The New Hampshire Primary Approaches!

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm so glad I put this forum on ignore.

Incisive.

[Ian]

Ron Paul's taking a solid 2nd place behind Romney.

New Hampshire can be pretty weird.

[Warren Dew]

Ron Paul's taking a solid 2nd place behind Romney.

Huntsman did well among Democrats, though.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/nh

He seriously ran in the wrong primary.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ron Paul's taking a solid 2nd place behind Romney.

New Hampshire can be pretty weird.

I think Paul's showings in Iowa and N.H., though, require that he be treated as a serious candidate. other candidates, like Santorum, have been getting more "play" in the media as serious contenders, even with less of a showing over 2 events. And, Perry is still treated as a "might be" in the media, but you know if Ron Paul got 1% in NH, you'd not even hear his name.

If there is one thing I agree with the Paulites about is that their candidate is given short-shrift, when he is demonstrating significant popularity. Those in the media have no love for his politics and they definitely don't understand the economics he talks about, and not a single pundit even knows what the Federal Reserve is or does, I'm willing to bet, but as the "4th Estate" they have a duty to be fair and at least try to be objective. That seems to have been lost on the news, of late.

[drl2]

It's looking like Romney is inevitable unless a bunch of the Not-Romneys drop out to consolidate their voters behind someone who's sufficiently the right kind of Christian. So the question remains - is the opposition to Romney vehement enough to spawn a third-party movement? Ron Paul might have a big enough following and Newtie might have a big enough ego.

Huntsman is by far the best of the bunch, but in South Carolina he's trailing Stephen Colbert in the polls.

[Clinton Huxley]

Huntmans thinks monkeys gave birth to people. He's got no chance.

[Coito ergo sum]

Huntmans thinks monkeys gave birth to people. He's got no chance.

Well, if he thinks something that ludicrous then I'd hope he had no chance. Huntsman does accept the science of evolution, but so does the front runner Romney.

[drl2]

Huntsman does accept the science of evolution, but so does the front runner Romney.

Does he? I'm not denying it, I just haven't seen seen anything he's said that would lead me to think that a) he accepts it, and b) is willing to say so at the risk of alienating the religious right voters he needs. Huntsman also seems to think the vast scientific consensus on global warming might be worth paying attention to. Somehow I can't picture Romney capturing the numbers he did if he diverged from the party line on either of these issues.

[Coito ergo sum]

Huntsman does accept the science of evolution, but so does the front runner Romney.

Does he? I'm not denying it, I just haven't seen seen anything he's said that would lead me to think that a) he accepts it, and b) is willing to say so at the risk of alienating the religious right voters he needs. Huntsman also seems to think the vast scientific consensus on global warming might be worth paying attention to. Somehow I can't picture Romney capturing the numbers he did if he diverged from the party line on either of these issues.

Romney's is the same position held by a lot of Catholics. He believes in God. He believes God created the universe including the process of evolution.

In 2007, he said, “I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” he said. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.” When the moderator pressed him to plant his flag in the “intelligent design” camp, Romney demurred: “I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design. But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”

He also believes that anthropogenic climate change is a real problem. He agrees with climate science.

So, that's Romney and Huntsman.

Gingrich doesn't deny evolution. He was asked by the Discovery Institute:

Do you view evolution as "just a theory" or as the best explanation for how we came to be?

Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have. But it's changing too. The current tree of life is not anything like a 19th-century Darwinian tree. We're learning a lot about how systems evolve and don't evolve.

In order to learn a lot about how systems evolve and don't evolve, there is an underlying assumption that they do evolve in some way. And, he said that it seems to express the closest understanding we can now have, which is an accurate statement. He also said "I believe that science as a mechanical process is true," although he believes in God too, and as a Catholic he has faith that his God created the universe.

That's three of the Republican candidates.

Ron Paul has been a bit wishy washy about it, but he did say this: "...it’s a pretty logical theory." In 2008 primary debates, Paul was among those asked to raise his hand if they did not believe in evolution, and Tancredo, Brownback and Huckabee raised their hands, and Paul did not. There is a video out there where Paul makes a speech about it being a theory which he doesn't accept, but the Ron Paul campaign said this, apparently:

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.

http://www.shanktified.com/archives/ron ... -evolution

Ron Paul tends toward pedantry in his statements and positions, and he is probably taking issue with the idea of current evolutionary theory being conclusively proven, as opposed to the fact of evolution happening. I am nearly certain he believes the latter, but questions the former, which is fine (especially if he knows something about it -- I mean - that would be like not accepting Gould's theory of evolution with punctuated equilibrium, one can certainly accept the fact of evolution without accepting a particular theory of it).

Santorum is a proponent of intelligent design. Perry is unclear about it, referring to it as "a theory" that has "gaps" in it, which isn't exactly a resounding denial of it.

So, of those currently in the race, only Santorum, and probably Perry are really evolution deniers, although Perry is basically admitting to not knowing, so I think it is really unfair to claim that the Republican candidates are all anti-evolution nuts. Perry is all but out the campaign, leaving Santorum as the only one.

[Warren Dew]

Funny assessment of the current state of Ron Paul's campaign:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/com ... etworkNews

[Wumbologist]

So, of those currently in the race, only Santorum, and probably Perry are really evolution deniers, although Perry is basically admitting to not knowing, so I think it is really unfair to claim that the Republican candidates are all anti-evolution nuts. Perry is all but out the campaign, leaving Santorum as the only one.

Ron Paul opposes separation of church & state.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, of those currently in the race, only Santorum, and probably Perry are really evolution deniers, although Perry is basically admitting to not knowing, so I think it is really unfair to claim that the Republican candidates are all anti-evolution nuts. Perry is all but out the campaign, leaving Santorum as the only one.

Ron Paul opposes separation of church & state.

That is, of course, not the same question as whether one denies evolution.

But, my understanding of Paul's position is merely that he wants neutrality on the issue of religion. He introduced a bill to allow children to voluntarily pray in school, but that would forbid any compulsion to engage in said prayer. That's the position I hold to.

He has made some statements which says like this, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." I disagree with that, since a great founding father, Tom Jefferson, created the notion of a rigid separation of church and state, and guys like Madison agreed with it. However, he is correct that the text of the Constitution itself does not say that there is a "separation of church and state," and other founding fathers did not see the same "rigid separation" that Jefferson's camp saw. So, it's not as if, as a matter of constitutional law, he is wrong.

My understanding of Paul's position is that what he is against is the government actively hindering religion. I, too, am against that. I think the Free Exercise clause is as important as the Establishment Clause, and that separation means separation - that the government is not pushing against religion either.

[Wumbologist]

That is, of course, not the same question as whether one denies evolution.

Of course it isn't. I'm merely pointing out the multi-faceted crazy that is Ron Paul.

But, my understanding of Paul's position is merely that he wants neutrality on the issue of religion. He introduced a bill to allow children to voluntarily pray in school, but that would forbid any compulsion to engage in said prayer. That's the position I hold to.

Children can already voluntarily pray in school. They just can't be directed to by their teachers. This is horseshit.

He has made some statements which says like this, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." I disagree with that, since a great founding father, Tom Jefferson, created the notion of a rigid separation of church and state, and guys like Madison agreed with it. However, he is correct that the text of the Constitution itself does not say that there is a "separation of church and state," and other founding fathers did not see the same "rigid separation" that Jefferson's camp saw. So, it's not as if, as a matter of constitutional law, he is wrong.

The Establishment Clause establishes separation of church and state. It's splitting hairs to claim that because the specific words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. And yes, Jefferson made it clear that the Establishment Clause guaranteed that separation of church and state.

My understanding of Paul's position is that what he is against is the government actively hindering religion. I, too, am against that. I think the Free Exercise clause is as important as the Establishment Clause, and that separation means separation - that the government is not pushing against religion either.

Ron Paul apologetics.

[Coito ergo sum]

That is, of course, not the same question as whether one denies evolution.

Of course it isn't. I'm merely pointing out the multi-faceted crazy that is Ron Paul.

I think calling him crazy is an unfair characterization. In some areas, he's the smartest person in the room, generally.

But, my understanding of Paul's position is merely that he wants neutrality on the issue of religion. He introduced a bill to allow children to voluntarily pray in school, but that would forbid any compulsion to engage in said prayer. That's the position I hold to.

Children can already voluntarily pray in school. They just can't be directed to by their teachers. This is horseshit.

It's not horseshit because there have been instances where voluntary prayer has been stopped by public schools, and there have been times when students had to be vindicated via lawsuits. It's not in the least bit "horseshit."

He has made some statements which says like this, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." I disagree with that, since a great founding father, Tom Jefferson, created the notion of a rigid separation of church and state, and guys like Madison agreed with it. However, he is correct that the text of the Constitution itself does not say that there is a "separation of church and state," and other founding fathers did not see the same "rigid separation" that Jefferson's camp saw. So, it's not as if, as a matter of constitutional law, he is wrong.

The Establishment Clause establishes separation of church and state. It's splitting hairs to claim that because the specific words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. And yes, Jefferson made it clear that the Establishment Clause guaranteed that separation of church and state.

Look - after the adoption of the Constitution, there were still official state churches in various States, and Jefferson's view that the Establishment Clause created a wall of separation was not the only view. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that: "the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. (Article III)"

This "establishment of religion" period in Massachusetts was not abolished until 1833, 50 years after the First Amendment was adopted, and it wasn't held unconstitutional. It was just abolished by Massachusetts.

Much of what Ron Paul said is very detail oriented and legalistic, and very nuanced in terms of Constitutional interpretation. He's right about a lot of it, and much of what I don't think he's right about is at least arguable from his point of view.

Connecticut had an establishment of religion. Its citizens did not adopt a constitution at the Revolution, but rather amended their Charter to remove all references to the British Government. As a result, the Congregational Church continued to be established, and Yale College, at that time a Congregational institution, received grants from the State until Connecticut adopted a constitution in 1818 partly because of this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... onnecticut

Jefferson was one founding father. Yes, he did "make clear" that it should create a "wall of separation." However, his view was not the only view.

My understanding of Paul's position is that what he is against is the government actively hindering religion. I, too, am against that. I think the Free Exercise clause is as important as the Establishment Clause, and that separation means separation - that the government is not pushing against religion either.

Ron Paul apologetics.

It's my understanding of his view, not apologetics. I was a Huntsman supporter, not a Paul supporter. Now that Huntsman is out, I am not sure who I am going to vote for in the primary, if anyone. I am not an apologist for Paul, as he is not really my cup of tea on a number of issues. Again, I am merely explaining what I think his view is on the topic, and I do not feel the need to adopt any rigid "anti-Paul" stance. I try to give each candidate a fair chance.

[Tero]

Huntsman quit. How many of those women on stage were his wives?