Still Think Ron Paul Is a Libertarian?

Then you need to stop listening to the voices in your head and listen to Ron Paul himself:

Not all Americans are comfortable with the Obama administration’s decision to mandate coverage of birth control and morning-after pills, and the considerations of these people, many of them Christian conservatives, are worthy of careful consideration — not mockery. . . Many others oppose it out of strict moral conviction, and their voices should be heard. . . As president, I plan to defund Obamacare and all federal programs that use tax money taken from the American people to promote abortion and provide abortion services domestically and globally.

Because the voices he is listening to are exclusively those of religious fanatics.

The good news is that this creep has no chance of becoming president. The bad news is that Ayn Rand isn’t with us any more to see what Libertarianism has degenerated into.

Rate this:

48 responses to “Still Think Ron Paul Is a Libertarian?”

nominatissima

October 8, 2011

Sounds like the Global Gag Rule tenfold.
I would be reminded of Stephen Harper’s toothless “maternal health” initiative which completely gutted any plans to provide access to family planning and reproductive health services to developing nations, but I also remember that Paul’s got an isolationist streak, so rather than a useless policy like that, he’d probably just defund *all* initiatives to help developing nations.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

October 8, 2011

Oh, don’t start me on Harper. What an annoying creature. And I’m being as nice to him as possible with this statement to spare the feelings of all of his supporters who read this blog. 🙂

LikeLike

Reply

llama

October 8, 2011

Ban religion?

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

October 8, 2011

No, uphold the US Constitution that guarantees separation of church and state.

LikeLike

Reply

llama

October 8, 2011

The US constitution clearly fails to guarantee separation of church and state. Take for instance the US official motto “In God we Trust”, this is a clear demonstration that there is no guarantee.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

October 8, 2011

“In God we Trust” was adopted in 1956, if I’m not mistaken. The words “under God” were introduced into the Pledge of allegiance about that time. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you what was going in the US, in that most shameful decade of its XXth century history at that time. Neither of these two shameful events have nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution. The founding fathers were long dead by that time.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  October 8, 2011
  
  “Critics contend that the motto’s placement on money constitutes the establishment of a religion or a church by the government, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Separation of church and state. The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: “It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.”[9] The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Supreme Court upheld the motto because it has “lost through rote repetition any significant religious content”” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
  
  Also, Founding fathers of religion: https://clarissasblog.com/2010/05/22/american-patriots-bible/
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. llama
    
    October 8, 2011
    
    “Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise”
    
    Whilst this might represent a “truth” at law, it is not a universal truth.
    
    If the message was “buy Apple PCs” would this not be sponsoring Apple? what is the difference?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      October 8, 2011
      
      I obviously disagree with this position by a reactionary court of appeals.
      
      The main reason why anybody cares about the elections of the president of the US is that he has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices. This is where the main battle-line lies.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply

llama

October 8, 2011

The point is that even with the constitution these things happened and have persisted for more than 50 years. This is a clear demonstration that the constitution is no protection from religious zealots.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

October 8, 2011

Of course. What’s really annoying is that these very zealots keep screeching patriotic slogans while rejecting the very ideas that brought this country into existence.

Just give it a moment, I have no doubt that we’ll see somebody start telling us in this very thread how there was never any attempt to separate church and state during the moments when this country was born.

How are things with religious fanatics in Australia?

LikeLike

Reply
1. llama
  
  October 8, 2011
  
  They are slow arriving 🙂
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    October 8, 2011
    
    Let’s hope they never find you guys. 🙂 🙂
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. llama
      
      October 8, 2011
      
      You recently pointed out that the primary form of birth control in the USSR was abortion. Why do you think this was acceptable? I think in part it must have been the removal of religion from having any public standing. But then I am not from one of those places but I can’t see the Russian Orthodox Church supporting abortion.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. nominatissima
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        If Ron Paul had his way, abortion would become the primary form of birth control in the US, in the form of clandestine back-alley abortions which usually require a trip to the emergency room or end in death.
        Why don’t he or any of his anti-choice minions realize that contraceptives *prevent* abortion?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        I think it’s because they are not against abortion as much as they are against any form of happy and fulfilling sexuality. For the same reason they hate gay men none of whom can possibly get pregnant and consequently abort. Of course, they don’t hate gay women any less. Or hetero women. Or old people. Or small children.
        
        In short, they just hate all those annoying, pesky human beings.
        
        LikeLike
      2. bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        No, it wasn’t really about religion at all. Stalin punished abortion by death, both for the doctor performing and for the woman seeking it. He was doing it at the same time as he was killing priests by the thousand and blowing up cathedrals.
        
        There was a whole system of measures aimed at repressing sexuality and making everything about being a woman as unpleasant as possible. This was simply one of those measures. The reasons why these measures of sexual repression were needed were described very well in Orwell’s 1984.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        llama
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        It is a long time since I read 1984 in fact I read it first in about 1974 it was part of our English classes at secondary school.
        
        LikeLike

llama

October 8, 2011

bloggerclarissa :
The main reason why anybody cares about the elections of the president of the US is that he has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices. This is where the main battle-line lies.

And is yet another reason why the US constitution provides no protection from religious fanatics. Once you have one in the Whitehouse the Supreme Court is polluted for years to come.

I am surprised that you have so much support for religion, non of the mainstream religions in Western countries are particularly supportive of women’s rights. In fact the idea that God set the natural order with men on top of women seems to be ubiquitous amongst them.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

October 8, 2011

‘I am surprised that you have so much support for religion, non of the mainstream religions in Western countries are particularly supportive of women’s rights. ”

-Christianity was called a religion of women and slaves. Why do you think that was? 🙂

I personally don’t have any support for religion. I hate any form of any organized religion with a burning passion. I also believe that separation of church and state is one of the greatest achievements of humanity. Personal faith, however, is a completely different matter.

LikeLike

Reply
1. llama
  
  October 8, 2011
  
  bloggerclarissa :
  
  -Christianity was called a religion of women and slaves. Why do you think that was?
  
  I suppose it was an insult, anything that women do was generally considered as inferior in some way.
  
  But in reality it has never been a religion that empowered women. For instance we have had only one female representative of God on earth (Pope) in 2000 years and that was only because they didn’t check for testicles at the time (which they do now). Even now you won’t find a female Catholic priest (Nuns don’t have anywhere the same standing).
  
  If we talk about the Protestant traditions (new-fangled only 400 years old or so) then many of these have allowed women to be leaders only in recent years and some refuse to do so.
  
  What Islam thinks of women, I can only imagine but, determining that women should not be able to drive cars was pretty far thinking for a guy born in the 6th century.
  
  Judaism is no better, until the last century you could count the number of female rabbi or rebbe that ever existed on one hand and now there might be 600 or so.
  
  You mentioned personal faith, many people don’t actually take the time to work out what this is and just use one of the prepackaged versions available at their parents church.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    October 8, 2011
    
    “I suppose it was an insult, anything that women do was generally considered as inferior in some way.”
    
    -I believe it was a statement of fact.
    
    “But in reality it has never been a religion that empowered women. For instance we have had only one female representative of God on earth (Pope) in 2000 years and that was only because they didn’t check for testicles at the time (which they do now).”
    
    -You are talking about organized religion, which makes mockery of every single word of Christ. Yes, the Catholic Church is disgusting. And so are Christian fundamentalist protestants. Do you think it was for nothing that the Catholic church prohibited people from reading the Bible under the threat of death? The ROC priests are also known for very similar practices. The Bible is the most dangerous piece of reading for these organized criminals.
    
    ‘You mentioned personal faith, many people don’t actually take the time to work out what this is and just use one of the prepackaged versions available at their parents church.”
    
    -Yes, they are idiots. That’s hardly my fault. 🙂
    
    It’s like you are trying to convince me that organized religion is bad and zealotry is wrong. What next, you will tell be that Cervantes was a good writer? 🙂 🙂 I’m very well aware of all these facts. 🙂
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. llama
      
      October 8, 2011
      
      “You are talking about organized religion, which makes mockery of every single word of Christ.”
      
      the difference between religion and faith is that religion has a public aspect (you can probably find that on wiki) thus you have either religion or faith (organized religion is just religion).
      
      As for the word of “Christ”, Who knows what he said? The bible is supposed by the Christians to contain the definitive text on the matter however it is first and foremost the works (selectively chosen) of a religious group (i.e., propoganda).
      
      Collaborating sources for this work that are not the product of the same or similar motivations are very rare indeed. When they do exist they don’t contain teachings but rather confirm the timing of significant events like deaths/births etc.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        It’s like the question of who’s Shakespeare or is Shakespeare really Shakespeare. 🙂 Whoever wrote “to be or not to be that is the question” is “Shakespeare.” The actual name and dates of birth and death of this person / people are irrelevant. To me, at least.
        
        In the same way, whoever said “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
        
        But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
        
        But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking”
        
        was “Jesus” irrespective of their biographical details. The words do exist, so somebody must have come up with them, right? 🙂
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        llama
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        It is not like who really wrote Shakespeare’s works at all. Shakespeare didn’t profess to be son of God, thus making his words even more important.
        
        “was “Jesus” irrespective of their biographical details. The words do exist, so somebody must have come up with them, right? :-)”
        
        Yes (unlike Shakespeare the words are not beautiful) but what was the motivation behind these words? especially if the writer is not the son of god just somebody pretending to be?
        
        The example you present here is about how you treat god not how you treat other men or women. Was this the most important thought God/Jesus (remember they are generally thought of as one) could pass on that day? It seems pretty self serving to me.
        
        LikeLike
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        ‘Yes (unlike Shakespeare the words are not beautiful) but what was the motivation behind these words?”
        
        -Nah, my friend, a good literary critic never psychoanalyzes an author. 🙂 Trying to figure out what Cervantes’s purpose was behind writing Don Quijote is a notorious waste of time. 🙂
        
        “especially if the writer is not the son of god just somebody pretending to be?”
        
        -If he is capable of coming up with those words, he is the son of God. Whether he knows it or not. 🙂
        
        LikeLike
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        I just wrote this post for you, llama: https://clarissasblog.com/2011/10/08/a-little-more-on-religion-whats-god/
        
        I also take requests. 🙂 🙂
        
        LikeLike

Pen

October 8, 2011

The First Amendment of the Constitution states that the government (on both state and federal) can’t make any laws regarding religion. Because Ron Paul’s argument is on religious grounds, the motion he’s proposing is not valid.

LikeLike

Pen

October 8, 2011

At least, I think it’s the First Amendment. I know it’s in there–I just read it on Thursday.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  October 8, 2011
  
  You are absolutely right.
  
  I would treat with the deepest suspicion ANY politician who makes religious arguments in public. Either discuss it with your pastor / priest / rabbi / mullah, or keep it to yourself in a secular country.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. llama
    
    October 8, 2011
    
    “The First Amendment of the Constitution states that the government (on both state and federal) can’t make any laws regarding religion.”
    
    The oath of allegiance ends with “under God”
    
    As an aside an “oath” infers some sacredness (something an atheist might not have) If there is no appeal to a religious being then it should be called a pledge.
    
    But regardless of this, what sense does it make for an atheist to make this pledge or oath? Is he just going to say I didn’t mean the last two words? or does it make the whole a joke?
    
    The government has made a law to ensure that non believers cannot make this pledge in good faith. How is this separation of religion and state? here the state mandates that you must believe in at least one god (possibly only one is allowed).
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      October 8, 2011
      
      I think the very concept of the pledge of allegiance is a huge joke.
      
      And what about taking oaths on the Bible in court? I wonder what atheists and agnostics put their hand on when they promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? The Origin of Species? 🙂 🙂
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. llama
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        Haven’t you heard of an affirmation?
        
        We just tell the truth we don’t think it is any more or less truth because we have the backing of a God.
        
        It makes no logical sense to think that someone can not tell the truth if they don’t believe in a God, or even that their belief in a God will somehow ensure they tell the truth.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        “It makes no logical sense to think that someone can not tell the truth if they don’t believe in a God, or even that their belief in a God will somehow ensure they tell the truth.”
        
        -Who’s disagreeing? I’m just wondering about the logic of asking atheists to swear on the Bible if they don;t see it as a holy text.
        
        LikeLike
        
        llama
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        “-Who’s disagreeing? I’m just wondering about the logic of asking atheists to swear on the Bible if they don;t see it as a holy text.”
        
        Here in Australia we get the opportunity to make an affirmation. No book required. (I am just thinking of you swearing on your kindle here and laughing).
        
        LikeLike
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        That would totally make sense! It contains the Bible, the Don Quijote and the complete works of Shakespeare. Plus a huge collection of murder mysteries and I swear by those. 🙂 🙂
        
        LikeLike
    2. Pen
      
      October 8, 2011
      
      Are you talking about the oath of office?
      
      The last two words of the oath of office are not in the oath written in the Constitution. They were added in the 1950’s or 1960’s and have been added ever since, but the words of the oath have never been changed from those written in the Constitution.
      
      And the words written in the Constitution do not have anything to do with God.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        Exactly. I wish more people remembered this.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Pen
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        Actually, I didn’t remember it. So many people used the argument that Christianity was in the Constitution in their first critical writing paper (the class’ focus is evolution versus creationism) that the professor handed out copies of the Constitution and gave us specific passages to read aloud.
        
        LikeLike
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        Wow. This is really sad. (About the students thinking this I mean.)
        
        LikeLike
      2. llama
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        Which is even worse because it means only people with a belief in god can take office
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Pen
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        But because the Constitution does not mention God at all in the oath of office (or at all in general), the president-elect can request that these words not be repeated when he takes the oath.
        
        LikeLike
        
        llama
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        And when do you think you might see an atheist take office in the US?
        
        LikeLike
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        Or people who fake belief. Like Obama probably did.
        
        LikeLike
        
        llama
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        Do you think Obama faked his belief?
        
        LikeLike
        
        bloggerclarissa
        
        October 8, 2011
        
        I think he faked being a churchgoer. As for intimate beliefs, who can possibly know except him?
        
        LikeLike

Paul Tiderman

October 8, 2011

I suppose if you don’t agree with a view, it could not possibly be Libertarian?

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

October 8, 2011

I don’t agree with many of the Libertarian views, which doesn’t make them any less Libertarian. However, opposition to bodily integrity and abortion rights is so anti-Libertarian that it screams to the skies. Ayn Rand spoke convincingly to these issues.

LikeLike

Reply

Clarissa's Blog