Ron Paul's Faith - The Deal?

[slbowman]

What's RP against?

[Delivered4000]

I think he's just against federal funding for stem cell research

[Therion]

Ron Paul isn't obligated to please anybody. That's what's so great about him.

[LibertyEagle]

He's not against stem cell research, he's against FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research. He thinks the R&D should be funded by companies in the market.

[slbowman]

..

[Harald]

Missing the Point: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul252.html

The issue is not whether the federal government should fund one type of stem cell research or another. The issue is whether the federal government should fund stem cell research at all...

Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding also causes researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. Medical advancements often result from radical ideas and approaches that are scoffed at initially by the establishment. When scientists become dependent on government funds, however, they quickly learn not to rock the boat and stick to accepted areas of inquiry. Federal funds thus distort the natural market for scientific research.
...
Government cannot instill morality in the American people. On the contrary, rigid, centralized, government decision-making is indicative of an apathetic and immoral society. The greatest casualty of centralized government decision-making is personal liberty.

[slbowman]

I'll do this thread again and ask my question better- without mentioning stem cell research :)

Many Americans are blaming where we are at now on the influence of Christianity in public office.

Personally, I am aganist gov. funded stem cells. It's a *great* private interest. So it's unneccary.. that simple. My question pertains to his overall service and that was an example.

[Harald]

If the president limits his actions to what is allowed in the constitution then his religion should not be viewed as a threat.

[RJB]

If the president limits his actions to what is allowed in the constitution then his religion should not be viewed as a threat.

Great post.

Also Ron Paul stated in the last debate that making a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iraq would go against Chirstian beliefs. And he is right on there. Just as globalist have taken over our country, I think it's more that the GOP has taken over Christianity not that christianity took over the country.. My father is a very devout Catholic, but despite the Pope's anti-Iraq invasion stance, my father was for the war. I've been challenging him lately on the foundations of his belief. My best line was, "So did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter or George Bush?" :) I am having a lot of fun recently reversing the roles on my father. Heh heh heh But I think I've won him over, although I don't think he wants to admit it.

[CrownThyGood]

Hey .. i'm a big Ron Paul fan and proud to be an american. I didn't know where to post this but I'm sure someone in these forums knows enough about Dr. Paul to answer me this one last glaring question for me. After the CNN debate he was being interviewed by someone who ask him about the monetary system or something like that. Dr. Paul responded something to the effect that what could be done about the the corrupt practice of printing money is to not have paper money. Does Dr. Paul advocate a cashless society and if He Does would He promote this type of cashless system or was he only implying another way to stop the corrupt printing process? Thanx for your reply.:)

[RJB]

I believe he's saying the paper money should be backed by gold. Right now, there is nothing backing our money, but I didn't hear the quote you are refering to.

[lucky]

Yes he is advocating a gold dtandard where money is backed by gold and silver.

Not many people may remember but we used to have this in the past. In fact all bills even said so somewhere on the bill. I remember when I was very young and read something about that this bill was a silver certificate or something and I had asked my dad what it meant and he had said that if I wanted I could go to a bank ( I think he said bank) and redeem it for silver. I was a kid and it meant little to me at the time.

I saw a vid on youtube where an interviewer was asking RP about this stuff and RP had said something that I never realized before. He had said that gold and silver now if one wants to buy it is at a disadvantage because if you buy the metals now that it is taxed like anything else that you can buy at a store. It places gold and silver at a disadvantage because it is bought with paper money and then taxed making it more expensive. He suggested a seperate monetary system and stop taxing the metals and we could if we desire use the metalsthat the constitution says is our right.

He also said that the only money that the constitution authorizes is gold or silver. So it made me wonder why when we went off the gold standard many years ago why we started taxing it? If we look deeper we will start finding out about the central bank and who runs it and the global implications.

It seems that if we return to the gold and silver backed money that the rest of the world would become very nervous indeed. This is much bigger than we dare to imagine.

[ThePieSwindler]

RE: Gold standard and paper money comment

Going back on the gold standard not only means the currency is backed by gold/silver, but that gold and silver are actually tradable currencies rather than market commodities (i.e taxable). The dollar used to be a gold certificate, not a federal reserve note.

[lucky]

I went and found a Wikipedia where they discuss the silver certificates and alsothe gold standard also.

It is trange to remember those things all these years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Certificate

[CJLauderdale4]

Protestant Christianity isn't the enemy, it was the faith of the Founders and the inspiration for checks/balances and the three house system of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches.

Also, many of the Founders took issue with non-Christians serving in government because their oaths to God would not be meaningful, or in the case of Catholics, an oath to the Pope may be seen as a higher priority than an oath to the Constitution.

John Adams specifically wrote that the construct of the Federal Government is designed with the governing of Christians by Christians.

Remember, it was the Faith of these men that provided them the strength to defeat the greatest military in the world. They could not turn their backs on Jesus, and to think of anyone in America who would do so was incomprehensible.

In a Republic, laws rule. In a democracy, the mob rules. Laws govern our nation, and our leaders must possess some sort of common moral foundation to base decisions upon when creating laws.

[CrownThyGood]

OK .. it was Lynden Johnson who succeeded JFK. Shortly after LJ was in office he stopped the printing of american bank notes and started printing federal reserve notes. I think most of us can figure out what was going on with that screwed up deal.

[AgentSmith]

So, are you the same person who tried this tactic on the other forum?

Its not going to work.

[jon_perez]

... After the CNN debate he was being interviewed by someone who ask him about the monetary system or something like that. Dr. Paul responded something to the effect that what could be done about the the corrupt practice of printing money is to not have paper money.Not having 'paper money' is shorthand for saying not having a fiat money system.

We would still exchange pieces of paper to transact for goods but those pieces of paper are backed up with some real store of value as opposed to magically being created out of thin air whenever monetary policy dictates.

Using gold standard vs. fiat money is a very complex economic issue and I was very heartened to realize that Ron Paul has apparently given it a lot of thought recently and while his original sentiment for using a gold standard remains, he has a much more pragmatic stance about how to restore the use of so-called 'sound money' into the economy.

[jon_perez]

They could not turn their backs on Jesus, and to think of anyone in America who would do so was incomprehensible.You'd think if that were the case that the name "Jesus Christ" itself would be inscribed somewhere in the Constitution.

As I understand it, most of the Founding Fathers were what would today be called "deists", loosely meaning that they believed in a single (presumably benevolent) 'Supreme Being' but rejected specific religious doctrines and explanations. This explains why the word 'God' appears in the constitution but only in a very general sense.

[RJB]

There are quotations by the founders that morality (sometimes they do name Christian morality) is necessary to a democracy. I'll try to find them.

What is so special about the American constitution is that it states that freedom is given to us by God, not the government. So without God our freedoms are void in a sense. In other country's charters, kings were given the Authority to rule by God which goes against the Christian bible, where Jesus made clear that he was not here to establish an earthly kingdom.

So when the founding fathers wrote the amendment forbidding the establishment of religion, they were refering to an official state religion, specifically the Church of England or as hinted at above, a papal state (as a Roman Catholic, I would be against a papal state, as it is both unbiblical and unconstitutional.) As Lord Acton stated Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This applies to "men of God" as well.

Where I worry about the current GOP is that they have some christians so convinced that they are the party of God, that people (like my father) will blindly follow the GOP into doing unchristian acts-- like pre-emptive nuclear strikes. This isn't the first time in history that this has happened, but thankfully I believe people are waking up.

I believe what may be the biggest concerns with some who are athiest and believe that christianity is the cause of a lot of problems is the control that "christian special interest" have. They are no different than any other lobbyist. The difference between Ron Paul and other congressmen is that lobbyist do not bother Ron Paul because they know that his vote can't be bought. He goes by the constitution.

Living by Jesus's command Love one another as yourself, a country can't go wrong.

[MGS]

Myself i am agnostic, however, i don't think with Ron Paul religion will be an issue. Simply because he is a strict constitutionalist, therefore he will to his best abilities maintain the separation of church and state.

[RJB]

however, i don't think with Ron Paul religion will be an issue. Simply because he is a strict constitutionalist, therefore he will to his best abilities maintain the separation of church and state.

I should have said that and saved my fingers all the typing :)

[wolv275]

Don't forget that he believes church and state should work together, but only in the state and local levels. Where people by the majority city through city can vote to have what ever faith base system works for them. That way he may have a personal belief or ideology, but he does not impose that into anyone because the constitution protects all faiths.

[CJLauderdale4]

You'd think if that were the case that the name "Jesus Christ" itself would be inscribed somewhere in the Constitution.

As I understand it, most of the Founding Fathers were what would today be called "deists", loosely meaning that they believed in a single (presumably benevolent) 'Supreme Being' but rejected specific religious doctrines and explanations. This explains why the word 'God' appears in the constitution but only in a very general sense.

Careful...do some research on the faith of the Founders...truly inspiring stuff...

The Founders were NOT deists. Deists believed that God exists, but he isn't around to Providentially assist in matters on Earth (i.e. answering prayer, causing miracles,...)

One place to see this is in David Barton's Original Intent. Full of footnotes to verify the facts, he shows the Founders faith and provides hundreds of quotes: http://www.wallbuilders.com/store/page1.html

Three ways to easily see that the deism claim is false:

1) The majority of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution had seminary degrees from Protestant seminaries. Why would they study Divinity to serve a God who wasn't listening?? Wouldn't the result of the Revolution increase their belief in Providence??

2) In the late 18th Century, 99% of people living in the States were Protestant Christians starting a life in the new free world, away from the Anglican or Catholic churches. To think that the Founders were in the 1%, completely out of step with the rest of the people is highly improbable.

3) You gotta check the writings of these guys!! It is truly inspiring stuff:

-- Washington's journal reveals that he prayed for 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour at night with a Bible on a chair in front of him while on his knees. He was never injured in all of the battles of the Revolution, even though he had bullet holes in hats, coats, etc. He worshipped at an Episcopal church every Sunday. Why would a deist do any of this??

-- Franklin, one of the least Christian in his lifestyle, gave a stirring call to prayer and fasting when the entire Constitutional Congress was deadlocked over the Constitution signing. Why would a deist call for a weekend of prayer and fasting to a God who's not listening?? Better yet, imagine if Congress did this today over the Immigration Bill!!

-- Jefferson, the father of "separation of church and state" did several things:

-- attended the largest church in DC, which convened in the CAPITOL BUILDING!! This was where the largest congregation in DC convened for nearly 100 years!!
-- was the first to sign Presidential docs with "In the year of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" rather than just "In the year of our Lord" (there's a Jesus reference). What was he doing?? Didn't he read his own letter on "separation"??
-- ordered that the U.S. Marine Band play at the Capitol building church services because the music needed to be better
-- as the superintendent of DC school board, he mandated two books be brought to school - the Bible and the Watts Hymnal. Why would a deist want children praying and singing to a God who isn't listening??


The list goes on and on... I could talk about this all day. It's truly awesome the nation we were given!! Just look up the history. It's great!!

[mesler]

I'm mostly worried about the larger rammifications.
Stem cell research was just a quick example.

A lot of people that know little about politics might hear about a candidate that wants to repeal the patriot act and loves freedom and be like ....yippee.

Then vote against them because of their stances on abortion.

The fact of the matter is, most people know very little. I am the 'politricks hexpert' around my area and people are always asking me questions. These are college students.... and most of them just want to elect a democrat b/c they think it'll fix everything!!

Crazy talk...

I hear you. What I tell these people is that if Republcans ban Stem Cell research, the Democrats can allow it. Same for abortion. Same for gay marriage. The conservative thing to do is to say "state's rights" and move on. Otherwise you have conceded that the fight for state's rights is completely lost.

[RJB]

The conservative thing to do is to say "state's rights" and move on. Otherwise you have conceded that the fight for state's rights is completely lost.

I think that is one reason why we are at each other's throat in this country, where it's Dems vs repubs, Christians vs secularist, peaceniks vs Hawks. We have a large federal government who forcibly takes the peacenik's money to fight an undeclared war (murder civillians in their eyes), takes the christian's money to fund abortion (kill babies in there eyes) It goes on and on... If states are in charge of their own business and the fed is under control. You could have more liberal people in California, say, smoking pot and having abortoins. While conservatives in Missouri can ban that. That was the beauty of our nation.
Now since the Fed can tell us all what to do, it is a continual fight.

The deists joined the unitarians. There are three on the below list. It's the same number as Catholics. CJs right most were protestant. Thomas Paine was probably the most vocal of the Deists.

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
Founding
Fathers % of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

[Bob Cochran]

Many Americans are blaming where we are at now on the influence of Christianity in public office.
Yeah, that's really a sad thing.

Dubya, who I believe really is a Christian, is also incredibly misguided in his decision making as President, due to influences OUTSIDE OF HIS CHRISTIAN FAITH! If he had been more careful about following Christ, we would NOT be in Iraq.

Anyway, his lack of wisdom and resultant poor decisions are unfairly blamed on Christianity.

When a person becomes a Christian, it does not mean that person suddenly becomes all-knowing and perfectly wise. It also does not mean that the person automatically has the support of all other Christians, because those who call themselves Christians are incredibly diverse in their exact belief systems, and one Christian can certainly believe that another Christian is in great error, either with regard to theology or non-theological issues.

I believe that a person with a sufficient level of wisdom can keep his faith and the Constitution separate and in perspective. The Constitution to me looks like a document that can be followed regardless of a person's religious beliefs, or lack of same.

As CJLauderdale4 pointed out, many of the signers of the Constitution were Christians, but were able to wholeheartedly support this document that was designed NOT to shove their faith down others' throats.

Ron Paul seems like he truly "gets" it, and has carefully thought about how the Constitution tries to allow athiests to enjoy the same freedoms as Christians, and Christians the same freedoms as Muslims, and Jews the same freedoms as Buddhists, etc.

[ThePieSwindler]

Yeah, that's really a sad thing.

Dubya, who I believe really is a Christian, is also incredibly misguided in his decision making as President, due to influences OUTSIDE OF HIS CHRISTIAN FAITH! If he had been more careful about following Christ, we would NOT be in Iraq.

(the rest cut out)


I agree on all your other points, and am myself a Christian - however, I question the faith of a man who was in an occultist secret society in college, and frequents the Bohemian Grove in Sonoma, California, where occult signs and rituals are commonplace. In fact, Bush's quarters at the Grove have numerous occult symbols on it. It is dangerous, i think, to follow the Michael Moore line of criticism - that Bush is a bumbling idiot. I actually happen to think BUsh is alot more intelligent than he lets on, or at the very least, he is as dumb and inept as he seems and that Karl Rove et al. pull the strings behind the scenes. I only hope and wish it is onlyt simple misdirection, and not something more sinister.

[CJLauderdale4]

-- RJB

Thomas Paine was the most Deist, in that he wrote the Age of Reason, which strikes down the concept of almost all forms of Divine Providence.

What's funny about this, is that Thomas Paine had Benjamin Franklin, one of our least-Chrisitian Founders, to review Age of Reason before it was published. Here's what he wrote to Paine:

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?

Read the whole thing here: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/franklin_paineletter.html

[wwycher]

State needs to deal with it, is all he is saying. We can pop this bloated tick on our backs if we stick together. If we do this, we will get to experience freedom and liberty like like we have never known before. Hell, like anyone born in the last 90 years has known. His faith or his beliefs are not the central message. This process is going to be uncomortable for a little while and we just need to have faith in freedom. Thats all Dr. paul is saying.

[ButchHowdy]

True Christianity is represented by the condition of one's heart. When the scripture says 'Blessed are the Peacemakers' and at the same time our 'Christian' president hauls the US military off to foreign lands to wreak havoc, one should spot the inconsistency.

As a passionate lover of Jesus Christ I feel that 'Christianity' is being used so loosely and this is why I want a distinct separation of church and state.

Our president is in cahoots with many radical Christian leaders who represent a popular sect of Christianity that gained popularity in the 1800's. There really isn't a formal name for this system but it started by a 'carnal' interpretation of scripture by a well funded felon named Cyrus I Scofield who created a study bible describing a unique brand of Armegeddon-style end time prophecy that in 1910 became the official bible/commentary book for the 'Assemblies Of God' ministries, then onto the 'Dallas Theological Seminary' that spawned many of the decieved preachers we have today mixing into politics.

I hope Ron Paul can find a way to grab support from the camps of Pat Robertson and James Dobson but ultimately disassociate himself with their radical beliefs.

[Bob Cochran]

I think being an uncomprimising, pure supporter of the Constitution will by itself win him support from many diverse camps.