Ron Paul: three strikes on the batshit-o-meter

Separation of Church and State is a phrase that has changed meaning over our history. A good overview that avoids the "is it good or bad" question is Separation of Church and State" by Philip Hamburger (Harvard University Press). For instance, in 1776, separation of church and state meant that ministers couldn't be politicians, and vice versa. The thinking was that you couldn't do both jobs effectively at the same time. Most people were against the state making such a judgement, which is why it isn't in the constitution. Today "separation" means that politicians must act like a secularist while in office, and maybe non-secularists shouldn't be in office at all. That isn't in the constitution either.

What *is* in there is the "anti-establishment" clause, which says that the Federal Government can't make any religion official (although States are free to if their constitution allows it - e.g. Maryland was Catholic and Virginia was Episcopal until anti-establishment clauses were added to their constitutions). Today, "anti-establishment" is reasonably interpreted to mean you can't use a Federal office to "push" a religion, whether or not such pushing amounts to an official "establishment". This results in a lot of judicial hairsplitting to distinguish between religious freedom of an office holder and "pushing" their religion.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Protestants abused the anti-establishment clause to create barriers to Catholics holding office (or doing Catholic things while in office). Now they are getting a taste of their own medicine as Secularists abuse it to erect barriers to Protestants. Ironically, the anti-establishment clause is now being used to effectively establish the current popular "religion": Secularism.

Thanks for making abortion such a clearly obvious black & white issue.

Happy to be of service.

Despite the sentimental attachment we all have to babies (an obviously evolutionarily useful trait), there are aspects of the abortion issue that are black and white.

We know the banning abortions kills woman, when they go to back-alley abortionists.

We know that the idea the a zygote or an embryo is a person is based on superstition, not science. We know that "personhood" is a function of the forebrain, which doesn't really start functioning until after birth.

We know that IDX is sometimes a medically necessary procedure.

So, at what point in the development of the human (or pre-birth fetus, if you prefer) should crushing in the skull not be legal?

It is a woman's choice as to whether to give birth or not. Up until birth, it's not the government's business.

A newborn human is not a "person", in the philosophical sense, yet. It takes time both for the nervous system to develop physically, and for it to be "programmed" as the infant interacts with its environment. But since in our society it's very easy to hand a newborn up for adoption, making birth the point as which full legal protection kicks in is a simple line and doesn't reduce anyone's freedom.

Oh, yet another black & white issue, evolution.

Why, yes, it is. You either understand that humans - and other species - evolved out of other, earlier organisms, through the process of differential survival; or you're woefully ignorant. It's as black and white as knowing that the Earth goes around the Sun.

He's a medical doctor.

Which doesn't mean he knows jack about science. An M.D. is a practical professional degree. My own doctor studied biology as an undergrad, but her husband - a anesthesiologist - was an engineering major and knows little biology.

If you can show him the spontaneous development of a single, primitive cellular DNA structure...

If he can fix it so I have a billion years and a planet-sized lab to work on it...

Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org

First: linking to a page does not mean using it as a reference.

Second: unlike many of his supporters, I've taken the time to actually look at Ron Paul. I notice that you have no response to the information above regarding his views on both the political and medical aspects of abortion, or about his stance against the separation of church and state, or about his preference for superstition over basic scientific truths. But the Paul-ites are so captivated by a Republican speaking some semblance of sense on a few issues like Iraq and about the War on Drugs that don't see - don't want to see - gaping flaws. People of a libertarian bent (whether libertarian socialist or libertarian capitalist) must make sure that a loon like Paul doesn't discredit the handful of ideas that he happens to be right on.

Third: the president of an local NAACP chapter doesn't decide the truth, or get to "dismiss" charges.

If Paul didn't write the articles, how is it that his initial reaction when they came up in 1996 was to claim he was quoted out of context? Now he claims he didn't write them at all - he was either lying then, or lying now.

And if he didn't write them, but didn't stop them from being published in his newsletter and failed to publish a rebuttal, then he's not even competent to run a 'zine, much less hold public office.

Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org