Why Are Some Social Conservatives in Iowa Endorsing Ron Paul?



imageSteve Deace posted a piece written by Gregg Jackson about Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) that I thought was interesting.  None of the following will likely upset many of his diehard followers, but those who care about issues like marriage and abortion should be concerned.  Many of these positions are actually lauded by his supporters and I’m sure that this post will be labeled a hit piece.  It is not.  I agree with Congressman Paul on many of his economic positions, but frankly when it comes to social issues – Congressman Paul’s record and rhetoric has not given me much to be excited about.  I welcome response by those social conservatives and Christians in Iowa who have publicly endorsed him because I really don’t understand it.

These things are stumbling blocks for him in Iowa no matter how much his supporters will hoot and holler about it.  By the way, many of the links are videos of interviews he has done… so they are his own words and/or public record.  Again I recognize that many of his supporters simply don’t care about these things, that’s fine – many people do.

Denies that God says homosexuality is a sin.

Supports open homosexuals in the military and repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Supports the “freedom philosophy” of legalizing cocaine, heroin, marijuana and all other hard drugs. In his words, “Government has no role or authority in regulating drugs.”

Supports legalization of pornography and prostitution.

Supports right of homosexuals to marry one another (i.e. “gay marriage) He says, “Gay couples can do whatever they want.”

Is “pro-choice for states” on abortion. Individual states should be able to legalize abortion if they so choose. All pre-born babies don’t possess a God-given right to their own lives which no individual state may ever violate.

Supported abortion legislation regulations which have resulted in 7.4 million chemical and surgical abortions since taking office in 1997 in Congress.

Doesn’t believe it’s government’s role to “legislate morality” even though all laws are based on morality.

Congressman Paul has said that the spending our government does is immoral (I agree), but then brushes these other issues off doesn’t make sense to me.  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.

So this begs the question – why are some social conservatives in Iowa endorsing Ron Paul?

Photo by Dave Davidson

A note about comments on this post – I welcome rebuttal, but I won’t allow personal attacks.  Have something of substance to comment about or don’t comment at all.  Make a reasonable argument or don’t bother because your comment will be deleted.

Connect with Caffeinated Thoughts!

  • Cade Halada

    You are confused about the difference between law and morality.

    Laws are meant to defend an individuals right to lawful defense. A person has a natural God given right to his person, his liberty, and his property. Those are the three basic requirements of life (at least a free life).

    While a person that willingly takes drugs may be doing something you consider morally wrong, it does not infringe on the rights of another person. So-called “moral” laws like prohibition of drugs and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” actually remove rights from individuals. While you may not agree with someone’s lifestyle choices, removing those choices is not moral as well. You can not have love without free will.

    The final five of the ten commandments confirm this. Go read them right now and what do you notice? Each of the unlawful sins infringes on the liberty of another person. These commandments don’t take away any of your rights, but, rather, defend them. You can not murder because it takes another’s life. You can not steal because it takes another’s property. These commandments are not based on making you a moral person. They are based on allowing others the freedom to live. How others choose to live is their natural right.

    Most laws today have lost sight of this difference and consistently remove freedoms under the disguise of making people moral or protecting them. Most laws can do neither.

  • Alan Howell

    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. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Walt-Thiessen/1443415329 Walt Thiessen

    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.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Walt-Thiessen/1443415329 Walt Thiessen

    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.

  • Mike Hignite

    I’m an born-again follower of Jesus Christ, and to the best of my understanding, Dr. Ron Paul is the finest example of a follower of Christ running today.

    Anyone can say “Lord, Lord” but I’m impressed by what he has DONE. 
    He speaks against abortion. 
    He acknowledges Christ as his Lord, but realizes that it is wrong to try to use his faith to justify or trick us into voting for him.  If God told him to run for president, he has so far kept it to himself
    He uses his mind.  He doesn’t have knee-jerk comments, thoughtlessly quoting something he heard somewhere.  If he comments on something, he can actually tell you why he takes a postion, with logic.
    He reasons that God comes first, and doesn’t mindlessly think that God ordained the United States as ultimate perfection.  When we sin as a country, he calls it out (Libya, etc. Just war theory).
    He has remained faithful to his wife, and raised his children well.
    He speaks truth to power, often 434 to 1, even when everyone is against him.  He doesn’t lash back when others slander him.  He speaks the truth to power.
    He has integrity.  Lobbyists don’t even bother trying to influence him for special favors.
    He does not appear to have a drinking problem, or a problem with greed, or pride.  If he did, I suspect that the news media would be all over it.  He seems almost reluctant at doing what I believe his is called to do.  Good sign, in my eyes. 

    Ron Paul sounds like a 1st Timothy kind of elder to me.  Shouldn’t that be the minimum criteria for a President as well?  Yes, a President may need more, but this kind of life ought to be a minimum.

  • Jeff

    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!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZP53KQPJJPRX7YUZ7ZKFLDKON4 Jay

    Shane,

    How would you respond to a law that requires you to kneel and pray, facing Mecca twice per day?  How about one that always requires you to carry a symbol or something with the likeness of Budah?  Or how about a law banning the reading of the Bible and any other state ban secular books? 

    My point here is simple and self evident.  You are a Christian, and because that is your faith, you believe that it is the “one” true correct faith.  Thus you wish to only support a candidate who will further your religious views into state law, and “help” to bring more people to your “one true” faith.  Right?

    The problem is that by doing so, you are only pushing your religion onto people of other faiths who do not view your faith as “the one and only true faith.”  If you wish to understand Dr. Pauls positions on these things, you only have to try to put yourself in another situation.  What if you want to live as a Christian in a country that is not pre-dominately Christian?  How would you want the laws of that land to be crafted?  By logic and reason, attempting to be fair to all, or to be based upon the religion which you do not buy into?

    Ron Paul is anti abortion personally, He does not support drug use, gambling, or porno.  He simply realizes that there are others who live here who have the Constitutional right to see things differently, and thus have the choice to live in a way that he himself may not approve of.  What you are calling anti-Christian stands are actually tolerance to other points of view, and religions.  It is the way that the founding fathers envisioned our Country to work.  You don’t have to agree with them, and they don’t have to agree with you, and the Federal government has no business trying to force either of you to change.

    Now, Ron Paul is attempting to correct the mistakes of our government in the past.  By putting these issues back in the hands of State legislators, he is simply taking the Federal Government out of the equation.  By the way, this also puts the matter in a house which is much more easily influenced by the people who are governed by it.  This should be comforting to you.  It means that if you live in a mostly Christian state, you should have no problems making such actions illegal.  And, if there are those who live there who are upset by that, then they have the option of moving to a state that is more in line with their thinking.  I.E. Everyone gets a little more say, and hopefully a lot more freedom.  It will also save the Federal Government alot of money, Money which we desperately need right now.  In the end most if not everyone wins.

    Ron Paul 2012  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZP53KQPJJPRX7YUZ7ZKFLDKON4 Jay

    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.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZP53KQPJJPRX7YUZ7ZKFLDKON4 Jay

    Shane,

    One other key point.  By leaving these issues to the States to decide, the Federal Government can focus on the issues that they need to.  Such issues as National Security, and Balancing the Federal Budget, could be miles farther along if the folks in Washington didn’t have to deal with Abortion, Drugs, Prayer, Prostitution, ….ETC.  Something might actually get done correctly.

  • Louis Sette

    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.

  • http://blog.theuglyduckling.ca Valatio

    I think you missed the point.  Ron Paul believes that you have the ability to make your own choices in life.  That the government shouldn’t tell you what you can and cannot do.  I am a straight male, but I could care less if gays get married, or if they serve in the military.  He talks about individual rights, not collective of group rights.  Every person has the same rights and freedoms, and no one can poop on your property.  You have a right to your life and your liberty.  If you choose to smoke crack and murder people, then the laws will deal with you.  But why should the government be involved in regulations of everything?  Are they not all in bed with the lobbyists?  Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?

  • Bradley Hickey

    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.

  • Bradley Hickey

    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.

  • Nate

    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  

  • Bigsez

    Shane,

    While you don’t believe Ron Pauls beliefs are solid I just have to ask one question. Who even comes close when you look around at all the candidates overall resumes. Honestly speaking it’s not even close. Ron Paul is by far the most qualified to be President. Every other candidate has issues. Paul has none. Never flip-flopped on issues, speaks his mind no matter who he offends, strict constitutionalist , defender of freedom, THE most qualified on the economy, wants to end all wars, wants to take care of Americans first not Iraqi’s or Afghan’s or whoever is the US flavor or target of the month. And to end the men and women who protect every one of our freedoms from threats abound, Dr. Paul gets the most contributions from military personnel.
    Instead of falling for the same old snake oil salesman type of politician who will tell you only what u wanna hear, why not endorse a man of integrity with solid sound beliefs of returning this country back to prosperity. Amen.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-L-VanDenBosch/1255770212 Daniel L. VanDenBosch

    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. 

  • ashley robinson

    ron paul is probably the most sincere christian in washington, dc.  but he believes in rule of law.  the man believes the govt at federal level is beyond corruption. because of this corruption, abortion won’t be illegal nationally any time soon. so ron paul is fighting for states to be able to decide to ban abortion. who disagrees with this?  a moron?

  • Ron V

    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.

  • Anglerd

    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. 

  • Anglerd

    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. 

  • ASeattleConservative

    I agree with you Shane.  In fact, one of the main reasons I quit the John Birch Society after so many years was because of the Libertarian influence, specifically that of Ron Paul.

    God will not bless a nation that doesn’t abide by His laws.  Diehard Paul supporters should tell him that (although I suspect the majority of Paul supporters are atheists).