Rand Paul

Rand Paul Talks Christian Peace to the Values Voter Conference: "I Don't Believe Jesus Would Have Killed Anyone"

|

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) begins his long project of selling a Paulian foreign policy of peace and noninterventionism to the non-Paulian parts of the Republican Party.

He tells the Values Voters summit this past weekend that he is "not a pacifist" but thinks "it unacceptable not to hate war. I am dismissive of those who champion war as sport and show no reluctance to engage in war" and that true leaders "are reluctant to go to war and try mightily to avoid war."

He admits he could "commit a nation to war" but "reluctantly, constitutionally, and after great deliberation" with the only just war being one of self-defense.

What's more, "I don't believe Jesus would have killed anyone or condoned killing, perhaps not even in self-defense." 

Some heady stuff on foreign policy and interventionism from the Senator, the quotes above kicking in around 4:55. The rest of the talk is anti-abortion stuff that will appeal less to many libertarians.

Reason's Rand Paul story archives.

Advertisement

NEXT: Test For a Gun and Badge Not Too Hard

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t believe Jesus would have killed anyone or condoned killing

    What I want to know is if Jesus would have said, “screw this God shit” if he would have had the opportunity to bang Lobster Girl? I am leaning toward yes, Jesus would have banged Lobster Girl.

    1. For all you know he has banged her. I know I would.

      1. That’s why we haven’t seen her around here in so long. Duh.

    2. Hey now! Satan came to him and offered him vast power and wealth (which come with girls attached), if he would just worship Satan — he could have even been king. But he decided that in his own way, he was king.

      1. HAIL TO THE KING, BABY

    3. Is Lobster Girl the lady sometimes pictured here holding up y kissing a lobster? Or the deformed girl who has features resembling lobster claws y red skin? Or am I thinking of Lobster Boy?

      1. “But then one day we found out Lobster Boy wasn’t a freak at all. He was just an actual lobster.”
        “Lying sack of crap.”
        “So you know what we did to him?”
        “What?”
        “One night all us freaks got together and we … boiled him alive.”

  2. Its not jesus you need to be worried about… that punk was a pushover…

    No, it’s old-school J-Hova, his mean-ass dad… that dude would nuke Iran in a split second if properly pissed off…. worse than that, the sick fuck would probably send bears to eat them

    1. You must have majored in theology!

      1. Or in Big Pimpin (at the School of Hard Knocks, of course).

        1. Doubt not Jehova’s She-Bears of Death

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jmT35fygc

          Shit is *real*

          1. Translated:

            sum yung ppl meking fun of elisha
            Oh mice, barez!
            23 So den elisha carryd on frm mcdonalds 2 burger king agen. while he was goin up sum wittle boys were mean 2 him callin her bald.

            24 He turnt round n cursed them in da name ov Ceiling Cat! An as she carryd on 2 burger king 2 l33t bears sudenli come out da woods n nom’d 42 ov da boys leik

    2. Don be tinkin dat i has come to brin jus all dis peace an cheezburgerz to de urf. I brot sharp claws an teef, akshuly

      Claws and Teef, Claws and Teef

  3. I’m not Jesus Dr. Paul. None of us are.

    1. There are sure a lot of Mexicans who disagree

    2. If Socons wanna go down that road, they’re gonna have to give up a lot of their other ponies

    3. Christians are supposed to be as close to Jesus as they can get…

  4. An objective observer would see this and likely arrive at the conclusion that he is indeed running for President.

    1. He admits he could “commit a nation to war” but “reluctantly, constitutionally, and after great deliberation” with the only just war being one of self-defense.

      And with that statement, the GOP dismissed his run for President.

      1. Yup

      2. Yeah but who are they gonna run if mitt loses? They got nothing.

        1. I imagine Newt will still be trolling the halls in 4 years

          1. Pattern states that the next nominee will be the person who finished second place in the last contest primary (since the 1960s, this has been the case for every Republican nominee except for 2000, where Buchanan had left the party between 1996 and 2000).

            In other words, get ready for Santorum in 2016.

            1. Ummm Pat was in the primaries in ’92 as well…

              1. 1992 was a contested primary though, as Bush was running as an incumbent.

                1. wasn’t a contest primary, even

                  1. Uhhh, having Buchanan in against GHWB is what MAKES it a contested primary. Was it close? Not really, but it was still contested.

                    1. That’s like saying Obama faced a contested primary this year because John Wolfe was running. It might be technically true but it’s not really meaningful in terms of analysis.

                    2. huh? Buchanan got 22% of primary voters nationally, and was a prominent figure with name recognition. Not exactly a apples-to-apples comparison.

              2. Ummm Pat was in the primaries in ’92 as well…

                And the Huckster came in 2nd in 08, Mitt came in third.

            2. Romney came in second to McCain in 2008
              McCain came in second to Bush in 2004
              Bob Dole came in second to Bush in 1988
              Bush came in second to Reagan in 1980
              Reagan came in second to Ford in 1976

              1. McCain didn’t run in ’04…

                1. 2000 (damn, I need an edit button).

              2. Reagan had the conservative revolution behind him, GHWB was Vice President during an extremely popular administration, and McCain was the darling of independents and military wankers. These were all bigger factors in their nomination than “it’s his turn”. McCain was also way behind in 2007. He didn’t coast in like Dole and Romney did.

            3. That pattern is a bit iffy, since there were only 6 elections after 1968 (when Nixon, who hadn’t even run in ’64, was nominated) where the incumbent President wasn’t a Republican or wasn’t running (1980, 1988, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012). And you’re excluding one of them from your calculations. Five elections don’t make a pattern, particularly when in three of those elections there were far stronger dynamics in play than inertia. I’ll give you 1996 and 2012 as “inertia” nominations.

        2. Ryan, Rubio, that lady from So. Carolina, Christie, Palin mk. II, for starters?

        3. There’s usually something left even after the most intense electoral fucking. Santorum, maybe?

          1. Nothing a damp cloth and a little elbow grease won’t take care of.

          2. Santorum’s not gonna happen. Neither is Huck or Newt. Santorum is too Santorumy. Huck and Newt are like houseguest who have way overstayed their welcome.

  5. The troubling part is that these comments are controversial. We saw how Republicans responded to Ron Paul invoking the Golden Rule. They are fine with being called out, on occasion, for over-spending. Being called out for using our military personnel like chess pieces? Not so much.

    1. The DOD is the Republicans version of welfare. They’re never going to give it up willingly and the Democrats are never going to force the issue.

      1. Got to feed the MIC

    2. SoCons think that Jesus was a pussy.

      1. Cardinal: “Phil, I’m pretty sure killing Jesus isn’t very christian-like”
        Phil Donahue: ” It’s what Christ would have wanted!”

        1. Christ did, for all intents and purposes, volunteer for crucifixion.

  6. the Repubs get too hung up on the national defense duty prescribed to the federal govt in the Constitution. Their interpretation of defense leaves much to be desired. I had little issue with striking Afghanistan after 9/11 though we should have been gone long ago, but Iraq made zero sense. Ironically, the presence of Saddam had the same effect as Mubarak in Egypt, Qaddafi in Libya and, for that matter, Assad in Syria.

    1. the presence of Saddam had the same effect as Mubarak in Egypt, Qaddafi in Libya and, for that matter, Assad in Syria.

      The effect of all those dictators is feeding long-term instability. Doesn’t mean we should oust them but the idea that they are good for us is just wrong. If it were true we wouldn’t have had ME problems.

      1. If they would be replaced by free, democratic governments, that might be true. Since that’s not happening any time soon, I’m not so sure

      2. Lnng term instability is, relatively speaking, stability.

  7. I don’t really like the wording of what he says even though I probably agree with what he’s trying to say. There are situations where there is no time for reluctance or deliberations.

    1. Like what? I’d say even if a nuke went off in NYC, a responsible President would gather his cabinet and go over possible courses of action rather than just start shooting from the hip

      1. If you had an identifiable, locatable attacker you need to retaliate immediately. Think Pearl Harbor.

          1. The aircraft carriers were searching for the attackers the same day. Of course, the fact that a large part of our fleet was destroyed in the attack may have had something to do with the delay.

            1. And that there were no such things as ICBMs.

            2. That’s pretty amazing since Saratoga was in dry dock in Washington at the time, and Enterprise and Lexington had no airplanes being as they returning from delivering squadrons to Wake and Midway.

  8. What’s more, “I don’t believe Jesus would have killed anyone or condoned killing, perhaps not even in self-defense.”

    Er, in the Gospel narratives, Jesus always presents “The Son of Man” (ie, himself) as the one who judges and condemns the wicked to hell. He also withers that unfortunate fig tree just because he was hungry. The biblical Christ is not the pacifist flower child 20th century feminizers have portrayed.

    1. Judging and condemning in the afterlife is not killing on Earth.

    2. “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39

      1. “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” — Luke 22:36

        1. Except that the only time the New Testament mentions one of the disciples actually using a sword, Jesus reprimands him and heals the man that he struck.

          Luke 22:49-51

          49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

    3. Jeeze, guys, let’s start with the observation that there isn’t a shred of evidence for an historical junior before we discuss what ‘he’ might of might not do.

      1. Awkward…

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

        1. Uh, evidence. Not what someone heard someone else say.
          Are you familiar with the term “evidence”?

          1. By that standard no one existed at that time.

            Hell, George Washington doesn’t meet that standard.

            1. Tulpa Doom| 9.18.12 @ 9:25PM |#
              “By that standard no one existed at that time.
              Hell, George Washington doesn’t meet that standard.”

              I hope logic isn’t required for you to make a living.

        2. rofl. I’m not an anti-theist by any means but come on that’s just a lame retort. Stick to calling it faith.

      2. What kind of evidence would you accept, Sevo?

        1. Tulpa Doom| 9.18.12 @ 9:29PM |#
          “What kind of evidence would you accept, Sevo?”

          Uh, fishing expeditions are a waste of time.
          Are you familiar with the term “evidence”? Let’s see some.

          1. What evidence do you have for the existence of George Washington, Sevo?

      3. I would say say that there is at least a “shred” of evidence that he existed and did have followers. I don’t believe there is any real evidence, even in the Bible, that he or his followers thought he was God. I think that we probably have Constantine to thank for that. And of course we have no way to distinquish actual quotes from fables. I would think that at least some of those quotes, especially those occuring across several gospels may be true in spirit if not paraphrased to some degree. It was not uncommon though for people to attribute “miracles” to people in those times.

        1. AlmightyJB| 9.18.12 @ 10:40PM |#
          “I would say say that there is at least a “shred” of evidence that he existed and did have followers.”

          Waiting to see it.
          Sorry, but the rest of your post is opinion minus even that shred.

          1. I don’t have have his picture except on a nacho. I’m an Atheist so I don’t really care whether you believed he existed or not. It’s of course all circumstantual so there is no physical evidence. Early writings of the Christian sects who followed and wrote about his teachings is mainly all you have. I suppose they certainly could have made him up in their imagination. Then made up all the quotes and then devouted their lives to following those quotes. I think that’s as unlikely though as the idea that he walked on water or that the shroud of Turin belonged to him. That’s certainly my opinion based on my study of the subject matter though.

            1. There are sources independent of the Gospels that refer to a historical Jesus, notably Josepus who refers his execution and Tacitus.

              The consensus among historians is pretty solidly for the existence of a religious teacher called Jesus of Nazareth.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…..hrman285-4

            2. AlmightyJB| 9.18.12 @ 11:04PM |#
              …”Early writings of the Christian sects who followed and wrote about his teachings is mainly all you have.”…

              ‘Nuff said.

              1. A Serious Man| 9.18.12 @ 11:09PM |#
                “There are sources independent of the Gospels that refer to a historical Jesus, notably Josepus who refers his execution and Tacitus.”

                There are sources that claim other people claimed X. Sorry, evidence, that ain’t.
                ———
                “The consensus among historians is pretty solidly for the existence of a religious teacher called Jesus of Nazareth.”

                Shame there’s no evidence to support the claim of the various bleevers.

                1. There are sources that claim other people claimed X. Sorry, evidence, that ain’t.

                  Well what standard are you using to qualify evidence? Because when you’re researching ancient history it is very difficult to discover first hand accounts that survive. According to the historical method, second hand accounts can be reliable if the circumstances are thoroughly evaluated.

                  And then there’s the fact that it is extremely unlikely that a completely fictional character could spawn a religious movement that was sizeable by the time of the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, only about 30 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and ministry.

                2. In The Annals, Tacitus refers the the execution and Christ as historical fact, not something some people talked about. He even mentioned the name of the governor of the province that had him executed. This is about as bad as John’s recent crusade to convince everyone that Muhammad never existed

              2. AlmightyJB| 9.18.12 @ 11:04PM |#
                …”Early writings of the Christian sects who followed and wrote about his teachings is mainly all you have.”…

                Oh, and what are ‘his teachings’? Seems there’s no real agreement even among bleevers:
                “14 Statements of Jesus Almost No One Believes?and Your Minister Doesn’t Want You to Understand!”
                http://realtruth.org/articles/…..janob.html

                1. Oh, and what are ‘his teachings’? Seems there’s no real agreement even among bleevers

                  The same can be said of any historical figure, religious or otherwise.

                2. Like I said. I have no skin in this game. Based on everything I’ve read, which is extensive, I think that it is LIKELY that he existed as a man and PROBABLY said some things similar to much of what was attributed to him. There’s is clearly not physical evidence that he existed. That does not stop me from looking at circumstantial evidence (mainly the existance of so many sects mear that time period who wrote about him) and saying yeah, he PROBABLY did exist. That is a far cry from saying I believe that everything in the Bible is literal truth or that he is a God or even that he was worshipped by those early sects. I don’t believe any of that. No doubt that even if he did exist his teaching were written down second hand and no doubt embellished. This is probably true for a number of historical figures as well. Yes, you are correct that none of that can be proven.

                  1. And to my original point, circumstantial evidence is evidence, it’s just not proof.

  9. “I don’t believe Jesus would have killed anyone or condoned killing, perhaps not even in self-defense.”

    His father on the other hand…

    1. No evidence for this guy, either.

      1. Unless you’ve personally met people who described George Washington from their personal experience, I hope you are similarly nitpicky when people talk about him.

        1. Tulpa Doom| 9.18.12 @ 9:28PM |#
          “Unless you’ve personally met people who described George Washington from their personal experience, I hope you are similarly nitpicky when people talk about him.”

          I hope logic isn’t required for you to make a living.

  10. I often wonder about what would happen if we really did only retaliate when attacked. Are the vague reports of foiled terrorist plots in the news real or just Richard Marcinko / Tom Clancy fictional plot lines? We’ve been quietly killing terrorists whenever we find them for at least 30 years. What would happen if we stopped?

    Would nothing happen? Or, would we get nailed a bunch of times and Libertarian foreign policy thoroughly discredited? It would be an interesting experiment.

    1. You would still need to be prepared for attacks for a generation, I think. But if we weren’t trying to defend the entire world, and focused our efforts on defending the U.S., we’d have much better luck.

    2. AQ was gunning for us for 10 years before 9/11, during which there was absolutely no WoT, and had no successful attacks on US soil. Why should we attribute the lack of successful attacks since then as the result of the WoT?

      The more likely explanation is that it’s extremely difficult for AQ to pull off an attack on US soil due to the loyalty of the Muslim population here. They really do depend on the support of the surrounding community to carry out attacks. We don’t have to go around the world seeking terrorists to kill (and creating more terrorists when we kill civilians in the many oopsies we have in the process)

      1. There were plenty of successful ones abroad in the 80’s and 90’s. The Achille Lauro hijacking and the Lockerbie bombing were directed at American civilians minding their own business.

        1. Neither was AQ’s doing.

          1. So? The names of the groups changed, their objectives haven’t.

        2. Terrorist attacks abroad are none of our business. You leave the US and are not aboard a US-flagged ship, you’re on your own.

          1. That’s nonsense.

    3. Suppose things got really bad? Suppose that an attack on the scale of 9/11 according once a month in the US. You’d still be more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack. So I find a useful rule of thumb when evaluating anti-terror proposals is to ask myself how I’d respond if someone proposed the same solution against bad drivers.

  11. So, I was reading Ron B’s article about blasphemy, and it got me thinking — isn’t blasphemy an attack against something sacred, holy, or divine? And isn’t the movie attacking Mohammed the person? (I haven’t seen it, but this is the impression I got.)

    By calling that blasphemy, aren’t the rioters suggesting that Muhammad was holy or sacred? Isn’t that the same sort of idolatry they accuse Christians of practicing with Jesus? And if so, shouldn’t all these rioters and imams be put to death by Muslims for worshiping Muhammad?

    1. People using religion as an excuse to be violent, hypocritical bigots is nothing new. Hell, it’s about as old as religion itself.

      1. General Butt Naked| 9.18.12 @ 9:05PM |#
        “People using religion as an excuse to be violent, hypocritical bigots is nothing new.”

        There’s plenty of reason to believe that religion is nothing other than various attempts at controlling a given population.
        The hypocrisy is in the claiming otherwise rather than the acts of violence.

        1. People have died in the name of their religion. What was there to gain from that? If early Christianity, for instance, was an attempt to control a given population, it was a pretty lame one.

    2. That’s sacrilege, not blasphemy. Blasphemy is speaking ill of God or religion (and presumably denigrating the prophet of that religion counts).

    3. I find it ironic how Muslims don’t depict the prophet to discourage idolatry, and then (not most of course, I’m talking about the psychos) go absolutely crazy whenever someone does depict or insult him. That seems more like worship than simply drawing him

  12. The most important part of his talk was at the end. The most important thing to focus on is your relationship to those close to you. Compared to that, all the other stuff is close to trivial.

  13. Shame on you reason. Just because Rand Paul stoops so low as to cater to jesus freaks doesn’t mean that you should be congratulating him for it. Have some balls why don’t you. Is your name REASON or SUPERSTITION?

    1. As long as he’s speaking his principles of limited government, it really shouldn’t matter who he’s speaking them to. It’s that kind of attitude that’s the reason libertarianism doesn’t take off.

      1. “It’s that kind of attitude that’s the reason libertarianism doesn’t take off.”

        If logic causes problems, well, the problem isn’t with logic.

        1. Fair enough. I just don’t personally care what people choose to believe, as long as their “beliefs” are not coerced by the thought police. If someone is advancing the principles of liberty, I don’t think we should be condemning it simply because we don’t like the people he’s speaking to or his personal beliefs about God.

    2. galarant, see above. Regardless of the name, REASON is not any sort of skeptical organization.
      Bleevers constitute a good proportion of readers and commenters. Personally, I try to bust them on the superstitions at every opportunity. You’re welcome to add your voice, but REASON isn’t going to pitch in.

      1. So you are the spiritual equivalent of Turbo Tax Tiimah?

        “I don’t have any answers, but I utterly reject yours”

    3. So when a politician pitches a non-interventionist foreign policy to a powerful conservative group, Reason shouldn’t cover it because he discussed his faith as well? Don’t you think that’s kind of narrow minded?

  14. Folks should see this new viral Obama video comparing words to actions – 830,000 cumulative youtube views in 2 weeks. Watch and share with friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8R5GvwUFU8

  15. Jesus is God, according to Christian theology.

    thus, Jesus ordered the genocide of Amalek. 1 Samuel 15.

  16. “Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty”
    by Congressman Ron Paul
    http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

  17. There’s an easy test to see if someone’s an actual follower of Jesus; sue them for $10,000. If they don’t give you $20,000, they aren’t.

  18. Dude that guys is not making any sense at all man, None.

    http://www.PlanetAnon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.