105 votes

Ron Paul Quotes Jesus, Conservatives Outraged

Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on February 4, 2013 | LewRockwell.com

Remember that time Ron Paul used the Golden Rule to explain his foreign policy? Conservatives booed him for that. So who can be surprised that conservatives, including Rand Paul, have been falling all over themselves to condemn Ron Paul for quoting Jesus -in correct context, by the way - to note that the violence wrought by over a decade of nonstop war in America leads to tragedy on the home front?

Every neocon pundit and middle-American red-blooded conservative took a few minutes out from running around shrieking "boo-yah" and polishing his dually F-250 to be outraged that someone dared suggest that a government employee wasn't a holy relic.

The Daily Caller was the first to the show, posting Paul's twitter post without comment and allowing the comment box to quickly fill with outraged Republicans who were dismayed that anyone would not endorse every action of every single taxpayer-funded soldier who ever drew a bead on some dirt-poor 12-year-old child-soldier 10,000 miles away. Others soon piled on.

The most transparent were the conservatives who claimed to be former supporters of Paul who must now go support some more "patriotic" politician: One who doesn't actually question anything the military does.

One member at RonPaulForums.com said "'Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say. There's no way that Ron actually said this. Ugh. How said [sic] and pathetic."

That seems to be the general reaction one gets from conservatives about the Golden Rule also.

This is what it comes down to for most conservatives, of course. All that stuff about laissez faire and freedom and free markets has never been more than an act and an affectation which goes right out the window if someone ever criticizes the US Government in a truly trenchant or penetrating manner.

Most of these sunshine patriots who now whine that Ron Paul has lost their support, wouldn't ever have supported Ron Paul in the first place if Obama weren't in office. Had Ron Paul run against a GOP incumbent, most of these timid and prevaricating "opponents" of big government would have condemned Paul for questioning the glorious deeds of "our" Commander-in-Chief. Among conservatives, Ron Paul has only ever had minority support, for in the end, conservatives love government, as exhibited by their latest outrage. They just love it in a slightly different way from the left liberals.

As I've noted before, the Tea Party movement, and most conservatives who pretend to be for small government, only act when there's a Democrat in office. During eight years of Bush shredding the constitution, spending money like there was no tomorrow, and inflating the money supply with his pals at the central bank, no conservative would walk ten feet to protest the federal government. But about five minutes after Obama was sworn in, the Tea Party protests swelled into a huge disingenuous show that will evaporate five minutes after any Republican is sworn into office, assuming the GOP can actually win a national election with one of the out-of-touch never-had-a-real-job rich boys they insist on nominating.

In the end of course, Ron Paul has never been about rallying people to himself. He has been about the message, and the message is about freedom. It is a logical impossibility to be simultaneously pro-freedom and pro-military. Patrick Henry, who called government soldiers "engines of despotism" knew this. Thomas Jefferson knew this. Every true friend of liberty from William Graham Sumner to Murray Rothbard knew this. And Ron Paul knows it. Some of his supporters, still stuck in the mindset of a form of Geezer Conservatism in which "freedom-lovers" bow and scrape before the US Government, denied that Ron Paul could have even agreed with the Twitter post. No such luck for them. The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics." Conservatives who are troubled by this should probably be honest with themselves and find a candidate more suitable to their views. I hear Newt Gingrich is still taking donations.

Source: LewRockwell.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sorry but Ron Paul was cruel and stupid

Making a comment like that is cruel. Whether you agree with what a soldier does or someones approach to try and help another human being through a mental illness, this kind of judgement is entirely un-christian.

I do not glorify soldiers, for one they get paid for what they do - and thank God that we do not kidnap people via a draft, these employees are doing a job. Two I do not blame them for our foreign policy. We the citizens of the USA are to blame for that.

If RP did not like that this guy bragged about his record, fine I can see that, but to attack him for attempting to help a PTSD soldier is pathetic.

This sin is America's sin and it has been that way since before Lincoln. We have no right to intervene in foreign lands. We have no right to spend the wealth or lives of American's on anything that is not a direct threat and clear self defense.

But RP's comment should have been aimed at american's not the soldier who died trying to help someone. Just stupid RP.

Honesty or Cruelty? - Ron Paul Was Just Being Honest

There is no one I trust better to be genuinely honest about such matters than Ron Paul..

The religious leaders were all pushed out of shape and thought it were cruel when Jesus called them liars and hypocrites and blind guides...

Please, don't confuse being cruel with being honest...

Liberal alert liberal alert

woowoowoowoowoo lol

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

bumping and . . .

bookmarking--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Last 3 days for this auction!

Own Ron Paul's shirt or tie!!!

http://youtu.be/BlHN4NQxnK4

I was interested to note...

...the comment from the Ron Paul forums. Truth be told, there are a bunch of atheists over there that have disdain for ANYTHING that Jesus said... and disdain for Christians period. they still can not wrap their heads around the fact that RON PAUL is really a Christian.

RON PAUL 2008 Jazzloversinc

We can

We use our own rational ability to sort out what RP himself understood correctly and what he accepted as blind belief.

Question to you, jazzloversinc: Will a true Christian expect the 150 muslims killed by the sniper go to hell with virgins or without?

No we will pray for everyone

Friend or foe and I am glad that Dr Paul made those tweets as he continues to show us how much work we have to do thru education,and also he is very good at drawing the enemy out and exposing them as the statist scum that they are(Glen Beck)so Dr Paul rock on we have your back.

InLibertyDan

"rational ability"

How can you expect your own "rational ability" to win out when your motives are of questionable intent?

Rational thinking requires examining your own motives, correct? Or do you avoid that, in a sort-of self-righteous way?

Rationality is also based upon knowledge, and you yourself possess this perfect knowledge? Where you can judge every intent of someone else's heart?

Are atheist communist?

Cyril's picture

I must be having a nightmare... Or reading on the most grotesque

I must be having a nightmare... Or reading on the most grotesque joke ever imagined.

Seriously ?

Random, "conservative" people giving a morality lesson, in a website comment box, to ... Dr. Ron Paul ?!

Really ?!

I mean...

W O A !

I'm gonna get another Cognac, plus sugar... IN BED.

I hope they don't mind.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Front page material

Short, to the point, but still says it all. Great piece by Mr. McMaken. Go to LRC and email him and tell him to keep up the good work and share this around.

Seems the term "Conservative" is basically interchangeable with the terms "Statist" or "Hawk" or "Imperialist" or "Neocon Rino", I could go on.

Just now

as I got online....the headline on my homepage...with a picture of Ron was the caption "Ron Paul mocks Jesus Conservatives outraged". The truth is painful when you realize that you are a party to mass murder.

What has America come to,

What has America come to, when a man bragging about killing 160 human beings is glorified as an American hero? I am not trying to comment or judge Chris Kyle, I am judging us as a nation.

There are many veterans I know who would prefer not talking about how many "kills" they have, they view it as an necessary evil. Kyle viewed it as a pastime...a game...and we praised him for it.

I am not a bleeding heart "no war is just" liberal, but I do lend credence to Ghandi when he said, " I am prepared to die, but there there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."

Chris Kyle is only the face of the problem that we all endorse. He is a victim as much as he is an antagonist. I don't want a military where soldiers kill on command without questioning authority. Ask Germany, Italy Russia and China how that worked out.

I can understand mourning the death of Chris Kyle, for he is an American who tragically fell victim to our society's propensity for killing; but please, let's not celebrate his life.

Notice the neocon media in a tizzy?

And just days after Karl Rove announced he wanted to rub out the liberty movement.

Rove's neocon machine declaring war against the libertarians and the neocon propaganda media pretending that Ron Paul is the second coming of evil ... the two couldn't have anything to do with one another, could they?

Nah ...

Want to own Ron's shirt? Tie? Book?

Ron & Carol Paul are helping us with our Storey County GOP fund raising. Carol sent us one of Ron's shirts, ties & autographed book. Go take a look!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlHN4NQxnK4&feature=youtu.be

As I understand TRUE Christians

TRUE Christians simply argue why to send 150 muslims to hell earlier. They also deny that those 150 muslims got virgins. I bet muslims would be upset to hear the part about virgins.

True godliness...

...has no pleasure in the death of anyone. Are you saying Dr. Paul, for example, is not a TRUE Christian?

The real Christians will take heed of this, and notice.

The BS ones caught in the money machine of the Republican Party have already been confused.

www.EmpowerUsTools.com
Patent Pending Magnetic Pen Holder!

As you clarified for me earlier

Hard-core Christians place muslims into hell, while softer-core ones let them avoid eternal fire. Who is TRUE believers and who is not is a funny question. Since religion is a collectivist dogma, collective authority usually makes the final call. Each denomination assumes it is the real TRUE one. But none would argue about wisdom and love of Jesus if he decides to place muslims into hell.

The real questions....

1) Do you believe military snipers should automatically be given hero status?
2) Should military snipers go around bragging about the deaths they caused or should they be humble and introspective about their actions always questioning themselves if what they did was right or wrong?
3) Is PTSD and the social chaos it causes an unintended consequence and a form of blowback that should be kept in mind when considering military adventurism?

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I support

non-agression principle of Libertarian idea. Jesus message, however, was not a clear cut "turn another cheek." Therefore, his followers twist and turn as they see fit. Trinity was invented 200 years after Jesus. ALL European wars before WWII were given formal approval and blessing by the churches.

GoodSamaritan's picture

The Trinity was always in Scripture

even from Genesis 1:26 where God said, "Let Us make man in Our image." Also see Gen 3:22, Gen 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, and many other verses where God speaks of Himself in the plural. In Genesis 3:8 we see God presenting Himself in human form (a theophany). The New Testament clarifies the relationship among the Godhead and distinguishes Him as three Persons in One: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

That is one possible interpretation

This is not the truth of the matter, but one possible interpretation that you are spelling out. If God speaks of Himself in the plural that does not mean automatically that this plural is a trinity.

To say that in Isaiah 6:8 in some way is part of this plurality idea is very misleading as if that would be the case then one could easily interpret that actually anybody (human being, angel) could be part of God's plurality. "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" It is not completely clear to what does 'for us' here refers to. To God and His angels, to God and His own plurality, or to God, His angels and His people.

The New Testament does not clarify the relationship among the Godhead. What it does is that it gives even more possibilities of different kind of interpretations among of which one of them is this kind of Trinity idea which you express and in which you follow the tradition dogmatic (that is the Dogma of Establishment Christianity) interpretation of this matter, that is, it is the interpretation that won the battle between different interpretations. To say that some one won the battle does not mean that the winner was right, if this would be the case then you must also think for example that Romney was the best candidate of GOP in 2012. Winning and being correct are not at all the same things, not even in the world of Christian Theology.

I don't say that your interpretation is wrong automatically, but at least I can say that it is not the only possible interpretation.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

heretical interpretations are possible.

Heretical interpretations are possible, but that doesn't mean they are valid. The early disputes about opposing views of God(eg. the Nestorian controversy) focused on accurately handling scripture. The fact that someone can mishandle it doesn't make their view valid. The debate was theological, not political. Theological debate is not a popularity contest, you can look at the arguments which were presented on both sides, and the better arguments are still clearly better, so it is no wonder that most Christians went with the better arguments. There is a lot more support for the Trinity in scripture than what you were replying to.

Freedom=Heresy

By the way who has the power to declare some a heretic and on what premises? Most of Jesus' teachings are parables which means that they will never have only one interpretation. They remain always in some sense ambiguous and in this sense orthodoxy is not possible in the context of Jesus' teaching which should be the core of Christianity.

To be a free person, that is, to be a person who is able to choose freely between different ways of interpreting, understanding, thinking, and living, is in essence a heresy. The original Greek word means to 'choose'. A thinking person is always in some sense a heretic as he makes choices and does not blindly follow what others tell him to believe or to think.

The Church did not practice any kind of love toward the so called heretics. Why were their books destroyed by the so called orthodoxical (having a right opinion) Christians? And as they forgot in this process Love as the Highest Commandment it already shows that these people did not understand the core teachings of Jesus at all as to them these theologico-intellectual masturbations became more important issue than the Highest Commandment.

I am a free person, that is, free to choose, therefore I am a HERETIC!

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

freedom is not equal to relativism

Freedom is not equal to relativism.
You are free to choose heresy, but with any freedom, making poor choices has consequences.

A parable is not something that people can take any way they want to. On several occasions, The disciples asked Jesus what the meaning of his parables were, and he told them their exact meaning. The fact that they asked what the meaning was, shows that it can't be taken any way you want, and the fact that Jesus told them the meaning shows that there was a specific meaning. Consider Matthew 13 starting in verse 10, where Jesus tells the reason why he spoke in parables, and then goes on to tell them the meaning of specific parables. The fact that he says he used them to convey a secret message to some and used them to not communicate that secret to others means that there is a secret to be told, a specific meaning. Its not an amorphous relativistic story to be taken any way you please.

Regarding who has the power to deem something heresy:
Although the Bible teaches Christians not to judge those outside of the church, it does teach Christians to judge those within the church(see 1st Corinthians), and to hold them accountable to the standards of scripture. When people who profess Christianity stray from the teachings of scripture and bring another Gospel, it is up to Christians to respond in a biblical way, and part of that is pointing out the error. There is some of the criteria given to Christians in Galatians 1 starting at verse 8. Since that criteria is given to Christians, that is who has that power to use it. If Jesus intended Christianity to be a religion of 'believe whatever you want', what would be the point of correcting people and encouraging the proclamation of the truth? What would be the point of him communicating at all. Why would the new testament epistles to churches include correction of those churches?

You said: "A thinking person is always in some sense a heretic as he makes choices and does not blindly follow what others tell him to believe or to think. "
Are you saying that the only alternative to heresy is blindly following someone? Isn't it possible for a thinking person to agree with what others say as right? If Ron Paul says auditing the FED is right, and you agree, are you blindly following him?

Regarding loveless deeds of Christians: The Christian message anticipates the fact that Christians will sin; Look at all of the wrong things the disciples of Jesus did in the new testament. When that happens, it's up to faithful Christians to correct them.

The Art of Choosing

I did not say that "freedom is equal to relativism". One can not interpret text in any way one chooses. The text itself gives limits to valid interpretations.

How do you know that choosing, that is, heresy is equal to a poor choice? How can you know this? So you say that choosing itself is a poor choice whatever that means as heresy means to choose. To be a human being is to choose, that is, in a sense human being is condemn to heresy, to choosing. Like for example Sartre says one is free to choose, but one is not free not to choose.

Maybe orthodoxy is a poor choice which has all kinds of unintended consequences. Are you sure it doesn't have?

Jesus explains only few of the parables, not all of them which means that we are in the same ambiguous place with most of the parables, EVEN IF Jesus might have had one true meaning to all of them. But we do not have these explanations. Of course one cannot interpret parables and the teaching of Jesus in a relativistic way as any way one chooses. But this does not mean that there is only one way to interpret it. One cannot interpret any way one chooses, but at the same time there is not one single true interpretation. If there would be there wouldn't be all of these different groups of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptists, etc., etc.). They all interpret the Bible in a different manner and all of them think that their own interpretation is the true one. How can this be the case? So are all the other groups than one's own actually heretics in some way of the word?

You write: "Are you saying that the only alternative to heresy is blindly following someone? Isn't it possible for a thinking person to agree with what others say is right? If Ron Paul says auditing the FED is right, and you agree, are you blindly following him?"
Yes, that is, what I am saying if we take the word heresy in its etymological meaning as 'choosing' and actually even 'blind following' is in a sense a heresy as one makes a choice to follow blindly. Of course a thinking person can agree with others, but only by thinking oneself and doubting all kinds of possibilities and playing with different ideas, but this in a way heretic. And about Ron Paul and auditing the FED. In a sense Ron Paul's ideas are heretic in the mainstream GOP and the supporters of him are definitely heretic from the point of view of the most of Republicans. How do you know that actually the forms of Christianity that the mainstream Christians named as heretics where not the True Christians as they thought of themselves to be in a similar manner as many Ron Paul supporters think of themselves as the True Republicans even if the Church of GOP names them the heretics? We do not know as most of these 'heretic'/true Christian texts where destroyed and we know their teachings mostly through those (for example Irenaeus) who thought of them as heretics. Maybe the situation would be similar if we would only have few quotes from Ron Paul left and mostly our understanding of RP's thought would be interpretations of it by people like Santorum, Bill Kristol, O'Reilly and Dick Morris.

In this reply I have used the word heretic in many different ways consciously.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

I see a bit of relativism

I see a bit of relativism when you say this: "there is not one single true interpretation. If there would be there wouldn't be all of these different groups of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptists, etc., etc.). They all interpret the Bible in a different manner and all of them think that their own interpretation is the true one."

Regarding the parables that Jesus DID explain, there was a single true interpretation which he pointed out. If he had not revealed that explanation, that would not mean that the single true interpretation did not exist, it would just mean that it wasn't pointed out. Similarly, not explaining every parable doesn't mean there isn't a true interpretation, and I almost think you might understand that point, but I have to wonder when you say there is no single true interpretation. Jesus encourages those who have ears to hear to hear what he is saying. He made it clear that he used parables to convey information to some but not others, so if he intended some to understand the parables which he did not explain, they will be understood by the ones intended. It doesn't follow to say that because it wasn't explained that nobody could arrive at the true interpretation.

If different groups hold views contradicting the other group, it is a logical necessity that both groups views can not be true. If someone thinks their view is true, that doesn't mean it corresponds to reality. This is why theological debate takes place.

I didn't say that 'choosing' is equal to a poor choice, I said choosing heresy is a poor choice. My point was that choosing can lead to orthodoxy just as easily as leading to heresy, so I was pointing out a false dichotomy where you seem to say that you are either blindly following and not exercising a thinking choice, or you are exercising heresy.

I'm using the modern use of the word where it means the antithesis of Christian orthodoxy, but it is interesting to note what Websters 1828 dictionary says: "In Scripture and primitive usage,heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach."
Using the etymology to make a point about the modern usage of the word is sort of an equivocation.

When Jesus Became God

Read the book by that title to discover how and when the Holy Trinity was conceived as a theological compromise between opposing factions in the early Christian church.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Thanks, but the Bible is clear enough

As I wrote in another response below,

"The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all referenced in the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit is mentioned at least three times, in Psalm 51:11, Isaiah 63:10, and Isaiah 63:11. The Son is referenced by various names and offices in every book of the OT."

Somebody's opinion about what supposedly happened in the early church doesn't carry the same weight as God's Word.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father