Ron Paul Interview at the American View
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 09:10Very interesting interview with Dr. Paul by Christian broadcaster John Lofton, Editor of the American View. How interesting? Here is an example of one exchange:
John Lofton: Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?
Dr. Paul: I'm not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]â€
John Lofton: Do you believe God says homosexuality is a sin?
Dr. Paul: Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.
John Lofton: Biblically-speaking, all human beings are made in God’s image but not all are God’s children; some people are children of the devil...
I am a regular The American
I am a regular The American View listenter and encouraged John to interview Ron. I am glad it worked out. The interview has been added to
http://www.vote2008ronpaul.com/
My Take.....
I think he did a pretty amazing job myself. As a Christian, I am often heard saying "Don't judge the Cup by the contents it holds" when it comes to Talk show Christians like this radio host. The cool thing about Ron Paul is he cares about people. Ron answers questions very carefully and thoughtfully. Not to be like a politician and just give a weak answer to appease voters and garner votes, but reasonable, humble, and many times thought provoking ways. I believe alot of what the talk show host is saying is truth but definitely not in the way he is saying it. Ron Paul "preaches" about how our foreign policy doesn't work (spreading democracy...lol) through the barrel of a gun. He says that you have to change peoples hearts and minds through example and basically loving your neighbor. This is what Christ teaches and what I wish these Christian radio host could understand. Forcing it down someones throat doesn't work. There is a time to be bold and there is a time to be humble. I am glad Ron Paul understands how to be each. God Bless Ron Paul!
Oral Roberts & Ron Paul
I worked for and traveled with Oral Roberts for six years. I remember when his ministry and the university faced several financial challenges in the early 90's. Some approached him, sincere in their efforts, noting the financial success of those ministries (Robertson, Falwell, etc) who were taking a stand against the gay community as a means of beefing up their partner (financial) base.
I'll never forget Oral turning to these would-be advisors and saying, "I've never preached against anyone but the devil for over 40 years in ministry...and I'm not going to start now." Bravo Oral and BRAVO RON PAUL!
No matter what your stance on gays, abortion, etc. I think everyone in this particular campaign believes in individual freedoms and the absolute need to keep government out of our personal lives and wallets.
Let's "agree to disagree" on certain issues, but focus on the much larger picture and message, folks!
It's about the INDIVIDUAL
I think it is safe to say that if we stick to the priniciple of individual rights we cannot go wrong.
However, it is hard to counter the critics who would accuse us of being discriminatory to special interest groups when we won't support legislation that gives those groups special rights, especially when that legislation creates more government bureaucracy and control over the lives of others and takes money out of the pockets of everyone.
It is hard to defend your motives because only you know what they are, against others who would say this proves you are anti-whatever-the-group-is-who-is-seeking-the-right-or-money via the legislation that you oppose.
Please spell his name right.
If you're going to quote Gandhi (who is certainly quotable on many subjects), please have the courtesy to spell his name right: Gandhi, not "Ghandi".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
Dealing With The Gay Issue
As an athiest, I certainly don't think homosexuality is a sin. I also don't think people are born gay or choose to be gay, I think they become gay through the course of their very early life experiences. That being said, homosexuality certainly is unnatural and deviant - after all, to put it bluntly (and I don't mean to offend), 5 billion years of human evolution did not design the male penis to be inserted into another male's butt. That is an indisputable fact. The question is: how do we, as Republicans, deal with the gay issue?
Instead of pandering to the Christian Right, I think most of us could get behind a policy where the homosexuals get everything they want, ie the legal rights associated with marriage, but the heterosexuals also get what they want: the word "marriage". Why don't we just reserve the word "marriage" to describe a union between a man and woman, and use a different term, such as "civil union" or whatever, to describe a union between same sex couples?
That would make me happy. I think it would make the average American happy, and I think the Republican Party would attract many more homosexual voters without losing the votes of Christians with a policy like that.
Just my opinion...
unknownrepublican
Well said, unknownrepublican
I agree with your diplomatic position.
And....I am a Christian. :)
WHY BEING A MINORITY IS DEVIANT??
Durn, I *said* I would not get into an argument about homosexuality being a sin *but* every post still seems to want to throw this in. Homosexuality *is* a natural phenomena. Originally it was thought the only other species that indulges in it was dolphins. Males have been known to *excitedly* brush up against each other and *play around*, but since then, homosexuality has been displayed in other species i.e. birds, and canines and especially our closest relatives the apes, chimpanzees, monkeys etc....
It has *always* been prevalent in society, even gay Popes. It was only around the 14th century that homosexuality was cracked down on. Ever watch the movie "Quest for Fire"? showing homosexuality even back in the cavemen days.
*IF* you discard the religeous connotations i.e. its a *sin*, then what harm is there if your inclinations are that way? Two consenting ADULT people who are attracted to each other and wish to indulge, where is the harm?
Obviously there has always been a love/attraction/desire towards the perfection of the human body. Its a beautiful thing as is all of nature. Sometimes this love/attraction/desire to the physical can also lead to a lasting loving relationship. I am with another person I met 27 years ago. At the age of 25 and he 21 we were attracted to each other, *indulged* with each other, and fell in love with each other. Today I love him as much if not MORE than 27 years ago - I would throw myself before a truck to save him if I had to. I am proud of my 27 year old relationship AND I have no desire to be married. Why?? Because its really only a piece of paper. I would like the rights that go along with a lifetime relationship, but honestly, a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper that is becoming more and more irrelevant nowdays. Our current divorce rate is 50% folks... yes, a true statistic, look it up! And most marriages nowdays are not even based on the *religeous* connotations because people getting married may be Athiests or Agnostic or never stepped a foot in church or quit going to church or have no religeous feelings what-so-ever etc... So I dont even connect being married with having ANYTHING TO DO WITH religeon.
So basically through all this rambling, I am saying, STOP with all this *homosexuality* is a sin. Its a sin only if your a highly ultraconservative church goer. Alot of the churches are even accepting homosexuals into their folds and do not consider it a sin anymore. Jesus NEVER preached against gays anyway! Jesus only preached about LOVE. hhhmmmmm Dr. Ron Paul preaches the same thing - LOVE.
Anyway, this is just two-bits, as I just dont understand or comprehend why everyone *still* needs to interject their little "I too think its a sin" into their messages. I respect your beliefs and again applaude the followers of Dr. Ron Paul who say its a personal matter and should be kept out of the government. Thank you for acknowledging this fact and your tolerance on the gay issue! I only wish your tolerance could be tempered with acceptance that its *not* a sin. Frankly, I think that gay people are just a little more truthful about themselves and their sex lives than straight people! Sex is a natural phenomena to be explored and enjoyed, and straight people indulge in pre-marital sex also and not just for pro-creation. And only an idiot would get married to someone without finding out they are sexually compatible before hand.
So lets all please try to move into the 21st century and stop judging actions between two consenting adults as a sin, as one poster said, there are sooo many more important issues to worry about than this one!
p.s. And once again I also wish to remind everyone that gay people have had a long long period of being repressed and suffering sever prejudice. We have had to fight for our rights just as women did for their rights, blacks for their rights, handicapped people for their rights, etc. etc.. True some are more militant than others, but nobody ever accomplished anything by sitting on their hands and saying to themselves, this is not fair. I know by experience in life that you *do* have to fight for what you believe in, just as we have to FIGHT FOR DR. RON PAUL!
What Dr. Paul *may* have been trying to gently-say
(And I don't know this for sure, but remember he's talking about sexual stuff to a very religious audience...) is that in a tiny fraction of people and animals, newborns exhibit characteristics of both sexes at once. Often, in these cases of hermaphrodites, parents & doctors make a decision to treat the newborn baby as one sex and often-as-not it seems the individual eventually decides he/she is the other sex. Whether or not homosexuals are "born that way," one would think these rare births would be troubling to those who seem so sure about the nature of sin...Instead, they're simply never mentioned until I bring them up, and then it's like a fart in an elevator...
JMR
Another Super Job by a Humanitarian....
I am so relieved by this conversation with Dr. Ron Paul. I am a gay supporter of his and *NO* I am not going to get into the arguement about if homosexuality is a sin or not. Not just because I am Agnostic, but because its totally irrelevant to my post. What amazes me again and again about this man is his humanity and love of people! No matter how hard John Lofton tried to back him into a corner, Ron Paul showed again what a diplomat he can be. Its his constitutional stance to let the states decide what is acceptable and non-acceptable behavior which is what will unite this country.
ANYTIME someone tries to force their own personal belief's off as law on the people of this country, there is going to be a rift. I.E. Half the country disagrees with the other half about homosexuality, assisted suicide, abortion, etc. etc. If you force the country into one particular mold there are always going to be people who feel their rights have been stepped upon. Its Dr. Ron Paul's stance to let the states decide these issues that has me supporting him. Again if you wish an assisted suicide, you go to Oregon. If you are gay and wish to be Married you can go live in California or one of the other more liberal states. There will *always* be liberal and nonliberal states where people can go and persue happiness, which *is* the fundamental law of the Consitution of the United States i.e. the persuit of happiness.
I *applaud* the people with strong religeous beliefs that have showed so much tolerance on this issue tonight! This is what makes me proud to be a follower of Dr. Ron Paul - its the people I am keeping company with! I look forward to the day when I can walk hand in hand with EVERYONE in tolerance and an acceptance to let people be who they wish to be, without a government where the majority can repress the minority. I see this happening with Dr. Ron Paul and with his followers and I can only reinterate "Thank you" to the religeous base of Dr. Paul for saying, I do believe homosexuality is a sin, *BUT* its God's decision to punish these people, not the governments. I can live with that, because my religeous beliefs are not the same as yours and I am more concerned about my life (and the lives of others here in the good ole U S of A) and being able to persue peace, happiness and prosperity.
p.s. People who are agnostic, atheist, etc.. still want to spread peace, love, prosperity etc... to all the people of the world and here in America and its killing us to see what Bush and the Neo-Cons have done, all the death and blood on their hands is absolutely unhuman. While I may *doubt* the existance of God, I none-the-less feel that if there *is* one, he would be proud of any human giving their all for good. And I also ask those that read this post to understand that Gay People have gone through HORRIBLE repression and prejudice in the past and its through Gay Pride Marches, Protests etc. that we have had to fight for our rights, dignity, and honor. It *has* been a hard road for most everyone in their life to stand up to friends, family, and society and say this is who I am and I am proud of it! So do not judge us harshly for being so militant about our rights, we have had to fight like women, blacks, handicapped people etc. to be recognized and respected by society, its been a long hard road and not one any of us *selected* for who would ever choose a lifestyle that would guarantee you a life full of hatred and prejudice??
I only speak for myself...
As a non gay "traditional GOPer", I have heard so many anti-gay arguments and I am yet convinced that I have prefected myself enough as to bother with the comdemation of another person for such dribble.
Frankly, one's sexual orientation is not my business. I feel that Pual supporters realize that we are all in this together... to fight for our rights. Gays have a long history in this department and now the average Joe is waking up to find out he must once again fight for his rights.
Glad you are in the same camp with us...
Viva la r3volution
Religion...
This is an outright frightening interview. No, it just evolved into a maddening interview. I can't take it anymore. I've got to come out of the closet. Religion is indeed slavery. I'm surely now going to hell, or is it Hell? This nut really believes he knows what God wants. The Bible tells him so. I've tolerated it so, so much, but hearing it aimed at Dr. Ron in this way really has done me in. It's time to go public. What a crock of crap. I'm so fed up with this stupid religious nonsense. This pious bull fits right in with the rest of the mainstream cluelessness about our serious economic issues.
Someone posted a perfect Ghandi quote about Christ and Christians. How could anyone want to be a Christian listening to this overstuffed blabbering... wait a minute. I'm becoming the same. Oh no, I can't say that. The bible does not tell me so. Or does it? I can't even be kind to the way of thinking of this interviewer. I'm also pretty sure it wouldn't upset him that much. I don't care.
Much more importantly, Ron Paul exceeded his normal excellence just in tolerating this long painful phone call. He actually said he didn't have the wisdom to know the answer to loaded question! Wisdom. Wow, what an underrated and surely unused idea.
SD
He did a great job
I think he handled it pretty good. I think he would be better to say we should be against the sin but not the sinner (person, if you want to be politically correct). I actually hate the term politically correct and do not try to be. I think it doe’s all of us a disservice. There is a difference between bible law and mans law. God makes bible laws (the word). Mans laws are made by governments. They are the instruments of the worldly. (People who don’t obey God’s law) They always have been always will be. God’s law is clear the act of homosexuality is a sin. However it is wrong to make a law against what gay people feel, think, or talk about through the government. They are not the keepers of God’s laws. This responsibility is the church’s responsibility. It would be the same, as saying our government should make a law that if two church members get caught talking about wanting to fornicating they should go to jail. The bible says even if you “think about it you have done it.†This is ridiculous to put church values on worldly people and worldly values on church people. The main question is should there be laws against the act in public or private. I would say everyone is against public sex either gay or straight should be illegal. It seems the big split is what happens in private. Which I find a little funny seeing as how no one is suppose to know what you do in private. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian or Worldly, you should have a right to privacy. I know there are a lot of you that have been reading this that don’t agree with me using the term Worldly. Would you rather I say the truth and say sinner. Does that make you feel better? It is God’s job to judge sin and he has already judged the act of homosexuality. It’s called Sodom and Gomorrah. It’s a real place, it was burned, and there is sulfur all over the ground. If you don’t believe me you can go there yourself. Also if you listen to the answer Ron Paul gives. He says, “we are all gods children.†But might I remind you that all God’s children are born in sin. They are born worldly. In his statement he actually left it up to God to call you a sinner. Through repentance (that means a turning around from) of sin they are forgiven. That is where separation of church and state starts for the Christian. The biggest issue in this is marriage. Marriage is a union of two individuals (flesh and bone) to become one individual (flesh and bone) in the eye of God. The blessing of God on a union is children. That child is the union of both individuals (flesh and bone). This means that there is no way for God to bless a gay marriage it is impossible. It goes against the laws of creation there was never a plan for it from the first Word (God’s law). It would make him brake the law thus making him a lawbreaker. Ron Paul is right in his statement it is not his place to judge. I am glade that he leaves it up to God to judge sin and the state to decide law. It gives people options. I am straight and a Christian in the sense that I have a belief. I believe in Jesus Christ as my only Lord and Savior. I am very glade to serve him and only him. Religion is as wicked as government. And is just as divisive.
After listening to your comments I must admit I’m a little shocked. I’m hoping your contempt is for the religion aspect and not towards God. If not I hope I am still welcome at this forum. I wasn’t aware of it being anti-God. If I am wrong please let me know and I will make a quite exit. I will still vote for Ron Paul.
Why even go there
Ron Paul is running for President of the United States of America NOT Pastor of the United States of America. It is a secular position. It was nice to hear that he's a Christian but I would still vote for him even if I didn't know, because his message of individual liberty is good for this individual. His answer to the Dont Ask Dont Tell question in one of the debates was good. Each person should be held personally responsible for their actions that may cause problems in the military no matter what their orientation.
yeah, can we address the relevant topics?
My reaction was the same as yours. It's like asking someone applying for a job as your dentist if he likes country music. What is the point? (My dentist happens to like country music, which makes that sort of a funny analogy to randomly pick, but whatever.)
I know a lot of people in the Constitution Party and I like most of them. They support Ron (including the past chair and present chair and vice chair of my state). :-) The suuuuper hardcore dogmatic types might not, but the rest will. They aren't stupid.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Get active NOW to put Ron in the general election. ronpaul.meetup.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.
What did Ghandi say?
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
What a shining example of why Ghandi would be compelled to say something like that. Under the circumstances, Dr. Paul did very well. ...and interviews like this is precisely why... "Congress shall write no law..."
Ron Paul 2008!
Read their discussion board!
If you really want a view in the minds of these people, read their discussion board. It will astound you!
I grew up in this type of household and understand it completely...... really brought some memories back... uhg..
Anyway, my point is that we as a group need to understand them so when we talk to them, we are not boxed into a corner. They have their minds made up and it is hard to break though... if not impossible.
The ones that are open and free thinkers.... maybe... the other, don't waste too much time... move on to NEXT.. ;)
Not Christian myself
(if I needed a reason, this interview -- which I listened to in entirety -- would be enough), but seems to me I remember something about some guy saying things like "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," and stuff like that.
I would have liked to hear Dr. Paul, who I understand is a Christian, introduce these quotes into this conversation, but my guess is he was just trying to get through it without letting this jerk trap him into an adversary proceeding. Which he did pretty well, I thought.
The interviewer, BTW, is a major functionary in the Constitution Party, which seems to be rather picky about what parts of the Constitution it does or doesn't favor: For instance, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is one part they'd clearly rather forget.
I would like to clarify that
I would like to clarify that the interpretation of the word "establishment" is important. From my reading of the constitution the word establishment isn't referring to making a religious body or such. It refers to "an establishment" of religion, which is a religious entity that exists. Like some fine dining establishment.
So its saying make no law respecting (with regard to) an establishment (existing body or entity) of religion. So its saying the government cannot regulate or control religious entities. It also would include creating a federally mandated church, as that would be a law regarding that establishment of religion. But it does go on to say "nor prohibit the free exercise there of" which you apparently want to forget too, which expressly allows religious influence in life including the government - just to the point the government answer to a church. But to say Christians can't have a say in the government, or even advocate a religious based opinion would be incorrect.
That said, I do'nt think religion SHOULD have the government do its work. You'll find a post further down explaining why I believe that to be the case. (Mainly morality is a personal choice, it cannot ever be enforced by laws really. Of course I am also a borderline anarchist, which is rather interesting for a fundamentalist christian - or one would think it would be if you consider new evangelicals to be fundamentalist which they are not). To have the government do the work of making people moral, is simply impossible and it is utterly ineffective.
Re "Establishment"
It's helpful, if you want to know the meaning of something written in a former time, to be aware of what the people of that time understood as the meanings of the words they used, as well as the associations of those words in their minds.
(For instance, it's useful to know that if you look in a dictionary from 1913, you will find that the word "income" did not refer to wages, or an exchange of value, but to an increase of the value of an investment, such as dividends realized from stock ownership. Partisans of the federal "income tax" like to forget this little detail in their arguments.)
While I can't cite any references, not having studied it in detail, I've always assumed the phrase "establishment of religion" was a reference to the "Established Church" of Great Britain, i.e. Anglican Protestantism (a.k.a. Episcopalianism, which as it happens is Dr. Paul's church, acto Wikipedia), which was also "established" in at least several of the Colonies, e.g. Virginia, where all residents were forced to pay taxes to support that church. As Britons are to this day, and Scandinavians to support the official Lutheran churches of their countries, etc.
Thus I believe the authors of the First Amendment intended very specifically to prevent the government from "establishing" any one church as the official, tax-supported church, or, by extension, from favoring any church over others in any way. That's my "reading" of the Constitution, based on the language its authors knew and used, and what they were concerned about arising from their own experiences, not any other possible meaning of "establishment".
Though of course for them the concern was limited to what they knew -- the various competing brands of Christianity -- I'd say the same prohibition applies to favoring Christianity over other religions, or belief-systems-which-serve-the-same-purpose, such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Secular Humanism, or whatever.
Which is the ultimate reason why government should not run the schools: because "education" is a process of indoctrination, which cannot help teaching some system of beliefs and values -- and "Secular Humanism" is as much such a system as is Christianity, thus for the government to favor it with tax money (and force parents to subject their children to its teachings) is a clear violation of the First Amendment's prohibition of an "establishment of religion".
The same is true, however, of any occasion where tax money is used to, for instance, celebrate Christmas. I see no reason why those who find meaning in this holiday should not foot the full bill (and find their own venue, not public property) for such celebrations, and not force others for whom it has no meaning to pay for it.
I certainly don't want to "forget" the rest of the First Amendment, nor do I think people should or even could be prevented from advancing views and ideas rooted in their belief systems, or religions. Christians, unfortunately, seem to feel a deep-rooted compulsion to force their beliefs on others whenever they have the slightest opportunity to do so, thus non-Christians have learned to be very wary of Christians' constant attempts to insert the camel's nose into the tent.
When I first heard of the Constitution Party, I thought it was a nice idea, and a nice name; but I've been disappointed to find that its members seem to be unable to separate their religion from their supposed advocacy for the Constitution. My ancestors helped to found this Republic, but I'm not Christian, and I do not believe it's necessary to force Christianity on everyone to restore the Republic. Nor I believe the Founders intended to establish a Republic only for Christians, with everyone else a second-class citizen; and the First Amendment, it seems to me, is clear evidence of their intention to do otherwise.
And, while I do agree with John Adams that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," I do not believe, as many Christians seem to do (including apparently the Constitution Party crowd) that only Christians fit this description.
I wish Dr. Paul wouldn't do
I wish Dr. Paul wouldn't do interviews with these crazy people. All logic goes out the window when trying to answer these questions. It's obvious Dr. Paul has no problem with a gay person, but unfortunately he has to pander to these self-righteous people.
I'm a gay man, and to talk about the millions of gay men and women around the world like they're inhuman and "children of the devil" is just despicable. People still think we "choose" our sexual preference, like a flip of a switch. And I know many gays serving in the military who don't even hide it, and their fellow comrades don't mind. They're so desperate for servicemen that being gay doesn't get you kicked out anymore.
I think if these religious guys had their way, we would be following the laws of Leviticus instead of the Constitution, and all sinners would be stoned and sent back to the scary "devil."
actually this is a good thing
You have two choices when asked to do an interview with people - yes and no. If you don't do an interview because they have bad ideas, especially these hate mongering types, then you never have the chance of setting yourself apart from them. I think Dr. Paul by accepting this interview and not "pandering" to these folks, shows us how he is set apart from them.
Earlier on when I first heard of Ron Paul and started listening to the campaign, the issue of homosexuality never came up and I was curious about what he thought. I personally don't think it is a problem or a sin and I don't see how it hurts anyone. I thought the anti-gay marriage issues that have been springing up are attrocities to our freedom, and I think it's ridiculous that it can even be voted upon. So I was very pleased when I found a clip where Ron Paul talked about the very subject and pretty much said he thinks individuals should be able to have whatever relationships they want and the government shouldn't be able to tell us what is and isn't allowed.
I wish more politicians would talk to these people, so you could see their true nature. A lot of them would cave and start answering questions the way the interviewer wanted to hear them. Yet another reason to support Ron Paul. He talks to these people and tells them he doesn't agree.
Other sensitive topics
.
Dr. Paul has to speak carefully if he wants to attract votes; that's the goal. So here he is, up against a zealot with Medieval beliefs, who represents a lot of people who are equally Medieval. So he has to be a little bit of a Buddhist and take the middle path. It might seem a bit hypocritical until you realize the goal is to get votes, and not to alienate one side or the other. So I think he did very well, considering.
I also think his public views on 911 are contrary to what he truly believes. When Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., the nation's top scientist, comes out and says that 911 was the "greatest television commercial ever made" and that a new inquiry must be launched, Dr. Paul simply cannot even acknowledge her challenge--even though she is probably correct. For Dr. Paul to even whisper about a new investigation would immediately marginalize him and he would become a pariah. No sir, he talks about the accepted theory: 19 hijackers, the airplanes crashed, the fires brought the buildings down, and Osama Bin Laden was behind it all. For now, at least.
Ron Paul needs to tread carefully, win people over and then get the votes. Those are the rules of politics.
Unlikely Conspiracies
...or perhaps he realizes that for the Secret Cabal of Evil Republicans to pull off such an elaborate inside job is as probable as the Post Office offering swift, courteous, AND efficient service. It's a tempting mistake to attribute to conspiracy what can just as easily be explained by incompetence.
Viva Agora!
LehrBoy
www.citizenduquesne.org
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr
Good for Ron Paul
.
If I ever had any doubts about Dr. Paul's debating skills, they were laid to rest with this interview. His reasoning, logic and patience is admirable, particularly when confronted with a hard-line fundamentalist who views so many things as sins.
Dr. Paul wasn't going to change this man's mind, nor was Dr. Paul likely to be converted, so they just left it alone and moved along.
Very impressive, at least the text part.
Fundamentalist
I am a fundamentalist Christian. What goes by label "fundamentalist" now days is actually the "new evangelical" movement.
Fundamentalists believe in salvation, they believe in sin, that all are sinners. That the best way to bring people to Christ is to live the life we are called to. Then share with others what gives us hope. Beyond that, we believe people should live right, but its not up to us to make them do that. Thats between them and God. This is the biblical view on things
I pretty much got that message from Dr. Paul.
New evangelicals believe in using the force of government to coerce people into believing or living right. But its not what is taught in the bible. The closest thing to it in other religions is radical islam. Ironically, using the force of the government is what the old testament was trying to prove DIDN'T work, and that true belief and following of God could only come by voluntary choice and repentance. It took God 2000 years to get Israel to the point it was ready to accept that it had to come from within, after proving to them time and again that it couldn't come from the rulers.
The new evangelicals essentially hold on to the old testament, where as fundamentalists (true ones) believe the old testament is a guideline for mankind to know what is right and wrong. The new testament tells us how we can make the change in our lives to live it for ourselves if we so choose.
Nice way of contrasting..
I think you gave a great constast and comparison between the two, if one actually took the time to do their own reading they would not fall so quickly for the "new evangelical" movement. (neo-con artists?)
Back to Ron Paul though, I think he leads by example and has for many years. What more could one want for a leader?
Well the neo-cons and the
Well the neo-cons and the neo-evangelicals are so closely tied together it's almost like the CFR and The Fed. Ironically, the neo-whatevers are just pawns of a higher power (not saying God) in a big chess game. (from a Christian perspective)
If one reads the bible though, there is plenty of talk of false churches, ones that serve their own interests of power and greed above the interest of spiritually growing and serving the believers that are part of the congregation. The sad part is the bastions of true fundamentalism within christianity are slowly becoming overrun by new evangelical ideas. But again, not a shock as the Bible says this is what would eventually happen.
But yes back to Ron Paul, he leads by example and that is the key. And as the leader of a government (which as I stated elsewhere, government is incapable of bringing morality to people) it isn't his job to wear religion on his shirt sleeve. Yes he has a great opportunity to be a great example, and I hope he uses it very wisely. And I hope that in private if asked he is never afraid to share why he lives the way he does, but he cannot force that upon anyone and he doesn't.
A good video
Speaking of the apparent marriage of neo-con and neo-christian, there's an interesting set of videos on Google video put out by BBC called "The Power of Nightmares." It's worth a watch, at least for history involving radical islam and neo-conservatism. (I think it's over the top in calling Clinton a perfect innocent).
Indeed interesting
I just read the excerpts, but have some thoughts regarding those. The interviewer was really trying to push Ron Paul into the fundamentalist Christian position. Being a Christian myself, my first question would be, "why do we need to have a standing federal army in the first place?" It makes us look like we value war more than peace. I do believe that homosexuality is a sin. So is adultery, lying, stealing, murdering, coveting, and having other gods before the Creator. That means atheists also shouldn't be in the military, or divorcees, or traffic violators, etc. To take the interviewer's stance to it's logical conclusion, the only people that can be in the military would be those who believe in Christ, who is sometimes also known as the Prince of Peace. Doesn't sound logical to me. I don't know why this particular sin would be considered the worst sin, so bad as to be the only one that would bar someone from being in the military.