Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has made it very clear that, while he is a born-again Christian, he does not like to discuss his religious views publicly:
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do.
On Homosexuality
The other day, Dr. Paul took a bold risk and appeared for a long interview by the fundamentalist, constitution-party-flag-waving The American View to discuss his personal faith and how it would translate into his actions as president. Paul was not granted any clemency and was even grilled a bit by the interviewer on subjects such as abortion, homosexuality, the infallibility of scripture and the role of government in morality. To wit:
Q: Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?
Dr. Paul: I’m not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”
Q: Do you believe God says homosexuality is a sin?
Dr. Paul: Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.
Dr. Paul would not come out and say that homosexuality was a sin or whether he though God considers it sin. His answer basically boils down to one thought: it’s complicated. For many who take the view that the Bible is the Word of God (Dr. Paul made this claim on the show), it is not very complicated - homosexual behavior is a sin, and like any sin, God does not approve. At the same time, the interviewer spent considerable time on homosexuality, seeming to speak of it as though it was a more “sinful” sin and was the root of many of the problems in the country. Perhaps Paul was shrewdly considering that by affirming a positive answer on the matter, the interviewer would attempt to solicit Paul’s sanction on some of his own ideas.
You can see this is a sticking point with the host as over half his write-up discusses this matter, concluding with:
I tell him I believe God will not bless any military that’s full of unrepentant homosexuals, adulterers and fornicators. He does not reply to this observation.
On Avoiding Hypocrisy
Clearly Dr. Paul is unashamed to proclaim that he’s a Christian, however most American politicians make this claim (see John Edwards take a good twenty seconds before he figures this out). Dr. Paul makes a strong statement about this matter, one that qualifies his statements as avoiding hypocrisy rather than timidity in faith:
I’d rather my views and my convictions and my faith be shown by my actions rather than [by] what I say… also, the part in the bible about not showing off… we’re instructed to pray quietly …[and] not to play big fanfare. I’m trying to strike something in between there; where I’m not bashful and ashamed of it, at the same time I don’t want to look like others who …look to get votes because they were willing to say and do something in public.
On the Role of Religion in Government and Society
As opposed to his host on The American View, Dr. Paul sees the role of religion in government just as he sees the role of anything in government - best applied by individuals. While a Christian cannot legislate Christianity into the law, the Christian will be personally governed by God’s law and thus his administration in civil society must be consistent. This is spelled out by Dr. Paul in clear terms:
Ultimately what has to change is the morality of the society that we have, then the law will change. So I don’t think we can solve the problem by the law.
Somehow, Dr. Paul made it out of this interview on decent terms with the host, yet he did not make himself sound like a Constitution Party acolyte. Clearly Paul is a gifted politician in that respect. At the same time, it demonstrates his ability to communicate his views clearly, with an open-mind, and preserve peace in any interchange: even one with such volatile fundamental issues.
What a bunch of crap. More religious dominionists who have no idea what the US Constitution stands for. They called it the dark ages for a reason.
Dr. Paul lives up to his goals of showing his faith by his deeds. One way is that he constantly and forthrightly answers all comers, no holds barred. I have always found his positions defensible and well-reasoned.
As one who believes “homosexuality is a sin”, let me advocate for Dr. Paul’s apparent neutrality. When I or a fundamentalist make that claim, we mean a particular definable act is morally wrong. However there is a large minority which use the word “homosexuality” to mean a predilection to take one type of action more readily than another. It is this deliberate blurring of meaning which Dr. Paul is being sensitive to by refusing to soundbite the issue. And this is by no means the only “complication”.
Compare the alcoholic predilection. Being an alcoholic is not a sin. Acting immoderately on that tendency, giving in to the temptation to abandon one’s responsibilities, is a sin. Every one of us is more easily tempted by some sins than by others, so we have no stones to throw. However, one can say almost universally that “all alcoholics have drunk to excess”, have sinned. Have you ever heard of an alcoholic who has never drunk a drop? Of course not. And we deal with those sins the same way we deal with every other sin in our own lives: the love of Christ.
So if one claims “I just biologically prefer the same gender”, though it may or may not be medically verifiable (”the way people are born”), it is certainly true that one is admitting one’s temptation or besetting sin. But (almost universally), no one makes such a claim unless they’ve actually tried the sin! Have you ever heard of a homosexual virgin? No! (There is the possibility of rare exception, and if you believe you know of one, well, more power to that person for resisting the sin.) But the deliberate confusion of the predilection that is not a sin, and the action that is, stymies the debate.
Being tempted is not a sin!
His fundamental issues, and the change he plans to bring to the US is what we have needed.
Dr. Paul lives up to his goals of showing his faith by his deeds. One way is that he constantly and forthrightly answers all comers, no holds barred. I have always found his positions defensible and well-reasoned.
I love this about Dr. Paul. Imagine almost any other candidate (besides maybe Huckabee) going on this show.
However there is a large minority which use the word “homosexuality” to mean a predilection to take one type of action more readily than another. It is this deliberate blurring of meaning which Dr. Paul is being sensitive to by refusing to soundbite the issue.
This is a great point and I think it sheds some light on why he responded the way he did. Thanks!
“I’d rather my views and my convictions and my faith be shown by my actions rather than [by] what I say… also, the part in the bible about not showing off… we’re instructed to pray quietly …[and] not to play big fanfare. I’m trying to strike something in between there; where I’m not bashful and ashamed of it, at the same time I don’t want to look like others who …look to get votes because they were willing to say and do something in public.”
VERY classy. Don’t see why any true Christian wouldn’t vote for him.
“I’d rather my views and my convictions and my faith be shown by my actions rather than [by] what I say… also, the part in the bible about not showing off… we’re instructed to pray quietly …[and] not to play big fanfare. I’m trying to strike something in between there; where I’m not bashful and ashamed of it, at the same time I don’t want to look like others who …look to get votes because they were willing to say and do something in public.”
VERY Classy. Don’t know why any Christian wouldn’t vote for him, especially after the way we were played for fools in 2000 and 2004.
Dr. P. stands for freedom for us, vs. power for the gov’t. What else needs be discussed?
especially after the way we were played for fools in 2000 and 2004.
I was 18 when I voted in 2000, and Bush sold me on his “Christian” views. I will never make that mistake again.
Oh no, you mentioned Ron Paul… watch the trolls fly in.
John Bulten, you appear to inadvertently prove Ron Paul wrong. Just as you said, who has heard of a homosexual virgin? So to say homosexuality is a sin is to describe those who have actually caved to temptation. We don’t say “Robbery is a sin” and apply that to everyone who has been tempted to steal something in their lives but did not. I don’t see people going around saying that temptation is sin. Actions and thoughs can be sin, not temptation. Otherwise, Jesus sinned.
Raymond said: “VERY classy. Don’t see why any true Christian wouldn’t vote for him.”
While I consider myself a Ron Paul supporter, I can understand why some Christians will not vote for him. A lot of Christians believe that the government can and should be used as a tool to alleviate suffering in the world.
They look to Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus tells a parable instructing people to care for the needy. “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” And what better way to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick than through government programs? Is it not a Christian’s duty to do these things? Should we not support government programs that serve the needy?
Of course I disagree. I believe that government should not be involved in charity; that is the proper role of the church. But I can understand Christians who think differently.
If it weren’t for Paul’s mostly foolish or insane foreign policies (Iraq, Iran, Darfur, etc) and his general unelectability, I would be all for him. I’ll take a compromise with Fred Thompson. He seems to not be the nanny stater that Guiliani is nor the question mark that is Romney.
nor the question mark that is Romney
Romney is no question mark. He’s a big government, pro universal healthcare neo-con.
Darius - Fred Thompson is a heck of a compromise. He lobbied for an abortion-rights group, and once expressed “no desire” to outlaw abortion.
I don’t see why Dr. Paul’s foreign policy ideas are insane, after the prior Bush/Clinton/Bush administrations, I think we could stand to scale back our international war machine.
Not Fred Thompson, please. This man has a very shady past and is a member of the elitist CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). A former lobbies, he also supported Haitian dictator Aristide. The man is a sleaze, with an “aw-shucks I’m just simple folks” pitch.
If you do not agree with Dr. Paul’s position about the war in Iraq, then how many more billions do you think are appropriate to borrow from China to keep it going? We are borrowing 3 billion per day now. How much is enough? And, how many more American men and women have to die for the oil companies before you say enough?
Blessed are the peacemakers, period.
Fred Thompson is without a doubt no conservative.
He claims to be Pro Life, but his actions all speak Pro Choice.
He Claims to be Pro Second Amendment, but his votes and actions says he is for outlawing the right to have guns.
He claims to want to stop illegal immigration, yet agreed with the John McCain version of the Senate Amnesty bill.
Fred Thompson should stay in Hollywood where he can take care of his health alot easier.
Also, with the exception of Ron Paul, all Republicans that favor the war will be beat by the Democrats.
You are wasting your vote on all of them, only Ron Paul has the higher moral ground on the war to beat the Democrats.
This man has a very shady past and is a member of the elitist CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)
Did not know he was a CFR member. It seems like every single mainstream candidate is a member.
Homosexuality is complicated if you are to have the discussion in the context of religion and secularism. Homosexuality is not a complicated matter if you are to look to God’s Word for direction.
Homosexuality is NOT A SIN! Homosexual behavior, the act of two men engaging in sexual activity is a sin (God is silent on women). All men (women included) are born in the flesh and therefore have strong urges to sin, having your thoughts run toward homosexuality is in itself not contrary to God’s word. To remain pure and have God listen to your prayers, you must repent for all sin before coming to the throne (thoughts included). However, christians would have more success fishing in the secular world if we were to adhere to the Word as it is written and not men as they attempt to explain it.
DC said: “Darius - Fred Thompson is a heck of a compromise. He lobbied for an abortion-rights group, and once expressed “no desire” to outlaw abortion.”
A President’s views on abortion make little or no difference. He really has no effect. The only way he influences abortion rights is by appoint Supreme Court Justices. The important question isn’t whether Thompson supports or opposes abortion, it’s what kind of judges will he appoint? His judicial philosophy is more important than his beliefs on abortion.
And in any case, I’m not convinced that the reports of Thompson’s pro-abortion views are accurate. According to On The Issues, Thompson consistently voted to curtail abortion rights, and has expressed his view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He denies the reports that he was ever pro-choice, and his voting record bears him out. He has promised to appoint strict constructionist Justices similar to John Roberts.
Dowe is correct. I understand this but my language is not precise enough. I have edited the article to say “homosexual behavior”.
Shalom to every Jew! One asks: “And what better way to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick than through government programs?” This is one that Dr. Paul answers head-on. Private charity can do it better.
“Should we not support government programs that serve the needy?” We do not have the choice in this country. Tax dollars go into the general fund and are immediately taken by the next tax beneficiary in line, whether it be the ADL or Planned Parenthood (that latter to the tune of $500 million in 2 years). This is why, um, private charity can do it better. Compare public and private responses after Katrina, e.g. Should we support government programs at the expense of not supporting the needy?
To Darius, I didn’t prove Paul wrong, I proved the activist twisters of words wrong. For someone in Dr. Paul’s position, refusing to pick arguments with these word-manglers is wise. In my position, I am free to pick those arguments on his behalf. So I think Dr. Paul is right on, in his position, to demur on the issue in such a format. I daresay that he’s done enough writing (10 books, 1000 newsletters, etc.) that he’s probably addressed this complicated issue with his usual depth and perspicacity at least once.
You’re right, we don’t generally apply the word “robber” to those who are only habitually tempted to steal: the word for those people is “kleptomaniac”. Again, most all kleptomaniacs have, in fact, stolen. Kleptomania is distinguishable from robbery. But in our deliberate newspeak culture, homosexual predilection and homosex are deliberately blurred.
Just for free I’ll digress to a kindred example. “Civil unions” are also being confused deliberately with “marriages”. Marriage is a God-given institution which the state has an interest in licensing. The state’s amoral interests are in at least 1) procreating children to increase population; 2) providing children with both parental roles longterm, as proven essential to their wellbeing; 3) preserving marital property rights by promoting monogamy; 4) simplifying many property rights such as transfers and inheritance. The state thereby is interested in licensing male-female couples who can contribute to its varied interests (even if the particular couple is infertile and does not meet interest #1). To this end, prior to the gay lobby act-up, gays had exactly the same rights to marry the opposite gender as anyone else.
The state might also potentially have interest in licensing a relationship which cannot procreate children, cannot provide both parental roles, and in the majority of instances does not encourage monogamy, solely because it creates shared property rights. But if so, that sort of license has already been instituted: it’s called a “limited partnership”. Again, gays have exactly the same rights to create two-member property pools as anyone else. Equal rights have been the rule.
What gays demand, however, and are increasingly getting, is a special enhanced right not available to others. They demand supersized partnership rights. Adding to the ordinary LP definition, they also demand 1) that the “civil-union” style of LP be coexclusive with marriage, i.e., I can’t obtain the property benefits of this LP if I’m married; 2) that it be allowed to adopt children equally as two-parent families do (adoption agencies don’t generally award kids to single parents, how much less to redundant single parents?); 3) that it be protected against dissolution except by court-ordered proceedings akin to divorce; 4) that it possess enhanced automatic property transfer and inheritance rights akin to marriage; 5) that it possess the same tax benefits as marriage and childrearing; and 6) that it be available only to professed gays. If this special, unequal right ever became mainstream, what’s to stop two straight guys from applying for such a “union” for a few years because of the tremendous business advantages it possesses above and beyond an LP or an S corp? They might have to lie and say they’re gay, but think of the tax savings! While this may appear ridiculous, think it through and determine why any state would have a dispassionate interest in licensing “civil unions” other than to (cough) legislate immorality through newspeak.
Zenpiper, I appreciate your writings! I understand that Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain, Clinton, and Mrs. Obama are ALL members of the Council on Foreign Relations. All should recall that these people drive the US wing of the new world order, the same as the UN. And, for one, the UN still hasn’t formally acknowledged Israel’s right to be its own nation, IIRC?
Whoever is free of sin, throw the first Rock
Love one another
That what Jesus Said
DC and Joe Lawson are either severely misinformed or outright lying about Fred Thompson. His so-called lobbying for abortion-rights was a handful of hours spent consulting AS AN ATTORNEY with some pro-abortion group in the early 90’s. As for Thompson’s “no desire” to outlaw abortion… he was being realistic and pragmatic, knowing that a President has very little control over the legality of abortion AND that the idea of abortion actually getting completely banned was not a winning one. We have to chip away at the current laws, change the hearts and minds of people, and hopefully one day arrive at a point where we can ban all abortion.
Anyone who has followed Thompson at all knows he is an old-school conservative and federalist on most issues, including guns, abortion, foreign policy, immigration, etc. He has misstepped on occasion (McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform), but in general is a solid guy. Even better, he doesn’t covet power like most of the other candidates in the race. He merely sees a need for an authentic conservative in the Republican party to step forward and serve.
“They might have to lie and say they’re gay, but think of the tax savings! While this may appear ridiculous, think it through and determine why any state would have a dispassionate interest in licensing “civil unions” other than to (cough) legislate immorality through newspeak.”
Wasn’t there an Adam Sandler movie about that recently?
I agree completely with you, John. A government has a vested interest in endorsing/protecting marriage, but to promote the SPECIAL right of people to marry within their own gender? I’m fine with “limited partnerships,” but unfortunately, that’s not what the gay lobby wants.
Once again, this just shows why all of us, religious and non religious alike, can vote for Dr. Paul.
Very good interview and he handled it correctly.
He is also someone who uses religion privately and for his own self improvement, as it should be.
Give it up already.
Who cares how literal he takes the bible? Religion is a personal thing. Personaly as an athiest I would rather not have someone pushing their religious views on me through the government. I love the way Ron Paul answered the questions..
Bulten, thanks for your response. I actually agree with Ron Paul; private charity is the correct way to help those in need. I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian–pragmatic in the sense that I recognize that compromise is needed in order to achieve anything in our current society.
And I must confess, I’m not in the least bit Jewish. Jew is just a screen name.
Darius, I’m fast becoming a Thompson fan. My favorite candidate is Ron Paul (by far) but Thompson is miles better than Giuliani, McCain, or Romney.
Dr. Paul is right, the homosexual issue IS complicated. If you take the time to study the greek texts where Paul condemns homosexuality (1 Cor. 6 and 1 Timothy 1), you will find out he is referring to prostitutes, not merely people who engage in homosexual behavior. The famous Romans 1 passage is also ambiguous.
Funny thing about Ron Paul; the more you listen to him and study what he says, the more you find out he knows what he’s talking about.
Dr. Paul is a man of truth and while that may not mean that his views are the same as everyone elses (how could they be?), he isn’t one to say whatever an interviewer wants to here, simply to gain approval. One doesn’t need to read interviews to understand this. One simply needs to look at his consistent and courageous voting record in congress. He’s lived his message and he’s served his country with openness and honesty. I support his candidacy with a level of faith I’ve not felt for any other candidate in my lifetime. Thanks.
Yeah, I like him. Since March, I’ve been promoting him on occasion on my blog, and am hoping he enters the race soon. I think he’s been very wise to stay out of the early political stuff (i.e. McCain’s rapid fall from grace). I’m not saying he’s perfect, but of the ELECTABLE candidates, he’s the best and carries the least amount of baggage. If Ron Paul stood a chance of beating Hillary in the general election, then I would consider him much more carefully.
If you take the time to study the greek texts where Paul condemns homosexuality (1 Cor. 6 and 1 Timothy 1), you will find out he is referring to prostitutes, not merely people who engage in homosexual behavior.
Cameron, an understanding of the historical context of the letter supports this view as well. Roman society did not have strict lines for homo and heterosexual - in fact there was no Latin word for “homosexual.” What Paul is referring to, if I understand correctly, is catamite-like behavior. Unfortunately in our self-righteous and judgmental society, homosexual behavior has been branded as a special, stand-alone and “more sinful” flavor of sexual sin - when there is no basis for this in the bible.
Does the writer of this article mean to suggest that in order to be a real Christian you have to wear your religion on your sleeve? Get a clue. Jesus said you can measure the genuineness of someone’s faith by the fruit they bear.
I have no problem sharing my faith publicly, but in a political context things are somewhat different. Godliness is not gain. In other words, those who seek to excel in politics or any other enterprise are not to use Jesus Christ as their stepping stone.
Besides, Jesus made clear the separation of church and state when he said that we should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give God what is his. One of the problems with American churches is confused loyalties. We have become so accustomed to hearing politics preached from the pulpit that we think its the norm, such that we question someone’s faith if they aren’t on the “religious right” bandwagon.
Let’s be clear… Ron Paul aside… but the Bible CLEARLY shows homosexual behavior to be abhorrent and SINFUL. All one needs to do is to read THE WHOLE BIBLE to understand this. However, it is a valid point to say that one should keep all sin on a somewhat equal footing (lying, adultery, hateful anger, etc) with homosexuality, even if God does appear to hold special disdain for gay behavior (He didn’t destroy Sodom because they were a bunch of liars). Fred Phelps is just as wrong as someone who says that homosexuality isn’t a sin.
Does the writer of this article mean to suggest that in order to be a real Christian you have to wear your religion on your sleeve?
No, he does not.
the Bible CLEARLY shows homosexual behavior to be abhorrent and SINFUL
Definitely.
He didn’t destroy Sodom because they were a bunch of liars
He also didn’t destroy Sodom because of their homosexuality either.
He is a constitutionalist not a Christian. He states let his record talk for him and it does. He believes in and has put his faith in a decree that in the 1700’s REPLACED the perfect and pure laws of YHWH, the creator. If they were founded in G-d then why do we need them? Since G-d’s laws are perfect, can we the people do it better? Absolutely not. YHWH is to be our G-d and we HIS people. Yahushua (many still think His name is Jesus) is our King. It’s time to stop wanting republicans and democrats and presidents and start putting YHWH’s laws back in our hearts. He is the only way! Ron Paul is no different then any other politician.
Darius, Fred Thompson will officially enter the race sometime tomorrow.
What about “ALL have sinned, and come short the Glory of God”?
I am pleased by the intelligent, well-thought out responses here. Indeed, for the most part, Ron Paul’s supporters seem to be the most aware, best educated and morally responsible.
Many of the comments are right on and add much needed clarification to issues and add valid arguments. It lifts me up to read what might have been my own comments if you had not beat me to it. WTG people! Thanks for this.
because I know that I am now going to have to bring this up:
Ezekiel 16:49-50
Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.
Homosexuality is not mentioned at all in God’s indictments. Rather pride, gluttony, laziness, greed, haughtiness and an abomination (which we can probably assume is in reference to sexual sins in general).
BTW, Ron Paul is the best kind of Christian…ONE who is NOT a hypocrite. He walks his talk.
I agree Valerie, Ron Paul has the most integrity of any candidate. That speaks volumes about what kind of man he is.
Not completely, but when He goes down to Sodom in Genesis, He’s looking to see if the city is truly as evil as He’s heard (interesting considering God’s omniscience) and what confirms it is a group of men wanting to have homosexual sex. After all, “sodomy” doesn’t pertain to a form of lying or cursing.
@Jew :
I agree that government in fact should not be involved in charity. Those who think differently should realize that their churches and religious organizations DO get a degree of charity from the government simply by virtue of being able to operate tax-free. So when people say that the government should fund their religious endeavors, I say only if the religious organizations give up their tax exempt status. Luckily for the churches, I don’t think Dr. Paul shares my view.
Colin, I will agree that “sexual sin” is possibly more accurate. But it is that, SEXUAL sin, that appears to have God’s utter disdain. He disdains all sin, but that which is unnatural to the design of mankind (homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, etc) really seems to get His ire.
Darius, he writes strongly about a lot of sins - yes, one of them is homosexual behavior. Oftentimes though, we will see the strongest indictments against it when it is being used for idolatry or when it is symptomatic of complete abandonment of God’s law.
The more I read about Ron Paul, the more I like him as a man. However, not sure that he’s any closer to winning my vote for him as a politician.
FYI wikipedia says:
“Billing records show that Thompson, who describes his position as pro-life, was paid for about 20 hours of work in 1991 and 1992 on behalf of a family planning group trying to ease a departmental regulation on abortion counseling in federally-funded clinics.[25] President George H.W. Bush eased the departmental regulation when he sent a memo to Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan stating that the regulation should allow referrals of women to facilities that perform abortion, but not to facilities whose principal business is providing abortions.[26] With this easing of the regulation, Congress failed by 12 votes to override a veto by Bush of legislation that would have completely overturned the regulation.[27]”
“He also has said that states should decide not to criminalize young women for early term abortions.[64] [65]”
So Fred successfully lobbied for federally funded clinics to refer certain abortions, i.e., due to his and others’ efforts, more abortions took place that would not have if Bush 41 had not concurred with the lobby. So what if it only took him 20 billable hours?! He also thinks early-term abortions in young women should be legal. That just ain’t pro-life, friends, it’s back to encouraging immorality.
Now in September 2007, the world financial systems and investment markets, real estate and the availability of credit are all under direct assault due to past actions of the Federal Reserve in the United States.
Read and sign the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html
Please link to the petition and forward this message to your friends and help the general public wake up during the current financial panic conditions to the problems we face from the Federal Reserve and Ron Paul’s solution.
If it is fair to try to deduce a theology or a worldview from the kinds of questions that are asked, I would say that zealfortruth.org tends toward a fundamentalist brand of protestantism. I am a Christian and I believe in fundamentals (non-negotiables) of the Christian faith–e.g., the Bible as the Word of God is completely inerrant, inspired and infallible; the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; the virgin birth of Jesus; etc. However, as a Reformed/Presbyterian Christian I would never agree to reducing the Christian faith to those fundamentals.
All that said, zealfortruth.org doesn’t seem to have very good categories. Based on the answers Dr. Paul gave here, would I vote to call him to be my pastor or to install him to be one of my elders? No. But those aren’t Dr. Paul’s aspirations. He wants to be President of the United States. The requirements for holding that office do not involve anything like Christian orthodoxy.
One of the main requirements of the President is that he uphold and defend the Constitution. Fundamentalist Christians tend to want the Constitution upheld and defended according to a double standard that favors fundamentalist Christians and punishes all others. Take for example, the issue of homosexuality. Christians want to be free to practice their religion (i.e., preach what they believe, pray as they believe, etc.) but then they turn right around and want to deny those same rights to anyone with whom they disagree. As a Christian, I believe homosexual ACTIVITY is a sin. As a citizen, I believe people when they tell me that they have always been attracted to people of the same sex–so if they want to unite themselves to someone of the same sex, I have nothing to say about it AS A CITIZEN. I’ll continue to speak the truth in love in my church (but even that truth isn’t that God hates homosexuals with a special hatred that he doesn’t hate you and me with for our particular sins–Misty Irons has written helpfully on that at www.musingson.com)
I’ve written too much, but stop making this an ordination exam. Read up on the distinction between common grace and saving grace, between “cult” and “culture.” Ron Paul is exactly what America needs as a common grace institution.
To clarify Chris, you are protesting a straw man. No one is saying God hates homosexuals… he hates the behavior.
Chris Caughey,
Thanks so much for writing that. I want to point out that zealfortruth.org did not perform the interview but was offering an analysis of the interview and Dr. Paul’s responses. If we could get Dr. Paul for an interview, I would be thrilled and I think we would provide a great service by asking more open questions on the subject of faith and politics. (maybe I should get on this?)
As for your thoughts on homosexuality, I think most of us agree with you.
Chris Caughey, the interview in question was conducted by The American View, a fundamentalist Christian outlet. Colin Elliott’s coverage here at Zeal for Truth is just a brief overview. Zeal for Truth (ZFT) tends to be more evangelical than fundamentalist; a lot (but not all) of the writers at ZFT are Ron Paul supporters.
John Bulten, so what you’re implying is that no lawyer who is a Christian should LEGALLY defend a person accused of any crime (unless he really really believes the guy is innocent). I tire of the same ol’ “he lobbied for/defended/represented a bad group/idea/policy” schtick. Another thing, that was 15 years ago. Thompson is human; thus very likely to have made some mistakes in his past (support for McCain-Feingold is another). Where is there mercy in your position that once wrong, always wrong???
*when I use the term “legally,” I meant “via the legal system.” As distinguished from someone defending a friend to others who is arrested for a crime.
I was raised a Christian and my whole family is very, very religious. -Half are Catholic and half are Protestant and they are ALL VOTING FOR DR. RON PAUL. Lying is a sin, stealing is a sin, and so is killing others for lies and wealth! Hillary is a “Christian” and so is Shit Romney, so those of us who would really wish to follow the advice of Jesus are voting for Ron Paul.
“And you will know them not by thier words, but by thier deeds”
Oh yeah, and as far as the Fred Heads are concerned, STOP CHOOSING BETWEEN WHITE AND YELLOW TOILET PAPER!
He’s a CFR piece-o-shit. On his days off, he klinks glasses with Obama and Hillary and Cheney and they all laugh it up because they all agree on the same one world government crap
Well sure Billy, but when Ron Paul loses the primaries, we’ll be faced with a choice between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. Fred Thompson may not be perfect, but I’d rather vote for him than for Clinton or Obama.
Well, that was helpful Billy.
Gotta love the ol’ “one world government” conspiracy loons. No one with their brain facing forward could seriously accuse Fred Thompson of being a proponent of a global government. For those who need to read up on what Thompson has to say for himself, go to http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/
Also, check out his weekly columns on Townhall.com.
Let me be clear. I do think homosexuality is a sin, and I don’t know how homosexuality can be separated from the sexual act itself, as someone previously suggested. But I think you would be hard pressed to find any presidential candidate (Christian, Mormon, or otherwise) who would flatly use the word “sin” in the same breath as the word “homosexual.” Okay, Brownback may be the exception.
And Dowe Kaufman’s assertion that women are somehow exempt from the Biblical prohibition of same-sex relations is just plain inaccurate (see Romans 1:27).
All that aside, this is my beef: When George W. Bush claimed to be a Christian, no one bothered to question his affiliation with the Order of Death, a.k.a. Skull & Bones, the cultic secret society whose initiates are forced to take part in Satanic rituals, including masturbating in coffins. Paul, citing his medical background, declined to identify homosexuality as sin, and all of a sudden its all, “What kind of a Christian is he?”
The Libertarian perspective on such activity is this: the government should stay out of the private affairs of its citizens. Similarly, the government would not be able to revoke the tax-exempt status of a church if it deemed the pastor’s message to be overtly partisan, etc.
So to reconcile one’s faith with one’s civic duty requires that one follow the Golden Rule. If we want the government to allow us to function independent of their watchful eye and heavy hand, we have to allow gays that same right whether we condone their lifestyle or not.
As for whether gay marriage or civil unions are concerned, those are issues to be handled at the local level. The federal government has no authority to govern such matters. And the idea of a Constitutional amendment to prohibit said unions really undermines the spirit of the document.
Personally, I think homosexuality is gross - particularly man-on-man action. I mean, your talking blood, semen, and feces…repulsive! And I’m not for gay marriage either. But look, I’m not going to lose any sleep if gays and lesbians go around thinking they’re married. So what? I’m supposed to feel threatened by that?
RON PAUL 2008!
Chris Caughey: As one Chris speaking to another, let me just say that I agree with you 100%. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Chrises of the world unite!
Ron Paul 2008!
Re: Sodom
In Jude, “Sexual promiscuity and unnatural vice” are mentioned as the reasons for Sodom’s punishment.
Chris A, I don’t care if lesbians, gays, or my pet parakeet thinks they are married. I just don’t want my government sanctioning, promoting, and paying them to be married.
I’m for State constitutional amendments; however, since most states have taken the right to vote on that matter out of their resident’s hands, I can understand the push for a Federal constitutional amendment.
Furthermore, I also don’t want homosexual marriage legally defined as an equal to hetero marriage. Once that happens, there will be nothing left to keep that worldview out of our schools (not that there is much now keeping our educators from teaching our children that homosexuality is just a matter of taste and genes).
Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations who are committed to supranational order. Ron Paul is the only candidate for President of either party that understands the stealth of internationalism disguised as Americanism…
Ron Paul seems to make a distinction between homosexuality and homosexual behavior, based on his recent comments. If that is the case, then saying homosexuality is a sin is not the same as saying homosexual behavior is a sin.
I don’t know if homosexuality is biological or not. It doesn’t matter.
Some people have a biologal propensity to flash anger or sexual aggression. That does not excuse the sinful behavior. The behavior is still sinful. Now, whether that genetic feature or brain damage is a sin, well, it is a consequence of the Fall. Is it a sin attributable to the person. Some Christians think so. It is complicated. To the saved, it does not matter, if it is a sin, it is forgiven.
In any case, we men must welcome into Christian men’s groups those who Christians may or may not have a biological homosexuality and help them and encourage them to refrain from sin. We must run from the idea that some people must be ostricised from the church because of their biology. Of course, kicking one out because of repeated sin is biblical.
There are a few who think homosexual behavior is more sinful than other sins. Some even think biological homosexuality bars one from being saved. Many find gays everywhere based on the thinist of evidence. I do not agree with this focus. Sinners are sinners. We all are. If God’s love flows through me, who am I to say that some are excluded. Whatever happened in my past, how much I cringe, God’s love, Christ’s salvation and Christ’s Church is not denied.
I’m so tired of these non-issue questions interviewers ask. He’s running to be president, not as pastor of a church. They should be asking questions like “how would you go about dissolving the Federal Reserve?” not, “is homosexuality a sin?” or “do you believe in evolution?” These are not questions we need in order to determine who becomes president.
Beautifully said Scott!
Is anyone saying that practicing homosexuals should be excluded from Christian fellowship while allowing open adulterers? I for one am not. To me, sin is sin is sin.
Secondly, I completely agree with Scott that a biological propensity doesn’t matter one iota. Many men are biologically and naturally (at least since the Fall) predisposed to polygamy. After all, who of us naturally wouldn’t enjoy “sowing oats” in many different “fields?” Or as Scott says, many men have a naturally quick temper. Doesn’t make them any less called to control that anger.
Thus, it shouldn’t matter if someone has a predisposition to homosexual behavior, anger, lust, theft, adultery, or whatever sin. They should be welcomed into the church on the condition that they cease and desist of unrepentantly engaging in that behavior.
The “homosexuality is a sin” dialog was a trap, and I’m glad Dr. Paul didn’t step in it. The interviewer’s self-righteous and smug attitude was frustrating to me. He sets up questions and prefaces them in a way that makes it difficult to respond to. Dr. Paul did a great job. The interviewer should remember that there are many just-as-egregious sins like just thinking of adultery or lacking compassion for the poor. Why does he not address these? No, the interviewer, like the hypocritical Parisee, chooses a sin he feels safely distanced from and magnifies it and himself way out of proportion. Claiming to be on the side of justice, he comes off as a clanging cymbal lacking compassion.
No, the interviewer, like the hypocritical Parisee, chooses a sin he feels safely distanced from and magnifies it and himself way out of proportion.
Tim makes a key point here - I think a lot of society choses to go on these crusades against homosexuality because a crusade against gossip or adulterous thoughts would hit too close to home.
Of all the important issues, why could you possibly care if anyone considers homosexuality a sin. It’s a non issue, considering all that is going on. I think Christians with latent homosexual feelings ask questions like that.
I would feel cursed if I was born gay, only because of people, Christian people, who make life hard on those unfortunate people!!
I agree to some extent with Colin, Tim, etc. However, there isn’t a Gossip Lobby or Adulterous Thoughts Agenda currently trying to remake two hundred year old Constitutional law. As it pertains to the church, I agree that churches should spend no more time on homosexuality than on gossip (probably more on gossip since that is usually a more common sin). As it pertains to government and politics though, homosexuality has been thrust into the spotlight not be Christians, religious nuts, or even a moron like Fred Phelps, but by gay extremists who feel that the rest of society and our government must not only tolerate (in the classical definition of the word) their behavior, but also condone it.
Darius and Jew - I don’t see how I was being misleading, as I was merely re-stating known fact. Thompson did do some work for an abortion rights group, as he (eventually) admitted. And he did make the statment that I quoted in terms of outlawing abortion.
Beyond that, I neither said nor implied anything. I presume (though I don’t really know) that Mr. Thompson is personally opposed to abortion, and would want to overturn Roe. I don’t think Thompson is some monster or communist mole … and I would guess he’s an OK guy. I was just pointing our that he would be a compromise.
And why compromise when we could have the real deal? Dr. Paul is very “electable” (whatever that means). Watch him take apart the liberals in any debate - people love what they see.
“Dowe is correct. I understand this but my language is not precise enough. I have edited the article to say “homosexual behavior”.”
Except that the interviewer asked him the other question. So his answer was correct. It’s a complicated issue. The bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, when it deals with the issue, as with the case in Sodom, the problem was in the behavior - everything was an opportunity to fornicate.
If you have a conscience and recognize that some people definitely appear to have an almost genetic pre-disposition - and there is evidence that it is hormonal during the mother’s pregnancy - then you have to wonder why a God would put such a burden on a person and then banish them to burn forever for something they didn’t ask to receive.
Furthermore, this is a very minor point when we are talking about the future of this country. The same people who pick this nit are the ones claiming we need to nuke Iran. When it comes to Christian beliefs, I’ll take Paul’s over a Fred Phelps variety.
“Gotta love the ol’ “one world government” conspiracy loons.”
The only loons are those who don’t see that the Congress and the Presidents have been pushing this since Woodrow Wilson.
What do you think the U.N is?
Thompson is a pro-war CFR member who believes that the U.S. should use its powers to…..run the world.
Oh, I hate the idea of the U.N… all it is good for is enabling some very evil governments and people in continuing their evil. I’m just saying that the same old line that Bill and Hillary and GW and Cheney all dine together while plotting the “new world order” is a joke. This is as bogus as the Rosies of the world who claim that fire doesn’t melt steel.
“I’d rather my views and my convictions and my faith be shown by my actions rather than [by] what I say… also, the part in the bible about not showing off… we’re instructed to pray quietly …[and] not to play big fanfare. I’m trying to strike something in between there; where I’m not bashful and ashamed of it, at the same time I don’t want to look like others who …look to get votes because they were willing to say and do something in public.”
Sounds to me like Dr. Paul understands what was said in James 2:1-4, 14-26, as well as Mark 12:17, and Matthew 6:5-6. Lots of fundamentalists could take lessons on that…which is why in the afterlife Falwell is going, “WTF???”
“The Revolution will NOT be televised!” RP08
I tend to agree exactly with what Chris Caughey said. My personal faith would require solid answers for the calling of a pastor but in government we need to defend the constitution and it’s citizen’s rights. If we don’t find a president that does this soon none of us will need to worry about our churches needing to call a pastor ever again, in any faith.
Darius, I am one who knows for a fact we all make mistakes and we need to admit them, attempt to make ammends and ensure they don’t happen again if possible. That’s EVERYONE. There’s not one of us that has not made mistakes but I also believe if you’re a lawyer you shouldn’t take cases you don’t believe in. That’s just integrity in my book. I know there are others with a differing viewpoint and that’s ok. Not everyone needs to agree with mine. When a person stands for what they believe in, I call it integrity. It’s something we definitely could use more of.
Dr. Paul is a decent man that should be respected as a national treasure. His kindness and understanding for the human condition makes him an ideal choice for all americans no matter what their religious belief. Funny to me how so much of the Republican Party cliaming to be Christian support undeclared premptive war, the unforgiving war on drugs which destroys more lives than the drugs themselves and the death pendalty. I thought Christians should forgive, live and let live and respect life, that is not how they all are for sure. Ron Paul and a few other Libertarians have made clear to me the difference between right and wrong and how inportant it is to have a code of ethics to govern actions and a moral conection to the choices and positions we align ourself with.
Most people would say it is wrong to kill, wrong to lie, wrong to steal, wrong to invade privacy…. but then some of those same people support and/or put up with illegal searches, the income tax system, undeclared war, police brutality, discrimination based on gender, sexual preference, race, class, non violent crime like drug use etc. Ron Paul is consistant and a true conservetive. Always has been always will be. Once you understand this mans system of ethical judgement you will see the most wonderful rationality and ballance. He is here… Hope for America!
one mention of Ron Paul… 78 comments and still going strong.
Darius said: “one mention of Ron Paul… 78 comments and still going strong.”
Just wait until we run tomorrow’s article: Ron Paul is the Antichrist
A better article dealing with much of this:
Will Ron Paul Be the Candidate of the Christian Right?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance109.html
http://www.urantia.org
I think many of you folks need to read this………..
The President, just like the Sherrif, is elected to uphold the law of the land. It matters not whether they are Christian, Jew, Hindi, or Shinto. Who cares other than the person being asked what their religion is?
As for the interviewer’s non-stop questioning on homosexuality, Paul gave the answe that he was comfortable with. If people want to say that God says it’s a sin then let me just add this. If it’s such a great sin then why is one of the 10 commandments “Thou shalt not committ adultery”? where homosexuality is not even mentioned in the top 10? If you compare the amount of adulterers to homosexuals, I think the adulterers win in numbers way ahead of the game.
The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.
No, I’m pretty sure the Urantia Book qualifies as heresy for any Bible-believing Christian. Thanks anyway, though.
aww, come on, heresy is so much fun…
I love America. I love freedom. I’m gay and I’m a human being! Vote for the constitution!! Vote for Ron Paul!!!!!!
Ron Paul should have the support of all Christians, and those who believe lying to the American public is wrong.
All politicans, judges, cops, etc. swear an oath to the Constitution. However, none of them follow their word.
Only Dr. Ron Paul supports his oath of office and all who care about honor should endorse that kind of action.
What kind of Christian is Ron Paul? A real one!
Thank God for a real Chrisitian statesman and not another phoney con artist.
He speaks with actions rather trying to tell you what a Great Christian he is.
Quite the contrast to the war loving phoney Huckabee who loves to tell you how a Great Man of God he is!
Soooo….Christians would rather be pandered to with Jesus and Mohammed handpuppets than be drawn into a mature dialogue? Goldwater was right. This party is in shambles, because a bunch of intellectual infants want Bible story time, rather than be told what the proper role of American government is (hint: it’s not there to tell people what to believe or how to live out their private lives)
Its painfully obvious to me that those who use words like “loon” or “wacko” when describing those conscious of the trend towards the New World Order, are mindlessly formulating their argument from the Fox News talking points memo.
I could reference many quotes that would substantiate one-world government as an real conspiracy (yes, I said conspiracy), but for now these two quotes will have to do:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion
for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more
sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination
practiced in past centuries.”
-David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting
in June of 1991
“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations.
When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peace-keeping role to fulfil the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”
-George H.W. Bush, September 11, 1991
I am a regular listener to The American View and encouraged John to interview Ron. I am glad it worked out. The interview has been added to http://www.vote2008ronpaul.com/
Rich said: “Soooo….Christians would rather be pandered to with Jesus and Mohammed handpuppets than be drawn into a mature dialogue?”
I don’t think Christians would much like to see a puppet show starring Mohammed. Perhaps you’re thinking of Muslims?
Chris Austere said: “Its painfully obvious to me that those who use words like “loon” or “wacko” when describing those conscious of the trend towards the New World Order, are mindlessly formulating their argument from the Fox News talking points memo.”
I wouldn’t use those words exactly, but I do tend to agree with them. And no, I don’t watch Fox News–nor CNN, nor any other major television news outlet. It would behoove you to present your case without derogating those who disagree.
I certainly believe there are some folks out there who are pushing for one world government, but they are hardly mainstream. George H. W. Bush’s stated support for the goals of the United Nations can hardly be construed to support one world government. The UN’s role as a peacekeeping institution does not put it in conflict with the idea of multiple national governments.
Thank you, Jew, for dismantling Chris Austere’s comments. I also don’t watch Fox News (or any major news for that matter). I agree that there are some who are pushing for one world order, and perhaps even some of our leaders at one point or another thought of that as a good idea. That quote of H.W. Bush’s has been floated out there for 15 years now as “proof” that we’re going to some new world order and that Repubs and Dems alike are leading the charge. Recently, there was some sad, pathetic scare that we were going to combine with Mexico and Canada and form a North American Union (much like the EU). Pleasssse.
I disdain the U.N. as much as the next conservative/libertarian, but it’s hardly one world order. Pretty much every country in the world (including our own) frequently flaunts the U.N. It’s a sham of an institution, and has caused more harm than good in its history. It has rarely kept peace, and more recently almost always has sided with the wrong or evil side in a world dispute. Not to mention the Oil-For-Food scandal and the child abuse by U.N. employees in the Third World.
Jew, I don’t think Muslims would like a handpuppet in the form of Muhammed either, they probably would riot.
Jew, did you see Fred Thompson on Leno last night?
Fred Heads Unite!
No, I didn’t watch Thompson on Leno. I was busy watching the Texas Rangers eke out a 3-2 win over the Kansas City Royals.
Brad Wilkerson’s aggressive baserunning made the difference. In the seventh, Wilkerson took second base after tagging up on a pretty shallow fly ball. If the Royals didn’t suck at throwing, he would have been an easy out. Then on the next hit ball, Wilkerson rounded third and headed for home. The throw came in plenty of time, but the catcher let it bounce through his legs. Score a run for Texas.
Then Texas ended the top of the eighth when Jamey Wright picked off a runner at first base.
Yeah, the Royals are like that, one game they beat the Yankees and the next they couldn’t be the neighborhood 12 year olds.
As a christian, republican and brother of a gay person I do not believe that Jesus would condemn a person to hell who tries to live a good life and does not force their way of life upon another.
My brother has told me many times he does not know why he has the feelings he does, but he lives a good life, is faithful to his partner, and cares for our sick mother on a daily basis. He is a loving person and I am proud of him because of who is he, not who he sleeps with in the privacy of his own home. Jesus teaches us to love each other and let these types of decisions to GOD in the end.
As for Ron Paul, in a previous article by pastor Chuck Baldwin, Dr. Paul is quoted as saying this….
“I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.”
That’s good enough for me.
Religion has no place in American politics, especially when America is made up of a population of Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, New Agers, Santerians, Voudouns, Houdouns, etc. Which religion are you gonna choose for everyone else to follow? Blatant discrimination is not what America was founded on, and it’s why Christianity has no place in American politics. Keep your Christianity at home!
Buddhist, religion in politics is not the same thing as legislating morality. It just means recognizing that politicians and citizens are religious, and that it’s not unconstitutional to publically acknowledge that. Allowing religious people to voice their opinions in the public political sphere is something we should encourage, not stamp out.
It is antithetical to American values to expect citizens to hide their religion in the privacy of their homes. The Constitution recognizes the right to free speech and a free press, and a free exercise of religion. Religion is personal, yes, but it is not private. The US Constitution protects the right of citizens to practice their religion in public.
If you say “Keep your Christianity at home!” then I must respond by asking “Have you read your Constitution lately?” Freedom of religion for all is a foundational American value.