A reader writes:
I see that YOUR boy RON PAUL is also in favor of killing women in the womb.
Cant wait to see how you explain that one away… Or maybe you’ll finally come to your senses and realize RP is a fruitcake.
Ah! Feel the Christian love suffusing and transforming conservative politics! No corruption of the gospel happening here.
In answer to your
accusation question: Not a mystery. I disagree with his vote. My guess (and it’s just a guess) is that he thought it to be unenforceable grandstanding that in fact harms the prolife cause, for which a case can, in fact, be made–and has been, by a conservative Catholic. Still I would prefer as many roadblocks as possible to abortion and think he should have supported it. I do think it matters rather a lot *why* somebody voted against it. If they did so because they thought it harmed the prolife cause while not actually protecting anybody, that’s honorable. If they did so because they want no restriction whatever on murdering babies, that’s contemptible. Since Paul is on record as opposing abortion, I charitably assume his vote was motivated by the former reason. You uncharitably assume it’s because he wants to kill women. You should ask yourself why you let your political allegiances poison your words with rash judgment and calumny like that.
Beyond, that my angry reader needs to be aware that I’m already aware of Paul’s kookiness and that I hold no belief in his infallibility, nor do I share his religious faith in libertarianism and the Constitution. I support him because he does not ask me to embrace grave moral evil, unlike the two major candidates. I’m perfectly aware he does not have and never did have a prayer of getting nominated, much less winning. But he brings to the national conversation things that nobody else is saying that must be heard.
After I wrote the above, I got a Facebook question from somebody else, asking the same question with civility:
What say you about Ron Paul voting against the sex selection abortion bill? And no I am not in any way a republican or democrat and I certainly do not support Romney or Obama for president.
My reply: “I will have a little post on my Patheos blog on Monday about this. Short answer: I disagree with his vote but think there can be an honorable case made for it.”
At which point a Ron Paul zealot interjected:
Please make sure you know what you’re talking about before you post what you plan to. Under the American Constitution, the *federal* government has no jurisdiction over questions such as these.
American legislators take solemn oaths before God to uphold the Constitution.
This proposed law was unconstitutional.
Violating an oath to God is the mortal sin of sacrilege.
Given Paul’s knowledge of the Constitution, his vote for this legislation would have been an act of sacrilege.
Do you disagree with politicians not committing sacrilege?
My reply: “Oh brother. Chill. If it isn’t zealots insisting I have to condemn Paul or face charges of supporting the murder of women, it’s Paul zealots demanding I support him or face charges of supporting sacrilege.
I’m sure Paul acted out of principle. He always does. I was unclear what principle he was acting on, and if that’s the one, I can believe it. I still tend to disagree since I don’t regard the Constitiution as holy writ and therefore think that speaking of sacrilege against it is, well, sacrilegious. But I have no doubt he acted from conscience. He always acts from conscience.”
To which my Paul Zealot replied:
Does the Church no longer teach that oaths to God mean anything? When a man assumes public office, and takes an oath to God to follow that nation’s Constitution, doesn’t he necessarily commit the sin of sacrilege by violating that oath?
My reply: “You can’t seem to take yes for an answer. What part of ‘I’m sure he acted out of conscience’ was unclear to you? Lighten up, dude!”