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.
What, the author’s extreme bias against people of faith?
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.
Am re-reading; and slowly. . .
(You quote John Adams)
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
But he IS a Communist
Right. Liberals seem to assume that the average white American secretly hates blacks and is just itching to do some discriminatin’ against them if only given the chance. But maybe that view of things says more about their own social circles, than the great unwashed Middle America they seek to “fix”.
If this were so; we would not have Leftists/Progressives i.e. today's Democrats.
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?
I’m not sure. I wondered that myself, but hadn’t tried to Google up any relation just yet.
Maybe another Soros capo? The MSM have the long knives out for Paul!
She’s just another Christian hater. A real whack job I might add.
She wrote a book attacking Christian fundamentalists. The ones who fight in wars to defend her right to bash them.
People get so upset when someone says something that 20 years ago would have been considered self evident.
It’s not a trivial point. Their anger over their disorders not being accepted by society causes them to lash out at the most visible targets of their internal rage. Most of the contributors to a web site like this hail from the group of people suffering from internal conflicts over sexual perversion and guilt over abortion. More and more these days the euthanasia crowd are also burying their guilt and pain by attacking the voices of morality.
They are doing it by expanding the purview of government over everything. All Christians should be libertarian. Give God the maximum freedom to work in this world. He isn’t satisfied with 1 hour a week in a tiny sanctuary.
And yet she's editor of an online "Religion" magazine. Of sorts.
It wouldn't terribly surprise me if she considers herself a "liberal Christian".
FACT: Not all christians, are christians..
You're right, it's not a trivial point. I guess I just felt impolitic in pointing it out.
But I don't object to you doing so, and I understand (and largely agree) with your points
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." - (Simpsons 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.
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
Madison in Federalist No. 51 adresses 2 points. The need for government and the need for "Controls" (chains) on government.
Yes -- but amongst all the speeches and soundbites of that campaign, I thought that was one of the smarter, and in some ways more appreciably genuine, things that GWB ever said!
Your post to that effect was excellent, much obliged for the good read.
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.
Thanks... and yeah, I agree. The disassociation was so severe, I felt it just had to be shared. This sort of thing really is the Leftists’ idea of good Religion Journalism.
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 Board of this trashy mag sounds like a who’s who of secular one world limo liberals -