This clip comes from the CNN Republican candidate debate on June 13th of this year. In describing his belief on the separation of Church and State (or lack thereof), Paul makes it clear he is an accommodationist. He points out how there is no specific reference to such a phrase in the Constitution but only the protection from a theocracy and the right to practice one’s religion freely. Paul goes a step further though and states that the founders only meant the right to practice a Christian religion. This is out of step with current interpretations that the First Amendment applies to all religions. Paul relies on an original intent interpretation of the Constitution, believing that since the United States was founded by Christian men based on Christian principles that the right thus applied to Christian religions. However, if it did only apply to Christian religion, why not state that specifically? The Constitution was written to prevent that same persecution that caused settlers from England to colonize America in the first place. With this in mind, the First Amendment is clearly meant to extend to all religions, even ones that the Founders were not familiar with or did not exist at the time.
This clip ties into Jefferson’s belief on the separation of church and state. Jefferson was a religious man but took the Bible not as literal but rather allegorical, basing it in nature and reason rather than faith. Jefferson wanted the morality that religion provides but a logical explanation and foundation that did not rely on faith-based religion but science and fact found in nature. Paul as believes in a moral fiber of the nation but also the freedom to choose one’s own code (at 20 seconds in to the clip). This is similar to Jefferson’s belief but Paul seems to base the morality and freedom of an individual on religion and Christian teachings rather than natural law.
It's a little bit discomforting that someone with the potential to run the country thinks that freedom of religion applies only to Christianity, so I'm glad you brought that to my attention. I like the comparison to Jefferson's ideology, I think it really helps put Paul's beliefs into perspective. It seems like his religious tendencies are being overshadowed by Bachmann and Perry's ostentatious displays of faith and by the drama over Romney's Mormon beliefs. Compared to his fellow candidates, Ron Paul doesn't appear to be too religious, yet it's true that he is definitely an accomodationist. I wonder if this aspect of his personality will be brought more into the public eye as the race goes on or if he'll just continue being overlooked. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI like your contrast between Paul's views and those of Jefferson. I think it is strange that Paul has a view like this regarding religion. He is normally seen as the candidate who wants to let people do as they please, in accordance with his libertarian stance. In many ways Jefferson would have agreed with that point of view. However, they seem to differ on religion. Paul's libertarian views don't seem to extend to religion.
ReplyDeleteKatya, I think that Paul's religious views will be more closely examined later in the campaign, provided he lasts that long. It also could depend on who else makes it that far in the campaign. If he is facing off against Bachman, he may have to be more vocal about his religion in order to win some evangelical votes away from her. But if he is facing Romney, the race will focus more on the economy. Should be interesting to see if that stone is turned and what it reveals.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying in this blog. I don't see that much controversy when it comes to Ron Paul and religion because of the fact that he is indeed an accommodationist. However, I am a bit confused about what he says about the first amendment and Christianity. Is he just really biased for Christianity? I think he must be smarter than to think "freedom of religion" relates only to Christianity. I would be curious to hear his response from him about what he means here.
ReplyDeleteI think I disagree with Ron Paul when he says "you can't teach morals" because I consider the teaching of religious theologies to youth to be just that-- a venue where an institution (the church) attempts to impart morals and values through stories and histories. If you consider Sunday-Schools in some Christian churches or the teaching of Hebrew or Islam to a young man, an intentional or unintentional side effect of imparting morals and values occurs.
ReplyDelete