Rand Paul Links Baltimore Riots to Breakdown of Family Values and Morals

[Theocrat]

Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) weighed in on the turmoil in Baltimore on Tuesday, standing with police and blaming the violence on a lack of morals in America.

"I came through the train on Baltimore (sic) last night, I'm glad the train didn't stop," he said, laughing, during an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.

Railing against what he repeatedly called "thuggery and thievery" in the streets of Baltimore, Paul told Ingraham that talking about "root causes" was not appropriate in the middle of a riot.

"The police have to do what they have to do, and I am very sympathetic to the plight of the police in this," he said.

As for root causes, Paul listed some ideas of his own.

"There are so many things we can talk about," the senator said, "the breakdown of the family structure, the lack of fathers, the lack of a moral code in our society."

He added that "this isn't just a racial thing."

Paul, who has branded himself as an advocate of criminal justice reform, also said justice must come from an investigation of the case of Freddie Gray, a black man who died of a spinal injury while in the custody of Baltimore police.

There is an audio clip with Laura Ingraham here. Do you agree with Rand?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yes.

 

[specsaregood]

When our entire society teaches theft via the hands of govt is ok; why shouldn't people start to think its ok for them to participate in thievery as well?

 

[wizardwatson]

There is an audio clip with Laura Ingraham here. Do you agree with Rand?

I actually responded to this audio that someone posted in the Baltimore riot thread. It's good you broke it out. I'm adding here as well, since I also think it deserves discussion.

################################################## ##########

Here's what Rand has to say about it.

SEE OP OF THIS THREAD FOR AUDIO

So Rand says it's because of "moral decline".

Hmmm. Lack of what morals, Rand? How exactly do we become more moral? Seems to me the Rothbardians infesting these boards just want to kill all the immoral people. But Rand is scared to say the real answer. Why?

It's a moral decline to let yourself become wards of the state and in essence, rag dolls for the police state. What's the old saying? If you can't be responsible for yourself, then likely some government entity will do it for you? Do we see police rampaging in Asian communities?

Well, that's what I was getting at.

Abandoning "what" morals? Murray Wrathbards? No.

Leaning on the state instead of what? Ourselves? No.

We've abandoned God. Plain and simple.

Here's a real speech at the faith and freedom coalition by RON PAUL instead of pandering to Israel the way Rand did.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2011/06/07/ron-paul-liberty-comes-from-the-creator/8972/

"We have, as a people, have lost our confidence and understanding of what true liberty is all about and where it comes from. And it doesn't come from our king and it doesn't come from our government, our liberties come from our CREATOR. That's wheres our life and liberty come from. - Ron Paul"

You see but those liberties (which the seculars like to distill as fictional "rights" since they don't like the idea of having a Creator before whom they are powerless) come with conditions. God didn't cut you loose, and that's what Ron talks about in that video. That the moral decline leads to a loss of liberty. Break God's laws, God curses you.

So my "why?" to Rand is why can't he just come out and say the same thing Ron did. He obviously believes it by that radio interview. So what gives? The answer is, I think, that he's pandering to the seculars.

Here's a full video of ffcoalition speech, but the link above condenses the main points.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Do you agree with Rand?

Yes.

Fearless looting

Many pundits have commented upon the lack of fear among rioters and looters. How could they steal right in front of vendors and police alike? Wouldn’t someone stop them, possibly hurting them in the process? The answer is that they have no fear of consequences. There is no accountability. They know that anyone who might stop them has been brow-beaten into inaction by our current politically correct and hyperbolic culture.

The looters and rioters know that in reality, and in everyday life for them, there is little risk of consequences from the police. Initiating violence or theft against others is rarely punished, unless the victim fights back. The police will not be there to stop them. The truly tragic interactions with police are rare and random, somewhat like being hit by lightning. It is not the consequence of doing wrong. In the sub-culture that exists in some bad neighborhoods, the real danger is from peers in the area, not from the police. The police are certainly an irritant to them, but how often do they stop actual crimes?

Inevitably, some criminals are caught. And what are the consequences for those under the age of eighteen? A slap on the wrist? A brief detention with friends until a quick release? This sets the expectation of no consequences. Single parent homes, often unsupervised for the most part, also lay the groundwork for a culture with no accountability.

In a larger sense, the kinder, unstructured, everyone is a victim, no one is accountable culture has taken over America. This is not just about law enforcement or inner-city looters. To different degrees, it has infected the entire nation.

Is there a solution?

So what is the solution? Obviously, right, wrong, consequences and accountability are taught at a very young age. This is the responsibility of parents. No amount of money, and no new government programs will solve this problem. It can be argued that government programs which favor and incentivize single parent households have made the situation much worse. Government is not the solution, it is part of the problem.

In our nation’s history, children have learned responsibility and values from a young age. They needed to work with their family to survive. They learned to reap the fruits of their labor, and they found satisfaction in producing something. And with learning the value of their own work, they also learned to value the property of others.

Obviously we do not want to return our children to the hard life of child labor on farms or in factories, but suitable and equivalent learning should be part of the upbringing of children, and teens can certainly do the entry level work that was common not more than a generation ago.

The leisure existence of children and young adults today is unusual in a historical sense, and there are consequences. Often there is no appreciation for the value of anything, especially the property of others, when everything comes easy and free. Combine that with a lack of accountability and no consequences, and entire generations may become severely handicapped in life.

 

[wizardwatson]

Yes.

Yep, and we have a similar problem in online forums with anonymity.

This is a fundamental human dynamic.

You all love John 3:16. Bryan here has encapsulated the verses directly after with his post above.

John 3:16-21 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

"Accountability", "anonymity in social networks", all this fancy psychological regurgitation is stuff that's been sitting in a book in plain view for 2000 years. And we still don't get it.

 

[wcasino]

The answer is, I think, that he's pandering to the seculars.

Wow, "THE SECULARS", as though we are some kind of sub-class of humans to be pointed at from afar...

Remember, freedom isn't free.

 

[wizardwatson]

Wow, "THE SECULARS", as though we are some kind of sub-class of humans to be pointed at from afar...

Remember, freedom isn't free.

Feeling persecuted are we?

Here let me "console" you.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong. - Simone Weil

 

[hells_unicorn]

We've abandoned God. Plain and simple.

When did this nation every embrace God wizard? I don't see any mention of a confession of the true religion ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution, and there's only a fickle nod to a Deistic god in the Declaration of Independence.

If you want to really hear the truth as to why Rand Paul isn't talking up the whole "God" thing outside of certain audiences, it's because America has been a thoroughly pagan nation since its founding. You are living in a non-Christian nation wizard, so your best course of action is to take the advice of the OT during the Babylonian captivity and be a good citizen and pray for a leader that has at least a firm grasp of the Light of Nature, because that is the best you can hope for.

This is pretty much why Rand speaks in a cunning and artful fashion, because he understands the subtleties of the Christian faith (though not perfectly) and also the current state of this nation, and I thank God for that.

 

[wizardwatson]

When did this nation every embrace God wizard? I don't see any mention of a confession of the true religion ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution, and there's only a fickle nod to a Deistic god in the Declaration of Independence.

If you want to really hear the truth as to why Rand Paul isn't talking up the whole "God" thing outside of certain audiences, it's because America has been a thoroughly pagan nation since its founding. You are living in a non-Christian nation wizard, so your best course of action is to take the advice of the OT during the Babylonian captivity and be a good citizen and pray for a leader that has at least a firm grasp of the Light of Nature, because that is the best you can hope for.

This is pretty much why Rand speaks in a cunning and artful fashion, because he understands the subtleties of the Christian faith (though not perfectly) and also the current state of this nation, and I thank God for that.

Well, we do have "In God we trust" on our money. We do have to swear an oath to God in court and to join the military and to take public office.

But hey, sure, we're pagan. Thanks for pointing it out. All you did was summarize my accusation that Rand is pandering to pagans.

Rand supports this strategy, and you support this strategy, and you both say you are Christian, which means you're pandering to Christians too by pretending to be one.

I'm just here to make sure we're all on the same page and we know who is who.

 

[wizardwatson]

This is pretty much why Rand speaks in a cunning and artful fashion, because he understands the subtleties of the Christian faith (though not perfectly) and also the current state of this nation, and I thank God for that.

For those of you not paying attention, this is the line where Hells_Unicorn tells you that you aren't smart enough to "understand" Christianity if you don't realize that Jesus was really telling you to be cunning. Then he gives lip service to the Father to validate Rand's strategy.

Because again, the gatekeepers don't want the little people to understand Jesus themselves. He's just too darn straightforward and He makes them look bad. Better to complicate it, and bastardize it, so it can be used as a weapon.

This is high treason in Christianity.

 

[hells_unicorn]

1. Well, we do have "In God we trust" on our money. We do have to swear an oath to God in court and to join the military and to take public office.

2. But hey, sure, we're pagan. Thanks for pointing it out. All you did was summarize my accusation that Rand is pandering to pagans.

3. Rand supports this strategy, and you support this strategy, and you both say you are Christian, which means you're pandering to Christians too by pretending to be one.

4. I'm just here to make sure we're all on the same page and we know who is who.

1. Which god? Jefferson's apathetic creator who has no interest in our current state, or the Unitarian one of John Adams and the Massachusetts congregationalists perhaps? Or maybe the one that tolerated the Free Mason activity of other prominent founders who were nominally orthodox on Christian doctrine? So many to choose from, none of them hitting the biblical mark. And as for oaths, absent a clear definition of which deity I am invoking in the process, I prefer to affirm, which they allow us to do in Pennsylvania thankfully. As the good books states, "Yea, yea, and Nay, nay".

2. Indeed, just like Joseph did when he obeyed God and instructed Pharaoh on how to save Egypt and, consequently, also the future 12 tribes of Israel from starving to death. That doesn't sound like a negative thing for Rand Paul to be emulating to me. After all, "Blessed are the peace makers".

3. I'm no pretender, but I do try to avoid being obnoxious about my faith when it is clearly not warranted, nor prudent. "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matthew 6:5)

4. We're not, because you have it backwards. But the conversation is definitely worth having, even if you don't end up figuring it out, since others likely will.

 

[hells_unicorn]

1. For those of you not paying attention, this is the line where Hells_Unicorn tells you that you aren't smart enough to "understand" Christianity if you don't realize that Jesus was really telling you to be cunning. Then he gives lip service to the Father to validate Rand's strategy.

2. Because again, the gatekeepers don't want the little people to understand Jesus themselves. He's just too darn straightforward and He makes them look bad. Better to complicate it, and bastardize it, so it can be used as a weapon.

3. This is high treason in Christianity.

1. I'm waiting for you to point out the actual errors in my exegesis, and I believe I will be waiting for quite a while.

2. Yes, foment paranoia about secret conspiracies, let me know when the shuttle lands. And for the record, prior to the advent of modern American Evangelical fanaticism in all its Independent glory, a person needed 3 years of catechism before being considered a properly instructed defender of the faith. This was based on the amount of time that Jesus spent instructing his apostles, and it was maintained through out the history of the church.

Saving faith is easy, putting on the armor and defending the faith properly as a teacher is more an adult's game, and you've yet to grow up my boy.

3. High treason against YOUR Christianity, remember who claims to be the only one who has it right here, and it wasn't me. Guilty as charged, tell me my punishment O great purveyor of the truth of the moment.

 

[wizardwatson]

This is pretty much why Rand speaks in a cunning and artful fashion, because he understands the subtleties of the Christian faith (though not perfectly) and also the current state of this nation, and I thank God for that.

Furthermore, where is your faith in Rand's "understanding of Christian subtleties" grounded? Does he have some Christian blog or something? A statement of faith? Because this is all I've ever found. (I actually check these things out believe it or not)

http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Rand_Paul_Principles_+_Values.htm

I'm a Christian, a husband and a father. I'm faithful to my wife and my family. I try to be good at all those things, though, of course, we all fall short of perfection in our lives. I try to adhere to the tenets of God's word in the New Testament. I take seriously my oath to defend the Constitution. And I try to fight for truth and my values regardless of the political outcome, regardless of how popular or unpopular they may be.
My faith has never been easy for me, never been easy to talk about and never been without obstacles. I do not and cannot wear my religion on my sleeve. I am a Christian but not always a good one. I'm not completely free of doubts. I struggle to understand man's inhumanity to man. I struggle to understand the horrible tragedies that war inflicts on our young men and women.

Now you just pointed out (as I have many times on this forum) that "oaths" are against Christ's commands. But Rand "takes his seriously". But he doesn't seem to be doing to well on the Christian knowledge side. Seems he's "struggling" with a lot of questions that are right there in the bible. And he doesn't adhere to God's words but what he thinks are the "tenets".

Translation. To Rand the bible is a book of morals about a God he is agnostic about.

But Hells_Unicorn wants to broadcast that Rand's use of subterfuge to manipulate his chances of being president is an outcome of his intermediate understanding of the "subtleties" of Christian faith.

Just stop lying dude. Why are you trying to validate Rand as a Christian when he himself doesn't? Rand is in WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better shape than you are right now. The BEST thing Rand has going for him now is he doesn't open his mouth about Jesus and God the way you do.

 

[wizardwatson]

3. I'm no pretender, but I do try to avoid being obnoxious about my faith when it is clearly not warranted, nor prudent. "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matthew 6:5)

And here you try to paint yourself as a sheep and me as an obnoxious vain person. I'm not praying, brother, I'm witnessing. This is the verse you are looking for:

Matthew 5:14-16 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

So this whole "I don't where my religion on my sleeve" thing is BALONEY. How will anyone know about the good news of Christ if we all just keep it to ourselves? You want to use Christ's words to silence Christ.

Clever, but predictable. And, of course, always evil.

 

[hells_unicorn]

1. Furthermore, where is your faith in Rand's "understanding of Christian subtleties" grounded? Does he have some Christian blog or something? A statement of faith? Because this is all I've ever found. (I actually check these things out believe it or not)

2. Now you just pointed out (as I have many times on this forum) that "oaths" are against Christ's commands. But Rand "takes his seriously". But he doesn't seem to be doing to well on the Christian knowledge side. Seems he's "struggling" with a lot of questions that are right there in the bible. And he doesn't adhere to God's words but what he thinks are the "tenets".

3. Translation. To Rand the bible is a book of morals about a God he is agnostic about.

4. But Hells_Unicorn wants to broadcast that Rand's use of subterfuge to manipulate his chances of being president is an outcome of his intermediate understanding of the "subtleties" of Christian faith.

5. Just stop lying dude. Why are you trying to validate Rand as a Christian when he himself doesn't? Rand is in WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better shape than you are right now. The BEST thing Rand has going for him now is he doesn't open his mouth about Jesus and God the way you do.

1. In the things that he has stated, and to an extent his affiliation with the PCA, which is a comparatively superior church in terms of properly disseminating the Gospel message and maintaining proper Church government. The fact that Ron Paul attends a Baptist church is a cut against him compared to his son, though the strong Lutheran roots that his family has would indicate that he is probably not a full out trustee of Baptist teachings.

2. I didn't say Rand was the perfect Christian, you actually quoted me suggesting just the opposite in the parenthesis further up in your own post. He is comparatively a more educated Christian than anyone else I've seen in recent history, including his own father. Furthermore, I'm not speaking in terms of sufficient Christianity because I'm not a Jesus-only heretic, when Paul states "Milk before meat", I consequently recognize a level of growth in peoples' faith throughout their lives, and it allows me to assess what they would do with great power.

3. Nope, dead wrong. He understands that The Moral Law of a broken covenant in Adam is not something that even the most pious Christian can perfectly keep, hence he says what needs to be said in order to deal with the state of things in a practical fashion. When Jesus gave the Pharisees his classic non-answer to a trap question in "Render unto Caesar", he was not lying or breaking a commandment, he was simply reacting appropriately to corrupt people who would attempt to subvert God's law for their own purposes. Kind of like you, O lone Christian and purveyor of the faith.

4. See my 3rd answer. Your definition of subterfuge applies to several tactics used by Jesus to avoid imprisonment by Rome until the appointed time. If you wish to call Jesus a liar for not speaking about the wickedness of Roman Politics when tempted by the Pharisees, you would be consistent with the standard that you've set here.

5. In other words, only people who think like you and slash a dozen books out of the New Testament are worthy to speak on the matter. I'm glad we're clear on that point yet again.

 

[wizardwatson]

1. I'm waiting for you to point out the actual errors in my exegesis, and I believe I will be waiting for quite a while.

Have some freakin' patience. You post so much garbage I have to sift through just to figure out what I have time to rebut. And you are just one person. There's lies abounding on this forum lately. And it isn't all religious. There's a lot of just plain violent secular people who have been around just as long. You could take Jesus out of your back pocket and help, but I'm not really that optimistic.

2. Yes, foment paranoia about secret conspiracies, let me now when the shuttle lands. And for the record, prior to the advent of modern American Evangelical fanaticism in all its Independent glory, a person needed 3 years of catechism before being considered a properly instructed defender of the faith. This was based on the amount of time that Jesus spent instructing his apostles, and it was maintained through out the history of the church.

Saving faith is easy, putting on the armor and defending the faith properly as a teacher is more an adult's game, and you've yet to grow up my boy.

Never said "conspiracy". Gatekeepers often work alone as they are typically vain. And we've already established that to you growing up means learning that lying is ok even though Jesus said liars will have their place in the lake of fire. I'm not going to rehash everything I've told you unless I think it will benefit the reader, but I will post link to prove that I told you if necessary.

3. High treason against YOUR Christianity, remember who claims to be the only one who has it right here, and it wasn't me. Guilty as charged, tell me my punishment O great purveyor of the truth of the moment.

Thought the conversation was "definitely" worth having? Giving up and resorting to mocking already?

Nothing is resolved here. It's up to the Spirit that works within the reader to decide how the truth will be shown.

 

[hells_unicorn]

1. And here you try to paint yourself as a sheep and me as an obnoxious vain person. I'm not praying, brother, I'm witnessing. This is the verse you are looking for:

2. So this whole "I don't where my religion on my sleeve" thing is BALONEY. How will anyone know about the good news of Christ if we all just keep it to ourselves? You want to use Christ's words to silence Christ.

3. Clever, but predictable. And, of course, always evil.

1. If this is your idea of witnessing, you are going to have a lot of violations of the 9th commandment to answer for come the Day of Judgment. Nevertheless, I didn't call myself a sheep, 10 years of studying systematic theology and catechism puts me more in the subordinate shepherd category. And yes, anybody who boasts of his own unique and peculiar takes on the faith is the biblical definition of obnoxious.

2. I didn't tell you to keep your religion to yourself, I'm attempting to convince you to correct your understanding and your methods, both of which are sadly wanting. I'm not interested in silencing you, I'm interested in you ceasing in misrepresenting the Gospel message. There is no light anywhere in the nonsense that you've been purveying here, nor any glory being brought to God's name.

3. Obnoxious to the core, not to mention an unqualified assertion. You groan on and on about my alleged twisting of scripture, while providing little to no examples except a vague appeal to a passage that speaks to a proper version of evangelism by example that I'm not seeing out of you anywhere.

 

[hells_unicorn]

1. Have some freakin' patience. You post so much garbage I have to sift through just to figure out what I have time to rebut. And you are just one person. There's lies abounding on this forum lately. And it isn't all religious. There's a lot of just plain violent secular people who have been around just as long. You could take Jesus out of your back pocket and help, but I'm not really that optimistic.

2. Never said "conspiracy". Gatekeepers often work alone as they are typically vain. And we've already established that to you growing up means learning that lying is ok even though Jesus said liars will have their place in the lake of fire. I'm not going to rehash everything I've told you unless I think it will benefit the reader, but I will post link to prove that I told you if necessary.

3. Thought the conversation was "definitely" worth having? Giving up and resorting to mocking already? Nothing is resolved here. It's up to the Spirit that works within the reader to decide how the truth will be shown.

1. If you need more time, you can simply say so without the colorful metaphors. And if you have so much other stuff to deal with, where do you find the time to speculate over the supposed wickedness of Ron Paul's son? Busy people don't usually have time for such expansive hobbies.

2. I don't work alone, my arguments are indebted to the study, efforts and trials of centuries of Christians from the early church to the 2nd Reformation. I don't believe in private interpretation (that's Fundy Baptist theology), I test my understanding of the scriptures via the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the church officials that have been faithful to The Word. If you think the entire Magistrate Reformation from Martin Luther to John Knox are gatekeepers working alone, you are sorely mistaken.

3. Mockery is a tool that is employed when standard reasoning has failed, read up on how Isaiah dealt with the priests of Baal for that one. If I consider the conversation between you and myself over, you will not see more posts out of me in response to you.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I agree that it is a breakdown of the family that is one of the root causes, but some "Christians" out there want to use the government to shore up the family, and that is about as rational as using the government to shore up the market.