Saturday, January 21, 2012

My Response to Ron Paul Supporters

I have some strong feeling about Ron Paul and his positions as I have been very much into politics since 2007.  I'm been involved in the political process here in Iowa and have come out and spoke at my precinct recently for Rick Santorum. There was a large majority of those in my precinct who supported Ron Paul in the caucus, and I wish I could have known and prepared my speech  better before that.  What I'm sharing below is very much in line with what I would have shared with them if I only knew how things would go.  I've also talked to a couple other Facebook friends that are supporters, one a Christian and the other an atheist.  The argument shared to me why I should support Ron Paul was basically we don't want the government to have the power to govern us morally because they may not support your values.  I'm not willing to concede that the US is no longer able to the nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and have the proper moral compass but I can see where they are coming from.  I'm curious how you came to support Ron Paul.  I'm going to share a bit of my research so you know where I'm coming from and I welcome you to respond.

I've listened to a lot of conservative and some Libertarian talk radio and I've determined that I can not be a Libertarian but am a conservative and a very strong conservative who believes is the social conservative issues most passionately.  Life, and the protection of innocent unborn children, is my chief passion with the others being religious, individual and family freedom, and the support of the Biblical role of government.  I'm in believe that the government should maintain moral laws in keeping with the Biblical role of government (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17).  Also the federal government has the duty to allow the citizen to prosper and they must protect its citizens from threats (foreign and domestic) to their life and liberty.  I also agree with John Adams "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”. I'm in belief that we need to have politicians that must understand this, support this basic conservative understanding, and through a proper fear of God, respect his endowed rights of life, liberty, and basic freedoms (as in the rights from God as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence). 

Ron Paul may have some good ideas in line with the founders, and have ideas to help fix the fiscal problems, but he doesn't seem to come out on much of my main concerns as I would.  While he says he personally agrees with social conservative views he only talks about states rights to do what they will... that must mean his Libertarianism trumps his private social conservatism.  In regards to Marriage this article explains it, for example: "Senator Rick Santorum has strongly challenged Paul, saying: “It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would actually say polygamous marriages are OK…We can’t have 50 marriage laws.” "Ron Paul: Personally opposed to same-sex ‘marriage,’ but…."

Regards to the sanctity of human life, it's the same exact thing, though this could have a positive effect in many states that do not want abortion, they could outlaw it.  I could see an executive order making it the states right to do as they will (that could only last for the term of Ron Paul), but I believe murder of life should be a federal issue and it should be illegal in the union.  Some states would probably still provide it and that would be a national tragedy, allowing murder of the most innocent.

What if states want legalizing prostitution, drugs, pedophilia... this all seems fine to him... in fact he has spoken about legalized drugs and prostitution ("Why Ron Paul Can Never Be President In 12 Quotes").  Where does this end?  This Biblical based article from Faith Facts says that it ends with anarchy ("The Bible and Government").

Now, in regards to providing a national defense, and specifically the threat of a nuclear Iran, this would cause me to probably keep me from voting against Barrack Obama if Ron Paul was nominated:  "Frankly, there isn't much daylight between Ron Paul's theory of foreign policy and that of the radical left.  As much as I agree with Paul on other issues, he's wrong on this one."
Read more: "Ron Paul Is Wrong about Iran"

To understand the threat of a Nuclear armed Iran see the FAQ at UNAI that says:
WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT A NUCLEAR IRAN?
A nuclear Iran would be a major threat to American security interests, regional stability, and world peace. Since 1979 the Iranian regime, most recently under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s leadership, has demonstrated increasingly threatening behavior and rhetoric toward the US and the
West. Iran continues to defy the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations in their attempts to monitor its nuclear activities. A number of Arab states have warned that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons poses a threat to Middle East stability and could provoke a regional nuclear arms race. In short, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat of the highest magnitude. Iran is led by radical Islamic clerics with history of hostile behavior including a willingness to wage war and to battle the United States and its allies. With a nuclear weapon, Iran would be able to project its power throughout the region, threaten key US allies as well as American troops, and share the technology or the weapons with terrorist groups that target the United States. 


WHEN WILL IRAN HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON?
In unusually blunt language, a February 2010 IAEA report suggested for the first time that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability, corroborating suspicions long held by the U.S. and Western intelligence agencies. The report acknowledges that Iran has already honed explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon. A May 2010 IAEA Report stated that Iran has amassed more than two tons of enriched uranium, which is enough material to construct two nuclear bombs. This is a frightening development, and it means that Iran now has a “possible breakout capacity.” According to nuclear experts, Iran is now capable of enriching its stockpile of low enriched uranium to a higher level, and could convert the material into a nuclear weapon within three to six months. The official American estimate is that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon between 2010 and 2015. Whoever you believe, the point is clear that Iran is very close to creating a nuclear weapon.


Regarding his electability, there is no way that he would be able to survive Barrack Obama's campaign given these things and some of his other beliefs: ("Why Ron Paul Can Never Be President In 12 Quotes").  I'm sure I could make a better case but this seems quite adequate for the time being that Ron Paul is the worst of the candidates for president, and reinforces the others as being better, and definitely, to me, it's clear the best in these regards is Rick Santorum.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

"Social Justice Christianity" and Crisis of My Faith

Tonight I saw Glenn Beck's TV special about the Social Justice and it's history which triggered some thoughts I wanted to share. By the way, I thought this TV special was excellent with some very helpful and accurate information about government and the church being allied for "social justice". I really liked Peter Lillback's (of Westminster Seminary) thoughts. It was assuring to my understanding even though I know Glenn Beck is a Mormon and his church has a different Gospel than mine. It addressed Salvation, is it individual or corporate and the understanding of the Gospel and Bible that seems to be almost always associated with politics and redistribution of wealth. I do not hold that the Bible or Gospel empowers the secular government to redistribute wealth through seizing it.

Last year I had a discussion with a friend of mine, rather a fellow I knew from the past that I have been friends with on Facebook. We were arguing (or correcting and rebuking one another) in regards to differences in politics and faith. It seemed he could have been open to discussion but turned out to be not so much. He was correcting and rebuking me based on his understanding of things. I was hoping to be of one mind with him in the faith in the lines of Bible verses I have in the bottom of this post but I'm not sure we were able to get there. We both claim to be Christians so we are called to have a common mind and be harmonious with one another but I believe in reasoning from the Biblical. Correction and admonition can be applied if needed and I was engaged in this at points during our discussion. In our discussion he was telling me that I had got my facts wrong and I was basically mislead by deceived and corrupt leaders (in the church, in politics, and the media). Even though he mischaracterized my beliefs, I focused on the most concerning thing to me, which was how he saw the Gospel.

Even though he claimed to be orthodox theologically as a Christian he told me that the Gospel is all about the Kingdom, doesn't require an understanding of sin as is traditionally understood, that God isn't interested in individual salvation, and that repentance isn't needed to be a believer but was a "down the road feature". This lead to me posted a blog post on the Gospel with my a Bible Study on the need for repentance in Salvation. He also said that a focus on ones eternal state is not Biblical. The facts, when focusing on correctly interpreted Scripture, I believe are clearly not on his side. I did considered his words, argued from the Bible with him while trying to find common ground. I even brought other mature Christians into the conversation and tried to see if we could have correction or some mediation but ultimately I wasn't seemingly able to get anywhere with him. He unilaterally put the discussion on hold claiming to be too busy.

This discussion, perhaps with another recent conflict, triggered a significant crisis of faith where I began to seriously doubt my own salvation. This has never happened to me since I knew was a saved Christian believer (in 1993). After all, I didn't understand how he and I could both be orthodox believers and both be saved if we have seemingly vastly different Gospels. It begged the questions, could one of us, think we are true believers but really aren't? If I just looked at my own self for my present evidence, or fruits, of salvation I found that I had very good reason to doubt my salvation. BTW: I don't believe one can loose their salvation but perhaps one may not be a true convert. Ultimately I have returned to my assurance of salvation. My Christian testimony and Christian story has helped me, and most importantly, I believe the Holy Spirit can and has assured me that I am indeed saved. As Paul wrote, “These Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16; cf. 1 John 5:5-7, 10).

Some of the issues still remain outstanding as I haven't been able to talk to my friend about these things and I think of my friend frequently when I hear teaching on the Kingdom, social justice, politics, and other related topics (as happened again tonight). Is my friend a "Social Justice" Christian or what? I don't know but I would invite prayers for him, as I will try to pray for him when I think of him, and continue to consider these topics when perhaps I talk to him or someone else in the "Social Justice Christianity" camp.

Verses on Christians living harmoniously and having a common mind with each other:
* Romans 12:16 - Live in harmony with each other. Don't be too proud to enjoy the company of ordinary people. And don't think you know it all!
* 1 Corinthians 1:10 - I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose.
* 1 Peter 3:8 - Finally, all of you should be of one mind. Sympathize with each other. Love each other as brothers and sisters. Be tenderhearted, and keep a humble attitude.
* Acts 4:32a - All the believers were one in heart and mind.

Verse on examining yourself:
2 Corinthians 13:5 (New International Version) Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

For more on Politics and the Christian, or the State and the Church, see my blog post.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

The Latest on the Health Insurance Reform and Abortion

Thanks for coming to my post! I have chosen to focus on abortion related to the Health Insurance Reform legislation because I am deeply moved by the poor voiceless children in the womb. I am interested in protecting and defending the right to life for these unborn children, from conception to birth. Some of these children would have been my brothers and sisters in the Faith, and I am morally obligated to protecting them. FYI: This desire seems to have directly comes from my Christian faith and fear of God. Before I committed myself to God as my Savior and Lord, I was apathetic and self-centered and didn't care at all for the unborn, but after I was moved by God's Spirit, it was as if a switch had flipped in my heart, and I started to feel great compassion and even had tears of sorrow for the unborn who are murdered and those that continue to be threatened. BTW, if you aren't moved like me before I was reached by God and would like to be moved, then I and would encourage you pray to seek Jesus of the Bible. I can share more about that on request. Also you can see my links on djweichelt.net (and get my email there) to learn more about our need for the Savior.

As I needed to fact check my previous post, following up from accusations of posting propaganda and falsities, and also not researching and even praying, I decided it was reasonable to do more, as previously I didn't do any significant additional research. Now I can report the results of the research from the Internet, including pro-life web sites, whitehouse.gov, Fact Check, and a pro-choice page. I found there are vast differences in interpretation of the bill related to abortion, and because I can't go to the bill itself, and read it in a short time, as there are multiple bills that are too large for to read (the house bill is 1000 pages) and no doubt they are written in complex and perhaps vague legal terms, I had to go with those I trust to do a good job researching and interpreting this (and then verify their research the best you can). All this takes significant time to try to deal with all the issues, however, at some point you have to post to move on and risk not pleasing everyone. Also this takes discernment of the various opinions, so please bear with me if you disagree, as my commentary is the only the most honest and best one I can provide to this date.

My results: My previous understanding was backed up, that abortion would likely be expanded with the current version(s) of congress's Health Insurance Reform bill(s):

1. Abortions will most likely be payed for with the people's tax dollars.
2. Abortions coverage will most likely be mandated to be available to everyone in a private and the public option. This is a huge expansion of abortion availability.
3. Abortion rates would no doubt increase with the mandates in availability and with the federal subsiding of the uninsured (or the poor).
4. There is no opt. out for those that are moral opposed to abortions (aka conscious protection) for anyone, including those in the medical provider system (any faith-based hospitals, doctor, nurse, insurance carrier, etc.).

Note: I didn't use footnotes because my understanding is well document and researched from my primary source (click on this link to see), for points 1-3, from National Right To Life. In the current legislation, which contains a House version and a Senate version, abortion is addressed stealthily in the categories that are considered essential or minimum benefit standards. “Preventive services” is one of the several categories of services, mandated by the Kennedy bill as “essential benefits,” that would no doubt include elective abortion. In the current administration, which is ardently pro-choice, the pro-choice HHS Secretary and the administrators, most of who were appointed by the President, would no-doubt want to allow this. Note: Even if a future pro-life administration comes along after this one, they can not disallow abortion under the Capps Amendment. Even without that amendment and they wanted to changes the coverage, I believe that the federal courts would then be able to mandate elective abortion coverage anyway. Also the current administrators would likely consider abortion as essential as "Reproductive care" as it is considered essential by the President and no doubt his appointed HHS secretary and the government administrators.

These elective abortion mandates are all covered in the public plan, which is for everyone who is not already in a private plan or for those that want to go over to this (for cost savings perhaps). Under the House bill's Capps Amendment however, the people in the public plan pay mandated premiums on the public plan. People would have no option but to buy coverage of elective abortions. That is tax-payer funding under the guise of premiums to the government. Under the Capps Amendment the public option specifically includes abortion with these premiums, and it mandates abortion coverage in private insurance coverage as well. This is an expansion given that most insurance providers current do not provide coverage for elective abortions (see my link for the stats).

In the Senate Bill, under Sen. Mikulski's amendment, groups like Planned Parenthood (PP is probably the top abortion provider), would receive additional and significant private and tax-payer funding. Private insurers would need to fund these organization as well, and there is no clause exempting tax-payer money going to these organizations.

By the way, attempts by various pro-life members of congress to add a Hyde amendment abortion restriction on the bills have been blocked or voted down. You might wonder: Why doesn't the Hyde Amendment cover this already? This amendment prohibits HHS appropriation funds (medicare, medicaid, etc.) from going to pay for abortions. The bill we are talking about will most likely sidestep the HHS appropriations by becoming it's own special appropriation(s). By the way, the Hyde amendment isn't all the secure. It is up for it's annual vote in congress in Sept. and if doesn't make it through congress and the President's veto, we will see abortions covered with tax-payer funding for all the other medical plans the government funds (medicare and medicaid, etc.), as we did before the Hyde Amendment passed (from 1973 to 1976)

There is no abortion opt. out (conscious protection) for anyone in the medical provider system (any faith-based hospitals, doctor, nurse, insurance carrier, etc.). So hospitals and medical providers, that refuse to provide such "essential services" can loose the federal funding, be fined, loose enrollment of patients, and be terminated. Source from a MD. Some may be forced to sell-out literally or figuratively, or even outsource the abortion related services they can not morally perform (this will directly create more demand for abortion clinics in such cases). Note: I heard yesterday that Catholic hospitals make up 15% of the total and there are many other faith based hospitals. Also if there was no existing Federal Conscience Clause (carried over from President Bush), as President Obama has desired to revoke it, then I can also see how individuals could be charged with patient abandonment, loose there license and ability to do there work, and easily bankrupt them and their families (with debt they have from school loans).