He's learning fast, it seems. I was rather impressed with the way he handled questions about creationism and government money going to faith-based organizations for social services.
First, he joked: "I forgot to mention that I was only taking easy questions." Then he said:
The faith-based initiative was getting government involved in churches basically, and that scares me a little bit, because there are things that you can say in the church that we think are sinful, and that should be something we can say. But the second this church starts taking government money, then they're going to say you can't say these things are sinful.Well, that's not quite right. The government doesn't dictate what can be said in the church, but it does say that you can't discriminate and that everyone has to be given equal opportunity for jobs or assistance, and that you cannot use the money to further a religious point of view -- in the programs that the government is paying for. That I agree with.
As to the creationist question, he simply declined to speculate about how old the earth is. The questioner had hoped he would agree with his own view that it is 6,000 years old. But then Paul framed it this way:
I'm not running for minister. I'm more than willing to stand up and say I'm a Christian, but I don't think I have to go into every detail of what my religious beliefs are. If I were going to be the minister of their church, they'd have a right to ask me that.I still disagree with him basically about the role of government, and all questions that derive from that one. But he's learning fast how to better frame his answers to questions on the campaign trail. Will that make him more appealing to independents in Kentucky, which he will need to win the election? We'll see.
Ralph
I think what I was impressed by in Rand Paul's answers here, as contrasted to most of the ultra-right, tea party crowd, is that he doesn't insist that his is the only way, that only he is right.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't say that the government should give money to churches without restrictions -- he says, or implies, that churches should not take the money because it necessarily comes with strings.
Very different, in my opinion.
I was of the opinion early that Rand could be a formidable candidate. I am curious about what 'sinful' things Rand was alluding to that the churches would not be able to speak out about if they took government money. That seems like code for 'homosexuality'. Fundamentalists often refer to homosexuality as sinful behavior. Was Rand sending a coded message to his followers through phrasing it like that?
ReplyDeleteWhere he's wrong is in saying he shouldn't have to detail his beliefs. Of course he should. He's running for office. Voters have a right to know what he believes in.
richard
Sure, homosexuality is what he meant.
ReplyDeletePlease don't misunderstand: I'm not endorsing him. I was simply commenting that his political skills have improved from his initial foray -- and comparing his relative sanity to what we usually see of the tea party crowd on tv.
And, by implication, I think that could mean that he's a more formidable candidate who might appeal to independents more than would a more rabidly crazy person.