My friend's list of objections to Ron Paul...

[Reason]

I have to try and get at least a few hours of sleep tonight, if anyone is feeling up to helping me respond to my friend's concerns it would be much appreciated! :)

"1. his position on evolution: he clearly does NOT understand it and does not "accept" it. now, what this probably means is that he'll leave the decision whether to teach it in schools or not up to states to decide, which is a HORRIBLE idea, considering states like his own Texas, Alabama, and other bible belt states. No, public education needs to be federally mandated to ensure quality information is being given, not hocus pocus drivel. I know that the govt isnt exactly doing a good job with education, but this would be a gigantic leap backward if he were to enforce, or rather not enforce the teaching of good scientific tenets in schools.

2. Gay marriage. He insists again upon states making the decision whether they should support it or not. No. It is a basic human right to marry the one you love, and there is significant evidence to show one does not choose their sexual orientation, thus there is no reason to deny marriage to any gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgender, or any other sexually oriented person in this country. Do states choose whether dwarfs can marry, or blacks, white, or straight? No, they don't. and they don't get that privilege in this issue either. Also he thought DADT was a "decent" policy. Ugh.

3. Separation of church and state. Ron Paul says, and I quote, "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." This is blatantly incorrect. There is a total of ZERO references to God in the Constitution. I checked, you should do the same. His sheer wrongness aside, Separation of church and state is a HUGE issue for me, and any president who blatantly stands in opposition to that is a no-go. Simply on principle I cannot cast my vote for him.

There are others, but I wanted to get these three main ones typed out. I cannot and will not vote for him, and as of right now, I can't say I'll be voting for anyone else either, though we'll see how things proceed. I know that with some of these issues, they are merely personal opinions of his he may not act upon or whatever, but inevitably, with issues such as his pro-life and anti-evolutionary stances, they will come in to play in the presidential office, and I cannot trust him on these issues."

[The Magic Hoof]

This guy is willing to sacrifice liberty and freedom in order to be a gay scientist who works at an abortion clinic?

[LibertyEsq]

This guy is willing to sacrifice liberty and freedom in order to be a gay scientist who works at an abortion clinic?

just laughed out loud +rep. Clearly not the constituency that will decide the primary

[MJU1983]

I honestly don't understand people where those are "important" issues for President. Forget the wars, THIS matters... :rolleyes:

[newbitech]

I'd like to hear the others.

[newbitech]

I'd like to hear the others.

[michaelkellenger]

I'm not a fan of religion at all, however, the first two are irrelevant to a federal office. The third, RP is right on. People don't understand the original meaning and intent of the Establishment Clause.

[BamaAla]

I honestly don't understand people where those are "important" issues for President. Forget the wars, THIS matters... :rolleyes:

No kidding.

If these are his biggest issues, I submit that he has his head in a select orifice. You should try to dislodge it before you move on to attempting to sway him on non-issues like these.

[Chainspell]

yeah i dont know how the priorities of people are in these little things. my friends are like that too. Seriously bugs me how stupid they are that they'd rather support a candidate who sides with their issues even if the candidate has no history or a flaky position on those issues, basically someone who just lies to appeal to people.

I wanna opt out of these so-called human beings... can I just opt out?

[kojirodensetsu]

1. Does this guy hate catholic schools?

2. Marriage isn't a right. Does he think that he also has the right to not be called hateful slurs?

3. "Seperation of church and state" is there to stop a theocracy. That's it. Nothing more nothing less.

[Rudeman]

Ask him how he would feel about the states deciding what they should do if the Federal Government banned Gay Marriage, made abortion illegal and didn't allow evolution to be taught.

Also let him know that the only reason Gays are allowed to marry right now is because the states allowed them to. If it was solely up to the Federal Government they still wouldn't be allowed to marry.

It's easy to support the Federal Government when they agree with the things you agree with, but what happens when they don't? What then?


As far as religion ask him where in the constitution does it state "the separation of church and state".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So while Congress can't make Christianity the official religion of American or set up a church (ie Church of England), you also can't prohibit someone from expressing their religion.

God is mentioned several times in the Declaration of Independence.

[Article V]

I started to write an answer, but I soon realized it would take too long to explain the concept of liberty to this person. I doubt he'll ever believe that truth could be learned through the permission of ideas. He seems to feel no one could be as smart as he is, no one could be as tolerant as he is, no one could be as enlightened as he is unless government forces them to be. Certainly there could be no possibility of blowback if government forces a view on people that they're not yet ready to receive. I'm sure he's also right that this kind of force would never cause civil unrest, hate crimes, class warfare, social resentments, etc.

And since there's no consequence of any blowback by forcing people to accept a view they're not yet ready for, we should give our leaders this power of force like your friend wants. After all, I'm sure he's right that our leaders will always be enlightened like your friend is, and they'll never use their power to force the "wrong" views on people. And if they do, it's much easier to change government than it is to change people. There's simply no way the younger generations could learn to hate less than their parents without government involvement. And there's no way science could advance without government forcing it on people. Government is just smarter, more flexible, and better able to meet the ever-changing world we're in; if we waited for the people to change, we'd still be living in caves trying to roll square stones. Force is the answer.

[Krugerrand]

1. Federal involvement in education only makes education worse and wastes money doing it. Re-read that line 5 times. No matter what the subject - history, science, or mathematics, involving the federal government will only make it worse. Plus, taking his idea to its logical conclusion, we must have federal parenting police to make sure parents don't teach their children something that is not in line with what your friend would like. Is your friend prepared to have these parenting police (and school police) in place when the next George W. Bush is elected? It's best to dismantle the federal apparatus so your opposition does not have it when they are in power.

2. "It is a basic human right to marry the one you love." Is your friend prepared to extend that statement to multiple spouses? brothers-sisters? fathers-daughters? If not, why not?

3. Separation of church and state may be an idea your friend supports, but its an historical myth. Jews and Catholics were only allowed to vote in North Carolina in the mid 1800's. (exact date could stand a fact check) These groups faced all sorts of laws restricting the practice of their faiths. That is not to say this was right - but clearly the founding fathers tolerated and in some cases perpetuated legislated hostility towards certain religions. There was no separation between church and state. Thems the facts.

and for 1, 2 & 3 ... don't forget to prioritize what you want and take into consideration what a President can do. Virtually all aspects of these objections should be directed to Congress. They're the ones writing the laws. Ron Paul as president gets to make troop decisions. President Ron Paul gets to make federal law enforcement decisions.

1 - What does it matter what the schools teach if our dollar collapses and we can't afford the schools anyway?
2 - What difference does it make who is getting married and if our dollar collapses and we can't afford weddings anyway?
3 - What difference does separation of church and state make if our dollar collapses and we can't afford to pay somebody to tear down the 10 commandments from the courthouses?

If your friend wants a federal government that can impose it will on local schools, impose it will on who recognizes what marriages, support those hostile towards people of faith - then it is going to need a dollar that is worth something to make that happen. Without a dollar that has value, the federal government will not be able to make any of the dictates that your friend would like to see. So, saving the value of the dollar should come first and only Ron Paul will do that.

[Article V]

I started to write an answer, but I soon realized it would take too long to explain the concept of liberty to this person. I doubt he'll ever believe that truth could be learned through the permission of ideas. He seems to feel no one could be as smart as he is, no one could be as tolerant as he is, no one could be as enlightened as he is unless government forces them to be. Certainly there could be no possibility of blowback if government forces a view on people that they're not yet ready to receive. I'm sure he's also right that this kind of force would never cause civil unrest, hate crimes, class warfare, social resentments, etc.

And since there's no consequence of any blowback by forcing people to accept a view they're not yet ready for, we should give our leaders this power of force like your friend wants. After all, I'm sure he's right that our leaders will always be enlightened like your friend is, and they'll never use their power to force the "wrong" views on people. And if they do, it's much easier to change government than it is to change people. There's simply no way the younger generations could learn to hate less than their parents without government involvement. And there's no way science could advance without government forcing it on people. Government is just smarter, more flexible, and better able to meet the ever-changing world we're in; if we waited for the people to change, we'd still be living in caves trying to roll square stones. Force is the answer.And now that the US post office is largely being abandoned for email, what we really need to do is get government to fund and provide free internet service to people all over the country. That way the poor and people in even the most remote places can have free internet access (or really affordable internet access, like the post office does with the mail).

Of course, since the internet will be provided by government, we're going to have to regulate it. And since we have a separation of church and state, there's no way we can allow for discussion of God on the internet. If we were to do that, local churches might put up websites or start preaching and streaming masses on the government-provided internet; and, your friend's right, allowing churches to preach their philosophies on that public internet would be exactly like the government establishment of religion.

Just like in public schools, we simply can't allow any mention of God on the public web. That's what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said there is a separation of state from church (I know most people quote it as "separation of church and state"; but it's clear Jefferson meant separation of state from church, since allowing the free discussion of religious teachings, atheistic teachings, etc. in government-funded places, such as schools, parks, the web, etc., would be the same as if we established the Church of England or a new Vatican City. Jefferson probably just had a simple old-fashioned typo in the age of the un-erasable ink quill). The first amendment is all about the "freedom from religion"; read it for yourself, it says specifically, "freedom from religion" right after the part about "freedom from speech."

The survival of the fittest ideas depends on government. Your friend is the smart one. We've all been duped by this notion of trusting in liberty.

[Bern]

Your friend seems to be very fond of telling other people what to think and how to live under threat of force. A (wo)man of true conviction isn't going to soil their pants at the thought of competing in the marketplace of ideas. Your friend is a coward.

[Krugerrand]

Ron Paul says, and I quote, "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." This is blatantly incorrect. There is a total of ZERO references to God in the Constitution. I checked, you should do the same.

Have your friend check again:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names

[Sola_Fide]

Your friend is a flaming secularist. They are hard nuts to crack because their view of man leads so easily to statism.

[zHorns]

2. Gay marriage. He insists again upon states making the decision whether they should support it or not. No. It is a basic human right to marry the one you love, and there is significant evidence to show one does not choose their sexual orientation, thus there is no reason to deny marriage to any gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgender, or any other sexually oriented person in this country. Do states choose whether dwarfs can marry, or blacks, white, or straight? No, they don't. and they don't get that privilege in this issue either. Also he thought DADT was a "decent" policy. Ugh.

This is a non-issue issue.

I’m gay and been with my partner for the past 5 years. But, I don’t look at myself as a gay American – country comes before self.

A double standard exists in the gay community. They hate when social-conservatives seek to use legislation as a means of pushing morals and standards onto them, but, would use the same tactic in order to gain nonsensical “rights”. Not all gays, believe in the action of groups like the Human Rights Campaign. We need to stop looking at people as belonging to groups and refuse pandering politicians offering “special” rights.

Collectivism is bad on all levels.

I believe Paul has it right when he says that marriage should be like all voluntary associations whether economical or social should be protected by The Constitution. In his ideal world, both the State and Federal Government would be out of it completely.

Let's enhance rights of the individual, not ones based on a collective.



3. Separation of church and state. Ron Paul says, and I quote, "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 against the federal government’s hostility to religion." This is blatantly incorrect. There is a total of ZERO references to God in the Constitution. I checked, you should do the same. His sheer wrongness aside, Separation of church and state is a HUGE issue for me, and any president who blatantly stands in opposition to that is a no-go. Simply on principle I cannot cast my vote for him.

That's a good thing.

Paul is against any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

He doesn't say "I'm Christian, let's protect the rights of Christians". He wants all individuals to freely practice religion - even in the public square.

[tremendoustie]

I have to try and get at least a few hours of sleep tonight, if anyone is feeling up to helping me respond to my friend's concerns it would be much appreciated! :)

"1. his position on evolution: he clearly does NOT understand it and does not "accept" it. now, what this probably means is that he'll leave the decision whether to teach it in schools or not up to states to decide, which is a HORRIBLE idea, considering states like his own Texas, Alabama, and other bible belt states. No, public education needs to be federally mandated to ensure quality information is being given, not hocus pocus drivel. I know that the govt isnt exactly doing a good job with education, but this would be a gigantic leap backward if he were to enforce, or rather not enforce the teaching of good scientific tenets in schools.

2. Gay marriage. He insists again upon states making the decision whether they should support it or not. No. It is a basic human right to marry the one you love, and there is significant evidence to show one does not choose their sexual orientation, thus there is no reason to deny marriage to any gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgender, or any other sexually oriented person in this country. Do states choose whether dwarfs can marry, or blacks, white, or straight? No, they don't. and they don't get that privilege in this issue either. Also he thought DADT was a "decent" policy. Ugh.

3. Separation of church and state. Ron Paul says, and I quote, "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." This is blatantly incorrect. There is a total of ZERO references to God in the Constitution. I checked, you should do the same. His sheer wrongness aside, Separation of church and state is a HUGE issue for me, and any president who blatantly stands in opposition to that is a no-go. Simply on principle I cannot cast my vote for him.

There are others, but I wanted to get these three main ones typed out. I cannot and will not vote for him, and as of right now, I can't say I'll be voting for anyone else either, though we'll see how things proceed. I know that with some of these issues, they are merely personal opinions of his he may not act upon or whatever, but inevitably, with issues such as his pro-life and anti-evolutionary stances, they will come in to play in the presidential office, and I cannot trust him on these issues."

What's the problem with leaving it up to the states? He really wants federal government bureaucrats mandating educational curriculum across the country? We've tried that, and it's been a catastrophe. Whatever happened to localism?

And, ron paul supports getting government OUT of marriage entirely. He sees no reason for marriage licenses at all.

The third issue is a non-issue. There's no practical implication of this -- or if this guy thinks there is, I'd like to hear what it is.

Basically, this guy is so foaming at the mouth angry at christian conservatives, that he wants the federal government to take their money by force and then completely exclude their ideas from influencing politics in any way. THAT's anti-liberty. Getting government out of the picture, so that people can use their lives and resources to support what they believe in, IS liberty.

[Revolution9]

This is a non-issue issue.

I’m gay and been with my partner for the past 5 years. But, I don’t look at myself as a gay American – country comes before self.

A double standard exists in the gay community. They hate when social-conservatives seek to use legislation as a means of pushing morals and standards onto them, but, would use the same tactic in order to gain nonsensical “rights”. Not all gays, believe in the action of groups like the Human Rights Campaign. We need to stop looking at people as belonging to groups and refuse pandering politicians offering “special” rights.

Collectivism is bad on all levels.

I believe Paul has it right when he says that marriage should be like all voluntary associations whether economical or social should be protected by The Constitution. In his ideal world, both the State and Federal Government would be out of it completely.

Let's enhance rights of the individual, not ones based on a collective.




That's a good thing.

Paul is against any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

He doesn't say "I'm Christian, let's protect the rights of Christians". He wants all individuals to freely practice religion - even in the public square.

Good post and I think if many more in the gay community had your attitude there would not be consternation existing in the form it currently is. I believe America was quite tolerant of gays earlier in its history. They were known as confirmed bachelors/spinsters, stuck to their own type and would never marry, everybody in town knew it but no one discussed the bedroom habits and it was all dandy. It was a Christian thing to not attack the sinner but hate the sin that led to the tolerance IMO. Plus...they were all Americans. Now we have hyphenated this and that and the other..all separated by a hyphen.

Rev9

[mczerone]

1) Evolution, States teaching creationism:

I've always believed Paul to give pretty political answers to the evolution question by giving not-false answers that the crowd wanted to hear. As far as "No, public education needs to be federally mandated to ensure quality information is being given, not hocus pocus drivel" is concerned, there are many ways to get your friend to see that while states may make mistakes in their curricula, the federal mistakes will be bigger and more damaging.

When the federal govt mandates schools to teach "hocus pocus drivel" (like they don't already), to whom will your friend turn? The UN? Why doesn't he want to have a more powerful voice in determining policy? And who would you rather have determining how and what to school, one single bureaucratic body without a competitor under the influence of the largest corporations, or a network of states, localities, and private agencies that each tailor their education to the direct demands of the users?

2) Gay Marriage

I honestly don't get the concern here over letting the states have their say. If anything, those who favor same-sex-state-licensed-marriage should want more state's rights in the area. CA, HI, VT, MA, and others have taken the initiative to allow the practice, faster than other states could ban it. And when the federal govt gets involved, it would seem to favor the bans. These state-endorsed private contracts are allowed to ignore the Constitutional "full faith and credit" clause, a direct benefit to those state govts that abhor homosexuals.

3) Church and State

I don't understand his beef with Paul on this. He didn't say why this is a big deal to him. What is he afraid of?

All politicians, even Obama and (atheist) Lincoln, use the rhetoric of a Christian, invoking God and asking for prayers. I don't see the govt getting much more "religious" than that, save imposing their views on kids in state schools. Which goes back to the state's rights arguments, and hopefully we already convinced him that letting states decide curriculum would be a net positive for tolerance, truth, and fostering useful knowledge.


In short: Tell him to read Tom Woods's Nullification.

[jkr]

i agree with the Doctor

[SilentBull]

Did the moron also give you a list of objections to Obama or whoever he's willing to support? Of course not. I find it interesting that as soon as someone that's not your typical politician like Paul comes around, these people come out and find a couple of points to dismiss him completely, but when it comes to the status quo, they say "well, you're never going to find the perfect candidate." There is no hope for these people.

[LinuxJedi]

So I think with education, the problem is this mentality of "federal does it better". So are you implying, that if all the children of all the professors at Harvard and MIT went to the same school, they should have the same curriculum as those children in the broken-down schools we all see on TV? Wouldn't it be better for that local school board to say "look, we got a smart group of kids here.... how far can they go?" Instead, the federal government gets involved and says "every child must be able to read". Wow, nice standard there. I have a lot of hope for the future of America already.

We have to recognize that municipalities and states have a better grasp on their constituents that the federal government. Yes, the children of Texas might learn that Perry created the world in 6 days, while God rested for 7. But you know what, at least this stupidity has been contained. That's right, those kids have been quarantined... they may not hear about evolution, but at least they are not dragging down everyone. It's also up to the parents to get involved. Let's face it, if your children were learning that Perry created the world, would you leave them at that school or put them somewhere else? Would you move states? Would you get involved with the school board? Now consider if it's all federal... okay, you can run for congress. You can try to explain the nuances of Texas history to the committee member from Alaska. Paul is right, if it's important it's local. I would much prefer to live in an America where I can move around to a place where I can work in peace, and have my children learning about the things I believe in... whether it is Pastafarianism, Islam, Evolution, or Creationism.

Now, your friend's concern about evolution is valid. I have yet to hear about the GOP candidates concerns about the Higgs Boson. We're in a time of jeopardy here, because the Standard Model might not be correct... I want Wolf in the next debate to say "can the candidates who believe in the Higgs Boson please raise their hands?" Oh, Dr. Paul did not. "Dr. Paul, you are the only candidate who does not believe in the Higgs Boson. Why are you so anti-science?" My friends are scientists, my degree says science on it, but I recognize that science is really an empirical thing which sometimes just requires belief. Look at energy. What is energy? Well, it's a number that is always conserved, which was partially discovered by a brewer. Science requires faith too... just a different kind. If we need the federal government to decide truth for us, we are not scientists.

I think that the underlying issue with Paul vs. Evolution really is: "If Dr. Paul does not believe in evolution, he will not use empirical evidence to make decisions as president". We just have to find examples where Dr. Paul has used "the scientific method" to solve problems to debunk this notion that he does not believe in science. I would argue that there is nothing more "scientific" than medical diagnosis. Dr. Paul is able to diagnose political issues, find the "real root cause" of the problem and not waste time treating symptoms. This is where we see him focusing on the FED, or foreign policy... the real heart of the problems at hand. Austrian Economics is not as empirical as Keynesian Economics, and I think we can all agree that empiricism in economics is the cause of many of the problems in the country. Yes, Dr. Paul might reject evolution (which is a personal matter and has no relevance to the country), but Dr. Paul would also ignore economists who come up with fancy graphs telling him why he needs to invade Iran to pay off our Chinese debts.

Personally, I want Paul to run the country not the scientific academy.

[Travlyr]

I have to try and get at least a few hours of sleep tonight, if anyone is feeling up to helping me respond to my friend's concerns it would be much appreciated! :)

"1. his position on evolution: he clearly does NOT understand it and does not "accept" it. now, what this probably means is that he'll leave the decision whether to teach it in schools or not up to states to decide, which is a HORRIBLE idea, considering states like his own Texas, Alabama, and other bible belt states. No, public education needs to be federally mandated to ensure quality information is being given, not hocus pocus drivel. I know that the govt isnt exactly doing a good job with education, but this would be a gigantic leap backward if he were to enforce, or rather not enforce the teaching of good scientific tenets in schools.

2. Gay marriage. He insists again upon states making the decision whether they should support it or not. No. It is a basic human right to marry the one you love, and there is significant evidence to show one does not choose their sexual orientation, thus there is no reason to deny marriage to any gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgender, or any other sexually oriented person in this country. Do states choose whether dwarfs can marry, or blacks, white, or straight? No, they don't. and they don't get that privilege in this issue either. Also he thought DADT was a "decent" policy. Ugh.

3. Separation of church and state. Ron Paul says, and I quote, "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." This is blatantly incorrect. There is a total of ZERO references to God in the Constitution. I checked, you should do the same. His sheer wrongness aside, Separation of church and state is a HUGE issue for me, and any president who blatantly stands in opposition to that is a no-go. Simply on principle I cannot cast my vote for him.

There are others, but I wanted to get these three main ones typed out. I cannot and will not vote for him, and as of right now, I can't say I'll be voting for anyone else either, though we'll see how things proceed. I know that with some of these issues, they are merely personal opinions of his he may not act upon or whatever, but inevitably, with issues such as his pro-life and anti-evolutionary stances, they will come in to play in the presidential office, and I cannot trust him on these issues."

While you did not list CIA assassinations of Americans as one of your friend's concerns, as far as I know, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that has publicly announced his opposition to them.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul does not have an anti-evolutionary stance. However, my experience is when people pull out of some oriface the hoary 'he's against evolution' issue, it is because of some other topic they'd rather not discuss -- like getting some government benefit. Ron Paul has clearly said that his religious beliefs are comfortable with evolution, he just thinks it is a religious matter and should not be demogogued into a 'religious test' .

[Revolution0918]

cognitive dissonance......."i am right bcuz that is what i feel, so he must be wrong"

[Chester Copperpot]

On number one, tell him of course you dont believe in evolution either and when the annunaki come back in 2012 tell him he will be sorry!

lol..

[Koz]

I personally believe in evolution, so not in line with RP there. We all don't agree with everything.

Marriage is a different issue, this is how I come to my conclusion on gay marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament, like confirmation, baptism, communion, etc. As far as I can tell, government, neither state or nor federal, legislates whether you may participate in any of these religious sacraments, except for marriage. So, why is it we do not allow government to interject in baptism, but we do allow them to marry people, or make laws against people getting married. As far as I am aware, you cannot get a government official to baptize you, so why is it they can marry you? In my view it is a religious matter and should be left to your church to decide. So, if your church decides gays should be allowed to marry then ok, if not then that is ok too.

[ForLiberty2012]

1. his position on evolution: WHO CARES? "public education should be federally mandated" WHATT!?!? So he wants the federal government to decide what students learn... Is this Nazi Germany??

2. Gay marriage. He believes in separation of church and state right? Then how can the Federal government decide what a marriage is when it's a function of the church? Should the federal government also decide what goes in the bible? He clearly wants the federal government to make all these decisions for his life... including education and religion. Man, he must really hate freedom, lol.

3. Separation of church and state. Ron Paul's stance on this is simple to explain: "Rights" don't come from our government, they come from our Creator. That's what he is alluding to.... The government doesn't control you... you have freedom to do as you please because "All men are CREATED equal with certain unalienable RIGHTS"

[wide awake]

2. Gay marriage. He believes in separation of church and state right? Then how can the Federal government decide what a marriage is when it's a function of the church? Should the federal government also decide what goes in the bible? He clearly wants the federal government to make all these decisions for his life... including education and religion. Man, he must really hate freedom, lol.

I have the same problem with several gay couples that we are friends with in our neighborhood. I posted this in another thread but I'll repeat them here. Like I was in 08 they are unaffiliated, voted for Obama and are pissed at him. They are perfect candidates for supporting Ron Paul except for the "marriage" issue. I haven't broached the subject of Ron Paul because I will completely lose them when they go to his site and see those "defense of marriage" cards (which I think are fairly new).

I understand the state's rights argument but here is the counter-argument... I agree that government should stay out of marriage and it isn't a right BUT there are significant rights (visitation, property, inheritance) that are only available to those that are considered legally married that those who cannot be legally married have no access to. Is there anywhere that Ron Paul addresses this? If two men are life-long partners and share the same characteristics in their relationship as a legally married couple then they should at least have equal access to these rights or those rights should be separated from the concept of legal marriage all together.

[StilesBC]

"...those rights should be separated from the concept of legal marriage all together."

I think that's Ron's position in a nutshell. Get the government out of using marriage to ascribe rights to some but not others, rather than simply getting government out of defining marriage. If you eliminate how marriage can be used to discriminate against some, then its exact definition isn't so important.

Horse first, then cart.

[wide awake]

"...those rights should be separated from the concept of legal marriage all together."

I think that's Ron's position in a nutshell. Get the government out of using marriage to ascribe rights to some but not others, rather than simply getting government out of defining marriage. If you eliminate how marriage can be used to discriminate against some, then its exact definition isn't so important.

Horse first, then cart.

It would be great if I can find something like that attributed to him. These 3 couples would then be the easiest out of all my friends to convert. Right now it's just a non-starter.

[zHorns]

It would be great if I can find something like that attributed to him. These 3 couples would then be the easiest out of all my friends to convert. Right now it's just a non-starter.

Gay Marriage - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84
DADT - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU

[James Madison]

Rights are not derived from government. Government exists to preserve the rights of the population and defend the public liberty. Rights are God-given and inherent to all human beings.

When people stop thinking of rights as belonging to groups rather than individuals the world will know freedom.

[Voluntary Man]

1) Evolution? Really? That's where your idiot, brainwashed, mindnumbed drone of a friend is gonna hang his hat? Does he know Dr Paul's position on the second law of thermodynamics, or on relativity vs newtonian physics? My guess would be, no. So, why is he so hung up on this? Is he afraid we're gonna be attacked by Piltdown Men, and that Dr Paul won't take the threat seriously?

Yes. Dr Paul would leave the teaching of science, and all other subjects 100% up to the states (although it really belongs with the parents), even if he disagreed and thought they were being completely bone-headed. He would abolish the federal DoEd., something reagan only promised. If your friend has a problem with this, then he is confusing the federal training he received with an education.

Education existed before the states or fed started monkeying (no pun intended) with it, and it will exist after. If the fed ever starts regulating mothers milk (not that far fetched, is it?), the sheep will start believing that goverment invented the breast.

2) Gay Marriage? If your friend favors gay marriage, he should want it left up to the states, since many states are trending that way. Conversely, it's likely that a defense of marriage amendment could get support of enough states to pass. Does your friend really want to push this issue it that direction? Just move to a state that acknowledges the union of your choosing, and let it go.

As far as evidence for nature over nurture, that your compulsions cause you negative social pressure is proof of nothing -- otherwise pedophiles and serial killers could apply for minority protections. Personally, whatever you do is your business, and i'll fight and bleed for your right to do it unmolested by either public or private hands, but i will not support a push for more regulation of marriage than already exists -- from either direction. I'll burn my marriage license in support of your rights, though ... if my wife will let me.

My advise, have a lawyer draw up a partnership agreement, complete with neat little escape clauses, and leave it at that. Leave the divorce courts for us breeders. Trust me.

3) "in the year of our Lord..." it's in the constitution. Check again. That's not only a reference to God, but also to Christ. In the Declaration of Indepence (our founding document, as opposed to the governing document), of course, there are multiple references.

Regardless, the constitution prohibits the government from making laws establishing or prohibiting religious exercise. That's your separation, that the the church can't run the govt or vice versa. However, assuming there is ever an American Pope, there is no legal obstacle to prevent the pope from being elected president (I'll leave arguments regarding the sovereignty of the Vatican, and the head of a foreign power issues to someone else, though). Not a strong enough wall for you? Get the constitution amended, then. Nothing is achieved by ignoring the constitution, though, nothing but unshackling the government, that is

As far as recruiting this friend goes, direct your efforts toward more worthy targets, and, if your friend has any sense at all, he will come around eventually. If not? Well, then, at least you didn't waste any more time on that fool, and, hopefully, you were able to convert many smarter voters, in meantime.

Hope this helped. If i offended anyone, get over it.



I have to try and get at least a few hours of sleep tonight, if anyone is feeling up to helping me respond to my friend's concerns it would be much appreciated! :)

"1. his position on evolution: he clearly does NOT understand it and does not "accept" it. now, what this probably means is that he'll leave the decision whether to teach it in schools or not up to states to decide, which is a HORRIBLE idea, considering states like his own Texas, Alabama, and other bible belt states. No, public education needs to be federally mandated to ensure quality information is being given, not hocus pocus drivel. I know that the govt isnt exactly doing a good job with education, but this would be a gigantic leap backward if he were to enforce, or rather not enforce the teaching of good scientific tenets in schools.

2. Gay marriage. He insists again upon states making the decision whether they should support it or not. No. It is a basic human right to marry the one you love, and there is significant evidence to show one does not choose their sexual orientation, thus there is no reason to deny marriage to any gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgender, or any other sexually oriented person in this country. Do states choose whether dwarfs can marry, or blacks, white, or straight? No, they don't. and they don't get that privilege in this issue either. Also he thought DADT was a "decent" policy. Ugh.

3. Separation of church and state. Ron Paul says, and I quote, "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." This is blatantly incorrect. There is a total of ZERO references to God in the Constitution. I checked, you should do the same. His sheer wrongness aside, Separation of church and state is a HUGE issue for me, and any president who blatantly stands in opposition to that is a no-go. Simply on principle I cannot cast my vote for him.

There are others, but I wanted to get these three main ones typed out. I cannot and will not vote for him, and as of right now, I can't say I'll be voting for anyone else either, though we'll see how things proceed. I know that with some of these issues, they are merely personal opinions of his he may not act upon or whatever, but inevitably, with issues such as his pro-life and anti-evolutionary stances, they will come in to play in the presidential office, and I cannot trust him on these issues."

[wide awake]

Gay Marriage - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84
DADT - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU

That helps a little. This is their position based on discussions we have had in the past (and I find it completely reasonable):

There are rights and benefits at both the federal and state level that can only be granted to those that are married. Why should we, when we share the exact same responsibilities and exhibit the same characteristics as a legally married couple, be excluded regardless if they are federal or state related. They have said before, any of one of three positions would easily satisfy them:

1. Allow gays to be legally married
2. Allow gays an alternative path to the rights and benefits of a married couple (e.g. civil unions)
3. Remove any rights and benefits solely associated with marriage

[tremendoustie]

It would be great if I can find something like that attributed to him. These 3 couples would then be the easiest out of all my friends to convert. Right now it's just a non-starter.

Here you go, straight from Liberty Defined:


Most Americans do not question the requirement to obtain a license to get married. As in just about everything else, this requirement generates unnecessary problems and heated disagreements. If the government was not involved there would be no discussion or controversy over the definition of marriage. Why should the government give permission to two individuals for them to call themselves married? In a free society, something that we do not truly enjoy, all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized. If disputes arose, the courts could be involved as in any other civil dispute.
But look at where we are today, constantly fighting over the definition and legality of marriage. Under our system, the federal government was granted no authority over this issue. Many Americans would even amend the Constitution to deal with the issue by defining marriage. This attempt only exacerbates the emotionally charged debate on both sides.
I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired.

[libertybrewcity]

This guy is willing to sacrifice liberty and freedom in order to be a gay scientist who works at an abortion clinic?


The Magic Hoof FTW!

[Maximus]

1. He can take his kid to private or homeschool

2. Why do you need to go to city hall to have your love validated? Government should not grant licenses to marry. A license implies that you are getting permission to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. Is getting married without the consent of the State unlawful in your opinion?

3. Show examples of how Ron Paul would shove the Church into the State.

[jmdrake]

1) Evolution? Really? That's where your idiot, brainwashed, mindnumbed drone of a friend is gonna hang his hat? Does he know Dr Paul's position on the second law of thermodynamics, or on relativity vs newtonian physics? My guess would be, no. So, why is he so hung up on this? Is he afraid we're gonna be attacked by Piltdown Men, and that Dr Paul won't take the threat seriously?

Yes. Dr Paul would leave the teaching of science, and all other subjects 100% up to the states (although it really belongs with the parents), even if he disagreed and thought they were being completely bone-headed. He would abolish the federal DoEd., something reagan only promised. If your friend has a problem with this, then he is confusing the federal training he received with an education.

Education existed before the states or fed started monkeying (no pun intended) with it, and it will exist after. If the fed ever starts regulating mothers milk (not that far fetched, is it?), the sheep will start believing that goverment invented the breast.

2) Gay Marriage? If your friend favors gay marriage, he should want it left up to the states, since many states are trending that way. Conversely, it's likely that a defense of marriage amendment could get support of enough states to pass. Does your friend really want to push this issue it that direction? Just move to a state that acknowledges the union of your choosing, and let it go.

As far as evidence for nature over nurture, that your compulsions cause you negative social pressure is proof of nothing -- otherwise pedophiles and serial killers could apply for minority protections. Personally, whatever you do is your business, and i'll fight and bleed for your right to do it unmolested by either public or private hands, but i will not support a push for more regulation of marriage than already exists -- from either direction. I'll burn my marriage license in support of your rights, though ... if my wife will let me.

My advise, have a lawyer draw up a partnership agreement, complete with neat little escape clauses, and leave it at that. Leave the divorce courts for us breeders. Trust me.

3) "in the year of our Lord..." it's in the constitution. Check again. That's not only a reference to God, but also to Christ. In the Declaration of Indepence (our founding document, as opposed to the governing document), of course, there are multiple references.

Regardless, the constitution prohibits the government from making laws establishing or prohibiting religious exercise. That's your separation, that the the church can't run the govt or vice versa. However, assuming there is ever an American Pope, there is no legal obstacle to prevent the pope from being elected president (I'll leave arguments regarding the sovereignty of the Vatican, and the head of a foreign power issues to someone else, though). Not a strong enough wall for you? Get the constitution amended, then. Nothing is achieved by ignoring the constitution, though, nothing but unshackling the government, that is

As far as recruiting this friend goes, direct your efforts toward more worthy targets, and, if your friend has any sense at all, he will come around eventually. If not? Well, then, at least you didn't waste any more time on that fool, and, hopefully, you were able to convert many smarter voters, in meantime.

Hope this helped. If i offended anyone, get over it.

+rep. Best answer in the thread.

[Reason]

My responses so far:

1. The constitution specifically states that anything not specifically listed as a power of the federal govt. is left to the states. Education would obviously fall under this. It's important to remember that the larger the govt. the more unmanageable, inefficient, & ineffective it's going to be. Libertarians want as small of govt. as possible in almost all areas. We don't even want the govt. having anything to do with schooling. The quality of education in this country was much better before govt. had anything to do with it. As govt. has become more and more involved and larger elements of govt. such as the federal govt. have become involved it has gone even further downhill. Moving back in the opposite direction towards an emphasis upon local govt. control, charter schools, a proliferation of home schooling would be ideal. The mere concept of an overarching leviathan govt. "educating" our young by force should make you shudder in horror. The primary responsibility of the education of our children should of course be the parents. Without public education you would have massive amounts of private schools that would all be competing with each other to provide the best quality education at the lowest cost. I would suggest checking out John Stossel's presentation on how this would work, it should still be on hulu.

[Reason]

2. We do not want the government involved in marriage at all. Have you ever researched why govt. became involved in marriage? The reason they became involved in marriage was because people wanted to use govt. force to prevent interracial marriages. There is absolutely no reason why govt. should have anything to do with marriage. Something to remember when considering states vs federal in dealing with an issue like this is that things can always go the other way, what if a federal amendment was passed banning gay marriage? Should the states be required to bow to this decree? Of course not, getting any form of govt. involved in any form of private social issue is a very dangerous action. Once again, moving away from an overarching central authority that starts issuing decree's for all 300+ million people to follow is a very very bad idea. Especially now that our congress doesn't even follow the original intent of the constitutional amendment process. Don't forget that putting an issue like this in the hands of the states always allows for the power of the people to vote with their feet! If California passes a particular egregious law tomorrow I can always get in my car & leave!

[CaptainAmerica]

I have to try and get at least a few hours of sleep tonight, if anyone is feeling up to helping me respond to my friend's concerns it would be much appreciated! :)

"1. his position on evolution: he clearly does NOT understand it and does not "accept" it. now, what this probably means is that he'll leave the decision whether to teach it in schools or not up to states to decide, which is a HORRIBLE idea, considering states like his own Texas, Alabama, and other bible belt states. No, public education needs to be federally mandated to ensure quality information is being given, not hocus pocus drivel. I know that the govt isnt exactly doing a good job with education, but this would be a gigantic leap backward if he were to enforce, or rather not enforce the teaching of good scientific tenets in schools.

2. Gay marriage. He insists again upon states making the decision whether they should support it or not. No. It is a basic human right to marry the one you love, and there is significant evidence to show one does not choose their sexual orientation, thus there is no reason to deny marriage to any gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgender, or any other sexually oriented person in this country. Do states choose whether dwarfs can marry, or blacks, white, or straight? No, they don't. and they don't get that privilege in this issue either. Also he thought DADT was a "decent" policy. Ugh.

3. Separation of church and state. Ron Paul says, and I quote, "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." This is blatantly incorrect. There is a total of ZERO references to God in the Constitution. I checked, you should do the same. His sheer wrongness aside, Separation of church and state is a HUGE issue for me, and any president who blatantly stands in opposition to that is a no-go. Simply on principle I cannot cast my vote for him.

There are others, but I wanted to get these three main ones typed out. I cannot and will not vote for him, and as of right now, I can't say I'll be voting for anyone else either, though we'll see how things proceed. I know that with some of these issues, they are merely personal opinions of his he may not act upon or whatever, but inevitably, with issues such as his pro-life and anti-evolutionary stances, they will come in to play in the presidential office, and I cannot trust him on these issues."

1.your friend loves public school education.....he probably has no idea how abysmal the Department of Education is, or he blames it on people like Ron Paul.
2.your friend does not have the right to define "marriage" through government and neither does anyone else. It is left to the churches and the people who comprise the church.Once you are enlisted in the military, you must obey the military commander and chief and relinquish all constitutional rights.....duh thats why they call it "Government Issue"-G.I., because when you enlist you are property of the united states military.DADT was a military rule, and it was SOP.
3.To give the governing body the power to define "religion" is to give them the power to strip religion.Your friend has a contradicting belief about separation of church and state.

[eleganz]

To the OP, your friend is trying WAY TOO HARD. He doesn't even have an alternative, people like this is for NO PROGRESS, no point in arguing him in my opinion.

[Reason]

3. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state.

If congress is banned from "making no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" what's the problem exactly?

Ron Paul does not wish to change or alter the current ban of "making no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

[Paul4Prez]

"1. his position on evolution... he'll leave the decision whether to teach it in schools or not up to states to decide... but this would be a gigantic leap backward if he were to enforce, or rather not enforce the teaching of good scientific tenets in schools.


Ask your friend to re-read the Constitution himself, as he suggested you do for issue number 2 below. The federal government was granted no power concerning education. It is an issue for states and local communities. Does your friend believe in federalism, or not?


2. Gay marriage. Do states choose whether dwarfs can marry, or blacks, white, or straight? No, they don't. and they don't get that privilege in this issue either.

Ron Paul would prefer that the government should have no role whatsoever in marriage. He's said we should leave it up to churches, to marry whomever they choose. As President, once again, it is not a federal issue, though.



3. Separation of church and state is a HUGE issue for me, and any president who blatantly stands in opposition to that is a no-go. Simply on principle I cannot cast my vote for him.

Ron Paul would do nothing to force religion on anyone. Again, this is not a federal role.

On the issues where the President does have actual power, Ron Paul is far and away the best choice. Peace, liberty, fiscal sanity, and a President who actually respects the Constitution. And that's not mentioning unmatched integrity and the best voting record in the history of the US Congress.

[Esoteric]

I think that if Ron wasn't trying to run in a republican primary, he'd be looser on the gay marriage issue and the "church and state" issue. He's a voluntaryist at heart.. and possibly a religious skeptic as well. He seems too rational believe in religious dogma.. though even Ron could be susceptible to dogma, I suppose.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It's pretty easy to counter the DADT thing by pointing out that Ron voted to repeal it.

[Xenophage]

I share your friend's theological disagreements with Ron Paul. Fortunately, Ron Paul doesn't want to force his religion on me.

I have a real problem with the 'public schooling' part of your friend's concerns, though. Ron Paul hates public schools. If it were up to him, public schools wouldn't be teaching evolution... because public schools wouldn't exist! As an atheist, I say, "amen to that, brotha!"

[tremendoustie]

He seems too rational believe in religious dogma..

Religious beliefs can be blind and dogmatic, but they are not necessarily so.

[Salvial]

"1. his position on evolution: he clearly does NOT understand it and does not "accept" it. now, what this probably means is that he'll leave the decision whether to teach it in schools or not up to states to decide, which is a HORRIBLE idea, considering states like his own Texas, Alabama, and other bible belt states. No, public education needs to be federally mandated to ensure quality information is being given, not hocus pocus drivel. I know that the govt isnt exactly doing a good job with education, but this would be a gigantic leap backward if he were to enforce, or rather not enforce the teaching of good scientific tenets in schools.

In a private education system there would be as many affordable schools around your friend as there is public school right now. The average American citizen would have the choice to send his son to a school based on what it teaches, the quality of education, and the specific views he holds to be true. This is all about a legalization of the freedom to send your child to a school of your choosing and despite what he believes there are rational people in the bible belt who will create a demand for schools that teach evolution and those needs would have to be met. It is in his wanting to police the education system to suit his own interests that he is faulty.


2. Gay marriage. He insists again upon states making the decision whether they should support it or not. No. It is a basic human right to marry the one you love, and there is significant evidence to show one does not choose their sexual orientation, thus there is no reason to deny marriage to any gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgender, or any other sexually oriented person in this country. Do states choose whether dwarfs can marry, or blacks, white, or straight? No, they don't. and they don't get that privilege in this issue either. Also he thought DADT was a "decent" policy. Ugh.

This one is simple, if the government is kept out of the marriage issue the couple would be able to get a marriage under any other name and still have a union of their persons and possessions. If they're dead-set on getting one in a church they may have to choose whether to stay in a state that conflicts with their beliefs or go for another type of union.


3. Separation of church and state. Ron Paul says, and I quote, "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." This is blatantly incorrect. There is a total of ZERO references to God in the Constitution. I checked, you should do the same. His sheer wrongness aside, Separation of church and state is a HUGE issue for me, and any president who blatantly stands in opposition to that is a no-go. Simply on principle I cannot cast my vote for him.

The idea that any individual can separate their religious/spiritual beliefs from their political ethics is pretty much a non-starter and ask your friend why exactly he is opposed to a candidate who will not force his ethics and morals on you and your own. Many other republican contenders and past personalities (Perry, Bachmann, Bush) have claimed that God talked to them and told them to do things - THAT's what he should be afraid of and vote AGAINST.

Peace and love!