I don't think so. When you have high schools graduating students who cannot read, a diploma isn't really worth the paper it's printed on. That's why they came up with "no child left behind", which is equally a failure because, instead of teaching subjects, teachers just teach the test and nothing beyond it. You used to be able to get a good job straight out of high school. That's largely gone now.I think you are grossly exaggerating here.
No, only people who understand the separation of church and state and leave their religious views at the door.So only atheists should be allowed into office. Gotcha.
No, a belief is either factually true or factually false. I don't care how much you believe in unicorns, how emphatically you demand they are real, how much faith you have, there's no reason to think unicorns exist. The same is true of gods."Faulty beliefs" is completely subjective in a religious and ideologically diverse nation.
Paul just wants to throw the question from the federal government to the states but it really cannot work that way. The Constitution already provides equal protection under the law (which gays are certainly not currently entitled to) and guarantees that contracts in one state (which marriage is) must be respected in all states. Letting states pick and choose is blatantly unconstitutional.Ron Paul on gay marriage: In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations. He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage. He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense. When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
I didn't say anything about free contraceptives, I said that he personally opposes contraceptives.Paul does not believe in government handing out "free" contraceptions. That is not a religious stance, its a political ideology stance. He believes in allowing the citizens to be able use and purchase contraceptives whenever they wish.
Once again, it doesn't work as a state's rights issue. See above.He is pro-life as are nearly all Republicans, religious or not. But he does not believe the federal government should have a say in the issue. Its a states rights issue. Once again, political ideology, not religion.
And that's entirely fine if a group of students, not being led by anyone in an official state-sponsored capacity, want to get together and pray. I have no problem with that. However, when an employee of the state, acting in their capacity as a representative of the state, wants to take part in such activities and particularly lead such activities, that's where I have a problem. The place for religion is in the church and in the home, not in the schools or in the legislature.What does that mean exactly? Because it means something different for a lot of people. While Paul says he rejects the notion of "separation of church and state" he believes in "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion". So for example, if a group of students at a public school wished to pray before class they should be free to do so. But no student(s) should be forced to do so.
You already agreed to everything he said!Please do!