Ron Paul is Religious: Who gives a shit?
November 6, 2011 § Leave a comment
I’ve decided to start a new series of blog posts called “Who Gives a Shit?“. Each post will examine a popular ongoing political issue and ultimately answer the question that we care about the most: Who Gives a Shit?
This is my first installment of the “Who gives a shit” blog series. Today, I’ll discuss a topic that the left and it’s media pundits feel the need to chat about. That is, Ron Paul’s religious background.
Let me preface this by mentioning that I don’t consider myself very religous. I was raised in a family that never attended church, but I wouldn’t call my parents”atheists” by any stretch. My dad spent the first thirteen years of his life in Catholic schools. I think my parents philosophy was more along the lines of “let him figure out what/who he is.” I still appreciate them for giving me that chance. It gives me the ability to write this blog from a somewhat neutral position.
So here we are, in the twenty-first century. We’re so advanced, so futuristic, so….progressive. Yeah, that’s the word. Doesn’t that just sound forward-thinking? I think so. I mean, if you aren’t progressive, then by definition, you’re regressive. Who wants to be regressive? I sure don’t. I better start stocking up on Starbuck’s and eating at vegan restaurants. Otherwise, I’m nothing more than part of the problem, right?
Honestly, I have no clue how the American left became so dysfunctional. Sometimes, when I wonder how in the hell the Republican party became the laughing stock that is today, I simply look in the opposite direction at the Democratic party and it’s odd mix of so called anti-corporate followers and big government proponents. How someone can reconcile those two ideas, I have no clue. Needless to say, I have little respect for either political party and their respective “wing” of the mainstream political spectrum, but the American left leaves an indescribably bitter taste in my mouth. I’m not sure if it’s the economic illiterates or the dogmatic belief in long debunked historical myths(FDR ended the depression, etc, etc).
In any case, the left(and especially it’s useful idiots–err, the posters at the Huffington Post) has seized on the news that Ron Paul is indeed a devout Christian. Oh dear God–err, i mean, gosh! Never mind every good idea Ron Paul has ever had. I mean, after all, he’s a Christian, and what kind of forward thinking individual could vote for such a backwards curmudgeon who is silly enough to disagree with the my views?
In many ways, the so called secular movement is no different then their hardline, Christian counterparts. They believe so strongly in their own understanding of human life and it’s origins, that they feel that anyone who disagrees with them is simply “wrong”. Moreover, they will simply dismiss any individual or group that will not first agree with their own version of humanity. Naturally, that means they are isolating themselves from potentially worthwhile ideas by demanding that anyone worth their time must first agree with their opinion on the matter of “theology versus biology”. Furthermore, both of these groups expect that government will legislate their own beliefs into law.
Both groups fail to accept the notion that it’s perfectly fine for someone to disagree with their position on the matter, so long as they don’t believe it’s the government’s right to enforce such beliefs. In fact, the secular movement seems even worse than thier religious adversaries on this front. Your typical liberal will talk down to anyone who dares to disagree with them on this issue. Because, of course, anyone who disagrees with them is regressive.
What many of the readers at the Huffington Post don’t understand(judging from their comments) is that Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily want to make abortion illegal for everyone, he just wants to give these rights to the states. And doesn’t that make more sense for everyone involved? Sure, a federal law is great if you agree with it. But what happens when a bunch of fundamental Christians somehow take over congress and the courts, repeal the Roe V Wade decision, and decide that any abortion under any situation is illegal? Then is the concept of “states rights” so absurd? Of course this situation is unlikely, but that doesn’t make the underlying argument less true– federal law is only good when you benefit. For those that either disagree or are hurt by such laws, well, tough luck. At least, that’s what progressives seem to be arguing.
Of course, when state’s rights agree with the progressive movement, all of sudden it becomes “democracy in action”. Take for instance, the movement to legalize marijuana in particular states(something that I completely agree with). The same people who look in disgust at the idea of abortion rights being decided on a state-by-state basis are jubilant over the use of state’s right to legalize medical marijuana, or legalize gay marriage(something else that I agree with). Obviously, consistency is of no importance to these people, but this should come as no surprise.
Finally, the American left’s obsession with state intervention into the economy is something that we’ve all been forced to deal with on a federal level. Why is that? If we ignore the fact that socialism is economic folly(something the left is good at) and focus our energies on figuring out the best way to institute such a system, there is no way that anyone could logically deduce that the answer is a strong, centralized state. To the contrary, would it not be more beneficial to the proponents of socialism that such economic policies should be limited to the individual states whose population(or at least of majority of it) believes that such economic policies are useful? Although it would ultimately fail as many economists overtime have pointed out, it’s life expectancy could certainly be increased if the population the state overwhelmingly supports such a system.
Furthermore, what good comes from the continued centralization of power in DC? Because everything is national, these so called progressives have to deal with people from New Hampshire and Texas who believe that government spending is fruitless. The current political system is just swaying back and forth between the two parties, and any “gains” that the socialists make are merely countered by the neoconservatives who take office in four years. The only thing you can count on, regardless of party, is the further centralization in the executive branch. But what does this do for the socialist cause? Precious little; that is, if you’re a useful idiot–err, I mean a “true” grassroots socialist.
If a state like California were given more power to make it’s own decisions, I’m convinced that it would make very stupid ones. Of course, many of the Californians would love these decisions, and they could finally see their socialist utopia brought that much closer to fruition. “Backwards” states like New Hampshire would institute their own economic policies, which would probably consist of more economic freedom and less taxation(how old-fashioned).
The point is, you wouldn’t have this constant battle between different factions of the nation, be they moral or economic battles.
To be frank, I don’t believe that state’s right is the answer. And I’m rather convinced that in his heart of hearts, Ron Paul doesn’t either. But by denying anything written above, you’re denying two things:
A) The American Constitution
B) Common Sense
The constitution isn’t the final solution, but it’s a large step in the right direction. Complete liberty can not come in one fell swoop. Rather, it will take a shift in the mentality of the people, and a transition period will be needed. Ron Paul is has been talking about this transition. It’s time Americans listened.