"I want to be a man. From now on I want you all to call me 'Bud'. "
...the Author of this article somehow derives the conclusion, "Rand Paul says We Wouldn't Need Laws If Everyone Were Christian!!"
Yes. From (here I paraphrase) "Christians make good neighbors; we still need laws, but society functions better when folks don't kill or steal very much because of shared moral values", she gets "ABOLISH ALL GOVERNMENT!". Good grief.
But it doesn't stop there. Having just essentially accused Paul of being an anarchist, the author then flip-flops to implying that Paul favors Governmental Slavery and Stonings!
Well, I for one hope that Rand Paul continues talking about his Christian faith, and defending the contributions of law-abiding Christians to a peaceful society and the great societal value of Christian mores.
Now, yes, I know -- he's running for US Senator for Kentucky, not Moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly.
But in speaking up about his Christian faith and affirming the virtues of Christianity, Rand Paul is confronting perhaps the greatest of the few remaining politely-acceptable bigotries: Anti-Christian Bias.
After the ambush questioning and his somewhat-rambling response in his first post-Primary interview with Maddow, Rand Paul is apparently realizing that he's going to have to fight back and treat the Leftist Press as an implacably hostile adversary, as evidenced by his combative but effective handling of George Stephanopolous. I hope that in so doing Paul will continue to speak up about, and ably defend, his Christian faith as well.
We wouldn’t need laws if human beings were universally altruistic, but we are not.
James Madison (Federalist No. 51) Wednesday, February 6, 1788
Or as John Adams said:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
What an unbelievably dishonest title coming from someone who is trying to pass herself off as an unbiased journalist.
Pathetic.
Egad, what an offensive publication. How can you read that stuff?
Leftist Press proceeds to go frothing, barking nuts at his audacity in suggesting such a thing.
In other news, the Communist Party USA strongly endorses Obama’s agenda, which I suppose makes Obama a communist.
http://cpusa.org/obama-state-of-the-union-he-got-the-ball-rolling
It’s also important to note that our Founders believed this as well. It is stated throughout our historic documents and their writings. It is shouted by their actions.
At the same time, they believed in freedom of religion, as well as the right not to be religious, because God is a God of Freedom and not slavery.
And you are correct that the left is out to destroy anyone who has any connection to the Tea Party movement. And Rand Paul was the favored candidate, who is now a candidate for United States Senator. The left can’t have that. In their minds, only people like Barbara Boxer should be allowed in the Senate.
Agree...
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. John Adams
Heck, yeah, they are going to have long knifes out for him. Makes me like him even more...FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.
Oh yes, they will distort what Paul says, then repeat the distortions over and over until the people believe that he really said them.
That is what they did to Sarah Palin. “I can see Russia from my house.”
They are evil and they are too strong for us.
We need help, but we aren’t going to get it.
"I want to be a man. From now on I want you all to call me 'Bud'. "
* Made his statement a little more accurate
As a Christian; this makes me ill.
Rand Paul is an extremest? However, Obama is a Socialist-Marxist Union community organizer..liar and cheat and that’s okay. Give me an American, Libertarian any day. I mostly disagree with Sarah....
What everybody seems to be missing is that when one defends freedom of association and property rights, liberal automatically assume that you hate black people. In other words if you say that people have the right to deal with and only with those that they choose, the liberals ugly soul hears “black”. Apparently the only reason not to like somebody, to them, is their color. Projection.
this hit piece written by a Posner - is the writer related to that other paragon of hate - the Michael Posner who is an undersecretary of state and apologized to the chi coms about arizona’s immigration law?
Semper Fidelis>
Dick G
**********
FACT: Not all christians, are christians..
The so-called "intellectual" Progressives and are more aptly described as "pseudointellectuals."
Scratch the surface just a little, and one finds little intellectual depth and substance. For the most part, they are mere pretenders, revealing little understanding human history, especially American history.
They get away with their pretense of knowledge by intimidation and bravado.
Take their criticism of Candidate George W. Bush when, during a debate, in response to a question about his "favorite political philosopher," he answered, "Jesus Christ, because he changed my heart."
Oh, the pseudointellectuals on the Left and in the media had a field day in commenting on what they perceived to be ignorance and naivete.
By opening their mouths to criticize him, they actually opened a window to their minds which allowed a view into their own ignorance and lack of intellectual depth. As a matter of fact, GWB was in extremely good company when he identified the philosophy of Jesus in such a manner.
Clearly, not one of his critics possessed sufficient knowledge of American history to realize that a former President who ranks high on the list of truly "intellectual" Americans wrote about his own strong admiration for the same "philosopher" whose "system" he thought to be the "most correct of all the philosophers." That man was no less than Thomas Jefferson.
At an April 29, 1962, dinner honoring 49 Nobel Laureates, John F. Kennedy quipped, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House -- with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." - (Simpson’s Contemporary Quotations, 1988, from Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1962, p. 347).
Anyway, of Jesus, Jefferson wrote that Jesus "preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence," that "a system of morals is presented to us [by Jesus], which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man."
He stated, "His moral doctrines...were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers...and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants, and common aids," which, Jefferson said, "will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others."
Sometimes the "know-it-alls" of today simply reveal their own ignorance when they assume a certain pseudointellectual "superiority" over others.