Winning over the religious right

[outspoken]

Just curious how effective RP could be winning over the religious right? I believe I read somewhere that RP has two brothers that are ordained ministers, yes? While I think many Christians are very unChrist-like, I wonder how effect RP could be in getting the neo con war hawks to find that speck of compassion within them that is what in Christian terms is called the holy spirit and loose the advocation of war as a means of bringing about peace in the spirit of Jesus. So much Jesus talk and yet so little Jesus action. Kind of reminds me of the clip of the grinch who's heart grew 10 fold on Christmas day.... is it possible for the war hawks to not only find their hearts but also rationally realize we are broke in large part of trying to police the world over the last 50 years or so?

 

[archangel689]

To behave morally requires free will, if I do not have free will, I cannot behave morally. If you FORCE me to behave morally, I am not behaving morally because I have not chosen to do so. Freedom is paramount to living a moral life. It is a bedrock principal of a moral social teaching.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The premise of your question is faulty.

The anti-war sentiment was strongest when Christianity held much greater cultural sway (the founding).

It is not Christianity that is the cause for war sentiments on the left and the right, it is statism.

 

[RCA]

You're assuming religious people are able to think critically.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You're assuming religious people are able to think critically.

Wow. With posts as ignorant and as crass as this, no wonder "religus" people don't feel welcome in the Liberty movement sometimes.

Keep it up, genius.

Not only that, why don't you pick up a Gordon Clark book about the philosophy of logic and we'll see if you can understand one page of it.

What a stupid post....

 

[Tinnuhana]

Funny how Christians can sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" and know it's not about military war, but can't figure out that to most Muslims, "jihad" is an individual, internal spiritual battle.

 

[RCA]

Wow. With posts as ignorant and as crass as this, no wonder "religus" people don't feel welcome in the Liberty movement sometimes.

Keep it up, genius.

Not only that, why don't you pick up a Gordon Clark book about the philosophy of logic and we'll see if you can understand one page of it.

What a stupid post....

How different would the world be without governments or religions? How many lives would be saved? Like I said, thinking critically is key.

 

[Dave Aiello]

You're assuming religious people are able to think critically.

+Rep.

I find it strange that so many Ron Paul supporters are indeed religious. My logic:

Dr. Paul's ideas are not commonly taught or indoctrinated into people, and therefore one must think independently to formulate libertarian ideologies. Assumption: In order to accept dr. paul's ideas, one must practice independent thought . If you did not think independently, you would just believe whatever ideas you had been indoctrinated with. The only exceptions would be those who were simply told by others to support dr. paul's views, drawing no conclusions for themselves.

So, we assume that Dr. Paul's ideologies attract many free thinkers. Free thinkers, by definition, do not accept ideas that they were indoctrinated with - rather, they develop ideas independent of bias and dogma. Most religious people were "born into" their said religion, and therefore, did not practice free thought with regard to their personal religious conviction. They simply accepted the religion of their parents.

This is why it's strange to me that so many religious people support Dr. Paul. Of course, it's great, but it's a bit perplexing.

 

[LinusVanPelt]

A lot of religious folks come from lower-to-middle class backgrounds and the military is understandably seen as a very noble, stable and well-paying career ambition for the young people among them. Folks whose own children or siblings or best friends are being sent to war don't want to hear that that war is 100% FUBAR.

And among those who enlist, there is a desire to be "strong and silent" and therefore they bottle up a lot of the truth of what they know and see on the ground. That's surely one reason why so many genuinely strong and courageous combat veterans come back with serious emotional and psychological issues.

There is no easy answer to that issue. I got into a real screaming match with one of my best friends a few weeks ago because I couldn't--and can't--get over the fact that we are spending American blood and treasure to create the (doomed anyway) "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan," where conversion to Christianity is a crime punishable by death. Like me, he is a churchgoing Christian, and he supports the Tea Party movement and complains about the federal government, but he simply can't bring himself to admit that our country's military is basically fighting on behalf of a secular, bloody, bureaucratic chaos that is bringing our country to its knees.

So the two of us are at the point where we basically just can't talk about the issue in depth. And I think we're both more conflicted about our respective positions that we let on. After all, I myself am an actual veteran, and I am proud of my service and I love my country dearly. There are other citizens who are strongly anti-war whose general opinions and motivations I oppose vehemently. My anti-war position is not really a humanitarian one; I see it as a matter of genuine patriotism and caring about the future of this country. I honestly don't give a rat's rear end what happens to the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, except for the Christians, who are the ones who will be suffering the most because of the turmoil there. That's the cold truth.

There's just no easy answer.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I find it strange that so many Ron Paul supporters are indeed religious. My logic:

In order to accept dr. paul's ideas, one must practice independent thought. If you did not think independently, you would just believe whatever ideas you had been indoctrinated with. The only exceptions would be those who were simply told by others to support dr. paul's views, drawing no conclusions for themselves.

This reasoning is why it's strange to me that so many evangelicals support Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul is a self professed Christian and a man of faith.

Any other form of "collectivist" labeling of people around here is immediately shouted down as hateful, impolitic and counter productive, with two exceptions.

The religious.

The "truthers".

Then it's open season.

You're assuming religious black people are able to think critically.

How long would that take to get a warning or ban?

Now, are the "evangelicals" hostile to Ron Paul, by and large?

Of course, they booed him for calling Christ "The Prince of Peace".

But still, to make that blanket accusation against people that are here, that have already "seen the light" does no good at all.

 

[LinusVanPelt]

+Rep.

I find it strange that so many Ron Paul supporters are indeed religious. My logic:

In order to accept dr. paul's ideas, one must practice independent thought. If you did not think independently, you would just believe whatever ideas you had been indoctrinated with. The only exceptions would be those who were simply told by others to support dr. paul's views, drawing no conclusions for themselves.

So, let's assume that Dr. Paul's ideologies attract many free thinkers. Free thinkers, by definition, do not accept ideas that they were indoctrinated with - rather, they develop ideas independent of bias and authoritative influences. If you are religious, you were likely "born into" that said religion, and therefore, did not practice free thought with regard to your religious conviction.

This reasoning is why it's strange to me that so many evangelicals support Dr. Paul.

I find it strange that you can write this kind of nonsense depite the knowledge that Ron Paul himself is a believing Christian. It's quite strange that you have designated yourself the arbiter of who can or cannot genuinely "accept dr paul's ideas" while you yourself insult one of Dr. Paul's ideas.

 

[pcosmar]

I find it strange that so many Ron Paul supporters are indeed religious. My logic:

Your logic fails.
Ron Paul is a religious man, and one of his solid and outspoken supporters was Chuck Baldwin. Who he later endorsed.
There are a great many Christians that support Ron, though his faith is only one reason.
Most of them have left this forum due to the rabid atheists and constant bickering.

That is a noticeable loss.

 

[LinusVanPelt]

There are a great many Christians that support Ron, though his faith is only one reason.
Most of them have left this forum due to the rabid atheists and constant bickering.

Well here is one Christian who isn't going anywhere. I'm happy to slap around atheists all day.

I'm convinced that the kind of idiocy exemplified by "RonPaulNation.org" up there is to intentionally discredit Ron Paul and mislead people as to what he's really about.

"RonPaulNation.Org" is probably David Axelrod's nephew or Janeane Garofalo's life-partner or something.

 

[RCA]

I should have explained my statement better. First off, I should have said "most" religious people can't think critically. Obviously Ron Paul can. He's obviously come to a logical conclusion that Christianity is a sound system of beliefs. However, most of the religious people I've seen or been around tend to be very "stand-offish" about ANYTHING that goes against any of their paradigms such as politics, heath, economics, etc. My theory is that these people accept their religion without first giving it an ounce of logical scrutiny, hence lacking the ability to critically think. Sure there are secular people who also can't think critically, but they aren't as easy to spot.

 

[silentshout]

Your logic fails.
Ron Paul is a religious man, and one of his solid and outspoken supporters was Chuck Baldwin. Who he later endorsed.
There are a great many Christians that support Ron, though his faith is only one reason.
Most of them have left this forum due to the rabid atheists and constant bickering.

That is a noticeable loss.

To be fair, religious people can be quite "rabid" to non-believers as well. But I wouldn't leave a forum if someone attacked my non-belief. (which happens quite often.)

That being said, it is a shame if supporters of Ron Paul left a Ron Paul forum because they felt alienated. I think it's great when people from all belief systems can come together and support someone.

 

[emazur]

I bookmarked Gunny's response to this - not only does it sound good (even from my atheist perspective), but it seems to have worked for him since he got elected:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Evangelicals&p=2648396&viewfull=1#post2648396
As for the debate going on here, religion can be used as a force for freedom or a drive towards tyranny. One one hand, you've got people like Paul/Woods/Napolitano who argue that our rights were given to us by our Creator or that they are natural born rights (they always mention Creator but only sometimes say natural born - I wish they would always say both so as not to isolate atheists but that's just my nitpick). On the other hand you've got Obama who uses "you-are-your-brother's keeper" Christianity as an excuse to achieve socialist goals, and influential reverends that have the audacity to claim a preemptive on Iraq is acceptable under the Christian just-war theory and there are even religious nut Christians that borderline worshipped Bush Jr. But like religion, atheism can be used as a force for freedom or a drive towards tyranny. Ayn Rand and Stefan Molyneux are staunch atheists who advocate to maximize individualism and minimize government's influence on our lives. On the other hand, you had people like Marx who criticized religion as an opiate of the masses while replacing it with statism, and you've got people like Mao who forced the abolition of religion.

Since both religion and atheism can lead to statism or libertarianism, I'd suggest that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. It will only serve to divide the liberty movement. If you are going to debate it, keep it civil and friendly and don't represent your position as "the" position of the liberty movement, and keep it in the proper forum.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Worked for Huckabee in his run for the brass ring... Kenneth Copeland Ministries: http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/huckabee-copeland

I bookmarked Gunny's response to this - not only does it sound good (even from my atheist perspective), but it seems to have worked for him since he got elected:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Evangelicals&p=2648396&viewfull=1#post2648396
As for the debate going on here, religion can be used as a force for freedom or a drive towards tyranny. One one hand, you've got people like Paul/Woods/Napolitano who argue that our rights were given to us by our Creator or that they are natural born rights (they always mention Creator but only sometimes say natural born - I wish they would always say both so as not to isolate atheists but that's just my nitpick). On the other hand you've got Obama who uses "you-are-your-brother's keeper" Christianity as an excuse to achieve socialist goals, and influential reverends that have the audacity to claim a preemptive on Iraq is acceptable under the Christian just-war theory and there are even religious nut Christians that borderline worshipped Bush Jr. But like religion, atheism can be used as a force for freedom or a drive towards tyranny. Ayn Rand and Stefan Molyneux are staunch atheists who advocate to maximize individualism and minimize government's influence on our lives. On the other hand, you had people like Marx who criticized religion as an opiate of the masses while replacing it with statism, and you've got people like Mao who forced the abolition of religion.

Since both religion and atheism can lead to statism or libertarianism, I'd suggest that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. It will only serve to divide the liberty movement. If you are going to debate it, keep it civil and friendly and don't represent your position as "the" position of the liberty movement, and keep it in the proper forum.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I am drawn to a liberty message mostly BECAUSE of my faith.
My faith is what causes me to fear a one-world government, governmental tracking of who owns guns, to have a National ID card, business regulations, etc. I believe that the day will come again that people of my faith (Christians) will be openly persecuted, incarcerated and even executed by the state. I don't like the idea that this nation that I love, that values freedom, can become a police state that dictates your thoughts and actions.

 

[JohnEngland]

You're assuming religious people are able to think critically.

Tom Woods. Lew Rockwell. Jeff Tucker. All Catholics. All von Mises people.

I suggest you drop the neo-atheist talking points and junk stereotypes about Christians. Dare I say, you should "think critically"?

 

[JohnEngland]

+Rep.

I find it strange that so many Ron Paul supporters are indeed religious. My logic:

Dr. Paul's ideas are not commonly taught or indoctrinated into people, and therefore one must think independently to formulate libertarian ideologies. Assumption: In order to accept dr. paul's ideas, one must practice independent thought . If you did not think independently, you would just believe whatever ideas you had been indoctrinated with. The only exceptions would be those who were simply told by others to support dr. paul's views, drawing no conclusions for themselves.

So, we assume that Dr. Paul's ideologies attract many free thinkers. Free thinkers, by definition, do not accept ideas that they were indoctrinated with - rather, they develop ideas independent of bias and dogma. Most religious people were "born into" their said religion, and therefore, did not practice free thought with regard to their personal religious conviction. They simply accepted the religion of their parents.

This is why it's strange to me that so many religious people support Dr. Paul. Of course, it's great, but it's a bit perplexing.

I think the problem in your logic is that it is based on false assumptions. Religious people, believe it or not, are capable of free thinking! We're not mindless drones, obeying our wise masters, as much as polemicists like Dawkins and Hitchens would like you to believe.

In fact, I think being Catholic has opened my eyes and mind to great possibilities that wouldn't be possible with the blinders of atheism.