Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

altmuslim

Home
Muslim
Presidential candidate Ron Paul: The dark horse still rides

Presidential candidate Ron Paul: The dark horse still rides

Last updated on: May 15, 2019 at 1:01 am by Wajahat Ali

Presidential candidate Ron Paul: The dark horse still rides 2019-05-15T01:01:02-04:00 Wajahat Ali

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

How revolutionary

“Who the heck is Ron Paul?” asked many Americans over the course of the past year. The 70 year old Texas Congressman’s name and face adorned web pages, blogs, email spams, posters and pamphlets throughout the nation. Out of nowhere, the Republican Presidential candidate appeared on television for the Primary debates giving blunt, hard hitting, no nonsense answers and lacerating jabs. He criticized fellow candidates for their foreign policy, corporate cronyism, and support of “big” government. His candid demeanor, especially in calling out the Administration for its failure in Iraq, helped win him over many independents, jaded Republicans, and “on the fence” liberals who found his voice a refreshing and legitimate “third option.”

He dominates the Internet search engines, wins most of the online polls, maintains an overwhelming presence on Youtube, and recently scored a number one bestseller with his manifesto: “Ron Paul: The Revolution.” Through independent, grass roots activism, his campaign received over $6 million dollars, making it the largest one-day fundraiser in US political history.

However, his detractors suggest Ron Paul is more of an “internet sensation” than a practical solution. His followers are seen as mindless and rabid “acolytes” whose repetitive mantra of “smaller government, de-regulations, pro-free market” is naïve and blind to the economic and political realities of the world. Mostly, people suggest Congressman Paul’s rhetoric is simply old school libertarianism masquerading as a “revolution.” Regardless of opinion, however, most admire his willingness to speak his mind. In this exclusive interview, he talks with altmuslim associate editor Wajahat Ali about a gamut of subjects, all in his characteristically frank and honest demeanor.

Many people are asking: “Are you still in the race?”

RON PAUL: Well, technically I am. I mean there’s not much of a race since McCain has all the votes. But I am participating. And we still try to get his votes. Like yesterday we got 15% in Oregon [Primary] and that represents a solid base that we have.

Next logical question, why still stay in the race?

I think what we’re doing is real important. I think the message is important. The people who are involved, the volunteers, are enthusiastic. Our numbers keep growing. We still have money in the bank. They want to see the campaign continue to maximize our efforts and at the same look forward to continuing this project even after the election and make sure we reach as many people as we can.

It’s going to be, most likely, Obama vs. McCain. Who do you think will win? Who do you think should win? Can you move beyond partisan loyalty to support Obama?

I think Obama will probably win the primary, but I wouldn’t bet money on it. At one time, I thought it would be impossible for any Republican to come close, but with the Democrats beating up on each other, it’s given time for McCain to recover a bit. But I can’t see how a Republicans can win, because this country does not like it when we have a long drawn out war and a bad economy, and that’s what we have.

So I think Obama certainly has the edge. If I had to bet money, I’d bet on Obama. As far as supporting Obama, I wouldn’t be able to, because he has a lot of positions I don’t agree with. His rhetoric is much closer than McCain on foreign policy obviously, but his foreign policy is not a whole lot different than what McCain and the Republicans have. You know, even the leadership in the House, the Democratic leadership has done nothing to really change things since they took over the House in 2006. I wouldn’t expect Obama to really change foreign policy. I still think they’re very much anxious to do something against Iran. [Nancy] Pelosi [Speaker of the House] has been pushing that, and that’s the position of both parties.

I want to ask you about the Republican Party. What is Bush’s legacy for the Republican Party, and what harm has he done to not only the nation but also the Republican Party? Can the Republican Party rebound in 2008 and, if so, what is its identity and how does it define itself?

Well, they’re going to have a tough time, because they had their chance. The culmination of it was in 1994 and 2000, when they finally got the total control in preaching the gospel of less government and balanced budget. Even in the year 2000, Bush talked about no nation building and not playing the role of world policeman. The failure of that is so overwhelming: that is the legacy. So, getting credibility back is the main thing. And then going back to what they claim they believe in: smaller government, balanced budgets, personal liberty and the Constitution. They have a long way to go.

The name of your new book, a manifesto, is entitled “The Revolution.” These are bold words – no subtlety there. But many say your positions are merely rhetorical window dressing for old school libertarianism.

Well, I don’t know where the old school libertarianism came from or where it is. It’s old school Constitutionalism. And the Constitution is very libertarian, so I guess you could connect it that way. But when thinking of conventional politics and Republican politics, it’s old school Republican politics. When we had a Robert Taft who was head of the Republican Party, he argued much of what I argue today. As a matter of fact, another interesting person who took that position was Warren Buffet’s dad, Howard Buffet, when he was in Congress. His position was very similar to mine. So, that may be old school Republicanism, but it just means that we believe the government should be really small in size and we should follow the Constitution.

Let’s talk about your foreign policy positions. You clarify in your book that you are not an isolationist but more of a non-interventionist. Your opposition to the Iraq War and pre-emptive strikes against Iran is now well known and quite popular with many progressives, independents, the Left and the youth. However, you are also critical of foreign aid to countries as well. If international actors, such as The IMF, WTO, or even Super Powers were to abandon predatory corporatism, couldn’t aid, such as educational aid to Afghanistan, deter future blowback and help create friendship? Are you averse to this form of “intervention?”

No, and there still would be that I don’t want to steal money from people and give it to corrupt governments that would maybe misuse this money. A free and prosperous country would do this in a voluntary fashion. But, the point that people have to remember is that if you want to impose our will on Iraq through bombs and promote democracy: this is done with a “do good” objective. They’re always saying we’re going to promote the goodness of America, we’re going to promote democracy. They try to tell us this is all done with “good intentions.” So, if you do that and it backfires, then some of us will complain.

But doing the same thing using foreign aid, people say, “Well, this is different. This is economic aid.” So, that’s legitimate to tax poor people in this country, or inflate the currency, or borrow and bankrupt the country to do “good” on economic terms? But the whole thing is using force again. So, I reject the use of force to promote these good intentions. Besides, just as good intentions in foreign policy backfire like they did in Iraq and Vietnam and so many other places, the good intentions in helping poor people who are starving in Africa do the same thing. Because if you send them food in the midst of civil war, the government takes it over and they use it as a weapon against certain factions, so it rarely does the job it’s supposed to do. Just because economic aid is well intended, it’s matter of fact identical to the “well intentions’ of those who want to use military force.

Will you say that The Marshall Plan was a use of “good” foreign intervention and aid? Subsequently, is there any example you can give me where foreign aid was actually beneficial? Any way where the US could actually help?

Well, no, I wouldn’t have voted for The Marshall Plan for the same reason I just stated. It was pointed out that if you look at all the capital investments after WW2, the Marshall Plan came late and it was small compared to what Germany did afterwards, under Erhardt, he didn’t follow the advice of liberal economists over here who told him, “Keep on with the wage and price controls and bunch of other things,” he just de-regulated it. He created an environment where a lot of capital came in. And that’s how they got back on their feet again.

I can’t think of anything where some good will come from it [foreign aid.] There’s not a good argument for that. But there’s always some good that appears to come from it. Like, if you do anything here or domestically or overseas, you might say, “Well, look, you might be opposed to it, but we built this hospital, and it’s a wonderful hospital and it works. And we built this house for somebody.” But, so often, what is not asked is what is the expense? How much did it cost? Who lost their job? Who had to pay for this? How much debt was there? How much inflation did it cause? How long did the hospital last? Would the hospital last as long had it been developed privately? So, you can’t look and say that because it looks like it was beneficial in the short run for a small group, it never can justify the use of force to redistribute wealth at the point of a gun.

Whether you go and use a gun to take taxes and benefit Halliburton, it’s the same thing. Even when we do good here in this country, it’s interesting, we did the same thing where we had to help Katrina victims. It was terribly unsuccessful, but Halliburton was doing no bid contracts! So, that’s the kind of thing I object to. But the most important thing is that a lot of this could be taken care of and the fact that the government doesn’t do it, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen, it’s going to likely happen in a much better manner.

What is your opinion on the government subcontracting crucial public sector functions to private military firms such as Halliburton and Blackwater? We’ve witnessed several public relations debacles and overspending and waste resulting from the government’s over reliance on this outsourcing in Iraq alone. Should both the private actors and the government be blamed? Isn’t this kind of a marriage between the government and corporate actors both going awry?

Oh, yeah. That’s what militarism and all this government activity does. Militarism encourages the military industry complex. Once the government takes over medical care, then you have the medical industrial complex. In finance, you have the banking complex, because the banks are in bed with the Federal Reserve and they control the money and the interest rates. Very often the media, because it’s licensed and controlled by the government, they become the propagandas for war. So, you have too much of this, and if you had a strict constitutional society, you’d have none of it.

Congressman Paul, you voted for the use of military force in Afghanistan. However, Afghanistan now sees the rise of the Taliban, Hamid Karzai [Afghanistan’s President] is effectively useless, there’s a beaten and wounded population, and no infrastructure. Do you regret that initial decision? Was it part of the pro war, patriotic fervor that gripped the nation post 9-11?

Well, no, but if you go back and look at that authority, I’d probably vote for it again, but it does prove the point that even with the best intentions it doesn’t work out well. But precisely it didn’t work out well because the President didn’t do what he was asked to do. He was asked to go after Osama Bin Laden and catch the guys that had something to do with 9-11. That’s what we were targeting, and he didn’t keep his eye on the target. He dropped the ball at Tora Bora, they escaped into Pakistan, and then Bush went into nation building.

First in Iraq, then in Pakistan, and he’s been there ever since. That authority wasn’t to devise a foreign policy that ultimately was tremendously beneficial to Iran: he got rid of Saddam Hussein and he got rid of the Taliban. This was not beneficial for our interests. I would say the failure of that was because he didn’t do what he was supposed to do. The only argument against the vote would be that I don’t trust the President because he won’t use the authority right and he’ll blow it, and I’m not going to give him the authority to do this. But, under the circumstances, I thought we should’ve done something.

What can we do about Iraq? If we cut and run, we will see chaos. Don’t we owe the Iraqi people a moral responsibility to at least establish a modicum of functionality after having decimated them for the past 10 years, including the catastrophic UN sanctions? Or, do you favor staying there for several years? What’s your take on this?

Nah, I’d get out of there. We do have a moral responsibility, but it’s the people who perpetuated the war. So, the Halliburtons of the world and all the private groups that made the money and all the Neocons that made the policy, yeah, if you can hold them accountable, they’re the ones who are morally responsible and they should pay. But the average American citizen didn’t do it, and the money isn’t here, and we just further injure our economy and it causes more unemployment and inflation. So, I would say just quit the bleeding literally and figuratively.

So, I would say, “No, come home.” The people who say it’s going to be chaotic if we leave are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk and the oil would pay for everything. Of course back then oil was $27 a barrel and now it’s $127 a barrel or more. I remember the Sixties they told us we couldn’t leave Vietnam because it would be a domino effect, well, it didn’t happen. Vietnam is now capitalistic and they trade with us and we visit there and invest in there. And China is our backer, so it doesn’t always work out the way these people predict. But the whole argument is ” If we leave now, there will be chaos.” What do we have now? I think both countries are a lot worse off than they are telling us. And I think it’s going to get a lot worse.

What would be your plan to get out if you were elected President?

I’d just come home as soon as the military could get them out. Whether it was 2 or 3 months, as long as they could get them out safely. And I’d announce to the world our policy is changing, the Navy would be backed off from the Iranian shores and that we’d be willing to talk to people. I think the dollar would go up and oil would do down and they’d probably start talking to each other. You know, they’re talking to each other right now. If we weren’t over there, Israel would probably be talking to the modern Arabs, the Arab League would be involved, even with the civil strife in Lebanon, they would talk to each other, and I think they would do it more so if we were out of there. So, I think sooner we leave the better.

You’re a fan of the free market. However, many, such as those in third world countries, lament the use and abuse of free market exploitation by predatory actors who subvert ethnical norms for self-profit at the expense of the country’s labor, environment and resources. How can you, if at all, ensure the free market isn’t ruled by an iron fist of the few and truly allows for efficient and fair distribution of capital? It has never worked that way has it?

Well, it depends. If you have true, free market capitalism and property rights it works. But, if you have people who don’t understand and recognize private property rights and contracts and sound money like we did in this country – that’s why it worked up until it started to change from the Depression on. That’s why we don’t have real wealth anymore; we have apparent wealth based on borrowing. A country that would follow capitalistic viewpoints would become very wealthy. Anything in the West where they had famine at one time, the only thing that got rid of famine and child labor and all the poverty that so many countries suffer from all came about with the recognition that people are allowed to make profits.

But that doesn’t mean you have the right to do anything immoral: you can’t steal, you can’t defraud, and you have to live up to your promises. So, the government has a role in setting the ground rules and yet they do the opposite. The government now violates property rights, they take our currency and debase the currency, and they do so many things that contradict the market place. And that’s why we’re slipping into the same situation as Third World nations have and this is why our middle class is getting poorer. So, we have to wake up or we will be like a Third World nation. The big mistake is blaming capitalism. This is what we did in the Depression. They blamed the capitalism gold standard for the Depression, and it was absolutely wrong. They’re about to do that again. Every time something happens, “Oh there’s not enough regulations!” “Housing bubbles collapses! Oh, we need more regulations!” Enron comes, “More regulations! More inflation! Bail out everybody!” That’s not capitalism.

You mentioned The Depression. A Keynsian model of economics as applied during FDR’s presidency helped usher the New Deal, which increased the scale and scope of the US government. This form of government expansion and regulation created several agencies, which effectively helped pull us out of a Great Depression. Can’t this be an example of proactive government regulation that can help us if motivated towards collective social, economic reform? Can’t a form of Keynsian economics help dig us out of our current predicament?

I don’t agree with that at all. Matter of fact, the pro-activism of the ‘30’s is the reason it lasted 15 years. The Depression didn’t end until after World War 2, and some people say, “Oh, yeah, we got out of the Depression with the War! War is good for the economy!” That’s a bunch of nonsense. It helped unemployment, but everybody was getting killed. If you have 3 or 4 million people in the military and ship them overseas, yeah they’re fully employed, but in 1921 we had the natural correction of the abuse of the Federal Reserve during WW1. The inflation, the correction had to occur. Back then they believed you keep your “hands off”, and the Depression of 1921 lasted one year.

Then, they went back to doing the same foolish things again with the booms of the ‘20’s. Then, when the correction came, the stock market collapsed, they immediately said, ” We can’t keep our hands off!” And that’s when Hoover started all these programs, and Roosevelt ran on balanced budgets and he ran on a Conservative platform. But he comes in and he doubles and quadruples everything Hoover was doing, so he prolonged it. Unemployment was back up to 17% again in 1937 to 1938, and they had all kinds of problems later on. So, the pro-activism of the government actually prolonged the Depression, it didn’t shorten it all.

You’re a constitutionalist and defender of individual liberties, and you strongly support state rights. The California courts, last week, said it’s unconstitutional to ban gay marriage; stating gays had a protected right to marry just like heterosexuals. Many right wing Republicans and Conservatives say this is another sign of liberal judicial activism, since the will of the people in California was expressed in 2000 through a vote. What’s your position on this?

I’d let California do what they want. And I didn’t vote for the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, but the states can do it. This can be solved so easily, all you have to do is legalize contracts, you shouldn’t even be involved in defining marriage. I think marriage should be a religious and personal ceremony and anybody who wants to call themselves married can. And if they don’t want to, that’s all right too. If I don’t like somebody else calling themselves married, so what? It doesn’t bother me any, so I just leave them alone. It’s when people call themselves married and want to impose their will on other people and say, “Because now I am married, you will treat my spouse in a certain way,” and demanding something either from government or from certain insurance company, that is forcing themselves on somebody else. People should be left alone. If they want to be married, fine. If they want to call it marriage, fine. But they don’t have the right to impose it on other people.

But, do you think American society or maybe just even human behavior would allow that ideal to take place? That you marry whomever you want?

Sure. I’m all for that. You know when you cut the licensing – see, I don’t even want the licensing – but if you’re going to have licensing, the states do this, you know, it would’ve been convenient for me to take my Texas medical license and go to Florida whenever I wanted and practice medicine, but I wasn’t allowed to do that. They still recognized the jurisdiction. So, I think anything in which there is licensing, the states still have the prerogatives of doing it. I just think we should have a lot less licensing. Even in the medical profession I think these things should be settled in the marketplace rather than the government.

Based on what’s happening right now with the sensationalist news about the FLDS in Texas, would you also be willing to respect people’s religious beliefs that allow for polygamy or bigamy? Or no?

Yeah, I would tend to lean in that direction or at least recognize that the states have the right to write the laws, but I would be sympathetic. But just think if you’re a member of Congress and you have two wives and children in two homes, and all of a sudden the government comes and says, “A-ha! Two wives! We better gather up these kids, they might be being abused.” Why is it a whole lot different than a person practicing it a little bit more honestly, “Yeah, I have two wives, three wives and a bunch of kids.” But the government has to come in and gather up the children? That’s my personal belief, but I still recognize the state has the right to regulate that. I don’t want any federal laws against drug usages and yet the states are allowed to regulate the use of drugs and alcohol.

Here’s a topic that’s been controversial for you. If indeed you support individual liberties and rights, then why are you so critical of Roe vs. Wade that allows women the right to abort before the third trimester and not be oppressed by undue burdens. Isn’t this the right of the woman to decide? A woman can say, “I’m not forcing you to abort or not abort, but shouldn’t I have a choice and shouldn’t that choice be respected by the government?” Is there some tension between your philosophy of civil liberties and your pro-life, anti Roe v Wade stance?

Well, no, but it’s absolutely consistent with the Constitution. If it is an act of violence, which I believe it is, then an act of violence should be dealt with at the local level. If there’s a manslaughter charge or murder, you don’t have the federal government involved. So, first off you don’t have the government involved. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have never heard the case. So, Roe vs. Wade is an unconstitutional ruling and they shouldn’t have messed with it.

But, if you want to get into the arguments about rights, it isn’t so much a woman’s right to kill, as much as it is about asking does the unborn have the right to life? I’ve come down on the side saying that it’s alive and human and viable, and why shouldn’t they have the right? If you have a baby that is just born and it’s born in a crib and your hallowed home is your castle, nobody says, “Yeah, yeah, it’s her home, so that’s private. Privacy protects the mother, so she can kill the baby, she doesn’t need the baby, so we’ll kill it.” But one minute before birth it’s okay! You know, that’s the way it is today: a doctor can get paid for killing a fetus before birth, but at the same time a girl delivers a baby and throws it away, she gets arrested for murder. The question is about “Is this life that deserves protection?” That is the issue. Not the mother’s privacy, that’s not the relevant question.

You think there’s no difference between a doctor removing the fetus from the womb, or as you said, a woman throwing her baby in the trashcan?

I think you can make a moral case for the fact that if you have a 3 or 4 or 5 pound baby and you look at it on the Ultrasound, and you say it has no value. Well, yeah, I think it’s pretty close to being equivalent.

Congressman Paul, you’ve won a lot of support from many Muslim Americans based on some of your policies, specifically your views on foreign policy and US non-interventionism. Suppose you have the power or means of making peace or bridging a peace with Muslims worldwide. What do you think the United States must do, either through diplomacy, rhetoric, or action to ameliorate some of the tensions? Palestine, for example, is a hot button issue.

Well, the first thing I would do is have a different position on the Middle East. I’m pretty certain the Muslim-Arab world sees us as very biased in our dealing with the Palestinians and Israelis. So, I would treat them both the same. I would not be helping either side, but I’d talk to both sides, I’d trade with both sides, I’d be friendly with both sides. And, of course, the people who are pro-Israel say, “Oh, that would be terrible, you wouldn’t give foreign aid to Israel.” Yeah, I know, but the Arab nations get more money than Israel gets, so it would be very fair. Besides, it would put more pressure on Israel to get along with their neighbors, and it would give more incentives to the Arab League to be interested in talking and understand Syria and Israel, who probably would like to talk to each other.

The worst thing is we’re always telling countries what to do: Israel what to do, and the Arab countries what to do, and putting pressure on them. If they want to talk, we object to it, if they think they have to do certain things which are in their best interest we shouldn’t be that judgmental. And we’re always passing these resolutions that’s condemning one side over the other. I would never support those resolutions, I don’t vote for them here even though I could. Personally, I might have some criticism when some of these violent acts occur, but I think we’re stirring things up when we’re picking one side. So, I think just that tone would be so much different and would help to stabilize things so much better.

I think we get into trouble not only because we do so much propping up of Israel, but we also prop up dictatorships in the Arab world. I don’t think it does us any favor by guaranteeing the absolute security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Most people can see through that and that condition has existed since WW2. So, it would be an argument for neutrality and friendship and trade with everybody, and I think we’d have a much better chance with getting along with a lot more people and a better chance for people in the world.

Why is the administration moving towards an aggressive rhetoric against Iran and Syria? And would you be open for talks and negotiations with them?

Sure. Sure, we should talk to them. I mean if Kennedy could talk to Khrushchev, and he had 40,000 nuclear missiles, and they were unconditioned talks in order to smooth things over in October, 1962. I mean we could surely talk to a country like Iran that really doesn’t have that much of an army or navy or air force or intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons. And, we’re so frightened of ourselves; I think it’s just a sense of insecurity and pressure put on by different special interests around the world to not talk. I think we should talk! If they want to talk, fine. If they don’t, then we should treat them fairly. I wouldn’t put sanctions on them either. Sanctions on all these “threats” is just looking for an opportunity to satisfy people who want to start bombing over there, and I’m scared to death it’s going to happen.

We’ve seen the rise of the Christian right and Neo conservatives, an allianc/value>

Commentary

Wajahat Ali

Previous Post

May 25, 2008

Apostasy: Obama’s lost religion

Next Post

May 29, 2008 Race and Religion: Don’t forget African-American Muslims

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I am a precious stone, tested and chosen. Believers will never be put to shame when they trust in me. What am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A rock A cornerstone A living stone A foundation