72- how do you know i cannot marry your mom? maybe she is a widow and wants to marry again? actually i would rather marry Oklahoma Thunder these days! but, in all seriousness, yes we are always struggling with figuring out what is the best for us and, yes, for our children. the issue must be “worked out constitutionally and patiently with the consent of the governed applied over time.” keep in mind, though, that tradition shifts over time too -remember that there used to be a time when tradition about marriage was all about convenience and often about business and cross racial marriage was illegal too, so i will venture to say that within our life time, same sex marriage will be as much of an issue as bi-racial marriage was.
Report comment to moderator
An I have told you and other over and over again that RP views are very dangerous and I am not misunderstanding Ron Paul.
******But, you most demonstrably ARE misunderstanding him.
If you disagree, that is one thing. But, to assert what anyone knows to be falsehood is simply irresponsible.
Report comment to moderator
His dismal record of failed support among his colleagues for his proposed legislation speaks volumes about his unrealistic approach towards governing
******So, basically, the fact that most of our legislators have no idea what the Constitution says, and that they won’t support what is right, means that we have failed and should simply give up?
Where do we start in changing things around?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – Here they come….
******Pastor Roy,
Your lack of respect for people who support Ron Paul is really appalling in a pastor. You don’t have to agree, but to “stop reading their posts” and consistently insult us is simply wrong.
You may not respect what we believe (if you actually understood it), but you should respect us as people who simply have a different candidate in mind and a pure view of the Constitution in mind.
Report comment to moderator
#52
“Beware of all forms of statism. It’s a type of idolatry in our culture, and it’s assumed by Progressives and Neoconservatives alike.”
Amen!
Report comment to moderator
I would generally agree with Alex’s point here.
State power extends too far when laws are merely used to express the majority’s moral disapproval of certain persons or practices, especially where the conduct at issue causes no substantial harm to persons who did not otherwise consent to the alleged harm. American evangelicals seem to accept this proposition in the economic sphere, but tend to reject it in the social sphere. Alex does a good job of demonstrating the logical inconsistency of Innes’s position.
If libertarianism in the economic sphere doesn’t lead to economic chaos, then why would we assume that libertarianism in the social sphere would lead to social chaos?
Concerning same-sex marriage, I see no legitimate reason for the state to continue to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Granting legal recognition to their unions does not harm anyone.
Concerning drugs, I would probably argue that there may be some substances that are too dangerous to be safely used at all, such as methamphetamine. But certain non-addictive drugs, such as marijuana, should probably be legalized.
Abortion is a closer call. If the fetus is a life from the point of conception, then the state has a legitimate role to play in restricting abortion. On the other hand, our common-law tradition has never accepted the early-term fetus as a person. Indeed, a whole host of laws would have to change if we did. For example, oral contraceptives would also need to be outlawed because they function as an abortifacient some portion of the time. So, I think we should give greater thought to whether abortion restrictions are desirable. On the other hand, outlawing abortion and outlawing oral contraceptives go hand in hand. This brings another evangelical inconsistency to light: Many evangelicals use oral contraceptives (and thereby abort 1-2 fetuses a year), but still rail against abortion. You can’t say that you’re opposed to abortion, and then give a free pass to oral contraceptive use.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul doesn’t promise Christianity government privileges but instead offers a level playing field against all false prophets and deaf idols. His ideas may be too “revolutionary” for his time,
Very good article, Dr Tokarev. But I don’t think his ideas are too revolutionary. If we don’t become a little more ‘revolutionary’ soon, there won’t be anything left of our freedoms to save. Certainly not if the hardline neo-cons have anything to do with it.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul and other extreme libertarians
******Ron Paul is FAR from an “extreme libertarian.”
It is so hard to debate with people who really are debating against a straw man of their own making.
Report comment to moderator
Setting aside sincere philosophical discussions, I don’t trust politician Ron Paul any more than Romney or Gingrich.
Worse, Rep. Paul Romney he has no record of being able to work well with others to accomplish anything in order to stem or reverse a path to bigger government. He metaphorically stomps his feet and comes across like Rumplestiltskin. That is not the asset of effective leadership. to get things done.
Report comment to moderator
You can’t say that you’re opposed to abortion, and then give a free pass to oral contraceptive use.
******I think that you bring up a legitimate point, but I think you state it too black and white. I think that one could argue against abortion and still use contraception.
While I know that, based on many factors, most Evangelicals would like to codify life as beginning at conception, one could argue that life really doesn’t grow, and isn’t really viable until implantation.
And, of course, there certainly is a difference between newly joined sperm and egg and the fetus.
Personally, I figure it would be a great improvement if we could simply say that abortion is unacceptable after the heart starts beating (at about 8 weeks).
OTOH, you do assume a lot. I happen to know that MANY evangelicals, once it was pointed out to them, have stopped using the types of contraception that are abortificants.
Report comment to moderator
#84
As I’ve stated before, I would be thrilled (THRILLED, mind you) if a Great Communicator could come along and pick up Ron Paul’s mantle. As someone stated earlier, Ron Paul is more like “John the Baptist.” He does a good job of stating what’s wrong and railing against it, but he doesn’t make a lot of friends or build coalitions.
However, I would prefer to have a President in power who simply got NOTHING done, rather than one who gets into power and continues us down our Statist path to totalitarianism.
And, as Doug Wilson pointed out (and I’m typically not a fan of Doug Wilson), perhaps a great showing for Ron Paul will get him a place at the table, particularly in areas where most people agree that he shines (economics) in the new administration, and, a good showing might also put our more standard politicians “on notice.”
So, even if he doesn’t win, he may help change some of our political discourse and help us start heading onto a better path. The fact that he appeals so well to young people gives me hope that the “Great Communicator” may be out there now waiting to step up in the near future if we can slow down our slide into Statism.
Report comment to moderator
I am making my view know [sic], I am not going to debate RP Supporters over it, because it is a waste of time.
Oh dear, another 15 posts of time wasted…
Report comment to moderator
It’s a point that is often trumpeted as a good thing, but I’ve never really understood why so many (apparently) seem to think it so important.
Why does it matter if a candidate has appeal to young people? I don’t really have any respect for what young people think on most issues as a general rule and I assume most older adults would concur. Typically young people do not have the wisdom that can only be gained by life experiences. Think about yourself ten or twenty years ago. Are you wiser now than then? I hope so.
Report comment to moderator
I am NOT young (sigh) and I like Ron Paul. My husband, as well, is not young and likes him.
But, the fact that so many young people support him just means that — should they continue to do so — his ideas will be a force in politics soon.
Also, I’m hoping that amongst them (perhaps a Thorn?) there is the excellent communicator/person with charm who will take up his mantle and really be able to run with it.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM, I think it’s noteworthy that someone who would normally be seen as old and not with it is seen, instead, as having good things to say. No, young people’s wisdom isn’t necessarily well developed, but it is worth noting when younger people are going against “conventional wisdom” and, say, being interested in Ron Paul or being solidly pro-life. This next generation may well be one to watch on some fronts.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy,
I’m not young either and I like Ron Paul. Its just that you mentioned it and I heard some media types discussing how wonderful it was that Ron Paul had so much support among young people. Perhaps we should be glad that young people take an interest in politics, but for me it is fairly meaningless fact since young people views are typically not very well informed.
It probably bugs me because “everything is for the children” and there seems to be a lot of effort expended to use children/ young people to make adults look foolish. Just the other day we had NPR on where these teenage kids were singing quite beautifully. The host of the show interviews the kids after the have sung for awhile. I can’t remember the particular question he asked on kid, but I had to turn the radio off because apparently we were supposed to be impressed with the wisdom of this kid.
Enough on that subject.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM, on the other hand, sometimes there is a tendency for those of us who are older to disregard what is wisdom among our young people. When I was a teenager, I memorized 1 Timothy 4:12 (not positive that’s the right reference), “Let no man despise thy youth, but be thou an example among the believers. . . .” Basically old or young, we’re all called to use godly wisdom. Youth can no more use their age as an excuse for foolish behavior than we can, and when they show godly wisdom, those of us who are older, and presumably somewhat wise, should be quick to see it.
Report comment to moderator
Paul is somewhat like Barry Goldwater. He is a fatally flawed candidate for several reasons. However, his ideas (in a diluted form) are the future of the Republican Party.
Report comment to moderator
#81 “This brings another evangelical inconsistency to light: Many evangelicals use oral contraceptives (and thereby abort 1-2 fetuses a year), but still rail against abortion. You can’t say that you’re opposed to abortion, and then give a free pass to oral contraceptive use.”
Try bringing this up in a Sunday School class; you’ll get educated real quick.
Report comment to moderator
#94, haha — so true. Or an internet discussion board for homeschooling moms of all religious persuasions.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I hate to repeat myself, but since you are repeating yourself. . .
“Sending things to the states” is what is mandated by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is not Ron Paul’s idea; it is the idea of the Founding Fathers. If we are to be a nation of laws, we must return to our supreme law and follow it.
I can assure you that Ron Paul is not in favor of judges essentially writing laws. He would favor any measure to rein in the courts and return them to their constitutional limitations. He, I am certain, is in favor of impeaching judges who do not follow the Constitution.
You say that you do not misunderstand Ron Paul, but several people who are very knowledgeable of his words and actions tell you that you do misunderstand. Does that not matter to you at all? Might you be mistaken?
—–
Joel Mark, you wrote, “Christians are not called to be apolitical isolationists. We live in the world too and we bring higher moral standards to the table. We are not called to retreat with them behind church walls.”
Absolutely! I couldn’t have said it better myself. However, for me the issue is at what level we do that. According to the Constitution, are we supposed to bring our standards to the national government to impose on others, or are we supposed to work at the local and state level along with our fellow-citizens whom we know more intimately and with whom we are more likely to share values and know the local circumstances?
I want to see states supporting traditional marriage, stopping abortion, and doing other things that promote a moral society–as long as the other citizens of my state agree. In fact, as others have pointed out, it is at the state level that the biggest strides have been made in those areas.
Here’s the bottom line for me, and it is a moral issue (since you are big on morality)–if I do not want liberals foisting their views on me through national laws and through federal court decisions, then I have no right to foist my views on them in the same manner.
—–
It’s funny for people to call Ron Paul an extreme libertarian. He is pretty mild and wishy-washy when it comes to libertarianism. He’s a Republican, after all. He’s not an anarchist, as extreme libertarians are.
Report comment to moderator
It is even weirder to hear them call Ron Paul an isolationist, since he is fully in favor of trade, diplomacy, and fully participating in the world community.
He would even, when Constitutionally valid, support war (he is a veteran, after all.)
So, when I hear someone call him an “isolationist” or an “extreme libertarian” I know that said person knows just about squat about what Ron Paul believes.
Report comment to moderator
I saw Joel Mark the other day on another thread state that he was a pastor. I asked what denomination he belonged to, but to my knowledge I didn’t get an answer — probably because he didn’t see my question. I assume pastors don’t mind telling which denomination they are in so in case Joel Mark doesn’t see this post do any of you know to which denomination he belongs? I mostly want to know because I’m curious and the other aspect is that it may better inform me of where he is coming from. (I’m OPC myself, but I’m not a pastor and I don’t play one on tv.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Yes, there are cases where a young person may have considerable wisdom, but it is likely more the exception than the rule.
Job 12:12 Is not wisdom found among the aged?
Does not long life bring understanding?
(Of course the book of Job saying this is a bit ironic.)
1 Kings 12:6 “And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men… and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people?”
1 Kings 12:8, 13, 14 “But he forsook the counsel of the old men… and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him… And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him; and spake to them after the counsel of the young men…”
Report comment to moderator
OK 100 it is.
Report comment to moderator
Check out this full page ad that appeared Sunday in SC’s largest newspaper, The State:
RON PAUL: THE LAST MAN STANDING
Report comment to moderator
When did we as christians look to the government leadership to define our faith in God? It is NOT the governments job to enforce the faith at all.
My faith and salvation in the eyes of God is MY responsibility, NOT the president or anyone else. Drinking alcohol is legal and was legal during the time of Jesus Christ and was considered as proper, yet I CHOOSE not to drink alcohol. Salvation is up to the individual and no one else! Temptation is controlled by the individual NOT the government. Marrage between a man and a woman is OUR choice NOT the government. Bearing children is up to the soon to be parents NOT the government.
Those people who CHOOSE to do things that are against the teachings of our respective religions are the ONLY ones who can make the choice and will be the ONLY ones who will have some explaining to do in the afterlife.
As my father taught me that you can lead a horse to water you can’t make them drink. The religious leadership can warn you of the consequences of your actions but they can’t force you to do the right things in your life.
We all have our own cross to bear and that is between you and God, NOT you and the government!
As my mother used to say, “If Jill jumps off of a cliff does that mean that you have to jump to?”
Life has consequences and we as individuals are responsible for our own consequences NOT the government.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM, I’m fairly sure Joel Mark is Church of Christ. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m nearly certain that is what he has told us in the past.
Report comment to moderator
Blaze, some wrongs that you might choose to do are the government’s business, however, and the government has been given the right to punish. Theft, murder, rape, misuse of another’s property (vandalism, trespasssing), for example, are all wrongs the government has authority to punish. They have the right to hold one party to a contract. Abortion, being murder, is in the government’s authority.
Other wrongs are evils–sins–but cannot and should not be crimes. We can have laws against public nudity, for example, but not against lust, and laws against fornication are unenforceable and might as well not be written. (Laws against adultery have a stronger basis in law, as being against a covenant and being grounds for divorce and child custody.)
There is an overlap in what is sin and what is a crime, but the two categories are not identical. Arguably, a speed-limit law also might make sense, but the only reason exceeding the speed limit is wrong is because it is illegal; it is not innately immoral to drive above that speed (unless one is being reckless and endangering life and property, which is the purpose of the speed limit, but it’s kind of an “arbitrary” limit).
Report comment to moderator
Anyone note that Ron Paul on Monday night claimed that the Taliban were our allies when we were fighting the Russians and that all they want is to keep foreigners off their land.
Actually, the Taliban did not exist when the Russians occupied Afghanistan. They emerged later as a result of the usual savage tribal scene. Their prime goal, according to Andrew McCarthy “…was to crush Afghan factions that impeded its establishment of a retrograde sharia state.” McCarthy, also, remarks that “Paul’s claim that the Taliban is just opposed to foreign interference in Afghanistan is patently absurd. ”
If Paul wishes to join the political big league, it would help if he could get his facts straight.
Report comment to moderator
Ummm most countries where the regime seeks to gain and hold power, prefer that foreign interference stays out.
Why is that absurd?
Or do you prefer Russia imposing it’s will on your nation?
Report comment to moderator
I am not sure Ron Paul is someone who would pass unrighteous laws but to use prohibition as an example is the classic “straw man” fallacy where you put your opponents argument in a bad light (a straw man) and knock it down easily. Of course prohibition was unwise, but once again because we know from Scripture that alcohol used appropriately is lawful and yes even a blessing (see Psalm 104). The point is that government should punish the wicked and this is true of even secular governments as Paul (Romans 13) wrote this when the most powerful empire was the very ungodly Roman empire.
Report comment to moderator
So what’s the difference between marijuna and cigars or alcohol then?
If you DUI you are still going to get the penalty of the law for instance.
I don’t see anybody repealing a ban on something like crystal meth though.
Report comment to moderator
#98 It’s an easy search. He hasn’t been vocal as to his identity, but he hasn’t hidden it either. So I’ll let him provide the links if he wants.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see anybody repealing a ban on something like crystal meth though.
–
Wait for it.
Report comment to moderator
If America — or any nation — is going to please God, then it must commit itself to Christianity and make Biblical law the foundation of it’s legal system. This is an integral aspect of discipling the nations (Mt 28)that will lead the kings of earth to “kiss the feet of the Son” (Ps 2).
The Bible does not grant any “level playing field” to false prophets or idolatry as the article suggests in conclusion:
“Ron Paul doesn’t promise Christianity government privileges but instead offers a level playing field against all false prophets and deaf idols.”
Elijah slaughtered the false prophets of Baal, but the U.S. Constitution gives them total freedom to subvert the nation and provoke the judgment of God. The First Amendment stands in direct opposition to the First Commandment. This is explained in more detail at http://www.America-Betrayed-1787.com
Report comment to moderator
“Wait for it.”
Hang on while I hold my breath…
Report comment to moderator
Iowa – Rick S
NH – Romney
SC – looks it may got to Newt
Which State can Ron Paul Win?
Report comment to moderator
“The First Amendment stands in direct opposition to the First Commandment.”
Are you a theonomist there, AF?
How do you reckon with Christ telling Peter to put the sword down?
It is one thing to punish for murder. It would another entirely to punish someone simply because they do not believe in christianity.
Christ tells peter to put the sword down, because we are not Islam.
The USA is not a theocracy.
The writers of the 1st Amendment understood the problems with such things as the Holy Roman Empire, of such things as why the Pilgrims came here, of the realization that you can’t force religion and that persecution becomes wrong regardless of who does it.
So the 1st Amendment is entirely just fine with the Bible.
The civil sword of government is made to punish those who have overt actions against others like murder, like stealing. It does not and can not seek to use the sword against thoughts or beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, at 105: Ummm most countries where the regime seeks to gain and hold power, prefer that foreign interference stays out.
The point is in that debate Paul falsely claimed that the Taliban was among our allies in fighting the Russian occupation and that he implied that the sole reason they are fighting is America’s “occupation.”
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, I take it you would excise that portion of the Bible where Elijah “persecuted” the prophets of Baal and put them to death. Elijah was not yielding the sword against the “thoughts and beliefs” of the Baalites, but against the public practice of their false religion and proselitizing. But according to you and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constituton the Prophet Elijah was way out of line. So which will it be for you, Thorn, the First Commandment or the First Amendment? You can’t have both.
The Bible zealously protects freedom of conscience of the “stranger”, but it does not allow the false prophet to operate with impunity in a Christian nation. A nation that is formally committed to God — as was the case with Puritan Massachusetts — cannot permit any such violation of the First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”
You say, “The USA is not a theocracy.” Theocracy means “rule of God.” Are you saying you do not want the rule of God in the USA? Civil government enforcement of the First Commandment is not persecution — it is national obedience to the law of God. In a truly Christian nation it would most certainly be executed with all the protections that the law of God provides, including the offer of mercy for repentance (Ex. 21:29,30)
Jesus also told the disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword. The issue wasn’t owning the swword, it was Peter’s misuse of the sword.
Report comment to moderator
Quotes from John Adams:
….it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand 1776
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. 1798
These are not enforceable by law but must come from the individual. Ron Paul wants to make sure that the opportunity remains available for all to practice within an ordered structure. The structure is based on Christian principle but the practice is based on personal compliance. Without it our society crumbles.
He gives us the freedom to be virtuous. If not, then it will be something else.
“Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.” John Adams 1777
Time to repent? Sorry, John. We have failed you. Cry the beloved country.
Report comment to moderator
Anti-Federalist: The United States does not have God-given authority to kill unbelievers. To do so would be murder, a clear violation of God’s law. Period.
Israel received direct revelation from God about specific situations. God was their King. America is not the same as Israel; the Church is in (more or less) the same relationship to God as Old Testament Israel was, but America is not. Again, it would be murder to kill someone for holding different beliefs; God has not given us such authority. We are told to evangelize unbelievers; we are not told to kill them.
Report comment to moderator
O, so the Old Testament doesn’t apply anymore? It’s Old Testament Emeritus? God changed the definition of justice, is that it?
The Bible tells Christians to evangelize, but it tells government to enforce God’s law. If you reject God’s law, what are you putting in it’s place?
Report comment to moderator
Anti-Federalist, federal vision has been rejected as false teaching by my denomination (PCA) and my husband, and it’s clearly unbiblical. The apostle Paul made it very clear we do not live by the rules given to Israel–circumcision, for instance. Jesus fulfilled the law; Paul said much about our relationship to it. Peter was specifically told that the dietary laws are no longer in effect. The New Testament is very, very clear that Old Testament Israelite law is not binding on the Christian. (The details of what that means is debatable; the fact is not.)
I won’t debate this with you; others can if they choose, but all I will say is that no nation other than Israel was ever told to put unbelievers to death, and even in Israel it wasn’t carte blanche permission. And we are very definitely told not to murder, so even if there is some evidence we might be allowed to kill apostates, it’s dangerous indeed to take up the sword knowing that if we’re wrong, God calls it murder.
Do you really want the government making decisions on whose theology is orthodox, and killing those they judge to be in error? Really? This position is not only wrong; it is decidedly dangerous. But “dangerous” is OK; we are told we might be persecuted for our faith, and we have to be willing to die for Christ. But to kill for Christ–to murder for Christ–that is an evil we are not told to embrace. Neither the state nor the church has such permission from God, and it goes against the clear command (yes, given to all people of all time, and not just Israel) not to murder.
Report comment to moderator
“Thorn, I take it you would excise that portion of the Bible where Elijah “persecuted” the prophets of Baal and put them to death.”
Who among us is Elijah? Or a prophet?
“So which will it be for you, Thorn, the First Commandment or the First Amendment?”
How about love your neighbor as yourself, which is like the first commandment
“Are you saying you do not want the rule of God in the USA?”
Are you saying that the rule of God is for us to slaughter the stranger?
“In a truly Christian nation it would most certainly be executed with all the protections that the law of God provides, including the offer of mercy for repentance.”
But you do not live in one. You live in Rome practically. Do you abide by the laws which require you to live in peace with pagans, or do you seek to rebel against it’s authority through violence, force or the sword?
Congress is not allowed to establish a religion. If you want to change that, you must amend the constitution or secede and start your own “christian nation”
By the way, we get a new earth, so why are you worried about establishing the kingdom here, when it has already been established elsewhere, by our only true King, Prophet, and Priest?
“Jesus also told the disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword. The issue wasn’t owning the swword, it was Peter’s misuse of the sword.”
Sure, Peter did misuse it. Christianity does not spread by the sword or by force, but by the gospel of Christ. Did you ever see or read of a disciple carrying the sword after Peter’s misuse?
Why? Because the point was made. Jesus is our defense.
Compare that to Islam, which seeks to force conversion by the sword. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
Do you honestly think that God needs some government run nation on earth to justify his laws, when he isn’t about establishing his kingdom here?
Report comment to moderator
“O, so the Old Testament doesn’t apply anymore? It’s Old Testament Emeritus? God changed the definition of justice, is that it?”
The veil was torn, AF.
This is known as theonomy. You wish to impose OT law directly.
And where as we can gather some great ideas and principles, to suggest that O.T. Israel should still be the same for everyone, even Christians is absurd.
“The Bible tells Christians to evangelize, but it tells government to enforce God’s law. If you reject God’s law, what are you putting in it’s place?”
No, Romans 13 says to obey the authority put in place by God’s sovereignty. It says nothing about implementing theocracy.
Our kingdom is to come, it is not on this earth.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, Thorn – AntiFederalist is way of base. The 3 of us disagree on RP, but we all agree that AntiFederalist views that he is present is not based on the Christain Faith.
Report comment to moderator
Real conservatives are not statists. To call conservatives statists is to misunderstand both words and both groups.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle asked, “According to the Constitution, are we supposed to bring our standards to the national government to impose on others, or are we supposed to work at the local and state level along with our fellow-citizens whom we know more intimately and with whom we are more likely to share values and know the local circumstances?”
Both! Kyle, what on earth is the difference? The answer is both. Anything gov’t does can be seen as an “imposing” of some kind on some one so if we have ANY gov’t at all, we are imposing standards on others. Christiancs are not banned by the Constitution from participating on an equal basis in the process of “imposing” (your word) standards.
So, Christians can work at the local and state and federal level along with anyone else to impose standards under our constitutional process respecting the consent of the governed. If we (Christian or not) cannot get the consent of the governed, then we can’t “impose.”
Report comment to moderator
The last two paragraphs (my response to Kyle) were not supposed to be italicized.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, excellent posts. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM,
I am with a non-denominational Christian church, or “undenominational” as some prefer to call us. I am with the Church of Christ, a diverse but usually very Bible-respecting type of movement. Blessings.
Report comment to moderator
Blaze asked; “When did we as christians look to the government leadership to define our faith in God?”
In America, never, to my knowledge.
Beyond that, see Cheryl’s fine reply at #104.
Report comment to moderator
Great post, Sails, at #105. I noticed RP’s factual error too and wondered if any of the others would point it out. But I think they just see him as the crazy aunt in the attic and they don’t want to alienate his followers.
In my case, I take Ron Paul seriously and listen to him. That’s why I oppose him so much. He is soooo terribly irresponsible, uninformed and unrealistic as a pontificating politican who often gets serious things dead wrong.
It’s not so bad that he wrongly said that we had supported the Taliban but it is inexcusable for him to misunderstand what they actually want and what their mission really is. The Taliban supported and helped Al Qaeda attack the US (innocent citizens) on US soil.
Report comment to moderator
“The point is in that debate Paul falsely claimed that the Taliban was among our allies in fighting the Russian occupation and that he implied that the sole reason they are fighting is America’s “occupation.””
You are correct that the Taliban arose after Russia was kicked out.
Afghanistan was our ally at the time. And no, he implied that they would prefer to be left alone from foreign interference.
Frankly if they are good at killing themselves, why do we feel the need to kill them all now?
Once we left and the Russians left, the factions among themselves turned on each other and the Taliban came out stronger.
Once again, Islam, especially radical Islam thrives on the sword. In 1300 years it has never bowed the knee from the sword.
Why do we continue with the same tactics that fail?
Iraq will be Afghanistan instant replay. It will fall to some odd minority faction that no one saw coming, and we will feel the need to just go back in there and kick another regime out.
This is what happens when you try to conquer without actually conquering. It’s just destruction. It’s chasing after the wind.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn; “Frankly if they are good at killing themselves, why do we feel the need to kill them all now?”
Because they mercilessly repress and murder others too. They are as dangerous as ever. If unopposed, they would work with Al Qarda or other terrorists again to attack innocent people. Remember, they were the ones who gave Al Qaeda and Osama bin-ladin all they needed to plan and execute their mass murder of Americans on American soil.
But you knew that already, didn’t you?
Report comment to moderator
So does China, so did Russia, so do many nations in Africa, so does N. Korea…
Where does it end JM? Can you conquer the world to bring peace? Is it feasible? Why pick on the small guys when they aren’t just getting funded by the taliban…?
Every man is evil whether you, me, or a terrorist. Every man needs Jesus. Jesus didn’t need the sword to be victorious.
But you knew that already, didn’t you?
Report comment to moderator
“This is what happens when you try to conquer without actually conquering. It’s just destruction. It’s chasing after the wind.”
Vietnam comes to mind.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn wrote; “So does China, so did Russia, so do many nations in Africa, so does N. Korea…
what are you talking about? Tose countries may have flaws but they did not and have not supported Al Qaeda in a way remotly comparable with the way the taliban did. Not even close. was that what you were implying?
“Where does it end JM?”
Good question. Not with appeasement or with us running away from the problem. With terrorists like them, it is hard to say because they are often willing to die for their evil cause–which includes killing the innocent. I sure admire our military for being the ones to actually take on the “where will this end?” question in the most realistic and courageous way possible.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn asked, “Can you conquer the world to bring peace?”
No, and no conservative I know has suggested or conceive of such an approach. That would be ridiculous in the extreme. Has it not occurred to you, Thorn, that conquering others is NOT by any strtch our mission? You seem to put an unfair and wrong spin on what our mlitary has tried and is trying to do.
And you theological points (which I generally agreed with) were nice but nt applicable since it has nothing to do with what we are disagreeing on.
Report comment to moderator
Another problem is that our government is not content to declare war on other nations (as bad as that is). With the passage of NDAA and the perpetual re-authorization of the Patriot Act, the US government is not declaring war on Al Qaeda, it’s declaring war on the American citizen.
It’s the American citizen who is losing the guarantees of freedom and due process. It’s the innocent OR guilty American citizen that can now be legally plucked up from their home without hard evidence. And simply by the President’s order, the American citizen can be held, apparently in secret.
If terrorists do indeed hate us for our freedoms, and their goal was to destroy our freedoms, they can now declare at least a partial victory because of these legislative Acts.
And for how long? UBL is dead. Until terrorism is wiped from the earth? It’s the American citizen who is the real loser here.
Thanks to Congress, and with the approval of our President and all of our presidential candidates—except one—-the freedoms of any American citizen may be violated at the President’s will.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Jesus didn’t need the sword to be victorious.
Agreed, but then Jesus was a divine human being begotten of the Father. We ordinary fallen mortals strive to be kind, loving beings, though history amply proves that some evil men and nations need to be dealt with by the sword. Paul understood this as did Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin.
If you want peace, then credibly prepare for war and, if necessary, fight to win. One way to win at present is the carefully legislated Patriot Act and NDAA.
Report comment to moderator
“Tose countries may have flaws but they did not and have not supported Al Qaeda in a way remotly comparable with the way the taliban did. Not even close. was that what you were implying?”
Flaws? You call the mountain of human rights violations and persecutions, flaws?
The mountain of funding they’ve given over time to arab nations who support the terrorists? Why don’t we steamroll over Pakistan while we are at it?? We know they funded the taliban
You realize that the Russians used to use toys, like a toy bear, stuffed with a bomb inside, and when a little boy comes to pick it up…boom.
China has tossed many a christian into slave labor camps, just for being christian.
Terrorism is no less evil than what we have seen from China, Russia, and several other oppressive countries over the years.
“Not with appeasement or with us running away from the problem. With terrorists like them, it is hard to say because they are often willing to die for their evil cause–which includes killing the innocent. I sure admire our military for being the ones to actually take on the “where will this end?” question in the most realistic and courageous way possible.”
Hasn’t ended in 1300 years…
JM, declaring peace so that we can take them the gospel is not running away. It is the most realistic and courageous way to bring redemption to people, even terrorists, who need Jesus.
And that is something far more worth dying for.
“Has it not occurred to you, Thorn, that conquering others is NOT by any strtch our mission?”
Then what is our mission?
Why are we leaving Iraq, when everyday there are more bombings by terrorists? Why are we leaving if the mission is not over?
How many top operatives remain? How long will Iraq last before it crumbles under another Taliban-like regime?
“And you theological points (which I generally agreed with) were nice but nt applicable since it has nothing to do with what we are disagreeing on.”
They are very applicable. You must believe that the power of the gospel is far greater than anything a bomb could deliver.
That is why the theological points, as christians especially, are relevant.
We need to be Jonah, going to the ninevites, not Jesus’ 2nd coming.
Report comment to moderator
Great article! I’m so glad it was written! No, I’m not voting for him, but it’s because of his views of foreign policy. He has things to say about domestic policy that are very important, and the GOP is very foolish to ignore them.
There’s a great divide among the Covenant Theology types who want to “bring in the kingdom” and some of us with more Dispensational leanings. It usually shows up in our ideas about the role of government. This article addresses it well.
Report comment to moderator
“We ordinary fallen mortals strive to be kind, loving beings, though history amply proves that some evil men and nations need to be dealt with by the sword. Paul understood this as did Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin.
If you want peace, then credibly prepare for war and, if necessary, fight to win. One way to win at present is the carefully legislated Patriot Act and NDAA”
I’m sorry, when did Paul ever carry a sword around?
Is not Iran’s government just as established as the USAs? Are they not both by the sovereignty of God that they have power and authority over their people?
Do you really think that Paul in Romans 13 is arguing that if England issues laws to the Romans, that they’d have to abide?
He’s telling the Romans to obey the authority they are under, which is Rome, because that authority has the right to punish their wrongs.
It’s not saying Rome can be the judge and executioner of England. It’s not a discussion of nation vs. nation.
How can the USA be anybody’s judge, when we rape, murder, steal, publish mountains of porn and sex, among our own. We are not a theocracy, we were not called by God to take the promised land. We are just as evil as Iranians.
Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with self defense or with going to aid friends in danger.
But traipsing through country after country with a large clunky army after a hand full of men hiding in holes, is not self defense, and it has not aided anyone, nor is it even good war strategy against guerilla warfare.
Report comment to moderator
The main reason the title of the article is a false premise is because of Ron Paul’s correct understanding of the framers design of our Federal Constituent. He understands the premise of enumerated powers doctrine, State’s right to police powers doctrine, and the view that the gov’t doesn’t grant “rights” but that our rights are God given Life, Liberty and Property. He understands that “rights” can’t exist if you are infringing on someone else’s “rights”. We yield some enumerated freedoms to the government in exchange for protection from harm, (foreign or domestic). As believers we should be careful to know how and understand fully the responsibilities of dual citizenship between State and Federal constitutions (which are contracts or in church speak “covenants”). We should also understand our dual citizenship of country and heavenly citizenship. We should understand the difference between being an ambassador for Christ, and as some would teach dogmatically-to poses the land, (a commandment given to Israel to poses the Holy Land) as though it applies to us in the church age. Knowing the different dispensation of “The times of the gentiles” as Christ put it, referring to the age of grace under Paul’s ministry call to be “The Apostle to The gentiles.” In which we are ambassadors representing Christ while sojourning in this land.
Report comment to moderator
“One way to win at present is the carefully legislated Patriot Act and NDAA”
Yes by all means, compromise the very rights of others that your own nation upholds in order to justify the means to the end.
This is like if a judge ran around taking bribes from attorneys, while sentencing several unrelated thieves to prison.
But the very qualification of being able to judge anyone else, is that you must ABIDE by the law yourself.
So the moment the USA suspends human rights to others not of this nation, though it says these are good for everyone, is the moment it no longer has the position from which to judge anyone else by.
It’s hypocritcal. And this is never more important than during war. We must show the Iraqis and the Iranians and anyone else we wish to help, that we will treat all of them with the same rights, right on down to even their worst of offenders, as if they were our own citizens.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul does not understand our enemies, nor does he understand us since he blames us for the evil they do. He is unqualified to be Cammander-in-Chief.
Report comment to moderator
I’d say after 60 years we both have made mistakes JM. Meddling in their politics over the years, bombing their neighbors and killing civilians in the process…still trying to direct their governments.
The sword will always create resentment. You will not find peace with it.
Time to lay the sword down. They’ve suffered enough retribution.
Take them something more powerful than the sword. Take them the gospel. Love terrorists and muslims and iranians. They need Christ, not a bullet with their name on it.
If God would have spared Sodom had there been 1 christian…why can we not spare Iran?
Why do you insist on the sword, when the gospel is far greater?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, “They need Christ, not a bullet with their name on it.”
Can’t you understand that in the real world, such simplistic dichotomies are meaningless for nations and leaders who must actually face real-life tough dilemmas with no easy options? Can’t you even see that, Thorn? I reall want to know.
Report comment to moderator
Homeschool Mom, just so you know, the vast majority of Reformed people, those of us who beleive in Covenant theology, believe the church and the state are distinct, and we do not believe in theonomy. My denomination studied it in depth, wrote a position paper about it, and declared it error. Our pastors are not to be teaching it. I don’t remember if they went as far as calling it heresy, but definitely the vast majority of Reformed people do not support it at all, and only a tiny percentage of people support it to the degree expressed by a few on this blog, that unbelievers should be put to death.
Report comment to moderator
that unbelievers should be put to death
For what it’s worth, that’s not even the position of the ardent theonomists. They don’t think unbelievers should be put to death simply for being unbelievers. They just think “biblical law” should become the law of the land, along with its many capital crimes. Homosexual acts, witchcraft, etc.
While it’s true that the majority of reformed folks aren’t theonomists, the reverse is pretty true. Every theonomist I’ve met has been a Calvinist in some form or fashion.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Of course Reformed Theologists believe that Church and State are distinct. I made no claim that they didn’t. Your response goes waaaaay too far by suggesting I assumed theonomy.
“Bringing in the kingdom” is a characteristic of Covenant Theology. I am claiming that thinking as the primary motivation of Covenant Theologists to scrutinize candidates and legislation.
I made my statement in the context of an article about some Christians who have a hard time with RP because of issues like gay-marriage, legalized drug use and voluntary adult prostitution. As long as those behaviors and their results do not violate another person’s civil rights, there is no need for government to intervene.
Abortion, forced prostitution, DWIs, and the like demand legislation and punitive measures by libertarians (those who recognize the pre-born as persons) because they are violations of other people’s civil rights. Many of us believe the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers are what we should use to scrutinize candidates and proposed legislation.
There are plenty of believers who think that just because something is sinful, they have an obligation to vote for candidates who will work to make it illegal whether or not those believers hold to “bringing in the kingdom” thinking. But the covenant theologist voters are characterized by it. It’s something libertarians and very serious small government conservatives need to be ware of. It’s similar to Romney’s “Evangelical Problem.”
We think it’s the job of believers to witness and preach the gospel so that the souls of the sinful are transformed from the inside which always results in good outer social behavior. Simply restraining outside behaviors with government without inner transformation just leaves a nation of Pharisees-whitewashed on the outside and rotting on the inside.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, see post 116. If that poster isn’t saying unbelievers should be put to death simply because they are unbelievers, then I have no idea what he is saying. He may be an extremist as theonomists go (which was my point), but he most certainly seems to be saying that.
Homeschool Mom, thanks for the clarification. A proper understanding of Reformed theology would never understand politics as the means of “bringing in the Kingdom,” but I imagine there is a lot of misunderstanding in which some might think that.
Report comment to moderator
It always mystifies me when people don’t support Ron Paul. If you want tyranny and perpetual war, any of the other candidates will do. They are the same old thing – not much difference among them.
If you want Liberty, you only have one choice – Ron Paul. His statements are simple. Why do we need 10,000 troops in Italy? Why do we need 900 bases overseas? He doesn’t want to cut Defense spending – just overseas spending. He is the most Christian of all the candidates. After hearing all the others talking about “killing them” and hearing Paul get booed for preaching the Golden Rule, it does make one wonder. I fear if the message doesn’t get spread more widely, the brainwashed American people will vote in the wrong person and they will pay dearly.
Report comment to moderator
All this wrangling over Ron Paul just goes right over my head. CA doesn’t vote for quite a while so I will just wait.
ABO
Report comment to moderator
#151. Exactly. Nothing else needs to be said.
Report comment to moderator
I am going to address Pastor Roy here. I don’t mean to single him out, because there are plenty of others who see things the way he does, and I do not mean “I am not going to vote for Ron Paul.”
I am speaking on his understanding of government and its purpose. Specifically, the purpose of government as set up by our founders.
Our founders understood what is taught in the Bible: self-government begins within our selves, and only when we cannot or will not exercise that self-government (self-control) do we need an external governmental body to make us do it. For most issues, that is best done at the local level, by our family, friends and neighbors.
It was for this reason that many were uneasy with the Constitution when it was first written; they were fearful of national governmental interference in what should be private affairs. The union was a voluntary one, agreed on by independent states. The Tenth Amendment guaranteed the states their autonomy in anything that was not specifically delegated in the Constitution.
Pastor Roy and others are concerned that if certain ungodly activities are sent back to the states, that they will be legalized. That may be. But it is much easier for the people of a state to replace their state representatives who allow such things than it is to replace the representatives of another state who send representatives and senators to Congress and who allow such things. It is also easier to remove state judges (re:Iowa) who think they can legislate from the bench, than to remove federal judges with lifetime appointments, and who can only be removed via the impeachment process.
What I am saying here is that we need to understand the principles of self-government if we have any hope to survive through this crisis. I suggest that Pastor Roy and others (sorry, Pastor Roy!) study not only the Constitution as it was written, but study what the Founders who wrote it thought about self-government. To say that those in the federal government, most of whom are unelected and therefore not representatives of the people, are the ones who can and must save us from immoral laws, is to say that we are not capable – or rather, we are not willing – of performing our duty of self-government (self-control, remember!).
Report comment to moderator
By the way, I AM going to vote for Ron Paul in my primary next week. I have researched all the candidates – good men all, each with good points – by going to their websites to see what they have to say that the media never gets to. I was still undecided, though leaning toward Dr. Paul, when I read this, posted by a commenter of another WORLD article.
http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/why-ron-paul-2012-01/#.Tx5tUm2k6VM.email
It is one of the best-worded defenses I have read outside of Dr. Paul’s website. I highly recommend reading it, if you are still searching.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t support drugs being legalized, they do too much damage, but I don’t think moral legislation is the way to go, either. Some things are better done by encouraging a society with a Christian base rather than having the government force it on everybody.
That said, I’m thinking either Santorum (sp?) or Gingrich right now. I’m still trying to do my research.
Report comment to moderator
I said this before: Ron Paul is a nice decent human-being. I agree with him in getting rid of the Fed, cutting much of Government and so forth.
Where Mr. Paul is Dangerous–unacceptable for the Oval office is his implied belief that we still all live in the Garden of Eden–no harmful threats exists. This naivete is scary. We already have Barack Obama who comes close to this sort of child-like thinking, and we see how many wannabe Gardeneers are out walking about–and to think they can vote!
Report comment to moderator
I see that Christians here have lost the sight the upcoming wrath and the work that Satan has been doing over these years. Ron Paul is a must because their simply isn’t anyone else that is going to help save this country period. Why your all so hung up on the war on drugs and prostitution is taking you away from the bigger picture. These globalists are running the show. Banks and corporations are trying to kill you. Obama and everyone else running except Ron Paul is part of the same group. You people need to wake up! God is pressing on me to show you that it is absolutely important to stay clear of all that you see on the media and pay more attention to Ron Paul. He is a light in the darkness compared to everyone else. The tactics are the same. The devil is using the same game plan. I wonder how so many are losing sight of it. This is a war between good and evil and paul not perfect by any means, doesn’t lie to you. he doesnt take corporate contributions nor does he have lobbyists. they are the people that poison your water, sterilize your kids through vaccines, bombard you with known drugs that kill you but its ok because its the pharma companies and corporations that tell you its good. Your food is filled with drugs that cause sterilization and breast cancer. The government man handles your children at the airport and sporting events, they use drive by x-ray body scanners that will eventually kill you from cancer. Do any of you get out of the house and see whats really going on because Christians need to wake up. The devil is in control and if you all don’t see that we are in trouble. Bill gates is on record stating that through vaccines healthcare and contraceptives we can succeed in reducing the population. Nancy Pulosi another one who supports population control. Ted Turner, Santorum, Rockefeller and many many others all want you dead. And guess what? They already own you and control you and you don’t see it.Im sorry but give me Ron Paul or give me death because this country and the world for that matter is on the verge of fulfilling prophecy. Legalizing drugs would actually help the people if any of you actually knew how screwed up it really was. 1000’s of people die every year from marijuana related deaths from drug trafficking. 41% of marijuana comes from the Mexican drug cartel. You mean to tell me legalizing weed wont help? Heroin! OMG I cant wait till its legal boy im going to do it all day…Give me a break. And you people who bought into this terrorism fallacy need some serious help. The U.S. created this war on terror just like Hitler did. Wake up brothers and sisters because Jesus is coming. Get your wisdom on and stop watching TV satan took hold of it years ago. Their is nothing on their that will help you. Most of what the MSM tells you about Ron Paul is blatant lies. He’s far from perfect but he speaks the truth and the truth is what matters. God help us and Blessed be the Lord Jesus for He is our King our President our savior our friend!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t understand how legalizing drugs will help people to quit using them? Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.
Report comment to moderator
P.S.
And, aside, do you have any proof regarding moral legislation and vaccinations/food containing sterilization and other chemicals? Not saying it’s not true, very well could be.
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!