Rand Paul Believes Radical Muslims Are Waging a "Worldwide War on Christians"


On Oct. 11, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave a speech at the 2013 Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C. and spoke about what he called the "worldwide war on Christians by a fanatical element of Islam."
In his speech, Paul highlighted that some rebels fighting in Syria have been targeting Christians, saying:
In Syria, there is an ancient Christian city called Maaloula, where they still speak Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke. They have been Christian since the time of Christ. They are a small final outpost of Christians in the Middle East. In August, the town was over-run by the Islamic rebels.
As the Islamic Rebels swarmed into town they demanded everyone convert to Islam or die. Sarkis el Zakhm stood up and answered them, "I am a Christian and if you want to kill me because I am a Christian, do it." Those were Sarkis last words. Sister Carmel of Damascus said of Sarkis: "His death is true martyrdom, a death in odium fidei (or, in hatred of faith).
Elsewhere in Syria, Islamic rebels have filmed beheadings of their captives and celebrated by eating the heart of an enemy soldier. Two Christian bishops have been kidnapped and one priest recently killed.
These rebels are allies of the Islamic Rebels President Obama is now arming.
American tax dollars should never be spent to prop up a war on Christianity. But that is what is happening right now. As Christians we should take a stand and fight against any of our tax dollars funding the persecution of Christians.
Paul then went on to highlight instances around the world where Christians have been targeted by Muslims.
To call, as Paul did, the incidents he mentions in Guinea, Egypt, Kenya, Indonesia, and Tanzania, a "war" is needlessly hyperbolic. In fact, last September The Times of India reported that Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has ordered members of the organization to resist killing Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs in Muslim lands. Of course, al-Zawahiri issuing these orders does not mean that Al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria or elsewhere will necessarily be compliant, but it is worth considering given Paul's comments on radical Muslims waging a war against Christianity.
Paul cited the Boston Marathon bombing as a domestic example of the war on Christianity being waged by radical Islamists. But, as Dean Obeidallah of The Daily Beast has pointed out, if the Tsarnaev brothers were really motivated by a hatred of Christians it's not as if Massachusetts's capital is without churches to target.
What is perhaps most worrying about Paul's comments is that they imply selective moral outrage. Does it really matter what religion the people being massacred in Syria practice? Isn't it just as awful that Muslims are killing other Muslims? I can't see how the arguments against intervention in Syria would be any stronger or weaker if the Christians Paul mentions were instead Buddhists, Sikhs, or Hindus.
I like much of what Paul has said about foreign policy. Paul is right that we should be cutting our foreign aid budget and he is right that our military is overly involved abroad. However, a non-interventionist foreign policy can be argued for and the dangers of radical Islam discussed without using the sort of dramatic language displayed at the 2013 Values Voter Summit.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Eid Mubarak!
Boko Haram declined to comment.
The Islamic suppression of Copts, Christians in Africa, and Jews everywhere doesn't resonate with most reasonoid commenters because... CHRISTERS: those freaks who want to stop us having fun with our weewees and ladyparts.
Exactly. Like leftists, they like the idea of Muslims massacring Christians.
No, only our weewees and ladyparts.
He's got to give the Ned Flanders types a reason to vote for him in the 2016 primaries.
I hope that's all it is. But if he starts playing the game, when we he stop?
If history is any judge, never. You don't get to the top by keeping your soul.
This is the reason that choosing leaders by POPULARITY (Republics) is BEYOND IDIOTIC.
The Greeks who invented this whole "democracy" thing, said elections are aristocracy, not democracy.
Democracy in their view, was using Sortition, a form of lottery, to choose randomly from amongst the populace.
Whoever can claw their way to the top of a popularity contest will be the most devious liar.
Even hereditary rule is preferable because the nature (good v. evil) is more random. Whereas elections are cutthroat, dig-dirt-on-the-other-guy brutal popularity contests so you're guaranteed to get scumbags generally.
Only occasionally does a general or someone overwhelmingly popular manage to win an election. Otherwise it's always a lawyer, aka professional liar.
And more importantly, once the "values voters" are whipped up into a frenzy about this "worldwide war on Christianity", how's he gonna say no when they want us to get involved in that war on the side of the Christians?
I guess it's been awhile since we had a legitimate Crusade.
how's he gonna say no when they want us to get involved in that war on the side of the Christians?
"No."
we've all been concern trolled.
He's been playing the game all along. Look at his voting record, vs what he says. For once, someone's playing the game in the opposite direction. It just might work. I wish him well.
Why should he ever have to stop that game? It doesn't seem to hurt us any, does it?
Or he is trying to get the US to stop arming and supporting groups (Syrian rebels, Egyptian rebels) that are specifically targeting Christians to kill.
He's got to give the Ned Flanders types a reason to vote for him in the 2016 primaries.
What are you talking about? You must be referring to some Simpsons episodes that don't exist since the show ended in 1998.
Besides, the only person who hates him on that show is Mr. Simpson himself. Once they did reveal that Mr. Flanders is Devil incarnate, but as long as nobody knows about that, how could it possibly hurt to take his side?
Thanks for making an asinine comment about a serious subject. You people are disgusting.
A bit hyperbolic. There is a Shia-Sunni war going on. That's pretty clear. And I'm sure as the more extreme Islamists expand their areas of authority in the Middle East they won't object to making it hard on Christians and other non-Muslims to live within Islamic states.
needlessly hyperbolic.
For the purposes of honest discussion? It certainly is.
For a targeted political speech? I wouldn't say it's needless.
The article content is a lot more reasonable than the headline made me think. But the alt-text hasn't helped at all.
I'm surprised you even read the article given the lack of alt-text. Isn't that your litmus test?
I need to find relevant ways to bring up the lack of alt-text.
Have you thought of inventing a colorful catch-phrase?
That's too easy to tune out.
Did you stay till the end on Sunday?
You don't even want to hear my story on that one. Suffice it to say I was not in attendance at that game. Were I to go into further detail I would only turn suicidal.
Sorry to hear that. I got endzone seats at the last minute.
I just booked a trip to Miami for the away game too.
How about:
WHERE THE FUCK IS THE ALT TEXT?!
That'll prolly get the point across.
"No, fuck you. Add alt-text."
muslims, at least the radical ones, do seem to have a problem with anyone outside their particular hive. And often, with some in a different honeycomb of the hive.
I still find it ironic, if not comedic, that the Muslims with the most freedoms live in non-Muslim nations.
That is not ironic at all. Liberty is incompatible with Islamic law, and every country with a significant Muslim population has some form of Islamic law.
Muslims are murderous scum. We need to eradicate them from the face of the earth.
Iowa is closer than it appears.
It's not hyperbole.
In Iraq, Syria and Egypt are old Christian communities predating the Catholic church. They've survived innumerable migrations and changes of empires and governments.
They are literally being annihilated by the Islamists now. It's important to note that Al Queda is retaliating for the crusades (yes, the copts had nothing to do with the crusades and all the crusaders are now long dead, but like Bluto they are on a roll).
And, in Egypt and in Syria the current admin tried to ally with the assholes doing the pogroms. It's vital that the Evangelicals understand this, because they tend to not be aware that the U.S. foreign policy which they largely support is destroying Christianity.
I doubt Paul really is going to base his foreign policy on questions of religious wars, but the people whose support he needs to build a political power base do care... a lot.
I would hope everyone would care even if they didn't think going to war to stop it is the answer. This whole article seems to boil down to, "we really can't say mean things about brown people". Seriously, since when has Reason ever had a problem with dramatic language?
I agree.
What he is saying is accurate, even if the radical moslems are also waging war against jews and buddhists and whoever.
Reason is a politically correct rag. To hell with all of the Reason writers.
However, a non-interventionist foreign policy can be argued for and the dangers of radical Islam discussed without using the sort of dramatic language displayed at the 2013 Values Voter Summit.
Maybe such language is warranted because it reflects the truth? It is either true or it is not. If it is not true, then you should be pointing that out and criticizing Paul for not telling the truth. If it is true, then there is nothing wrong with saying it. To say there is is to imply the Paul has some kind of obligation to lie or diminish the truth lest people decide they might want to intervene. Bullshit.
The author is saying it's the truth but not the whole truth. But nobody could possibly relate the whole truth in a lifetime, so so what? Like you should never say anything because it won't be everything that could rightly be said?
I agree, John. Feeney, you are off on this one. Paul is a mature, measured man, and knows what he is saying to whom. As another astute poster advised, LOOK AT HIS VOTING RECORD. It's a damn fine one. Whatever he needs to do to get elected, I support him. My brother and our wives are leaving this country if 2016 brings us a Clinton, Booker, Biden, or Michelle O. administration. If Rand doesn't make it, we're outta here. This country doesn't deserve people strong enough to live free.
Paul's statements violate the principles of culural liberalism upon which libertarianism is based. If muslims are killing christians just because they are christians, you cannot make a distinction btween that and muslims killing other muslims for political reasons, that would make you a social conservatove values voter fascist. The holocaust was horrible and very distinct from nazi killings of american and russian soldiers.
" However, a non-interventionist foreign policy can be argued for and the dangers of radical Islam discussed without using the sort of dramatic language displayed at the 2013 every Values Voter Summit that has ever taken place."
FIFY
You're welcome
Fool.
"Elsewhere in Syria, Islamic rebels have filmed beheadings of their captives and celebrated by eating the heart of an enemy soldier. Two Christian bishops have been kidnapped and one priest recently killed."
As long as they don't pee on their victims.
I'm pretty sure human meat is not halal.
Well, they kind of are... but the question is, does it matter?
Since we are mostly a Christian country and even to the extent we are not it doesn't matter since they view us as such, I would say yes. It is not like they will stop there. They seem to like killing the infidel.
But it's hardly exclusively Muslim-on-Christian killing. Why do Christians get special attention?
Why do I ask questions whose answers are obvious?
The holocaust was hardly exculsively gentile on Jewish killing. Why have Jews gotten all this special attention?
I agree that organized murder of minority groups is always bad.
Not sure how Rand Paul pandering to idiots fixes that.
explaining that radical Muslims have no issue killing those who are not Muslims for no reason other than they are not Muslims now counts as pandering?
Tony is just upset that Rand is not trying to pander to HIS brand of idiocy.
Apparently Christians are also all idiots now.
I am beginning to see why Tony thinks it is OK to hide the fact that they are being targeted and killed by groups that we support and arm.
Why do Christians get special attention?
Perhaps you should ask the people that are killing them.
Christians are the minority group being targeted and killed and we are giving arms and support to the people who are doing the killing.
How the fuck else is Paul supposed to characterize the facts?
Should he not call them Christians? Perhaps "random minority group number 3" is a better name?
How the fuck else is Paul supposed to generate the outrage needed to create the political will to stop us from arming killers?
But if they were only killing, say, gays, educated women, some Islamic ethnic minority or just green-eyed people would he then bang on that point? Somehow the concept of "Christians" has special cachet here. Not that that makes it better, of course, but would he worry if they were just fine?
What about when it was Kurds, or 'marsh arabs' or Kosovars? We have intervened for these. Their 'special cachet' was used then. Now Paul is using, to a group that is largely Christian, the 'special cachet' that 'Christian' has to them.
The big difference, of course, is that he's using that 'special cachet' to promote a cessastion of intervention on the side of the killers.
They seem to like killing the infidel.
I don't understand why R politicians can't seem to respect the cultural heritage of killing the infidel. It's backwards and ignorant to judge other cultures by your own prudish mores.
We need to return the favor. In spades.
but the question is, does it matter?
Damn squirrels.
Yes, the waste of tax dollars matters.
Which is exactly my point. Radical Muslims just sort of like killing, and we need to stop sending them money and arms. The fact that they have a special place in their heart of Christians doesn't really matter to me.
It's telling that Obama goes out of the way to cozy up to Muslim scum. It says all I need to know about that filthy traitor.
And while we're discussing the situation in Syria, the last person any of us want to be on the planet is an Alawite after the current regime falls. The sunni radicals will be having a Rwandan style field day. I look forward to drinking plenty when I this happens....and not to celebrate.
Well the Reason line is that as long as we leave them alone they will never have a reason to come here. The only reason anyone ever would attack us or want to kill us is because we started it. So you shouldn't worry.
True, but let's not forget that a large amount of the weapons they (not just "foreign Jihadis" but the under-reported Syrian Salafists) have came either directly through us, or any number of indirect routes. If we would've support themselves with weapons they would be way, way more willing to negotiate some sort of arrangement.
I'm not only worried, but worried for dozens of friends of mine that live there, from all stripes, including Sunni, Alawite and Christian. For me, the worrying is actually quite personal.
So am I to assume that jumping into a very confusing fray of competing groups is the solution?
Citation?
Jesus but you're a mendacious fuck.
Like a million blowback threads. Fuck you if don't like the truth. I am not the one who argues that blow back is why we should never intervene. Pay better attention sometime you stupid fuck.
I think you're misunderstanding the positions.
Nobody's denying that there's a small, radical core that would like nothing better than to conquer North America for the Caliphate, but our foolish interventions swell their ranks with people with legitimate grievances against us. There are a lot of Pakistanis and Yemenis who were planning on living normal lives, working to put food on the table, and cursing Israel from afar, until their mother or sister or kids got incinerated by one of our many Hellfire oopsies.
I basically agree here with Tulpa. Islam has always considered certain groups or ideologies to have positioned themselves agains Islam, making it an enemy to god, his prophet and hence dar al-islam (the house, or nation if you prefer, of islam). With the advent of free(ish)-market capitalism, a new enemy was essentially formed, although by this time the caliphate was a far, far less powerful than it was 500-1000 years earlier. Since then Islam's main ideological enemy was "capitalism", or any place or group of people that were, rightly or wrongly, identified with it...hence the World Trade Center as their favorite target.
While this is true, we have to ask ourselves why we saw precious few acts of violence commited in the name of islam against the west before the 1980's. I don't understand why I should not see a connection between our military and/or CIA activities there and the majority of terrorist activities against the U.S and Britain. Most of them were directed against military personnel actually stationed there. From my point of view we had no reason to be there from the beginning, and the way we support Israel is a problem.
Blowback isn't "why we should never intervene", but it is only one of many good reasons to be way, way more careful than we have been for the last half century.
You are a fool, Tulpa. Most Muslims hate non Muslims. If you were honest you would admit that. Or maybe you're just too ignorant to realize it.
That's not how a citation works. Find an example of
Well the Reason line is that as long as we leave them alone they will never have a reason to come here. The only reason anyone ever would attack us or want to kill us is because we started it.
You can't, because you're being your typical hyperbolic douchebag self.
I'm not saying I agree completely with John's statement - but I believe libertarians, and the writing @ Reason, reflects libertarian philosophy of using the non-coercion principle wrt international politics to the point of some-isolation.
& thru that - I believe I've seen argued many times things such as "if we weren't there in the first place"...
Now, I could've misread all of this or the 10+ year I've been reading/sporadically-posting here, but without citation at all - I'm going to agree with the basic premise that libertarian philosophy wrt to international politics is a bunch of "is we left them alone, they'd leave us alone".
If I'm wrong - please explain as international policy is one of the few places I disagree strongly with libertarians and would love to know that I've misunderstood something fundamental the entire time.
If
You haven't misunderstood.
Libertarianism assumes the existence of a dominant coercer which punishes violations of NAP.
There is no such thing on a scale larger than US territory, so libertarian thought does not apply to foreign policy issues or any other issues that involve things that happen on both sides of the border, such as immigration.
That last bit is a stretch.
How are immigrants violating NAP? I mean I can totally see the realpolitik take on "NAP is totally unenforceable at a global level, so don't use it as a guiding principle" part, but how does immigration fit here?
Every time I have begun to consider becoming a libertarian, You people come up with idiocy like this article and I realize I can never support such stupidity.
This article does not actually reflect libertarian thought.
Libertarianism, like most political ideologies, has been under constant attack by Gramscian forces.
International Libertarianism is a form of leftist statism that devotes itself to parroting various libertarian priciples while veiling leftist/statist sentiment in libertarianish rhetoric.
As with all Gramscian issues, many have internalized the leftism without ever even realizing it WAS leftism.
Obdeillah observes that the Tsarnaev brothers chose a public, televised event like the Boston Marathon rather than a church somewhere in Boston. And, this is proof that the Tsarnaev brothers, admittedly motivated by radical Islam, were not also driven by a hatred of Christians? All this proves is that the Tsarnaev brothers planned an attack different than the one Obdeillah imagines they would have planned given a particular mix of circumstances. The syllogism fails.
That's not the only problem with his atrocious article. A couple times, he intimates that Paul is "desperate" to win the 2016 nomination, and that this is a Hail Mary Pass. Seriously? Several years out? As he is leading in many, albeit not all polls? This sounds like the criticism of a man who has heard political arguments and can sort of imitate that tone, but doesn't know much about the current political situation.
I suspect that their hatred was more of Americans generally than Christians. We're often seen as godless because we're way less practising than them.
You're right on the othe points though.
Paul is trying to get people at the Value Voters summit, primarily Christians to be angry at Obama for arming the Syrian rebels. If Freeney can't see that, he's got an axe to grind against someone he otherwise likes using Christianity as a talking point. Maybe Freeney fears Paul will overuse it, or maybe he fears Paul believes it a little too much, which he may. But the audience he's speaking to needs to hear it because it is the truth that will get them to go in Paul's direction. It's not a lie. It's the specific part of an overall foreign policy they care about. Part of being an effective politician is adding people to your camp and getting their donations so you can win election where you can actually change policy.
If he wasn't saying this to them, it would be a mistake because his first, and in my opinion toughest battle, will be the Republican Primary 3 years from now. Baby steps, Matt.
^^^THIS^^^
it is the truth that will get them to go in Paul's direction. It's not a lie. It's the specific part of an overall foreign policy they care about.
You hit the nail on the head. "Why didn't you add all of the caveats and reassuring phrases and belly rubs that would have made me feel good as you spoke?" is such a common fallacy, and one that both Obdeillah and Feeney employ. Guess what? Other people have different priorities, interests and agendas than you do. That doesn't make them liars or even wrong. It does mean that sometimes people won't talk about what you want to talk about.
Except he didn't say "Syrian rebels are attacking Christians in Syria with weapons we gave them". He said there's a "world wide war on Christianity", as though the muslims in Dearborn, MI are just as dangerous as the ones fighting in Aleppo, Syria.
That's not an argument for non-interventionism; it's an appeal to anti-islamic bigotry.
He specified radical muslims, so Dearborn need not apply.
Stormy is as self-centered/incapable-of-reading as Feeney.
Paul's point is the waste of tax dollars.
The only problem I see is that some people will be as dumb as Stormy & Feeney and demand the policy to match the hyperbole instead of the point.
Fool.
You know that sooner or later, odds are high that Reason is going to turn on Rand. They've found one of their justifications.
There won't, of course, be anyone better, anywhere in sight. But b'gosh the message is going to be "don't vote for Rand".
Actually, for a number of writers at Reason, the message is "don't vote!", and by the time the election actually comes around, any chance of that changing will have drifted off with our memory of Newt Gingrich and Rudolf Guiliani (spelling?).
A good reason why I'm giving up on Reason and libertarians.
Of course. They'll have to do it so they can free themselves up to justify their votes for Hillary.
No challenge to Rand Paul's factual assertions. Seriously, how many radical Muslim attacks on Christians do you need before you can call it a war? How many shootings, beheadings, etc?
And as noted earlier, Christians communities in the Middle East which have been there almost 2,000 years are being reduced as the Christians flee or get killed off. Tell *them* there's not a war.
The only reasons to avoid the term "war" is that it's customary for *both* sides in the war to fight, but here the Christian response is, well, Christian. They're putting up with it or calling for govt. protection, or they're fleeing.
And Paul's remedy is...not to support those forces killing Christians, as we've often been doing to date.
And he went out of his way to praise the era of Muslim learning, and to emphasize that the radical group doesn't represent a majority of Muslims.
Obama is a Christian, right?
Bush was a Christian?
Most of Congress is Christian?
If we're going to play this equivalency game, Christians are killing more Muslims than the reverse. And Christians are doing it explicitly through governmental action, explicitly through their militaries in acts of war.
Christians are killing more Muslims? In what world is that? Speaking of mendacity. Do you actually believe this shit or just lie about it on the internet?
How about all of the Muslims killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc. etc.?
And it isn't my argument, it's yours, taken to an honest and equal conclusion.
Most of the Muslims killed in those countries were killed by other Muslims.
Christians are killing more Muslims than the reverse
[citation needed]
For starters:
http://intellihub.com/2013/10/.....-pakistan/
Thanks for being one of the few on this forum to post a reasonable, thoughtful comment.
It is safe to say that every reason writer is an atheist. To them, the thought of Christians caring about other Christians is abhorant. Just as anything else involving faith is abhorant. Paul is a Christian. Think about that as you are preparing your article of endorsement. What will that do to your SWPL score? *shudder* No, its stuff like this which proves he is a values votrer fascist. Instead, you will write the libertarian case for Hillary Clinton. Being Christian is incompatable wwith being socially liberal.
No, the thought of Christians ONLY caring about Christians is abhorent.
are Christians cheerleading when Muslims kill others? I must have missed that their celebration over the Mumbai attacks or even how the radicals treat other Muslims.
Like it or not, the bulk of the values voters ARE Christians. He's making a point to them.
Actually, some of the Maronites actually do cheer when Muslims kill other Muslims. Or don't they count? Yes, it's a specific group, in a small country, but some of things they've done to Muslims, especially during the civil war, was every bit as atrocious as anything we hear about Muslims.
Also, technically speaking, Christians only caring about other Christians is anti-biblical....not non-biblical, but anti. All of us should be as upset about the violence in Syria against innocent Alawites and other Shiites, and against non MB in Egypt, as we are against Christians in Maa'luula.
I understand your point, and don't really disagree, but as a Christian, and the majority of my close friends are the value-voter type, I'd call him (and my friends) out for not "loving your neighbor as yourself" and not "loving your enemy". His message is too easy, even if it his goal is to garner their support. This is one of the huge problems the Repubs have, and will for the forseeable future: to get nominated you have to scare off most of the independents, or at least people who think independently.
Jews in America care a lot about Israel. They care much more about it than they do about, say, the Sri Lankan Civil War. This is okay under cultural liberalism because antisemitism is bad.
Christians applying the same standard violates cultural liberalism.
Is Obama only caring about the rebels, and not caring about who they kill, in Syria and Egypt abhorrent?
Christians getting together to discuss issues that directly affect Christians worldwide does not even remotely imply Christians ONLY care about other Christians.
PS: NEEDZ MOAR CAPS
You not getting it, now that's "abhorent".
I can think of one H+R commenter who MIGHT try to make a "libertarian" case for Hillary, but I doubt the Reason staff will.
They made the case for Obama last time. One of the three main arguments was gay marriage. That tells you what is really important to them.
Should gay marriage not be important to someone?
There is a legitamate libertarian argument for gay marriage. But it being more important than taxes? Than fighting socialism? Those things are much bigger threats to liberty from any objective standpoint. But these left libertarians care about the culture message.
Perhaps they just do not think there will be a dime's worth of difference between the two parties on taxes, socialism and such.
Sorry - but do you think that while bailing out GM the Republicans would've ignored bankruptcy laws to give the unions 50 billion?
Do you Republicans would've raised business taxes through efforts such as increasing minimum wage?
Do you think Republicans would've had a Labor Board which sued Boeing (I think) for planning to build new airplanes in NC because by doing so they were directly "attacking" unions in other states (even though there's a law against such suits)?
Do you think a Republican administration would've requested the DOJ look into the Trayvon case?
Do you think a Republican administration would be suggesting gun bans as a form of violence control?
I mean don't get me wrong here - both parties are certainly big government & this is why I don't vote Republican.
But to suggest the parties aren't different - especially when it comes to business climate and such - is disingenuous.
As much as I disliked Romney, I think without question our economy would've been better with him than the current President.
If my government was arming people who killed people who were gay married in Syria it would be important to me.
Yeah, I remember the 2008 "Who's Getting Your Vote?" article included more Obama support than I would have expected. I just can't see them being swept up in Hillarymania like they were in Obamamania.
It's very early, but I think unless the Libertarian Party nominates somebody laughably bad, most Reason staff will vote third party, or not at all.
The article I was reffering to was from 2012.
Hmm. Maybe I better do some digging, because I thought the 2012 installment of WGYV? showed that the staff was fed up with both major parties and was mostly supporting Gary Johnson.
That's the way I recall it as well.
Shouldn't all the Obama "libertarians" vote for whoever the Republicans nominate to punish the Democrats like they wanted to punish Republicans 5 years ago?
No, you never-ever-ever punish Democrats. No matter what.
This is what you get out of closet liberals. The Democrats rammed ObamaCare down our, more directly against the popular will than I recall Bush ever doing, and yet there was no "punish the Democrats" movement around here.
Well, I wouldn't put it past them. Seems Reason is Dem lite.
Jacob Sullum's Jewish. Even keeps Saturday.
Nonsense. Jesus spoke Murikin.
Rand's argument really isn't new. Lefties were saying the same thing about Bush's Iraq War. Except they were just doing it to score points, not out of any feeling for Christians.
Yes, excellent point. And they hit on a real flaw of Bush's policy.
If we're going to criticize US Christians, it should be for being kind of late to the party re fighting persecution abroad, because the persecution came (in some cases) in the wake of American intervention.
And in the case of Pakistan, as Paul points out, it's done by US allies.
Also, I think the argument makes more sense now because Saddam was pretty bad to everybody, including Iraqi Christians. Assad seems like he was actually lenient to them.
Oh my, Mr. Paul, I do believe you've given me a case of the vapors with your outlandish speech. Do be a dear, and help me to the fainting couch.
Really? Complain about radicals beheading Christians and you have the "vapors"?
Check your sarcasm meter.
Oops, sorry.
Serious question: is Feeney afraid of being honest? Every fucking article this guy writes is based on dishonest premise. Whether it's the myth about how Libyan intervention ruined Mali or 'hyperbolic language' that isn't hyperbolic at all, this guy is part and parcel of the Shitty Writer Brigade (ex Sheldon) and Postrel would not tolerate him. When has Reason ever had anything against 'hyperbolic language' before?
Radical Islam is absolutely at war with Christianity and that, with its War on Freedom, is part of its broader cultural assault that includes America and precludes 'nonintervention'.
-Radical Islam is absolutely at war with Christianity and that, with its War on Freedom, is part of its broader cultural assault that includes America and precludes 'nonintervention'.
Well, this is, I imagine, exactly what Mr. Freeny was worried about, that such talk fires up the Cytotoxic crowd.
1) Woosh goes the point! 2) Doesn't matter if it 'worries' Feeney or fires me up because it's true. I'm right end of story.
Why should we have to imagine it? It's the essayist's job to make his point clear.
Yeah, we really should have more free speech restrictions. I mean if people get upset when they learn facts - I guess we gotta restrict them facts.
"precludes nonintervention"? How exactly can we know this? How many attacks by radical Islamists did we notice before our more serious efforts to control Middle Eastern politics?
I'm not saying that every attack is because of intervention, but say we can ascertain what a post WWII non-interventionist world would look like seems to me like a massive stretch, given the large amount of intervention, over the course of 4-5 decades that preceded 9/11.
I'm plenty familiar with Islam, both the standard orthodox version and the radical/salafist version, and one thing I can't help but notice is the lack of salafist literature that we find before 1970. While it did exist, the situation in Iran in the 70's appears to have actually changed the entire landscape here (the Middle East), especially in the Levant and Iraq.
Before the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Shah, as well as what happened in Israel and Lebanon, you would walk onto any university campus in Cairo, Amman, Baghdad or Beirut, and you'd have to look fairly hard to find girls that were covered, or more than thinly. At some point in the 80's this began to slowly change, and the climate now is a complete reversal.
Why should anyone divorce our actions here with very easily observable changes by the local communities? Again, I'm not "blaming America", but the recent history here is one of the big reasons I'm basically a non-interventionist today.
What is perhaps most worrying about Paul's comments is that they imply selective moral outrage.
Nothing like Matthew Feeney missing the forest for the trees.
The point is the waste of American tax dollars. Since hyperbole gets people's attention (witness Feeney's attention, misguided as it may be) I'm fine with it being used to point out FedGov waste.
If hyperbole is off limits to libertarians or even the libertarian-friendly, then what is the goddamn point of H&R??
Agreed - but I don't think this is true:
What is perhaps most worrying about Paul's comments is that they imply selective moral outrage.
The entire speech talks about one group directly attacking another and how the US government shouldn't fund such activities.
That does not imply that the only outrage Paul cares about wrt to the attackers is this one group. It does not imply that Paul doesn't care about situations where the attackers are attacking others.
By this logic - if Paul gave a speech about the Naval Yard Shootings to a mostly military/ex-military crowd and specifically suggested firearms restrictions on post should be reduced because these people are asked to go to war and use weapons, would that imply he has less outage for those dead at Newtown as opposed to those dead at the Navy Yard?
This website has had a lot of forgiveness of Rand's past transgressions. I have never seen him Criticized for expressing pro American sentiments on immigration. Remeber when he suggested the possibility of reducing legal immigration? Reason ignored it. Why is reason pretending Paul is a fellow left Libertarian? My theory is that they just need the prospect of electoral sucess to convince themselves that theirs isn't a hopeless, fringe ideology. Paul gives them that prospect.
Paul and his father depart from 'left libertarianism' on several issues (abortion and immigration come immediately to mind). Nevertheless, he has taken more bold, public, libertarian stands than any other politician on the national scene.
Which won't stop the writers around here from turning on him for a second.
Rand Paul is actually supporting immigration reform that includes amnesty and has said that America can and will "find room for" the undocumented. Ron Paul was more hard line on immigration.
And many libertarians condemn him anyway. Fools.
Does it really matter what religion the people being massacred in Syria practice?
Does it really matter what religion the people being massacred in Nazi occupied Poland practice?
/facepalm
Jews are the approved victim group.
Christians are not.
The point is Paul is not really talking about Christian minorities in countries these idiots have never heard of, he is playing into the rightwing meme that Christians in America--where they are the overwhelmingly dominant religious group--are under attack because some high school principal somewhere said "happy holidays."
There's absolutely nothing in this speech that suggests Paul is trying to use Muslim attacks on Christians to reinforce the idea of an "American" War on Christians (or Christmas).
In fact - can you find any quote of Rand in any (recent.ish) speech pushing the idea that in the US there is a cultural war against Christians?
He even pointed out that Muslims & Christians are freer in the US than in Muslim countries.
If you don't see that the liberals are anti-Christian and attack Christians at every opportunity, then you are as big a fool as Feeny.
Oh, wait. That was Tony posting. No wonder it sounded so asinine.
Non interventionalism, like everything else on this website, must be made to align with what they call 'cultural liberalism.'(i.e. political correctness) The Israel lobby is a great example. It has been pushing heavily for the proposed invasion, but as far as Reason is concerned, it doesn't exist.
Is Feeney the new Weigel?
Because this is Weigel-level derp.
Feeney is his own special sort of derp.
At least he got a haircut. His previous do was achieved by walking the electric razor around the brim of his propeller beanie.
Does it really matter that Stalin starved and murdered the kulaks? I mean what difference does it make that a segment of society (artificially created) was targeted for attacks by the population and government? Why even note that part of the story?
Does it really make a difference that Pol Pot targeted the educated in his reeducation camps and killing fields
Should we even care that it was black people who were denied the right to vote in the history of the US?
We can play this game all day long.
+1
And buttering up Christians is bad...why?
Kristians is eeeevul. Gee, don't you know anything?
"To call, as Paul did, the incidents he mentions in Guinea, Egypt, Kenya, Indonesia, and Tanzania, a "war" is needlessly hyperbolic."
So is calling it a Drug War. Then there's the War on Poverty, the War on Obesity, the War on Cancer, and the Culture War.
At some point, through overuse, doesn't it stop being hyperbole?
"In fact, last September The Times of India reported that Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has ordered members of the organization to resist killing Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs in Muslim lands."
Why did al-Zawahiri think that order was necessary?
I'm usually the last one around here to smile and nod at Islamophobia, but there's no need to pretend something is other than what it is, either. If you don't think "war" is an appropriate metaphor, what do you think would be better?
Should Paul have called it "ethnic cleansing"?
I think I've got it figured out. Grand strategy.
Reason knows the Powers That Be are harder on libertarians than on other ideologues. Therefore they have to have enough against any libertarian politician that by the time election day rolls around, they can't be said to be partisan (even though IRS is easier on ideologues of other types so they don't have to be as careful), so their 501(c) status is safe.
Same reason why Byline from CATO had Steven Chapman as one of their commentors: FCC's Fairness Doctrine was still in effect, so they had to fuzz the libertarianism. Then Chapman wasn't enough, so they added Julian Bond.
Come to think of it, HyR has Chapman too. Hmmm....
It's just ridiculous that somebody would actually write a serious piece here deriding Paul for stating a fact because it is somehow uncomfortable. Believe me, the people that are having their heads sawed off are a lot more uncomfortable so there's that.
This whole speech seems like basic politics:
- Find a group of voters whose support you want/need.
- Promise them something they'd like.
Except that Paul's promising de-engagement from the middle east to get SoCons on his side. That group has often been strongly in favor of muscular foreign policy, for a variety of reasons.
I think it's a long shot, but if Paul flips the socon block to supporting non-interventionism, it'd significantly deflate the Republican warboner. We haven't had that in decades.
I hope he succeeds.
100% agreed. However, what I wonder is whether this is not just Paul-as-politician, playing to his audience (i.e., evangelical Christians who will listen to a case against foreign interventionism [that they would likely not listen to otherwise] if it is tied to a case against supporting anti-Christian foreigners) to advance his underlying policy agenda. I have a hard time believing Rand really views the world through the lens of Muslims vs. Christians. Not that that is a great thing per se, but better than this being his actual worldview on the matter. The man is trying to build a coalition, and sometimes pragmatism trumps purity...I guess...
I do not see any selective outrage in Dr. Paul's position because its target audience are those that pretend to be Christians yet support Islamic terrorists and foreign wars. His point was that the Bush and Obama administrations have worked with extremist factions that target Christians even as they pretend that they oppose such elements.
Feeny is a damn fool. What the hell is wrong with the idiots at Reason. Are they nothing but Muslim apologists. Well, they can all kiss my ass.