• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Ron Paul’s Campaign Touts Endorsement Of Pastor Who Advocates Killing Gay People

Four years ago, the Ron Paul campaign generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, but at least back then they didn’t actually promote the fact that they had received the endorsement. This time, though, they seem pretty proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some pretty vile comments:

Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.

“Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just,” he argued. “But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative. Biblical law would recognize as a matter of justice that even if this law could be enforced today, homosexuals could not be prosecuted for something that was done before.”

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.”

So basically this guy supports Ron Paul because he thinks a President Paul would make it easier for him and people like him to enact state laws that mirror the Book of Leviticus, and the Paul campaign welcomes his support. This is not libertarianism.

Update: As P.D. Shaw notes in the comments, the Paul campaign’s press release appears to have been scrubbed. However, here is the text, retrieved from Google’s cache:

ANKENY, Iowa – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul was endorsed today by renowned pastor, theologian, and prolific author Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.

Rev. Kayser is the Senior Pastor of Dominion Covenant Church based in Omaha, Nebraska.  The Church has a national footprint including in Iowa where Ron Paul, the 12-term Congressman from Texas, is competing in the January 3, 2012 caucus.

In making his endorsement, Dr. Kayser mentioned he was doing so as a private citizen and not on behalf of his congregation and the organizations with which he is affiliated.

“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.

Dr. Kayser has degrees in education, theology and philosophy/ethics.  He is the author of over 40 books and booklets.  The name of one organization that he founded describes well his ministry: Biblical Blueprints.  His passion is to see the comprehensive blueprints of the Scriptures applied to science, civil government, education, art, history, economics, business, and every area of life.

For 15 years Dr. Kayser has been involved in coaching church planters, mentoring seminary students, and teaching seminars on Biblical leadership internationally.  President and founder of the Providential History Festival, he is desirous of seeing a more Biblical philosophy of history being taught at every age level.  Phil is the pastor of Dominion Covenant Church, a very conservative, evangelical church that teaches the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.  His parents were missionaries in Ethiopia for 30 years, with SIM, International, and he continues to have a passion for missions, making teaching trips to other countries and mentoring international leaders.  He has provided leadership to the Heartland Christian Ministries Conference, Evangelical Ministries Fellowship, CELNet, the National Strategy Council, and other evangelical organizations.  He is the professor of ethics at Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida.

Phil Kayser is a frequent conference speaker on many subjects, and he has applied Scripture to politics in three presidential candidate campaigns.  He also has been an occasional guest teacher and consultant at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

If ministering in Iowa, local pastors interested in discussing an endorsement are invited to email the Iowa Director of Voter Outreach, Meghann Walker, at meghannw@ronpaul2012.com.

Dr. Kayser’s full statement of endorsement follows.

Statement from the Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.

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.

And here’s the screenshot.

 

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Al says:

    Paul’s Federalist Libertarianism (hat tip: Popehat) is nothing new. He’s fine with authoritarianism as long as it’s at the state level.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6

  2. PD Shaw says:

    Has the press release disappeared? The links don’t appear to be good anymore. Interesting if its been taken down.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. PD Shaw says:

    I think the press release has been taken down. If Paul is getting comporable press scrutiny to actual candidates, he would be asked about this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. @PD Shaw:

    You appear to be correct. Of course, Google’s cache never forgets. And I have posted an updated with the full text of the press release, and a screenshot

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  5. Peterh says:

    he supported the campaign because he believed Paul’s federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law

    I’m sure one could, with a little digging, expound on the differences of Islamic Sharia Law and Christian Fundamentalist Law, but on the surface, one could just as easily conclude that the differences are cosmetic and thus, immaterial…..it’s all in how it’s marketed….keep the populace dumb and the fundies win…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2

  6. MarkedMan says:

    Unfortunately, I think the limits to the questions (if any) Paul recieves will be about whether or not he should accept the endorsement. I would be more interested in hearing as to whether he thinks the vile minister is correct in assuming that under a Paulian vision of government the states would indeed have the right to make homosexual behavior a capital crime. And don’t let him weasel away by saying he would be against such an action, the issue is whether or not they have the right to do it.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

  7. Tsar Nicholas says:

    Proving yet again that basic cognitive testing needs to be a prerequisite to vote. That and a much higher minimum voting age.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

  8. @Tsar Nicholas:

    Yes, because the problem with a 73 year old candidate and a 50 something pastor is CLEARLY because we let college students vote.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0

  9. Matt says:

    I hope no one minds if I interrupt to point out that Ron Paul will end the wars overseas, as well as the wars here at home.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 18

  10. Al says:

    I’m pretty sure ending the War on Drugs but starting the Second Civil War will count as a draw.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2

  11. lisa Johnson says:

    As for Mr. Keyser’s endorsement- congratulations – HITLER held a similar view. I once.considered Paul a viable candidate. Too much hate speech associated with this candidate. Thanks Reverend Hitler.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  12. ALan says:

    @Al: It’s much easier to move to the next state over, then it is to move out of the country. I’d choose state tyranny over federal tyranny any day of the week.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10

  13. Casey Bowman says:

    ‎”Once upon a time in the recent future a country went wrong.” – The Handmaid’s Tale (1990)

    I posted the following hypothesis on Facebook this morning before reading your post this evening. A friend of mine thinks it’s silly. After what I wrote later this afternoon elaborating on my hypothesis, your post is downright spooky. I still hope this hypothesis proves false.

    The “Handmaid’s Hypothesis”

    I suspect Ron-Paul-&-Associates intend to clear the path for a religiously intolerant state.

    One close associate of Paul’s wrote in 1982 of religious liberty as a tactic, a temporary tactic.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xUK9J_Qkr0&feature=related
    http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning
    http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/cc_1/CC_1-16.html
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111%3AH.R.539%3A

    I, too, voted for Paul in 1988 and hope to vote for Gary Johnson in 2012.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  14. Herb says:

    @ALan: The good news is that in the United States, you don’t have to choose either. Oh, I know, I know….putting calorie counts on menus and making you buy health insurance may seem like tyranny, but this country hasn’t been ruled by a tyrant since we defeated King George.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

  15. Ernieyeball says:

    @ALan: “I’d choose state tyranny over federal tyranny any day of the week.”

    Not so long ago when I was in High School there were some citizens who thought state tyranny in the segregationist south was a bad idea and tried to do something about it.
    They were murdered for their efforts in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
    See Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman.
    “…they were stopped by two carloads of KKK members on a remote rural road. The men approached their car, then shot and killed Schwerner (Ivory), then Goodman (Ivory), and finally Chaney (Ebony), after chain-whipping and mutilating him.”

    (Thanks to Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

  16. These people are so desperate. “He took money from a racist”, “he accepted an endorsement from an ultra-religious nut”, “someone wrote anti-Semitic things in his name”… Umm reverend Wright anyone? A devout anti-white racist who preached to Obama for decades, by the President’s volition! And you know what? So what? I don’t care. I never did. Racism is ubiquitous. When it takes a political form, as in modern quota systems, affirmative action systems, hate crime laws, or anti-gay-marriage laws, or take more antique laws like Jim Crow or anti-miscegenation, it should be opposed legally and morally because the state shouldn’t be in the business of discriminating against particular citizens or groups. Moreover such laws establish very threatening precedents, and sometimes lead to oppression and even atrocities. But subtle racism like I said, is ubiquitous. Judging by the people Obama has palled around with, from Ayers to Wright and now to that incompetent, race-card carrying, fool Eric Holder, and the multiple impulsive reactions he’s provided us, like immediately blaming that white police officer up in New England, I would say he has demonstrated pretty convincingly, that he holds a subtle albeit profound racism and ethnic bias, making him no different than most. Statements directly from the horse’s mouth, regarding his racial identity I would also say indicate a clear favoritism towards the particular part of his family that didn’t raise him. Now why would that be? Well, it’s simple ethnic bias permitted by the zeitgeist. Nothing startling of course, and not offensive to me at all. Some of the biggest anti-racists around in fact, are hardcore Judeo-supremacists from my experiences. Sort of ironic yes, but no less true. I have never on the other hand seen Ron Paul act in a racist manner towards another human being, or support any law that was fundamentally racist, or discriminatory etc. Almost all proof of his racism and bigotry comes through the media and through other people’s writings (newsletters) and/or endorsements (this article). Do people forget that to win the presidency one needs like 100,000,000 votes? You don’t think any of those hundred million people, are racists or bigots? I bet some of them are even serial killers and pedophiles. So a man who doesn’t like gays supports Paul? I don’t understand why really. Bachmann and Santorum are clearly far more extreme in their opposition to gay rights. It seems inevitable that if you are building a coalition of thousands of organizations, churches, millions of grassroots supporters, some of them are going to have said offensive things at some point in their lives, by sheer logical extension. Ron Paul is not an easily compromised guy. He is in every sense a superior human being to Obama. I confess I disagree with about as many of his ideas as I do Obama’s, but this whole alleged character assassination deal has gone too far. Are you leftists really that gullible? Are you righties that gullible? I hope not. I know how the media works. Don’t you? They’re attacking the guy that doesn’t support the weapons manufacturers and the banks that are funding and advertising on their websites and in their now extinct papers; those in the power structure that are also might I add, ruining the country and living parasitically off the government. It isn’t rocket science. Sorry guys, but Obama is part of that crowd. Paul isn’t. Everybody sees that except those who see what they want. You’d think the left, being so enlightened and progressive, would be able to recognize a smear campaign from a mile away. You’d think the right, aware of the nefarious designs of the media, would smell propaganda from a mile away. I mean there has been an absolute torrent of anti-Paul propaganda over the course of the last week, and little of it has to do with his positions, ideas, character and actual record. All of it is pure nonsense, but tell a lie a thousand times even smart people start to believe it. Sorry, but I don’t. I see through it. If you throw enough crap at the wall, some of it will stick. If you dredge up all of a man’s associations, and all of his actions for seventy six years, you will come up with something that can be portrayed as outrageous or controversial. It’s smoke and mirrors people. The establishment is shaking in its boots. The people who lie us into wars, who steal our money to give it to the banks, who have abolished the constitution, yeah those people are behind it. Though like I said, people see what they want to see. Nothing changes I guess. I think one is always better off reading what a person writes and listening to what he says rather than listening to the medium and media through which what he says and writes comes, distorted of course in the process, not quite incidentally. That’s giving a guy a fair shake. One should pay close attention also to what he does. You’ll have trouble finding a guy in power as decent and as principled as Paul. As for his alleged homophobia: “Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!” – Ron Paul. I don’t think he’ll be lynching anyone or shooting any gay people anytime soon… get over yourselves you self-righteous saps. This can’t be the standard. Imagine you were picked for a major promotion at your job, and you didn’t get it because your boss found out you told a tongue-in-cheek racist joke at a family gathering two decades back (similar to some of the newsletter lines), or because you were friends with a jerk in high school, who went on to become a felon, or because some local church leader thought you’d make a good president but also happened to be hyper-conservative and anti-gay. Think about the depth and substance of these charges people. This is the kind of stuff that wouldn’t even upset you if you heard your daughter married a guy who did some of this stuff, or even all of it. It is pure rubbish. It is hardly even worthy of consideration, let alone sufficient for disqualification.
    -ADP

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 20

  17. Richard says:

    Here Paul is, still courting the deranged filth that he was pandering to in his old newsletters, and we are supposed to believe that he genuinely disavows their content?

    This man is a hypocrite of a the highest order.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7

  18. Nikki says:

    @Anthony Platt: The problem with your argument is that Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers never wrote racist and homophobic articles for a newsletter published for 10 years under Obama’s name; hence, there is no endorsement from Obama about what these men said or wrote.

    Also, 20 years ago, Paul was 53 years old. Since you seem to be arguing that he should not be held accountable for what was written and published in his name low those many years ago, at what age do you believe personal responsibility should kick in?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  19. Thomas says:

    @Nikki:

    Bill Ayers blew up the Pentagon. Shut you down

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  20. Ernieyeball says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: How about we raise the voting age every year to one year older than you are!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  21. An Interested Party says:

    These people are so desperate.

    Actually, anyone who supports Paul is desperate, as there is no way possible for him to ever get anywhere near winning the presidency, much less the GOP nomination…

    Bill Ayers blew up the Pentagon. Shut you down

    Except that there is no proof that the President had the relationship with Ayers that so many on the right would like to believe…shut yourself down…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

  22. Federal Farmer says:

    Why in the world do you spend your time running down Ron Paul instead of the rest of the GOP?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  23. Richard says:

    What, being critical of Paul and disapproving of the rest of the GOP are somehow mutually exclusive? If I dislike Paul, that means that I approve of the rest of the GOP clowns? It’s not an either or proposition, though I suppose the problem in this case is that Paulists have lost the ability to multitask and can no longer recognize that skill is still present in the rest of the population.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  24. Jim Henley says:

    @ADP: Start here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  25. Monica says:

    oh please..the fact that the retracted the acceptance of the endorsement says it all. If all you people think for a second that everyone is supposed to know everything about everyone, then you are delusional. There is not an ounce of hate in Dr Paul’s blood. PERIOD. I am sure the campaign accepted the endorsement…then they got wind about the crap he wrote and they retracted the approval of the endorsement. SIMPLE REALLY.

    Stop making up all kinds of lies about the man. ANYONE that knows him knows that he is not that way. He has said MANY times that gays can do whatever they want. People are just grasping at straws because they are scared of him. Politicians on BOTH sides are scared of him because they know their blank checkbooks will be gone and all the brainwashed, dependent people are scared because they wouldn’t know what to do with REAL FREEDOM if it hit them in the ass.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OODo6CfTowg

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  26. Sassan says:

    I urge people to watch this short video clip with Ron Paul answering a question on “why won’t he come out on the truth about 9/11″. It is astonishing and it makes a rational observer conclude that Ron Paul indeed is a truther. Watch for yourselves: http://youtu.be/3u0tgNUfOL8

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  27. Dora says:

    @Federal Farmer: Ron Paul is our only hope in restoring our country,he is a firm believer of standing by our CONSTITUTION.He has been trying to tell people for over 30 years what was going to happen and now it has.His record speaks for its self. WAKE UP people he is a man of his word and will fight for WE THE PEOPLE!!! JFK was assassinated because he refused to kneel down to THE NEW WORLD ORDER,because it WAS NOT in our best interest.They will do the same to Ron Paul if he is elected because he CANT be BOUGHT and WONT kneel down.Our elections are rigged and they’ll make sure Ron Paul isn’t nominated.All the rest of them running are just like Obama a SMOOTH talker.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  28. Ernieyeball says:

    @Dora: “Ron Paul is our only hope in restoring our country,he is a firm believer of standing by our CONSTITUTION.”

    Well, maybe some of it anyway.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-versus-the-fourteenth-amendment/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. @Monica: The problem with that is that Paul and his handlers surely should know/have known that this low-consciousness “Reverend” believes in pre-rational Biblical scriptural law, Biblical literalism, which not only is against church/state separation, but is profoundly antagonistic to ANY reason or free thought, supposed hallmarks of libertarianism. This is regardless of if they knew about his abominable Stone Age views on gays.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Spiritof1776 says:

    Well said! I think you must be too articulate and logical for at least 19 people who read (and disliked) your statements. I totally agree with you! The media can’t find any skeletons in Paul’s closet, so the media resorts to lows like this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  31. Spiritof1776 says:

    My previous comment was directed @ Anthony Platt, btw.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0