Comments on: A DRC Presidential Endorsement?

By: CBrown

CBrown — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:09:54 +0000

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.

By: CBrown

CBrown — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:09:00 +0000

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.

By: Baus

Baus — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:23:37 +0000

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.

By: Baus

Baus — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:19:58 +0000

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.

By: CBrown

CBrown — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:31:41 +0000

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.

By: Baus

Baus — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:07:27 +0000

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.

By: Josh M.

Josh M. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:47:55 +0000

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.

By: GAS

GAS — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:19:26 +0000

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.

By: Josh M.

Josh M. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:26:55 +0000

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.

By: CBrown

CBrown — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:48:19 +0000

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.