DIGG THIS

On May 3, 2007, MSNBC hosted a debate for the GOP presidential candidates at the Reagan Library in California. Near the end of the program, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates, “I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?” Three hands went up, one of them belonging, naturally enough, to Mike Huckabee. Ron Paul, however, kept his hand down.

At a November 1 meeting of the Spartanburg (SC) GOP Executive Committee, Ron Paul was asked about this incident. Here’s a link to his reply. Speaking as an evolutionist, Andrew Sullivan, who has a well-read blog at The Atlantic, wrote of Paul’s response, “I want to look away.”

But the truth is that Sullivan never had the opportunity to look in the first place. His link went to the page of an atheist writer, whose video of Paul’s remarks was heavily edited. Here is the full transcript of Congressman Paul’s remarks, with the deleted sections in brackets:

“Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [ it probably doesn’t bother me. It’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think ] the creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don’t . . . if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine, and we can have our . . . if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.”]

As you can see, half of Paul’s words were censored. His real message was, “We’re fighting for freedom and can’t afford to be split over a debate about fossils.” The purpose of the censorship was obviously to encourage exactly such a split.

With the prospect of such a split in mind, now might be a good time for all of us who care about freedom to remember what the Ron Paul Revolution is all about. Certainly, it’s about stopping a war that has killed over a million innocent people and has destroyed America’s reputation throughout the world. Certainly it’s about gaining control of our national finances before we become impoverished. Yet more important than the war and the economy, the dominant issue of our age is the question of whether America will continue to be a free country, or will it descend into tyranny. As anyone who follows the news knows, the trends are against liberty.

The worst example of the deterioration of our rights is in that we now live in a country where torture is accepted as standard interrogation procedure. In defiance of the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the President claims the right to arrest anyone — not just foreigners — and hold them indefinitely, and torture them as he pleases. Clearly, the intent of this initiative is not just to allow FBI agents to beat the truth out of terrorists so as to keep cities from being vaporized in the next ten minutes, because people have been tortured for years now though not a single city has ever come close to vaporization. Clearly, what the President cares about is not the safety or security of American cities, but that the Unitary Executive have the supreme power to torture anyone for any reason, and never have to account for his actions. There is only one purpose for that policy, and it’s not to catch terrorists. It’s to intimidate dissidents through the practice of state terror against the citizenry. To combat a handful of foreign terrorists, the government will create an army of domestic terrorists, bankrolled by your own taxes, and given bonuses and promotions based on how well they frighten you and your fellow citizens into silent compliance with presidential edicts.

Extrapolating the trends of the past few years, it’s not hard to imagine a nightmare vision of America over the course of the next Presidential Administration. It begins with the issuance of national ID cards and proliferation of government security cameras everywhere. Then one day a government agent appears at your door, asking questions which indicate that your private e-mails and phone calls have been monitored. Then you make a nervous joke — perhaps about how the government spends too much time going after innocent protestors and not real terrorists — and next thing you know, you’re arrested.

Why? They don’t need to tell you. Habeas corpus has already been suspended. They don’t even have to tell anyone that you have been arrested. You are now what is known in totalitarian regimes as a "non-person." You will learn over the long period of your incarceration, non-persons don’t have rights. And then one day, they lead you into a room where screams have been coming from, and inside you see a board and a jug of water . . . am I being sensationalist here, or am I paraphrasing sworn testimony made before Congressional Committees?

You would think that the prospect of imminent tyranny would scare some sense into libertarians and make them realize that we have to stay united. For now, though, certain Christian and atheist libertarians would rather have the pleasure of bashing one another. Internet flame wars must be powerfully addicting, given that one of Sullivan’s readers abandons all moderation to write: “Ron Paul’s religious AND constitutional fundamentalisms are anti-historical, and consequently anti-literate, as all forms of fundamentalism are.” Hmm, now how did a certain obstetrician get through medical school, let alone deliver four thousand babies, if he can’t even read? Oh well, forget facts or logic — what matters is that we have our little coffee house debate, as heatedly as possible, while outside the paramilitaries gather and charge their tasers.

I’m not trying to choose sides here, but I’m puzzled that any atheist libertarian in America can possibly think that he can combat omnipotent government without the help of Christians. Polls show that eighty-five percent of the American people believe in God, and over fifty-one percent disbelieve the theory of evolution, so how do atheist libertarians think they’re going to win an election if they openly mock Christians?

Maybe it’s time we asked ourselves, “What would Thomas Jefferson do?”

In forming a coalition between libertarian-minded deists and Christians for the fateful presidential election of 1800, the secularist Thomas Jefferson wrote in a widely publicized letter: ” . . . for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” He was a literate man who was indeed concerned with the ideas that people put into their minds — but note, his stated oath was to fight first for the right of minds to be free.

Though a sincere Christian, Ron Paul has expressed that sentiment many times now. It’s something that both Christians and atheists should agree with as well, for while the debate over origins is important, there won’t be any debate at all if tyranny comes, for tyranny will shut down all such metaphysical debates, demanding instead that all worship be directed to the State. Christians and atheists alike should ask themselves, whose mind and soul will be saved then?

January 4, 2008

The Best of Joe Schembrie