Lew Rockwell has written a blog post in defense of Ron Paul's homeschool curriculum and exposes the real agenda of Americans United for "the Separation of Church and State" and calls them out for their "Christian-hating, state-loving" worldview. He makes it clear that this is Ron's curriculum, not Gary North's or Tom Woods's curriculum.
Now on to the group's attack:
1. The article attacks Ron for associating with Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist who "denounces democracy, thinks some forms of slavery are OK and wants to impose a draconian version of biblical law that prescribes the death penalty for gays, adulterers, blasphemers, witches and incorrigible children, among others."
I will reply that Ron Paul himself is not a Reconstructionist, and neither am I. I hold to a libertarian limited-government view, and I am against the criminalization of vices such as drugs, sexual immorality, homosexuality, and prostitution. By lumping Ron Paul with Gary North's Reconstructionism, people might associate Paul with it.
2. The article vilifies the libertarian position on education, implicitly claiming that it is "theocratic" and postmillenialist. However, this is not necessarily true. Supporting separation of school and state is anything but theocratic. It allows for educational choice and it prevents the monopoly that the writes happen to fear. One way they vilify the position is by quoting Ron Paul as saying that there is no such thing as separation of church and state. However, if one looks at the actual context, one would figure that Ron is merely attacking a militant hatred of religion that would go so far as to purge Christmas trees, symbols, carols and pageants and plays. He does defend separation of church and state in that government should not seek to enforce or legislate religion; however, he has nothing wrong with the free expression of religion in public schools.
I will not take the time to go into everything that the article asserts; however, I recommend that you read the article, Lew's blog post, and this article by the "Reformed Libertarian" which might address some common concerns about Ron Paul's homeschool curriculum.
Now on to the group's attack:
1. The article attacks Ron for associating with Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist who "denounces democracy, thinks some forms of slavery are OK and wants to impose a draconian version of biblical law that prescribes the death penalty for gays, adulterers, blasphemers, witches and incorrigible children, among others."
I will reply that Ron Paul himself is not a Reconstructionist, and neither am I. I hold to a libertarian limited-government view, and I am against the criminalization of vices such as drugs, sexual immorality, homosexuality, and prostitution. By lumping Ron Paul with Gary North's Reconstructionism, people might associate Paul with it.
2. The article vilifies the libertarian position on education, implicitly claiming that it is "theocratic" and postmillenialist. However, this is not necessarily true. Supporting separation of school and state is anything but theocratic. It allows for educational choice and it prevents the monopoly that the writes happen to fear. One way they vilify the position is by quoting Ron Paul as saying that there is no such thing as separation of church and state. However, if one looks at the actual context, one would figure that Ron is merely attacking a militant hatred of religion that would go so far as to purge Christmas trees, symbols, carols and pageants and plays. He does defend separation of church and state in that government should not seek to enforce or legislate religion; however, he has nothing wrong with the free expression of religion in public schools.
I will not take the time to go into everything that the article asserts; however, I recommend that you read the article, Lew's blog post, and this article by the "Reformed Libertarian" which might address some common concerns about Ron Paul's homeschool curriculum.
