Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
The Ballad Of St. Paul
Ron Paul is an interesting candidate on the surface. A Republican, he voted against the Iraq war, and against the Patriot Act. Democrats are starting to support him. Michael, a left-leaning blogger who writes the "Blog For Arizona" blog from my own state, talks about why Democrats should support Paul:
[link] I don't want to see another Republican President any more than the next Democrat. But I do want to see a Republican nominee who stands up for civil rights, who speaks sensibly about America's place in the world, who insists on the rule of law and rejects the exceptionalism and emergency powers advocated by every other GOP candidate. I want to see the Republican part rally around a voice that is not encouraging them to tear apart the Constitution in fear of terrorism. I want to see a Republican nominee who will enable the American people to experience a campaign of hope and ideas, not of fear and McCarthyism.
But does St. Paul really stand up for our civil rights? What about the first one? What exactly is his position on the First Amendment, for example? Separation of church and state and all that stuff?
[Ron Paul] 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.
Well. Isn't that special? Apparently he thinks it's a dandy idea to have government-sponsored prayer in schools - as long as it's the state's decision, not the Federal government's decision. You know, because when the state forces you to pray to a magical man in the sky that's A-OK.
Not to mention that his supporters come across as - how should I put this delicately - fucking nutballs when they are defending his honor against the heathens who dare to be critical of St. Paul.
"Godless" from the No God Zone, has an excellent analysis of Ron Paul's position on the First Amendment. And Paul's position does not fill me with confidence, to say the least.
[link] But how well does he know the Constitution? He wrote:
[Ron Paul] 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.
Let us put aside for a second his opposition to "rigid separation between church and state" and concentrate, not on Constitutional theory, but on Constitutional facts. Mr. Paul claims that the Constitution is "replete with references to God". Now replete means abundantly supplied or filled. So if the Constitution is abundantly filled with references to God how many are there? Let's get precise. How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?
Zero! And if you don't believe me you can go check Ron Paul's own congressional website where he has a copy of the text. Go to the page and read it yourself. It is worth reading now and then. But if you don't have time do a page search for "God" and see all the abundant references on your own. All zero of them.
(Tip of the ballcap to UTI commenter McMillan.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Ron paul is a nazi
First I'm liberal. Second the liberal people I know support him. Third the liberals pass out pamphlets in support of him so I read them and he sounds like a totaly fascist nazi. I can't believe that the left would support someone like him. He sounds worse than bush.
Seperation of Church and State
First off,I'm an atheist leaning agnostic and I do not want prayer in school. However:
is correct. The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted.
It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment; and local official establishments of religion persisted even later.
Paul would not create any federal laws with regards to religion - so this is a non issue.
What I do like is that he's the only candidate that has been consistently against the Iraq war, against the war on drugs, voted against the patriot act, and feels like the only one of the candidates you can trust.
You're other objection was that we, his supporters, are fucking nutballs.
That may be true. But Saying that you won't support a candidate because of who else supports that candidate is, well, pretty fucking stupid - don't you think?
Ron Paul is a true,
Ron Paul is a true, old-style conservative - tiny federal government, minimal spending. The type who doesn't want government to be involved in anything at all unless its absolutly essential. Paul's approach to prayer in schools would be to abolish public schooling entirely - certinly to scrap all federal education programs and regulations, and leave it to the states.
He hasn't a hope of winning. The social conservatives ditch him as soon as they realise that he is so dedicated to keeping the federal government tiny he opposes federal-level laws limiting abortion access or criminalising pornography. The republican core will ditch him as soon as they realise he wants to strip the federal government of as many powers as he can. If he were president he would probably veto almost everything, but he is never going to be president.
Hopefully, once his failure is apparent, a lot of republican supporters of his will become disillusioned with their party and not vote.
Wait.. so there is no
Wait.. so there is no mention of the Separation of Church and State in any of the FOUNDERS writings? So who wrote Thomas Jefferson's letter that said there was a Wall of Separation?
Gah, this is just as stupid as the guy who said it was from a Supreme Court decision.
He's Also A Looneytarian
Don't forget his appearance on the Colbert Report, where he was jumping around in his seat, enthusiastically urging that we abolish pretty much every regulatory organ of the federal government. Hell, I'd love to see that nutball win the GOP nomination. They'd carry Wyoming and Montana, and that's about it.