Think atheists are immune to Ron Paul's affirmation of the bigoted status quo? I quote one of Ron Paul's many articles published at Lew Rockwell's website:
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.(I guess mentioning God once (in the DATE) makes the Constitution literally replete with references to the Deity.)
Anyway, in his article, Ron Paul claims wicked secularists are trying to obliterate Christianity. His solution, again, is for the federal government to take a hands off approach, i.e. political neutrality. I don't know any secularists involved in the plot Ron Paul cites. Most atheists I know feel like they're the ones who are imposed on. Think that will get any better if Dr. Paul weakens the federal government?
Let's see: Either (a) powerful secularists, using the power of the federal government, are on the verge of quashing Christianity across the land; or (b) powerful religious interests, using the power of state and local governments, are busy getting legislatures to pass mandatory "moments of silence" in public schools. Which of these sounds like a more accurate picture of your reality?
And, if (b), how will weakening the federal government improve the situation? It's the Supreme Court that has ruled against mandatory school prayers and the like in the past. But, yeah, I know, activist judges, blah blah.
Do secularist libertarians know what they're supporting? Maybe they all live in blue states where the situation looks more like (a) than (b.) Unfortunately, not everyone can say that, and, as a libertarian, I'm not willing to write those people off. People like Dawn Sherman a freshman at a Chicago high school who is fighting against Illinois new legally mandated moment of silence.
Many libertarians will attack the law in this case. Do they not understand that they're supporting someone who will make it easier -- nay, uncontestable -- for states to pass laws like this one?
Update: A commenter explains how Ron Paul was co-sponsor of the "The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act." The proposed bill would have made it easier for religious organizations to exert influence over the political process without losing their tax exempt status. The bill aimed to create this easement only for religious organizations, like churches.
5 comments:
I think it may be a stretch to say that Ron Paul hates atheists. Although I haven't heard him say anything one way or the other, the typical libertarian (small 'l') mindset is that the government should not have a stance either way on the issue aside from what is in the Constitution regarding the establishment of a State religion. On the other hand, with the popular view of the People (capital 'P') that we have somehow been granted the "Freedom from being offended" and that the government should protect us from getting our feelings hurt, it is no wonder that religious people and atheists alike are bitching on both sides of the fence. Either way, it is a pathetic battle waged entirely over the fallacious premise of a mythical "separation of Church and State" which most lay-people (pardon the term) do not really understand.
Interesting post, nonetheless. For more libertarian (small 'l') and like-minded viewpoints, skip on over to Thinking Between The Lines. I would love to hear from others - including the author of this blog.
Paul co-sponsored a bill called "The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" Ron Paul was attempting to force federal regulations that would bar the IRS from removing tax exempt status of churches that promoted political candidates.
Oh how convenient Mr. constitutionalist. Ron Paul also goes on to call the separation of church and state a "mythical doctrine" and, Mr. Strict Constitutionalist introduced a bill to bar the federal courts from hearing any such cases.
Once again Mr. Ron Paul chooses which part of the Constitution he choose to respect, much like his fellow Republican colleague George Bush.
And yet, as we all know, you can't judge a bill by it's title.
Good point, me (my, that sounds ungrammatically solipsistic.)
Appreciate you bloggging this
Post a Comment