Skip to comments.Rand Paul: We Wouldn't Need Laws If Everyone Were Christian (extreme Paul Derangement Syndrome)
Posted on 05/22/2010 7:12:43 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
May 21, 2010
Rand Paul: We Wouldn't Need Laws If Everyone Were Christian
Post by Sarah Posner
Appearing on The Brody File, Rand Paul, who believes that portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act need "further discussion" and may violate private business owners' First Amendment rights, said that we wouldn't really need laws in this country if everyone were a good Christian:
Although Paul attends a mainline Protestant church, in his comments one might hear an echo of Christian Reconstructionism. RD contributor Julie Ingersoll, an expert on Christian Reconstructionism, once described it to me this way: "Reconstructionists claim to have an entirely integrated, logically defensible Christian worldview. Reconstructionism addresses everything you have to think about." In other words, as a society we should follow (preferably) Biblical Law, and dispense with all but a small handful of civil laws.
The younger Paul may not be an ardent Christian Reconstructionist -- he may not even realize its influence on his views -- but his father, Congressman Ron Paul, used to employ one of Christian Reconstrutionism's leading thinkers, Gary North, on his staff. North is the son-in-law of the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, R.J. Rushdoony.
Howard Phillips, the former Nixon administration official who founded the Conservative Caucus and Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party) and co-founded the powerful Council for National Policy, claims Rushdoony as his mentor. Phillips once observed, "Much of the energy in the home school movement, the Christian school movement, the right-to-life movement, and in the return of Christians to the political world, is directly traceable to Dr. Rushdoony's work." James Dobson, who offered a last-minute endorsement of Paul, had voted for Phillips in 1996 as "protest vote" against the GOP. Ron Paul spoke at the Constitution Party's fundraiser in 2009, as did John Birch Society president John McManus.
Reconstructionists share the worldview of the John Birch Society, which as Adele Stan reported, has enthusiastically praised Paul's victory over Republican Trey Grayson. (In 1963 -- the year Rand Paul was born and, he claimed on Rachel Maddow's show, he would have marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. -- the John Birch Society insisted that proposed civil rights laws were "in flagrant violation of the 10th amendment," and threatened individual freedom.) On the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, in 2004, the elder Paul stated on the floor of the House, "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society." (h/t Rachel Maddow's twitter feed).
Many Christian Reconstructionists believe certain forms of slavery are biblical. As I wrote in a post last month, the resurgence of the JBS (it was a co-sponsor of this year's Conservative Political Action Conference) alongside Christian Reconstructionism signals a resurgence of the sort of mish-mash of states' rights and individual liberty arguments made by libertarians and tea partiers -- in Paul's case, federal civil rights laws are portrayed as some sort of government invasion of liberty -- in which civil rights protections are flipped on their head and portrayed as antithetical to (white people's) freedom.
Diana Butler Bass, who dissected Virginia Governor (then candidate) Bob McDonnell's thesis as a piece of Christian Reconstructionist thinking, told me after McDonnell omitted mention of slavery from his proclamation of Confederate History Month:
Others have deftly shown what's historically wrong with Paul's claims. As Blair L. M. Kelley wrote at Salon, Paul's arguments "echo the arguments made for segregation in his state before the turn of the 20th century," when, in Kentucky, a state senator "proposed a new law requiring railroads 'to furnish separate coaches or cars for the travel or transportation of the white and colored passengers.'"
At TAPPED, Adam Serwer unpacked Paul's feeble defense of his stance (claiming that he finds racism "abhorrent" and would have marched with King):
Black people had been living in the "leave it to the states" nightmare since Reconstruction, during which the war-weary North abandoned black people to the terrible lawlessness of a vengeful South. Civil-rights movement leaders were fighting for the federal government to secure their rights against the arbitrary tyranny of the political powers in the Southern states, which maintained their hold on local government through coercion and violence.
Paul seems to think that good Christians don't need civil laws (or civil rights laws, for that matter) for them to do the right thing. But it's crucial to ascertain what that "right thing" really is.
...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.
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.
Just surfing the Google morning News feed, really.
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.
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.
Bloody well right. I was hoping someone would post that quotation.
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
If we individually self govern, we are entitled to national self government. If we refuse to self control, then outside control is necessary.
That is very much what the Founders believed.
I, um, had suspected her of similar inclinations myself. I just hadn’t had the gumption to voice my suspicions out loud. But yes — the thought had occurred. Ahem.
Right, THAT would be a headline with some discernible connection to Rand Paul’s actual statement.
As a Christian; this makes me ill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.