EthicsDaily Overreaches on Rand Paul???

[Stephen Fox]

http://ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16115

I was gonna comment on Warnock's Blog but his Wordpress has little too much user unfriendly exclusivity navigigational difficulties to invite free and open discussion.

I think Warnock has lot of strong points.

I also think Robert Parham and Warnock could invite Associate Pastor of FBC Greenville,SC Baxter Wynn into the discussion as Baxter is Lester Maddox Nephew and Warnock features Maddox in his anti-Paul opinion piece.

And Warnock needs to get a copy Fleming Rutledge sermons Help My Unbelief and read the sermon on Virginia Durr and Will Campbell.

On this one Parham may need to refresh his Gospel according to Will, and Warnock may need a strong introduction.

I'm not sure what to make of Lamar Alexander, but he was on National TV from Maryville, Tn yesterday, where Oliver Buzz Thomas was recently School Board Member. The conversation between Buzz and Lamar on this point, may have more civilty than the one Parham has instigated with Warnock's piece.
Even so the conversation between Warnock and John Killian of Musings From Maytown could be interesting going forward.

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... christian/


And Warnock's Blog needs dialogue with Baxter Wynn:

http://amicusdei.wordpress.com/

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Sandy]

I think, what has happened here is that pure libertarian political philosophy opens the door for those who are racist to be that way without any interference from government, with the idea that pressure from the rest of society will ultimately seal them off and put them out of business. That doesn't happen any more than competition without government regulation insures fair profits and fair prices, but that's the Libertarian view.

I don't think Rand Paul is a racist, though as a candidate you would think he would be a little more careful about claiming support from a tea party movement that very obviously has a pretty significant racist element among its supporters.

It looks like the tea party, which has voted in the previous two elections in very high percentages, is going to do more damage to GOP candidates than provide help for them. In three way races, they give the Democrat a high enough plurality to win. In two way races where the tea partier has beaten out a mainstream Republican, the Democrat leads head to head. It seems to be a matter of concern for the GOP, which has finally gotten off its rear end and planned something constructive, rather than obstructionist, for the summer, as it appears that polling data related to health care, Arizona immigration, and the economy doesn't appear to be translating into votes for their party, as was once assumed. The election of a Democrat by 8 percentage points last week in a key Pennsylvania swing district, and Paul's defeating of a candidate endorsed and campaigned for by Senator McConnell might have been a wake up call for them.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37530.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ric_ballot

[Big Daddy Weaver]

This is a pretty interesting

Apparently Rand Paul has Baptist ties: He attended Baylor and received medical training (surgery internship) from Georgia Baptist Hospital in Atlanta. Wikipedia lists his religious affiliation as Presbyterian.

I don't know if Paul graduated from Baylor. Baylor regularly sends updates of "accomplishments" of its faculty, students and alumni. I don't recall reading anything in those updates about Rand Paul.

[Sandy]

[Blake]

Sandy's comment reminded me of a recent video blog by hip hop blogger Jay Smooth that I thought I'd .

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Prior to this controversy which really a product of comments he made on the Rachel Maddow show, Paul did win the Republican Senatorial primary in Kentucky. That is an accomplishment.

I find your criticisms of the Tea Party crowd rather interesting. Didn't you Tea Party fav Debra Medina in the Texas Republican Gubernatorial Primary, Sandy? Like Rand, Medina is part of the libertarian corner of the GOP.

I suspect you are one of the few (if any?) Tea Party critics who has actually supported a Tea Party candidate...

[Gary]

[Sandy]

[Stephen Fox]

First, thanks to BDiddy for his initial response on this board; quite articulate and shed light on the dark corners of Warnock's blog.

2nd) I hope the Religion Dispatches piece Ilinked isnot lost on either Sandy or BDidd. It goes to the heart of the baggage Rand Paul brings to the matter, and one the SBC should discuss with folks at the grassroots as the Tea Party gets confused with Scripture in too many pews.

3rd) Hope it is not lost on anyone, that with all the complications of Paul and Maddow; Paul's wife is a Deacon; making her suspect for Al Mohler and the BFM 2000; and one would imagine many corners of the Tea Party.

[Stephen Fox]

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16121

Posted last night

[Stephen Fox]

[Stephen Fox]

[Haruo]

[Stephen Fox]

Haruo:


You may have a point

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... ntegration)/?comments=view&cID=10202#c10202

I made a comment there.

Chuck Warnock is trying to register at this board. I continue to hope the process can be expedited.

I hope the board monitors can contact him by email at his various church and blog websites. His will be a grand voice for this discussion board.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Stephen Fox]

Paul has a lot of support from my friend John Killian, one of the leaing fundamentalists in Alabama and active with his blog Musings from Maytown.

There is something missing from Sarah Posner's crusade against Paul at www.religiondispatches.org; I think our new friend Chuck Warnock in conversation with our own Bdidd is rounding out the rough edges there.

But Sandy, your take is inadequate as well. There is a history of Gary North, the Birch Society and Reconstructioniam insinuating itself and vice versa in the religious right politics of the SBC from Judge Pressler to Jesse Helms to routine whispering in the ear of Adrian Rogers by Ed McAteer. And they have a long and active conversation with Richard Land though publicly he attempts to keep a little distance.
So Posner is more right, than she is wrong.

Something else is going on. Warnock and Bdid are getting close to its articulation, but so far we haven't quite got the Marshall Frady or Paul Hemphill definitive insight yet; though a few pieces at New Republic and NY Rev of Books are close.
Would help if someone on this board would email Warnock and assist him with registration here so we can further earnest this conversation.

[Stephen Fox]

Damon Linker, the fellow who overall complimented Charles Marsh but took him to task on several points in a four page review in TNR couple years ago.

Now Linker on Rand Paul

http://www.tnr.com/blog/damon-linker/75 ... -absurdity

Epps, Below, is significant cause he had a great piece when it mattered 1984 when Helms and Pressler were in their havoc heyday with the SBC; timely long piece on Jesse Helms in the NY Rev of Books.
I read it, I doubt Ed Pettibone did

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... nal/57246/

[Jim]

With all the political cannon fodder connected to the Rand Paul affair, one might do well to read something by a University of Kentucky political science professor, especially since, like most public institutions of higher learning, UK is quite liberal: .

[Stephen Fox]

[chuckwarnock]

Stephen Fox has done an excellent job of posting my comments, as apparently my initial registration disappeared into the black hole. Thanks, Bruce, for getting me properly activated here. Since you have read my replies elsewhere, I want to post my response to Professor Voss (see previous comment). Then, I'll come back and reply to the racism point I made earlier, which has not gotten a lot of discussion, but which I think is at the heart of this for most Americans. Here's the Voss reply:

"Professor Voss misses Rand Paul's point. Voss said, "Saying Paul wants to go back to segregated lunch counters because he has qualms with the way we desegregated them 40 years ago is as dumb as saying “I’m against eating because I dislike tonight’s dinner.”

However, Paul was not disagreeing with "how" lunch counters were desegregated. Paul supports the rights of private businesses to remain segregated because he says the "free market" will punish bigoted establishments. Professor Voss, obviously a fan of Paul's, avers that Rand Paul's remarks were a "mistake." Paul's remarks were not made carelessly, or without regard to their meaning. It was only after he was continually hammered that Paul relented and said he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which I do not believe he would have done in 1964), and that he believed the South to be a special case that required federal intervention.

Rand Paul also was not "engaging in exactly the sort of critical thinking that takes place in law reviews" either. Paul's thinking was neither "critical" nor legally-sound. He is parroting the tired arguments that Barry Goldwater of Arizona tried when as a United States Senator he opposed and voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We've been there before, and the United States Supreme Court has upheld the CRA of 1964 repeatedly, so I'm not sure what specific SCOTUS cases you're referring to. We can tolerate disagreement, but not revisionist history."

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/05/27/1281 ... _Container#ixzz0pFTsAGo5