Atheist, RP and his "notion of a rigid separation" statement.

[cjhowe]

Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion

That's not entirely true. In order to be Free from religion you would need to restrict someone else's freedom to exercise their religion.

 

[ZackM]

Firstly, this is the best part about supporting a strong constitutional candidate. A person like this has no desire for his religion to be forced on anyone, yet he also has no desire to limit freedom of religous expression.

Now, I agree with many and sympathize with all of your arguments. But there is a fine line here that you have to be careful about crossing.

But as a government employee you have no right to use your government job to promote your religious beliefs. You have no right​

You have to be careful here, because you're essentially granting that "right" to a private citizen working at a private company, but demanding this right be sacrificed for federal employment.

Here's a completely opposite way to view this. In private business this is easy. The owner sets the rules. If the owner says "absolutely zero religious displays" then fine. You are part of a private agreement negotiated between employee and employer. But once you're a government employee, who should decide where the line is drawn? Now it's a public-private relationship and I think that makes it even harder to place the line appropriately. This is where common decency and mutual respect for others has to come into play.

Unfortunately, we always want things to be black and white but sometimes they aren't. Just about everything will offend somebody. Would the display of a philosophical quote by a religious leader be inherintly offensive because of it's author? Would a quote on faith be inappopriate if it were written by one of the founding fathers? Can a US congressman display an article of faith on the wall in his private office?

How do you figure out where to draw the line? Just because something offends somebody somewhere, doesn't mean it's offensive. What you consider a "promotion" may simply be considered an act of expression from the displayer. Do we really want to always side with the offended?

So while I sympathize with your argument, I woud draw the line somewhere else. For example, I think the 10 commandments are signficant in the historical evolution of modern legal systems. I think a respectful athiest can recognize this without feeling his "rights" (habeus corpus, fair and speedy trial, etc) are being violated simply by their presence. If court employees, the judge, or jury provide ANY evidence through their words or actions that one's religion is effecting their decisions, then we have stepped well over this line.

In my opinion, the 10 commandments are only a "promotion" of judeo-christian religion if you choose to view them as such while ignoring historical consequence. Much the same way as if some chose to demand a Thomas Jefferson portrait be removed from public space because he was a slave owner, therefore his very picture on display on govt property was a "promotion" of something which violates the constitution.

 

[cjhowe]

In my opinion, the 10 commandments are only a "promotion" of judeo-christian religion if you choose to view them as such while ignoring historical consequence. Much the same way as if some chose to demand a Thomas Jefferson portrait be removed from public space because he was a slave owner, therefore his very picture on display on govt property was a "promotion" of something which violates the constitution.

I agree very much with your post, however it's not the content of the religion, but the context. If in court, the ten commandments are among the personal effects of the clerk, that's an expression. However, if it's nailed to the jury box, that's promotion.
If in a government school the teacher is praying, that's expression. If that teacher is leading a prayer, that's promotion. This line is a difficult one, but the question is always whether an individual is expressing or if the government is promoting. There is rarely enough for a litmus test on this subject and thus has to fall under the "I'll know it when I see it" standard.

 

[rpf2008]

I'm an atheist or agnostic - depending on which definition is being used.

The constitution has been trashed for all kinds of reasons. I hate to say it, but athiests have been just as guilty.

Here's how I see it:
...

Just wondering, which atheist judge are you referring to ? Only judges can trash the constitution. I was under the impression that most of these people were religious.

Approved by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate

link
"As the Government of the United States... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion -- "

link
Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May of 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
​

link
In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense).

link
Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.

Wikipedia : " Isaac Backus (1724–1806) was a Baptist preacher and a delegate to the First Continental Congress." ... "

"church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

"Now who can hear Christ declare, that his kingdom is, not of this world, and yet believe that this blending of church and state together can be pleasing to him?"

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, & I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrits; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." - Andrew Jackson, 1832, statement refusing to proclaim a national day of fasting and prayer, Correspondence 4:447.

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.... "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." - The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E. Remsberg, "Six Historic Americans," second sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15

link
Preachers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell should not forget that, in the colony of Virginia, Baptist ministers were beaten and imprisoned and run out of town for preaching their dissenting faith, while Anglican ministers were paid with tax funds from the state treasury.

--John Buchanan, Southern Baptist minister and former eight-term Republican Congressman from Alabama, who heads People for the American Way, as quoted by Samuel Rabinove, "Religious Liberty and Church-State Separation: Why Should We Care?," speech on April 10, 1986, Vital Speeches of the Day, June 15, 1986, p. 527.)

 

[rpf2008]

(1) Now, I agree with many and sympathize with all of your arguments. But there is a fine line here that you have to be careful about crossing.

But as a government employee you have no right to use your government job to promote your religious beliefs. You have no right​

You have to be careful here, because you're essentially granting that "right" to a private citizen working at a private company, but demanding this right be sacrificed for federal employment.


(2) So while I sympathize with your argument, I woud draw the line somewhere else. For example, I think the 10 commandments are signficant in the historical evolution of modern legal systems. (A) I think a respectful athiest can recognize this without feeling his "rights" (habeus corpus, fair and speedy trial, etc) are being violated simply by their presence. If court employees, the judge, or jury provide ANY evidence through their words or actions that one's religion is effecting their decisions, then we have stepped well over this line.

1) The characterization I made of the situation was as follows :

1) I don't care if you bring religious stuff to work for your own person viewing please (ie; facing you)
2) I don't care if you wear religious jewelry work.
3) I do care if you think that you're going to use a government office I'm paying for, government walls I'm paying for, government desk I'm paying for to push your religious propaganda on me. When it's facing me it's obviously not for the benefit of the person who brought it.. This is religious propaganda.​

Most companies do not allow people to act as religious activist during the course of their job. I've never worked for a corporation (and I've worked for several) that allowed employees to post their religious propaganda on the walls.

2) You're allowed to think anything you want about the ten commandments. But people aren't allowed force the tenets or their religious views on other people simply because they think it's "significant". I think my conclusion that there is no god is significant (!) but I'm not allowed to go post huge banners in the courts. It's not proper, this isn't a theocracy.

Or is it...
(Wikipedia) : In modern, typical usage, theocracy means either government by divine guidance or, more commonly, government by or subject to religious institutions and leaders.

(Dictionary.reference.com) ; a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

(merriam-webster) : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
​

a) Respectful atheist ? We're the ones getting Christian views shoved down our throat by the government we send our taxes to. It would be respectful if the government didn't promote any one religion over another. I've yet to see a `in Allah we trust sign`. Surely we can recognize the great advancements people from the Middle East have brought us. So many very important things came from the Middle East yet we can only manage to slap up the 10 commandments or a picture of a white Jesus in respect for history ? I don't think respect for history has anything to do with the ten commandments or promoting Jesus.

Christians really don't understand what they are signing up for here. If you don't reject the myth that it's ok to post this kind of stuff in government buildings one day it's not going to be your message. Then how will you feel ?

If the government rules it's "ok" to show "religious opinions" in plain view then that means you can't discriminate against which views are shown. And when that day comes I'm going to petition my local government for the placement of a plaque reading :

Your god is a fairly tale​

I bet very quickly people will decide that maybe the government has no business promotion ANY type of religious opinion.

 

[PennCustom4RP]

That's not entirely true. In order to be Free from religion you would need to restrict someone else's freedom to exercise their religion.

Not if you keep your religion , or lack thereof, at home, where it belongs.

 

[aravoth]

Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion

Nahh, I guess freedom of speech also means freedom from speech, or freedom of expression also means freedom from expression. Or the freedom to own a gun, is also the freedom from guns.

The idea is to not allow government in religion, anywhere, government regulates, restricts and controls freedoms. There should no law, period. Aethiests impose thier will just as much a religious zealot does. I just wish everyone would shut up about it. And get so dammed offended when people say "god bless you", or some other form of that. Take it as a freindly gesture. And move on.

 

[rpf2008]

The idea is to not allow government in religion, anywhere, government regulates, restricts and controls freedoms. There should no law, period. Aethiests impose thier will just as much a religious zealot does. I just wish everyone would shut up about it. And get so dammed offended when people say "god bless you", or some other form of that. Take it as a freindly gesture. And move on.

Show me the atheist activist Judge who has declared law from the bench.

Show me the court room with atheist propaganda on the walls.

Show me the atheist plays taking place in elementary schools.

Show me the atheist slogans on our money.

The government is not allowed to sponsor religion in any capacity.

For a while I stopped saying `god bless you` because it's based on a silly notion. I went back to doing it cause people get their feelings hurt if you don't. I assume you are aware they say that because people use to think a sneeze was you expelling a demon from your body.

And people say the dark ages are over.

 

[ARealConservative]

Just wondering, which atheist judge are you referring to ? Only judges can trash the constitution. I was under the impression that most of these people were religious.

It is we the people that must stay vigilent in protecting the constitution.

 

[Duckman]

Nahh, I guess freedom of speech also means freedom from speech, or freedom of expression also means freedom from expression. Or the freedom to own a gun, is also the freedom from guns.

As another RP-supporter who is an atheist, I just want to say that "freedom from religion" does not mean freedom to suppress your religious beliefs, but rather it means freedom to not follow any religion. This is not the same as a "freedom from speech" which implies a right to quell speech. "Freedom from religion" should not imply a right to quell religion, it simply implies a right to not need to follow one.

As an atheist, I do not support efforts to quell religious speech by others. I admit that some atheists are touchy about this, because many of us feel the religious public does not respect our right to be atheists. I think atheists harm themselves when they complain about religous jewelry, Christmas displays, and the like.

However, I do oppose government funding of religious groups (such as faith-based initiatives) not just because of the unconstitutionality of such funding but also because that results in some government money being used to assist religious groups to convert new followers. I also oppose concepts like "national days of prayer" because I feel they exclude atheists, however my opposition to these things does not get me very worked up.

But I do want to say this, since it has been on my chest since I first read the article that started this thread last week... This article is the only thing I have read that Ron Paul has written that has caused me to in any way question RP's character. The main reason for this is because the article makes the false statement that the Constitution is full of references to God, which is simply not true (there is not even one reference, and that was intentional). Ron knows the Constitution too well to not know the facts here. The Declaration of Independence has one reference to "Nature's God" and one reference to a "Creator," but I would not call this "replete" with references. (And these references to god are compatible with Jefferson's deism, see below). Also, the article implies the founding fathers were all religious, which I will let Ron slide on because this is a common misconception, but as has been pointed out here, many of the founding fathers, including some big names like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine, were deists. Deism is the belief that some sort of god created the universe and set it to run itself according to natural laws. To be a Deist is to reject all other known religions but to stop just short of atheism in that the Deist believes that some sort of god must have created the universe. Deism lost favor as science began to show that the concept of a god was not necessary to produce the world we see around us. So I will go out on a limb and suggest that those who followed Deism in the founder's day might well follow atheism today.

I can understand that embracing atheism is probably a radioactive thing for a politican to do, since fewer than 10% of Americans are atheists. But I will fight very strongly for my freedom to be an atheist, and I believe Ron Paul supports that. However, I wish this article had been as well crafted around the ideas of freedom as Ron Paul's other writings.

 

[rpf2008]

As another RP-supporter who is an atheist, I just want to say that "freedom from religion" does not mean freedom to suppress your religious beliefs, but rather it means freedom to not follow any religion. This is not the same as a "freedom from speech" which implies a right to quell speech. "Freedom from religion" should not imply a right to quell religion, it simply implies a right to not need to follow one.

As an atheist, I do not support efforts to quell religious speech by others.

I don't support efforts to quell religious speech either when people are doing it on their own time, with their private property, the private property of a consenting party or in accordance with the laws about peaceful assembles and protest.

It's very important to understand these are the peoples employees, the peoples buildings, this is the peoples money. These things belong to the people - not to the employee that sets in the chair. The people are not paying to government to propagandize them with religious views ! That's what church is for !

The people are made up of many religions and many philosophies. This makes it illogical, presumptuous and disrespectful for government employees to take it upon themselves to put up religious propaganda on our dime without our consent.

I don't care if a government employee wants to take their bible to work, or wants to have a religious icon or image on their desk. I don't care if they wear religious jewelry to work. But I do care when they put big posters on the walls pointed at the public, not them. They have freedom of expression at work, but not freedom to propagandize. I've never worked for a company that allowed people to do religious propaganda activities at work, why should government employees be any different.

 

[Duckman]

It's very important to understand these are the peoples employees, the peoples buildings, this is the peoples money. These things belong to the people - not to the employee that sets in the chair. The people are not paying to government to propagandize them with religious views ! That's what church is for !

I feel your pain, so to speak, but I still think that this sort of thing brings ill-repute upon atheism in general. I think to say, for example, that a government worker can't wear a cross around their neck goes too far. Sure, I don't think someone at work (any job, public or private) should be trying to talk to you about Jesus, for instance, but relatively innocous personal displays I think should be tolerated in a free society.

 

[rpf2008]

Sorry, I added an addendum that covers what your mentioned - please see my post again.

I realize my post have been long but this has been what I've said all along. I have no problem with personal display but save me the banners , signs in the courts and other propaganda material.

 

[aravoth]

I had no idea that a sentence on the one dollar bill was so damaging to people's devolopment. I don't think most people give a damn who is an aethiest. I don't, just like I don't give a damn about what god a person worships that puts them on thier knees. I think you're all full of crap.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I had no idea that a sentence on the one dollar bill was so damaging to people's devolopment. I don't think most people give a damn who is an aethiest. I don't, just like I don't give a damn about what god a person worships that puts them on thier knees. I think you're all full of crap.

I'm more concerened about what's behind the dollar, rather than what's printed on it.

Given that the money is so much worthless paper, perhaps appeals to a supernatural entity are not uncalled for.

 

[rpf2008]

I had no idea that a sentence on the one dollar bill was so damaging to people's devolopment. I don't think most people give a damn who is an aethiest.

I don't think mocking the issue solves any problems. The government is and has been propagandizing it's population in the name of Christianity and a lot of people are like "oh gosh, what's the big deal - it's just Jesus".

I've talked to a lot of atheist who care about this issue. In fact less than 10% or so of the atheist I've met don't care about these types of issues, most of them do.

It's a very big deal, propaganda is a very real threat to anyones mind, especially younger peoples minds. It's extremely significant that the government does these types of things and it's effects are very far reaching.

It's not suppose to matter if "the atheist give a damn or not" the government has no right to propagandize is population with the message of Christianity or any other religious views.

 

[cjhowe]

I had no idea that a sentence on the one dollar bill was so damaging to people's devolopment. I don't think most people give a damn who is an aethiest. I don't, just like I don't give a damn about what god a person worships that puts them on thier knees. I think you're all full of crap.

The issue isn't whether someone cares or whether someone is offended. The issue is a social contract. Expression is allowed, promotion is not. Are the words "In God We Trust" an expression or a promotion? If it's an expression...who's?

 

[JaylieWoW]

As an atheist, this was a concern for me too until I remembered that Dr. Paul actually respects the limits that The Constitution places on the government.

I can respect that he's a man of faith, I respect even more that he doesn't use it as a campaign tool, or wear it on his sleeve, or think that I need to be governed into behaving in a fashion that is acceptable to HIS faith as opposed to my own beliefs.

I've noticed this too and this is probably something I really respect about him. We're electing a President, not a Bishop (or other church leader).

 

[aravoth]

Come on guys. With all the bullshit going on in our world right now this is pressing issue? Some meaningless tripe on the back of a worthless peice of paper? Whats next? Tear down all the Crosses on the top of churches in plain public view? How about we rip those funny hats off the heads of Jews during Yon Kippur, or however the hell you spell it. No one is forcing you to belive in anything. It's not like anyone has a clue as to what the hell they are talking about, aetheist or otherwise. No-one has ever proven the existence of a creator, and no-one has ever proven the absence of a creator either. Your free to be an aethiest, just as your free to take communion.

I don't get the all out assualt of religion. My neighbor was told by the city to take down his "baby in the manger display" last year becuase the city didn't like the fact that it was in plain view. Of course he didn't, he sued, and he won. I just don't get the rabid hate by alot of aethiests I know. It's like they take offense to everything. If I was a christian that gets grilled by aethieists, and had to put up with shit like "your god is a fairy tale" I imagine I'd bitch slap a couple myself. Love thy neighbor be damned. Anyway.....

Take it off the dollar bill, I don't care. I don't feel sorry for you either. I don't care that you feel "left out". I'll mock this issue forever. It's stupid. Pointless, and all it does is piss everyone off. The next thing you know Someone is going to start posting wiki articles to prove some kind of a point. "hey god exists!" "hey, god is fake!", "don't push your beliefs on me man!" "I have a right to worship!" Like a third grade shouting match at a school for the deaf.

 

[DaninPA]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Paul
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

I think Dr. Paul, like most of us in the US, is simply a victim of indoctrination from childhood that "god" means the christian god, and may be unaware that terms like "nature's god" and "creator" refer to the Deist's view of god.

For example, why should an organization like the Boy Scouts (which as far as I'm aware is private and doesn't receive federal funds) be forced to remove their god from their program?

Also, I think he would be constitutionally correct to allow individual states to proclaim their belief or nonbelief in a god or gods. Damn, I'd hate to have to move to another state, but I guess that's what I'd do!