So, Why Is Ron Paul Endorsing Un-Christian, Un-Constitutional Agenda Of Martin Luther King, Jr?

[JLofton]

Martin Luther King, Jr was a serial whoremonger, an adulterer, a liar and a socialist (communist, too? probably). He was, arguably, the greatest moral hypocrite in American history and the so-called “civil rights” he pushed for were un-Biblical, un-Constitutional, and non-existent – non-existent because no “rights” come from the civil government.

There are no such things as “civil rights.”

I say all this because King asked us to judge people on the content of their character.

So, why has Ron Paul – supposedly a Christian and a Constitutionalist – put out the press release below? King was “the great freedom fighter” with a “love of liberty for all people?” No, he loved being a “libertine.” And if King loved liberty he would never have pushed, for example, Federal laws trampling on the private property rights of restaurant owners who have a right to serve anybody they want or don’t want to without Federal interference.

Paul’s press release makes a mockery of everything he has said he stands for. Paul says he is , “a candidate who will uplift the ideals for which Dr. King fought.” He says that if he’s elected, he “will continue Dr. King's charge as President." If this is true, no Christian or conservative can support Paul. No way.

Ron Paul on MLK, Jr.'s Legacy of Freedom

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jesse Benton
January 20, 2008 703-248-9115

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul today issued the following statement reflecting on the struggle for civil rights and the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. :

"It is especially fitting that we take the time to reflect on one man's struggles to defend our Constitutional freedoms during this primary election season. January 15 was the birthday of the great freedom fighter, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and on Monday, we honor him nationwide for his sacrifice and love of liberty for all people.

"To me, the timing is more than a coincidence. The American people, regardless of color or creed, have the opportunity to choose a candidate who will uplift the ideals for which Dr. King fought—and died.

"The fight for freedom—the preservation of our civil rights—is the fight of our lives. Sadly, after Dr. King's passing we are faced with a violation of our civil rights in the same vein as Jim Crow: The Patriot Act. I have stood against this and all unconstitutional violations of American's civil rights, and will continue Dr. King's charge as President.

"Dr. King would be disappointed in our current administration for more than its continued disregard for civil rights, as he stated 'a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.' We need to change our interventionist foreign policy, and take care of our brothers and sisters at home. Our nation is in a crisis: we are spending billions on war overseas while those around us are suffering and losing jobs, homes, and hope. It is inexcusable; we must solve the economic crisis at home and bring hope to America.

"Dr. King's heroic actions should resonate with us today, as we recognize that our votes strengthen the fight for our civil rights. Liberty is the true antidote to racism, and freedom-- limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights—can uplift us all."

[Centurion]

Originally Posted by JLofton

Martin Luther King, Jr was a serial whoremonger, an adulterer, a liar and a socialist (communist, too? probably). He was, arguably, the greatest moral hypocrite in American history and the so-called “civil rights” he pushed for were un-Biblical, un-Constitutional, and non-existent – non-existent because no “rights” come from the civil government.

Regarding MLK and his moral hypocrisy: Only one among legions; surely unworthy of the widespread and ill-advised public adulation he garners, like so many others -- Clinton, LBJ, JFK, FDR, Lincoln, Hamilton, etc., etc. -- so probably not "the greatest."

Icons such as Churchill, Ghandi and Mandella have elicited similar hero status, perhaps not for their moral or ethical purity, but for their huge impact on cultural paradigm shifts, for the better or worse, intended or not. I would place King in a similar category, at least as far as fallible and revisonist historians are concerned. That's the sad, unalterable reality.

There are no such things as “civil rights.”

Granted, no rights "come from the civil government"; and Ron Paul has stated so repeatedly. But is there not legitimate intent and effort to protect "certain unalienable rights" -- "civil" that is -- as enumerated in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and certain of the amendments? Is that not the biblical role of the civil magistrate? Did not King, righteously or not, attempt to make that point?

Is it not those same God-granted rights or priveleges to which MLK and the Paul press release referred? We'll agree that the former went considerably beyond the intent of the Framers and scripture, and why Benton (or Ron Paul) didn't express that reality is troubling. One hopes that political pandering is not the motive.

I say all this because King asked us to judge people on the content of their character.

So, why has Ron Paul – supposedly a Christian and a Constitutionalist – put out the press release below? King was “the great freedom fighter” with a “love of liberty for all people?” No, he loved being a “libertine.” And if King loved liberty he would never have pushed, for example, Federal laws trampling on the private property rights of restaurant owners who have a right to serve anybody they want or don’t want to without Federal interference.

Paul’s press release makes a mockery of everything he has said he stands for. Paul says he is , “a candidate who will uplift the ideals for which Dr. King fought.” He says that if he’s elected, he “will continue Dr. King's charge as President." If this is true, no Christian or conservative can support Paul. No way.

Wow! Quite an indictment, and maybe with some merit. It would be interesting and useful to learn Benton's or Dr. Paul's reaction to this analysis. Another good measuring rod would be the campaign's new daily blogger, my young friend, Dan McCarthy (see "The Daily Dose" at www.RonPaul2008.com). I hope he's reading TAV. Do you know him, John? He workd for PJB at TAC. Another wise observer would be Gary North. I expect to see various reactions, as well, on Lew Rockwell.

It should be an interesting story to follow.

It's not a deal-breaker for me because I trust Paul, despite his over-the-top press release, to be referring mainly to those who are willing to exercise civil disobedience for their cause, and risk the consequences. That, I believe is his focus with King -- not King's personal life or socialist politics -- just as it is with tax-protesters and the anti-imperialist, Ghandi.

How many imperfect tools has God used for His purposes?

[DockHoilman]

Long-ago, I learned that when people cannot support a particular positions, they often stop reporting facts and start name-calling. I am sorry for you, John, and am praying that the Lord blesses your life and your heart.

We are all God's creation. While we are not all God's children, all DO have great value in God's eyes. No civil government should ever support the unequal treatment of her citizens. The "civil rights" (yes, a poor choice of terms) is really about the civil support of God-given rights.

I believe that Ron Paul is standing against the bigotry that still plagues our country today. Thank God for that stance.

[Centurion]

I just visited Richard Vigeurie's http://www.ultimateronpaul.com and viewed this relevant video he posted today: http://www.freeatlast2008.com.

The Paul campaign is all about liberty in Christ in the public square, brothers.

It reminds me of my gratitude to be able to contribute to TAV again this month, as well as today's MLK money bomb, preceded by a few dive bomb runs to celebrate Guy Fawkes in November and the Boston Tea Party anniversary in December.

After my tithes and offerings, of course.

Join us, John; the joy of the Lord is our strength!

[J. Glenn Ferrell]

To describe liberties as “civil” does not denote their origin but the realm where they are exercised. For example, civil government, civil magistrates, civil laws; although, we know all authority, rule and law originates with God.

Sometimes unrighteous men accomplish God’s will. Consider Jehu in 2 Kings 9 &10. He was an unregenerate with an unsanctified zeal, who accomplished God’s judgment upon the house of Ahab and idolatrous Baalism. Though he “took no heed to walk in the law of the LORD God of Israel with all his heart;" yet God granted his children of the fourth generation to sit on the throne of Israel “Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart.”

The practice which prevailed in the 60's and before of excluding persons from voting, juries, public office, public facilities, equal protection and due process was repugnant because the civil government acted as a respecter of persons in maintaining the sinful status quo. God used MLK and others to change the circumstances for the better. Though I may not agree with all his motives and methods, I’m glad my children grew up in a different world than I in regard to the treatment of people of color.

Righteous men should be careful of whom they endorse. Jehonadab was persuaded to endorse Jehu in 2 Kings 10:15. So much for trusting politicians and social reformers who quote Scripture and claim to be zealous for the Lord. Be judicious in whom you endorse.

Though I’m glad for social progress in the way we treat others, I’d not publicly endorse MLK. However, I understand Dr. Paul’s linking his advocacy of civil rights and liberties with the King celebration.

I’ll give some money to the Ron Paul campaign today; but I’ll do it in memory of Lieutenant General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson’s birthday today. Jackson was a true Christian and friend of the black man, who disobeyed the unjust civil laws of Virginia to aid his fellow man.

[James Niemela]

My wife and I named our 3rd child Joshua Thomas, after General Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson. A true Christian patriot, gentleman, and hero. My desire is that my son will grow up to be a Christian champion like his namesake!

James Niemela

[TimV]

Dabney's book on Stonewall is a must read! For a while Dabney was Jackson's chaplain, and served also as a staff officer, once defeating the North in a skirmish when no other officers were around to command a mixed group of artillery and infantry.

Paul's pointing out the King really did fight for freedom is important. We're supposed to meditate on the good, and this is a perfect example. There was no reason to bash King for his other problems that he may or may not have repented of, since the context was fighting a particular injustice.

[JLofton]

Originally Posted by DockHoilman

Long-ago, I learned that when people cannot support a particular positions, they often stop reporting facts and start name-calling. I am sorry for you, John, and am praying that the Lord blesses your life and your heart.

We are all God's creation. While we are not all God's children, all DO have great value in God's eyes. No civil government should ever support the unequal treatment of her citizens. The "civil rights" (yes, a poor choice of terms) is really about the civil support of God-given rights.

I believe that Ron Paul is standing against the bigotry that still plagues our country today. Thank God for that stance.

And long ago I learned that those who do not/cannot refute/answer or even reply directly to particular direct questions/assertions often resort to calling such names as name-caller instead of focusing on the subject. Such folks also often seek to avoid direct answers by spinning statements and babbling on about what someone meant to say and/or making statements which, while true, are utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. And what the heck does it mean to say: "No civil government should ever support the unequal treatment of her citizens." Really? Sez who? Is that in Scripture? No. Is that in the Constitution? No. So, please, try again. You have in no way been directly responsive to what I wrote.

[JLofton]

Originally Posted by Centurion

Granted, no rights "come from the civil government"; and Ron Paul has stated so repeatedly.

Which is precisely what makes Paul's casting his lot with King so inexplicable!
And the McCarthy names does sound familiar to me.

[JLofton]

Originally Posted by Centurion

The Paul campaign is all about liberty in Christ in the public square, brothers.

The truth must be faced. Ron Paul has never said this or anything like it. In fact, he hates it when the "religion" topic comes up and has said that "religion" has no part to play when assessing a candidate.