Voddie Baucham answers, “Why Ron Paul?”
Reprinted in its entirety from Voddie’s blog.
“Why Ron Paul?” by Voddie Baucham
Voddie, because I have a great respect for you and your opinion I would really like to know why you are voting for Ron Paul ? I have not liked some of the things I have heard him say and I am wondering if I missed something?” -Pamela Wolfe (via Facebook Fan Page)
Since posting a passing comment on my Facebook fan page about Ron Paul, I have been inundated with questions and concerns about my support of the Texas Congressman in the current Republican Primary race. In one of my many political posts (frequently, I post videos, news articles, etc., in an effort to show the importance and influence of worldview), I simply stated that I voted for Dr. Paul in the last election, and planned to vote for him again.
The result was hundreds of comments; more than any other post I’ve ever submitted. Most of the comments were positive. However, several were extremely negative. Some vowed never to follow, or support my ministry any further, while others simply communicated their dismay. Still others, like today’s questioner, just asked honest questions. As a result, I’ve decided to explain my position, and this seemed like the best place to do it.
Let me say ahead of time that I do not believe that politics will save America. Nor do I believe there are any perfect candidates. There never have been, and there never will be. Moreover, it is not my goal to answer every objection to the Paul candidacy as I know that there are those who, for various reasons, will not be persuaded, and more importantly, that’s not my job. My goal here is to offer insight in to my own reasoning as I wade through another political season and make a personal choice.
I. Ron Paul is a Christian Conservative
While I am not looking for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” it is important to me that the man for whom I cast my vote be a Christian, if at all possible. And though I recognize that there is not always a clear Christian choice (i.e., the 2008 election), I agree with Chief Justice John Jay who wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”[1] For indeed, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe.”[2] John Witherspoon concurs: “Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to [public office] are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly.”[3] I think we are seeing this on display right now.[4]
My desire is not to see a president who will usurp the authority, responsibilities, or privileges of the Church. However, I do not wish to see those things hindered either. I also want to know that the foundational ideology motivating a man’s decisions is biblical. I know it will not always mirror my own, but I trust God’s word, and appreciate those who look to it for aid in making decisions. To that end, I support Dr. Paul because he is not just a conservative, but a Christian Conservative.
Dr. Paul does not beat his Christian faith like a drum in his public/political life. Unfortunately, that is off-putting for the “Christian Right”. However, in a world full of ‘posturing’ in an effort to win over evangelicals, I find Paul’s public demeanor refreshing. And it is not as though he is a ‘closet Christian,’ either. “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate,” wrote Paul on his Web site.[5] I have also had the privilege of talking with both him, and one of his five children about his faith and how it influences his policy positions.
Nevertheless, the more important aspect is the fact that this Southern Baptist (raised Lutheran) is a regular church attender. What would motivate a man to attend church, but not beat a drum about it in an effort to win over evangelicals in an age when political figures play at Christianity (while living totally contradictory lives, and holding heterodox beliefs) in order to assuage the fears of the Christian Right? Having met and talked to Dr. Paul, I would say it is authenticity, and humility more than anything else. He wants “to avoid any appearance of exploiting [his faith] for political gain.”[6]
II. Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative
Not only is Ron Paul a Christian Conservative; he is also a Constitutional Conservative. He holds himself accountable to the Constitution of the United States, even when it means he has to vote against legislation that may be otherwise beneficial. This has cost him on numerous occasions as people use the “Ron Paul voted against so-and-so” tactic to paint a caricature of him and play “gotcha” politics.
This is actually an important quality in a President. I don’t want a man in the White House making decisions based on what “feels” right. I’m not looking for a conscientious King; I want a Chief Executive. I want a man whose decisions are predictable because of a long track record of constitutional conservatism. I may not always agree with a man like that, but I will always know why he did what he did, and I can live with that. Especially in several crucial areas facing our Republic, like money, war, States’ Rights, and foreign policy, for example.
Constitutional Money
I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of money. He is the only candidate consistently to confront the Federal Reserve Bank (which is not federal, has no reserves, and is not a bank), and address the issue of fiat currency (a.k.a. unjust weights and measures; Lev 19:36; Prov 16:11), which debases the dollar, manipulates business cycles, creates inflation, and always benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. And he talks about the issue in just those terms.
Congressman Paul is also the only candidate who has a budget that will cut a TRILLION DOLLARS in spending in year one.[7] He is the only candidate who has committed to defund and eliminate expensive, unconstitutional agencies. This is crucial for a country headed for an economic cliff. Our debt is larger than our GDP and we simply must address it NOW (Luke 14:28)! This is arguably the most important issue we face, and while others want to tinker with the status quo, Dr. Paul wants to do the hard thing; the right thing; the biblical thing; the constitutional thing.
Constitutional War
I support Ron Paul because he is a military veteran (yup… he refuses to beat that drum too, which is why you may not have known that little tidbit). And though I do not believe it is necessary for a man to have served in the military for him to serve as President, the fact that Congressman Paul knows and hates war lends credibility to his desire and commitment to ending the wars and bringing our troops home. Moreover, he has a constitutional understanding of war (only Congress can send us to war), and a Christian commitment to historic Just War Theory (rooted in the Sixth Commandment… HIS WORDS).[8] He, unlike other candidates, can be counted on not to commit to acts of war without congressional authority (i.e., unilaterally deciding to bomb a sovereign nation if they advance their weapons technology in a region several thousand miles away from the U.S., under the watchful eye of a nation with over 300 nukes who can stop them in a heartbeat… but I digress).
There is a reason Dr. Paul has received more support from members of the military than all other candidates (Republican and Democrat) COMBINED! The top three employers of Ron Paul’s donors are the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively. Dr. Paul will not use our military to hunt down and overthrow heads of state without Congressional authority (i.e., Libya), kill American citizens without warrant,[9] detain citizens indefinitely without benefit of a trial,[10] or chase warlords in central Africa.[11] When it comes to war, Dr. Paul understands that, “Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.” (Proverbs 26:17)
Constitutional States’ Rights
I support Ron Paul because he not only understands, but believes in the Tenth Amendment. I know many Christians have been scared off by the “Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs, gay marriage, and abortion” rhetoric. However, looking beyond the rhetoric reveals Paul’s true constitutional conservatism (and biblical understanding of jurisdiction). He has personal convictions, but those will not be allowed to steer him away from his constitutional oath. The presidency, and the Federal Government have limits.
The President is not “Pastor in Chief.” It is not the President’s job (or the job of the Federal Government) to set such policies. The “War on Drugs,” for example, has been a monumental, unconstitutional, fiscal failure (to the tune of more than $3 BILLION)![12] The Federal Government must be held within the confines of its enumerated powers. This is important for Christians because we will not always have people in the White House with whom we agree (in fact, politicians will always let us down). What happens when we send a man to the White House with the express purpose of “changing the moral standards” of America in our favor, then, down the line we have a president who uses the same un-cheked powers to promote moral standards with which we disagree? How’s that workin’ for ya’?
But what about the moral issues to which we, as Christians, must speak? First, we must speak to them at the local level. I have no right to look to Washington, D.C. for remedies when I am not preaching on Mars Hill at every opportunity. The Roe v. Wade, for example, started in Texas; not D.C.. Furthermore, there is not a single institution more prolific in the spread of moral decay than the government education system, and Ron Paul is the only man who plans to get the federal government out of that business by ending the (unconstitutional) Department of Education IMMEDIATELY (Luke 6:40).
Beyond that, if there are issues we wish to address on a federal level, we have a federal remedy, and it is not the election of a President; it is the amendment process. This is less favorable to those who do not wish to do the hard work of changing hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas. However, the alternative is a quasi-monarchy (or oligarchy) that changes with the wind, and a view of the presidency that is both unbiblical and unconstitutional.
Constitutional Foreign Policy
I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of foreign policy. Ironically, our foreign policy has been so unconstitutional for so long that many people recoil at the idea of getting it back in line. Moreover, the semantic game Paul’s opponents play (using “isolationism” as opposed to “non-intervention” to define his position) doesn’t help. For most Christians, this is where they believe I’ve left the reservation. They may not say, “We have to be the world’s police force,” but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “Do you know his position on Israel?” “Surely you can’t support a man who doesn’t support Israel!”
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Ron Paul does support Israel. It is our current foreign policy that does not support Israel! However, there is a deeper issue here. There is a sort of misplaced Dispensationalism that governs people’s sentimental attitude toward Israel. Let me state clearly that I do not believe the Bible demands that the U.S. support Israel. I do, however, believe that it is wise to do so for geopolitical reasons. To do so for theological reasons, I believe, is actually misguided, and quite dangerous. Nevertheless, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East, and that is important.
But there’s a more important question: “What does it mean to “support” Israel?” Does it mean that Israel remains God’s “Chosen People,” and we must stand with them in anticipation of the coming Armageddon? Is the President to act as “Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces” and “Supreme Defender of Israel”? Or are we simply to make sure the foreign aid dollars don’t stop flowing? Here are a few things I took into to consideration in evaluating Congressman Paul’s foreign policy.
- Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East… BY A LONG SHOT! In fact, Israel could potentially defeat all the other military powers in the Middle East simultaneously if they had to.
- We not only give money to Israel; we give money to their enemies as well. That is not supporting Israel! That is using money to buy influence in a region thousands of miles away from us in the name of oil, when we happen to have the largest repository of oil on planet earth right here in the US, but refuse to go and get it (in the name of Earth-worshipping environmentalism)!
- Israel is a sovereign nation, and we have no right to treat her like a child. Our foreign aid has been a tool used to influence Israel’s domestic policy for far too long. If we are their friends, we should allow them to exercise their sovereignty without our interference, and certainly without our condemnation. Who do we think we are? No, I disagree with my Christian brothers and sisters who think a country who supports Israel’s enemies, interferes with Israel’s domestic policy, condemn’s Israel in efforts to keep ties with oil-rich countries in the region, and helps to destabilize and radicalize one of Israel’s historic foes lurking on her southern boarder is engaging in a foreign policy that supports Israel.
III. Ron Paul is a Consistent Conservative
Finally, I support Dr. Paul because he has been a consistent conservative. He has been married to the same woman for more than fifty years; delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB; never performed a single abortion; has never voted for an unbalanced budget, a tax increase, or a bailout; forecasted the economic debacle long before it happened;[13] and gave back $140,000 last year through his office to pay down the national debt (100,000 in 2010). This man is so principled that he refuses to claim his congressional pension!
Ron Paul is the real deal. He is not perfect. He needs a savior just like you and I do (as noted by his trust in Christ as his redeemer). But when it’s all said and done, he is a man with whom I agree in principle. I know where he’s coming from, and it’s not based on his “personal story,” or his sense of what’s going to get him elected. It’s the same thing he’s been running on (and governing from) for over three decades; the Constitution of the United States (viewed through the lens of a basic biblical world and life view). And I’m glad to support a man like that.
_______________________________________________________________________________
[1] The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., New York: Burt Franklin, 1970, 4:393 [to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816].
[2] The Papers of James Madison, Robert Rutland, ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, Vol. 8, pp. 299, 304, June 20, 1785; cited in Barton, p. 120.
[3] Witherspoon, Works, Edinburgh, J. Ogle, 1815, IV:266-67, from “A Sermon Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving after Peace.”
[4] I realize that President Obama professes Christianity. However, his theology, as well as the theology of the church he attended for more than twenty years is heterodox (committed to neo-marxist, Black Liberation Theology. There is little in his worldview that commends his profession of faith.
[5] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/
[7] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o
[9] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml
[10] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
[11] http://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00014859.html
[12] http://actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml
[13] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o
Well-written.
Gosh, thank you so much for taking the time to share this! I have been praying on my decision and will trust the Lord and vote for my Christian Brother. Wishing we could get Ron and Mike Huckabee to team up…
Thank you so much for writing this well, thought-out peice. This is an amazing summary and I will share this with as many people as I can.
Excellent article and all of it spot on true!
I WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT RON PAUL!
Boy, that really hit it on the head. I agree 100% with this assessment. It’s pretty frustrating to see Dr. Paul mischaracterized constantly.
Excellent piece. I always like when someone actually cites their works and you have done so with utmost care. Thank you.
Ron Paul's "consistent conservatism" would have put him on the side of the Confederates, brother.
Please, that conjecture is presuming far too much, and is simply indefensible opinion. Thousands of Conversvative Christians fell on both sides of that horrible and senseless struggle.
Let me put it this way, if you're going to say x, then show why, or don't make things up.
Saying that he would be on the side of the Confederates is very misleading and probably even inaccurate. When one hears that Dr. Paul would have joined with the Confederates, one's mind automatically jumps to the idea that Ron Paul supports slavery, which Dr. Paul does not. To even hint at the idea is unfounded and antithetical to everything he believes. He actually believes that the failure to abolish slavery within the constitution was a great misfortune; additionally, maintaining slavery in the constitution was a horrible case of democracy winning over the principles of liberty, freedom, and justice on which the constitution was supposed to be based.
We've demonized the Confederates because they were in support (most of the states) of continuing slavery. The war broke out, however, primarily because the south wanted to break off from the union, exerting their rights as states. Technically, it was their right to do so. But that is what brought us to war; the Civil War wasn't as simplistic as it's painted in public schools these days: That if you hated slavery you were with the North, and if you loved slavery and hated African Americans you supported the South. No, it was much more complicated than that.
However, you may be misconstruing Dr. Paul's statements that the Civil War was an unnecessary war. Many people see the Civil War as The Battle Over Slavery, thinking that the Civil War was absolutely necessary to abolishing slavery. Dr. Paul's point, however, is that the bloodiest war in our nation's history was unnecessary because we should have been able to deal with the issue diplomatically and civilly instead of through warfare. After all, Britain abolished slavery peacefully. The point is that war is not the best tool to solve as many issues as we've attempted to solve with it; instead problems are exacerbated, and the result is prolific death and destruction. Take current/recent history for example.
Sorry djh, I meant to reply to Jack Brooks, not you.
That war had nothing to do with slavery. That war was fought for economic reasons. Lincoln's whole political career was concerned with establishing Henry Clay's so-called American System. The vehicle was the Whig and Republican parties. It involved corporate welfare, high tariffs (that southerners bore the brunt of), protections for northern manufacturers, a central bank (that helped the wealthy and connected), and centralization of power at the national level.
The southern states knew that a Lincoln presidency meant a much higher tariff was coming. They were right because tariffs went to close to 70% by the mid-1860's. Lincoln's Republican party needed the tariffs from the southern ports. Most of the ports were in the south. The fed. govt. collected most of its revenue from southern ports. Lincoln couldn't allow the southern states to secede because his corporatist American System wouldn't have been possible without those port tariffs in the south.
Governments lie about their history.
I agree.
Jack Brooks wrote: "Ron Paul's "consistent conservatism" would have put him on the side of the Confederates, brother."
The Confederate States of America were not evil, they simply lost the war and the right to write history. We make the Civil War all about the terrible practice of slavery and though it played a role it was not the cause. There were philosophical and economic differences and the Southern States chose to secede from the Federal Government as allowed under the Constitution. The voluntary association between the various States was just that – Voluntary – and as a member each State agreed to abide by the rules of the association, and those rules allowed any State the Right to give up their membership if and when they saw fit. This ability to withdraw was paramount to many States at the adoption of the Constitution, but when the South decided to dissolve their affiliation the North, under Abraham Lincoln, chose to deny them their withdrawal rights. That denial by the "Union" was un-Constitutional. So now we insert Dr. Ron Paul's stance on Constitutional governance and the South would have withdrawn, formed a new nation and lived in peace alongside the North. A war killing nearly 620,000 Americans would have been avoided along with tremendous amounts of property damage and economic losses. This would have left slavery in place for the unforeseeable future, in the South, and I'd hope moral viewpoints would have dissolved it sooner rather than later. I believe Lincoln's desire to preserve the Union caused him to violate the supreme document upon which all our laws were based, the Constitution. During the war he illegally detained citizens and violated the 10th amendment, paving the way for diminished rights for States and subsequently your individual liberties. The South made one major error, they fired the first shot giving the North a reason to retaliate. Ron Paul, using principles from our 'Founders', would have avoided a major loss of life by honoring that document that every soldier and Federal elected official swears an oath to Uphold, Defend & Protect. Most politicians take the oath… few keep it. The current un-Constitutional system is either for the Welfare State or the Warfare State, I would like to return to the Constitutional State. Only Ron Paul takes that stand. Does that place Paul on the side of the Confederacy? No! It does place him on the side of the Constitution where each and every American should be, but sadly they are not. Congress and the Administration are no where near the Constitution and the Judiciary is in jeopardy. If not Ron Paul, then who?
PS: I admire Lincoln, he served during an extremely difficult time for our country. I understand, but don't necessarily agree with every decision he made. Perhaps a smaller USA alongside a CSA would have produced two strong allies and an altered worldview? Speculating on outcomes based on alternate choices is food for thought… not rock solid proof.
Rev. Baucham:
As a fellow evangelical pastor, I appreciate your thoughtful article giving your rationale for supporting Ron Paul. I have also met with Dr. Paul on several occasions, and have likewise found him to be a humble and sincere Christian man. As such, he is highly principled, loves our country and ardently follows the law of the land – the Constitution. I challenge Christian pastors to step out of the cowardly shadows of "neutrality" and to boldly commend Dr. Paul to their congregations. A mobilized and revivalized church can lead our country back to lawfulness and righteousness! Dr. David Paul Schnittger
Thank you for your boldness in speaking the truth!
Hello Pastor Schnittger.
I agree with all of what you said, however, I wish to express my view about the last sentance. Sin (since the fall of man in the garden) is the reason why this nation, and the whole world, is in the turmoil it's in now, and it will only get worse the closer Jesus' return is. The only way the Church can lead our country back to lawfulness and righteousness is to preach the law (the Ten Commandments) and the gospel for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46-47) and all of our adequacy is in and found in Christ. If we want a revival in the church, then we must also preach the gospel to ourselves because we need it just as much as unbelievers do.
It's not our job to convert or change people, but we are to be faithful in telling them the Bad and Good News. God does the rest.
Take care.
Leah, you need to go to americanvision.com, and click on Eschatology on the right. While most of us do agree with your assessment that only Jesus will save this country and the people in it, most of us don't believe that it's going to get worse as it gets closer to Jesus' return.
I would assume that the Pastor does agree with you, too. But, many of the lawlessness that is going on within our government is something that the Church could put a stop to. If we know that we could do something and we don't, that's a sin. As for the Church leading this country, that's very true. If we take up the mantle of justice we can lead this country, and maybe the lost will see that Christianity is not just Sunday morning clubhouse that so many churches have been treating it as. God willing the lost will take the Church seriously and listen to what we have to say.
Absolutely right! Which is shocking, really. I seriously thought I was alone among Christians (except for a few other libertarian nuts) who think this way. Thanks.
Perhaps you ought to be asking yourself why you are in agreement with libertarian nuts.
It's good to ask the question, yes. But you seem to be prematurely concluding that Cindy is a nut. Always test your own position, but rely upon honest conclusions, not biased or presumptuous ones. And no, Cindy, you're far from alone on this.
It's the establishment and all of its apologists that are nuts. When they call you nuts, it's a good indication that you are sane.
I wonder if we aren't chasing after the wrong Israel. Is the Israel that Paul refers to throughout Romans the same Israel of the Old Testament? Isn't there a spiritual Israel?
The modern day state of Israel was founded by secular socialists, not the descendants of Aaron. If the modern day state of Israel is still God's chosen people, then God will protect them or deliver them into judgement. Abortion is common In Israel, and Tel Aviv is widely known as the number one gay friendly city in the world. Given the presence of abortion and widespread homosexuality, maybe God will use Iran as a means to deliver judgement against a sinful nation of Israel. Whatever the case may be, it is foolish to get in God's way.
WOW! Thank you for this.
As a fellow Reformed Southern Baptist, I agree with everything that Pastor Baucham has written in this article.
And as a Reformed Presbyterian, I agree with everything he said as well! Voddie Baucham has benefited me in many ways over the years. I believe him to be a wise and faithful man of God.
Great article by Voddie! Extremely well written and crafted.
Sincere inquiry from someone wanting to vote for Ron Paul…
I do not doubt that Dr. Paul is a Christian. I do not doubt Dr. Paul's commitment to governing constitutionally. However, I do doubt the extent to which the bible is the foundational ideology motivating his positions.
My mind can't yet get around at least two things. Maybe someone can help. Please, no state vs. fed arguments, which are of course helpful in their place. No talk of Paul being the best choice we have. I'm asking, is Paul a godly man who looks to God's word or to constitutional direction and his own wisdom? What do I make of these statements.
"Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner." http://libertydefined.org/issue/1
Nice euphemism, "treated." I'm shocked by his statement about life. Do I misunderstand?
Is homosexuality a sin? Paul says he’s “not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”
Does he believe God says homosexuality is a sin? “Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.”
http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=9…
If only God had had access back in the day to the medical education that Paul had.
Help me out, because if I don't vote for Paul, I don't vote for anyone.
Ron Paul believes in Individual Liberty for all. Just like Christianity, the same opportunities exist for all those who choose to believe. God is our final Judge and individuals will suffer the consequences of their choices. God allows us to choose. We should do the same. Allowing someone the freedom to choose is essential to Liberty.
So should child rape and murder be made legal so that only God will judge individuals that make those choices?
All we ask is to have control of our own lives and our own bodies. To argue that supporting individual liberty is equal to supporting child rape or murder is an enormous stretch. Do you make that same argument when you hear about Christian radicals blowing up buildings? By your logic we shouldn't allow people to practice Christianity, because it might cause people to go crazy and kill people in the name of God. You have to remember that you are not alone in this world, and not everyone shares your views, your morals or your beliefs. Just as you have a right to practice your beliefs and live your life the way you see fit, others should also have that freedom without you interjecting or telling them how to live. Your morals are yours, and our morals are ours. We aren't going to tell you how to live, and we would appreciate it if you didn't tell us how to live. Seems reasonable to me.
Libertarian philosophy is most closely aligned with the Bible and the building of a moral society. In that philosophy an individual can do as they wish SO LONG AS it doesn't harm another person. Therefor rape and murder are still a no-no. In the situation of homosexuality it is against God, but who are we to judge when this is a consensual relationship that does not harm the rest of us. It's the same for smoking, drinking, using drugs, getting tattoos, they all go against "treating the body as a temple" but how many of us shun the people that drink, do drugs, have tattoos? None of that is my business. Remember Christians are to lead by example and when others see what a good life we live they want that and eventually they see their way to following Christ too.
Kate, your argument is chock full of unbiblical statements and absolutely contradicts the mission of the very website you are posting on. How libertarian philosophy squares with the "thou shalt nots" of the 10 commandments would require a philosophical contortionist.
>>>”So should child rape and murder be made legal so that only God will judge individuals that make those choices?”
No man has a right to harm another. So no those things should not be made legal.
Being gay harms no one, so there’s no logical reason to outlaw it.
Homosexuality is in fact so incredibly harmful to both individuals and societies that God saw fit not only to outlaw it in His Law, but also to provide the strictest ultimate punishment available: death. This is codified not only in the Ten Commandments, but in Biblical case law as well, there being one exception wherein God's people cast the sodomites out of the land rather than killing them. This is a perversion that eats up the very being of the two or more (usually more) involved in it, ruining them physically, psychologically and spiritually, but the fallout is not merely personal. The repercussions do not stop at "OK we're naughty". They are real. The filth is spreading like wildfire throughout the youth of our nation (world), influencing them to incorporate all manner of perversion into their worldview as "lifestyle choices", eroding any sense of common decency or morality, spreading disease and accelerating the downfall of our society in a big way. Woe to us, it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah in that day than it will be for us, who knew the right thing to do but refrained form it (Luke 10:14, James 4:17).
Perhaps a better way to look at it is that these areas can't be government by law. Even if you wanted to stop these things, government force can't do it. People will get that pill. People got hundreds of thousands of abortions before they were made legal as well.
As far as homosexuality, the Bible says it is a sin, but the state can't stop that behaviour either. Did Christ petition the Roman Consulate for laws or did he advocate that people live their lives as an example. Laws will not make a people moral. Morals my sometime affect laws, not the other way around.
I like Paul's position. He advocates letting others live their lives. If Christians object, they can counter will social ostracism, appeals to change that person's mind, and through living a good life and letting others emulate.
The state should get out of the business of trying to legislation morality. It doesn't work, and it spawns resentment of Christians.
My guess is that faced with answering those questions in a sound bite, any of us might be taken out of context, Gos is against hosexuality not the homosexual they like we are sinners in need of a saviour. Most of the time when this is asked of anyone the inquisitor is not looking for honesty but rather a way to further thier own agenda which ever side they happen to be on.
I'm just a little simplistic so I keep a simple view;
The Constitution is not a document that determines how people act, it is a document that places strict limits on the actions of Government. Holding Government to its strict confines is the legal thing to do.
The Bible is not a document that dictates how LOST people are to act, in fact the bible says it is foolishness to those people. It is ONLY the fragrance of life to those of us being saved by the unending grace of the Almighty Creator God.
The act of homosexual sex is a sin, so is pride, gossip, gluttony, and legalism.
Being a liar is NOT a sin, telling a lie is. Being a homosexual is not a sin, sexual relations with the same sex is.
We are oh so quick to condemn the sin we see in others that we would never commit, the only thing faster is our excuse for the sin we cherish in our lives.
I find no scripture commanding children of God to pass legislation that will force the lost to "act" saved. Against love there is no law.
It is simple. Dr. Paul represents a new movement called Liberty for all. Dr. Paul supports each state to have their own rules based on the citizens desires. Dr. Paul supports the idea of the Federal government staying the heck out of your pantry, church, bed, schools, clothing, medical, food, music, TV etc., etc., etc. This is what freedom means. Free to do for as long as you don't hurt others. We the people don't need the Federal Gov. to tell us it's ok to…………………………….. That's all. Treat others like you like to be treated, with respect that's all. Peace be with you.
Of the bills put before him, Ron Paul has a 100% pro-life voting record. That can not be said of any the other candidates except possibly Rick Santorum who I will be researching more before the election. Ron Paul as a medical Dr. recognizes that to be ethically consistent we can not outlaw the morning after pill unless we also outlaw the birth control pill and other anti-implantational (or post- conception) birth control. They work exactly the same way and one is simply a larger dose of the other. Please research Santorum and vote for one or the other. Apathy is worse that voting for someone you agree with only partly.
I believe if you read the article, Voddie answers this question… I would also suggest you read Ron Paul’s book “Liberty Defined”… basically there are two issues here. The First is our need to understand what government is for. Government is for protecting our freedoms (through coercion if necessary), the Church is for setting the moral standards (not through coercion). If we mix these up we get into the situation describe in the article, that we have a leader trying to set moral standards this cycle, but one the next cycle who tries to set them a different way. The answer to this is to follow the constitution and protect freedom (and that being the only power government has). Second, Liberty is not this nice neat little package (that is why I suggest you read the book above)… t is messy… and it has consequences that you might like and you might not like.
The real point here is no matter what Ron Paul thinks about homosexuality (and I don’t think you sampling of statements gets to what he really thinks about it, it only says that Liberty is messy)… you want someone who champions freedom.
I think you need to ask a question like, “How should Ron Paul treat Adulters?”… it is a terrible sinful lifestyle as well… what do you want him (i.e. in government) to do about it?… what can they do about it (except protect the spouse with things like community property laws)?… Again, we are asking Government to do something that the Church has failed to do…
The issue with Homosexuals is that they are being treated as a special class in government… I can tell you with Ron Paul, no one will be treated as a special class (not even Christians)… but that is what we want… a Government that protects individual freedoms… this is what makes him unique in this
Maybe there's no one else you could vote for in the Republican primary, but in the general election, there will be another choice that I think you'd probably like. Visit http://www.constitutionparty.com to learn more.
Constitution Party?
No. In the entire history of the U.S. no third party has ever won the presidency. So voting third party for president is a wasted vote.
"A person’s vote is truly wasted when he does not use it to express his actual beliefs. How can we expect to have principled leaders if we do not have a principled electorate?" — quote from the Constitution Party website.
Look, Dave. If you're thinking that way just because you want to, then no one can convince you otherwise. But if you're intellectually honest, then follow this link and read a couple of short articles directed pointedly at the issue of wasting your vote by voting for someone other than a "D" or an "R." There are many logical shortcomings with the outlook you (and countless others) expressed.
I'm providing you with an opportunity here, Dave. "I can lead Dave to water, but I can't make him drink." Not that you're a horse or anything, but go ahead and take a sip from this link (http://constitutionparty.com/news.php?cat=Dont Waste Your Vote) and then let the world know what you think.
Sorry, but that link didn't come through like it should. You'll just have to copy all the text inside the parentheses and paste it into your web browser.
Oh shut the hell up. I wasted my vote on the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 2000 and they got ZERO electoral votes. I’m not doing it again. I want to WIN the election, not simply waste my time and gas driving to the station to vote for someone I KNOW ABSOLUTELY can not win. (No third party has ever won the top seat… ever.)
That’s like telling a doctor, “Yes I know I have cancer, but rather than try Pill # 1 or #2, which both have a 50-50 chance of helping me win this fight….. I’d rather cast my vote on the sugar pill which I already know will make me lose.” It’s called stupidity.
Maybe there's no one else you could vote for in the Republican primary, but in the general election, there will be another choice that I think you'd probably like. Visit http://www.constitutionparty.com to learn more.
In a debate Mr. Paul said he’s morally opposed to a day-after abortion pill, but he doesn’t see how its banning could be enforced (just as we’ve failed to ban marijuana use). He also said ultimately the decision is left to the State Legislate, not the president or congress.
re: Homosexuality.
Same deal. Neither the president nor the congress has power to regulate this (10th amendment)).
It`s very simple.If you don`t vote for anyone…you vote for Obama.
thank you, thank you. I can not as a christian vote for someone that thinks any form of abortion under any circumstance is ok. just can't the life issue is #1, if you get that wrong, then you are ALL wrong
I have a hard time with this too. Any form of abortion is a serious challenge to God’s Word and to every individual’s right to life. However, Ron Paul’s voting record has been consistently pro-life and he is not running for Pastor-In-Chief. I differ with him on this issue and I think I would agree more with Rick Santorum on that one issue. But there are other issues and if I’m going to cast my vote at all, I do need to accept that there is no candidate that will completely agree with my views or my faith.
The homosexuality issue is similar, I think. Men having relations with men in that way is an abomination to The LORD, according to the Bible. Some moral issues are not so complicated (as far as what is right and what is wrong) if we are followers of Christ and trust His Word (which is kind of what “Christian” means). But for a President the issue of moral right and wrong regarding personal issues is not really a key issue for the job description. The President does not have to have a strong, clear, or accurate opinion about how I eat chocolate simply to gratify the lust of my flesh or my sinful sloth that leaves me in front of a movie for 2 hours at a time. Sodomy isn’t the only sin that is outside the President’s area of oversight.
But one good thing about Ron Paul is that he understands those limits to the role of the President and the role of government in general. It might be nice to believe that all life will one day be protected by those who are charged to uphold and enforce our Constitution, but I don’t see that happening with any of the candidates (regardless of their belief on these issues). But I don’t want a President who is going to try to impose his moral will regarding homosexuality, even if that morality agrees with my own. It’s beyond the scope of our Constitution and probably beyond the scope of any appropriate human government.
Ron Paul understands the limits that should be placed on the government and his track record even suggests that he will fight to keep us within those limits (or, actually, get us back within some of those Constitutional limits).
I would suggest that it is our duty to influence society to the best of our ability. If there is a candidate whose policies and voting record are not totally disgusting to you (and I understand that may not be the case in every election) that you should cast your vote rather than choosing to remain silent because none of the candidates have views and morals that exactly mirror your own.
Mark, I think of Ron Paul as having the gifting of an administrator rather than an evangelist. He says plainly that morality cannot be legislated. So if we return authority to the States, then the people can vote with their feet, good or bad. There is a limit to what can be done in Congress. There is no guarantee that in returning power to the people that they will act more responsibly than the politicians. I think that the point he is making is that it is Constitutionally wrong for our Federal government to control our lives rather than the other way around. Abortion is taking a life which our Constitution should be protecting. How to get that protection back is a delicate problem now with so many layers of government intervention.
God have mercy! RP is on a taped interview saying he does not think homo********* is wrong! People, this is God’s law, not RP, and it is not up for grabs. Abortion drugs and all the rest , decided on a state by state basis will finish off the America that BHO has been chipping away at with his communistic/socialistic agenda. How can any of you vote for RP. That Baucham would vote for him does not sway me in the least. After his discourse on having his daughters keep his attention at home, and his alignment with Doug Phillips, our family wrote him off long ago.
What is wrong with you people?
He believes both heterosexulas sin (adultery) and homosexulality is sin Mark, and taken in context this statement defines his position on both homosexuality and heterosexual sin, that they are the same and that we are all sinners:
Paul says well, for every homosexual problem we have in our military we also have a heterosexual problem. I agree saying fine, so both types should be banned. I ask: why not try — as far as is humanly possible — to ban from our military all homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators? He says: “Well,…we’re all imperfect, we all sin. If the heterosexual or the homosexual sins, that to me is a category dealing with their own soul. Since we can’t have only perfect people go in the military, I want to separate the two because I don’t want to know the heterosexual flaws or the homosexual flaws….For the practicality of running a military, I’d just as soon not know every serious thing that any heterosexual did or any homosexual did. And those flaws have to do with all our flaws because each and every one of us have those imperfections and we all are sinners.”
http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=9…
I appreciate Dr. Baucham's statements on Israel. Spot on.
I agree with many of Paul's positions but I cannot agree that he is a solid choice. His views on homosexual marriage disqualify him out of hand. He has written in his book, "Liberty Defined"–"I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me." Actually, if you hold to a theonomic (or for that matter, a Scriptural) position you most certainly believe that Biblical government has the right to enforce marriage standards. That right would fall squarely under Romans 13.
It's not enough to say that states have the right to define marriage and leave it at that. It's a pipe dream for Christians to imagine that states (esp. Bible belt states) will hold to godly positions. Witness the recent debacle in Mississippi where Christians blew it on when life begins. If you think the states will get this issue right, come join me in New York State, where they blew it.
Like it or not, we actually have a federal government. Some act as if Paul is going to come in and virtually abolish it. Not a chance. We don't elect a king, we elect a president. A president who works with people like the legislative and judicial branches.
I have a hard time believing that so many Christians are willing to give Paul carte blanche on the defining moral issue in our time. This blind eye treatment is virtual proof that many who claim the moral high ground are willing to abandon it given enough planks in the platform. I suspect if Paul held to a similar position on abortion as he does on homosexual marriage believers would still look the other way. That by itself is a sad statement on Christianity in this nation.
You lost me at Biblical government. Ron Paul!
I'm sorry, I thought this was an American Vision forum this was posted on and I thought we were talking about the same guy who preached the sermon series on Romans 13 that has been popular with Vision Forum folks. My bad.
Please don't conflate the role of GOVERNMENT to protect individual life, freedom, and property; with the role of the CHURCH to define moral behavior. And comparing abortion which Ron Paul opposes on grounds of robbing individual life, with homosexual sin is another conflation. If the government can declare any behavior illegal, then it can declare behavior such as prayer, tithing, or worship of God illegal. What would we do then, according to Romans 13? That chapter has been abused by power-hungry despots for generations, twisted from its original meaning, for us to submit to higher CHRISTIAN authority: pastors, evangelists, prophets, teachers, apostles. The word translated "ministers" there is the same word for deacon. I do not call any government official my deacon.
Mike, like it or not, the government already (and always has even under our purest Constitutional governments) defined illegal behavior. Little things like murder, treason, stuff like that. If you hold that Romans 13 applies to the church, exactly when does the church "bear the sword against the evildoer"?
Jon, certainly you recognize the distinction between moral law and civil law, which protects individuals against violence of another? Otherwise, would you support federal laws that make adultery illegal? How about lying to a parent?
Jesus went to individuals and changed individual's hearts and behavior. He didn't go to the Romans and convince the Romans to mandate Biblical behavior. As a matter of fact, the church was purer of heart and action when they did right because of their beliefs rather than later on when Christianity became the official, sanctioned religion. Government mandates don't change hearts and only slightly change actions. We, personally, are called to "Go therefore and make disciples". The government isn't called to go make disciples.
Christy, according to Matthew 28:19-20, who are we called to disciple?
>>>”f you hold to a theonomic (or for that matter, a Scriptural) position you most certainly believe that Biblical government has the right to enforce marriage standards.”
The 1st amendment bars the Congress from forcing people to adopt the Christian religion.
The 10th leaves said power to the states (Paul’s position).
Obey the Supreme Law of the land.
Obey the U.S. Constitution.
Don’t just ignore the law.
>>>”So the answer to the original question is, “Yes, Paul is fine with legalizing drugs if states so choose.”"
In correct.
Correct: Paul is fine with legalizing drugs if states (like California) so choose, and is equally fine with banning drugs if states (like South Carolina) so choose. Per the 10th amendment.” – Ya know, it really isn’t that hard to understand Paul’s viewpoint, if you just read the Bill of Rights.
Are you saying you think the government should tell us how to live? I am the mother of 7 children and I have been married 24 years.. I have my beliefs but I do not impose them on others.. Who is anyone to say how another shall live? Roles of government 1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;
2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;
3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;
4) Copyright protection;
5) Coining money;
6) Establishing post offices and post roads;
7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;
8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.
Those are the only prerogatives of the Feds. The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people (i.e. individual Americans). So the Feds are not allowed to handle any issues not explicitly listed in the Constitution; their prerogatives are limited to what the Constitution explicitly states.
The Constitution clearly says that the Feds’ role is only to provide for the common defense, manage foreign relations, protect citizens’ constitutional rights, establish federal courts; apply and explain federal law (in the judiciary’s case); and a few other minor issues. No branch of the Federal Government is authorized to handle any other issues. So the federal establishment should be strictly limited to these tasks; all others should be reassigned to the states, local governments, and individual Americans
Thank God for the voice of reason. I too am a Ron Paul supporter, a Christian who is accused of not being a Christian for that support.
Israel’s enemies receive at least three times as much aid as Israel does from the U.S.. If we pulled all aid from all of them Israel would still be much better off. But I agree with your point about questioning our blind support of Israel as a biblical principal. That, however, is another discussion.
Thanks for your accurate and well stated view and support of Ron Paul, the best candidate by far.
What about Dr. Paul's thoughts about legalizing drugs?
What about them?
Ron Paul is not going to legalize drugs. He wants to end the expensive and extremely unsuccessful drug war. He wants States to vote on these issues and decide for themselves whether they want to legalize a substance or not. For example California has legalized medical marijuana for patients, yet the Federal Government can come into California at any time and raid those medical marijuana clinics. If the people of California have voted to legalize it, the Federal Government should honor the wishes of these voters and stay out of their way. Why let States vote on certain laws at all if the Federal Government plans to override them whenever they please? Residents of South Carolina can vote NO on legalizing marijuana, and residents of California can vote YES on legalization, if that is what they feel is best for their State. This is why we practice Democracy in this country.
He thinks it is a state matter. Paul takes the Constitutional position that if a power isn't assigned in Article I, Section 8 then the federal government is denied that power by default. He doesn't think the federal government should be making laws legalizing or prohibiting drugs. It is a state and local matter.
Having said that, I would hope that the states won't resort to prohibition, either. It's a foolish policy. It sexes up the drug. It causes crime. Non-violent drug users end up being violent after a stay in jail or prison. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol either. The most abused drugs are prescription drugs and alcohol. Paul only sees a need to put age and zoning restrictions on the drugs. He isn't giving approval to drug use. He is simply saying prohibition doesn't work.
So the answer to the original question is, "Yes, Paul is fine with legalizing drugs if states so choose." Let's end the double talk from the Paul camp and use clear statements.
Paul doesn't want to legalize drugs, he wants to get the federal government out of it so they stop wasting our federal taxpayer dollars. Each state will decide in his model. The more money the federal government wastes with laws and programs the weaker we are as a nation. He is a Christian who wants to get our nation back to the basics of freedom, liberty, and prosperity. The federal government's job is to protect the liberty of the people, not pack them into a corner with laws. We can't afford to, that has been proven. 15T in debt.
What virtue is it if I don't do drugs because I fear being arrested? God gave me free will, and if I choose to do the right thing and not do drugs, is that not more virtuous?
Any government that can prohibit a personal private behavior you don't like, can and will prohibit the one you cherish most of all.
Jon, some questions:
1) Where in the Constitution does the federal government get its authority to outlaw drugs?
2) Are you okay with the federal government outlawing alcohol?
3) How about the U.N. outlawing certain substances worldwide? If the principle of federalism is dead, why stop at national borders to enforce moral law?
When people in our nation decided they wanted to ban the use of alcohol because it can be misused, they understood that the federal government didn't have the consitutional authority to ban alcohol. They amended the constitution to allow prohibition. After a short while, people realized that prohibition didn't stop the problem drinkers, but did cause crime, violence, and enrichment of gangsters. They then repealed prohibition.
Today the Federal government is unconstituionally prohibiting drugs. A recent study, of minors, showed drug use (which is illegal) going up and alcohol use (which is legal) going down. We waste billions of dollars fighting the drug war, which causes crime, illegal immigration, federal/state debt, and the deaths of innocents. By allowing states to tax and regulate (such as banning use by minors) we would save money and reduce the crime. One of the European countries (forgot which) made use of all drugs legal. Most people expected drug use to skyrocket. Instead drug use slightly decreased (no longer forbidden so no longer cool). We would be much better taxing and doing minor regulations at the state level than having this costly and self-defeating federal drug war.
He has not said that at all, It is a States right, State have the 10th Amendment right to control it and that is the word CONTROL.
My Question to those who think like you is this: What is more deadly, Alcohol and Cigarettes or Pot, think about IT!! By the Way I am a x drinker and x smoker and do not use Pot at all.
The federal government has no right to legalize drugs, nor illegalize them. That's why pot originally had that weird tax stamp law associated with it. Do we want to borrow from Red China to finance a failed drug war (or any war for that matter)?
Let each state to decide on pot laws (let's face it, that's what everyone really means anyway). If someone doesn't like the pot laws in their state, they can move to a state that aligns more closely with their philosophy and lifestyle. I guess if a state lost half their population because of their particular laws concerning this issue, or any other laws handed back down to the state level, they could re-evaluate their stance (or not).
>>>”So the answer to the original question is, “Yes, Paul is fine with legalizing drugs if states so choose.”"
In correct.
Corecct: Paul is fine with legalizing drugs if states (like california) so choose, and is equally fine with baning drugs if states (like South Carolina) so choose. Per the 10th amendment.”
I think the sound money arguments trump everything else. The real problem is that we will be given a choice between two banker-friendly technocrats in the forthcoming election. Obama has proven himself to be this already. Romney is clearly on the wrong side of this as well, having accepted millions from Wall Street and being on record as bailout friendly. No other issue is destroying western society faster that the effects of easy money and crony capitalism. In pursuit of these flawed ideologies governments are turning their backs on the poor and needy to implement 'austerity'. In pursuit of these flawed ideologies governments are handing over the power to print money to the wealthy. The destruction of the middle class that both the Tea Party and the Occupy protests decry – the wealth inequality, the unfair playing field – all of these things are the result. Ron Paul, for all his faults, seems to be the only person in this race who recognizes that.
Mark has nailed it – this is the most serious issue on this planet. And yet, almost no one can see it.
Fact: Adult people ‘spend,’ by far, most of their time, energy and brainpower seeking money. Nearly everyone needs money to survive. Life is extremely tough without it.
Fact: Strangely, money being the most important thing that people seek, nearly no one knows anything about it, in the sense of “What is it, exactly,” “Where does it come from,” “Who creates it,” “Why can’t I create it?” “What is honest money, and how is money made dishonest?”
http://www.fame.org/NotableQuotes.asp
I don’t care who you are, Christian or otherwise, if you are ignorant about money, you will be manipulated and controlled throughout your whole life.
Ron Paul is the ONLY politician I have ever seen who thoroughly understands money, esp honest money. He says he will quickly and strongly steer the ship of state back towards honest money, and I believe he will do exactly that.
Thank you Dr. Baucham for your leadership in endorsing Ron Paul. I believe more Christian leaders will be encouraged in the days, weeks, and months to come to stand on similar conviction in part because of your example.
Thank you, brother. You’ve very clearly and concisely communicated everything I’ve been telling others for months. I will begin pointing people in this direction.
Thank you Dr. Baucham
Yes! This is a wonderful article and I have just forwarded it to several friends and family members. Thank you for stepping out and writing this.
Amen Brother to all you said!
Thank you for writing this excellent article on Dr. Paul. As Christians, we have a duty before our Lord and King to make sure our votes are for a man who stands for Christianity and does not just speak of Christianity to win votes.
Preach. It. Brother.
Thank you for this excellent summary of why Ron Paul is the best choice for Christians to vote for. I'm not American so I have 'no skin in the game', but follow US politics closely. Personally I am a theonomist and so would like to see society governed by Christian values such as in Geneva in Calvin's time. However, as Paul has stated, IF you're going to have such laws it is the local authorities that should make them (i.e. municipal or state depending upon the issue), NOT the federal government.
My gut is that Ron Paul won't win the nomination frankly because America by and large has not repented and does not seek to live according to God's Word. Real change has to start from the bottom up (i.e. we get the government we ask for).
If only more Americans were as smart as you. This was well written and any thinking person would be convinced that Ron Paul deserves their respect if not their vote. I do support Dr. Paul for the reasons you stated and many more. He is a man with enormous integrity In a profession that seems to attract people who are generally selfish hypocrites.
Great article. Thank you for being so clear in your words and explaining Dr. Paul's positions so well!
Ron Paul = freedom.An American IDEA.You just have to decide for your self.do you want to live as a free man or a slave as we are now.For me its a no brainer.I vote Ron Paul.
i was raised in church, i know a lot about it, i do not claim to be a Christian . I do agree with most of this artical an i will vote for Ron Paul if he is the republican candidate It is time to stop trying to policing the world an take care of the problems here.
Sorry but Ron Paul is not the one for the job. In this world we don't need someone who wants legal drugs, who had a parer in the past that he said he knew about and then he did not. A person that wants all military basis overseas closed, we in this world today can not become an isolationist Nation, we need to know what is going on and when needed be able to respond. A person who says he wants zero tax, let's get real, we may not like tax, but it's necessary. Ron has some good ideas, but he is a far to the right as Obama is to the left.
Your thinking will only get us WW111. We've been living this "interventionist" reasoning for 70 years, I think it's time for an about-face on the issue.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Congratulations. By your words you prove that you didn't even bother to read the article you are commenting on.
>>>”don’t need someone who wants legal drugs”
False. He also supports banning of drugs (as would be the case in Carolina, Utah, and other conservative states). Read the 10th amendment. The People and their state legislatures decide their own affairs, not the congress.
>>>”who had a parer in the past that he said he knew about and then he did not.”
Sorry I don’t know French words. Parer?
>>>”A person that wants all military basis overseas closed, we in this world today can not become an isolationist Nation”
Isolationist?
No. Founding Father: “Observe good faith and justice toward all….. Permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations [Iran], and passionate attachments for others [Israel], should be excluded. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.” – George Washington
As for Ron Paul, he wants to put 4 aircraft carriers on the east coast, 4 aircraft carriers on the west coast, plus supporting ships. Any nation stupid enough to attack us would be blown out of the sky before they got within 500 miles of our beaches. That is a FAR FAR stronger defense than having our soldiers spread all around the world (and no defense here at home).
Remember: That is how Rome fell. They had all their soldiers spread throughout the known world, and no defense at home. So the barbarians simply walked directly to the Capitol and sacked it. The end.
We should not be making the same mistake. We should bring the troops HOME to defend ourselves from potential invasion of our own capitol.
This is surely one of the best articles I've seen on Ron Paul from a Biblical perspective. Thank you Joel and Gary for posting it. You two have held the torch and have written many fantastic articles as well. May God bless you.
I love this man! Well said and reasoned. I hope people take it to heart.
I would be proud to be a member of your congregation you truly are a wise man. nuff said
If Ron Paul is a Conservative Christian, how then can he have such an anti-Israel viewpoint? Most , if not all, conservative christians I know have a fundamental belief in the Bible which still includes God's plan for Israel today as well as for the Church. Also, an anti-Israel viewpoint foreign policy is contrary to Israel being our most reliant ally in the Middle East. I would hope he would reconsider his viewpoint on Israel.
The political entity known as Israel is not the Israel of the Old Testament. The Jews considered as an ethnic group are not the "Chosen People," rather all of the elect, Jew and Gentile, who come to saving faith in Christ are the Chosen People. Those who have the faith of Abraham are the true sons of Abraham (Gal 3:7.) The Jew who does not come to saving faith in Christ is a branch broken off to make room for the wild olive branch (i.e. you and me) to be grafted in (Rom 11:17-24)
The Jewish religion as it is practiced today bears almost no resemblance to the O.T. biblical faith, and even Jewish scholars will say that. Their religion consists mainly of the Talmud, which is a written codification of the same stream of teachings that Jesus actually condemned (Matt 15:1-20). For a Jew to be saved, he must turn to Christ.
You are holding to a system of doctrine called dispensationalism which is only about 200 years old and is so full of holes that its own proponents have had to rework it several times. In its latest incarnation it is almost indistinguishable from historic premillenialism.
And no, I'm not an anti semite. My wife is ethnically Jewish.
How is it a blessing to Israel if you have to commit sin to do it? Taking money from American taxpayers, stealing by the force of law, and giving it to their secular, socialist-leaning government?
It is more a blessing if we lead by example and let them know we are here if they need us but otherwise we will stay out of their way. Individuals are free of course to donate their time, effort and money to bless Israel in any way they see fit. Ron Paul is against the government deciding to do on our behalf what we should be doing ourselves.
>>>”how then can he have such an anti-Israel viewpoint?”
Telling your child, no I am not giving you any more money, does not mean you hate your child. It means that it is time for your child to put-away childish things and act like an adult.
Israel reached the adult stage loooong ago. It is time to stop giving them money, and let them stand on their own two feet. They have over 300 weapons and an extremely strong army. Any nation stupid enough to attack Israel would be turned to molten slag.
Even the PM Netanyahu told Congress, “We don’t need your soldiers. We don’t need your help. We can defend ourselves.” Ron Paul is simply listening to Israel’s own leader.
Rev. Beck,
Did you read the article? Or any of Paul's clear public statements on Israel? He does NOT hold an "anti-Israel viewpoint." Not even close
Incredible perspective.
Liked and, since it's been published/reprinted, linked: http://priscillaking.blogspot.com/2012/01/ministe…
I guess I'm the dissenting voice here. I appreciate the thoughtful article and that Ron Paul is a true Believer, but I too have a problem with some of his statements on homosexuality. If you do not understand spiritual warfare, you do not understand the problem of homosexuality. Period. And he clearly does not. And I'm afraid I do not believe that our Founding Fathers intended porn and drugs to be legalized when they gave us the Constitution. I agree that the so-called "war on drugs" is a miserable failure but legalizing drugs is not the answer. Has he been to the countries where drugs are legal? How's that working out for them? Dr. Paul is not a Conservative. He is a Libertarian. It is not the same thing. I heard a libertarian who I respect a lot say that while he believes that child porn is distasteful, he believes that a person should be allowed to have it in their own home without the government interferring. Distasteful? Some creep oogling pictures of innocent children in sexual positions, etc, and then going out to molest our children and grandchildren is distasteful? It is an abomination!
Quite a stretch, because you once heard a libertarian say something once, to believing that Dr. Paul wholeheartedly endorses child pornography. Your friend had it wrong, the producer of the child porn caused harm to those children and should be punished.
Has Paul been asked about his position on child porn?
How would I know, you are just inviting me to go down a rathole.
As a Christian and father of grown children, probably having great grandchildren now, I would expect he'd be against it, since it is a violation of the rights of children who aren't old enough to decide whether they want to participate in it.
As a President, it's none of the federal government's business, and just like rape, murder, incest, robbery and all those other things, all 50 states would have varying degrees of punishment for it.
>>>”I do not believe that our Founding Fathers intended porn and drugs to be legalized when they gave us the Constitution”
Show me where in the Constitution the Founding fathers gave Congress to outlaw homosexuality or porn or drugs (or alcohol). The answer to your question is that they did not.
The Prohibition amendment was repealed long ago.
The 1st amendment forbids congress from imposing religious values.
And the 10th amendment reserves the power to ban things (like drugs, gaysex, porn) to the People and their state legislatures. It is NOT a power of the congress or the president.
That is Ron Paul’s constitutional position.