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

[nate895]

It has me excited. DO NOT WANT!!

Excitement is an emotion. Emotions are caused by outside forcing moving, or, more properly, emoting, us to feel. Big government has me excited to get involved in stopping it. Ron Paul does not have my excitement at this particular moment to get him elected to stop it. Ron Paul has actually done stuff to make me less excited because of the positions I hold to and that he has come to oppose. He needs to do something to get people like me, who make up a large chunk of the GOP base, if not the majority, to get excited. I get excited when he talks about ending our empire, our federal bureaucracy, and many of his other positions. He offends me when he says that those who want to take social action against self-destructive individuals (non-state action, though it should be) are in violation of personal liberties. And I am not alone.

 

[nate895]

No. Better to let the Bible be our ultimate guide.

If you mean that seriously, I agree with you. I just can't be sure on RPF.

 

[Maestro232]

If you mean that seriously, I agree with you. I just can't be sure on RPF.

If you've read my other posts you'll know I'm serious. But yes, one does not know on RPF.

 

[acptulsa]

He offends me when he says that those who want to take social action against self-destructive individuals (non-state action, though it should be) are in violation of personal liberties. And I am not alone.

I think you're putting words in his mouth. Saying that when he says nothing should be done while debating other presidential candidates means not that his administration would do nothing, but rather that even the addict's own mother should do nothing, doesn't wash with me.

This is like saying a federal candidate arguing against federal drug laws would move to prevent state drug laws. It's a distortion. It just ain't right. More worthy of our enemies than us.

Or did I misunderstand?

 

[nate895]

If you've read my other posts you'll know I'm serious. But yes, one does not know on RPF.

Sorry, there are many fools on here who like to think they are poking fun, and I just hadn't remembered much of your post history.

 

[nate895]

I think you're putting words in his mouth. Saying that when he says nothing should be done while debating other presidential candidates means not that his administration would do nothing, but rather that even the addict's own mother should do nothing, doesn't wash with me.

This is like saying a federal candidate arguing against federal drug laws would move to prevent state drug laws. It's a distortion. It just ain't right. More worthy of our enemies than us.

Or did I misunderstand?

I think you are closer to his actual position. I'm just saying that what he said, other so-cons and I construed him as meaning those who do not believe that an individual has the right to destroy themselves are authoritarian nanny-staters. As I have stated repeatedly, Johnson tackled the issue much better (not perfect, but much much better). Ron Paul made it personal liberties issue. Liberty implies to so-cons that you have the right to do it. Johnson did not say it was personal liberty issue, so much as non-criminal justice issue, which is my opinion, and one that I am pretty sure can win in the so-con community (of course Gary Johnson is pro-choice, which simply doesn't fly). Ron Paul needs to emphasize family and church action against it, not personal liberties.

 

[Indy Vidual]

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."

+1984
No one said this would be easy.
If a Christian supports freedom then they are much more receptive to Ron Paul.
These people (mentioned by Rush below) can jump into a Lake Of Fire ASAP.

 

[acptulsa]

Ron Paul needs to emphasize family and church action against it, not personal liberties.

*sigh* Other politicians hire speechwriters. I know he's not 'other politicians', but still...

 

[nate895]

*sigh* Other politicians hire speechwriters. I know he's not 'other politicians', but still...

If he is serious about his commitment to limiting government, he should be looking to make allies at this point, not insulting so-cons. I don't care how you dress it up as "just being honest" or whatever else liberaltarians want to say about it.

 

[acptulsa]

If he is serious about his commitment to limiting government, he should be looking to make allies at this point, not insulting so-cons. I don't care how you dress it up as "just being honest" or whatever else liberaltarians want to say about it.

I tend to call it 'not covering enough political bases in the interest of a little too much brevity', myself. I can forgive him for it, but I fear some will not.

 

[Maestro232]

If he is serious about his commitment to limiting government, he should be looking to make allies at this point, not insulting so-cons. I don't care how you dress it up as "just being honest" or whatever else liberaltarians want to say about it.

Agreed.

To the rest, I fully support Ron Paul and hope he wins. My point in starting this thread, however, was to draw attention to the fact that there is a substantial voting bloc that by all accounts should support him enthusiastically, but historically, have been reluctant to stand behind him because he does not sufficiently connect his libertarian positions to his moral convictions. I understand that some of the ardent atheists here are saying "screw 'em" but as an ally in liberty with you, I am simply trying to help Paul get the votes he deserves.

 

[AuH20]

Excitement is an emotion. Emotions are caused by outside forcing moving, or, more properly, emoting, us to feel. Big government has me excited to get involved in stopping it. Ron Paul does not have my excitement at this particular moment to get him elected to stop it. Ron Paul has actually done stuff to make me less excited because of the positions I hold to and that he has come to oppose. He needs to do something to get people like me, who make up a large chunk of the GOP base, if not the majority, to get excited. I get excited when he talks about ending our empire, our federal bureaucracy, and many of his other positions. He offends me when he says that those who want to take social action against self-destructive individuals (non-state action, though it should be) are in violation of personal liberties. And I am not alone.

Yea. He's been saying stupid shit like this instead of avoiding the question. Discretion is the better part of valor, or so I thought. Worry about hypotheticals after you get elected. I sent the guy 100 bucks but he doesn't want to win.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-ron-paul-would-not-have-ordered-bin-ladens-death/

No, Ron tell us what you really think. Don't hold back and put the barrell to your temple.

 

[Maestro232]

I tend to call it 'not covering enough political bases in the interest of a little too much brevity', myself. I can forgive him for it, but I fear some will not.

Sure, that may be. And I count myself among those that are comfortably convinced that a Biblical, moral framework undergirds his positions and practice. My point is simply this: Dr. Paul, be careful of such brevity going forward, because it has lost and is losing you many votes. That's all.

 

[acptulsa]

Sure, that may be. And I count myself among those that are comfortably convinced that a Biblical, moral framework undergirds his positions and practice. My point is simply this: Dr. Paul, be careful of such brevity going forward, because it has lost and is losing you many votes. That's all.

Doesn't help that thousands are being paid to spin everything he says the wrong way. I guess all we can do is keep applying counter-spin, and have faith that the truth will out.

 

[nate895]

Agreed.

To the rest, I fully support Ron Paul and hope he wins.

That is exactly why I'm saying what I'm saying right now, and why I am going to write a lengthy open letter appealing to him, and to my socially conservative friends on this issue. If I did not care about liberty, justice, rule of law, or that Ron Paul is our only hope right now for any of them, I'd simply give up and go vote for Huckabee, which would be the easiest thing to do.

 

[Maestro232]

Doesn't help that thousands are being paid to spin everything he says the wrong way. I guess all we can do is keep applying counter-spin, and have faith that the truth will out.

A coming out party won't help his chances

 

[The Moravian]

The Bible does call us sheep, afterall.

The scriptures don't mean that we should only be sheep, but should be "wise as serpents, harmless as doves". Nor does the scripture mean that we should have all the characteristics of sheep.

In fact, look at the actual passages calling us sheep. It never says we should blindly follow whoever charms us. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and follow me. They will not follow the voice of a stranger."

Overall, the real problem with the overwhelming majority of people in the church (I reserve the title of Christian to those who truly follow Jesus) is that they know virtually nothing about what the bible actually teaches, nor do they realize that they are merely following the words of their pastor/priest/elders far from the truth of scripture, the truth that would "set them free from the law of sin and death". The same problem occurs when they are politically involved, even if just voting.

At the tiny little church I was attending in 2008, I brought up RP with one of the co-pastors just before the primary. You can probably guess the only 2 things he asked about, right? It was as stereo-typical as you can imagine. He actually asked, "Is he biblical? Does he support marriage and oppose abortion?" I said yes, because of the way he phrased it, and how RP would talk about those subjects back then, I could honestly say yes.

My point is that even this pastor thought that the sum total of biblical imperatives for a political office holder was opposing abortion and gay marriage. I finally had it with their nonsense a year later and left that church. That was when the pastors admitted a man as an official church member who, right in the membership class, defended his practice of living with a woman he admitted he wasn't married to. After I had two very long conversations with two of the pastors, they talked the man into marrying his girlfriend, but that still didn't change what the pastors had done wrong, which was the main point anyway.

For some unfathomable reason, making sure our president "defends marriage" through law is more important than these pastors defending marriage through who they admit as church members.

 

[robert9712000]

Where the blogger makes the mistake is hes comparing how God treats those who rule over the church,which has nothing to do with those that rule over a nation.The difference is those at the church are there by free will and if they choose to go then hes laid out certain standards.While on earth God allows man to live his life by free will.

You cant force morality.

Now what you do with that free will God will judge in the end and only him.The only time man has a right to judge another mans actions are if they effect someone else,unless they have chosen to goto church and submit to there rules.The great thing is if you disagree you can leave the church.

I consider myself a strong christian but i have no issues with the legalization of drugs or prostitution.What another person does is there business .i only care to tend to those who desire to know Gods truth.As far as the great commission in the bible to spread the word.Ill let it be known of my faith but i wont force on someone that doesnt want to hear.If they desire to listen ill talk as much as theyd like too.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

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.

Well personal liberty is having the right to do whatever you want with your own body, without hurting others or infringing on their property rights. It is that simple. It can't get any simpler. I don't want a Ron Paul presidency if it means I have to answer to the moral police. Fuck that. Not interested. If what I do in my own home bothers you to the point where you think I should be stopped, that is a huge problem.

 

[The Moravian]

Sorry to come off harsh, Maestro, I realize that part of my comment sounded condescending, but I didn't mean it to be. I've been very frustrated with people in every church I've attended, the contradictions are so blatantly obvious and I get pretty worked up over it. I realize that my comment seamed to infer that you weren't knowledgeable about the scripture. You were just making a small joke and I used it to make a different point, when you weren't being serious in the first place.

I'm sorry for using your short statement as a jumping off point for my frustration. It was thoughtless of me to not see how mean it sounded. Please forgive me.