Pages

Sunday, January 01, 2012

Ron Paul on AIDS

Chris Wallace questioned Ron Paul on AIDS and sexual harassment. I think Paul fielded the questions deftly:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/01/paul-defends-book-passage-on-aids-patients-says-iowa-support-strong/

I wouldn't vote for Paul, but he's good on these issues.

Wallace also questioned Perry and Bachmann. All three guests handled themselves well.

9 comments:

  1. Ah, more Christian compassion, I see.

    I knew someone who contracted HIV from the person they were committed to who unfortunately cheated on them and gave them the virus. They suffered a horrible death.

    Do you folks go into hospitals to visit cancer patients who smoked and stroke or heart disease victims who ate too much cheesecake and berate them for their lack of restraint?

    Anyhow, Ron is still the only Republican who seems to not want to impose his religious ideology on the populace using the force of law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James said:

    "Do you folks go into hospitals to visit cancer patients who smoked and stroke or heart disease victims who ate too much cheesecake and berate them for their lack of restraint?"

    Of course not. But public policy and law are a different matter.

    "Anyhow, Ron is still the only Republican who seems to not want to impose his religious ideology on the populace using the force of law."

    1. That's debatable.

    2. Plus you're using loaded terms.

    3. I'll just point out in passing secularists often "impose" their "[secular] ideology on the populace using the force of the law."

    4. That said I'm certainly not against everything RP advocates. I'd support a lot of what he says.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I'll just point out in passing secularists often "impose" their "[secular] ideology on the populace using the force of the law."

    A little off topic, but it's worth a comment:

    In a way, you have a point. In fact, the whole notion of religious freedom ("You worship your god, I'll worship mine") and which is held to be a fundamental right to be protected in this nation isn't really a uniquely Christian idea, is it? There's certainly not a lot of precedent for it.

    St John Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, sought to marginalize and make miserable all Jews. St Augustine certainly didn't believe in "religious diversity", neither did the Christian Emperor Theodosius (who had Jewish synagogues destroyed) or Cyril of Alexandria, whose persecutions extended to even other "heretical" Christian sects. Much of this can be attributed to the white-knuckled grip of power that the Catholic Church held over much of Europe, but Calvin didn't exactly lead Geneva up to be a beacon of religious freedom, either.

    Of course, this desire to criminalize all expressions of faith one doesn't personally share isn't held by most American Christians (ideas have evolved with the Enlightenment), but there are certainly a number of Dominionists and Reconstructionists in America today who would not take issue with some civil punishment for heresy and/or idolatry (however they happen to personally define it).

    Whether the majority of minority of Christians support religious freedom is irrelevant. The point is that the right of religious freedom does impose some restrictions on religious believers (and probably irreligious people as well) from doing whatever it is they wish to do.

    Is this, in itself, a form of persecution? I don't know ... you tell me. What values take precedent, and why?

    ReplyDelete
  4. One note about Ron Paul, for those who are concerned about his policies towards Iran or Israel: If we're being honest, his more isolationist stance is a POSITIVE thing compared to our current (and previous) administration's active meddling in the Middle East and trying to force a man-made (false) peace on Israel to give up land and all that.

    If any of you believe that God cares about the Jews/Israel and has brought them back to the land, and that we should not be trying to push them out of their land, then if you're honest you should prefer a president that would take the US away from such meddling and wrath (whether divine for trying to force Israel, or Muslim for trying to support Israel).

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who has consistently looked to remove US presence from the Middle East. And if you really believe that God has returned the Jews to the land, then you know He is sovereign and able to protect them and the US being there or not being there has no ability to alter that. If anything, getting our troops out of the Middle East would help remove the US from the impact point of wrath. That's for those of you believe that way, which are the only ones who have a problem with Paul's quasi-isolationist stance. In other words, if you have that concern, you shouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JACOB SAID:

    "One note about Ron Paul, for those who are concerned about his policies towards Iran or Israel: If we're being honest, his more isolationist stance is a POSITIVE thing compared to our current (and previous) administration's active meddling in the Middle East and trying to force a man-made (false) peace on Israel to give up land and all that."

    That's a false dichotomy. It's not a choice between noninterventionism and pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions.

    Moreover, it's not as if we're doing purely one-sided favors for Israel. We benefit, too. For instance, it's useful to have Israeli intelligence on the jihadis.

    "And if you really believe that God has returned the Jews to the land, then you know He is sovereign and able to protect them and the US being there or not being there has no ability to alter that."

    God is able to protect the US if we unilaterally disarm. Is that a reason to unilaterally disarm? You confound sovereignty with fatalism.

    As Cromwell (allegedly) said: "Trust God and keep your powder dry."

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It's not a choice between noninterventionism and pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions."

    It is when you look at the political landscape of our country: The two options are "roadmap for peace" or "get out of the middle east". There is no third option, and won't be until Christ returns to set things right. Of the two options, I'd much prefer the "get out" one, because there at least we have a chance to survive as a nation and avoid continued direct judgments for meddling with Israeli sovereignty and Jerusalem.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JACOB SAID:

    "It is when you look at the political landscape of our country: The two options are 'roadmap for peace' or 'get out of the middle east'. There is no third option..."

    That's patently absurd. There's no grassroots pressure from the GOP base to make a Republican President insist that Israel make dangerous concessions to the "Palestinians."

    Just the opposite: the GOP base, especially the evangelical core, is lopsidedly pro-Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I said political landscape, not solely GOP. But the most recent (R) and (D) presidents have both pushed roadmap for peace with Israel, which included dangerous concessions (leaving Gaza and tearing down settlements like Gush Katif being an obvious one that happened under Bush). They are two sides of the same coin and there is no major candidate I'm aware of that is truly pro-Israel (in our Biblical/eschatological sense). Paul is the non-interventionist alternative, and that's about the only other position in play.

    ReplyDelete
  9. James said:

    "In fact, the whole notion of religious freedom ('You worship your god, I'll worship mine')"

    Hm, was this what the Founding Fathers understood and intended by "religious freedom"?

    "and which is held to be a fundamental right to be protected in this nation isn't really a uniquely Christian idea, is it?"

    Yes and no. There are various tributaries feeding into the river of "religious freedom" in the U.S. Constitution. At the least Christianity would be one of these tributaries.

    A useful starting point is Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution by Forrest MacDonald.

    "but Calvin didn't exactly lead Geneva up to be a beacon of religious freedom, either."

    For one thing, it sounds like you're assuming Calvin had such sway over Geneva that everyone in the city naturally fell in line with whatever he wanted.

    Speaking more broadly, it's true Christian societies aren't perfect. That's obvious. Just like any other society. But for the most part I would think when Christian societies err or sin, they err or sin in the face of their theology or beliefs and values. Whereas one can't necessarily say that about secular societies.

    "Of course, this desire to criminalize all expressions of faith one doesn't personally share isn't held by most American Christians (ideas have evolved with the Enlightenment)"

    Since you bring up the Enlightenment. A secular movement like the French Revolution paid lip service to "religious freedom." But they guillotined many clerics (as well as others). And they went on to form the Cult of Reason.

    "Whether the majority of minority of Christians support religious freedom is irrelevant"

    I don't think Christians are in the minority here in the US if that's what you're suggesting.

    But even if they are, a minority can oftentimes have an influence on society disproportionate to what their numbers would otherwise seem to indicate.

    "The point is that the right of religious freedom does impose some restrictions on religious believers (and probably irreligious people as well) from doing whatever it is they wish to do. Is this, in itself, a form of persecution? I don't know ... you tell me. What values take precedent, and why?"

    For starters, "restrictions" isn't necessarily identical to "persecution." At least not without further elaboration. What you're saying here is a bit vague.

    ReplyDelete