Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul and Jesus. The Constitution or the Bible?by Jim Hines
(libertarian)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Ron Paul is running for POTUS. I support him.
Ron Paul is a follower of Jesus. I am not.
The followers of Jesus are why I will never identify myself as a Republican. The followers of Jesus have joined the GOP in great numbers and their agenda is to bend the rule of law to the authority of Jesus, as they understand it, from their reading and interpretation of a book called the bible. A fringe political organization called the Constitution Party is even more militant in their calls for a bible-based government. In other words, for them, it is the bible first and then the constitution.
I watched Ron Paul's speech at Liberty College. This was a very important moment in this campaign for me because it could have been a deal breaker in terms of my vote and my vocal support for Mr. Paul. He passed my test. He did not pander to the Christians in the audience. He stated at the beginning of the speech that he is an adherent of the man called Jesus and I respect his honesty and his forthright commitment to his spirituality. It doesn't matter that I don't agree with that aspect of his life because I believe the right to worship, or not worship, is one of the most important rights we have, and because he is not using his religion as a bludgeon for any of his political positions. His stance against abortion is based on science ("LIFE begins at conception") and a specific statement in the United States Declaration of Independence ("LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"). I don't agree with him but again it's not a deal breaker because he is not using God or Jesus to make his determination. I do believe life begins at conception but I don't believe it is as black and white as all that. I don't believe it is a states rights issue. I don't believe it is an issue of the government at all. I don't like abortion. But the actual solutions to it can be found in Paul's other major positions, specifically the ones that promote peace and prosperity. A healthy, thriving, prosperous and peaceful world are the solutions to not only the abortion issue but also the immigration issue the education issue and so many more.
Ron Paul's political positions and philosophies stand on their own merit. They are supported by the Constitution of the United States of America.
The bible or any other ancient religious texts have no place in determining public policy.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 57 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jim Hines only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jim Hines is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Thank you for taking the high road with this article.
As a believer, I agree completely with what you wrote. Believe it or not, the separation of Church and state is a reformation theology concept and it predates the constitution by over 200 years.
The only thing I would take issue with is the notion that the CP is a "fringe political organization". I am not a member and have no interest, but they claim to be the third biggest party.
Plus, "fringe" is mudslinging which can be sloughed - I prefer to sum up their nonadherence to the constitution when it comes to biblical issues by explaining that they merely pay lip service to the constitution when it benefits them - ironically making them the same as every other party, Libertarians included.
It's a shame the name is already taken - I'd like to see absolute constitutional positions represented in a party for a change.
Thank you for your civil comment. I had not intended the word "fringe" as a pejorative but rather and indication as to the parties place in the spectrum. However, your point is taken.
I think it convenient that many Christian principles, those of Jesus and the New Testament -- an arguable change in God's outlook toward Man, being after all the reason for experiencing the plight of Man to begin with, are in line with the just and honorable statements in the Declaration and Constitution.
I think you may benefit from looking at Ron's position to define the beginning of life as a necessity to determine and reference the term
I think it convenient that many Christian principles, those of Jesus and the New Testament -- an arguable change in God's outlook toward Man, being after all the reason for experiencing the plight of Man to begin with, are in line with the just and honorable statements in the Declaration and Constitution.
I think you may benefit from looking at Ron's position to define the beginning of life as a necessity to determine and reference the term "Person" or "people" in the context of the Constitution. Without an update to the document that reflects our modern scientific understanding of the origins and process of life, the Constitution's notion of what constitutes a "person" is in jeopardy of radical interpretation, and that is the problem. It has nothing to do with RP being a doctor or Christian, but in clarifying the Constitution through amendment to incorporate our modern knowledge.
I definitely agree that our federal law and Constitution cannot and should not be littered with religious moralities, Commandments, or other notion. That is not it's purpose or scope. It simply defines our Earthly government, it is not meant to be an Authority of the people.
As for being or associating yourself with the term Republican, you said it best when you stated that the "followers of Jesus have joined the GOP", wherein the GOP itself was joined, not founded or comprised in its entirety by such people. I think it beneficial to recognize that the original platform of the Grand Old Party, Taft Republicans and Ron Paul Republicans have always been Constitutional, that the very root of "Republican" is, in fact, "republic" -- which is what we have -- and that the greatest payoff in the form of change would be reforming and taking back the Republican party from its usurpers rather than fight the party from outside, against the two-party divide and with much lower return on effort.
I am a core "Constitution and Liberty" Republican that subscribes to limited government, freedom of *and from* religion, and the rule of Law and the the authority of the Constitution to dictate the structure of government, its powers and limitations, and adjusting the Constitution as as it prescribes, through amending, to keep it current and in step with the wisdom of the times -- and no more.
I don't have a problem with followers of Jesus, but not all who call themselves Christian are followers of Jesus.
But didn't the Christian Right movement only try to do what many want to do now - reform the Republican party? If we think their movement went astray, do we blame the individuals who were sincere about restoring conservative principles to the Republican Party... or do we blame their leadership, who knowingly mislead those individuals? It is possible that, over time, Ron Paul Republicans will receive much support from the Christian Right.
I too am glad to see that Congressman Paul does not wear his religion on his shirt sleeve. I don't know him personally, but what I've learned of him makes me think he is a real follower of Jesus - and I wish we had more like him.
I am a socially liberal, fiscally conservative, atheist. With that said I would like to say that I do recognize the importance of religion in our society.The phrase “all men are created equal” does not work when considering evolution.Only the belief in a higher power gives weight to that sentence.I also think that taking the saying “In god we trust” off the penny would be wrong.After all, Atheists like me have a belief too; we believe that there is no god.By removing god from the public eye completely we are forcing our belief of god on the population.Our country was founded by Christians looking for religious freedom.Our country should be tolerant of other religions but we should not forget our past.If that means swearing on the bible in court and having “in god we trust” on our penny so be it.Christian beliefs must be tolerated (to a degree) in our government because that is how our country was forged.I support Ron Paul.
As a Christian I also enjoyed Paul's speech at Liberty U, as did many of those present none the least was Falwell's son's father in law who is a Paul Maniac from way back as I understand it.
However, your article has a few assumptions I would like to challenge. The main one being your last point. The Bible has no place in public policy. Truth comes from many places, it can be revealed, scripture, it can come from logic, science, the means is not as important as the content in my humble opinion. If an ancient text be true, then it should not conflict with the dictates of logic, or the findings of science in so far as the topics to which it speaks. So when you say the Bible has no place in public policy, I would say what about "Thou Shalt not Steal" or "Thou Shalt not Murder". These are libertarian ideals yes, but also religious ones and the religious source predates libertarian thinking by thousands of years. When Christians apply these values in a consistent and real way not just to themselves but to others and to the state they become, magically, libertarians. I see the trouble being one of a misapplication of the values that Christ gave. In the old days in America, Christians understood the differences between sins that were crimes, and sins that were merely vices. Today, its more mixed up in some ways, and less mixed up in others. I admit that we Christians have much in our own house to clean up, but this is in no way a reflection on Christ himself, but merely a reflection of our inability to get it right. If Christians can be re-educated as to Crime and Vice we can have a world where only Biblical values that should be law are so, such as the prohibition against theft and murder, and other sins are left as vice and are kept legal, but perhaps socially shunned. We went through a time where cultural prohibitions and stigmas were done away with. That was a terrible mistake for it preserved freedom. Now all things are simply either legal or not legal. What a travesty. I hope that we can get back to the old value of moral vice, one that preserves liberty but also recognizes that while a thing may not be illegal it may also not be beneficial to a man or those around him.
Thank you for your time and for your thoughtful comments.
Regarding the semantics involved in determining “personhood” for the purpose of imbuing that “person” with the protections of our constitution. There are many stages of life starting at fertilization and ending in death. We are called different things at different stages (child, teenager, adult, senior citizen). At all of those different stages a “life’s” rights vary. For instance the right to vote is “granted” at 18 years. The term “person” can be effectively argued against by using words like “zygote”, “fetus”, “embryo”. It could be argued that certain rights including “life” as referred to in our Declaration and “person” in our Constitution are not “granted” to a zygote for instance because it doesn’t meet the requirements to yet be “called” a person. I personally believe it would be a better expenditure of resources and efforts to work towards creating an environment where people who deserve children would never be faced with the perceived “need” to abort that child. Fully understanding that in my humble opinion the so-called “need” is rare to never.
I didn’t really want to argue abortion. I believe it is a life. Semantics be damned. An abortion ends a life. Period. I think you’re kidding yourself if you think you’re not killing someone. I’m simply philosophically opposed to any government entity having authority to make reproductive decisions of any kind. If we give the government permission to tell us we have to be a parent it opens the door for them to tell us we can’t be a parent. Like in China where they tell you how many children you “can” have. Don’t give the government power over your reproductive rights in any way shape or form. It’s none of their business.
My reason for writing the article was to demonstrate that Paul has navigated this contentious issue with me and “retains” my vote even though I reject his policy because he doesn’t try to advance the policy based on an interpretation of the Bible but rather the Constitution. This is the error of the current GOP. They have alienated many voters, myself included, by turning the party into something akin to a revival meeting. Using any of the ancient religious texts as a model for a political platform excludes more than it includes. And it’s all cynical lip service anyway. The GOP wines and dines but leaves the Christian right with nothing but the check at the end of the date. I would hate to see the same happen to the folks who have come together under the influence of Ron Paul.
We have a document. It’s called the Constitution. It should be adhered to in it’s own right. There is no need to bring in the concepts of hell and damnation to enforce its edicts.
It was not my intent to insult individuals who believe in Jesus and what He represents. If I only believed that Jesus is a character in a book I have no arguments with the message Jesus is communicating. I use the term “follower of Jesus” intentionally as I do separate that from someone simply labeling him or herself a “Christian”. Seems to me a lot of folks are just hedging their bets.
I would not label myself an atheist if the term atheist is used to define someone who does not believe in something more powerful than myself. I use the word “god” to indicate all that I do not nor ever will know. The great “why” of life or the great “where” of death. I think arguments about including “in god we trust” on our coins or whatever is unproductive and probably initiated by someone who wants to keep our eyes diverted. But I would disagree with you that we need religion or that it is important. I long for a day of mass enlightenment where the need for fear of punishment is the necessary ingredient for people to do the right thing. I don’t know what the word for anti religion is but I’m that. My experience with religion is that it does far more harm than good. For me religion is the opposite of freedom.
The word “sin” is one I would take issue with. I believe I know what you mean by sin and I hate to argue semantics when in all likelihood we agree. But sin indicates punishment beyond this life. I do not believe any living person knows for a fact what happens to us when we die. So the word sin is used as a bludgeon, a weapon, to keep people in line. The Ten Commandments are to me common sense laws. The Bible says they are handed down by God and I believe the reason for that is so that people would obey them. I think the uncertainty of death is a powerful fear that has the ability to control people. Now the control can be used for good purposes like for instance if you steal then even if we don’t catch you God will punish you in the afterlife. So they call it a sin to give it that little extra added incentive to not do it. I personally believe we will never be able to coerce morality. I also believe morality is fluid. I’m willing to lay money down that there are things you and I do every day that are just our regular routine that would have been considered immoral sometime in the past. It’s kind of like the free market. Ultimately the market will decide what is moral and what is not. To use the Bible as our rubric for determining morality is challenging in that it is written in a language that is not our own in a time that is less relevant than now and by individuals we did not elect. To use it as in infallible guide for life requires us to believe it is divinely inspired or more and we have to agree as to it’s interpretation. That is why I feel it is not the document we should turn to when determining “public” policy. That is different from saying there are some values worth emulating in the Bible.
NEW YORK - No good news today on the economic front. Consumer confidence plunged, the wholesale inflation rate soared, the number of homes being foreclosed jumped, home prices fell sharply and a report predicts big increases in health care costs. (Yahoo 02/27/08)
What is that famous Independent saying? Oh yes, “Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil.” If Al Gore and John Kerry were evil, then there is not a word to define George W. Bush.
The bottom line: you won the elections, but in doing so you have helped to devalue and disgrace everything our Founding Fathers put their life on the line to create. Not since the fall of Nazi Germany has a group of people deserved to lose everything they have worked all their lives to accumulate more than the Bush voters. You have mercilessly and arrogantly sewn a crop of thorns that you are now going to have to harvest. Glory is God’s, justice cometh.
Jim, as a "follower of Jesus" I greatly appreciate this very clear and consise statement of your perspective. I see that you and I have "common cause" in many ways. Thank you also for your delightfully civil and further enlightening responses to the comments here!
I would observe that there is sadly a vast gap between the true "follower of Jesus" -- Ron Paul being a sterling example -- and the typical pew-sitter "Christian." Were Jesus truly "followed" by the nominal "Christian" in America, this present farce of an "election" would be moot, Bush and company would be thrown out on their posteriors, and Ron Paul -- or any other righteous man! -- would be installed by popular acclaim.
Jesus said there are only two rules that matter, given in this order of priority:
Love God above all else
Love your neighbor as yourself
Agreeing with Lorin Partain, I point out that these principles come from Scripture. I fully understand your inability to adhere to the first, and I have no problem with that. However, if we were all "followers of Jesus" to the extent that we got only the second one right, America would be transformed. Feel free anytime to point out the utter hypocrisy of "Christians" who pretend to hold to the former while sanctimoniously disregarding the latter!
What?! You don't believe a single celled organism called a human embryo is entitled to all it's inalienable Rights? ;-) Right there with you brother.
Who would Jesus bomb?! Why he would smite those non-God worshiping Moslems with nuclear fire. Right? Wasn't that Jesus, leading armies of his followers pillaging city after city and putting all who didn't believe in him under the sword? No?! Must be a different bible.
Obey lawful authority. See it says so right here in my King James approved bible. King James would not get that translation/ interpretation wrong would he? Pay all taxes demanded too.
And don't forget to vote. We don't want to have to demand your participation in validating a process where those seeking more of your earnings or your liberties get to announce the results.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-27 22:01:04
The idea that stealing and killing were bad things, predates the supposed ten commandments. The idea that humans had no such clues until this so called "celestial dictation" is ludicrous. Humans would not have gotten as far along as they had, unless they had some sense of these values.
The morality in the bible is far from the morality we accept today. Genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice... and so on and so forth, are no longer accepted forms of human behavior, and yet the bible is full of such ugliness.
Telling people they will live forever (besides being an unprovable supposition most likely false) and then telling them about the incredible torture they will face if they don't adhere to your way of thinking... is also far behind the morality of the present.
Lying to children is not a moral act, and yet every revered preacher and imam and rabbi do it almost daily.
Morality advances IN SPITE of religion, not because of it.
"In GOD WE TRUST" should not be on our currency and we should not be taking oaths upon a bible.
The founders of this country, (with most of the main framers being anti-religionists) would be disappointed in the way their ideas were manifested and changed by religious nutjobs over time...
We atheists are a minority. What would happen to you and me if our country was as intolerant toward beliefs as you have shown yourself to be? I would also like to remind you that it is easy to be moral when times are good. If you were starving to death on an island would you prefer to have me (an atheist) with you, or a Christian? Think about it.
Jim Hines, I enjoyed your response. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your views. I share your appreciation of Ron Paul not wear his beliefs on his sleeve. I also agree that in the past religion does not have a good record for morals. We do differ on the strength of morals in the void of religion, but that’s okay :) An interesting question to consider is: When stress is put on a group and it begins break down is it better off with religion or without it? I have not seen any good objective reading on that topic. Do you know of any good books? I would also like to clarify what I said earlier. Although I conceder myself an atheist I do not rule out the possibility that there is a more intelligent being in the universe. The universe is so big that it seems likely. As an atheist I just don’t believe that any intelligent being has anything to do with life on this planet, or the creation of the universe. As far as the “In God We Trust” is concerned I agree about how trivial it is and I have noticed that people try to push an agenda with it. I was questioning the agenda of outspoken atheists with it.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-28 01:01:45
There is nothing intolerant in my opinions. They are simply rational opinions, based on what is measurable and understandable.
I would prefer keeping company with a rational person on an island than one predisposed to irrational thinking. Wish thinking will not get you saved. Nor will it provide food. Wish thinking will only get you thinking about wishes.
Being in a majority does not make one truthful or knowledgable or factual. The world is full of nutjobs. From Jews who think God grants them the right to lands of others, to Muslims who think they need to spread their vile by killing innocent children, to Catholics who would rather see AIDS spread than have men wear condoms...
Here in America, these nutjobbers rake in BILLIONS of untaxable income all the while lying to children. This crap is sickening and so outmoded I am ashamed at all who allow this to go on in this day and age.
Thanks for your comment on the article I wrote in response to yours: "Jesus and Ron Paul."
Jim, an article on "applied love" as you have suggested sounds like a very cool idea.... :)
Now for something that you may find amusing... As I was writing my response to your article, I kept starting to find a fault in some particular of yours, and then when I went back to "check my facts" I would find that you had already actually made a very accurate statement, or had allowed for the exception that I was thinking of! :)
Well, if you do write an article about "love" in the context of politics and citizenship, I'm sure it will be original and will require careful thought and appreciation before I respond to it! :)
I responded to your kind comment below my article, but also wanted to respond here to be sure you would get it, and also to mention again that I hope you'll consider signing up for the Columnists Lounge... :)
I'm not familiar with a book exploring the topic you refrenced. Certainly sounds like a valid thesis. Not sure how the evidence could be collected. But than I'm not "sure" of a lot of things. LOL
Re: god. Um...my impressions are that when individuals use the word god it's hard for most not to conjure up some image of a Santa Clause like character or at least a very wise, old humanoid that is making decisions on a moment to moment basis and that can be lobbied. I reject that notion for the most part.
It's hard for me not to recognize that "something" beyond our immediate pervue is going on all around us. The apparent patterns and cycles in nature. Immutable laws (on this planet anyway) like gravity.The concept of time.
My current "confusion" is in the direction of whether or not that "something" can be lobbied or if it's simply on automatic pilot. If you know how things work you can manipulate them to fit your agenda. I've read stories about civilizatons that used predictable celestial events like eclipses to assert their authority over the general population that didn't have the information. But If "it" the god thing could be communicated with directly then that to me would be the equivalent of the god as santa clause concept. However, most of me is leaning towards automatic pilot. Which still is like a god thing only with out the access option. I think it was Einstein who said "god does not roll dice with the universe".
What I'm mostly certain of is that I know that I don't know.
Still having said all of that I never feel the need to show up at a building on a specific day each week and perform a ceremony to appease that thing what ever it is. I reject that this powerful thing would need us to worship it or even acknowledge it. The truth exists all on it's own with out my approval or disdain. And if it does "need" it then I don't respect it and any worship from me would be disingenuous and coerced. But that is just me personally. If others want to do that it's their business. I don't see anything wrong with being thankful or appreciative or in awe of all the wonderful things around you. Or the opposite for that matter.
In defense of Scott from Oregon's it can not be denied that religion is frequently causing violent divisions between peoples rather than bringing them together in peace and prosperity. That disturbs me as well. But what are you going to do? A lot of religious people are also very nice. Calling them stupid usually doesn't create a peaceful environment. But I can relate to his frustrations.
Thanks again for your comments and the pleasant discussion.
What?! You don't believe a single celled organism called a human embryo is entitled to all it's inalienable Rights? ;-) Right there with you brother.
Who would Jesus bomb?! Why he would smite those non-God worshiping Moslems with nuclear fire. Right? Wasn't that Jesus, leading armies of his followers pillaging city after city and putting all who didn't believe in him under the sword? No?! Must be a different bible.
Obey lawful authority. See it says so right here in my King James approved bible. King James would not get that translation/ interpretation wrong would he? Pay all taxes demanded too.
And don't forget to vote. We don't want to have to demand your participation in validating a process where those seeking more of your earnings or your liberties get to announce the results.
As a Christian I also enjoyed Paul's speech at Liberty U, as did many of those present none the least was Falwell's son's father in law who is a Paul Maniac from way back as I understand it.
However, your article has a few assumptions I would like to challenge. The main one being your last point. The Bible has no place in public policy. Truth comes from many places, it can be revealed, scripture, it can come from logic, science, the means is not as important as the content in my humble opinion. If an ancient text be true, then it should not conflict with the dictates of logic, or the findings of science in so far as the topics to which it speaks. So when you say the Bible has no place in public policy, I would say what about "Thou Shalt not Steal" or "Thou Shalt not Murder". These are libertarian ideals yes, but also religious ones and the religious source predates libertarian thinking by thousands of years. When Christians apply these values in a consistent and real way not just to themselves but to others and to the state they become, magically, libertarians. I see the trouble being one of a misapplication of the values that Christ gave. In the old days in America, Christians understood the differences between sins that were crimes, and sins that were merely vices. Today, its more mixed up in some ways, and less mixed up in others. I admit that we Christians have much in our own house to clean up, but this is in no way a reflection on Christ himself, but merely a reflection of our inability to get it right. If Christians can be re-educated as to Crime and Vice we can have a world where only Biblical values that should be law are so, such as the prohibition against theft and murder, and other sins are left as vice and are kept legal, but perhaps socially shunned. We went through a time where cultural prohibitions and stigmas were done away with. That was a terrible mistake for it preserved freedom. Now all things are simply either legal or not legal. What a travesty. I hope that we can get back to the old value of moral vice, one that preserves liberty but also recognizes that while a thing may not be illegal it may also not be beneficial to a man or those around him.
oops, sorry about the repost, that was an accident. If the admin can erase it that would be great.
I would like to comment further though on Jim Hine's response. One statement in your response strikes me as odd. "Religion is the opposite of freedom" I find this a strange conclusion, as for someone like myself I have never found more freedom than what is afforded to me by my faith. Firstly, religion, the Christian variety at least is not foisted on others (there have been historical exceptions to this, however these are violations of the biblical teaching), but rather seeks to influence them. Influence and coercion are not the same thing and with the exception of Islam, I know of very few faiths that coerce people to convert. Secondly, to give an example, when I met the girl who is now my wife, she was a drug addict. She was completely entangled and hopelessly addicted to a variety of hard drugs. I tried to be a positive influence in her life, and told her my witness about Christ in my life, and she converted. Soon after converting she was drug free. Now as a libertarian I believe that the drug war causes more trouble than it cures and should be abandoned, but as a Christian I also recognize that people's vices have them completely trapped in a pattern of behavior that they are a slave too. There is no freedom there. The Christian idea is that sin is not something you want to be free to do but rather it is something you want to be free from. It will master you rather than you master it. We don't have to look far to find many examples of good things becoming sinful vice. Food abuse, drug abuse, sexual addiction, alcoholism, the list goes on and on. So are these people free to do these things in a political sense. Yes of course, Alcohol should not be made illegal because of alcoholics for example. However is the alcoholic truly a free person ? I would say that spiritually he is a slave to his sin. So a true religion sets us free, as it did my wife, from the things that we enslave ourselves with. When Jesus said "I have come to set the captives free" this is what he meant. I have seen this transformation in people's lives many times, far too many to dismiss it. Libertarianism doesn't really deal with these personal and spiritual issues as it is a political philosophy, which means of course that the two are not mutually exclusive but can be seen as mutually compatible, which I believe would be characteristic of Ron Paul's views.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
