Ron Paul -- No separation of church and state
In opposition to all of the Ron Paul pundits who assert that he is far and away the only good candidate, I submit this column written by Paul:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst070102.htm
Direct quote: "the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis".
Ron Paul believes free speech is up to the states to decide, as is the matter of religious freedom. He wants to remove federal power over such things. Now, I am all for a smaller government, but on issues like this the federal government MUST have control.
If you disagree, think of any bible beater state. In this case, I shall pick on Kentucky. The population is overwhelmingly Christian, and many are quite vehement. If the state had the power to regulate free speech and religion, all non-Christian religions could easily be outlawed. Granted, that is an extremely remote possibility. But passing pro-Christian legislation (which by its very definition is detrimental to other religions and freedoms) is highly likely. Public prayer sessions in schools, government events, etc. Weighted fees for non-Christian churches/synagogues/mosques/etc. Prosecution of hate crimes for anti-Christian speech. Just think about it.
Besides, I am in opposition to a man that wants to abolish income tax, outlaw abortion (by legislating that human life begins at conception, and thus abortions are first-degree murder), withdraw from international trade regulations and agreements, and numerous other points.
My main issue with Paul is that I thoroughly disagree with "moral crusading" legislation. By passing legislation based upon personal religion or morals, rather than logic or impartial judgment, a government is inherently flawed and unfair. And seeing how I am in opposition to many of his stated moral points, I cannot view any act of his without distrust and worry.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst070102.htm
Direct quote: "the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis".
Ron Paul believes free speech is up to the states to decide, as is the matter of religious freedom. He wants to remove federal power over such things. Now, I am all for a smaller government, but on issues like this the federal government MUST have control.
If you disagree, think of any bible beater state. In this case, I shall pick on Kentucky. The population is overwhelmingly Christian, and many are quite vehement. If the state had the power to regulate free speech and religion, all non-Christian religions could easily be outlawed. Granted, that is an extremely remote possibility. But passing pro-Christian legislation (which by its very definition is detrimental to other religions and freedoms) is highly likely. Public prayer sessions in schools, government events, etc. Weighted fees for non-Christian churches/synagogues/mosques/etc. Prosecution of hate crimes for anti-Christian speech. Just think about it.
Besides, I am in opposition to a man that wants to abolish income tax, outlaw abortion (by legislating that human life begins at conception, and thus abortions are first-degree murder), withdraw from international trade regulations and agreements, and numerous other points.
My main issue with Paul is that I thoroughly disagree with "moral crusading" legislation. By passing legislation based upon personal religion or morals, rather than logic or impartial judgment, a government is inherently flawed and unfair. And seeing how I am in opposition to many of his stated moral points, I cannot view any act of his without distrust and worry.