The social conservative leader has ruled out Ron Paul for his organization’s endorsement because Paul believes in “states’ rights” across the board — rather an odd view for a Christian group to take. Christians, from Calvinists to Catholics, are supposed to believe in subsidiarity, an ancient principle of Christian social thought, whereby power is to be as dispersed and local as possible. Evidently, Ron Paul is supposed to support a nationalist approach to family issues in defiance of this principle.
Dr. Paul’s actual approach is to strip the federal courts of authority over a host of issues involving family, thereby getting the federal government out of these areas. This is the correct position constitutionally, morally, and strategically.
What could Vander Plaats’ argument against world government be? What if France is not sufficiently family friendly? Why not send in the UN? Anyone who opposes world government must be an immoral idiot who believes in “country rights” instead of the triumph of righteousness.
If Vander Plaats does not support world government, why not? Why not have a powerful world government that can use violence rather than persuasion and example to put right all the world’s wrongs? If states’ rights is the wrong position, so is countries’ rights, so can we expect Bob to follow his logic wherever it takes him, all the way to global government?
Latest posts by Thomas Woods (see all)
- The Supreme Court Christian Baker Case Is Crazy - June 8, 2018
- The Civilization Wreckers’ Next Target: The Electoral College - May 9, 2018
- The Emerging American Police State - November 18, 2013