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.
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.