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.