5 ms·

> Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not an

> Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not and cannot enact state religions, and its up to the federal government to enforce that. The fact that Rand Paul is clearly biased by his religion makes him distinctly un-libertarian.

joshuapants 12y ago
It seems like you're grasping at straws. Good luck finding a single human anywhere that isn't biased in some way. I'm also not aware of any Libertarian Cabal documents stating that nobody with vaguely libertarian views can have a religion, or that in having a religion one is so tainted as to be unable to compartmentalize one's personal and professional lives.
- morgante 12y ago
  I never said libertarians can't be religious. Rather, it's a fundamental tenant of libertarianism that you should not use the organ of government to enforce your religious views on others. On numerous occasions, Paul has referenced religious motivations for creating social policies. For example, he is opposed to same-sex marriage because it "offends him." Paul is not a libertarian. He's just a standard anti-Federalist Republican.
  - joshuapants 12y ago
    Do please show me where he's proposed banning same-sex marriage and not simply stated his personal distaste for it.
    - morgante 12y ago
      Here's one source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditches-federalism-for-fundamentalism-on-gay-marriage.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche... My favorite quote from that (showing how intellectually dishonest Paul really is): "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."
      - joshuapants 12y ago
        I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I wanted to see an example of him proposing a policy that would proscribe same-sex marriage in contrast with his statements that he is personally uncomfortable with it. You have offered only the latter.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    "I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage but I don't really think the government needs to be too involved in this..." http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/219672-rand-paul-shrugs-when-asked-if-he-could-rethink-gay http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/21967... "Senator Paul believes marriage is an issue that should be dealt with at the state level,” political adviser Doug Stafford told The Daily Beast. “Nothing about his position has changed." Stafford later added: "Senator Paul does not want his guns or his marriage registered in Washington. He has said this repeatedly and consistently. Marriage is not a federal issue. It is an issue for state and local governments to deal with." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditches-federalism-for-fundamentalism-on-gay-marriage.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche... According to the second quote, Paul is also opposed to federal opposite-sex marriage. That's pretty much a standard libertarian position.
    - XorNot 12y ago
      In other words he told positions which conveniently would be enforced by not interfering with the status quo. Why is state government the only acceptable level of government interference in citizens private lives?
      - SamReidHughes 12y ago
        That way government more closely follows the will of the people when people have geographically non-uniform distribution of what they want in government. For example, if 60% of Maryland wants children to be banned from playing outside while 40% of Pennsylvania does, it more closely matches the will of the people if Maryland bans it and Pennsylvania doesn't, instead of having the feds ban it or ban states from banning it. Not that "will of the people" democratic mysticism is a good justification for anything.
        XorNot 12y ago
        Ah, so tyranny of the majority all round then?
lettergram 12y ago
I think pretty much everyone (including Paul) would agree that the federal government needs to keep a state religion from forming in a state. Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious, so claiming the states should make their own decisions seems fair. Also, he's a Republican (for better or worse), he'll almost certainly get a large portion of Libertarian vote though (which accounts for 2 - 5% of the population per state).
- discardorama 12y ago
  > Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious Pray tell me what non-religious arguments you have against same-sex marriage and abortion (I assume you meant "abortion" instead of "abolition").
  - nesicus 12y ago
    you say that as if you can't imagine that there are any or something. so silly. um, okay: government has no business in marriage. abortion is arbitrarily deciding you have autonomy over the life of another possibly intelligent being for political reasons. I'm in favor of self-ownership and property rights--I don't know about you. none of these things have anything to do with religion. (hint: I am not religious.)
    - unprepare 12y ago
      >government has no business in marriage I see this rhetoric a lot and would love an actual explanation. Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Health and other insurance benefits? Managing the custody of children of divorce? How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage? Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage; the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.
      - maratd 12y ago
researcher88 12y ago
I think it makes him a politician more than anything. The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems. The reality is, there is little upside in a Republican primary for saying he thinks gays should marry or for promoting a nuanced view on abortion. Just like his dance on saying he will increase defense spending after first proposing to cut it.
- juletide 12y ago
  "The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems" I don't understand what you're saying here—are you implying that MDs are somehow unlikely to be religious?
  - researcher88 12y ago
    No, just highly educated. I meant that he is less likely to use religion to define his beliefs. He is a critical thinker and a smart guy, so he surely recognizes the contradictions and problems with religion. He can call himself a Christian, like many secular people do, but he is not religious like Santorum or Huckabee. Rand and his father rarely talk about it. And he certainly has a strong belief in its separation from government.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
viggity 12y ago
Actually, the Establishment clause does not make it clear, and in fact, only prevented the US Congress (not the states) from establishing an official religion. It wasn't until the supreme court Incorporated the establishment clause in 1947 that states were prevented from establishing an official state religion. In fact, at least six states had official religions at the time of the founding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporat... The second paragraph in the Incorporation clause discusses my points above.
- morgante 12y ago
  Yes, it's true that the Establishment Clause did not originally apply to the states. However, since incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority of precent applies it to the states as well. (I've written dozens of papers on the Establishment Clause.)
  - tzs 12y ago
    Ron Paul tried to effectively reverse that, three times, by introducing legislation that prohibited the Supreme Court and any other Federal court from hearing cases involving it and the laws, policies, or regulations of any state. That would work because aside from a small number of case types the Constitution explicitly says the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over, it is Congress that decides the bounds of Federal jurisdiction. Here was one of Ron Paul's bills on this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/
chucksmart 12y ago
The Establishment Clause prohibits the Federal Congress from establishing a national religion; the 14th Amendment on the other hand has been interpreted to establish a universal standard of morality for the nation as decreed by the Supreme Court. One might say the 14th Amendment and the Establishment clause directly conflict. And the 14th Amendment has won.
- morgante 12y ago
  Most contemporary opinion, including the vast majority of applicable precedent, holds that the 14th Amendment made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states.
- chucksmart 12y ago
  Power vacuums are always filled. Prior to the 14th amendment; the states filled the power vacuum of 'police power & moral standards' which was intentionally denied the Fed. With the 14th amendment; the power to establish 'moral standards' was taken from the states; and filled by the Supreme Caliphate. If the Supreme Caliphate applies the moral standards of Congress to moral issues like abortion and marriage it is 'problematically' over-riding the Establishment Clause. If it applies solely its own 'moral standards'; then the Supreme Caliphate is consistent with the Establishment Clause. Language usually gives lip service to latter path.

joshuapants 12y ago

It seems like you're grasping at straws. Good luck finding a single human anywhere that isn't biased in some way. I'm also not aware of any Libertarian Cabal documents stating that nobody with vaguely libertarian views can have a religion, or that in having a religion one is so tainted as to be unable to compartmentalize one's personal and professional lives.

morgante 12y ago
I never said libertarians can't be religious. Rather, it's a fundamental tenant of libertarianism that you should not use the organ of government to enforce your religious views on others. On numerous occasions, Paul has referenced religious motivations for creating social policies. For example, he is opposed to same-sex marriage because it "offends him." Paul is not a libertarian. He's just a standard anti-Federalist Republican.
- joshuapants 12y ago
  Do please show me where he's proposed banning same-sex marriage and not simply stated his personal distaste for it.
  - morgante 12y ago
    Here's one source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditches-federalism-for-fundamentalism-on-gay-marriage.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche... My favorite quote from that (showing how intellectually dishonest Paul really is): "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."
    - joshuapants 12y ago
      I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I wanted to see an example of him proposing a policy that would proscribe same-sex marriage in contrast with his statements that he is personally uncomfortable with it. You have offered only the latter.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  "I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage but I don't really think the government needs to be too involved in this..." http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/219672-rand-paul-shrugs-when-asked-if-he-could-rethink-gay http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/21967... "Senator Paul believes marriage is an issue that should be dealt with at the state level,” political adviser Doug Stafford told The Daily Beast. “Nothing about his position has changed." Stafford later added: "Senator Paul does not want his guns or his marriage registered in Washington. He has said this repeatedly and consistently. Marriage is not a federal issue. It is an issue for state and local governments to deal with." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditches-federalism-for-fundamentalism-on-gay-marriage.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche... According to the second quote, Paul is also opposed to federal opposite-sex marriage. That's pretty much a standard libertarian position.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    In other words he told positions which conveniently would be enforced by not interfering with the status quo. Why is state government the only acceptable level of government interference in citizens private lives?
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      That way government more closely follows the will of the people when people have geographically non-uniform distribution of what they want in government. For example, if 60% of Maryland wants children to be banned from playing outside while 40% of Pennsylvania does, it more closely matches the will of the people if Maryland bans it and Pennsylvania doesn't, instead of having the feds ban it or ban states from banning it. Not that "will of the people" democratic mysticism is a good justification for anything.
      - XorNot 12y ago
        Ah, so tyranny of the majority all round then?

lettergram 12y ago

I think pretty much everyone (including Paul) would agree that the federal government needs to keep a state religion from forming in a state. Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious, so claiming the states should make their own decisions seems fair. Also, he's a Republican (for better or worse), he'll almost certainly get a large portion of Libertarian vote though (which accounts for 2 - 5% of the population per state).

discardorama 12y ago
> Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious Pray tell me what non-religious arguments you have against same-sex marriage and abortion (I assume you meant "abortion" instead of "abolition").
- nesicus 12y ago
  you say that as if you can't imagine that there are any or something. so silly. um, okay: government has no business in marriage. abortion is arbitrarily deciding you have autonomy over the life of another possibly intelligent being for political reasons. I'm in favor of self-ownership and property rights--I don't know about you. none of these things have anything to do with religion. (hint: I am not religious.)
  - unprepare 12y ago
    >government has no business in marriage I see this rhetoric a lot and would love an actual explanation. Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Health and other insurance benefits? Managing the custody of children of divorce? How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage? Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage; the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.
    - maratd 12y ago

researcher88 12y ago

I think it makes him a politician more than anything. The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems. The reality is, there is little upside in a Republican primary for saying he thinks gays should marry or for promoting a nuanced view on abortion. Just like his dance on saying he will increase defense spending after first proposing to cut it.

juletide 12y ago
"The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems" I don't understand what you're saying here—are you implying that MDs are somehow unlikely to be religious?
- researcher88 12y ago
  No, just highly educated. I meant that he is less likely to use religion to define his beliefs. He is a critical thinker and a smart guy, so he surely recognizes the contradictions and problems with religion. He can call himself a Christian, like many secular people do, but he is not religious like Santorum or Huckabee. Rand and his father rarely talk about it. And he certainly has a strong belief in its separation from government.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

viggity 12y ago

Actually, the Establishment clause does not make it clear, and in fact, only prevented the US Congress (not the states) from establishing an official religion. It wasn't until the supreme court Incorporated the establishment clause in 1947 that states were prevented from establishing an official state religion. In fact, at least six states had official religions at the time of the founding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause#Incorporat... The second paragraph in the Incorporation clause discusses my points above.

morgante 12y ago
Yes, it's true that the Establishment Clause did not originally apply to the states. However, since incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority of precent applies it to the states as well. (I've written dozens of papers on the Establishment Clause.)
- tzs 12y ago
  Ron Paul tried to effectively reverse that, three times, by introducing legislation that prohibited the Supreme Court and any other Federal court from hearing cases involving it and the laws, policies, or regulations of any state. That would work because aside from a small number of case types the Constitution explicitly says the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over, it is Congress that decides the bounds of Federal jurisdiction. Here was one of Ron Paul's bills on this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:/

chucksmart 12y ago

The Establishment Clause prohibits the Federal Congress from establishing a national religion; the 14th Amendment on the other hand has been interpreted to establish a universal standard of morality for the nation as decreed by the Supreme Court. One might say the 14th Amendment and the Establishment clause directly conflict. And the 14th Amendment has won.

morgante 12y ago
Most contemporary opinion, including the vast majority of applicable precedent, holds that the 14th Amendment made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states.
chucksmart 12y ago
Power vacuums are always filled. Prior to the 14th amendment; the states filled the power vacuum of 'police power & moral standards' which was intentionally denied the Fed. With the 14th amendment; the power to establish 'moral standards' was taken from the states; and filled by the Supreme Caliphate. If the Supreme Caliphate applies the moral standards of Congress to moral issues like abortion and marriage it is 'problematically' over-riding the Establishment Clause. If it applies solely its own 'moral standards'; then the Supreme Caliphate is consistent with the Establishment Clause. Language usually gives lip service to latter path.