It seems like every election we have another extreme religious figure who becomes a campaign issue for a candidate. Obama had Rev. Wright and McCain had Rev. Hagee and Parsley. Sarah Palin has an actual Kenyan witch hunter. 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.
I have not hidden my admiration for Paul, with whom I have spent considerable time discussing constitutional and policy questions. He is genuinely committed to the anti-war and civil liberties issues that he has made part of his campaign — the only such candidate in either the Democratic and Republican campaigns.
It was Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, who recently touted the endorsement of Kayser — stating “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Either Ivers did not know about Kayser’s extremist views (which is possible) or he didn’t care (which would be scary).
Kayser has stated that he and Paul disagree on homosexual rights, including Paul’s support for repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Paul also voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Kayser’s views are toxic and hateful. He told TPM, for example, he wanted to reinstate Biblical punishments for homosexuals, which include the death penalty. It is also a concern that Paul’s Iowa state director, Mike Heath, led the Christian Civic League of Maine and was involved in an anti-gay campaign in that state.
It was not Paul’s view on homosexuality but his view on federalism that attracted Kayser. “Under a Ron Paul presidency, states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what’s politically correct.” I share many of Paul’s federalism concerns about the shift toward unlimited federal jurisdiction. However, Kayser appears to think that federalism means that states can exempt themselves from the Bill of Rights. He is obviously wrong. Yet, he views federalism as a way of restructuring society along sectarian lines: “Ron Paul’s strictly Constitutional civics is far closer to Biblical civics than any of the other candidate’s on a whole range of issues.”
Kayser’s church appears at war with the separation of church and state — heralding a society that directs implements Christian rules and values:
Christ said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). Not some authority or most authority, but “all authority.” There is no square inch of planet earth over which Christ does not have authority. He has the authority to rule over the state, business, farming, science, art, economics, education, etc. This means that all of life must be governed by His Law-Word. Christ will not be satisfied until all enemies are placed under His feet (1 Corinthians 15:20-28), and “He will not fail nor be discouraged, till He has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands shall wait for His law” (Isaiah 42:4). A major portion of the church’s ministry must be to call all competing authorities to repentance through the faithful teaching of the Law-Word of Scripture.
That vision of government seems strikingly similar to the model found in places like Iran, which apply their own religious code.
Notably, he admits that it may be difficult to switch over to a Christian version of Sharia law.
“Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just. But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative. Biblical law would recognize as a matter of justice that even if this law could be enforced today, homosexuals could not be prosecuted for something that was done before.”
Notably, the Dominion Covenant Church proclaims its purpose as “[p]romoting and enjoying the dominion of King Jesus over every area of life.” The church calls for “a reconstruction of our society.”
For civil libertarians who are unwilling to support President Obama after his long record of rolling back on civil liberties and increasing national security powers, including his recent signing of a law allowing for indefinite detention of citizens, Paul has become an alternative candidate. However, he cannot court civil libertarians while maintaining associations with such people as Kayser. Once his campaign chair put out the press release, it became a campaign issue and requires more than just a withdrawal of the release without comment.
Source: TPM
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/
Regarding Kayser:
“He is the professor of ethics at Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida.”
“Phil Kayser is a frequent conference speaker on many subjects, and he has applied Scripture to politics in three presidential candidate campaigns. He also has been an occasional guest teacher and consultant at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.”
Thank you Mike S.
Here is a series on Libertarianism. It’s interesting and well written but there is one thing I don’t like about it. Dittmer uses a composite of Libertarians to represent their view point without saying directly that he was doing this. Still he quotes from major works of Libertarian philosophy so we understand what Libertarianism is based on. He points the reader to the logical consequences of what at first sounds rather innocuous, but in examining how the idea might actually play out, there is a different, much more disturbing story.
It’s worth the read. “Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part I –The Vision (at Naked Capitalism)
By Andrew Dittmer, who recently finished his PhD in mathematics at Harvard and is currently continuing work on his thesis topic. He also taught mathematics at a local elementary school. Andrew enjoys explaining the recent history of the financial sector to a popular audience.”
Simulposted at The Distributist Review and Naked Capitalism
I must concur with Blouise, Jill and Mike in re Ron Paul. He has selected stances that are very desirable to reform government in ways it needs to be reformed, but many of his other policy planks are simply either untenable or likely to exacerbate preexisting social, economic and political problems. As a comprehensive voter (as opposed to a single issue voter), I cannot say strongly enough that Ron Paul – while he has his strong points – is simply the wrong man for the job of President. That being said, nobody else currently running deserves the job either.
I reminded of Rome in the First Century. Gibbon notes, “The influence of the clergy, in an age of superstition, might be usefully employed to assert the rights of mankind; but so intimate is the connection between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been seen on the side of the people. A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises of an aspiring prince.” ( The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 3).
Gibbon also explains the effect of religiosity on the Empire:
“The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthly passions of malice and ambition, kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country. Yet party-spirit, however pernicious or absurd, is a principle of union as well as of dissension. The bishops, from eighteen hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign; their frequent assemblies and perpetual correspondence maintained the communion of distant churches; and the benevolent temper of the Gospel was strengthened, though confirmed, by the spiritual alliance of the Catholics. The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age….” id. ch. 39)
Well said, Jill, but I don’t think Paul is “well to the left of Obama” on social or economic issues. He is far to the right.
“I have read up on Libertarianism and consider it a form of fascism in its own right. I do not think Ron Paul will be a beacon of civil liberties for women, the poor, black men who aren’t rich or people who are LBGT.”
Jill,
Well said as were the points you made below it. Add those to Blouse:
This problem seems to keep popping up for poor Paul … somebody else is always associating him with problematic material … from racist newsletters to a “death-to-all-gays preacher … if only he could purge those somebody elses from his life, the real Ron Paul could shine.”
And you have two concise statements that make the case against Paul. With Paul there seems to be too many threads of attachment to extremely
virulent causes. The problem is that these attachments are not some tangential inferences, but as in this case and that of his newsletter, they are direct to the person.
JT, I admire you for putting out this information as clearly you do see Paul as a person you would vote for. Here is my worry.
You were equally honest about Obama’s FISA vote yet you still voted for him. That vote told people who could listen, everything they needed to know about candidate/president Obama, yet most people were unable to listen to the meaning of that vote. They consequence of failure to take notice of what that vote meant was a disaster for our nation.
There are a number of disturbing choices and statements by Ron Paul, ones that to my mind are indicative of who he is and who he would be as a president. I have read up on Libertarianism and consider it a form of fascism in its own right. I do not think Ron Paul will be a beacon of civil liberties for women, the poor, black men who aren’t rich or people who are LBGT.
The failure to protect everyone’s civil rights means that Paul is not really for civil rights. He is for them selectively, meaning again, by whim of whomever is in power, not as a true civil right. This does not bring us back to the rule of law, something we need more than almost anything at this point.
Although I am in complete agreement that we need to end our wars of empire and abolish the FED, and Paul has stood for these things consistently, putting him well to the left of Obama, he has real problems which would not allow me to vote for him.
A red flag is a red flag.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/30/ron-paul-got-a-free-pass-from-the-press-until-his-polls-soared.html
The word of the day or the Paul campaign….whoops!
Anonymouly Yours 1, December 30, 2011 at 8:22 am
Political Economics 101…. You’ve got it, I want. I’ve got it, you want it, tough shit….
============================
That really is the essence of a plutocracy sitting on top of a plutonomy, which is what we have descended into.
Paul did not return the money to Stormfront.org owners, so I doubt he’ll disassociate from this guy blatantly.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-anti-gay-activist-to-run-iowa-campaign.php
“It was Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, who recently touted the endorsement of Kayser — stating ‘the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.'”
This problem seems to keep popping up for poor Paul … somebody else is always associating him with problematic material … from racist newsletters to a “death-to-all-gays preacher … if only he could purge those somebody elses from his life, the real Ron Paul could shine.
JT – Please make the correction that DBC mentions before it becomes widely quoted.
Here is a cached version of the Keyser endorsement that the Paul campaign removed from the website. It begins:
Thanks Puzzling, I made the correction.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/28/stormfront-founder-ron-pauls-views-coincide-with-ours-on-most-issues/ endorsement by white-supremist
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-doesnt-appeal-to-evangelicals-polls-say-otherwise.php Paul has always appealed to right wing evangelical christians. How do you think he got elected to his rural Texas district? He thinks he can put together a coalition of christian dominionists, anti- war activists, civil libertarians, white supremists, and people that have a lot of science fiction books on their book shelves. It works for some as he is one of the leaders in Iowa.
Dredd….
You can’t say it much better than that….. I will liken it to people who say that they need to shed a few pounds and eat a “happy meal” for lunch everyday…. Makes not for the opportunity to be happy…. But the marketer has done its job…
“However, Paul’s views are toxic and hateful.” Did you mean to say Kayser in that context?
Thanks DBC. I will correct it.
The politicians who the power brokers front for us to choose from reminds me of going to a restaurant where all the food has varying degrees of poison in it.
To have a political ideology based on he or she “has less poison” than the others is no way to run a civilization.
Political Economics 101…. You’ve got it, I want. I’ve got it, you want it, tough shit….