Wednesday, December 14, 2011

An Endorsement for President of the United States

After careful, and prayerful consideration, I have decided to endorse Congressman Ron Paul of Texas for President of the United States. This endorsement is not unqualified. There are a number of points where I have concerns and respectful disagreements with the Congressman. But in general I think he is the best of the candidates now running. Point in fact, with the possible exception of John Huntsman, there are no other candidates running that I feel certain I could in conscience vote for. Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate. But he is the best one out there.

First my points of concern and disagreement with the Congressman from Texas. Rep. Paul is an economic anarchist. That is to say he is not merely in favor of reducing government regulation of business, Wall Street, and private enterprise, he wants to eradicate it. Giving a blank check to the same people who, thanks to the abandonment of the regulatory reforms following the crash of 1929, bear a great deal of responsibility for the current economic crisis is unwise. He also favors completely dismantling the social safety net and returning to a purely Darwinist society where the poor either pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or are left to depend upon the often arbitrary and unreliable mercy of private charity. Fortunately, neither of these things will happen if he is elected. He would require the assent of Congress to undertake such a radical reversal of American economic and social policy which will not be forthcoming no matter who wins the election. At times Congressman Paul has hinted at sympathy for some of the bizarre conspiracy theories that I routinely lampoon on this blog, such as Birtherism and 9-11 Trutherism. Finally there is the question of his age. Ron Paul will be 77 on Jan 20th 2013. One should reasonably assume that he would be a one term president purely on that basis. Also more care than normal would have to be given to his selection of a Vice-Presidential running mate.

Reservations aside however, Paul is the only candidate who has demonstrated a consistent record of principled constitutional conservatism. Just a few of the reasons why I am supporting him include...
  • He is the only candidate committed to ending the incestuous relationship between the War Department and private business which has lead to a policy of perpetual war for perpetual profit, otherwise known as the Military Industrial Complex.
  • In line with the above he will end America's post World War II policy of interventionism and enlightened imperialism. The Cold War is over, and we won. It's time to give up the cold war mentality and move on. We need to learn to mind our own business.
  • He is the only candidate who grasps that bombing people is a lousy way to make friends but a very good way to make enemies. Likewise when almost every bomb dropped on Muslims has “Made in America” stamped on it, irrespective of who is dropping it, this does great harm to our country's image in the world. The world has enough bombs. We don't need to add to the supply.
  • He will end foreign aid except for the purely humanitarian kind. It's time to take care of our own first. And it is again time to stop meddling in other people's affairs.
  • Based on his track record one may reasonably assume that he is the only man running for President who really will wield the veto ruthlessly in an effort to cut spending and end legislative pork. It is possible that some of his proposed spending cuts will exceed the tolerances of the American people. Again however we will know we have reached that point when Congress says “no” and votes with a bipartisan super-majority to override a veto. The constitution provides wonderful checks and balances.
  • He is the only man running for office who grasps the dangers of our out of control monetary policy. And while I am dubious about efforts to return to a rigid gold standard, I think we can count on a President Paul to clip the wings of the FED.
  • Ron Paul is committed to ending the undeclared wars at home as well as abroad, including the war on our civil liberties. He will move to repeal the USA Patriot Act (one of the most noxious pieces of legislation passed in the last 100 years). He will end the unconstitutional spying by the government on its own citizens and the illegitimate suspension of Habeus Corpus along with the government sponsored murder of American citizens.
  • Ron Paul will end the domination of American Foreign and Domestic Policy by persons committed to governing based on religious belief. To whit he will end the modern American version of prohibition, meaning our disastrous so called “war” on drugs. That war is over, and we lost. And while people's personal domestic living arrangements may make a very good topic for a sermon in church, they are not an appropriate subject for intrusive legislation. Likewise the blank check support for Israel demanded by the religious right on Biblical grounds will go away. Theo-cons and social-cons beware. Ron Paul is your worst nightmare.

All in all Ron Paul is the best, if perhaps not the perfect candidate for President of the United States. While I am not able to vote for him in the primary, having disaffiliated myself from the Republican Party, I nonetheless express my support for his candidacy and would encourage others to consider doing the same.


Anonymous said...

I knew Ron Paul back in the day when he was a mainstay of the Bircher circuit - no doubt about this: he is an American original, if only in the tin foil hat sense. I must say I strongly favor his foreign policy views as they relate to intervention. However he could also do real and permanent damage to the economy, which is a major concern of mine.

Frankly I am inclined to register and vote Green at this point. Perhaps they could use an Orthodox caucus.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Frankly I am inclined to register and vote Green at this point. Perhaps they could use an Orthodox caucus.

The Ecumenical Patriarch would probably give you his blessing.

Matthew M said...

He's o.k. but I'm for the pretty one, Michelle Bachman.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

The only difference between Michelle Bachmann and liberal Democrats is which aspects of people's lives they think the government should dictate. She is just another statist and a theo-con. And she is a card carrying member of the enlightened imperialist club. Thanks, but I will pass.

Anastasia Theodoridis said...

Ron Paul is also the only candidate I am considering. For all the reasons, and with all the reservations, you state so well.

It's between him and not voting at all. I do NOT countenance voting for what we suppose (on the basis mostly of ignorance) to be the lesser evil. How could I, for example, decide whether Gingrich or Romney is worse? They're both too rotten to vote for.

Sophocles said...


Great points. You have warmed my heart with your endorsement. I will do so soon on my own blog.

Ron Paul or bust.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is the only one who is fighting for the American people and not the corporate special interests such have infiltrated and overrun Washington DC.

As an Orthodox Christian, I belive there is simply no other running with the moral integrity, honesty, and adherence to the Constitution running for Presidency, and actually, a rare jewel of a statesman like him comes by once every generation or so.

I urge you John, if where you live is not open primary and you still have time, register Republican and vote for him. I did that last election cycle and it felt good that for the first time in my life I voted not for the lesser of two evils, but for someone who I trust would be the greatest President of our lifetime.

Anonymous said...

I co-sign this endorsement!!! Thanks a bunch for the info. Also, you could register republican, vote, and then change your affiliation back. Every vote counts :-)

Anonymous said...

Padre Ron Paul could not beat Obama. Cannot bear the thought of 4 more years of Obama. Keep your day job. Statmann

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul supporter from mid-Missouri here. Glad to have your support!

Anonymous said...

"Padre Ron Paul could not beat Obama. Cannot bear the thought of 4 more years of Obama. Keep your day job."

Except the most recent NBC/Marist poll in Iowa shows only Ron Paul ties with Obama while all other GOP contenders lagged behind.

The fact is, without Ron Paul as the GOP nominee, Obama's chances of re-election improves. Head to head, Ron Paul is the strongest candidate to beat Obama.

Anonymous said...

Tomorrow is the Tea Party Moneybomb for Ron Paul!

Please donate at

Anonymous said...

I understand your hesitations with the GOP, but it's the only way to change the national dialogue on war/peace, civil liberties, the FED and corporatism.

You may regret it if you don't vote for him in the primary...and yes, Ron Paul could definitely beat Obama...the majority of us who support Paul would sooner stay home than vote for Romney, Gingrich, et al. If he wins the primary, you will see enthusiasm from his base as you've never seen before.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your endorsement of Dr. Paul. He is a person of principle and integrity. It will be a great day in America when he is sworn into office.

David Garner said...

John, I share your support of Dr. Paul, and your reluctance to do so. Huntsman is really the only other Republican I could stomach, and while I don't really understand why, he is getting no traction at all.

I don't like Ron Paul's negative campaigning, and while I am a libertarian, I agree with you on his economic policies. At the end of the day, I'll take a Constitutionalist who is willing to preserve liberty and the rule of law over a pragmatist who is willing to subvert both to buy votes and be owned by corporations. He got my vote in 2008 and he will get it again. Thank you for posting this

Turnip Greens said...

Ron Paul is without a doubt getting my vote.

Anonymous said...

Careful and Prayerful? Sir, I thought this was a Christian blog? I seek Christian Principles, not tired old worn-out secular diatribes.

Economics? Foreign Policy? Vetoes? May I challenge you and your readers to analyze Dr. Paul with Christian perspective?

“While Paul frequently votes pro-life in Congress, he has upset pro-life advocates with his anti-federalist view of the issue of abortion — taking a states’ rights position that federal legislation should not place any limits on abortion, preferring that state’s undertake their own abortion bans.

Paul voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act and the Child Custody Protection Act — bills to ensure that home state parental involvement laws on abortion are not violated by taking teen girls to another state for a secret abortion.

Paul also voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to offer additional protection and justice for unborn children who are victims of non-abortion crimes.

Jim Graham, executive director of Texas Right to Life, tells the National Catholic Register this division between Paul’s pro-life views and how he sometimes votes is a cause for concern.

“While Dr. Paul is a solid, pro-life obstetrician who has delivered thousands of babies, his belief that the issue of abortion should be solely addressed on the state level should give all pro-lifers grave concern,” he said.

1. his position is not for or against DOMA, but that the Fed cannot direct or restrict the State on this matter. Reading his positions, he is actually against government being involved in marriage all together. Marriage is a contract between two individual parties.

1. Ron doesn't support gay rights. Gay rights don't exist. People don't have rights because they are gay or part of any group.


Dr. Paul does NOT stand up for the unborn, nor the DOMA. Dr. Paul capriciously abandons our defining Christian Principles by tossing these problems to the states. In fairness, Dr. Paul appears to adhere to Biblical teachings against homosexual rights. But Christians expect clear strong advocacy. Sadly, Dr. Paul has failed to seize his national microphone to loudly proclaim and defend our vanishing Christian Legacy.

David Garner said...

Anon, clear strong advocacy for what? It sounds like you want a theocracy. Since I live in Baptist country, uh, no thanks. I assume I'm misreading that, so lets talk about the Constitution instead of policy preference.

If you can demonstrate where the Constitution allows the federal government to deal with abortion OR marriage (of any sort), I'd love to see it. Until then, it seems to me these are precisely the issues our Constitution reserves to the states, and therefore Dr. Paul's position may not sit well with your preferred policy initiative, but it is in fact the correct view according to our laws.

Anonymous said...


The Fedzilla (bloated failing omnicient gov) includes the SCOTUS. All 3 tentacles of Fedzilla have produced numerous laws restricting Christian Principles, Constitution notwithstanding.

I will not debate secular ideas. My hopes are for anyone here to engage in CHRISTIAN support.

Any Christians read this blog?

I did not bring up Dr. Paul, John did. Please join me in applying the true tests of Christian clarity to this topic.

David Garner said...

So you do favor a theocracy? You're being unclear. It sounds like you're calling me unChristian ("any Christians read this blog?") for not wanting the Federal government to impose religious tenets into law. Again, I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

It is the job of the Federal government to protect religious liberty. It is not the job of the Federal government to impose Christian doctrine or morality. In fact, the latter is specifically proscribed by our Constitution. Ron Paul is running for President of these United States. If you want a theocracy, you'll either have to amend or abolish our Constitution or move elsewhere. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

All the posturing from the ultra-right groups have done little to nothing to stop the killing of the unborn. If Ron Paul had his way, and made it a states issue (which it should be under the Constitution), then perhaps we might actually SEE abortion become a crime and the numbers decrease. All those people who claim Ron Paul doesn't fight for the rights of the unborn have blinders on

David Garner said...


Anonymous said...

Plz read our founding documents. You are misguided, sir. Christian doctrine and morality are infused into most aspects of our fed laws (thank God).

Your "theocracy" argument is another tired debate trick to divert and isolate your opponent.

Please return to the topic: does Dr. Paul speak for Christians? does his voting record protect Christian principles?

David Garner said...

"Debate trick?" Read the first Amendment. Read the ninth and tenth while you're at it. For that matter, read the Declaration itself (I note the Constitution says nothing of religion at all, but the Declaration deals with our "creator"). It's hardly "infused" with "Christian doctrine and morality." I certainly would not want anyone in my parish espousing Jefferson's "god." It would be blasphemous.

Your view of history is wrong, and our government does not allow what you advocate. You don't have to like that, but if you want to change it you have two choices: 1) Revolution. 2) Move elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

you had several chances to defend Dr. Paul and his equivocations and voting record. You cannot.

Your debate tactics are governed by your political fervor.

Obviously my logical questions threaten your weak defense of your own candidate.

Jason said...

DOMA is not a Christian issue. Federal and State govt's are not churches. The only concern over marriage of any sort should be what the Church's position is, and that is based wholly in Tradition and Scripture. If secular government wants to recognize marriage in different ways than the Church, I can understand that because the gov't is secular. If they start to force the Church to do otherwise, then it's an issue.

Ron Paul is consistent on abortion. It's a State government issue. He understands how to apply the Constitution to the secular government and is AT LEAST trying to fight them back to their original borders. Like the poster stated above, if he's able to get the Federal gov't out of it, and into States' hands then REAL change will occur. Without a candidate like Paul, you'll end up with a candidate or a president - like Reagan and Bush - who only pays lip service to the abortion issue. None of the alternative candidates are consistent - they will tell whatever audience they are in front what that audience wants to hear.

Anonymous said...

I used to not like Ron Paul but after doing some digging and a lot of research, I could endorse no other. He is consistent and principled and upholds the Constitution without waver. Thank you for your endorsement and I hope others start to do some research into Ron Paul's voting record.

Christos Anesti! said...

That's my orthodox brother! :)

Ron Paul 2012!

David Garner said...

you had several chances to defend Dr. Paul and his equivocations and voting record. You cannot.

Your debate tactics are governed by your political fervor.

Obviously my logical questions threaten your weak defense of your own candidate.

This is buffoonery, plain and simple.

There are no debate tactics on my part, and you are avoiding the issue, begging the question and dodging the points I raise. If you call that a "logical question," then I'll simply defer to my training in logic and continue to point out your fallacies.

Good day.

Joseph said...


i am more of a Green myself, but thank you for this well written and well thought out endorsement. i am going to forward this to several of my friends who lean Republican and have indicated a willingness to support Paul.

Anonymous said...

Buffoonery indeed,
Why the anger and vitriol? Predictably, you descend into derogatory mis-characterization of my questions and posts, without debating or answering the central points clearly outlined above and below:

Paul voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act and the Child Custody Protection Act — bills to ensure that home state parental involvement laws on abortion are not violated by taking teen girls to another state for a secret abortion.

Paul also voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to offer additional protection and justice for unborn children who are victims of non-abortion crimes.

Intellecual honesty dictates that voting records be examined and brought to light. The constant glossy media appearances of Dr. Paul foster his campaign fundraising. Words are meaningless compared to voting records.

And yes, I am a Christian who has great difficulty separating my Faith from my politics, or from any other part of my life.

Anonymous said...

To : John (Ad Orientem)

It appears I stumbled into a nest of leftist ideologues. If you are not the "religious right", then are you the religious left?

If you have such disdain for "Theo-cons" and "social-cons", then what are you? Progressive-cons? Pseudo-cons?

Certainly you must be aware that your anti-religious-right rhetoric is no different from the far left socialists and communists who seek to abolish God in America.

My Christian Faith forces me to seek and proclaim conservative Christian ideals.

Please explain how a follower of Jesus can be a leftist or even a libertarian?

Do you support homosexual clergy?
Are infanticide and the murder of the unborn acceptable?
Do you support homosexual marriage?

Please guide me and persuade me, convince me of the intellectual honesty and consistency of your world view.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

I believe I was quite clear in my post that I support Dr. Paul in part for his opposition to those who are inclined to theocracy. You accuse David of evading questions, when in fact he has answered them quite directly. And yet you have not yet been able to provide a simple yes or no answer to the questions "Do you favor a theocracy?"

Of course your numerous posts give the answer. If you wish to debate the morality of certain activities it is likely we will be in substative agreement. If however you have come here to declare your God ordained right to order other people to obey your religious precepts you are barking up the wrong tree. I have no interest in seeing the United States turned into a Protestant Evangelical Iran.

As I noted in my endorsement "Theo-cons and social-cons beware. Ron Paul is your worst nightmare."

Fr. Peter Alban Heers said...

Dear John,

Congratulations. You've done well, very well, in my book.
Supporting Ron Paul at this point in time in history is not about supporting one man, or adopting Libertarian ideas, or even agreeing with everything the man says. It is about standing against rising tyranny, rabid corruption, and more war and destruction. Ron Paul is the last independent voice in American politics. He is a statesman, not a politician. Supporting him (not just voting for him) means helping wake up America before it is too late, before it and the world descends into chaos and serfdom. It is, truly, later than we think.
Living through the recent events in Greece have help lead me to this conclusion and the more I read and follow Dr. Paul the more I see that his effort is truly providential - for God is over all His works; He is the God of history. He uses everyone and everything for his purpose of bringing men to repentance. This good man can be forgiven some of his excesses accrued from the dregs of Christianity he was raised on and the ideas of libertarianism. In spite of these handicaps, he takes much of what is good from what he has been dealt and in humility and honesty speaks Truth as he knows it.
He has given many people hope that America can yet be saved from the increasing obvious path of destruction it is on. I encourage all Orthodox Christians to not only vote for the man, but to support him by giving generously tomorrow, Dec. 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. ( & This is not about one man, or even one election: it is about America not descending into tyranny. Yesterday in Russia - Tomorrow in America?
-- Fr. Peter Alban Heers
(Postcards from Greece:

John (Ad Orientem) said...

"Leftist ideologues?" You have obviously read nothing on this blog other than this post. And I am guessing you know nothing of libertarianism for your inane comment.

But to quickly respond to some of your questions...

Do I support Homosexual clergy? No, unless they have renounced the lifestyle and are able to remain celibate. What does this have to do with politics? You are wondering all over the place. Oh wait, I forgot. You are a theo-con. No doubt you support legislation outlawing gay clergy.

"Are infanticide and the murder of the unborn acceptable?" No. Those are violations of basic civil and human rights. Murder however is not and has never been a Federal crime. It falls under the jurisdiction of the States.

Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States? Do you believe it should be adhered to, or only when it conforms to your particular religious beliefs?

"Do you support homosexual marriage?" No. Now please quote specifically which article of the Constitution gives Congress and or the President authority over marriage. Do you believe in religious tyranny? Do you believe the Constitution should be ignored when advancing Biblical government?

Speaking of Biblical government, I am not aware of any reference to republicanism (small 'r') anywhere in the Bible. I firmly believe that the only truly Christian form of government if you wish to advocate such, would have to be a Sacramental Divine Right Monarchy. Are you a monarchist sir? I am, albeit one that believes religious faith should not be coerced.

Alas however we live in a constitutional republic. And wile that Constitution remains in effect, I will vigorously defend it against those who seek to pervert or destroy it, including those who do so in the name of their religious tenants. Indeed I once took an oath to do so , and invoked God as a witness to that oath. While that was a quarter century ago, I don't believe my oath had an expiration date on it.

If you wish me to be frank sir, I will. I believe that you and your theocratic social con fellow travelers are a menace and enemy of the republic. I believe you are a direct threat to constitutional liberty and I will oppose you with every fiber of my being.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Thanks for defending the fort this morning. I was a little late getting online until someone sent me a text telling me to check out the blog. I was rather surprised at all the comments.


John (Ad Orientem) said...

To those encouraging me to re-register and vote for Dr. Paul, I live in California. It is high;y unusual for this state to play any meaningful role in selecting presidential candidates. If however there is still a fight going on as we get close to primary day, I may consider changing my affiliation to vote for Dr. Paul.

David Garner said...

No problem, John -- by the time you came along I had decided it was better for me to bow out. I was tempted to sin, so nothing good was going to come from further commentary from me.

Thank you for the kind words.

Anonymous said...

To : John (Ad Orientem)

My Goodness! I did stumble upon a surprise. I found your blog as I was seeking Orthodox Christian information, enlightenment, and spirituality. What I found was tantamount to a den of snarling snapping paranoid vipers.

My comments were meant to point out some facts about your candidate which perhaps you and your group were not aware of. These offerings somehow ignited and incited an angry series of responses from you and your loyal followers.

NO, I am NOT a Theocrasist. Your fears of the horror of a theocracy are unfounded and naïve. What does exist in the USA is quite the opposite. We have evolved into a secular wasteland, an upside-down culture where every anti-religious element is glorified, while the final vestiges of religion are marginalized, impugned, and eliminated.

Your hysteria of Theocracy is actually amusing. You and your little group seem to be hoping to brand me with the Scarlet T, chase me down and burn me at the stake because I dare to disagree with your premature proclamation of anointing Dr. Paul. No sir, my world view is much too simple for your grand demonic schemes.

We might have more in common than you think. So, in the Spirit of the Nativity Fast, may I now offer you an olive branch of Orthodox Christian kindness and Love. I apologize for my shortcomings and for anything which may have offended you. Let us chant together in Christian harmony and focus on the Coming Birth of the Son of God,

Christ is born, give ye glory! Christ cometh from heaven, meet ye Him! Christ is on earth, be ye exalted! O all the earth, sing ye unto the Lord, and chant with gladness, ye people, for He hath been glorified!

Fr. Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fr. Andrew said...

I wonder whether our exercised anonymous friend is aware that Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which defines personhood as beginning at conception year after year. His constitutional argument for this is that the Federal government is constitutionally obliged to protect life and liberty.

More here.

Anonymous said...

To: Fr. Andrew,

Christ is Born! - I know it’s a week early, but I can’t resist.

Thank you for your info which actually applies to the topic: how does Dr. Paul stand up to the basic simple questions of Christians?

We shall stipulate the great worth of Dr. Paul’s life with regard to obstetrics and a caring heart. Without getting too deep into the tall weeds of Congressional workings, Dr. Paul gets credit for introducing a bill defining life. But was this bill passed and signed into law? Was he successful in motivating his colleagues to at least vote on the bill? Did he persuade his colleagues to join him in great numbers? How many thousands of God’s babies were saved by his bills?

These are the fundamental requirements and benchmarks of a successful lawmaker and great leader. The School of Hard Knocks does not graduate pretenders and does not reward efforts or rhetoric - - - only results. Sorry, but “Sense” isn’t as common as it used to be.

What we do know is Dr. Paul’s voting record (rights of unborn) is at best inconsistent and troubling. He voted against 2 major bills (noted in earlier posts). He has hardly distinguished himself on this issue.
Many other grave and catastrophic issues of federal public policy remain which create dark clouds of doubt over the Right Honorable Dr. Paul.

Please remember, (Mr.) John stated that Dr. Paul is the “best” candidate to be POTUS, and encourages me to also vote for him. I shall not, and I have tried to clearly explain my reasoning. I am open to debate with relevant facts, open to persuasion.

With such a loud splash of public support for the “best” candidate, you should expect some reasoned questions and debate. Surely you cannot expect all your readers to blindly accept your decree, and send in money too!

Finally, as far as describing me as “exercised”, please know that the inflammatory tone and language of others on this blog have exceeded my own. My, my, what hospitality. May I suggest that this blog group grow a thicker skin. And may we all remember our proper Orthodox Christian behavior during this Nativity Lent.

Glorify Him!

Fr. Andrew said...

Your utilitarian political ethic ("results") is rather troubling. How does that stand up to the "basic simple questions of Christians"?

From that measure, all the prophets were mostly failures, not to mention the Apostles and the Lord Himself. After all, despite consistent integrity and years of effort, they never really managed to get the world to follow them.

But I suppose they wouldn't graduate your "School of Hard Knocks."

In any event, regarding your evaluation of Dr. Paul's record on abortion, your comments essentially strike me as those of someone who actually hasn't really checked. Unless he wants to violate the Constitution and legislate against abortion at the Federal level, he will not live up to your "basic simple questions of Christians."

Exactly how many babies have you saved, sir? Be sure to give a good answer, for the School of Hard Knocks will be unforgiving.

As for the question of your being exercised, you've tried to play the above-the-fray commenter who is surrounded by the thin-skinned, but from where I sit, you're the guy who comes in spouting nonsense and insults who gets corrected by all the people in the room who bothered to do their homework.

But I suppose if you feel more right by declaring the rest wrong, well, good for you. To say that you "came here seeking Orthodox Christian information, enlightenment, and spirituality" is really disingenuous. This is a post about endorsing a candidate for president, for crying out loud. Did you think it would be about something else? Doesn't the title and the big photograph of Ron Paul rather give it away?

Come now, sir, no more nonsense.

Anonymous said...

To: Fr. Andrew,

My goodness! And from a priest!?

(From your blog’s founder)
Welcome to the website of Saint Mary Magdalene Orthodox Christian Church!
Thank you for visiting us. Our purpose here is to build bridges of understanding: not only between you and this our local church community, but also between folks and the Orthodox Christian Faith.

Well Fr Andrew, you dont appear to be building any bridges here, LOL. I look for peace, harmony, understanding and consolation from a priest.

Herewith are brief answers to your questions and sarcastic comments:

Why did Dr. Paul vote against the 2 bills earlier noted?

Jesus and the Apostles and Saints were incredibly successful in spreading the Good News of Salvation throughout the world, and achieving miracles in helping the poor and the sick. These are tangible results.

I am not an expert on Dr. Paul and have no desire to be, but I have performed a rudimentary research and found many troubling problems. He is your candidate, I expect you to be his expert, and his defender.

We are playing defense on the Federal level. The tsunami of anti-Christian laws has been largely unchecked, the secular forces have overrun our positions and caused great suffering and peril for Believers. There is stil hope for great leaders to defend our Christian principles and rights. Regretfully, Dr. Paul is not included in the category of great leader.

Well, we have saved a few babies as a result of talking to young women outside abortion mills and helping them, and through our adoption of a preborn child destined for abortion. Yes, our beautiful daughter was nearly murdered in the womb. I will not take credit, this was God at work.

I do not declare anyone wrong Fr., I simply offer the truth. My, my.

And now you call me a liar? Disingenuous? For the last few weeks I have looked at the blog, and then felt motivated to post public comments when I saw the Paul post. Frankly, the blog news posts are little more than regurgitated pop culture LA Times or NY Times, IMO. Glorifying Hitchens?

Well you have certainly scolded me and put me in my place. Thank you very much, Fr. So much for bridges of understanding.

BTW, please see my comments on the Hitchens post and explain Salvation to me.

Father Andrew, in the Spirit of the Nativity Lent, I love you and would want to worship and chant with you someday. A difference in politics does not enemies make. How beautiful it is when men live in unity and harmony. I pray for Christian fellowship among us all. I pray for you and all readers of the blog. I hope your Nativity brings the warmth and love of the First Nativity, when God changed the course of history and brought Salvation to those who Believe.

Fr. Andrew said...

My blog's founder is me. I don't know any church named for St. Mary Magdalene, though. I'm sure there are some, but it's not mine, and I have no idea who wrote that blurb.

As for the rest of your comment, it's basically more of the same.

Again, I find your words disingenuous. I'm also unswayed by the "I expect more from a priest" nonsense. (People say that all the time online whenever they get called on their verbal misdeeds.) I expect more from a Christian than uninformed jabs, followed up by a pseudo-pious sign-off.

At least be authentic, man. Do you genuine expect us to believe that, after paragraphs of meandering, unsubstantiated assertions and accusations (glibly waved off as "well, I'm not the expert; you are"), suddenly you're overwhelmed by the Spirit of Christmas?

You're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors. If you're going to make accusations, back them up. Claiming that you're not the expert and then shifting the responsibility to the rest of us is not only a transparent tactic, but it's pretty dishonest.

If you'd prefer the priesthood to be cuddly and huggy all the time while you peddle perfidy, well, I think maybe you were looking for a different church than Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, you should prepare to be called to the mat for such things. And even if you're as ingratiatingly innocent as you claim, you should rejoice that you were found worthy to suffer for your holiness.

Let us know when you've got some substance, because I haven't seen it yet. Lots of opinion and assertions do not make for actual argument.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

You seriously need to chill. The hubris and judgmental tone in your posts is becoming tiresome. Your remarks to Fr. Andrew are insulting. As a side note Fr. Andrew is NOT my priest and is not attached to St. Mary Magdalene. You showed up on this blog breathing fire and brimstone telling everyone here how wrong we are and that we are not sufficiently Christian in our approach to governing. With almost every post you reveal your self to being a self righteous theo social con though you deny the charge. You ignored virtually every question I put you in my earlier response (which was admittedly sharp). On another thread you have triumphantly announced that a recently deceased man is now roasting in Hell with a certitude I normally only find in ex-cathedra proclamations from the Pope.

Seriously. I don't know how long you have been Orthodox but so far you are virtually a caricature of the obnoxious holier than thou convert. It is unseemly to address anyone, much less a priest in the tone you have displayed here.

Knock it off.

Anonymous said...

On your blog, click on David Thatcher

Priest David Thatcher
My blogs:
Saint Mary Magdalene Orthodox Church
Ad Orientem

Sorry, sometimes a founder can also be a contributor.
Fr. David lists AO as his blog?

Anonymous said...

How many times should we forgive?

Thank you for your kindness and love.

The love of the neighbor and the brother does not mean the love of only those who love us and are good to us. The neighbor and the brother mean anyone near at hand, everyone made by God, all “for whom Christ has died.” (Romans 14:15) The neighbor and the brother include also the enemies. This is the point of Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan. (Luke 10:29-37) It is also the Lord’s specific teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the heathen do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48)

But I say to you that hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you…If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the ungrateful and selfish. (Luke 6:27-35)

This teaching of Jesus is conveyed also in the writings of the apostles.

Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with brotherly affection…Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse them…No, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink…Owe one another nothing, but to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,” and any other commandment are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 12:9-10, 14-20; 13:8-10; cf. Matthew 25:31-46)

Anonymous said...

As a traditionalist Catholic who is homeschooling his children, I am very happy with your endorsement of Ron Paul for president. I have to agree that he is not perfect. Nobody is. However, he is the only decent candidate among all the candidates in the two parties. He is the only one who really has shown his consistency through all the years. He is definitely pro-life unlike the others who pay lip service only.

Fr. Andrew said...

Anonymous, my name is Fr. Andrew, not Fr. David Thatcher.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for endorsing Ron Paul.
I am a conservative Roman Catholic who is attached to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. I believe that he is the only candidate from both parties who truly loves the USA. I believe that he is decent and the only real pro-life candidate.