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

This is where we have a divide. You guys think if he doesn't mention the gold standard, cutting departments, and all of these little details that he's lying. I think it'd be smart if he didn't, he'd turn less people off. You need to give it in doses.

I don't think it's lying at all. I think it's smart strategy.

What are people going to digest better? "Let's get rid of social security and medicare" vs. "I have a plan to sustain social security and medicare, so everyone will get what they were promised, and we can begin to decrease their size."

Well, if you ask me, the second one sounds like it's much more attractive and it's not lying at all.

I agree. People were upset when Rand did this and were calling him all kinds of names. That is, until they realized later how very wrong they were.

What Rand did worked. We now have a Senator Rand Paul to show for it.
 
Wilson is calling for a scripturally grounded explanation of Paul's support for libertarianism, but Wilson also does not seemingly support liberty in the way Paul does. I let the Bible speak truth rather than try to adapt my presumptions and previous beliefs to scripture, and I can say that liberty is a result of the Bible so much as to support legalization of drugs, prostitution, and the like. Wilson's exegesis of Luke 12:42-48 is fallacious on the grounds that he misrepresents the obvious within that text. Luke 12:42-48 is not referring to a government situation with ruler and citizen, but with master and servant within a single household. Secondly, this piece of scripture is taken out of context. Just by reading the whole chapter, one can easily see the true context of that passage. I'm not going to get into specifics, but, when interpreted correctly and within context, scripture will never support coercion or punishment for any sin that does not involve a crime against another person. That's the social conservative's only defense when using scripture, and this is to take it out of context to fit their previous beliefs.

Overly libertarian? Out of my studies of Christian theology, libertarianism in its full is pretty dang close to the political message of the Bible--more so than any other political ideology that I have studied. Social conservatism can only be applied to oneself, one's children, and those who have entered into a contract that requires to follow the laws of social conservatism such as through getting hired at a company and being required to follow their rules. Wilson speaks like the tyrant kings of past times who were granted divine power from God. Could Ron Paul base more of his teachings in scripture to grab a larger portion of the Christian crowd? Sure. But sorry, Wilson. Scripturally grounded or not (and they are), Paul's politics are very in line with Christian theology, and changing his politics to reach Christian libertarians is not going to happen because Paul's message is meant for libertarians of all walks, and the kind of politics that Wilson wants Ron Paul to have would not be applicable to libertarian Christians or libertarians at all.

I don't think anyone wants him to change his message. Last election, he put out a statement to Christians. I don't have it anymore, but someone else surely does. I wonder if that would answer Wilson's questions.
 
Last edited:
good link


Good link.

from Paul...
...The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity...The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion....The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility....

The irony is that many of Paul's atheist supporters have been acting somewhat like the "anti-religious elites" he talks about here.

Now I'm in for it...
 
Quite so and Amen. I don't think we are in disagreement. I'm not sure why my invoking of Romans 13 was disagreeable. But perhaps I'm missing something.

I don't think we are very much in disagreement. I simply do not believe, as I took you to, that Romans or any other part of the Bible, provides any justification for tyranny. I believe that God describes and prophecies political oppression in the Bible, permits it to happen on earth, and, like all other evil which transpires, is able to use it for His own purpose, i.e. for good. But it does not follow from this that God endorses or is pleased by tyrants and despots any more than that they will not be held accountable for those sins.

To use the Bible to justify political dominion over mankind is analogous to using scripture to condone slavery. In the same manner that all reasonable men concur that the phrase "slaves obey your master" does not mean that anybody who likes can own them, exhortations to obey one's government do not provide any excuses for men who wish to usurp God's power to rule over others and utilize earthly power to an unholy and unjust end.

I may only be clarifying a point we agree on, and if so, sorry.
 
I haven't read the entire thread, but was RP's Statement of Faith not good enough?
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
 
I don't think we are very much in disagreement. I simply do not believe, as I took you to, that Romans or any other part of the Bible, provides any justification for tyranny. I believe that God describes and prophecies political oppression in the Bible, permits it to happen on earth, and, like all other evil which transpires, is able to use it for His own purpose, i.e. for good. But it does not follow from this that God endorses or is pleased by tyrants and despots any more than that they will not be held accountable for those sins.

To use the Bible to justify political dominion over mankind is analogous to using scripture to condone slavery. In the same manner that all reasonable men concur that the phrase "slaves obey your master" does not mean that anybody who likes can own them, exhortations to obey one's government do not provide any excuses for men who wish to usurp God's power to rule over others and utilize earthly power to an unholy and unjust end.

I may only be clarifying a point we agree on, and if so, sorry.

we are agreed:D
 
Back
Top