ron paul – Page 2 – Warren Throckmorton

Jonathan Turley says Ron Paul’s response to Kayser endorsement is inadequate

Prominent attorney Jonathan Turley has called on Ron Paul to do more than remove the endorsement of Christian reconstructionist pastor Phil Kayser.

Turley thinks highly of Paul but is critical of his handling of the endorsement and the removal of the endorsement from the website.

Turley calls Kayser, Paul’s preacher problem, writing

Now Ron Paul has his own embarrassing association. The preacher is Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska, who has a following in Iowa. The Paul campaign issued a press release (that it later removed from its site) heralding the endorsement of Kayser. The problem is that Kayser believes that gays should be executed according to biblical law. It was a a highly destructive endorsement for Paul who is attracting civil libertarians to his campaign. No one can stop someone from endorsing you, but the campaign clearly sought this endorsement from an extremist with reprehensible views. Unlike Wright, Kayser is not Paul’s personal minister, but the press release made him Paul’s problem in reaching out to civil libertarians.

While the campaign was right to pull the press release, it now should take responsibility and disassociate from Kayser. This is, in my view, another example of the dangers of faith-based politics, something that I have long condemned as inimical to separation principles.

Turley is right. Paul appears to be ignoring this and hoping no one will ask or hold him accountable. He may get out of Iowa without dealing with it, but this is only the first contest. I think GOP voters in other states will want answers.

Kayser endorsement flap not having much impact on Iowa campaign

Several national news outlets covered the Phil Kayser endorsement story this week, but it may not be having much impact in Iowa.

I spoke earlier today with another pastor who has endorsed Ron Paul, Brian Nolder, who said that the big stories there are the Kent Sorenson defection and to a lesser degree Ron Paul’s newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s.

Rev. Nolder, who does not hold the same theonomic views as Phil Kayser, had heard of the matter but did not think it was having much impact on the campaign at present.

According to Nolder, evangelicals in Iowa are divided between those who want top down solutions to moral issues and those who want a smaller Federal government. He has opted to support Dr. Paul because he believes Paul has better solutions to our dept crisis. Many Christians are gravitating to Santorum because those Christians want the Federal government to reflect Christian morality, something they perceive Santorum to favor.

Earlier this week, I noted that Paul himself may not hold theonomic views himself but is attractive to Christian reconstructionists because they want to see the dismantling of a strong Federal government.

One group that might experience difficulty because of Kayser’s endorsement is his own church. A group called Progressive Oasis is calling on the University of Nebraska at Omaha to stop the Dominion Covenant Church from meeting on University grounds.

Ron Paul quietly removes Phil Kayser endorsement from website; Kayser removes link to his death penalty book

UPDATE (12/29): As commenter Jessica Naomi points out, now Kayser has removed a link to his death penalty booklet. It is still hosted on his website read it here. Even though I think Paul should have to answer for the glowing words about Rev. Kayser, I can understand Paul’s action to remove the endorsement from his website. However, I am puzzled that Kayser would make his book harder to find.

After Talking Points Memo and Huffington Post covered Christian reconstructionist Phil Kayser’s endorsement of Ron Paul (first reported here), the Paul campaign has quietly taken the controversial press release from their website.

The Google cache is here, a screen capture is here and a pdf of the page is here.

The TPM reporters called Kayser and he acknowledged the beliefs he posted in his book defending the death penalty.

Bachmann’s campaign manager defects to Ron Paul, needs to change Twitter motto

Earlier today Kent Sorenson appeared with Michele Bachmann at an Iowa campaign event and then a bit later Bachmann’s campaign manager announced that he joined up with Ron Paul. He became an ex-Bachmann.

Given this defection, Sorenson’s motto on his Twitter account is interesting:

His new motto should be:

Screw standing for something, I just want to win!

Why Ron Paul appeals to Christian Reconstructionists

I think I may have this figured out.

I have been thinking about why New Apostolic Reformation dominionists like Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann but Christian reconstruction dominionists like Ron Paul. We know why they don’t like Mitt Romney (hint – in Christian dominionism of any sort, Mormons can’t implement biblical law).

But back to NAR vs. Christian reconstructionists; the focus of control is different. The NAR folks want to rule America as a Christian nation from the seat of centralized power in Washington DC. The Christian reconstructionists want to deconstruct central government in favor of state or local control of law. Bachmann and Perry promise to govern biblically and impose their view of Christian America on the nation. Paul promises to dismantle the federal government in favor of the states.

In fact, the Christian reconstructionists are afraid of the NAR dominionists. Recontructionist Joel McDurmon wants biblical law in place but he thinks the NAR approach is a dangerous power grab:

Can you imagine John Hagee as Secretary of State?

This is exactly the threat—top-down threat, totalitarian threat, eschatological holocaust threat—that 7MD presents to us.

American Vision is not that; they are not us; we are not them.

Perhaps more should be written on these guys and the threats they pose to society. They may have a few better political ideas, but they are just as dangerous in degree as the most radical of the left.

McDurmon distinguishes his view of government from the NAR (7Mountains) approach:

The First and most concerning point is that the 7MD version does what critics of traditional dominion theology have falsely accused us of doing the whole time: planning to grab the reins of influence through whatever means necessary, usurp the seats of political power, and impose some tyrannical “theocracy” upon society from the top down with a “whether you like it or not, it’s for your own good” mentality.

We have responded, consistently, that our blueprint is about the rollback of tyranny, not the replacement of it—the removal of unjust taxation, welfare, warfare, government programs, etc. We favor privatization, local control of civil and criminal law, hard and sound money, and private charity for cases of poverty, all led by families, businesses, and churches—not large, centralized, top-down solutions. Yes, we would properly recriminalize sodomy, adultery, and abortion, but in a decentralized world like we want, you could leave easily if you didn’t like that.

So at least some of the ends are the same, but the Christian reconstructionists want to rollback the central government and allow states and local governments to make and enforce law with the Bible as a guide. Those who didn’t agree could go somewhere else. The reconstructionist desire to locate power away from the central government is what, I believe, brings in endorsements from reconstructionist pastors, like Phillip Kayser.

A very explicit reconstructionist case for Ron Paul was made recently on the Theonomy resources website by Bojidar Marinov. As a reconstructionist, his support for Paul was based not on his personal views but on his overall philosophy of governance. Marinov wrote:

It is not Ron Paul that we are looking at when we vote for him; we are looking at God’s purpose for our generation; at what enemies He wants us to rout in our generation; and at what must be done in our generation to advance the Kingdom of God.

The great Battle of Our Time is the battle against the socialist welfare-warfare state. While the issues of abortion and sodomy – the two issues that Stephen criticizes Ron Paul for – are important, they are to a very great extent subservient to the issue of the socialist state. Sodomites and abortionists are protected by the centralized government in Washington, DC. The theonomic solution to the problems of sodomy and abortion can not be achieved at the Federal level because at that level liberals outnumber conservatives 20 to 1. And theonomic Christians are almost non-existent at that level. It is only when the socialist state is dismantled and power returned back to the states and the counties that we will be able to successfully deal with the other social and moral issues. As long as sin is protected at the Federal level, our political job as Christians is to dismantle the Federal bureaucracy and return all power to the local communities. Therefore, the great battle is against the socialist state.

Given that, Ron Paul is the man with the best position to work for that goal on the national level. We must join him not because of him but because we recognize the great battle, and recognize where our place is. Once we win that battle, we can move to the next one. But refusing support to an ally for the most important issue we are facing today only because we find deal-breakers in smaller issues is not wise.

The job of theonomists (those who believe the Bible should be the civil law) is to dismantle the Federal government. When issues of morality (sodomites and abortionists) are taken from the central government and put into to the localities can the real Christian reconstruction begin (see this post if you want to know what that means).

Does Paul fit the reconstructionist vision? Given the current political alternatives, I can see why reconstructionists would think so. Consider Paul’s criticism of the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that overturned laws against sodomy.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

Viewed from the lens of state’s rights, Paul’s praise of the voter recall of Iowa Supreme Court judges over gay marriage and his support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, incomprehensible to the NAR dominionist who wants ideological purity, make sense and is actually a plus for the Christian reconstructionist. In Paul’s vision, the people in the states do what they want with various sinners, the Feds will just protect their right to do so. Your civil rights in this kind of world would depend on the state in which you live. If you live in California, then the sky is the limit; if you live in Mississippi then, as recontrustionist McDurmon advises, you better either move, or, as Paul supporter Phillip Kayser hopes, get back in whatever closet you came out of.

Update: Talking Points Memo spoke to Phillip Kayser today and he confirmed my thoughts above. Paul is appealing because reconstruction would be easier in a decentralized America. Now, what will Paul do with that information?

What Does Ron Paul Really Believe About Gays?

What do Dan Savage and AFTAH’s Mike Heath have in common?

Ron Paul touts endorsement of pastor who defends death penalty for gays, delinquent children & adultery