Jeffress wrong on Ron Paul and John Jay
Robert Jeffress was correct when called Momonism a cult, but he could not be more misguided in some of his latest comments.
I a piece run by Fox News, influential pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX, is telling evangelicals to be patient in the GOP primaries—not terrible advice in itself. His general reason is admirable: that we should not “abandon principles for pragmatism.” Indeed. But his applications and interpretations of that reason for Iowa and New Hampshire border on libel.
By engaging in just the kind of campaign nonsense that’s almost-libel but so common it gets a media pass, it’s Jeffress himself who is abandoning principle for pragmatism.
He claims that the current “three front runners” provide “a sorry lot to choose from.” He explains:
One is a Mormon candidate who has been all over the map in his beliefs about abortion and same-sex marriage. Another is a Southern Baptist-turned-Catholic with three wives, two divorces, and numerous accusations of immorality who has been equally inconsistent when it comes to key issues. And then there’s the Baptist obstetrician with weird ties to neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, not to mention a foreign policy approach which blames the United States for the 9/11 terror attacks.
Jeffress is only 33% correct here. He’s right about Romney, hands down. The info about Gingrich is correct also, but irrelevant because Gingrich is not in the top three, according to latest polls from DeMoines and PPP. Instead Santorum has surged to third with such short notice that his big-spending, special interest side is just beginning to come out.
But most egregious is Jeffress’ nonsense about Ron Paul. While rumors and questions have swirled in the effort find dirt on Paul, claiming that Paul actually has “ties” to neo-Nazis and anti-Semites is irresponsible and dishonest. And claiming that he “blames” America is to sully the pulpit by joining a smear campaign.
Say what you want about Paul and whether or not you support his views, but don’t resort to misrepresenting those views or the man in order to do so. These lies that have been debunked over, and over, and over, and over. Of all people, a conservative Christian pastor touting “principle” and “character” ought to exemplify accuracy and honesty in his representation of another’s positions—especially a fellow Baptist!
Finally, Jeffress calls us to heed the words of John Jay, the nation’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court, who said, “It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
True, but Jeffress does not supply the important context. It would have been helpful, probably, had he read the whole letter from Jay to John Murray, October 12, 1816, because in that letter, Jay elucidates Ron Paul’s foreign policy and individual rights as moral law enjoined upon all mankind. Here’s the rest of the quotation:
It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all nations. The most effectual way of producing it is by extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war.
Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. 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.
The emphasis on “real” Christians was in Jay’s original. The reader can decide who today shares that real Christian view of war and foreign policy.
It’s no wonder then that the media labels Paul the “anti-war candidate” noting the massive voting block for that position,
Voters who are weary of endless war may have no choice at the presidential level next November. This is a very large group to be denied a vote on a key issue.
A CNN/ORC poll released in November found that 68 percent of Americans opposed the war in Iraq and 63 percent are against the one in Afghanistan. Yet, we keep hearing that only hawks have a chance to be elected president.
And when Evangelical leaders get their head on straight, they’ll realize that much of this block would prefer “extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel” to the endless wars they hate so much.
This is an example of the religious and political "cannibalism" promoted by the extreme Left to re-elect Obama. Explain to me the Christian theme you are promoting with an obscene, elitist post like this one? Shame on you.
Ok, Bill, how is it Christian to prop up puppet dictators across the world simply because they support our foreign policy? Have you read about the results of our installing the Shah as dictator of Iran? Or how about our support of the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets while they were in Afghanistan? Was it a Christian thing to do to invade and occupy Iraq, so that they could establish Sharia law? There are many other examples as well. Please explain how these are Christian behaviors?
How is it un-Christian to seek peace and not bear false witness (claiming Iran is seeking a nuke when there is no evidence) or police the world? Where did God grant America (a nation who hates God and murders millions of babies in the womb) the blessing to go ahead and force the world to do what she says?
I'd love to see your citation of the Bible to where it teaches Christians to support ruthless dictators so long as they support our interests. Shame on you, Sir.
Excellent points. The sad truth is that most Christians totally divorce Scriptural principles from raw pragmatism. And that pragmatism is void of even a remotely accurate historical perspective.
It is lamentable and quite frankly shameful that the views of many Christians are in diametric opposition to Scripture. Blessed are the peacemakers and pray for those who persecute us, becomes, "Nuke unto others before they nuke unto us." We don't even need undeniable proof that Iran is almost nuclear. Heck, Gingrich stated with not even a scintilla of evidence that Iran was hiding nukes under their Mosques. It's just plain deplorable how gullible we have become and how irresponsible these supposed “leaders” are.
And it's appalling how warlike and militaristic the Church now is. Have we not learned any lessons from history? The truth is, as you state, most people don't have a clue about history and how we have been manipulated to enter into war after war. How many Christians know about the 1953 CIA coup that overthrew democratically elected Iranian president Mohammad Mosaddegh, and installed thug, shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and his brutal secret police, the Savak? We destroyed that country.
In July of 1978 it was stated: “During the last 20 years the United States has sold more than $18 billion worth of arms to Iran and has helped organize and equip a vast security system that gives its ruler, Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi, absolute control of the country. In exchange for that support the shah has committed his country to protect the vital routes out of the Persian Gulf that carry more than half the oil used by Western countries. Furthermore, the income from his arms purchases plus the American technology he buys to help develop his country return to the United States almost $2 annually for every $1 the United States spends on Iranian oil.”
We armed Iran for goodness sakes! Then once the monster we created went out of control (when the radicals overthrew the Shah), to maintain the region’s balance of power we had to arm Saddam Hussein to the teeth in Iraq’s 8 year war against this new Islamic regime. Then, when Saddam thought he had our blessing and got a little too aggressive, we whacked him…again…and again. So the Shak, Hussein and bin Laden were all CIA assets. Is there no shame?
Our policies are rancid and our imperialism is profound. Meanwhile Christians think the U.S. is so magnanimous and altruistic. We are a bunch of sheep willingly violating our own principles. And Repub hopefuls like Santorum think we’re hated because we wear Calvin Klein jeans and drive nice cars. Either he’s sincerely clueless or is willfully propagating the lie?
So how is it that Christians were surprised when, in 1979, Iran took hostages in the same embassy that the U.S. used to overflow their leader 26 years earlier? Unless and until the population becomes informed, we’ll have no chance for change.
bottom line is the Pastor LIED. If Ron Paul was what he said, this is p[olitics and he can expose what he will. the prolbem this is supposed to be a man who speaks with authority and is supposed ot know the word of God…not bearing fals witness is prominent in the Scripture- old and new testaments. that is my main gripe. the man uses his position in front of his misguided, starving for truth sheep and then LIES about the only candidate the Christians ought to be behind If they are going to follow biblical principles…but that puts us back at the beginning doesn't it? there are too few in this country who claim to be shepherds that are willing to speak the truth and follow THE peacemaker, Jesus Christ. A sad day when i have to remove myself from other so-called believers because they falt out LIE rather than stand for truth.
Ron Paul has said he would not have gone to war against Hitler. He has also called the Reagan administration a dramatic failure. Sure, we all have that crazy uncle we have to see at Christmas, but Christmas is over.
Skew stories much?
Can you back that up or supply the context? I'd be interested in seeing it.
It is interesting that Ron Paul has the most consistent Constitutional voting record of any congressman with any time in office, yet some call him a nut, whatever that means, and how do you quantify nut? It seems the faith of many people has changed toward socialism, and or missionaries of collectivism are visiting the comment boards to sway the less discerning.
Admittedly, I have been harsh in my personal estimation of Ron Paul. But…I wanted to see what his positions were on key issues, so I went to his political web site. While not agreeing with everything, carte blanche, I find myself agreeing with a lot more than I first thought I would. I think there is a lot of negative propaganda about Ron Paul and I want to give him a fair shake. I did this, principally because I see a pathetic orchestration about Romney and Gingrich, whose double-talk cannot exonerate what they have done in office. Ron Paul is certainly consistent, over his lifetime, and he is conservative in many points and libertarian in others.
Now that's an honest refreshing reply. Most people react to the caricature of Paul. Thanks for your commitment to defend this country. <><
I think most people here would be quite surprised too if they would go to his web site. Is that NOT what all of us should do, that is, evaluate FAIRLY the positions of our potential leaders? __Folks, we're in deep deep kimchi over our national debt, and it'll be our ruination. If Ron Paul has said anything for over a decade, it's that we need to audit the Fed. Secondly, he favors the sanctity of life from conception. He actually has a plan on immigration and our borders, and plans on tightening the latter and NOT giving blank amnesty like the other clowns. As a veteran with combat experience (numerous times), I wondered about his national defense position. National Defense costs all of us a lot of money, and too much is going to the military industrial complex. We need oversight here, big time. __So, from the look of it, I'm much more impressed with Ron Paul than I was previously. Give him due regard, we know the other clowns are pure politicians, and will not solve our crises
Ron Paul is anti-American, a liar and a fraud who has violated Article 1 Sect. 8 all the 24 years he has squatted in Congress. All the earmarks he takes are a violation of the aforementioned. I despise him as much as I despise Obama. I can't wait to see this disgrace gone. His bs is only aiding and abetting the Communist squatting in the Wh.
I've heard before (from Michael Medved) about Ron Paul's hypocrisy, in that he takes earmarks while denouncing them. Can you provide some evidence of this? Until you do, I'll take it as…uh…"poppycock" of your own.
Well stated, Flo. Funny, too.
Ron Paul is an unelectable nut. To be a Morman is a religon. Not a cult…..You are way off base with your opinions in my opinion. Obama is a poor excuse for a president. but Paul would not be much better.
Ignorant hecklers said the same thing about Reagan during his first run too and it turned out to be an excellent presidency.
Ron Paul is the best thing America has going for it's future right now as the only one who acknowledges this countrys biggest crisis–NATIONAL DEBT, and his foreign policy is as righteous as one ever has been in this nation.
Mormonism IS a cult, but that's not why I won't vote for Romney. I wouldn't vote for him because he IS a RINO. His model for health care is what gave Obamacare its basis. He spends like a liberal, because he is one. So he doesn't drink liquor, smoke, or ingest caffeine…good Mormon. He seems like such a "nice guy". That's not what will fix this country. He's just another politician with lots of capital.
Ron Paul keeps his personal religious beliefs private, which is right and proper for any candidate, but make no mistake about him, he is a faithful man. And his constitutional beliefs are perfectly in tune with any conservative and libertarian. We need more people like him. He backs up his beliefs in constitutional freedoms and would get rid of the vast number of unconstitutional practices our country has been beset with for decades. It's about time, but all the liberals and the plantation workers will be be shocked that they'll be out of their institutional jobs. That's why he ticks off the left and their propanganda machines are in full force to paint Ron Paul as something he is not.
Mormons are a cult. They are definitely not Christian. I could go into all the reasons I say this, but it's not important to this discussion. It has little bearing on who is electable. RP is a lowlife fraud. I don't like Romney because he is not truly a Conservative. I throw my support to Gingrich who had 4 straight years of a balanced budget, cut welfare and got control of Congress away from the Dems aka Communists for the first time in 40 years. Take a look at his record. The RINOS hated him because he went after them too.
"A lowlife fraud". What an irresponsible comment. Hopefully you are not a Christian because Christians ought to know better than to libel people. You might want to take a look at Gingrich's track record before you defame yourself further. http://youtu.be/L0FioqzcIH8
We haven't had a balanced budget for decades, including the '90's.
All organized systems of faith can fall under the definition of a cult – including football fan clubs. Christian denominations refer to Mormons as a cult because Mormon's admit to having a different Jesus. Most Mormon's have no clue their leaders confess in writing the Mormon Jesus is not the same Jesus as the Jesus of Christianity. In one regard, this is a moot point. A good American is a good American. However, from a Christian regard, how can you trust someone in office who can't even figure out which Jesus is the real one? Likewise, if you're a Mormon, how can you trust a candidate who can't figure out which Jesus is the real one? Candidates are trying to downplay this issue with sentiments of keeping religion out of the campaign, but its wishful thinking at best. Even if its unspoken, someone somewhere is going to have issues with your profession of faith as a candidate. Unless of course, you're a Demon-crat, you only hate Bible-believing Christians, all others are ok, even satanists.
If there's any "cult" in this election, it's Ron Paul's mindlessly devoted acolytes. I'm sure Christianity was considered a "cult" in its early days.
Thankyou Joel for this piece. Judging from what Jay said about Christian rulers, I thindk that the state of the Union is very much the believer's responsibility! Like people, like priest.
Ron Paul is a nutcase and if he ever gets elected presidentl,l we will rue the day.
Such an intelligent post deserves something as equally fact-based.
Your momma was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries…
Now that's funny!
No RonPaul is not a nut. The only nuts aare you and the rest of the people who beleive the crap being told about him, or your inability the understand plain 3 grade gramer as to what he says. He is the only candidate that will try to take a chain saw and axe to this Socialistic Government, which has poisioned a perfectly good Capitalistic society.
Ron Paul has been the voice crying in the wilderness, and it's about time you people awoke to the disaster that is our national debt and our national economy. Do you imagine it being fixed by spending more money on ill-begotten programs? We have to rein it in, or we'll be like the Weimar Republic in Germany. Or, perhaps you really want it that way, to fight tooth and nail for food, and have civil insurrection on the streets. C'mon people, it IS that serious, and the rest of the clowns have no basis in fact for fixing it, they've all been part of the problem, not the solution. Ron Paul is our greatest hope. At least get off your freakin' couch and look at what he says on his web site, and not just parrot all the propanganda you've heard on youtube or some other twisted site.
perhaps we need to take extreme measures in the opposite direction to balance out the extreme measure of the last 3 years? I have no problem with Paul's opinions about Reagan or war, he is the only one addressing the real problems we currently have without trying to sugar coat it, equivocate, or pretension
Have you even read his policies?
I suspect not. You are bound in your prejudice,
and nothing will dissuade you.
He is reasoned, patient, balanced in
his views, and those who know him are truly loyal.
He has consistently stated his views for more than 12 years. And predicted
the melt down of 2007 in 2002!
Not bad for a nut case, eh?
and you're not ruing the day now?>???
Sounds like a lot of bigotry going on here! I have never heard a member of the LDS church blast another Christian religion the way some of you carry on here. The LDS church has done more for the world through volunteerism during hard times or disaster than any other religion that I know. I am a Presbyterian. Anytime we show up to work a major project, i.e., Katrina, the Mormons are already there set up and ready to give aid and comfort. I care about how people live their lives. Are they virtuous, compassionate and caring? Do they have exemplary family values? I see the Mormons with these values and I applaud them. Most I read above indicates that you have not done your homework before you sound off. Mormons are truly good people and we would do well to follow some of their teachings regarding home, family, and country. I think Romney would be a blessing to our country as our President.
Patti, it sounds like you need to do some research. Mormonism, from the beginning, has called the Christian Church "of the devil" and "the whore of Babylon." Whether Romney is fit to be president is another matter. If you'd like to know what the Mormon Church has said about Christianity, consider the quotes I'll place in the general comments below. No one in this blog has questioned the resolve of Mormons to do good works. Mormonism by it's own admission is THE persecutor not the persecuted.
I thought it was the Protestants who call the Catholics "the Whore of Babylon"?
Can't we Christians all get along. This divide and conquer when Judaism now rules the country and allows Islam a beachhead in the New World is going to kill us.
Patti, Mormons there are none good and that is one of the many problems with Mormonism. It is a cult and believes in a Jesus that is more akin to Jesus Gonzalez than Jesus, the Christ. Just because we might be more comfortable next door to a Mormon than a Satanist, does not solve the problem of them being sinners headed to hell, unless they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. While you applaud them, God is His all sufficient Word tells us that whatever is not done in faith [to Him) is sin. So, it sound to me that you may consider looking at Scripture on this matter and not lean on your own understanding.
You haven't done much in the way of in depth study of Mormonism if you don't believe it is a cult. Values, they may have. Biblical doctrine, they do not. They have their own "bible" called the Book of Mormon which Joseph Smith was the most correct book ever written, and he claimed it was given to him by God. They also have a book called "Doctrine and Covenants" and "The Pearl of Great Price." For years they claimed that the negro race were the children of Cain and were cursed by God and could never hold the priesthood. Then, woops, God changed His mind when the civil rights movement became viable, and suddenly the blacks could hold the priesthood. They believe that the Mormons will someday rule the earth from Missouri and that Jesus will come back to earth in the "new jerusalem" here in the USA. They believe in being baptized for the dead and spend much time in genealogy research so they can be baptized for their dead ancestors to guarantee them a place in one of the heavens. They believe there are three heavens and only temple mormons get to go into the third heaven. They believe that if they are good enough mormons they will eventually become gods themselves. One of their statements of faith is that, "As we are now, God once was. As God is now, we may become." And you think family values are equal to Biblical truth? Mormons are good people, family people, and generally honest people. i have had many morman friends, but their religion IS a cult! This post from Joel is a travesty and i am disappointed that he would bash Jeffres and make him seem like a radical nut case. Nothing is served but evil in doing that. Jeffres is mainstream in Christian theology and practice. He is not some weirdo cult leader and he is not a dangerous man preaching a doctrine contrary to Biblical truth. Shame on Joel for leading people astray with this editorial. You owe this forum AND Dr. Jeffres an apology!
Patti said: "I have never heard a member of the LDS church blast another Christian religion…"
Let me help you out Patti…
"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" – Joseph Smith, LDS Church Founder, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270.
"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" – Brigham Young, 2nd President of LDS Church, Journal of Discourses 8:199
"We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense… it is as corrupt as hell: and the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than Christianity …" John Taylor, 3rd President of LDS Church, Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 167.
“What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing…Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God." – John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225.
"All other churches are entirely destitute of authority from God; both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the Whore of Babylon whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act." ( He means the act of NOT being a Mormon) Orson Pratt, LDS Church Apostle, The Seer, Pg 255.
So you see Patti, the LDS Church has said and recorded comments far more vicious and aggressive than Pastor Jeffress little comment, "its a cult." Now you have heard not one – but four Mormon Church leaders blast ALL Christian religions as the Whore of Babylon headed straight for hell.
Patti, the LDS church – thinks your Presbyterian church is the Whore of Babylon and the you are a wicked fornicator.
Now, my question for you is, do you want a president who is faithful to a church who believes your church is the Whore of Babylon? A president who's religion teaches him, he is in training to become the God of his own planet? Do you want Mitt Romney practicing to become a God as the President of your nation? Who knows, it might be a good thing for Romney to do some good works as President to earn his Godhood.
Mormons show up to help out in a disaster because they believe they are there to EARN their salvation, status in heaven and eventual Godhood. If this was not part of their religious belief's, they wouldn't be there as a church. Yes, they may care, and they may be there to help, because they care – but the Mormon faithful believe they must earn their salvation with good works, and the more good works they do, the level of heaven they can attain – even Godhood.
"We believe we are saved by grace, after all that WE can do." – Book of Mormon
Jesus said, "Ye are saved by grace, not of works, lest any man should boast." – Holy Bible.
So Patti the next time you go to help out at the next disaster and you see your LDS friends there, you will know that they think your church is the Whore of Babylon and you are a corrupt fornicator headed for hell – all this while they are smiling and shaking your hand and earning their way to heaven. I know… you don't believe it. And guess what, most Mormons will tell you they don't believe it either, which leads one to ask – if this is what their leaders teach and profess in writing – then why are they Mormons if they don't believe their Apostles? Interesting….
the Mormon Church blasts all other Christian churches and religions every day multiple times a day by telling it's members and potential members that all other "Christian " churches are apostate and lost and not in God's will.
Then they proceed to tell you that by obeying them and becoming a member of the only "true" church, LDS, that you are promised with the exact same LIE that Satan first told Eve in the garden.
Jay was a proponent of a strong, centralized government. Just like Paul?
Dr. Paul is for the smallest possible Constitutional government. He proposes to cut $1 trillion dollars in his first year.
People,
Please refrain from calling DR Paul and his supporters names.
It is churlish. . .
And so childish.
If you are not smart enough to oppose Paul in a civil manner, why bother at all? It makes conservatives look bad, and makes you look like trolls, so stop it for the sake of all conservatives.
We need to pinpoint the real rivals. That would be LIBERALS.
The whole world is watching, so put on a clean and decent show of real American Genteelness. . .
I think a Lawsuit would stop this kind of talk from the pulpit!
Although I disagree with what was said from the pulpit, what part of the First Amendment do you not understand?
As the article said, the things said border on libel. I understand the 1st amendment pretty well, but if you are going to say things about a person, you had better get the facts straight.
I just get tired of everybody bashing Paul and his extremely large following.
We need to be inclusive and united, and not derisive and divided in this upcoming election.
Really? I am not usually given to calling people names. However, I call Ron Paul Doctor Dementia. In the debate I thought he was showing early signs of Alzheimer's. I have my facts pretty straight. Dr. Dementia is a liar and anti American and a serial violater of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution because of all the earmarks he has taken. How do you think this lowlife kept getting reelected? He is even further to the left than Commie Obama.
You are such a troll, you even use the sam language and names for paul, but you aint fooling me. By the way I have gotten off of this site because they let perosns of your caliber say nasty things about good people.
Millicent, your name should be no sense. . . hahaahahahhohohohoho heheheheh
Ditto -
I agree with the first 95% of your post. However we as Americans should not inhibit a man's first amendment right to free speech. Calling for a lawsuit to stop free speech is in absolutely wrong. You do not lose your first amendment right when you become a pastor.
FYI I am voting for Ron Paul.
Not unless you damage a mans character with false claims. The man is running for president and people need to respect and treat him with the kind of civility that he deserves.
The first amendment does not protect the word fire in a crowded theatre, as it causes damage. I think that a lawsuit would stop this kind of talk, but RP is above all of that, I assume. . .
Good point, Coy. Speech is only free when even the most reprehensible views are allowed. I too am voting for Paul, who quite frankly, takes the arrows in stride. <><
Dr. Jeffres has freedom of speech – in the pulpit or out of it – he is mainstream in his theological views and Joel has done him a disservice in this diatribe. If you haven't listened to Dr. Jeffres, you should. You can go to oneplace.com and look for his sermon archives and listen to his preaching. You will soon see that he is not the nut case that Joel has made him out to be. He is a standard-bearer for truth. Ron Paul is dangerous – his isolationist views are dangerous – his views on gays in the military and gay marriage are contrary to mainstream America! His belief that Iran has a right to nukes is dangerous. His refusal to help our only friend in the Middle East (Israel) is dangerous on many fronts – he may sound like a John Jay with his strong central government rhetoric, but he is purely an isolationist and in the global world we have today, that's a dangerous philosophy. He has some good ideas about fiscal responsibility, but his views on isolation, iran, the gay agenda, and Israel will certainly keep me from considering him as a viable candidate.
Gosh, do you know any other word than "dangerous"? Dangerous is what we've had for the last 23 years (12 Republ and 11 Dem) of unabated spending and interminable war. This is your view of Christian? And please at least get your facts straight. Paul is NOT an isolationist. He's a true Taft conservative from the 1950's. He's opposed to interventionism.
For the record, Buffett, the father of billionaire Warren, opposed military interventionism during the cold war era, declaring on the floor of the House: “Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics.”
How prophetic! <><
you sir are a fool!
I guarantee that you would not say that to my face, coward. I am like a Chuck Norris in real life. You would eat those words before they even came out of your mouth. Care to meet somewhere?
Love to see the neocons (here and elsewhere) continue to hit themselves in the head with a hammer on Ron Paul's presidential candidacy. Ron Paul NEVER said he wouldn't have gone to war with Hitler. What he said was he wouldn't have inserted the US into a war when US interests weren't at stake. Please, no "anti-semite" talk. Stalin, who Roosevelt couldn't wait to make a "partner" and sign up to ally with, was busy making Hitler's body count look like the actions of a rank amateur. Many of these murdered by our "ally" were not only devout Jews but also devout Christians, Muslims and atheists. And who ended up occupying most of the countries "liberated" by this coalition? Why, Stalin's Soviet Union, of course, who wasted no time in expanding its gulag to include those "satellite" puppet governments which killed and enslaved even more than Hitler.
</sarcasm>Sharon, nice to see the Mormon cult make itself heard on the board. And the lesson in ad hominem argumentation is very refreshing. Glad to see you've uncovered the "truth" about Paul (that he is an unelectable "nut") because he has won NO elections over the last 30 years. Wait…what's that? He' s a currently serving Congressman? Oops. Never mind. And Mitt Romney's been elected to what after he created a health care and big government nightmare in Massachusetts? Oh, yeah. Nothing.</sarcasm off>
nice post. the china and russia purges make hitler look like an amateur.
At what point in flipping WORLD WAR, do the interests of the United States finally come to be at stake??
Apparently, not until Hitler is personally beating on Dr Paul's front door. Never mind the army of 10s of thousands on the street in front of his house, that is not a real threat. Paul must be French. I recall a story about the Germans arriving at a class French restaurant in Paris and asking for a table for 10,000 before the start of WWII. They still didn't get it.
Ron Paul is one of the lowest human beings existing today. He is a Progressive/Leftist, even more to the left than the Commie squatting illegally in the WH. The only reason this anti-American liar get reelected is becaus of his serial violation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. All those earmarks he takes are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I absolutely despise this fraud and can't wait to see him go into the garbage pile of history.
Why do Christians feel so free to use this kind of reprehensible rhetoric. Interestingly, Paul affords you every right to use that kind of language. If said the same things to describe a future president Newt Gingrich, he could have you indefinitely imprisoned as an enemy combatant. If this is the kind of a country you want to live in, welcome to Nazi Germany. And at least learn the true story behind "earmarks". Paul has voted against earmarks EVERY single time. Name one other candidate who can make that claim. It's because we've allowed our system to be so seriously flawed that is the cause of this issue. But I suppose accepting $1.6 million from Fannie and Freddie is not a problem for you when, at the same time he said that any politician dealing with these organizations should be arrested. So you vilify a man with an impeccable track record as a physician and congressman, and exalt a man who was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. Amazing. If you even care about your false accusation, you might like to at least watch the response. http://goo.gl/CfuDb
you sir are a fool!
It's clear that sharon obviously meant "unelectable" AS PRESIDENT! Why has Paul not gone beyond a Congressman during his entire political career?
Romney (socialist governor record) or Dr. Paul (anti-socialist voting record)? I choose Dr. No
The point is missed that Ron Paul represents libertarian values, not Biblical values. For some reason McDurmon thinks Lockean-Jeffersonian philosophy is more Christian AND representative of the authentic Founding concept of republican government than the philosophy of Washington, Jay, Hamilton, and Madison (before the latter became a Jeffersonian and sympathizer with the French Revolution)–in other words, the Founders' philosophy as explicated in The Federalist. _John Jay was protesting against the politics of the Jeffersonians in power after 1800, when Jefferson's refusal to develop a sufficient navy, coupled with a provocative trade policy, encouraged Britain to risk a war in which they might reconquer her former colonies in North America. Jay did not believe that the Jeffersonians' political inconsistency to be unrelated to their less than Christian philosophy. _Ron Paul doesn't consider jihadism a serious threat to America internationally or domestically because he doesn't think religion is that important. Nominal Baptist membership is no more determinative than any other nominal Christianity. What serious Christian would name a son after Ayn Rand?
Rand paul’s full name is Randall, he was not named after Ayn Rand. Such ignorance here.
Ron Paul voted to go after Osama Bin Laden after 9/11 but he wanted to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal which would go after those individuals responsible. He didn't want us to go into a perpetual nation-building war in the Middle East which is helping to bankrupt this country and kill millions of people (on all sides). He understands history of why radicals in the Middle East attack us (confirmed by CIA Bin Laden Chief, Michael Scheurer). Dr. Paul was an Air Force Flight Surgeon, Vietnam War era and receives the most campaign contributions from the active military than all other candidates combined (including Obama). There is a video on you tube with veterans explaining why they so adamantly support Dr. Paul. "You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy". I ask that you take a look at it and if you don't agree, then at least you understood the military's position a little more.
Connie, here's the video: http://vimeo.com/34135182
Sadly, you are right in much of what you say, but the lack of biblical values is even more prevalent in the other candidates (Michelle Bachman excepted). The other founders you mentioned were also influenced by John Locke's enlightenment philosophy. Look at the "no religious test clause" (Article 6, paragraph 3), a futile attempt at something called "neutrality." Neutrality is a myth. Ron Paul is pro-life. Many libertarians take issue with him on that.
Exactly my thoughts. Ayn Rand was an atheist and probably an Nazi. Yet, RP aka Dr. Dementia, worships at her altar.
Randall "Rand" Paul was NOT named after Ayn Rand.
Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul is the only candidate in this race who follows the Lord in his heart while never wearing his faith on his sleeve. Read his statement of faith:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-o…
Where do you get your information about Mormons, it is the only church that voluntarily pays taxes. I am not a Mormon, but have researched their religion and you may want to do the same. There is nothing cult like about their religion, there is an off shoot group of polyamists that the leftist propganda spewing media loves to refer to, but that is the same media that provides cover for our marxist muslim messiah. The same media that does not inform people about a former Missouri govenor in the 1800's putting out a warrant to have Mormons shot on sight. The same media that finds nothing wrong with muslim honor killings. And yes I think Ron Paul is a nut based on his voting record, not his personality.
If you read the Bible and researched Mormonism, you would find they are DEFINITELY NOT CHRISTIAN. Jesus and satan are brothers? You must be kidding. They also do not acknowledge the 3rd person on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
Joel McDurmon's blatant bigotry and ignorance regarding Mormonism calls into question his information and reasoning regarding the rest of his piece. Perhaps he should read the defnitions of the word cult and realize that either the LDS Church is not a cult or all of Christianity can fit into a larger definition of the word. Either way, I am not impressed.
Whether Romney is fit to be president is matter for debate at another time. Mormonism, from the beginning, has been rather clear that ALL churches EXCEPT theirs (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) are of the DEVIL. Mormonism has been the PERSECUTOR of the Church since its founding. If you are ignorant of this fact, read the following quotes which are a mere tip of the iceberg:
Wilford Woo¬druff, the fourth LDS Prophet, wrote, “For the last eighteen hundred years [of the Christian Church], the people that have lived and passed away never heard the voice of an inspired man, NEVER HEARD A GOSPEL SERMON…” Really? So for the past 1800 prior to Mormonism, the Church has been apostate?
Mormon historian B. H. Roberts wrote, “Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the GOSPEL WAS PERVERTED; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was LEFT TO FLOUNDER IN THE DARKNES of a long period of apos¬tasy from God…A UNIVERSAL APOSTASY from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place”
The Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 1:30 says the LDS Church is “THE ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH upon the face of the whole earth.” The Mormon Church is THE ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH?
In the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:19, Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, said that the Lord told him that the existing churches “WERE ALL WRONG—all their creeds were an abomination in His sight—that THOSE PROFESSORS WERE ALL CORRUPT—.” Sounds to me that the Mormom Church is the aggressor…but maybe that’s just me.
And The Book of Mormon, I Nephi 14:10 says, “there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and THE OTHER IS THE CHURCH OF THE DEVIL…” Some people need to do a little research if they say that Mormons are the persecuted. The Mormon Church is the “Lamb of God” and the Christian Church is “the Church of the Devil”???
LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, corroborated that fact when he wrote, “But who in this generation have authority to baptize? NONE BUT THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS; all other churches are ENTIRELY DESTITUTE OF ALL AUTHORITY FROM GOD; and any person who receives baptism or the Lord’s Supper from their hands will highly offend God; for He looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people. BOTH CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS ARE NOTHING LESS THAN THE ‘WHORE OF BABYLON’ whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornication and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches WILL BE SENT DOWN TO HELL WITH THEM, unless they repent of their unholy and impious act” (The Seer, p. 255).
So please consider the facts before you speak.
Joel McDurmon sounds like a proponent of "dominionism", or "theological dominionism", which holds that all humanity should be governed on Biblical principles only. That belief is not only contrary to the U.S. Constitution, but also to the New Testament (Jesus said, "my Kingdom is not of this world").
Ron Paul is a RINO
And you are an aardvaark.
And you need to take another hit on your Bong.
Ron Paul is NOT a RINO, he is probley the ONLY one who could SAVE America,but you would rather call names then come together for the GOOD of the country. However, we may not get a chance to vote in Nov polls, Obama will go to war with Iran (the WWW III) bringing more harm to the world,and hoping it will help elect him.and I suspect it could be the time for the "Rapture" of the Christians,leaving the "unbelievers" to be ruled by Obama. Every thing that is suppose to happen has happened,thats the next thing on the Agenda.I see Israel is all set and there has been a great "falling away" of the church,led by the "false Prophet" "Catholic Church". So if you don't know Jesus Christ, better consider HIM…
Good point! Ron Paul truly is a "Republican In Name Only", i.e., RINO
John,
That is an interesting post, I am wondering where you got that info that Rand Paul is named after Ayn Rand? I thought his name was Randall?
Nope – He is named for Ayn Rand! Ron Paul is a Randian philosopher and his son was named in honor of her. His name is NOT Randall, it truly is Rand. And his own philosophy is very Randian. He is another one who believes that big business is to blame for most of the evils in the world.
No I have researched this. Ron Paul is so nuts over Ayn Rand that he actually did name his son after this atheist.
And I have researched it also. As always, anything written by "Millicent" on one of these political blogs should be considered to be a dirty slanderous lie, until proven otherwise beyond the shadow of a doubt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU The man himself explains that his name is "Randal"
I thought this was an interesting blog site, but with people like Millicent the quality will go down quickly.
Well Jeffress has opened his mouth again, what can you expect from a head pastor of a First Baptist church?
Honesty?
Critical thinking?
Solid doctrine?
Spiritual maturity?
Nay, all of the above come around once every blue moon with that sad excuse for the biggest cult this side of Catholicism.
Jeffress?
However, that bit about Honesty, Critical thinking, solid doctrine and spiritual maturity is to be found where?
Every Christian commnunity that I know of ignores what Isarel said they were going to do from the very first and many of them call Jews God's chosen people.
Christians do have a tremendous political influence, or what we refer to as Christian.
For the most part the Christian community is cultish. They go with the flow, be it their own fleshly desires or what ever political party supports them. The political landscape is of their making.
Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity. The heretics are outside of it.
And this is based on what? Mistaken apostolic succession? Theories about Peter? It certainly isn't based on any kind of scriptural accuracy, preservation, translation, or consistency. Leaving us with your own personal feelings.
Joe,_Thanks for challenging my mistaken assumption! The Kentucky senator's name is Randal.
No it is not. Sorry, but Dr. Dementia actually named his son after this evil woman.
Much of what Ron Paul says I agree with. The mushrooming national debt, especially since Obama took office, is a national defense issue. I agree that we don't need a federal Dept of Education, an Energy Department, and many other federal agencies that are nothing more than toilets where we flush tax dollars. However, I have a lot of problems with Ron Paul. His foreign policy answers border on lunacy. To call the wikileaks perpetrator, Bradley Manning, a "hero" is to align yourself with the far-left looney liberals. To say you wouldn't have attacked Hitler is to say that you would have accepted a Europe under Nazi control as well as acceptance of the Nazi's extermination of the Jews. To say that you would not attack Iran ignores the problem of a radical Islamic state that has the often repeated goal of wiping Israel off the map then coming for the US. If you closely watch Ron Paul during the debates, he looks old, at times he seems to struggle for an answer, and a relatively young, charismatic Obama will beat Ron Paul badly in November. I want to see Obama lose in November but Ron Paul virtually assures an Obama victory.
Steve, I accepted your line of reasoning since I began voting in 1976. I was always bullied to believe that voting for the lesser of the two evils was the ONLY option. For the past 23 years we've had 12 years of Repubs and 11 years of Dems. Though Obama has clearly accelerated our demise, there has been virtually no difference between the leaderships of either party. Were it not for Hebert Walker Bush and George W. Bush, we wouldn't be in this mess. We no longer have the luxury of being wrong again. We simply cannot afford another business-as-usual neo-conservative Republican. It's time for a radical departure back to the conservatism of the 50's. Steve, we've run out of time. We have been herded like sheep into choices that are not in our best interests. Yes, I believe Obama must be defeated, but to choose a candidate that will only slightly retard our demise is no longer a prudent option for me. If Paul is defeated by Obama the sole responsibility with fall on Christians who stood by watching it happen. The establishments of both parties are terrified by Ron Paul. He stands as the only candidate willing to invoke the massive change necessary to resurrect our country from the abyss. Romney or Gingrich will only be marginally better than Obama. So, consider fighting your pragmatic impulse. Thanks, Steve, I truly understand your pain.
Another poster here has already refuted your allegation that Paul wouldn't have attacked Hitler so I will not address that here. However, you comments regarding Bradley Manning are disgraceful. Assume the charges against Manning are correct. Manning let the public know of terrible crimes committed by US military forces. Perhaps you saw the footage released by Wikileaks taken from a helicopter gunship as it mowed down civilians in the street as they were going about their daily business. There was no evidence or indication they were a legitimate military target. Rather, we got to hear the sneering contempt by the soldiers for the murdered innocents below, including comments revealing indifference to killing children. Is this what you want to hide? Also, you are either ignorant or intentionally deceitful in alleging Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map". That has been exposed many times as a translation error. Instead, it was said they wanted the Israeli "regime" removed from the pages of time". There is a big difference. Among the GOP candidates only Paul can beat Obama as he is the only one who attracts independents and Democrats who feel betrayed by Obama. Further, especially considering the disgraceful way Paul has been treated by both the Republican establishment and the media, I can guarantee most Paul supporters will either vote third party or stay home election day rather than vote for any of the other GOP candidates whose policies they deem to be substantially the same as Obama's. Without Paul voters the GOP will go down in flames next November
Very true, Marlow. What the Neocons underestimate is the resolve of Paul supporters. We are simply sick and tired of the past 23 years (12 Repub & 11 Dem) and refuse to support the facade of conservatism any longer. I reject the bullying by the ridiculous notion that to vote for Paul is to vote for Obama. The fact is that to vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. If others don't heed that warning then it is they who are electing Obama or an Obama-like Repub replacement. The establishment has the game rigged. They pit two against the middle, knowing that either candidate will do their bidding. Time to actually vote based upon principle and not pragmatism. <><
Obama's "charisma" has run its course. His unpopularity is deafening. People are fed up. Many are saying, "Anybody but Obama." I don't agree with the "anybody " part. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a solid specific program for the economic woes of this county. The biggest danger to America is not from without, but from within. Obama's transparency is not deliberate on his part, but quite in spite of his attempts to cover up the corruption. RON PAUL 2012!
Ron Paul actually looks pretty good for a 76-year old. But he still looks old, because he is. How would it be to have a President who turned 80 before the end of his first term (Reagan was 77 when he ended his two-term Presidency).
Steve, I failed to mention that you make excellent points throughout your post. I fully agree with them.
I have always been a fan of Joel McDurmon. His views on theology are well reasoned and backed up with solid research. This post sullies that opinion. Ron Paul did indeed blame America for the attacks of muslims on American soil. While Jeffress may have his facts wrong, Paul is not someone that any true evangelical or "true Christian" could ever support. His answer for the racist rants in his newsletters just doesn't pass muster. He is on tape blaming America for muslim attacks. He is on record for legalizing drugs of every shape and form. He is utterly naive about Iran. No, I don't want unnecessary involvements in foreign affairs. I do want to protect my country and simply protecting our borders, like Paul supports, is not enough. There are things called missiles that hop over borders, no matter how well protected. There are experts in moving illegal contraband into the country. Being proactive in foreign affairs is reasonable. Paul is not presidential material.
Finally, the LDS issue is important. While the Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test for office, it is important for the populace to know who Romney really is and where he is coming from. It is LDS theology that Mormons will someday rule the earth. That is why it is so important for Mormons to stash a year's worth of food – for the so-called coming break-down of society. With Mormons controlling all the food, it will be natural that they take over all government. People need to know.
Anyone who plans can store a years worth of food by planting & canning, buying canned goods ect. The object is to have a plan.
I am sorry to say this but you, sir, are a liar. Ron Paul never blamed the US for 9/11. He said US foreign policy was a factor in motivating the attacks, which by the way, he voted for in favor of taking military action against those responsible. No less an authority than Michael Schuerer, former Chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit, agrees with Paul, that the US suffers "blowback" in the form of terrorist attacks due to US military intervention in their countries. How would we feel if China placed troops in the US and regularly killed civilians as it tried to track down "terrorists"? Well. people in the Muslim countries feel the same way towards American occupiers.
You are obviously shedding crocodile tears over the "racist" newsletters. If you truly cared about racism you would join Paul in condemning the "racist anti-drug laws which are applied against blacks in an outrageously disproportionate manner, which Paul has been pointing out since well before the newsletters, which he didn't write but has disavowed.
You worrying about Iran sending missiles against the US is laughable. It has no such missile capability and were it to attempt to do so Iran would be the one that would truly be "wiped off the map". But, of course, they are not going to attack the US. Nor have they ever done so. SSadly, the same cannot be said for the US, which commits acts of war against Iran to this day: assassinating Iranian scientists, flying drones over their airspace, imposing sanctions and interfering with Iranian oil exports. Being"proactive" in foreign affairs is just code for taking pre-emptive military action against targets because they "might" one day be a threat. In iran's case, the alleged threat is them getting a nuclear weapon, see the following from Wikileaks:
To address concerns that its enrichment program may be diverted to non-peaceful uses,[19] Iran has offered to place additional restrictions on its enrichment program including, for example, ratifying the Additional Protocol to allow more stringent inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, operating the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz as a multinational fuel center with the participation of foreign representatives, renouncing plutonium reprocessing and immediately fabricating all enriched uranium into reactor fuel rods.[20] Iran's offer to open its uranium enrichment program to foreign private and public participation mirrors suggestions of an IAEA expert committee which was formed to investigate the methods to reduce the risk that sensitive fuel cycle activities could contribute to national nuclear weapons capabilities.[21] Some non-governmental U.S. experts have endorsed this approach.
How very, very sad so many alleged "good Christians" are so willing to overlook facts in order to violate the commandment , "Thou shall not kill".
How very nice and appropriate to be called a liar. Thank-you so much. You seem to be typical of other Ron Paul supporters I have encountered. Damn the facts, attack!
Just a couple of things. First, I never mentioned 9/11. Please read before lobbing your bomb next time. Second, please watch this, if you can deal with it. http://youtu.be/BnPV2xea2ro . Paul clearly blames the USA for muslim attacks. But, I doubt it will make any difference to you. Third, the command is, "Thou shall not murder." KJV got that one wrong.
I actually like a lot of Ron Paul's ideas. Cutting $1 trillion from the budget immediately makes good sense. I wish some of the other candidates would propose something similar. I like his free market ideas. But, there is a lot to not like as well. "Crocodile tears?" A comment like that, as if the newsletter issue wasn't significant, makes you sound like you might be a racist as well. Racism is deplorable. And to claim that he didn't know? Please! Sounds like Clinton with the "I didn't inhale" comment or Obama denying that he heard any of Rev. Wright's rants for 20 years. If Paul was that ignorant of what was in how own newsletter, what else is he ignorant about?
Look, reasonable people can disagree. But, Paul supporters, who claim to be anti-war, go to war with everyone who criticizes him. That alone should tell you something.
Just on a side note, none of the Ron Paul supporters I know, (including myself) are anti-war. We are anti-interventionist, in that we don't approve of meddling in other nations' affairs without just cause as Washington so eloquently warned against in his farewell address.
On another side note, thank you for pointing out that the word 'Kill' as used in earlier English and the KJV did not have the same definition then as it does today, the word, 'murder,' being used for the same concept in modern English. "Slay" is generally used in the older English to convey the concept for which we currently use the word, 'kill.' Jehovah requires the 'killing' of man at times, and indeed gave the base charter for Government when He told Noah that "…if a man sheds [innocent] blood, by man shall his blood be shed…"
I'm just wondering if you wear a tinfoil hat. You have these irrational fears and claims aginst the LDS Church. Regardiing the one year food supply — Mormons save food for the same reason they volunteer at farms and canneris across the coountry. In case of a natural or other mergancy they will have a food supply so they are not immediately standing with their hands ut expecting the government to feed them. By the way, do you know who is one of the main suppliers of food and other emergancy essentials in a dissaster? The LDS Church — regardless of a person's religion or poitical standing. Inn fact, after the earthquake in Haiti a few years ago, it was reported a number of Haitians were saying the teo best organizations for supplying food and other needed supplies were the Mormons and the LDS Church (they didn't know it was the same).
Finally, if the Mormons are going to take over the world (I would assume forcibly in your warped view), why would they bother storing a year's worth of food? Wouldn't they just take it? So, relax, the big mean bad Mormons aren't going to go after you.
Thank you for this post, Joel. I have struggled with wondering whether to support candidates who share my beliefs or ones who seem electable. I think that is a common struggle. Often there isn’t even a candidate who seems like a ‘real’ Christian in the way that John Jay described, let alone other issues besides that of war. Recently I have rethought my historically Republican viewpoint, thinking that it seems hypocritical that as Republicans we demonize the democratic position of ‘choice’ (realizing correctly that it entails killing another human being which is against ‘real’ christianity) and yet are supportive of the general republican support of war (which also results in killing other humans- yes, allowed and even mandated by God in the OT to preserve his people Israel- yet, clearly in the NT Jesus brings a gospel of peace and of loving our enemy, that our war is to be spiritual and not physical). Much of Christianity today does not embrace the ‘nonresistance’ of Jesus and justifies their position of killing. Thank you for helping me to realize that even in voting, maybe especially in voting, I need to go back to the basics of my beliefs as a real Christian and not let pragmatism cloud my thinking. Perhaps if we all truly let our principles guide us, our country and the world would turn around.
The commandment in the original language is "Thou shalt do no murder." Defending one's country is not murder. However, I would agree that when leaders send men into war for political expediency, it is murder on a massive scale. We've seen that in abundance in 20th and 21st century America. The big war is indeed spiritual. It has always been that way throughout history–yes, even in the Old Testament which pointed forward to the coming of the Prince of Peace. However, wars will cease only on God's terms, not those of the humanistic United Nations. It is God's law or chaos, the crown rights of King Jesus or tyranny!