Paul Campaign Welcomes Endorsement of Theocrat Pastor


The Ron Paul campaign announced the endorsement of Rev. Phillip Kayser of Dominion Covenant Church in Omaha, Nebraska this week. Warren Throckmorton documents that Kayzer is a theocrat who wants to impose Biblical death penalties on gay people and adulterers. The article on the Paul campaign site appears to have been deleted now, but here’s the cache copy.

“We welcome Rev. Kayser’s endorsement and the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs. We’re thankful for the thoughtfulness with which he makes his endorsement and hope his endorsement and others like it make a strong top-three showing in the caucus more likely,” said Ron Paul 2012 Iowa Chairman Drew Ivers.

And here’s what Kayser had to say:

I support Ron Paul as the Republican candidate for president for a number of reasons. The first reason is that he is the only candidate who holds to a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution (i.e., that the Feds can only do what is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution) whereas the other candidates hold to a broad constructionist interpretation (i.e., that the Feds may do whatever is not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution). It is broad constructionism that has gotten us into the mess we are in today, and you cannot fight liberal broad constructionism with conservative broad constructionism. Both lack integrity.

The second reason is that he is the only candidate that has a consistent philosophy of economics that will truly resolve America’s problems. The economics of each of the other candidates is flawed, and in my opinion grossly unbiblical.

The third reason is that Ron Paul’s strictly Constitutional civics is far closer to Biblical civics than any of the other candidate’s on a whole range of issues including non-interventionism in international politics, limitations on what can be a crime, limits of jurisdiction, the rights of interposition and civil resistance, inflation, banking cartels, the national identity card, the American Community Survey, the use of torture by the military, etc.

As a Biblical ethicist I am very concerned about overturning Roe v Wade (something that Ron has sought to do), but I am also extremely concerned about all the areas of lawlessness that have destroyed nations in the past. What candidates take these things seriously? I know of only one candidate who obeys God’s clear-cut prohibitions against interventionism in politics: “do not meddle with them” (Deut. 2:5), “do not harass them or meddle with them” (Deut. 2:19), but instead “buy food from them” (Deut. 2:6) – in other words, engage in free trade. Biblical issues like this should be as easy to understand as Ron Paul’s positions are easy to understand. He is by far the best candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America. Even though I strongly disagree with him on some issues, he is the only candidate that I can endorse.

And here is what Throckmorton reveals about Kayser, quoting from his own writings about how a Reconstructionist society would function:

Whereas Hebrews 2:2 gives a blanket endorsement of all Old Testament penology as justice, the rest of the New Testament gives specifics. It teaches that homosexuals who come out of the closet are “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32). It teaches that juvenile delinquents who abuse their parents can in certain circumstances “be put to death” (Mt. 15:3-9) and that rejection of this provision was to “transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition” (v. 3)…

For example, in a society that was being converted, homosexuals could continue to be converted as they were in the church of Corinth. Even after a society implemented Biblical law and made homosexuality a crime, there are many checks and balances that would be in place. (See Appendix A page 40 for specifics.) The civil government could not round them up. Only those who were prosecuted by citizens could be punished, and the punishment could take a number of forms, including death. This would have a tendency of driving homosexuals back into their closets. (p. 24)

He says that adultery would demand the death penalty as well, so at least Newt will have to sweat a bit. Talking Points Memo actually called Kayser and his statements were very interesting:

Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals — including the death penalty — even if he didn’t see much hope for it happening anytime soon. While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights, noting that Paul recently voted for repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he supported the campaign because he believed Paul’s federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law. Especially since under Kayser’s own interpretation of the Constitution there is no separation of Church and State.

“Under a Ron Paul presidency, states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what’s politically correct,” he said. “What he’s trying to do, whether he agrees with the Constitution’s position or not, is restrict himself to the Constitution. That is something I very much appreciate.”

Which is exactly what I was talking about the other day when I wrote about Paul’s We the People Act, which would strip the courts of their ability to enforce the 14th Amendment in all cases involving church and state, sexual orientation or the right to privacy. That would allow the states to set up their own theocratic governments, with official churches and blasphemy laws and all kinds of other bad things. That’s why theocrats like Kayser can support him — and why I can’t.

Comments

  1. Aquaria says

    From what this scumbag christer has vomited up:

    In America we have juvenile delinquents who threaten their parents, abuse their parents and keep their parents in constant fear.

    And there have been far more instances of adult delinquents who threaten their children, abuse their children and keep their children in constant fear. There always has been, yet somehow your stupid genocidal manual didn’t think that was anything to be concerned about.

    So much for morality.

  2. dingojack says

    And how long does anyone think it will be before Phillip Kayser is found in flagrante delicto in a latex gimp-suit with a dead goat, several toddlers of various sexes, a gaggle of rent-boys and bunch of human-leather suitcases? Any advance of six months?
    Dingo

  3. says

    As a Biblical ethicist I am very concerned about overturning Roe v Wade …

    As a jumbo shrimp I am very concerned about the informed consumer‘s understanding of military intelligence as it’s portrayed on educational television

  4. Michael Heath says

    I wonder if Rep. Paul’s campaign director for Iowa secured this endorsement. His name is the same as mine where that Michael Heath became infamous several years ago as one of the most virulent anti-gay activist-leaders in the country when he ran an anti-gay rights group in Maine.

    The fact the other Mr. Heath was hired by the Paul campaign should be telling in regards to Paul’s integrity and actual end-game positions vs. his claims. Rep. Paul is not more principled than the other candidates, he’s merely better at acting principled. That’s easy to do since all of his competition are horrible actors.

    Rep. Paul’s enormous character flaws are precisely why he should get no quarter from us even when he happens to claim support for issues we also support. Because he lacks credibility and arrives at such positions in a manner that doesn’t allow us trust him or because he employs a process which results in horrendous positions on other matters. Sometimes the systemic defects we see in Paul’s and others like him should warrant our not lauding a person for the positions they happen to share with us. I have this same problem with Pat Buchanan, who consistently makes great arguments on some matters while avoiding the same argumentative structure on other matters – obviously in order to avoid the results of using consistently good arguments.

    I’m far more respectful for people who disagree with me using well-structured arguments than I am with people who agree with me where they depend on horribly structured arguments or don’t consistently apply that same approach. Paul fails this test, miserably.

  5. says

    I doubt Ron Paul knows this guy from Adam, and I suspect Michael Heath is right, this was arranged by the other Mike Heath. I’ve got another post coming later on this same subject. The problem is not that Ron Paul is a Reconstructionist — he isn’t. The problem is that Reconstructionists and other forms of dominionists often (not always — some of them are fiercely opposed to him) find his anti-14th amendment ideas as a path to getting the theocracies they want to establish at the state and local levels.

  6. exdrone says

    in a society that was being converted, homosexuals could continue to be converted as they were in the church of Corinth. Even after a society implemented Biblical law and made homosexuality a crime … the punishment could take a number of forms, including death.

    This would be bittersweet for Bachmann’s husband. On the one hand, it endorses his business; on the other, it eliminates his customer base.

  7. says

    Holy fuckin’ schikeys! The “institute” is about six blocks from the home where mother democommie raised me and a passel of sibs while holding down a part-time job, keepin’ an eye on my dad and saying up to 4 novenas a day.

    Omaha has certainly had its share of nutters over the years (not EVEN counting me).

  8. Ben P says

    I wonder if Rep. Paul’s campaign director for Iowa secured this endorsement. His name is the same as mine where that Michael Heath became infamous several years ago as one of the most virulent anti-gay activist-leaders in the country when he ran an anti-gay rights group in Maine.

    There are times I’m glad my particular variation of my familiy’s Eastern European surname is very uncommon in the united states. Virtually everyone with my last name in the US is related to me.

  9. Doug Little says

    Ben P.

    You might want to check out this site.

    My names were

    0.367% of males in the US are named DOUGLAS.

    0.046% of last names in the US are LITTLE.

  10. dingojack says

    Doug Little: so if you meet a male American the odds are about 11847 to 2 that he is called ‘Doug Little’ (or a variant). Or there are about 25576 American males called ‘Doug Little’.
    Maybe you should all have a conference (you’d save on not having to print name badges).
    :) Dingo

Leave a Reply