Rand Paul: Religious Freedom Dying at the Altar of Political Correctness

[Valli6]

...


EXCLUSIVE — RAND PAUL: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DYING AT ALTAR OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

by SEN. RAND PAUL 21 Oct 2014, 11:36 AM PDT

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five theses on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg. Christianity was for all time changed by one man's confrontation with authority.

For his audacity, for alleging that one's path to heaven could not be purchased, Luther was excommunicated. It took great bravery to challenge what was then considered to be the ultimate arbiter of God's will. Luther was told, effectively, that his pathway to heaven was foreclosed.

When the Mayor of Houston, sent her legal attack dogs to demand the sermons of ministers who opposed an ordinance that might prevent churches from hiring people who adhered to a traditional faith, my first thought was of Martin Luther and my hope was that someone would, in elaborate calligraphy, stencil the First Amendment upon parchment and nail it to the doors of city hall.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Amendment was clear, and its intent was not to keep religious people out of government, but rather to keep government out of religion.

There has been, and will be, an ongoing debate about the role of government in marriage—what our laws should be, and where they are made.

But make no mistake—that’s not what this is about.

Some will make this debate about freedom of choice, but the only way this is about choice is if we are talking about the choice with regards to expression. No one, no law is advocating any restriction on the choices of consenting adults, but for goodness sakes are we so politically correct that we will stifle dissent? Will there be no room for people who have traditional beliefs?

(read the rest) http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/21/Religious-Freedom-Dying-at-Alter-of-Political-Correctness

[thoughtomator]

too much all at once... I'm still mourning the death of spelling

[Valli6]

too much all at once... I'm still mourning the death of spelling
Are you referring to the word "alter" instead of "altar"? They fixed that.

[idiom]

Are you referring to the word "alter" instead of "altar"? They fixed that.

Yeah they altered the altar.

But not in the thread title :P

[idiom]

If your Church is tax-exempt then the government is paying you to shut up.

Stop taking the governments bribes. Revoke your own charitable status and chew the state out every Sunday.

[Brett85]

I hope Rand keeps this up. There is an all out assault on religious liberty in this country, and by speaking out on this hopefully Rand will be seen as a champion of religious liberty to voters in Iowa.

[axiomata]

If your Church is tax-exempt then the government is paying you to shut up.

Stop taking the governments bribes. Revoke your own charitable status and chew the state out every Sunday.

Can't tell if serious.

[staerker]

If your Church is tax-exempt then the government is paying you to shut up.

Stop taking the governments bribes. Revoke your own charitable status and chew the state out every Sunday.

If someone does not rob you, that means you are taking bribes from them?

[anaconda]

This is the type of editorial that might persuade the religious right to become more libertarian. This was a very good opportunity that Rand will score big points for.

[Brett85]

This is the type of editorial that might persuade the religious right to become more libertarian. This was a very good opportunity that Rand will score big points for.

^^^Exactly. The religious right and libertarians should be in lock step on these issues dealing with religious liberty.

[DFF]

Political correctness was invented by an atheist communist, Leon Trotsky...so it should come as absolutely no surprise that it's hostile towards Christianity.

In the future, an attempt will be made to criminalize Christianity, then the republic of the United States will be replaced with a communist dictatorship.

This is the end-game of political correctness.

[ClydeCoulter]

Political correctness was invented by an atheist communist, Leon Trotsky...so it should come as absolutely no surprise that it's hostile towards Christianity.

In the future, an attempt will be made to criminalize Christianity, then the republic of the United States will be replaced with a communist dictatorship.

This is the end-game of political correctness.

Would that be against all religions or just the one (or many variations under that same name)?

[Christian Liberty]

^^^Exactly. The religious right and libertarians should be in lock step on these issues dealing with religious liberty.

You know I'm not much for the idea of social liberalism or gay marriage, but the "religious right" only supports freedom when convenient for them. It isn't even really based on Biblical law, there are no drug laws in the OT nor is there ever "national service" (ie. a draft) but the "religious right" doesn't really care.

[anaconda]

You know I'm not much for the idea of social liberalism or gay marriage, but the "religious right" only supports freedom when convenient for them. It isn't even really based on Biblical law, there are no drug laws in the OT nor is there ever "national service" (ie. a draft) but the "religious right" doesn't really care.

But if they begin to accept Rand they may, as a matter of course, reconcile themselves to other "forgiving" and "redemptive" policy stands, which may be anti-state also. Maybe Rand should begin to paint the government as Rome 33 AD incarnate.

[Brett85]

You know I'm not much for the idea of social liberalism or gay marriage, but the "religious right" only supports freedom when convenient for them. It isn't even really based on Biblical law, there are no drug laws in the OT nor is there ever "national service" (ie. a draft) but the "religious right" doesn't really care.

1) That's beside the point. I said that libertarians should be able to agree with religious conservatives when it comes to issues of religious liberty. Libertarians and religious conservatives have common ground on that issue, even though they disagree on other issues.

2) Is the left or any other political group in the United States other than libertarians really any better than the "religious right" when it comes to the war on drugs? Can you name a single Democratic member of Congress who supports legalizing marijuana, let alone other drugs?

[Brett85]

And I haven't seen any evidence that people on the religious right support a draft. The only people I know of who have advocated the idea of bringing back the draft are liberal Democrats in Congress.

[Christian Liberty]

1) That's beside the point. I said that libertarians should be able to agree with religious conservatives when it comes to issues of religious liberty. Libertarians and religious conservatives have common ground on that issue, even though they disagree on other issues.

I disagree. libertarians should be FAR MORE RADICALLY in favor of religious freedom than the religious right.


2) Is the left or any other political group in the United States other than libertarians really any better than the "religious right" when it comes to the war on drugs. Can you name a single Democratic member of Congress who supports legalizing marijuana, let alone other drugs?

The left is little better. I wasn't implying that the left was any better. The religious right annoys me because of the religious aspect of their statism.

As for non-libertarian political ideologies, the only one I can think of that is any better would be theonomists, and they are even more politically irrelevant than we are.

[Christian Liberty]

And I haven't seen any evidence that people on the religious right support a draft. The only people I know of who have advocated the idea of bringing back the draft are liberal Democrats in Congress.

I know some who do. But you're likely right that many are not.

[Brett85]

I disagree. libertarians should be FAR MORE RADICALLY in favor of religious freedom than the religious right.

Well, they're not. The religious right seems to be far more radically in favor of defending the right of the pastors in Houston to not turn over their sermons to the government, the right of ministers in Idaho not to be forced to officiate same sex wedding ceremonies, etc. I've seen plenty of comments from people here expressing an anti religious freedom view on those issues.

[Brett85]

As for non-libertarian political ideologies, the only one I can think of that is any better would be theonomists, and they are even more politically irrelevant than we are.

Theonomists support legalizing drugs?

[Christian Liberty]

Well, they're not.

Yes they are. "libertarians" may not be, but actual libertarians are.


The religious right seems to be far more radically in favor of defending the right of the pastors in Houston to not turn over their sermons to the government, the right of ministers in Idaho not to be forced to officiate same sex wedding ceremonies, etc. I've seen plenty of comments from people here expressing an anti religious freedom view on those issues.

Yeah. Non-libertarians masquerading as libertarians.

Theonomists support legalizing drugs?

Of course. Why wouldn't they?

[Christian Liberty]

TC, perhaps I'm being too difficult. I understand the point that you're making, which is that social liberalism is trumping liberty for a lot of people here, and that this is one area where there's absolutely no good reason to oppose the religious right. You know I'm no fan of social liberalism. But, the religious right is filled with anti-liberty hypocrites, and I see no good reason to forget that.

[Brett85]

Of course. Why wouldn't they?

Because there weren't drug laws in the Bible? Wouldn't they then still be in favor of stoning homosexuals and adulterers?

[twomp]

The religious right only want less government when it comes to their churches. Something I support but once that is accomplished, they want to use the government to stick their noses in other peoples business. Big government is okay when it's used to "spread the word of the bible."

[Tinnuhana]

Wouldn't this come under "don't seek compromise; build coalitions"?

[jbauer]

Yup, just like all the cake bakers and florists whom are required to provide service to "people" they don't want to. Tax exempt has nothing to do with the church. I work on my churches board and also know a thing or to about finances. If we were a "for profit" institution we could easily show all of our expenses and pay nothing it taxes anyway. The only thing that would change would be member donations losing their tax status as a deduction.

Tax exempt or not the first amendment is quite clear.


If your Church is tax-exempt then the government is paying you to shut up.

Stop taking the governments bribes. Revoke your own charitable status and chew the state out every Sunday.

[jbauer]

The religious right only want less government when it comes to their churches. Something I support but once that is accomplished, they want to use the government to stick their noses in other peoples business. Big government is okay when it's used to "spread the word of the bible."

You are correct that there is a lot of religious right that want nothing but to use goverment as their bully. But there are plenty of good Christians who see through that. I'd bet there are several Christians on this board right now.

You shouldn't demonize an entire voting block because they disagree with you on a certain issue, especially when you can find common ground.

Some liberals don't want to be in the empire building business. Does that mean that libertarians should change their mind about military to conform with them?

[RabbitMan]

I have to agree with other posters that the religious right is typically a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to religious freedom. Anyone still remember the big deal made about the mosque near the world trade centers? Or the countless attempts to bar mosques from chrisitian communities?

That being said, that should not tar a whole 'group' of people, and the only way to move the ball forward on liberty is to build coalitions, whether they be with liberals, far right tea partiers, mainstream centrists, the religious right, racists, extreme libertarians or socialists. Sometimes the politicians building that coalition have to suck up and pander to make any particular group feel special, to convince them that the cause of liberty really does affect them. Enter Rand.

[Christian Liberty]

Because there weren't drug laws in the Bible?

There weren't. Hence the "why wouldn't they?"



Wouldn't they then still be in favor of stoning homosexuals and adulterers?
Yes, and I disagree with that, but I don't see what that has to do with being better on the war on drugs.

[Brian4Liberty]

524982605792284672

[idiom]

If someone does not rob you, that means you are taking bribes from them?

If you make an agreement with them that if they rob you less, you won't speak out, then yeah its a bribe. In fact, you are siding with them.

The moral position is to make them rob you more, publicly, and then eviscerate them for it. Being a pastor/priest/rabbi/imam has a moral element to it, or at least it used to.

Instead they agree to shut up about everyone else getting robbed if you pass them over.

[Brett85]

Yes, and I disagree with that, but I don't see what that has to do with being better on the war on drugs.

You said that theonomists are better politically than the religious right in general. I don't see how someone who supports executing homosexuals and adulterers is better than someone who supports drug laws.

[Ronin Truth]

Must be some pretty wimpy religious freedom if wacko weenie PC can threaten to kill it.:p

[Christian Liberty]

You said that theonomists are better politically than the religious right in general. I don't see how someone who supports executing homosexuals and adulterers is better than someone who supports drug laws.

I was only talking about the issue of drug laws in particular, but I would say theonomists are far better than the religious right politically when considering all of the issues.

Theonomists support not only imposing the OT civil code, but also repealing everything that isn't in it. Most of them are also radically for decentralization, supporting the imposition of most of their polices at the county level.

Here's an article where a theonomist talks about some of the similarities between his views and libertarianism:

http://americanvision.org/5675/theonomys-radical-libertarianism/


Its not just drug laws, BTW. Its virtually everything else as well.

[Christian Liberty]

You said that theonomists are better politically than the religious right in general. I don't see how someone who supports executing homosexuals and adulterers is better than someone who supports drug laws.

To expound on my answer to this.

If it was just "executing homosexuals and adulterers" on one side and "drug laws" on the other, I would of course agree with you.

Its not.

Theonomists agree with libertarians on:

Economics (with minarchists, at any rate)

ending the surveilance state

ending the empire

Abolishing almost every Federal agency

Cutting military spending dramatically and using the military solely for defense

Deciding social isuses county by county (and yes, they do think homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, etc. should be capital crimes at the county level)

repealing gun laws

There's probably more that I'm missing, but that in and of itself is pretty huge

Also, I'm not sure if all theonomists are the same on this point, but the ones I know don't want government police either. Local administrators, but no police.

By contrast, the religious right supports

Big Federal government

Some economic regulation

Some gun regulation

FEDERAL laws banning drugs and also often sexual sins as well (although the punishment wouldn't be death)

maintaining the surveilance state (this is one of the big ones for me, theonomists may have tough laws on certain things but its fairly likely you'd get harassed for doing them in your own home because nobody would know. For the "religious right" on the other hand...)

Maintaining the empire.

Murdering people, including children, in foreign countries with drones

I could go on, but if you can't tell why I'd take President Gary North over President George W. Bush based on that, I'm not sure what to tell you;)