...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.
IF some of these writers would actually LOOK at a bible and READ FOR THEMSELVES where people got their beliefs, they wouldn’t look so foolish.
Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, says this...
“Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world?
If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?
So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another.” - 1 Corinthaisn 6:1-7
Welcome to FR. Amazing that Paul clearly spells out what he means while the headline is so far removed from what he said.
And the problem with that statement is... what?
These goobers don't get the fact that the gd gub'mint owes WE THE PEOPLE equal treatment and we citizens, free people all, are free, free, free to indulge what ever silly, incoherent system of discrimination we please with our property and our lives. Some folks may be pretty ignorant about their likes and dislikes, but as long as one doesn't rape, pillage and plunder, doesn't break a real law, which to me means mal in se, or natural law (almost all of which is derived from the Ten Commandments) we should be able to live as we please, foolish or not.
This needs lots more discussion.
Although I’ve read and appreciate men like Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen, in all honesty..The Christian Reconstruction Movement is almost a “dead letter”.. it gradually went away after Greg Bahnsen died a good 10 years ago...this view is held by very few today.
I’ve seen other Progressives use “Christian Reconstructionism” as a “boogyman”...Most Evangelical Christians have never heard of “Christian Reconstructionism”, yet these Progressives always use this boogyman as a major reason to oppose Christianity.
Yes, the author is blatantly and obviously biased against Christianity, based upon her own ideas of what Christianity believes; but she honestly has no idea what Historic Christianity actually is.
The lefties and other democrats are out in full force to get this guy. He will be the best medicine in the country among those losers now in congress when he is the next Senator from Kentucky.
"The American Prospect," with its subtitle "Liberal Intelligence," reveals what the Progressives intend to do to the nation whose foundations in liberty have allowed them the freedom to now attack those very foundations.
Religious speech that does not validate Obama-worship is hate speech. That’s all there is to it.
...for those interested. :D
RP, Really has 'em riled-up...they're pin-heads are 'bout to pop.
Wow. That’s outrageous. As you say, not only did Rand Paul’s actual quote from the article totally not match anything in the headline, but the writer uses some extremely tortured logic to try to hang the whole Christian Reconstructionist movement around Rand Paul’s neck.
She begins by stating that Rand Paul is a mainline Protestant. Then she goes on to inform the reader that:
1. R.J. Rushdoony is the founder of Christian Reconstructionism
2. Gary North (a Christian Reconstructionist) is the son-in-law of R.J. Rushdoony
3. Gary North was once employed by Ron Paul (who is presumably not a Christian Reconstructionist)
4. Ron Paul is Rand Paul’s father
5. Therefore, she concludes, Christian Reconstructionism has certainly influenced Rand Paul’s views, although he himself may not recognize it.
Just wow.
This isn’t precisely a “Libertarian” topic, but I do expect that there’s a lot of Christians on your Libertarian ping lists; they might appreciate a ping to this article. (Just a suggestion, thanks).