Since Ron Paul will not run in Nov. can we support Chuck Baldwin on the grassroots?

As Christians, do we really believe God's law gives consent to porn an gambling, or that God is not victimized by the violation of His law, or misuse of creation for purposes contrary to His will?

Also, I believe the solution is simple. If you believe God doesn't want you to do something, then just don't do it. A Libertarian government will give you the freedom to follow God's word without interference from the government.

God commanded individual Christians to follow the Bible. He didn't command them to compel ME to follow their perceptions of what God dictated.

I've noticed that people do a poor job of interpreting God's will. Surely you've noticed how many Christian denominations there are. Should Seventh Day Adventists be compelled to worship on Sunday because the majority deems that to be the proper Christian sabbath? Should Baptists be compelled to take communion with real wine if the majority decides that is what the Bible dictates?

Sorry, but I believe it's very dangerous to legislate morality based on the opinion of the majority. We should have a free country, not a theocracy.
 
When the romans were gambling at Jesus feet, and people were laughing at him, he said "forgive them Father, they know not what they do." However, he was NOT talking about the gambling, he was talking about the moching. Therefor, Jesus, in the face of gambling, didn't condemn it.
 
Baldwin isn't a statist. He's certainly not a statist when compared to Obama or McCain. I do think he has statist leanings, especially at the state level.

Ah ok. I was just a little confused because you are saying something different now than you were saying a few pages back in this thread. You know, when you called Baldwin a statist, and accused him of being a states rights guy simply because the federal government prevents states from being statist enough. ;)
Yet you haven't said the same of Barr, when clearly that seems to be the issue with him as well, going by your logic.

In the larger scheme of things, there really isn't that much different between the two candidates in rhetoric. When people accuse Baldwin of being a theocrat, they conveniently overlook the fact that Barr is just as socially conservative at the state level. I guess its all about which letter they have next to their name.
 
Ah ok. I was just a little confused because you are saying something different now than you were saying a few pages back in this thread. You know, when you called Baldwin a statist, and accused him of being a states rights guy simply because the federal government prevents states from being statist enough. ;)
Yet you haven't said the same of Barr, when clearly that seems to be the issue with him as well, going by your logic.

In the larger scheme of things, there really isn't that much different between the two candidates in rhetoric. When people accuse Baldwin of being a theocrat, they conveniently overlook the fact that Barr is just as socially conservative at the state level. I guess its all about which letter they have next to their name.

I think you're mixing up the posts discussing poker rights vs the ones discussing overall positions.
 
Also, I believe the solution is simple. If you believe God doesn't want you to do something, then just don't do it. A Libertarian government will give you the freedom to follow God's word without interference from the government.

God commanded individual Christians to follow the Bible. He didn't command them to compel ME to follow their perceptions of what God dictated.

I've noticed that people do a poor job of interpreting God's will. Surely you've noticed how many Christian denominations there are. Should Seventh Day Adventists be compelled to worship on Sunday because the majority deems that to be the proper Christian sabbath? Should Baptists be compelled to take communion with real wine if the majority decides that is what the Bible dictates?

Sorry, but I believe it's very dangerous to legislate morality based on the opinion of the majority. We should have a free country, not a theocracy.

Why can't we have a localist solution as Paul recommends, where Adventist communities can have things their way, and other communities things their way? Are you binding ALL communities to never have self-determination to decides these things on their own, or do you prefer compelling THEM to follow your construction of how things should work? Some freedom.

Just as gravity is real whether you believe in it or not, God's law and property interests are real concerning His creation. The Bible (that Christians are to follow) says God is the ruler of the nations. That means His law IS already in force and binding on all peoples of all nations. Upon the return of Christ, yes, we will all be openly subject to His laws. in the explicit earthly manifestation of His Kingdom. It will be BOTH free AND biblically theocratic, instead of the largely unfree, humanist theocracy we have now.
 
Why can't we have a localist solution as Paul recommends, where Adventist communities can have things their way, and other communities things their way? Are you binding ALL communities to never have self-determination to decides these things on their own, or do you prefer compelling THEM to follow your construction of how things should work? Some freedom.

Just as gravity is real whether you believe in it or not, God's law and property interests are real concerning His creation. The Bible (that Christians are to follow) says God is the ruler of the nations. That means His law IS already in force and binding on all peoples of all nations. Upon the return of Christ, yes, we will all be openly subject to His laws. in the explicit earthly manifestation of His Kingdom. It will be BOTH free AND biblically theocratic, instead of the largely unfree, humanist theocracy we have now.

Wow! Freedom and liberty are "compelling THEM (i.e., those who want to restrict my liberty) to follow my construction"? So, if you wish to control what I do in my own home and I advocate for liberty, you see me as the bad party for not supporting your "freedom" to tell me what to do?!?!?!? That's rather convoluted.

Also, you really think a community of 51% Southern Baptists, for example, should be able to pass any laws they see fit to enforce their religious ideas, including laws governing on which day the sabbath falls? That sounds like the Gravel version of collectivism to me.

Another problem with theocrats is that they ALL add their own ideas to the laws they pass, based on what they think is moral. For example, you implied that God wouldn't permit me to play poker. More specifically, you implied that God wants you to use the power of government to stop me from playing poker. So, please show me where God said this. I'll bet you can't. Rather, I'll bet your relying on your personal ideas of morality.

You have a right to advocate for your theocratic vision, but I do wonder what that has to do with Ron Paul's vision for America.
 
I think you're mixing up the posts discussing poker rights vs the ones discussing overall positions.

Ah I see. Silly me. You used statist in a general sense and gave no indication you were only talking about gambling in that post. Not that it really matters anyway, I just like to see people intellectually honest :D
 
Baldwin is NOT a theocrat. that's an incorrect assumption. Barr however, is as neocon as can be.

Could you explain why Barr is a neocon? As far as I know, he's changed. I used to think like a neocon, and I would hope if I ever ran for office, you wouldn't hold it against me.
 
Would rather vote for a former neocon than a guy who puts eliminating porno as America's #1 priority.
 
Wow! Freedom and liberty are "compelling THEM (i.e., those who want to restrict my liberty) to follow my construction"? So, if you wish to control what I do in my own home and I advocate for liberty, you see me as the bad party for not supporting your "freedom" to tell me what to do?!?!?!? That's rather convoluted.

Also, you really think a community of 51% Southern Baptists, for example, should be able to pass any laws they see fit to enforce their religious ideas, including laws governing on which day the sabbath falls? That sounds like the Gravel version of collectivism to me.

Another problem with theocrats is that they ALL add their own ideas to the laws they pass, based on what they think is moral. For example, you implied that God wouldn't permit me to play poker. More specifically, you implied that God wants you to use the power of government to stop me from playing poker. So, please show me where God said this. I'll bet you can't. Rather, I'll bet your relying on your personal ideas of morality.

You have a right to advocate for your theocratic vision, but I do wonder what that has to do with Ron Paul's vision for America.

It is Ron Paul's vision that sorting out personal liberty issues should be handled locally, and the different positions reached should be respected. If people in Nevada set up a Red Light District, fine. If Southern Baptists elsewhere prevail and retain blue laws, fine. One size does NOT fit all. What I resist is your self-defined positioning as one defending "liberty and freedom," when it actually impacts on other people as tyranny. Some people think gambling is NOT victimless behavior, others do---so let's not be monopolistic.

Should Altantic City dictate its values to the Bible Belt, or the Bible Belt to San Francisco? Let different communities figure this out, instead of imposing your notions about "my views about personal freedom are the right ones, the other side's are theocratic." It's a bit more complicated than that. All governments are theocratic, either expressing Man or God as the ultimate or superceding authority. Under the post-Christian era of government we are a LOT less free than we were when the country and state was more openly Christian, and more decentralized. It is authoritarianism as expressed by the social left or the religious right that creates problems, not the recognition or the acknowledgement of God.
 
Last edited:
Ah I see. Silly me. You used statist in a general sense and gave no indication you were only talking about gambling in that post. Not that it really matters anyway, I just like to see people intellectually honest :D

I said Baldwin seems to have statist tendencies in personal matters, such as gambling and pornography. He does, per his own speeches.

I do think Baldwin is more statist in these types of matters than Barr is. Of the top four candidates (the polls fluctuate.....I'm assuming Nader is #5 for this), for liberty regarding personal matters I'd put Barr first, followed by Baldwin (mainly because he wants to free us of federal tyranny in many areas), Obama, and McCain.
 
It is Ron Paul's vision that sorting out personal liberty issues should be handled locally, and the different positions reached should be respected. If people in Nevada set up a Red Light District, fine. If Southern Baptists elsewhere prevail and retain blue laws, fine. One size does NOT fit all. What I resist is your self-defined positioning as one defending "liberty and freedom," when it actually impacts on other people as tyranny. Some people think gambling is NOT victimless behavior, others do---so let's not be monopolistic.

Should Atlantic City dictate its values to the Bible Belt, or the Bible Belt to San Francisco? Let different communities figure this out, instead of imposing your notions about "my views about personal freedom are the right ones, the other side's are theocratic." It's a bit more complicated than that. All governments are theocratic, either expressing Man or God as the ultimate or superseding authority. Under the post-Christian era of government we are a LOT less free than we were when the country and state was more openly Christian, and more decentralized. It is authoritarianism as expressed by the social left or the religious right that creates problems, not the recognition or the acknowledgment of God.

So, if I choose play poker in my own home on my own computer with my own money and you don't like it, that constitutes tyranny because you feel you should have the right to stop everyone in your community from playing poker, so long as you can get 50% + 1 to concur? The problem with this position is that if 50% + 1 decide your religion is "dangerous" to the rights of others (i.e., gay rights, women's rights, how you raise your children), for example, you'd permit that 50% + 1 to impose its values on you?!?!?

I submit to you that true freedom and liberty are best for families and for religious freedom.

"It is Ron Paul's vision that sorting out personal liberty issues should be handled locally, and the different positions reached should be respected."

While I believe that is Baldwin's position, I don't believe that's Ron Paul's position. Can you provide a quote or a citation?
 
Where does he mention it on his website?

Barr is pretty concerned about telling gays what to do, so maybe that is Barr's number one priority.

From the CP website, at www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Pornography:

Pornography


Samuel Adams said: "While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

and, regarding gays:

Family

No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations, as affirmed by the 10th amendment, delegating to the people as our founders understood the family as necessary to the general welfare. We affirm the importance of Biblical scripture in the founders' intent as eloquently stated by Noah Webster: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitution and laws… All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts in the Bible."

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.
 
From the CP website, at www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Pornography:

Pornography


Samuel Adams said: "While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

and, regarding gays:

Family

No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations, as affirmed by the 10th amendment, delegating to the people as our founders understood the family as necessary to the general welfare. We affirm the importance of Biblical scripture in the founders' intent as eloquently stated by Noah Webster: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitution and laws… All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts in the Bible."

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

Cool. But this has nothing to do with Chuck Baldwin.
 
Back
Top