Monday, October 15, 2007

An Open Letter to Christians regarding Decision 2008

Fellow Christians,

Our country stands at a crossroads. We have faced many difficult times, made many important decisions, in our history; but not since the 1860s have we seen such a struggle as is now underway to define this Republic, to chart its course into the future and to define its place among the nations of the world.

Many voices clamor for our attention. They offer different ideas, born of different values; but for all of the ways in which they differ, there is one element that most of them have in common: they plan to rule. They intend to force their ideals upon all of us, to use our hard-earned tax dollars to further their partisan agendas, to compete with us for the education and moral rearing of our children, to subordinate our freedoms to their pursuit of power, and to put our lives and those of our loved ones at risk for their global ambitions. They will see to it that we the people become servants of the government that was originally established to serve us. They will unapologetically undermine the values that we as Christians hold dearest: the sanctity of life, the rule of law, the sanctity of the home, the sovereignty of our country, the right to raise our children as we see fit, and the freedom to rise to the heights of our God-given potential.

Fortunately, there is one candidate who stands apart from the crowd.

Congressman Ron Paul stands alone among the current presidential contenders in opposition to the authoritarian agenda. Where so many other politicans have paid lip-service to Christian, liberty-friendly values while on the campaign trail, only to betray those ideals once elected, Congressman Paul has established a firm reputation as a statesman and a man of the highest personal integrity, one who refuses to compromise our liberties and the Constitution that enshrines them, and who actually lives by the values he claims to cherish. Not since Ronald Reagan have we been presented with a candidate for president who would restore respect for constitutional rule in Washington and would protect the values that Christians hold dearest.

The following are some of the ways that Congressman Paul, who is a professing Christian and faithful church-attender, has proven his liberty-friendly, Christian values. Click on the links to read his remarks and to view video from some of his speeches:


- As an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies in a medical career spanning forty years, Ron Paul stands firm against abortion. He has voted to prohibit federal funding of abortions, voted to ban partial-birth abortions, voted against federal funding of fetal stem-cell research, and has authored a bill entitled the Sanctity of Life Act (twice introduced in Congress), which would define life as beginning at conception, and which would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade by removing the issue of abortion from the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts. "A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person," says Congressman Paul. "For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves."


- Ron Paul believes in the traditional definition of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and in 2005, he authored the We the People Act, which would give states the freedom to pass laws regulating marriage and sexuality without risking intervention from the federal courts. Speaking in Congress on October 1, 2004, Congressman Paul stated: "I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power." Unlike many prominent so-called "family values" politicians, Congressman Paul walks the talk. He is a devoted family man and has been married to the same woman for fifty years.


- Ron Paul favors abolishing the unconstitutional Department of Education, and is committed to ensuring that "home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families". In 2001, Congressman Paul introduced the
Family Education Freedom Act in Congress. Had it passed, this bill would have provided tax credits of up to $3,000 for parents who wished to pursue private education or homeschooling alternatives. In his bill, Congressman Paul underscored the importance of giving parents primary control over the education of their children: "Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family."

Children and Health Considerations:

- Ron Paul believes that parents, not government, should be in charge of making decisions regarding the health and general well-being of children. In 2007, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 2387, the Parental Consent Act, a bill that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to pay for universal mental health screening. The bill would also have blocked federal funding for any local education entity or government agency that brought charges of child-abuse or neglect against parents who did not consent to the mental health screening of their children. Among his reasons for opposing mandatory mental health screening, Congressman Paul
states: "Forced mental health screening simply has no place in a free or decent society. The government does not own you or your kids, and it has no legitimate authority to interfere in your family’s intimate health matters...The bottom line is that mental health issues are a matter for parents, children, and their doctors, not government." Additionally, Congressman Paul fears that, "Screening programs will be influenced by politics. Children of religious parents, for example, risk being labeled 'homophobic'."

The Culture War:

- In a
2003 article on the controversy surrounding Christmas celebrations, Congressman Paul stated that what was being called an effort for tolerance was actually "a war against religion". He wrote: "The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." Congressman Paul has acted to protect our religious freedoms in the halls of Congress. In 1997, he supported a constitutional amendment that would have protected the right to "acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience" on public property, including the right of children to pray in school.

Taxes and Government Accountability:

Ron Paul has never "voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unblanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay, has never taken a government-paid junket, and does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program." He has never voted in favor of wasteful spending and "returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year." Indeed, he has earned the nickname "Dr. No" in Washington because he refuses to vote for any measure that is not specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Paul opposes the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, would take steps to abolish the I.R.S., and favors returning America to a sound currency standard. "Tax relief is important," the Congressman tells us, "but members of Congress need to back up tax cuts with spending cuts – and they need to vote NO on every wasteful appropriations bill until we start over with the federal budget. True fiscal conservatism combines both low taxes and low spending."

American Sovereignty:

- Congressman Paul opposes all attempts to override American sovereignty, including the idea of
forming a North American Union by joining the United States, Mexico and Canada under a common government and currency. He supports securing our borders against the current tide of illegal immigrants, particularly by denying illegal aliens access to welfare, and stands against attempts to grant amnesty to illegals currently in the United States. In 2003, he authored the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would have removed the United States from the United Nations and protected Americans against attempts to bring this country under international control. Commenting on the globalist threat, Congressman Paul states: "Perhaps the most seriously damaged victim of this approach is our own constitutional republic, because globalism undermines both the republican and democratic traditions of this nation. Not only does it make a mockery of the self-rule upon which our republic is based, it also erodes the very institutions of our republic and replaces them with international institutions that are often incompatible with our way of life."

Freedom and Privacy:

- "It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free,"
writes Congressman Paul. "We need not be ignorant of real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power." Congressman Paul has been outspoken in his opposition to such recent federal measures as the Patriot Act and the REAL ID Act, on the basis that they are unconstitutional and unnecessary usurpations of our liberties. He argues that they actually make us less safe because they remove the protections our Founding Fathers provided in order to guard us from tyranny, and detract from efforts to identify and neutralize true terrorists. He believes that freedom is the best security, that the Constitution should be our guideline in both foreign and domestic affairs, and that no one, including the President of the United States, should be above the law. To that end, he would end illegal wire-taping and other domestic spying programs and re-instate the rule of law. "Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do," he writes. "All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that."

War and the Terrorist Threat:

- Congressman Paul strongly believes that our military should be used only to defend our national interests, not to enforce U.N. policy or to engage in nation-building campaigns. Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war on the basis that Iraq was not a threat to us and had nothing to do with the events of September 11, 2001. He believed that, in attacking Iraq for the purpose of enforcing U.N. resolutions, we were deviating from the historical Christian concept that the only just war is a defensive war, and that we should have concentrated on tracking down those who were directly responsible for 9-11. He maintains,
in conjunction with government findings such as those of the 9-11 Commission, that our current interventionist foreign policy was largely responsible for provoking the 9-11 attacks, and that our on-going occupation of Iraq is intensifying anti-U.S. sentiment across the globe and endangering our national security more than ever. Congressman Paul also has concerns regarding how the Iraq war is affecting Christians in Iraq: "The sad fact is that even under the despicable rule of Saddam Hussein, Christians were safer in Iraq than they are today. Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister was a practicing Christian. Today thousands of Christians have fled Iraq following our occupation...many Muslims see all that we do as a reflection of Western Christianity, which to them includes Europe and America. They see everything in terms of religion. When our bombs and sanctions kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, they see it as an attack on their religion by Christians."

In response to criticism of his foreign policy ideals, including charges of "isolationism", Congressman Paul recently
stated: "A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world." Ron Paul believes that it is time to bring our troops home. Saddam Hussein is gone, Iraq has a new government that is capable of taking over and maintaining order, al Qaeda is using our presence on Muslim soil as a recruiting tool, and U.S. government posturing is threatening to renew and expand conflict in the region. It is also interesting to note that, to date, Congressman Paul has received a greater percentage of campaign contributions from active-duty military than any other presidential contender, Republican or Democrat. Clearly, a large portion of our men and women in uniform agree with his foreign policy stance. See the following link for an in-depth debate of the U.S. foreign policy issue:

Fellow Christians, our government is out of control. It has taken on a mind and will of its own, far different from that which our Founders intended. Our highest elected officials no longer recognize the supreme authority of the Constitution that each of them swore to uphold upon entering office. As far as they are concerned, they are the law. The liberties with which we have been so blessed are being taken from us at an accelerated rate. Bureaucrats and judges are becoming more intrusive in the way we raise and educate our children. Some would even like to take away our ability to speak freely, particularly where biblical teachings offend certain special interest groups.

If America is to remain "the land of the free", if we are to honor the sacrifices of our patriotic forebearers, if we are to preserve the country and ideals that we love for future generations, we must remind our elected representatives that they are servants, not masters. We must re-instate the rule of law and respect for the limited, constitutional government that our Founders gave us. While being ever ready to act in our own defense, we must endeavor to live in peace with the nations of the world, holding forth our ideals, not by force, but by example as that "shining city on a hill" that President Ronald Reagan once challenged us to envision.

As Election 2008 heats up, only one man running for the White House has the courage, the principles, and the proven track-record to return this country to constitutionalism, freedom, and the Christian values of liberty, integrity, and the rule of law. His name is Ron Paul, and I urge you to carefully, prayerfully consider giving him your full support.

Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible, A Study of Secession and the Constitution. His articles are achived at He lives in South Carolina with his family.


Anonymous said...

There is a psychiatric / pharmaceutical plan to "suicide screen" every
child in the United States before they graduate from high school.
Evidence exists that shows massive pharmaceutical backing that will
result in even more overdrugging of kids with psychiatric drugs .

Can you take a moment to view this very short video? Click here:

And then sign and forward this petition to your associates
and everyone you know? It already has over 23,400 signatures.

It's simply a race to inform enough parents so something can be done
about this.

Federal Bill to ban funding for screening here:

Rachel said...

You rail about others wanting to force their values on you-- then you claim the right to dictate your definition of marriage to others. You bang the sad old drum of the "War on Christmas," claiming everyone should use the same words and think the same thoughts as you -- then call the other side intolerant!

Absolutely classic blindfolded navel-gazing hypocrisy.

Robert Hawes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Hawes said...


You need to read the piece again, and then think about it a bit more before you go off half-cocked.

When, in any portion of what I wrote, did I advocate forcing anyone to "use the same words and think the same thoughts" on Christmas? When did I advocate dictating my definition of marriage to anyone? Hmmm?

Answer: not once.

You are misunderstanding the purpose of this article, and are misinterpreting its tone and imperative. Its purpose was simply to introduce Ron Paul to Christians and to let them know that he is one of them, that he feels as many of them do on such issues. It was not to suggest forcing anyone to do anything.

On the marriage issue, Ron Paul favors keeping it out of federal hands, leaving it to the states. And as the states already have such authority, and are already actively using it, this changes nothing. It just keeps the federal government out of the issue. Personally, I favor keeping government, federal and state, out of the issue altogether, but letting states make their own policies is a better option freedom-wise than is forcing a one-size-fits-all policy on everyone from Washington D.C., as the GOP and Democrats would do. Under Ron's system (and mine), Massachusetts could allow gay marriage and Virginia could forbid it, and both would have to respect the others' decision.

As for the Christmas debate, Ron Paul was making the valid point that there is an increasing hostility toward religion in this country, and toward Christianity in particular. Think about it for a minute: the President celebrates Ramadan at the White House and no one blinks an eye; someone hears a Christmas carol being played over the loudspeaker at the mall though, and suddenly we need a national dialog on tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs. The PC crowd treats Christianity differently than other beliefs; to say so is not "beating a drum", it is stating a fact.

Again, the whole point here is to demonstrate to Christians that Ron Paul is one of them and that he will work to protect them from secular authoritarians who would like to dominate them and discriminate against them, not to suggest that Christians have a right to dominate anyone.

Read some of the other articles I've posted here (in particular "Government in the Wedding Chapel" and "Why Christians should consider the Libertarian Alternative") and you might better understand where I'm coming from. And remember that political power can be used for one of two purposes: to force conformity to one's agenda, or to protect oneself from others and their agendas.

And, uh, not to put too fine a point on it can one be blindfolded and gaze at one's navel at the same time?

BibAnswer said...

I found you blog. I'm not from US, so I'm not going to comment on that, but on your question in Yanswers.

Yup, that's also my concern and why I believe we should be open to mid-trib and post-trib also.

When I was in Seminary, all my professors were pre-trib, but my SysTheol prof. was post-trib.

So, I don't know, I guess I'm pre-trib ready for post-trib :)

Christopher S. Lawton said...

Fantastic Article!!! Christians this is a WAKE UP CALL!! Churches need to quit hiding behind their tax exempt status!!


1st Best Ron Paul Video
I am delighted, proud and honored to post this…

2nd Best Ron Paul Video

"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons." ~Ron Paul, Security and Liberty 04/25/2007

Anonymous said...

From his statements in recent debates, it is my take that Ron Paul is not opposed to same sex marriage. I think he is more opposed to federal law overriding state laws than anything.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in putting people in categories based on race, religion, or sexuality. He believes in individual liberty, and the rights of people to pursue happiness without government interference.