At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


Ron Paul, The Golden Rule, and Christianity

posted by Jack Kerwick

On January 16, the Republican presidential candidates met for but another debate inSouth Carolina.  As usual, Texas Congressman Ron Paul was the proverbial ant at the picnic.

Twitter feedback showed that more people found favor with Paul’s performance than they found with that of any other candidate.  Even Fox News had to acknowledge this.  His responses to questions concerning foreign policy, however, elicited their shares of boos. 

This in and of itself is to be expected; the Republican Party is the party, not of conservatism, but of neoconservatism—regardless of what its spokespersons in Washington and the so-called “alternative” media would have us believe.  And neoconservatism is known for nothing if not its promotion of “American Exceptionalism”—i.e. the doctrine under the cover of which neoconservatives are forever in search of new dragons forAmerica to slay, new opportunities forAmerica to project upon the world its military power.

What was unexpected, though, and more than a bit disconcerting, was the reaction of the mostly Christian audience to Paul’s call for adherence to the Golden Rule in foreign affairs.  There was no time during the entire evening that the audience booed as loudly as it did when Paul, echoing Jesus, implored his country to do unto others as she would be done by.

As of this writing, I have already heard plenty of pundits note (with delight) that Paul was booed.  Yet I haven’t heard one of these same pundits—most, mind you, who claim to be Christian—note the irony in a Christian audience jeering a Christian candidate for invoking the cardinal teaching of Christ.  This omission on the part of the media is as thought provoking as the detail that they omitted.

Granted, the old saying, “Do as Jesus would do,” is much easier said than done.  For one, the teachings of Christ come to us by way of the written word—texts that lend themselves to more than one interpretation.  Secondly, even when we are convinced that we have discovered the most reasonable interpretation, Christ’s teachings, like all teachings, are general: they do not specify the actions that you or I should take in this or that situation.

Still, the Golden Rule is a principle of justice.  Indeed, it is ultimately the principle of justice, for the Golden Rule is nothing less than the principle of reciprocity.  However, while it is nothing less than the demand that each person reciprocates the treatment that he receives from others, it is something more than this.  The Golden Rule, as Jesus articulated it, is the demand to love others as we love ourselves. 

The Golden Rule, in other words, is the thread that unites Jesus’ teachings into a single unitary vision. 

Apparently, the crowd in South Carolina booed Ron Paul because, somehow, they interpreted his invocation of the Golden Rule as something on the order of a call for national weakness or, perhaps, even pacifism.  While there have indeed been Christians who have read Jesus’ teachings as an invitation to pacifism, they have never constituted more than a small minority.  On the contrary, it is the Golden Rule in foreign policy that informed the development of traditional Christian “just war” theory—a theory, by the way, that not one candidate either on stage in South Carolina or in the White House, for that matter, ever so much as acknowledges.  Evidently, the self-declared disciples of Christ who cheered on Newt Gingrich’s insistence that we follow Andrew Jackson by “killing” our enemies while booing Ron Paul’s call to follow Christ also hold this “just war” tradition in low regard—if, that is, they can be said to regard it at all. 

It is true that a person may very well be a good Christian, a thoughtful Christian, and take exception to his religion’s teaching on war or any other issue.  In fact, inasmuch as a Christian’s criticism of any aspect of his faith tradition is motivated by genuine thoughtfulness, it is in keeping with the spirit of Christianity, for the latter posits the knowledge and love of God as our supreme end.  In engaging his fellow Christians, including the great lights of past centuries, the Christian grows in his faith while growing his faith.

In other words, there is no vice, and much virtue, in a Christian’s endeavoring to secure a rational ground for his faith.   This is because in order to critique any dimension of his tradition he must first come to terms with it. 

But this is exactly what the good Christians of South Carolina who booed Ron Paul failed to do.  And those self-styled Christians in the “conservative” media who refuse to call them out on this are equally guilty on this score.

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.



  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Thank you Joe.

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Thank you Jo.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Jo

    Excellent article and makes the reader think! This is not so much a “political” article as an article on our true christianity.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Joe-liberty

    Thanks Jack. I am glad you noticed this. I thought to myself how can one claim to be a Christian and disdain what Christ taught, much from the Sermon on the Mount. I can only judge what I saw and it is this: this is not Christians, but an irate, outrageous, vocal group of Americans that have blood on their hands and do not mind violence, especially when they do not have to participate in it. They do not mind when soldiers commit suicide, when they get home missing limbs, when they commit outrageous acts of violence because of the stress of war, and when they come home to an unloving population that does not care about them. These people will be the ones to be absent from helping veterans in their most desperate hour of need. Take care Jack.

Previous Posts

Losing the Language: How the GOP Undermines Itself--and Liberty
As the mid-term elections approach, it’s high time for Republican commentators to walk the walk. Just the other morning, Mark Steyn, busily promoting his new book, made an appearance on Bill Bennett’s radio program. The latter agreed enthusiastically with the former that in order for conserva

posted 10:16:04pm Oct. 23, 2014 | read full post »

Political Correctness and Ebola
That there is a sensationalistic dimension to the Ebola coverage is something of which I have no doubt. Sensationalizing events is what the media does best. There may even be a sense in which it can be said that sensationalism is intrinsic to mass media.  Sensationalism serves the interests of t

posted 10:26:30pm Oct. 16, 2014 | read full post »

Capital Punishment Revisited
For a discussion of capital punishment, with no thinker is there a better place to begin than Ernest van den Haag. It is with justice that the latter’s seminal analysis of this topic is a staple of textbooks in college ethics courses nationwide: the author addresses the thicket of issues that are

posted 9:11:40am Oct. 14, 2014 | read full post »

Abortion Reconsidered III
Dan Marquis contends that except in “rare cases,” abortion is immoral, and it is immoral, he further argues, because the fetus has a “FLO”—a “future like ours.” Before arguing that abortion is wrong, Marquis first attempts to show what makes killing in general wrong. Killing is wron

posted 6:30:13pm Oct. 12, 2014 | read full post »

The Left, Columbus, and Why This Day is Still Worth Celebrating
Few holidays are as “politically incorrect” as is the day that Americans reserve to commemorate the birthday of Christopher Columbus. Such is the ferocity of the smear campaign to which Columbus has been subjected for decades that he has been made into a villain among villains in the rogues’ g

posted 6:11:01pm Oct. 12, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.