He's a Creationist whose interpretation of the Constitution doesn't recognize separation of church and state, so no.

Also, how about lurking for a while instead of posting whatever pops into the old noggin? 

No way. He is way way way too far too the right. Clinton or Obama.

What should matter when voting is the person's stance on political issues, not his personal views.

Gee, pineapple, I dunno.  Maybe people who believe the bible over science are a little scary.  Maybe I prefer a president who likes evidence over popular opinion.

Maybe it's too much to ask in America, but I'd prefer a president who doesn't think war in the Middle East is a sign that Jesus is going to come back soon.

I didn't expect you to understand, Pineapple. It's very simple, after all.

Ron Paul believes that separation of church and state is bad. That's his religious belief. It also happens to be a BIG FUCKING DEAL in politics. Maybe the biggest that's faced America internally... ever. It also happens to be a big fucking deal to the Middle East. Do you want America to become a theocracy so we can duke it out with Allah "throwdown" style?

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That means he trusts religion over science. That's a BIG FUCKING DEAL in politics. I'd rather politicians trust the scientists than the preachers.

How incredibly dense does one have to be to not see that personal religious views have a huge impact on a country where religious leaders say things like:

We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA -- Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991

and...

If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious. -- Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson's Perspective Oct-Nov 1992

and...

We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over. -- Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29

You know Pat Robertson, right. He made a relatively successful bid for the presidency.

Yes, Pineapple. Religious beliefs are very important in politics.

If Americia is such a danger of turning into a Theocracy, then why'd he lose?

Like I said, if views affect the country then they do play a part. If not, then it's irrelevant.

Irrelevant?

You didn't mention the seperation of church thing. You didn't mention the Theorcracy thing.

That's the reason behind my orginal post.

You didn't bring up his stance on political issues, you brought up his personal views. 

My point is that I hear many atheists whine 'Christian want a Theocracy! Christians want a Theocracy!'

Then the political candidates who are pushing for a Theorcracy LOSE!

Last I checked, the best way to get a Theocracy is to vote for someone who says they'll implement one. 

Also, here: 

At least magilum brough up Ron Paul's stance on an issue that would affect the country. 

RP is a creationist. That means that he thinks the Bible is a legitimate source of  scientific knowledge. In other words, the stories in the Bible aren't just true for him, on a spiritual level, they are true for EVERYONE, on an objective, public level. By itself, this is dangerous political position. 

Determining what we hold to be true and what the legitimate grounds for determining truth are is a fundamental aspect of politics. Do you want a guy in there who's process is so broken that he can literally think the Bible is a good source of scientific truth?

Determining competence is certainly part of a voter's job. Maybe the guy is saying all the right things about the issues, but maybe he's only doing that because his advisors are good. You want to know that a president can perform independently in a crisis. Do you feel that you can trust a guy who can believe that Genesis is literally true? 

Who was it that first thought up the idea that a person's religious beliefs -- their innermost convictions about the very nature of the universe, right and wrong, science, and evidence -- don't affect their outward behavior and decisions?

He was a very stupid person.   I wish that idea would go away.

 I never said anything about that in this topic. 

Alright, let's for the sake of argument say that the beliefs have a very significant influence on the person's actions.

Now, how do we distinguish somebody who does something actually does something because they're Christian (i.e if they weren't Christian they wouldn't have done it), as opposed to somebody who just happens to be Christian and does the same action (i.e they would have done it if they were Muslim, atheist, Jew etc...)?

i feel the need to interject with the point that...

"There is nothing private about Politicians"

We judge them, mind, body, and err.... soul?

I've already given an example, and it's not hard to imagine others with regard to education, medical research (what does anti-choice Ron Paul say about embryonic stem cell research?), security, social welfare -- you needn't look further than this administration to see explicit religious pandering at work. If you're looking for an example to test your repeated claim about the functional cognitive dissonance of believers, this is not one to write home about.

If they mix their religious views with their politics, then they shouldn't be elected.

A politicans goal is to serve ALL the people, not just the atheists, not just the Christians, but everyone. 

Well, excuse me for thinking that a candidate for a POLITICAL position should be judged on their POLITICAL views.

It doesn't matter their personal views, whether they're atheist, Christian, Muslim, of Hindu, if I don't agree with their political views, they ain't getting my vote. 

 Well, good thing you're a freethinker and not let the actions of one person scar your view of a poltical party.

Should I think all Democrats are horny people looking for blowjobs now?

I don't care in the slightest. The trick when deciding whom to vote for is to try to predict what they are going to do once elected. If they do things I disagree with when they are in office I don't care if it is because they are religious, atheist, schizophrenic or extraterrestrial. They have pissed me off and lost my vote. However, we have in RP a guy with no political record so our only way to judge him is by what he says and what he professes his beliefs to be. Based on his claim that he's a creationist, I would expect him to bring back school prayer, teach evolution in schools, ban abortion, and generally tear down all separation between church and state. I don't support any of those things.

Yeah, their next to the marijuana party in Canada.

But seriously, I did that to illustrate that you shouldn't judge Democrats based on Clinton.

(Oh, and there actually is a marijuana party in Canada.........) 

Ummm...well.....hmmm...I am on the fence about this guy.  At first I didn't like him.  Then I liked him.  Now I am not so sure.  Let's look at some facts:

 Mr. Paul is the only candidate (that I am aware of) supporting re-establishment of the constitution.  This is good and I am in favor of it.  His christianity and views on evolution don't bother me all that much because it is easy enough to defend the constitution as it stands against such woo woo.  It is the 'as it stands' part that concerns me.  If elected he would have the power to change the constitution...that is bad.

Mr. Paul is in favor of smaller government.  This could be good, however it would take decades (and by decades I mean centuries) to dismantle the current government.  Let's face it - left to their own devices 75% of this country has no concept of responsibility.  Yes, some of my tax dollars may go to fund intelligent design research, but it also goes toward other valuable scientific research.  Convincing enough people to contribute out of their own pockets to scientific research or education is not going to happen. 

People hear that he wants to abolish the income tax and they start thinking of all the things they can buy.  Suddenly we have a country whose citizens are beyond poverty and no programs to help them.  Personally, I do not trust the majority of this country to be responsible enough to care for themselves.  Possibly some day we could reach that point but it isn't going to happen any time soon.

Another key point to remember is that if he got elected, he would have very, very, very little support in Congress, which would make his time in office a complete waste.  Yes, he would revoke the Patriot Act and all the other retarded things Bush has enacted, but that is a small price (in my opinion) to pay for four years of ineffective leadership.  I would much rather see one of the other candidates forced to address the constitution issues than have a president in office that is unable to accomplish a damn thing.

But, hey, that is just me and for the record - NO VOTE IS A WASTED VOTE. 

    RationalSchema says, I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

   If a vote does actually mean anything , why throw it away on someone that can't win ????? 

  I can't stand this logic!! --

--Hey RationalSchema,  Liberals voted for Ralph Nader, Handing Bush the presidency .... Untill the system is fixed with a 1st and 2nd choice you should NOT always vote for your favorite .... btw, I am ultra left but I don't vote ultra,   

My bad. I didn't know he was already a Congressman. 

There is a huge difference between being a member of a mainstream church (which doesn't necessarily mean you have a belief in god) and being a Creationist. Many moderate Christians hold their belief in god as a personal, spiritual matter that does not inform their understanding of the nature of this world. In other words, god is a personal belief for them, not a public belief that should be taken as Truth for all people. Creationists, in making scientific statements based on their belief in god and the bible, subscribe to the latter kind of belief. I think it's self-evident that that kind of mind set is inherently dangerous in the leader of a supposedly pluralist democracy.

I'm going to vote for him just because FOX news hates him. I also feel he has the most honest personality. He would actully get rid of public schools and put them back into the home or prvate sector so you can teach whatever you want. I feel like I gotta pick someone and he would be a step in the right direction.

And single parents(especially those that can't afford private schooling) would do what? 

I'm an agnostic and I'll say he's got my vote for a couple of reasons.  He's been right on about the war the entire time.  He recognizes that it is our meddling in the Middle East that inspires the hatred of the U.S.  He recognizes that printing money to fund an unconstitutional federal government is a road to disaster.  And he recognizes that the government should be more about protecting freedoms than providing services.

 He may not believe in evolution, and that's too bad, but notice that he didn't raise his hand to show that he didn't believe in it during the debate.  So it's not as if this is a key issue for him.  Obviously it is better to be scientific and reject fairy tales, but right now we have bigger problems.  All of the other candidates want to dramatically increase the size of the government and get more involved in your life.  You don't want that.

I'd be curious what you mean when you say he rejects seperation of church and state.  He may mean what I believe.  That is, that CONGRESS shall make no law regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.  Unfortunately a manger scene at your local city hall is not the same thing as CONGRESS making a law ESTBLISHING a state religion.  You have to read the Constitution as it was intended.  If you don't do that, you live in a country where it is effectively discarded.  And if you set that precedent, you get crazy Presidents running off to war without Congressional approval, or scooping citizens off the street and torturing them, or listening to your phone conversations without a warrant, etc.  That's not good.  Paul says read the Constitution and follow it.  It's better for everybody. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

I think you are correct in that it is not a key issue for him. Of course, I agree that it is bad that he does not believe in evolution, but it at least he is not anti-evolution. I think Dr. Paul has compartmentalized his religious beliefs like many people do (and as I did). He seems very intelligent concerning other matters that people have pointed out here, such as him being correct on the war, has a sound foreign policy, supports the constitution, support debt free money (i.e. money added to the money supply should not be created in the form of loans to a central bank and interested paid by our income tax), smaller government, thinks that the Patriot Act was a bad idea, thinks the free market is better off without politicians screwing around with it, things the executive branch should have checks and balances and not have empire like powers.

There are down sides to him too, however, I think most of them will be evened out by congress. He cannot do much outside of the executive branch without their support. He is aware that people are dependent on existing government programs and will create transition plans instead of sudden drastic changes.

I also do not find this level of economic understanding in many candidates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pEiLHnjAiw

See these two links for why I am concerned:
http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=dmax&w=1&t=l&a=200
http://www.europac.net/commentary.asp (more here)

So as we are heading towards Great Depression 2.0, I think it would be vital to the welfare of our country to have someone in office who knows how we got in this mess and how to fix it as opposed what I typically find: politicians who do not know how we got to our current mess and will use their misunderstanding to make a bad situation much worse. I am open to other candidates, but I do not see any other viable ones for properly leading us out of our current mess.

Don't play coy, brother. You've been pushing a No True Scotsman for religiously-motivated behavior for going on three threads now. It's always correlation, you'll never take them at their word and call it causation.

I absolutely will not vote for him.   Thanks for the thread, tho.