tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7361786387417777890.post2093494039782976227..comments2023-04-02T04:18:35.312-05:00Comments on The Whole Armor: An Open Letter to the Catholic Community on Behalf of Ron Paul by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.One Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02359492539226825134noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7361786387417777890.post-50794895216605264252011-08-05T11:23:53.614-05:002011-08-05T11:23:53.614-05:00Leila & God Alone,
Thanks again for your feed...Leila & God Alone,<br /><br />Thanks again for your feedback. Yes, marriage absolutely ought to be defended in the public forum. Ron Paul's argument is that the whole discussion is taking place at the wrong level. The power of the federal government to "define" marriage at all, is more than it ever should have had in the matter. Noone should be able to coerce another person to accept their point of view, on marriage or any other topic, using the force of government (which, ultimately must back any law), and no state should be forced to accept the so-called "same-sex marriage" of a state where it is legalized. Finally, in light of the First Amendment, we cannot restrict, by force, the ability of anyone to believe or say what they choose to believe. If two people do choose to form a legal association (union?) and call it "marriage," we must do everything in our power to convince them of their error and of the beauty of God's design, but we cannot force or coerce them to change their mind.<br /><br />I fear that, for brevity's sake, I am not able to do his position full justice. Dr. Paul explains his position, and his support of DoMA and the Marriage Protection Act, better than I can, in a letter he wrote on the issue back in 2004, "The Federal Marriage Amendment is a Bad Idea": http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html<br /><br />Wikipedia also has an accurate synopsis of his positions on sexual orientation legislation:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation_legislation.<br /><br />I defeinitely look forward to continued discussion about this!One Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02359492539226825134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7361786387417777890.post-77022050686046761892011-08-04T06:06:43.978-05:002011-08-04T06:06:43.978-05:00Thank you for taking the time to write such a thor...Thank you for taking the time to write such a thorough response!<br /><br />I was going to respond to your response, but Leila/Pope Benedict XVI did the work for me! I couldn't say it better than him.God Alone Sufficeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02512877884857626978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7361786387417777890.post-27041252323787317872011-08-03T20:58:13.558-05:002011-08-03T20:58:13.558-05:00One Man, but I can't square Paul's positio...One Man, but I can't square Paul's position on marriage with that of Pope Benedict, here:<br /><br /><br />In a 2006 speech to European politicians, Pope Benedict XVI said the following:<br /><br /><i>As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions <b>in the public arena</b> is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are <b>not negotiable</b>. <br /><br />Among these the following emerge clearly today:<br /><br />Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;<br /><br /><b>Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;</b><br /><br />The protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.</i><br /><br />(emphases mine)<br /><br />That middle part, obviously, is what I applies here. Thoughts?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7361786387417777890.post-76758494704956538062011-08-03T18:44:38.997-05:002011-08-03T18:44:38.997-05:00Thanks for commenting! That's why I threw in t...Thanks for commenting! That's why I threw in the recommendation to read Liberty Defined (and his other books). We had the same perception until a friend actually got us to read them, but what appeared on the surface to be questionable at best turned out to be a door to understanding the depth of his convictions. He has solid, liberty-based reasoning behind every single position. <br /><br />Ron Paul's bottom line, with things such as drugs and prostitution, is along the lines of Thomas Aquinas' argument that the government (federal gov't in our case) ought to have very limited power to legislate morality in cases where the civil (i.e. human) rights of another are not violated. Where it is given that power, it is a slippery slope to get to the point where the gov't starts limiting a lot of other behaviors that people don't like...like prayer. If any government is to have that power, it ought to be the states so that, instead of being a blanket law, people can "vote with their feet" my moving to a state where the laws are much more in line with their personal convictions.<br /><br />Specifically on drugs, there are other factors such as the corruption and back-door deals, border violence, and so many other evils that have come from the so-called "war on drugs," which costs us dozens of billions of dollars per year but has shown little success. Legalizing drugs, the way alcohol was legalized when prohibition was repealed would eliminate a lot of those collateral problems, but peoples' decisions whether or not to take drugs will probably not change drastically. Prices would drop to a point where killing and stealing would not be necessary to get access.<br /><br />With "same-sex" marriage, his position is that "government intervention in social issues serves no purpose." Marriage, as Christians view it, is a covenantal institution between a man and woman, sealed and consecrated by God and witnessed by his Church. This government should not have any place in that, including defining (or trying to redefine) it. But, with the carrot of tax benefits, etc., we are lured into accepting the imposed necessity of obtaining a government-issued license. Why does the state have to give its blessing before two people can enter into marriage? Further, if "same-sex marriage" is codified into law, and the definition according to government changes, then as we're already starting to see, we are at the behest of government power to enforce that definition. As he puts it at the end of the Marriage chapter, "licensing for social reasons reflects the intolerant person's desire to mold other people's behavior to their standard. Both depend on the use of illegitimate government force."<br /><br />I'm sorry that response went a little long and hope you made it this far. Perhaps I should have included it as a separate post.One Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02359492539226825134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7361786387417777890.post-18761192827397834712011-08-03T17:19:30.009-05:002011-08-03T17:19:30.009-05:00I don't know, I've heard some things about...I don't know, I've heard some things about Ron Paul that I don't like, but maybe they're just rumors! I've heard that he'd be okay with legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage if it was the state's decision. That just makes me a little nervous!God Alone Sufficeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02512877884857626978noreply@blogger.com