Why Are Some Social Conservatives in Iowa Endorsing Ron Paul?

Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.
Mr. Paul has not survived in politics for 22 years and maintain the ethics and morality he has by being anything other than stellar.
If You refute the above comment, then I please invite You to listen to him speak about key issues. It is amazing how well he comes across because he doesn’t have to remember lies like other politicians.  He understands what is happening in the world and knows how to apply the basic principles of liberty to achieve the real change that America so desperately deserves.
American to American we are all on the same team. So I present Mr. Ron Paul as my Candidate for 2011 and invite anybody to meaningfully and respectfully debate why he is not the best for American and its people in 2012.
Ron Paul = A real change, not for special interest, but for America’s Interests!
Thank You for Your time
Ron Paul 2012

Who else would you support?  Might social conservatives be supporting him because he’s the best out there?  

If all he does with abortion is to allow states the right to ban it, he has done much more good than any previous Republican. (According to wikipedia, and I couldn’t find anywhere on his website to correct it, Pawlentry also believe abortion is a states issue).

Pulling out of overseas wars will also lead to lives being saved: being pro-life needs to include the lives of foreigners.

I can’t find a Biblical justification for government banning drugs.  Clearly it would be better not to use them, but I don’t think government has the right to ban their use.  In fact banning the use of drugs has led to its own problems.

His views on homosexuality are wrong.  But he’s right not to single it out as a greater sin than other sins (adultery etc).  

Is he being supported because he’s the best option going?

Ron Paul thinks the Constitution needs to be defended or it is worthless in defense of our own rights, including our religious rights.  He thinks government should be out of marriage as it was for thousands of years, leaving it between the individuals and their church, but he sees danger of centralized federal government in all our rights, including our religious rights.  Note that when the Department of Education gets input federally, it skews more socially liberal, not conservative, and there is no reason to think it wouldn’t do the same on other topics.  

One quote from Ron Paul’s ‘Revolution’, paraphrased is:  ”A Constitution that can say anything you want, might as well be blank.”   Increasingly, we need to rely on the Consititution’s protections against Federal Government intrusion to protect our determination of how we live, worship and raise our own children.  It is a real mistake to leap to liberal interpretations expanding federal reach of the Constitution ‘when we like the result’, imho.

And the traditional interpretation of the Constitution was not vague, marriage was an issue for the states.  SO WAS ABORTION.  Ron Paul is so pro-life there is no one more so.  He is doing what he sincerely considers to be the best way to address this issue, after years in Congress seeing values voters led by the nose for Constitutional fixes that never come to fruition.  He thinks his collegues who are fighting this battle less hard are given a pass as they wait for the Holy Grail, overlooking at least partial solutions such as Ron’s Sanctity of Life Act to exercise the power of Congress to delete abortion from matters that can be determined by federal courts.  That would put it back into the hands of the states and save babies NOW dying in Iowa, Texas, Georgia, etc.  And he has proposed Constitutional amendments to fix this as well. And he wants Roe v Wade repealed.  

Ron Paul doesn’t need activists agitating him on this point, he IS an activist, himself.

Shane, I listened to your youtube on Ron Paul speaking of homosexuality, and have to assume you don’t disagree with him that everyone is God’s child?  I’ve heard him address this more than once, though, so it is one of many times he’s discussed it to me, and other times when asked if he thought it was a sin he’s said, ‘well, everyone sins,  I’ve sinned…’  and it is clear he just doesn’t see himself as a judge.  The Bible does also say we should not set ourselves up as judges.  Ron Paul lives his religious beliefs, and he is not inconsistent, but if you get just a snip you may not always have the full picture.

I encourage you to look into him. He may or may not be your choice for president for whatever reason, but I truly think he will win your respect as a Christian person living out his beliefs as best he is able.

Shane,

I am not from Iowa but felt compelled to respond. Dr. Paul does not condone any of those issues but feels you cannot pick and choose freedoms.  All moral and social issues should be up to the individual states to decide what is right for them.  Ron Paul is a man of integrity.  I am 51 years old and have never respected a politician like I do Ron Paul.  Read his books, watch some you tube videos and get to know him. You do not have to agree with him on every issue but he is the only one running that will give you the choice to live your life the way you and everyone else sees fit. 

Thanks for listening!

Sincerely,

Cynthia Ann Stark

Shane,

Ron Paul’s position on these issues derive from the philosophy of tolerance and non-aggression. Although he may personally disagree with choices such as homosexuality, ingesting controversial substances and prostitution, he is not for the initiation of force as a solution to these choices.

Personally, I do not believe that Jesus preached the use of the use of force to achieve moral ends. Force is immoral when not reserved for self defense and one cannot hope to achieve a state of morality through the use of force. There can be no virtue without choice.

I am not Christian and in my opinion, I should have the right to do with my body as I wish. I may be wrong, however it is just as wrong to apply force in order to achieve these ends. If we are to create an environment that is more moral and less sinful we must utilize peaceful protest and persuasion, not force. You cannot force individuals to be less sinful you can only pray or use other peaceful means.

Ron Paul doesn’t do heroin – but doesn’t believe that we should have a national police force with the authority to kick in your door wearing black masks and full auto rifles to prevent you from doing the same.
Ron Paul never committed an abortion and does not sanction it – he does not believe the govt should be involved – right now the govt is positively sanctioning the act.  If left to the states common sense might be put to work and this act would be rightly labeled murder in at least some states rather than having a blanket legality forced upon us by the Fed.
Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for 53 years.   He says Govt shouldn’t be involved with marriages at all and that the Church handles it. 
Ron paul believes in Liberty - All liberty that doesn’t interfere with another’s property rights or safety or ability to do the same - that means /gasp two men who want to be perverted together are none of his, my, or the Govt. Business.
The liberals want to use the govt for their pet agenda items… you want to use the govt for a different set of your pet agenda items.  Ron Paul wants the Govt to be limited to the Constitution and let us handler our pet projects in the free market – leaving the sole purpose of our national govt to be defend us from foreign or domestic enemies and ensure the survival of individual liberty and property rights. 
 The Author asks questions: why are some social conservatives in Iowa endorsing Ron Paul?  Because he is the best candidate. 
 When asked about religion and Govt he points out the wording of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law…”
and says the Govt. can’t/shouldn’t restrict expressions of faith in public places (10 commandments, nativity scenes, Christmas tree’s.)  
 The key point to understand is that Dr. Paul understands that this stuff can’t and shouldn’t be controlled by the force of govt ( force being the only tool govt has) and instead should be determined by people and their own personal choices. 

What I personally don’t understand about the Christian community’s involvement in government, is that they are involved in the first place.  Jesus Christ never advocated governmental intervention or the right of a Christian to regulate the actions of another individual by force.  Ron Paul allows gay right, for example, because he, as a Christian, knows that homosexuals have a right to sin and we don’t have a right to take that away from them.  Who are we to regulate that right?  Christian force cannot turn another person toward God; it merely pushes them further away.  Again, stop bringing God into politics beyond basic moral principles that don’t remove valued civil liberties.  

He believes in liberty from social governmental control.  Doesn’t every Christian want to agree with that?  I know that I don’t want to be treated like a child while slowly acclimating to the full loss of my civil liberties.  Jesus, dear Christians, would never be in politics and would leave that to others.  You should follow his lead and stop trying to force values on others; simply utilize those values in your own sphere as God permits.  It is a sin to cause others to stumble, and the actions of regulation pursuing Christian conservatives are further repressing those that “sin” because they are turning those people further away from God by their actions.

Wake up people and realize that the other choices are INSANE choices and perpetuation of the status quo.  Only people that aren’t familiar with Ron Paul or have a contorted view of religious powers over other’s freedom could think otherwise.  If you don’t pick Ron Paul, I promise you, you choose the further destruction of our great country.

Jesus is a libertarian.  Jesus loves Ron Paul.  I love them both.

We
are not a theocracy. In America, most rational people will support
someone who shows a moral backbone and principles, and someone who
supports everyone’s right to believe and worship (or not believe and
worship) freely and openly. If there’s one thing almost EVERYONE
agrees with Ron Paul on (whether they know it or not!), it is the
right NOT to have someone else’s religious beliefs imposed on them.
This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists,
Atheists and every other belief and religion imaginable. Dr. Paul
rightly realizes that throughout history, the worst sort of
government abuses have come through efforts by a majority (or even
minority) to use the levers of power to impose their personal beliefs
on the population as a whole.

You
are incorrect in almost all your bullet points. Ron Paul does not
personally advocate your laundry list of actions and behaviors. You
wrongly assume that if he opposes sanctions against ‘victimless’
crimes and private, personal behavior, then he ‘must’ be an advocate
for them! To the contrary, Ron Paul only advocates the legalization
of FREEDOM and the right to personal choice, so long as it does not
violate the rights of another. That is a largely ignored, but
critical distinction. As a doctor, he has seen the scourge of drug
usage, and he personally opposes drug usage, and advocates it be
treated as a MEDICAL problem- not a CRIMINAL one. But he has also
seen the destructiveness of criminalization and prohibition of drugs.
The Prohibition of Alcohol, while ‘good-intentioned’, actually
INCREASED usage of alcohol, and all it’s deleterious effects. It
INCREASED under-aged usage, INCREASED criminal activities such as
murder,extortion, bribery of public officials, and also advanced
formerly small-time criminals into being multimillionaire crime
kingpins. Sound familiar? After a 40-year ‘War on Drugs’, all we have
to show for it is increased incarceration rates of otherwise
law-abiding citizens, increased crime related to THE PROHIBITION of
drugs (the Black Market in them, not the substances themselves), and
a law-enforcement/prison economy that thrives on the crime and it’s
profitability. Not to mention increased drug usage (both legal and
illegal), and most dangerously the creation of a failed narco-state
on our southern border that rivals the widespread violence and
instability of Columbia in the latter 20th century. These negative
effects result not from the usage of the substances themselves, but
from the criminal behavior stemming from Tthe PROHIBITION of the
substances! The argument for legalization can be applied to
Prostitution. Properly regulated Prostitution has not resulted in the
breakdown of society in Nevada, Canada and many other places where it
is legal, safe and regulated. Problems almost exclusively occur where
this behavior is prohibited, and regulation of ‘the world’s oldest
profession’ is left in the hands of criminals- instead of legal
authorities.

As
for Abortion, Dr. Paul is personally staunchly opposed to it.
However, he feels the Federal Government has no Constitutional right
to regulate it, and that it is a matter for each individual state to
decide. Even the majority of advocates for Abortion rights must
logically agree that it is not an act without negative consequences,
and should NEVER be considered as a primary means of birth control.
Similarly, on the question of homosexuality Ron Paul feels that the
government has no right to regulate personal behavior, ESPECIALLY
when  singling out a ‘Class’ or group of people, and either
denying them rights or giving them ‘special’ rights above and beyond
those of others. Dr. Paul has stated that the Military should
prosecute ANYONE who violates the UCMJ, whatever their sexual
orientation. Otherwise, if there is no problem they create through
their behavior, they should be left alone. On Marriage, Dr. Paul has
said that ALL marriage should be taken ut of the hands of the
government, instead being placed in the hands of an individual’s
Personal Church. Any cohabitational disputes should be settled
through existing contract and (if applicable) criminal law. In fact,
this is already done in the cases of ‘common-law’ marriage.

In
conclusion, you ask “…why are some social conservatives in
Iowa endorsing Ron Paul?”. Well, many people who don’t think
with a bumper-sticker mentality and approach important issues from a
critical thinking perspective realize that what Ron Paul says and
what is REPORTED he has said in the media are often two disparate
things! Many people, not just ‘Conservative Christians’ realize that
once we start imposing one view of morality on our fellow citizens,
we open the door to imposing morality that may be at odds or
destructive to our OWN beliefs. America was founded as a ‘Marketplace
of Ideas’. If we believe that our personal views are right, we should
be strong enough to lead by example and convince our fellow citizens
without the use of the force of government regulation and laws.
Besides, the primary tenets of libertarian thought condensed quite
nicely in Luke 6:31 “Do unto others as you would have them do to
you”. Maybe many Conservative Christians are coming to realize
that Ron Paul’s deeply held Christian and Libertarian beliefs are not
only compatible, but complementary and totally in sync!

I am a social conservative and your skew on his ideas are flawed. Of course you want to make it sound interesting for the reader, but at what expense? Honesty?

Marriage – Why is the gov even involved? This is an individual choice and individual issue. Should be up to the states. Bring this whole thing back to the church. Marriage is an institution between my wife and I and God, not between her, me and the USA.

Abortion – Let the states decide. Murder is done this why, why not abortion? Is it not murder?

Drugs – Why should the fed treat this any differently than Alcohol?

Morality – You can legislate it, but it doesn’t work. A strong foundation and good parenting is what makes us moral. Not laws. 

I love it when a die-hard social conservative like yourself claims to like Ron Paul’s economic policies but oppose his views on social conservatism, because it proves that too many social conservatives have their values upside down. People who think that social conservative issues are more important these days than economic issues need to have their heads examined.

I encourage you to do more research before making these statements. I will be the first to admit that he doesn’t often state it as clearly as he could, but Ron Paul tends to think from the Federal government perspective, so when he says he is against anti-drug laws or other policies, he means Federal regulations, not all regulations.

However, he has an absolute belief that the STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THESE ISSUES. He is looking to minimize the Federal government and divert those powers back to the states where they can be managed by their constituents more effectively.

Let’s use the example of abortion. He believes a fetus is viable and has a right to life from the time of conception and has taken a clear pro-life stance. He does oppose Roe v. Wade, not because of it’s stance on abortion but rather because he believes that the states should be responsible for all powers not listed in the Constitution, including regulation of abortion within their borders. If you read either his website statements on this issue or his book “Liberty Defined” it makes his position clear and I have simply summarized it for you.

Most of his critics use the same argument you have used. I am sure you did it unintentionally, because he doesn’t state the critical part of his position that the Federal government has too much power and that nearly all of the federal regulations and laws should actually be dealt with by the states. Ron Paul doesn’t suggest we just create some chaotic, anarchist situation without laws- rather, he simply believes that state and local governments can do a better job tailoring laws to fit their constituents because they are “closer to home,” meaning that their policies can be changed more effectively. After all, it is much easier to vote out a governor or state representative that you don’t like than it is to get a president out of the office!

In the end, it takes a stronger man to be tolerate other religions and views regardless of how he feels about it personally.  That is the difference between preaching and leading.

Shane,

Excellent article. I have been telling folks about Paul’s positions myself. I was a Ron Paul supporter before he became the nationally known “Ron Paul” even though I then lived in a state far from his. I do not support Dr. Paul anymore.  In fact, all should know that  Dr. Paul,  for all his softness in approach and appealing reasonableness, poses a seductively dangerous philosophy. It appeals to Christians because he is a professing Christian and constitutional  purist. Many Christians therefore adopt his views across the board and, perhaps, might even adopt his overall, utilitarian libertarianism. Thus, they would be led astray to the point of impliedly or explicitly rejecting the viability and potency of God’s law or, at least, its appropriateness in the political marketplace. Have you noticed the emotional defense which he offers for the unborn? It rests on the viscerally repulsive story about the very late term abortion which he witnessed in which the child was left to die on a nearby table. He does not defend life from the principled position God’s law requires, even to the zygote. Christian parents, warn you children about Dr. Paul’s politics. This candidate is rated PG,  parental guidance needed.
Louis F. Sette
Forest, Va.

To the author of this article:  You seriously need to study government theory and learn the difference between State governments and the Federal Government in this country.  Ron Paul does not endorse any of these policies personally.  It’s simply the case that he’s the only Republican competent enough in the Constitution to realize that these issues are not a matter of the Federal Government.  They should be regulated by the states because the Constitution explicitly commands that any power not bestowed upon the Federal Government, should be regulated by the states themselves.  This is a simple concept and I am often amazed at how difficult it is to for some people to grasp.  This means that if he ended the prohibition of drugs at the federal level, they would all still be illegal at the state level so there would be no change to you and I!  The only change would be that the federal government wouldn’t be wasting money on a drug-war they can’t win and actually makes things harder for local law enforcement to manage.  If Ron Paul were to end federal drug prohibition, there is not a single state that would then legalize heroin, cocaine, etc!  There might be a few states that legalize marijuana on some level and regulate it and tax it just like most states do with alcohol.  Then, after drug usage goes down, young kids have less access to it and the state is generating money from it, more states may follow suit.  But again, it’s all up to you as a voter and if you don’t like it, move to another state!  What the founders had in mind was a series of 50 experiments where people can choose what laws they want both by being able to move and stay within the same beautiful country and by voting at the local levels more fervently making their votes really count!  When all the laws are moved to the federal level, our votes don’t count!

I am a strong social conservative and a devout Christian and I support Ron Paul wholeheartedly because I believe he is the only man who is principled enough to follow the Constitution the way the founders intended.

Mr. Hart,
I would like to respectfully point out that you are wrong on a few issues regarding RP’s beleifs. First of all, Paul is a consistent Pro-Life congressmen; he has said over and over that he believes that as a doctor who has delievered 4000 babies, he believes life begins a conception. I dont understand where you are getting thoes statistics.  He does not believe that drugs should be legalized, rather, the Federal government should not forces states into certian drug policies. AND, to an extent you are right that all laws have something moral to them. However, that moral should be the GOLDEN RULE, otherwise, laws cannot force people to be moral or a better person if that person is not hirting anyone else. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT JOB TO REGULATE SOCIETY NOR THE ECONOMY! This was the view held by many traditional conservatives, like GOLDWATER, who beleived that institutions like schools and churches should regulate society and people should do what they wish with their money. RON PAUL IS A TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE: A CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN.

I think that if you get your facts straight and understand the history of American conservativism, you’d see wear Paul is coming from and why he is effect with SO MANY people, INCLUDING SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES! Afterwards, I think you’ll be infected with the Ron Paul virus and work with us to make governments follow the one moral they should enforce: THE GOLDEN RULE  

Sanctity of life act every year. When I murder I go to state court because I broke a state law. Abortion is murder, thus it should be handled by the states like all murder is. see chuck baldwin’s endorsement. Second, Ron Paul has said that prostitution is a state issue and would oppose it if he held a state office. Third, he supports DOMA. I have more but I think you get the point. Ron Paul is still a good social conservative. 

Thus is the difference between someone who holds a secular libertarian
worldview (which Congressman Paul does) contrasted with those who hold
to a Christian libertarian (“you can’t have liberty without law” –
meaning God’s law) or full-spectrum conservative point of view.

You can’t have liberty without law – meaning God’s law

Supposedly God gave us free will, does that not figure into your God’s law equation?

Supposedly this country was founded on a separation of church and state. What you propose is to have the State dictate morality, where does that leave the separation? Having the State dictate morality on behalf of a Christian majority leads to an interesting dilemma. People abandon God for the safety and security of the State. From my perspective it looks as if people no longer worship God as the provider of all their needs, they worship Government, the State.

In my reading of the Bible, I find it interesting that Jesus showed anger only once. He directed His ire at the Pharisees, the “money changers”, the establishment that had convinced people they had cornered the market on “God’s Law”.

This is a paraphrased quote from a book titled Our Enemy The State-

Everybody wants something-for-nothing, or at least something-for- less, and so they create the State in their own image. Only a transformation of the hearts of the people will topple the power of the State.

To the author….you have more in common with the those on the left in that you wish to use the force and power of government to enforce your beliefs than you have with honest social conservatives. Dr. Paul believes, as would any honest person of faith, that morality comes from the voluntary actions of the church and free people not from force of government……….in fact, the  more we look to government to be the enforcer of morality, the immoral we will become.