Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Ron Paul’s Easy Appeal Among Reconstructionists

Jim Burroway

December 28th, 2011

Warren Throckmorton seems to have found what may be the key to Ron Paul’s support among Christian Reconstructionists while also being spurned by Dominionists:

But back to (New Apostolic Reformation dominionists) vs. Christian reconstructionists; the focus of control is different. The NAR folks want to rule America as a Christian nation from the seat of centralized power in Washington DC. The Christian reconstructionists want to deconstruct central government in favor of state or local control of law. Bachmann and Perry promise to govern biblically and impose their view of Christian America on the nation. Paul promises to dismantle the federal government in favor of the states.

In fact, the Christian reconstructionists are afraid of the NAR dominionists. Recontructionist Joel McDurmon wants biblical law in place but he thinks the NAR approach is a dangerous power grab.

It’s notable that the most prominent pastor in Iowa to endorse Ron Paul (an endorsement featured on Paul’s web site) is Rev. Phil Kayser, who has deep reconstructionist (also known as theonomist) ties. At Biblical Blueprints, a reconstrucitonist web site, Kaiser posted a book (PDF: 4.1MB/60 pages) in which he justifies the death penalty for homosexuality:

(page 24): I should think that theonomists would be happy with this understanding of Biblical capital crimes since it is the Bible and the Bible alone that determines ethics.  But I would think that those who are concerned about how Biblical penology would apply in a pagan society and how it would dovetail with evangelism would be happy because Biblical penology beautifully dovetails with God’s program of the  Great Commission. There is no tension between Biblical law and the Great Commission. For example, in a society that was being converted, homosexuals could continue to be converted as they were in the church of Corinth. Even after a society implemented Biblical law and made homosexuality a crime, there are many checks and balances that would be in place. (See Appendix A page  40 for specifics.) The civil government could not round them up. Only those who were prosecuted by citizens could be punished, and the punishment could take a number of forms, including death. This would have a tendency of driving homosexuals back into their closets.

I think I have demonstrated how even capital punishment can be restorative.  Other aspects of penology such as restitution, indentured servitude, etc. are certainly restorative.

I should think that those who accuse Biblicists of a theology that would cause a holocaust should be happy since we advocate standing law, not the Herem principle, and since standing law could be implemented even in a society like ours without the need for massive bloodshed. After a few speedy executions of non-repentant criminals, others would think twice before despising God’s law.

Paul opposes Lawrence v. Texas because he thinks it infringes on states rights. Kayser likes the idea of states having the right to kill homosexuals, which neatly completes the circle to his support for Paul.

Later in the book, Kayser defends his support for capital punishment for gay people against the objection that his theonomist proposals would “lead to a bloodbath”:

(page 38): Objection 13 – “This would lead to a blood bath if we were to implement that law today because almost our entire nation is implicated in capital crimes.”

This objection is a mixture of pragmatism (we can’t do it) and emotional appeal (it would lead to a blood bath). But neither argument changes God’s definition of justice. 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.

What’s a few dead homosexuals in the greater scheme of things? And this is the man of whose endorsement Paul’s web site now brags. Along with Paul’s praise of the voter recall effort against state Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of marriage equality, his opposition to Lawrence v. Texas, and the man who Paul selected to lead his Iowa campaign, suddenly those newsletters appear neither anachronistic nor anomalous. Ron Paul supporters have to ask themselves a really hard question: With his active courting of extremists like these, what kind of people do they think Paul will select for his administration?

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Timothy Kincaid
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

“…while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”

Indeed, surround Micky’s with a machine gun crew and invite to safety all those who wish to recant their homosexual lifestyle and be restored and, hallelujah, many miraculous healings would occur instantaneously. And they would stay healed from their homosexual inclinations right up to the moment they crossed the Canadian border running as fast as their feet could take them.

Edwin
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Why is none of this information ever in
a regular news paper?
There people out there that need to know this stuff!

lisa johnson
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Are you kidding me??? State sanctioned executions for homosexuals? Let me guess though he’s. Pro-life. There was someone else who held this philosophy. His name was HITLER!!!!

Rob in San Diego
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Wow Jim, I felt like you were speaking directly to me, now I know why some of you won’t be voting for Ron Paul.

However I still won’t be joining you, neither will my friends. You guys make it sound like that if Ron Paul does become president we’re all going to get shot or executed. That just is not going to happen. Gays are not going to loose any freedoms that we have already gained over the years. Please stop making it sound like we’re all going back in the closet. WE”RE NOT!

There are far more important things in this presidential election than what they think about gays. I’m not sure if you’ve watched any of the debates, but Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who is not advocating for our destruction, nor is he saying that gays should loose all our rights. It’s best for each states courts to decide whether or not gays have the right to marry, unless the people vote for it or a states legislators vote for it. You yourself have even said that in past articles.

We need a real president with a good foreign policy and fiscal responsibility plan, and none of the other republican candidates nor our current president can beat Ron Paul for that. We are using the same foreign policy we used 60 years ago on Europe now on the Middle East, and it just isn’t working, we have to go in a new direction. I tell you who doesn’t like his policies, it’s Israel, and your all letting them influence you. We have to let the Middle East go and focus on America. Israel has enough of our nuclear bombs to take care of themselves.

I know you all think I’m insane, but guess what, for every 1 of me, there are 5 more. And we’re not going anywhere. Ron Paul will be the nominee, and if he’s not, then I hope your all satisfied in heading down the same black hole that we’ve been falling into for the last decade or so.

I want a new direction, in a way that we have never tried before. One that is maybe even unconventional. And if things don’t work in 4 years, then we go back to your way.

TomTallis
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

Rob in San Diego said, “You guys make it sound like that if Ron Paul does become president we’re all going to get shot or executed. That just is not going to happen.”

Really? Can you make us all an iron-clad promise on your family’s lives that that could not happen under a Ron Paul administration?

Even ignoring his bizarre economic and Constitutional ideas, I find the man and his followers to extremely dangerous.

Stephen
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

A man who has lived his entire life off the public purse, a utopian fabulist whose politics don’t reach the level of 3rd tier sic-fi, a man with no morals or convictions beyond lining his own pocket with racist ‘newsletters’, a fool and a fraud in the best tradition of American hucksterism. He has no appeal beyond Iowan evangelicals and college kids who find Dungeons and Dragons too intellectually taxing. And it seems a few gay men.

I’d call him the Nader of the right except that Nader does have ideas, whatever one thinks of them, and can express himself with intelligence and force.

Paul is the Hobbit to Bachmann’s Gollum. Both are best left to fiction.

Reed Boyer
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

Rob in San Diego –

How long have you been living in California? Because your statement that “Gays are not going to loose [sic]any freedoms that we have already gained over the years” seems to ignore or gloss over the past three years of California history.

Prop 8 DID strip away rights – and 18,000 couples are in limbo. Some might argue that it didn’t actually strip away a “freedom,” because gays and lesbians are still free to marry (as long as it’s someone of the opposite sex). That’s been a familiar tune from Bachmann, Santorum, and some of the others. Rights/freedoms. Whatever.

The point: Paul’s people (because he apparently doesn’t write or approve anything and hasn’t for decades) touted the endorsement of an extremist Dominionist, and then pulled it and ran for the hills after they had the wit to realize that.

Given the smashing successes that the obstructionist Tea Party element has produced in Congress in fewer than two years, “trying it a new way for four years” is NOT something I’m eager to do.

Timothy Kincaid
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

Stephen,

Unless you consider working as an obstetrician in private practice to be “living off the public purse”, then it would seem that you know very little about either Ron Paul or Tolkien’s The Hobbit.

When composing rants, it generally is more effective to spew invective that has some relation to reality. Otherwise they seem less a matter of principled objection and more just a venting of one’s own personal hate.

Timothy Kincaid
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

Reed,

I am not familiar with Ron Paul’s position on Proposition 8. Do you have some reason to tie the losing of marriage rights to Ron Paul? I’m not a Paul supporter, but I don’t see the connection.

John D
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

Timothy,

Reed’s point wasn’t that Ron Paul supported Prop 8. His point was that gay rights gains can be fragile. Rights won’t be taken away? Do you mean rights like marriage?

Personally, I think Paul’s hopes of becoming the Republican nominee are slim. I do worry about his connections with racists and homophobes.

StraightGrandmother
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

Timothy, I see a connection between Prop 8 and the man who sits in the Oval Office. Obama has directed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA, and ask for heightened scrutiny in all Federal court cases affecting laws relating to sexual minorities. This is a very big deal. In fact I remember the letter Ted Olson sent to Judge Walker, or come to think of it, maybe it was the Appellate Judges telling the Judge(s) that this is the position of the Justice Dept. The Justice Dept is under the Executive Branch and can hurt us or help us, so yes it is important and has a direct affect, who is in the oval Office.

StraightGrandmother
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

This is from Ron Paul’s website his “Plan to restore America”

“Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.”

There go the Pell Grants and Stafford Student loans then I would guess, since they are administered via the education Dept. Can you imagine all the schools that are going to shut down and the un-employment and wage deflation for those lucky enough to stay employed. I am sure California would close campuses right and left as how many people get through college without student loans.

And the Energy Dept, let’s close that. We don’t need no national gas reserves do we? When Iran gets in a snit and chokes off the Straights of Hormuse (sp) well so what, ride your bike to work. The LA Freeway turns into one big bike path with no National gasoline reserves and the management in place to manage the program. I guess in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota they would snowshoe in to work then.

And this is also his plan,
“Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.”

I personally did reporting that went up just 2 levels of a company with profits of over 2 Billion Dollars a year. I can tell you from first hand testimony that when Sarbanes-Oxley was implemented it scared the holy crap out of all the executives. The CEO & CFO has to personally guarantee the numbers they are reporting to their stockholders are correct under penalty of criminal law and potential imprisonment. So yes Sarbanes-Oxley is an important law and we need to keep it. If you look at the financial reforms that Ron Paul wants to remove all you are doing is giving Wall Street, the bankers and the insurance companies is a license to steal.

Read the Wiki on Dodd-Frank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

I guess we don’t need the Interior Dept either. Quick everybody get in your trip to Yellowstone becasue as a national Park run out of the Interior Dept that will be shut down. The great Redwood Forests, and Everglades National Park, and the Smokey Mountin National Park, and the Grand Canyon National Park, yes we will even have to shutter the Statue of Liberty as that is a National Park as well. All run by the Dept. of the Interior.

Our Native Americans are SOL as their Independent Indian Nations work with the Dept of the Interior to protect their treaty rights.

I won’t even get into HUD or Commerce at this time as this is getting kind of long.

Rah-Rah Ron Paul.

Mark F.
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

“Paul opposes Lawrence v. Texas because he thinks it infringes on states rights.”

Just like a lot of people who are pro-choice think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision.

Why did Ron Paul support the repeal of DADT if he’s personally so anti-gay?
Do you have an explanation for that, Jim?

I do agree that he absolutely shouldn’t be courting some of the people he is and his campaign staff needs some improvement.

Mark F.
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

And if you want to talk about offensive:

How about supporting a right to hold people held without trial indefinately? How about supporting jail for victimless crimes? How about supporting war and militarism and government assasination? How about supporting the reckless squandering of tax money? How about supporting bailouts for corporate Ameerica? How about not holding the Bush administration accountable for their crimes? How about having your Defense Secretary say the Iraq War was “worth it?”

That’s not Ron Paul, that’s the current President.

Mark F.
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

Somewhat off topic, but in 1996 many gays were practically falling over themselves to vote for Bill Clinton, a man who signed DADT and DOMA.

Ron Paul is still the best choice, considering ALL the issues.

Mark F.
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

And btw, Congressman Paul has no chance to be President. No way the Republicans will nominate him. Better to save your attacks for Romney, the likely nominee.

StraightGrandmother
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

“How about supporting bailouts for corporate Ameerica?” And thank God we did. I believe most people now days are having a harder time than 5 years ago. The bailout money is getting paid back with interest.

I was not willing to see General Motors and all those jobs disappear. The economy was in the dumpers and GM had a hard time and thankfully they got a helping hand. I can’t imagine the soup lines we would have in our pot holed streets right now if the government didn’t intervene. The fact is all those financial institutions, if they were not bailed out and would have failed we would be way much worse off than we are now. And they are paying the money back with interest. Warren Buffet is wealthy, but he can’t bail out every business for an equity position. But this discussion is kind of off topic as the topic is Ron Paul so I suppose we should get back on topic.

Rob in San Diego
December 30th, 2011 | LINK

@Tomtallis, yes Tomtallis, I promise you on my families life and my own that the government won’t have us shot or executed under a Ron Paul administration.

@Reed Boyer, I’ve lived here for all 33 years of my life. The brief moment that we were allowed to marry here in Cali was a blip on the radar, almost an anomaly. Of the 33 years of my life, we had marriage equality for I think 6 months or less. My partner of over 6 years today did not want to get married at the time because of his recent divorce to his former wife. We had a chance to and we lost it. We could of but we didn’t. And now we live with the consequence of possibly never being able to. This is what our justice system is for, not to mention our entire way of government. There was a time women and blacks didn’t have any rights, and then they did. Our time will come, yes we do have to fight for it.

The 18,000 couples who married are extremely lucky, I highly recommend that they not move to a state that does not recognize their marriage, at least until the SCOTUS undoes all their laws not recognizing us. Again, this is how our government works. Same reason why I would tell American hikers not to go hiking in Iraq, Iran, or anywhere for that fact in the Middle East, we’re not welcome there. I’m so sick and tired of hearing about people going to places that they shouldn’t, point in case, if the South hates gays, then guess what, the South doesn’t get my tourist dollars, I’ll go to a gay friendly place.

Ron Paul says marriage is a states right, unlike Bachman and frothy mix Santorum who say the same thing and yet at the same time say “however if I’m president I will force all the states to my views on marriage.” I don’t hear that from Paul, even if he’s not for gay marriage, he’s not advocating striping it away. I think these are excellent questions for the media, HRC, Boxturtle, and other journalists should be asking his campaign. He tells you directly what he thinks, he doesn’t flip flop or tell you what you want to hear. The media and some on this site need to stop dredging up irrelevant stuff and just ask him the question. That’s why your journalists, this is your job! If you want me and many others to change our mind, ask him the questions and give us the answers, don’t try and soak fear by telling us the people who are around him and what their views are.

@JohnD, can you please show me a republican candidate who is not surrounded by racists and especially homophobes? Besides John Huntsman and Gary Johnson? I’d vote for them but I’m not too keen on their foreign policy and domestic policy. War between Iran and Israel or WW3 is coming up and I don’t want us involved, it does not concern America, we can’t afford them, not unless we agree to raise our taxes to pay for them. Do you want your taxes raised? You didn’t even want your taxes raised to pay for the last 2 wars.

@straightgrandmother, I’m glad someone is proposing to shut some agency’s, again, if American’s don’t want to pay taxes for them, well we got to close something, can anyone come up with 5 different departments to close? We can’t fund our government by borrowing from China. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.

As to Pell grants and student loans, I don’t see anything in the constitution that says we’re guaranteed the right to go to college. I’ve never gone to college, only to a trade school, and I never took out a loan. Trust me when I say I’m not rich nor am I in the middle class, but my partner was kind enough to cash in some stock he owned for me to go. My sister went to college to be a teacher, there is nothing in the constitution that says she has the right to get grants or loans from my tax dollars, she and others can go to a bank and arrange something, that’s what they are there for, and less risk to our tax dollars. And the Energy dept, really what good has it done for us? The EPA has done more for our environment. We’re still burning oil, coal, and using nuclear materials. The war on drugs, big failure there and yet we throw billions at it. All the republicans want us to drill oil, so let’s start drilling in their states! Don’t let them be NIMBY’s or hypocrites about it. Let them drill, let them wreck their homes or drinking supplies should anything happen, again, let them build this new pipeline from canada, and allow them to put it right over their aquafirs like they want to, just come to California, it won’t affect our water.

Every republican candadite want’s to repeal Obamacare, no surprise there, and you know what, that might be OK, granted I’m someone who could use Obamacare since I’m poor and don’t have any insurance, but it’s not what we were promised during his campaign, we were suppose to get universal health care. We didn’t get it, the republicans blocked everything and in order to get enough democrates onboard they made so many shady back-room deals that when the legislation was presented it looked like Frankenstein.

Look, I’m not saying Ron Paul is perfect in everything, but he’s right on the most important stuff, like getting our country back in shape, and taking care of ourselves.

@MarkF, I agree with you 100%. Even on the scary prediction of your final comments. Both my partner and I (mind you, my partner is a former marine who, (OMG I’m going to throw up again,)voted for Bush both times) believe that Paul will be assasinated but some pretty powerful people and organizations in this country (or from some foreign country who claims to be our friend.) We actually think that there is a good chance that Paul would be stoped like Benizir Buttin was in Pakistan a year or so ago. Just to keep them from enacting change. But trust me, I hope that that will not happen. I’m curious to know though who is VP candidate would be.

Back to Straightgrandmother, I was not for a single bailout under both administrations, cause not only did we bail out the companies, but we also bailed out those who made the horrible decisions that got them there in the first place. Yes there would be pain and hardships, but we’ve had this happen in the past before and we’ve turned out fine every time. The bailout money is not going back into treasury to bring the debt down, our government figures that since they’ve spent it once, then they can go and spend it on something else when they get it back.

I want to wish everyone a very Happy and Safe New Year, I’ve really enjoyed our discussions on this, I do want you to know that what ever yours and mine views are I will always consider you all my brothers and sisters.

Happy New Year!

Pasquale
December 30th, 2011 | LINK

“I’ve never gone to college” (Rob in San Diego)

Really? Would’ve never guessed! (nods to himself with a knowing grin and walks away, rolling eyes)

StraightGrandmother
December 30th, 2011 | LINK

Pasquale, well that was kind of a low blow….I have never equated a college degree with the worth of a person nor their intellectual capabilities. Some of the smartest and most innovative people I know only completed high school, successful farmers. I have many friends who are skilled in the trades, they ain’t dumb, far from it.

W.Cain
December 30th, 2011 | LINK

People may find this humorous take regarding Ron Paul and his alleged issue about using the bathrooms of gay people interesting.

http://www.printfection.com/r-u-serious/RonPaulWont-T-Shirt/_p_6736128

Tim W
December 31st, 2011 | LINK

@Rob In San Diego,
You really don’t get it. Paul supports a state like CA to strip away your marriage. Plus he sponsored the Respect For Marriage Act which would stop the courts from intervening in same sex marriage cases so throw out everything you said about SCOTUS. Really you need to do some homework about your candidate. He doesn’t want the courts involved period. So if you are lucky to live in the few states that allow marriage equality. If not screw you. It amazes me how clueless gay supporters of Paul are.

Stephen
December 31st, 2011 | LINK

Timothy.

get over yourself.

StraightGrandmother
December 31st, 2011 | LINK

Stephen, no I disagree, Timothy is right. Ron Paul will permit States to enact any type of discriminatory anti sexual minority laws they want under the Guile of “States Rights.” You know less Federal govt. and all. This IS what he believes in. Everything gets approved or disapproved by the “Local” majority. The tyranny of the majority overrides individual citizens rights, “Oh well that is what the people wanted” is what he advocates.

No no no, we need a President who is President of the United States of America, who affirms the right of all individuals to self determination, the right to their own personal liberty and pursuit of happiness, not a President of the United Heterosexual States of America.

StraightGrandmother
December 31st, 2011 | LINK

I was referring to Tim W in my above comments, sorry for the error.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.