Over the last few weeks it has become apparent that faith will be a major issue in the 2008 campaign for president.  Mitt Romney gave his Mormon speech.  Mike Huckabee touted himself as a Christian leader and seems to have had a cross image in the backdrop of one of his recent commercials.  These two candidates even got into a very public theological argument about Mormon doctrine a few weeks back.

Although it has not been quite as front and center, the Christian faith is also a vital component of the presidential candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul, congressman from Texas.  The purpose of this piece is to expound upon the spiritual beliefs of this fine candidate.

I’ve found there are plenty of resources on the internet that explain the general themes of the Ron Paul campaign: restoring Constitutional government, individual and economic freedom, sound money, downsizing federal taxes and spending, getting the U.S. out of the UN, and no more nation building.  I will therefore not rehash his issues more except to add that Ron Paul is also solidly pro-life and a big advocate of home schooling.

After doing a little research on the topic of the congressman’s Christian faith, I found that Ron Paul probably is not a huge expert on theology like some candidates.  Although in his younger years he did consider going into the ministry briefly.  But regarding the issue of his own personal faith and the relationship of faith to public life in America, Ron Paul is quite strong from a Christian perspective. 

To start off, I’d like to read an excerpt from Ron Paul’s Statement of Faith: “I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God.

Ron Paul is a strong family man.  He has been the husband of but one wife and he has been married to Carol Paul for 50 years.  The two have five children and 17 grandchildren. 

In a very strongly worded statement, Ron Paul explains how his message of individual liberty and responsibility coalesce with the role of the Church in American life.  These are some more excerpts: 

“Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view….

The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity….

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance….

Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.”  See www.christiansforronpaul.com for the full text.

In another speech Ron Paul says:

”Rights that are given to individuals come from our Creator.  You have responsibility for what’s going to happen for eternity’s sake; you should have responsibility for what you’re going to do here on earth as well.”

In yet another faith oriented statement, “I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution.”

In an interview on The American View with conservative commentator John Lofton, Ron Paul is asked,

“Lofton: What kind of church do you attend ?
Paul: We attend a Baptist Church here  in Lake Jackson,Texas.
L:Is that Southern Baptist?
P: Yes.

L: May I assume you believe scripture is God's word, that it's inerrant and infallible P:That is correct.

L: ...Well I'm also assuming you also believe that disobedience to God's word can bring, or does bring judgment upon nations and people?

P:(Hesitates) That is true, and, uh, sometimes the judgments aren't directly correlated, people have trouble figuring that out, but I think defiance of God's law will eventually bring havoc to a society.”

In a separate interchange with Lofton, Ron Paul is asked point blank, “Do you believe it (homosexuality) is a sin?”  And Ron Paul refuses to answer in the affirmative.  It’s a nuanced answer, so I’d encourage you to listen to the full interview available on www.theamericanview.com.  That being said, I believe that the general tenor of his comments in this one situation do not line up well with Scripture.  However, I do recall a similar interview back in the 90’s when former Vice President Dan Quayle also refused to call homosexuality a sin.  And he was still considered a leader in evangelical Christian politics.  I’d hope anyone concerned about this would look at the totality of Ron Paul’s issues, statements, and commitment to the Christian faith.

Looking at that broader picture, the pewforum.org documented aspects of Ron Paul’s journey of faith throughout his life.  He began life as a Lutheran.  Ron and his wife were also Episcopalian for a long period.  But Ron Paul and his wife "became less comfortable with the Episcopal Church as time went on."  That would seem to coincide with a period in which the Episcopalian hierarchy in the U.S. moved toward a more liberal interpretation of the Bible and practice of faith. Paul and his wife now attend services at First Baptist Church of Lake Jackson, Texas, a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.  A quick glance at the church’s website, www.fbclj.org seems to indicate that the church lines up very well with the Scriptures and an evangelical, orthodox interpretation of Christianity (little “e” little “o”). 

Sometimes in politics, where a person stands can be at least partially known by what their detractors are saying about them.  In fact some of the information I’ve gone over here today was found in a piece published in the liberal blog, The Daily Kos just a few days ago.  The title of the article is “Ron Paul : The Stealth Theocon.”  One line in the story reads: “The point of this diary is to prove that Paul is just as much of a fundamentalist as Huckabee, he just is a little more clever about keeping it under wraps.”  Well this statement brings to mind something else Dan Quayle said back in the early 90’s.  When he was attacked for standing up for the traditional family, he replied “I wear their scorn as a badge of honor.”  Well if I were Ron Paul, I would wear this attack piece as a badge of honor.

I believe that Ron Paul is the best candidate for President from a limited government, conservative, Constitutional perspective.  He is also a fine man of Christian faith.  I would furthermore like to add that Ron Paul has been endorsed by Pastor Chuck Baldwin, no stranger to conservative politics (see www.newswithviews.com for more info).  I hope this piece has been helpful to those that are vetting the candidates as we move toward the Iowa Caucuses, then New Hampshire Primary, and many more state contests in just a couple of weeks.  The text of these comments is available at 8thcommandmentconservative.townhall.com.  And it is an honor for me to serve as just one small cog in the Ron Paul Revolution that is changing the face of America.

Karen Tumulty
Time Magazine
letters@time.com

 
Equal Time for Conservative Candidates

 
Dear Ms. Tumulty:
 

I was disappointed to see that a number of prominent Republican candidates were excluded from your graphic “Your Guide to a Crowded Field:Time’s Election Index” in a recent Time magazine article about the 2008 presidential race.  Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, for instance, had indicated his likely entry into the race for the GOP nomination.  In 1999, Ron Paul made Congressional Quarterly’s CQ50, the publication’s list of 50 most effective members of Congress.  In his 1996 race, Paul was ranked 3^rd among Republican House members in donations from individual contributors.  Rep. Tom Tancredo has also announced.  This Colorado Congressman is a national leader on the issue of securing America’s borders and stopping illegal immigration and has made headlines for bold statements in defense of American culture.  Thirdly, presidential candidate Rep. Duncan Hunter of California is apparently in favor already with some big gun Republican financiers including South Carolina textile magnate Roger Milliken.  Don’t these facts at least entitle Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter to a picture on your site?
 

If the ultimate likelihood of the candidate’s success is the criterion for inclusion in Time’s Election Index, why were Gov. Pataki and Senator Hagel included?  Recent rumblings indicate pro-choice former NY governor Pataki is so unconfident of his potential he’s unlikely to even run.  Staunchly antiwar Republican Senator Chuck Hagel hovers between an asterisk and 2% in recent polls, frequently behind some of the other less well known candidates listed above. 
 

I hope that Time will promptly add Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, and even others like Sen. Sam Brownback to its Election Tracking Index.  Otherwise I’ll have no choice but to conclude that Time’s reporting on P2008 is yet another attempt by the major media to show partiality towards liberals and marginalize conservatives.

In a trailer for his new movie Apocalypto, acclaimed actor/director Mel Gibson explains, “Apocalypto means to have a new beginning.  Unfortunately to have a new beginning, something else has to end.”  The film details the cataclysmic destruction of the corrupt, decadent Mayan civilization in Central America 600 years ago.

Ironically Apocalypto opened on December 8^th, 2006, almost exactly a month after the GOP had an apocalypto of it’s own in the 2006 elections, a GOPocalypto if you will.  Twelve years after the historic 1994 elections brought them to power, the GOP lost control of both the U.S. House and Senate to the Democrats in only a slightly less dramatic fashion.

In millions of disgruntled traditionalists and conservatives there exists the hope that 2006 will mark a new beginning for the GOP.  But before we answer the question, “Where do we go from here?”  prudence dictates that Republicans analyze the reasons for our loss so that we may go forward in a more informed manner.

In the first days after the GOP’s November defeat, I heard a lot of four letter words bantered about.  All of them were “Iraq”.  I don’t think anyone can deny that the war did in fact play a key role in GOP’s misfortune.  Attacking Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a proven state sponsor of terror, with the idea of building a freer, more democratic (whatever that means) Middle East may have been a noble idea; an idea that most national Democratic leaders agreed with at the beginning I might add.  But in reality it has proven to be a much longer, harder, even self defeating road than most of us really expected.  And the policy is most associated in the national mind with GOP President Bush.

But a bad turn of events in an otherwise honorable endeavor was not the only aspect of the war that turned voters off.  The Bush administration’s seeming inflexibility and misunderstanding of the war contributed to the electoral defeat also.  We all remember the president flying to the aircraft carrier to proclaim, “Mission Accomplished”, or Dick Cheney’s characterization of the insurgents as “a few dead-enders.”  Sectarian violence waxed and waned, but mostly waxed as the months progressed.  But most of what we heard from the White House was “stay the course.”  Even when the President’s team clarified they really meant stay the course, but adjust to the situation on the ground as required, little of the stated policy was backed up with meaningful action.  Whatever one’s thoughts are on the justification for Operation Iraqi freedom, there’s little doubt the mishandling of it added steam to Republican electoral woes. 

Scandals certainly played their part bringing about November’s shift in partisan power. That the Republican Party is responsible for these faux paws however is much more misperception than an accurate gauge of what’s right and wrong in America today.  Sure there were a lot of Republicans that were touched by Abramoff money.  But many Democrats worked with Abramoff and associates too; his corruption crossed party lines.  On a separate item, Tom DeLay, former Republican speaker of the House was indicted for violating campaign finance laws.  But from what I’ve read of the charges, DeLay’s actions never once crossed the line of any particular statute.  His only crime was to live under the jurisdiction of a highly partisan Democrat-appointed judge.  Certainly there was nothing remotely more onerous with DeLay than was commonplace in the financial dealings of the Clinton White House.

Oh, and then there’s the Congressman Mark Foley scandal.  Granted, the GOP leadership’s and their staff’s response to Foley’s abhorrent behavior reflected a little too much forgiveness and a little too little tough love.  But in the final analysis, when exposed, Mark Foley resigned.  Republicans called their leaders to account for not dealing with him in stronger manner.  They did NOT hold a press conference defending a homosexual relationship between a man and a boy, live in a home from out of which a gay prostitution ring was being run, or get in America’s face and say their colleague’s behavior “was nobody’s business but ours”, all sins for which leading Democratic officials have been guilty in the last 20 years. 

Facts and hypocrisy notwithstanding, Republicans were in power; and as such they bore the brunt of the American public’s wrath over a scandal-ridden Washington culture of corruption.

So we have Iraq.  We have scandals.  Maybe even add bureaucratic mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.  But that’s not the big story.  The number one reason for Republican losses this November large scale Republican betrayal of its core principals and its base.

Soon after the election, former GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer wrote a post mortem that appeared in Investors Business Daily and is printed on http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/.   He argued that although values voters put the GOP in power in 2002 and 2004, little emphasis was placed on values issues the past two years.  Indeed he is correct.  There was some work on a federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage and legislation to stop the death of Terri Schiavo.  But there was other legislation that was largely ignored.  A federal bill to define personhood as beginning at conception went nowhere, even in the GOP.  Efforts to limit court jurisdiction over 10 Commandments emblems on public property or to protect home schooling were heard of only in conservative publications, not the halls of Congress.  Gary Bauer was right on the mark.

And then there’s the 1000 pound gorilla that’s about to break through the basement cellar ceiling where it’s kept.  Spending.  Republican platforms have long called for limiting the size of government, but overall government outlays continually exceed the heights of the Clinton administration’s excess these days.  And need I remind we HAD a Republican President, House, and Senate by a reasonable margin.  Earmarks, previously identified as pork projects are out of control.  This year, according to http://www.cnsnews.com/ citing Citizens against Government Waste, there were over 10,000 earmarks costing a total of $29 billion. Republicans were cited over Democrats as the “Party of Big Government” by a margin of 39.3% to 27.9 according to a November poll by the Club for Growth, http://www.clubforgrowth.org/.  Indeed, fiscal irresponsibility reigned supreme under the Republican Congress and President.

So Republicans lost power this year because of Iraq, scandals, and perhaps even Katrina.  But nothing trumps the betrayal of core values and base voters as causing November’s defeat.  Fortunately there’s only a 51 to 49 Democratic margin in the Senate and it’s woefully large in the House either.  The way I look at it, this November was a warning shot; let’s hope Republican leaders got the message.  We wouldn’t want the party to go the way of the Mayans in Apocalypto.

Greetings.  My name is Josiah623, or that’s my pseudonym at least.  Thankyou for reading this inaugural posting to 8th Commandment Conservative.

Like most blogs, this journal will consist primarily of my random musings on whatever topic (primarily political) seems most relevant at any given time.  But one might ask why did I choose to entitle it 8thCommandmentConservative?  What does that mean?

The term 8^th Commandment Conservative serves to illustrate two concepts that I believe are at the very core of what is means to be a conservative:  Property Rights and Values.
 

The right of a person to own and control their own property is probably the single most important ideal upon which our Republican form of government is based.  The American Founding Fathers viewed property not only in the narrow sense as a person’s land or homestead.  Property in the 18^th Century understanding encompassed a person’s land, body, other possessions, their words or speech, ideas, and beliefs.  The Founding Fathers fashioned a government in which a citizen’s right to their property was sacrosanct and the state’s powers were very limited.  They understood that if people were made responsible for themselves and what they own, only then would America secure a more productive and meaningful existence.  An America in which all of us take care of all of us would be doomed end in poverty and despotism.
 

A second key point of 8^th Commandment Conservatism is the idea that personal morality is an indispensable component of any civil society.  The Founding Fathers are well known (maybe not in academia or the media, but from other sources) for their comments about how only a moral and virtuous people are suited for self government.  I was struck some time ago while reading City of God by St. Augustine how big of a concern public morality was to political philosophers of all times.  Simply put, the police can’t be everywhere all the time.  Governments must rely on people choosing to do well because of conscience (i.e. being moral) most of the time in order to maintain civil order.
 

The name 8^th Commandment Conservative is also comes from the belief that our law is based on the laws enumerated in the Bible.  God the Father, through His Son, Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit as revealed in Bible (not God “broadly defined”) is the author of Law.  Satan may be the prince of the powers of the air, but Jesus Christ is King.  The laws of our land are only valid insofar as they conform to God’s perfect Law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.  A great man, Alan Keyes, once made a speech for which the punch line was “You cannot have the right to do what is wrong.”  8^th Commandment Conservative is dedicated to upholding this wise statement.
 

The 8^th Commandment of Exodus 20 is “Thou shalt not steal.”  It presupposes that that people have the right to own private property.  If no one held a private claim to anything, it would not be possible to steal from anyone else.  Therefore, by the 8^th Commandment, we clearly know God intended for private property to be respected.
 

So the name, 8^th Commandment Conservative, describes what the conservative philosophy is about (protecting private property).  And it is a testimony to where our philosophy comes from (God and the Bible).
 

If you’re interested in the fight for limited government, respect for private property rights, and the upholding of Biblical values in the public arena, check back frequently.  This blog’s for you!