Posted on 05/22/2010 7:12:43 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
May 21, 2010
8:02AM
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 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." - (Simpson’s 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 -
http://www.religiondispatches.org/about/
While Publik Skooling continues to be dominant, Christians are increasingly turning to these two options; or at least giving them serious consideration. This is a hopeful development for the future of American society, and in this small-but-growing part of the public sphere, Rishdoony and Bahnsen were giants.
Wouldn't surprise me if there's a liberal-seminary Professor of Religion or two in that rabble. At least a liberal seminarian. Folks whose greatest identification with their claimed Religion is in attacking its historic value and virtues.
The lefties and other democrats are out in full force to get this guy. He will be the best medicine in the country among those losers now in congress when he is the next Senator from Kentucky.
"The American Prospect," with its subtitle "Liberal Intelligence," reveals what the Progressives intend to do to the nation whose foundations in liberty have allowed them the freedom to now attack those very foundations.
Paul did not say we wouldn’t need laws if we were Christians. He said if we were GOOD Christians, i.e. acted on the principles laid down by Christ.
Yes.. you’re correct; Dr. Rushdoony was solidly behind the Home School Movement, he’s written some very astute observations regarding Progressive Education..he appeared constantly in court, defending Home Schoolers as an expert witness..Rushdoony was a brilliant man, yet hardly anyone in Evangelical Christianity is familiar with him these days. This is really too bad, since, intellectually, Rushdoony is on the level of perhaps a Cornelius Van Till, or a Francis Schaeffer. His main area of interest was the application of Biblical Law in todays world.
On the other hand, Dr. Greg Bahnsen wasn’t involved too much in the Home School Movement, rather, his expertise and influence was in the area of Logic, Philosophy, and Pre-Suppositional Apologetics. Dr. Bahnsen was the protoge’ of Dr. Cornelius Van Till, at Westminster Theological Seminary, who is often called “The Father of Presuppositional Apologetics”..Bahnsen continues to be influential in this area..
Yes..Both men were Christian Reconstructionists. For GOOD reasons. (see Bahnsen’s work, “BY THIS STANDARD”..you’ll see what I mean.)
By the way, a good rule of thumb is, whenever Progressives slander and smear a person or a movement..they often MISCHARACTERIZE that person or movement...this is often a good indication that they are FRIGHTENED of what this person or movement stands for.
With this in mind...what Progressives say about Christian Reconstructionism and the people associated with it, is obviously FALSE.
I guess I was just thinking of his writing for the Chalcedon Foundation. I haven't read that much of Bahnsen's work, so I suppose I'd just say that Bahnsen contributed in the sense of helping to foster and defend a homeschooling-friendly worldview.
Yes; Bahnsen wrote some things that were helpful to the Home School Movement, I would agree with you. Most of his work can be found at the Covenant Media Foundation.
( www.cmfnow.com )
Religious speech that does not validate Obama-worship is hate speech. That’s all there is to it.
Thanks. I must read the Federalist Papers. We all should, really.
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.