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

[Maestro232]

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

http://dougwils.com/index.php?option...id=87:politics

[Fredom101]

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

[Maestro232]

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

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

[Kludge]

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

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

[jmdrake]

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

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

[Maestro232]

Kludge,

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

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

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

[Acala]

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

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

[speciallyblend]

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

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

[angelatc]

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

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

[pcosmar]

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

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

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

[silentshout]

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

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

[nate895]

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

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

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

[georgiaboy]

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

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

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

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

[steph3n]

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

[nate895]

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

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

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

[TIMB0B]

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

States' rights - 10th Amendment

[steph3n]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kludge]

Kludge,

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

Ron's principles comes from his own interpretation of the Bible, not this man's. RP's stances are based on an interpretation of the Bible that man is not given authority to judge others as God will. The man in the OP disagrees and says that because something was outlawed in Biblical times, so it should be outlawed now, which has no basis at all in reason. It's deference, which would be okay if it weren't that he deferred to the opinions of man, not God.

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

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

[Kludge]

States' rights - 10th Amendment

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

[oyarde]

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

The new Avatar made me laugh !

[Elwar]

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

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

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

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

[georgiaboy]

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

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

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

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

[nate895]

States' rights - 10th Amendment

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

[acptulsa]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[nate895]

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

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

[georgiaboy]

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

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

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

[K466]

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

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

[Maestro232]

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

The Bible does call us sheep, afterall.

[georgiaboy]

He mentions Matthew Chapter Six in this interview.

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

[nate895]

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

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

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