His Christianity isn't questioned, his policies are...

[chmst1999]

The YouTube video about him and his faith is good. However, Evangelicals and others are concerned about his views on drugs, marriage, and foreign interventionism. We need to show how Bush's and Obama's actions are not Christian. For example, there is no way that a Christian can rationalize torturing people. However, Fox Noise has whipped up support for this behavior. We need to have a conversation about Paul's positions and show they are the only positions consistent with Christianity.

In addition, we all need to study Christian Just War Theory. We need to show that Paul's policies are consistent with Christian Just War Theory dating back to St. Augustine of Hippo (~400 A.D.). This will help him in the Bible belt.

Here's a brief introduction to Christian Just War Theory:

Christians are bound by scripture to do no harm. Pointing this out does not belittle the message. Christians are taught to be inherently anti-war; however, there are cases where war might be justified, and the Christian Just War Theory (CJWT) attempts to define both those cases for which war is justified, and what parameters should be set for our actions during the conflict. In effect, the CJWT provides a framework for us when determining the morality of a particular war-making decision.

The concept of CJWT is not new. In fact, St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) first described the parameters for determining if a warlike action is warranted. In most cases, when people begin to apply CJWT they are attempting to determine justice before the war (jus ad bellum). However, CJWT also guides our actions while actively engaged in war (jus in bello). This is a critical distinction because our justification for war does not justify immoral actions (e.g., torture, targeting civilians, killing the unarmed or those attempting to surrender). In effect, Christians are not permitted to put their Christian beliefs on hold while at war. They must always be mindful of their actions before, during, and after the conflict.

It is always true that CJWT assumes that war is entered into only as a last resort. However, if all of the following criteria are met, then warlike action will be justified using CJWT:

1) Just Cause - The aggressor’s damage must be long-lasting, grave, and certain. 2) Last Resort - All other means of stopping the aggression have been ineffective or impractical. 3) There must be serious prospects of success. 4) Proportionality - The warlike actions and arms must not produce evils and disorders more grave than the evil to be eliminated. An additional criterion is that of legitimate authority – the decision-makers must be those who legitimately represent the people of the nation deciding whether war is morally justified. In the United States, this authority rests with Congress and not with the President.

[James Madison]

The YouTube video about him and his faith is good. However, Evangelicals and others are concerned about his views on drugs, marriage, and foreign interventionism. We need to show how Bush's and Obama's actions are not Christian. For example, there is no way that a Christian can rationalize torturing people. However, Fox Noise has whipped up support for this behavior. We need to have a conversation about Paul's positions and show they are the only positions consistent with Christianity.

In addition, we all need to study Christian Just War Theory. We need to show that Paul's policies are consistent with Christian Just War Theory dating back to St. Augustine of Hippo (~400 A.D.). This will help him in the Bible belt.

Here's a brief introduction to Christian Just War Theory:

Christians are bound by scripture to do no harm. Pointing this out does not belittle the message. Christians are taught to be inherently anti-war; however, there are cases where war might be justified, and the Christian Just War Theory (CJWT) attempts to define both those cases for which war is justified, and what parameters should be set for our actions during the conflict. In effect, the CJWT provides a framework for us when determining the morality of a particular war-making decision.

The concept of CJWT is not new. In fact, St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) first described the parameters for determining if a warlike action is warranted. In most cases, when people begin to apply CJWT they are attempting to determine justice before the war (jus ad bellum). However, CJWT also guides our actions while actively engaged in war (jus in bello). This is a critical distinction because our justification for war does not justify immoral actions (e.g., torture, targeting civilians, killing the unarmed or those attempting to surrender). In effect, Christians are not permitted to put their Christian beliefs on hold while at war. They must always be mindful of their actions before, during, and after the conflict.

It is always true that CJWT assumes that war is entered into only as a last resort. However, if all of the following criteria are met, then warlike action will be justified using CJWT:

1) Just Cause - The aggressor’s damage must be long-lasting, grave, and certain. 2) Last Resort - All other means of stopping the aggression have been ineffective or impractical. 3) There must be serious prospects of success. 4) Proportionality - The warlike actions and arms must not produce evils and disorders more grave than the evil to be eliminated. An additional criterion is that of legitimate authority – the decision-makers must be those who legitimately represent the people of the nation deciding whether war is morally justified. In the United States, this authority rests with Congress and not with the President.

From the beginning, ours was the most Christian nation the world had even seen. There were no laws prohibiting drug consumption, no state-recognized institution of marriage, and no wars of intervention. By the early 20th century, however, the Progressives (which right-wing Christians love to hate) brought us the first drug laws, including Prohibition and the pseudoscientific quackery of eugenics that prompted the state's involvement in the private institution of marriage. They brought us the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and a never-ending string of wars throughout the globe. Through these people, 200+ million HUMANS LIVES were lost in the last century alone. They are not Christians and neither are these 'rapture-ready' lunatics. So called 'Christians' need to be reeducated on the document they claim to follow before they will ever support the principles of Ron Paul.

[nate895]

...no state-recognized institution of marriage...

This is actually false. States did recognize marriage, they just did not license it. Marriages were recognized based on common law, which was sufficient evidence that the couple had committed to one another. This was needed for divorce and inheritance cases.

[James Madison]

This is actually false. States did recognize marriage, they just did not license it. Marriages were recognized based on common law, which was sufficient evidence that the couple had committed to one another. This was needed for divorce and inheritance cases.

I'm not familar with the topic, but I'll take your word on it. Anways, I was referring specifically to licenses. But I suppose the sentiment is the same.