tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768309175896429868.post1793271207139702251..comments2023-10-10T09:28:38.051-04:00Comments on The Jeffersonian: An Open Letter to Christians regarding Decision 2008Robert Haweshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463857625543684564noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768309175896429868.post-85597800650507550492007-11-02T12:29:00.000-04:002007-11-02T12:29:00.000-04:00From his statements in recent debates, it is my ta...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. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768309175896429868.post-53091443399727521882007-10-28T19:40:00.000-04:002007-10-28T19:40:00.000-04:00Fantastic Article!!! Christians this is a WAKE UP ...Fantastic Article!!! Christians this is a WAKE UP CALL!! Churches need to quit hiding behind their tax exempt status!!<BR/><BR/>GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL! <BR/>RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!<BR/><BR/>1st Best Ron Paul Video<BR/>I am delighted, proud and honored to post this…<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA<BR/><BR/>2nd Best Ron Paul Video<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ <BR/><BR/>"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 04/25/2007Christopher S. Lawtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661332310162240226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768309175896429868.post-81472576769589765332007-10-26T16:46:00.000-04:002007-10-26T16:46:00.000-04:00I found you blog. I'm not from US, so I'm not goin...I found you blog. I'm not from US, so I'm not going to comment on that, but on your question in Yanswers.<BR/><BR/>Yup, that's also my concern and why I believe we should be open to mid-trib and post-trib also.<BR/><BR/>When I was in Seminary, all my professors were pre-trib, but my SysTheol prof. was post-trib.<BR/><BR/>So, I don't know, I guess I'm pre-trib ready for post-trib :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768309175896429868.post-81953424293377614042007-10-16T22:53:00.000-04:002007-10-16T22:53:00.000-04:00Rachel,You need to read the piece again, and then ...Rachel,<BR/><BR/>You need to read the piece again, and then think about it a bit more before you go off half-cocked.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Answer: not once. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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 <I>and</I> 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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>And, uh, not to put too fine a point on it but...how can one be blindfolded and gaze at one's navel at the same time?Robert Haweshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463857625543684564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768309175896429868.post-67034429953354948662007-10-16T22:50:00.000-04:002007-10-16T22:50:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robert Haweshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463857625543684564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768309175896429868.post-24555719527205699192007-10-16T17:48:00.000-04:002007-10-16T17:48:00.000-04:00You rail about others wanting to force their value...You rail about <I>others</I> wanting to force their values on <I>you</I>-- 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!<BR/><BR/>Absolutely classic blindfolded navel-gazing hypocrisy.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08723187673895759210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768309175896429868.post-15760421108054915162007-10-16T13:26:00.000-04:002007-10-16T13:26:00.000-04:00There is a psychiatric / pharmaceutical plan to "s...There is a psychiatric / pharmaceutical plan to "suicide screen" every<BR/>child in the United States before they graduate from high school.<BR/>Evidence exists that shows massive pharmaceutical backing that will<BR/>result in even more overdrugging of kids with psychiatric drugs .<BR/><BR/>Can you take a moment to view this very short video? Click here: <BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY<BR/><BR/>And then sign and forward this petition<BR/>http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html to your associates<BR/>and everyone you know? It already has over 23,400 signatures.<BR/><BR/>It's simply a race to inform enough parents so something can be done<BR/>about this.<BR/><BR/>Federal Bill to ban funding for screening here:<BR/>http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h2387_ih.xmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com