I feel like we need a sticky with the definition if strawman. O wait we do Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I am not against science at all, overall it's been very advantageous to the human race. Religion has had mostly the opposite effect. The apologists for Ron Paul will use anything to deny the truth about him. Ron Paul is a creationist, a throwback to the ScopesTrial of the 1920's. Even then, people who were against the theory of evolution were considered backwards. I can imagine what H.L. Mecken would say about Ron Paul, if he were alive today. Here is what he wrote in 1925, when he covered the trial for the Baltimore Sun. Mencken, by the way, was the person who coined the phrase, "Monkey Trial". http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/menck01.htm#SCOPES1
Erhh mah Gawd, Paul is a Creationist, which I actually dont think he has ever said. Too bad that literally means nothing when you are talking about his policies. I guess since he isnt completely on board with evolution, his stance on the drug war is wrong? Or you know, foreign policy, cause that helped with 9/11 right? Or the Fed, cause their inflationary policies are making things cheaper in America, right? Thats like saying your surgeon idoesnt know health because he is a Creationist, or your lawyer doesnt know law because he is a Creationist. RP haters just be grasping at straws, or actually ad homs.
If my surgeon was a creationist, I'd probably find a different one - unless he had a proven track record of success. Ron Paul believes that his fundamentalist religious delusions should be included in the law and government.
Lol, of course you would garrison. Such as, cause you know that link you provided shows no such thing.
"There is evolution, and I don't accept it...The creator that I know, who created us, every one of us, who created the universe, and the precise time and manner,..I just don't think we're at a point where anyone has absolute proof on either side...I think it's a theological discussion." -RP I don't think there's much debate whether RP is a creationist. If the "the creator I know" comment isn't proof enough, the fact he thinks a scientific discussion is actually better addressed as a "theological discussion" should be. Unless you want to argue maybe he's more of the intelligent designer type, but even they are extra careful to never use the word "creator" in their discussions because that would blow their cover. The other option is that he's just playing the game of politics and saying whatever he knows his audience wants to here. But that would lower him low enough to be on par with just about any other politician.
Ahhh excuse me, I was confusing it with apparently Young Earth Creationists, who think the earth is about 5000 years old. I was under the impression there was intelligent design, and then creationism, and then supporters of evolution, but apparently there are more subdivisions. I dont think he's really playing the game of politics that much, since his stances go against just about everything any other politician is saying in modern times. He was a niche candidate, even if he had a growing support base.
Ron Paul believes in options that are against the principles of separation of church and state. It's not "deciding for yourself", when laws are enacted by the religious mob that affect everybody.
Still waiting on that evidence garrison. Or maybe you should read this to understand what RP really means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Public_religious_expression Quote: He rejects the notion of "separation of Church and state", instead seeing the issue as "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion". He views the latter as specific government endorsement of one particular religion, and does not see it as a mandate to ban all policies that would benefit religion in general. So you see, he doesnt want to enact laws that force religiosity onto people, he wants there to be no endorsement of religion, nor any restrictions from the federal level, it is to remain neutral. You can keep repeating the same mundane things over and over again, but they simply arent correct. Btw whats worse, the religious mob, or the statist mob? How about no mobs.
He wants to allow public prayer in government schools. Those who do not participate, whether they are non-Christian or non-religious,, will be ostracized, or worse, by those children who do pray. This is the way many religious people are, and their children are the same way. They will not change. We don't need these kinds of problems, the schools are facing enough challenges already without introducing state-sponsored religious insanity. It's wrong, period. If you want your kids to pray in school, there are private institutions for that. The teaching of Creationism in school, which is bible study, is also wrong. Again, there are private schools for people who want this. He does not believe in separation of church and state, you admit that, so where am I wrong?
A straw man is different than simply being wrong. The only thing he said in that post is that ron.Paul is religious and his legislation would therefore be biased based on his beliefs http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Some good examples in there Ron Paul really is religious and he really would be influenced by that when running the governmen. No strawman tthere Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I went to a highschool that had a prayer club before school, and believe me, it wasnt the non-prayers getting ostracized. But really, you think kids NOT praying is what is going to get them ostracized in school? That has to be at the bottom of a very long list, containing things like hair style, clothing, shoes, wealth, sports or not, music, single or not, car or not, sexuality etc. I've already explained myself with the church and state issue, its no endorsement or restriction from the federal level. No endorsement being "no establishment of religion", and no restriction being like allowing prayer in school, if kids want to, holy shit the world is gonna end. It is a state issue to him, not a federal. Its also not really separation of church and state, when the federal government actively suppresses religion.
Was the high school which had a prayer club public or private? A prayer club, during non-study hours, is a bit different than students saying prayers in the classroom. As for creationism, even Mitt Romney is against teaching it as science, preferring that evolution be taught in the science classes, and believes religious topics like creationism should be handled by courses in comparative religion and philosophy.
Not to side track the thread, but really when it comes to the origins of life (which is what RP was talking about in that quote, and what is really the most contentious and "political" part of evolution), there are only creationists (like RP) and those who support evolution (aka science). There really aren't any subdivisions. Intelligent design supporters are just creationists who are desperately trying to find a way to teach creationism/religion in public school science classrooms.
Public. I do think its kinda funny since the Pledge of Allegiance is conducted at the beginning of public school, or at least for me it was, and it has the words "Under God". Ironic, imo. Mitt was also just another status quo politician, but I dont really care for his stances on evolution, like I dont care for RP's. I can find many other things about Mitt that arent favorable. I dont think RP is against teaching evolution tough. Yes, I seemed to be confusing some things about the topics. Thanks for clearing it up.
"Under God" was not in the original Pledge of Allegiance, it was added later, and the revised version should not be said in public schools or government. I do not know whether Ron Paul is against teaching the Theory of Evolution, but he has stated that he does not accept it and that "It's only a theory". At least Romney accepts it, partially as a part of creation, and is not in favor of teaching intelligent design, creationism, etc., as fact or science.
Does a mandated 'pledge of allegiance' interfere with or subvert freedom of speech? I could also argue that it could violate one's 5th Amendment right, but I'll start with the first. Is it constitutionally valid to compel children (or adults) to a pledge to any entity/organization (especially one which is an involuntary system of wealth redistribution and institutionalized violence) ? I only ask, becuase you state,"the revised version should not be said in public schools or government", does this go for the original version as well, and at what point can a government or the public sector mandate certain speech?
I'm not in favor of compelling anybody to say it, and perhaps it should be dropped entirely - but if not, "god" should not be included or used in government-run ceremonies, offices, military functions, etc. "In God We Trust" should also be removed from currency.