Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

John81

Future Of Republican Party

Recommended Posts

Rand Paul's Vision for a More Inclusive Republican Party

 

In an effort to expand his party’s base of support, Sen. Rand Paul is urging fellow Republicans to “find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by” issues like traditional marriage.

 

Is he serious? Does he actually think this is a winning strategy? And can he truly believe that this is a way for Republicans to advance their cause?

 

I’m afraid so.

 

As reported on March 14, Paul stated, “I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues.”

 

What a self-defeating, misguided strategy, for quite a few reasons.

 

First, the very concept of expanding a party whose platform includes a strong, conservative stand on social issues by weakening that stand is contradictory and wrong-headed. It would be like Planned Parenthood deciding to agree to disagree on abortion, actively recruiting pro-lifers into their ranks (or the reverse, with pro-lifers expanding their base by agreeing to disagree on abortion and welcoming pro-abortionists into their ranks). Who ever heard of such nonsense?

 

Second, we’ve already seen in recent elections that by catering to the left-of-center Republicans, the party’s most important voting base gets turned off and fails to vote in force. And make no mistake about it: What Paul is referring to does cater to the left-of-center voters (more on this shortly).

 

Third, has Paul learned nothing from the success of the Democrats in 2012? Their platform, highlighted during the Democratic National Convention, put forth a radical social agenda (from the most extreme pro-abortion stances to the wholesale embrace of gay activist goals, most particularly redefining marriage), and the Democrats did so unashamedly. Yet Paul thinks that by doing the opposite with his own party’s values, the Republicans can succeed.

 

Fourth, by compromising core values in order to get elected, you ensure that your party will be ineffective in bringing about change once elected, regardless of what promises are made. In fact, leaders who compromise in order to get elected have already revealed themselves to be lacking in conviction (which is a reason they should not be voted for in the first place).

 

Fifth, by minimizing the massive implications of redefining marriage—this is not the kind of issue you “agree to disagree” on—Sen. Paul indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the inevitable results that will follow should marriage be redefined on a national level.

 

These results include the continued erosion of our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience (churches and Christian leaders, don’t imagine for a moment that these issues will not be forced on you in the near future); more and more gay activist curricula in our children’s schools; the very real potential for the further redefining of marriage (note well that the same media that has been celebrating homosexuality for the last couple of decades is now celebrating polygamy—the newest show is My Five Wives—and polyamory); and even challenges to basic gender distinctions.

Almost 20 years ago, gay journalist Andrew Sullivan wrote, “If nothing else were done at all and gay marriage were legalized, ninety percent of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality will have been achieved. It’s ultimately the only reform that matters.”

 

And Sen. Rand Paul wants us simply to agree to disagree on this?

 

Yet Paul adds insult to injury by the vocabulary he uses, speaking of wanting to “find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by” issues like traditional marriage. Festooned by traditional marriage? (For the record, I prefer to call this natural, organic marriage, which it is.) Is the Republican Party also festooned by issues like standing against abortion?

According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, “to festoon” means “to cover or decorate [something] with many small objects, pieces of paper, etc.,” as in, “We festooned the halls with leaves and white lights,” just like one festoons (or adorns) a Christmas tree with cute little trinkets, maybe with an angel on the top.

 

And that is how Paul sees the issue of redefining marriage, one of the greatest and most momentous moral, social and spiritual issues of our time (or, really, any time)? (My debate at the University of Central Florida with Prof. Eric Smaw underscores this clearly, as does the recent book by Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson.)

 

The fact that Sen. Paul could utter these words at all is cause for deep concern. (I’m quite sure that he is not simply “festooning” his expected presidential campaign with rhetoric like this; he surely means what he is saying.)

 

The fact that he is presently at or near the top of the Republican heap is downright scary.

 

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/43193-rand-paul-s-vision-for-a-more-inclusive-republican-party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet the fact is the federal government has usurped that authority. If there is no opposition to the liberal agenda which has been working through the federal government we will continue to have federal mandated legal abortion, homosexual marriage will become a law of the land.

 

Unless a majority of constitutionalists were elected to the Senate, House and White House at the same time who would all pass clear laws taking social matters out of the hands of the federal government and federal court jurisdiction, the federal government will continue to dictate and increase it's control over social issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say he's awful but what he's advocating is the same line the liberal and "moderate" wings of the Republican Party are pushing for and that's a dropping of social issues, which as things stand, will mean giving liberals free run in these areas.

 

If Rand Paul, or another, could pull off getting himself and a constitutionalist majority in both houses of congress elected together and immediately pass into law that which would remove the federal goverment from any input or oversight of social issues that would be great. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

 

Therefore we have to deal with the reality we are currently under until or unless major changes can be made. In the meantime, the Republicans have a choice to make. Will they take a conservative stand on social issues and oppose the liberalization of such already in progress; or will they drop out of the fight and in effect give the liberals victory over social issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not my meaning, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that if the Republicans drop the social issues fight without first removing the federal governments involvement in social issues, the liberals will have victory in the area of social issues because they will continue to push their social agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that would be Rand Paul's desire, but without a majority in the Senate and House that would put forth such legislation for him to sign, he couldn't do it.

 

That's why social issues still need to be addressed at this time.

 

His dad, Ron, has pointed out this problem in the past. As was pointed out, as president he could use his veto a lot, but unless congress underwent a drastic change in occupants and political philosophy, not only would the Dems all band against him, but also enough Republicans to override many, even perhaps most presidential vetoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any mention of God in those speeches and living right?

 

The liberaltarian way doesn't work either.  Sounds great but God has to be first.

 

For decades distant family members, their lawyers and corrupt and lazy judges have been stealing my inheritance.  Introducing God and scripture into our negotiations and legal discussions has revealed the phony Christians and the motives of the other lost thieves.  It has also softened the hearts of some to allow those in charge to move forward with the family trust business.  Introducing a policy of no compromise and standing upon God's Word, wall after wall of resistance has crumbled.  Whenever I get wind of another design on what's mine and not theirs, I offer to sign it over to them and they never accept, just slink away.

 

I apologize for not articulating my thoughts well at this late hour but that is how real statesman should operate.  Our final authority for all matters of faith and practice has to be God's Word.  If it's man's belly, there will always be discord and misery.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is speaking on a national plane.  And in that case he would be absolutely right. It isn't any of the federal government's business about marriage, abortion, homosexuality, etc.  None.  None.

I thought it was based on Romans 13:3?

 

Rand Paul won't even get the nomination. He's too much of a crack pot like his father.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul has been careful to separate himself in many ways from his father. He's put a lot of effort into being more polished and careful in putting forth his views. He has also been busy making himself more appealing to a broader section of the Party and making connections with potentially helpful politicians. Put together the right way, and with careful speeches and good debate performances, he's positioned himself as at least a potential contender.

 

As to some other matters, we have to remember that as originally founded, the federal government was supposed to be very limited in powers and the president was supposed to be limited as well, with congress having the most power in their hands where the Founders wanted there to be much debate and discussion which would provide for slow actions from congress. When it came to matters of the average citizen and the internal affairs of the individual States, the federal government was to have virtually no input or impact.

 

The States and their citizens were left to determine their course with regards to religion and social issues, along with nearly all things within their individual borders.

 

As several of the Founders warned, and many more feared, the federal government grew and began grabbing power and authority not belonging to them. Over the course of time the power and authority collected has added up to the monstrosity we have today where the federal government dictates even minute details of internal State and citizens lives.

 

We have to deal with the reality we are faced with today. Even Ron Paul, a staunch libertarian, admitted that until or unless the system is fixed, some things must be conducted in accord with the reality of how things are today rather than based upon what they should be, in order to accomplish anything.

 

America today is so far removed from its origin and the population so vastly different from the originating generation that nothing short of a mighty move of God or a devastating revolution or civil war could bring about the massive change necessary to truly make things better. Now, if God brings about revival and awakening that leads to such we can all praise Him greatly and rejoice. If man takes to war then we have no idea who will win, who will end up in charge, if the nation as a whole will survive, or what political philosophy the winners may hold to, enact and enforce.

 

I praise God and give thanks that this isn't our home and we have one true King and we are His ambassadors here as we await our glorious call home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is speaking on a national plane.  And in that case he would be absolutely right. It isn't any of the federal government's business about marriage, abortion, homosexuality, etc.  None.  None.

 

I said I wouldn't get involved in politics, again.  However, even I know this is 100% true, John.  Rand is much like his dad, Ron.  Although, he is better!  I loved the way he took down Hillary with Benghazi.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, TGL, that is the strongest answer that they can rightfully give.  The Constitution was written to point out the limitations of the federal government, not the people or the state governments.  That's what the 9th and 10th amendments are all about. It is true, though, that many politicians make the claim that they are states' rights people but they aren't really.  Rand Paul is.

 

Rand Paul is not really like his dad.  He ascribes to libertarian philosophy and is not ashamed to proclaim that (and, truthfully, the libertarian thought is more in line with the founders...). But he does not go into some of the wacky stuff his dad has gotten into. He did something no other conservative has done: he got a standing ovation at that bastion of liberalism, Berkeley U.  Did he get it by proclaiming liberal ideology? Nope. He got it when he made it clear to them that he disagrees staunchly with the NSA and that they do have a right to privacy.  That does make him a serious contender, because there are liberals out there who agree with much of libertarian philosophy but don't realize that it's in line with the Constitution. 

 

 

 

We have to deal with the reality we are faced with today. Even Ron Paul, a staunch libertarian, admitted that until or unless the system is fixed, some things must be conducted in accord with the reality of how things are today rather than based upon what they should be, in order to accomplish anything.

Yes, you are so right, John. We have to deal with the reality we are faced with today.  But too many Christians don't want to deal with it. They want to sweep in under the rug and proclaim that we have no responsibilities in it because our home is in Heaven.  But God made us stewards of what He's given us - including the country He put us in (whatever country that is).  

 

And Rand Paul is right, too.  We have to start where we are and work toward making the changes that are needed to make.  Christians, too - we need to get busy for the King, because we haven't been, by and large.  And that's a major reason for the condition our country is in today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...