The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007 We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.
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. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.
I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.
It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.
I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.
On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.
I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.
Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
For More Information Contact: Paul Dorr Iowa Field Director RonPaul2008@iowatelecom.net Phone: 712-758-3660
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee www.RonPaul2008.com Phone: 703-248-9115
Thanks, Jessica, for passing this on. I agree with much of what Ron Paul stands for, especially pro-life and opposition to the Iraq war, although my personal favorite presidential candidate is "Average Joe" Schriner.
by
Justin Soutar (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 9:20:14 AM
Religion and politics, like oil and water, in my opinion do NOT mix.
I am a firm believer in the absolute separation of church and state. I find the pandering to the religious extremist to be disgusting.
Your religion, in your church, in your home, but under no circumstances, in the public square.
The historical (religious) revisionist are putting forth that the US is a "christian" nation. The opposite was true and the intent of the founding fathers. There is no mention of "god", instead it says 'creator'. Most of the founding fathers were deist or atheist, not christian. As was the case of the first settlers, it was state sponsored religion they were running away from.
by
kanawah (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 9:20:15 AM
Excerpt from a letter Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence, and third President of the Country) wrote to the Reverend Samuel Miller on January 23, 1808, in response to Miller's proposal that he "recommend" a national day of fasting and prayer:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from inter meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises...Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. ...
But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."
However, during the Costitutional Convention, the delegates prayed EVERY DAY that they met...
"Washington's Prayer." In it, he asked God to: "dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."
Since prayer gave us the separation of church and state, maybe we should think about why that happened, rather than coming up with assumptions put forth by people who really have no clue what they are talking about.
I am not advocating a church run government... I am just pointing out that the statements you made are incorrect, and have been proven by the first congress as to be flat out wrong.
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 406 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 9:49:28 AM
"I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned. "
None of the front runners can make this statement... our Preznit could never make this statement... In fact I dare say that Dr Paul is unique in the fact that he is not thirsty for power...
So many people look at candidates with dramatically different views and think of any possible reason not to vote for that candidate.. Rather, these people will vote for a republican or a democrat suggesting "the lesser of two evils"
Meanwhile these same people complain about how nothing is changing in the US.. Nothing is improving, in the US... We spend hundreds of BILLIONS over seas, yet out own infrastructure is falling apart... Oh there are reasons why, that have nothing to do with money, but that goes to the second point, NOTHING IS IMPROVING!
Well, here is what we have to look forward to, with a Ron Paul Presidency... CONgress will continue to act like a bunch of third graders, That is the culture we have enabled to embed itself, in the DC Beltway. In fact, that same culture has been responsible for keeping candidates, who are not Democrat or Republican, OFF OF THE BALLOT! (How dare anyone with a fresh idea run against the establishment? eh?)
Ron Paul, if elected, will serve to really illustrate just how childish the establishment is.. Maybe after his term, the US will realize that it has been so conned by the republicans and the democrats, that those parties will lose their grip on power..
One can DREAM, right?
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 406 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 9:21:34 AM
Why must all these political figures continue to push their faith in our face? He accepts Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, great, does he want a brownie? Why must we continue to use fear tactics, religion and ones own personal agenda to recruit votes. I am sick and tired of these religious extremists and their views. Just because he claims to accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior does that make him a suitable candidate or a good person for that matter? I could accept Santa Clause as my lord and savior as he dashes through our roofs during the holidays does that make me a saint? Please, I can't take it any longer, is it me, or are we not over these dramatic people and their God?
Great believe what you want, free will allows you to do that and living in this country, but stop pushing, Allah, Jehovah or what ever you want to call your boogie man, on me. Stop claiming you know what God wants or one of his son's (jesus) yes, one of his, for I consider all of us sons and daughters of God, Jesus was no more privileged than we.
Stop claiming to be so righteous and know it all, after all, you wouldn't have the first clue to what a higher power wants. Just stick to trying to straighten the mess we are in and leave God out of it.
by
Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 54 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 10:20:57 AM
You are suggesting that BECAUSE he comes out and says "I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" he can not have your vote?
What if the other candidate comes out and says I am going to invade a soveriegn nation with nuclear capabilities.. Are you going to vote for him because he did NOT come out and say that he accepted Jesus Christ yadda yadda yadda??
Why do people come out and become so afraid of someone's religion? I don't care if he is a Buddhist, he says the right things about LIBERTY! He says the right things about BIG GOVERNMENT.... and he is DEFINITELY SAYING THE RIGHT THINGS ABOUT FAILED GOVERNMENT POLICY, which is way more than any of the other candidates!
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 406 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 10:54:41 AM
Because it shouldn't matter what their religion is, I don't care and I don't want to know. I don't care who you sleep with or what you do aside from your job, as long as you get the job done. Religion should not be a factor in politics or in peoples life. That should be a private matter between who you believe in and you.
by
Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 54 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 3:14:43 PM
When a person has to reveal his or her religion and makes it a point to say that he is a man of God, and Jesus Christ is is Lord and Savior, I have many reasons to doubt their sincerity, especially in politics. Just because you are a Christian does not give you any special privileges or a get out of jail card. There has been too many people who in the name of God have committed crimes and because of their beliefs are known to be judgemental and non flexible. I much rather have an Atheist run this country than a religious man. My views, not yours I know. But at least the atheist will be fair and not be swayed by his religious roots. Religion is responsible for many terrible things, and many who claim to be a soldier of God have been known to take part of massive destruction.
by
Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 54 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 5:17:10 PM
a person's faith does not disqualify him/her.. If it did, we would not have had
George Washington 1789-97 John Adams 1797-1801 Thomas Jefferson 1801-09 James Madison 1809-17 James Monroe 1817-25 John Quincy Adams 1825-29 Andrew Jackson 1829-37 Martin Van Buren 1837-41 William Henry Harrison 1841 John Tyler 1841-45 James Polk 1845-49 Zachary Taylor 1849-50 Millard Fillmore 1850-53 Franklin Pierce 1853-57 James Buchanan 1857-61
ETC.....
Some were good, some were bad... we never used a religion litmus test on any of them.. NOT EVEN JFK, that Catholic from MA....
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 406 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 6:03:59 PM
Actually, you've got it all wrong... Ron Paul stated at the beginning of this "Statement of Faith" that he didn't feel comfortable discussing his religion, especially during election time b/c he didn't want to have people react the way you are reacting.
I re-posted this document simply because I wanted those who were interested in these subjects to have the opportunity to read what Ron Paul wrote. I had no anticipation that it would cause people to vent & slander Christians as a whole.
I apologize on behalf of all Christians for not being perfect as everyone expects us to be. Yes, there are many people who claim to be Christians out there. However, the only way you can know for certain that a person is a true follower of Christ is by their actions.
Supreme Example: George W. Bush
I, along with many Americans voted for Bush because he claimed to be a Christian, threw Scripture into just about every speech and identified himself as Pro-Life. Unfortunately, I now realize that these were probably just a bunch of words because many of his actions are FAR FAR from being Christian! I feel betrayed that Bush has allowed all of these troops to die... for an unneccesary war... because he has somehow been swept away by this thirst for Oil that every President seems to have either before or after he takes office.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, is different. He is not wearing religion on his sleeve in any way. In fact, I've been following his campaign for several months now & had never even heard him mention anything related to religion until I stumbled upon this document! I'm sure he only wrote this statement of faith because it became clear that he needed to do more than mention he believed in a Creator God.
Most religions believe in some sort of creator, so it was necessary for RP to say which one he believed in. I'm sure he would have been content to keep his thoughts to himself. However, when you are running for office & people keep asking you what your religious beliefs are, you have to give them an honest answer.
Because of what happened with Bush, I was leery of trusting anybody claiming to be anything again. Then I heard about Ron Paul & saw that his ideals and voting record are right in line with what I believe as a Christian.
So, I'm not voting for Ron Paul because he claims to be a Christian. I am voting for him because he is a humble man with a simple and lifechanging message that could change the world and our country for the better. He is the only person running for President who wants to limit government as much as possible & restore personal liberty to everyone regardless of race, color, religion, creed or lifestyle. He is the very last person who would impose his own beliefs onto others... so please give him a chance to perhaps win your favor. Thanks.
by
JessBlakemore (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 14 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 12:24:03 PM
is based in religion, and not in libertarianism and personal liberty.
When asked about his religion he could just as well have said it was his own affair and had nothing to do with politics, which could have been a perfectly honest answer -- but he chose not to say that. He speaks out two sides of his mouth.
If you voted for Bush because you believed what he said about being a Christian then you obviously did not do the research about his abilities as a leader, and was simply taken in by his claims. More importantly, we we supposed to be electing a president for all the people, not a pastor, rabbi, mullah or pope. That's the whole point of the idea of a separating wall between religion and state, and the whole point of there not supposing to be a religious test for a politician -- pro or con -- and that's a principle you ignored in your voting. You voted for becasue you though he was a Christian -- that's a vote for theocracy, and not at all what America was supposed to be about.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 1:20:39 PM
Is it wrong that Ron Paul bases his Pro-Life stance on his personal religious beliefs? Isn’t that what freedom of religion is all about?
Freedom of Religion is not about a WALL between religion and state. If you do your research, you will find that it was intended to protect RELIGION from GOVERNMENT… not GOVERNMENT from RELIGION.
You are right… I blindly followed Bush & was too lazy to research his abilities as a leader. Can I not learn from my mistakes? And anyways, isn’t it my right to vote for whomever I wish for whatever reasons I wish?
I think it is asinine to assume that religious people vote for other people of their religion anticipating that he/she will act as a pastor/rabbi/mullah/pope/whatever. I didn’t expect Bush to lead us in spiritual matters. I expected him to have the character of a person who follows the teachings of Christ.
I was wrong to have this expectation for a person whom I did not research extensively. However, there is nothing wrong with desiring to have the leader of our nation emulate a man (Jesus) who has held great respect among all mankind for over 2,000 years.
by
JessBlakemore (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 14 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 2:00:54 PM
"Is it wrong that Ron Paul bases his Pro-Life stance on his personal religious beliefs? Isn’t that what freedom of religion is all about?"
His stance is not just about him, but the legislation he introduces to control everyone. I don't care what his religion is if he keeps it to himself, but when he star6ts messing with the law that's out of bounds -- then he is messing with everyone according to his religious beliefs, and that theocratic tyranny.
"Freedom of Religion is not about a WALL between religion and state. If you do your research, you will find that it was intended to protect RELIGION from GOVERNMENT… not GOVERNMENT from RELIGION."
I have researched it, and you are wrong. Religion is not supposed to be part of government.
"I didn’t expect Bush to lead us in spiritual matters. I expected him to have the character of a person who follows the teachings of Christ."
The first error is to think that Christians have any better sense of morality or character than anyone else. Historically that's nonsense, and it's nonsense today. Secondly, there was more than enough indication that he would mix his religious ideas (or what he said they were) with the governmental decisions he made. People who actually try to follow the morality and principles of their religion rarely shout so much about. Even Jesus is said to have recognized this:
KJV Matthew:
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Bush has always been the essence of the hypocrite and deceiver (which I realized the first time I ever saw him -- he made my skin crawl).
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 2:32:54 PM
As you were wrong to expect greatness from one man ( Bush ), you are wrong to expect that history holds the answers. Jesus was no more son of God than you and I are. He was a kind and wise man, but so are many that walk this earth. Learn to rely on yourself for the answers and see the idolizing someone who once was considered deviant and put to death, later was made a martyr by mankind and idolized. It is human nature to do what we have done with beliefs and religion.
It is too much to ask for one to be accountable for oneself and learn that there is no heaven or hell, no after life, this is all we got, be accountable and live on.
Fairy tales are soothing, and religion a much need support for the weak minded.
by
Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 54 comments)
on Friday, August 10, 2007 at 6:19:02 PM
