• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Editorial about Ron Paul from an atheist

Aug 16, 2011
The guy that wrote this is a nut.


Ron Paul has become a hot topic in yet another Republican primary. Many young voters (both liberals and conservatives) have been lured in by the man who claims to be a strict Constitutionalist. Ron Paul wants to withdraw all military forces from foreign soil. Great! So do many liberals. Ron Paul wants to legalize marijuana, or at least leave it up to the states. Great again! Many college students are smiling as their Bob Marley flag hangs on their dorm wall. The modern libertarian model, Ron Paul has made a name for himself by claiming to support individual rights. With that said, it’s time for Ron Paul’s farce to be exposed.

Ron Paul allows his personal religion to cloud his judgment, which leads him to actually go against certain individual rights. The man claims that the Constitution was not only guided by religion, but makes specific references to God Himself. For a man who is so adamant in his support of the Constitution, he may be disappointed to know that the words ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ are not mentioned once in the text. Resulting from this is a policy that has religion at its base. Ron Paul, the man who supports the liberties of humanity, is anti-choice. He’d prefer the positive term, pro-life, but as the debate remains unresolved, choice, based on individual values and beliefs, is the best option in the abortion debate. Ron Paul’s position would allow states to remove the right for a woman to choose, one that is currently protected thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade.


Another issue with Ron Paul’s policy, also a result of his religiosity, is that as president, he would not support the core American value of separation of Church and State. His views on this are plain; the Founding Fathers (You can read my issue with this argument here) did not mean that Christianity shouldn’t be prevalent in the public sphere, but that the nation cannot establish a national Church like the Church of England. Otherwise, Paul believes this is a Christian nation founded on Christian ideals. This view of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution is common amongst Republican politicians, but James Madison, one of the authors of the Bill of Rights, was an early supporter of the separation of Church and State. Additionally, the Treaty of Tripoli literally said, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”, and this was written by another Founding Father, John Adams. Putting this aside, since really the views of 200 years ago matter little in the 2012 election, Paul’s views do nothing to honor individual liberties, as it would allow state and federal institutions the opportunity to favor Christianity over other beliefs. Separating Church and State is vital in the nation’s ability to afford opportunity to all and honor individual rights over those of a majority.

Ron Paul is also a Creationist. While this in itself doesn’t run over individual liberties, he does take a position that would directly harm our children; he wants to ‘teach the controversy’. Teaching Creationism alongside evolution waters science and the scientific process down. One side, evolution, uses a vigorous process of scientific review, empirical testing and observation, and direct natural evidence, all consistent with science, which is the study of the natural world. Creationism uses the Bible, supernatural explanation, and a use of God to fill in what we don’t understand. Using the God of the Gaps to justify Creationism essentially renders science over; if God did everything we can’t figure out, why try to figure it out? Every attempt by Creationism to get scientific recognition has rightly failed. Ron Paul, if he truly wants to fix our nation, needs to support education, and that includes science and allowing scientists and science teachers to do what they does best, which is teach and do science.

While being ‘pro-life’, meaning life begins at conception in his view, Ron Paul doesn’t actually respect the fetus, as he wants to take away the birthright to citizenship. For someone who vocally supports individual freedoms, he certainly isn’t for spreading them. Freedom is for those who are already U.S. citizens or born of them. The fact that one is born here, a traditional value, wouldn’t guarantee one any rights in the United States. Who your parents are, something a child cannot pick, would determine your citizenship in this nation. He also doesn’t believe that illegal immigrants should be treated in American emergency rooms, as he would like to eliminate a mandate that forces medical professionals to treat someone in need regardless of their origin. While these views don’t directly come out of his religion, it does demonstrate a lack of empathy for human beings who are not American. His policy is inhumane, and would make this nation look terrible.

Yes, Paul is for legalizing pot and cutting the military budget, but he is not the supporter of individual rights that he claims he is; he is a religious fundamentalist who would allow Christianity to infuse with the government, and he lacks compassion for those who are not American citizens. Paul supporters have tried to rationalize his stances, stances that many would not have supported in the past, but in the end, Paul as a libertarian, or Paul as a protectorate of personal freedom, or even Paul as a Constitutionalist, is largely a charade. Ron Paul is a far-right classical liberalist, with a strong sense of social conservatism. As president, Ron Paul would allow this nation to be dictated even more by Wall Street economically and would be a force in eliminating secular values, instead forcing Christian values upon an entire population. Ron Paul would be awful for the United States of America.

Edit - While this is an opinion piece (quite obviously), a request for sources seems common, so instead of continually re-posting them, I'll post them here, since I'm sick of restating the fact that this is an editorial and if a source is what you'd like, I can offer it.

Paul on religion - "Christmas in Secular America"

Paul on abortion - Ron Paul's site (establishing a definition of life federally would render the act that supports state rights useless, as murder is still illegal)

Paul on evolution/Creationism - Science blog article, his own words (a consequence of the federal government being neutral would be the teaching of Creationism alongside evolution and a dissonence in public education nationwide)

Paul on immigration - Ron Paul's site, RealClearPolitics


Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Mar 31, 2010