If you want to understand why some Christian Libertarians might not vote for Paul, read...

[Maestro232]

If you want to understand why Paul has struggled to gain a large portion of the Christian Libertarian-leaning vote, then this is worth your read. I offer it without comment, except to say that this blogger represents a large voting block that Ron Paul really needs to think about.

http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8636:then-leave-the-man-alone&catid=87:politics

[Fredom101]

This sucks because if he went more Jesus I wouldn't be interested in supporting him, and I'm sure a lot of my atheist brothers wouldn't either. This is the problem with politics and why not pandering hurts one's chances of winning elections.

[Maestro232]

Well, and I don't think someone like Wilson is advocating non-stop Jesus talk, but rather, voicing a recognition that his liberty derives from the tenets of his faith and specifying what those are. That way atheists can still agree with him on liberty and teh Christians can be assured that he's grounding them on a standard they are comfortable with.

While Paul will never get the "Dobson Vote" I feel like the "Wilson Vote" (what I'll call the "Contemplative Christian Vote") is so close, but not there, and I honestly do not believe Paul can win without that vote.

[Kludge]

I'm not sure how Ron could tailor his message to someone arguing for the outlawing of prostitution when the topic's brought up. RP and this fellow differ in that RP believes man has no authority to make laws against any activity which doesn't physically harm us. This fellow believes man should simply live by the Old Israel's laws which have no foundation in reason. Drunkenness is okay by him, but adultery is not because while drunkenness was (I guess) legal in Israel, adultery was a crime, even though both are condemned by God.

It's simply an unavoidable difference in opinion. If people disagree with Ron's policy choices (more than his political opponents), they won't vote for him. There's nothing that can be done except to convince this voting bloc either that they have more in common with Ron than others, or that they're wrong.

[jmdrake]

This sucks because if he went more Jesus I wouldn't be interested in supporting him, and I'm sure a lot of my atheist brothers wouldn't either. This is the problem with politics and why not pandering hurts one's chances of winning elections.

So if Ron Paul said "I believe Jesus wants people to make up their own minds to follow Him and live a moral life and that the government should coerce this" that would bother you and your atheist brothers? :confused: :confused: really :confused:

[Maestro232]

Kludge,

I don't think that's quite correct. The indication here is that Wilson and the like are not so much turned off by a few 'surprising stands' in a mostly sound package. His problem is that Paul's libertarianism seems more to be "libertarianism is the standard" rather than "The Bible is my standard and it results in liberty." Trust me, this is a huge distinction for us Christians.

Wilson goes on to say that "Ron Paul's message resonates with many thoughtful Christians (even though he does not ground it on Scripture as he ought to)" and that "While many Christians are unsettled by Paul's idea of legalizing drugs, for example, I am far more concerned about the millions that have gotten themselves addicted to the crack cocaine of other people's money, and who need a daily fix of their power and privilege, paid for by beyond ridiculous economic policies."

So I think guys like Wilson really want to be able to support him and are having a hard time being able to justify it in good conscience. They want to be convinced that the root of his liberty are grounded in something other than the Constitution. I really don't think this is an ungettable vote, but some thinking needs to be done in this regard or Paul will simply lose.

[Acala]

I have no doubt that whatever the relationship between Ron Paul's religion and his principles of economics and government might be, he has thought VERY long and hard about whether or not to make that relationship a campaign talking point and has chosen not to do so. I respect that decision. Others should also.

If the obvious fact that Ron Paul is a Christian of the truest sort, and the fact that his stated AND DEMONSTRATED policies and principles are consistent with Christian morals, are not enough, then screw 'em. What alternative do they have anyway? A bunch of phony Christians who use their religion to feed their lust for power? If Christians are so gullible and shallow as to choose the likes of Huckabee and Gingrich because they are willing to say ANYTHING to be elected and Ron Paul is not, then they deserve the drubbing they are going to get.

[speciallyblend]

So if Ron Paul said "I believe Jesus wants people to make up their own minds to follow Him and live a moral life and that the government should coerce this" that would bother you and your atheist brothers? :confused: :confused: really :confused:

what i think he is saying in general is the christian right(the bush jesus freaks) are the ones that deter folks from joining the gop or even voting for a republican!! I was one of those! I think the christian right in the gop is to blame for much of the warmongering policies and have tarnished many folks from wanting to be called a republican or related to them! After the last 20-30 yrs in the gop! people have a right not to trust the christian right!!

[angelatc]

what i think he is saying in general is the christian right(the bush jesus freaks) are the ones that deter folks from joining the gop or even voting for a republican!! I was one of those! I think the christian right in the gop is to blame for much of the warmongering policies and have tarnished many folks from wanting to be called a republican or related to them! After the last 20-30 yrs in the gop! people have a right not to trust the christian right!!

I agree with this. The Moral Majority, aka the Compassionate Conservatives, are the faction that support socialism, and have no qualms about using our military to "do God's will."

[pcosmar]

Ok I read through that. It is early (or I am up late) and I haven't had an adequate amount of coffee yet.
It made little sense. Was convoluted and confused.
But then, anyone can blog.

I have had discussions on several of these issues with my pastor and elders of my church. Both around a table in the church basement and my own dining table.
Though I am rather irreligious the church I attend is rather conservative Baptist.

I have only seen a few that have difficulty grasping the concepts of liberty. And they tend toward authoritarianism.
I have found that Dr. Paul's message resonates well with most Christians I have discussed him with.

[silentshout]

what i think he is saying in general is the christian right(the bush jesus freaks) are the ones that deter folks from joining the gop or even voting for a republican!! I was one of those! I think the christian right in the gop is to blame for much of the warmongering policies and have tarnished many folks from wanting to be called a republican or related to them! After the last 20-30 yrs in the gop! people have a right not to trust the christian right!!


This. It wouldn't deter me from voting for a Republican like Paul, but it definitely turns me off from the GOP in general.

[nate895]

I agree with this. The Moral Majority, aka the Compassionate Conservatives, are the faction that support socialism, and have no qualms about using our military to "do God's will."

I know these people, and this isn't true. Yeah, some of them are like that. But just as many want the wars to end eventually.

I am thoroughly convinced at this point that Paul cannot win the nomination unless he shifts his rhetoric. If he would have came out and said similar things to what he did last time, the Huckabee vote would be in his camp, and possibly more. That's how he got me here, and his recent rhetoric is pushing people like me away. He needs to get back to the basics: The fundamental idea that government should be limited. A message of limited constitutional government will win the election. A message of pure libertarianism won't win a single primary.

[georgiaboy]

I have no doubt that whatever the relationship between Ron Paul's religion and his principles of economics and government might be, he has thought VERY long and hard about whether or not to make that relationship a campaign talking point and has chosen not to do so. I respect that decision. Others should also.

If the obvious fact that Ron Paul is a Christian of the truest sort, and the fact that his stated AND DEMONSTRATED policies and principles are consistent with Christian morals, are not enough, then screw 'em. What alternative do they have anyway? A bunch of phony Christians who use their religion to feed their lust for power? If Christians are so gullible and shallow as to choose the likes of Huckabee and Gingrich because they are willing to say ANYTHING to be elected and Ron Paul is not, then they deserve the drubbing they are going to get.

Truth+rep. Comparing Paul to the other candidates from an honest Christian perspective is like comparing Gold to slag.

I don't care which way you cut it - personal life, voting record, policies, actions backing up words, honesty, integrity, not pandering, humility, stewardship - it goes on and on.

[steph3n]

I am a devoted Christian that is also a minarchist in most every way.
Ron Paul's stand on it is very solid, and he isn't preachy. He will not force his way on others, even if it is where his backing for this libertarianism stems.

[nate895]

Truth+rep. Comparing Paul to the other candidates from an honest Christian perspective is like comparing Gold to slag.

I don't care which way you cut it - personal life, voting record, policies, actions backing up words, honesty, integrity, not pandering, humility, stewardship - it goes on and on.

And that's why it's so sad from Wilson's point-of-view! We should be excited about Ron Paul. He actually believes in limiting government, and the other candidates don't, but Huckabee does spew off rhetoric in that direction, and he's good at his rhetoric. If Ron Paul would simply adopt a the fundamental principle that government should be limited, I have no doubt he would be swept in on a wave of popular support flowing from the Christian base. The Christian base hasn't been excited in years, and Paul has the power to make that happen, and it is starting to speak volumes that he isn't even trying.

[TIMB0B]

I'm not sure how Ron could tailor his message to someone arguing for the outlawing of prostitution when the topic's brought up.

States' rights - 10th Amendment

[steph3n]

I'm not sure how Ron could tailor his message to someone arguing for the outlawing of prostitution when the topic's brought up. RP and this fellow differ in that RP believes man has no authority to make laws against any activity which doesn't physically harm us. This fellow believes man should simply live by the Old Israel's laws which have no foundation in reason. Drunkenness is okay by him, but adultery is not because while drunkenness was (I guess) legal in Israel, adultery was a crime, even though both are condemned by God.

It's simply an unavoidable difference in opinion. If people disagree with Ron's policy choices (more than his political opponents), they won't vote for him. There's nothing that can be done except to convince this voting bloc either that they have more in common with Ron than others, or that they're wrong.

there are multiple cases in the Bible of prostitutes being pardoned when they change their ways. there was a 'spy' in Jericho that ended up in the family heritage of Mary, the mother of Jesus. there was the woman that Jesus prevented from being stoned.

Too often as christians that claim to be 'compassionate' it is forgotten that life is best led by example and not by the load of rules and laws that end up virtually stoning people to death over their 'sins' when they are overlooking their own in the process.

In their 'compassion' and legalism they are becoming exactly the people with the stone in their hands ready to stone the woman Jesus himself saved.

[Kludge]

Kludge,

I don't think that's quite correct. The indication here is that Wilson and the like are not so much turned off by a few 'surprising stands' in a mostly sound package. His problem is that Paul's libertarianism seems more to be "libertarianism is the standard" rather than "The Bible is my standard and it results in liberty." Trust me, this is a huge distinction for us Christians.
Ron's principles comes from his own interpretation of the Bible, not this man's. RP's stances are based on an interpretation of the Bible that man is not given authority to judge others as God will. The man in the OP disagrees and says that because something was outlawed in Biblical times, so it should be outlawed now, which has no basis at all in reason. It's deference, which would be okay if it weren't that he deferred to the opinions of man, not God.

Ron has never shied away from his Christian beliefs, but he has stated that the sort of Christian rhetoric (that is, pandering) which comes out during campaign season is distasteful. The social-conservative Christian bloc need to be convinced - not by artificial plugs of God and Jesus during Ron's speeches - but by us that Ron is a Christian man whose ideology is deeply rooted in his Christian beliefs. Ron would eliminate the Welfare State, and it's a high priority. Just because Ron only mentioned that drugs should be legalized doesn't mean he doesn't passionately oppose the Welfare State, and the article author's apparent lack of regard for that fact tells me he isn't as knowledgeable as he should be on Ron Paul.

"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do." - RP

[Kludge]

States' rights - 10th Amendment
That's the argument Ron would use against DUI laws and the article author in the OP implies RP is against DUI laws because he doesn't support banning it on the federal level.

[oyarde]

what i think he is saying in general is the christian right(the bush jesus freaks) are the ones that deter folks from joining the gop or even voting for a republican!! I was one of those! I think the christian right in the gop is to blame for much of the warmongering policies and have tarnished many folks from wanting to be called a republican or related to them! After the last 20-30 yrs in the gop! people have a right not to trust the christian right!!

The new Avatar made me laugh !

[Elwar]

During the last debate when asked about legalizing marijuana and Heroin he fell back on the Constitution and for some reason the First Amendment.

I was wondering afterwords if he supported the idea of Natural rights.

He could have answered something along the lines of how Alan Keyes would have answered with "We all have natural rights, endowed by our creator...the right to life, liberty and property. It is the job of the government to protect those rights, not take them away. And although you might not agree with how someone might exercise their natural rights, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of another, then they have the right to do as they please."

Though personally, I would be fine with the religious right that wish to force others to give up their natural rights to go join the Democrat Party where they belong. As long as we can get the socially liberal who just want government out of their lives in return.

[georgiaboy]

And that's why it's so sad from Wilson's point-of-view! We should be excited about Ron Paul. He actually believes in limiting government, and the other candidates don't, but Huckabee does spew off rhetoric in that direction, and he's good at his rhetoric. If Ron Paul would simply adopt a the fundamental principle that government should be limited, I have no doubt he would be swept in on a wave of popular support flowing from the Christian base. The Christian base hasn't been excited in years, and Paul has the power to make that happen, and it is starting to speak volumes that he isn't even trying.

Yeah, but I also must place direct blame on these millions of believers all over this nation who see the differences and yet prefer having their ears tickled rather than feasting on the truth that is Ron Paul's life and message. I cannot believe that this is a matter of pure ignorance, but of hard, fearful, and yes, unfaithful hearts.

And for God to work a miracle in removing the scales from blinded eyes, and opening hearts and ears to this is my continual prayer.

American Christians are relying on man rather than God. Matt 6:26-34

[nate895]

States' rights - 10th Amendment

I think it should be emphasizing the fact that government should be limited, and demonstrating how Paul has been applying that principle consistently over the years. That is a message that can get a big tent. Talking about how heroin is an issue of personal liberty isn't. All Paul needed to say to win that question, which is where, I believe, he lost the debate as far as voters go, was something similar to what Johnson said: It shouldn't be an issue to lock people behind bars for. That's it. Not that you're some kind of overbearing paternalist if you believe heroin should be minimalized in society, which is the tact Paul used. As far as the GOP voter was concerned, he just attacked them for daring to believe that heroin is bad for society and we should do something about minimizing its influence.

[acptulsa]

Ron has never shied away from his Christian beliefs, but he has stated that the sort of Christian rhetoric (that is, pandering) which comes out during campaign season is distasteful. The social-conservative Christian bloc need to be convinced - not by artificial plugs of God and Jesus during Ron's speeches - but by us that Ron is a Christian man whose ideology is deeply rooted in his Christian beliefs.


http://video.pbs.org/video/1436186560/

He mentions Matthew Chapter Six in this interview. Would give you a minute mark but I have to stop and get my sound board talking to my Linux one of these days. Would that everyone who fancies themselves Christian would better familiarize themselves with this passage.

Not that fond of the New International, but it works:

5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward (public recognition) in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen...

Hard to convince alleged Christians that it's better to vote for a non-hypocrite when they happen to be hypocrites themselves. But that's the task before us.

[nate895]

Yeah, but I also must place direct blame on these millions of believers all over this nation who see the differences and yet prefer having their ears tickled rather than feasting on the truth that is Ron Paul's life and message. I cannot believe that this is a matter of pure ignorance, but of hard, fearful, and yes, unfaithful hearts.

I do not think its ignorance, I think it's Paul's rhetoric. Christians are starting to get their priorities straight. I am going to Liberty University, the capital of Social Conservatism for Pete's sake, and my textbooks on Constitutional government are simply amazing. When I got them, I couldn't help but read them before I have even gotten to class (I'm taking it over the summer)! Paul has shifted his rhetoric away from the Christian base over the past four years, and it's a crying shame because he can get them this year so easily. The ultimate test will be VVS. If he comes out there with the wrong message, and I will be there, he will lose.

[georgiaboy]

When it comes to rhetoric, Nate, I think Paul states the truth from his heart as best he can, answering questions directly, and he has faith enough to allow God to use his truthful answers to sway the opinions of individuals.

God asks Paul to tell the truth as best he can, and he does, unvarnished and honest. God doesn't ask Ron to rhetoricize or spin. The rest is up to God, and to the receptivity of those listening.

I liken it to Moses, who admitted to God that he didn't have a smooth tongue to woo over the Pharaoh of Egypt. God said (paraphrased), "you say what I tell you to say, I'll take care of the rest."

[K466]

I don't really understand what the blogs objection is to Ron Paul.

The only thing I would recommend is that Paul avoid talking about prostitution and such. When he does, he should consider mentioning that as President, he is not dictator, and that the issue is not a priority. Remember we're running to win this time. He can educate more from the White House.

[Maestro232]

If Christians are so gullible and shallow as to choose the likes of Huckabee and Gingrich because they are willing to say ANYTHING to be elected and Ron Paul is not, then they deserve the drubbing they are going to get.

The Bible does call us sheep, afterall. ;)

[georgiaboy]

He mentions Matthew Chapter Six in this interview.

Ok, I just threw Matt. 6, different verses, in my earlier post before seeing this. I just got a chill.

[nate895]

When it comes to rhetoric, Nate, I think Paul states the truth from his heart as best he can, answering questions directly, and he has faith enough to allow God to use his truthful answers to sway the opinions of individuals.

God asks Paul to tell the truth as best he can, and he does, unvarnished and honest. God doesn't ask Ron to rhetoricize or spin. The rest is up to God, and to the receptivity of those listening.

I'm sorry, but I thought the same thing Chris Wallace came back with, and it was the opinion of almost every Republican watching the debate outside of Paul and Johnson's tiny little libertarian faction: So, shooting heroin is a matter of personal liberty? It isn't. And you can't argue that it is and expect to win GOP votes that way. What you can argue is that the government shouldn't be involved in wielding the sword against those who get themselves high, a position I'd agree with. I don't like being called an authoritarian nanny-stater because I happen to think we should take action (albeit, non-state action) against the use of crack and heroin in our society.

[acptulsa]

I don't really understand what the blogs objection is to Ron Paul.

The only thing I would recommend is that Paul avoid talking about prostitution and such. When he does, he should consider mentioning that as President, he is not dictator, and that the issue is not a priority. Remember we're running to win this time. He can educate more from the White House.

Mainly, we need to remind people on this and every other issue under the sun that it doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference what President Paul legalizes because all they have to do is say, 'not in my state', and it won't be legal in their state. I don't know how to emphasize this enough. If you don't see how the Tenth Amendment answers just about every concern anyone has about Paul from abortion to heroin to freaking zoos, well, I don't know how else to help you.


I liken it to Moses, who admitted to God that he didn't have a smooth tongue to woo over the Pharaoh of Egypt. God said (paraphrased), "you say what I tell you to say, I'll take care of the rest."

Now, if it's good enough for Moses, how do we convince Ron Paul to accept the services of a speech writer? Does he think he's better than Moses?

[Maestro232]

I have found that Dr. Paul's message resonates well with most Christians.

Agreed. And many of them will still be hesitant to vote for him. I'm just sayin'

[steph3n]

I don't like being called an authoritarian nanny-stater because I happen to think we should take action (albeit, non-state action) against the use of crack and heroin in our society.

If you think it is in the form of arresting and putting people in prison, you may just be that which you hate to be called. It should be treated early, and not through a overburdened legal and prison system, but through community support systems. We could sink 30% of the money spent on the 'justice' system on a community rehab and education system (and I am not talking about D.A.R.E. LEO scare system) and be much better off.

[Maestro232]

I don't really understand what the blogs objection is to Ron Paul.

The only thing I would recommend is that Paul avoid talking about prostitution and such. When he does, he should consider mentioning that as President, he is not dictator, and that the issue is not a priority. Remember we're running to win this time. He can educate more from the White House.

You're answer is probably in your post. He could of answered the debate question like Alan Keyes as noted above or like the way you've suggested here, but instead, Paul chose to answer differently, and that sort of answer is an example of why someone like Wilson is having trouble supporting Paul.

[nate895]

If you think it is in the form of arresting and putting people in prison, you may just be that which you hate to be called. It should be treated early, and not through a overburdened legal and prison system, but through community support systems. We could sink 30% of the money spent on the 'justice' system on a community rehab and education system (and I am not talking about D.A.R.E. LEO scare system) and be much better off.

Did you not read the parenthesis?

Logically applied, Ron Paul's argument on May 5 leads to the conclusion that, since it is a matter of personal liberty, we should not take action against those who do it, especially in light of Paul's overarching libertarianism that seems to be becoming more consistent. I looked into Paul's voting record last year, and he changed votes on the DADT issue from May to December. Given the direction of Paul's rhetoric and that vote (albeit, it is just one vote), I can't help but think he has taken up sides with the secularist libertarians, and that is going to alienate people like me and other Christian voters. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I won't be able to after VVS if he doesn't change.

[pcosmar]

Agreed. And many of them will still be hesitant to vote for him. I'm just sayin'
Perhaps, but those are NOT Christian libertarians. They would be the Christian Authoritarians. ( I think they are confused)

[rockandrollsouls]

We shouldn't even be worrying about this demographic. Do you realize how insignificant the portion of Libertarian-Christian voters is to the voting block we should be trying to acquire? This is why we never win....you guys always try to go for the most insignificant and most difficult to convert target.

The average voter is much more easily swayed than this group...

[steph3n]

Did you not read the parenthesis?

Logically applied, Ron Paul's argument on May 5 leads to the conclusion that, since it is a matter of personal liberty, we should not take action against those who do it, especially in light of Paul's overarching libertarianism that seems to be becoming more consistent. I looked into Paul's voting record last year, and he changed votes on the DADT issue from May to December. Given the direction of Paul's rhetoric and that vote (albeit, it is just one vote), I can't help but think he has taken up sides with the secularist libertarians, and that is going to alienate people like me and other Christian voters. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I won't be able to after VVS if he doesn't change.

DADT is a stupid policy, it would be better to have people in the open if they are homosexual for SO many reasons. Especially on the battlefield.
There have been homosexual relationships for so long, and your/my/our policy/law isn't going to change that one bit. Having people stay hidden and bottled up leads to much more stress, possibly leading to terrible judgement in the future on a battlefield, in deployment etc. This doesn't even bring in the medical aspects of it. DADT, is downright horrible.

[TIMB0B]

Mainly, we need to remind people on this and every other issue under the sun that it doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference what President Paul legalizes because all they have to do is say, 'not in my state', and it won't be legal in their state. I don't know how to emphasize this enough. If you don't see how the Tenth Amendment answers just about every concern anyone has about Paul from abortion to heroin to freaking zoos, well, I don't know how else to help you.

This.

[Endgame]

Lets not get tripped up on semantics here. I've seen this for years and years. "Christian libertarian". Just read that as "the religious right" and see if any of you find yourselves giving a shit.

[acptulsa]

Did you not read the parenthesis?
Logically applied, Ron Paul's argument on May 5 leads to the conclusion that, since it is a matter of personal liberty, we should not take action against those who do it, especially in light of Paul's overarching libertarianism that seems to be becoming more consistent.

Did you not read my post? The logical conclusion for anyone with a clue is Dr. Paul doesn't think the Federal Crooks should address the issue at all because they'll screw it up as usual.

Now, if you live in the U.S., you live in a state or you live in a territory. Either way, you get a legislature to represent you and, with President Paul in the White House, you'd have to do a much, much more serious job of limiting personal liberty than saying 'no heroin' to get Federal Troops down on your ass.

For God's sake, the man's not going to pander. Period. When he talks to God, he'll be in his room with the door closed just as Jesus advised.

As for Don't Ask Don't Tell, well, all I can say is it would be a whole lot easier to deal with the issue if we weren't in three freaking wars at once. A lot easier.

[steph3n]

Lets not get tripped up on semantics here. I've seen this for years and years. "Christian libertarian". Just read that as "the religious right" and see if any of you find yourselves giving a shit.

Clearly we'd(Christian libertarian) be in a small minority, but your attitude is a bit wrong on the matter, in fact it is quite collectivist is it not?

[acptulsa]

Clearly we'd(Christian libertarian) be in a small minority, but your attitude is a bit wrong on the matter, in fact it is quite collectivist is it not?

Of course, the flip side of the matter is that the OP does not speak for me. Not that this makes it any less collectivist... ;)

[SethBass83]

I am a Christian and I think Ron Paul is the perfect choice for Christians. So many people use the word Christian so very loosely to suit their situation. As the Bible says, "Not Everyone Who Says "Lord, Lord" Will Enter the Kingdom."

[rockandrollsouls]

It's not my goal to waste a significant amount of energy persuading your small, stubborn group. I'd rather spend 1/4 of that energy on the average American and get 10 times the votes, if not more.

[georgiaboy]

welcome, SB83! I agree, Ron is the perfect choice.

[jmdrake]

what i think he is saying in general is the christian right(the bush jesus freaks) are the ones that deter folks from joining the gop or even voting for a republican!! I was one of those! I think the christian right in the gop is to blame for much of the warmongering policies and have tarnished many folks from wanting to be called a republican or related to them! After the last 20-30 yrs in the gop! people have a right not to trust the christian right!!

Okay. You can interpret it that way. But all he said was if he went more Jesus I wouldn't be interested in supporting him. There is a difference between "going more Jesus" and advocating Bush's warmongering policies. Don't forget that Pastor Chuck Baldwin endorsed Ron Paul, and Ron Paul turned around and endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I don't know of anyone more "pro Jesus" and more anti war than Pastor Chuck.

[acptulsa]

It's not my goal to waste a significant amount of energy persuading your small, stubborn group. I'd rather spend 1/4 of that energy on the average American and get 10 times the votes, if not more.

But it doesn't take as much as it seems to take. Throw Matthew Six and Amendment Ten on them and walk away. They'll never, ever, ever, ever admit you're right while you stand there arguing. But a significant number of them will get gnawed by your statement after you leave.

[jmdrake]

I agree with this. The Moral Majority, aka the Compassionate Conservatives, are the faction that support socialism, and have no qualms about using our military to "do God's will."

Pastor Chuck Baldwin was president of the moral majority for awhile and I've not seen anything to suggest that he supported socialism or preemptive war.

[georgiaboy]

But it doesn't take as much as it seems to take. Throw Matthew Six and Amendment Ten on them and walk away. They'll never, ever, ever, ever admit you're right while you stand there arguing. But a significant number of them will get gnawed by your statement after you leave.

Yep, and similarly ask if they support the rule of law, then ask if the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then ask where in the US Constitution the federal government is authorized to even be involved in such matters.

[steph3n]

Pastor Chuck Baldwin was president of the moral majority for awhile and I've not seen anything to suggest that he supported socialism or preemptive war.

I think he's seen the light and changed a bit on political nature of liberty through choice, and not by force laws that repress other and end up causing more trouble for those pushing the laws in the long term, when the tables get turned.

[rockandrollsouls]

I have to disagree with you guys. Showing someone they could possibly be wrong NEVER works.


Yep, and similarly ask if they support the rule of law, then ask if the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then ask where in the US Constitution the federal government is authorized to even be involved in such matters.

[acptulsa]

I have to disagree with you guys. Showing someone they could possibly be wrong NEVER works.

Not that you know of. I agree don't waste time, because prolonging the argument in hopes of an admission will just piss them off and make them more entrenched. But please don't underestimate the ability of a reasoned and logical argument to gnaw at a person after you're gone from their sight. Seriously.

Would we be where we are now if we hadn't been shouting (to an impenetrable wall of ridicule) four years ago that Obama was as big a warmonger as Dubya? I think not.

In many arguments, and most especially religious arguments, you can do more with five seconds of 'you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink' resignation than two hours of debate. Raise both your hands, say 'whatever', show them the confidence they don't feel (or else they wouldn't be so ready to fight) and leave it to sink in.

[Maestro232]

Perhaps, but those are NOT Christian libertarians. They would be the Christian Authoritarians. ( I think they are confused)

Interesting distinction, but I think you should go back and read Wilson again now that you've had some coffee.:D

[JoelYrick]

I'm sorry, but I thought the same thing Chris Wallace came back with, and it was the opinion of almost every Republican watching the debate outside of Paul and Johnson's tiny little libertarian faction: So, shooting heroin is a matter of personal liberty? It isn't. And you can't argue that it is and expect to win GOP votes that way. What you can argue is that the government shouldn't be involved in wielding the sword against those who get themselves high, a position I'd agree with. I don't like being called an authoritarian nanny-stater because I happen to think we should take action (albeit, non-state action) against the use of crack and heroin in our society.

I think you are missing a distinction that's crucial here. Paul is advocating that people have the liberty- before men- to use heroin or do anything that is consensual. The government doesn't have the right to stop people from doing these things by coercion. He isn't saying that one has the liberty to use heroin before God. I'd doubt that he denies that God has the right to stop someone by some type of coercion. I don't know why he'd begin talking about what an individual's duties are before God when he was asked a question about what the government's duties regarding these drugs are. It almost sounds like you wanted him to dodge the question instead specifically treating the question asked.

All in all, I think he did a very good job in what limited time he had to think of something. Wallace was trying to smear Paul as can be seen by the fact that he said that those cheering Paul's answer were cheering for heroin, not liberty.

[Maestro232]

We shouldn't even be worrying about this demographic. Do you realize how insignificant the portion of Libertarian-Christian voters is to the voting block we should be trying to acquire? This is why we never win....you guys always try to go for the most insignificant and most difficult to convert target.

The average voter is much more easily swayed than this group...

Wrong. I said "libertarian-leaning" ... and it's a huge bloc.

[steph3n]

Wrong. I said "libertarian-leaning" ... and it's a huge bloc.

Honestly it isn't from all I've seen, I've worked for 4 years to convert about 20 so-cons to liberty minded. There are many magnitudes more that want nothing less than prohibition, all out legislation of morality.

they talk a great small govt talk but then when it comes to legislating morality, they jump all up on that.

[Maestro232]

Lets not get tripped up on semantics here. I've seen this for years and years. "Christian libertarian". Just read that as "the religious right" and see if any of you find yourselves giving a shit.

You are soooo wrong. Christian libertarian or libertarian-leaning is distinct from "Christian neo-con" and Dobson types who want to legislate morality at the federal level.

[Maestro232]

It's not my goal to waste a significant amount of energy persuading your small, stubborn group. I'd rather spend 1/4 of that energy on the average American and get 10 times the votes, if not more.

So anyway, it's a real shame you guys don't get it. Oh well, I hope Paul doesn't share your view, because I really think he has a shot at it this time.

[pcosmar]

Interesting distinction, but I think you should go back and read Wilson again now that you've had some coffee.:D

I did, and he actually touches on that.

I grant that there is such an excess, but this "rule over others" car generally veers toward the oppressive ditch when you let go of the wheel, not the laissez faire ditch. If we go into the business of aligning front ends, we need to learn at a minimum which direction the alignment usually requires.

I tend to use a real world example from my own neighborhood.
There was an Adult Book Store in a town near me. There was no law against it.
It closed, went out of business, all on it's own because there was no (or not enough) support for it.

The same applies to Drugs or Prostitution, Some may chose them, but if people have no use for them they will not support them even if legal.

Ron Paul understands this. Those that wish to impose social controls generally do not.

He gets into the "bottom line", the cost of these laws. Ron Paul approaches from Principal rather than a cost benefit analysis.
Same argument, same results, but on Principles rather than cost.

[jtstellar]

at this point we don't need anymore idiot whose criticism basically consists of 'i don't think ron paul is "radical" enough.'

[outspoken]

Every Christian should read Myth of a Christian Nation as it personifies what it means to be a Kingdom of God person and not worship money or the State.

[acptulsa]

I just don't get the whole 'God believes in free will and persuasion, but not me--I'm all about coersion' mindset.

[cubical]

I am a Christian and I support Ron. To me its about limiting what the government can do, period. It's not about the government allowing or not allowing Christian or non-Christian activities, but I feel the government shouldn't be making those decisions at all. Now, the government must establish some sort of morality code, which I believe must be based on God, as I believe there is a universal standard for morality and it shouldn't change according to who is in charge, which I think could be possible under an atheistic government.

To those saying Christian GOPs are the reason for warmongering, please don't just lump people together like so many do with us(the Ron Paul movement). Both the GOP and Dems are filled with sheep who don't really know what is going on or what they are voting for.

[DisillusionedPatriot]

I believe that this entire thread could be advanced by making a distinction between the two types of liberty. Both are innate, absolute, and God-given, and yet there are fundamental distinctions between them.

The first type of liberty pertains to our existence and relationship with God. The second concerns our relationship with men.

The most important liberty we possess is free will, and therefore the ability to achieve freedom through service to God. These are some of God's greatest gifts. God did not make us mindless or servile, but allows us to choose our own way. This is very difficult if we do not adhere to the Bible's teachings, for Satan has laid myriad obstacles and traps in our path. Although God's fallen and sinful creation, we are nonetheless so loved that our salvation has been bought, at a tremendous cost.

The Bible makes it clear that our lives are not our own. Some of Jesus’ parables describe mankind as servants, doing God's will while the master is away. As God's servants, we are expected to do His will. God chastises the wicked and lazy. In this sense, we are not "free" to do anything but what God would have us do. We have been saved from eternal slavery and damnation, but like indentured servants we must continue for a short while before obtaining our rewards.

As a Christian, our redemption is inextricably linked to the realization that we must strive to do our master's will, in all things. This means that we certainly must not engage in forbidden behaviors, such as prostitution, drunkenness, etc. I also believe it is our duty to seek out as friends and leaders those who share a devotion to scripture.

However, and this leads to the second category of liberty, the Bible never indicates that we as people are supposed to rule over or coerce our fellow man in any way whatsoever. To derive any coercive meaning from the precepts of Jesus or his followers would be blasphemous, not to mention absurd. The declaration that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain rights, indicates the astute and moral conclusion that among fallen men, there can exist no superior group with the capacity to justly rule over and regulate any another

In this sense, God and Jesus do not want us to compel or dominate others. Christians are asked to wage spiritual battles, and to win over hearts. Christians are told to visit those in prison and care for them. Instead, in this country, we lock away in prison people with potential goodness and usefulness, because they are addicted to the wrong kind of drug. Instead of receiving charity they languish for years. How far our practice is from the standard set for us. Jesus would ask us to take these people into our homes, and teach them that life need not be sustained by mind altering drugs, that peace in the Lord is all they need.

We should not be so quick to point out the sins of others and so slow to discern our own. C. S. Lewis, one of my most favorite authors, wrote “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

[nate895]

I think you are missing a distinction that's crucial here. Paul is advocating that people have the liberty- before men- to use heroin or do anything that is consensual. The government doesn't have the right to stop people from doing these things by coercion. He isn't saying that one has the liberty to use heroin before God. I'd doubt that he denies that God has the right to stop someone by some type of coercion. I don't know why he'd begin talking about what an individual's duties are before God when he was asked a question about what the government's duties regarding these drugs are. It almost sounds like you wanted him to dodge the question instead specifically treating the question asked.

All in all, I think he did a very good job in what limited time he had to think of something. Wallace was trying to smear Paul as can be seen by the fact that he said that those cheering Paul's answer were cheering for heroin, not liberty.

I agree, but that isn't what Mr. Joe Limited Government Conservative Christian hears. What I heard as Mr. Limited Government Conservative Christian, and I am pretty certain it isn't what Ron Paul believes, is that there is an absolute right to shoot up heroin and there would be few drug addicts if the government wasn't involved. Nothing that Ron Paul said in that little drug-spat won him a significant number of votes. What he needed to say was what Johnson said: It is not an issue for criminal justice, families, churches, and local communities need to be the ones fighting the so-called "war on drugs," not the SWAT team. When you talk to average everyday Christians, as I do on a regular basis, they will get that. They get that the badge is not the best way to get people to stop smoking crack. But they don't like to be told that they are violating people's constitutional rights when they try to interfere with people's self-destructive habits.

I have decided to write an open letter to Ron Paul and limited government conservatives everywhere on this because it will become a big issue if it is not dealt with in the proper manner.

[affa]

Kludge,
"The Bible is my standard and it results in liberty." Trust me, this is a huge distinction for us Christians.


A lot of us non-Christians have a hard time believing "The Bible.. results in liberty." I don't want to get in a religious discussion, other than to basically say that simply doesn't seem like it adds up. There are simply too many social issues in which the Christian opinion seems far too... well, judgmental, for lack of a better word. I realize some Christians may be okay with gay marriage, and some might be okay with legalizing drugs, but overall, that's never been what I've seen.

[Maestro232]

I think it would be helpful for the folks who say "screw that voting bloc" to read a few more of Wilson's posts on Paul, these primarily being positive of Paul. It might help you understand this bloc and how important they are going to be.

Around the 2008 run:
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4558%3AAnother-Surprise-From-Ron-Paul&catid=87%3Apolitics&Itemid=1
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3905%3AThe-Way-of-All-Flesh&catid=38%3Acurrent-events&Itemid=1
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4960%3AKen-Doll-Republicans&catid=87%3Apolitics&Itemid=1

Around the 2012 run:
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7414%3Alike-a-bear-with-a-sore-head&catid=87%3Apolitics&Itemid=1
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7583%3Aa-new-perspective-on-ron-paul&catid=87%3Apolitics&Itemid=1

[nate895]

A lot of us non-Christians have a hard time believing "The Bible.. results in liberty." I don't want to get in a religious discussion, other than to basically say that simply doesn't seem like it adds up. There are simply too many social issues in which the Christian opinion seems far too... well, judgmental, for lack of a better word. I realize some Christians may be okay with gay marriage, and some might be okay with legalizing drugs, but overall, that's never been what I've seen.

How do we side with the Biblical, traditional, dictionary definition of marriage since civilization began! If you don't believe can get married you're an oppressor! That's process philosophy, not limited government philosophy, sorry.

[Maestro232]

I am a Christian and I support Ron. To me its about limiting what the government can do, period. It's not about the government allowing or not allowing Christian or non-Christian activities, but I feel the government shouldn't be making those decisions at all. Now, the government must establish some sort of morality code, which I believe must be based on God, as I believe there is a universal standard for morality and it shouldn't change according to who is in charge, which I think could be possible under an atheistic government.

To those saying Christian GOPs are the reason for warmongering, please don't just lump people together like so many do with us(the Ron Paul movement). Both the GOP and Dems are filled with sheep who don't really know what is going on or what they are voting for.

+1 Rep.

[nate895]

I think it would be helpful for the folks who say "screw that voting bloc" to read a few more of Wilson's posts on Paul, these primarily being positive of Paul. It might help you understand this bloc and how important they are going to be.

Around the 2008 run:
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4558%3AAnother-Surprise-From-Ron-Paul&catid=87%3Apolitics&Itemid=1
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3905%3AThe-Way-of-All-Flesh&catid=38%3Acurrent-events&Itemid=1
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4960%3AKen-Doll-Republicans&catid=87%3Apolitics&Itemid=1

Around the 2012 run:
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7414%3Alike-a-bear-with-a-sore-head&catid=87%3Apolitics&Itemid=1
http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7583%3Aa-new-perspective-on-ron-paul&catid=87%3Apolitics&Itemid=1

I'm in that voting bloc, and so is Theo, AquaBuddha, crhoades, kpfareal, etc. If Paul does not have us excited, he will lose the primary. If Paul loses the primary, we are seriously looking totalitarianism in the face.

[Maestro232]

However, and this leads to the second category of liberty, the Bible never indicates that we as people are supposed to rule over or coerce our fellow man in any way whatsoever. To derive any coercive meaning from the precepts of Jesus or his followers would be blasphemous, not to mention absurd. The declaration that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain rights, indicates the astute and moral conclusion that among fallen men, there can exist no superior group with the capacity to justly rule over and regulate any another

So, I'm tracking with most of this well-written post, but what about Romans 13? There is a Biblical mandate for an authority with a sword.

[acptulsa]

I'm in that voting bloc, and so is Theo, AquaBuddha, crhoades, kpfareal, etc. If Paul does not have us excited, he will lose the primary. If Paul loses the primary, we are seriously looking totalitarianism in the face.

So, wouldn't it be logical to get more excited about looming tyranny than don't ask don't tell, or whether it's the nation or the state that outlaws heroin?

[nate895]

Every Christian should read Myth of a Christian Nation as it personifies what it means to be a Kingdom of God person and not worship money or the State.

Do you guys want average Evangelical Christian votes or do you want to indoctrinate them into your beliefs?

[Maestro232]

A lot of us non-Christians have a hard time believing "The Bible.. results in liberty." I don't want to get in a religious discussion, other than to basically say that simply doesn't seem like it adds up. There are simply too many social issues in which the Christian opinion seems far too... well, judgmental, for lack of a better word. I realize some Christians may be okay with gay marriage, and some might be okay with legalizing drugs, but overall, that's never been what I've seen.

And yet, here we are ...

[acptulsa]

So, I'm tracking with most of this well-written post, but what about Romans 13? There is a Biblical mandate for an authority with a sword.

Better to issue the widows swords to defend themselves with?


Do you guys want average Evangelical Christian votes or do you want to indoctrinate them into your beliefs?

Ideally, both. Failing that, why not just say the states' rights argument is the most promising thing to come down the anti-abortion pike since ever, and be done with it?

[nate895]

So, wouldn't it be logical to get more excited about looming tyranny than don't ask don't tell, or whether it's the nation or the state that outlaws heroin?

It is logical, but it is not exciting. At this point, there really is no option besides voting for Ron Paul and trying to get others to do the same if you want to limit government. We won't be able to do the latter if we come at it in a depressed tone of impending doom, though.

[nate895]

Better to issue the widows swords to defend themselves with?

Lol, widows defending themselves against Viking hordes didn't work out to well the first time, did it?

[acptulsa]

It is logical, but it is not exciting.

It has me excited. DO NOT WANT!!

[Maestro232]

Better to issue the widows swords to defend themselves with?

No. Better to let the Bible be our ultimate guide.

[nate895]

It has me excited. DO NOT WANT!!

Excitement is an emotion. Emotions are caused by outside forcing moving, or, more properly, emoting, us to feel. Big government has me excited to get involved in stopping it. Ron Paul does not have my excitement at this particular moment to get him elected to stop it. Ron Paul has actually done stuff to make me less excited because of the positions I hold to and that he has come to oppose. He needs to do something to get people like me, who make up a large chunk of the GOP base, if not the majority, to get excited. I get excited when he talks about ending our empire, our federal bureaucracy, and many of his other positions. He offends me when he says that those who want to take social action against self-destructive individuals (non-state action, though it should be) are in violation of personal liberties. And I am not alone.

[nate895]

No. Better to let the Bible be our ultimate guide.

If you mean that seriously, I agree with you. I just can't be sure on RPF.

[Maestro232]

If you mean that seriously, I agree with you. I just can't be sure on RPF.

If you've read my other posts you'll know I'm serious. But yes, one does not know on RPF.

[acptulsa]

He offends me when he says that those who want to take social action against self-destructive individuals (non-state action, though it should be) are in violation of personal liberties. And I am not alone.

I think you're putting words in his mouth. Saying that when he says nothing should be done while debating other presidential candidates means not that his administration would do nothing, but rather that even the addict's own mother should do nothing, doesn't wash with me.

This is like saying a federal candidate arguing against federal drug laws would move to prevent state drug laws. It's a distortion. It just ain't right. More worthy of our enemies than us.

Or did I misunderstand?

[nate895]

If you've read my other posts you'll know I'm serious. But yes, one does not know on RPF.

Sorry, there are many fools on here who like to think they are poking fun, and I just hadn't remembered much of your post history.

[nate895]

I think you're putting words in his mouth. Saying that when he says nothing should be done while debating other presidential candidates means not that his administration would do nothing, but rather that even the addict's own mother should do nothing, doesn't wash with me.

This is like saying a federal candidate arguing against federal drug laws would move to prevent state drug laws. It's a distortion. It just ain't right. More worthy of our enemies than us.

Or did I misunderstand?

I think you are closer to his actual position. I'm just saying that what he said, other so-cons and I construed him as meaning those who do not believe that an individual has the right to destroy themselves are authoritarian nanny-staters. As I have stated repeatedly, Johnson tackled the issue much better (not perfect, but much much better). Ron Paul made it personal liberties issue. Liberty implies to so-cons that you have the right to do it. Johnson did not say it was personal liberty issue, so much as non-criminal justice issue, which is my opinion, and one that I am pretty sure can win in the so-con community (of course Gary Johnson is pro-choice, which simply doesn't fly). Ron Paul needs to emphasize family and church action against it, not personal liberties.

[Indy Vidual]

what i think he is saying in general is the christian right(the bush jesus freaks) are the ones that deter folks from joining the gop or even voting for a republican!! I was one of those! I think the christian right in the gop is to blame for much of the warmongering policies and have tarnished many folks from wanting to be called a republican or related to them! After the last 20-30 yrs in the gop! people have a right not to trust the christian right!!


I agree with this. The Moral Majority, aka the Compassionate Conservatives, are the faction that support socialism, and have no qualms about using our military to "do God's will."

+1984
No one said this would be easy.
If a Christian supports freedom then they are much more receptive to Ron Paul.
These people (mentioned by Rush below) can jump into a Lake Of Fire ASAP.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gHKNwpny9o

[acptulsa]

Ron Paul needs to emphasize family and church action against it, not personal liberties.

*sigh* Other politicians hire speechwriters. I know he's not 'other politicians', but still...

[nate895]

*sigh* Other politicians hire speechwriters. I know he's not 'other politicians', but still...

If he is serious about his commitment to limiting government, he should be looking to make allies at this point, not insulting so-cons. I don't care how you dress it up as "just being honest" or whatever else liberaltarians want to say about it.

[acptulsa]

If he is serious about his commitment to limiting government, he should be looking to make allies at this point, not insulting so-cons. I don't care how you dress it up as "just being honest" or whatever else liberaltarians want to say about it.

I tend to call it 'not covering enough political bases in the interest of a little too much brevity', myself. I can forgive him for it, but I fear some will not.

[Maestro232]

If he is serious about his commitment to limiting government, he should be looking to make allies at this point, not insulting so-cons. I don't care how you dress it up as "just being honest" or whatever else liberaltarians want to say about it.

Agreed.

To the rest, I fully support Ron Paul and hope he wins. My point in starting this thread, however, was to draw attention to the fact that there is a substantial voting bloc that by all accounts should support him enthusiastically, but historically, have been reluctant to stand behind him because he does not sufficiently connect his libertarian positions to his moral convictions. I understand that some of the ardent atheists here are saying "screw 'em" but as an ally in liberty with you, I am simply trying to help Paul get the votes he deserves.

[AuH20]

Excitement is an emotion. Emotions are caused by outside forcing moving, or, more properly, emoting, us to feel. Big government has me excited to get involved in stopping it. Ron Paul does not have my excitement at this particular moment to get him elected to stop it. Ron Paul has actually done stuff to make me less excited because of the positions I hold to and that he has come to oppose. He needs to do something to get people like me, who make up a large chunk of the GOP base, if not the majority, to get excited. I get excited when he talks about ending our empire, our federal bureaucracy, and many of his other positions. He offends me when he says that those who want to take social action against self-destructive individuals (non-state action, though it should be) are in violation of personal liberties. And I am not alone.

Yea. He's been saying stupid shit like this instead of avoiding the question. Discretion is the better part of valor, or so I thought. Worry about hypotheticals after you get elected. I sent the guy 100 bucks but he doesn't want to win.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-ron-paul-would-not-have-ordered-bin-ladens-death/

No, Ron tell us what you really think. Don't hold back and put the barrell to your temple.

[Maestro232]

I tend to call it 'not covering enough political bases in the interest of a little too much brevity', myself. I can forgive him for it, but I fear some will not.

Sure, that may be. And I count myself among those that are comfortably convinced that a Biblical, moral framework undergirds his positions and practice. My point is simply this: Dr. Paul, be careful of such brevity going forward, because it has lost and is losing you many votes. That's all.

[acptulsa]

Sure, that may be. And I count myself among those that are comfortably convinced that a Biblical, moral framework undergirds his positions and practice. My point is simply this: Dr. Paul, be careful of such brevity going forward, because it has lost and is losing you many votes. That's all.

Doesn't help that thousands are being paid to spin everything he says the wrong way. I guess all we can do is keep applying counter-spin, and have faith that the truth will out.

[nate895]

Agreed.

To the rest, I fully support Ron Paul and hope he wins.

That is exactly why I'm saying what I'm saying right now, and why I am going to write a lengthy open letter appealing to him, and to my socially conservative friends on this issue. If I did not care about liberty, justice, rule of law, or that Ron Paul is our only hope right now for any of them, I'd simply give up and go vote for Huckabee, which would be the easiest thing to do.

[Maestro232]

Doesn't help that thousands are being paid to spin everything he says the wrong way. I guess all we can do is keep applying counter-spin, and have faith that the truth will out.

A coming out party won't help his chances ;)

[The Moravian]

The Bible does call us sheep, afterall. ;)

The scriptures don't mean that we should only be sheep, but should be "wise as serpents, harmless as doves". Nor does the scripture mean that we should have all the characteristics of sheep.

In fact, look at the actual passages calling us sheep. It never says we should blindly follow whoever charms us. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and follow me. They will not follow the voice of a stranger."

Overall, the real problem with the overwhelming majority of people in the church (I reserve the title of Christian to those who truly follow Jesus) is that they know virtually nothing about what the bible actually teaches, nor do they realize that they are merely following the words of their pastor/priest/elders far from the truth of scripture, the truth that would "set them free from the law of sin and death". The same problem occurs when they are politically involved, even if just voting.

At the tiny little church I was attending in 2008, I brought up RP with one of the co-pastors just before the primary. You can probably guess the only 2 things he asked about, right? It was as stereo-typical as you can imagine. He actually asked, "Is he biblical? Does he support marriage and oppose abortion?" I said yes, because of the way he phrased it, and how RP would talk about those subjects back then, I could honestly say yes.

My point is that even this pastor thought that the sum total of biblical imperatives for a political office holder was opposing abortion and gay marriage. I finally had it with their nonsense a year later and left that church. That was when the pastors admitted a man as an official church member who, right in the membership class, defended his practice of living with a woman he admitted he wasn't married to. After I had two very long conversations with two of the pastors, they talked the man into marrying his girlfriend, but that still didn't change what the pastors had done wrong, which was the main point anyway.

For some unfathomable reason, making sure our president "defends marriage" through law is more important than these pastors defending marriage through who they admit as church members.

[robert9712000]

Where the blogger makes the mistake is hes comparing how God treats those who rule over the church,which has nothing to do with those that rule over a nation.The difference is those at the church are there by free will and if they choose to go then hes laid out certain standards.While on earth God allows man to live his life by free will.

You cant force morality.

Now what you do with that free will God will judge in the end and only him.The only time man has a right to judge another mans actions are if they effect someone else,unless they have chosen to goto church and submit to there rules.The great thing is if you disagree you can leave the church.

I consider myself a strong christian but i have no issues with the legalization of drugs or prostitution.What another person does is there business .i only care to tend to those who desire to know Gods truth.As far as the great commission in the bible to spread the word.Ill let it be known of my faith but i wont force on someone that doesnt want to hear.If they desire to listen ill talk as much as theyd like too.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I don't like being called an authoritarian nanny-stater because I happen to think we should take action (albeit, non-state action) against the use of crack and heroin in our society.

Well personal liberty is having the right to do whatever you want with your own body, without hurting others or infringing on their property rights. It is that simple. It can't get any simpler. I don't want a Ron Paul presidency if it means I have to answer to the moral police. Fuck that. Not interested. If what I do in my own home bothers you to the point where you think I should be stopped, that is a huge problem.

[The Moravian]

Sorry to come off harsh, Maestro, I realize that part of my comment sounded condescending, but I didn't mean it to be. I've been very frustrated with people in every church I've attended, the contradictions are so blatantly obvious and I get pretty worked up over it. I realize that my comment seamed to infer that you weren't knowledgeable about the scripture. You were just making a small joke and I used it to make a different point, when you weren't being serious in the first place.

I'm sorry for using your short statement as a jumping off point for my frustration. It was thoughtless of me to not see how mean it sounded. Please forgive me.

[nate895]

Well personal liberty is having the right to do whatever you want with your own body, without hurting others or infringing on their property rights. It is that simple. It can't get any simpler. I don't want a Ron Paul presidency if it means I have to answer to the moral police. Fuck that. Not interested. If what I do in my own home bothers you to the point where you think I should be stopped, that is a huge problem.

Is your skull that thick? I said that we should take non-state social action to help those who are destroying themselves with drug addiction. It is not someone's right to destroy themselves, and you are never going to get conscious Christian conservatives to agree otherwise, and that's whose votes you need.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Is your skull that thick? I said that we should take non-state social action to help those who are destroying themselves with drug addiction. It is not someone's right to destroy themselves, and you are never going to get conscious Christian conservatives to agree otherwise, and that's whose votes you need.

If someone wants help, give it to them. But yes, not everyone believe's our bodies belong to God and His temple. You could always encourage people or not associate with people whom you think are destroying themselves, but who are you to judge? You aren't God's proxy. If someone wants to shoot heroin up 100 times a day in their basement and doesn't ask for help, it is none of your business.

I guess it is a shame. Even if we get Ron Paul to the White House, there will still be people that think they know what I want/how to please me better than myself. *Sigh* I'm not saying I use heroin or have ever or would ever, but in the end, it is my choice. Not yours. If you disagree, you are what you said you wish you weren't called, sorry.

[nate895]

If someone wants help, give it to them. But yes, not everyone believe's our bodies belong to God and His temple. You could always encourage people or not associate with people whom you think are destroying themselves, but who are you to judge? You aren't God's proxy. If someone wants to shoot heroin up 100 times a day in their basement and doesn't ask for help, it is none of your business.

I guess it is a shame. Even if we get Ron Paul to the White House, there will still be people that think they know what I want/how to please me better than myself. *Sigh* I'm not saying I use heroin or have ever or would ever, but in the end, it is my choice. Not yours. If you disagree, you are what you said you wish you weren't called, sorry.

Sorry if I'm not going to stand aside while others destroy themselves. I love the image of God that they still possess inside of them too much to do that.

[moostraks]

Sorry if I'm not going to stand aside while others destroy themselves. I love the image of God that they still possess inside of them too much to do that.

It is not your job to push your values upon others and you will find that blowback is the likely response. This belief is the reason why we have a culture of do good interventionists which is failing. A christian/christian community should provide for others but not force themselves upon others. If the Creator is wise enough to allow mankind the right to make choices and to suffer consequences while also providing that right choices result in positive consequences then man should abide by the same teachings.

I am curious by what means are you going to
take non-state social action to help those who are destroying themselves with drug addictionHow?

[QueenB4Liberty]

It is not your job to push your values upon others and you will find that blowback is the likely response. This belief if the reason why we have a culture of do good interventionists which is failing. A christian/christian community should provide for others but not force themselves upon others. If the Creator is wise enough to allow mankind the right to make choices and to suffer consequences while also providing that right choices result in positive consequences then man should abide by the same teachings.

I am curious by what means are you going to How?

+rep

Thank you!

[Theocrat]

If you want to understand why Paul has struggled to gain a large portion of the Christian Libertarian-leaning vote, then this is worth your read. I offer it without comment, except to say that this blogger represents a large voting block that Ron Paul really needs to think about.

http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8636:then-leave-the-man-alone&catid=87:politics

As a Christian who highly respects Douglas Wilson, I really think he has a great point about Congressman Paul, and it's been a concern of mine for quite some time. Many times, Dr. Paul comes off as being neutral about his libertarian views, and he does not connect them with his spiritual beliefs. From a presuppositional point of view, that only makes his views arbitrary because they lack an objective grounding for them to be valid.

Don't get me wrong. I love Congressman Paul a lot. I believe he is a man of principle and integrity, and I'm sure he loves Jesus. He has the best platform, by far, than any other candidate in the race. All I'm saying is he needs to be a better philosopher and connect the dots between his spiritual beliefs and his political views. Once he does that, he will gain more of the "Huckabee-types" on his side. I guarantee it.

[moostraks]

+rep

Thank you!

thanks...

[nate895]

It is not your job to push your values upon others and you will find that blowback is the likely response. This belief if the reason why we have a culture of do good interventionists which is failing. A christian/christian community should provide for others but not force themselves upon others. If the Creator is wise enough to allow mankind the right to make choices and to suffer consequences while also providing that right choices result in positive consequences then man should abide by the same teachings.

If telling people that they are destroying themselves and reaching out a helping hand in the name of faith in Christ is forcing your point-of-view on them, I don't what isn't forcing your view on people.


I am curious by what means are you going to

How?

I am talking about churches informing people of the sin of drunkenness, which is a form of substance abuse, and the principle can be applied across the drug abuse spectrum. The Bible teaches against substance abuse, but it does not say the government should lock people in jail for abusing substances. Churches need to preach against, and seek out those who have harmed themselves with it and bring them the light of the Gospel. Families should forbid substance abuse (yes, your father should be paternalist), and use family discipline.

[The Moravian]

Where the blogger makes the mistake is hes comparing how God treats those who rule over the church,which has nothing to do with those that rule over a nation.The difference is those at the church are there by free will and if they choose to go then hes laid out certain standards.While on earth God allows man to live his life by free will.

You cant force morality.

Now what you do with that free will God will judge in the end and only him.The only time man has a right to judge another mans actions are if they effect someone else,unless they have chosen to goto church and submit to there rules.The great thing is if you disagree you can leave the church.

I consider myself a strong christian but i have no issues with the legalization of drugs or prostitution.What another person does is there business .i only care to tend to those who desire to know Gods truth.As far as the great commission in the bible to spread the word.Ill let it be known of my faith but i wont force on someone that doesnt want to hear.If they desire to listen ill talk as much as theyd like too.

I think you get it right about where the blogger goes wrong. Jesus clearly said that his kingdom is not of this world, and that if it was of this world his servants would fight (literally with swords at the time). Much confusion comes in when we don't read the New Testament explanation of what the Old Testament scriptures were meant for. Romans is a good place to get at much of that, how the law of Moses and all of God's commands were meant to teach one group of people about how we are meant to behave, while preserving an ancestry for the Messiah. (Romans chapters 9-11, fully cross-referenced, contradict much of Christian Zionism, too, by the way)

Paul writes in Galatians about the law being a "tutor" that would lead us to Christ, and he also writes that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law for those who believe. Faith is very tough for people to accept, to not control other people when they are destroying themselves, to accept risks in life that are beyond our control and trust that God will provide for us through work and voluntary giving instead of devising a system of organized theft to "provide" for people in need. I also think it's a lot easier for people to try to copy and paste the Law of Moses into our legislation than to hold up the standard of godly behavior themselves, and model it in their own families and churches.

To hold people who voluntarily participate in the church to a standard of humility, honesty, love and faith is what the scripture calls for, but the church has consistently preferred to use marketing techniques and self-centered philosophies to attract people to come for all the wrong reasons, for several decades now. The leaders are so willing to pervert the gospel into something that makes everyone feel good, or they use psychological techniques to make people feel guilty or dependent on the leaders' approval or "counsel". And, then, because the church is not being salt and light in the world, the world is dark and corrupt, so the call for "law and order" comes to keep a check on evil, by imprisoning people instead of freeing them from their sinful nature.

The scripture is very clear that God will hold accountable those who call themselves Christians and especially Christian teachers, and it is us who will be held responsible for the destruction of the family, marriage and social relations in general. Those who don't know the truth won't be held accountable to it, only those who do. All the propaganda of the state schools, Hollywood and the media wouldn't be able to destroy so much of our society if there was a refuge of love, faith and hope in the church. Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church that He builds. Why do social conservatives act as if hell has some unfair advantage over them and their massive Christian empires? It's really because their churches are not built by Jesus on the rock, but are built by mere men on the quicksand of personality, culture or some form of control....

OK, that's enough for now, I'm off the soap-box/pulpit.

[nate895]

BTW, I have been in an Evangelical church in a rural farming community where the war on drugs was attacked, and people clapped (it wasn't Presbyterian, lol). So, I don't think I'm out in left field as far as Evangelicals are concerned.

[QueenB4Liberty]

If telling people that they are destroying themselves and reaching out a helping hand in the name of faith in Christ is forcing your point-of-view on them, I don't what isn't forcing your view on people.



I am talking about churches informing people of the sin of drunkenness, which is a form of substance abuse, and the principle can be applied across the drug abuse spectrum. The Bible teaches against substance abuse, but it does not say the government should lock people in jail for abusing substances. Churches need to preach against, and seek out those who have harmed themselves with it and bring them the light of the Gospel. Families should forbid substance abuse (yes, your father should be paternalist), and use family discipline.

But people have no interest in being preached at (most at least). And it's also very insulting to call someone a sinner for making themselves happy. It won't win you any friends, despite your good intentions.

[nate895]

But people have no interest in being preached at (most at least). And it's also very insulting to call someone a sinner for making themselves happy. It won't win you any friends, despite your good intentions.

Heroin doesn't make people happy. It destroys people's lives.

[Stary Hickory]

Ok I don't think Ron Paul is necessarily fighting for Drug legalization as vehemently as this guys thinks. It's just a position that he has that pundits and interviewers like to ask him about as it seems provocative. So he ends up having to talk about it more than maybe he would bring it up on his own. His main issue has always been the FED and reducing the government.

[moostraks]

If telling people that they are destroying themselves and reaching out a helping hand in the name of faith in Christ is forcing your point-of-view on them, I don't what isn't forcing your view on people.



I am talking about churches informing people of the sin of drunkenness, which is a form of substance abuse, and the principle can be applied across the drug abuse spectrum. The Bible teaches against substance abuse, but it does not say the government should lock people in jail for abusing substances. Churches need to preach against, and seek out those who have harmed themselves with it and bring them the light of the Gospel. Families should forbid substance abuse (yes, your father should be paternalist), and use family discipline.

It is your sanctimonious attitude that will turn people off. So which version of alcohol will you preach? The teetotaler version or the moderation is best version? Churches are not in agreement on this issue. Our society is not ignorant of the ramifications of substance abuse. By seeking out substance abusers and pushing the morality of the issue you are almost guaranteed to turn them completely away. For some people the relationship with their drug of choice will be more important to them, just like those who are obsessed with money. The church should be more involved with promoting (without seeking out and humiliating the individual) programs which surround those with an abuse issue with love and alternatives. Then it is the individual's choice to decide what means more to them and choose to join because they want to quit not because they were humiliated into the choice.

As for family discipline and paternalistic you need to be more specific about what you are referring to here so we are speaking on the same terms. When a person becomes an adult then families can make the hard decisions about how much to participate with those that make this choice for themselves. There is a fine line between enabling and abandoning and it is a very difficult position for the family to have to make. When it comes to children there is a huge problem with CPS that you will have to get past which shields the child from most consequences necessary until they turn 18 and learn the hard way about choices. From your answers I wonder if you have had real experience with addicts?

[steph3n]

Sorry if I'm not going to stand aside while others destroy themselves. I love the image of God that they still possess inside of them too much to do that.


I am not sure how your view is in any way compatible with Ron's, or even the Bible.

You can offer someone help, but they are not obligated to accept it as such. It is most important to be there for them when they decide it is time to change from that seed planted before, not through judgement, but through being that as a solid place to go.

Not everyone will stay on the right path once they have confided in you even, such is life, we must accept that some people don't make the 'right' choices in life.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Christian puritanism brought us untold violations of liberty. You are free to preach, and I am free to tell people the dangers of such thinking.

[steph3n]

Christian puritanism brought us untold violations of liberty. .
Not so sure about that really, I am sure some examples could be found but far more have nothing to do with Christianity at all, much moreso people's inflated egos, desires for more (everything), and their own willingness to put themselves above God himself(that they claim to worship) in most cases.

[nate895]

It is your sanctimonious attitude that will turn people off. So which version of alcohol will you preach? The teetotaler version or the moderation is best version? Churches are not in agreement on this issue. Our society is not ignorant of the ramifications of substance abuse. By seeking out substance abusers and pushing the morality of the issue you are almost guaranteed to turn them completely away. For some people the relationship with their drug of choice will be more important to them, just like those who are obsessed with money. The church should be more involved with promoting (without seeking out and humiliating the individual) programs which surround those with an abuse issue with love and alternatives. Then it is the individual's choice to decide what means more to them and choose to join because they want to quit not because they were humiliated into the choice.

For one, I preach on no subject since I am not properly authorized to do so by the proper authorities. As far as my view on substances (not just alcohol): I'm a moderationist, and that was the unquestioned position until the 1800s. People need to hear the Truth. If speaking the Truth is wrong, then so was our Lord when He said that He was the Light of the World, that He was the Bread of Life, and that we should live accordingly.


As for family discipline and paternalistic you need to be more specific about what you are referring to here so we are speaking on the same terms. When a person becomes an adult then families can make the hard decisions about how much to participate with those that make this choice for themselves. There is a fine line between enabling and abandoning and it is a very difficult position for the family to have to make. When it comes to children there is a huge problem with CPS that you will have to get past which shields the child from most consequences necessary until they turn 18 and learn the hard way about choices. From your answers I wonder if you have had real experience with addicts?

People do not leave the jurisdiction of their parents until they are married, except in unique circumstances, and then they are under someone else's headship. As for what to do in a particular situation, I am not a parent, and do not want to assert how a parent should discipline a child in particular circumstances, and have not studied the issue of particulars in that case at all.

[Maestro232]

Sorry to come off harsh, Maestro, I realize that part of my comment sounded condescending, but I didn't mean it to be. I've been very frustrated with people in every church I've attended, the contradictions are so blatantly obvious and I get pretty worked up over it. I realize that my comment seamed to infer that you weren't knowledgeable about the scripture. You were just making a small joke and I used it to make a different point, when you weren't being serious in the first place.

I'm sorry for using your short statement as a jumping off point for my frustration. It was thoughtless of me to not see how mean it sounded. Please forgive me.

No problem at all. I assumed you knew I was joking.

[heavenlyboy34]

Heroin doesn't make people happy. It destroys people's lives.

We could say that about a number of "licit" drugs too. That's still no reason to outlaw things.

[Maestro232]

It is not your job to push your values upon others

Should we not try to convince others that Ron Paul would make a good president?

[nate895]

We could say that about a number of "licit" drugs too. That's still no reason to outlaw things.

Did you not read my other statements on the issue?

[steph3n]

Heroin doesn't make people happy. It destroys people's lives.

Drinking Drano ruin's peoples lives too, ban drano?

[nate895]

Should we not try to convince others that Ron Paul would make a good president?

I'd give you more rep, but I can't.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Should we not try to convince others that Ron Paul would make a good president?

Yeah, um, not even close to the same thing.

[nate895]

Drinking Drano ruin's peoples lives too, ban drano?

It's like talking to a wall.

[Maestro232]

As a Christian who highly respects Douglas Wilson, I really think he has a great point about Congressman Paul, and it's been a concern of mine for quite some time. Many times, Dr. Paul comes off as being neutral about his libertarian views, and he does not connect them with his spiritual beliefs. From a presuppositional point of view, that only makes his views arbitrary because they lack an objective grounding for them to be valid.

Don't get me wrong. I love Congressman Paul a lot. I believe he is a man of principle and integrity, and I'm sure he loves Jesus. He has the best platform, by far, than any other candidate in the race. All I'm saying is he needs to be a better philosopher and connect the dots between his spiritual beliefs and his political views. Once he does that, he will gain more of the "Huckabee-types" on his side. I guarantee it.

I'm glad a few of us note the dilemma. And, btw...glad to know there is another Doug Wilson fan out there!

[nate895]

Yeah, um, not even close to the same thing.

You value liberty. Why should I value liberty?

[nate895]

I'm glad a few of us note the dilemma. And, btw...glad to know there is another Doug Wilson fan out there!

Are you going to be on the conference call tonight?

[Maestro232]

Ok I don't think Ron Paul is necessarily fighting for Drug legalization as vehemently as this guys thinks. It's just a position that he has that pundits and interviewers like to ask him about as it seems provocative. So he ends up having to talk about it more than maybe he would bring it up on his own. His main issue has always been the FED and reducing the government.

Absolutely. I totally agree. That's why he hasn't turned me away. But the point is that he needs to spend some time directing his comments at the "religious right" and make himself clear to them.

[QueenB4Liberty]

You value liberty. Why should I value liberty?

Ron Paul is for liberty. Saying people can't do certain things (that harm no one except for maybe the individual, but again, the individual's choice is what matters) because you deem them inappropriate, is against liberty.

[steph3n]

It's like talking to a wall.

yep it is.

Because you still don't get it :)

There is nothing useful in having a ban on drugs or alcohol in personal environments. I have no issues with cities doing smoking bans in tax payer funded buildings for instance. I do however have an issue with them banning smoking city wide without owners of private establishments having any say.

[nate895]

Ron Paul is for liberty. Saying people can't do certain things because you deem them inappropriate, is against liberty.

Why should I value that? Why shouldn't I value power over other people's lives?

[nate895]

yep it is.

Because you still don't get it :)

You still don't get that I never said to ban drugs.

[Theocrat]

I'm glad a few of us note the dilemma. And, btw...glad to know there is another Doug Wilson fan out there!

Douglas Wilson is a beast in debate and theology. :)

[Maestro232]

Are you going to be on the conference call tonight?

'fraid not. the country's goin' to pot, but I still got a wife and tot. ;)

[QueenB4Liberty]

Why should I value that? Why shouldn't I value power over other people's lives?

If you value freedom and liberty, you value people have free will and the freedom to exercise it however they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. And for the record, I'm a Catholic, but I'm not someone who thinks I can judge/be the master of others. Only God can do that.

[steph3n]

You still don't get that I never said to ban drugs.

No I get you said it at one time, but you have no concept of the reality of it and what it means.

[nate895]

'fraid not. the countries' goin' to pot, but I still got a wife and tot. ;)

Thankfully God made single people and professionals for this kind of garbage.

[nate895]

No I get you said it at one time, but you have no concept of the reality of it and what it means.

So, not banning drugs implies acceptance? That is exactly the problem I have. If that is the type of attitude Ron Paul has, he ain't gonna win, and I can't do anything to change that.

[QueenB4Liberty]

So, not banning drugs implies acceptance? That is exactly the problem I have. If that is the type of attitude Ron Paul has, he ain't gonna win, and I can't do anything to change that.

It's not that people are going to all go out and do heroin, but that it isn't the government's business to tell someone not to do it. Obviously you agree. But it also isn't like everyone is going to love heroin use, people can not like something, at the same time they can also respect someone else's personal choice to do the thing they dislike.

[The Moravian]

As a Christian who highly respects Douglas Wilson, I really think he has a great point about Congressman Paul, and it's been a concern of mine for quite some time. Many times, Dr. Paul comes off as being neutral about his libertarian views, and he does not connect them with his spiritual beliefs. From a presuppositional point of view, that only makes his views arbitrary because they lack an objective grounding for them to be valid.

Don't get me wrong. I love Congressman Paul a lot. I believe he is a man of principle and integrity, and I'm sure he loves Jesus. He has the best platform, by far, than any other candidate in the race. All I'm saying is he needs to be a better philosopher and connect the dots between his spiritual beliefs and his political views. Once he does that, he will gain more of the "Huckabee-types" on his side. I guarantee it.

Upon reading Wilson's blog and the comments under it, it occurs to me that they might have such a high standard that no one will ever achieve to get their vote, so they will either not vote, or pick whoever has the best chance at beating the Democrat (a version of the lesser evil). This thinking is common to conservatives of all stripes, not just Christians, and maybe anyone who has an intricate set of principles, even true marxists and ideological progressives might do this.

The end result is that the candidate who can whip up the most hype to "gain a following" and top the polls will end up getting the votes of even people who claim to be principled. It's like working the RP booth at gun shows in 2008. There were people who knew enough about the law and had the most principled constitutional convictions that they could probably run for office themselves, but were too picky about some minor little detail of what RP said once or one particular vote he took that somehow made him as worthless as the worst guy on the ballot. It's as if a completely different standard is applied to someone who focuses on principle and the constitution than those who simply parrot psychologically perfected talking points.

In response to your comment, I get that you want him to make a connection between his personal life and how he applies his principles to the job of legislating or governing. I don't think it's necessary for him to directly lay out bible scriptures to back specific ideas, that amount of detail would be too wonkish and not really give the personal connection that is really needed. He actually did something just like that in Iowa a couple months ago, at the Family Leader event. I found it interesting, but it didn't flow very well - since he isn't very experienced at preaching/teaching like Huckabee is - and would clearly turn off any audience that isn't seriously biblical Christians; I would advise not doing that ever again.

But he could use more commonly understood analogies instead of specific biblical ones. Much like Dr. Phil does, though certainly not the same ones, but in a similar manner.

This point of connecting his personal life to the principles may also be a good way to get women more interested in the ideas and help them feel more comfortable with him. It was on a different thread the other day, but I wrote about the female mind being much more complex and needing a more personable connection, not merely facts and figures that men like, in order for women to trust that he would do what's best for the country. As an obstetrician delivering babies for so many women, he had earned the trust of hundreds of women in his district, that's what made it easier for him to win all those Congressional races -- even defeating an incumbent three times. He needs to find a way to connect with women, and people in general, on a personal level that builds that trust. Theoretical recitations and biblical lectures aren't going to do it.

[nate895]

It's not that people are going to all go out and do heroin, but that it isn't the government's business to tell someone not to do it. Obviously you agree. But it also isn't like everyone is going to love heroin use, people can not like something, at the same time they can also respect someone else's personal choice to do the thing they dislike.

But some people will! And should we just let them perish?

[acptulsa]

But some people will! And should we just let them perish?

Is locking them up going to cure what ails them? How are you going to differentiate the ones who will perish from the ones who will hit rock bottom, turn to the Lord, and save themselves? Are you interfering with, rather than aiding, their salvation?

The problem with people who are too zealous in doing God's work is they begin to assume God is granting them omniscience. But He didn't make us capable of it. So, we wind up with dangerous presumptuousness. And devilish arrogance.

[QueenB4Liberty]

But some people will! And should we just let them perish?

I don't really have a problem with that only because most times I realize intervention just gets the opposite results. But by all means, encourage your family members not to do destructive things but don't punish/alienate them for doing so.

[nate895]

Is locking them up going to cure what ails them? How are you going to differentiate the ones who will perish from the ones who will hit rock bottom, turn to the Lord, and save themselves? Are you interfering with, rather than aiding, their salvation?

The problem with people who are too zealous in doing God's work is they begin to assume God is granting them omniscience. But He didn't make us capable of it. So, we wind up with dangerous presumptuousness. And devilish arrogance.

What fool started the rumor that I said we should lock people in jail for abusing drugs?

[Theocrat]

Upon reading Wilson's blog and the comments under it, it occurs to me that they might have such a high standard that no one will ever achieve to get their vote, so they will either not vote, or pick whoever has the best chance at beating the Democrat (a version of the lesser evil). This thinking is common to conservatives of all stripes, not just Christians, and maybe anyone who has an intricate set of principles, even true marxists and ideological progressives might do this.

The end result is that the candidate who can whip up the most hype to "gain a following" and top the polls will end up getting the votes of even people who claim to be principled. It's like working the RP booth at gun shows in 2008. There were people who knew enough about the law and had the most principled constitutional convictions that they could probably run for office themselves, but were too picky about some minor little detail of what RP said once or one particular vote he took that somehow made him as worthless as the worst guy on the ballot. It's as if a completely different standard is applied to someone who focuses on principle and the constitution than those who simply parrot psychologically perfected talking points.

I see your concern, and I, too, find it frustrating when a person can agree with 99% of a person's views, but then allow the 1% of disagreement to lose support for him. I would say maybe Douglas Wilson is being a little "perfectionistic" in his standards for supporting Congressman Paul (even though he has supported him in the past), but at least I understand, theologically, why that is.

As for me, I support Congressman Paul because I know he's a Christian, but I also see Biblical grounds for most of his political views (even if Dr. Paul refuses to present them on those grounds). He's not a Douglas Wilson-type of debater, but he does present his views in a rational and Constitutional manner, which is so rare for the average politician today. So, my support for Dr. Paul continues, even if a mentor like Wilson, is not pleased with Dr. Paul's views on drugs.

[rockandrollsouls]

Exactly. Most of the libertarian leaning individuals are here.

Steve is right on, that's why you need to make them think Ron is their guy.


Honestly it isn't from all I've seen, I've worked for 4 years to convert about 20 so-cons to liberty minded. There are many magnitudes more that want nothing less than prohibition, all out legislation of morality.

they talk a great small govt talk but then when it comes to legislating morality, they jump all up on that.

[AuH20]

But some people will! And should we just let them perish?

Yes. And if they try to steal from you, you have the right to harm them.

[nate895]

I see your concern, and I, too, find it frustrating when a person can agree with 99% of a person's views, but then allow the 1% of disagreement to lose support for him. I would say maybe Douglas Wilson is being a little "perfectionistic" in his standards for supporting Congressman Paul (even though he has supported him in the past), but at least I understand, theologically, why that is.

As for me, I support Congressman Paul because I know he's a Christian, but I also see Biblical grounds for most of his political views (even if Dr. Paul refuses to present them on those grounds). He's not a Douglas Wilson-type of debater, but he does present his views in a rational and Constitutional manner, which is so rare for the average politician today. So, my support for Dr. Paul continues, even if a mentor like Wilson, is not pleased with Dr. Paul's views on drugs.

Wilson himself I don't think is very influential as far as the votes of the Christian community, but I do think his attitude is the general attitude in the Christian population. Ron Paul must address people's concerns about what to do with drug addicts in a free society. If he has the Social Darwinian view of some of the contributors to this thread, then he can't win, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I don't think that is the case, of course.

[nate895]

Exactly. Most of the libertarian leaning individuals are here.

Steve is right on, that's why you need to make them think Ron is their guy.

Ron needs to do that. It's not my job.

[rockandrollsouls]

This is exactly what I've been trying to rail home. Many here are trying to convince a small segment of voters, likely at the extremes of a standard curve, to vote for Ron. Hell, you'll have an easier time convincing the average voter with a fraction of the effort.

However, it seems a number of supporters here just like to argue for the sake of being right. Just as "Detail oriented" as the people they are complaining about.

[steph3n]

So, not banning drugs implies acceptance? That is exactly the problem I have. If that is the type of attitude Ron Paul has, he ain't gonna win, and I can't do anything to change that.

If the country would look at the facts, look at the 20's with prohibition, look at the utter waste of money we spend on the 'war on drugs', it would all become quite clear.

I've never used drugs, and have no interest in them, never smoked and no interest, and in fact flee from places where people are smoking (legally smoking). It is all a personal choice, that is given to us by God.

In fact many 'drugs' are perfectly normal natural substances that we as man have deemed to be 'inappropriate' for some reason or another, even with no evidence of them being more harmful than other legal substances.

Prescriptions are just as bad or worse of an issue than the illicit drugs, doctors over prescribe everything these days. when will he have a crackdown on doctors abuse of giving a pill for every issue? Most people have far too much of a glowing view of doctors these days, while there are certainly some good ones there are a lot just raised in a drug to fix anything world.

I don't understand why this is such a huge deal to you if you agree with it even partially. Sure Ron could word a lot of things better, but he WON'T. If you can't get over there, you need to look toward the huckster, because he's good at saying one thing(what people want to hear) and doing another. Not to mention releasing violent criminals!

[acptulsa]

What fool started the rumor that I said we should lock people in jail for abusing drugs?

You were talking about intervening with addicts. Ever deal with one in person? I thought not, or you wouldn't be thinking intervening and preventing them from harming themselves involves giving them freedom of action.


Ron needs to do that. It's not my job.

Oh, so the nation is addicted to the sweet b.s. of something that is out to destroy them, and you'll do nothing to help them get over it? Well, now.

[Theocrat]

Wilson himself I don't think is very influential as far as the votes of the Christian community, but I do think his attitude is the general attitude in the Christian population. Ron Paul must address people's concerns about what to do with drug addicts in a free society. If he has the Social Darwinian view of some of the contributors to this thread, then he can't win, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I don't think that is the case, of course.

I agree, my brother, and when Congressman Paul does address those concerns, he must stress the need for churches and families to be involved in the drug issue on the local level, as ministerial agencies counter to our intrusive federal government.

[steph3n]

Ron needs to do that. It's not my job.
Ron hardly has the platform to convince everyone, it sounds like you doubt so much your own support for him that you can't convince others that what he says is right. Maybe because you really don't believe it is? thats fine, but there is far more than a drug issue on the table there.

Where the president has the most power in cabinet picks and overall direction is much more powerful and where we need to go, Ron is not a single issue candidate, but if you wanted to say he was, his single most important issue is having a solid economy, which is what we all need now more than anything.

[nate895]

Question: Do you guys want Ron Paul to be President of the United States on January 20, 2013?

[steph3n]

Question: Do you guys want Ron Paul to be President of the United States on January 20, 2013?

If he has to lie to do it, not at all.

[nate895]

If he has to lie to do it, not at all.

Well, if not offending people you need to win means lying, the campaign is over before it has even begun.

[steph3n]

Well, if not offending people you need to win means lying, the campaign is over before it has even begun.

if people are offended maybe they need to evaluate better where they stand in all regards, their opinions, their walk with their chosen Saviour, the way the approach their life?

[nate895]

if people are offended maybe they need to evaluate better?

I thought the Christians were supposed to be the judgmental ones.

[steph3n]

I thought the Christians were supposed to be the judgmental ones.


Who's being judgmental? and I am very much a Christian.

Everything I've said has come from that standpoint completely, it just differs wildly from yours.

I am actually an evangelical Christian. I believe that we've taken the wrong track in supporting morality by force instead of by example.

[rockandrollsouls]

This is where we have a divide. You guys think if he doesn't mention the gold standard, cutting departments, and all of these little details that he's lying. I think it'd be smart if he didn't, he'd turn less people off. You need to give it in doses.

I don't think it's lying at all. I think it's smart strategy.

What are people going to digest better? "Let's get rid of social security and medicare" vs. "I have a plan to sustain social security and medicare, so everyone will get what they were promised, and we can begin to decrease their size."

Well, if you ask me, the second one sounds like it's much more attractive and it's not lying at all.


If he has to lie to do it, not at all.

[steph3n]

This is where we have a divide. You guys think if he doesn't mention the gold standard, cutting departments, and all of these little details that he's lying. I think it'd be smart if he didn't, he'd turn less people off. You need to give it in doses.

I don't think it's lying at all. I think it's smart strategy.

What are people going to digest better? "Let's get rid of social security and medicare" vs. "I have a plan to sustain social security and medicare, so everyone will get what they were promised, and we can begin to decrease their size."

Well, if you ask me, the second one sounds like it's much more attractive and it's not lying at all.

That isn't lying it is delivery. As said before he could work on that, but he's old and set in his ways, he won't. He doesn't change in that regard, I had hopes he would but the direct, short, and blunt Bin Laden answers showed he had no desire to do that.

In many ways I have a lot more hope for Rand in 2016, if the country makes it that long.

[nate895]

Who's being judgmental? and I am very much a Christian.

Everything I've said has come from that standpoint completely.

You just accused your fellow Christians of lacking judgment. Perhaps they don't have their priorities absolutely straight as far as politics goes, I get that, but they are good enough that Ron Paul just needs to change his rhetoric, not lie. Promote non-state* solutions to the problem, not lecture religious people about the right to smoke pot being equal to the right to free worship.

*some people seem to have not read this point.

[rockandrollsouls]

I think he would, but the campaign has shown us how they work....

I suggest we petition them with a list of things we feel would be beneficial.

ie, Delivery of content, Suit fit and some body language

I'm in it to win it. If you can take a day to change a few little things that will change his perception I'm all for it.

[steph3n]

You just accused your fellow Christians of lacking judgment. Perhaps they don't have their priorities absolutely straight as far as politics goes, I get that, but they are good enough that Ron Paul just needs to change his rhetoric, not lie. Promote non-state* solutions to the problem, not lecture religious people about the right to smoke pot being equal to the right to free worship.

*some people seem to have not read this point.


you keep saying this but then advocating something more by force that everyone that does drugs should have some sort of remedy, how do you do that exactly 'non- state'?

I said nothing judgmental, I said maybe it needs to be evaluated better, your support for a candidate, or your positions on the matter, that is a point of reflection not a judgement.

[nate895]

I think he would, but the campaign has shown us how they work....

I suggest we petition them with a list of things we feel would be beneficial.

ie, Delivery of content, Suit fit and some body language

I'm in it to win it. If you can take a day to change a few little things that will change his perception I'm all for it.

That is exactly what I am going to do on this conference call I talked about over in Grassroots. I intend on consulting with the Christian community here on the contents of an open letter. Right now I intend on addressing it to Ron Paul personally and the campaign on behalf of social conservatives everywhere (with an eye to convince to vote for Ron Paul). From there, we can gather online signatures through Facebook to back up our point. If enough people sign on, the campaign will be forced to consider it.

[nate895]

you keep saying this but then advocating something more by force that everyone that does drugs should have some sort of remedy, how do you do that exactly 'non- state'?

I said nothing judgmental, I said maybe it needs to be evaluated better, your support for a candidate, or your positions on the matter, that is a point of reflection not a judgement.

Unlike you, I can see where my fellow Christians are coming from. We have compassion for drug-addled fools and other ne'er-do-wells. We don't want them to continue being that, we want to do something about it, and they want to hear Ron Paul's solution on the matter. We can't just tell them that they're wrong on their priorities. Perhaps something happened in their life that makes this important to them. We can't just make fun of their concerns if we want to win.

[kylejack]

Well, and I don't think someone like Wilson is advocating non-stop Jesus talk, but rather, voicing a recognition that his liberty derives from the tenets of his faith and specifying what those are. That way atheists can still agree with him on liberty and teh Christians can be assured that he's grounding them on a standard they are comfortable with.

While Paul will never get the "Dobson Vote" I feel like the "Wilson Vote" (what I'll call the "Contemplative Christian Vote") is so close, but not there, and I honestly do not believe Paul can win without that vote.
Hmm, he does, though. I don't see anyone else on the stage explaining Just War Theory.

[AuH20]

Unlike you, I can see where my fellow Christians are coming from. We have compassion for drug-addled fools and other ne'er-do-wells. We don't want them to continue being that, we want to do something about it, and they want to hear Ron Paul's solution on the matter. We can't just tell them that they're wrong on their priorities. Perhaps something happened in their life that makes this important to them. We can't just make fun of their concerns if we want to win.

Explain to me again how drugs became an issue with a 14 trillion dollar national debt?

[nate895]

Explain to me again how drugs became an issue with a 14 trillion dollar national debt?

Maybe because Mrs. Jones saw her nephew get addicted to cocaine and the horrible destructive influence it had on his life. Why should Mrs. Jones care about numbers on a sheet of paper when her nephew is killing himself?

[PaulConventionWV]

If you want to understand why Paul has struggled to gain a large portion of the Christian Libertarian-leaning vote, then this is worth your read. I offer it without comment, except to say that this blogger represents a large voting block that Ron Paul really needs to think about.

http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8636:then-leave-the-man-alone&catid=87:politics

That was a great article and reminds me of some of the libertarian writings from back in the 19th century that I have read. It is absolutely correct and staunchly defends Paul's stance. The one thing he said against Paul was that he didn't base it in scripture enough. While this may or may not be true (I'm not really sure how Paul reads the Bible), he is not here to teach people about what the Bible says. He is here to, as the article says, leave the man alone. I think Paul's attitude toward government is biblically based, and that's all that I really need to know. On another note, I think the Christian vote is very promising, since most Christians take the Bible seriously, and will care to listen if you explain to them why it is not the government's role to regulate your life or your neighbor's life.

[nate895]

That was a great article and reminds me of some of the libertarian writings from back in the 19th century that I have read. It is absolutely correct and staunchly defends Paul's stance. The one thing he said against Paul was that he didn't base it in scripture enough. While this may or may not be true (I'm not really sure how Paul reads the Bible), he is not here to teach people about what the Bible says. He is here to, as the article says, leave the man alone. I think Paul's attitude toward government is biblically based, and that's all that I really need to know. On another note, I think the Christian vote is very promising, since most Christians take the Bible seriously, and will care to listen if you explain to them why it is not the government's role to regulate your life or your neighbor's life.

Yeah, Wilson has basically the same political views as Theocrat and myself, so you can basically read everything he says in that lens.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Unlike you, I can see where my fellow Christians are coming from. We have compassion for drug-addled fools and other ne'er-do-wells. We don't want them to continue being that, we want to do something about it, and they want to hear Ron Paul's solution on the matter. We can't just tell them that they're wrong on their priorities. Perhaps something happened in their life that makes this important to them. We can't just make fun of their concerns if we want to win.

If people want to smoke, inject, or orally take any drug / pill, that is their right. Intervention is the purview of close friends and family if they feel like it would be wise to give the person the option of choosing another way, knowing he or she has support. It isn't the job of prosleytizers to go around preaching their gospel to people you have never met, nor know anything about. Now, you can offer Church services for those who wish to seek remedies, but otherwise you alienate people you are trying to help if you prosleytize to them. This is the problem with most Christians. Instead of God being a personal-individualist undertaking, they seek to do as any other religion does -- become overbearing to the point of revulsion. Jesus never pushed his views on people -- he lived a life of example for others, just the same that America was founded on non-interventionist ideals -- that we were to live a life of example, but not push our views on everyone else. Christians need to remember this or else you will see your numbers continue to dwindle.

Besides, all rights are equal. No one right supercedes another.

[AuH20]

Maybe because Mrs. Jones saw her nephew get addicted to cocaine and the horrible destructive influence it had on his life. Why should Mrs. Jones care about numbers on a sheet of paper when her nephew is killing himself?

But it's a social problem. I think excessive drug use serves a Darwinian purpose.

[nate895]

I think drug use is quite Darwinian.

And that's why your views will never win a GOP primary. ~25% of people are conscious anti-Darwinians according to some religion surveys I've seen. That's around ~75,000,000 people. There were ~20,000,000 GOP primary voters last time around. Considering anti-Darwinists tend to be political conservatives, I'm willing to bet that at least half of the GOP electorate isn't going to buy into Social Darwinism.

[The Moravian]

Why should I value that? Why shouldn't I value power over other people's lives?

Is this statement "playing devil's advocate"? Certainly not on this thread has Nate895 advocated banning anything. So I think you're trying to move the debate toward determining what the presupposition underlying "liberty" is, right?

For me, like the Declaration of Independence says, it is self-evident that we are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights - among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... I would hope that a naturalist or atheist would consider nature or the universe as their Creator, and thereby agree that the statement is satisfactorily true in their mind as well. Regardless of what someone personally believes, I certainly believe that they are equally endowed by their Creator with these same rights.

Does it offend someone that I say so? Perhaps, but does it violate their right to their belief?

Does capitalizing "Creator" violate anyone's rights?

Does me saying that Jesus Christ is our Creator somehow violate someone's rights?

[AuH20]

And that's why your views will never win a GOP primary. ~25% of people are conscious anti-Darwinians according to some religion surveys I've seen. That's around ~75,000,000 people. There were ~20,000,000 GOP primary voters last time around. Considering anti-Darwinists tend to be political conservatives, I'm willing to bet that at least half of the GOP electorate isn't going to buy into Social Darwinism.

But don't you think this "I am my brother's keeper" mantra is little excessive when you're talking about something as fatal as heroin addiction? Many of these addicts are the walking dead, especially if they're genetically susceptible.

[steph3n]

Maybe because Mrs. Jones saw her nephew get addicted to cocaine and the horrible destructive influence it had on his life. Why should Mrs. Jones care about numbers on a sheet of paper when her nephew is killing himself?

What was more destructive, the cocaine itself or the continual trill of the hunt and outsmarting the LEOs?

[nate895]

Back, again, to whether you want to win the election. You aren't going to win an election by lecturing people. Maybe you'll lay the seeds for victory in another 20 years, but we don't have 20 years.

[doodle]

Sometimes it seems like RP is running as the wrong party's candidate but hopefully I'm wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html

[DisillusionedPatriot]

So, I'm tracking with most of this well-written post, but what about Romans 13? There is a Biblical mandate for an authority with a sword.

I believe that Romans 13 may be an easy chapter to misinterpret but does not provide even a flimsy justification for tyrants or dictators. There are many countries around the world where it is illegal to preach the Bible, and even to be found with a copy can mean a death sentence. Under your reading of Romans, these evangelists would be doing wrong by breaking the law to spread the good news. Clearly this cannot be, and thus the interpretation fails.

As elsewhere it is written, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, we are compelled only to turn over that which a ruler may rightfully request. When we are asked to sin, or to abandon God’s blessings and precious gifts, it is not moral or courageous to do so, but craven and evil. I wrote an entire post (here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?255193-Christian-Argument-in-Favor-of-Civil-Disobedience) about when it is and is not proper to obey one’s government.

It is clear throughout the Bible that God establishes earthly authorities. What is also clear is that does not mean they have His approval, and this is one of God’s mysteries. I have always felt vague discomfort over the description of Pharaoh, as it is so explicit that God himself intervened to harden his heart. I believe that God uses earthly rulers to teach a disobedient and fallen people that they may joyfully choose to follow and obey Him, or, without His protection, will suffer the dire consequences. When the people come to repent of their sins and walk again in a way pleasing to the Lord, they will rise up, become free, and overcome their oppressor, who at that time will be forced to pay for his injustices.

In short, I believe that God occasionally allows or proscribes tyranny as a punishment and lesson to sinful man. It shows us what the world is like without His grace. It need not be stated, however, that we should be both wary and skeptical or anyone who dares to frame his desire to control and dominate others as acceptable Biblically or morally. Though God may permit such behaviors, He does not condone them.

[bunklocoempire]

I have no doubt that whatever the relationship between Ron Paul's religion and his principles of economics and government might be, he has thought VERY long and hard about whether or not to make that relationship a campaign talking point and has chosen not to do so. I respect that decision. Others should also.

If the obvious fact that Ron Paul is a Christian of the truest sort, and the fact that his stated AND DEMONSTRATED policies and principles are consistent with Christian morals, are not enough, then screw 'em. What alternative do they have anyway? A bunch of phony Christians who use their religion to feed their lust for power? If Christians are so gullible and shallow as to choose the likes of Huckabee and Gingrich because they are willing to say ANYTHING to be elected and Ron Paul is not, then they deserve the drubbing they are going to get.

Another + 1.

It seems the Christian(?) "Federal laws against vice" crowd constantly gloss over the fact that Christ led by personal example ministering, helping, and hanging with the sinners/poor -prostitutes and otherwise -Christ did NOT call for Rome/government to "take care of it" and clean up the town.

'Fudging' that little fact goes directly against Christianity.:mad:

Going along with the 'fudging' should not be done.



Bunkloco

[guitarlifter]

Kludge,

I don't think that's quite correct. The indication here is that Wilson and the like are not so much turned off by a few 'surprising stands' in a mostly sound package. His problem is that Paul's libertarianism seems more to be "libertarianism is the standard" rather than "The Bible is my standard and it results in liberty." Trust me, this is a huge distinction for us Christians.

Wilson goes on to say that "Ron Paul's message resonates with many thoughtful Christians (even though he does not ground it on Scripture as he ought to)" and that "While many Christians are unsettled by Paul's idea of legalizing drugs, for example, I am far more concerned about the millions that have gotten themselves addicted to the crack cocaine of other people's money, and who need a daily fix of their power and privilege, paid for by beyond ridiculous economic policies."

So I think guys like Wilson really want to be able to support him and are having a hard time being able to justify it in good conscience. They want to be convinced that the root of his liberty are grounded in something other than the Constitution. I really don't think this is an ungettable vote, but some thinking needs to be done in this regard or Paul will simply lose.

Wilson is calling for a scripturally grounded explanation of Paul's support for libertarianism, but Wilson also does not seemingly support liberty in the way Paul does. I let the Bible speak truth rather than try to adapt my presumptions and previous beliefs to scripture, and I can say that liberty is a result of the Bible so much as to support legalization of drugs, prostitution, and the like. Wilson's exegesis of Luke 12:42-48 is fallacious on the grounds that he misrepresents the obvious within that text. Luke 12:42-48 is not referring to a government situation with ruler and citizen, but with master and servant within a single household. Secondly, this piece of scripture is taken out of context. Just by reading the whole chapter, one can easily see the true context of that passage. I'm not going to get into specifics, but, when interpreted correctly and within context, scripture will never support coercion or punishment for any sin that does not involve a crime against another person. That's the social conservative's only defense when using scripture, and this is to take it out of context to fit their previous beliefs.

Overly libertarian? Out of my studies of Christian theology, libertarianism in its full is pretty dang close to the political message of the Bible--more so than any other political ideology that I have studied. Social conservatism can only be applied to oneself, one's children, and those who have entered into a contract that requires to follow the laws of social conservatism such as through getting hired at a company and being required to follow their rules. Wilson speaks like the tyrant kings of past times who were granted divine power from God. Could Ron Paul base more of his teachings in scripture to grab a larger portion of the Christian crowd? Sure. But sorry, Wilson. Scripturally grounded or not (and they are), Paul's politics are very in line with Christian theology, and changing his politics to reach Christian libertarians is not going to happen because Paul's message is meant for libertarians of all walks, and the kind of politics that Wilson wants Ron Paul to have would not be applicable to libertarian Christians or libertarians at all.


Ok I read through that. It is early (or I am up late) and I haven't had an adequate amount of coffee yet.
It made little sense. Was convoluted and confused.
But then, anyone can blog.

I have had discussions on several of these issues with my pastor and elders of my church. Both around a table in the church basement and my own dining table.
Though I am rather irreligious the church I attend is rather conservative Baptist.

I have only seen a few that have difficulty grasping the concepts of liberty. And they tend toward authoritarianism.
I have found that Dr. Paul's message resonates well with most Christians I have discussed him with.

I would be interested in hearing what your pastor and elders had to say concerning the theological implications of a truly scrupturally based political ideology. Did they support liberty in its fullest, or did they support socialism to any extent?

[QueenB4Liberty]

If people want to smoke, inject, or orally take any drug / pill, that is their right. Intervention is the purview of close friends and family if they feel like it would be wise to give the person the option of choosing another way, knowing he or she has support. It isn't the job of prosleytizers to go around preaching their gospel to people you have never met, nor know anything about. Now, you can offer Church services for those who wish to seek remedies, but otherwise you alienate people you are trying to help if you prosleytize to them. This is the problem with most Christians. Instead of God being a personal-individualist undertaking, they seek to do as any other religion does -- become overbearing to the point of revulsion. Jesus never pushed his views on people -- he lived a life of example for others, just the same that America was founded on non-interventionist ideals -- that we were to live a life of example, but not push our views on everyone else. Christians need to remember this or else you will see your numbers continue to dwindle.

Besides, all rights are equal. No one right supercedes another.

+rep

[nate895]

Something good managed to come out of this thread, btw.

[Vessol]

Using violence is immoral in Christianity. Therefore it is immoral to use violence to stop immoral acts. Right?

Is that the gist of this whole thing? Ron Paul not wanting to use violence to stop immoral acts or just him not openly stating his religious beliefs more often(even though he already has?)

[Bman]

For crying out loud! This thread is ridiculous. It's a call by a group for someone to push their message that doesn't have a damn thing to do with Dr. Paul's ideas on how Government should be run.

Talk about people needing to get a life.

[Zap!]

I'm voting for Ron Paul, but I really wish he would speak out against the militant gay agenda. They are non stop, and word is Sesame Street is about to openly have Ernie and Bert come out of the closet. They are sick.

[Sola_Fide]

For crying out loud! This thread is ridiculous. It's a call by a group for someone to push their message that doesn't have a damn thing to do with Dr. Paul's ideas on how Government should be run.

Talk about people needing to get a life.

You still don't understand that many of Ron's ideas come from Christian Reconstructionism, do you?

I'd look into it if I were you.

[nate895]

I'm voting for Ron Paul, but I really wish he would speak out against the militant gay agenda. They are non stop, and word is Sesame Street is about to openly have Ernie and Bert come out of the closet. They are sick.

Shitstorm, proceed.

[nate895]

You still don't understand that many of Ron's ideas come from Christian Reconstructionism, do you?

I'd look into it if I were you.

Gary North was on his staff. And no one ever told Ron Paul to go off and change his philosophy anyway. We just wish he'd present it better to real voters.

[Bman]

You still don't understand that many of Ron's ideas come from Christian Reconstructionism, do you?

I'd look into it if I were you.

I have ideas that have nothing to do with how I perceive the operation of a government.

[Bman]

Gary North was on his staff. And no one ever told Ron Paul to go off and change his philosophy anyway. We just wish he'd present it better to real voters.

Is he forgetting to wear his Cross pin? It's ridiculous.

[parocks]

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[YumYum]

Does anybody here read the Bible? God is going to destroy this government. Look what it says at Daniel 2:44:


"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a government that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those governments and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

[Maestro232]

That was a great article and reminds me of some of the libertarian writings from back in the 19th century that I have read. It is absolutely correct and staunchly defends Paul's stance. The one thing he said against Paul was that he didn't base it in scripture enough. While this may or may not be true (I'm not really sure how Paul reads the Bible), he is not here to teach people about what the Bible says. He is here to, as the article says, leave the man alone. I think Paul's attitude toward government is biblically based, and that's all that I really need to know. On another note, I think the Christian vote is very promising, since most Christians take the Bible seriously, and will care to listen if you explain to them why it is not the government's role to regulate your life or your neighbor's life.

Finally, someone who understands what Wilson is arguing. Wilson will almost certainly vote for Paul, but he will do so DESPITE his concern about if Paul is libertarian in the secular sense or the Biblical sense. But Wilson is also level-headed and a deep thinker. I think much of the evangelical population has been unable to evaluate Paul comprehensively. Hence, my suggestion that he speak directly to that voting bloc and say, "come, let us reason together...here's why you should vote for me. Here's why such and such position is in line with yours and my faith that we both hold so dear. etc..."

[Maestro232]

I believe that Romans 13 may be an easy chapter to misinterpret but does not provide even a flimsy justification for tyrants or dictators.

Sure it does. The Apostle Paul was writing this in the time of the Roman empire.


There are many countries around the world where it is illegal to preach the Bible, and even to be found with a copy can mean a death sentence. Under your reading of Romans, these evangelists would be doing wrong by breaking the law to spread the good news. Clearly this cannot be, and thus the interpretation fails.

I'm not quite sure why I gave the impression that I'm reading Romans in such a way. I was simply saying that a greater authority has been instituted by God and it carries the sword. I don't think I said any more than that.


As elsewhere it is written, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, we are compelled only to turn over that which a ruler may rightfully request. When we are asked to sin, or to abandon God’s blessings and precious gifts, it is not moral or courageous to do so, but craven and evil.

Yes. This. I'm in full agreement. I believe this too, but I think this is also an acknowledgement that God intends Caesar to exist.


It is clear throughout the Bible that God establishes earthly authorities. What is also clear is that does not mean they have His approval, and this is one of God’s mysteries.

Yes again.


I have always felt vague discomfort over the description of Pharaoh, as it is so explicit that God himself intervened to harden his heart. I believe that God uses earthly rulers to teach a disobedient and fallen people that they may joyfully choose to follow and obey Him, or, without His protection, will suffer the dire consequences. When the people come to repent of their sins and walk again in a way pleasing to the Lord, they will rise up, become free, and overcome their oppressor, who at that time will be forced to pay for his injustices.

Yes again. But might I direct you to Romans 9:17-18 ...
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."



In short, I believe that God occasionally allows or proscribes tyranny as a punishment and lesson to sinful man. It shows us what the world is like without His grace. It need not be stated, however, that we should be both wary and skeptical or anyone who dares to frame his desire to control and dominate others as acceptable Biblically or morally. Though God may permit such behaviors, He does not condone them.

Quite so and Amen. I don't think we are in disagreement. I'm not sure why my invoking of Romans 13 was disagreeable. But perhaps I'm missing something.

[Maestro232]

For crying out loud! This thread is ridiculous. It's a call by a group for someone to push their message that doesn't have a damn thing to do with Dr. Paul's ideas on how Government should be run. Talk about people needing to get a life.

Well, my purpose in starting this thread was simply to say, "Dr. Paul, I want you to win, so reaching out to folks who think like Wilson would be a good idea since they are on the edge of supporting you. If you think this is a waste of time then, with thoughtful choice of my words, you are a fool.

[LibertyEagle]

This is where we have a divide. You guys think if he doesn't mention the gold standard, cutting departments, and all of these little details that he's lying. I think it'd be smart if he didn't, he'd turn less people off. You need to give it in doses.

I don't think it's lying at all. I think it's smart strategy.

What are people going to digest better? "Let's get rid of social security and medicare" vs. "I have a plan to sustain social security and medicare, so everyone will get what they were promised, and we can begin to decrease their size."

Well, if you ask me, the second one sounds like it's much more attractive and it's not lying at all.

I agree. People were upset when Rand did this and were calling him all kinds of names. That is, until they realized later how very wrong they were.

What Rand did worked. We now have a Senator Rand Paul to show for it.

[Xenophage]

Liberty is MY standard. If it wasn't Paul's standard, he wouldn't be my champion.

[LibertyEagle]

Wilson is calling for a scripturally grounded explanation of Paul's support for libertarianism, but Wilson also does not seemingly support liberty in the way Paul does. I let the Bible speak truth rather than try to adapt my presumptions and previous beliefs to scripture, and I can say that liberty is a result of the Bible so much as to support legalization of drugs, prostitution, and the like. Wilson's exegesis of Luke 12:42-48 is fallacious on the grounds that he misrepresents the obvious within that text. Luke 12:42-48 is not referring to a government situation with ruler and citizen, but with master and servant within a single household. Secondly, this piece of scripture is taken out of context. Just by reading the whole chapter, one can easily see the true context of that passage. I'm not going to get into specifics, but, when interpreted correctly and within context, scripture will never support coercion or punishment for any sin that does not involve a crime against another person. That's the social conservative's only defense when using scripture, and this is to take it out of context to fit their previous beliefs.

Overly libertarian? Out of my studies of Christian theology, libertarianism in its full is pretty dang close to the political message of the Bible--more so than any other political ideology that I have studied. Social conservatism can only be applied to oneself, one's children, and those who have entered into a contract that requires to follow the laws of social conservatism such as through getting hired at a company and being required to follow their rules. Wilson speaks like the tyrant kings of past times who were granted divine power from God. Could Ron Paul base more of his teachings in scripture to grab a larger portion of the Christian crowd? Sure. But sorry, Wilson. Scripturally grounded or not (and they are), Paul's politics are very in line with Christian theology, and changing his politics to reach Christian libertarians is not going to happen because Paul's message is meant for libertarians of all walks, and the kind of politics that Wilson wants Ron Paul to have would not be applicable to libertarian Christians or libertarians at all.

I don't think anyone wants him to change his message. Last election, he put out a statement to Christians. I don't have it anymore, but someone else surely does. I wonder if that would answer Wilson's questions.

[Maestro232]

Really?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Good link.

from Paul...

...The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity...The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion....The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility....

The irony is that many of Paul's atheist supporters have been acting somewhat like the "anti-religious elites" he talks about here.

Now I'm in for it...

[DisillusionedPatriot]

Quite so and Amen. I don't think we are in disagreement. I'm not sure why my invoking of Romans 13 was disagreeable. But perhaps I'm missing something.

I don't think we are very much in disagreement. I simply do not believe, as I took you to, that Romans or any other part of the Bible, provides any justification for tyranny. I believe that God describes and prophecies political oppression in the Bible, permits it to happen on earth, and, like all other evil which transpires, is able to use it for His own purpose, i.e. for good. But it does not follow from this that God endorses or is pleased by tyrants and despots any more than that they will not be held accountable for those sins.

To use the Bible to justify political dominion over mankind is analogous to using scripture to condone slavery. In the same manner that all reasonable men concur that the phrase "slaves obey your master" does not mean that anybody who likes can own them, exhortations to obey one's government do not provide any excuses for men who wish to usurp God's power to rule over others and utilize earthly power to an unholy and unjust end.

I may only be clarifying a point we agree on, and if so, sorry.

[TIMB0B]

I haven't read the entire thread, but was RP's Statement of Faith not good enough?

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

[Maestro232]

I don't think we are very much in disagreement. I simply do not believe, as I took you to, that Romans or any other part of the Bible, provides any justification for tyranny. I believe that God describes and prophecies political oppression in the Bible, permits it to happen on earth, and, like all other evil which transpires, is able to use it for His own purpose, i.e. for good. But it does not follow from this that God endorses or is pleased by tyrants and despots any more than that they will not be held accountable for those sins.

To use the Bible to justify political dominion over mankind is analogous to using scripture to condone slavery. In the same manner that all reasonable men concur that the phrase "slaves obey your master" does not mean that anybody who likes can own them, exhortations to obey one's government do not provide any excuses for men who wish to usurp God's power to rule over others and utilize earthly power to an unholy and unjust end.

I may only be clarifying a point we agree on, and if so, sorry.

we are agreed:D