RSSA DRC Presidential Endorsement?
C Brown
With the state primaries fast approaching, and with the recent endorsements made by several prominent Christian leaders, is it time for DRC to chime in with its own presidential endorsement? Is there a candidate whom the contributors here could recommend to our readers? Sure, our endorsement wouldn’t garner as much attention as Pat Robertson’s, but it might still mean something to somebody out there.
I would suggest that we consider Ron Paul as someone who might fit the bill. He might be the only candidate who has actually ever read the US Constitution. Plus, he’s a Protestant, and he was born near Pittsburgh. Sounds like the guy for me.
Baus
November 12th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
What are we going to do?, take a DRC-respondants/contributors poll?
I’m a Ron Paul supporter for his constitutionalism too. I’m even switching my party affiliation (from Constitution Party) to Republican for the first time ever, just to vote in this primary for Paul.
But, we’re not an “endorsement” type of association here. We’re an RPCNA-magazine related discussion group. More appropriate and more relevant and more helpful than an endorsement from us, would be more discussion about what/why/how responsible citizenship and choosing public officials has to do with the Reign of Christ.
For instance, though some might find a sort of “expediency” and “pragmatism” to be the nature of the beast… er, I mean, of politics… I prefer to stick to voting my conscience, not choosing between the lesser of two evils. Political ‘pragmatists’ call it “throwing your vote away.” I call it wisdom.
Ecclesiastes teaches us that wisdom doesn’t always (doesn’t usually) “pay-off” short of the final judgment. The Reign of Christ means that I can live with “throwing my vote away” (by voting for only the strict constitutionalists every time). And if God deals out some extra common grace on U.S., and Ron Paul wins the GOP primary and is elected as POTUS, we will enjoy unmatched prosperity and liberty like never before, and this too is subject to futility.
So, let’s skip the endorsements and chat more about why we endorse and what what it means to us.
Josh M.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Ron Paul is the only choice. All of the other choices will continue the Republicrat tradition of New Deal welfarism and foreign interventionism, and will operate far beyond the bounds of the executive branch (no different from Hillary). Paul, as demonstrated by his actions as a Representative, is as principled and honest a candidate as we may ever see.
GAS
November 13th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Sorry Charlie,
isolationism has never worked and never will. paul is a fundementalist libertarian and his attitude reminds me of a fundy baptist. no thanks.
Tancredo, otoh, is a good presbyterian, and is willing to use the sword to protect order. he’s the choice for drc. (my vote anyways)
W.H. Chellis
November 13th, 2007 at 9:15 am
In order to endorse a candidate, the DRC would have to be divorced from its affiliation with the RP Witness (because of its tax exempt status). Thus, the DRC could not endorse but I doubt there is anything wrong with individual contributors suggesting who they support and why?
Rusty O.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Tancredo is not distinguished from other candidates by willingness to use the sword. Everyone besides Paul is sword-happy, it’s just a question of whether the heads that roll are domestic are foreign.
Baus
November 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
OK, Josh, tell us what opposing welfarism, interventionism, and what supporting limits and separation of powers has to do with the Reign of Christ.
GAS, besides being a bad liberal presbyterian (EPC), and a run-of-the-mill interventionist, tell us what Tancredo’s wouldbe policies have to do with the Reign of Christ.
Make your comments relevant to the blog, gents.
A
November 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Ron Paul is by far the best declared candidate. He is the only one who does not subscribe to the messianic state. He is a constitutional libertarian, not an anarchical libertine as some suppose. He is not an isolationist; rather, he is opposed to imperialism and supports unregulated trade, as opposed to 15,000 page regulatory ‘free trade agreements’. However, Ron Paul neglects the duty of the state to recognize the rule of Jesus Christ explicitly. Neither is it the purpose of DRC to make presidential endorsements.
I’m not on the Ron Paul bandwagon, but I’m certainly at the parade. I enjoy watching his interviews and reading articles about him. My first rally for a political candidate was for Ron Paul. I was able to shake his hand and get a picture with him. In the five seconds I had, I told him to “Remember Romans 13. You are a minister of God for good.” He said thank you and moved on to shake the next person’s hand. I found this Ron Paul interview by John Lofton (a reformed Christian) very interesting, since previously I had only heard interviews by the secular media.
CBrown
November 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Don’t take my idea about a DRC endorsement too seriously. I was just trying to raise a very practical question, in order to gain some insight into the mind of this blog’s readership. I had a feeling that some of you were interested in Ron Paul. And I somehow knew that a few of you would hate him.
Baus, I started this line of conversation. If you don’t like it, then don’t comment here. I say that all of these comments are relevant to the blog, because I’m a contributor and I asked the question. Why don’t you post an ideological, neocalvinist rant, and converse with the people interested in that stuff.
Josh M.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
OK, Josh, tell us what opposing welfarism, interventionism, and what supporting limits and separation of powers has to do with the Reign of Christ.
Thanks for the invite, Baus. I’ll have to make it short for now. Civil magistrates do not have the Biblical right to redistribute wealth (i.e., welfarism). They also do not have the Biblical right to give their own country’s wealth to other countries, nor may they engage in unjust, unnecessary wars (i.e., our last 150+ years of foreign interventions, less many aspects of WWII). And of course, “limits and separation of powers” is a Presbyterian thing, so that’s obvious I hope.
BTW, on Tancredo being a good Presbyterian who would wield the sword. So was Woodrow Wilson, of course, which did not turn out well. Of course we do not use “swords” anymore. We have nukes, and Tancredo is clear that he would use them, which in order to do so we would probably have to temporarily suspend the 6th commandment.
GAS
November 14th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Hey Boss,
Nice swipe at the EPC. Some of the most conservative men I know are members in good standing in the EPC so let’s strike the guilt by association fallacy. As to the “run of the mill interventionist” quip perhaps you could define for us what exactly these policies entail? What do Tancredo’s policies have to do with the Reign of Christ? This coming from a neo-calvinist? You seem to be conflicted. Or is this merely a tactic to quash any discussion that doesn’t support a strange ideologue?
Hey Josh,
Comparing Tancredo to Wilson? Sorry, don’t see the connection. As to your strange “exegesis”, I hope you don’t exercise that professionally.
Josh M.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Wow. I just arrived at this board, hoping for honest Christian discussion. But things didn’t get very far before ad hominem and non-arguments broke out. You guys must have a past history with one another. From the outside, it looks silly.
I’m not really interested in entering this kind of fracas, GAS, or I’d probably respond.
Baus
November 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Brown and GAS, you guys can relax. Tough day at the office?
I’m not attacking you or anyone. I’m inviting you and others who respond to your post to relate their personal endorsements to why they endorse and what what it means to them and what it has to do with the Reign of Christ.
I’ve offered my thoughts on that. If you don’t find that they fit with some stereotype of neocalvinism, you might want to rethink your preconceptions.
Thanks, Josh, for your relevant feedback.
CBrown
November 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Not a bad day at the office, just little patience for a guy who was excommunicated by a sister church and still blogging on a RPCNA sponsored site. Not sure why you’re still a contributor here.
Baus
November 18th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Brown, If you have a problem with anything I’ve written at DRC, then you should have the integrity to spell out clearly what it is that you actually object to, and why.
If you have a problem with my mere presence on DRC, there is a chain of command (moderators) that you could respect. Talk to them. Be brave. You don’t have to hide behind snide comments about my being a neocalvinist.
If you have a personal problem with me, you are welcome to email me directly.
Thanks.
Baus
November 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Thanks to Brown for the email. Let me clarify a few things in light of my poor communication.
I actually think the suggestion of endorsement is a good opportunity for individual contributors to speak about who they support and why. I followed the suggestion and made my own endorsement.
I think we are all agreed that DRC itself can’t/shouldn’t make an endorsement. However, I wanted to push your suggestion further to include relating reasons for endorsement specifically to Christ’s Reign.
In my stating that this further connection would make comments ‘more’ relevant (to the overall purpose of the blog, as I understand it), it was not appropriate for me to suggest that a ‘mere’ endorsement apart from that connection was irrelevant. I’m sorry that I was careless about that.
CBrown
November 19th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Baus, I apologize for making a mountain out of a molehill. I do appreciate your comments on this blog. Thank you for taking the time to participate.
CBrown
November 19th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
To follow up on Baus’ point about relating reasons for endorsement specifically to Christ’s Reign, I guess that I could sum up my position on what I’m looking for in a civil governor this way: I want someone who will promote justice and truth and peace.
Peace, especially, has been on my mind recently. I don’t see how our current president’s foreign policy is very peaceful. Intervening in the affairs of other nations and forcing democracy on other people seem to be rather aggressive tactics. Aren’t we stirring up more strife in this world than we should be? So many of the presidential candidates for 2008 seem to differ little from Bush on foreign policy. Guiliani, especially, is downright scary in this regard. (And the fact that Pat Robertson endorses him also scares me.)
Thus, I’m attracted to someone like Ron Paul, largely because of his position on foreign policy. Plus, he’s pro-life, which is still an essential position for a candidate to hold, in my opinion.