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

[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.

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

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.

 

[acptulsa]

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.

Mainly, we need to remind people on this and every other issue under the sun that it doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference what President Paul legalizes because all they have to do is say, 'not in my state', and it won't be legal in their state. I don't know how to emphasize this enough. If you don't see how the Tenth Amendment answers just about every concern anyone has about Paul from abortion to heroin to freaking zoos, well, I don't know how else to help you.

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."

Now, if it's good enough for Moses, how do we convince Ron Paul to accept the services of a speech writer? Does he think he's better than Moses?

 

[Maestro232]

I have found that Dr. Paul's message resonates well with most Christians.

Agreed. And many of them will still be hesitant to vote for him. I'm just sayin'

 

[steph3n]

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.

If you think it is in the form of arresting and putting people in prison, you may just be that which you hate to be called. It should be treated early, and not through a overburdened legal and prison system, but through community support systems. We could sink 30% of the money spent on the 'justice' system on a community rehab and education system (and I am not talking about D.A.R.E. LEO scare system) and be much better off.

 

[Maestro232]

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.

You're answer is probably in your post. He could of answered the debate question like Alan Keyes as noted above or like the way you've suggested here, but instead, Paul chose to answer differently, and that sort of answer is an example of why someone like Wilson is having trouble supporting Paul.

 

[nate895]

If you think it is in the form of arresting and putting people in prison, you may just be that which you hate to be called. It should be treated early, and not through a overburdened legal and prison system, but through community support systems. We could sink 30% of the money spent on the 'justice' system on a community rehab and education system (and I am not talking about D.A.R.E. LEO scare system) and be much better off.

Did you not read the parenthesis?

Logically applied, Ron Paul's argument on May 5 leads to the conclusion that, since it is a matter of personal liberty, we should not take action against those who do it, especially in light of Paul's overarching libertarianism that seems to be becoming more consistent. I looked into Paul's voting record last year, and he changed votes on the DADT issue from May to December. Given the direction of Paul's rhetoric and that vote (albeit, it is just one vote), I can't help but think he has taken up sides with the secularist libertarians, and that is going to alienate people like me and other Christian voters. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I won't be able to after VVS if he doesn't change.

 

[pcosmar]

Agreed. And many of them will still be hesitant to vote for him. I'm just sayin'

Perhaps, but those are NOT Christian libertarians. They would be the Christian Authoritarians. ( I think they are confused)

 

[rockandrollsouls]

We shouldn't even be worrying about this demographic. Do you realize how insignificant the portion of Libertarian-Christian voters is to the voting block we should be trying to acquire? This is why we never win....you guys always try to go for the most insignificant and most difficult to convert target.

The average voter is much more easily swayed than this group...

 

[steph3n]

Did you not read the parenthesis?

Logically applied, Ron Paul's argument on May 5 leads to the conclusion that, since it is a matter of personal liberty, we should not take action against those who do it, especially in light of Paul's overarching libertarianism that seems to be becoming more consistent. I looked into Paul's voting record last year, and he changed votes on the DADT issue from May to December. Given the direction of Paul's rhetoric and that vote (albeit, it is just one vote), I can't help but think he has taken up sides with the secularist libertarians, and that is going to alienate people like me and other Christian voters. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I won't be able to after VVS if he doesn't change.

DADT is a stupid policy, it would be better to have people in the open if they are homosexual for SO many reasons. Especially on the battlefield.
There have been homosexual relationships for so long, and your/my/our policy/law isn't going to change that one bit. Having people stay hidden and bottled up leads to much more stress, possibly leading to terrible judgement in the future on a battlefield, in deployment etc. This doesn't even bring in the medical aspects of it. DADT, is downright horrible.

 

[TIMB0B]

Mainly, we need to remind people on this and every other issue under the sun that it doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference what President Paul legalizes because all they have to do is say, 'not in my state', and it won't be legal in their state. I don't know how to emphasize this enough. If you don't see how the Tenth Amendment answers just about every concern anyone has about Paul from abortion to heroin to freaking zoos, well, I don't know how else to help you.

This.

 

[Endgame]

Lets not get tripped up on semantics here. I've seen this for years and years. "Christian libertarian". Just read that as "the religious right" and see if any of you find yourselves giving a shit.