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.

100 comments
  1. 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

    1. You are right, his voting record does speak for itself on the issues I listed above.  I’m not questioning his integrity – he has been consistent.  I do appreciate that.  However as a social conservative (and believer in limited government – I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive in regards to abortion and marriage, etc.) why should I be excited about him?

      So don’t give me a campaign commercial, explain to me how the positions listed above shouldn’t concern social conservatives.

      1. I think it boils down to the issues that are most important to many people right now.  Social conservatives see Paul as the only true fiscal conservative, and because of this they are willing to accept his other positions.

      2. The issues in the original blog post shouldn’t concern Christian voters because Ron Paul understands that the federal govt, and his role as its president, has no concern over those issues.

        If you live in a conservative state, you won’t have to worry about state-funded abortions, about having a gay couple being married, or about loosening prohibition on drugs.

      3. Shane, I’m assuming you’ve already read all of the comments posted above.  If so, your initial question has already been amply answered.  There are a multitude of reasons why a ‘social conservative’ would and should support Ron Paul.  Indeed, they can do so in good consicence knowing that they are not voting for the lesser of two evils again, but for a man who actually believes in the rule of Law in society (viz., the Constitution). 

        Now, as to the separate question as to why or whether you should be ‘excited’ about Ron Paul, well, that depends upon your understanding of the role of government, whether you are utopian or not in your idealogy, whether you are blind to the wholesale abandonment of the Christian just war theory by mainline, party-annointed social conservative candidates and elected reps for some time now, whether you will admit that these same two-faced candidates and reps have used social conservatives for their own gain, and whether you can face the reality that social conservatives have gained nothing substantial in their attempt to use the force of government (rather than the power of the gospel) to change people.

      4. Shane, I’m assuming you’ve already read all of the comments posted above.  If so, your initial question has already been amply answered.  There are a multitude of reasons why a ‘social conservative’ would and should support Ron Paul.  Indeed, they can do so in good consicence knowing that they are not voting for the lesser of two evils again, but for a man who actually believes in the rule of Law in society (viz., the Constitution). 

        Now, as to the separate question as to why or whether you should be ‘excited’ about Ron Paul, well, that depends upon your understanding of the role of government, whether you are utopian or not in your idealogy, whether you are blind to the wholesale abandonment of the Christian just war theory by mainline, party-annointed social conservative candidates and elected reps for some time now, whether you will admit that these same two-faced candidates and reps have used social conservatives for their own gain, and whether you can face the reality that social conservatives have gained nothing substantial in their attempt to use the force of government (rather than the power of the gospel) to change people.

      5. Shane, I’m assuming you’ve already read all of the comments posted above.  If so, your initial question has already been amply answered.  There are a multitude of reasons why a ‘social conservative’ would and should support Ron Paul.  Indeed, they can do so in good consicence knowing that they are not voting for the lesser of two evils again, but for a man who actually believes in the rule of Law in society (viz., the Constitution). 

        Now, as to the separate question as to why or whether you should be ‘excited’ about Ron Paul, well, that depends upon your understanding of the role of government, whether you are utopian or not in your idealogy, whether you are blind to the wholesale abandonment of the Christian just war theory by mainline, party-annointed social conservative candidates and elected reps for some time now, whether you will admit that these same two-faced candidates and reps have used social conservatives for their own gain, and whether you can face the reality that social conservatives have gained nothing substantial in their attempt to use the force of government (rather than the power of the gospel) to change people.

      6. perhaps many of these “social conservatives”  just need to rethink their positions and may one day see things more ron paul`s way-we all make mistakes in judgment, perhaps they are just wrong in their thinking and could use a little education?
        harsh maybe but that`s all i can come up with right now

      7. perhaps many of these “social conservatives”  just need to rethink their positions and may one day see things more ron paul`s way-we all make mistakes in judgment, perhaps they are just wrong in their thinking and could use a little education?
        harsh maybe but that`s all i can come up with right now

      8. I think your questions are reasonable, but answerable.

        He thinks abortion is horrible.  He delivered over 4,000 babies as an ob-gyn.  States can’t ban abortion now, but they would be able to if he had his way.  That’s better than the blanket laws handling it now.As for homosexuality… I mean… don’t we have other things to worry about?  His position is that marriage is a religious institution and religious institutions can make their own rules.  The states, through contract laws and unions, can handle the legal aspects of ‘marriage.’

        On vices… the war on drugs is just not working, and has really never worked… it’s easier for kids to get pot than it is for them to get alcohol, or cigarettes.  Regulating these things is not likely to add to their use.  Dr. Paul thinks drug addiction should be treated as a disease, and that would be better use of the funds that are currently going to fighting the drug war.

      9. Could you explain how you call yourself a “believer in limited government” but wish to empower the federal government to act outside of its enumerated powers (Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution)?

        Social conservatives should be seeking to fight against abortion, gay marriage etc within the family unit (ie teaching the children it is wrong), local communities and at the state level. Not by trying to force the federal government to act outside its intended scope to pass legislation that would impose a certain viewpoint on the people of other states that may disagree. That’s exactly what the leftists do. And when the right wingers do the same, we only cede power to the big government Statists. I happen to agree with Social Conservatives on a great many issues, I just refuse to grant anymore power to the federal government who has demonstrated time and again that they can not be trusted. The States and the People should decide for themselves about these issues. Not a large central government dictating every facet of life from Washington, DC.

      10. “However as a social conservative why should I be excited about him?”
         
        For the same reason that most liberal progressives and everyone else in between should be excited about him.   The federal government should not have any legislative authority dictating morality to its citizens.  We decry this in other countries (esp. Muslim governments in the Middle East).  The main point that he’s trying to deliver is that his position on these very complex, divisive issues should be irrelevant.  What he’s more strongly advocating is framing the debate around the legislative jurisdiction for laws of morality instead of how the office of the presidency personally feels about each.  He firmly believes that the states should determine how/if to legislate these issues rather than the federal government.  This is a very politically conservative position in the traditional sense consistent with our country’s founders and the Constitution.  On a personal level, he has strongly spoken out on the dangers of drug use… but believes the federal drug war is a complete failure (by all statistical and anecdotal accounts, it absolutely is).   He is probably the most vocal pro-life candidate on the campaign trail today, but is consistent in his constitutional beliefs that this also should be legislated at the state level.
         
        You raise valid points Shane and they certainly are legitimate questions to ask of any presidential candidate.  I just don’t see how Paul’s constitutional political philosophy wouldn’t appeal to the most social conservatives as well as the most liberal progressives.  If one state has a majority believing their government should legislate morality consistent with socially conservative views, then the people will have the ability and right to persuade their state legislature to enact such laws.  Just the same, the people of a predominant socially liberal state may wish to not live under such laws.  And as an American citizen, you have the freedom to choose under which type of society you wish to live and raise your family.
         
        And to address your concern directly… the question that should be asked is the following:  Which of the following is a more pragmatic political reality — electing a socially conservative political president in the hope of changing moral legislation at the federal level – or – Paul’s position of removing federal authority over these issues and allowing states to legislate for themselves?  The latter is much more doable for a president and accommodating to both social conservatives and liberal progressives and everyone else in between.

      11. You wrote – “The federal government should not have any legislative authority dictating morality to its citizens.”

        Then I guess you condemn him calling federal overspending immoral right?  Right?

        All laws reflect morality – it’s just a matter of whose morality.

      12. No, you’re misunderstanding my point. I agree with you that many laws, in varying degrees, have a moral motive and/or reflect a moral view of the world.  However, laws that are written with the specific intent of dictating how an individual should live their life based on some moral code should never be delivered by the federal government.  I would personally argue it shouldn’t from any form of government, but in Paul’s view, this should at the very least fall under the state’s jurisdiction and not the federal government.  It’s a 1st amendment issue.  My point is that the federal government would be in violation of the 1st amendment if they were to legislate morality.

        Furthermore, consider the following example: would you argue that burglary is a crime because it is immoral?  Or is it a crime because it violates an individual’s property rights?  I would venture to believe most people would believe the latter.  There are many “immoral” acts that are not criminal.  Most moralists would agree that lying or deceiving are immoral acts in and of themselves.  Neither are criminal acts in a vacuum.  However, if you lie or deceive an individual by not delivering promised services in a mutually agreed contract, there are contract enforcement laws that would hold the individual lying or deceiving legally accountable.

        I don’t recall Paul’s exact statement that government overspending is immoral as a blanket statement. Although I have heard him question the morality behind some federal government laws, mandates, and actions.  For instance, in his criticism of FEMA, he has argued about the immorality of national flood insurance.  His point being that it doesn’t make moral sense (or economic sense) for an individual assuming additional risk living in a flood prone area having their insurance subsidized by other individuals (thru taxation) who don’t share in the benefit of their property.  Those individuals who wish to live in flood prone areas is a person choice whereby they should have to go thru private insurance to accurately assess and price the associated risk.  Sure there are moral implications on national flood insurance, but it is not a federal program “dictating morality” on its citizens. So in no way would I condemn his questioning the morality of actions or laws by the federal government.

        Evaluating the moral fiber in our laws is NOT the same thing as evaluating the federal government’s role in dictating morality to its citizens.

      13. Shane – as a born again christian I am an ardent Ron Paul supporter.  I have to say that God did not send our Savior to come into the world to condemn it – but to save the world through him.  When Jesus was on earth he walked, talked, helped the biggest law breakers – the prostitutes, the gamblers, the drunks, the possessed, the morally bankrupt.  He did not go to them and condemn them for the laws they broke.  Jesus died for all our sins and took our punishment – at that precise point we no longer live under the penalty of the law.  So a social conservative can support freedom, we all sin, in God’s eye there is no difference between homosexual acts and telling a lie.  Although I do believe that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong just the same as me telling a lie is.  I am commanded not to pick the spec out of my neighbors eye because I would have to take the plank out of my own eye first.  Individuals have God given rights, and we all have a God given freedom of choice.  If we choose to disobey him that is a personal matter between that person and God.  We as a nation have no God given right to deny that freedom of choice of another.  This is why a social conservative can support Ron Paul.

        Thanks for the time.

      14. Matt, yes as believers we do not live under the law.

        The rest of the world… that’s a different matter.  I’m not talking about ranking sin, but codifying it is an entirely different matter.

        I believe you need to get a better grasp on Matthew 7:1 – because there are places in Scripture where we are told to judge – http://www.rbc.org.nz/library/judging.htm.  Judging doesn’t equal condemnation.

      15. Shane –

        I have studied those scriptures immensly – as believers, we are commanded to be more like Jesus.  When I read the Gosples, I find that the only people that Jesus judged was the pharisees and sadducees.  What is really what you are implying we should be more like.

        Yes, there is a time and a place to judge and that is within the church.  What good would it do for any believer to attempt judge a person and their sins.  We all have sinned and fallen short.  I believe there are much better ways to go about showing that person what they are doing is not pleasing to God.  But that should be on the personally level NOT at the federal government level. As a nation we cannot legislate morality, it will not work – there are more effective ways to spread the love of Christ throughout this nation – and I think that is what Dr. Paul is more or less talking about.

      16. Ron Paul also supports the end of all unconstitutional foreign wars that we have no business being involved in.  As a social conservative, and a believer – do you support the killing of millions of completely innocent people because of our involvement in all these wars?

        I think the majority of the nation is fed up with all of the wars we are fighting – they are starting to wake up and see through them.  This is why a lot of social conservatives, I believe, are coming to the side of Dr. Paul.

      17. “…why should I be excited about him?”

        I’m simply thrilled that you seem to be open-minded at this point!  Why now?

        What I’ve come to conclude is that while we agree on WHAT we should fight for, we disagree on WHERE we should fight for it.  We will likely agree that bottom-up governing is better than top-down.  Why aren’t social conservatives (of which I consider myself) lobbying the U.N. for these issues?

        Dr. Paul can testify that abortions were happening before Roe v. Wade.  The decline of morality in the culture preceded the decline in morality of our government.  IMO, the only path back to righteousness starts in our homes, churches, neighborhoods, and grows from there.  I have little hope that any federal law would be effective in turning our hearts back. 

        The failed federal drug laws are a good case in point.  Why our representatives didn’t look back at the Prohibition and its subsequent Repeal is beyond me. 

        Is it that most social conservatives, just like the rest of the world, really don’t want to bother with the effort that goes into self-government?  Isn’t it easier for somebody else to be the ‘party pooper’? 

        As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

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

    All laws are not based on morality.  In fact, relative to the entire body of laws legislative bodies pass, almost no laws have anything to do with the concept of morality.  Let’s assume when you say “law” you mean something more like common law, or criminal law, which tends to deal with actions having strong moral implications.  Even in those cases, although laws are often decided or interpreted based on morality, not is not fundamentally how they are supposed to be structured.  Law is supposed to be based on rights, not morality.  The moral implications of a lawful or unlawful action are a consequence of the rights that underlie the law, not the other way around.

  3. It boils down to the role of the Federal Government.  We have a rule book – the Constitution.  If it isn’t in there, it is up to the states.

    Some people like to control people through the Federal Government – and they do so at their own peril…  It is the Federal Government that legalized abortion, right?

    Paul ideally wants the Federal Government to do just the things it is supposed to do.  People twist this into Paul supporting the things he doesn’t want the Federal Government to dictate.

    You wouldn’t know it from his speeches, but Ron is a most religious man.  I guess I can’t say this as a fact, but if he follows the rules of government so vigorously, you can be assured he follows his Church teachings even more so.

  4. Dear Mr. Vander Hart,

    As a Catholic Christian and a strong Ron Paul supporter, I would respectfully submit that Ron Paul is truly the only good choice for Christians and conservatives in the GOP primary field.  He is the only candidate who strongly and consistently has opposed as immoral the debt and waste endemic throughout our Federal government, and who has never voted for an unbalanced budget to saddle ourselves and our posterity with further debts.  He is the only candidate who stood up against our aggressive and sadly unnecessary war in Iraq, defending Christian Just War theory and unequivocally stating that as a moral, Christian nation, we must never engage in unjust wars.  He has stood up for government under law – refusing to vote for any piece of Federal legislation not explicitly authorized by the Constitution.  He recognizes that Christians must obey lawful authority (Rom 13:7), but that if the Federal government attempts to do things not authorized by the Constitution, it becomes an unlawful authority.  Indeed, those who see no Constitutional restraints on government see an all-powerful government, and may in their hearts seek to make government their God – this has happened to many peoples throughout the 20th century, to uniformly horrifying result.

    To briefly address a few of the point above:
    Dr. Paul is correct that homosexuality, that is, the property of being a homosexual, is not a sin – rather it is a disordered attraction, a temptation to sin.  Being tempted is not itself a sin (Heb 4:15).  When two homosexuals lie together, they do sin, it is clearly stated in the Bible.  But homosexual persons are called to chastity; these persons are called to fulfill God’s will in
    their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of
    the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their
    condition. A chaste homosexual does not sin – homosexuality, the property, in itself is not sinful.

    Regarding DADT, Paul has said that all ‘disruptive’ sexual activity should be grounds for dismissal from the military.  This is common sense.  It shouldn’t matter whether it is homosexual or heterosexual – what matters is the fighting effectiveness of our troops.  Paul’s position makes sense.

    Dr. Paul supports the end of the FEDERAL prohibition of drugs.  There can be no doubt that the Federal War on Drugs has been an expensive, harmful failure.  Our nation has by far the largest proportional prison population in the world, many of them non-violent drug offenders, and yet drug usage rates remain as high as ever.  In addition, the cost of keeping all those prisoners is prohibitive, and, given the state of many of our notorious prisons, the addicts’ time in jail often does them more harm than even their harmful drug habit.  These people are sick; they need medical help, not prison time.  But put aside the fact that the War on Drugs costs $15 billion a year and has delivered no progress in 30 years.  The Federal government has no lawful authority to ban drug usage within states, if their be any Constitutional restraints upon government at all.  An Amendment was necessary to legally prohibit alcohol, and no such amendment for drugs was ever passed.  Ron Paul has stated that it is up to the individual states to regulate drugs, ans it is for alcohol.  This is the legally correct position.  And I can assure you that no state in the Union would legalize hard drugs.  The key point here is that Ron Paul, as president, would end a harmful program, but more importantly, an UNLAWFUL program, in ending the Federal drug war.

    My time grows short, so I’ll end with the most important issue of all: abortion, and safeguarding innocent human life.  Ron Paul doesn’t want “Individual states should be able to legalize abortion if they so choose”; this is meaningless; abortion is already legal in all 50 states.  Rather, he want to allow states to BAN abortion.

    By working to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the power to legislate
    about abortion to the states, Ron Paul’s proposed approach will allow
    many states with pro-life majorities to restrict or ban abortion
    altogether right away. His legislation to remove the power to regulate
    abortion from the Federal government and return it to the states could
    pass right away with simple majorities in Congress, not the more
    burdensome 2/3 majority requirement for a Constitutional amendment.
    While not a final solution to the tragedy of mass abortion, such an
    approach will allow us to start saving hundreds of thousands of lives
    right away, and will provide concrete examples that, in the modern age,
    women’s safety and reproductive health can be protected and unwanted
    children can be adopted and cared for without the need to resort to
    abortion. This will do massive amounts of good and will save potentially
    millions of lives that might be lost waiting for the ‘all or nothing’
    approach misguidedly pursued by many pro-life organizations to succeed;
    it is a sad truth that the Human Life Amendment has been perpetually 10
    years off for 30 years now – and during that time, by pursuing this failed strategy to the exclusion of all others, the pro-life movement has allowed millions of innocent children to be killed. A Constitutional amendment defining human
    life should still be pursued, and Ron Paul has states that as president he would support one, but in
    the meantime by turning to federalism, pro-lifers under a Paul
    administration could do more good in 3 months than in all the past 30
    years.

    Hope this helps explain why so many Christians like myself support Ron Paul for president!

    1. You said, “He is the only candidate who stood up against our aggressive and sadly
      unnecessary war in Iraq, defending Christian Just War theory and
      unequivocally stating that as a moral, Christian nation, we must never
      engage in unjust wars.”

      Chuck Colson and other evangelical leaders disagree with him there… though Colson has now said it is time to get out of Afghanistan since Bin Laden has been killed.  I can understand that POV.  With President Paul though Osama Bin Laden would still be alive – even Gary Johnson disagrees with him there.

      1. Thank you for your reply.  I apologize for the many typos in my first comment; it was written quickly during a break, and I failed to proofread it.

        As a Catholic Christian, I agree with the assessment of most Catholic theologians, including the current and previous Popes, that the Iraq War was not a just war.  In particular, I think it failed to fulfill the requirements for just cause – the rights of Americans were not menaced by aggression from the state of Iraq in a way not otherwise to be prevented than by war; comparative justice – it was by no means clear at the time that the use of military force would result in greater justice than injustice, and in hindsight, the great suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly its Christian community, since the start of the war shows that it did indeed fail on this point; and use as last resort – clearly, the fact that the war was launched before all the facts were in, based on a stated purpose of halting a non-existent Iraqi nuclear program, show that this war was begun too hastily, and not as a final option. I am unfamiliar with the thoughts of Chuck Colson on the matter, but these problems seem insurmountable.

        But I would like to know, most of all, what you think of my remarks on Dr. Paul’s approach to ending abortion.  This is the most important issue for me, and Ron Paul’s strategy is the only one that will allow us to start saving lives in the very near future, even as we work toward a final end to the murder of the unborn in our midst.  It puzzles me that some in the pro-life movement count that as a point against him.

      2. No, in October 2001 before we went into Afghanistan, Ron Paul introduced letters of marque so small bands could go after Bin Laden independently.  That would have been ten years earlier, and Constitutional.  Not to mention we would have saved the cost of the Afghanistan war.

      3. No, in October 2001 before we went into Afghanistan, Ron Paul introduced letters of marque so small bands could go after Bin Laden independently.  That would have been ten years earlier, and Constitutional.  Not to mention we would have saved the cost of the Afghanistan war.

      4. That is not correct. The facts are that Ron Paul voted on the motion to direct our special forces and intelligence services to kill or apprehend Bin Laden. You are correct that he would not have directed our military to invade Iraq or Afghanistan; he has plainly stated that, and his voting record is right in line with it (not that all politicians would vote consistent with their public statements). Those upper-level individuals in terrorist organizations that we have taken out have been killed by surgical strikes conducted by our Special Forces or Intelligence services, not the broadsword of our larger military. Ron Paul has supported those sort of Special Forces/CIA operations to hunt down certain individuals. He didn’t support the full military invasion, but that hasn’t proven to be effective in our stated goal of finding OBL or other top terrorists.

        More importantly, Bin Laden was clearly protected in Pakistan for quite some time. Deployment of our full military is irrelevant, because it was never there. The intel we got which led to this was gleaned from SF/CIA operations which he has supported.

        Finally, I again encourage you to do your own research, at least read some books from Ron Paul, his opponents and those that delve deeply into 9/11, radical Islam and contemporary anti-terrorism. In that same vein, although I also take advice from my pastor, it is important to form your own opinions. The opinion of Chuck Colson or Gary Johnson have no direct relevance. They are a starting point for people to form their own opinions and therefore should not be used as the only evidence you use to support your position.

  5. 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?

  6. So far Shane, nobody has addressed your concerns; all they have done is talked about limited government, and that the states should handle things.   That is his over-riding principle.   Even if it means babies won’t be protected, and marriage will be attacked.

    1. Unfortunately this is not true. I have submitted a post addressing Shanes concerns. Unfortunately, it like this comment must be moderated and Shane or whoever the moderator is has not allowed my posts to be viewed. Its for that reason that while I understand that moderation is needed to avoid personal attacks and counter productive comments, hand picking comments to be public and therefore addressed isnt the way to find answers as the moderation can inevitably skew the conversation.

    2. Wow… like babies are protected so well under today’s roe v wade ruling that still stands? Paul wants to REMOVE abortion from the jurisdiction of the supreme court, effectively nullifying the federal, top down ruling that legalized abortion under any circumstance! Far more babies would be protected under a Paul presidency than will be protected under any other candidate who all represent the status quo (a continuation of roe v wade). There would be many states who outlawed abortion. Look at Texas pre-roe v wade – babies were being protected, but because the federal government / supreme court ruled, it became a one size fits all policy making abortion legal, at any point in the pregnancy, anywhere in the country. What don’t you comprehend about that? It’s not that hard to get!

  7. 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.

  8. I have a problem with Ron Paul’s stances on the moral/cultural/social issues. But I have a much more serious problem with the foundations of the libertarian philosophy and movement. And while I think Ron Paul is a decent man, it is my own observation that the secular self centered philosophy of libertariansim attracts a lot of libertines and a tendency toward anarchistic and nihilistic thought and action.

    1. First, Ron Paul is a Republican.  He has a libertarian philosophy because that is a Christian philosophy, and is the basis for the Charter of the federal govt, the Constitution.

      He does not hold this philosophy because of the “self-centered libertines”, but in spite of them.  He only asks that they not impose on him their sinful ways, and he will not impose on them his virtuous ways.  And they all get along.

      And please, show me a political philosophy that is not embraced by self-centered libertines.  The difference with libertarians is that they don’t seek political power for self-centered reasons or to force their libertine-ism onto everyone else, they wish to free you from the rule of the moral depravity that govt attracts.

      1. Ron Paul isn’t so much a Libertarian as he is a Constitutional purist. And why not? It is the law of the land isn’t it? Individual freedom, self ownership and Property rights are all part of the concept of liberty.

        Do you profess to have the right to vote the use of force to ensure others comply with your world view? Its this kind of meddling that opens the door to leftist meddling by setting legal precedence. Time to defang the centralized power… time to diffuse it back to the states where it rightly belongs. Our people are being crushed under its massive, gluttonous bulk. 

    2. What you have a problem with is the fact that Paul endorses true freedom, in all regards, while you endorse freedom for some, in some regards, but an authoritarian approach in most other regards for people whose morality you disagree with.

      Don’t say you take issue with Paul’s stance on social issues, because chances are you both have nearly identical beliefs. It’s just Paul believes in the Constitution, as it was intended, and has sworn off the use of force in all circumstances except for self defense. 

  9. 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.

    1. Generally speaking that God is our creator yes we are His children.  Sorry, Congressman Paul punted on this question, of course we all sin – that wasn’t the argument he was making.

      1. Ron Paul has described his view on this many times.  He would enforce the part of DOMA that protects state decisions against homosexual marriage, but in a perfect world thinks marriage should be a personal decision and churches should decide what marriages they recognize, it shouldn’t be a government decision at all.  I understand you may disagree with him, but while he only has so much time for a question in one particular interview, his statements on this in general are pretty clear.  He doesn’t want to give the federal government the right to impose other people’s values on him and his family.  What if they were imposing the opposite of what you want?  Because if it can go one way, next year it can go the other way.  The federal government shouldn’t have this power, at all.

  10. Shane,

    I believe you’re confusing “legalizing” something with “not regulating it on the Federal level”, as this is what Dr. Paul implies.

    If you read Dr. Paul’s platforms carefully and watch the videos of his interviews, he says that he doesn’t ENDORSE using drugs or prostitution or pornography – he simply doesn’t believe that Federal government should be regulating those things — they should be regulated by the States.  He believes in life since conception and is fully pro-life. He doesn’t believe in “gay rights” because he believe they are all the same individual rights for all people.  And he defends Marriage.
    ____________________________________
    From his website:

    “as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

    ** Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade
    and preventing activist judges from interfering    with state decisions on
    life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through
    legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

    ** Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
    ____________________________________

    So I think when you’re implying that Ron Paul is pro-choice in any way, you’re doing him great injustice.  His website has a lot of concrete information about where he stands on the issues.  Watch his interviews.  Don’t believe the stuff you read about him second-hand.  Do your own research, and you’ll find your answers.

    Hope this helps.
    Denis

  11. Iowans would do well to elect RP, who would only limit the federal govt’s role in defining marriage, funding and supporting un-Christian family planning, and other heretical spending.

    RP would not limit Christians from acting on a state level, but he would free them from contributing to the sinful spending of the feds.

    Unless you plan on voting for your local pastor, only Ron Paul will defend Iowans’ Christian concerns.

    1. “Unless you plan on voting for your local pastor” – don’t cheapen the argument, I’m not looking for a theologian -in-chief.

      What would Ron Paul do to stop federal judges from declaring state constitutional amendments on marriage unconstitutional?

      1. “What would Ron Paul do to stop federal judges from declaring state constitutional amendments on marriage unconstitutional?”

        While I don’t speak on the good Doctor’s behalf, I would like to think that he would simply refuse to enforce their judgments, and allow the States to continue to do as they please. 

      2. “What would Ron Paul do to stop federal judges from declaring state constitutional amendments on marriage unconstitutional” Well, that’s pretty much what the his “We the People Act.” and “Sanctity of Life Act.” does, remove abortion from federal court jurisdiction. It is, as he admits, not a perfect solution. But at least we can save some lives until we can a amendment to U.S Constitution.

  12. You just don’t understand his philosophy. He is a strict Constitutionalist – he has a high regard for the rule of law. He rejects totalitarian, federal mandates and an authoritarian federal government – something that it looks like you endorse. If you are a strict Constitutionalist, that means the federal government is *very* small and that states and the people retain all powers not enumerated. 

    1. Mitchell you’re making a big assumption, no I don’t endorse federal mandates or an authoritarian federal government… come back and read some of the non-Ron Paul posts and you’ll see that.

      Because I believe pre-born babies have a constitutional right to life, and I don’t believe federal judges should be allowed to strike down state constitutional amendments on marriage… doesn’t mean I support a authoritarian government.

  13. You just don’t understand his philosophy. He is a strict Constitutionalist – he has a high regard for the rule of law. He rejects totalitarian, federal mandates and an authoritarian federal government – something that it looks like you endorse. If you are a strict Constitutionalist, that means the federal government is *very* small and that states and the people retain all powers not enumerated. 

  14. You just don’t understand his philosophy. He is a strict Constitutionalist – he has a high regard for the rule of law. He rejects totalitarian, federal mandates and an authoritarian federal government – something that it looks like you endorse. If you are a strict Constitutionalist, that means the federal government is *very* small and that states and the people retain all powers not enumerated. 

  15. Whoa now, hold up. If we’re talking about MORALITY here, why not talk about the mass murders we’re all implicitly supporting? Of all the sins, I think murder is the worst because it’s the one you can’t take back. We are MURDERING hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians each year with our shenanigans overseas. Because we have not done anything to prevent these murders, each one is on our soul as if we had committed the acts ourselves. It’s not the soldiers, or even the President who is guilty of those murders, it is US. We could have supported a peaceful President instead of a series of chicken hawks. We could have demonstrated and flooded Congress when troops were deployed without a declaration of war. We could have insisted our elected representatives tell us the truth about these conflicts and impeach them when they lie. Now we have the chance to stop the killing by electing someone who will stop those murders, as well prevent the thousands of  drug related murders here and in Mexico – whose blood is on our hands.

    When the house is on fire, don’t argue about the curtains. Get The Man With A Spine into office and he will stop the deaths. THEN we can worry about the other moral issues.

    1. I understand that there hasn’t been a formal declaration of war, but don’t act as though there hasn’t been congressional authorization for Iraq and Afghanistan.

      1. Shane – There was not congressional authorization for Iraq and Afghanistan.  Just like Pilot did, they washed their hands of the whole deal.  They abdicated their responsibility and allowed President Bush (and subsequently President Obama) to do as he saw fit.  Congress has accepted no responsibility for either Iraq or Afghanistan, the unconstitutionally shrugged their responsibility to the President.

      2. “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water… To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions”

        Which of these powers did they invoke for their “congressional authorization”?

      3. “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water… To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions”

        Which of these powers did they invoke for their “congressional authorization”?

      4. Shane – There was not congressional authorization for Iraq and Afghanistan.  Just like Pilot did, they washed their hands of the whole deal.  They abdicated their responsibility and allowed President Bush (and subsequently President Obama) to do as he saw fit.  Congress has accepted no responsibility for either Iraq or Afghanistan, the unconstitutionally shrugged their responsibility to the President.

      5. By authorizing the President to go to war without actually declaring it themselves, they effectively passed to him the power to declare war.  As the Constitution says, Congress shall have the power to declare war.  It does NOT say Congress shall have the power to delegate their responsibilities to the President.  This is more than just semantics; it’s very important, because the result is that nobody can really be held responsible.  The President has the excuse that the Congress gave him permission, and the Congress has the excuse that the President’s the one who made the decision.  This removes the checks and balances, because either argument holds little weight against the other.  If we are to go to war, the Congress needs to take responsibility for it.

      6. By authorizing the President to go to war without actually declaring it themselves, they effectively passed to him the power to declare war.  As the Constitution says, Congress shall have the power to declare war.  It does NOT say Congress shall have the power to delegate their responsibilities to the President.  This is more than just semantics; it’s very important, because the result is that nobody can really be held responsible.  The President has the excuse that the Congress gave him permission, and the Congress has the excuse that the President’s the one who made the decision.  This removes the checks and balances, because either argument holds little weight against the other.  If we are to go to war, the Congress needs to take responsibility for it.

  16. Ron Paul is no hypocrite. He may not agree with many of the social issues that conservatives rally against, but he refuses to empower the federal government to act outside of its enumerated powers. Big government is dangerous, regardless of whose agenda it is enforcing. The issues should be decided first by families, then by the local communities and possibly even within the States in accordance with the 10th Amendment. The social conservatives and the good people of Iowa need to understand that when the right wing allows the federal government to encroach on the power expressly granted to the People and the States, we only cede ground to the left wing, who will then use the power of the large central government to force a myriad of other freedom killing agendas upon the populace.

  17. 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

      1. So, you have fundamental disagreements with him that you cannot get past. The folks who commented in your forum have laid out some very strong arguments and you have obviously reached the point in your mind where you cannot accept them.

        We have all watched the stupid back and forth between the Neocon Right and Total Government Left for our whole life. IS that working the way you want it to? What is so disturbing to you about the concept of following the Constitution literally?

        Which do you choose: A return to the Republic or continue toward total government?

  18. As a socially conservative Christian and a Ron Paul supporter, I would submit that you may not be correctly informed on his actual public positions nor their likely effects.

    I watched with gratitude, for instance, as Ron Paul testified unpopularly on the daytime television program “The View” in 2008 about his conviction that abortion is murder and humbly explaining that as doctor who has delivered thousands of babies, it is simply a known fact of the matter.  Two of the hosts were so horrified at his soft insistence that they walked off the set live.

      1. Seems like Shane is applying some pretty tough standards on Ron Paul and giving the rest of them big slack.

        This is an argument about centralization vs. decentralization of government. This is about government closest to the people it serves. This is about rejection of a centralized, monolithic, all powerful government, which invents new reasons to expand its power on a daily basis. Its not a left/right thing anymore friend… its freedom vs tyranny. Its The Constitutional Republic vs Oligarchy and the Oligarchy is winning.

        Time to make big changes…don’t be scared.

  19. 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.

  20. 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. 

  21. 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. 

  22. Man, can’t you see that Ron Paul may have his own personal views about Homosexuality and that these are not relevant to being President of the US? Ron Paul only wants us to be governed by the Constitution which means if you want to be gay, you can, if you don’t, you don’t have to. The interviewer is obviously biased against gays and that’s fine. But Ron Paul is not biased, his personal beliefs don’t matter and they shouldn’ matter. In a Free society,  a person can do as he wants as long as he doesn’t harm anyone else. A real Christian understands this.

  23. 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.

  24. 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!

  25. 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!

  26. 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.

  27. 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. 

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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!

  32. 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  

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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?

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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  

  40. 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.

  41. 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. 

  42. 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?

  43. 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.

  44. 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. 

  45. 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. 

  46. 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).

     

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Penny Nance: As A Member of the #MeToo Movement I Still Believe in Presumption of Innocence

Penny Nance: “As a woman who is a victim of attempted rape and a physical assault, a member of the #MeToo movement, I still believe in the presumption of innocence for everyone.”

Quote of the day: I Was “Alarmist” About Climate Change

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We…

Twas the Night Before Christmas: The Sander’s Amendment

Jefferson Smith: [His voice very hoarse] Just get up off the ground,…

Activists Rally Against Two Fed Education Bills

Opposition to H.R. 5 the Student Success Act (NCLB reauthorization) & S. 227 the Strengthening Education through Research Act (SETRA) grows among activists.