Thomas Jefferson LIVES in Ron Paul? Really?

Ron Paul has a plethora of quotes on his site from Thomas Jefferson.

"Presidential Historian" and author Doug Weed says something to the effect that Thomas is reincarnated in Ron Paul. A discussion has been going on in a Facebook forum where it is asserted that when Ron Paul becomes President, our marriage issues will be essentially resolved. This relies on the same error that elects most bad Presidents, and the one that elected (in part), Barack Obama. It is that a President DOES have that much power (God save us), or that he will should have that much power. If a President is fulfilling his role as President, he shouldn't matter that much. He's important, but shouldn't matter that much. Thus when the time comes, I can vote for a Mitt Romney, or a John McCain, and do so happily. I seek to solve the nations ills on the level of Ron Paul's CURRENT office, that of Congressman. Elect another 300 Ron Paul types and fill the Senate with them too, and Barack's job is a desk job. I happily inveigh for the guy I want in the Presidency, and then go to the polling booth and try to build a more libertarian state, in the houses of Congress. My problem with Pauliacs and Paulie-Annas is that they think he will fix things as President. About the most that a President can do in a short period of time is mess things up. I contend Barack has done this, and that Ron Paul, if successful in any of his plans, would do more of the same. His solutions sound like lopping off limbs without anesthesia. The shock may well kill us. You have to go slowly so as not to capsize the ship of state. Phasing out bad programs over 5 years seems much more reasonable to me that trying to revamp them overnight. Pauliacs also forget (as he conveniently does) that Thomas Jefferson was the author of one of our Barbary wars. The first one. The Marine hymn intones "to the shores of Tripoli" for this reason. It's best to see what the founders DID with their ideas. It tells us more accurately what they really meant. A war. Halfway around the world. With Muslims. How George Bush I & II. I have concluded that Ron Paul has found out that running for President is a really good job, but he's got people believing his junk to the point that they may hand the election to the wrong guy. The really wrong guy. The Stones once said that politics was a "choice between Cancer and Polio." Few wiser things have been said. As I have said elsewhere, vote your conscience in the primaries, but vote defensively in the General Election. We can't let the wrong lizard get in (thanks Douglas Adams). Barack Obama is the Wrong Lizard. I'll vote for Romney because Romney isn't the Wrong Lizard. I'll vote as conservatively and as libertarian as I can in the Congressional elections in my state. I'll pray for the best. Why say this now? A large number of my Christian Polygynist friends insist on voting for Ron Paul, and in many cases, no one, if they can't vote for Dr. Paul. One friend went so far as to say he thinks it's all going to burn anyway, so the sooner the better. I ally more with King Hezekiah with peace and truth in his time. It's good that disaster comes tomorrow, far into the future, when we are gone. I've no desire to see the world burn in my time, or that of my children. If my children don't want it to burn for their children or in their time, they should see to it themselves, I will be gone. A vote for Ron or for no one in November is a vote for Barack Obama and destruction. I will not in a prissy way, declare that i won't vote for a man I essentially despise (Mitt Romney) to prove I don't like the choices given to me. A choice is a choice. If you don't make it, you really have made it. Be proactive. Do your best. Smile with me in November and vote for Mitt enthusiastically. Do your best to send him a congress with ideas like yours. Mitt's a capable administrator. That REALLY is the job of President. The discussion also included a Pollyanna view of how marriage laws would be made to change. Sorta a wand gets waived and it's done. No. Two things stand in the way of marriage laws being changed to be less intrusive. Marriage is a province of the State as long as there are income taxes, and statutory rape laws. In the first case, the Government wants to know your family classification so that they can assess your place in a progressive tax structure. "Progressive" is a nice way of saying "Tax the OTHER guy." Get rid of income taxes and you kick one strut out of the necessity of having legally registered marriages, which I despise more so than I do Mitt Romney. Child Rape laws raise a lot of dust in the discussion. Again, like with taxes, to make the laws work, people need to be classified. We forget easily that the Government doesn't really care if children are having sex, they only care if they have sex with adults without the proper papers. Marriage papers. There's no way out of legal registration of marriage if you allow sub 18 year old people to marry, and all states do. Ron Paul won't fix marriage. Ron Paul is a charlatan. Ron Paul is sucking away votes and we have a lot to do before marriage is in a more ideal state than it is today. Until then, vote for the least wrong lizard, and work for legalization of plural marriage. That's all I can offer. I can't offer Ron to you as a solution. He's not.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Are you even married?

There has been a question rolling over in my mind now for some time. I've discussed it with friends. Are any of us even married?

Marriages in the Bible were arranged in almost all cases. I will get to the exceptions I know of in a bit. Adam is paired with Eve by God. They were arguably married from the womb as it were, since Eve was already part of Adam, and taken from him.

Genealogies trace the lineage of Adam to Noah, and further to Abraham. There a more thorough record of marriage practices begins with us knowing that not only is Abraham a direct descendant of God through Adam, but knowing the specific path. We then learn that Abraham and Sarah his wife are half brother/sister and their marriage arranged, by Terah.

Abraham continues this pattern by sending off to get Rebecca, of his brother's children as wife to Isaac. Abraham does NOT pass his blessing to Hagar's child or to that of Keturah, his other wife/concubine, but passes it per God's direction to the child of his inheritance; Isaac. Isaac's inheritance is determined by what? Marriage. The authority of fathers over their children to arrange and give them in Marriage.

Jacob's marriage is arranged. He is sent off to get a wife of his father's house by going to Laban. He gets both Rachel and Leah and later they, like Hagar have handmaids which they give to Jacob to get more children. Since slavery is legitimate as a practice, like Hagar, the children of those concubines are essentially the children of Rachel and Leah, should they choose to accept them as such. Which they do. Hagar though is rejected by Sarah and does not inherit.

There is a theme here, it shows up later with David who does not even record the names of the children of his concubines. They do not inherit. His sons of MARRIAGE do. This makes Abigail a wife of marriage, it makes Bathsheba a wife of marriage. Their status as previous wives of marriage and as widows (even though David plays an active part in their widowhood) makes them marriage wives.

This is the short form of the discussion. I'll be happy to provide links to all the Biblical references for confirmation if any wish to discuss the topic. Assuming that I am right, here are some remaining issues.

A lot of us are not married. We did not marry with parental permission. Thus we aren't married at all. We are perhaps husband and wife, but not married. It could be argued that the absence of an inheritance exchange and contract makes us unmarried as well. Since I think the husband wife relationship can occur without marriage, namely as husband/concubine, I'm not saying you sin, just that you may not be married.

Adultery is a fracturing of the marriage contract in large part, so perhaps we have not committed adultery when we think we have. Hosea's wife of "harlotry" may have been a woman not married.

It's arguable that marriages ceased when Genealogies fell into disrepair. No name to pass on meant no inheritance, no inheritance meant no marriage and there was no rightful party to contract with to arrange the marriage anyway.

That would leave us as slaves which arguably we are, subjects of an ignoble crown, a lesser state as Daniel predicts to Nebuchadnezzar. As such we are given our wives of slavery by our masters in the following fashion:

Exodus 21:2-6 - "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."

If you regard yourself as slave to the state, which I do, then you may be saying that since none of you have the right to contract for marriage, only the state can give you a wife. You may also say that in doing so, the state possesses you and your wife and can determine how things are to go in your family relationship without your input. That one scares me. The existence of marriages after the anointing of Saul the King does comfort me from buying into that completely, but it's scary. We have no inheritance, what we have did not come from God directly as it did to Abraham. We are offspring of slaves and our masters are other slaves as well. This is a complex question I have not sorted out, but suffice it to say, if you're not married, the rules are quite different. Later on in Exodus 21 it says your wife CAN leave you if you take another wife and deprive her. That is, if she is a concubine, a wife of slavery, and not a wife of marriage.

The above passage earlier in Exodus 21 says you cannot leave your master, and take your wife with you. Your wife belongs to him.

The post is open for discussion. I'd like to hear what you think. More →

Sphere: Related Content