<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Why Ron Paul appeals to Christian Reconstructionists	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/28/why-ron-paul-appeals-to-christian-reconstructionists/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/28/why-ron-paul-appeals-to-christian-reconstructionists/</link>
	<description>A [retired] college psychology professor&#039;s observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 17:26:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: stephen		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/28/why-ron-paul-appeals-to-christian-reconstructionists/#comment-73045</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[stephen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 17:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10759#comment-73045</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Ugh.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ugh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Throbert McGee		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/28/why-ron-paul-appeals-to-christian-reconstructionists/#comment-73046</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Throbert McGee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 17:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10759#comment-73046</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[@Richard Willmer: The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; on Father Charles Coughlin has two quotes that seem especially pertinent:



&lt;blockquote&gt;We maintain the principle that there can be no lasting prosperity if free competition exists in industry. Therefore, it is the business of government not only to legislate for a minimum annual wage and maximum working schedule to be observed by industry, but also to curtail individualism that, if necessary, factories shall be licensed and their output shall be limited.&lt;/blockquote&gt;



&lt;blockquote&gt;I have dedicated my life to fight against the heinous rottenness of modern capitalism because it robs the laborer of this world&#039;s goods. But blow for blow I shall strike against Communism, &lt;b&gt;because it robs us of the next world&#039;s happiness&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/blockquote&gt;



So, although Coughlin described himself as both anti-socialist and anti-Communist, he was in fact somewhere between &quot;shocking pink&quot; and &quot;flaming Red&quot; -- presumably he would have supported Soviet Communism had it not been so oppressively atheistic, because on matters of economics, he totally supported centralized planning, nationalization of industries, etc.



Of course, he certainly wasn&#039;t the only American public figure who was offended by Soviet attacks on religion (something bad in itself, obviously) without fully grasping how badly Soviet Communism sucked in practical terms as an economic system.



Also, he blamed International Jewish Bankers for the Great Depression, and enthusiastically promulgated &lt;i&gt;The Protocols of the Elders of Zion&lt;/i&gt; in America...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Richard Willmer: The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin" rel="nofollow">wikipedia article</a> on Father Charles Coughlin has two quotes that seem especially pertinent:</p>
<blockquote><p>We maintain the principle that there can be no lasting prosperity if free competition exists in industry. Therefore, it is the business of government not only to legislate for a minimum annual wage and maximum working schedule to be observed by industry, but also to curtail individualism that, if necessary, factories shall be licensed and their output shall be limited.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>I have dedicated my life to fight against the heinous rottenness of modern capitalism because it robs the laborer of this world&#8217;s goods. But blow for blow I shall strike against Communism, <b>because it robs us of the next world&#8217;s happiness</b>.</p></blockquote>
<p>So, although Coughlin described himself as both anti-socialist and anti-Communist, he was in fact somewhere between &#8220;shocking pink&#8221; and &#8220;flaming Red&#8221; &#8212; presumably he would have supported Soviet Communism had it not been so oppressively atheistic, because on matters of economics, he totally supported centralized planning, nationalization of industries, etc.</p>
<p>Of course, he certainly wasn&#8217;t the only American public figure who was offended by Soviet attacks on religion (something bad in itself, obviously) without fully grasping how badly Soviet Communism sucked in practical terms as an economic system.</p>
<p>Also, he blamed International Jewish Bankers for the Great Depression, and enthusiastically promulgated <i>The Protocols of the Elders of Zion</i> in America&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard Willmer		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/28/why-ron-paul-appeals-to-christian-reconstructionists/#comment-73047</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Willmer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 17:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10759#comment-73047</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Mind you, Paul is opposed to what he terms &#039;the Federal death penalty&#039;.  Mind you, I&#039;m a bit puzzled by the &#039;Federal&#039; bit (surely executing somebody is executing somebody, regardless of who the &#039;killing authority&#039; might be).  I also thought he had an interesting take on DADT, where he seemed to say that sexuality should not be issue for service personnel, only &#039;disruptive sexual behaviour&#039;, whether &#039;hetero&#039; or &#039;homo&#039;.  Prime facie, that sounded fair enough to me, thought I may have missed something.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mind you, Paul is opposed to what he terms &#8216;the Federal death penalty&#8217;.  Mind you, I&#8217;m a bit puzzled by the &#8216;Federal&#8217; bit (surely executing somebody is executing somebody, regardless of who the &#8216;killing authority&#8217; might be).  I also thought he had an interesting take on DADT, where he seemed to say that sexuality should not be issue for service personnel, only &#8216;disruptive sexual behaviour&#8217;, whether &#8216;hetero&#8217; or &#8216;homo&#8217;.  Prime facie, that sounded fair enough to me, thought I may have missed something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: StraightGrandmother		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/28/why-ron-paul-appeals-to-christian-reconstructionists/#comment-59041</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[StraightGrandmother]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10759#comment-59041</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Patrocles = &quot;In any case, there’s as well the danger of “ethocracy” as a ruthless enforcement of values not based on Christianity but on “philosophical” or “scientific” reasons. And Christians have to protect themselves from ethocracy.&quot;



StraightGrandmother = And what would the harm to Christians be in a ethocracy&quot; That the Churces would loos their tax exempt status and have to pay real estate taxes (they get fire and police protection but don&#039;t pay) like every other property owner? That their church  business (drug and alcohol rehab centers, social services agencies) will be taxed if they make a profit, like any other business? That they will be forced to perform weddings for sexual minorities (will never happen &#039;cuz of the 1st Amendment)? If I read the Constitution right we are to have TODAY a Republican Democracy that is based on HUMAN Rights (regardless if you think those rights derive from God or Secular Humanism).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patrocles = &#8220;In any case, there’s as well the danger of “ethocracy” as a ruthless enforcement of values not based on Christianity but on “philosophical” or “scientific” reasons. And Christians have to protect themselves from ethocracy.&#8221;</p>
<p>StraightGrandmother = And what would the harm to Christians be in a ethocracy&#8221; That the Churces would loos their tax exempt status and have to pay real estate taxes (they get fire and police protection but don&#8217;t pay) like every other property owner? That their church  business (drug and alcohol rehab centers, social services agencies) will be taxed if they make a profit, like any other business? That they will be forced to perform weddings for sexual minorities (will never happen &#8216;cuz of the 1st Amendment)? If I read the Constitution right we are to have TODAY a Republican Democracy that is based on HUMAN Rights (regardless if you think those rights derive from God or Secular Humanism).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: StraightGrandmother		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/28/why-ron-paul-appeals-to-christian-reconstructionists/#comment-73062</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[StraightGrandmother]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 07:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10759#comment-73062</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Patrocles = &quot;In any case, there&#039;s as well the danger of &quot;ethocracy&quot; as a ruthless enforcement of values not based on Christianity but on &quot;philosophical&quot; or &quot;scientific&quot; reasons. And Christians have to protect themselves from ethocracy.&quot;



StraightGrandmother = And what would the harm to Christians be in a ethocracy&quot; That the Churces would loos their tax exempt status and have to pay real estate taxes (they get fire and police protection but don&#039;t pay) like every other property owner? That their church  business (drug and alcohol rehab centers, social services agencies) will be taxed if they make a profit, like any other business? That they will be forced to perform weddings for sexual minorities (will never happen &#039;cuz of the 1st Amendment)? If I read the Constitution right we are to have TODAY a Republican Democracy that is based on HUMAN Rights (regardless if you think those rights derive from God or Secular Humanism).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patrocles = &#8220;In any case, there&#8217;s as well the danger of &#8220;ethocracy&#8221; as a ruthless enforcement of values not based on Christianity but on &#8220;philosophical&#8221; or &#8220;scientific&#8221; reasons. And Christians have to protect themselves from ethocracy.&#8221;</p>
<p>StraightGrandmother = And what would the harm to Christians be in a ethocracy&#8221; That the Churces would loos their tax exempt status and have to pay real estate taxes (they get fire and police protection but don&#8217;t pay) like every other property owner? That their church  business (drug and alcohol rehab centers, social services agencies) will be taxed if they make a profit, like any other business? That they will be forced to perform weddings for sexual minorities (will never happen &#8216;cuz of the 1st Amendment)? If I read the Constitution right we are to have TODAY a Republican Democracy that is based on HUMAN Rights (regardless if you think those rights derive from God or Secular Humanism).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
