Urban Reformation

24 Responses to “Who will point us the way? And which is the “Right” way?”

1. 
   Kate A. Dec 28th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

   Jason, so many things are running thru my mind this election…..and after viewing what you posted, even more so. I still think I will back Huckabee because I think he is the best for the job. While I totally understand that Romney, a mormon, has exceptional values as Christians SHOULD, I can’t help but thinking about the story “a wolf in sheeps clothing”, and it scares me a bit. I am not obsessed about the apocolypse but am not blind to the times either. I find myself wondering if this isn’t just another small “compromise” we as Christians will make, another anti Christ (not antichrist) decsion we’ve been “duped” into making. Christians need to be prayed up and tread carefully, more now than ever. I’ve always said, if most Christians had the family/work values of the Mormons and the door knocking dedication of the Jehovah’s Witnesses we’d be a strong and mighty power. - Kate A.

2. 
   John Dec 29th, 2007 at 12:14 am

   There are multiple reasons why I would find it impossible to support Ron Paul for president, but first I would like to clear up any confusion that might exist. As a Christian and a patriotic American who still believes in the American experiment and the goodness that exists here in our philosophical foundations and her people, I am not against Ron Paul in every way. There are many areas where I can find agreement with him. However, upon closer inspection, I find his positions and his stands untenable with the current climate. As a Christian, I am more interested in achieving the greatest moral good than I am in simply following the constitution. If ever I can follow the constitution and still achieve the greatest moral good, I will do so, but I will not follow the constitution at the expense of what is right and good in the current climate of America. So while I cannot vote for Ron Paul, I do agree with many of his statements, at least to some degree.

   Where do I agree with Ron Paul? Well, I agree with much of what Ron Paul stands for, so far as that can be known. For example, I am pro-life (i.e. against the legalized murder of innocent children), pro marriage, (i.e. against treating behaviors as immutable characteristics and erroneously granting marital status to unnatural couplings or groupings of people for the purpose of cultural approval and normalization of dysfunction), pro gun rights (i.e. against heavy handed restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms), pro legal immigration (i.e. against foreigners illegally crossing our borders and fostering sectionalism/balkanization through relativism, non-assimilation, and cultural Marxism [i.e. multiculturalism]), and for American sovereignty (i.e. withdrawl from the U.N., multiple international treaties, and an end to international agreements designed to bring parity between multiple economies in order to achieve eventual unification at the expense of our rights and their philosophical underpinnings.)

   So you might say that on most of the big issues of the day, Ron Paul and I are on the same page, at least on the surface. However, we disagree in other areas that are extremely important. To be quick they are following:

   • I support Constitutional Amendments to ban both any state sanctioned marriage that is not between one man and one woman and virtually any practice of abortion that is not genuinely necessary, as in the case of ectopic pregnancies and the like.
   • I support the war on drugs and support actually fighting that war with much more vigor.
   • I support giving aid to allied nations who are genuinely in need of our assistance on a national scale (i.e. military assistance, intelligence, etc…) versus mere charity donations.
   • I support the Iraq war, though not in the way that it has been handled or fought. I believe it falls squarely within the bounds of the “Jus Ad Bellum” or the Just War tradition. Further, our presence there now requires that we not leave in a way that would see the wholesale murder of masses of people and the growth of a new extremist state that could and probably would lend itself toward future attacks against us, our allies, and the rest of the non-Muslim world into the future.
   • I support the war against Islam, which currently subsists under the euphemisms “War On Terror”, “War Against Extremism”, “War Against Radical Islam”, “War Against Islamo-Fascism”.

   Ron Paul supports none of these issues at all, and has the unfortunate tendency to place the moral culpability or blame for terrorism and so-called “Islamic Extremism” on the actions of America. I find this a fantastic and utterly indefensible claim. It would be like removing moral culpability from Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party for World War II on the basis that the European powers made the mistake of being far too hard on Germany in the Post-War period through the reparations they were being forced to pay as a result of signing the treaty of Versailles. Did the European powers make a mistake? Yes. Did that mistake contribute to Hitler’s rise to power? Yes. Did they cause Hitler’s 1938, 1939, and 1941 invasions? No. Do they bear the primary moral culpability for World War II? No. Was it wrong to stand up to Hitler and fight World War II? No. So far as I have heard and read over the last several months, this would not be the position of Ron Paul with regard to terrorist attacks on the United States and our allies. According to Ron Paul, they are only attacking us because of our policies and because we are attacking them. This is false and naïve in the extreme.

   To be honest, the inversion of right and wrong here is something that I more often hear from liberals who operate from a humanist, secularist, or atheist perspective. The best examples come out of Israel. Israel is guilty of cruelly setting out to murder Palestinian women and children on a regular basis under the guise of going after terrorists. The fact that targeted terrorists intentionally surround themselves with woman and children is rarely put clearly into focus. Remember that intent is important with regard to moral culpability. Israel targets terrorists only, and civilians are killed by accident. On the other hand, terrorists intentionally target innocent civilians. The actions of the two parties are night and day different, but they often attempt to show a moral equivalence that doesn’t exist. So far as I have heard and read, this is what Ron Paul attempts to do with regard to terrorism and American action.

   In addition, I am troubled by Ron Paul’s lack of priorities. He claims Christ as his Savior, and I will take him at his word on that issue. However, if he is truly a follower of Christ, than his allegiance to the Constitution of the United States must be placed behind his allegiance to the moral law of God. It is right, good, and preferable to attempt to do the right things, for the right reasons, and in the right way. In other words, it is a great thing to stick to the Constitution when possible to achieve the greatest moral good in any given circumstance. However, there are times when sticking to the Constitution will not be possible without hindering the moral good and helping the moral harm. Let me use an example from Ron Paul himself.

   For example, let’s assume that abortion is not a constitutional issue. Now, I think this is utterly false, but let’s assume that for the sake of the argument. If because I believed abortion was not a constitutional issue, I failed to vote for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and as a result of my voting against the amendment, I have made it impossible to ban abortion nationally, I have just done something deeply immoral. By sticking to my so-called principles, I have seen to it that abortions will continue unabated. I have seen to that more moral harm will be done than would have been done had I voted for the amendment. And this is my point. The Christian has a higher responsibility to fight for the greatest moral good and/or the least moral harm. There are times, when sticking to principles and inflexibility will bring about serious moral harm that Christians cannot and should not participate in. Where is our Christian conscience today? This is major reason why I would find a vote for Ron Paul to be deeply immoral.

   Let me quickly point out a few things about abortion and gay marriage that I find very troubling regarding Ron Paul. I can only assume that his positions stem from his loyalty to libertarianism over the moral law. Strictly speaking, libertarians may believe in morality, but they don’t connect government to morality in any significant way. This is dangerous for the Christian. I have libertarian tendencies myself but not at the expense of the moral law. For example, “Ron Paul believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because abortion is simply not a constitutional issue.” Roe v. Wade is not wrong because it’s not a constitutional issue. It is wrong because the decision legalizes the killing of an innocent human being without proper justification. The basic protection of one’s life is a government issue. It is a national issue. It is a constitutional issue. It is the issue of issues. It is one of the primary responsibilities of government. They are here for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of those who do right. They are here to protect and seek the common good for those people over whom they govern. The idea of abortion not being a constitutional issue is simply false. The idea that the reasoning of Roe v. Wade is not found in the constitution is true, but that doesn’t mean that the legalization of murder and therefore, the removal of our most basic divinely endowed right, as delineated in the Declaration of Independence, is not a constitutional issue. This position is nonsensical and incoherent.

   Additionally, let me point out that the constitution is an instructional document on “how to do government.” The ideological principles that motivate or animate our actions within that government structure are delineated in the Declaration of Independence. In other words, the Declaration of Independence is the ideological foundation upon which the Constitution is based. The attempt to separate the two is impossible.

   His position on gay marriage is mistaken for many of the same reasons. Given that the federal and state governments have an interest in marriage, as it is the source of our culture and national stability, I don’t see how that cannot be a constitutional issue. And given that the full faith and credit clause of the constitution applies to the issue marriage, I do not see how the federal government can ultimately fail to address it. I won’t go into detail, but the fact that marriage is primarily a religious issue doesn’t mean that it is not also a state issue. It is hard to see how governments ordained by God to encourage good, restrain evil, and protect or seek the common good of those over whom they govern can avoid addressing the issue of allowing dysfunction to be permanently injected into marriage and normalized in the cultural. The resultant coming apart of the definition or coherency of the basic family unit would certainly lead to massive evils, a loss of the common good, and a complete lack of stability in the basic unit of our society responsible for passing on moral training to future generations. As has been said before, we are quickly becoming a nation of moral idiots giving birth to feral children in morally unraveling world. Why help speed it up with mistaken notions non-constitutionality and inflexibility regardless of the moral harm? We are Christians, and we have a higher call than this.

   To be frank, I don’t find anything appealing about Ron Paul’s position on drugs. I can agree that I would fight the war on drugs in a far different way. My idea of fighting the war on drugs would deal with source, the demand, the access, and the punishments. I would certainly change these to a significant degree, but I would not simply give up. For multiple reasons, I think that is a silly position when considering the state of human nature.

   Ron Paul’s rejection of foreign aid on the grounds that it is taking money from Americans who wouldn’t necessarily choose to give their money to this or that government really doesn’t seem to hold any water for me. I wouldn’t choose to pay for a lot of things that my tax money currently goes for. Does that mean we can just cut it all out immediately? Can you imagine the problems that would be caused by the hundreds of billions of dollars of American aid drying up over night? Can you imagine the wars that would break out in short order? Can you imagine a country of 7 millions attempting to face down anywhere from 3 to 9 countries or over 100 million people arrayed against it without our aid? If people would like to argue that American aid doesn’t actually achieve far more good than bad, then they are free to do so. From my perspective, they are also free to argue that water is actually dry and that sticks are characterized by having only one end. This is silly.

   Regarding support for the Iraq war, I think it falls within the just war tradition regardless of the mistakes, bad intelligence, and the minority of bad actors that have been exposed and prosecuted.

   1) Proper Authority – I Agree… With Reservations, He is President of the United States
   2) Just Cause – I Agree… More Info Available Upon Request.
   3) Right Intention – I Agree… More Info Available Upon Request.
   4) War As The Only Way To Right The Wrong – I Agree… More Info Available Upon Request
   5) Reasonable Hope of Success – I Agree… It is within our grasp if we stay the course.

   Again priorities come into play here. I will not argue that the war was planned well or that the occupation has been carried out well. I will not argue that things haven’t gotten messy from time to time. However, I will say that lack of historical context infects the entire world in terms of the death rate and cleanliness of this war as compared to others in history. Had we been another major power like China or Russia in this circumstance, our conduct of this war would appear in a completely different light. I point you to Afghanistan in the 1980s when the Soviet Union dropped explosive devices disguised as dolls and toys in order to kill Afghan children as a matter of policy, or in the words of the Soviets, in order to “drain the swamp”. By the way, another instance of American foreign aid that made a positive moral difference in the world that Ron Paul would be against according to his own principles.

   Lastly, Ron Paul doesn’t understand the religion of Islam, and I find that incredibly dangerous and quite scary. Islam itself means submission. Who are they submitting to? Allah. And who is doing the submitting? Only good Muslims. And who do Muslims pattern their life after? The Prophet Mohammed. And who was Mohammed? He was essentially a pirate and raider of commerce who became a conqueror. To erase Mohammed and his example would be analogous to removing Christ from Christianity. The command to bring the entire world under the submission of Allah is just that, a command. Ron Paul doesn’t understand this, and in fact denies the truth about Islam. He would prefer to blame the West and American specifically for the actions of Muslims. This is naiveté run amok. We must know our enemy and Ron Paul seems to believe that we are the enemy when it comes to terrorism. This is dangerous, and I am amazed that others do not see this more clearly.

   Coming up to the end, Ron Paul’s almost total inflexibility makes him an unacceptable candidate. Regardless of how things should or how we would like to see them work; they do not work that way right now. A siege mentality will not serve to change the way government is done in Washington. It will only serve to turn both parties against the president, since they won’t be able to get anything done Ron Paul doesn’t already agree with. The result will be relatively infrequent veto overriding votes becoming as common place. Now what happens if veto overriding votes become common place? The President becomes nothing more than a figurehead, and a figurehead is utterly irrelevant. This is no way to get things done. Ron Paul’s agenda for America would never see the light of day in that circumstance. Additionally, the likelihood of more Democrats being elected to office so that the Republicans can’t get “right-wing” legislation passed would increase dramatically.

   I apologize for the choppy nature of this response. It was done off the cuff and I decided to address some things at the last minute. The last thing I want to address could have been addressed above with abortion and same-sex marriage. In this “Open Letter” it says, Ron Paul “does not think social problems can be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts.” This appears to be another libertarian position, but I personally think it is quite mistaken. No one that I know thinks that banning abortion or same-sex marriage will solve a social problem. They do think that it will restrain and deter a certain amount of evil that will not be deterred otherwise. The banning of state-sanctioned marriages between same-sex couples doesn’t equate to regulating domestic family relations and therefore federalizing anything and everything. Unless you believe two men or two women having sexual relations constitutes an actual family, I’m not sure how that could ever apply. It has to do with preserving the definition of what family and marriage is, and therefore protecting that institution from developing further deep dysfunction and unraveling altogether.

   Regarding abortion, I would rather see 60,000 or 100,000 illegally performed abortions than to see 1.2 million legally performed abortions where many people spend time and money trying to convince young girls and guys that killing their baby is really OK. It’s legal isn’t it? That’s the common deception. But legality doesn’t equate to it being moral or right. In addition, the legality of abortion encourages men to take advantage of women without the necessary consequence of pregnancy. There are all kinds of ways in which evil can be restrained simply by removing the false legality of this deeply immoral act. Standing against this is the wrong thing to do.

   I would like to add that I mean no offense to anyone who supports Ron Paul. I am simply trying to give my honest opinion with all the passion that I feel on this issue. I find the idea that Christians are being drawn to vote for Ron Paul quite telling of the current state of the church and the Christian worldview within the church. That’s not a statement of hubris or even condemnation. Thanks for the opportunity.

   John

3. 
   Jason Dec 29th, 2007 at 6:09 am

   I understand where you’re coming from in some of your points. I’ll make a quick response with perhaps a longer one later. In regards to social issues, in regards to marriage, drugs, and the like. What Paul is saying is that going to war on drugs capturing drug addicts, drug dealers, and even the source of drugs, or the sources of homosexual marriage and forcing them not to be able to do something is not the key. What he has said is leave it up to the churches and families to be the support system for these things and not the government. In other words advocating personal responsibility vs. a drug dependent state. We currently have government allowing the use of methadone to get off drugs, yet we use it medically keeping them addicted to drugs, this drug is no different than legalized heroin or meth, and who’s paying for it? We are? What takes place is we spend billions of dollars on the war on drugs and we see no decrease in drugs but we take drug addicts stick them in jail and make them worse harden criminals. What he’s saying is that just as man can not make another man change on the inside either will government, it has to be God that changes a man. Yes we restrain evil, we bust drug pushers who are breaking the law but do we really need to spend the money on something that we’re losing. We must come back to God and Family before the moral fabric will change, and simply attempting to make people not do drugs is not the answer, it’s not working so why keep approaching it the same way? We must focus on the heart of man, with the Gospel in order for them to be changed, and ultimately it must be God. And one comment concerning what you said about the war? And I do agree with what you said about Islam to a large degree but why haven’t more Muslims gone after say a “Canada”? Who is financially successful, yet poses little threat of violence around the world?

4. 
   Paul Dec 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

   Pat Robertson is crazy. He overlooks pro-abortion, 3 wife, Juliani because he loves Israel more than he loves Christ Himself in my opinion. A digression: I think the misunderstanding that the nation of Israel is some “holy land” among most believers will be our destruction as a nation eventually. How many Christians are going to vote for a weak candidate just because they believe they have to support a candidate that endorses giving money to Israel. I know there is much disagreement among evangelicals as to the correct eschatological view of Israel. And I am no expert whatsoever, but this infatuation with Israel takes glory away from Christ and makes God a respecter of persons toward the Jews. Christ alone saves Jews and gentiles. If the Jews reject Christ He will reject them just as he did the pharisees. The promises to the nation of Israel during Old Testament times were fulfilled in my opinion. One could even make a strong argument that the re-establishment of the nation of Israel was a violent takeover considering the palestinians occupied that land for hundreds and hundreds of years. Is it any wonder why the palestinians hate America so much? They were bludgeoned and pillaged when the nation of Israel was re-established and the United States gives billions of dollars of aid to Israel. I contend, unlike John above, that this is the primary reason the palestinian jihad is still aflame today. They are just using Islam because it helps them in their cause. The palestinians have not forgotten what happened to their ancestors when their land was taken over. I will stop now, before I am labeled anti-semitic. Christ is the only hope for the Jews or gentiles period! And those who think that animal sacrifices will one day be re-instituted in the nation of Israel are believing blasphemy. If Christ’s sacrifice was and is not sufficient for His elect then nothing is. Please pardon my ranting. It just really upsets me when Jesus Christ’s sacrifice is made light of and when most of Christendom believes the nation of Israel today has some special place in God’s heart. How can we believe that when Christ Himself told the Jews (pharisees) of His day that they were of their father the devil and when the biblical texts do not bear this out. The pharisees were the most learned men of the Jewish people and yet their religion was one of hypocrisy because they thought they were God’s elect and they were not. End of digression.

   As far as Huckabee, I think he is a big spender from a few things I have read and confirmed that while he was Governor of Arkansas. And Huckabee misunderstands when we should go to war. War is only justified to “defend” the 50 states. Section 4 of the constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;…..” Obviously, going after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan was justified due to the state of New York being invaded. But going into Iraq, in my opinion was an excuse to remove Saddam Hussein not to protect the United States.

   Romney…..anyone who is a Mormon I would question there intelligence unlike Mr. Grudem. No offense, but I have watched some of Mitt Romney’s debates with Ted Kennedy on You Tube and he is frighteningly political. Who knows what day he will be pro-life or pro-abortion, pro-marriage or pro-gay.

   If I may take the liberty to respond to some of John’s comments above. First, I must say, that I find everything we need to sustain the “greatest moral good” in the constitution. This constitution has withstood the test of time because it represents in itself the “Declaration of Independence” as its root of thought. Furthermore, I believe, that the founding documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution) have at their core the Bible in all its context. I, personally, find nothing in the constitution that would disagree with biblical text. Finally, any future president swears to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, to be a strict constitutionalist, is by nature the only acceptable path for any president to take. Those presidents, in the past, who have not followed the constitution have only wrought trouble for the union.

   As far as constitutional amendments, I think Ron Paul is staying with the heart of the constitution which is to let the States take care of as many issues as possible, however, I would not be opposed to a constitutional amendment defining what the family is or making abortion illegal. Although, Ron Paul is right when he says social ills cannot be solved by government edicts. Only our Lord Jesus can change men’s wicked hearts.

   As far as the drug war, I agree with Jason’s comments. However, from a civil standpoint the only jurisdiction of the government is to arrest those that actually commit a crime against another person. One would have a good argument that if we arrest those using marijuana then we would have to arrest those who drink beer. Both substances are mind altering and can cause severe mental impairment. However, if we argue one can be arrested, then the other should be too. For me, it comes back to the government bearing the sword against evil-doers. If a drunk driver harms or kills someone they are punished or put to death. If someone using marijuana harms or kills someone while driving or otherwise they are punished or put to death. If we consider the state of human nature, as John suggests, then we would lose our freedoms entirely. All are dead in trespasses and sin so how can their be any way to corral human nature. Our government is one that is based on personal freedom. With this comes the responsibility to be civil. The only hope for people truly being civil is Christ himself. So, if we are going to argue that we make laws against drug use, then where do the laws end. They don’t, they just keep coming which is wrong. Personal note - I think drinking and using drugs is not very wise according to scripture, not to mention our body is His temple, not ours.

   Giving aid to foreign nations should only be done if it aids in the security of the United States as John has said. However, I do not support giving aid to Israel for reasons I have stated above. Even though they are our ally, I believe we experienced 9/11 partly due to our aid to Israel.

   I did not support the Iraq war as I mentioned earlier and I do not support the war against Islam. It strikes me as funny that we go to war against a religion even though I know what is meant by it. Islamists hate America because of killing palestinians and taking over their land in 1948 and for continuing to give billions of dollars of aid to Israel each year. I understand that their were Jews needing refuge from everything that just happened in Europe, but American’s do not understand why the palestinians and Arab people hate us. It is very simple to figure out. We supported Israel being re-established in 1948 and have supported them since.

   So, I will probably vote for Ron Paul. Even though I may not agree with him on every point, he is the most conservative and correct candidate. I am tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. He has been in Washington for 10 years so he knows what goes on up there and probably who can be trusted. He has been married to one wife for 50 years and seems to be a man of integrity. I think Republicans need to wake up that it is time for a true conservative not a Washington conservative like Bush. Maybe the ground swell of conservatives that are tired of status quo will help Paul show well in Iowa.

   I have to remind myself that God is in control and that we deserve His judgment as a nation. But that does not stop me from crying out for mercy for Him to deliver us.

   I might add also that I supported George Bush his first term and paid the maximum amount of money you can donate to a political campaign. I even prayed he would get elected because Al Gore scared the dickens out of me. I did not support Bush his second term even though I voted for him.

   As Christians I do not think we can before God vote for someone who is pro-abortion and I will not.

   So, John, whom should we cast our vote for?

   Paul

5. 
   John Dec 29th, 2007 at 9:49 pm

   Well, I don’t know that Pat Robertson is crazy, but I don’t agree with his decision to make such a nakedly hubristic calculation and endorse Giuliani from the start. I would have started out endorsing someone that was much closer to my values, but many of those have already dropped out of the race. Personally, I am partial to Duncan Hunter, but I can’t claim to be excited about any particular candidate at all.

   Regarding Giuliani being pro-abortion and having had 3 wives, from my perspective, that’s not at the top of my list in terms of things that I find most relevant. Quite frankly, there is little to help us confirm, however imperfectly, the Christianity or regenerate state of any of the candidates so far as I can tell. As a result, the fact that they are pro-abortion and have had 3 wives is not surprising to me. What should we expect from the unregenerate? After all, Christians have enough trouble keeping their own houses in order. What would matter to me most is whether he would do less moral harm and/or more moral good than the opposing candidate. For example, is Rudolph Giuliani “pro-abortion” in the same sense as Hillary Clinton? I actually don’t think so, and I’m not sure it would be a major thrust of his campaign to smash all of the progress on abortion we’ve made over the past several years. This is especially the case now that a majority of Americans are now verifiably against abortion. So if it came down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani, I would be duty bound to vote for the one who would do the least moral harm and/or the most moral good. To do otherwise, would be a vote for the worst possible candidate, and I don’t think that is permissible.

   This is precisely what I was talking about when I was saying that Christians have a higher calling than sticking to a principle. If that principle of say, I won’t vote for an immoral man or a pro-abortion candidate would see more moral harm done, then it’s a bad principle. No one person is going to turn this ship around. As Christians we know the end of the story, but we don’t know the time when that story will actually reach its end, so we must act in order to really make a difference. It will take multiple generations to begin turning the tide on many of the issues we care about, and it will not be done in one or two elections. Quite frankly, it might never be done. However, I would like to stave off seeing just how bad bad can get for as long as possible. I have no children of my own at this point, but when I think about the world we are leaving to my nieces and nephew and their children to come, I fear for them. And I mean that at a very visceral level. I am genuinely afraid for them. Given the context in which we’ve grown up (i.e. relative freedom of religion and from true persecution), I don’t think we truly realize how bad things will be eventually. As a result, we must do all that we can to turn this around or at the very least preserve what we still have and slow the tide.

   As for Israel, I know many people tie their view of end-times into support for Israel, but I do not. I reject Christian Zionism and the like. I also reject turning a blind eye to the state of Israel when they happen to do something wrong. The point being, while not being a devotee of any particular pro-Israel theology, I would give money and aid to the state of Israel even if I weren’t a Christian. If there were any country that was so unjustly hated by the world and had a history of persistent attempts to wipe them from the earth, I would find that predicament sufficient justification for my country to extend its hand of friendship and support in an act of compassion and love for the lives of their people. So apart from whatever theological construct people have decided to import into their politics, I would be fully willing to support the state of Israel against the host of nations who are bent on their destruction. And as the entire non-Muslim world will eventually face the same threat as a result of core Islamic theology and teaching, our interests and theirs’ are interwoven in a way that obliges us to lock arms with a nation like Israel. Quite frankly, this is true of any nation who at some point gets a clue about what is going on with regard to Islam, its history, and its perceived destiny (i.e. world-wide submission to Allah). To do otherwise, as Ron Paul suggests, is in my opinion, folly.

   Regarding Huckabee, I honestly don’t know what to tell people. I have learned from past experience that sifting the truth from the falsehood put out by the mainstream media is quite difficult. Having said that, I don’t get the impression that Huckabee is any paragon of Christian virtue, but I won’t impugn his name without knowing for certain. The bottom line is that I have little reason to believe he is a lot different from most of the politicians in Washington. However, I do have reason to believe that he has it right on some of the most important issues and holds positions I can at least live with in other areas. For example, I don’t particularly admire our current president for multiple reasons, but I am exceedingly grateful to God that he is the man in office rather than someone like Al Gore and John Kerry. I could go into why, but I’m sure most who read this can come their own conclusions on that.

   It really all boils down to priorities. On a list of issues you care about what comes first? I hope the most fundamental things come first and less vital issues are place 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc… For me, an erasure of our basic right to life must come first simply in terms of logic, to say nothing of protecting the “Imago Dei” found in each human being. All other concerns and rights cease to have meaning if our right to life is absent in America or anywhere else. Other issues dealing with marriage and family I find foundational as well. If we succeed in un-defining the family, what happens to the God ordained institution prescribed the task of passing on values to future generations? If marriage begins to mean everything (i.e. any grouping of people, animals, etc…), and it ceases to mean anything in particular; what happens to the idea of the necessity of marriage? If you look to the Netherlands and other places, you find that it slowly disappears and the idea that a long-term male/female commitment is needed to raise a family simply evaporates. Since the family unit is where we inculcate and birth moral sensitivity, values, and societal stability, I consider this another very important, if not bedrock issue.

   If we fail to understand the enemy at our gates, as I believe Ron Paul does, what happens to the nation unprepared? If each time a bomb blows up in a supermarket or on a playground, we try to blame American policy and power, what happens to this nation God has so richly blessed? If we don’t understand that Islam is ideologically, theologically, and therefore logically committed to our conversion and/or destruction, what happens to this nation?

   I think there are several people who get these more fundamental questions right. I think there are several others who get them half right. And of course, there are others who get them wrong but not as wrong as the person on the other side of the isle. In any case, I think that people like Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter come closest to getting these issues right to varying degrees. Do I think Mike Huckabee is my perfect candidate or all that much better than George Bush? No. Do I think Duncan Hunter has even a slight chance of becoming President? No. However, I do think, at least as far as I can tell, that these two men are our best first string choices. Failing that I would probably have to choose Romney 3rd and McCain 4th. To be honest, Ron Paul is the last person I would find myself voting for, and the main reasons have been stated.

   As a Christian, making a principled stand is not enough, if my stand sees greater evil done in this world. As a Christian, I want to actually make a moral difference in this world, stand on principle when I can, and compromise where necessary to bring about the most good or the least harm in any given circumstance. That is our higher calling in the world of politics. From my perspective, to do otherwise is to work against what is right. And to be frank, I wouldn’t put it in terms of the lesser of two evils and depress myself. I mean, would you rather see 10 abortions or 10 million? As terrible as it sounds, I would rather see 10 abortions than to see 10 million. If that’s the lesser of two evils, than I will take it. I will vote for the lesser of two evils if that means that the intention of my vote is to bring about greater moral good and less moral harm than there would have been without my vote. And you can say, “I’m tired of that”. I don’t blame you. At times, I get tired of it too, but that is why we are running this race with perseverance to the end. We are the salt and light of this world, and when we are weary from well doing, we need only look to Christ and all he went through. He was tired too and asked that the cup be taken from Him if possible. But what was his ultimate response? “Not my will, but thy will be done.” God’s will is not to elect the most conservative person who we agree with more. It is to elect that person who is most likely to be able to effect the greatest moral good and the least moral harm. To do anything else, in my opinion, is a grave mistake.

   I am sympathetic to how you feel though. I’ve been there myself on many occasions. But putting a Ron Paul in office will do nothing but make conservative legislation utterly irrelevant. Ron Paul will veto his way right out of power, as the congress decides to vote veto-proof votes every time, and post-Christian American will promptly elect more liberal Democrats and Republicans to office in order to make that even easier. Ron Paul and the Christian community will become as irrelevant as the late great VHS tape. If I have two choices and one will do less harm and/or more good than the other, then I am duty bound as a Christian to vote for that person pro-abortion or not, conservative or not, 3 wives or not. To do otherwise, is a vote for the person who would do more harm and less good. If Christians can have that on their conscience, then so be it. I would personally advise strongly against it.

   You asked me a question that I cannot give a direct answer to, but I will give you the best answer I’ve come up with so far. “For whom should we cast our vote?” I cannot tell you that. You must, in the end, vote your conscience. What I am asking, indeed pleading for Christians to do, is to examine themselves and verify that their consciences are properly informed. What I am seeing increasingly is a deeply fractured and weak Christian conscience in search of what it should do. My only answer is to make sure your conscience is properly informed about objective truth, the nature of morality & justice, and decide if you can stand before a Holy God with an a vote for more evil than would have taken place had you voted for the other party who wasn’t conservative enough or pro-life enough. If you disagree, let me know.

   Thanks for the feedback.

   John

6. 
   Joe Dec 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm

   I can’t give the treatise that others have labored to write. I’ll just say that the only men who I believe are honest are Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, and latecomer Alan Keyes. Guilanni is a highly effective bully. How else could a mayor clean up NYC? Vote for him if you want the job done, but not necessarily ethically. Romney’s a liar. Check out http://www.mickelson.libsyn.com/ and search the show archives for “romney.” Spend some time listening to Mickelson’s interactions with Romney, and his thoughts on various shows since that first fateful day in August (Google “Jan Mickelson” and watch the video). Romney’s a liar. Huckabee’s a God-Guns-Gays conservative who wants to use the State to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor.

   The point is (and how absolutely predictable is this?!?) that it’s only the fringe voices who are honest. The establishment Republican Party has led evangelicals around with the R v. W ring in our nose. What a bunch of rubes we’ve been.

   Constantine would be proud of the GOP.

   In the words of Inigo Montoya, “Let me ’splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up”: if you’re impressed with any of the “frontrunners,” you’re being H - A - D - had.

   Joe

7. 
   John Dec 30th, 2007 at 8:05 am

   Again, I understand where Ron Paul is coming from. For the most part, so far as he speaks in depth on each issue, he is fairly clear. The primary problem doesn’t seem to be with understanding. From my perspective, the problem is that he is understood, and often understood to be wrong due to a deeply flawed reasoning process that is too heavily influenced by amoral libertarian notions.

   Regarding drugs and homosexuality, Ron Paul and those who are trying to support his views are confused about the purposes of government. By banning a particular thing, no government that I’m aware of, thinks that such a ban will solve any particular problem. So far as I am aware, the only purpose of that law is to restrain evil in this world. I think governments know, and I hope most people know that governments and laws cannot change the human heart. As Christians, we know of only one way to do that, and that is by a sovereign act of God. However, governments have been instituted among men as a restraining force in this world. Along with families and the church, government is a part of God’s common grace to all mankind. He uses these institutions to restrain evil in our world, so that the utter wickedness of the human heart will not be unleashed in all of its horror. I think we have lost touch with this fact, which is apparently why so many people are weary of using God ordained institutions for their essential purpose. Either that or they have become so jaded by the utter lack of perfection of government at doing its central job that we cannot bear to use our votes as a command for it to do better. However, I would point out that a lack of proficiency in its central job is no reason to simply give up on the job. If we did this as parents, where would our children be? I think we all know.

   And the point of what I am saying is that by banning drugs or gay marriage, I don’t think that any particular social ill is solved. I think it restrains the amount of a social ill that I am going to be forced to see and experience publicly. I think it also inhibits a certain amount of trial and error experimentation with said social ill. If that is all that it does, then I am for it. I am under no illusion that by doing any of these things, we have magically changed the human heart and turned all drug addicts into sober responsible citizens or all homosexuals into right-minded, sexually speaking, individuals who will someday marry a woman and/or devote themselves God’s service. So far as I’m aware, I don’t know of anyone who believes that. But we don’t ever pass laws for this purpose, so far as I’m aware. We pass laws to restrain particular evils. Granted, we must balance our laws with human freedom, but I don’t think a general ban on state-sanctioned homosexual marriage is invading anyone’s bedroom, and I don’t think that banning the use of dangerous and intentionally addictive substances is a violation of some natural right of mankind or an attempt to change the nature of the human heart.

   Why do we have speed limit laws? It is precisely because the government was trying to restrain the evil of speed related traffic deaths. There is very little if anything in the purview of a legislator, other than legislating what the state bird or flower is going to be, that doesn’t directly or indirectly involve morality and the restraint of natural or agent induced evil. From that perspective, I think the drug war is well justified. The fact that we are losing could be because of the way we are fighting it. Do you think it would be reasonable to say that we are losing a hard fought war if on one important front, every general decided to tell his men to lay down his arms and not defend their territory? Probably not. In that instance, you’re not losing the war because you’re fighting your hardest, and it just isn’t good enough. You’re losing the war because you’ve got no one fighting on a very important front. The same is true of the drug war in the United States. Do we do all that is necessary to stop drugs? No way in the world do we do that! The fact that millions of people walk across our national borders in violation of our laws is an example of that. Do you expect that we can even begin to win a war on drugs when the back door to our home is open and has a flashing welcome sign over it? The problem is not that we’re fighting and losing. The problem is that we’re spending lots of money pretending to fight on some fronts, fighting hard on others, and then losing as a result of the over-all fractured strategy. Ron Paul and others are wrong about the war on drugs. Simply because we fail to catch all speeders or murderers doesn’t mean that we should lift the ban or stop fighting. This way of thinking is a recipe for giving up on most everything that seems to be an uphill battle or a waste of money. Excuse me for saying this, but as Christians who are acquainted with human nature, what should we expect from people and battles that they fight? Are they perfect? No. Can they be done better? Yes. Does it follow that as a result, we should stop and use two forces of restraint rather than three? No. This is silly. The only thing that will stop the need for the war on drugs is a change in the human heart, which can only be effected by God Himself. Until then, we must use the family, the church, and the state to restrain this evil in America. Ron Paul is simply mistaken due to his amoral libertarian views.

   Lastly, I would say that anyone who is overly impressed with any politician running for office should clean his glasses. I’m not very old, but this is one of the worst groups of candidates I’ve ever seen. I’m not content with seeing if their Christian, examining their personal lives and pointing their vices, or whether or not they happen to be dishonest or interested in less important things that I oppose (i.e. the re-distribution of wealth). However, I am concerned with whether or not they will help restrain more evil or less evil. If they will do more moral good if office than other candidate, I will vote for them whoever they are. That is my obligation as a Christian. I don’t know what could be more clear. Where is our moral sensitivity today?

   I would rather be led around by the nose and get something small done about the murder of children than to vote for someone who cannot be elected and get nothing done. Quite frankly, all of my lofty ideals and principled positions must fall by the way-side when it means that I can achieve more good by voting in compromise. So if my choice is a so-called “liar” like Romney versus a person like Hillary Clinton, then my choice is fairly clear. Would I choose to vote for Romney in an ideal world? No way. In an ideal world, he wouldn’t even exist, as there would only be followers of Jesus Christ. However, I don’t live in an ideal world, and I must vote in such a way that I am going to achieve the most moral good and the least moral harm. As has been said now dozens of times, this is my higher obligation in the world of politics as a Christian. Thanks…

   John

8. 
   JohnH Dec 30th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

   here are my initial tentative thoughts, at least on who I think would be the best President.

   Here is my list of all declared candidates in order of my preference:

   Keyes
   Thompson
   Hunter
   Giuliani
   Romney
   McCain
   Huckabee
   Paul

   If I only include those that are legitimate candidates:

   Thompson
   Giuliani
   Romney
   McCain
   Huckabee

   I think Thompson is a good communicator and I agree with most of his policy positions and how he makes decisions. He is probably too lazy as a campaigner and I don’t think it will be him.

   Giuliani is an excellent leader, good communicator, tenacious, and gutsy. He is the only one who could legitimately take on the bureaucracy and win. He would clean up Washington just like he cleaned up New York City. He would have respect as a world leader, but he would be better at diplomacy that Bush. He would make the best president and the only reason I put him behind Thompson is because of his sleazy personal behavior and socially liberal domestic positions. Normally, a pro-choice position would put a person on my unacceptable list. I am a one issue voter in that way. I refuse to support a person who is for continuing the government sanction of murder of the most innocent among us. I am able to justify this massive exception on the part of Giuliani, because he has made the commitment as a policy to support Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito and to sign bills limiting abortion. Practically this puts him in my mind into the category of pro-life. (I could be wrong on this and I am a little uncomfortable with it)

   Here is a quote from Pete Sessions a pro-life conservative Republican: “In a hypothetical comparison of congressional votes, Mayor Giuliani’s voting record would mirror the voting record of Fred Thompson, including votes on partial birth abortion, taxpayer funding on abortions, and parental notification laws. Mayor Giuliani respects the values of social conservatism, and his position on these issues would categorize him as a predominately pro-life Member of Congress.”

   Romney has all the right qualifications. He seems to communicate well, hold the right policy positions and has executive experience. I guess he would be ok, but I am a little leary because he just seems fake in some way to me. I just don’t get a totally comfortable feeling from him.

   McCain is strong on foreign policy and on spending (great on spending). He is tenacious and would be a good leader. I just have never trusted him fully. I hate the campaign finance reform which he championed and his opposition to the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are inexplicable.

   I don’t trust Huckabee. I think he uses his Christianity as a political tool just like George W. Bush. He was a pastor during the conservative resurgence in the SBC and he refused to take a stand. I think he is in way over his head in foreign policy and he is just weird. Also not properly vetted because he was not considered a legitimate candidate until recently. He would get killed in the general election.

   Ron Paul. Even though he is unelectable I will say something about him just because you specifically brought him up. I agree with him on 80% of his positions and on those positions he is eloquent. He has shown consistency in his tenure in Congress and I respect him for that. My main problem with him is his isolationism and his support for withdrawing troops from Iraq. I think this would have a similar effect as our cowardly withdrawal from Somalia, only with far greater impact. Whether you think it was a mistake or not to invade Iraq (I don’t think it was), it would definitely be a mistake to allow the terrorists to force us out in retreat. I know that is not how Ron Paul would characterize the withdrawal. I know that it is consistent with his overall policy of isolationism and noninterventionism, but to the terrorists it would be a great victory and we would soon find ourselves fighting them in our own country instead of in Iraq. (just ask any soldier they understand this). In an age of nuclear weapons and mass terrorism we can’t afford an isolationist agenda.

   My second problem with Ron Paul is that he is at best allowing his supporters to take advantage of the conspiracy theories and extreme anti government sentiments of those on the far right fringes in order to lure the gullible into supporting him. It is interesting how many of his supporters idolize him, not his positions, him. — John H

9. 
   John Dec 31st, 2007 at 1:13 pm

   There is just one thing that I neglected to respond to. That is that the Constitution is sufficient to achieve the greatest moral good in our current government. That is not always going to be the case, especially in the case of someone like Ron Paul. If it’s not constitutional, he either won’t vote or will vote no. For example, he opposes amendments banning same-sex marriag and abortions. Let’s just assume he’s right and that these are not constitutional issues. If that were the case, I would still be duty bound to vote for something non or unconstitutional if it would achieve more moral good. Ron Paul would do the opposite and choose to help achieve more moral harm by sticking to a principle that doesn’t allow him to take the appropriate moral action.

   As someone who majored in American history in college with emphasis on the Founding Era, I know that America’s founding documents find their philosophical basis in Christianity. That doesn’t mean that the way in which they are used today will allow me to follow them strictly when trying to work for the common good. I do think they should be followed as closely as possible, and we should be electing people who will slowly be able to turn us back to a point where we actually work in strict accordance with our written documents. However, we are not there yet. To take inflexible positions in a day where wise prioritization and compromise are necessary to do the most good, is to make working for the moral good ineffectual. I’ve already stated why that is, but there is no way that someone like Ron Paul can achieve those aims given his position, at least to my way of thinking.

   That taken together with his problematic and I would argue, immoral positions on war, the war against actual Islam, and the war In Iraq; I would find it impossible to vote for someone like that. Giuiliani is my second to last choice on the Republican ticket, just above Ron Paul. If I have to vote for him, I will, but that’s not my desire. I agree with John H. and would support most of the major candidates he mentioned. I happen to think Huckabee is probably better choice than some of the other he mentioned, but the differences aren’t great enough for me quibble over too much, and I could certainly be wrong in my assessment. I would point out that Thompson doesn’t really want to outlaw abortion. He thinks it an issue for the states to decide. My personal opinion is that such a view isn’t consistent with being pro-life. It isn’t for any state to decide who should be given their right to life. We have it regardless, as our rights dont’ come from governments but from God Himself. There should be a banning of abortion nation-wide. Any other position falls far short of the ideal, though we might be forced into choosing something less than ideal.

   Thanks…

   John

10. 
    wmburke Jan 2nd, 2008 at 7:13 am

    John: You might consider taking some time to read what John MacArthur has said regarding politics and the rush to politicians by many a Christian organization and people to effect a change in society, in a nutshell he brings to light Christ’s communication that “His Kingdom is not of this world”. For us to ignore our responsibility to make disciples of all the nations by focusing our efforts on changing laws and putting our efforts into campaigning for men who are seldom accountable to us outside of any given election cycle, well that is to widely ignore Christ, though I doubt many will agree with me, that is truly my conviction. If you want to genuinely change a society there is no power to do so outside of the power of the Holy Spirit’s converting one soul at a time that will be of any lasting value.

    As to your character attack on Ron Paul that has been running on at great length and often devoid of substantive backing outside of your perceptions, well let’s set that all aside for a minute and reflect on this one simple point:

    Each and every President must make a vow to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic” - how then in a campaign where there is little consideration for this foundational document outside the camp of Ron Paul, do you hold out any hope that any other candidate will do so?

    RP isn’t called Dr. No because he’s flip-flopped on issues central to the Constitution, it is because he has not.

    RP is the ONLY candidate who has set the bar to the height that he has and has a track record to back it up, Huckabee doesn’t, Thompson doesn’t, Romney doesn’t, etc….

    Often times “Christians” (quoted only because people often cloke their moral views under a banner of Christianity despite their lives not reflecting the same nature the Bible describes of Christians) will call for national bans without recognizing that the avenue for doing this is a Constitutional Amendment and not a piece of legislation that undermines states dominion in a given area, if we are calling for it to be done it MUST be done in a Constitutionally correct manner or it is in no way righteous despite any and many passionate pleadings to the contrary.

    As to the war issue - there was a very poignant moment in one of the debates between Huckabee and Ron Paul wherein Huckabee said something to the effect of “we are one nation, under God, that’s how we went into Iraq and that is how we need to remain and finish what we started” to which Ron Paul responded something to the effect of “when you make a mistake which is now clear that the “reasons” for going into Iraq under the guise of finding “weapons of mass destructuion” you don’t continue that mistake to save face at the price of thousands of American lives and billions of Americans dollars, you get out”.

    I find it utterly alarming the peace that many who claim the name of Christ have with the infiltration and destabilization of other nations that our military has affected throughout the world. I don’t say this to charge the soldiers, I say this to challenge the few who direct the military efforts and are willfully negligent of respecting the sovereignty of other nations to the level that we in America would expect ourselves. Ron Paul brought up a point that no candidate has yet to answer with regard to the military, and John I would ask you to consider it as well, “What would we think if China or Japan came into America and wanted to build inside the US many military bases? We have over 700 bases in 130 of 180 nations throughout the world, and we the American citizen are expected to foot the bill for all of this how? We say that we are a calming influence, yet look at what our presence in the Middle East is doing as opposed to our withdrawal from Vietnam where we now have much more peaceful communications?

    As to the “uphold the Constitution” oath, all of our recent Presidents, Reagan included, have quickly and willingly violated that oath as will Huckabee, Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, or anyone from the Democratic side, RP is the only one who is talking about the NAU, NAFTA Superhighway, or monetary policy that is central to undermining our national security, Huckabee sure isn’t, Romney certainly isn’t. All they bring with them are rehashed “Conservative” ideas that have been at the core of campaign after campaign after campaign and if 2008 finds a Huckabee or Romney vs. a Clinton or Obama or Edwards it will again be a Neo-Con vs. a Neo-Lib that will again be a divisive influence on our nation whereas Ron Paul is experiencing support from people of all ideological fronts because his cmpaign is about restoring a Constitutionally-driven nature to the Executive Branch of our government, and that is a message that Americans can unite around, regardless of predispositions, if the message gets out.

    My thoughts,

    Bill

11. 
    John Jan 5th, 2008 at 3:53 am

    Bill, thank you for your comments. I am aware of John MacArthur’s position regarding politics, and I happen to largely agree with him. However, your suggestion indicates that I have been less than clear on my position regarding politics. The idea that I am about looking to politics to change the human heart, and therefore society, is false. To say that the human heart can be truly changed by anything other than a sovereign act of God, is to misunderstand the nature of reality and the human heart.

    The only thing I have been addressing is our responsibility, as Christians, when it comes to voting, and that from my perspective, Ron Paul would be an exceedingly poor choice. That’s really as far as it goes. This is all about being salt and light. It is very difficult to be the preserving agent in this world if God’s people are not acting with a worldview that corresponds to the reality in which His creation sits. To do our best in this area, we must have properly informed consciences, and I am simply giving my point of view regarding that subject.

    So far as I am aware, though I could be wrong; I’ve not engaged in character attacks upon Ron Paul. I agree with him on many things, and he appears to be a fine upstanding man in character. I do have some questions about his ethics in Congress, but I haven’t addressed those particular issues in this forum, apart from the moral dimension of his constitutional rigidity and libertarian tendencies. In addition, I’m not sure what you mean by substantive backing? So far as I am aware, I’m simply engaged in an exercise of trying to think about these issues from a Christian perspective. What backing is it that I need in such a case?

    Regarding your question, it depends upon you mean. If you believe the Constitution was designed and intended to achieve the common good, then it may not always be possible to “defend the Constitution” to the letter. It is the difference between adhering to the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. If adhering to the letter of the Constitution (i.e. defending it) means that I must in some way do violence to its intent and to the common good, then I would find that vow, strictly speaking, impossible. However, that is not the view that I hold.

    I believe that we must be guided by the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution taken together with the plain meaning of the text. I do not believe that adhering to the meaning of the text necessitates, in every relevant circumstance, that we must violate the original intent. So when faced with a rare choice to amend the Constitution and federally ban the legal killing of pre-born children, I would vote, in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments, to do just that. For constitutional reasons, Ron Paul would not, and this is demonstrably immoral. For reasons of constitutional principle, he would rather see no federal ban on abortion (i.e. the continued uninterrupted killing of children), and give the issue to individual states. Opting to refuse to ban the murder of children in order that you follow constitutional principles and quite likely see many more socially liberal states keep legalized abortion is simply the wrong choice. It is immoral. Why? Because there is a higher principle to which Christians must adhere. And that principle has to do with the sanctity of human life, grounded in the Imago Dei (i.e. Image of God).

    Ron Paul says that abortion is not a constitutional issue because “there is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion.” This is a mistake. The Declaration is the ideological creed of this nation. It is, in fact, the foundation upon which the Constitution is built. The Constitution is merely recipe for how to do government. It is a practical document that is animated by the metaphysical ideas in the Declaration of Independence. Given that our most basic human rights are specifically delineated in the Declaration, I find it impossible to make sense of Ron Paul’s contention that abortion is not a constitutional issue. Without our God given right to life, the other rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness cease to have meaning. The same is true of the current amendments to the Constitution. In short, I don’t know what could be more constitutional than the abortion issue.

    So in answer to your question, I do not believe that voting in a way that might not, to Ron Paul’s thinking, be strictly constitutional, is a failure to protect our founding document(s). I think Ron Paul would exhibit the only failure in this case, as he does violence to the intent of the documents in order to preserve his following of its words. So do I have hope that anyone will defend the Constitution? Yes, I do. And so long as Ron Paul is not elected as President, I am fairly confident that many of the other Republican candidates will not subordinate the lives of pre-born babies to a so-called constitutional principle.

    Ron Paul is called Dr. No for multiple reasons, one of which is that he will sometimes vote no on bills that he sponsors. Though I should add, that he doesn’t vote no on the bill until he has packed it full of earmarks for water-projects and various other things for his district. It’s a curious behavior. One might assume that it allows him to use the unconstitutional practice of “earmarks” while still appearing to be against them. The other reasons that he is called Dr. No are good and bad. One of the major bad reasons is what I’ve just talked about in the above paragraphs. If you would like to look on this overly rigid behavior as badge of honor for Ron Paul, you are free to do so. However, I and hopefully no one else will join you.

    Ron Paul does have a good record on many things, but again I’m not quibbling about things he’s done that I happen to agree with. My problem with Ron Paul begins when he runs off course and participates in actions that would intentionally fail to seek the greatest moral good in any given circumstance so that he can follow the letter of the constitutional law. I firmly believe that, in those cases, his behavior is deeply immoral. For that and other reasons, the fact that he has a good track record in some other areas is not enough to overcome the deep flaws that are present. And you can bring up every other candidate, and I will agree that they are problematic in one way or another. But I would rather have a tax hiking pro-lifer who isn’t afraid to follow the spirit of the law while violating its letter, than to have a man who holds the positions of Ron Paul on the issue mentioned above.

    I will choose to ignore the comment about “Christians”, as I’m not sure or happy with what might be being implied in that area. However, I will address your other point. I do not know how something not being done in a strictly “Constitutionally correct manner” manner would automatically make something “in no way righteous”. Be careful here. The Constitution nor the Declaration are infallible, inerrant, or even inspired documents. They are man-made documents whose philosophical and ideological content are grounded generally in the western tradition of a broader Christendom. But doing a morally good thing that fails a strict constitutional test doesn’t make the morally good act “unrighteous”. Again, as a sincere word of advice, please be careful with this way of thinking.

    I remember the exchanger over the war, but again that is another example of Ron Paul failing to recognize the value of human life. When you make a mistake, what do you do? It is not that you “continue that mistake to save face”. But instead, you attempt to correct that mistake. And yes, at the price of thousands of American lives and probably trillions of American dollars. You correct the mistake and you save 10 of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives in the process. If you think 4,000 Americans are worth more than 10,000, 20,000, or 100,000 Iraqis then I am at a loss to understand your point of view. I cannot accept that. We have created this situation through poor planning, incompetence, and impotence, but that that does not mean that tens of thousands of Iraqis must pay for that mistake. And if we leave Iraq now, you know very well that is precisely what will happen. What is the greater choice? Staying at the risk of 4 or 5 thousand lives and treasure, or leaving at the risk of 10 to 100 thousand lives and treasure? Pay me or pay me later; it’s the nature of the reality in which we live. The moral choice is clear, and it is not the choice that Ron Paul would make.

    And with regard to your further comments, I find it utterly alarming, the peace that many who claim the name of Christ have with the positions of Ron Paul, which in the case of Iraq, would lead to greater levels of death and injustice. And I don’t know why you don’t charge our soldiers with that. They cannot escape moral culpability for their actions in war. If they are given an immoral order, they are bound to defy it. They are sent into an immoral war, they are bound not to fight. You charge our soldiers or you charge no one. With all due respect, leveling the accusation while at the same time excusing those who carry out the deeds you decry, is disingenuous.

    Regarding the sovereignty issue, creating a moral equivalence between America and another country like Iraq, China, or Japan simply won’t work. But in answer your question, we wouldn’t have to let them. They are free to have whatever desires they want. Now, if America were paying terrorists $20,000 to blow themselves up in attacks against civilians around the world and facilitating the terrorist activities of others, and they were willing to go to war over that issue, then you have a different circumstance. You would also have a different circumstance if I thought that China had any respect for human life. Most Americans are currently pro-life and abortion is still highly controversial specifically because we still respect human life in some substantial way.

    And again, there are many reasons why Americans have bases overseas, not all of them fully justified. But if you think that our pull-out of Vietnam and subsequent murder or 3 million people, as a result of our pull-out was a good thing, then I don’t know what you expect me to say? 1 million were killed immediately after we pulled out. And the strength that our pullout then gave to the Khmer Rogue regime led to the deaths of millions more. You are not putting any of actions, past or present, in context. Given that fact, your understanding of the moral quality of our presence is, with all due respect, deficient.

    Your last paragraph has largely been addressed. From my perspective, I would encourage you to seek counsel on these issues. Don’t hold fast to all of these ideas, as many of them are quite problematic for the Christian. No one has it all put together, and we all make mistakes, but I would plead for you to re-examine your conscience and continue pursuing these issues with the goal of having a properly informed Christian conscience. Thanks for the feedback.

    Sincerely,

    John

12. 
    wmburke Jan 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    John,

    You ought to spend some time listening to Bill Moyers interview of Ron Paul. You talk about rigidity towards the Constitution but he addresses that directly, be it on another topic, but nonetheless he is willing to change it where necessary and when proper. You can view it here:

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html

    Enjoy,

    Bill

13. 
    Kevin Jan 5th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

    In reading the blogs, one convicting thought kept coming to mind: if I really cared strongly about any one single topic…what have I personally done to change things?

    Take abortion, for example. What have I (or anyone else) practically done to stop it?
    Have I picketed abortion clinics, passing out pamphlets explaining the choice is life or murder? Have I given money to pay for some of the bills at a crisis pregnancy center or supported financially those who have given up their jobs in order to volunteer? Better yet, have I even prayed and fasted that God would see fit to end the infanticide in this country that professes to be “one nation under God”?

    The answer is no. I haven’t. I sit comfortably behind this computer where it’s safe and costs me nothing but time. Sure, babies keep dying every day, but I’ll justify my inactivity by occasionally reaching for my pharisaical trumpet to remind people that I’m still here and profess to care.

    We would do well to remember the words of an ancient sage, “Where words are many sin is not absent,” and call our grandiloquence for what it really is: a flowery smoke screen of rhetoric to cover apathy, hypocrisy and sin. I personally need to stop merely talking about the will of God, and actually DO it.

    Thanks for listening.

14. 
    Jason Jan 5th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    I have a couple of things to say, nothing that will amaze anyone, and no surprises. I personally refuse to blindly follow Ron Paul nor Mike Huckabee, yet in my attempts to see what is best for the nation and, as John has put it for the “Greater Moral Good,” I must seek sincerely truth. I pray first that I’m not deceived, and that God my grant understanding and wisdom in all of this discussion and process.

    There seems to be leaning a bit to side taking on both sides, of the “To Ron Paul or To not Ron Paul if you’re a Christian” debate taking place. I will do my best to even out the scales, but I realize I am fundamentally insufficient to understand all things, and to be absolute in any of my beliefs about sinful men.

    I think it’s good discussion and I encourage the continuation of it. A couple of reminders as we continue through thoughtful discussion, this is for both sides of the fence, myself included. I must always look at myself, and my finite understanding and say, “I can be wrong here.” I must be dependent upon God in all of this, it is not enough to hear sound bytes, or even whole arguments, but we must pray and ask for clarity.
    
    1 Corinthians 11-12
    Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

    Since John seems to have the most arguments against Ron Paul, let me address at the least a few of them briefly. It seems to me when Ron Paul compromises on specific issues there is a declaration of Ron Paul’s inconsistency with his ideological libertarian extremes. When he is consistent with what he believes he has then been labeled as too rigid, and or too strict as to sacrifice in all situations the greater moral good for a blind principle. These at least to me seem purposely overstated, I believe in your sincere effort to explain your point.

    Yet the majority of the examples that you have used, are not real ones but hypothetical extremes implying the truth of these hypotheses based upon the “absolute/uncompromised” extreme idealism that you accuse Dr. Paul of committing. Granted in some cases this may be true however there are some straw men that have been thrown out here.

    At first glance I and to some large degree see what you’re saying about Ron Paul when you discuss the “Abortion, as a State issue “as we seek out the “Greatest Moral Good” in the situation.

    However if you research Ron Paul’s position it is Libertarian in nature, however to have the most sure moral good, his position would illegalize abortion federally and it would be limited to the states. His point is this, that if you wait for a Federal judge to be appointed for this to happen more babies will die, and you have zero guarantee that at the time that a conservative is in office that you will get a literal interpreter of the law and thus protect human life.

    [quote]
    http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/ron_paul_take_abortion_out_of.html
    But Paul’s essential social conservatism may have been overlooked in his Libertarian view of government. Paul wants to abolish the federal income tax – that’s part of his governmental philosophy. But Paul also wants to ban abortion, proposing to overturn the landmark Roe versus Wade court ruling by legally removing jurisdiction over the issue from the federal courts.

    “That should be our goal… to repeal Roe versus Wade,’’ Paul told an assembly of religious right voters in Washington today. “There is a couple ways that can be done…
    “We can wait until we have our Supreme Court justices appointed… That’s taking a long time,’’ Paul said. “My approach is a little bit more direct… accepting the principle that we can as a legislative body and the president… remove the jurisdiction of this issue from the federal courts.’’
    [/quote]

    Now answer the question, is the greatest moral good to wait and allow human life to die while awaiting proper appointment or would it be best to overturn Roe V. Wade? And who would be standing in the way of the “Greatest Moral Good” if they waited on the right judge at the right time? Or for the “right” people to be in office to pass an amendment federally?

    In regards to your concern about his “strict” adherence to the constitution, he stated himself in the link that Bill posted, that he is not above changing the constitution, or doing things other than how the constitution now stands, but there is “a way” of doing so and it’s being violated, thus if you go to War, you “Declare War.” If you need to make a change to the constitution you do it through and amendment. In other words instead of breaking the rules we must get back to following the founders of this nation.

    Now to the issue of foreign policy & the War. There needs to be a distinction drawn against “The War in Iraq” and “The War on Terror.” This has been used synonymously and these are not the exact same things. We went in to find “Terrorist” we continue where we were not asked to be. Might I say that Ron Paul, whom everyone says is an “Isolationist” voted to go after the terrorist, what he did not sign up for was the occupation or democratization of the country.I have discussed with some of his critics that Ron Paul has a mis-understanding of Islam, however I do not know that he does entirely.

    First from a fundamental understanding of Islam we are attempting to make Iraq into a democracy. Let me ask how fundamentally mis-understood are the rest of the candidates within the GOP, are in regards to this issue including Huckabee? This is an impossibility with a true Islamic theocratic mindset, which these people have ingrained in them for several 100’s of years, not the short history we have here in America. Huckabee’s ‘professed’ motive to continue in Iraq is to save our honor, although this sounds virtuous, this has more to do with pleasing men than please God. Saving our Honor can be associated with “pride” and I believe was Huckabee’s intent. This type of honor is held in higher regard as an Islamic principle than a Christian one, as we are taught as a base foundational principle in Christianity to seek humility in all things.

    Proverbs 18:12
    Before destruction a man’s heart is haughty,but humility comes before honor.

    Colossians 3:12
    Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,

    Zephaniah 2:3
    Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land,who do his just commands; seek righteousness; seek humility; perhaps you may be hiddenon the day of the anger of the LORD.

    We seek humility, then God grants honor, we seek our own Honor & Glory, we’ll see destruction. God does not share in what belongs explicitly to Him. Take the example in Honoring your parents, this is honor first practically because you have humbled yourself to submit to your parents, first comes humility, then God grants honor. Huckabee is seeking the “honor” of the U.S. of A.

    That said unless we are willing to occupy these countries and police them for generations, this will not leave, and it will never leave if they adhere to their true doctrine. It’s not like Christian denominations where we believe some in many Christ believing denominations are saved, their theology says that they are all in “Holy War” against one another and “Christians.” There will be no peace with this as part of their base belief system and we are foolish to believe otherwise. So imagine if every party in the house and senate of the United States would be attempting to kill each other literally, although it seems like that at times, thank goodness it’s not the case. So in regards to it really not being a matter of a major disaster when we leave the country too soon, it’s a matter of grave concern whenever we leave the country, either now or in 4 years.

    Ron Paul’s attempts are to reach the people by talking to them, instead of threats. Both have their place perhaps, and I can not say I’m personally settled on this issue, however this passage was in my reading today.

    
    Luke 14:28-32
    For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
    

    This appears to be the said “motive” of Ron Paul, in so much that he desires to demonstrate virtue ie Jesus Christ vs. force it upon people. This is what the pilgrims and other immigrants to the United States were seeking refuge from, forced adherence to some authoritarian or dictatorial force.

    Granted we’ve made some attempts at diplomacy but some would call them insincere with a threat of war always looming, more in ultimatum than in sincere peace efforts, and with competing financial gains to be made on our presence, our “good American motives” give rise to being questioned.

    To digress just a little bit back to the spiritual side of Islam, it feeds on martyrdom, and the more we kill the more martyrs we make for the cause. Some of the things said in the above post, say simply because Ron Paul is taking responsibility for our “Unintended Consequences” as blaming us for being the cause of 9/11.

    We must understand that this is more than a physical war but it is also a spiritual one. And by feeding into an untrue reality, ie that the “Goodness” or “Patriotism” in our own country is the singular hope to restrain evil around the world is to cast your hope on something other than Christ, it’s based more on an Arminian ‘type’ mindset in trusting in our own abilities rather than our sovereign God. Again this is not to say we don’t have responsibilities but let me bring this home. It is similar to a season of Life I was in, where I was teaching at a Men’s Recovery house several nights, meeting with men attempting to share Christ. Meanwhile if my own home is eroding, because of my lack of care here which responsibility is first and greater, that of my home? or that over everyone else? and I’m not even discussing economic stewardship here in regards to the war because it’s obvious we are fiscally out of control in regards to this, if we do again a comparison of our own household this isn’t responsible, and threatens our own country’s stability. Sacrificing your own country for the perceived good you’re spreading around the world by force? This doesn’t sound like the founding fathers idea of democracy to me. Did we count the cost before going in as it states in Luke, and then if we didn’t is it right to stay there based upon a no win situation? Whether millions die now or in four years when we leave?

    We would be doing the greatest common Good by not dropping bombs or policing the world, but speaking to these countries attempting at peace and through commerce and peaceful discussion, leveraging and opening up avenues for more missionaries into Iraq, in order to demonstrate Christ to these people on a personal level, as Kevin suggest, in our personal doing.

    However, we make ourselves out to be hypocrites feeding the “Hate” that their “Jihadish” theocracy thrives upon, and then being so prideful as to not be able to admit when we’re in the wrong, not to the American people, and not to those in Iraq. We become a fools fool in the sense that we say peace, and drop bombs, we say Jesus, and love a sensual culture, we claim to respect the life and liberty of all mankind, and we kill children in the womb, we shout freedom and we put in place more government restricting freedom, we add more reason for them to hate. One of the greatest thing that undermines the reputation of Jesus Christ & Christianity is “hypocrisy” and the divide towards it becomes greater with each year.

    At the same time just because Ron Paul has cited CIA documents and takes responsibility for our unintentional consequences, that doesn’t necessitate that he is saying that there is no responsibility on the part of the terrorist which was seemingly implied. There is both consequences for our actions, and separately their responsibility to deal with, and they are not contradictory, although a paradox these things are compatible.

    Ultimately we must realize and always keep in mind this is not our home, that we are aliens, this does not negate our responsibility but sets our focus on eternal things. Which is a topic of discussion that will be returning soon to this blog, perhaps with more discussions in those areas next time.

    This said I pray that we will all humble ourselves ask God to reveal who is the best choice, at this point I am still believe Ron Paul is the best candidate but I do need to understand all candidates at a better level. I have such a pea brain.

    I will explain at a later point why the only two candidates I could vote for in the Primary would be Paul or Huckabee at this point, that is if I have enough stomach for anymore political blog postings.

    In His Mercy

15. 
    John Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:20 am

    Bill, I watched the Moyers interview with Ron Paul, but I’m not sure how it addresses the point I was making about Ron Paul’s “rigidity” with respect to the Constitution. In which case, I’m not sure you understand the point that I was making in the first place. I probably just haven’t been clear enough. In short, I happen to agree, in principle, with much of what Ron Paul says, and that has always been the case. However, how what he says cashes out in terms of his votes is where I diverge. The reason is because Ron Paul is, in terms of priority, guided by the law of the Constitution. However, I, as a Christian, am guided by a higher authority, which doesn’t allow me to follow the same tact as Ron Paul in every circumstance. As Christians we must be guided by properly informed consciences that are sensitive to the moral law of God, and if that puts us at odds with the mechanical workings of the American Constitution for a time, then so be it. That is my point.

    For example, Ron Paul has a problem with Congress merely authorizing the executive branch to initiate the carrying out of military action instead of forthrightly declaring war, for which I don’t blame him. However, if there was a war that was morally legitimate (i.e. a war that was a positive moral good) and fit within the “Just War” tradition, and I was faced with the choice to either vote for the authorization of that war or vote to negate our ability to fight that war; I would be forced to vote for the authorization no matter what course the technical machinations of the American Constitution would dictate. Would that be my first choice? No, I would rather do it in accordance with the Constitution, but if that’s not how things work at the present time, I will not do the wrong thing in the name of constitutional principle and grievously violate the moral law.

    I don’t know what could be more clear. Given that we live in a political context today where the Constitution is abused more than used, there are going to be situations where the right thing to do necessitates that we violate its letter in order to preserve its spirit. Now whenever possible, we should be trying to move back to a place where there is increasingly less abuse and increasingly more appropriate use, but in those circumstances where that isn’t possible without voting in opposition to the right course of action, then I am duty bound to abuse the constitution in carrying out my higher allegiance to the moral law of God. My problem with Ron Paul’s “rigidity” is that he would not be willing to do that and has demonstrated that very fact.

    If you can show or tell me where, in the Moyers interview, Ron Paul addresses, in any way, the point that I am making, please feel free to do so. I saw nothing that led me to the conclusion that Ron Paul is willing to violate his constitutional principles in order to do the higher priority right thing. I did hear him talk about a vehicle for changing the constitution, but as far as I am aware, this is not something that he supports with regard to the legalized killing of pre-born children or the un-defining of the family unit to include any future combinations of individuals and/or groups. He rejects those things, apparently, on the basis of it meaning that you’re federalizing everything and attempting to legislate virtue. If you find something in there, you can let me know. Thanks for the link and the feedback.

    John

    ==================================================================

    Kevin, I read your post, and it was quite interesting. I suppose you can let me know, but I’m just assuming that your comments arose from my apparent focus on the issue of abortion. Is that the case? Am I also to assume that it was meant simultaneously as a self-reflection and as an admonition to me to make sure I’m not engaging in hypocrisy and sin by being on my high horse about an issue that I do little to nothing about in my private life? Is that accurate? Hopefully, you’ll read the blog again sometime in the next few days and let me know.

    First, let me register agreement with you. As Christians, we should be sure that we make every effort to avoid hypocrisy. We should also examine ourselves and the state of our lives in the area we are going to speak on before deigning to give a lecture to others on virtually any topic of importance. I hope everyone can join in agreement on those issues.

    As I can’t address the idea of this being aimed partially at me without knowing for sure, I’ll leave that for another time and address one other issue, which probably has nothing to do with your overall point. That is the idea that everything one can do, such as picketing abortion clinics, is something that anyone who cares deeply about this issue should do if they are not going to be engaged in hypocrisy and sin. From my perspective, each person will have to decide for themselves what is enough in terms of action taken against abortion. However, they will also have to decide something else. What is effective and appropriate for Christians in terms of activism against abortion.

    1) Do I send money?
    a. Do I send money to general Christian para-church organizations who are pro-life?
    b. Do I send money to exclusively pro-life organizations?
    i. Do I limit that money to specifically Christian groups or even groups affiliated directly with my denomination?
    2) Do I donate material items to Crisis Pregnancy Centers and the like?
    3) Do I write letters, call, fax, or e-mail politicians with my opposition to abortion?
    4) Do I participate in human life chains on the Roe vs. Wade decision anniversary (January 22nd)?
    5) Do I picket in front of abortion clinics?
    6) Do I hand out pamphlets or go door to door in an attempt to change minds on the issue?
    7) Do I confront people about the issue in day-to-day conversation when it comes up?

    Some of these are more effective than others, and there are probably at least a half dozen or so other options that I failed to mention. Personally, I don’t think that all of them are efficacious and in some cases, can actually work against your cause. I’ll leave it to you to decide what I’m talking about. These are important questions to ask yourself, assuming you see the importance of the issue. Having said that, let me agree with Kevin, we all, including myself, need to examine ourselves and see whether our private actions match our supposed “public” confessions. Do they? You decide.

    John

    ==================================================================

    Jason, regarding your comments, I agree with many of them. We should avoid following anyone blindly, and as I’ve said, I actually find it impossible to get too excited about anyone running this year. There is just virtually no one who comes to the table with what I consider a consistent worldview grounded in the Judeo-Christian moral ethic, cultural literacy, wisdom, a winsome and persuasive manner, and the ability begin the turning of this massive ship without becoming a polarizing figure that forces both sides to dig in their heels and resist at every turn. The closer we get to that the better, but I won’t hold my breath.

    Regarding some of your other comments I have this to say. It is not that anyone, including myself, is trying to play “gotcha” with Ron Paul. We’re not blasting him when he’s consistent for being too rigid and blasting him for inconsistency when he compromises (i.e. he just can’t win, whatever he does). With all due respect, this is an oversimplification of what is actually being said and specifically what I have been arguing. Let’s just think about it for a moment.

    For example, is there anything wrong with compromise in and of itself? No, often it helps to secure agreement and peace in relationships and even between nations. Is rigidity or sticking to a principle wrong in and of itself? No, often there are bedrock issues that require an unflinching rigidity. What matters is where you are rigid and where you are consistent. It is a matter of proper prioritization dictated by an accurate understanding of what the common moral good involves.

    For example, if you are consistently pro-life, how could you oppose a nation-wide ban on abortion? If you are consistently pro-family, how could you oppose a nation-wide definition of what constitutes a family in order to prevent the coherency of the traditional definition from unraveling with the culture? If you are against big government over-spending, why would you request large earmarks for your district and vote against the final bill knowing that it would pass? Are you compromising and being rigid at the same time? http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/russert-exposes-ron-paul-earmark.html

    The point being, it is not that if Ron Paul could walk on water, those against him would accuse him of not knowing how to swim. It is that he is rigid in some places that put him in the position of opposing the right and the good on crucial bedrock issues, and he compromises in other places that put him in the position of hypocrisy. One of the issues that has been brought up with me in the past has to do with his position on war. In the first place, Ron Paul takes us back to a pre 1940’s era where all American troops are at home and we don’t involve ourselves militarily with the rest of the world unless we are directly attacked. On the other hand, there are things like World War II that he would say was justified. That in and of itself isn’t a make or break issue with me, but it does make a person wonder. It could be a lack of clarity or inconsistency, but one doesn’t know until he speaks further.

    If Germany didn’t “directly” attack us, then why is it that an attack from one of the most loosely affiliated of their allies, Japan, gives us permission to pursue Germany and its European allies? Let’s remember that Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, the Slovak Republic, and Yugoslavia were closer allies of the Germans than was Japan. And Thailand was a closer ally to Japan than were Germany or any other European nation. What, in the mind of Ron Paul, would allow us to attack Germany, invade North Africa, invade Europe, and in fact, defeat the German, Italian, and other Axis armies before defeating the Japanese, which was the nation that actually attacked us? So it is either a lack of clarity, or it is a form of inconsistency. From what I’ve been able to discern thus far, it appears that he has severely narrowed the “Just Cause” idea down to being strictly defensive in nature when it comes to his theory, but he makes exceptions for some historical real-world events that don’t fit the more narrow definition within his theory. This could be a wrong take on his particular view, but that’s the only view I’ve been able to build from what I’ve heard him say on the subject. Now I actually think World War II was justified, but that is because I have not narrowed the “Just Cause” plank of the “Just War” tradition.

    Further, if alliances allow us to attack others who have not directly attacked us, I would find it difficult, if not impossible to maintain a Ron Paul view of warfare and national defense in the realm of rogue states, purist Islam, and state-sponsored terrorist cells spread across the world. Where would these alliances fall in the Ron Paul view of modern warfare and national defense? Honestly, I don’t know, but given what I’ve heard him directly say about the causes for terrorism today, I have no confidence that his views would lead to the best defense of America. If you want to add the issue of torture into the equation then you could also talk about Mike Huckabee, since I think his “changed view” on that is abominable, just like Ron Paul’s. Simulating drowning by putting a wet cloth over someone’s face and pouring water onto the cloth is almost a no-brainer if I genuinely believe that doing such a thing has a significant possibility of providing me with information that saves human lives. Ask yourself, would you break someone’s arm to save your child? Would you even take their life, as a last resort, if that was the only way you could protect your child? The answer for me is an unequivocal yes. When faced with a similar question with regard to terrorists, both candidates should be ashamed of themselves, as they have both come out against waterboarding as a tactic.

    And so it may seem that my points are overstated, but I don’t think so. I think you are mistaking passion for overstatement. So far as I am aware, I don’t have views that are out of this world silly regarding Ron Paul or anyone else, but I am passionate about the issues that I see as bedrock or of primary importance regarding morality and the common good. Those are the following:

    1) Abortion
    2) Preservation of the Family
    3) The Nature of Islam & It’s True Followers
    4) The Efficacy of War to Achieve Positive Moral Goods in Certain Rare Circumstances (Consistent w/Just War Tradition)

    There are others that I care about, but they don’t even come close to the level of these first four. If we get these wrong in a serious fashion, we’ve just given away the store.

    Other very significant issues include:

    5) Immigration
    6) Liberty (The Freedom To Do That Which Is Right)
    7) U.S. Sovereignty
    Small Government
    9) Federalism
    10) Free-Market Capitalism
    11) Tax Reform
    12) Tort Reform
    13) Etc…

    Now you say the majority of the examples that I’ve used are not real but “hypothetical extremes implying the truth of these hypotheses based upon the ‘absolute/uncompromised’ extreme idealism that you accuse Dr. Paul of committing.” Again, I think this is either an oversimplification or a misunderstanding. In the first place, since the current President is not a candidate this year, every argument against Ron Paul becoming President is by logical necessity based in the hypothetical realm to some degree. This is simply unavoidable. As such, I’m not sure why it would be all that relevant. Any complaints against any other candidates or your reasons for supporting Ron Paul would also be hypothetical, since he’s not in the office of the President.

    Whether they are paper tigers or not probably depends upon whether my premises are true. If I have Ron Paul’s positions all wrong, then maybe they are paper tigers, but I’m trying to go only on what I know of Ron Paul’s positions. Feel free to correct me if you think that Ron Paul is in favor of Constitutional Amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage. Let me know if he understands the nature of Islam better than the other candidates available. And certainly, let me know if he thinks that wars that fall within the “Just War” tradition would be allowable even if we have not been directly attacked. Perhaps I’ve just missed something important that he’s been saying. I leave that open as a definite possibility.

    And as for these being extremes in the hypothetical realm, I don’t think so. Abortion is a real issue where the tide may be turning in our favor to some degree. The bans on both abortion and same-sex marriage are large national issues at play everyday, the nature of Islam explodes on our TV screens on a fairly regular basis, and we are currently involved in military occupations following full-fledged military campaigns in two countries. These are as real as the issues get, so I don’t need to look for “extreme hypotheticals”. They are real issues in our political world of today and they either fit well with Ron Paul’s positions in the context of the moral law or they do not. As far as I can see, it’s as simple as that. If you think I’m mistaken, please explain further, and maybe I’ll see that I’m wrong in one way or another.

    And regarding Ron Paul’s position on abortion, he has a correct position in one sense. He is against abortion as a matter of personal opinion and as a matter of Federal government policy. I agree with that as far as it goes. However, his plan to simply remove the court’s jurisdiction from the area is problematic both in terms of the Constitution and in its likelihood. But guess what? I would support his attempt with my vote without question, even though I think that would be a wrong thing to do constitutionally. Theoretically the Court’s jurisdiction can be removed from nearly everything, robbing the co-equal branch of its powers. I don’t actually think that would be the best method, but that belief wouldn’t keep me from supporting that very position. The higher moral good to which I am bound is to save innocent human lives. The second problem with that position arises in its likelihood. Do you think it is likely that Ron Paul or anyone else would be able to get that legislation through both houses of Congress, particularly when you have to get a cloture vote of 60 to get controversial items passed in the Senate these days? That seems exceedingly unlikely in the near term, but again, I would support that effort whole-heartedly. And I would add that, strictly speaking, Ron Paul’s idea to “repeal” Roe vs. Wade only works if Roe vs. Wade is a piece of legislation. If jurisdiction were successfully removed, the ruling would simply disappear, or so I assume?%#!

    You continue by asking a question, which I have partially answered, but I will give you a more full-orbed answer now. You asked, “Now answer the question, is the greatest moral good to wait and allow human life to die while awaiting proper appointment or would it be best to overturn Roe V. Wade? And who would be standing in the way of the “Greatest Moral Good” if they waited on the right judge at the right time? Or for the “right” people to be in office to pass an amendment federally?

    I think we should pursue each avenue with all the gusto we can muster so that abortion can be made illegal as quickly as possible. We should appoint judges who would read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with the “Original Intent” in mind, which would by force of logic extirpate the practice of abortion. We should elect the right people to office that would be willing to stand up and have the moral courage to ban the murder of children. And we should, for the time being, remove the court’s jurisdiction from the area so that abortion might stop. If we succeed, then I think the removal of jurisdiction should be given back to the courts, as they would need to be able to adjudicate other issues of life and death. Added to that, there would be no reason for them to have limited jurisdiction if ther