Ron Paul ‘08?
There’s a great deal of “buzz” in the blogosphere about Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), a Republican presidential contender. (For more information, see his Wikipedia entry and his official campaign website).
As a card-carrying Libertarian, I agree with the vast majority of Ron Paul’s positions. He is opposed to the occupation of Iraq, unbalanced budgets and deficit spending, high taxes, the USA PATRIOT Act, a national ID card system, torture, warrantless surveillance, ceding of sovereignty to the UN, restrictions on free trade, amnesty for illegal aliens, abuses of eminent domain, the mandated Post Office monopoly, unnecessary government agencies (e.g. the IRS, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, DHS, FEMA, ICC), gun-control laws, Social Security, the welfare state, the draft, prohibition of drugs, the curtailing of civil liberties including that of habeus corpus, and unconstitutional governmental “scope-creep” in general.
So far, so good. I find myself cheering “Yes!” (well, figuratively, anyway) to Ron Paul’s opposition to everything I just mentioned. Compared to the mess that the (normal) Republicans and Democrats have made of our country, a Ron Paul presidency would seem to be a breath of fresh air. His decision to remain affiliated with the Republican party, as opposed to the Libertarian party, could be seen as a purely tactical decision, since third-party candidates are basically unelectable under the current system.
But wait — there’s a problem: he’s a fundy religious nutbag whose rantings make Bill O’Reilly sound sane:
The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
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.
[...] 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. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the 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.
Ugh. Tearing down the wall of church-state separation (or pretending it never existed at all), thereby allowing religion to intrude upon people’s lives, is definitely not a libertarian position.
I strongly believe that religion is a delusion. I realize that not all of my readers agree, but any thinking person should be able to grasp the idea that using public property (funds, real estate, etc.) to advance one’s religious beliefs is not only unconstitutional, but arrogant and self-centered.
Furthermore, the statements that the Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian nation and that the Constitution is replete with references to God are so laughably wrong as to be scary. Do your own research, and you will see that the Fathers were, in general, deist, not theist (and certainly not Christian). You will also find a glaring lack of references to God in our Constitution.
More commentary along these lines is available here and here.
Would I vote for Ron Paul? Based on his current poll numbers, the question is largely academic, but at this point, I would, reluctantly, have to say “no”. I can’t, in good conscience, vote for someone who wants to dismantle American religious separation, and the protection it brings, even if his policies are otherwise overwhelmingly appealing.
If not Ron Paul, what candidate (thus far) most aligns with your value system? Will you vote for the mainstream candidate closest to your views, the long-shot candidate that closely aligns with your views, or just not vote at all? Maybe a bigger questions should be asked…should we, in our current system, work to reform the two parties from within, or should we try to create third parties that ultimately will never win in our stupid, two-party system?
Sam B.
19 Oct 07 at 4:50 pm
[...] or extremely bitter from past experience(s) with “fundy religious nut-bags” (as a friend of mine once called them). While this site points out some interesting facets of a Christian [...]
drink-the-kool-aid » Blog Archive » Why God Won’t Heal The Amputee
26 Oct 07 at 11:55 pm
While I understand where you’re coming from, I don’t think Ron Paul is wrong in his understanding of the Constitution or the Founding Fathers’ intentions.
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4863
While the above link is to an article by an evangelist, maybe you can focus on the quotes in the article and not the interpretation. The constitution was written from people fleeing a state church. I believe that Ron paul would not have government programs endorsing a religion (which is the direction that the constitution bans) but would not prevent religion from government programs. (I notice you used the word “wall”, the article addresses this specifically)
I suppose it’s a fuzzy line. The article points out the 1962 that changes the word “church” to “public religious activity”, which is clearly not the same. Maybe you think it should be changed to do that. Either way, that’s not what the constitution says, and I think Ron Paul is just clarifying this. After all, there are clergy in the military for the troops, and religion smattered throughout government programs. Surely, denying such things as christmas trees and menorahs in airports is not liberty but Facism. I think this is the hostility Ron Paul is talking about.
In conclusion, it seems strange to reject Ron Paul when you agree with so much that he has to say. It seems stranger that as a libertarian you want to restrict the rights of people to worship just because you disagree with religion. What is it that you’re scared of? A Ron Paul government would not have your kids be born into a state church like the anglican church, and they can’t force you to join or give money to churches. He voted no on Bush’s faith based initiative calling it “a neo con project [that] repackages and expands the welfare state”. Finally, you shouldn’t reject Ron Paul because he has a very thoughtful, shared, and orthodox reading of the Founding Fathers. If he did use the word Christian, perhaps that was out of line since your comment on theist/deist was correct from my understanding, but perhaps I’m wrong because I’m not the “Champion of the Constitution”.
Eric
27 Oct 07 at 3:00 pm
To the author of #1,
I plan to write up and publish my analysis of the candidates once the Republicans and Democrats have made their official nominations. I don’t want to spend too much time speculating about everyone in the field at the moment.
Personally, I’m starting to think that there are only two ways to end the tyrannical rule of our corrupt two-party system:
1. Get the electorate to ignore Lindsay Lohan and American Idol for three [expletive] seconds and actually become responsible, informed voters.
2. Revolutionary War II. ‘Nuff said.
Kevin
29 Oct 07 at 2:40 pm
To the author of #3,
Christian theocrats love to cherry-pick quotes from the Founding Fathers. An especially common tactic is to take deistic statements and present them as theistic ones. The sites to which I linked explain this in greater detail.
The claim that secularists are fascists who want to forcibly eradicate all vestiges of religion from public view is ludicrous. What we secularists (whether atheists like myself or theists like Rev. Barry Lynn) want is to eliminate all instances in which the government uses public property (funds, land, or any other resource) to promote religion.
If you want to set up a nativity scene on your lawn, go for it. I’m entitled to my opinion that it would be a silly shrine to an imaginary deity. You are entitled to use your resources (land, money, and time) to promote your worldview. I’d never attempt to use the force of government to intrude upon your use of your property.
Public property, however, is a whole ‘nother ball game. Government buildings, town squares, etc. are financed through taxation. They belong to all of us. You have no right to force me to financially support your delusion.
If you’re going to claim that I “want to restrict the rights of people to worship just because [I] disagree with religion”, you need to back up that claim with evidence. Christianity’s delusions of grandeur are bad enough, but its delusions of persecution are downright absurd.
You can go to your churches, sing to your invisible friend, put money in offering plates, pray for people, support missionaries, or engage in any other religious activity which doesn’t infringe upon my rights. You just can’t use my tax dollars to do it.
Kevin
29 Oct 07 at 3:36 pm