Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul?

[FREE RIFLEMAN]

Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul?
By Chuck Baldwin
February 27, 2007


This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070227.html


Evangelical Christians are already beginning the
process of selecting the Republican presidential
candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to
George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this
deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How
they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes
me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most
evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that
illusion is greater than reality,anyway. Bush proves
that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough
about Bush.

The question burning in the minds of evangelicals
today is: Which Republican candidate for president
will we anoint? There are several possibilities, but
apparently Congressman Ron Paul is not one of them.

For example, Jerry Falwell's widely distributed
National Liberty Journal, in its March 2007 edition,
had a major section entitled "Campaign
2008-Identifying the Republican Presidential
Candidates." A total of
ten Republicans made the Journal's list. The ten
listed were Sen. Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Rudy
Giuliani, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep.
Duncan Hunter, Sen. John McCain, Gov. George Pataki,
Gov. Mitt Romney, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.

However, even though Rep. Ron Paul has also formed a
presidential exploratory committee (something Gingrich
has not even done yet), his name was conspicuously
absent from Falwell's list. Why is this? Why do
evangelicals ignore Ron Paul?

Ron Paul received his Bachelor's degree from
Gettysburg College. He received his MD from Duke
University. He began his OB/GYN career in 1968. He was
also an Air Force Captain and a member of the Air
National Guard.

Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from
Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100%
rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably
the most relevant and accurate reflection of a
congressman's
true conservative record out there.

Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul's
commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric.
For example, during the 2005 congressional session,
Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity
of Life Act of 2005."

Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the
personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human
life shall be deemed to exist from conception."
The bill also recognized the authority of each State
to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition,
H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying
the Roe v Wade
decision, and would have denied funding for abortion
providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have
ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting
to me that none of the evangelicals' pet politicians,
including George W. Bush, even bothered to support
Paul's pro-life bill.)

In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken
defender of constitutional government in the entire
congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually
alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and
big government.

Currently, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of
congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging
North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the
Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of
which are being promoted by the White House in concert
with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Speaking of the CFR, two of the U.S. senators listed
as presidential candidates in Jerry Falwell's Liberty
Journal, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, are current
members of the CFR.

For his entire political career, Ron Paul has served
foursquare upon the principles of constitutional
(limited) government, less taxation, right to
life, and personal liberty. Ron Paul is a
conservative's conservative, a principled
constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it,
then, that Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals ignore
him?

The answer to the above question is not easy to
determine. Maybe today's evangelicals are more
concerned about being accepted by the GOP
establishment than they are supporting principled,
conservative
candidates. After all, Paul's willingness to openly
oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted
by party loyalists and apologists. Therefore, it
might be that our illustrious evangelical leaders are
unwilling to be identified with Paul lest they share
the same ostracism.

Another reason might be that today's evangelicals are
extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to
love Republican candidates who wear religion
on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk
does not seem to matter near as much as whether he
talks the talk.

Hence, evangelicals are already warming up to John
McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and even to Rudy
Giuliani. Falwell's National Liberty Journal (NLJ)
calls Gingrich "a true American statesman." McCain is
called "pro-life." Already, McCain has spoken for Dr.
Falwell at his Liberty University. (Don't be surprised
if Falwell becomes one of McCain's strongest
proponents.) The NLJ quotes Evangelicals for Mitt as
saying, "Gov. Romney .. . shares our values." Of
Giuliani, NLJ states, "On issues such as national
security, battling terrorism and combating crime, Mr.
Giuliani is very popular with conservatives."

However, the truth is, neither Gingrich, Giuliani,
Romney, nor McCain deserves the support of principled
conservatives. Each of these men has numerous examples
of failure and compromise of essential conservative
values.

Another trap evangelicals seem to fall into is the
puerile desire to "pick a winner." Wanting to be sure
that they are seen dancing with the last man on
the floor, evangelicals are trying to figure out who
that man will be so as to be ready to receive their
invitation to the dance. And since they don't expect
to see Ron Paul issuing dance invitations, they have
already written him off.

However, rather than letting themselves be used as
dupes by the GOP machine, if America's evangelicals
would determine to stand on principle by supporting
only those candidates who most courageously champion
our principles (regardless of their popularity, or
lack thereof, with the Republican hierarchy), they
might actually be able to bring real change to
American politics.

As it is, evangelicals continue to call George W. Bush
"one of us," they continue to drink Kool-Aid from the
faucet of Republican propaganda, and they continue to
ignore Ron Paul.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

[Arizona Highlander]

This whole topic is so complicated that I had to stew it over for a few days to get my thoughts together . . . but here goes:

I do agree with most of the author’s conclusions, but there were a few things I’d elaborate on:

1. “If you support a winner, you’re a winner, too.” The author mentions the Evangelical’s need to “pick a winner,” but I think it goes deeper than that. I think that the Evangelicals (at least the major ones, who I think are way too ego-driven) seem to have the attitude that if they support a losing candidate - even if he’s morally superior - it will end up diminishing their own power and prestige.

So, they always side with the (corrupt) Republican power establishment’s choice, rather than risk the loss of political influence they’d suffer if they backed a losing horse.

2. Intentional short-term thinking by Evangelicals. I related in another thread about attending a lecture by Bo Gritz back in the early 1990’s. It was the usual conspiracy theory stuff (which, I admit, I don’t ENTIRELY dismiss . . .) about the government’s alleged plans to barcode everybody, which he maintained would ultimately be the “mark of the devil.” But, Gritz concluded that he wasn’t that worried, because as a Christian, he was confident that the return of the Lord was just around the corner, and that He’d make everything right upon His arrival.

I winced a little at what I deemed Gritz’ simple-mindedness, but I’ve found it to be commonplace among the Evangelical types. Their almost exclusive focus on short-term social issues - abortion, gay rights, etc. - seems to stem from the view that the grander agendas of the world’s power elites (a one-world socialist government?) are not only irrelevant, but perhaps even a hopeful sign that the Lord’s return is imminent.

3. Authoritarian streak among Evangelicals. I’ve NEVER noticed much sympathy among Evangelicals for the kind of live-and-let-live, limited government structure advocated by people like Ron Paul. While the policies of Bill Clinton might have enraged the Evangelical types, Evangelicals fully embraced the power and authority of the state as soon as “their” man entered the oval office.

I thought it was interesting that FEMA has apparently made it a point to quietly contact hundreds of pastors, urging them to remind their flock of the biblical command that people be obedient to their government (“Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God . . . ” ROMANS 13). Pastors were asked to convince the public to set aside their “cowboy mentality,” and be prepared to relinquish their firearms and private property to the authorities when they're commanded to do so.

I think this is total bullshit, but most of the Evangelical types will insist that I’m on a one-way trip to Hell because I stubbornly refuse to bow to this biblical command.

Too bad, really, that Ron Paul - almost certainly the most honest and moral guy in the presidential race - will likely never be acknowledged by the Evangelicals. But, given all of the above, is anybody surprised?

[Dr. X]

I think this is total bullshit, but most of the Evangelical types will insist that I’m on a one-way trip to Hell because I stubbornly refuse to bow to this biblical command...

I guess you'll have company, AH, 'cos I ain't buyin' it neither...:mad:

as ever,
Dr. X :cool:

[FREE RIFLEMAN]

Well, I think most of you know where I stand on this. While I am a Christian, I am also an un-reconstructed Confederate-Abolitionist, Non-Interventionist, Deontological-Libertarian. I believe I am on the minority-side of every argument, it seems. Even now, most Christians would argue my point here.

In Luke, Jesus told his disciples to sell their coats (essential for desert survival) and buy a sword. They had two, and Jesus said that was enough. Now, I don't think the Romans allowed Jews to be running around with swords, maybe daggers, but swords were an MBR in its time. Christ wanted them to focus on his real purpose for coming, as I recognize, too. Jesus chastized Peter to lopping an ear off, but that man was unarmed and it was done out of anger. If he didn't like them, he would have told them to leave them behind, but I believe it was because he knew they would need them in the future, which we really don't know that much about, other than we are told they were cruxified upside down. Maybe they went willingly, maybe they didn't.

With times as they are, I believe that Christ's return may be very near, and I will have to apologize for a lack of faith, but I have to have a backup plan.

[MdlMkr 7.62]

I guess you'll have company, AH, 'cos I ain't buyin' it neither...:mad:

as ever,
Dr. X :cool:


I'm with Dr X on this one.

7.62 :cool:

[funfaler]

A couple of points kind of stuck out to me as I read the article (though quickly) and the posts.

1. Many Christians have no understanding of Libertarian views and how they relate to the Constitution and the founding of this country. They are in the same trap as the Liberals in thinking that Government is the answer to their problems, they just need the right people to run the government. They don't hold that limited government is their goal, just the "right" government. Most have not idea what is in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Most would not be truly willing to accept a Constitutional government if it was available to them, at their choice. This is just a function of ignorance of the founding of this nation and in some cases Biblical ignorance.

2. The reference to Romans as a reason to "submit" to whatever government says is not valid. If a Christian allows tyranny based on this passage, it is based on a lack of understanding of this passage. If such was the case, then it would have been a Scriptural mandate for Christians to support Hitler, for Christians to support Stalin, and for Christians to feed each other to the Lions in Roman days. There are plenty of Scriptural passages that demonstrate Christians being defiant to the standing government, and plenty of mandates for Christians to NOT support their government under certain circumstances. To rely on this passage as a "mandate" to do what government tells you, no matter what, is a false, mistaken view of the Bible, and quite often is used as an excuse to not buck the system by ignorant people.

3. For Christians to hold the view that they need to do nothing to stop a tyrannical government because it is a sign of the soon coming of the Lord, is just more ignorance of the Bible. Plenty of passages urge Christians to do the Lord's work here on Earth UNTIL He returns, not until you think He might be showing up some day soon. For a Christian to sit back and not lift a finger to oppose tyranny because Jesus will be here soon and take us away, is NON-Biblical. Christians are promised hard time, persecution and troubles, not an easy ride. There are thousands of Christians being slaughtered all over this world, no reason to think that American Christians will be spared.

My point is, while there are many that are held up as Christian leaders, they can not speak for Jesus or the Bible. They are only human and they are fallible. I truly think that many in the Christian/evangelical movement are wrong in their views on government, and this is a result of them being wrong on their understanding of the Bible, either through ignorance or willfulness.

While it is not in any of us to judge someone's heart for the Lord, we can view their fruits, labors and attitudes to make an educated guess as to their understanding of the Bible. Unfortunately, the lack of understanding of the Bible, and the lack of understanding of our history and founding, leads many to come to the wrong conclusion of what it right. I have seen many a Christian profess political views that are anti-Biblical and anti-Constitution just because a "Christian leader" has said it. I have like wise seen many a "Libertarian" pose views that are anti-Constitutional, anti-Founders, because they wish not to accept the Biblical foundation of this nation. Liberty, for better or worse, is not available to any religion than Christianity. The Founding Fathers understood this very well, wrote about it, discussed it, and said that the Constitution would falter if the Biblical roots of this nation were abandoned. Liberty in government starts with Liberty with the Lord. He has given ALL of us free will, free choice, it is man/government the can not grant that nor can regulate that. Liberty without restraint is not Liberty, but mayhem and lawlessness.

While I would much rather this country be run by true Libertarians than big government Christians, I don't suspect we will have any real say in the matter. There are too few "true Libertarians", and too few "real Christians", and far too many big government lovers in this nation.

Wow, so much for a quick post, and all the proper disclaimers apply.