Statement of Faith By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

[sunny]

just had this sent to me....please read!

The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007
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


For More Information Contact:
Paul Dorr
Iowa Field Director
RonPaul2008@ iowatelecom. net
Phone: 712-758-3660

Ron Paul 2008
Presidential Campaign Committee
www.RonPaul2008. com
Phone: 703-248-9115
FAX: 703-248-9119

[specsaregood]

This message has gotten quite a warm response on freerepublic.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1869814/posts

[Douglass Bartley]

Thank you Sunny. Just posted on my blog at Townhall.

[jblosser]

Yeah, this showing up was a big boon to those of us in Bible belt areas. Just the fact he made a clear statement will earn him huge points in evangelical America.

[specsaregood]

Yeah, this showing up was a big boon to those of us in Bible belt areas. Just the fact he made a clear statement will earn him huge points in evangelical America.

We need to make sure this gets sent out on evangelical mailing lists.

The divinely inspired document (constitution) comment, should get some LDS attention as well.

[Dustancostine]

I know why RP had to put out this message and the positive effect it will have. But as an atheist it is very disturbing. I would much rather him focus his arguments from a philosophical stand point than a religious stand point.

Dustan

[jblosser]

You gotta keep in mind that this is not the first time Theists, non-Theists, and Deists, etc. have worked together toward liberty. We will pull it off by sticking through it, even if we find some things distasteful about each other. It does not matter that we come from a different starting point, we are working for the same thing: the protection of individual life, liberty, and property against the use of force.

You know you have no reason to fear Dr. Paul working from some hidden agenda: you have almost 20 years of legislative history to judge him by.

And most of this letter is on the doctrine of Just War, which really should not be offensive to good people of any religious or areligious bent. The doctrine came out of the Christian church but is primarily an appeal to justice and right thinking, not Divinity.

[Original_Intent]

I know why RP had to put out this message and the positive effect it will have. But as an atheist it is very disturbing. I would much rather him focus his arguments from a philosophical stand point than a religious stand point.

Dustan

I don't understand this view. Certainly I can understand aetheists who do not want "religion shoved down their throats" so to speak. But for a politician to make a statement of faith and to show that his faith is what his principles are grounded on, I do not see the harm to you and why you would find it "disturbing".

If we did not get our rights from a creator, then what rights can you claim? You may claim the right of self defense, but someone who wished to do you harm could also claim the "right" of "let the strongest survive".

I am not going to get into a theological/religious fight here, mostly because I respect your right to not believe in a God, and to express that lack of belief. Why do you find it disturbing when Dr. Paul exercises his right to believe? He is not doing it to score political points, like our last few presidents have done.

[Dustancostine]

You gotta keep in mind that this is not the first time Theists, non-Theists, and Deists, etc. have worked together toward liberty. We will pull it off by sticking through it, even if we find some things distasteful about each other. It does not matter that we come from a different starting point, we are working for the same thing: the protection of individual life, liberty, and property against the use of force.

You know you have no reason to fear Dr. Paul working from some hidden agenda: you have almost 20 years of legislative history to judge him by.

And most of this letter is on the doctrine of Just War, which really should not be offensive to good people of any religious or areligious bent. The doctrine came out of the Christian church but is primarily an appeal to justice and right thinking, not Divinity.

True

[jblosser]

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." -- Franklin, signing the Declaration

[Dustancostine]

I don't understand this view. Certainly I can understand aetheists who do not want "religion shoved down their throats" so to speak. But for a politician to make a statement of faith and to show that his faith is what his principles are grounded on, I do not see the harm to you and why you would find it "disturbing".

If we did not get our rights from a creator, then what rights can you claim? You may claim the right of self defense, but someone who wished to do you harm could also claim the "right" of "let the strongest survive".

I am not going to get into a theological/religious fight here, mostly because I respect your right to not believe in a God, and to express that lack of belief. Why do you find it disturbing when Dr. Paul exercises his right to believe? He is not doing it to score political points, like our last few presidents have done.

I am not going to respond to this here because this issue is not appropriate for this board and will take way more than one response.

If you want I would be more than happy to email/pm the matter with you though. And it doesn't have to be a "fight" as you put in your post, I enjoy civil discussion.

And to say that Dr. Paul's principles or even the found fathers principles were based on Christianity is false, they are based on the individual. Whether or not the individual is created by a Creator is of little consequence, remove the Creator and natural rights still exist man qua man. I just got finished reading RP's book Challenge to Liberty (a book a wrote about the abortion issue) and he explicitly states that his pro-life position is not based on religion, and that any argument based on religion fails, but that his argument rest on the rights of being alive.

And this whole statement is to score political points, Paul even says so himself. He said he doesn't really want to talk about this but people have been hounding him on the matter so he is answering them (scoring points). Now Dr. Paul is not lying or changing his principles in making the answer, but remember whole purpose of politics is to score more points than your opponent on election day.

[UCFGavin]

I know why RP had to put out this message and the positive effect it will have. But as an atheist it is very disturbing. I would much rather him focus his arguments from a philosophical stand point than a religious stand point.

Dustan

you have to remember though, his positions are founded in the constitution, not the bible or not in evangelicals. there is a reason why atheists and religious people alike can agree on dr. paul.

[UCFGavin]

And this whole statement is to score political points, Paul even says so himself. He said he doesn't really want to talk about this but people have been hounding him on the matter so he is answering them (scoring points). Now Dr. Paul is not lying or changing his principles in making the answer, but remember whole purpose of politics is to score more points than your opponent on election day.

i agree, but the thing that is admirable about it is the fact that he isn't changing any stances, he is just speaking on what people want to know about. believe me, if he was going against what he stood for to "score points" i would be criticizing him.

[UCFGavin]

I look at RP's faith the same as the guy who takes care of people not because of his faith, but because of his genuinely good heart. he has a strong faith, but doesn't broadcast or throw it in peoples' faces because he understands that not everyone shares his views. to me, that is more admirable and will accomplish much more in the long run.

[Dave]

Oh No! Ron Paul believes in God! He's finished! Now I'm going to have to go vote for...um...uh...

[jblosser]

And to say that Dr. Paul's principles or even the found fathers principles were based on Christianity is false, they are based on the individual.

I am going to push back a little here just because Dr. Paul says in this very letter: "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." He quite clearly maintains that so-called "Natural" rights originate from a Creator.


Whether or not the individual is created by a Creator is of little consequence, remove the Creator and natural rights still exist man qua man.

I'll respectfully disagree that we have them without a Creator, but I will certainly agree that people can believe we have them without a Creator. :D

Call it an acadmic distinction if you want, but while I want us all to work together, I don't think it's valuable to gloss too far over the presuppositional differences. We may as well stay straight with each other.

[mtmedlin]

I know why RP had to put out this message and the positive effect it will have. But as an atheist it is very disturbing. I would much rather him focus his arguments from a philosophical stand point than a religious stand point.

Dustan

His motivations are irrelevant. His course of action, as long as its consistent with extending equality, is the only point necessary. I have heard so many arguments that the U.S. was based on Christianity but none of the First four presidents were devout Christians. Most were either atheist or deist (as were several of the men who signed the Declaration and lead the delegation that made the Constitution) fortunately, the motivations of the individual did not decrease their collective desire to be free. I understand your being reserved about his basis or motivation, because atheist are some of the more persecuted individuals in this country, but I post this more out of a hope that this thread doesn't deteriorate into a philosophical battle. We are one under a single ideal. Motivations will differ but our collective desire to elect Ron Paul and to be free is the only focus we should have.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Sent that to my Dad. That's the kind of thing that will appeal to him, and I've been having a hard time getting him on board. Thanks for posting this.

[foofighter20x]

I know why RP had to put out this message and the positive effect it will have. But as an atheist it is very disturbing. I would much rather him focus his arguments from a philosophical stand point than a religious stand point.

Dustan


"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson

What's the big deal? So you don't believe in God. Which is more important? That he believes in liberty, or that he's a Christian?

Does it really matter where any one person believes liberty comes from so long as they believe in it?

This isn't a fight that needs to be picked.

The only time to worry about religious beliefs of other is when they attempt to enforce them upon you via government.

[Dustancostine]

I am going to push back a little here just because Dr. Paul says in this very letter: "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." He quite clearly maintains that so-called "Natural" rights originate from a Creator.




Read the quote carefully. He says that "our freedoms come not from man". That is correct we do not get our freedoms by consensus, or the democratic process, or by permission from other men. The arise out of the nature of man. (Wikipedia-Natural Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights))

The Declaration of Independence also based natural or "inalienable rights" on human nature, arguing that it was "self-evident" that human beings by their very nature seek life, liberty, and happiness. This assumed, like Hobbes, Locke and Jean–Jacques Rousseau - also a major social contract thinker - the right of human beings to follow their nature as a natural right antedating and not bestowed by government.

This is opposed to "divine rights" which the British kings used to claim, saying they derived their rights directly from God. These rights were bestowed by God onto the Kings and then the kings in their holy wisdom decided what was right and wrong. Wikipedia Divine Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Right_of_Kings)

The concept of Divine Right incorporates the broader concept of "royal God-given rights", which simply says that "the right to rule is anointed by God (or gods)," this is found in many other cultures including Aryan and Egyptian traditions.

Now as to the last part of Paul's statement. If rights are natural, meaning that they arise out of the nature of man (man qua man) and you believe a God created nature, then you can claim that God endowed these rights via creation. But even here God does not have the ability to separate those rights from man because they are inalienable. On the other hand, if you do not believe in a deity then man still has his natural rights man qua man, which are still endowed to him at creation (conception).

[billv]

There are two things that bother me about the Free Republic postings. First, it saddens me that so many people do not understand that broad, drawn out military efforts against guerilla tactics countered with traditional military force is too expensive and will drain us. The Russians were far more aggressive against bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan but they couldn't win such a war. Hopefully, many who still support a broad war as such will rethink their positions.

The second is that they think he is an isolationist.

[Dustancostine]

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson

What's the big deal? So you don't believe in God. Which is more important? That he believes in liberty, or that he's a Christian?

Does it really matter where any one person believes liberty comes from so long as they believe in it?

This isn't a fight that needs to be picked.

The only time to worry about religious beliefs of other is when they attempt to enforce them upon you via government.

I am not picking a fight. I was just voicing my displeasure. Read my post. The first sentence says "I know why RP put this out", meaning I understand.

Then I go on to say that I hope RP sticks to his philosophical/constitutional message.

Was that really so bad?

[jblosser]

Read the quote carefully. He says that "our freedoms come not from man". That is correct we do not get our freedoms by consensus, or the democratic process, or by permission from other men. The arise out of the nature of man. (Wikipedia-Natural Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights))
...
This is opposed to "divine rights" which the British kings used to claim, saying they derived their rights directly from God. These rights were bestowed by God onto the Kings and then the kings in their holy wisdom decided what was right and wrong. Wikipedia Divine Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Right_of_Kings)


Natural Rights and Divine Right of Kings aren't really talking about the same thing when they say "Right(s)". The best way to put this is that the target is different. Natural Rights targets the rights of individual men to be free and secure in their own person, independent of their station or anything else. These rights are then used, according to Social Contract theory of government which goes hand in hand with Natural Rights/Law, to contract together to choose a form of government by mutual consensus. Divine Right of Kings, in contrast, targets government first and is an argument that government derives authority to rule directly from the divine, and the rights of individual men are completely dependent on what the so annointed rulers say they are, unless they themselves agree to be bound by laws (eg, the Magna Carta).


Now as to the last part of Paul's statement. If rights are natural, meaning that they arise out of the nature of man (man qua man) and you believe a God created nature, then you can claim that God endowed these rights via creation. But even here God does not have the ability to separate those rights from man because they are inalienable. On the other hand, if you do not believe in a deity then man still has his natural rights man qua man, which are still endowed to him at creation (conception).

There are multiple competing ideas on how man gets his rights, and they are not just all different facets of a single Natural Rights theory. Natural Law came into the game post-Renassaince and was postulated by the Rationalists as a non-Theist explanation for the origin of Rights the Theists like Augustine maintained came from the Creator directly and an objective divine moral order. The notion that man's rights come from a Creator is not just an extension of Natural Rights theory, it is an independent notion that really does mean it when it says our Rights come from a Creator and are not inherent in our nature. It would be quite foreign to this concept to suggest that "inalienable" means that the Creator could not have made us differently or could not have granted us fewer or other rights. Under this notion the Divine Right of Kings essentially extends to every man, and the government those men create is less of a Social Contract and more of a collective Divine Right.



Again, the presuppositional base is not terribly relevant when the conclusions are the same and the goal we are working for is consistent with what we both want. I freely admit many of the founders were Deists and non-Theists, but some of them *were* Theists, and they all worked quite well together to overthrow a tyrannical Divine Right king in favor of self-government and protection of individual life, liberty, and property, regardless of where they beleived those rights originated. I don't get the least offended when people lump me in with libertarians or minarchists based on the things I advocate, even though I know I come to those positions from a very different base than them. Of course I also don't mind discussing the differences when it comes up. :)

[Dustancostine]

Natural Rights and Divine Right of Kings aren't really talking about the same thing when they say "Right(s)".

Yes they are. Either men have rights derived from their nature or a king derives his right to rule over men from God and dictates everyone else's rights. They cannot occur simultaneously.

This was the whole point of the enlightenment and the American Revolution.

[Dustancostine]

Again, the presuppositional base is not terribly relevant when the conclusions are the same and the goal we are working for is consistent with what we both want. I freely admit many of the founders were Deists and non-Theists, but some of them *were* Theists, and they all worked quite well together to overthrow a tyrannical Divine Right king in favor of self-government and protection of individual life, liberty, and property, regardless of where they beleived those rights originated. I don't get the least offended when people lump me in with libertarians or minarchists based on the things I advocate, even though I know I come to those positions from a very different base than them. Of course I also don't mind discussing the differences when it comes up. :)


I agree with you here.

[Johnnybags]

people, mostly young filliing a stadium in Tenesee on religion? It was on CNN today and a few days back? Heck, maybe Ron should have hung out in the parking lot, what a crowd. I think they would have loved him.

[Dustancostine]

There are multiple competing ideas on how man gets his rights,

This is the point I am trying to make to you. Man does not get his rights from anywhere, they are inherent in his nature, regardless of how you believe the nature of man came into being.

[Dustancostine]

people, mostly young filliing a stadium in Tenesee on religion? It was on CNN today and a few days back? Heck, maybe Ron should have hung out in the parking lot, what a crowd. I think they would have loved him.

We need to get try and figure out when these type of events occur and at least have some meetups show up.

[jonahtrainer]

I know why RP had to put out this message and the positive effect it will have. But as an atheist it is very disturbing. I would much rather him focus his arguments from a philosophical stand point than a religious stand point.

Dustan

From a philosophical stand point for an where can an atheist claim individual rights derive from?

To me it seems that our rights are either inalienable and granted to us by our Creator or they are granted to us by governments as part of the political plan. If we accept the premise that government grants us the rights then we must also accept the premise that governments may deny those rights.

[Dustancostine]

From a philosophical stand point for an where can an atheist claim individual rights derive from?

To me it seems that our rights are either inalienable and granted to us by our Creator or they are granted to us by governments as part of the political plan. If we accept the premise that government grants us the rights then we must also accept the premise that governments may deny those rights.

Read the Post above this one on this issue.

[Santana28]

not that it counts for anything, but i believe in God and i think that our rights are ours by default, not because "God granted them to us" - but because we are His creation, and anything created by Him has default rights (under the assumption that He has all rights). Its a point of commonality for people who share that belief, at the very minimum. Its something that no matter what we disagree on, we can come together and work together under this.

To the athiest guy - i grew up an athiest, so i know where you are coming from. But if we do not derive our rights from *something* - then theres simply no way we have ANY rights at all, unless we claim Lordship over ourselves and in effect give ourselves these "rights." You cannot create something from nothing. If every person in effect gives themselves their own rights, then its all "you vs. me" and a constant state of turmoil or isolation. You might find people who share your belief, but as it is a belief that is rooted in the individual, then thats where the unity ends. Survival of the fittest vs. divine inspiration...

i just want you to remember that its always easier to argue *against* something else.... but until you reach the point that you can argue *for* something on it's own merit, you're not really accomplishing anything. i spent 3/4ths of my life arguing *against* things - until one day i sat down and took account of my life and realized that i hadn't really accomplished anything.

anyways, i wish you well. i'm not offended by you, and i hope you are not offended by me.

thats my philosophical 2 cents... back to Ron Paul 2008!

[wecandoit]

I won't try and force anyone to believe what I believe. But I strongly believe our rights come from our loving creator..just like Ron says. Without these unalienable rights, without a constitution based upon them, we would be in chains right now, and there would be no America to fight for.

God gives us free will, and that includes the right not to believe in him. But God does gives us free will, shouldn't governments do the same? The ones that recognize God do, or are suppose to.

Speaking for myself, I'm very glad Paul seeks the guidance of Jesus Christ in everything he does and follows the constituion. If he is able to do that as president, everyone will be better off, regardless of their beliefs.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I know why RP had to put out this message and the positive effect it will have. But as an atheist it is very disturbing. I would much rather him focus his arguments from a philosophical stand point than a religious stand point.

Dustan

heh.. I'm Agnostic, but you know what? I don't care if Dr. Paul is relgious / believes the nation was founded on religion, I just want to help get him in office!

[yongrel]

I'm an atheist, but I support Ron Paul. No big deal. I'm not a Richard Dawkins type atheist, determined to have everyone realize the absence of God.

Ron Paul's faith, while contrary to my beliefs, has no bearing on anything. He has a career which demonstrates solidly his separation of God and Government. His decisions and positions are rooted in many things besides faith.

It's guys like Huckabee, who says that he cannot separate being a minister from being president, that bug me.

[Brandybuck]

Without God, the only natural right, is the right of might. He who is strongest rules. Governments started by the stronger institutionalizing their rule, or the weaker banding together for defense. That is the way of the world. But God gives us another way. People are naturally free, with unalienable rights. This is not just for believers, it's for all men, which is why all men know this in their hearts.

The more moral a society, regardless of religion, the freer it will be. I don't mean morality in a narrow puritanical sense, but morality as a recognition that violence is wrong, that we can rise above "might makes right".

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Without God, the only natural right, is the right of might. He who is strongest rules. Governments started by the stronger institutionalizing their rule, or the weaker banding together for defense. That is the way of the world. But God gives us another way. People are naturally free, with unalienable rights. This is not just for believers, it's for all men, which is why all men know this in their hearts.

The more moral a society, regardless of religion, the freer it will be. I don't mean morality in a narrow puritanical sense, but morality as a recognition that violence is wrong, that we can rise above "might makes right".

I was baptized Catholic but uh I always rejected it ever since I can remember. I'm not sure why.

[wbbgjr]

I'm an agnostic leaning atheist. I don't know if there is a God and I personally don't believe that any religious organization can claim to understand such a complicated subject.

I believe one of the problems atheist and religious folks have in understanding each other is that we each believe that our position is the default position.

In other words, religious people think a God is a given (how else is there a universe) and that atheists are altering this given by discounting God. Atheists on the other hand think that the universe is a given (it was always there), and that religious people are adding on this mythical God.

So when we talk about how we received these rights, we are not going to be able to convince each other.

The important thing is that we have a common goal in preserving individual liberty no matter where those rights came from.

I trust our fellow Christian Ron Paul supporters a lot more in not enchroaching on my individual liberty than the atheist facists (or socialist) out there.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm an agnostic leaning atheist. I don't know if there is a God and I personally don't believe that any religious organization can claim to understand such a complicated subject.

I believe one of the problems atheist and religious folks have in understanding each other is that we each believe that our position is the default position.

In other words, religious people think a God is a given (how else is there a universe) and that atheists are altering this given by discounting God. Atheists on the other hand think that the universe is a given (it was always there), and that religious people are adding on this mythical God.

So when we talk about how we received these rights, we are not going to be able to convince each other.

The important thing is that we have a common goal in preserving individual liberty no matter where those rights came from.

I trust our fellow Christian Ron Paul supporters a lot more in not enchroaching on my individual liberty than the atheist facists out there.

I agree. I'm not a religious person but I know Ron Paul will not use his office to attack our religious freedom as so many other politicians have. 20 years and he has never done anything to threaten religious freedom

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm an agnostic leaning atheist. I don't know if there is a God and I personally don't believe that any religious organization can claim to understand such a complicated subject.

I believe one of the problems atheist and religious folks have in understanding each other is that we each believe that our position is the default position.

In other words, religious people think a God is a given (how else is there a universe) and that atheists are altering this given by discounting God. Atheists on the other hand think that the universe is a given (it was always there), and that religious people are adding on this mythical God.

So when we talk about how we received these rights, we are not going to be able to convince each other.

The important thing is that we have a common goal in preserving individual liberty no matter where those rights came from.

I trust our fellow Christian Ron Paul supporters a lot more in not enchroaching on my individual liberty than the atheist facists (or socialist) out there.

yes.. the only thing that separates me from Atheists is for the fact that I believe in the existence of ghosts. Do you? I'm not sure what they are or what it's all about but I know they exist, so I will stick to Agnosticism. Some Atheists have challenged me and have insulted my belief in ghosts, so it has been a real turn off. I think that ghosts are just a mystery, but yes, they really DO exist and I hope to one day learn what they are.

Other then that... I just believe in nothing.

[Dustancostine]

Without God, the only natural right, is the right of might.

This is false. I don't have time or the energy to debate you right now, but do some research. Start with our founding fathers, read some of the enlightened thinkers, Aristotle and Ayn Rand.

Also I would assume that you believe we have free will, if you hold your above opinion that without god, there is only the right of might, and we have freewill, then that defaults to the right of might either way. This is clearly false.

Edit: P.S. Religion does not have the monopoly on morality. You can have ethics and morals without religion. (once again research it if you don't believe me)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

This is false. I don't have time or the energy to debate you right now, but do some research. Start with our founding fathers, read some of the enlightened thinkers, Aristotle and Ayn Rand.

Also I would assume that you believe we have free will, if you hold your above opinion that without god, there is only the right of might, and we have freewill, then that defaults to the right of might either way. This is clearly false.

I heard that some famous scientists in history have considered themselves as deists just so they would be accepted.... but they really didn't.

[scrosnoe]

all the arguments set aside - this post is invaluable to us in reaching the evangelical community which is clearly not ours yet - and it is huge and it should be ours!

if it mobilizes for ron and it should - we gonna have to love one another inside the camp!

[Dustancostine]

all the arguments set aside - this post is invaluable to us in reaching the evangelical community which is clearly not ours yet - and it is huge and it should be ours!

if it mobilizes for ron and it should - we gonna have to love one another inside the camp!

This is true. Also to note, I NEVER bring up my atheism when talking to voters. When calling Iowans I make sure to note that Paul is a Christian.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I know why RP had to put out this message and the positive effect it will have. But as an atheist it is very disturbing. I would much rather him focus his arguments from a philosophical stand point than a religious stand point.


It's not something he's focusing on. That was directed only at devout Christians in a religious publication. He even said in the article that he's not comfortable talking about religion in the context of the campaign.

[bygone]

I think you should be pleased, so long as his letter represents the truth.

I will not judge him for his choice of religion or lack thereof.

[d'anconia]

The idea of rights is not one that stands up to logical and empirical scrutiny. You don't need the idea of rights to establish right and wrong, all you need is a moral platform. It's this type of mumbo jumbo talk that has let the socialists come up with "natural rights" like the "right to free healthcare" and "right to privacy". The truth is there are no guarantees that your "rights" will always be protected and in fact it's this idea of "rights" that created governments in the first place who later would violate all those "rights".

IMO religion and faith is completely contradictory to reason and logic and by agnostics and atheists tolerating that little possibility of there being a magical being they have condemned themselves to a world in which they would be the persecuted minority. You guys want to have "faith" then do that all you want but just understand that there are people who have taken this "faith" to the extreme and used it to justify crashing civilian planes into civilian buildings. It's a bitter form of justice to be honest.

With that said, RP is not perfect but in all honesty no admitted atheist will be in the White House within the next 40 years.

[maiki]

IMO religion and faith is completely contradictory to reason and logic and by agnostics and atheists tolerating that little possibility of there being a magical being they have condemned themselves to a world in which they would be the persecuted minority. You guys want to have "faith" then do that all you want but just understand that there are people who have taken this "faith" to the extreme and used it to justify crashing civilian planes into civilian buildings.
.

Crazy people do crazy things regardless of ideology. Evil people do evil regardless of ideology. Oppressive Governments are Oppressive Gov'ts regardless of ideology. I can name atheist governments that even today kill or imprison religious people simply for being religious, just as other people can name religious governments that do the same. And there probably have been suicidal violent individuals in every creed or non-creed under the sun.

Also, I don't know how "faith/Islam" motivated 9/11 really is. More of a "Hate America" ideology if you ask me. It isn't like they attacked the Vatican or other religious institution or something...

On another note, I don't go around saying atheists are illogical and unreasonable people, and they are just looking for excuses to persecute us. Please exercise the same courtesy to religious people. :)

[WhiteWhaleHolyGrail]

Thanks for posting this, I will be forwarding this to friends and relatives who have been skeptical about Dr. Paul. They are Christians and I think this will appeal to them.

When and where was this originally posted?

[sunny]

Thanks for posting this, I will be forwarding this to friends and relatives who have been skeptical about Dr. Paul. They are Christians and I think this will appeal to them.

When and where was this originally posted?

it was sent to me by the maine state coordinator of AFTF - i just searched "the covenant news" and found this:
http://www.covenantnews.com
it's the first article.

[d'anconia]

Also, I don't know how "faith/Islam" motivated 9/11 really is. More of a "Hate America" ideology if you ask me. It isn't like they attacked the Vatican or other religious institution or something...


I don't follow...

[AnotherAmerican]

this post is invaluable to us in reaching the evangelical community which is clearly not ours yet - and it is huge and it should be ours!


Evangelicals will vote for the Republican anyway. All this kind of thing does is alienate potential crossover voters.

[axiomata]

Evangelicals will vote for the Republican anyway. All this kind of thing does is alienate potential crossover voters.
He does have to win the Republican nomination first you know.

[LibertyEagle]

I am really glad he did this. We need to go after the Christian vote.

[jblosser]

Evangelicals will vote for the Republican anyway. All this kind of thing does is alienate potential crossover voters.

This letter quite possibly flipped my entire church to Paul, many of whom would have gone with Fred or whomever W endorsed. I have been making slow progress for years pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting Bush, but they still cling to "he said she said" stories of Bush's supposed faith statements behind closed doors and the notion that he's a good man, just misguided. This letter did more than I could have done in years more. You don't have to like it or understand why it works that way, but this letter is HUGE for that part of society. It's just another example of Dr. Paul answering honestly and not dodging things or trying to have it both ways just to get the votes.

As for alienating people, he's just speaking his honest mind, same as he always does. I know some will have a problem with the content this time but he takes that risk every time he opens his mouth to say something unpopular, and it's a pity if people drop him over this. We have his record, we know how he will vote.

[Dustancostine]

This letter quite possibly flipped my entire church to Paul, many of whom would have gone with Fred or whomever W endorsed. I have been making slow progress for years pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting Bush, but they still cling to "he said she said" stories of Bush's supposed faith statements behind closed doors and the notion that he's a good man, just misguided. This letter did more than I could have done in years more. You don't have to like it or understand why it works that way, but this letter is HUGE for that part of society. It's just another example of Dr. Paul answering honestly and not dodging things or trying to have it both ways just to get the votes.

As for alienating people, he's just speaking his honest mind, same as he always does. I know some will have a problem with the content this time but he takes that risk every time he opens his mouth to say something unpopular, and it's a pity if people drop him over this. We have his record, we know how he will vote.

Did you give this to your church members today?

[Razmear]

RP: "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 think this is a great statement, he says he wont go pandering to the church or bother to discuss religion much beyond this statement.

eb

(posted before reading the 6 pages of comments)

[ThePieSwindler]

Evangelicals will vote for the Republican anyway. All this kind of thing does is alienate potential crossover voters.

Yeah but they won't vote for the right republicans. I would much rather gain the christian right and alienate evangelical atheists (as mdh puts it) than the converse. The nice thing is that intellectually honest atheists will realize that it doesnt matter what Ron Paul believes because he does not mix it with his politics, and believes rights are equal for every man.

[LibertyEagle]

This is a pastor, Chuck Baldwin, whose articles I'll bet some of you will really like. BTW, he's VERY pro-Paul.

Dear Fellow Christians, Please Wake Up!
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070504.html

Here's an archive of his articles:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/speech.html

[jblosser]

Did you give this to your church members today?

I sent it around via email as soon as I saw it, yes. By tonight they were asking for T-shirts. (And I don't want to sell them as single-issue voters or anything. The point is that having a candidate speak so honestly of his views, including the "faith" ones, gets their attention way more than anything I can say about him. The Just War piece is brilliant; it's his one hope of reaching the evangelical Bushies.)

[inibo]

I know why RP had to put out this message and the positive effect it will have. But as an atheist it is very disturbing. I would much rather him focus his arguments from a philosophical stand point than a religious stand point.

Dustan

As Dr. Paul said in a speech in Austin, the liberty that he is espousing is the liberty Christians need to practice their religion. That applies to other religions or non-religious folks. The liberty he is espousing is just the liberty you, me, they, we, all need to live as they see fit withing the sphere of their own sovereignty.

[Dustancostine]

I sent it around via email as soon as I saw it, yes. By tonight they were asking for T-shirts. (And I don't want to sell them as single-issue voters or anything. The point is that having a candidate speak so honestly of his views, including the "faith" ones, gets their attention way more than anything I can say about him. The Just War piece is brilliant; it's his one hope of reaching the evangelical Bushies.)

Awesome, great job.

--Dustan

[AnotherAmerican]

I sent it around via email as soon as I saw it, yes. By tonight they were asking for T-shirts.

Maybe my earlier "gut" concerns were unfounded after all. If it works, it works. ;)