David Bahnsen vs. Douglas Wilson on Ron Paul
My old friend Joe Torres writes a little about his journey and the supposed debate:
Or at least it’s kind of like a debate. David Bahnsen has written this piece and Pastor Wilson has responded here.
I would think I am the “target audience” for Bahnsen’s article as I have been reliably Republican and conservative in my political approach, but for the last few years I find myself drawn more and more away from the Republicans and toward some of the Libertarians especially Ron Paul. I keep hearing from many Republicans how “crazy” and “anti-semitic” and “dangerous” Ron Paul is (or in Bahnsen’s case how crazy, etc. Ron Paul’s associates are), but I just haven’t seen it.
And articles like Bahnsen’s don’t really do much to persuade me as he dramatically undermines his case with his ad hominem attacks. I always think when a writer swerves into personal attacks it’s because he believes his substantive points are not getting the job done.
The substance of the wider disagreement between traditional Republicans and Ron Paul seems to boil down to two basic issues:
1) Is it helpful to our long term security to station and engage troops all over the world or not?
2) Should we eliminate centralized control over the money supply or not?
I grant there are several other peripheral issues, and who is going to agree on all the issues? I don’t think I even agree with myself on many issues from week to week.
Is Ron Paul a perfect candidate? Of course not. Who expects a perfect candidate? But he has successfully given a voice to one side of some of the big issues that had virtually no voice. And he’s made it very plausible to believe that our foreign policy and our monetary policy work hand in glove in a way that undermines our long term liberties.
<>
Ron Paul on the Ignoring of the War Power Resolution
Paul even referenced the long term impact of ignoring the constitution and the War Powers Resolution. “The American people are sick and tired of it. It’s draining us, it’s draining us financially and now we’re into…Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya.” Paul ended his speech by demanding that the executive branch give back to congress the power to send American troops into war. “It should be up to us when we got to war and not to the executive branch,” said Paul.
Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/capitol/ron-paul-on-libya-this-is-a-mess/#ixzz1NTpRCY84<>
Ron Paul on Marriage
According to Radio Iowa, Paul said that he believes marriage laws should be determined by the states, but called on the Obama administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
See Link<>
Ron Paul Second in NH
Texas Rep. Ron Paul is performing well in the latest CNN poll of potential Republican primary voters.
Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/rep-ron-paul-takes-second-in-new-hampshire-cnn-poll/#ixzz1NIM5RFQd<>
Podcast No. 2: Ron Paul on the Right to Life
Manuscript:
Welcome to this second Ron Paul podcast. I am Uri Brito.
On this episode, I want to briefly describe Ron Paul’s position on the issue of life. On a March 29th, 2005 article, Congressman Ron Paul wrote:
“I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society. The abortion issue forged my belief that law and morality must intersect to protect the most vulnerable among us. The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective.”
He later writes that “For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture.”
Fundamental to Congressman Paul’s position is that life begins at conception. A Christian libertarian perspective cannot give a woman a right to choose when it comes to life and death, precisely because a woman does not have authority over life and death. God is the author of life and death.
Practically, Paul wants to de-centralize this supposed ethical authority of the federal government and bring the authority to the states. It is his contention that when these issues are brought back to state level, then pro-lifers have a greater chance of seeing abortion abolished once and for all.
The abortion issue is far beyond the reach of the individual man and church. Thus, bringing the issue to the state will once again bring the individual and the church one step closer to bringing this despicable practice to an end.<>
