Rand Paul "Never Said Anything Un-Christian" (except when he did)

The son of racist former presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul is declaring that he has never-in-his-life "said or written anything un-Christian..."  Wow!  Quite a bold statement.  I mean, by modern Evangelical standards, Jesus Christ probably said quite a few "un-Christian things" (he was sort of pro-welfare, for one).  Billy Graham, George W. Bush, Joel Osteen, and your grandmother are all there, too.  I certainly make a regular habit of saying un-Christian things.
Louisville, KY (CNN) - Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Dr. Rand Paul defended his Christian faith and sharply criticized his Democratic rival, Jack Conway in response to the now infamous "aquabuddha ad." Conway's TV attack ad accuses Paul of once belonging to an organization that mocked Christianity while the GOP contender was a student at Baylor University.
"In my entire live, I've written and said a lot of things. I've never said or written anything un-Christian in my life," Paul said.
Click here to read more.

All right.  I'm not really interested in defending or criticizing the "aquabuddha" stuff (although it makes me think two things: (a) that could make for a pretty cool super-hero-type religion, and (b) remember that band The Aquabats? ...) but I have a pretty big beef with Rand Paul declaring such self-righteousness.

If you haven't been reading the paper or watching the news, here's one of many accounts and commentaries on Paul's troubling racial attitudes: 
The editorial board of Louisville's Courier-Journal didn't mince words following its sit-down with Rand Paul last month. Much of what the Republican Senate candidate supports, it wrote, "is repulsive to people in the mainstream," including "an unacceptable view of civil rights."
And yet Paul's view that the federal government should not have the power to force integration on private businesses — part of 1964's landmark Civil Rights Act — didn't get the attention of the national press until Wednesday, following interviews with NPR's Robert Siegel and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. (Paul subsequently changed his position Thursday, after an intense 24 hours of media fallout.)
Click here for the full article.
Somehow, this outrageous attitude hasn't translated into a significant hit in the polls.  Despite believing that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake (he doesn't think restaurant owners should be forced accept blacks as patrons, and he  also doesn't believe businesses should be required to provide access for the handicapped) Paul is still ahead in the polls and forecasted by most to win the election.  Yeah, I guess he is just like his father: "a good Christian."  A good white Christian.  Another good white Christian who doesn't care for folks who aren't...

I call that "un-Christian," Rand Paul!  And I'm in the same boat as you - I'm a real asshole sometimes.  But I'm not a racist.  I don't oppose legislation that keeps people under the thumb of oppression, and the tyranny of the majority.  Or the tyranny of corporate profits.  I don't use my Christian faith as a political badge of honor.  Nobody's impressed.  Oh, also, my dad is a pretty kind and compassionate man.  So we defer on those last few points...

2 comments:

WKen said...

The "Why" ad is one of the more-despicable ads I've ever seen, but ... he's never said anything un-Christian?

The irony, which I'm sure is lost on Dr. Paul, is that by declaring himself to be without sin, that statement is itself, inherently, un-Christian.

Heck, I've thought several things that were un-Christian TODAY!

Maybe some day I'll be as good a person as he is ...

Jeremiah said...

I don't know much about Rand Paul, so I'm not defending his statements, or positions. But from what I gather from your post, the question on the Civil Rights act seems to me more of a legal question rather than a moral one. Morally I think a restaurant owner is despicable if they should discriminate or deny service to someone based on their race, ability to walk, their gender, etc. The moral side of this is crystal clear to me that a business owner should naturally be accommodating to all patrons. The legal question is whether or not the federal government has the authority granted to it by the constitution to force business owners to do this. Questioning the Federal government's authority to enact such a law does not make one a racist, and unfortunately, that appears to be what is happening here. I personally I'm not sure if the Federal Government has this authority granted to it by the constitution as the 10th amendment limits Federal Power to those specific rolls already defined in the constitution. Then again, the constitution really isn't taken into much consideration when writing new laws these days. That being said, the Civil Rights act certainly has done a lot of good for this country since it's inception, and I think anyone would be crazy to suggest repealing it without repealing all laws passed by the federal government that aren't constitutional. Doing that would cause quite a bit of chaos in our society since we have truly deviated quite drastically from what the founding fathers envisioned with the roll of federal government.

Popular Posts