Political Views That Astound Me.

Every once in a while, I’m stunned by another’s political views.  That’s when I hear or read views are so far from mine I can’t quite comprehend how someone could think that way.  I’m aware, of course, my views are equally baffling to some others.

Such views are on Worldmag.com and were submitted by someone named D. C. Innes.  He (she) evauluates Ron Paul from a evangelical perspective.

Innes begins his case by stating unequivically the Biblical purpose of government.  It is to punish evil and praise well-doing. (Romans 13:1-10, Peter 2:14)  He insists moral legistlation is a serious responsibility of those in government.

He writes there is no Biblical basis, and thus no basis of any kind, for considering restricitions of individual freedoms when deciding on moral legistlation.  The “devine mandate” to reward good and punish evil is the only issue, individual freedom is not relevant.

Ron Paul earns some points on the evangelical scorecard.  He voted against abortion several times and is for God’s intention that we live by the rule of law, the Constitution.

But mostly, Paul does not seem to measure up to evangelical standards.   Internationally, this is seen in his reluctance to use military force overseas.  Paul  “…underestimates people’s capacity for evil and the government’s responsibility to protect..” us from it.  Domestically, he does not understand the government’s responsibility to reward good and punish evil.

I guess I should not have been surprised we are back to the four words that summarize evangelical politics.  It’s all about sin.

12 Responses

  1. entech

    loki says: December 29, 2011 at 10:56 pm in the last topic The Division Within Secular Thought
    “History reveals that the more extreme the opposing ends in the spectrum of any movement are, the more similar they are, and in the results.”

    You could almost think that he was clairvoyant. This piece of insanity that you describe reminds me of the last time anyone tried really seriously to get rid of the rulers and the churchers, this was about the time you in America were ridding yourselves of the tyranny of the British crown, one of the few revolutions that did not go terribly wrong. I am talking about the French Revolution which gave us Robespierre.
    Opposite problem similar end result (potentially if this guy had his way), Robespierre and the Jacobins wanted freedom for all but they didn’t think that the people knew what it was to be free and what they really wanted – someone had to take them in hand and show them – we know who that was and the end result. The same potential is here, someone has to tell the poor ignorant people what God really requires and to make sure that that is what they do. It is happening in religiously run states now, Iran and Afghanistan, of course they have a different interpretation and so Christians get the terror imposed on them – It does not even need to be dominant just influential, in Israel I have been reading about an 8 year old girl frightened to go to school because fundamentalist Jews are spitting at her and calling her awful names, she is Jewish herself and from a religious family, but religious enough and her clothes don’t meet the standards and women should be separated any way. Christianity does not have an unblemished record itself.
    Everyone should read Isaiah Berlin on the difference between positive and negative freedom. Remember Noam Chomsky is a libertarian too, If you are going to get rid of government are you going to replace it with some kind of socialist anarchy or capitalist anarchy, it is possible you may not notice the difference if the commissars take over or the CEO’s take over, whether someone is controlling enterprise ‘for your good’ or enterprise is controlling things ‘for your good’. Like the old joke says when the inquisitor was telling the heretic it was for his own good, he was asked not to be so kind and that if it was that good why not burn himself. Or like in the old Soviet Union where the people spouting about the dignity of labour were the ones that made sure that they personally never did any.

    1. loki

      Thank you Entech. This was one example in history among others that I had in mind. It is probably the most clearly defined.

  2. Bob

    When Napoleon invaded Prussia, the people there refused to take up arms and fight for King Fredrick, for the “common good.” The Prussian people thought for themselves and refused to fight and die against Napoleon for their king. As a result, King Fredrick and and others invented the Prussian education system because if you can get them, brainwash them, teach them the state through school is who you obey, when you are young, you have them forever, just like religion brainwashes children.
    Now the world is stuck with the factory modeled, corporate, Prussian education sysem, and the damn thing is spreading like the mind viruses religion.
    We’d be better off spreading beautiful libraries, where education is a choice, and is democrat on one’s own terms and in one’s own time.

    And Paul is personally against abortion, so was atheist Christopher Hitchens, but Paul realizes and states on his website, first paragraph under his issue abortion, that if you made abortion illegal, there would be more deaths due to women trying to get illegal unsafe abortions.
    The best way to stop abortions from happening, is for women to have more rights, and how you get that is less religion, the better for women. And the less poverty too.

      1. Bob

        Never said he was, lol. I think he was more the conquer and dictator type.

        Ron Paul for president, Gary Johnson for vice president!!!!!!

      2. Bob

        I only brought the Napoleon example up, to show why we have the Prussian ed. system in the West and unfortunately spreading like a disease to the rest of the world.
        Libertarians don’t think compulsory Prussian factory-modeled corporate education is a thing a free country should have and force on its individuals, of any age, but especially vulnerable children.
        Get it?

  3. opinionated

    I’m still amazed there’s a small group of people out there who would associate with the author of this blog, his queer rights agenda he forced on the city of Fargo, and his constant attacks on organized religions. He’s a Pathetic example of a human being possessed with a need to seek out and attack Christians and their beliefs. Sad….

    1. entech

      I do believe that you epitomize the subject of this topic.
      Congratulation the first bit of relevance you have shown.

  4. Bob

    “Actually, true conservatives tend to be libertarian on economic issues, and true liberals tend to be libertarian on social issues,” says Sharon Harris, president of the Advocates for Self-Government. “The consistency is to the extent to which one believes in individual liberty. This is what I call the Libertarian Denominator.”

    Unfortunately, many of today’s liberals and conservatives have rejected America’s heritage of liberty and personal responsibility. They want to put us all in their straitjacket. Americans built a great country without shackles. It’s time to take them off again. Break free of the useless left right spectrum. Think freedom on all issues. Think libertarian. —–from libertarianism.com

Comments are closed.