-12 votes

"The 'Libertarian' Taliban Writing Ron Paul's Curriculum"

With the newsletter controversy finally easing into obscurity, has Ron Paul once again licensed his good name to someone he shouldn't? Apparently, Gary North, who's writing the Ron Paul home school curriculum, has, in previous writings, called for America to become a Christian theocracy that constructs "a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

As for maintaining order in the home school classroom, let's hope he doesn't restate an earlier assertion that, "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death."

Even considering that Paul and Woods would presumably veto that kind of talk in this curriculum, have they done themselves a huge disfavor by associating so closely with him?

Read all about it at:
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/04/08/gary-north-t...

Comment viewing options

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

FAKE QUOTE!

I was particularly interested in that quote about killing children for cursing their parents. Imagine my complete lack of surprise when I find that it is a shameless invention of the author of that article.

Want to be equally unsurprised? Go ahead and open North's book where the author CLAIMS the quote comes from and do a Ctrl-F search yourself for the quote. It's simply not there.

The author of that article is a fraud. Plain and simple.

Do your own homework. ALWAYS.

http://www.garynorth.com//sinai.pdf

"Only a government can take a useful commodity like paper, and by adding ink, make it utterly worthless." - von Mises

The article was misleading

However, that quote did appear in the original. That quote in the article was followed by an asterisk. If you scroll down to the bottom of the article you'll find this:

"* Ed. note: North deleted this and other sections from the version of Sinai now on his website, but you can download the original here."

The hyperlink for the text "the version" takes you to the link you posted and the hyperlink for the text "original here" takes you here, http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gnss.pdf , where that quote does appear on page 59 of North's book (page 82 on the pdf viewer).

If you go to page 86 (pdf viewer page 114) of the edition you linked to you'll see the following footnote: 9. Chapter 3 was titled, "Oaths, Covenants, and Contracts." See the original edition on www.freebooks.com

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

You're linking a pirated copy

You're linking a pirated copy that could have come from anyplace. Looking at google books at the actually published copy didn't show me this quote as the other posters have said.

"but the unpublished version really said this" doesn't sound to me like a valid quote. Dr. Paul was smeared this way himself. This whole thread is from an Obama supporter in my opinion.

And the alleged Bible quote is not in the Bible as posted also.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

We're not talking about unpublished works...

We're talking about a first edition that was published in 1986 then revised in 2006.

The original copy was obviously available for free download at some point and that is why North included that footnote in the revised edition with a link to find a free copy, so I don't understand the suspicion regarding the "pirated" copy.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Ok 5 minutes research debunks this

The questionable quotes referenced are Rushdoony's which the actual Gary North quote below clarifies:

What is the proper argument? Simple: there is no neutrality, and since there is no neutrality, the present legal foundation of government-financed education is a fraud. Conclusion: close every government-financed school, tomorrow. Refund the taxes to the taxpayers. Let the taxpayers seek out their own schools for their children at their expense (or from privately financed scholarships or other donations).

But the fundamentalist instinctively shy away from such a view. Why? Because they see where it necessarily leads: to a theocracy in which no public funds can be appropriated for anti-Christian activities, or to anarchy, where there are no public funds to appropriate. It must lead to God's civil government or no civil government. In short, it leads to either Rushdoony or Rothbard. Most fundamentalists have never heard of either man, but they instinctively recognize where the abandonment of the myth of neutrality could lead them.

In short, according to North the natural logic leads Christians to theocracy (Rushdoony) or anarchy (Rothbard). Guess which camp Gary North is in?

Again, I'm an atheist, but I see no problem here. Christianity is not per se bad. It's how it's implemented. Falwell type implementations are bad. I like North's.

I don't miss arguing

I don't miss arguing scripture.

The phrase, "that's not in the Bible" now seems almost sarcastic.

The Founder of "Christian Reconstructionism" says...

R.J. Rushdoony said:

"The Bible is without reservation in its condemnation of homosexuality . . .This is certainly clear enough and there is not a single text in all of the New Testament to indicate that this penalty has been altered or removed. . . We find that St. Paul far from setting aside the law and its penalties appeals to the death penalty against homo-sexuals as an established and continuing fact. (Rom 1:32)"
Source:The Institutes of Biblical Law, Page 735
Published 1973

Mr. Rushdoony also says the Death Penalty is applicable to adultery, incest, lying about one's virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying.

Further, there is nothing wrong with a Liberty-Movement vetting, ergo an equivalent to an Underwriter's Laboratory [UL] so-to-speak.

Such words do deserve pause and consideration as to whose definition of "Liberty" we follow.

Mr. North's definition of Christian Reconstructionism is not in any way in agreement with Mr. Jefferson's Rightful Liberty to which I am admittedly far more partial:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

WGRR DB - rEVOLutionary talk for revolutionary times. Listen LIVE!

Thomas Jefferson

"Mr. North's definition of Christian Reconstructionism is not in any way in agreement with Mr. Jefferson's".

Thomas Jefferson introduced four laws from Leviticus, which you are quoting, into the laws of Virginia, including one for castrating homosexuals.

You don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. You don't know Thomas Jefferson, so I'm sure you don't know anything about the other subjects.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

18th Century Lexicon Eludes you

It is pretty simple really. My definition, and personal philosophy of Liberty does not include perpetrating violence upon consenting adults engaged in Voluntary interactions.

If you feel a government/church/mob should violently punish voluntary action between individuals, then you and I are not allies.

Moreover, in the 18th Century lexicon, Sodomy was the crime of Male-on-Male rape. Perhaps read the bill in its entirety, and also learn to understand historical context prior to pointing to a source which you incorrectly assumed buttressed your position.

May you one day prefer Peace and Love over trying to cling to a justification of Violently imposing your view upon others.

WGRR DB - rEVOLutionary talk for revolutionary times. Listen LIVE!

Thomas Jefferson specifically

Thomas Jefferson specifically quoted Leviticus in those four laws, which incuded adultery, sabbath breaking, and sodomy. Jefferson's definition of sodomy is Leviticus's definition of sodomy. You simply had to follow the link.

In fact, the laws refer to Leviticus.

You are simply wrong. Your smart Alec response instead of admitting to being wrong is effeminate.

By your criteria, Thomas Jefferson is a Christian Talibanist. You're an idiot.

-----
Jefferson Papers Indexes | Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Cumulative Index to vols. 1–20 | L | Levitical law | Va. bill annulling marriages prohibited by
References
84. A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers, 18 June 1779 [Main Series 2:556]+

etc.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Thomas Jefferson - Christian Talabanist!

Here's a link to Jefferson's bill to punish Sabbath breakers.

84. A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers, 18 June 1779 [Main Series 2:556]+

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys...

Look, when I see a bunch of posts that have no idea of our American History, I see posters from outside the United States being partly responsible. Like maybe Israel. Maybe just Marxists.

Americans don't attack their own forefathers.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The Founding Generation is not Homogeneous

The Founding Generation is not one homogeneous group, thus blanketing them as such is illogical and absurd.

For example, Mr. Hamilton was an absolute tyrant, who favored empire an all powerful central government, detested individual and state sovereignty and advocated for king-like executive that served for life.

Some were slave holders, and some were staunch abolitionists such as Adams, Dickenson, and Franklin in his later years.

You may find it useful to examine your desire to see people as collectives, devoid of individual characteristics, as it is in direct conflict with Natural Liberty.

WGRR DB - rEVOLutionary talk for revolutionary times. Listen LIVE!

Try to stay focused without (I assume) drugs

The conversation is over with. You've provided no sources for anything, and when someone directly replies to a statement you make, you provide non-coherent answers like you are on drugs.

This is in direct reply to your use of Thomas Jefferson, who by your own
statement in your original post is an example of "Non-Taliban Christian".

Well, Thomas Jefferson punishes Sabbath Breakers, castrated homosexuals, and punished false soothsayers and witches. So clearly, what constituted a "Taliban Christian" must really be bad by your (non-provided) definition.

Now, you might think I am being insulted by saying you sound like you are on drugs. But to me you do. It's because of the lack of focus, not being able to defend particular points made in your own posts, changing or lack of defining your own phrases, and not being able to reference actual facts. It's a hallmark of drug use, but it could just be sloppy thinking.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

In addition to Thomas Jefferson's four laws above

In addition to Thomas Jefferson's four laws above, which I believe are all numbered sequentially if I remember right, so they are easy to look up, I noticed this other law:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs...

Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments

"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."
...
"All attempts to delude the people, or to abuse their understanding by exercise of the pretended arts of witchcraft, conjuration, inchantment, or sorcery or by pretended prophecies, shall be punished by ducking and whipping at the discretion of a jury, not exceeding 15. stripes."
...
etc.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

You know how...

...it was irritating when the Hannitys and Becks and O'Reillys trashed Dr. Paul over the newsletters, etc., using it as a political smear job without giving him the respect of explaining his views on their shows in a fair manner?

I get this same vibe from the people who are now running at the mouth with all kinds of wild accusations about the meaning of little snippets of North's words, caring little about what damage they may be doing to something that is genuinely good for the Liberty movement, and not having the respect to pause and research and clarify before shouting their disdain from the rooftops.

I'm not a reconstructionist or a post-millenialist, but I think these views are probably being heavily distorted here, being represented as some kind of vision of a totalitarian religious state, when it's probably just the idea of a voluntary society of like-minded believers being a 'city on the hill' that inspires others to emulate the example -- and eventually this reaching a tipping in point in a society where the blessings that come with it abound. Why not investigate a little more before verbally slashing the tires on this new vehicle for spreading Liberty?

Not just snippets

I have read a many of North's articles. I used to subscribe to his newsletter.

I am not trying to "slash the tires." It's more like hoping Dr. Paul will get a good, dependable set of tires before embarking on a long trip.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Why Isn't The Real Link Posted ?

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-starts-home-school-curriculum...

{Excerpt:}
Courses to be offered
The Ron Paul Curriculum will teach history and literature from a free market perspective, math, science, the U.S. Constitution, economics, geography, and how to start and run a home business. The philosophy of the course of study will be from Paul's perspective of liberty, with instruction of how it is under attack and how it can be reclaimed. Other cultures will be studied with a view of the relationship between literature and history. The philosophy and history of liberty and "its rivals" will be compared and contrasted. The courses are described as "academically rigorous" based on primary source material. Students will be encourage to teach one another, with the coursework self taught above grade 5 with parents reviewing their children's progress.

More at the link above.

beesting

Bible verse intentionally changed

Poster intentionally changed the scripture quoted above, which is out of context to begin with.

I checked 18 different Bible versions online, to make sure it wasn't my own. No, that verse doesn't exist that way.

There is no such thing as a capital crime in the old testament, because THERE IS NO STATE. There was no king before Samuel, and when the people rejected God to get a state government, God warned them it would be bad, but they didn't listen, so God let them have on anyway.

The Bible verse has been intentionally changed. The change intentionally forces a contradiction with the verse in context with the surrounding passage and the rest of the old testament. In the old testament, there was no state government.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The OP was not quoting

The OP was not quoting scripture, but North. I'm guessing the chapter/verse was in North's original work as a reference (not a citation).

I'm not sure where you get that there was no state in the Old Testament. Samuel even bemoans the Israelites clamoring for a king. (1 Samuel:8) They get one. Heard of King David? He and others were kings. They could send people to war, take property, decree laws.

At the time the verse being

At the time the verse being quoted from the old testament existed, there
was no state government, so obviously "a capital crime" is not how the verse actually reads.

I mentioned Samuel in the same posts. I said, the first time you get a state government, an actual theocracy of men, is with Samuel, and God said it wouldn't be good but let them have one anyway.

God is king, and that is not a theocracy. Any attempt to claim that God being king is a theocracy and bad by showing men being king doesn't work I reject. God is good. He judges rightly.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

But...the verse is not being

But...the verse is not being quoted, as I said. The quote is from North's writings; it is his interpretation. Not the OP's. (At least that's how it's represented in the OP.)

I'm not arguing that likening God to your personal king is theocracy. I'm arguing that your assertion that there was no state authority in the Old Testament is in error. It appears you agree, as you note Samuel (an Old Testament book) gives our first example. You just made a contrary statement, probably a typo sort of thing. So why argue your typo?

I suppose I should have said

I suppose I should have said "in the Torah" or when that verse was made, but I didn't want to use the word Torah since it isn't english.

Yes, it's a slip up in my post, and not what I meant.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I hear you on the

I hear you on the typo/slip-ups. I do it all the time.

Do you get that the OP isn't quoting any part of scripture -- the Torah, Profits, Apocrypha, New Testaments, Gnostics? The OP is quoting North. Your argument is with North, not the OP.

Woman taken in adultery

God demonstrates to us how he rules on these versus with the scripture about Jesus Christ and the woman taken in adultery, because Jesus Christ is God.

The concept of mercy definitely exists in the old testament as well, and you would have to be legalistic or take things out of context with the rest of the old testament talking about applying it - which is why I am objecting to taking things out of context - which includes adding a State government concept "capital crimes", when there wasn't any State when those verses were made. God is King. The people hadn't rejected God in Samuel yet.

John 8:2-8:11
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Fyi - You can't understand

Fyi - You can't understand the justice system of the old testament without reading the whole thing (and definitely not by quoting a verse out of context).

You could redeem yourself, in place of the sin with a sacrifice, (which might look a little like paying restitution today but it's more than that, because God himself became our redemption in Jesus Christ), there were places you could flee for refuge (try fleeing anyplace today), and there was mercy - Jesus Christ and the woman caught in adultery is not a new idea - God doesn't change.

Those are the maximum penalties before the rest of the system kicked in. But you need to know what it was. The system has mercy in it. Without knowing that, you are just quoting random sentences out of context with the whole old testament. How merciful God is becomes evident in Jesus Christ and the New Testament, but it is certainly there in the old testament as well. Because God doesn't change.

Also, it overlooks God as king. God is the judge, and he's a lot fairer judge than anyone. It is specifically in Samuel when the people rejected God for a King that you actual would get a theocracy of men. But God being in charge is not a theocracy.

I reject any idea that attempts to prove God is not king because men are bad. God is not men. God is good.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Breaking News ...

Ron Paul is a Christian.

I was hanging with the Paul Family the night before the NH primary in 2008 [Ron was absent doing Leno that night]

They are all SOLID CHRISTIANS

Now Ron does not wear it on his sleeve ... HE LIVES IT IN HIS PRINCIPALS AND PRACTICE.

Rand does as well.

When REAL BIBLICAL Christianity is understood it produces people like Ron Paul.

You Bible haters set up straw men to make yourselves feel better.

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

Talk about strawmen...

No one is attacking Christianity, we are attacking theocracy.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I've been on Daily Paul or

I've been on Daily Paul or Ron Paul forums since the 2008 run.

I remember when voluntary association with other Christians was called theocracy then, and I suspect by a bunch of liberals actually.

It hasn't changed since.

If a bunch of people want to form their own government voluntary, and don't force you to be part of it, it isn't a theocracy that should concern you.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

It's no secret that Ron is a

It's no secret that Ron is a Christian but nobody here seriously thinks he would promote a Christian theocracy complete with stoning like Gary North. If he did, I and many others would think far less of him and deservedly so.

do you know that Gary North

do you know that Gary North worked for Ron Paul in the 70's.