Rand Paul: Small Government But Big Church!

Rand Paul, a Constitutional Conservative, and Tea Party candidate for Kentucky Senator, has established an interesting, and seemingly contradictory, platform for his campaign. While being a strong advocate for what he refers to, yet, like many others, fails to define, as smaller government, Dr. Paul is equally as committed to increasing the power and influence of the Christian church in every aspect of that Government.

Paul, according to his own site, is proud to have the endorsement of the far-Right theocratic organization, Concerned Women for America. His site boasts that his “socially conservative views have earned the respect and trust of church leaders across Kentucky.”

The Concerned Women for America’s website describes the organizations theocratic view of an America ruled by the Christian church.

Their site states that “CWA is built on prayer and action. We are the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich 30-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.”

What CWA Does;

We help people focus on six core issues, which we have determined need Biblical principles most and where we can have the greatest impact. At its root, each of these issues is a battle over worldviews.

We have several active departments in our national office in Washington, D.C.

CWA is a unique blend of policy experts and an activist network of people in small towns and big cities across the country working to address mutually held goals and concerns. Meet theCWA spokespersons. CWA works with many other groups around the country. Find these and other sources of information on our links page.

CWA’s Mission Statement;

The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens – first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society – thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.

CWA’sVision Statement

The vision of CWA is for women and like-minded men, from all walks of life, to come together and restore the family to its traditional purpose and thereby allow each member of the family to realize their God-given potential and be more responsible citizens.

CWA’s Statement of Faith

We believe the Bible to be the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God and the final authority on faith and practice.

We believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death, rose bodily from the dead on the third day and ascended into Heaven from where He will come again to receive all believers unto Himself.

We believe all men are fallen creations of Adam’s race and in need of salvation by grace through personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

We believe it is our duty to serve God to the best of our ability and to pray for a moral and spiritual revival that will return this nation to the traditional values upon which it was founded.

In a statement released by Concerned women for America, Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women PAC, said;

“Rand Paul is a strong man of faith and of conviction. Rand is strongly pro-life, and has pledged his support for federal measures to end abortion. Additionally, Rand is pro-parental rights, and will fight to get the federal government out of the business of indoctrinating our children with the liberal agenda, and will fight for both alternative schools and home schools… It is for these many reasons, that we proudly endorse the pro-life, pro-freedom, pro-constitution small government champion, Dr. Rand Paul, to be the next senator from the state of Kentucky.”

It seems apparent that the government desired is not smaller, rather, it is to be run by the dictates of the Christian church, instead of the American Citizens.

In addition, Pat Dobson, of the scandal plagued Focus on the Family, has become a staunch supporter of Rand Paul’s. In an interview with David Brody, discussing what he feels is the importance of Pat Dobson’s endorsement, Dr. Paul explained how if we were all good Christians, we wouldn’t need laws as much.

“I’m a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife’s a deacon there and we’ve gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society. I think that — in some ways it’s funny, ’cause people talk about laws, and they say, “Well, we have a law against this.” Laws really only work because most of us don’t even need the laws. You know what I mean? Ninety-eight percent of us won’t murder people, won’t steal, won’t break the law, and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws, I mean, you have to have laws, but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day-to-day life.”

If these relationships and endorsements aren’t enough, Rand Paul, through his father Ron, has become friends and political allies with one of the bigger names in the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Howard Phillips, founder of the US Taxpayers Party, which has been re-branded as The Constitution Party.

In 2009, Rand Paul was the featured guest, and speaker, at the Constitutional Party’s Liberty Banquet. The program for the evening stated; “Patriots and statesmen will come together on April 25th to hear featured guest, Dr. RAND PAUL. Don’t miss this opportunity to unite with other like-minded folks for an evening of inspiration and motivation.”

According to the Constitutional Party’s website, “The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations… The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”

Bringing some more political notoriety, along with an equally evangelical agenda to Rand’s aid, is none other than Sarah Palin.

During her meteoric rise to the world political stage, Sarah Palin made a point of consulting with Billy Graham regarding foreign policy with Israel, Iran and Iraq. Her questions were related to Biblical ‘End-Times’ prophecy and how foreign policy should be designed and implemented accordingly. She spent time with Mr. Graham accepting both his prayers and advice. This crash course on how to manage the end of the world also proved to be a valuable photo-op and chance for Mrs. Palin to further connect to her right-wing conservative Christian base. In an interview with Barbara Walters, Mrs. Palin shared her concern over President Obama’s policy against Jewish settlement expansion. Her objections were based on her belief that many more Jews were going to be relocating to Jerusalem in the weeks and months ahead. According to the Bible, Armageddon will not happen until the Jews have full control over Jerusalem, and Jesus won’t be coming back until we get that whole ‘Armageddon-war-to-end-all-wars’ thing out of the way. So, in Sarah Palin’s conservative Christian reasoning, we have to support Israel, at all cost, and help them expand and control the area so that Jesus can come back and either kill them or convert them to Christianity.

In a departure from his father, Ron, as well as from his own generally isolationist views, Dr. Rand seems to agree with Palin’s support of Israel.

Philip Klein, of the American spectator, quoted a position paper from Dr. Paul, which states;

“Israel and the United States have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.
I would never vote to place trade restrictions on Israel, and I would filibuster any attempts to place sanctions on Israel or tariffs on any Israeli goods.
In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel. Finally, Iran has become increasingly bellicose towards Israel. Thankfully, Israel has one of the bravest, most elite military forces in the world. I would never vote to prevent Israel from taking any military action her leaders felt necessary to end any Iranian threat. Just as the United States would not follow the will of another country in the face of our national security, we shall not limit the options of Israel in this area.”

Dr Paul also enjoys the backing of the openly evangelical Jim DeMint and his connection to the secretive religious organization ‘The Family‘, currently under investigation for their in-kind financial support to various politicians.

Rand Paul has been touted as a fresh perspective, anti-establishment, candidate. His platform and list of endorsements seem to bely such a claim. In fact, Dr. Rand seems to be entrenched so deeply in the Christian conservative establishment that his platform is anything but smaller government. His apparent proposition describes the creation of a people’s government of less authority dominated by a non-democratic religious government with increased authority.

Rand Paul is not a fresh new candidate for the expansion of personal freedom under a less obtrusive government, but the harbinger of a conservative theocracy disguised as a Libertarian. His vision is not of the future, but of a pre-civil rights amendment past, where McCarthyism meets Billy Graham, the constitution is trumped by the churches interpretation of the bible, and civil liberties are traded for religious doctrine.

Mark Twain once said, “When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Kentucky, because it’s always twenty years behind the times.” Hopefully Kentuckians will catch up in time to ‘vote No to Rand Paul’ this November, and his platform intent on destroying the Constitution.


14 Responses to Rand Paul: Small Government But Big Church!

  1. Winston June 6, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Oddly enough I remember seeing a video of him from 2002 in a local debate in Kentucky criticizing George Bush for giving federal money to Churches. That he was a strong believer in separation of church vs. state.

    • Ole Ole Olson June 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm

      Rand Paul seems to have some strong libertarian roots, but I find it sort of funny how his views have changed as soon as he turned into a politician.

      That said, as an editor on the site, I have changed your comment to remove the personal insult in the end. This discussion board is for discussion, not insults.

  2. Matthew Gardner June 6, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    Intellectually dishonest, wow. I am not a Rand Paul supporter but Jesus Christ I wish people would stop playing spin.

    Author says hes as committed to growing churches role in Government as much as promoting small Government.

    Author brings up the fact he believes the Federal Government should end abortion… Very valid point… But then go to just list people who are his supporters that are religious nut jobs and reading their websites as if its Rand Pauls position is almost slander.

    If I run for Senate and KKK support me for some reason or another (maybe I’m the only whitey in the race) it does not automatically link me with their agenda because they endorsed me.

    • Liam Fox June 6, 2010 at 1:40 pm

      If you publish their endorsement on your sight, reiterate their beliefs as your own, and speak as a featured guest at their annual event, all as Dr. Paul has, I think it would most definitely link you to their agenda, either as a true believer, or as an opportunist, who’s going to be asked for quid pro quo.

      • Bill June 9, 2010 at 6:49 pm

        You need to be a bit clearer on the following ” publish their endorsement on your sight, reiterate their beliefs as your own, and speak as a featured guest at their annual event”. To what are you refering exactly?

  3. Ryan Rhodes June 6, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    Your article does not take into account the history of Rand and his dad Ron Paul. They are generally not outspoken supporters of drug legalization, because it’s not very popular, but it is certainly a goal of theirs to remove the governments interference in the medical industry and in recreational drug use as an extension of that philosophy. That is not a position these religious groups hold.

    Their positions are sometimes in accord with gay and lesbian groups because they hold the general philosophy the government shouldn’t discriminate against individuals at all, but I would not call them champions of this group, and there is plenty of libertarian rhetoric a less conservative politician might choose to adopt, but they don’t.

    Religious groups seem to be pushing for home schooling the hardest, and it shouldn’t be any surprise to find the Paul’s a big champion of this.

    The constitutional, anti-fed, paleocon wing of the libertarian party has always tended to be pro-life. If you are pro-choice then that is fair criticism, but it’s totally wrong to imply these guys are going to help christian groups reduce the separation of church and state. I don’t think Rand would have gotten all these endorsements if he wasn’t running against Trey Greyson.

    Let’s face it. The political action arms of the religious right would rather back an unscrupulous republican that wears religion on his sleeve and parrots their positions than a principled person like the Paul’s who have libertarian positions on drugs and other things that make them uncomfortable anyway.

    • Liam Fox June 6, 2010 at 8:17 pm

      To discern what Rand Paul’s ‘true’ beliefs are, from his professed, or political, beliefs is an act of divination outside my skill-set. I can only see the relationships he forms, the platform he establishes, and the supporters to whom he’ll be beholden.

      Words and professions can be cheap… his actions are what’s disconcerting. He may talk like a Libertarian, but he’s starting to quack and waddle like a Christian conservative / Neocon .

      He’s anti- pro-choice yet feels that business owners should be able to discriminate. How is a woman’s womb public domain but discrimination is a businesses right to exercise? A social conservative who wants bible based rules for individuals but corporations to be left unregulated. That’s no libertarian. That’s a politician of opportunity manipulating an ill-defined and contradictory platform to achieve his ambitions.

      • Ryan Rhodes June 6, 2010 at 10:03 pm

        I’m sorry, but the reason you can’t divine his ‘true’ beliefs is because you haven’t researched the subject very well.

        I read a book by Murray Rothbard a decade ago that Ron Paul paid to have published so I know pretty damn well what his beliefs are. Murray Rothbard is definitely one of the most radical thinkers I’ve ever read, but he’s not a racist or a religious freak. He’s Jewish. He’s the most hard core type of anti-government libertarian there is.

        What you have to understand is that all these radical right wing groups splintered off from the old republican party that FDR ended. There are white supremacists, constitutionalist, bible thumpers, and a whole range of others, but there is a big difference in a red neck that reads the New American on his farm and never gets out and somebody that reads Murray Rothbard. I think it’s a real tribute for a guy of Ron Paul’s age to have made the conversion from a John Birch society type of conservative into someone that’s actually studied the modern libertarian philosophy and gets cheered by college kids at political rallies.

        And to be specific, Ron Paul stated absolutely that he supported drug legalization when he ran for president on the libertarian ticket. That’s not divination. He was quiet on that position during the 2008 run, and Rand is taking the smarter route of supporting medical marijuana.

        And it’s not divination to say Ron Paul was supported by gay and lesbian groups in 2008. Those other people you named in your article are the kind of republican that would propose a ban on gay marriage just to score political points. The Paul’s are conservative, but at least they have principles and separation of church and state is one of them. Ron has voted down child pornography bills in congress because they conflicted with our right to privacy.

        If you want to criticize the Paul’s for being a conservative brand of libertarian then talk about their position on immigration or abortion, but saying someone is pro-life, supports homeschooling, and is concerned about immigration is a long way from saying they don’t believe in a separation of church and state.

        And pro-life is not absolutely inconsistent with libertarianism. The basic theory that underpins it all is that a person has a basic human right to control his own life and property. A woman has a life. A child at some point has a right to life. You can argue the government is violating her right to life, but you can argue the same for the child. You just have to accept that the basic axiom of libertarian thought cannot cleanly answer this question. I am pro-choice, but that’s my personal view.

        That is very different from title 2 of the civil rights act which grants the government the right to interfere in private business. If you don’t see that title 2 is in conflict with pure libertarianism while abortion is a gray area then you are just being obtuse. Nonetheless, it was stupid of Rand to say what he did about the civil rights act when it has no bearing on today’s issues. I hope he learned his lesson.

  4. Liam Fox June 6, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    Thank you.

  5. Liberty Pimp June 6, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    I must have missed the part where he would use the force of law to meet any of the social goals of the religious organizations you are talking about.
    Based on his dad’s record there is clear distinction between religion and government in the Paul family. But that said his moral values will guide him and I do not see that as a negative factor do you?

    • Liam Fox June 6, 2010 at 8:56 pm

      A couple points; He should be guided by the constitution, not a personal or religious moral code. ‘He’ is running for office, not his father. If you missed the part regarding his interest in pursuing this agenda, read the article again, follow the links.

      • Liberty Pimp June 7, 2010 at 3:36 pm

        Actually I have met Rand and his dad and I have supported his dad since 1988 when he was endorsed by Timothy Leary, so I know what their thinking on the constitution is and trust Rand’s intentions and convictions.

        I also know that the Constitution does not grant minorities, members of fringe religions or the handicapped any rights to my private property or my labor or services so the individuals who voted for the Civil Rights Act were following their own moral compass not the constitution was there something wrong with that?
        Rand said he would have voted for that bill too (contrary to lies in the liberal media). The positions of organizations or individuals that support people have no bearing on how they are going to vote so he might not be the constitutional voter I would hope for.
        I have run for office myself and know there were lots of people who supported me who have very different ideas on politics, but their support or endorsement would not change my ideas on ethics, morals or how I interpret the law. So linking me to someone else’s web site to try to convince me how Rand will vote is really not any sort of proof of your position. Link me to something where Rand Paul says in his own words that he will use the force of government to dictate a religious agenda.
        Actually Ron is also running for office again too. Democrats are just smart enough to not waste any money running against Ron they will learn their lesson running against Rand. So what is wrong with the issues Rand is really running on? Balanced budgets. Audit the FED. Term limits. 2nd Amendment. Federalist Right to Life. No government mandated insurance. Declared Wars rather than UN and Executive quagmires. These really are the only platform issues he has talked about. yet I read all kinds of speculation on everything form drugs to gay marriage and ending the Civil Rights Bill. This race is really an example of what kind of scum is on the left these days.All of this fighting for a Democrat AG from KY who takes money from utility companies and then hiked rates on KY. He also was negligent in enforcing laws on mortgage brokers in KY helping to create the foreclosure crisis. Why do not read anything on his opponent and why he is a better choice?

        • Ryan Rhodes June 8, 2010 at 12:32 am

          It’s fair for someone who is unfamiliar with Ron Paul to wonder if Rand is a religious nut based on these endorsements.

          My point was not so much to speculate what Rand thinks on gays, drugs, and porn as to point out that being pro-life does not make you a religious nut and is not necessarily inconsistent with libertarianism. How he reacts to issues that might be morally repugnant to him personally will define if he is a man of principle to me in the future though, but at this point I would trust him based on his dad’s voting record alone.

          Enjoyed reading your comments. I think you are right that the endorsements themselves don’t mean anything, and I agree there is nothing wrong with the issues Rand is actually running on.

  6. Larry Linn June 7, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    George summed it up best, “Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls*** story. Holy S***!”

You must be logged in to post a comment Login