User Name
Pass Word:


Ron Paul does not believe in evolution
Previous | Next by alana 02 January, 2008 - 7:18 AM

You'd think as a libertarian he would say that he'd give schools the choice whether or not to teach intelligent design, but no, he says he doesn't "accept" evolution as a theory.

1/2/2008 >> alana

Well, that didn't work. Can someone fix it?

1/2/2008 >> alana

Ah, never mind, I got it.

1/2/2008 >> rich

I don't think this in anyway states what he believes schools should or should not teach. He wants the Federal Government out of education entirely.

Ron Paul understands that he is not running for King, unlike many others.

1/2/2008 >> alana

But do you really want a creationist appointing Federal Judges?

1/2/2008 >> rich

Do you really want a secularist appointing Federal Judges?

I don’t know… I figured that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office."

It is a rule in the Constitution as well as in how I vote.

1/3/2008 >> C Mo

I agree with Rich's point that "no religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office" but nothing scares me more than statements such as not believing in Evolution.

Not being a creationist certainly should not be required of anyone running for office, but it has a large sway on my opinions and how I vote. Much like the disturbing lack of atheists/agnostics ever gaining any stead in any presidential election.

Even as someone with Libertarian leanings myself... the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools would scare the crap out of me.

I guess that's why I can't ever become full on Libertarian, I can just see all the schools in the south throwing Evolution out of the classrooms and teaching us about Jesus. Gah.

1/3/2008 >> elfie

One problem I see with the "no religious test" argument in this particular case is that a good number of people, including myself, do not see evolution as a religious question.

1/3/2008 >> C Mo

Very true. Evolution is science... Intelligent Design is religion. That's the main problem with someone disbelieving Evolution, it means they are throwing out solid scientific argument for faith... and that's not something I personally appreciate.

1/3/2008 >> alana


1/3/2008 >> rich

Chris, many, many people do that. That is why it is called faith. This is still a society where more are religious than not. Ron Paul has his view, and as he said, he though it was an inappropriate question for someone running for office, because it should not affect, and would not affect his governing decisions.

He has a CLEAR distinction of his personal beliefs and his governing beliefs. I know it is unusual in politics today, but he does not want to impose those beliefs on you.

Of any candidate in the race Ron Paul is the last one that would ever tell you what to teach your children. It is not Constitutional to do so. This concept protects us from a Federal Government mandating many educational principles that you may or may not agree with.

So, Alana, Ron Paul certainly would "give schools the choice whether or not to teach intelligent design".

A quote from Ron Paul from 1997 -
Regardless of what one thinks about abortion, sex education or even the distribution of birth control devices to children, the real issue is that the Constitution simply does not allow Congress to spend tax dollars in this way. If we are serious about wanting to balance the budget, cut taxes and restore personal liberty, Congress does not need to pass new laws, new taxes or new spending.

Ron Paul may not be the perfect candidate, matching your beliefs and values precisely. I would venture few would. He is however the best one out there for protecting your civil liberties and bringing the choice of how YOU run YOUR life back down to you and out of the hands of the government. That is what attracts me to him.

1/3/2008 >> C Mo

I know it's a country with more religious people than not, but I cannot possibly understand how publicly funded schools (state or federal funding) should be allowed to teach Intelligent Design.

1/3/2008 >> C Mo

I know I sound like a jerk to religious folks, and I really have no problem with people being religious at all... I just have a problem with public school systems teaching religious dogma under the guise of it being scientific theory... when really there is nothing scientific about it.

1/3/2008 >> alana

I hear you, Rich, and personally, I have MUCH more of a problem with Ron Paul's politics (and Libertarianism as a whole) than I do with his personal beliefs. I thought the debate over evolution/intelligent design would be the friendlier one to have. (By the way, it's very cool to see an actual serious debate on here, with multiple participants -- yay!).

1/3/2008 >> C Mo

No one has even busted out the baseball bats yet!

1/3/2008 >> ben

hahahah, touche...

for my part - the guy in the middle, as usual... i'm an agnostic, but if i were to believe in something, it would certainly be a faith, and not a religion.

I don't for a second believe that the pressure to teach any creation based belief as science is a matter of faith, i believe it's a matter of an evangelical based religion - which is what Christianity is and always has been.

I also don't believe for a second that our system of education in this country, as it is today, can be brought much lower than it already is. this particular argument, to me, is like arguing over the shape of a life preserver on the titanic.

I also also don't believe that any candidate should be excoriated for his or her faith, or lack thereof, but then, 90% of people wouldn't agree with me. I would have some faith (haha) that a person of the caliber to run this country, superpower that it is, would make his decisions based on evidence, rational thought and the situation, and i believe that Ron Paul, and moreover, most of the current candidates can do that, better, than, say our current CIC...

1/3/2008 >> alana

See, not believing in evolution (and being a racist, and being against abortion, and thinking that free market = liberty) all make me question his ability to be rational.

I may be way behind on this, but have you guys seen

Unsurprisingly, I "matched" Kucinich 98%. (We only "disagree" on gun control. Of course, in reality, we disagree much more than that! But it's a decently fun quiz nonetheless).

1/3/2008 >> C Mo

I really do think that we could take our public schools to a whole new low... and the road there is through "Intelligent Design".

Also, Glassbooth says I am 69% Dodd, 69% Richardson, 66% Obama.


1/3/2008 >> muhgcee

The baseball bat...the newest (and only?) DTC meme.

1/3/2008 >> muhgcee

1 Dennis Kucinich 85% similarity
2 Mike Gravel 84% similarity
3 Christopher Dodd 77% similarity

1/4/2008 >> muhgcee

A great article on Ron Paul from Counterpunch (a leftist column site):

I just switched (temporarily) my party affiliation from none to Republican so I can vote for Paul.

1/8/2008 >> alana

Goddamnit, how did my comment get lost?? I don't have time to reconstruct it now, but will try again later. >:(

1/8/2008 >> alana

To be clear, whatever Stan says about Ron Paul (and unfortunately, Stan has become bitterly disillusioned with the Left in the past year), there is nothing Leftist about Ron Paul.

It is extremely dangerous to throw your support behind someone based on a single issue while ignoring his overall politics. Of course I want the war to end, too, but I'm not about to overlook the fact that Paul is, as Stan admits, "backward on abortion, passively racist, anti-immigrant, and on and on." Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is exactly how Hitler came to power -- by using populist rhetoric while in fact being very, very far to the Right, as Ron Paul is. It is a recipe for fascism.

While it deeply disturbs me to hear someone say, "don't pay attention to the ideas," I'll put that aside for now and say that I do agree with Stan on his point that you should look at what the net effect would be if Ron Paul became president. Do you really think it will improve the lives of most regular, working Americans if the Department of Education is dismantled, minimum wage is eradicated (while immigration is criminalized, driving down wages for everyone), and social services are removed? It would be a fucking disaster.

Here is an earlier article, also from Counterpunch, written by a woman that I organize with: The Freedom to Starve: Why the Left Should Reject Ron Paul

1/9/2008 >> ben

from mike tager: star wars candidates!

You must be logged in to comment.


This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Kheiligh. Make your own badge here.