Rand Paul At Pastors' Breakfast: Says It's Time For Revival
- Thread starter G4JC
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Rand Paul just lost a large number of libertarian voters due to his betrayal of the First Amendment.
Rand Paul, "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government."
What many Christians THINK the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law prohibiting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof..."
What the First Amendment ACTUALLY says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
If you want the government to pander to religion, fine. But do NOT act like it's constitutional. If you don't agree with the constitution, just say it and stop acting like the constitution says something it doesn't.
Rand Paul, "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government."
What many Christians THINK the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law prohibiting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof..."
What the First Amendment ACTUALLY says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
If you want the government to pander to religion, fine. But do NOT act like it's constitutional. If you don't agree with the constitution, just say it and stop acting like the constitution says something it doesn't.
"Respecting" actually means "in regards" or "as it pertains to."
The context of the Establishment Clause is in regards to a state religion being created. Remember, back when the Bill of Rights was written there were different religious denominations at the forefront of the different states. The Founders did not want any specific religion to become a state religion whereby the individual right to the free exercise thereof would be infringed.
It had nothing to do with barring religion from public life or office. It had everything to do with eliminating the possibility of religion being mandatory in public life or office. So if someone wants to say a prayer before Congress they are free to do so, if they do not, then they are free to not do so as well. So technically Rand Paul is correct.
You'll find the same word "respecting" used in Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America.
On a side note, I would not call Rand Paul a Libertarian. His position on drug use is far from anything that could be called libertarian. He panders for votes just like the rest of them.
The context of the Establishment Clause is in regards to a state religion being created. Remember, back when the Bill of Rights was written there were different religious denominations at the forefront of the different states. The Founders did not want any specific religion to become a state religion whereby the individual right to the free exercise thereof would be infringed.
It had nothing to do with barring religion from public life or office. It had everything to do with eliminating the possibility of religion being mandatory in public life or office. So if someone wants to say a prayer before Congress they are free to do so, if they do not, then they are free to not do so as well. So technically Rand Paul is correct.
You'll find the same word "respecting" used in Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America.
On a side note, I would not call Rand Paul a Libertarian. His position on drug use is far from anything that could be called libertarian. He panders for votes just like the rest of them.
V
As one who is essentially Libertarian, Paul was mostly pandering to his audience in that speech. In January, The candidate-watching "ontheissues.org" website posted these remarks from Paul in January about his faith:
While that doesn't negate him feeling the need for a national spiritual revival, it doesn't speak very solidly to him being all gung ho for one to happen, either. And there are the questions which some believe he has never sufficiently answered that he belonged to the Christianity-mocking NoZe Society while he was at Baylor in 1983, along with some other rather bizarre allegations that a swim teammate voiced to GQ Magazine in an interview in the summer of 2010.
FactCheck, the questionably slanted political rumor-tracker, found some basis for the allegations, but more or less negated them to oblivion by labeling them "over the top" and nothing more than "boys will be boys" behavior among college kids.
While that doesn't negate him feeling the need for a national spiritual revival, it doesn't speak very solidly to him being all gung ho for one to happen, either. And there are the questions which some believe he has never sufficiently answered that he belonged to the Christianity-mocking NoZe Society while he was at Baylor in 1983, along with some other rather bizarre allegations that a swim teammate voiced to GQ Magazine in an interview in the summer of 2010.
FactCheck, the questionably slanted political rumor-tracker, found some basis for the allegations, but more or less negated them to oblivion by labeling them "over the top" and nothing more than "boys will be boys" behavior among college kids.
You're trying to ignore "no laws respecting an establishment of religion" by twisting it around to mean the exact same thing as ,"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is clearly wrong because it would be redundant. It would be like saying, "Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. This means they can not create laws that pander to any religions or religious views, less it be unconstitutional. They are not allowed to create laws that prohibit, for examples, Christians from wedding only heterosexual Christian couples. But, at the same time, it is unconstitutional for Congress to ban gay marriage on the premise of Christian doctrine. If homosexuality is to be banned, they have to do it for non-religious reasons.
In this regard, you are correct.
We may be on the same page with this one.
True. It's unfortunate he's the closest thing we have to a popular libertarian candidate.
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. This means they can not create laws that pander to any religions or religious views, less it be unconstitutional. They are not allowed to create laws that prohibit, for examples, Christians from wedding only heterosexual Christian couples. But, at the same time, it is unconstitutional for Congress to ban gay marriage on the premise of Christian doctrine. If homosexuality is to be banned, they have to do it for non-religious reasons.
In this regard, you are correct.
We may be on the same page with this one.
True. It's unfortunate he's the closest thing we have to a popular libertarian candidate.
I don't think I have ignored anything. The First Amendment recognises the prohibition of the Federal Government to make any law that pertains to an establishment of religion. In other words they cannot pass a law that requires an individual to observe any particular religion.
The First Amendment is not a restriction on religion in government.
As for marriage, the Federal Government ought not have any business whatsoever in that area. Nor should state governments. The only reason they do is because people have accepted adhesion contracts with the state in which the latter is the superior party.
I think it would be better if the state simply treated marriage as a right to contract between two individuals and thus the disparity of an adhesion contract is avoided. Unfortunately such an avenue is highly unlikely because people generally have the mindset that a legitimate marriage is state approved. Thus the whole debate of whether homosexuals ought be able to marry is argued within the adhesion paradigm.
The First Amendment is not a restriction on religion in government.
As for marriage, the Federal Government ought not have any business whatsoever in that area. Nor should state governments. The only reason they do is because people have accepted adhesion contracts with the state in which the latter is the superior party.
I think it would be better if the state simply treated marriage as a right to contract between two individuals and thus the disparity of an adhesion contract is avoided. Unfortunately such an avenue is highly unlikely because people generally have the mindset that a legitimate marriage is state approved. Thus the whole debate of whether homosexuals ought be able to marry is argued within the adhesion paradigm.
I would say it boils down to foundations and the kind of libertarian we are discussing.
Libertarians who believe in the rule of law and traditional notions of morality are embracing a largely Christian approach to governance.
Libertarians whom Russel Kirk described as anarchists in bourgeoisie dress are another story entirely. Of course, he would have claimed those are the real libertarians. The former are conservative fellow-travelers.
Libertarians who believe in the rule of law and traditional notions of morality are embracing a largely Christian approach to governance.
Libertarians whom Russel Kirk described as anarchists in bourgeoisie dress are another story entirely. Of course, he would have claimed those are the real libertarians. The former are conservative fellow-travelers.
R
well we can start with his foreign policy of not getting involved in anything unless it directly affects us...which basically hinges on the rhetorical question 'am i my brother's keeper?'...the question cain asked in response to God's demand that cain give an accounting for his brother...
we could also compare his 'noninterventionist' foreign policy with this principle and see that they are a pretty good match...
"When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him."
want to guess whose principle this is?
we could also compare his 'noninterventionist' foreign policy with this principle and see that they are a pretty good match...
"When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him."
want to guess whose principle this is?
Rather than get in the nitty gritty myself, I'll leave you with the best paper I've ever read concerning how conservatives should view libertarianism.
A Dispassionate Assessment of Libertarians
Let me know what you think of it. I don't agree with the whole thing, but a few valid points are made.
A Dispassionate Assessment of Libertarians
Let me know what you think of it. I don't agree with the whole thing, but a few valid points are made.
J
How is the meddling of another countries affairs and senseless killing a Christian principle, because that is the basis of what our interventionist foreign policy has turned into?
Now, how can any "evangelical conservative" (speaking in general and not directed at you, but I will use your quote) talk about "Am I my brother's keeper" which was, according to scripture, a snark remark that Cain gave to God, but never ask the question "who is my neighbor," or more importantly adhere to the command of Jesus in Matt 5:44.
To be truthful, the interventionist policy of the "evangelical conservative" revolves solely around one country.
Now, how can any "evangelical conservative" (speaking in general and not directed at you, but I will use your quote) talk about "Am I my brother's keeper" which was, according to scripture, a snark remark that Cain gave to God, but never ask the question "who is my neighbor," or more importantly adhere to the command of Jesus in Matt 5:44.
To be truthful, the interventionist policy of the "evangelical conservative" revolves solely around one country.