Saturday, July 21, 2007

Ron Paul, Religious Kook

One of the serious problems I have with our democracy is that politicians are a package deal. When one gets elected we celebrate their good ideas, but we have to endure their idiotic ones. I think this could explain the popularity of the "lesser-of-evils" argument people often use to persuade others to vote for their pet candidate of the moment. Arguably, all politicians are idiots - to a greater or lesser degree.

Case in point: Ron Paul. You can love him for his stance on the war in Iraq, but this sort of stuff really makes me wonder about the guy:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.
WTF??? Isn't Ron Paul supposedly a constitutionalist?

It's not a big surprise to me to find that the source of the above patent absurdity is an article posted at lewrockwell.com - home of the kookiest of the kooks in the "libertarian" world.

Thanks to the no god zone, which has more to say on this topic.

UPDATE by Jim (October 18, 2007): Dispatches from the Culture Wars has more on Ron Paul's views on religion and government, with lots of data in the comments.

UPDATE by Jim (December 25, 2007): Ron Paul rejects evolution.

5 comments:

Andrew said...

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution."

That is correct:

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment; and local official establishments of religion persisted even later.

I'm an atheist leaning agnostic and think the world would be a better place without any god delusions or organized religion.

I'm also a passionate Ron Paul supporter. While I don't agree with all his stances on policy, he's the only candid, honest, and trustworthy candidate of the lot with a voting record to prove it.

But no one explains Ron Paul Better than himself. If you haven't seen the Google interview, check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Find out why we Love Ron Paul.

Cairnarvon said...

Yeah, Ron Paul is just another hyperreligious racist gun nut opposed to abortion, stem cell research, and net neutrality.
He's trying to pull a maverick campaign in the same way McCain did in 2000, and many idiots on my internets seem to be falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

There's more here.

Be prepared for a flood of Ronbots, though; they watch Technorati for posts mentioning him, and troll the hell out of any negative posts they can find.

Gary McGath said...

I really want to like Ron Paul; at his worst, he's still immeasurably better than any other Republican candidate. (I guess that makes me one of the "idiots on Cairnarvon's internets" -- oh, well.) But he seems to be out to make his supporters cringe. His postcard thanking me for a contribution listed all the meetings he was planning with anti-abortion groups. Great way to make sure I never contribute again, Ron!

Jim Lippard said...

If Ron Paul thinks the U.S. Constitution is "replete with references to God," he should read it again. Here's the only one: "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."

Madison intended the First Amendment to apply to states as well as the nation, and this was explicitly made the case with the passage of the 14th Amendment. Anyone who thinks that it is constitutional today for a state to have an established religion is deluded.

Ron Chusid said...

Jim,

I suspect that by now you've noticed the track back to this post from my post last night at Liberal Values. Apparently my post has attracted more attention from Paul supporters (possibly as I've had a couple of other recent posts on Paul).

There's several comments defending Paul's views on religion (including claims that he's right about separation of church and state or that it doesn't matter). You might want to drop by and add another view in defense of separation of church and state.