Rand Paul says U.S. needs a reawakening from "spiritual crisis"

[Feeding the Abscess]

You think that the children living in the brothel were used as props and part of the turn on? Cuz thats what is happening here. Also, think the victorian example is different as it was a natural living situation, not a photoshoot meant simply for gratification of others.

The story said baby stuff, not the babies themselves (aren't they not babies anymore, anyways?).

 

[aksmith]

I agree the country is in a moral crisis. If one wants to extrapolate that and call it a spiritual crisis, I have no objection to that as long as freedom of religion, including the choice to be free from religion or any theological belief is preserved and protected. In my forty-some years on this planet, so far the atheists I have observed have, on average, been more consistently moral than the non-atheists I have observed. Most of them do just fine at being good human beings in spite of believing they are not spiritual beings. And that's fine with me if that's what they choose to believe.

Personally I'm not atheist but I usually find myself siding with atheists when debating religion, because I do not believe in the version of "God" put forth by the Bible. I consider myself a moral, spiritual person, and the problem I have with Bible-thumpers is their tendency to want to legislate morality upon everyone, which is an affront to Liberty. (i.e. Rick Santorum wanting to outlaw pornography, for example, or ridiculous Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.) Keep your mitts off the laws, and stop trying to shove Jesus down my throat after I've asked you to stop, and I have no problem with Christianity.

"Thou shalt not steal," that is consistent with protecting individual Liberty (property rights). No problem for me. Good rule.
"Thou shalt not murder," that is consistent with protecting Liberty (life itself). Again, no problem. Great rule.

Laws that coincide with these Commandments are good laws because they are consistent with the Constitutional principles of Liberty. However, it would be an error in thinking to conclude the laws of this nation were conceived from and designed to emulate Biblical morality. It is coincidence. There's a lot of writings by the Forefathers referencing God, but first and foremost this nation was conceived in Liberty.

While some laws are almost identical to Christian concepts like the two above, other Christian precepts that don't protect anyone's Liberty, and rob people of their Liberty (when those people are not harming anyone or compromising anyone else's Liberty), those kinds of purely religiously based moral concepts have no business being the law.

The only real morality our laws should exist to enforce in a free society is the protection of Life & Liberty. Anything more is authoritarian. Just my opinion.

I am not anti-Bible; there is some good stuff in there even though I regard it as a modern book of myths with no more validity than stories of Zeus. I agree with a lot of the statements attributed to Jesus, even though I don't believe in him. I'm not anti-Christian; I believe wholeheartedly in freedom of religion and I've known a few Christians who are genuinely good people, like the Mormons across the street from me. I think their religious beliefs are nuts, but then they probably would say the same of mine. Nicer people I have never met though.

I am anti-authoritarian; anti-tyranny.

I hope any attempt at a spiritual revival in this country by the Liberty movement keeps freedom of religion always in the forefront of any effort, because this is one of the most vital core concepts to Liberty I can think of. Spirituality, if that just means having good morals, is fine. But try to make this a Christian nation, and you are no longer promoting Liberty. Then it becomes tyranny.

Neither would I try to make this a Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Islam, Zoroastrian, Sufi, or Atheist nation. This nation is supposed to be about Liberty, not any one religion or theological preference.

Just a reminder. Thanks.

Nicely put.

 

[aksmith]

There is no moral or spiritual crisis in this country.

And that's the real point. Saying otherwise is merely pandering to the "Faith and Freedom" coalition types. And frankly, they're interested in faith, but have no interest in freedom. And pandering to them is sickening.

 

[RabbitMan]

You think that the children living in the brothel were used as props and part of the turn on? Cuz thats what is happening here. Also, think the victorian example is different as it was a natural living situation, not a photoshoot meant simply for gratification of others.

One, you don't know that. Two, it shows her surrounded by 'baby stuff'. Not babies. This is pornography, people like weird things, are you going to chastise them because of their turn-ons? Way to cast the first stone.

I'm not religious. And I hate debt. My parents were frugal. You don't need God to have feelings about one thing or the other. Christianity didn't invent an opposition to debt. And I don't mean to sound offensive, but will the Christians in here stop being bigots or parading Ron Paul's abortion opinions as if they were from Jesus himself? We're all friends here, and the message is liberty, or in other words tolerance.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

There is no moral or spiritual crisis in this country.

I would say murdering tens of thousands of babies of a year qualifies as a moral crisis. Not to mention the nonchalant attitude of bombing men, women, and children of other countries. (Which I believe contributes to the lack of morality in our own country) I saw the speech last night on CSPAN and thought it was outstanding. Rand Paul basically reiterated the points I just stated. Live in the city for a while; there would be no question as to whether there's a lack of morality. About six months ago a man was beaten into a coma inside a local gas station. Not only did people record the incident while laughing, not trying to help, they stepped over his unconscious body to pay and leave. These aren't isolated incidences. Especially not in major cities.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

And that's the real point. Saying otherwise is merely pandering to the "Faith and Freedom" coalition types. And frankly, they're interested in faith, but have no interest in freedom. And pandering to them is sickening.

Did you watch the speech? I hardly would consider it pandering.

 

[aksmith]

Did you watch the speech? I hardly would consider it pandering.

Yeah, it's pandering to me. But it may not be pandering to Rand. In fact, it probably isn't because it seems he has more common ground with those folks than I am comfortable with.

He has shown a propensity to fellow travel with the fake religionist crowd. His co-mailings with Dudley Brown, the fake gun rights leader who is more about religion and fundraising than guns, have made me quite suspicious of his character. And his gay remark at a previous religious gathering bothers me.

I can see that his voting record is very good. But his character is what I question.

 

[WhistlinDave]

So you're basically saying that you're ok with Ron, since he claims that he's pro life but still votes against most pro life legislation in Congress. That's the main problem I've had with Ron, although I still supported him in the primary. If you're going to claim to be pro life, then you should actually vote that way as a member of Congress. If you don't vote pro life, then don't claim to be pro life.

But his reasons for voting against various pieces of legislation are not because they limit abortion or limit reproductive choice, but because there are aspects of each piece of legislation that are unconstitutional and/or inconsistent with Liberty... He isn't interested in fixing something halfway or in enacting laws that give a minor, partial victory but that are actually rotten at their core from a Constitutional standpoint. For example, here is what he said about HR 3541, which would've banned parents from having abortions based on not liking the gender of their baby:

“Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues’ revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different gender. However, I cannot support H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional.

Congress’s jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the States in the Roe v. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a Federal issue.

I also cannot support H.R. 3541 because it creates yet another set of Federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three Federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are expressly left to States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by States rather than Congress.

I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a Federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe v. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the States and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new Federal crimes.

Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a “politically incorrect” reason for special Federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support this bill: what is the difference in principle between a Federal law prohibiting “sex selection” abortions and Federal hate crimes laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the perpetrator’s animus toward a particular race or gender.
I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the Nation would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying “It is a violation of Federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus’ gender. Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible under Federal law.”

Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist Federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe v. Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion to the States. “

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

You must be very young. Otherwise, you would be seeing how very far our country has fallen in this regard.

Can you name something that is different?

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I would say murdering tens of thousands of babies of a year qualifies as a moral crisis. Not to mention the nonchalant attitude of bombing men, women, and children of other countries. (Which I believe contributes to the lack of morality in our own country) I saw the speech last night on CSPAN and thought it was outstanding. Rand Paul basically reiterated the points I just stated. Live in the city for a while; there would be no question as to whether there's a lack of morality. About six months ago a man was beaten into a coma inside a local gas station. Not only did people record the incident while laughing, not trying to help, they stepped over his unconscious body to pay and leave. These aren't isolated incidences. Especially not in major cities.

Abortions, wars, and assaults? That's never happened before! Something must really be wrong with this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dahlia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Lake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ng

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombings_of_nagasaki_and_hiroshima

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kehoe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion#In_the_United_States (note the quote from Margaret Sanger about treating a woman who performed an abortion on herself in 1912)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

I'm probably forgetting some stuff.

 

[HigherVision]

Freedom of association is also not the issue here. You are taking it completely out of context.
Abortion is an issue that has nothing at all to do with you.
It's none of you dam business!!
It doesn't displace mass amounts of citizens.
It doesn't burden the taxpayer, the health care system, the education system, welfare system, etc.

It's consistent if you believe in the constitution.

Abortion is an act of initiatory violence against a human being.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Can you name something that is different?

There are a number of things. For example, the number of abortions, the divorce rate, the smut on television, .....

 

[July]

Here's the speech, btw. It's similar to the one he gave in Iowa (minus any gay marriage comments).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BmM8_mWG00

 

[Elfshadow]

There are a number of things. For example, the number of abortions, the divorce rate, the smut on television, .....

Sorry Lib, but I would have to disagree. The diffrences are precieved. We see more of what goes on in the world vs what we used to. Looking back through out history basicaly shows lots of stuff that far excedes the divorce rate or what is shown on tv. One of our wars of agression far far excedes it.

 

[brandon]

I like this guy less and less every day.

 

[brandon]

Abortion is an act of initiatory violence against a human being.

A lot of people don't think a fetus is a human being.

 

[Brett85]

I like this guy less and less every day.

You apparently don't like unborn babies very much either.

 

[Origanalist]

You apparently don't like unborn babies very much either.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Traditional Conservative again.

 

[MRoCkEd]

So Rand just sold out to the christian conservatives too...what a looser. He looks more like a neocon every day since coming out of the closet.

So Christian conservatives, like Ron Paul and many people who support him, are neocons? I thought neocons were the pro-empire social liberals.

A lot of people don't think a fetus is a human being.

Lol.. That's a tough argument to make, that fetuses are non-human. So do they start as some alien or non-human organism and then change species to human as soon as they are removed from the womb?

 

[brandon]

Lol.. That's a tough argument to make,

You're right, it is. But "human being" doesn't necessarily have to be synonymous with homo sapien. Meanings of non-scientific words can vary.