Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Religion, Society

Paul’s Preacher Probem: Meet Phillip G. Kayser

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

96 thoughts on “Paul’s Preacher Probem: Meet Phillip G. Kayser”

  1. anon nurse,
    great link on a disturbing subject.
    Swarthmore,
    David Duke! I bet Ron Paul is excited about that endorsement!

  6. It would be wise to study the criteria Mr. Kayser used to make his endorsement; specifically: limited government and economic policy. In his words, “I support Ron Paul as the Republican candidate for president for a number of reasons. The first reason is that he is the only candidate who holds to a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution (i.e., that the Feds can only do what is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution) whereas the other candidates hold to a broad constructionist interpretation (i.e., that the Feds may do whatever is not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution). It is broad constructionism that has gotten us into the mess we are in today, and you cannot fight liberal broad constructionism with conservative broad constructionism. Both lack integrity.
    The second reason is that he is the only candidate that has a consistent philosophy of economics that will truly resolve America’s problems. The economics of each of the other candidates is flawed, and in my opinion grossly unbiblical. ”

    It is imprudent to think that a candidate agrees with every nuance of every view of every endorser. Mr. Paul and Mr. Kayser agree on certain things and those things form the basis for this endorsement.

    Also, your two quotes of Mr. Kayser’s writing deserve comment. The first quote includes a citation from Matthew 28. If you have a problem with that you need to take it up with the original author (God) since Mr. Kayser’s comments are straightforward and non-controversial. For the second quote your lead-in sentence equates biblical law with Sharia law. To do so reveals a profound lack of understanding of those two law administrations. You are merely trying to be provocative and poison the waters of discussion.

    1. “The first quote includes a citation from Matthew 28. If you have a problem with that you need to take it up with the original author (God) since Mr. Kayser’s comments are straightforward and non-controversial. For the second quote your lead-in sentence equates biblical law with Sharia law. To do so reveals a profound lack of understanding of those two law administrations. You are merely trying to be provocative and poison the waters of discussion.”

      M. Elliott,

      Your assertion that God wrote Matthew puts you right o the same belief system as though who believe in Sharia Law, since they also believe it is mandated by God. I get it that you believe your system is a better one, but that is really in the eyes of the beholder isn’t it? The two systems are comparable because both of them believe they are an expression of divine authority. Jewish Halachah also believes that. As far as your possible argument that “Sharia Law is basically evil in practice, I’m sure history is replete with examples of Christian Dogma being equally creative in oppressing people. Now I’ve read the Gospels and somehow I don’t find any
      economic system referenced there, could you possibly show me where a market economy is decreed?

    2. Forgive me my ignorance, exactly where in the constitution does it say the words “strict construction”. I must have missed that part. Can you point me to where those EXACT words appear? Is it possible, strictly speaking of course, no such words actually exist in the constitution.

  7. The Damage of 2011 Published: December 30, 2011 NYTimes

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/the-damage-from-republicans-of-2011.html?_r=1&hp&gwh=69DA4CCEF7F6A572AF3222C0CC2F8520#commentsContainer

    After they took power in January, the hard-line Republicans who dominate the House reached for a radical overhaul of American government, hoping to unravel the social safety net, cut taxes further for the wealthy and strip away regulation of business. Fortunately, thanks to defensive tactics by Democrats, they failed to achieve most of their agenda.

    But they still did significant damage in 2011 to many of the most important functions of government, and particularly to investments in education, training and transportation that the country will need for a sound economic recovery.

    With a threatened government shutdown in April, the Republicans pushed through spending cuts of about $25 billion over a decade. Then, in August, the agreement to raise the debt ceiling — an unnecessary crisis created by the Republicans — cut nearly $2 trillion through 2021 with strict spending caps, a move that will hurt hundreds of programs serving millions of Americans for a full decade and longer.

    Given the level of extortion they faced, the White House budget office and Congressional Democrats negotiated relatively well. They prevented Republicans from touching Medicare recipients, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs. (President Obama did offer to cut entitlement spending in exchange for higher tax revenues, but Republicans refused that deal.) They arranged for more than $500 billion in cuts to come from defense spending. And they did not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts, now scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.

    But that still leaves major reductions in the vital category known as nondefense discretionary spending, which faces cuts of around $800 billion over a decade. That category includes education, housing assistance, transportation, public health, veterans benefits, law enforcement and courts, environmental protection and many other crucial programs.

    This spending category has been the main focus of Republican pressure for decades. In the 1970s, nondefense discretionary spending represented about 5 percent of the gross domestic product; that is now down to about 2.5 percent. Over the next decade, once the new cuts go into effect, it will decline to less than 2 percent. This year’s spending bill, signed into law a few days ago, is roughly 10 percent lower than last year’s, cutting Pell grants, environmental programs and aid to desperate states. Low-income heating assistance was cut by 25 percent.

    As the economist Jared Bernstein has noted, this is the category of spending that helps people move up the income ladder, providing nutritious food, improving early education and job training and putting people to work.

    The precise cuts on individual programs will be determined each year by appropriators acting under the new caps. Each year’s cuts will be more painful than the last because the spending limits fail to keep pace with population growth, inflation and the needs of the economy.

    This situation is the result of the Republicans’ success at shifting Washington’s focus from job creation and revenue increases to deficit reduction, at exactly the wrong time, when the economy was too weak to handle it.

    The long-term deficit needs to be reduced once economic growth has returned, but only in the context of higher taxes for the rich and a careful restructuring of Medicare. Even if the Bush tax cuts expire on time, much of the $3.8 trillion that that would bring in over a decade would have to be used for deficit reduction if the caps stay in place.

    All of this leaves President Obama and the Democrats with much work to do in 2012. When the 2013 budget process begins in a few weeks, they will need to protect vital investments from further cuts and start building the case for raising the spending caps.

  9. mespo,

    But it was around this one, short, phrase that I eventually built my entire philosophy of life and recognized it not until it was fully constructed and in use:

    “all that is human must retrograde if it do not advance…”

  10. mespo,

    I did take some issue with Gibbon’s thoughts on this matter but my prof helped me to place the comment in its time both for Gibbon and the history he was delineating:

    “Female courage, however it may be raised by fanaticism, or confirmed by habit, can be only a faint and imperfect imitation of the manly valour that distinguishes the age or country in which it may be found.”

    And then:

    “The voice of history… is often little more than the organ of hatred or flattery.”

    There is a lovely wit at work and once I finally recognized it, I was forever smitten … which led to enjoying the scholarship. My prof was thrilled.

  11. raff, I am sure the acorn did not fall far from the tree, but I have been unable to ascertain whether the Koch offspring are currently active members. The brothers may have either lost interest or kept their membership a secret. What is not a secret are the strong ties between Robert Welch and Fred Koch, and the fact the two of them founded the JBS.

    The fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union also made the JBS’s original anti-communist purpose more or less irrelevant. Furthermore, the Koch clan are all about making money and right now the smart money guys are doing business with Communist China. It might be bad for business for them to be too overtly anti-communist.

    They are still economic thugs.

  14. Blouise:

    Here’s a line from the Introduction, I ‘ve remebered all these years for the beautiful parallels and irony of the text:

    “After a war of about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, maintained by the most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all the emperors, the far greater part of the island submitted to the Roman yoke.”

    I love the Rule of Three!

  16. Mike,
    I can’t believe that Ron Paul would be associated with such an evil group as the JBS. Weren’t the Koch’s involved with the John Birchers?

  17. Gibbon gave me fits but, as time went on I found myself constantly referring back to his work. Mespo’s words ” … it takes a lot of time and reflection to realize that the first one you ever meet is the best one.” brought a genuine smile to my face.

    “As long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters.” … beautiful

    1. “At the John Birch Society 50th anniversary gala, Ron Paul spoke to another favorite theme of the Reconstructionists and others in the religious right: that of the “remnant” left behind after evil has swept the land. (Gary North’s publication is called The Remnant Review.) In a dispatch on Paul’s keynote address, The New American, the publication of the John Birch Society, explained, “He claimed that the important role the JBS has played was to nurture that remnant and added, ‘The remnant holds the truth together, both the religious truth and the political truth.'”

      This quote is from SwM’s link above. The John Birch Society has throughout its long history been racist, misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Jewish. It does not and never has accepted democracy, but instead favors rule by the wealthy elite. For Paul to be speaking at any JBS event, much less their 50th anniversary, means he is one with them. I don’t understand how anyone can believe he will protect our civil liberties.

  20. Mark,

    Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it……repeat it……..repeat it.

Comments are closed.