Before I even get to the content of this post, I will warn commenters right now TO KEEP IT POLITE. No swearing, and no name-calling. Comments like that will be deleted or marked as spam immediately.
If you disliked what I wrote about Ron Paul — and many of you did, for reasons that had little to do with what I wrote — then you’ll hate what Joe M wrote at Merit-Bound Alley about him.
Back in 2003, Paul wrote an astonishingly ill-informed and ridiculous screed entitled "The War On Religion". It is incredibly fact-deficient, but does repeat many of the far-right memes so desperately spread by the likes of Bill O’Reilly and others at Fox News. Paul makes the same mistakes so many others do, saying that "the secular Left" feels that "religion must be driven from public view". That’s just plain silly. Everyone I know on the left understands that doing so would be illegal and unconstitutional. The only people who say this, ironically, are the fearmongers on the right, trying to scare the base.
Rational people understand that the Constitution is pretty clear on this issue, and many court cases have stated it as well: the government cannot endorse a particular religion. That means that a courthouse, government office, or state building must allow any religion, and even those with no religion, equal access to display their beliefs, or lack thereof. If you want a Nativity creche, that’s fine, as long as it’s part of a greater display of symbols of other religions (and even — gasp — atheism).
Paul disagrees. He says that "[t]he justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few."
Baloney. The justification is the First Amendment. In my earlier post about Paul, I mentioned that people who deny evolution are prey to those who want to tear down the First Amendment, who want to teach religion in school. I didn’t know at the time how Paul really felt, so my earlier post is even more justified now. From reading Paul’s essay, it seems to me that he hadn’t read the Constitution very well before writing what he did.
In his essay, Paul says, "Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody."
"Embittered busybody"? Assuming the firehouse was tax-payer funded, that person was defending the Constitution! Paul’s statement, and name-calling, is even more frightening considering that Paul has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution. Far from calling names, he should be standing behind the person who made the complaint.
Joe M’s essay at Merit-Bound Alley makes it very clear — with citations — that Paul is fuzzy on the Constitution (Paul says it is "replete with references to God", when in fact God is not mentioned even once in the Constitution). Joe M’s essay is well done, and exposes most of the fallaciousness of Paul’s statements. If you are a Ron Paul supporter, I strongly urge you to read it.
And for those of you who say that Paul’s personal beliefs will not affect his judgment, I ask you to read his essay very carefully. His own words read like those from a man who will cheerfully appoint judges to weaken further the Constitutional guarantee of freedom for and from religion. He clearly misunderstands the First Amendment to a profound degree.
It’s too bad: in another essay, he makes some very salient points about religion and government, though he still accuses the "political left" of wanting a secular society, which is, again, baloney. The left, as a political party, wants people to be able to choose their faith, or lack thereof, freely, and not have the government tell them what they can or cannot worship. I see this a lot with Paul: he seems to make good sense in some issues, then goes off into Never Never Land with others.
And I stand by my earlier claim: Ron Paul is either a theocrat, or is a panderer to those who want one. Neither of those choices is what America needs.
But hey! At least he’s better than Huckabee.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:38 am
Well, those of us who have actually READ the First Amendment know that it specifically prohibits CONGRESS, and is the only amendment to do so. The founders did NOT want Federal intrusion in this area. In fact, that’s really the whole point of the First Amendment!
This is supposed to be a state and local issue. If a fire department puts up Christmas decorations, then it’s no business of people who live outside that area, and if people who live inside that area complain, they have redress with their local and state governments.
What America needs is a President willing to stand up and uphold the Constitution–the ENTIRE Constitution, not just cherry-picked bits and pieces of it–and Ron Paul is the ONLY one who fits the bill.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 am
I’m not one to agree with a religious nutter very often, but in this case, I think “embittered busybody” is the correct term, and to say that Christmas decorations on a firehouse violates the first amendment is really reaching.
Firefighters are part of the community. For them to celebrate with the community builds spirit in the community. That’s a good thing. In fact, they should be encouraged to put up seasonal-appropriate decorations at other times. Unless someone is suggesting that the Christmas decorations are some kind of implied statement that the firefighters won’t do their best work on Jewish or Jehova’s Witness fires… but that’s not a first amendment issue. To say that a bunch of firefighters putting up some lights represents a government sanction of Christianity is a long stretch. I bet the person who complained knows this too.
On this blog, the concept of people going out of their way to be offended has come up many times, and in this case, I think the person who complained was, in fact, going out of their way to be offended. It’s not a matter of God not being mentioned in the constitution. It’s a matter of firefighters being people and not being treated like mindless automatons who are forced to be separate from the rest of society. This is not the same thing as getting ID pushed into a school curriculum, or discounting the testimony of atheists in court because they won’t swear on a Bible, and it does everyone a disservice to elevate it to that level.
It’s much more offensive that Christmas decorations appear in October - something that represents a commercial perversion of the whole Christian celebration… yet strangely nobody really complains about that.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:46 am
This country will end up a Christian theocracy; it inches a little closer every year. It is clearly not what the founders intended—emphatically did not intend, if you bother to read their debates—but that’s where it’s heading. And, yes, I have read the 1st Amendment as well. Ron Paul’s views are blatantly un-American.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:46 am
Good points, Squid. In fact, the Christmas tree isn’t even a Christian symbol anyway. The tradition predates even written history, and has many roots in many cultures all over the globe.
Dr. Paul also mentioned school choruses not being able to perform the Messiah, which is one of the greatest classical music pieces of all time! What, ANYTHING written with religious motivations violates the first amendment? Forget performing ANYTHING by Bach, then!
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
I finally got around to reading the comments on the previous Ron Paul entry and it brought to mind a question I have been meaning to ask re: evolution. I have seen much evidence for survival of the fittest (antibiotic resistant microbes), but is there any evidence in modern times of speciation (sp) (ie. a new species evolving)?
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 am
Evolving Squid
Well said
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 am
The only way I’d have a problem with a Christmas tree in a government building is if a Jew asked to put up a menorah and was told to get lost. But if they give equal treatment to all religious displays, that’s perfectly Constitutional.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 am
I’ve never cared for Ron Paul. He doesn’t support programs like NASA, and people who don’t support the future never get my vote.
Sorry, BA I do know people of the left (and right too) that if it were up to them, not only would they remove religion from public view, but ban religion all together.
Finally, I still waiting for your expose on John “Intelligent Design” Edwards.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 am
Here are my 4-for-1 comments
First to BA, I don’t think this where you going but I’ve seen this happen on other blogs and I would ask you to be mindful (like a Jedi). The Constitution does not give us Free Speech (we have that by simply being) it merely forbids the government from abridging those rights, it does not grant free speech to us, it restricts the government from messing with it. I’m not a strict Constitutionalist but that is clearly the spirit of the document and I agree that Ron Paul forgets this and Huckabee completely ignores it.
Second the idea of separation of church and state, free speech and the application of state’s rights to xmas lights on a firehouse is fundamentally a misunderstanding of the Republican form of government we live in. A state cannot claim “State’s Rights” and then abridge free speech and establish a state religion, the state has explicitly agreed to the tenants of the Constitution by the well understood fact that they joined the Union to begin with. The State’s are expressly forbidden from picking and choosing what they want to allow. When there is ambiguity you get the 13th-15th amendments, if the amendments were restricted to the Federal government only, then there would have been no point to them.
I do agree with the “embittered busybody” comment and I would only have a problem if there was active suppression of a competing religion’s/non-religion’s display.
To YinYang, if you are asking if anyone has watched a species evolve on a macro-leve in the last 150 years, then no, but you don’t understand evolution by natural selection if expect that. I you want evidence of microevolution say with fruit flies then yes, there is that
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:10 am
C.S. Lewis wrote that theocracy was the worst form of government, because it gave the state the highest pretensions. As a born-again Christian, I desperately don’t want my faith to become entangled with the government, so I fight creationism being introduced into public schools, teacher- or administrator-led school prayer, etc. That being said, I think the freedom involved in the firemen putting up Christmas decorations was their own freedom of speech. If most of them were muslims I wouldn’t mind them putting up decorations for a muslim holiday. If they suppressed one fireman or -woman putting up their own decorations because they were of a minority faith in that firehouse, that would be cause for concern.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 am
Sean,
When I was a student at the Unveristy of Texas (85-89), all religions had the opportunity to put up religious displays, and most did. So it is possible to do.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
YinYang: Here you go:
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/No_New_Species_Have_Been_Observed
Note that even Answers In Genesis is now saying that speciation occurs–in fact, they say it occurs at a much more rapid rate than evolutionary theory does!
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
Yinyang writes:
[[… is there any evidence in modern times of speciation (sp) (ie. a new species evolving)?]]
Yes:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 am
Shane K.,
Speaking of cherry picking, you’ve left out the 14th Amendment, which contains the Equal Protection Clause. What that means, if you’ve read it and the body of case law behind it, is that state governments are not allowed to violate the Bill of Rights either. A state government can’t endorse a religion.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:14 am
is there any evidence in modern times of speciation (sp) (ie. a new species evolving)?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article884624.ece
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:14 am
jrkeller:
“I’ve never cared for Ron Paul. He doesn’t support programs like NASA, and people who don’t support the future never get my vote.”
See, that’s EXACTLY the thing I’ve been going on about! The Constitution does not authorize the government to do this kind of thing. It just isn’t in Article I Section 8 anywhere, and the Tenth Amendment confirms that the government is limited to those powers listed in the Constitution.
So, how can you be all in favor of violating the Tenth Amendment and get all bent out of shape over someone violating the First?
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 am
No, I’m almost totally sure we have not observed a population fragmenting to the point where they can no longer interbreed.
It’s not really something you would expect to see over the period of time we have been paying attention.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 am
Shane Brady:
“Speaking of cherry picking, you’ve left out the 14th Amendment, which contains the Equal Protection Clause. What that means, if you’ve read it and the body of case law behind it, is that state governments are not allowed to violate the Bill of Rights either. A state government can’t endorse a religion.”
You’re completely misreading the Fourteenth Amendment. As others have pointed out, there would have been a problem if the fire department were stopping others from putting up, say, a Jewish display. THAT would violate equal protection. But there’s no issue whatsoever with the display itself.
Equal protection means you can’t have laws that favor one group over another. The restrictions on Bills of Attainder in Article I Sections 9 & 10 do the same thing. But that just isn’t happening when a fire department puts up a Christmas tree, or a school choir performs the Messiah, and THAT is what Ron Paul was referring to.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:23 am
and, of course, I’m wrong, and didn’t even think of hybrids.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 am
@Redx:
Maybe not, but the phenomenon of ring species makes an elegant and very visible argument for the process having already occurred.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
~David D.G.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:31 am
I think the freedom of and from religion is the very least of our worries at this point.
In my meager lifetime (42 yrs) the separation of church and state has gotten stronger, IMO. (No state-led prayer in public-schools, no creationism in public-schools, no ID in public-schools, no Alabama courthouse ten commandments, no Bible display in front of Texas courthouse, etc.)
I think that our foreign policy should be our biggest concern.
It keeps getting worse and more expensive. (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.)
Aside from Kucinich, Ron Paul is the only candidate of either party that would return us to a Constitutionally (read sane) based foreign policy.
Also, whatever the founders intended is irrelevant.
They were not demigods who handed down law for us from on high.
They were smart enough to realize that they didn’t know everything.
What they left us with is a process to govern ourselves.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 am
Well, Evolving Squid already said what I was going to say so I shall avoid redundancy.
I’m sorry, Phil, but declaring Ron Paul a theocrat because of the examples you gave… seriously, that’s on the level of Hoagland insisting a mesa on Mars is a face. This is a very disappointing entry and, I dunno… Yes, I know it’s *your* blog and you can post what you want, but maybe you *should* stick to scientific topics because your skepticism seems to dissolve into vapor when you go after political issues.
But don’t feel bad. Politics and ideology can atomize even the most powerful bulwarks of skepticism. It’s taken me years of deliberate effort to unentangle things to the point where I can properly apply skepticism to political issues, and free my mind from ideological smog.
— YinTang0564 said, “but is there any evidence in modern times of speciation”
Every generation of humans is a new species… at least according to the older generations.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Just a quick bit of relevance to the creationism-in-schools bit: Ron Paul has stated explicitly in one of the early GOP debates that whether public schools teach evolution or creationism is up to the states to decide, and he keeps trying to introduce his We The People Act which would prohibit federal courts from hearing any establishment challenges. So you know, if he’d had his way then we’d know exactly how Dover would’ve gone down.
Fortunately, he’s completely ineffective and has not succeeded in passing any of his boneheaded bills.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:39 am
The Centipede! It… RETURNS!
I think this comes down to the fact that, given all our stringent requirements, no candidate will be perfect and, in the long run, the President is not the autocrat everyone likes to pretend him to be: [i]especially[/i] someone like Ron Paul who probably can’t rely on party support and certainly can’t rely on the Ted Haggarts of the world.
What needs to be done, I think, is to establish our own–let’s call it “Rationalist”–voting bloc and use it to turn tides in the strategic urban areas where we generally hold sway. The country only seems to be sliding into theocracy (I think there’s a definite chance but, unlike Daffy, I don’t see it as inexorable) because generally Evangelicals are a highly motivated and highly organized sociopolitical bloc with an excess of Nietzsche’s “will to power,” and, to make matters worse, they imagine that will coming from a divine mandate from God. If we got some good PR on ‘our’ side it should be relatively easy to point out to everyone that it’s a bad idea to let people who think that the Wahhabists winning the Fanaticism Race is a good thing run the country.
Not just point out, though; the next step is to get people mad about it at the right time so they do something about it. “The mad prophet” of Network was right about one thing: if the situation’s not to your liking but you don’t have a solution, the first thing to do is get angry because it establishes an adversarial, overcoming relationship to the problem rather than a fearful, cringing one.
To Shane: Due to Federal regulations always rolling downhill, all governments in the United States must be Constitutional. Otherwise one could say that Town A could institute slavery, but only within its city limits, because the Constitution only limits Congress (a strict constructionalist interpretation which smacks of “the only when convenient” school of Dungeons-and-Dragons rules-lawyering munchkins).
To Evolving Squid and Doctor Plait: Christmas decorations can be challenged as unconstitutional but [i]only[/i] if a theoretical reasonable observer would think they make it [i]look[/i] like the government endorses religion. Given that Christmas trees, lights, and red-and-green now have about as much to do with Christmas [i]qua[/i] a religious celebration as the phrase “rule of thumb” has to do with wife-beating nowadays, I think it could be argued that a reasonable observer would think such things are merely indicative of the winter season and, unless there were signs saying “Yea The LORD Is Born Unto Us This Day” or similar, therefore not an endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
So, a passive Christmas tree decoration, probably Constitutional under current readings (which weren’t done by conservative judges, if I recall correctly, so let’s not get into that ideological harangue). Moments of prayer in school over the intercom and everything, certainly unConstitutional. Schools letting student-organized groups use their classrooms for Bible Study are Constitutional so long as the schools also let other student-organized groups also use the classrooms with a similar-to-identical amount of red tape.
So, in this case, both Paul and the complaintant are defending the Constitution, albeit two differing but still legitimate interpretations. By a strict universialist construction, the firefighters were wrong. By the more common “reasonable observer” interpretation, they were not. It generally becomes a matter of disassociating the people who work for the government with the government and benign things they do on their own initiative, within reason, should not be assumed to be a government order.
YinYang: Simple problem: wolves, dogs, and coyotes interbreed but are considered separate species, right? Right now the word”speciesation” is somewhat vague because its root word is vague. Has speciesation occured within observable timespans? Of course. [i]Felix silvestris[/i] and [i]Canis familiaris[/i] aren’t what they derived from, although whether they can interbreed with their forebears is a crapshoot. All those adaptations you mentioned in bacteria [i]is[/i] speciesation even in the strictest sense because bacteria practically never breed with other bacteria. Also, in the plant world: navel oranges are arguably a species separate from the “normal” oranges because they can’t interbreed; they’re also not technically a “failed” species because they can be spread by cuttings rather than seeds.
Humans have been responsible for great numbers of speciesation events and “theistic evolution” for millennia, and that doesn’t disprove evolution as a function of either “survival of the fittest” or “natural selection” or “selfish gene propagation.” Humans carve rocks into shapes, and so does the wind; the fact humans carve rocks doesn’t disprove the existence of erosion.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
“It’s much more offensive that Christmas decorations appear in October - something that represents a commercial perversion of the whole Christian celebration… yet strangely nobody really complains about that.”
It irritates me, I shake my head in bemusement, maybe complain to whomever I’m shopping with, but never really thought about suing or organizing a protest. Hmm…
“That means that a courthouse, government office, or state building must allow any religion, and even those with no religion, equal access to display their beliefs, or lack thereof.”
Interestingly, that’s not the way it tends to be executed. A couple winters ago, one of the state university law schools got in hot water for displaying a holiday tree decorated with globes and paper fans made of world maps. So on the one hand, we’re told that trees aren’t really “Christian”, since they originated in pagan celebrations, but somehow putting up a Holiday Tree offends anyone who isn’t a Christian. Nice.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
— Shane Killian said, “So, how can you be all in favor of violating the Tenth Amendment and get all bent out of shape over someone violating the First?”
Geez, Shane, where have you been? Selective defense of the Constitution has been the greatest Amercian pastime since there’s been a Constitution.
It’s all ideological smog, and it is the death of skepticism. That’s why we only get crazy people elected to office.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 am
BA: Television tells me you’re at least on good terms with Penn Jillette, and he’s, you know, coo coo for anarchopuffs. There have been rumors online of him being keen on Ron Paul, but it’s an actual science fact that everything on the internet is a lie.
Do you know if he is? If so, is there any chance you might be able to knock some sense into him? I’m curious as to how his single-issue libertarianism might be rasslin’ with his single-issue secularism. All too often I’ve seen libertarians who are otherwise skeptical and keen on the establishment clause coming out in favor of Ron Paul with some hideously contorted justification for why we shouldn’t be concerned with Paul’s record being consistently in line with the Christian Right.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:47 am
Ron Paul does not believe in evolution and the established theory of global warming. He is not even suitable to wash my car. The president should be an intelligent individual who leads the country in a way that is inclusive of all, respectful to all and with policies based on reality.
Paul is not even close to that.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:48 am
A note on the term “secular”, BA:
“he still accuses the “political left” of wanting a secular society, which is, again, baloney. The left, as a political party, wants people to be able to choose their faith, or lack thereof, freely, and not have the government tell them what they can or cannot worship.”
Don’t confuse secular with atheist, as many Bill O’Reilly types do (including Ron Paul in the essay you referenced - he’s actually correct, but not in the way he intends). Secular means advocating a strict separation of church and state, which I am sure you support. So you can, for instance, be Christian and secular at the same time.
Easy way to remember: the opposite of secular is theocratic.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:48 am
— DennyMoon said, “It irritates me, I shake my head in bemusement, maybe complain to whomever I’m shopping with, but never really thought about suing or organizing a protest.”
That’s because you’re sane, Denny.
It’s a rarity in this day and age. Nurture it.
— Hmm…
Uh oh!
Centipede: Was Network one of the single most prophetic movies ever made? Am I right? Almost everything in that movie came to pass in the news media except for one, and if I were Katie Couric, I’d be watching my back.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
Dover won’t matter if the country falls apart due to bad foreign policy and increasing debt.
If the “empire” does fail, you probably will see a christian theocracy take over.
Most people in this country are generally fine with a secular government as long as there are “bread & circuses”, IMO.
As soon as the manure hits the proverbial fan, watch out.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
peenworm: The We the People Act does NOT say that. Either you’re just parroting whatever source gave you your misinformation and you haven’t read the Act at all, or you missed the following phrases:
“issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
“are not prevented from…considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States”
So, it’s ONLY there to prevent violations of the Tenth Amendment, like I described above, and also to prevent the Supreme Court from going beyond their authority as limited by Article III.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
“Make no law” -> “Can not endorse” is a huge interpretation. I’m not sure I agree. A courthouse, for instance, should be able to put the Ten Commandments, or sections of the Koran, or heck, a prayer to the fish-god of the Assyrians for all I care on their wall. That has nothing to do with establishing a state religion, and everything to do with members of government practicing their own first amendment rights as citizens.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 am
Centipede:
“To Shane: Due to Federal regulations always rolling downhill, all governments in the United States must be Constitutional. Otherwise one could say that Town A could institute slavery, but only within its city limits, because the Constitution only limits Congress (a strict constructionalist interpretation which smacks of “the only when convenient” school of Dungeons-and-Dragons rules-lawyering munchkins).”
Again, you’re misunderstanding the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits the states from doing many things, and imposing slavery or involuntary servitude is one of them (13th Amendment). But again, READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT. If it’s not in the Constitution the Federal government can’t to it; it falls to the states, unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from doing it, in which case it falls to the people.
It’s absolutely vital to our federalist republic.
peenworm:
How on EARTH can Dr. Paul’s record be said to be “consistently in line with the Christian Right” when he has voted AGAINST the Defense of Marriage Act and many other theocratic bills?
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
Working at a state park(Georgia), I get to observe Separation Anxiety first hand,,,
We put up holiday lights every year but,,,no one is allowed to advertise(read: putting up circulars for a local religious event or leaving religious tracts in the bathroom,,,) on Park property for ANY religion, which I’m fairly certain is quite irritating to the local Baptists(because they’ve said so,,,).
Politicians will play to whatever group seems to have the Will and power to get out the vote. Some are just more hypocritical than others(see Dubya, et. al. )
My favorite character in the current mess of politicians is Obama, with Hilary a close runner up,,,I really am in favor of Tom Jeffersons statement that”Professional politicians will be the death of the Republic.”
As such I usually vote for the least “professional” of them all.
GAry 7
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
Will you only be happy if an atheist gets elected?
I’m from Arkansas. I’ve lived here most of my life. I grew up under Gov. Clinton, and spent the years after college with Gov. Huckabee. I’m not a Huckabee fan, and will probably not vote for him since I’m ready to put most any other party into the white house. That being said…
Huckabee did more good for the education system in AR than any governor we’ve ever had. I disagreed with many of his religious views, but that never once figured into his policies. He does have several skeletons in the closet, especially his excessive use of traveling on the taxpayer’s dime, but as a teacher I can say that his actions have only helped me. I loved the lady he placed as science advisor. He created a Science & Technology Authority to increase those industries and direct education in those fields, and they have done a wonderful job. He stood for increasing education spending when it seemed the whole legislature was ready to oust him for it. He walked a hard road to lift us from last place. (BTW, our educational spending now stands at 25% more now than when he became governor.)
When the situation in KS arose our state leaders were worried that AR might become the next state to be embarrassed by some rural school district’s board. We’ve been embarrassed enough from Epperson v. Arkansas and McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, both federal cases against teaching creationism. The Department of Education was directed to define what would be taught in Biology in language such that there could be no confusion regarding what was appropriate. This mandate was ordered by Huckabee. Dealing with the committee that determines the science curriculum, I can say first-hand that this wasn’t something that a junior official decided on his/her own and claimed authority from the governor, but an official missive given by the big man himself. Huckabee strongly supported teaching a strictly science curriculum in the classroom. Looking at his record I can’t see how anyone could think his personal beliefs have influenced his ability to lead. Here are the standards now: http://arkedu.state.ar.us/curriculum/pdf/biology_framework_9-12_06.pdf
I read and watched the link Phil provided. I thought his responses reflected his actions for the last decade quite well. He will tell you what he thinks, no one can fault him for that, and then he does what he says he will do–let people live their own lives. He takes a very humanist view toward illegals, which probably ticks off a lot of people but I agree with him. Also, you probably haven’t had the opportunity to meet his wife. She’s a hoot! Before Oklahoma changed governors she used to go rattlesnake hunting with their governor’s wife each summer. (not with a gun you sissys!)
If anyone can point to any circumstance in which Huckabee “ignored” the First Amendment, I’d love to read it. I’ve been right here the whole time and hopefully would have noticed.
Once again, not a Huckabee supporter but he is the one politician I know enough about to have an opinion. He did a lot of stuff I disagreed with, but overall I believe he improved my state. Before you follow someone on what they say, look hard at what they do.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 am
With so many other pressing issues, it amazes me that this one thing continues to receive “out of proportion air-play”. To be fair, the extreme Christian right scares me to death. Being a part of the evangelical church for 24 years has exposed me to enough of the extremism to cause me to stand against the likes of Hagee, Parsley and others. These people are gaining much ground in the fight to bring a theocratic government about. They may suffer a set-back in ‘08, but rest assured, they will return to their “bunkers” (churches and ministries) and regroup for 2012.
In saying that, the extreme left scares me as well. I do not wish to see religion banned from society, unless that particular religion advocates practices that are clearly illegal (human sacrifice comes to mind, but it’s early
). I do not understand the over-reaction of some people in seeing the baby Jesus laying in a manger, or in the case cited here, Christmas lights hung at a fire station. Granted, it should not be done in government buildings/property, especially if the government claims to represent all segments of society. To see people of both left and right screaming at each other makes me either laugh or shake my head.
So, where is a healthy balance? I read John Edwards interview with Soledad O’Brien, where he states he is Southern Baptist, believes in God, believes in evolution, does not PERSONALLY believe gays should be allowed to marry. How does one know that that will not influence his leadership? Ron Paul holds certain beliefs. No one knows how they will influence his leadership. One thing I do understand, is that the President cannot rule by himself. Therefore are there not checks and balances to make sure he does not run amok?
Lastly, I think there is a place for someone who holds strong personal beliefs, that may be contradictory to mine, but who also recognizes, and has the ability to govern according to the will of the people he is elected by.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 am
the extreme left scares me as well. I do not wish to see religion banned from society
Michael, please don’t mischaracterize the “extreme left” this way if you’re going to merely characterize the “extreme right” in the comparitively tame way that you did.
What I mean to say is, there are a significant number of legitimately powerful people on the right that advocate for theocracy, if they don’t actually use that word (Mitt “freedom requires religion” Romney comes to mind as head theocrat). These people enjoy plenty of support from like-minded voters on the right. There are, however, only a smattering on the left who want “religion banned from society”, none of them are in any real positions of power, and no one really takes them seriously.
So, while it may be correct to characterize the “extreme” left as wanting religion banned from society, we’re talking so extreme that the “extreme” right in the same context would need to be characterized as neo-nazis. Sure, those elements are there, but they’re really not part of the picture.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:27 am
He isn’t advocating forcing Christianity on anyone, OR using public funds to promote it. What he’s against is stuff like Muslims being able to get Christmas Carols banned in a shopping mall(with the help of the ACLU) because they “offended” them notwithstanding the fact that it was on private property and they could have left at any time and the vast majority of the customers liked the carols.
I’m an Agnostic NOT an Atheist. From my experience an Agnostic is someone who doesn’t believe in god, an Atheist is militant about it. In our society we should be promoting co-existence, not confrontation.
Eg. in my school we had a policy that there was a school prayer, but no one was forced to take part. We just had to stand silently for about 40s until everyone else was finished. Were my “rights” infringed upon by standing silently for 40s? People like the ACLU would have me think so and help me sue to get rid of school prayer, even if that would mean seriously infringing on the rights of way more people.
Ron Paul stands for LESS governmental interference in peoples lives, NOT forcing Christianity down anyones throats.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 am
What kind of bugs me is government offices and officials spendind public resources on *any* holiday display - religious or otherwise.
Given the current climate of cutbacks, we really shouldn’t be wasting money on national christmas trees or menorahs or whatever, and political leaders have much more important work to do than loafing around in some decorative ritual.
And before someone points out that the decorations could be donated and the work done by volunteers, those resources would be much better used elsewhere as well.
Then again, I also think congress should not be allowed to waste time on non-binding resolutions. It’s all useless puffery.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 am
I’ve noticed that most of the comments are about the firehouse. Is it just me, or is that just a distraction from the issue? You might even think that focussing on this is a ploy to get people to admit that maybe complaining about christmas decoration might be a bit of an overreaction, to trick them into supposedly supporting the notion that there is a supposed war on christianity going on…
Can we please forget about the firehouse and just plain say whether we think religion should be kept out of government or not? (Of course it should, but that’s just my opinion)
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
metatron,
You seriously mischaracterize the ACLU.
There have been plenty of cases where they have gone to bat FOR the religious rights of christians.
Two cases that immediately come to mind are the evangelical preacher who wanted to do a baptism in a river at a public park but were prohibited by the local gov’t and the high school students who were passing out candy canes with religious messages attached to them but were prohibited by school officials.
The ACLU sued and won in both cases.
There are several others that i cannot remember right now.
But don’t take my word for it, go to ACLU.org for the straight dope.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
@Gary Ansorge:
I was actually just thinking the same thing. It used to be that being a representative or senator was a part-time job, a lot like being on a city council nowadays. Somewhere in there, being a politician became a career, and that seems to be causing some problems.
I’m having trouble finding someone I can actually get behind, because personally, I’m fiscally conservative and socially moderate-to-liberal, and I sure as hell don’t want to pay 50% taxes to support ineffective welfare programs.
The politicians are all crazy because the sane people are busy with real jobs.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Oh, and Ron Paul lost me when he said that the dietary supplement industry shouldn’t be regulated. Like most Libertarians he makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that if left to their own devices, corporations will behave in a legal and ethical manner, and that infractions can be dealt with in civil courts. Corporations have shown an amazing willingness to perform horrendous acts that only the most psychopathic individual would consider, and in a modern society where such actions can fatally affect thousands or millions of individuals, trying to pin the blame in civil court after the fact is a pointless exercise. Government oversight is a necessity.
Libertarianism, like Communism, is a nice philosophical point and can serve as a balancing viewpoint, but it can not work in the real word on any scale larger than … say an isolated island with a population of 20.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 am
What he’s against is stuff like Muslims being able to get Christmas Carols banned in a shopping mall(with the help of the ACLU) because they “offended” them notwithstanding the fact that it was on private property
… which is precisely why the ACLU would never take such a case (emphasis mine). I hear a lot of ACLU bashing from people who are profoundly ignorant of the ACLU’s mission. Metatron, I encourage you to go the ACLU website (probably aclu.org, but you can look it up) and look at the cases they have fought or filed amicus briefs for. For every case they fight against government endorsement of religion, you will find a case they fought for a private individual who wanted to practice their religion, and was denied that right. Why people don’t understand this simple distinction is beyond my powers of comprehension (although it is really their powers of comprehension that should be called into question).
The government can not express a preference for a religion.
The government can not deny an individual or private organization the right to religious expression.
Every case the ACLU fights regarding the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment follows the two simple statements above. Find me one case that they fought that does not clearly violate one of the above statements. They would never try to stop a mall from displaying Christmas decorations. It’s stupid mischaracterizations like that that make idiots like Bill O’Reilly go supernova and lower the average national IQ.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
That whole story about firemen having to take down Christmas decoration probably didn’t even happen. At least, I do not believe it without independent proof. A question about religious sensitivities may have come up at a meeting, after which it started a life of its own. That’s how these things work, and extremists love this type of scaremongering.
Anyway, Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination. The worst thing to do right now is to give credence to his ideas by acknowledging them: It will only increase the likelyhood that those ideas are taken on board in the race for the presidency later this year.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
— That whole story about firemen having to take down Christmas decoration probably didn’t even happen.
Oops.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20031222/ai_n12520838
As for the folks trying to downplay the whole story: I agree. It was a small local issue.
However, let not use it to paint Ron Paul as a “theocrat” either, yes?
— It will only increase the likelyhood that those ideas are taken on board in the race for the presidency later this year.
Yeah all those awful ideas that the federal government is out of control and has gone far past what it was intended to do. Real fracking awful, they are. (rolls eyes)
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124055.html
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 am
I really, truly did like Ron Paul…I told myself things like “He’s really against the invasion of Iraq!” and “He’s actually voted according to what he says!” and “He wants small government!”
I think that the numerous posts pointing out his pro-religion or outright insane stances have forced me to realize that, contrary to what I had hoped, he isn’t the one good apple in the bad Republican barrel; he’s just as bad as the rest.
I’d been so hopeful that there would be at least one worthwhile candidate from each major party this year…
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
“The politicians are all crazy because the sane people are busy with real jobs.”
This is a sentiment you hear a lot (and variations thereof), and I believe it is quite damaging to the democratic process (for a start, it gets actors elected). Sure, politicians are not saints, and many are in it for personal gain. But if voter turnout would be higher, they would have a better incentive to do a good job.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Paul make the action speak louder than words argument. I don’t know if that makes him a theocrat or moralist. In either case both descriptions could be considered radical depending on your view point. My vote goes to Ron Paul for the basic reason discussed by G. Edward Griffin author of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. He has a great video up on YouTube.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
“It’s much more offensive that Christmas decorations appear in October - something that represents a commercial perversion of the whole Christian celebration… yet strangely nobody really complains about that.”
I do. All year, much to the chagrin of anyone listening.
I was at one store this past October before Halloween, and heard Christmas music playing from a ‘boombox’. I wanted to turn the thing off, but aparently, so had others… the store had strategically placed the boombox atop a tall shelf, 12-15 feet above the floor. I contemplated climbing the shelf to thwart that move, but decided it wasn’t worth getting injured and moved on. I did complain to a few store employees (never did see an actual manager, curiously enough), and they all agreed with me that it was ridiculous for the store to be playing Christmas music that early in the year, but they were powerless to do anything about it. I told them to pass along to their manager(s) that customers (well, one customer: me) didn’t like it either, and that I’d be happy to discuss it with the management.
I never did get to speak to an actual manager, but I did stop shopping there until after the holiday season. Which is to say, I have yet to return there. I’m not completely boycotting the store, I just haven’t had to go back, as I can get what I need at other places that don’t have the music playing for months ahead of the actual holiday.
And for those who wonder, I actually do as little shopping as possible in the month of December, due to the inundation of Christmas music and in-your-face SALES! and so on. I don’t hide from the problem, but I don’t bang my head against a wall I can’t move, either, and find the holidays a lot less stressful as a result.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
QD, thanks for the independent proof. Living in “Daily Mail” country, I am naturally sceptical about such stories.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
I’ve often wondered, and this is a serious question:
Why, if the First Amendment requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, are people not up in arms about the fact there is a sanctioned day off work on December 25, on Easter, and on Thanksgiving (which is a Christian holiday for all intents and purposes)?
Thinking about the firehouse thing, it’s reasonable to expect that the firemen paid for the decorations out of personal funds, but there’s no denying that the GOVERNMENT pays for most of them to have a Christian holiday as a day off. And I’m 99% sure that Christmas and Easter are FEDERAL holidays. I’m not sure about Thanksgiving.
It isn’t a huge leap to say that the concept of the Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving work holidays should be abolished under the establishment clause. Of course, it’s one thing to make Christians give up their symbols. It’s another thing completely to give them up yourself.
Yes, I do know that some people do complain about recognition of religious holidays at all. Yes, there are ways around it (allow 3 statutory days off for “personal reflection” to be taken as each individual sees fit, for example). However, those initiatives never seem to get the same airing as a Christmas tree removal, even though they are much closer to the core issue.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
— Jamie said, “The politicians are all crazy because the sane people are busy with real jobs.”
Well, actually, the politicians are all crazy because out system filters out anyone sane. Ron Paul is insane, but the fact that he has SOME sane ideas has sorted him down near the bottom.
And enough with the Bill O’Reilly comments! Who cares about Bill O’Reilly? For Aphoom-Zhah’s sake ,you people act like he’s the biggest bogeyman in history. He’s a news commentator who job #1 is to get ratings. End of story. I hate to break it to you, but he’s not the antichrist. Sorry.
Warning: rant ahoy!
This is what drives me nuts about politics in this country (or anywhere). You bloody fools try to act like you are so skeptical and above it all, but you play into the same “angles/demons” false dichotomy as happily as any trailer park denizen uttering “we don’ts likes yer type around here”.
Ron Paul dares to utter anything not in the local Party Line, so he’s tossed in the “theocrat” bin. I’m sorry, but that’s operating on a zero level of intellect. There’s no skepticism there. There’s nothing there but single minded ideology madly twisting the contrast knob on reality until nothing is left but a monochromatic shadow devoid of nuance and depth.
AND I DON’T EVEN LIKE RON PAUL!
Ah, the heck with youse peoples…
When’s Cloverfield getting released?
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 am
Doc:
“Given the current climate of cutbacks, we really shouldn’t be wasting money on national christmas trees or menorahs or whatever, and political leaders have much more important work to do than loafing around in some decorative ritual.”
As much as I agree, I also disagree with the Federal government forcing this fiscal responsibility on state and local governments. It’s an issue for people in that state or district.
“And before someone points out that the decorations could be donated and the work done by volunteers, those resources would be much better used elsewhere as well.”
Shouldn’t that be up to those particular donors and volunteers?
“Oh, and Ron Paul lost me when he said that the dietary supplement industry shouldn’t be regulated.”
So, once again, you complain about violations of the First Amendment but have no problem with violations of the Tenth.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 am
ESquid, I think that has something to do with “picking the fights that you can win,” as well as the fact that the majority of cultures have something going on aound the winter solstice.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 am
The closest thing to historically observed non-hybrid, non-polyploid speciation that I know of is the evolution of the apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella. For an introduction, you can look at http://www.nd.edu/~aforbes/ . Although the term “host races” is usually used for these guys, they meet at least some definitions of “species”. (Reproductive isolation is rarely as clear-cut as introductory textbooks make it out to be.)
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
Quiet Desperation:
> Was Network one of the single most prophetic movies ever made? Am I right? Almost everything in that movie came to pass in the news media except for one, and if I were Katie Couric, I’d be watching my back
Well, we are essentially living through the 1970s again. Unpopular foreign war, unrest at home, concern over foreign oil, an underlying fear of the fall of the Republic, so on and so forth…
As for Couric, well, far be it from me to suggest that her back would be improved by some flow-through ventilation. It [i]would[/i] be nice though if she could bother to get a clue every once in a while.
Shane:
> Again, you’re misunderstanding the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits the states from doing many things, and imposing slavery or involuntary servitude is one of them (13th Amendment). But again, READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT. If it’s not in the Constitution the Federal government can’t to it; it falls to the states, unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from doing it, in which case it falls to the people.
The Tenth Amendment does not apply here as the First Amendment applies to all levels of governance in the Union. The First Amendment [i]does[/i] exist as a universal law of the land; thus, the Establishment Clause exists; thus, the Tenth Amendment does not apply.
tenacious:
> Before you follow someone on what they say, look hard at what they do.
Bah. I support the radical ideology of Chairman Meow. It’s easier to make decisions when Those With The Truth do the thinking for you.
metatron (and, sideways, to Shane):
> What he’s against is stuff like Muslims being able to get Christmas Carols banned in a shopping mall([redacted]) because they “offended” them notwithstanding the fact that it was on private property and they could have left at any time and the vast majority of the customers liked the carols.
Now THIS is a Tenth Amendment issue.
> We just had to stand silently for about 40s until everyone else was finished. Were my “rights” infringed upon by standing silently for 40s? People like the ACLU would have me think so and help me sue to get rid of school prayer, even if that would mean seriously infringing on the rights of way more people.
And in this case the ACLU is right because a reasonable observer would note that the forty seconds of silence is a non-value added waste of time to those with no belief and exists for the sole purpose of supporting religion, hence establishment, hence unConstitutional. Now, it may have been kvetching from thin skins, but it is the law of the land and the plaintiffs and the ACLU were in the right.
Doc:
> What kind of bugs me is government offices and officials spendind public resources on *any* holiday display - religious or otherwise.
Yes, because public servants are robots.
> Given the current climate of cutbacks, we really shouldn’t be wasting money on national christmas trees or menorahs or whatever,
Lessee… GWoT/OEF: $20 million an hour.
Chintzy plastic tree bought in 1980: $50 assuming it was a deluxe model.
Least Waste Way says both should go, but if I had my druthers as to which one to rightsize first…
> and political leaders have much more important work to do than loafing around in some decorative ritual.
Because they are, again, robots.
> And before someone points out that the decorations could be donated and the work done by volunteers, those resources would be much better used elsewhere as well.
Beep. Whirr. Click click click. What people do with their own money in their own time is their prerogative, not yours. The money I spend on, oh, buying Christmas lights to put on my hibiscus because I thought it’d look clever would have been much better used to feed starving children in Africa, which actually means buying some janjaweed more 7.62mm ammunition because that’s how charities work nowadays.
> Then again, I also think congress should not be allowed to waste time on non-binding resolutions. It’s all useless puffery.
Okay, that makes sense.
> Oh, and Ron Paul lost me when he said that the dietary supplement industry shouldn’t be regulated. Like most Libertarians he makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that if left to their own devices, corporations will behave in a legal and ethical manner, and that infractions can be dealt with in civil courts. Corporations have shown an amazing willingness to perform horrendous acts that only the most psychopathic individual would consider,
I think the psychological malady you’re looking for is “sociopathy” coupled with a decided lack of ethical education, but agreed.
>and in a modern society where such actions can fatally affect thousands or millions of individuals, trying to pin the blame in civil court after the fact is a pointless exercise. Government oversight is a necessity.
Thoroughly agreed.
> Libertarianism, like Communism, is a nice philosophical point and can serve as a balancing viewpoint, but it can not work in the real word on any scale larger than … say an isolated island with a population of 20.
150, if the Monkeysphere brain-structural-limit is any indication. To provide perspective, I suppose you could consider me relatively libertarian when it comes to actions of individual citizens and real people, decidedly “third way” when it comes to regulating corporations and commerce, socialist on safety regulations and univeralized basic healthcare, and archaeosocialist on welfare (very New Deal sort of stuff; sure, we’ll feed you, but expect to dig ditches or do paperwork or otherwise help the State for helping you in the interim).
Beowulff:
> Can we please forget about the firehouse and just plain say whether we think religion should be kept out of government or not? (Of course it should, but that’s just my opinion)
Religion should be a non-factor in government decisions. Unfortunately, the government is made of flawed people who are mostly theists and not Friend Computer, so government to be utterly devoid of religion is a good ideal but a poor expectation. Christmas lights on a firehouse: just fine. Banners saying “JESUS IS LORD” on the same: bad. Boring old firehouse: bad for espirit de corps and morale.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 am
*groan*G. Edward Griffin author of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. *groan*
This guy is a huge conspiracy nut whose interpretation of the creation and purpose of the Federal Reserve is a grand conspiracy by [the usual Jewish suspects]. His books are favorites among groups like the John Birch Society (of which I used to be amember).
He’s also a big proponent of the Cancer Cure!!! of B17!!!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
As for the ACLU… it should stick to government; it doesn’t always.
Letter to private property shopping mall for not having “freedom of speech” (using “chilling effect”) argument: Not a legal action, but still getting involved, neh?
Supporting “free speech” legislation on private property
They tend to argue that private shopping malls are the “new” public square. So no, they don’t limit themselves solely to government, sadly.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Evolving Squid, a list of the ten federal holidays for you (note that Easter is not one because it always falls on a Sunday):
New Year’s Day (1/1)
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (third Monday in January)
Washington’s Birthday (known colloquially as President’s Day, third Monday in February)
Memorial Day (last Monday in May)
Independence Day (7/4)
Labor Day (first Monday in September)
Columbus Day (second Monday in October)
Veterans Day (11/11)
Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday in November)
Christmas Day (12/25)
Of those, only Christmas is religious - while Thanksgiving has religious undertones, it is, for all intents and purposes, religiously neutral, being part of the national mythology as much as Columbus Day. And some (including me) would argue that Christmas has moved very far from it’s Christian connections (notice I do not say roots, for its roots are in the solstice).
And PK is right on the picking battles thing.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
On the subject of the Chicago firehouse I have a problem. The term “Christmas decorations” is actually too vague for me. Did they have strings of lights all over everything (which is what the stations in my area do)? Was it a big inflatable Santa or Frosty? Or was it a Nativity? It seems to me the first two do not violate anything whereas the third is a problem.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
ESquid, I think that has something to do with “picking the fights that you can win,” as well as the fact that the majority of cultures have something going on aound the winter solstice.
I agree that most cultures have a winter, spring, and harvest “festival” of some kind. However, that isn’t the same as Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving. The latter three are clearly instances of established religion.
As I said, to comply with the First Amendment, they should be removed from the list of statutory holidays, and perhaps replaced with 3 days of “personal reflection” that can be used at each individual’s will. That would be the non-hypocritical, most inclusive, complies-with-the-First-Amendment thing to do.
I also agree that it probably isn’t a winnable fight in the short term, but it *SHOULD* be the primary fight in that particular arena. It’s not the Christmas decorations that matter, it’s that the government recognizes Christmas at all in ways that it does not recognize Eid Saeed or Hanukkah.
People can ban all the religious decorations they like, but Christianity will still be established as an effective state religion as long as the state continues to give special sanction to Christian religious festivals.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
Carey, in the Netherlands, most people go to church only once a year: at Christmas. Given the similarities between the US and the Netherlands, I think it would be a mistake to regard Christmas as a non-religious holiday.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 am
Washington’s Birthday (known colloquially as President’s Day, third Monday in February)
Memorial Day (last Monday in May)
Thanks. That’s interesting. Here in Canada we get “Good Friday” (which really wasn’t so good if you were the guy that allegedly got nailed up) as a holiday on the Friday before Easter. Banks and the federal government also get Easter Monday (because Easter is always on a Sunday). Most people have to work on Easter Monday though.
We also get the ever bizarre “Boxing Day” on December 26 which is not a religious holiday as far as I know and is a throwback to the old British Empire.
In Canada, however, there is no official separation of church and state
even though it is separate in practice.
I guess Easter can be dropped out of my point though, if it’s not a sanctioned holiday in the US.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
ESquid, I think we broadly agree on this. I just wanted to indicate that people who do not celebrate Christmas usually have their own festivities around this time and don’t want to risk losing their owm holiday as well. Because if Christmas no longer makes the cut, then their minority feast is most definitely doomed.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
I think the page you (and Merit-Bound Alley) linked to changed the article’s title for added “oomph”. On Paul’s site it’s entitled “Christmas in Secular America“. While I don’t care for the man or his views, I thought for accuracy’s sake this was worth pointing out.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Thanksgiving is clearly a religious holiday. You give thanks… to some invisible superman. That’s what it is about. It is debatably not as Christian as Christmas, but it’s undeniably religious and seems to be heavily Christian slanted.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
— This is a sentiment you hear a lot (and variations thereof), and I believe it is quite damaging to the democratic process (for a start, it gets actors elected).
No, the democratic process is already damaged beyond redemption. There’s not ONE candidate in the current crop in ANY Party that seems to be anything other than another nutcase who wants to control my life. The sentiment is an effect, not a cause.
As for actors getting elected, you’d rather have more career politicians? Those people are the whole problem!
— Sure, politicians are not saints,
I said SANE, not SAINT!
Sounds like a punchline to a joke.
— and many are in it for personal gain. But if voter turnout would be higher, they would have a better incentive to do a good job.
How so?
Maybe they could play Santa Claus and promise everything to everyone. Oh, wait, they already do.
But no politician would be stupid enough to play an actual Santa Claus card, now, would they? That’s just too blantant, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzBvQ9EeF3k
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
There are some interesting points made here.
The Christmas decorations bit is more subtle, perhaps, than I originally thought. Were the decorations religious in nature (nativity, a cross, etc) or more geared toward the generic holiday (snowman, Santa)? I’d have to think about that more. But the law is very clear for religious symbols: a publicly/taxpayer-funded organization cannot display religious items unless they give equal access to other faiths (or to people displaying there lack of faith).
The “busybody” remark by Paul is still amazing to me. It shows a startling lack of thought on the Constitution. Perhaps the person who complained should have made sure the firehouse announced it would allow others to display their symbols… but it hardly matters. If the firehouse was showing religious symbols from one specific belief, then it’s unconstitutional.
I always like to imagine what would happen if a firehouse someplace displayed only, say, Muslim symbols. It is very clear what sort of reaction would ensue.
And take a step back to look at Paul’s article as a whole: it is a defense of one particular religion in America, a religion practiced by the overwhelming majority of citizens and which is in no danger whatsoever from being destroyed or even weakened (except from within by this sort of ridiculous punditry). His essay was foolish, and is a simple exercise in pandering.
As I mentioned in the post, I agree with many things Paul advocates, but strongly disagree with him on many more. This is an area which I think is very important, because religious discrimination is a major wedge issue, and is being used to advocate clearly unconstitutional policies. It’s also being used as a misleading way of promoting candidates who would move this country even further away from its ideals.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
I always like to imagine what would happen if a firehouse someplace displayed only, say, Muslim symbols. It is very clear what sort of reaction would ensue.
What should happen is that all the Christians who howl when they are forced to take down their Nativity scenes should jump to the defence of the Muslim decorations. To do otherwise would make them hypocrites and therefore condemned to eternity in an auditorium that only plays Captain and Tenille records over and over.
But yes, we all know what the reaction really would be. The question is that whether the problem is really the decorations, or the federal recognition of religious holidays AT ALL.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Oops missed the link. Now that I know the whole story it seems wrong to me. If the firefighters themselves chose to do it on the inside of the station even if it was visible from the outside that doesn’t seem to violate the separation of church and state. Am I missing something?
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
ES, I guess I see it this way: Thanksgiving (in practice) is not all that religious, in the same way that Christmas (in practice) is not all that religious. One involves pilgrims and Native Americans (much to the chagrin of the Native Americans), and the other involves Santa, reindeer and elves (much to the chagrin of the Elf Liberation Foundation).
Christmas has that extra religious “oomph” from the whole birth of Jesus thing, so that pushes it into “religious holiday” territory. Plus, it’s almost 2000 years old at this point (in terms of origin) and several hundred years old (in terms of celebration).
The story behind Thanksgiving, however, is not religious. It’s (charitably) about explorers from another continent getting help from the people living on the continent they were exploring to get them through their first winter in a new land. The story is less than 400 years old, and has only been celebrated as a national holiday since 1863.
As for who is being thanked besides The Invisible Sky Father, it’s the Native Americans, of course. For atheists such as myself, I consider it a day to be thankful (in general) for my family, friends, and pumpkin pie at breakfast.
I am aware that Lincoln’s 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation made significant (and annoying, to me) references to a god, but again, these are in a religiously neutral sense (and Lincoln wasn’t a Christian anyway - by his own words, don’t get mad at me about it). In terms of church-state separation (finally getting back to the original subject), Thanksgiving is a non-issue. There’s more controversy surrounding the sensitivity towards Native Americans that were subsequently slaughtered to make way for the white man’s expansion than there is regarding any perceived religious undertones.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Evolving Squid:
> Thanksgiving is clearly a religious holiday. You give thanks… to some invisible superman. That’s what it is about. It is debatably not as Christian as Christmas, but it’s undeniably religious and seems to be heavily Christian slanted.
(American) Thanksgiving started as an official holiday in 1863 as a morale-building tool during the American Civil War. Given as it has more to do with harvest festivals than properly thanking sky genies for existing (hey, we got good crops, let’s give some cred to who we think helped) it has slowly diverged from religious meaning. Nowadays it’s probably the most American of holidays: as secular or religious as you’d like. I’ve been to dinners that were almost churchlike in their ritual of thanksgiving, and I’ve hosted dinners myself that were “don’t worry, we’re gonna fake it” holidays of relaxation and chilling out. Both were nice, in their different ways.
Thanksgiving has therefore evolved from a sort-of religious holiday into a as-religious-as-you-care-it-to-be holiday. Christmas is arguably a different matter, but if you move it, a large majority of the Republic gets angry–some for tradition’s sake, some for religion’s sake–and it’ll just get moved back. If you take it away entirely, most everyone gets angry because most everyone likes a day off.
Christmas is there and it is also evolving towards secularism–just look at the past century and holiday trends–so if you leave it alone it will solve itself.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Internetists admire Paul because he promises to put an end to American imperialism, return troops and end the futile war on drugs. He’s also the only Republican candidate who’s not bought and sold by corporate America.
Yes, he’s a nut on most other issues.
The internetists are also justifiably aggrieved that Paul is being excluded from debates when he has i) raised more money than any other candidate and ii) raised more money from troops than any other candidate and iii) polls as the 4th most popular Republican.
Paul is also largely excluded from the media even though he is probably the most popular candidate amongst young voters.
I absolutely agree with the BA’s comments, but in a democratic society, Paul would be given the air-time to actually explain his positions to the voters.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
There’s a lot to say on this issue (as is in evidence by the number of comments); however, Centipede has already made clear a lot of the points I would have made anyways, so I won’t be too repetitive.
For one thing, I think everyone should relax a little bit. Sure, it’s politics, and it gets everyone riled up. But at the same time, cool heads are needed in such a heated issue. That being said, I am subject to angry political rants from time to time as well.
All that aside, I do kind of agree about the firehouse issue being somewhat out-of-align. But I guess considering the Jewish organization was denied the right to display a menorah on public property, it would only be considered “fair” to have the firemen’s decorations taken down as well. It almost looks like those in charge at Glenview are being overly careful about offending any religion–which is much better than a lot of other things they could be doing.
I’ve never been a big supporter of Ron Paul–and the huge internet hype about him only strengthened that. However, were I forced to choose, I think I’d rather have Paul than say, Rudy Guiliani. But I won’t get started on that.
@Evolving_Squid
>Why, if the First Amendment requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, are people not up in arms about the fact there is a sanctioned day off work on December 25, on Easter, and on Thanksgiving (which is a Christian holiday for all intents and purposes)?
That’s an excellent point. I’d never really thought of it that way.
@Michael Lonergan — The extremist of anything scares me to death, because that’s usually indicative of people who are extremely close-minded to anyone not of their own opinion. I don’t care what religion anyone is–as long as they understand that there are other religions, not everyone is going to believe the same thing, and (more importantly) they don’t have to.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
OMG Ron Paul panders? You mean he’s acting like someone who’s running for president or something?
Paul is not Jesus, he is not John Galt, get over it and just elect a libertarian for the first time ever.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’ll agree that Ron Paul’s stance on this issue kind of sucks. But I don’t think it really matters in comparison with the things that he is right about.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
@River
>@Evolving_Squid
>
>>Why, if the First Amendment requires that “Congress shall make no >law respecting an establishment of religion”, are people not up in arms >about the fact there is a sanctioned day off work on December 25, on >Easter, and on Thanksgiving (which is a Christian holiday for all intents >and purposes)?
>
>That’s an excellent point. I’d never really thought of it that way.
I think this issue is simply settled by the fact that everybody loves a free day off from work and if they complain they’ll lose it!
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
It’s been said before (probably in this comment section), but it bears repeating; Ron Paul is a good guy trapped in a republican’s body. He’s got a really great pro freedom, pro constitution in general, but as you said phil, He either has some incredibly stupid beliefs, or he chooses to pander to those who have them. Maybe he’ll figure it out after he loses this election.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Squid writes:
[[What should happen is that all the Christians who howl when they are forced to take down their Nativity scenes should jump to the defence of the Muslim decorations.]]
And I would. Would you?
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
> Paul is not Jesus, he is not John Galt
Thank god. Last thing we need (next to Huckabee) is an Objectivist in office.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
I”m just curious, what would an athiestic display look like? A blank wall? I see no conflict with the constitution in allowing the firemen to display their Christmas decrorations. In fact, if athiesm is to be considered a “faith”, then one could say that the gentleman who complained was forcing his athiesm on the fireman (assuming he is an athiest, which I know may not have been the case). I only see a conflict with the first ammendment if someone of another faith, say a Jew, was blocked from putting up hanukkah displays by his Christian counterparts. BTW, it is worth mentioning in the context of this blog entry that seperation of church and state is also not mentioned in the constitution. This concept (albiet an important one) was voiced later by Thomas Jefferson and endorsed by the Supreme Court.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
And I would. Would you?
Yes, I would jump to the defence of Muslim decorations, just as I am defending their Christian decorations now.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
I think this issue is simply settled by the fact that everybody loves a free day off from work and if they complain they’ll lose it!
Nobody has to lose it. Just put in law a floating day off to take at your discretion. If people CHOOSE to take it on Dec 25, that’s fine. Some people won’t… that’s fine too.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
QD: “The sentiment is an effect, not a cause.”
This is a two-way street: a lack of interest/apathy/cynicism regarding the people who get into politics will keep “the decent people” out of it. Also, it is a logical fallacy to think that because the politician is a bit of a scumbag he is also incompetent. There are lots of pretty competent politicians, but I wouldn’t necessarily want them at my birthday party. Luckily, I don’t have to invite them.
There is a lot wrong with the system (in every democratic country, I might add), but sitting back and and declaring politicians lower than lawyers is not going to make things better.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
David - it’s atheist, not athiest. You know, “i before e except after c, and when sounding like a as in neighbor…”
Crap. Another one to add to my list:
science
counterfeit
conscience
weird
either
neither
height
caffeine
leisure
foreign
seize
protein
forfeit
atheist
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Carey,
Thanks for pointing out my typo. Let he who is without mispelling cast the first keyboard! Anything constructive to add?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Shane Killian:
“How on EARTH can Dr. Paul’s record be said to be “consistently in line with the Christian Right” when he has voted AGAINST the Defense of Marriage Act and many other theocratic bills?”
Ron Paul didn’t vote on the Defense of Marriage Act at all, but here’s what he has to say about it:
“If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
So you’re pretty much completely wrong there, sorry guy.
He’s also come out against the 2003 SCOTUS decision which struck down sodomy laws, and he thinks Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a fine policy.
“peenworm: The We the People Act does NOT say that. Either you’re just parroting whatever source gave you your misinformation and you haven’t read the Act at all, or you missed the following phrases:”
Yes I’m pretty much concerned with the following phrases:
HR300:
” The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
(1) shall not adjudicate–
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).”
So yes, that would have precluded the Dover trial.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
ES: The problem with giving people a floating day instead of Christmas is that floating vacation days and fixed holidays in the US are granted at the discretion of the employer. There are no laws requiring employees of private companies to be given a certain amount of vacation, nor to be given certain days off, and it’s not something that’s likely to happen in the future (for good or ill).
The federal government can decide which days federal employees (and federally chartered banks) have off, however. And I must strenuously object to eliminating Christmas as a bank holiday because I work at a bank, and we make monthly bond payments on the 25th of each month (or the first business day following if the 25th isn’t a business day). If December 25th wasn’t a bank holiday, I’d have to work that day, probably into the evening, extra day of vacation or not.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
— Phil said, “I’d have to think about that more.”
Always good advice.
— Phil said, “The “busybody” remark by Paul is still amazing to me.”
Well, trying to depict a local disagreement about some stupid decorations inside a firehouse as a major conflict in the battle over the Constitution is amazing to me? Don;t forget that firehouses are a second home to firemen, so maybe the brave defenders of the Constitution can step off their hyperdidactic pedestals in this one case?
This is the sort of thing that drives people nuts: the politicization of the tiniest little things. The idea that our every breath and thought must be monitored for inoffensiveness. Enough already! I’m not religious, but some firemen putting up some decoration has no meaning to me at all. Anyone bothered by that needs a psychiatrist, not a constitutional lawyer.
— Phil said, “I always like to imagine what would happen if a firehouse someplace displayed only, say, Muslim symbols. It is very clear what sort of reaction would ensue.”
Really? Then you should collect Randi’s $1 million prize. Or do you mean it’s clear how some theoretical stereotype would react?
You want to really defend the Constitution? I can help you out. Here’s a list of things to speak out on that are orders of magnitude bigger than a Christmas tree in a firehouse. Have at it:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124055.html
Here’s one of the best:
http://reason.com/blog/show/121692.html
Highlights:
“…a federal judge excoriated the FBI for not only hiding exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated four innocent men who served more than thirty years in prison, but for rewarding those who did the hiding and covering up with bonuses and promotions”
“We’re talking about the FBI concealing evidence of murder and other violent crimes, and of knowingly allowing innocent people to go to prison in order to not disrupt drug investigations.”
“The article details how the U.S. government was complicit in several murders carried out by Juarez drug cartel, including the kidnapping and murder of El Paso resident Luis Padilla — who appears to have been a victim of mistaken identity. U.S. drug cops apparently took no action as their trusted informant helped in several homicides, including helping to purchase lime to dissolve the bodies of the victims.”
Suddenly decorations in a firehouse seem no so bad, eh?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
The solution still seems pretty simple to me.
Public space: put up “seasonal”, religiously-neutral decorations (eg. evergreen branches and lights for winter, colored leaves and such for autumn).
Private space: put up whatever makes you happy.
The semi-public/semi-private areas like shopping malls are a bit contentious. They are indeed private property, so they can put up whatever they please. However their owners should be aware that they may be alienating customers if they make their displays overtly religious (there are some buisnesses that I won’t frequent for just such a reason).
In spite of what Centipede might think, I don’t feel that civil servants should be robots, but I do think they should remember that they serve *all* of the public and not just the majority. What they do in their off hours in the privacy of their own homes is of course their own business.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
— Also, it is a logical fallacy to think that because the politician is a bit of a scumbag he is also incompetent.
I know, but it just works out that way most of the time.
— There are lots of pretty competent politicians, but I wouldn’t necessarily want them at my birthday party.
I can’t find any. Depends on one’s definition of competent, I suppose. Competent at what? Bringing home the pork? Avoiding bad grammar in the bills they sponsor? Not shagging the interns? What?
— Luckily, I don’t have to invite them.
Yet.
— There is a lot wrong with the system (in every democratic country, I might add), but sitting back and and declaring politicians lower than lawyers is not going to make things better.
*shrug* Never said it would. I merely make the observation. I have no idea how to fix it.
OK, I”m done with this silly thread.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
QD,
You are quite right that there have been (and will be) more important attacks on civil liberties, I note that one of the examples on the site you linked to was about talking urinal cakes. I think I’d put those a little lower on the importance scale than government sponsored religious displays.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
David, I was just making a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that “atheist” is one of those funny words that violates the “i before e” rule. I’m normally not one to go around correcting people’s spelling unless it’s phenomenally bad.
But to address the content of your comment:
An atheist display looks like this:
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2007/12/20/local_news/doc476ac47e15ddb301403110.txt
(I hope that link works, otherwise, google “racine wisconsin atheist display”.)
Again, I’m being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I don’t see the need for “equal time” displays. A lot of people say the government should allow displays from all religions equally, or no religion at all. I disagree. I don’t think the government should allow any display of religious (or anti-religious) nature on public property - this avoids the conflict altogether. If someone wants to put up a nativity scene, they are perfectly free to put it up in their own yard. And if someone wants to put up an atheist pyramid, they can do it in their yard too. The same goes for the ten commandments, the five pillars of Islam, and the reverent display of pasta.
To answer your other two points: no, atheism is not a faith (as long as you define it as “I don’t believe a god exists” and not “I believe no god exists” - I am an atheist of the former sort). And I, for one, am fully aware that the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the Constitution and am a bit tired of people pointing it out as some sort of silly trap for me to go “Whaaaa?” at, and promptly go join the “America is a Christian nation” set. I’m thinking that wasn’t your intent, but as I said, I’ve grown a bit tired of that particular piece of propaganda over the years.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Wow, I take a nap and there are 80 some odd reponses before I check back. To those who answered my question, thank you. The joy of the blog, ask a question and people will do your research for you, LOL.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Of course, this whole argument is pointless, there is no chance Ron Paul would ever be elected in the United States.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
— Doc said: I note that one of the examples on the site you linked to was about talking urinal cakes. I think I’d put those a little lower on the importance scale than government sponsored religious displays.
So you cherry pick one of the lesser examples in the big list and ignore the rest.
[applause]
A fine intellectual display.
Congrats.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Carey,
The white pyramid is interesting. I was imagining something more like a Festivus pole. Let the airing of grievances begin! (I hope I got the i and the e in the right order that time).
I suppose not allowing any holiday decorations is certainly a “fair” solution, but I don’t think you can make a constitutional argument for the forceful removal of decorations (fair does not neccesarily equal constitutional). Neccesary is another one of those words I frequently mispell. In fact, if the stated reason for removal of those decorations is because it is a religious symbol, then that may violate the first ammendment (cannot freely exercise religion). However, if the stated reason is for asthetics, I don’t know if you could argue with that.
I was bringing up the absence of the phrase “separation of church and state” in the Constitution merely in response to the statement that “God” is not mentioned in the Constitution.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Shane Killian wrote:
I was seriously considering supporting Paul for a while, but anyone who writes that the constitution is “replete with references to God” can’t have even read the document.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Yes Carey, I mispelled “aesthetics” too. Damn you lack of spell checker!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The problem with having a floating day off is that corporations would start limiting the number of people taking the day off at the same time.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
@Gonzo,
I was hit up at my local library by a guy trying to get signatures for Ron Paul to run as a third-party candidate. He won’t get the Republican nod but he may run as Libertarian or Independent.
Can I give half my vote to Nader and the other half to Paul. Oh wait, I live in Indiana, it won’t matter.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
David said:
In fact, if the stated reason for removal of those decorations is because it is a religious symbol, then that may violate the first ammendment (cannot freely exercise religion).
Not if the display was on government/public property - the government may not freely exercise any religion. If it was on private property, of course the government couldn’t forcibly remove the decorations. No one is seriously advocating for that anyway.
I think Doc’s got it right that the solution is simple:
Public space: put up “seasonal”, religiously-neutral decorations (eg. evergreen branches and lights for winter, colored leaves and such for autumn).
Private space: put up whatever makes you happy.
I also don’t have a problem if there’s a Santa and his Reindeer display on public property because I don’t think those are religious in nature. But I can see there’s a gray area there.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Carey,
In the case of the firehouse, the “government” was not putting up the decorations, individuals employed by the government were. Would not allowing them to decorate their firehouse on religious grounds not violate the 1st ammendment phrase “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? I guess that begs the question, what is the difference between an individual in the government and the government itself. If the decorations are not put up by official decree, but rather by individuals using their own decorations, I just can’t see a Constitutional conflict. They have made no law establishing a state religion. But by passing a law that religious symbols are not allowed on public property for the stated reason that they are religios symbols is establishing a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof.
Would you extend the banishment of religious symbols on public property to personal apparel? No crosses around the neck, no Jewish or Muslim headwear? I think you would be going down that road, and I don’t like it one bit.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
@Evolving Squid
“Thanksgiving is clearly a religious holiday. You give thanks… to some invisible superman. That’s what it is about. It is debatably not as Christian as Christmas, but it’s undeniably religious and seems to be heavily Christian slanted.”
Thankgiving is a harvest festival, not a religious holiday. You know, where you celebrate having a good harvest with a bit of a feast while food’s plentiful. Thanking whatever gods happened to be worshiped in a given area (which in the US tends to be Christianity in most places) is traditional, but it is not a religious occasion. It has pretty much zero religious significance in and of itself.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
— Can I give half my vote to Nader and the other half to Paul. Oh wait, I live in Indiana, it won’t matter.
How about approval voting? Vote for every candidate you find acceptable.
There’s also disapproval voting.
Never happen, though, because it would be the death of the two party lock on the system. Think they’ll let that happen?
The only real world example I can think of is the selection process for the head of the UN. Old England maybe?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
It’s all a bunch of crap.
I don’t celebrate/observe halloween, should I complain when everyone puts up decorations…even at the courthouse? Of course not.
I don’t celebrate/observe Kwanza or Hannakuh, should I complain when I see those decorations…even at the Police Station? Of course not.
I don’t celebrate/observe Christmas, should I complain when I see decorations plastered all over the front gate of the local U.S. Air Force installation? Of course not.
Decorations, and people celebrating religious holidays, are perfectly fine. And if I complain to have them taken down, then I’m kinda infringing on their rights, aren’t I…
Point is, celebrating and decorating have nothing what so ever to do with GOVERNING! Teaching it in publc schools through the ID crap, now that is something to stand against.
Thought: There are more churches than there are schools in the U.S., what’s so hard about keeping the religous teaching in those churches, where it actually belongs?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
We have to eventually roll up our shirt sleeves and more efficiently make big government work because America is a big country. The far-right has long touted anti-big government slogans (to which they lump in anti-liberal programs) in what is really tacit favor of big corporate influences minimizing checks and balances. In other words, “small government” = “big corporate dictated government.”
Those who tout “small government is best” and repeat the mantra that issues “should be up to the states to decide” are knowingly or unknowingly speaking code for promoting big corporations running our country while small, autocratic fiefdoms are free to govern on the local level. Truly conservative, since it hearkens back to medieval times.
The concern isn’t Ron Paul’s take on Christmas decorations, but rather his (and Huckabee’s) further misunderstanding of American Democracy and the 1st Amendment.
Of course I’m not a fan of Ron Paul but I think he and Dennis Kucinich (who pulls a copy of the Constitution out of his pocket when asked church-state questions,) should both be given equal airtime along with the other candidates.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I was seriously considering supporting Paul for a while, but anyone who writes that the constitution is “replete with references to God” can’t have even read the document.
And God is only mentioned twice in the 85 Federalist papers.
Not only that, but it describes a system utterly unlike anything to do with God. The Feudal system that seemed to dominate everything before was considered the true divine pattern of civilization. The King or Pope or High Potentate or Head Muckity-Muck sat up on his throne unanswerable to the will of the people. All by the Will OF God[tm].
Intelligence and reason were absent. People were governed by threats and promises- a system of reward and punishment. Sort of like the Drug War.
Personally, that’s why I consider the Drug War to be a religious one- the sheer draconian nature of some of it.
The destiny of people back then was to toil and obey. They were eternal victims of both the Throne and the Altar.
We’ve come so far. Now we’re only vicitms of the Throne (government) and those fellow subjects (voters) who cheer it on.
A lot of people in this world think they are enlightened and have abandoned religion, but many have just simply substituted the State in place of God.
That all being said, it was still stupid to make the firemen take down the decorations.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
—We have to eventually roll up our shirt sleeves and more efficiently make big government work because America is a big country.
How do we accomplish that?
Personally, when I complain about big government I’m speaking to the waste and abuses of power.
For the waste, is it too much to pause and have a real accounting of many of the programs? Can we get some real financial experts to look at the books and fix things? Is that too much to ask?
And the argument that local government is better at some things than having it all centralized in one place thousand of miles away is not without merit. Painting it as medieval is disingenuous. People aren’t saying “replace the federal autocrat with a local autocrat.” That’s a strawman.
And tossing up “small government = corporate rule” is false dichotomy.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Skeptigator I would suggest you look at the collateral tables and see the theft and how the CDO’s were marked to market.. Conspiracy OK call it what you want…. frbdiscountwindow.org
Back to the theocrat issue. The only way it has any effect is if you ignore the first amendment… Yea your right on B17, Blue Green algae. magnesium, vitamin c, THC, LSD, CO2, yea there are nuts everywhere
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Carey, I don’t think I treated the extreme any differently than the extreme left in my comments. To me, they both represent an equal danger. Most people here, I would consider moderate, on both sides, at least from what I have seen.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
@ River, I totally agree with you. That to me is a great definition of extremist: Someone, or group that claims to have THE TRUTH, to the exclusion of all others.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The greatest feat in Dr. Paul’s amazing performances may not be what has been witnessed by the masses, but what has been hidden from them. For this record breaking candidate has attained this profound notoriety while being virtually censored by every major news establishment, including the Republican party.
Ron Paul is certainly the most magical presidential candidate in the race by far. Yet, he owes his accomplishments to genuine transparency and honesty, not sleight of hand. If he fails to produce a top tier finish right before your very eyes, it will only demonstrate that the prodigious conjuring of the American media has trumped him with a spellbinding illusion that he was simply no match for. Wake up America…..
Take the poll…Is Fox fair and balanced?
http://surveyg2.pollingpoint.com/v3r7RgTsGXrhg8
Dr. Paul should be included in all debates PERIOD…
Dr. Ron Paul in 2008
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/video-did-ron-paul-call-mike-huckabee-a-fascist/
A video of Ron Paul calling Huckabee a fascist, because of the use of a cross in his ad.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“I sure as hell don’t want to pay 50% taxes to support ineffective welfare programs.”
Hyperbole; personal welfare is minuscule throughout the US. If it were entirely gone your taxes would still rise. If it were doubled, your taxes would not.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian in name only. In my idealistic youth I volunteered for the party and am familiar with the platforms. I bought the image that he was Republican in name only (in order to get party backing) but now I don’t believe it for a femtosecond. There are good points made here and frankly, though I’d never vote for him, I’m not sure WHAT to think. I’m adamantly behind him on some issues, for sure.
“Ron Paul is a good guy trapped in a republican’s body” Seems to me he’s a Republican wearing a Libertarian overcoat.
Doc — “Libertarianism, like Communism, is a nice philosophical point and can serve as a balancing viewpoint, but it can not work in the real world on any scale”
I’ve heard this hypothesis but not sure what you’re basing this on. Nor do I agree with it. Funny how a majority of people agree with a majority of the Libertarian platform but will always vote for the party they disagree with on the majority of issues. Such is the state we find ourselves in. Libertarianism has worked well in several regions and departments of our government, all containing more than 20 people.
Somebody not smart enough to understand the concept of evolution is simply not smart enough for public office. It’s been a trend to bash our smartest and brightest. A dumbing down/endarkenment.
ES - “Thanksgiving is clearly a religious holiday. You give thanks to some invisible superman.” Not clearly in any of the five states I’ve lived. It’s up to the individual to select the receiver of the thanks. It’s usually charity or the immediate family but it can also be religious in nature. It’s clearly up to the individual. Most American holidays, even Christmas, have been secularized over time. New mythologies have been created, as with any culture. As a non-theist, I’m comfortable with all of them but would like to see some of the Jewish holidays receive recognition, that it, the FOOD-based ones!
Gonzo - “there is no chance Ron Paul would ever be elected in the United States.” I thought there was no chance Bush could lie about WMDs in order to cause warfare, rescind the guts of the Clean Air Act, plunge us into the biggest deficit we’ve ever faced, etc. and get re-elected. Never underestimate the ill-informed voting public.
Is the white pyramid really an “athiest” display or could it better be termed something else?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
QD - “false dichotomy” I think not - nobody here including me has advocated having ALL government “centralized in one place thousand of miles away.” Haven’t seen anyone here advocate doing away with local governments. The Republican label of anti-”big government” is a false front for their own big corporate interest driven government. FEMA’s systematic property value increase and shutting out of former black neighborhoods in favor of large developers in post-Katrina New Orleans is one example. The “Clear Skies” program favoring lumber companies is another.
Thank you for suggesting “small government = corporate rule” - good bumper sticker.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
>OMG Ron Paul panders? You mean he’s acting like someone who’s running for president or something? […] Paul is not Jesus, he is not John Galt, get over it and just elect a libertarian for the first time ever.
The question is, who is he pandering TO?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
@John
I am very well aware of that there is certainly some malfeasance going on when you have any large organization but any truth that someone like Griffin could ever uncover is almost certainly tainted by his conspiracy theories and is overall belief that there is a secret shadow government (Bildebergs/Illuminati/whatever name you give it) and that the Federal Reserve is simply a tool for enslaving and manipulating mankind.
His book fits nicely next to my copies of William Jasper’s Global Tyranny Step By Step (it’s not a how-to guide for those Stewie fans out there) and William Greider’s Who Will Tell The People and Secrets of the Temple (oy vay).
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
“Corporations have shown an amazing willingness to perform horrendous acts that only the most psychopathic individual would consider, and in a modern society where such actions can fatally affect thousands or millions of individuals, trying to pin the blame in civil court after the fact is a pointless exercise. Government oversight is a necessity.” -Doc
Paul has never argued against this. Except for banks, all corporations are chartered through the individual states. This means that almost all corporations are entities created not by the federal government but instead by the states when they limit the liability of the owners.
The question is not, “should government oversee this industry?”, but “what juisdictional level has the authority to oversee tis industrial process?” Paul believes that the Federal government has very definite functions, which the Constitution explicates. He belives that the Federal government should be more like the UN - a debating society with only the limited powers codefied in the Constitution. Almost everytime I read an attack like yours, I am reminded of a quote:
“We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” -The Law by Frederick Bastiat
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
GOD DON’T EXIST!!!! AND PHIL PLAIT IS HIS PROPHET!!!!!!!!!!!!
(well, is what nearly 100 years ago, w.pauli said about paul dirac and his atheism… pauli was not a religious man, simply could not resist to make a joke over te continuous and monotonous rant of dirac),
phil, please, as we said in spanish: “zapatero a tus zapatos”!!!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Ah, Ron Paul. Everything he says…is good. And his positions are like…it was nice. I think I’m going to vote for him…
tap tap tap tap…tap tap tap tap…tap tap tap tap…tap tap tap…
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Ah, Ron Paul. Everything he says…is good. And his positions are like…it was nice. I think I’m going to vote for him…
tap tap tap tap…tap tap tap tap…tap tap tap tap…tap tap tap tap…
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Grrr…the curse of the double post…and now with this it’s the fabled triple post! Huzzah!
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
After watching Ron Paul’s interview on Meet the Press, I was struck by the fact that once you get pass all his rhetoric about upholding the Constitution, he has very little else of real substance to offer. It’s all well and good to claim that if only the federal government would abide by the Constitution things would go much better for the country, but he doesn’t really seem to have much of a plan for how we get from here to there.
Given that Congress is hardly likely to go any of his ideas without a bitter and long, drawn out, knock down fight, how is he going to lead the government in the mean time? He doesn’t seem to have much of a grasp of foreign or domestic policy issues, and his comments about the Civil War and ending slavery were downright idiotic.
Frankly, even if I was inspired by his Constitutional sloganeering, I would still have serious doubts as to his being a serious candidate for the Oval Office. His “also ran” status allows him to be long on rhetoric and short on the important details. If he was being scrutinized in the same was the top tier candidates are being (as opposed to being ignored) then his candidacy would soon be floundering. He is not an impressive candidate.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Merry Christmas!
Stop saying holidays - there are no frigging holidays — very few people get off more than one day which is Christmas day.
Its Christmas tree and its Christmas lights - if you don’t like it go eat crap ..
I’m an atheist btw — I just hate stupid people on both sides of this argument.
The anti-religon folks are trying to impose their ‘religion’ on others. their religion of ‘tolerance’is really intolerance in disguise.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
>zeb
tap tap tap tap…tap tap tap tap…tap tap tap tap…tap tap tap…
Oh you
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Somebody far up-thread wrote :
“She’s a hoot! Before Oklahoma changed governors she used to go rattlesnake hunting with their governor’s wife each summer. (not with a gun you sissys!) ”
So instead of using a gun they used the Guv’s wife! What as a club or bait or what …!?!
I think its time America added a new law or two perhaps even to its constitution :
1) Before any legal action is allowed there must be a basic “Get a Life!” test ie. if a reasonable person would say : “hey that’s just blinking ridiculous!” …
(to, say, sue over Xmas decos or as a one case recently had some poor bloke getting sued for throwing a snowball for pity’s sake!)
… then the case is dropped and the complainant banned from ever taking legalaction again.
2) A Right for People to offend others - but NOT do any real harm is enshrined in law :
So that whether Christian or Atheist or Muslimor Pastafarian or whatever people can freely _say_ (& of course have said back at ‘em) whatever guff they like. Provided only it ain’t something with real consequences like yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre or calling for lynch mob agaisnt innocent people. Yes, let those people who are _stupid_ enough to do so deny men are as smart as women, the Holocaust ever happened or say race X is inferior /superior or religion Y is the only true crock or whatever other nonsense.
Then let others equally shout back at ‘em or ignore em as they choose…
Offending people isn’t a crime its (for some anyway) a pastime.
Emotional upset (or more like deliberate umbrage-taking) just isn’t as serious as real physical harm - and anyone who argues otherwise should be given a personal comparison test to prove this : First stick ‘em in the public square and have everyone insult them with as much venom aspossible for the emotional upset. Next shoot ‘em in the foot and punch them a few times in the guts …
(Yes for those wondering we do allow black humour here! Don’t we?)
3) If _anyone_ is really so sensitive that what other people put up at Xmas or Wiccan festival or [insert whichever event of people’s choice you choose] then they are clearly too precious and sensitive to breathe Oxygen and should be placed in either a human sized ball of cotton-wool within a sealed argon atmosphere for a while or compulsory desensitisation & pyschotherapy or both!
4) Religion (any and all) stays in religious venues as far as preaching & teaching goes. Decorations, clothes, etc … are a choice and free expression prevails. Telling other people what to think OTOH or behaving withpetulent bad grace when others do what you do is another matter.
Want to put up a Cross, Muezzin, Buddha statute or whatever fine - want to tell everyone about it all day or stop other people putting up / on their personal rival preference of their pyramid, Crescent, headscarf or whatever then take a long walk off a short jetty!
Science classes are for teaching science - not religion.
Workplaces are for working … with _some_ downtime celebration and personal customisation allowed but not beyond a certain point. Eg. A religious work Xmas party for those who want it - yep no problem. Putting up a nativity scene in your cubicle, no prob. - as long as it doesn’t take all the hours you’re paid for *working* .. But insisting on everyone saying /listeneing to prayers before starting meetings and insisting that others listen to your personal Xmas sermon ..well NO way!
Fair enough no?
5) Govt makes NO laws affecting religion. Don’t you already have that one? What people wish to think is their breif, when they commit a crime or pay taxes for services or jointhe military or soforth is for govt. If their beliefs stop ‘em doing something that effects the law or countryt then they ahev todeal with it - but if it ain’t affecting how they pay taxes or serve or vote or govern then its NOTHING the govt should be touching.
If a Dr insists on forcing his religious beliefs on abortion on a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant and will pay him not to be again - that’s wrong & shouldn’t be tolerated. If a teacher wants to impose his Biblically literal view on science lessons that all students pay for and should benefit from -that’s wrong &shoudl never be tolerated.
If a preacher in a Synagogue wants to rail against the science that contradicts her religion - then its up to them &, yes, should be tolerated - if not exactly cheered on by rational people who may know better but need toaccept other rights to be wrong & express their wrong views. Does’nt mean they can’t argue against it or ofend the preacher by stating their case - just that the preacher has the right to say what she thinks in her space.
& if some judge wants to use the 10 Commandments as a backdrop wallpaper - eevn at court … ? Well as long as their not cited as US law what the dickens does it matter? Let him do it if it hurts no-one ..
What part of all this doesn’t make sense to folks?
As for Ron Paul he ain’t goanna win, his nuttier ideas will put too many off but his saner ones may get & deserve something approaching a fair hearing.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
— Chip said, Thank you for suggesting “small government = corporate rule” - good bumper sticker.
D’oh!
Actually, I’m sure it’s been done.
It’s just that I run into it a lot. When I say something suggesting the government has gotten too big in a certain area, I always get the “oh, well you want EEEEEVIL corporation running things?” It’s tiring, you know? People can’t see the whole range of possibilities between the two extreme for some reason.
I’m deliberately non-ideological. I follow no party line. I look at a situation and try to see what’s best based on facts and reading up on it because, unlike 99% of the population, I fully admit I’m not an expert on most things.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Dr. Phil, I’ve always loved your blog for explaining the wonders of the universe and its continuing delicious pwnage of woo-woo nutjobs.
Clobbering the Paultards is icing on an already wonderful cake. ^_^
*insert Portal reference here*
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“I hear a lot of ACLU bashing from people who are profoundly ignorant of the ACLU’s mission”.
These are the same people who complain about the ACLU UNTIL they need the services of the ACLU.
This country is fast on the road to hell in a hand basket but all some people have to complain about is “liberals” trying to ban their religion. It’s usually the evangelicals who do the complaining because they have no comprehension or appreciation of the fact that there are many, many DIFFERENT religions practiced in this country.
The adherents of these different religions ALSO pay taxes that support the public facilities where only christian symbols are displayed. And please stop with the phoney outrage becauses some people understand that public building are not supposed to be used for religious symbols of any religion.
These same people camplaining about liberals wanting to follow the U.S. Constitution are not asking that the religious symbols of Hinduism, Jainism, or the Baha’i faith be included in any display.
There are 3,904 DEAD and 28,773 wounded Americans and more that a million Iraqis dead from a folly, but never mind, lets complain about christmas trees (which by the way have nothing to do with christmas).
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Hey, I’d like to bash the ACLU
Why hasn’t the ACLU taken the Federal government to task on drug prohibition? We passed an amendment to the constitution to outlaw alcohol for god’s sake, what right does the Federal government have to ban marijuana, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, or whatever?
The drug war is nothing more than a way to enter anybodies home after an “anonymous call”, plant a bag of coke in a sofa, and convict the innocent.
But of course, as well all know, that would never happen because it’s unheard of to have a corrupt cop.
The ACLU didn’t touch this ever. They are more interested in promoting an agenda than actually forcing this crappy government to enforce the constitution and uphold people’s rights. The ACLU just gives you a false sense of protection, that’s about it.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 am
You are really off base with this one.
No one who has bothered to read Ron Paul can claim that he wants to force anything down anyone’s throat, unlike every single OTHER candidate of EITHER party.
Following the constitution in the case of the firefighters in Chicago would mean that the government would butt out. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from putting up Christmas decorations. Saying otherwise is either ignorance or willful misreading since this is a state issue and not a federal one.
Morever, while the Trees and wreaths are now identified with the Christian holiday of Christmas, they are representative of a culture that goes back thousands of years. So they are as much cultural as the are religious.
I’m not religious, but I often find myself defending christians from leftwing zealots who piously use the Constitution, which they deride and re-interpret in other circumstances, to attack christians. I think this is a perfect example, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Ron Paul doesn’t want to force his religious beliefs on anyone. He simply wants the government out of people’s lives, so that they can worship as the please. That doesn’t set well with meddlers on the left and the right who all have some sort of agenda they want foisted on us.
The choice really is between Ron Paul and a meddler of some flavor. Take your pick.
Ken
www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 am
“But hey! At least [Paul]’s better than Huckabee.”
Isn’t that a bit like saying “A dog-turd taco is better than a dog-turd sandwich”? I mean, at least is has hot sauce!
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 am
Quiet_Desperation said:
Not to mention that an overly intrusive government and corporate rule are not even mutually exclusive…
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:35 am
And that should teach me to use the “preview” button…
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 am
Firehouse subject to the first Amendment? If they receive federal funds they do.
I’m fairly certain that the legality of the first amendment and how it affects local municipalities and municipal departments is that if they’re receiving funds that are the result of federal reallocation spending legislation, they do.
I could be wrong though.
Still, I’m of the opinion that the president better be progressive thinking or why bother? We’re already behind in our attitudes towards foreign policy, education, public services, etc. We’re seen as hicks and well, when a guy like Jeremy Clarkson can get away with calling you stupid and generally be right, then you know that the nation’s headed in the way wrong direction.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 am
Beowulff:
“Not to mention that an overly intrusive government and corporate rule are not even mutually exclusive…”
In fact, one could argue that the former is necessary for the latter. A corporation is a government creation, and corporations can do the things that they want either because the government uses their power to do it, or the government gives them special privileges and they can get away with things that no other individual or business can do.
Think about how much people complain about HMOs and how many problems they cause. But it seems that few people realize that HMOs are only able to exist because of the 1973 HMO Act, giving them special breaks and privileges and allowing them to make money with something that otherwise wouldn’t be profitable.
You even see it with things like the Clean Air Act. Lots of big corporations supported the Act, because they knew the regulations would make it harder for smaller companies and startups to compete, while their existing factories were nicely grandfathered.
Small government means LESS corporatism, not more.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 am
I need to take minor issue with Phil’s assertion that ‘”religion must be driven from public view”‘ is “…just plain silly.” Specifically, please see New Jersey bill S2975. (Here is one link to information on it. Please search for other opinions. www.stephenhyland.com/2008/01/s2975_revises_l.html). It seems to me that the general intent of the bill is to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation. However, the bill appears to be so broadly written that “Bias Intimidation” could apply to almost anything. Which of the following might be forms of Bias Intimidation?
1. Protestors walking on public property carrying signs that say “Gay’s Go Home.” [sic]
2. A preacher reading an Old Testament passage condemning homosexuality.
3. A first grade boy saying “Girls have cooties!”
4. A girl eating lunch at college with several friends (including a lesbian) who says “I prefer guys.”
I’m not sure myself where the line would be drawn, but it is certainly conceivable that example 2 could be in violation. This would clearly be a restriction on religious practice.
Although judges are supposed to try to include the legislators’ intent when interpreting laws, there is nothing requiring them to do so (if that is even possible). If the legislators do not agree with judges interpretations, they are free to write new laws. Of course, once this law is in place, any attempt to change it could be viewed as a weakening of the provisions, and an attempt to intimidate those protected under the bill. In that case, the legislators could be considered to be in violation of the law!
Another interesting provision of this bill is that judges can require that a person convicted of violating this statute could be required to make payments to community organizations that provide services to victims of gender bias. If you don’t like the government allowing workers to put up lighted pine trees in the taxpayer funded court house lobby, think about the government requiring you to make a payment to a non-public group who’s views you don’t support.
Frankly, I see this sort of subtle, broad, “open to judges’ interpretation” type of law as being more of a threat to my rights than clearly stated positions of presidential candidates.
Detached Observer
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:54 am
it should also be noted that Huckabe is a very, very weird man, whose views on equal protection extend to criminals. Drudgereport has noted several times in the last month how he has a penchant for commuting the sentences of many murdererers and rapists, leaving his state’s citizens very unprotected from criminals who’ve received long sentences for their crimes. He truly does not have those whom he represents in mind.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 am
Shane Killian said:
To me, that smells of ideoligical reasoning too. Your HMO example could equally easily be used to support more regulation for HMOs, and monitoring of HMOs by a public organization, or support a public-controlled health care system, and thus a larger government. The issue is just not that simple.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
I think Ron Paul would be a no body if it wasn’t for the insane people who have rallied around him, mainly on the internet. Seems that he is getting far too much press just based on the ‘noise’ that has very little signal. They all SAY he is totally for the plain Constitution… but the more he talks about his personal ideas, it gives me MUCH pause. So far, I am NOT happy with the current choices, and that makes me very sad. I was very much looking forward to a change, but so far…. I don’t see one that would make the country better… in some case might make it worse!
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 am
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Congress shall make NO law which means that congress cannot prevent individuals from displaying there beliefs. This is for everyone including government employees. It is just as unconstitutional to make people take down there decorations as it is to prevent people from putting them up.
Time to pray in school is alright because they have the right to practice there religion in school just as much as they do outside of school. They aren’t forcing the kids to pray. It may be time on the tax payers dollar but call it a 4 minutes of optional free reading period and there should be no arguments. There is no law forcing the practice of prayer so the 1st Amendment is not a factor.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
When I first heard that Paul would be running, I was sort of excited.
Finally, I said, “a viable with free-market economic leanings and socially libertarian credentials I can vote for!”
Then I found out he was in bed with the fundys.
Sigh… looks like I’m writing in “None of the above” again this Election Year.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
Edit: “…viable candidate…”
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Let me continue with this is why I’m support Ron Paul so much. He’s a man of higher truths. He’s against net neutrality because it states you cannot regulate the internet but in doing so you are regulating the internet. Using the first amendment to force people to take down decorations is in fact going against itself and using itself to abridge freedom of speech.
The only thing about Ron Paul that has really raised any sorta flag is his response to the dietary supplement corporations. I believe in regulating corporations because they won’t regulate themselves. This leads me think that he won’t regulate any big business… BUT WAIT! It also seems to me that big business uses government officials as puppets all the time. They’re only interested in the federal government because trying to control all 50 states individually would be difficult to impossible. Ron Paul doesn’t think the federal government shouldn’t have that sort of power either so where does all that power that corporations have go? It disappears. Like a ghost. *Poof*
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
That final statement I made isn’t entirely correct. Corporations loose power by not being able to control the federal gov’t but they still have far to much. I wish Ron Paul was more for regulating coorporations but the only right we really have is the choice of where and what we buy and the only way we can protect ourselves from infrindgment of this right is anti-monopoly laws. I cannot expect Ron Paul to do more.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
[…] scarce wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Yikes.
On the firefighter case, it’s worth mentioning (as noone did) that Congress was never involved. The firefighters were instructed by their local government to take down their decorations in accordance with local policy. In theory, Ron Paul doesn’t and shouldn’t have a problem with this. Why are we even talking about it?
Ron Paul is an ignoramus and a dangerous maniac. He doesn’t understand economics, geopolitics, history, or constitutional law. If he had any chance of ever being elected to high public office, I’d say he needed to be stopped. But he doesn’t. Can we talk about somebody with a chance instead?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Oh, one last point.
Libertarian wackos are constantly claiming that the Congress is “not empowered” to do this or that, but it turns out that it generally is.
You see, Congress is empowered to do anything “necessary and proper” to see to the execution of its other duties, which includes such things as:
promoting the general welfare (i.e. monetary policy, wealth-redistribution welfare programs, food and drug regulation)
providing for the common defense (i.e raising a large standing military)
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
JediBear said:
Too bad it’s so difficult to agree on what “necessary and proper” means.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
> Too bad it’s so difficult to agree on what “necessary and proper”
> means.
It’s OK if it’s necessary and proper to strip away all our rights, to protect us from the mean old terrorists!
I’m so SCARED of them, I trust my government about anything.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It’s interesting to see the track this post has taken. I wrote the original article over at M-BA, and the commentary went the way of debating the usefulness of a federal government too limited to protect the rights of citizens oppressed by state law.
As to the firefighters, I think it’s just fine to display any holiday decorations as long it’s not limited to a specific religion, or excludes non-theistic folks.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
> I wrote the original article over at M-BA, and the commentary went
> the way of debating the usefulness of a federal government too limited
> to protect the rights of citizens oppressed by state law.
If my particular state starts violating my rights, although it’s not an ideal option, I can still sell my house and move to another state. Anybody else similarly dissatisfied can move along with me.
However, what do I do when my state government becomes too limited in power to protect the rights of it’s citizens oppressed by Federal law?
Cross a border and declare asylum? Really - how do you fight that?
I won’t argue that a state government can become oppressive, it’s certainly possible and we’ve seen it in the past, what I can’t figure out is why do people believe the Federal government can’t become oppressive?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Well, I know nothing about your constitution, but prohibiting decoration seems a little rabid . . .
January 4th, 2008 at 10:49 am
“Too bad it’s so difficult to agree on what “necessary and proper” means.”
It’s not, really. Aside of the aforementioned libertarian nutjobs who like to ignore the necessary and proper clause altogether, there’s a broad consensus (especially among those who study constitutional law — i.e. Not Ron Paul) what that means. There’s more serious debate regarding the government’s responsibilities than its powers.
“It’s OK if it’s necessary and proper to strip away all our rights, to protect us from the mean old terrorists!”
Now you’ve gotten to why the Bill of Rights is important. It clearly defines what ISN’T proper.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“Aside of the aforementioned libertarian nutjobs who like to ignore the necessary and proper clause altogether”
Us “libertarian nutjobs” (gotta love it when the namecalling flies) do NOT ignore the clause. We know all about it. We just don’t like it being misapplied. The part that YOUR ilk ignores is where the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says that it ONLY applies to the powers granted by the Constitution. It’s not a blanket power to do whatever.
Same with the oft-misused General Welfare clause. Above, you mistakenly say it means a welfare state; it doesn’t. That’s SPECIFIC welfare, not general. And the writings of Madison and others make it plain that the sole purpose of that clause is to set the scope and the limit for the powers that follow.
The answer I’d like from your ilk is that, if there is some power that’s just openended and lets the government do whatever, then why bother with having a Doctrine of Enumerated Powers to begin with?
January 4th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I think it’s sad when when Group A rains on Group Bs parade just out of spite.
I could care less if the guys at the Fire Dept want to put up a tree and lights. If my house catches on fire xmass eve I want them to have maximum xmass cheer when they get there.
Seriously why do certain people get their panties in a bunch over this stuff? It makes NO SENSE.
When I was in school in the 70s and 80s we had halloween and xmass in our public shcools and it was fun and everything. Now, you get sued by some stick in the mud up-tight atehiest or wiccan or WTF EVER asshat with an agenda.
Congratulations: we’re one step closer to THX 1128 for you nerds.
And I’m an atehiest. I don’t belive in an imaginary invisible man in the sky, but I love giving and receiving gifts with my friends and family this time of year. I love setting up the lights and driving around looking at the lights. While it my be a xtian holiday now, it wasn’t always.
Every time some self appointed PC thought police wanker comes along and ruins it for everyone else I just get pissed off. Don’t you losers have anyting bbetter to do? You’re no better than the self importnat president of my home owners association. Wnakers, every last one of you.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I think it’s sad when when Group A rains on Group Bs parade just out of spite.
I could care less if the guys at the Fire Dept want to put up a tree and lights. If my house catches on fire xmass eve I want them to have maximum xmass cheer when they get there.
Seriously why do certain people get their panties in a bunch over this stuff? It makes NO SENSE.
When I was in school in the 70s and 80s we had halloween and xmass in our public shcools and it was fun and everything. Now, you get sued by some stick in the mud up-tight atehiest or wiccan or WTF EVER asshat with an agenda.
Congratulations: we’re one step closer to THX 1128 for you nerds.
And I’m an atehiest. I don’t belive in an imaginary invisible man in the sky, but I love giving and receiving gifts with my friends and family this time of year. I love setting up the lights and driving around looking at the lights. While it my be a xtian holiday now, it wasn’t always.
Every time some self appointed PC thought police wanker comes along and ruins it for everyone else I just get pissed off. Don’t you losers have anyting bbetter to do? You’re no better than the self importnat president of my home owners association. Wankers, every last one of you.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Agreed, Ian. It’s amazing that so many people are trying to make Ron Paul look dangerous because of this crap, which the President doesn’t have any power under the Constitution do to anything about anyway, but I’ll bet you a lot of them support Hillary, who:
* Voted for the USA PATRIOT Act
* Voted for the “authorization” for the Iraq War
* Voted for the REAL ID Act
* Voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (suspending habeas corpus)
* Has taken tons of money from big oil companies, big pharmaceutical companies, commercial banks, hedge funds, and many others, in many cases taking more money than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican
That’s just off the top of my head. There are tons of other examples. If getting rid of all of those things means putting up with the odd Christmas tree in a fire house, that’s a trade I’ll gladly make.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Okay, EVERYONE here needs to watch the Bill Moyers interview with Ron Paul last night, especially his comments on religion and theocracy, and why he does NOT attend the prayer breakfast:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ceoCx_wTDUg
People who claim Ron Paul is a theocrat have, at best, inferences based on circumstantial evidence. People who say he’s not a theocrat have direct, incontrovertible evidence that the other side can deal with only by ignoring.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
This is what the first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This does not mean that private citizens using there own money can not put religious items in public locations. What the amendment means is that Congress can not make laws stating that citizens must be a certain religion, or that only a certain can be praciticed or displyed in public. This was done to prevent what had occured in England, where the Anglican Church (i.e. the Church of England) was the state religion. And to be a full rights under English law you had to belong to that church.
When the government prevents the display of religious items in public places it is actually making a law of establishing religion, aethism. Yes, aethism is a religious view point, that is there is no God.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Look, a lot of you here are essentially arguing a point that is in reality based on a fiction… what I mean by that is the old myth of “Separation of Church and State”. Yes, I said myth, because it is one. It doesn’t exist, and never will in our current state of human social evolution. The fact that the argument is even taking place is proof positive.
Hey, I perfectly understand the reasoning and harmony behind it. People are free to practice the religion of their choice while not interfering with government, and the government makes tough, hard decisions for the good of the king and country while not treading upon religious values. Like I said, this is a myth, or a form of fantasy if you prefer. It is simply not possible to separate state from church in any fashion whatsoever. I sort of equate it to the idea of true communism. Communism looks great on paper, but it just doesn’t work in reality. Human flaws will eventually ruin any reasonable social system designed to police human flaws. No surprise there; just go open a history book.
Human greed and selfishness has a tendency to outweigh reason. Remember, religion is greedy too, in the sense that “I believe this way, and any other way to believe is wrong, so therefore if you don’t believe the way I do, you are wrong.” Greedy! Taking offense at someone else practicing their religion is selfish too. Maybe I am offended by the way you tie your shoes. Either way, its ridiculous.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:11 am
Matt writes:
[[Look, a lot of you here are essentially arguing a point that is in reality based on a fiction… what I mean by that is the old myth of “Separation of Church and State”. Yes, I said myth, because it is one. It doesn’t exist, and never will in our current state of human social evolution.]]
Separation of church and state exists as long as the first amendment is on the books. Most of us don’t really care whether it’s “really” separation of church and state in some etiolated, philosophical sense, as long as state officials aren’t leading sectarian prayers or preaching their religion in public school science classes.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Total proof that some people will believe whatever they choose to regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
RPV.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Freedom from religion had its place — most notably in the former Soviet Union and China. Forced religious observance is theocracy — portions of the Mid East come to mind. Capitalism without conscience is a plutocracy (what some may argue characterizes the United States what with multi-billion dollar special interests and lobbyists tugging at the shirt tails of Democrats and Republicans alike). Corporatism, meanwhile, is fascism. Don’t believe it? Read up on Mussolini’s beliefs on the subject. My point being, no extreme in behavior, religion, atheism or legalism is worth defending because in all cases these extremes share in common a perversion of logic, morality and, in this case, legality. Those that seek the high ground gravitate toward the middle ground, and this sentiment is ultimately much more in keeping with the Constitution and America’s history than many of the “either/or” arguments that have increasingly supplanted reasoned discourse over the past two decades. Read, for example, some of the old grammar school primers that were around during President George Washington’s era. References to God were plentiful, and few members of the American population expressed a problem with it until, ironically, the Soviet era (some coincidence).
Keep in mind, also, that history is no more favorable toward the communist (atheist) regimes in the world than the dictatorships, monarchies or any other form of governance, religious or otherwise. Nation states that promote secular allegiance to state at the expense of religious freedoms have often been aggressors against other nation states. For if religious freedoms fall — the easy pickings as it were — one can be sure that all manner of other freedoms are sure to follow. Religious freedoms or the lack thereof, therefore, can often serve as a barometer for freedoms or their absence in many other forms.
Bottom line? The John Lennon “Imagine” argument that idealistic and intolerant types alike tend to advance — that religion underlies all world conflict and removing religion will therefore inspire peaceful co-existance — these are simply the products of wishful or historically ignorant thinking. The 20th Century was dominated by the brutalities of Communist (anti-religious) regimes and the wars they fought, just as the beginning of the 21st Century has been dominated by talk of the evils of radical Islamic ideology. Whatever side of the coin one examins, the only constant throughout history and ideological/relgious/political fad is human nature — and the sad reality that we need absolutely no excuse to seek violence. Therefore, there can exist no such thing as utopia. Imposing religion on the unwilling won’t bring peace. Attempting to erase all historic reminders of our religious roots by barring the mere sight of them from our public places won’t inspire peace either. The closest we can come to any sort of ideal in this life is to agree to live and let live — and this, as it so happens, is also the philosophy that most upholds the spirit of the Constitution.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Freedom from religion had its place — most notably in the former Soviet Union and China. Forced religious observance is theocracy — portions of the Mid East come to mind. Capitalism without conscience is a plutocracy (what some may argue characterizes the United States what with multi-billion dollar special interests and lobbyists tugging at the shirt tails of Democrats and Republicans alike). Corporatism, meanwhile, is fascism. Don’t believe it? Read up on Mussolini’s beliefs on the subject. My point being, no extreme in behavior, religion, atheism or legalism is worth defending because in all cases these extremes share in common a perversion of logic, morality and, in this case, legality. Those that seek the high ground gravitate toward the middle ground, and this sentiment is ultimately much more in keeping with the Constitution and America’s history than many of the “either/or” arguments that have increasingly supplanted reasoned discourse over the past two decades. Read, for example, some of the old grammar school primers that were around during President George Washington’s era. References to God were plentiful, and few members of the American population expressed a problem with it until, ironically, the Soviet era (some coincidence).
Keep in mind, also, that history is no more favorable toward the communist (atheist) regimes in the world than the dictatorships, monarchies or any other form of governance, religious or otherwise. Nation states that promote secular allegiance to state at the expense of religious freedoms have often been aggressors against other nation states. For if religious freedoms fall — the easy pickings as it were — one can be sure that all manner of other freedoms are sure to follow. Religious freedoms or the lack thereof, therefore, can often serve as a barometer for freedoms or their absence in many other forms.
Bottom line? The John Lennon “Imagine” argument that idealistic and intolerant types alike tend to advance — that religion underlies all world conflict and removing religion will therefore inspire peaceful coexistence — these are simply the products of wishful or historically ignorant thinking. The 20th Century was dominated by the brutalities of Communist (anti-religious) regimes and the wars they fought, just as the beginning of the 21st Century has been dominated by talk of the evils of radical Islamic ideology. Whatever side of the coin one examines, the only constant throughout history and ideological/religious/political fad is human nature — and the sad reality that we need absolutely no excuse to seek violence for all manner of reason and rationale. Therefore, there can exist no such thing as utopia. Imposing religion on the unwilling won’t bring peace. Attempting to erase all historic reminders of our religious roots by barring the mere sight of them from our public places won’t inspire peace either. The closest we can come to any sort of ideal in this life is to agree to live and let live — and this, as it so happens, is also the philosophy that most upholds the spirit of the Constitution.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Quick Question…all you name calling dems, please tell me which candidate you are going to support?? Warmonger A or Subtle Warmonger B??
As far as phasing out the fed…Paul says we should FIRST LEGALIZE gold and silver to be used as a competing currency in the US…There is no way to get rid of the Fed reserve note anytime soon and Paul recognizes this..we have to start somewhere, because the Fed is robbing us all by printing more and more money….You know when they say they are lowering interest rates??? That means printing money, robbing what you have saved by devaluation..
and if people began to have real wealth not paper they would be more inclined to help those people in financial trouble, but paul says we can’t get rid of entitlement programs without the fed govt helping those who are dependant…IT IS called Transition! and it may take decades, but we have to start…
Please those who call us Paultards address this….
January 27th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Wow, who cares? I look at Ron Paul because he follows the constitution and has the only record to back it up. He understands the economy which I think no educated person can disagree with as well as foreign policy. Suggesting limited goverment, and getting things back the way we used too is what we should be looking at. Not petty little things. Take a few essays and blow it out of proportion, congratz. No one is perfect and we should stick by someone with the record and views of a true institutionalist.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:32 am
constitutionalist* rather. *
January 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
“Ron Paul is an ignoramus and a dangerous maniac.”
I’m sure he would think highly of you, “JediBear”. Maybe when you move out of your parent’s basement, you might meet him.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Whatever you think of Ron Paul. One things for sure, he’s the best of a bad bunch. The rest of them are bought and paid for elitist stooges.
Atleast his heart is in the right place and atleast he has a heart, unlike the others. Frankly they aren’t fit to govern a cockcroach, let alone the American people and candidates like John McCain are truly damn right scary. If Bush is warmonger mk1, McCain is warmonger mk10 and then some and the religious zealot Mike Huckabee isn’t much better. These guy’s are complete nuts and so are those people who even give these men 10 seconds of their time. The majority of people in Europe think American’s are stupid. You have a chance to vote for peace and security and yet, time and time again you vote for war, fear and no security. You truly are a dumbed down people or maybe it’s that John Wayne mentality, that no matter how hard you try, you just can’t seem to shake off. Sigh!!!!!!
Vote Ron Paul or even better start a revolution. Europe is certainly long over due for one. Down with the fascist EU constitution.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:51 am
“# Shane Killianon 02 Jan 2008 at 7:38 am
Well, those of us who have actually READ the First Amendment know that it specifically prohibits CONGRESS, and is the only amendment to do so. The founders did NOT want Federal intrusion in this area. In fact, that’s really the whole point of the First Amendment!
This is supposed to be a state and local issue. If a fire department puts up Christmas decorations, then it’s no business of people who live outside that area, and if people who live inside that area complain, they have redress with their local and state governments.
What America needs is a President willing to stand up and uphold the Constitution–the ENTIRE Constitution, not just cherry-picked bits and pieces of it–and Ron Paul is the ONLY one who fits the bill.”
-> That is exactly right Shane.