PDA

View Full Version : How should I explain Paul's more extreme libertarian positions...




lilymc
01-01-2012, 01:37 AM
...to a very, VERY socially conservative, legalistic Christian, who is convinced that I need to repent for supporting Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

This is a guy who I've known online for many years and I don't think he will EVER support Ron Paul, but I still want to know how to best respond to his objections and accusations. His view is that anyone who supports drug legalization, legal prostitution, gay marriage, etc, "supports sin." And therefore, since I support Ron Paul, I "support sin."

The reason that it's hard for me to respond to this is because I have always considered myself more of a conservative than a libertarian. So I've never been 100% convinced that things like legalization of hard drugs or legal prostitution are good ideas. But I don't have to agree with a candidate on 100% of the issues, and I think our country is so far gone in the wrong direction, that we absolutely need a pro-liberty, small-government, strict constitutionalist like Ron Paul, or we are finished.

I think there are lots of conservative Christians who we could convince, but the issues I mentioned above are things that turn some people away.

So any advice on how to respond to those objections would be greatly appreciated!

PS - I'm sorry if there have been numerous other threads on this topic already. (I saw some similar ones but I figured I'd start a new thread)

Travlyr
01-01-2012, 02:12 AM
Give him a copy of "Liberty Defined" by Ron Paul

James Madison
01-01-2012, 02:16 AM
By existing, all of us 'support sin'. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Only through Christ can this be overcome.

Seriously though, I'd give him a copy of The Bible. One without 'Scofield' on the cover.

lilymc
01-01-2012, 02:32 AM
Give him a copy of "Liberty Defined" by Ron Paul

That sounds good, thank you. :) I'll look it up.



By existing, all of us 'support sin'. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Only through Christ can this be overcome.

Seriously though, I'd give him a copy of The Bible. One without 'Scofield' on the cover.

Yes, I definitely want to have a talk with him about looking at his own heart first, before looking at everyone else. He has a lot of hate and anger towards Muslims/Islam, terrorists, extreme leftists, etc. Oh, and he has read and studied the bible. But he still somehow interprets it a lot more like a Pharisee than someone who truly wants to know God's heart and do God's will. Thanks!

BeauGeste
01-07-2012, 11:23 PM
Don't frame the issues in the sense that Ron Paul supports drugs, prostitution, gay marriage. Remember that Ron Paul is a devout (I would think the most devout of the bunch) Christian and does not believe those things are moral. And from what I can tell of Ron Paul's platform, he is not so much for legalizing those things as he is for leaving it to the states to decide.

One avenue that I use, is that laws are a double-edge sword. Yes, we can make laws banning these activities. But if we choose to live in such a law-making society where each group is forcing the whole country to abide by their morality, someday they will be forcing private institutions to recognize gay marriages etc. While not banning those sins may seem like support for them, in the long run we are also saving ourselves from having to obey future laws that we wouldn't agree with. For example, we all pay for abortions now.

hard@work
01-07-2012, 11:31 PM
First, take a good look at what you define as "extreme". Then compare it to the extremities of what our government does every single day. You'll find a lot of answers there.

tfurrh
01-07-2012, 11:41 PM
I didnt know Ron Paul had any extreme positions. The ones in charge now are the extremists.

CJLauderdale4
01-08-2012, 12:11 AM
Easy: lean to a "State's Rights" argument. Tell them that Ron Paul simply believes that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in spending all of this money on the War on Drugs, etc. - it should be left up to the States to decide.

Yes, Ron Paul honestly believes that most if not all drugs should be legal, and I don't necessarily agree with that completely (having known someone killed in a car accident by a high driver), but from his position as President, he would simply allow the States to decide what they want for their residents, and not take tax dollars from folks to run a Federal bureaucracy that is inept and wasteful.

gerryb
01-08-2012, 12:38 AM
What exactly is his solution?

To make those things MORE illegal?

To what end?

Sola_Fide
01-08-2012, 01:05 AM
...to a very, VERY socially conservative, legalistic Christian, who is convinced that I need to repent for supporting Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

This is a guy who I've known online for many years and I don't think he will EVER support Ron Paul, but I still want to know how to best respond to his objections and accusations. His view is that anyone who supports drug legalization, legal prostitution, gay marriage, etc, "supports sin." And therefore, since I support Ron Paul, I "support sin."

The reason that it's hard for me to respond to this is because I have always considered myself more of a conservative than a libertarian. So I've never been 100% convinced that things like legalization of hard drugs or legal prostitution are good ideas. But I don't have to agree with a candidate on 100% of the issues, and I think our country is so far gone in the wrong direction, that we absolutely need a pro-liberty, small-government, strict constitutionalist like Ron Paul, or we are finished.

I think there are lots of conservative Christians who we could convince, but the issues I mentioned above are things that turn some people away.

So any advice on how to respond to those objections would be greatly appreciated!

PS - I'm sorry if there have been numerous other threads on this topic already. (I saw some similar ones but I figured I'd start a new thread)

Tell him that advocating liberty from government is not the same as supporting a sin.

If we really wanted a tyrannical government, we would start making every sin a crime, but this is ridiculous. It's authoritarians who want to make sins crimes. There is, and must be, a real difference between sin and crime. If not, we are slaves to government...and a Christian is called to be free.

What came out of the Protestant Reformation was the idea of the "two kingdoms" of Martin Luther. Breaking away from the tyranny of Rome, he argued that worldly governments apply only to acts by men which are injurious to others. Government must never compel behavior or control the conscience.

This was the very seed of liberty in the Western world. Your friend who loves authoritarian government should read about the Reformation.

crhoades
01-08-2012, 01:14 AM
Tell him that advocating liberty from government is not the same as supporting a sin.

If we really wanted a tyrannical government, we would start making every sin a crime, but this is ridiculous. It's authoritarians who want to make sins crimes. There is, and must be, a real difference between sin and crime. If not, we are slaves to government...and a Christian is called to be free.

What came out of the Protestant Reformation was the idea of the "two kingdoms" of Martin Luther. Breaking away from the tyranny of Rome, he argued that worldly governments apply only to acts by men which are injurious to others. Government must never compel behavior or control the conscience.

This was the very seed of liberty in the Western world. Your friend who loves authoritarian government should read about the Reformation.

This. Getting drunk is considered a sin biblically. Shouldn't lock people up for it though.

GunnyFreedom
01-08-2012, 01:37 AM
Well the scribes and the Pharisees thought that Jesus Christ 'supported sin' when He forgave Mary Magdalene and forgave the sins of the blind and the lame.

The reality is that one of the primary complaints that Jesus had against Israel was their attempts to encode the doctrines of God into civil law. This corrupted the Word of Life and turned it into the Law of Death. This demonstrates a direct lack of faith in God, and prevents the salvation of the people upon which such laws are inflicted.

Do they really believe that God is so weak that we have to turn to Caesar to manage the morality of America? That's idolatry, worshiping government above God, and that's blasphemy, granting Uncle Sam the authority that belongs to God alone.

And there is much more beyond the clear and obvious Biblical argument that very little makes God more angry than trying to use the sword of Caesar to enforce the religious doctrines of God. How about the practical aspect of our evangelical Mission to the lost?

When we pass all these laws to restrict behavior and speech, then people, including those lost souls who do not know Jesus, will behave in ways that make them appear like they are saved, even when they are not. The law forces the lost to hide from the sight of the only ambassadors Jesus has ever sent to the lost to show them the way of salvation.

If we force the lost and dying to act Godly at the point of a gun, how do we know who needs the witness of life? We don't. Essentially, legislating the doctrines of God merely serves to make those of us who believe more comfortable at the cost of condemning countless souls to hell. Is this guy really willing to condemn souls to hell simply to justify his own comfort levels? This is why God and His Son Jesus was so very angry at the scribes and Pharisees. Matthew 23:13 "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." KJV

So it is a violation of Scriptural truth. It is a violation of the Great Commission. It was the very thing that made Jesus Christ the very-most angry during His ministry on Earth, and practically, it forces the lost to suffer the condemnation of hell, simply to make believers more comfortable in this perishing world.

I dare say, with the extraordinary weight of evidence against this practice, that those who seek to legislate the doctrines of God, are antichrist.

lilymc
01-08-2012, 02:13 AM
I hadn't seen that this thread was bumped until now. Wow, some excellent replies here... Thank you so much.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and my own views have been changing a bit lately, which is very interesting. I'm still not 100% there yet, when it comes to letting go of certain things that I have always felt were bad for society overall.... So there's a bit of a conflict there, between wanting to support and protect liberty, but also caring about the condition of our nation overall. But despite that, I've been becoming more libertarian recently, and Dr. Paul has a lot to do with that, as well as a friend of mine who is a Christian libertarian, and also some things I've read on this site. :)

Also, we're at the point in this country where focusing too much on certain social issues is akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We have far more important things to be concerned about, we have been heading in a dangerous direction for a while now and losing our freedom overall...

But getting back to this guy I have been debating. I read something on this site that really made me think, and it was really helpful in how to deal with this guy (who is like a Pharisee). A couple of you here (including Gunny) said pretty much the same thing, in your own words. And that is, supporting laws having to do with 'sin', in order to get other people to accept what WE as christians or conservatives believe is correct, shows a lack of faith in God. God gives everyone free will, and the person who makes wrong choices has to deal with the consequences. So when we try to shape society by supporting laws, for example, having to do with drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, etc, we're not letting go and trusting God, and that what other people do, ultimately is between them and God. The problem I had before was not that I wanted to support legislation to stop people from hurting themselves...it was more about caring how their choices affect others, including society in general. Does that make sense?

But the bottom line is, it's not "supporting sin", it's just supporting free will. I hope I can articulate this to that guy (I haven't written him back after his last message) but once I get my thoughts in order, I'll maybe write a blog post about this or something, and then send it to him.

Thanks so much, you all. I appreciate your input here!!!

ronpaulitician
01-08-2012, 02:19 AM
I'll stick to the war on drugs.

I assume the sin is the actual use of drugs.

If making the use of drugs illegal causes an increase in drug use, while making the drugs legal (regulated) causes a decrease in drug use, which of the two viewpoints is more sinful?

AceNZ
01-08-2012, 02:23 AM
Not outlawing sinful acts is completely different from supporting sin. It's not possible to outlaw sin, and attempts to do so infringe on the freedom of everyone. Shouldn't sin be an issue between man and God, not between man and government? In fact, isn't replacing God with government a sin?

What does government end up doing to enforce drug laws, and what are the side effects? Invasive, warrantless searches. Knockless warrants. Killing people's dogs. The militarization of police. Invasions of privacy into personal and financial records. Discrimination against minorities. Violence on the streets. If your friend wants to fight sin, what about those sins?

lilymc
01-08-2012, 02:34 AM
I'll stick to the war on drugs.

I assume the sin is the actual use of drugs.

If making the use of drugs illegal causes an increase in drug use, while making the drugs legal (regulated) causes a decrease in drug use, which of the two viewpoints is more sinful?

Good point. I don't know if legalizing drugs would cause more or less drug use. I've heard arguments on both sides. But again, it comes down to not supporting the 'sin' just free-will. People are free to make bad choices. As I mentioned in my post above, the problem I had before was that often those bad choices affect others...and sometimes in a big way. But anyway, I do agree with RP's position that it should be left to the states. I'll have to explain that to this guy. Thanks. :)


Not outlawing sinful acts is completely different from supporting sin. It's not possible to outlaw sin, and attempts to do so infringe on the freedom of everyone. Shouldn't sin be an issue between man and God, not between man and government? In fact, isn't replacing God with government a sin?

What does government end up doing to enforce drug laws, and what are the side effects? Invasive, warrantless searches. Knockless warrants. Killing people's dogs. The militarization of police. Invasions of privacy into personal and financial records. Discrimination against minorities. Violence on the streets. If your friend wants to fight sin, what about those sins?

I agree, good post! I don't see how he can argue with that, I will definitely bring that up. And that's why even though I hate drugs, and I'm not convinced they should all be legal, I think the 'war on drugs' is just another excuse to dismantle our civil liberties, when they can do those things you mentioned, in the name of their 'war on drugs'. Kind of like the 'war on terror.'

Thanks you guys.

ronpaulitician
01-08-2012, 02:42 AM
Good point. I don't know if legalizing drugs would cause more or less drug use. I've heard arguments on both sides.
I came to the US at the age of 21. I had never done marijuana. I grew up in Holland.

Drug use among Dutch teens lower than among US teens (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/176/eurostudy.shtml)

In the Netherlands, for example, which has the most liberal drug policy in Europe and where marijuana is effectively legal, marijuana use among teens is actually lower than in the United States. The survey found 28% of Dutch teens smoked marijuana as compared with 41% of American teens, and 23% of American teens had experimented with other illicit drugs as compared with only 6% of European teens.

This is THE argument to make to people who refuse to see that it is a matter of personal liberty to be able to do with your own body as you please. "But drugs are bad." Okay, if you really believe that, then you would be against the drug war, as it INCREASES use of drugs (not to mention gets crime heavily involved).

PS Make sure to read up on L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) at www.leap.cc (http://www.leap.cc/).

James Madison
01-08-2012, 02:42 AM
If all earthly government is entrusted with upholding the precepts of Christ, do those who observe the law do so out of love for God or fear of the state? Therefore, it is essential that man preserve the righteousness of God's Law within himself, lest he place the authority of salvation at the hands of Caesar and not the sovereign Lord.

Davy Crockett
01-08-2012, 03:02 AM
Dear God, save us from the people who believe in you.

Dr. Paul argues from the correct view of what the Constitution is, not from a moralistic view. Of course he is not in favor of prostitution and the use of drugs. What he is saying is that the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to micro-manage our personal affairs. The Constitution is a document that gives the federal branches certain powers and that is it. All other powers to legislate belongs to the states or the people themselves.



This was the very seed of liberty in the Western world. Your friend who loves authoritarian government should read about the Reformation.

The seed of liberty of our Western World was the Age of Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment).

François-Marie Arouet (French pronunciation: [fʁɑ̃.swa ma.ʁi aʁ.wɛ]; 21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778), better known by the pen name Voltaire (pronounced: [vɔl.tɛːʁ]), was a French Enlightenment writer, historian and philosopher famous for his wit and for his advocacy of civil liberties, including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, free trade and separation of church and state. Some quotes:



Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.

Superstition, born of paganism, and adopted by Judaism, invested the Christian Church from earliest times. All the fathers of the Church, without exception, believed in the power of magic. The Church always condemned magic, but she always believed in it: she did not excommunicate sorcerers as madmen who were mistaken, but as men who were really in communication with the devil.

Letter to Boswell: You seem solicitous about that pretty thing called soul. I do protest I know nothing of it, nor where it is, nor what it is, nor what it shall be.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one.

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.

Atheism is the vice of a few intelligent people.

Most of the great men . . . live as if they were atheists.

The first divine was the first rogue who met the first fool.

Theology: A science profound, supernatural, and divine, which teaches us to reason on that which we don't understand and to get our ideas mixed up on that which we do.

If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated.


Here are some quotes from the Founding Fathers of America:


John Adams. American president (1735-1826):



The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?


Thomas Paine. English pamphleteer and deist (1737-1809):



I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy. . . . I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

Christian Mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.

A book called the Bible has been voted by men, and decreed by human laws, to be the Word of God, and the disbelief of this is called blasphemy. But if the Bible be not the Word of God, it is the laws and the execution of them that is blasphemy.

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by any mode of speech, in any language, or by any kind of vision, or appearance, or by any means which our senses are capable of receiving, otherwise than by the universal display of Himself in the works of the creation, and by that repugnance we feel in ourselves to bad actions, and the disposition to do good ones.

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.



Ethan Allen. American Revolutionary hero (1737-1789):



In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue.


Thomas Jefferson. American president (1743-1826):



The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.

I find some passages of the Bible of correct morality, and others of so much ignorance, untruth, charlatanism, and imposture.


James Madison. American president (1751-1836):



Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.

lilymc
01-08-2012, 03:08 AM
I came to the US at the age of 21. I had never done marijuana. I grew up in Holland.

Drug use among Dutch teens lower than among US teens (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/176/eurostudy.shtml)


This is THE argument to make to people who refuse to see that it is a matter of personal liberty to be able to do with your own body as you please. "But drugs are bad." Okay, if you really believe that, then you would be against the drug war, as it INCREASES use of drugs (not to mention gets crime heavily involved).

PS Make sure to read up on L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) at www.leap.cc (http://www.leap.cc/).


Thanks. I probably won't debate that topic, and I told my friend that all of those things at this point are not as important as dealing with our biggest threat (where we're heading overall, and losing our republic). I think a lot of people still don't see or believe that, so the social and other political issues are still in their minds.



If all earthly government is entrusted with upholding the precepts of Christ, do those who observe the law do so out of love for God or fear of the state? Therefore, it is essential that man preserve the righteousness of God's Law within himself, lest he place the authority of salvation at the hands of Caesar and not the sovereign Lord.

Wow, great quote. Is that a paraphrase of a famous quote, or what? (I looked it up but didn't find it.) Thanks. :)

GunnyFreedom
01-08-2012, 03:13 AM
Um. Davy Crockett, at this point I have to ask if you are intentionally alienating Christians from Ron Paul, or do you just not know any better that teling people their entire universe is based on lies and deception might be considered offensive. :(

James Madison
01-08-2012, 03:17 AM
Wow, great quote. Is that a paraphrase of a famous quote, or what? (I looked it up but didn't find it.) Thanks. :)

Nope. It's something I just came up with.

lilymc
01-08-2012, 03:28 AM
Davy Crockett, yes, of course I know that RP is not in favor of those things, he is in favor of liberty and the constitution.

I understand what your point is, but I can't really use the things you brought up to convince the guy I've been debating. I have to debate and convince him from a different angle. I probably will never be able to convince that guy that RP is correct, but there are others out there with his same views who are not as stubborn and closed-minded, so.... this thread has been very helpful, in how to respond to strong social conservatives and christians who disagree with some of Paul's not-so-popular libertarian positions. Thanks though, for your input!

crhoades
01-08-2012, 07:41 AM
Another angle to take. Is gluttony considered sinful? If your friend says yes:

Ezekiel 16
48*As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. 49*Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. 50*She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.

Matthew 11
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Then ask them if we should make buffets illegal. Or put everyone on a 2500 calorie diet. Lock up fat people.

It is my experience growing up in a small town in Ky that was dry and didn't sell alcohol and raised in a fundamentalistic church, that everyone was pharasaical about alcohol but they were mostly fat and gluttonous.

LibertyEagle
01-08-2012, 08:00 AM
1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.


Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

Liberty74
01-08-2012, 08:03 AM
First, libertarians are the most conservative. Your friend is not conservative but maybe a right wing fascist to be honest here. A right wing fascist is some who uses government to impose their views on everyone else i.e. big government knows best ideology. They are anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

I don't support drug use or prostitution but that doesn't mean I have a right to say "hey, you can't have this or that." As long as they aren't harming anyone, what's it to your friend?

Does your friend want the government to come in and tell him how to live his life and what to believe? Big government can work both ways and it's best that it's small protecting everyone's freedoms to live best how they see fit as long as they aren't harming another. Once you do, the government has a role to step in to protect your private property, yourself.

Sola_Fide
01-08-2012, 08:06 AM
1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.


http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

Great post.

LibertyEagle
01-08-2012, 08:07 AM
First, libertarians are the most conservative. Your friend is not conservative but maybe a right wing fascist to be honest here. A right wing fascist is some who uses government to impose their views on everyone else i.e. big government knows best ideology. They are anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

I don't support drug use or prostitution but that doesn't mean I have a right to say "hey, you can't have this or that." As long as they aren't harming anyone, what's it to your friend?

Does your friend want the government to come in and tell him how to live his life and what to believe? Big government can work both ways and it's best that it's small protecting everyone's freedoms to live best how they see fit as long as they aren't harming another. Once you do, the government has a role to step in to protect your private property, yourself.

That is nice, in theory, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul would do as President. I say this, because sometimes when we start philosophizing, we give people the wrong idea about what a President Paul would do.

Davy Crockett
01-08-2012, 10:54 AM
but there are others out there with his same views who are not as stubborn and closed-minded, so....

Concentrate on reaching the others, and do not waste too much time on those who are closed minded. If I remember correctly, you mentioned that you only know this person on-line and not in person, if this is correct, let me point out that the Internet is the perfect medium for liars. There are going to be some who are going to try to waste your time on them knowing that you will be more effective if you moved on instead.

tod evans
01-08-2012, 11:01 AM
Sounds like your "friend" is buying into media hype.

Dr. Paul is quite likely the most moral and principled person running for president. Please ask your "friend" to focus on Rons personal beliefs and actions over the years, once he gets an idea of who the man is only then try to understand how he interprets the constution.

heavenlyboy34
01-08-2012, 11:23 AM
1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.


http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/
Best answer in this thread, IMO ^^

Kingfisher
01-08-2012, 11:57 AM
Whats extreme about following the Constitution?

Simple
01-08-2012, 01:29 PM
There were some great responses, but no argument is as strong as the argument for life. The right to life is a major issue for most Christians, but at the same time we forget about the lives of those effected by our foreign policies. Our actions around the world have caused countless needless deaths that did not contribute to our national defense. Our troops are getting killed by the thousands and wounded or maimed by the tens of thousands. If you believe in life then you should support Dr. Paul's foreign policy that would end so much bloodshed around the world. The right to life issue also comes up in regards to Roe v. Wade. While others are arguing for a Constitutional Amendment, Dr. Paul actually understands the Constitution and he understands that the jurisdiction of the courts are determined by legislation, so just passing a law limiting the scope of the court could effectively repeal Roe v. Wade without a Constitutional Amendment. By getting the Federal Courts out of the picture, instead of the states having to agree on the same plan, each state could put prohibitions on abortions as the People of the each state see fit.

This all related to the original question of the role of the federal government in states rights. The question isn't legalizing prostitution, gay marriage, or medical marijuana, there are parts of the country that have already done this, it is a question of the right of the federal government to intimidate, harass, and arrest people who are following the laws of their state. Do we want to continue to arrest cancer patients for smoking medical marijuana? Following the Constitution and the 10th Amendment are not endorsing nor promoting sin, but it is giving you a greater voice in government while giving you the freedom to enjoy and promote your traditions. If Ron Paul is elected and he passes this legislation concerning abortion, you will have the opportunity to pass legislation in your state to protect life.

Davy Crockett
01-08-2012, 03:11 PM
Um. Davy Crockett, at this point I have to ask if you are intentionally alienating Christians from Ron Paul, or do you just not know any better that teling people their entire universe is based on lies and deception might be considered offensive. :(

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Italian scientist and philosopher


I merely pointed out that the freedoms that we enjoy in Western civilization does not come from the Reformation as someone in this thread erroneously stated, but instead the Age of Enlightenment and gave several quotes from Voltaire and several Founding Fathers of America, several of whom were Deists, not Christians.

Besides the Federal Reserve, nothing is destroying America more then basing our foreign policy on Religious Right's myth that we must protect "God's chosen people". We have put our nation in perpetual debt fighting useless wars over the last twenty years, not to promote democracy, but as mercenaries for the state of Israel all because we have allowed religious zealots to frame the debate through the lens of their Bible instead of what is in America's best interests.

Hardly anyone is paying attention to the fact that just in the last six years, those checking the "no preference" box on religious surveys has doubled, from around 10% to 20%. And if we add those who are Christian in name only, the percentage is much higher. One researcher on religious trends in America went as far as to state that 7 in 10 young Americans no longer care for religion.

The Religious Right high jacked the Republican party back in the early 1980s, and thankfully their days are numbered now. If it wasn't for Ron Paul running a campaign based on reality instead of the Bible, the Republican party would be in more trouble then they are right now.

lilymc
01-08-2012, 05:12 PM
Another angle to take. Is gluttony considered sinful? If your friend says yes:

Ezekiel 16
48*As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. 49*Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. 50*She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.

Matthew 11
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Then ask them if we should make buffets illegal. Or put everyone on a 2500 calorie diet. Lock up fat people.

It is my experience growing up in a small town in Ky that was dry and didn't sell alcohol and raised in a fundamentalistic church, that everyone was pharasaical about alcohol but they were mostly fat and gluttonous.


Thank you, that is so true. If we go by his logic, then where does it stop? There are so many things that are sins, but from our society's perspective are just normal, everyday things. (I don't think I need to write a list here, but most of you know what I mean.) He really reminds me of the Pharisees who were so legalistic, to the point of absurdity and missing the point entirely.... and they were the ones who Jesus had the MOST criticism for, because they only cared about what everyone else did, not realizing that inside they were prideful and hateful and hypocritical. Thanks for bringing that up.



1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.


http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

Thanks so much, excellent post. I feel much more prepared now to deal with this guy and others like him, who completely misunderstand RP's position. No wonder they like Santorum, he is just as much an authoritarian as my pharisee-like friend. I feel like this is an important topic to discuss with social conservatives, and I think there is a strong need for us believing liberty-minded people to educate and inform those who may have good intentions but are misguided. Btw, liberals are the same way, ironically. They want to enforce THEIR ideas about what is right or wrong on everyone else...as much as the other side does. We need to get both sides to see what they are doing, and point them towards RP's view of following the constitution.



First, libertarians are the most conservative. Your friend is not conservative but maybe a right wing fascist to be honest here. A right wing fascist is some who uses government to impose their views on everyone else i.e. big government knows best ideology. They are anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

I don't support drug use or prostitution but that doesn't mean I have a right to say "hey, you can't have this or that." As long as they aren't harming anyone, what's it to your friend?

Does your friend want the government to come in and tell him how to live his life and what to believe? Big government can work both ways and it's best that it's small protecting everyone's freedoms to live best how they see fit as long as they aren't harming another. Once you do, the government has a role to step in to protect your private property, yourself.

Thank you. That pretty much sums it up. Now I just need to get my thoughts together and write an article about this, to share with all those I know who have personal values that are traditional, but profess to believe in liberty. And explain to them that RP's position is correct, both constitutionally and from a Christian perspective, imo.


Concentrate on reaching the others, and do not waste too much time on those who are closed minded. If I remember correctly, you mentioned that you only know this person on-line and not in person, if this is correct, let me point out that the Internet is the perfect medium for liars. There are going to be some who are going to try to waste your time on them knowing that you will be more effective if you moved on instead.

Yeah, I haven't been spending as much time dealing with him lately on facebook. But I hope that eventually he does realize he's being an authoritarian, and his position actually goes against the faith he professes to believe in, on a number of levels.



Sounds like your "friend" is buying into media hype.

Dr. Paul is quite likely the most moral and principled person running for president. Please ask your "friend" to focus on Rons personal beliefs and actions over the years, once he gets an idea of who the man is only then try to understand how he interprets the constution.

That's what I try to do, just point them to his actual positions and his consistent record, and tell them to stop believing the lies put out by the establishment/MSM who just want to bring him down.

Thanks for all of your comments, you all! This thread has been very helpful. :)

lilymc
01-08-2012, 09:58 PM
Oh my gosh.... I am FUMING right now. I have another online friend, who has almost the exact same views as the one I have been debating. He also hates Ron Paul with a passion, mainly because of his foreign policy.

So I post a photo on my facebook wall (the one of Ron and Rand in the 60's) with a comment that he is one of the only candidates who served in the military, unlike the others who never did but easily send our young men and women off to war. I know that comment probably bothered my friend, because he is strongly for the wars, but he never served in the military.

Then he commented on the facebook photo, and I can't believe what I read. Here's the conversation:




Idolater
13 minutes ago · Like

Oh my gosh, LOL! Supporting a presidential candidate is "idolatry" to you? You've got to be kidding me.
10 minutes ago · Like

I'll pray for you. May your blinded eyes be opened.
9 minutes ago · Like

I'm not the one supporting numerous undeclared, imperialistic wars. And I'm not the one who expressed a lack of concern that thousands of innocent civilians have died. I think you should be more concerned about your own spiritual condition, before telling me that I'm an "idolater" for supporting a presidential candidate. *roll eyes*
6 minutes ago · Like

get behind me satan
5 minutes ago · Like

Ok, now I know you need help. I'm satanic for supporting Ron Paul now? Now I've heard it all! lol (I shouldn't laugh, because that is actually very sad.)
4 minutes ago · Like

You're satanic for being a judgmental, condescending idolater. You better pray to Jesus and ask for forgiveness now.
3 minutes ago · Like

YOu are a liar. Repent or burn. I am dead serious.
about a minute ago · Like

Ok, let me get this straight. I post a photo. *You* call me an "idolater". And that is not judgmental? But when I defend myself, I'm judgmental, even though what I said was true? Ok, got it.

LibertyEagle
01-08-2012, 10:11 PM
:eek:

Me thinks your friend is nuts.

lilymc
01-08-2012, 10:35 PM
:eek:

Me thinks your friend is nuts.

It got even worse than that. :( I'm still in disbelief.... and I don't know what to do, because I have some facebook friends who I don't want reading all that crap.

My sister told me to just delete the photo. I said some things that probably made him even more angry, so I probably should've just ignored him or tried to calm the conversation down, but he really made me mad, and I responded.

I wish some of you could reply. If you go to Ron Paul's facebook page, you will see the photo there because I tagged Ron Paul, and it is public. I'll get the link.

Does this link work?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151138051400290&set=a.365560140289.360800.757480289&type=1&theater&notif_t=photo_comment

Jack Bauer
01-08-2012, 10:36 PM
Oh my gosh.... I am FUMING right now. I have another online friend, who has almost the exact same views as the one I have been debating. He also hates Ron Paul with a passion, mainly because of his foreign policy.

So I post a photo on my facebook wall (the one of Ron and Rand in the 60's) with a comment that he is one of the only candidates who served in the military, unlike the others who never did but easily send our young men and women off to war. I know that comment probably bothered my friend, because he is strongly for the wars, but he never served in the military.

Then he commented on the facebook photo, and I can't believe what I read. Here's the conversation:




Idolater
13 minutes ago · Like

Oh my gosh, LOL! Supporting a presidential candidate is "idolatry" to you? You've got to be kidding me.
10 minutes ago · Like

I'll pray for you. May your blinded eyes be opened.
9 minutes ago · Like

I'm not the one supporting numerous undeclared, imperialistic wars. And I'm not the one who expressed a lack of concern that thousands of innocent civilians have died. I think you should be more concerned about your own spiritual condition, before telling me that I'm an "idolater" for supporting a presidential candidate. *roll eyes*
6 minutes ago · Like

get behind me satan
5 minutes ago · Like

Ok, now I know you need help. I'm satanic for supporting Ron Paul now? Now I've heard it all! lol (I shouldn't laugh, because that is actually very sad.)
4 minutes ago · Like

You're satanic for being a judgmental, condescending idolater. You better pray to Jesus and ask for forgiveness now.
3 minutes ago · Like

YOu are a liar. Repent or burn. I am dead serious.
about a minute ago · Like

Ok, let me get this straight. I post a photo. *You* call me an "idolater". And that is not judgmental? But when I defend myself, I'm judgmental, even though what I said was true? Ok, got it.

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/280x280/10029426.jpg


It got even worse than that. :( A lot worse. I'm still in disbelief.... and I don't know what to do, because I have some facebook friends who I don't want reading all that crap.

My sister told me to just delete the photo. I said some things that probably made him even more angry, so I probably should've just ignored him or tried to calm the conversation down, but he really made me mad, and I responded.

I wish some of you could reply. If you go to Ron Paul's facebook page, you will see the photo there because I tagged Ron Paul, and it is public. I'll get the link.

Just tell him whatever he is smoking, you'll have two of them.

lilymc
01-08-2012, 10:53 PM
http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/280x280/10029426.jpg



Just tell him whatever he is smoking, you'll have two of them.

LOL!! Thank you. :)

lilymc
01-11-2012, 09:13 PM
Ok, I hate to resurrect this thread, especially after that embarrassing facebook exchange I posted (which is actually from another neocon guy I know, not the one mentioned in the OP)

But I have to ask a question, and I didn't want to create a new thread just for this question.

The first guy is now saying (yelling, ranting) a bunch of things on FR about Ron Paul that sound as horrible as it gets, and I wanted to find out what was a lie/distortion/half-truth and what was actually true.

Here's what he's saying now:


Ron Paul SUPPORTS NAMBLA

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=141047311&page=1
http://videosift.com/video/Does-Ron-Paul-Support-NAMBLA-Well-yes-and-no
http://www.dailypaul.com/70100/age-of-consent?page=1

Obviously it's a lie that RP would support pedophilia, but I just wanted to get to the actual truth here on things like age of consent, and that horrible organization, etc. Thanks.

moonshineplease
01-11-2012, 10:10 PM
All I see are a bunch of poorly constructed Straw man and guilt by association fallacies. Lol, Was that guy seriously demanding you repent…you cant really have a rational debate of substance with someone like that. So he went sifting through posts on the DP that are four years old? He’s just grasping for any potential straws- and making an ass of himself in the process. The Video you posted was set as private, but honestly I wouldn’t even bother wasting time with that guy.

Dianne
01-11-2012, 10:23 PM
Paul has no extreme ideas about anything... He is the least extreme candidate running... Constitution... you have a right to live, you have a right to protect your family, you have a right to choose your own lifestyle, you have a right to reap what you sow, you have a right to feed your family, you have a right to defend your family.

How is that extreme? The other candidates are extreme... they take your money, and use it to fund their lobbyists... who then in turn, return the money to their campaigns.. basically stealing taxpayer dollars to fund their own campaigns... the rest they use to go murder people around the globe.. so every dollar you pay in taxes, might be the same dollars used to murder innocent women and children... at the same time they are supplying arms to the Mexican Drug Cartels, and earning billions in their personal bank accounts for dealing drugs. They want to take your guns away, so the cartels and american military are the only arms in Ameria... you think Ron Paul is extreme? Someone better wake up, and wake up fast !!

Icymudpuppy
01-11-2012, 10:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVNoClu0h9M

lilymc
01-11-2012, 11:12 PM
All I see are a bunch of poorly constructed Straw man and guilt by association fallacies. Lol, Was that guy seriously demanding you repent…you cant really have a rational debate of substance with someone like that. So he went sifting through posts on the DP that are four years old? He’s just grasping for any potential straws- and making an ass of himself in the process. The Video you posted was set as private, but honestly I wouldn’t even bother wasting time with that guy.

Well, I don't want to deal with him anymore, but he has been posting to me on FR and if I don't respond to his "NAMBLA" accusation, it might make him think that he is right or that I have no reply. Lies like that (which other people can read, since it's a big site) can turn many people away, so I feel a responsibility to correct them and refute the smears. But I wasn't clear on RP's position on the age of consent thing... or how his latest smear even originated.

As for the repent thing... that was another guy (who has the same exact views) and yes, he was serious. He seems to have gone off the deep end, but I shouldn't have responded to him in anger, I should've either ignored him or replied with a different tone. Anyway, I guess to him I'm like the 'enemy' now, and he seems to think I've gone over to the "dark side." haha Thanks moonshine.



Paul has no extreme ideas about anything... He is the least extreme candidate running... Constitution... you have a right to live, you have a right to protect your family, you have a right to choose your own lifestyle, you have a right to reap what you sow, you have a right to feed your family, you have a right to defend your family.

How is that extreme? The other candidates are extreme... they take your money, and use it to fund their lobbyists... who then in turn, return the money to their campaigns.. basically stealing taxpayer dollars to fund their own campaigns... the rest they use to go murder people around the globe.. so every dollar you pay in taxes, might be the same dollars used to murder innocent women and children... at the same time they are supplying arms to the Mexican Drug Cartels, and earning billions in their personal bank accounts for dealing drugs. They want to take your guns away, so the cartels and american military are the only arms in Ameria... you think Ron Paul is extreme? Someone better wake up, and wake up fast !!

I agree with you, but I'm talking about what strong social conservatives think.... they think that he wants to legalize even hard drugs, so from their perspective, it's 'extreme' to support the legalization of drugs like heroin, etc.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVNoClu0h9M

Heh, I love that quote. Thanks. :)

presence
01-17-2012, 03:18 PM
The government's job is to defend our freedom of choice.

Religion's job is to help us make better choices.

Just because one defends someone's freedom of choice doesn't mean they endorse their choices.

The right to one's freedom of religion is preserved by this same principle of individual liberty.

"Liberty... is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both always in proportion as it is free." []
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson

Free agency is a gift from our Creator, our Constituion and the liberty it stands for defends that gift.

fisharmor
01-17-2012, 03:38 PM
...So I post a photo on my facebook wall (the one of Ron and Rand in the 60's)

Your friends are not Christians.

griblets
01-20-2012, 08:14 PM
I just want to say thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. I've been trying to win over my family for 4 years, and have made no progress. With the some of the wonderful posts here, and Voddie Bauchman's "Why Ron Paul," I've made another attempt to appeal to their Christianity. If this doesn't work, I don't think there's anything more that I could do to persuade them. Let's hope they get it after this.

"Why Ron Paul" - http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/why-ron-paul-2012-01/

heavenlyboy34
01-20-2012, 08:18 PM
Easy: lean to a "State's Rights" argument. Tell them that Ron Paul simply believes that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in spending all of this money on the War on Drugs, etc. - it should be left up to the States to decide.

Yes, Ron Paul honestly believes that most if not all drugs should be legal, and I don't necessarily agree with that completely (having known someone killed in a car accident by a high driver), but from his position as President, he would simply allow the States to decide what they want for their residents, and not take tax dollars from folks to run a Federal bureaucracy that is inept and wasteful.
When making that argument, keep in mind that there are generations of people out there who have been taught that States' rights don't exist, and that issue was "settled" by the Civil War. Lots of propaganda out there to push back against. :(

acptulsa
01-20-2012, 08:28 PM
Two words: States' rights. If you don't like what your state makes legal, move.

'I do verily believe that..a single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth.' --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800

Kandilynn
01-21-2012, 09:20 AM
I think Dr. Paul said it best himself in the last debate when he said making laws will not help morality in this country.

Paulitics 2011
01-21-2012, 09:36 AM
10th Amendment, States right's, federalism, etc.

ronpaulhemp
02-18-2012, 11:02 PM
I'd use some of Ron Paul's own words to describe these "extreme policies"

Supporting freedom of choice is not endorsement. That's like saying if you support the fourth amendment you're for pornography. It's ridiculous. It's really a matter of who regulates these substances. The most effective regulation comes from the individual, church, and family; not from any law.

John Liberty
09-12-2013, 05:17 PM
...to a very, VERY socially conservative, legalistic Christian, who is convinced that I need to repent for supporting Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

This is a guy who I've known online for many years and I don't think he will EVER support Ron Paul, but I still want to know how to best respond to his objections and accusations. His view is that anyone who supports drug legalization, legal prostitution, gay marriage, etc, "supports sin." And therefore, since I support Ron Paul, I "support sin."

The reason that it's hard for me to respond to this is because I have always considered myself more of a conservative than a libertarian. So I've never been 100% convinced that things like legalization of hard drugs or legal prostitution are good ideas. But I don't have to agree with a candidate on 100% of the issues, and I think our country is so far gone in the wrong direction, that we absolutely need a pro-liberty, small-government, strict constitutionalist like Ron Paul, or we are finished.

I think there are lots of conservative Christians who we could convince, but the issues I mentioned above are things that turn some people away.

So any advice on how to respond to those objections would be greatly appreciated!

PS - I'm sorry if there have been numerous other threads on this topic already. (I saw some similar ones but I figured I'd start a new thread)

Hit him right where it hurts, in the religion: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/christians-make-great-libertarians/

Brett85
09-12-2013, 07:29 PM
I've never read a verse in the Bible that says that everything that's a sin should be a crime.