My only gripe about Dr.Paul...

[anonymous5]

"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."

-- Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)

I think Dr. Paul is the best candidate in this presidential race, but I cannot help notice the misinterpretation of the constitutional by Ron Paul on the issue of the Separation of Church and State. While the Founders' political view were sometimes informed by religious beliefs, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were quite clear about what what the Separation of Church and State means.

Dr. Paul is by far the best candidate, however this is the one issue I disagree with him on.

I first heard/read about his stance on the issue when it was mentioned at the Atheist Alliance Conference, and later here on this blog: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/...paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm

I would like to think what everyone else thinks about this, and would appreciate any responses.

 

[hueylong]

I agree with Dr. Paul. And I think you're just trying to stir things up.

 

[AisA1787]

I agree with Dr. Paul. And I think you're just trying to stir things up.

yep. and yep.

 

[hypnagogue]

Paul's stance on religion, at least in theory, bugs me quite a bit. I can only take solace in the fact that in a strictly limited Republic, it doesn't matter what the president's stance on religion is.

 

[anonymous5]

I only wanted to hear the opinions of others. I do not want to "stir things up", but rather open up a discourse on the subject of separation of church and state.

 

[Dave Pedersen]

I think nearly all can agree there should be no state sponsored church. But the meaning of church has changed.

Now any public mention of God = "church". And if that public mention of God is in any way supported financially by any level of government some argue there is a conflict.

Since the mention of God among the faithful is as automatic and intrinsic to their discourse as is mathematics to a scientist or production and trade to an economist how are Christians to function in public without their currency of thought?

A-theists presumably do not operate principally according to the lack of God or any thing else. They are simply a-theistic. Yet at their behest we are expected to operate in public with our primary gauge of reality excised from our expression both verbal and otherwise.

 

[phill4paul]

"NEW MEMBER".
We the people are individuals and don't condone collectivism when it is put ahead of the Constitution.

 

[raiha]

Nothing wrong with a stir up. It is called 'debate.'
Some of them were Deists were they not? Jefferson, Maddison? Maybe Hamilton. Thomas Paine was particularly committed to 'Reason.'
Dr Paul certainly acknowledges the dangers of a potential fascism: "the cross wrapped in a flag."
So that abates my anxiety!

Unfortunately there appears to be trend in your country that without Christianity there will be no ethics (as though Christianity has the monopoly on ethics.)

 

[allyinoh]

////

 

[abruzz0]

Nothing wrong with a stir up. It is called 'debate.'
Some of them were Deists were they not? Jefferson, Maddison? Maybe Hamilton. Thomas Paine was particularly committed to 'Reason.'
Dr Paul certainly acknowledges the dangers of a potential fascism: "the cross wrapped in a flag."
So that abates my anxiety!

Unfortunately there appears to be trend in your country that without Christianity there will be no ethics (as though Christianity has the monopoly on ethics.)

Then we get morons like Dubya into office, and he claims to be a Christian. We've seen how his "ethics" work, and they are far from the teachings of Christ. He's placed a black mark on Christianity.

He's a fraud in that department anyway

 

[braumstr]

I disagree with Dr. Paul on many things.

In this case, it just does not matter.

We have nothing to fear from a Paul administration in regards to pushing religious beliefs on to people.

No other candidate compares to Paul, pick your issue.

 

[Crickett]

I only wanted to hear the opinions of others. I do not want to "stir things up", but rather open up a discourse on the subject of separation of church and state.

Go here and read this:
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin423.htm israel

You may not agree with him on everything (I disagree on Roe vs wade which is a pretty big one) but I support P with all my might.

 

[AisA1787]

I think that "separation of church and state" is a terrible phrase. It implies that anything related to the government should be absolutely stripped of anything religious. When taken to the extreme, as we are currently doing in this country, this can only lead to marginalizing and ostracizing Christians and other religious people. This is completely un-American.

Personally, I'm agnostic. But I just don't see why people get all bent out of shape when a local county courthouse posts the Ten Commandments or has a nativity scene outside during Christmas. Or when a group of students at a public high school gather around the flagpole to pray together in the morning. Or when people say the pledge of allegiance complete with the phrase "one nation under God." Or when people say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." Seriously, are these really the biggest problems in our country? Are they even a problem?

Do you want to know what I think? I think as a society we have been completely over-sensitized to anything that might make someone feel left out or hurt someone's feelings, and I don't think it's an accident that this has happened. If you've ever read 1984 by Orwell, you might be familiar with the idea that a person's thoughts, feelings, and actions can be controlled by limiting the scope of that person's vocabulary. This is essentially what we are doing when we use the "separation of church and state" concept to ban all religious discussion and expression in government and in public life. And it's all tied to the one world government movement.

UNESCO has been trying to subvert the influence of family and religion on students for years. Just take a look at this piece of the congressional record: http://americandeception.com/index....ecord-JT_Wood-1962-2pgs-GOV-POL.sml.pdf&id=81

it contains this quote from the UNESCO education handbook:

"As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism."

Religion is tied very tightly to family values, and you can bet your ass that UNESCO and others who favor one world government are doing their best to limit the influence of religion in schools and other public and government institutions, in part to break down the influence that the family has on "extreme nationalism." I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but when you put all the pieces of the puzzle together, you might come to the same conclusion that I have -- the conclusion that the drive to take "separation of church and state" to the extreme is ultimately a drive towards one world government. I would write more to explain this, but this post is already entirely too long. You either see it by now, or you think I'm a complete madman

 

[WilliamC]

I think nearly all can agree there should be no state sponsored church. But the meaning of church has changed.

Now any public mention of God = "church". And if that public mention of God is in any way supported financially by any level of government some argue there is a conflict.

Since the mention of God among the faithful is as automatic and intrinsic to their discourse as is mathematics to a scientist or production and trade to an economist how are Christians to function in public without their currency of thought?

A-theists presumably do not operate principally according to the lack of God or any thing else. They are simply a-theistic. Yet at their behest we are expected to operate in public with our primary gauge of reality excised from our expression both verbal and otherwise.

Thank you. As someone who is agnostic/atheist I am disgusted by those who call themselves atheists and seem to think they are on a mission from god to attack any type of religious expression on publicly owned property. It's absurd to think that people of faith should be required to suppress their faith in public or in government buildings because it may offend someone with different beliefs.

The first amendment simply states "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". It doesn't say a thing about forcing all religion out of the halls of government, indeed to me that's equivalent to "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Only State-legislated or State-sponsored religion is banned. If individual lawmakers or groups of citizens wish to invoke religion, pray, or display religious artifacts in public buildings I could care less. If they try to make me invoke religion or pray then they are overstepping their authority, and I'll not hesitate to tell them so.

I'm secure enough in my lack of belief not to be threatened by someone who is equally secure in their belief. It seems to me that too many so-called atheists are just plain scared of people of faith that are secure in their faith.

 

[Joe3113]

Let him be informed by his religion. It doesn't matter because he has to follow the constitution anyway. Ron talks about the constitution with higher regard than I have seen him talk about religion.

 

[dbhohio47]

Anonymous5:

I think you have raised a valid point. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I, for one, appreciate the manner in which you have attempted to compel intelligent discussion of a very relevent topic. I believe that Mr. Pederson and others have raised some interesting points in response.

As this country's constitution was based on the pursuit of personal freedoms, I believe that religion should be left out of matters of "state". While christianity is the religious belief practiced by an large majority of the citizens of our country, it is not the only religion. Furthermore, christianity takes many different forms through the various churches and denominations that exist. Opening the door to a "majority rule" of christian belief as the country's accepted "norm" only invites the argument of which church or denomination is the "correct" or "appropriate" one.

I think that you would be appalled if you walked into a local city council meeting to find that the council chairman wished to begin the evening's agenda with brief satanic ritual. Jews, agnostics, aetheists, muslims, hindus, etc. would undoubtedly feel equally ill at ease under a government that appeared to exclude them on the basis of their christian religious preferences.

Another example can be made from this very election cycle. As a RP supporter, you have undoubtedly seen how the MSM has pretty successfully used its power to "black-out" and/or marginalize Dr. Paul's message. And, as a supporter, you feel that it is YOUR voice that is being stifled by the manner in which the "establishment" imposes its will on the process of government. It is bad enough that this situation exists within our media on the basis of greed.... we don't need to add insult to injury by also subjecting our country to further religious persecution.

You are free to exercise your religious freedoms in every other aspect of your life. I think, in a democratic society, government is one place where those beliefs should be restrained.

 

[anonymous5]

let me just say that this has been a very interesting thread full of interesting and compelling posts. I thank those of you who took the time to respond and find that I agree with many of your positions on the matter.

 

[qh4dotcom]

I agree with Ron Paul about getting rid of the Department of Education but I think he scares voters away by talking about its removal at every debate I have seen.

Bush would have never become president in the close 2000 election had he mentioned his plans to start wars. Nobody questioned him about it.

 

[therealjjj77]

Thank you. As someone who is agnostic/atheist I am disgusted by those who call themselves atheists and seem to think they are on a mission from god to attack any type of religious expression on publicly owned property. It's absurd to think that people of faith should be required to suppress their faith in public or in government buildings because it may offend someone with different beliefs.

The first amendment simply states "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". It doesn't say a thing about forcing all religion out of the halls of government, indeed to me that's equivalent to "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Only State-legislated or State-sponsored religion is banned. If individual lawmakers or groups of citizens wish to invoke religion, pray, or display religious artifacts in public buildings I could care less. If they try to make me invoke religion or pray then they are overstepping their authority, and I'll not hesitate to tell them so.

I'm secure enough in my lack of belief not to be threatened by someone who is equally secure in their belief. It seems to me that too many so-called atheists are just plain scared of people of faith that are secure in their faith.

Very well put! As a Bible believing Christian, myself, I would say that I agree with you 100% on this. The idea of soul liberty is that I not force my beliefs on you or vice versa but present you opportunity to examine them for yourself.

The main thing with the 1st amendment is that no law shall be made regarding religion. In two words this can be summed up with "religious liberty". You can believe and express your belief as long as you are not violating anyone else's inalienable rights and I can do the same while neither of us have violated any law. This was an absolutely new concept to the world since most every country in the known world prior to the U.S. had forced one religion or another on it's people.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Thank you. As someone who is agnostic/atheist I am disgusted by those who call themselves atheists and seem to think they are on a mission from god to attack any type of religious expression on publicly owned property. It's absurd to think that people of faith should be required to suppress their faith in public or in government buildings because it may offend someone with different beliefs.

That's completely bunk. The bible thumpers would raise holy hell if I got my way and adorned a courthouse with pagan iconography and prayers to invoke Satan's wisdom.

Nobody is forcing the bible thumpers to suppress their faith. We're saying they can't hang giant freakin crosses in the courthouse where everyone should expect equal treatment under the law.

Build a 700 foot tall Jesus on your front lawn if you want, but keep that crap out of my government buildings. And in return, I'll keep the statues of the Flying Spaghetti monster out of the courthouse too.