Ron Paul sees a war on Christianity?

One of Ron Paul’s selling points as a presidential candidate is his willingness to reject Republican orthodoxy. As the theory goes, the modern-day GOP has been taken over by neocons and religious extremists, and Paul’s libertarian-brand conservatism rejects both. Given that most liberals have a similar disdain for the Podhoretz and Dobson crowds, Paul has picked up a few fans on the left, too.

But what I did not realize is that when it comes to the religious right’s theocratic worldview, Paul is surprisingly in line with TV preachers like Pat Robertson. An alert reader emailed me this Ron Paul commentary from December 2003, in which the Texas Republican laments “the ongoing war against religion” in general, and Christianity in specific.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

What’s the difference between this analysis and the nonsense on The 700 Club? Slightly better writing, maybe, but the worldview is identical. Indeed, Paul is even on the same page as Bill O’Reilly when it comes to the absurd “war on Christmas.”

Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” … [T]he once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

I can appreciate the fact that Paul supporters get annoyed when critics are dismissive of his ideas when it comes to eliminating most of the federal government, overhauling the modern foreign-policy apparatus, and eliminating the Federal Reserve. But are these same fans — most of whom ostensibly support church-state separation — equally willing to support Paul’s Falwell-like rhetoric on “protecting” Christianity from the nefarious “secularists”?

Indeed, given what I’ve seen of Paul in the Republican debates, I’m genuinely surprised at his penchant for religious right rhetoric. Usually, libertarians aren’t terribly concerned with whether some local city hall has a Nativity scene or not. Whether some clerk at the mall mentions Christmas or not is hardly the concern of members of Congress. The strength of a religious tradition will rise or fall in the free market of ideas, right?

Except Paul, at least as recently as four years ago, was taking a very different approach, publishing a thought piece that might as well have come from Focus on the Family.

The piece added:

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.

Seriously? Ron Paul continues to cite the U.S. Constitution has the single most important guide for the nation, and he believes it’s “replete with references to God” — despite the fact that the Constitution doesn’t mention God or Christianity at all? Has Paul even read the Constitution?

Paul’s bizarre piece on religion concluded, “[T]he secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.”

None of this makes any sense. If this nonsense wasn’t still sitting on Paul’s office U.S. House website, I’d think it was a hoax.

A little something for Paul’s liberal supporters to consider.

I support Paul (but not financially), because he’s the only candidate who has a chance of penetrating the concrete craniums of the Republican voters with the fact that Bush lied us into Iraq. We really need that one fact to finally be understood by the entire country before we will ever get out of there.

Paul’s got a snowball’s chance, so there’s no risk supporting him at this point.

  • to paraphrase jon stewart, i hope one day a professed christian is elected president. or maybe 43 of them in a row.

  • Indeed, given what I’ve seen of Paul in the Republican debates, I’m genuinely surprised at his penchant for religious right rhetoric. Usually, libertarians aren’t terribly concerned with whether some local city hall has a Nativity scene or not. Whether some clerk at the mall mentions Christmas or not is hardly the concern of members of Congress. The strength of a religious tradition will rise or fall in the free market of ideas, right?

    Indeed. Which is exactly what he is saying. I am 100% sure that the Bible is a bunch of boring nonsense. However, there is no reason why should prayer be banned from schools or 10 commandments from the courts. Market and individuals should decide locally about these – and not federal courts.

  • I disagree with Ron Paul on the separation of church and state. As it turns out, this is not a fluke. And I guess he’s counting “Year of our Lord” as a reference to God in the Constitution, which I guess I can agree with.

    But somehow I don’t think that the comingling of church and state would be a problem in a Paul Administration (since that would spell bigger government).

    Keep your church out of my state and your state out of my church!

  • I’m surprised to see this by Paul. There’s the misreading of the Constitution, but there’s also the tight focus on Christianity. If Paul is really as libertarian as his supporters indicate (i.e., if the issue is government intrusiveness rather than support of Christianity), he should be willing to make exactly the same argument in support of every other religion you could think of. I wonder if that’s the case?

  • I support Dr. Paul as well. I LOVE the ideas of ending the Iraq War, reducing our taxes, shrinking this monstrous government, and ending the spying on us citizens. Ron Paul follows the constitution and understands the constitution was written to restrain the government, not the citizens. People, we have allowed ourselves to be over-taxed and over-regulated to death! Let’s break this cycle!

    On December 16th I will join thousands of others in contributing to Ron Paul’s campaign. This will be the first contribution I’ve EVER made to a politician! If you want to be part of history, you can sign up here -> http://www.TeaParty07.com. The last big day for Dr. Paul pulled in over 4 million and December 16th will surpass that amount!

    Ron Paul for the WIN!

  • Pat Robertson?

    The country was founded as a Republic, and rarely do I hear Dr. Paul talk about religion other then to say he is Christian. His belief, as with my own is that its the states rights to make these decisions, not the Federal Govt.

    When did this country get this inferiority complex that they feel the need for the Govt to take care of them at every turn when you can take care of yourself, and do a better job at it.

    To those who say “The constitution was then, this is now” need to read it. It’s a collection of Ideas for this country which is what made this country what it is today. Its been the slow but persistent elite’s that have convinced the American people that they need Govt in order to be who they are. Well we have given this almost 100 years of this idea and we see the fruits of this effort today, the economy is tanking, we have an out of control foreign policy, the dollar is at its weakest in 50 years, people are losing there homes by the thousands. I think the American people are fed up with what they are getting. Taxed 35% of the income, which means you work 4 months out of the year to send to Washington, and people are waking up to this. Oil is at 100 dollars a barrel which means the cost of EVERYTHING will be going up.

    If you dont get how and why the American people are fed up with this nonsense and the typical “dog and pony” show put on every 2-4 years then you haven’t been paying attention.

  • I’m Jewish and I support Ron Paul. I do not get why some of my fellow Jews get so upset about any notion that might indicate that the citizens of the United States are and were overwhelmingly Christian . I find “holiday” parties embarrassing– as a Jew growing up in an overhwelmingly Christian environment I felt that it made me more uncomfortable not less, as everyone knew that we were there to celebrate Christmas, and not the minor holiday (even for Jews) of Chanukah.

    The establishment clause was not intended to drive out all religion from the public sphere, despite the laughable interpretations of it by activist Judges. Dr. Paul is a confessing Christian who also strongly believes in freedom of worship, just as he believes in all of the other freedoms that other candidates may want to take away.

  • I’m not a Ron Paul supporter but I do feel that Christmas is under attack. I live in California and ALL the stores used to have “Merry Christmas” banners. Now they all have “Seasons Greetings.” So what it it? Do they not want to offend the non-christians? Has America forgotten that Christmas is a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus?

    I will say this, whatever Ron Paul’s beliefs are, he wouldn’t stuff them down our throats via legislation. Unless you have some legislative proof?

  • Core Character Counts !!!

    At Least I Know Where Ron Paul Stands; The Others Blow In The Wind.

    Taken In The Context Of His Character; Let The People Decide. Get The Government Out Of Our Lives And Let Us Decide Our Own Fate.

    Trying To Force Someone Not To Mention God Is Just As Bad As Trying To Force Someone To Mention God.

    I Would Add; There Are No Atheists In Combat !!! If Our Soldiers Want To Reference God In Their Memorials; Let Them !!! Unless Your Blood Is On the Line You Should Have NO SAY !!!

  • ‘Indeed. Which is exactly what he is saying. I am 100% sure that the Bible is a bunch of boring nonsense. However, there is no reason why should prayer be banned from schools or 10 commandments from the courts. Market and individuals should decide locally about these – and not federal courts.”

    Oy! Now the markets get to decide whether the bill of rights is followed on a local basis? That’s brain-dead. I mean, the markets were perfectly happy with segregation in the South; no problem. Do the markets get to say that torture is legal? Do they allow the police to bust into your house on a whim, because you might have pot there?

    Another piece of proof that libertarians are complete idiots. Can’t keep markets and the rule of law straight.

  • I disagree that all the founders were influenced by religion since Thomas Jefferson was an avid backer of the anti-religious Jacobins and French Revolutionaries, but there is a lot of truth to this idea.

    There are indeed groups like the “Brights Movement” and “Atheist Alliance International” and other groups of professors, deans, scientists, philosophers, and secular humanist who are trying to extinguish religion through government and have stated their goals as such.

    This isn’t a one-sided battle since the religious groups are fighting back and a majority don’t take sides, but it is certainly going on.

  • The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

    This is an utterly specious statement by Ron Paul. The Constitution guarantees that the government can support no religion (and that includes prayer in the schools, Bush’s Christian “faith-based initiatives” paid with citizens’ money, and the Ten Commandments or Christian crosses placed on public property) but also that the government may also not interfere with the free practice of religion among its citizens. There are no “anti-religious elites” on the scene, just supporters and defenders of the Constitution. The US government, by definition, is totally neutral on religion.

    As JKap puts it succinctly to those who’d like to see America become a theocracy, “Keep your church out of my state and your state out of my church!”

  • “Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God,”

    This is a really suprising, coming from Ron Paul. There are no references to God in the Constitution, of course. There was but one reference to God in Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence ( “nature’s god,” which wasn’t even capitalized) – the other three were added later. Even our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, contained but one reference to God, in the rather quaint phrase “And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures . . . “

  • “Oy! Now the markets get to decide whether the bill of rights is followed on a local basis? ”

    No, I said about ‘these’. ‘These’ referring – obviously – to prayer in school and exhibition of commandments in courts. Libertarians are not anarchists and neither is dr Paul.

    And I see no need to be so disrespectful.

  • Ronnie Paul is just bizarre. Half of what he says is right on the mark and easily recognizable as the best course of action but the other half is almost an insane radicalism that is extremely detrimental and doesn’t really fit with the rational half of him. One has to be cautious and make a point to see the entire Ron Paul because it doesn’t balance out.
    His rhetoric about Christianity doesn’t begin to address the reality which is having a religion forced down your throat at every turn as **the only true religion which the lack of produces a society without morals that deserves to be punished**. Johnny got sent home from school for saying he didn’t believe a snake could talk or that a woman could be made from the rib of a man.

    Morality is universal…Christianity is a religion…Zeus is a god too…Christmas is a traditional season of giving, caring and sharing, not just a birthday…it is also the winter solstice…it has been a period of celebration long before Christ’s birthday was inserted into the season. They are ‘happy holidays’…beginning of winter and start of the new calendar year but these people like Paul and O’Reilley etc., believe we should all be okay with having ‘religion’ shoved down our throats or it’s just not Christmas.

  • “There are no “anti-religious elites” on the scene”

    That is just so completely ignorant. Of course there are! There’s an elite on the scene for every possible movement.

  • Tom –

    I live in California and ALL the stores used to have “Merry Christmas” banners. Now they all have “Seasons Greetings.” So what it it?

    Um – the free market at work? Because advertising to just Christians when you live in a society full of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists is unneccessarily narrowing your market? Because convicing those folks that they should be buying toys for their kids for purely secular reasons is good for the bottom line? There’s no “War on Christmas” here – just an attempt for corporations to make more money.

    You know, when I was a kid I always heard folks bitch about the “secularization” of Christmas – that stores were all trying to make money off of Christmas and that people were forgetting the “reason for the season”. Now that the stores have started branching out and aren’t overcommercializing Christmas quite as much, people bitch.

    You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d think that people just like to bitch about meaningless trivia. And that if you “fix” the “problem” that they’re bitching about they’ll find something new to bitch about – possibly even the “fix” to the “problem” that you just put in. But then, I’m a cynical bastard.

  • Say what you will about Paul, he does have the most organized group of mindless, repetitive bots Google drones I’ve ever seen.

    And don’t worry your pretty little heads about Christmas…it’ll be back in full force this year trying to suck every dollar out of your One Nation Under God wallet.

    Best Buy, Wal-Mart…they are all already over it. Can’t watch TV without seeing the Christian God of Corporatism everywhere. So go be good Christians and do some debt spending!

  • The last thing this country needs is someone who sees little use or need for the federal government, and at the same time, sees a prominent place for religion – specifically, one religion: Christianity, as some sort of structural national underpinning. Not that there’s anything wrong with Christianity, per se, it’s just that it should be, and remain, a matter of personal, individual choice what religion one has – or chooses not to have.

    There is no war against religion, or against Christmas; if there is anything at all adversarial, it is the pushback from those who are tired of having religion forced upon them, and who believe that it is not the government’s place to promote one religion over the many others that exist.

    When someone like Ron Paul starts talking about deconstructing the government, and at the same time, talks about wars on religion, I get nervous wondering how long it would be in his world before religion was replacing the government.

  • “There is no war against religion, or against Christmas”

    There aren’t guns in the street, but there is certainly a real push against religion and anyone who denies it is being foolish and ignorant.

    There are plenty of influential people who completely hate religion and want it wiped out and will have no trouble biding their time to let it slowly erode away into nothing.

    Ron Paul’s views on religion will not have any impact on his government record because it would simply be up to someone else to decide. What’s important is to allow people to choose and not try to influence their choice through the government by introducing or removing religion, but letting it propagate or derogate in its own way.

  • You have misrepresented Dr. Paul on one level and shown your bias on another.

    First Dr. Paul has not delivered any “Falwell-like rhetoric on “protecting” Christianity”.
    Your use of quotation marks here is false in the context. Dr. Paul holds the constitution to properly protect free expression of religion.

    Second. Every man has presuppositions and holds a world view that conditions his thoughts and beliefs. Ideas have consequences. Dr. Paul operates from a distinctly
    Christian world view. You and many ultra libertarians ( some of them atheists) operate from a distinctly secular humanist world view.

  • ***tom comment #11*** Dec. 21st is the winter solstice and has been a ‘period’ of celebration long before Jesus’ birthday was inserted into it whether you call it Christmas or the beginning of winter it has long been a period of celebration. The season also marks the beginning of a new ‘calendar’ year.

    ***Brad comment # 12*** There are plenty of atheists in combat, many of which had to go to court to allow pagan symbols be allowed on their tombstones. For many nothing will make you more of a disbeliever than to watch people get blown apart as they pray. Wars kill the innocent and guilty alike…both sides believing in and praying to God.

    Besides it has been proven that the more intelligent and educated a person is the more likely they are to be atheist and one is less likely to find extremely intelligent and educated people becoming soldiers.

  • “There are plenty of influential people who completely hate religion and want it wiped out and will have no trouble biding their time to let it slowly erode away into nothing.”

    Gee… I think that Jesus guy was against RELIGION too.

  • I have wondered for years whether he has read ‘The Age of Reason’ by Franklin’s mentor, Thomas Paine…

    “It was my good fortune to encounter Thomas Paine’s works in my boyhood. I discovered a set of the writings of Paine on my father’s bookshelves when I was thirteen. It was, indeed, a revelation to me to read that great thinker’s views on political and theological subjects. Paine educated me then about many matters of which I had never before thought. I remember very vividly the flash of enlightenment that shone from Paine’s writings, and I recall thinking at that time, “What a pity these works are not today the schoolbooks for all children!” My interest in Paine and his writings was not satisfied by my first reading of his works. I went back to them time and again, just as I have done since my boyhood days.

    —Thomas A. Edison

  • Paul is right, there is an attack on religion, and I’m an atheist saying this.

    This is a local issue. If a town is Christian and they want to teach Christian doctrine in school as truth, let them – also let them pay for it entirely. I shouldn’t be forced to pay for it. School districts should make their own decisions about what they teach, not the Federal government. You can easily move out of a school district, with vouchers you don’t even need to do that, but when the Federal government is dicating what should be taught, it’s nearly impossible to escape a system that’s imposed on you.

    Each state should decide on their own guidelines. If you are not happy with the decisions you should either try to get people to come around to your point of view, or vote with your feet, withdrawing your tax support.

    People of like mind congregate and competition is good. People that have better ideas will have a tendency to spread those ideas, and people with bad ideas will have a tendency to have those ideas die.

    With a federal government determining what is taught, and what is seen, there is no competition, there is just stagnation.

    I do not believe Christian doctrine should be taught, but at the same time, I should not be dicating what somebody 1/2 across the nation teaches their kids. It’s their kids, their community, their decision, and it should be their tax money paying for it all.

    When it’s my community and my tax money, then and only then should it be my decision.

    Nothing complicated about it. The 1st amendment states the Federal government shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. That’s it. It doesn’t say that a local township can’t decide to teach religion if that’s the decision of the voters.

    Utah exists because a bunch of people didn’t agree with the system they were under. What’s so horrible about that? San Francisco exists in a large part for the same reason, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

  • Dan the D-Man

    There are plenty of influential people who completely hate religion and want it wiped out and will have no trouble biding their time to let it slowly erode away into nothing.

    Who are these many “influential people who completely hate religion and want it wiped out and will have no trouble biding their time to let it slowly erode away into nothing”?

  • It’s their kids, their community, their decision, and it should be their tax money paying for it all.

    It’s their Constitution, too, which prohibits any government support of any religion. Also, I think you’re dreaming about education. ALL public schools are supported by all our tax dollars — they are redistributed from the federal and state pool of monies, not paid for by individuals in town. Until there are no more public schools, the Constitution still governs what schools may and may not do in regard to religion in the school.

    If you want to overthrow the Constitutionf, you can join all those wanna-be theocrats who want the wall of separation between Church and State removed.

  • Well, similar to the GOP, the Christian religion has been hi-jacked. As the bible quotes jesus as saying, there will be many who give me lip service, but their hearts will be far from mine. The christians people have such a big problem with are those who only give lip service, because Jesus was a teacher of compassion and understanding. Not a teacher of destruction and slavery.

    When I look at Ron Paul, I see a Christian with his heart close to Jesus, and he does not give lip service. But he is right that Christianity is under attack, and it has been for sometime. First by getting people to focus on the image of Jesus, rather than his message and his path, and then by pointing them out as hypocrites in the political spectrum.

    Seperation of church and state is Christian philosophy. Jesus refused to get involved in politics or take a role as a political leader. However, that doesn’t mean a politican can’t have religion, it just means they can’t make laws based on religion.

  • This is a local issue. If a town is Christian and they want to teach Christian doctrine in school as truth, let them – also let them pay for it entirely. -Richard Wicks

    There are already private religious schools that fit your bill, unless your advocating for abolishing the public school system which would render your argument invalid by proving you’re an idiot.

    I do not believe Christian doctrine should be taught, but at the same time, I should not be dicating what somebody 1/2 across the nation teaches their kids.

    Why shouldn’t we have national standards for education? Should Texas be allowed to teach children that all people with the name Richard are crazy?

    Hell, this country is already far enough behind in education standards compared to the rest of the world. The last thing we need are localized fucktards deciding what version of the God story to teach everyone.

    All that will lead to is a bunch of segregated pockets of morons.

  • ***Dan the D-man, comment 23*** “…There aren’t guns in the street, but there is certainly a real push against religion and anyone who denies it is being foolish and ignorant.”

    “Push against religion”?… what the hell do you call the “values voters convention” as if these Christians are the only ones with values. What…the rest of the voters don’t have values?
    They are talking about their relgion’s values and trying to disguise their group under the word ‘values’ as opposed to Christianity which this group was hardly representative of either. It’s not a “push against religion”, it’s a defense against the religious right’s authoritarian push. Say nothing and they force it right down your throat. It’s known as protecting yourself from the onslaught. If you want to call preventing these groups from taking control of society a ‘war’ then you must be on the side of the aggressors who are attempting to establish Christianity as a governing religion in the land of the free (you know, as in freedom from religion)

  • “Who are these many “influential people who completely hate religion and want it wiped out and will have no trouble biding their time to let it slowly erode away into nothing”?”

    I already said a few of them. The Brights Movement and Atheist Alliance International are two groups that have such a goal. Of course, I’m sure you’ll try to say they don’t, but denial is expected.

  • “It’s not a “push against religion”, it’s a defense against the religious right’s authoritarian push.”

    It is a push against religion, a war, if you will. And, guess what, they’re winning against religion.

  • Listen people the constitution is very clear and i will quote it for you all.

    First amendment : CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

    Does anyone here even understand that the goverment has destroyed all of our freedoms except the freedom of religion and we aren’t far from losing that as well believe that.

    Ron Paul is the only person in congress today that wants to re-secure all of our rights in the constitution AND THAT SHOULD BE THE FIRST DAMN THING ON YOUR MINDS AS FAR AS FIXING GOVERMENT.

    WHEN THE GOVERMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE THERE IS LIBERTY; WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THE GOVERMENT THERE IS TYRANNY
    Thomas Jefferson

  • Atvdude at 34, I think you’ve pretty well summed it up when you say boldly:

    “TRUTH. . . I don’t always AGREE WITH IT. . .”

    Therein lies the problem of trying to have a discussion with zealots.
    If it is “truth,” by definition your concurrence is irrelevant.
    But Rethugs have made a living these past 7 years of having their own reality.
    Much like religion, I wish they would quit pushing their reality on me.

    But thanks for a good chuckle.

  • This might have surprised me if I hadn’t caught this run down of bills he’s sponsored in Congress.

    Let’s check a few at random shall we?

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

    Buh-bye Governor Schwarzenegger and … a shit load of other people. But perhaps Mr. Paul was just ill when he submitted this bill…three times.

    A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.

    Uh….

    To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with
    respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

    Really?

    A bill to provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

    WTF you crazy mutha…? Oh wait, here’s something called the We The People Bill. How bad could that be?

    The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–

    (1) shall not adjudicate–

    (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

    (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

    (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

    (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

    There you have it folks. Please stick a big fork in the myth that Ron Paul is some how different from his fellow GOPers. Let this be a reminder that you can be right about one issue (getting the US out of Iraq) and still a blithering psycho. No wonder his supporters all sound like the legions of the damned we’ve come to know and loathe.

  • Dan the D-Man

    What a bunch of malarky. The “Brights Movement” and “Atheist Alliance International” certainly aren’t “influential people”. But those quoted below influence literally millions in the US and are advocating the overthrow of Democracy:

    “The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” — William Rehnquist

    “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.” — Randall Terry

    “We are going to remove the mythical separation of church and state.” — Bishop Carlton Pearson

    “Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol.” — Rev. Joseph Morecraft

    “We are approaching a time when Christians, especially, may have to declare the social contract between Enlightenment rationalists and Biblical believers – which formed the basis of the constitution written at our nation’s founding – null and void.”
    – Cal Thomas

    “The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant–baptism and holy communion–must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.” — Gary North

    pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil.” –Gary Potter

    “…Christian values should dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.” –Beverly LaHaye

    “The [Supreme} Court by seeking to equate Christianity with other religions merely assaults the one faith. The Court in essence is assailing the true God by democratizing the Christian religion.” John Whitehead

    “If God is in fact separated from the government, then we can never possibly have a godly government. There’s no way for America to be good if she’s not godly.” Joyce Meyer

    “Get the few liberals out. If you don’t do it, it ain’t gonna be done,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, told the crowd at the Washington Convention Center. “You will be doing the Lord’s work, and he will richly bless you for it.”

  • Ron Paul is correct about the fight against extremist rightwing christianity. However this is also like the abortion debate. It is not that the left hates babies and wants abortions… and they do not want to destroy religion.. it is just that in the fight to “win” they go so far as to allow “late term abortions” and they go a little too far with pushing the christians out of public life. And of coarse the extreme right goes too far in pushing their views of religion on everybody else…

    Ron Paul does not want to force christianity on people and he doesnt want non-Christians to go too far in practically “outlawing” public christianity.

  • This is another poorly thought out and illogical assault on Ron Paul’s character. I wish the microscope was applied so rigorously to every candidate then perhaps we could have a more informed national debate. It is precisely because Dr. Paul has such an excellent ethical record as a politician that he is attacked so vehemently. Yes Ron Paul is religious. Shouldn’t he have the freedom to be as such? He is not advocating legislation pertaining to religion and rarely if ever mentions his personal spiritual beliefs in speeches and literature. His political philosophy is that people have the right to be free and religion (or lack thereof) is a part of those freedoms. He doesn’t wear his faith on his sleeve like ‘W’ did or some of the Democrats attempt to do (awkwardly). ‘Conservatives’ say he’s a liberal, liberals think he’s Jerry Falwell. I’m tired of seeing uninformed snap judgments made about him. It’s ok not to like Ron Paul but at least have a well thought out, well informed reason as to why you don’t like him.

    If people would take five minutes to read his platform at http://www.ronpaul2008.com then they wouldn’t make such simplistic arguments against him.

  • Well, there sure are some interesting arguments here, but the message that comes through loud and clear is that for all the defending of Ron Paul as being libertarian on this issue, his followers certainly are not.

    Just because some people do not want one group’s definition of religion to apply to everyone, whether they agree or not, does not mean that those same people are anti-religion, or anti-Christian; why is this so hard to understand? If I want to practice my religion, I have a multitude of choices – there’s my church, where I can gather with others who share my faith, there’s my home, where I can read the Bible and invite people into my home to share their thoughts, there’s my head, where I can pray to my heart’s content. There are charitable organizations, where I can volunteer my time to help feed and clothe the poor. I can wear religious jewelry, if I like. I can send religious Christmas cards to anyone I want to. I can say Merry Christmas or Happy Easter to anyone I want. The best part is that I can live the precepts of my religion without anyone ever even knowing what religion I am. I can tend to my own house and let others worry about their own, without judgment that I am better or worse than anyone else.

    And all those things I can do, others who are of different religious faiths can do, because the Constitution says it is our right. It also says that the government itself is neutral ground – it favors no religion, and it suppresses no religion. Installing the 10 commandments in the lobby of the local courthouse is not being neutral. Displaying a Nativity scene in front of City Hall is not neutral. Saying the Lord’s Prayer in a public school is not neutral. Neither would it be neutral in these same instances for the symbols and practices of other religions to be present in the public square.

    That your religion is not being blared from the halls of government does not mean it is the victim of a war against religion; it means that the government is hewing to the principles and precepts of the Constitution in order to make sure that ll people have the right to practice their religion free of government interference.

    I know this falls on deaf ears, so to speak, but I am tired of people deciding I am anti-religion because I don’t want or need to have one religion take precedence over all others, with the government’s approval.

    Just back off.

  • You’re wrong about the Constitution. Ron Paul is right. The U.S. Constitution has several references to religion and God. The preamble to the Constitution refers to the “Blessings of Liberty.” A blessing, especially at the time the Constitution was written, would have been understood as a favor bestowed by God or some deity. Article I, Section 7 makes it clear that Sunday is a day of rest. The U.S. president is required to take an oath or affirmation of office. It’s interesting that the Constitution uses both terms, making a distinction between them. An oath is a solemn declaration, witnessed by God or a deity. An affirmation is a solemn declaration for those who have a religious objection to taking an oath. And, as someone pointed out earlier, the Constitution also uses the phrase “year of our Lord.”

    Your conclusion that Ron Paul’s views are the same as Pat Robertson’s is also ludicrous. Robertson is a Southern Baptist who subscribes to a charismatic theology not common among Southern Baptists. Ron Paul is also a Baptist, but doesn’t support a lot of the measures that Robertson does. If their views were identical, as you suggest, then Robertson would be supporting Ron Paul, not Rudy Giuliani. The same is true for Dobson. While you try to link the two, he isn’t supporting Ron Paul.

    You’ve missed the entire point of Ron’s article. He was merely saying that the federal government should not be actively hostile to Christianity. Do you object to this? Many other governments – the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and many Muslim countries – have been actively hostile to Christianity and other religions. Ron Paul doesn’t want to see this in the U.S. Under a Paul administration, the federal government would give freedom to all religious worldviews, including secular humanism. All such views would be protected. This is why many liberals support Ron Paul. They realize that under a Paul administration, everyone would have the Constitutional right to worship as they please.

    Instead of swallowing your nonsensical attempts to misrepresent Ron Paul’s views, people should find out for themselves what he things, by going to http://www.ronpaul2008.com – and the many other web sites featuring Ron Paul’s writings.

  • Government needs to stay out of religion’s business and religion will stay out of the business of government. I totally agree with Ron Paul. Allowing any laws or judgements to pass in regard to religion and it’s practices is akin to an attack on the 1st amendment.

    I don’t understand the apoplectic tones of knee-jerked articles like this.

  • This opinion piece is really a stretch to find something negative to say about Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul is an advocate of freedom. I fail to see any discontinuity here. The government should not be telling people what religion TO practice or what religion NOT TO practice. The federal government should not promote any religion nor be hostile to any religion. That is how I take what Ron Paul is saying here. How is that bizarre?

  • mketcher

    You’ve missed the entire point of Ron’s article. He was merely saying that the federal government should not be actively hostile to Christianity.

    When has the federal government been “actively hostile” to Christianity as provided for in the Constitution?

  • Man, I’d like to get my hands on the server that houses the Ron Paul is Great! auto-response program…

  • Hey doubtful:

    This is a local issue. If a town is Christian and they want to teach Christian doctrine in school as truth, let them – also let them pay for it entirely. -Richard Wicks

    There are already private religious schools that fit your bill, unless your advocating for abolishing the public school system which would render your argument invalid by proving you’re an idiot.

    If that’s the case: If parents want to send their kid to a private school, they shouldn’t be taxed to send other kids to a public school – furthermore, I should not be taxed if I don’t have kids to send a bunch of kids to a school that teaches fundamentals I don’t agree with. If I must be taxed, I should be able to decide where to send the money, even if it’s a private school.

    Furthermore, I believe it’s up to the community in question to decide how they want to pay for education, and if they decide they only want to tax people who have kids, that’s fine. If everybody is taxed, that’s also fine. Don’t like it? See to it that your representatives aren’t re-elected or leave taking your tax money with you.

    I do not believe Christian doctrine should be taught, but at the same time, I should not be dicating what somebody 1/2 across the nation teaches their kids.

    Why shouldn’t we have national standards for education? Should Texas be allowed to teach children that all people with the name Richard are crazy?

    What did you learn about Israel in school? Did you learn that the first UN resolution they broke was in 1948, in the same year they were created?

    Hey, did you learn that Ho Chi Min created a constitution modelled after our constitution and only went to the communists AFTER the US broke it’s agreement to give them freedom from France?

    How much were you taught about the CIA coup in 1953 to overthrow the Iranian Democracy, or the motivations behind it?

    Oh, you weren’t taught any of this?

    That’s why we shouldn’t have national standards. They suck.

    Furthermore, if you want PUBLIC education, make it public. Why isn’t every single textbook in PUBLIC school PUBLICLY available and online? You pay for it, don’t you? Oh, isn’t that CRAZY for an idea, actually using tax payer purchased materials and making it available to all the taxpayers that pay for it.

    Ever read a textbook from the early 1900s? Get a 6th grade mathematics book from from 190 – say 3. Read it. I have. I come from a long line of teachers in my family. My grandmother was a teacher when she was 16. Public education isn’t about education anymore, it’s about indoctrination. A kid with a 6th grade education, you’ll discover, knew more than your average high school senior with a 12th grade education. Probably more than you do now unless you can derive a derivative based off from a limit.

    Hell, this country is already far enough behind in education standards compared to the rest of the world.

    Seriously, get a mathematics textbook from 1903, before education was public, and you’ll find out why.

    Heck, get one from even 1950 when it was public but before we had even state wide testing, and find out why.

    You don’t know anything about the history of this country, very few people do because our public school system REALLY DOES SUCK. Yeah, I was incredulous too, but it’s true.

    All that will lead to is a bunch of segregated pockets of morons.

    What we have today is a homogeneous nation of morons instead.

    1 out of 3 people today, drop out of school before 12th grade. That’s what we have today.

    I’m not saying there won’t be mistakes and communities that make really bad decisions, I’m saying there will be successes and communities that make really good decisions too. There will be both.

    Communities that make bad decisions will realize they have made bad decisions and adjust. Every parent wants the best for their child, even religious crazy ones. Show the parent just how badly hurt their kid was by teaching them that the earth was created 4,000 years ago by a fairy in the sky, and maybe they’ll stop doing it.

    I know how nuts it is to allow cause and effect to work, but I’m just nuts, right?

  • “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” are both from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution, conversely, mentions religion in that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” There may be others I didn’t find.

    As an agnostic who disagrees with the religious right’s pressure to impose religion, I don’t see anything untrue by what Ron Paul said in the article’s quotes. I think there is a movement by secularists to remove all religion from public life. In my view, as long as my tax dollars are not financing religious SUPPORT such as Bush’s Faith-based initiatives (which clearly violate the establishment clause) I don’t see why someone cannot donate religious artwork to a public building. The Moses with Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court is relevant in that it is law history in the same room as other law history artwork. It should not be excluded just because it is also religious history. It can be both and it does not expressly advocate that anyone conform to a religion, therefore it does not violate the establishment clause, nor does it influence through taxation the use of a religion. Removing a student’s artwork from a school because it contains a religious motif (any religion) is to supress the art, not the religion. Nor does it advocate that other students conform to the religion. Some groups would restrict both from their public buildings and they would cite separation of church and state. They would be wrong.

    The school prayer argument is that a public school should not lead or require a school prayer, but it does not restrict kids from praying. If students wish to pray, they may and if they wish to refrain, they may. Some worry about their feelings of exclusion if some pray and they do not. Feelings are not protected by the Constitution, nor should they be.

    Ron Paul is right about the Declaration, wrong about the Constitution. Everyone misspeaks at some point. He still gets my vote because none of this will be legislated anyway. It is a wedge issue. He is right about the war, the economy, state and individual rights, and taxation. Secularists need not worry about his religion as he will not shove it down our throats.

    Nick Manning
    Secularist Ron Paul Supporter

  • Ah, c’mon! In this country free speech is protected, which means that anyone should be able to say just about anything that they want (no matter how intolerant or offensive it may be). From what I read above, what Ron Paul said was certainly not that far out-of-bounds, even if it does closely matches was Pat Robertson and Bill O’Reilly have to say on this matter. But does it really matter? Ron Paul enjoys the same rights as you or I do under the 1st amendment and should be entitled to express his opinions.

    What I don’t see Ron Paul doing is imposing his will or his own beliefs on other people as an elected official. I challenge you to look at his record. Isn’t that the key here? On the other hand, the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to systematically blur the lines between church and state as it attempts to transform our government from secular to a more religious one (e.g., his faith-based initiative programs). This has been a general trend with Bush and his group of neoconservatives, who have fought pretty hard to disregard constitutional and civil rights protections.

  • Hey
    I am the right wing born-again Evangelical Pastor dude!
    “Its about the constitution stupid”
    Freedom of religion includes muslums, jews, athiests, (it is a faith) satanists, blah blah
    All are free to speak and practice.

    I love the defense of a santarian chicken sacrficer “you christians kill the chicken, then cook it, then pray over it, then eat it. We santarians PRAY OVER THE CHICKEN, then kill the chicken, then cook it, then eat it. And i agree!

    But please let me have the freedom to at least argue my ideas in the areana and to warn you of the judgement to come… if you don’t want to hear it tell me and I will walk away. You have the freedom to be ignorant and live the way you want God gave you that choice and I respect it.

    Just don’t censor me like they do to the scientists who for science sake believe in a creator. Don’t believe me see Ben Stein’s http://www.expelledthemovie.com

    FREEDOM FOR ALL!

  • Nick

    What on earth is the USE of the Judeo-Christian “Ten Commandments” posted on public property, other than to throw these two religions into everybody’s face? It would be far more useful if the Constitution and Bill of Rights were posted in courthouses. They, not the “Ten Commandments”, are what our law is based on.

  • i am a ‘bright’ and a big fan of dennett’s. i am also a big ron paul supporter and his view have been misrepresented here.

    for the most part, he has been merely describing the cultural landscape as he sees it. i don’t know if his description is correct and don’t really care.

    nothing in his policy suggests that he would use the power to promote religion in any sense whatsoever. but the power of the state is, in fact, used today to suppress religion. parents who dont’ want their kids to learn about evolution are nevertheless force to pay for it. nobody in their right mind should support this. regardless of what i think about intelligent design (it is crap) nobody should be forced to pay to learn something they do not want to learn.

    while i would personally prefer that dr paul is an atheist, of all presidential candidates he is the one that invokes religion least frequently. not only compared to republicans, but also compared to democrats. all leading democratic candidates make extensive references to their beliefs in god – much more than dr paul.

  • Paul,

    If is indeed a faith, please let me know where I can sign up to become a pastor or whatever you want to call me for my “faith” of atheism so I can take money in tax free, like you can, and not report my earnings to anybody, like you can, instead of following the 501 c 3 tax code.

    For the record, I’m not working right now, this is “charity work”, sitting in front of a computer, waiting for a compile to finish, “donated” to me by a company, when they “donate” per hour.

    Finally, out of the yoke of government burdens!

  • The answer is orange,

    I can understand why so many Ron Paul supporters become rude and insulting when they are faced with idiotic posts like yours.

    I do not agree with Ron Paul on immigration policy but I certainly understand the logic behind not automatically giving all the privileges of citizenship to the offspring of anyone who manages to sneak into the country. Schwarzenegger was not born here so I fail to see how his name is relevant.

    “A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.”

    Absolutely! What gives you, or your elected representative the right to tell me what agreements I can make with another adult of sound mind? It is called freedom, in case that is a new concept to you. I know it is talked about a lot in Washington but few seem to understand what it means.

    On the abortion issue: Someone is a “crazy mutha” if they do not share your beliefs on the subject? Sorry but that argument will not go far in a debate. It says more about you than Ron Paul. Not all Ron Paul supporters agree with him on this but I believe they all respect his position and understand how an OB/GYN doctor could come to that decision. Despite this bill, Ron Paul has said that he believes the federal government should leave the issue to the states.

    Regarding the We the People bill: The plain fact is that the federal government has exceeded its intended bounds. I am in favor of anything that restricts the power of the federal government. I know that power-hungry people such as yourself love the federal government’s ability to run everyone’s lives from Washington, but some of us like our freedom.

  • If you can judge a candidate by his (or her) supporters, the response to this post shows what a Paul presidency would look like:

    Patently dishonest and hateful of dissent.

    If you people (assuming each handle represents an individual poster) think you’re helping Mr. Paul you’re as batshit as he is.

    If you’re Anti-Paulies trying to turn people off from the man, you’re doing a tremendous job.

    tAiO

    p.s. Mr. Wicks, your pre-printed list of talking points is showing.

  • The great thing about illegal immigration – when they don’t pay taxes, they get deported but when an American citizen does the same exact thing, they go to jail.

    I got knews for you silver spooned and upper middle class people who think that illegals just do the jobs that Americans want to do – no, they don’t. They don’t pay taxes, so they can take home more money, and it’s really tough for an American that has the same skills to compete against that.

    Illegals don’t unionize because, they can be extorted and exported at anytime if they cause trouble. People working under the table not paying taxes don’t unionize either.

    Isn’t competition great when your government, for the benefit of large business, turns a blind eye to illegal immigration?

    This is exactly why it happens and why the government at the same time keeps illegal immigration illegal. Haven’t you ever wondered why the government passes laws they have no intention of enforcing? There’s a method to their madness, it’s screw the poor and uneducated time.

    For you people that support illegal immigration, what you should be doing instead is lowering the bar for immigrants to enter the country legally – change the law for citizenship or even legal guest worker programs and stop screwing your old classmates in high school just because you were smarter than they were or you could afford a college education and they couldn’t even if they gave you swirlies in the boy’s bathroom in 8th grade.

  • Thanks for proving my point Greg W. In case it isn’t clear, I really don’t give a flaming fuck about being polite to Paul or any mindless drone who blithers out the same talking points as the other dozen people who popped up here with wondrous speed. You all may well be a bigger joke than the BushBots because seven years later you all seem to think you’re special and “different,” than the rest of the GOP brain-dead. Well, congrats, you’re the proud owner of the same schtick that won over the Bushies.

    As for what would take me far in a debate, that’s cute. Paul’s position on the issues I selected (and a number I did not) are not worthy of debate because the act of debating implies that the opponent holds opinons that are at least sound enough to merit consideration. However, it certainly is amusing to watch you all huff and puff and blubber denials and weak excuses like a bunch of Fundies who’ve just heard their pastor was found dead with a dildo stuck up his arse.

    But don’t worry, Paul is dead in the water so you’ll never have to live through the nightmare that would ensue if some of his lunacy became the law of the land. As an added bonus you can continue to imagine the free-market utopia the power-crazed city beasts have wrested from your grip.

  • It’s obvious that Ron Paul works the hardest towards reforming our inept foreign policy, repairing our broken monetary system, and restoring our personal freedoms as outlined in the Constitution. Respectfully, this article is splitting hairs. Ron Paul strongly opposes the legislation of morality, especially on the federal level.

  • “p.s. Mr. Wicks, your pre-printed list of talking points is showing.”

    I’ll donate the Federal limit of $2300 to any candidate you name if you can find anything that I’ve said as a pre-printed list of talking points, anywhere on the net.

    If these are, indeed, a pre-printed list of talking points, I’m the one that created them – I’ll still uphold my obligation I’ve made to you.

    As for the rest

    “If you can judge a candidate by his (or her) supporters, the response to this post shows what a Paul presidency would look like:

    Patently dishonest and hateful of dissent.

    If you people (assuming each handle represents an individual poster) think you’re helping Mr. Paul you’re as batshit as he is.

    If you’re Anti-Paulies trying to turn people off from the man, you’re doing a tremendous job.”

    I haven’t seen anybody being dihonest, nor hateful except you calling people “batshit” and other insults.

    There is no perfect system I do realize. I simply advocate a bunch of competing systems, 50 of them, within each state. I’m a very firm believer in evolution and I’m well educated in social evolution. The reason this country became the greatest nation on the planet was it’s freedom.

    That is not to say we did not have our share of problems. We had slavery, we had segregation, we still have racism. I just happen to believe that slavery would have died out just as it did everywhere else in the world without a war – segregation was ended by activists, not by government mandates although Federal government enforcement did help with the result of continuing suspicion that any black person was hired on a quota, which now is a contributing factor toward racism.

    The smartest man I know, incidentally, is an Ethiopian. He’s twice as good at my job than I am, and he’s not even specialized in my field. He’s a Libertarian as well. I love Silicon Valley.

  • anney:

    “It’s their Constitution, too, which prohibits any government support of any religion.”

    Please read the 1st amendment, carefully and understand what “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” means.

    It means, making NO LAW either pro or con, or PROHIBITING the free exercise of religion. The Federal government is prohibited by the constitution from doing much of what it does.

  • I just happen to believe that slavery would have died out just as it did everywhere else in the world without a war – segregation was ended by activists, not by government mandates although Federal government enforcement did help with the result of continuing suspicion that any black person was hired on a quota, which now is a contributing factor toward racism.

    And the dishonest bull shit just keeps a-flowing. How can you debate someone who uses what I have to assume is an intentional ignorance (lies) about history? Was that you who stated in another post that you come from a long line of teachers? No, I must be mistaken.

    How far do you think the activists would have gotten without a little back up from the Gubbermint? Oh, that’s right. I guess the activists should have just waited their turn and hoped that the cops and mobs (often the same thing) got tired of beating the living hell out of them before their numbers were decimated. Who cares if it took an extra 10 or 20 or 30 years? ‘Tis better to be oppressed than to be free from oppression if it means the Gubbermint has set you free.

    Fucking swine.

    The smartest man I know, incidentally, is an Ethiopian. He’s twice as good at my job than I am, and he’s not even specialized in my field. He’s a Libertarian as well. I love Silicon Valley.

    OMG! You know a brown person? And you can admit he’s smart? Wow! That has got to be one the most amazing things I’ve never heard in my life.

    Well, I for one am glad we had this little visitation of the un-brained. It removes all doubt from my mind that the GOP really is dead. Hopefully a real replacement party will appear before too long.

  • Oh, come on – this is just getting silly. What we really have here are a group of people who would be happy to just dissolve the federal government altogether, and have the individual states determining what is “best for them,” so whatever “rights” a person has would ebb and flow depending on what state you lived in – and I don’t think that was the intent or the vision of the founders.

    And how long would it be before these same people decided that the states really shouldn’t be making decisions for all of the people within their respective borders; it should be the individual cities and towns. You know where this is going – every person for him- or herself, which would prove to be utter chaos, and eventually government would begin to form again – out of necessity – and some bright light would decide that maybe that whole federal government thing wasn’t such a bad thing after all.

    I’m so tired of the arguments that sending your kids to private school should exempt you from paying taxes that support the public schools – an educated population benefits society as a whole, so even though your kids go to private schools, it is in your interest to make sure that the people you encounter in your daily life have had some kind of education – whether that is the cashier at the grocery store or the mailman or the auto worker or the nurse or the clerk in your local county courthouse. Yes, people could be better educated, but that doesn’t happen when money comes out of the public system.

    For all the arguments that Ron Paul has been unfairly represented in Steve’s post, I would have to say that all of those who showed up to defend RP have done little to advance Paul’s cause – and managed to confirm what a lot of us already know: that someone who attracts zealots and people who sound like they are in a cult is not the way we need to go. I wonder how cheated you are going to feel when Ron Paul retires – quite comfortably – on the donations you’re making to the cause.

  • Show the parent just how badly hurt their kid was by teaching them that the earth was created 4,000 years ago by a fairy in the sky, and maybe they’ll stop doing it. -Richard Wicks

    Ah, herein lies the naivety your world view is based on: proponents of religious teaching will never admit their teaching is in anyway harmful, no matter what the consequences are. It is the flaw of faith.

    There is no perfect system I do realize. I simply advocate a bunch of competing systems, 50 of them, within each state.

    But earlier you were advocating a community by community based system. What if you disagree with what the state is doing? By your logic, you should ignore them and do whatever you want instead. We’d end up with millions of microcosms. What’s the point of state or federal government at all in your world?

    Guess if I disagree with the local road system, I’ll just build a new one. Maybe I’ll start my own police force, too.

    If that’s the case: If parents want to send their kid to a private school, they shouldn’t be taxed to send other kids to a public school – furthermore, I should not be taxed if I don’t have kids to send a bunch of kids to a school that teaches fundamentals I don’t agree with. If I must be taxed, I should be able to decide where to send the money, even if it’s a private school.

    Sorry, we don’t get to pick and choose where our taxes go other than by electing officials who espouse to use them in certain ways. Otherwise no one would ever pay taxes for anything. You’d have a whole country disagreeing with how they were spent. I certainly wouldn’t be paying a dime for this war.

    Besides, public education if for the public good. It benefits you that little Timmy knows how to read and write, so you get to help foot the bill.

    You’re argument is absurd. No reducto needed.

  • To the answer is orange:

    I believe you are just goading me, and I don’t see any reason to play with you. You can make what claim you want, I’m well educated believer it or not, and Gebre isn’t brown, he’s black.

    There isn’t any point in discussion with you when I’m the only person of the duo interested in discussion.

  • I’m still looking forward to the regular elections, because I think that Ron Paul will do better than the Polls say. And I would dearly love a third party run for him.

    Oh, GregW – perhaps we should allow people to sell themselves into slavery for other considerations, like money for their kids. Hey, it fits your criteria.

    I can only shake my head at the distance removed from reality that I read from some R Paul supporters.

    Sad, from this working class stiff’s viewpoint.

  • Oh, come on – this is just getting silly. What we really have here are a group of people who would be happy to just dissolve the federal government altogether, and have the individual states determining what is “best for them,” so whatever “rights” a person has would ebb and flow depending on what state you lived in – and I don’t think that was the intent or the vision of the founders.

    No…

    The Constitution points out what rights we have. It’s a document outlining our protections from abuses of government. The Federal government has only 2 jobs.

    1) is to protect the states from foreign threats and if we go to war, we need a 2/3rd majority to do it.

    2) to protect individual’s rights as outlines in the Constitution.

    This isn’t about dissolution of the Federal government, it’s about putting it back into it’s proper role.

    Consider Social Security. It’s not a bad idea but I doubt you’ve ever read the Social Security Act. In the SS Act the Federal government is expressely forbidden from taking any surplus from the SS TRUST FUND and putting it into the general fund, or borrowing from it.

    Social Security has run a surplus nearly every year since it was created.

    Where has this surplus gone?

    It’s been spent on the Korean War, the Vietnam war, that goofy SDI idea of Raygun’s, Iraq I, Iraq II, Halliuburton and Blackwater got some of it, tons of crooked politicans too it, etc. etc.

    Do you know how much the Baby Boomers are expected to draw from SS over the next 30 years?

    60 trillion dollars.

    Do you know how much the Federal government takes in from taxes currently?

    2 trillion a year.

    You do the math. The Federal government hasn’t borrowed from the Social Security surplus, they stole it. They have pulled an Enron on us all.

    Government’s can’t be trusted.

    This government you still want to keep strong and intact took us to war in Iraq over a bunch of lies of weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. WTF? There isn’t even a declaration of war, it’s totally illegal. It’s gotten several hundred thousand Iraqis killed, thousands of US soldiers killed, tens of thousands maimed, destroyed a country and cost us over a trillion dollars.

    When Katrina happened, a freaking HORSE JUDGE was running the Federal EMERGENCY Management Agency.

    I mean, just what does it take for you to realize that it’s broken, and severely broken?

    You want to give MORE money to these jerkoffs?

    When a company gets this incompetent, they go bankrupt and a competitor replaces them. This government needs to be dismantled and drastically reduced in size. I frankly don’t see how you can come to any other conclusion.

    And how long would it be before these same people decided that the states really shouldn’t be making decisions for all of the people within their respective borders; it should be the individual cities and towns. You know where this is going – every person for him- or herself, which would prove to be utter chaos, and eventually government would begin to form again – out of necessity – and some bright light would decide that maybe that whole federal government thing wasn’t such a bad thing after all.

    Why?

    This is exactly how it worked for over 100 years. 1/2 of the states abolished slavery on their own.

    We had the greatest period of innovation in the 1800s of any other nation. Our Federal government had a SURPLUS during most of this time.

    I’m so tired of the arguments that sending your kids to private school should exempt you from paying taxes that support the public schools – an educated population benefits society as a whole

    Yes an educated person does benefit society as a whole.

    So what?

    Our Federal government has already killed the 1st amendment:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gb9VxvOI74

    If you remember the media’s claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or Hussein’s ties to Al Qaeda you already know that the free media is a joke today, nothing but a regurgitator or propaganda for whoever is in power.

    Search and Seizure laws went away with the stupid war on drugs/

    Trial by Jury is gone.

    Do you really believe that the Federal government is going to protect any of your rights? Look at what they have taken already.

    I can go on, but I think it’s pointless. If you cannot see my point of view you probably can’t be talked through it to see it.

    The Federal government is a monopoly, I can’t make it more simple than that. It’s really crappy one too. I’d rather have 50 systems competing, and I really just can’t imagine why anybody thinks that would be bad.

    I wonder how cheated you are going to feel when Ron Paul retires – quite comfortably – on the donations you’re making to the cause.

    BWAHAHAHA.

    You do not know the man’s record. He always returns unused donations as he has for every election he’s ever been in and he doesn’t even participate in the Congressional retirement plan.

    He’s probably the only man of principle in Federal government today.

    Look, you need to research him yourself. I’ve known about Paul for quite some time and he really isn’t like any other candidate. I’ve never seen anything worthwhile in the Republican party until I discovered him but at the same time, I’m revolted at all the programs the Democrats start, raise taxes for, then happily steal the money from – like Social Security.

  • School districts should make their own decisions about what they teach, not the Federal government. You can easily move out of a school district… -Richard Wicks

    I’ve never seen anything worthwhile in the Republican party until I discovered him but at the same time, I’m revolted at all the programs the Democrats start, raise taxes for, then happily steal the money from – like Social Security. -Richard Wicks

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Seems by your own demented logic above you should simply move. It’s easy, afterall.

    Far, far away, please.

  • This really is a stupid thread. Who cares? This fight will remain LONG after Paul is gone. People, let’s focus on the issues please.

    If you want to lower taxes, change our foriegn policy, and have balanced budgets; Vote for Ron Paul. It’s that simple.

  • richard wicks

    Please read the 1st amendment, carefully and understand what “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” means.

    It means, making NO LAW either pro or con, or PROHIBITING the free exercise of religion.

    It ALSO means that the government may not “establish” a particular religion by non-legislative default, by permitting its excercise on public property and/or using taxpayer funds in its conduct.

    The text:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  • Ah, herein lies the naivety your world view is based on: proponents of religious teaching will never admit their teaching is in anyway harmful, no matter what the consequences are. It is the flaw of faith.

    My parents did.

    I really think you have a comic book view of people. Religious people are not necessarily stupid nor stubborn, and atheists are not necessarily smart of open minded.

    But earlier you were advocating a community by community based system. What if you disagree with what the state is doing?

    I have 2 choices.

    1) I advocate change or just accept it if it’s not that repugnant to me.
    2) I leave.

    I’ve lived in 5 states. I’ve got up and left several times.

    By your logic, you should ignore them and do whatever you want instead.

    No, this is not my logic.

    I’ve never said anything like this.

    Guess if I disagree with the local road system, I’ll just build a new one. Maybe I’ll start my own police force, too.

    As I previously said, either you work to change what you don’t like, or if it’s not that important to you, you accept it, but if it’s very important to you, you can always leave.

    If nobody likes it – guess what? No tax revenue because everybody took off.

    Sorry, we don’t get to pick and choose where our taxes go other than by electing officials who espouse to use them in certain ways.

    But then you say:

    Otherwise no one would ever pay taxes for anything.

    By what leap of logic did you come to this conclusion? People still vote and elect representatives. You’ll notice at the local and state level there are a lot more independants and 3rd parties that get put into office.

    A township decides on their taxation and so does that state but that’s not the way it works at the Federal level where we have a bunch of shitty lookalikes foisted upon us. Kerry was nothing more than Bush lite. How did those two differ from one another? I remember the debate hosted by Lehrer where Lehrer got frustrated and asked them if they disagreed on anything. What a farce.

    You should have a greater say in how your tax money is spent. After all, it is your money.

    Do you think the money you’re paying for Social Security should be paying for Blackwater employees and constructing the largest US embassy in the world in Bagdad?

    Because that’s how it’s being spent.

    Illegally I may add.

    Because you have no choice.

    You assume that you’re in the MINORITY making the only correct decisions and the MAJORITY are wrong, and government officials aren’t corrupt pigs that look at all that tax money as a way to make their life really cushy and easy.

    People are lot smarter than you give them credit for, and if it turns out they are really stupid – why the hell are you hanging around living with them anyhow? Leave.

    Our government at this point is so corrupt, it makes me want to spit.

    George Tenet got the Presidential Freaking Medal of Freedom – why? For taking all the blame for bad intelligence that led us to war. He got the medal AFTER he resigned. It’s called a bribe.

    I don’t know how you can tolerate this any longer.

    In fact, I don’t know if I can. I already pass the points test for Australia, and I just might move there come 2009. At least their country isn’t bankrupt morally and economically like we are.

    Besides, public education if for the public good.

    If you think a national drop out rate of 1 out of 3 is in the public good, I’d had to see what failure is to you.

    It benefits you that little Timmy knows how to read and write, so you get to help foot the bill.

    Little Timmy, on average, can’t find India on the map by the time he’s 18 on average, or calculate compound interest today at 18.

    You guys think the country is BETTER off today than it was 50 years ago, because you don’t know or talk to anybody from 50 years ago. Both my grandmothers were teachers.

    If you know anybody alive that lived through the depression as an adult (that would make them about 100 now) who is not senile, talk to them. We are not the same country we were back then. We are clearly worse off, but we pay far more in taxes, we go to war at the drop of a hat, and our economy is in terrible condition.

    I don’t know if it even matters to try to talk to you. You’ll discover soon enough that seriousness of our situation and we’ll return to our roots of limited government one way or another. The only question is whether we’re going through fascism first or not.

    The country is bankrupt already and no government gives up power easily.

    *shrug*

  • Seems by your own demented logic above you should simply move. It’s easy, afterall.

    No, it isn’t.

    It’s extremely difficult to change nationality. It costs me a $100,000 bond, it makes it very difficult for me to visit my family in the United States, it prevents me from working in the US or doig business without a permit.

    I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter to me so much. I’m just getting frustrated trying to talk to you when you don’t have an open mind and I don’t believe you’ve really spent any time thinking about politics.

    The root problem anyhow is economic and I don’t have the will to try to explain that to you. You’re about to find out about that anyhow when the CDO’s get marked to market and Level 3 accounting becomes a household name, as will Fannie Mae, which owns 1 trillion dollar of mortgages.

    Good luck and I don’t care who you vote for.

  • “It ALSO means that the government may not “establish” a particular religion by non-legislative default”

    And teaching religious doctrine isn’t establishing a religion. It’s teaching.

    I was taught Jainism and Hinduism – was a religion established for me?

    You atheists, and I am certainly an atheist, or so ludicrously paranoid about what other people teach their kids. This wouldn’t even be an issue if you simply lived in a community of like minded individuals (which you should do) and paid for your own education.

    Problem solved.

    A single teaching teaching 30 kids making a generous $120K a year which also pays for the TAX free building used to house the children – that’s $4k for each student. If you can’t afford that, you shouldn’t be having a kid in my opinion.

  • Richard Wicks at #72, showing that his civics education wasn’t so hot (or regaling us with the Fantasy Consitution of R. Wicks):

    The Constitution points out what rights we have. It’s a document outlining our protections from abuses of government. The Federal government has only 2 jobs.

    Amazing powers, Richard, how you deleted Article I, Section 8 like that. You know the one – powers of the legislative branch? Over 17 specifically enumerated roles/powers/responsibilities (or as you put them, “jobs”). Some of them as broad as “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” and the ever popular “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

    This is hardly a tight, narrow limitation to government just doing “2 jobs.” That may be Libertarian philosophy of what a government should be like, but until y’all go buy your own private island to run (and believe me, I support that) the Constitution of the country you choose to stay in and comment ignorantly about is nothng like what you describe.

  • Oh, gimme a break.

    Ron Paul is simply talking about a return to the original emphasis of freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion that you’re trying to push.

    Ron Paul would be equally for allowing the celebration of Hanukkah or Ramadan (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1906174/posts ).

    On the right wing, we have Pat Robertson calling Islam a “heresy” — and on the left wing, we have you, resenting Christians who would deign to expect free exercise of their religion — which, last time I checked, the Constitution does talk about. It’s called the First Amendment. Or haven’t you read it? So Ron Paul’s the true liberal — not you.

    Let’s go further: Would Pat Robertson support Ron Paul’s attitude of total freedom on the Net? Would Pat Robertson support Ron Paul’s attitude toward gambling?

    Oh, gimme a break.

  • My parents did. -Richard Wicks

    Wonderful. So your minor anecdote means that all religious teaching will cease when it is found to be harmful to overall educational standards? So why hasn’t it stopped already then?

    Again, that’s the flaw of having faith. No matter how wrong something is, it will still be believed as, well, as Gospel.

    No, this is not my logic.

    I’ve never said anything like this.

    You’re being obtuse if you can’t see that this is the reducto of your entire argument. You advocate leaving if you don’t agree, but ultimately, if you agree with no one, what is your choice? To start your own school system, road system, etc.

    As I previously said, either you work to change what you don’t like…

    But you aren’t advocating to work for change, you’re advocating leaving and developing your own set of rules community by community.

    You’re inconsistencies are making me you dizzy.

    Otherwise no one would ever pay taxes for anything. -doubtful

    By what leap of logic did you come to this conclusion? -Richard Wicks

    Leap of logic? It occurred right about the time you suggested that people could stop paying for public schools and send their kids to private schools if they don’t like the public schools. I really hate having to explain yourself to you.

    Where does it stop? Are schools the only tax I can opt out of? If I don’t agree with the war, can’t I opt out of that, too? What if I only walk…do I have to pay for the roads?

    You’re too obtuse to understand the inadequacy or your own arguments.

    If you think a national drop out rate of 1 out of 3 is in the public good, I’d had to see what failure is to you. -Richard Wicks

    Failure is a divided private eduction system with no standards consisting mostly of repressive religions microcosms. If you think that would be more productive than our current system, you’re as willfully stupid as I think you are.

    I’m just getting frustrated trying to talk to you when you don’t have an open mind and I don’t believe you’ve really spent any time thinking about politics. -Richard Wicks

    I don’t have an open mind when it comes to abolishing the Federal Government, no. Sorry.

  • Richard Wicks

    I am not an atheist.

    You’ve changed the goalposts, a common tactic of those who are dishonest and losing an argument. It’s not something I fall for or respect at all. Now you’re addressing teaching about religion instead of its practice on public grounds and in public buildings founded with taxpayer money.

    I’m finished here.

  • Ummm has America forgotten that Christmas was simply a replacement for the Pagan holiday of Yule Tide…

    Jesus, according to the Bible, would have been born in the spring. The Romans didn’t want their citizenry to lose one of their major festivities and get all pissed, so when they converted to Christianity they just switched out the Pagan holidays for Christian ones.

    Christmas tree… whoops pagan. Easter eggs. Whoops pagan.

    I love it when Christians get all up in arms about Christmas being a “Christian holiday” when there’s a million other holidays that go on that time of the year. You say happy holidays to honor all of them, not to say it’s not OK to be religious.

    Do I think the federal government should prohibit Merry Christmas banners from being hung in stores? No, but that includes also not giving a shit if someone wants to say happy holidays instead of merry Christmas.

    As someone who thinks organized religion is just a tool to control the masses, I get quite uncomfortable of the idea of Christianity becoming integrated into court rooms, or schools unless it’s in combination with every other religion including atheism.

    But still, I’d vote for Paul over Clinton or Obama just to bring about some radical change.

  • Dr. Paul’s positions are perfectly in harmony with a traditional libertarian ethos.

    Supporting the right of private citizens to free exercise of religious speech is not in any way allying one’s self with the ‘religious right’, and your assertion is misleading.

    Speaking specifically to education, what makes these so-called ‘displays of religiosity’ problematic is government money being spent on education. The question becomes – does the majority collectively lose their individual rights to free expression simply because government funding becomes involved (not a clear-cut answer, to be sure)? In the quest to remedy this incongruity, you can disenfranchise the majority (no displays of religiosity); You can force the minority to ‘suffer’ the religiosity of the majority (I know how tramatizing ‘Away in a Manger’ can be…..); or you can return to a system of voluntary association (yes, even in education) where individuals are free to associate with whom and in what organizational format they select, and all of a sudden the issues loses it’s teeth.

    What is odious is not that parents would want to send their children to a school that reflects their values, or Dr. Paul’s support of their right to so do. What stinks to high heaven is forcing parents to send their children to public institutions (or paying for them regardless of their attendance) where they must forfeit their rights to free expression.

    You do not have a right to not be offended. You do not have a right to force me into paying for the repudiation of my faith. Only an end to the coercion inherent in our system of public education will end this quagmire. It is wrong to force an Athiest to pay money toward the celebration of Christmas, but it is equally immoral to force a Christian to not have the right of free expression to save the athiest.

    Attempts by the state to engineer a palatable society cause untold social ills. Free markets and voluntary association solve a lot of social ills.

  • Maybe not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence says …
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal

    endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

    the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,

    These are taken directly from the DOI …. no reference to God?
    Besides, Ron Paul’s understanding is not that Christians have the right to ENFORCE their beliefs on anyone, but that they have the rights to practice them. As long as they do not impinge on the rights of others to practice their beliefs. It was NOT intended by the founders to abolish religion, but to allow the free expression of faith for every person. I happen to agree with him and believe that every American should feel safe to practice their express their faith under this law.
    Kevin
    Indiana

  • Wow! What a maverick this Ron Paul is!

    I bet he even used his salad fork to eat his steak with.

    Oh and here his is pandering to the Christian Taleban!

    What a maverick! You just never know with that guy.

  • The constitution was written to back the assertions stated in the Declaration of Independence and to limit the interference of government in the private lives of the citizens.
    Atheism is just as much a religion of faith as any other religion one cares to mention. Creationism, evolution, neither is scientifically proven, only postulated and taken on faith, depending on which side the fence you are on. “And thats all I got to say about that”.
    Now lets get on with restoration and preservation of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, by getting behind people like RON PAUL.

  • Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. . .” So in fact God was mentioned by the founders and put in the founding documents of our country. So Ron Paul is correct and the author wrong to say that God is not part of government.

    Now I won’t disagree if the article said that God has been used in political ways to sway voters. That is wrong to me – but will Ron Paul do this? I haven’t seen him speak of God much at all in his campaign. I think what is really offensive is the intolerance of athiests and theists – trying to force their ideas on everyone. Both are wrong to do that. If you study Ron Paul, he usually states what he believes but doesn’t try to make anyone see things his way. He lets you take it or leave it.

    Thats one reason why I’m going to be voting for him. There’s no scare tactics about muslim fanatics, no fear mongering about global warming – he just says the facts and skips the political tactics. It’s really refreshing.

  • Ron Paul is not talking about public education he is talking about abolishing the Department of Education. I would like to hear just one liberal/Democrat defend the Department of Education. Wait, I can guess what their going to say they’re going to blame it all on Bush. But wait the DoE was started in 1980 by JIMMY CARTER. Education in this country has gone straight downhill ever since. OH I KNOW lets throw more money at schools that’s been working great and we all know how expensive #2 pencils and 8″x11″ paper is nowadays. And HEY how about we give a minimum wage to teachers because we all know we should reward them for doing a horrible job.

  • Nice to see Nutcase Central moved here. What is it with you fifth-rate whackjobs? You spend your time down in mommy’s basement playing with that computer and doing google searches on the mention of His Holy Name?

    You people do more than anyone ever could to prove why libertarianism is for those too stupid to be idiots.

    Go crawl back under your rocks, you permanent pre-pubescents.

  • The only person saying that christianity needs protection from the nefarious secularists is you. If Ron Paul is like Pat Robertson, then why is the televangelist endorsing Guiliani? If Ron Paul is like Bill O’Reilly, then why does that blovateing idiot refer to him as a pinhead? Nice try, maybe you should read what Ron Paul has to say about other topics instead of waiting for another one of you “alert” readers to send you something else to dissect and try to slip your own words into.

  • First, the United States was founded as a secular government, as is clear from the Constitution which says nothing substantive of god or religion except in the First Amendment where the point was to confirm that the government is not to establish an official religion. To be sure, some of those who drafted the founding documents professed their belief in the Christian god. So what? Others among the drafters did not profess, or denied, any such belief. In any event, they drafted documents plainly founding the government on the power of the people (not a deity).

    Lest there be any doubt, shortly after the founding, the President, with the unanimous consent of the Senate, entered into the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Note that under the Constitution, treaties, apart from the Constitution itself, are the highest law of the land.

    Second, atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Atheism is not a religion in the sense of a belief system, as there is nothing systematic about it, Atheism is not a system or structure with multiple parts working or fitting together; it has one part–lack of belief in god(s). Nor is atheism a belief. That a “lack of belief” could be deemed a belief is semantic nonsense. Rather atheism refers to a conclusion derived from reasoned consideration of the evidence (or, more accurately, lack of evidence) that there is no good reason to believe in god(s). Atheism cannot be likened to a religion founded on its own belief and faith.

  • I check in to this parade of imbecility to note only that not one of the Paulbots has effectively responded to tAiO’s absolutely devastating post at #40.

    I thank him (her?), and CB: this destroys what little regard I had for Paul, though I still desperately wish his critique of the Empire were picked up and amplified by a worthier champion. It’s a crucially important point.


  • On November 12th, 2007 at 8:50 pm, dajafi said:
    I check in to this parade of imbecility to note only that not one of the Paulbots has effectively responded to tAiO’s absolutely devastating post at #40.

    I have spent that last several years at CrooksAndLiars.com and ThinkProgress.org as a donating member… let me attempt to defuse the “devastating” post…


    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

    Buh-bye Governor Schwarzenegger and … a shit load of other people. But perhaps Mr. Paul was just ill when he submitted this bill…three times.

    This is simply saying that just because an illegal sneaks into America and has a baby that the baby is not automatically a citizen. Makes sense… otherwise the system gets totally abused… which is exactly what has happened over the past 20 years. The law has been completely ignored by the illegals.

    What does Schwarzenegger have to do with it? Paul didnt say anything about LEGALS … Nothing stops anyone from applying EQUALLY to be a citizen.. remember “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL” … I dont see anything in there about people getting special treatment to jump ahead of the line…


    A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.

    Our bodies belong to us. We are not slaves. The Federal Government has no business getting inbetween me and any other private citizen I want to deal with… Unions are for protecting workers… the Fed has no business in the matter.


    To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with
    respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

    Really?

    Yes Really. Nothing supercedes the Supreme Court.. unless of court you are not an American.


    A bill to provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

    WTF you crazy mutha…?

    No it is just common. Sense. Humans have baby humans not puppies. The question is where is the limit between protecting the rights of a mother and a baby. As Ron Paul has said that a woman can use things like Plan B to make sure that she does not get pregnant and no one would be able to tell one way or the other and so the government could not get involved… Science is making this a moot point… soon even males will have their own pill…


    The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–

    (1) shall not adjudicate–

    (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

    (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

    (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

    (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

    Whats the problem with this? Only an authoritarian would be against it. This simply says that the Federal government has no place regulating religion, private matters, values, sexual orientation etc… that is all to be left to the states… this PREVENTS the religious right from forcing their religion on the rest of us via FEDERAL LAW… has the left totally forgotten the last 7 years?

  • So how come CB’s post here gets close to 100 comments, but his one on the mistreatment of America’s veterans gets only 12?

    “I would really like to discuss the problems our nation’s returning servicemembers and veterans are having to face, and will continue to face in the coming years, but someone just called Ron Paul a religious zealot, and I just can’t stand for that.”

  • Reading this peace, from what I gather, was supposed to make me less interested in Ron Paul. But now I love him all the more. Thank you for hyping me up! Give me a reformed Christian over a socialistic, humanist pig any day of the week!!!!!!!!!!!!! At least he’s not a criminal’s wife or an “I don’t really stand for anything except what gets me votes” imbecile!! GO RON GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • God this, god that..what we need to be thinking about is this big business club or clubs that are directing world affairs away from the world’s collective eyes. I don’t trust anything anymore…not a thing I’ve ever been taught. This New World Order stuff needs to be addressed before we worry another minute about God. Seriously, getting rid of the fed reserve will free people along with ridding us of the income tax act..there would be no more wars for the us to fight and with US forgein policy changing, you will see little to no war…remember it is the CIA who istigates these wars. Anyway…everybody take care of yourselves …peace…I will vote Ron Paul in 2008…I have to…it feels right.

  • WAIT A MINUTE!!! …. [gasp]….. you mean… there’s a Christian in the race? Oh holy cow, let’s focus on this instead of everything else!

  • The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. – Ron Paul

    What’s wrong with that? Nothing. But the author spends no time debunking this complaint. Christians wonder what kind of moron would ban a Nativity scene or demand that Jesus’ name not be mentioned in public….at Christmas. These wannabe apparatchiks who make these stupid restrictions have more than seriously fragile sensibilities, they might be insane. Don’t forget to worry about them.

  • If that is the worst hit piece you can come up with it shows how clean Ron Paul is. Ron Paul is pro-Christmas. Is that suppose to be a bad thing? How refreshing a religious man that is concerned about your civil liberties, your country’s debt, your country’s occupation of another country, your military and your failing government. Let us not forget that the founding fathers wrote the Constitution to allow individuals their right to their own religous beliefs after dealing with British king that didn’t allow the same liberties.

  • As we say here in the U.P….holy wah!

    Let’s examine a few things. First, most of the founders were serious Freemasons. The capitol’s groundbreaking/cornerstoning was presided over by a G.W. in full masonic gear; Jefferson was a firm supporter of the French revolution where the tried to exterminate Christianity and turned Notre Dame into a temple of Isis; and let’s not forget that the Washington monument is an obelisk while the whole city is oriented to the rising of Sirius. So when these men talked about God, it is highly unlikely that they envisioned a white dude, on a throne in heaven. It is highly likely that they envisioned the Grand Geometer. High school history texts like to tell us that they were theists, making it sound like watered down Christianity. So, if we insist on talking about what the founders meant, we should at least honestly examine what they believed in: reason.

    There is a war against religion, specifically Christianity, in America. it is a backlash against the rise of evangelical fundamentalism that does push for a theocracy. I find “happy holidays” kind of insulting when people really mean Merry Christmas, and i’m not Christian. I could give a rat’s ass if my town spends a few hundred bucks to put up a nativity scene. In this case, the left tends to go so hard after any expression of public religion that they come out looking just as radical as their opposition. Why can’t kids pray in school? I’m not suggesting that the teacher leads them in prayer, but i wonder how we can expect the schools produce thoughtful adults without addressing their spirituality at all.

    The separation of church and state is important, very important, but our current arguing over the Constitution is a lot like our arguing over the Bible. Both documents can be made to support whatever you want them too.

    And apparently, Ron Paul is going to rattle some cages for a while. I’m not a supporter, but i do support him in so far as i want the cages rattled. At the very least he is suggesting to people that you can have political thought outside of the party mainstream.

  • “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. ”

    So why do I see more and more tax-exempt megachurches pop up all over Omaha?

    Does Ron Paul really think that Christians are going through some kind of pogrom/Kristalnacht in this country just because a public school changes their Christmas special to “Holiday Special”?

  • Hey we all can get along. If you want to play frisbee on public grounds with your godless budies great. If I want to play there with my Xian Youth group let me.

    Better yet Lets play frisbee together.

    Even better LETS WORK TOGETHER TO GET RON PAUL ELECTED!

    PAUL
    Right wing evangelical pastor dude.

  • Ron Paul is for individual liberty and a society that functions on the principle of nonaggression through voluntary collaboration in a free market (of goods and services as well as ideas) and within the context of a restrained constitutional government.

    He would never support a Christian movement that sought to implement its ideals through the coercive power of the courts or the government unlike many secularists that have and do use coercion to achieve their own ends.

    Go Ron Go!!! Long live Liberty!!! And yes, long live our Judeo-Christian Heritage with Liberty and Justice for all (regardless of their religious faith or lack thereof)!!!

  • In what way would anything Dr. Paul has ever said with regards to his personal faith be in line with Pat Robertson? Although I disagree with him on abortion, I think his opposition is driven more by his OB/GYN experience than it is his religion, and since I take the Boortz approach of trying never to discuss abortion, it (especially since a President can’t do anything about it) have no negative feelings with regard to it. As far as religion in the public view, all this Atheist asks is that I not be expected to pay for it; if your ideas are correct they will win in the court of public opinion; if not, so long as it harms no one, go for it, just as you have no right to impose your religion on me, I have no right to impose my irreligion on you.

    Also, I am not afraid to say what some Atheists are with regards to religion: I fear Christians a whole lot less than I do some other faiths, especially Islam. With regards to government schools teaching kids Handel’s “Messiah” (or other classic works with religious ties), I say this: We must study and know our culture and traditions and not only does playing a religious song not make you Christian, nor is it offensive but censoring art, especially historical Art is something fascists do, and we are not fascists (at least I hope not).

    In addition, not only does that famous Jeffersonian phrase “Separation of Church and State” not appear in the U.S. Constitution, it is also a bad policy. What is needed is a different approach, a principle of separation between religion and government. While academic, the 2 approaches are completely different, as the 1st (in theory at least) could outlaw non-invasive religious worship, and while the 2nd permits freedom of conscience, it forces believers to win on their own without government assisitance, something that can’t be done with all we know today. Having said that, if a Christian group wants to put up a Nativity scene, they should be free to do so, just as a Jewish group (once again acting on their own with no government subsidy) should be allowed to put up a Menorah. My objection is when I’m asked to pay for either one, because if I believed in either one, I would willingly put one up; since I believe in neither, I ask you why my support is required. Since you can’t honestly answer that question, I tell you to back off. Likewise, when you say your church has raised the money for a nativity scene and merely want to display it in a public place, I have no right to say it offends me. If it is so offensive, I can choose not to look.

    Much as Dr. Paul may disagree with my lack of religious faith, I believe the 2 of us agree on what type of government we need at the federal level of the United States: A rigid, fixed currency (ever heard of the gold standard? Dr. Paul sure has) A foreign policy that recognizes that free trade is the greatest promoter of world peace. Abolishing the IRS (I’m a proponent of the fair tax I believe Dr. Paul would be as well if he thought support was there). A 2 step process for delaing with the U.N. (step one: Get the U.N. out of the U.S. step two: Get the U.S. out of the U.N.) And a weird belief in the Tenth Amendment (the one that said all powers NOT granted to the FEDERAL government were reserved to the states).

    Signed by an American citizen who is a proud native of the sovereign state of South Carolina, Robert C. Lewis

  • Religion is what made America great.The war against religion is quite visible today and the attempts to destroy this very American thing can be seen daily on the history channels,movies and
    and on radio and t.v. Even the effort to jail people for they’er thoughts and opinions is very real.
    We live our lives ignoring the things that are occuring to our country,yet do not consider for one
    moment that our freedom is truely at risk.Can you image going to jail for your thoughts or your personal opinions? There is a great shadow over America as the shadow of evil grasp tightly to
    maintain it’s control and destroy not only religion,but Americanism as well.
    The founding Fathers of AMERICA knew and warned US about this evil or entity and one must
    open one’s eyes and observe and if you look hard enough,you will know.When religion is destroyed
    here,we too will be destroyed.

  • Comments are closed.