Ron Paul: Why should those that honor religious freedom support him?

[Kade]

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint.

I am a classical liberal, often simply referring to myself as a liberal. I have been reading these forums for some time now, and I've thought to join and start a discussion on my own issues with Ron Paul.

I would rather not start a religious debate here, but I want to know why a citizen who honors the founding father's ideals on secularism should support Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has shown a very anti-separation of church and state stance, and his voting record on the matter dips significantly when you consider the types of laws he has supported in breaching the social contract of secularism.

His own words seem to mock the precedence of our judicial system, and the thoughts and meanings of the founding fathers and the constitution:

"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."

Replete: 1. Abundantly supplied; abounding.
2. Filled to satiation; gorged.

References to God in Constitution: 0
References to God in Declaration of Independence: 1 (Literally, "Nature's God")
References to Creator in Constitution: 0
References to Creator in Declaration of Independence: 1
References to Lord in Constitution: 1 (under the signed Date; "Year of our Lord")
References to Lord in Declaration of Independence: 0
References to Supreme Judge of the World in the Declaration of Independence: 1
References to Supreme Judge of the World in the Constitution: 0
References to Jesus in either document: 0

Replete was a very poor word choice.


I believe that my tax money should be completely and utterly separated from the union of religious doctrine and faith and state. I believe that I have the right to teach my children at home about religion and that schools have enough problems without invoking a specific religion in context to allegiances to the country and leading children in denominational prayer. The founding father's would be delighted with our "hostility" towards religion, because it is the separation of church and state that has made this country so powerfully diverse, and has allowed the many faiths and non-faiths to flourish.

I don't see Ron Paul supporting that position, even though it is a libertarian and civil right concern.

 

[Gilby]

I believe that my tax money should be completely and utterly separated from the union of religious doctrine and faith and state.

Yes, but under Ron Paul, what tax money? The constitution does not allow taxes on your property or the fruits of your labor. Only privileged acts that are granted by the government's power are taxable, which means you would be able to choose to avoid all taxes under a constitutional government.

In the first couple minutes of this video he mentions religious freedom, and I think he is saying what you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVnZERC9OFs

I'm not seeing the same thing when I read the quote you gave. What we have seen is the government limiting what can be done in public view, such as in education, public events, churches, businesses, etc. The problem is that the government should not be involved in any of those, which would allow religion to be in them and allow people to choose for themselves from those available in the free market.

 

[BillyDkid]

You are not correct about Dr. Paul. He is personally a Christian, but has no interest in turning you or anyone else into a Christian. I have heard him more than once state he his has no business enforcing his personal/religious views on others. He recognizes that this is a pluralistic society and tolerance - both tolerance for religion and for non-religion is fundamental to a free society. Do not confuse Dr. Paul's personal beliefs and faith with his public policies. Some point to his position on abortion. First, while he may oppose abortion on religious ground his main objection has to do with protecting the civil liberties of the unborn. In many states you will be charged with two murders if you kill a pregnant women. We can't have it both ways - it can't be murder when an unborn child is killed on an attack on the mother and not be murder when the unborn child is aborted. My personal opinion is that it is a matter of timing - that there should be window of opportunity near the beginning of pregnancy when a woman can decide to abort, but after a certain point - when the fetus is clearly a human, when it shouldn't be allowed. Dr. Paul has state that he recognizes there is room for honest disagreement about this issue. For the record, I am an atheist and am no fan of religion at all, but I support Ron Paul because he believes that atheists are citizens too (unlike GHWB).

 

[Kade]

Yes, but under Ron Paul, what tax money? The constitution does not allow taxes on your property or the fruits of your labor. Only privileged acts that are granted by the government's power are taxable, which means you would be able to choose to avoid all taxes under a constitutional government.

In the first couple minutes of this video he mentions religious freedom, and I think he is saying what you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVnZERC9OFs

I'm not seeing the same thing when I read the quote you gave. What we have seen is the government limiting what can be done in public view, such as in education, public events, churches, businesses, etc. The problem is that the government should not be involved in any of those, which would allow religion to be in them and allow people to choose for themselves from those available in the free market.

I anticipated this sort of response. The removal of income tax does not remove your contribution to the government. Taxation on purchases and other items under the constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" mean that I should have more say on their use...

Consider the idea of school prayer, for which Ron Paul supported an actual AMENDMENT to the constitution to help "clarify" the first amendment...

"H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

This language is establishment. Every person knows what group led prayer at the local educational hole will be provided. I would prefer that my child in a public institution remain free of any school official led prayer, or graduation prayer upon completion of his/her education through 12 years. This amendment takes the right to educate my children on religion away from me and instead allows the "RIGHT" of the majority to come together in spiritual matters on tax payer funds. No law prohibits the expression of individual worship on public property or institutions. There is no need for clarification on this... the law allows public officials to lead children in daily prayer, or else "they can leave the room." The differences in our children are many already without ostracizing the unbeliever, or the many other faiths in this country.

Turn this law around in another way, imagine your child was graduating from a school where a student was to lead the group in a prayer from the Church of Satan, perhaps the Lord's Prayer backwards... There would be an uprising, and a call for laws banning the speech, from the same people who would have been smiling happily if it were of their religion.

I don't see why current law in this matter can't remain as a standard and why a Constitutional Amendment is required to clarify the establishment clause. Children should not be introduced to religion as authority, by authority in schools. Period.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
-Jefferson

 

[Kade]

You are not correct about Dr. Paul. He is personally a Christian, but has no interest in turning you or anyone else into a Christian. I have heard him more than once state he his has no business enforcing his personal/religious views on others. He recognizes that this is a pluralistic society and tolerance - both tolerance for religion and for non-religion is fundamental to a free society. Do not confuse Dr. Paul's personal beliefs and faith with his public policies. Some point to his position on abortion. First, while he may oppose abortion on religious ground his main objection has to do with protecting the civil liberties of the unborn. In many states you will be charged with two murders if you kill a pregnant women. We can't have it both ways - it can't be murder when an unborn child is killed on an attack on the mother and not be murder when the unborn child is aborted. My personal opinion is that it is a matter of timing - that there should be window of opportunity near the beginning of pregnancy when a woman can decide to abort, but after a certain point - when the fetus is clearly a human, when it shouldn't be allowed. Dr. Paul has state that he recognizes there is room for honest disagreement about this issue. For the record, I am an atheist and am no fan of religion at all, but I support Ron Paul because he believes that atheists are citizens too (unlike GHWB).

Will Ron Paul support the Civil Liberties of skin cells as well? The abortion debate is a religious one as well, as those who are so adamant about civil liberties, myself included, would see the argument for protection of liberties to the unborn child, if it were clearly a human, is a strong one. The problem with this debate is that if you don't believe in a soul, then an unborn fetus is really not a human child by any standard, and the value of the right to choice is vastly greater than the value of lawfully enforced pregnancy. Defining life at conception for instance, is a violation of the establishment clause since the only thing that would make any sense for conception is the concept of soul... without that religious concept, cytoplasm, blastocysts, and non-developed fetuses are simply growing cells, equivalent to the many types of animal embryonic stages. Deciding that an embryonic stem cell is life, is deciding that many, many animals, who are actually developed at higher stages, deserve the same liberties as us... if you will extend the right to life to an un-developed fetus, why not extend the right to life to a fully grown pig?

 

[Spirit of '76]

What part of this do you not understand?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You have a constitutional right to practice whatever religion you wish, or none if that is your choice. You do not have a constitutional right to prohibit other people from practicing theirs, even if it might personally bother you.

 

[Kade]

What part of this do you not understand?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You have a constitutional right to practice whatever religion you wish, or none if that is your choice. You do not have a constitutional right to prohibit other people from practicing theirs, even if it might personally bother you.

That's creative. Invoke the establishment clause. State institutions are part of the government and should be religiously neutral. That is what the establishment clause means... what part of that don't you understand?

What part of "One Nation Under God" is not an establishment of Monotheism?

What part of "In God we Trust" is not an establishment of Monotheism?

I'm voicing a legitimate concern. Getting angry and insulting me is not going to convince me, and many other people like me that Ron Paul is a candidate who would protect the non-believers religious freedoms as well as the Christians.

 

[Gilby]

I would prefer that my child in a public institution remain free of any school official led prayer, or graduation prayer upon completion of his/her education through 12 years.

And others would prefer that the school lead in prayer and teach other religious principles. Forcing either preference on all is bad. The amendment proposed would simply allow that to happen by putting the power back in to the people's hands through their local community. You could send your kids to a school that doesn't allow religion to be discussed, the Christian right could send their kids to a Christian school, and I could send my kids to a diverse school that would expose them to religion, but not preach it as authority.

 

[Kade]

I fear that blind loyalty to Ron Paul has made people see Anti-secularism as tolerant, if not appropriate stance in the fight for the return to liberty in this beautiful country.

 

[Spirit of '76]

That's creative. Invoke the establishment clause. State institutions are part of the government and should be religiously neutral. That is what the establishment clause means... what part of that don't you understand?

State institutions, like public schools, are simply that: state institutions.

They are not part of the federal government, and are thus not subject to the restriction that "Congress shall make no law..."

The fact is that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a state church. At the same time, it prohibits the federal government from preventing the free exercise of religion, even if people like you do not like that religion.

What is "creative" here is your bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause to read that the federal government has the obligation to prohibit the free exercise of religion because you personally find it offensive.

What you are promoting here is the tyranny of the minority, with the federal courts as a cudgel used to browbeat people into hiding their religious convictions because you disagree with them.

What part of "One Nation Under God" is not an establishment of Monotheism?

What part of "In God we Trust" is not an establishment of Monotheism?

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you that those slogans (one being found, by the way, on private bank notes issued by the privately-owned Federal reserve) are in violation of the establishment clause.

That is only a strawman argument, though, to distract us from your unfounded criticism of Congressman Paul's very constitutional stance on the free exercise of religion.

I'm voicing a legitimate concern. Getting angry and insulting me is not going to convince me, and many other people like me that Ron Paul is a candidate who would protect our religious freedoms as well as the Christians.

I am not angry, nor did I insult you. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your specious reasoning.

The case is very clear: Under Congressman Paul's very constitutional stance on the free exercise of religion, you are free to pray as you like, where you like, when you like. If you can convince others to pray with you, that is fine. If you can convince others not to pray at certain times or locations, that is also your right. You do not, however, have a right to use the federal government to bully people and prevent them from freely practicing their religion.

 

[Kade]

And others would prefer that the school lead in prayer and teach other religious principles. Forcing either preference on all is bad. The amendment proposed would simply allow that to happen by putting the power back in to the people's hands through their local community. You could send your kids to a school that doesn't allow religion to be discussed, the Christian right could send their kids to a Christian school. And I could send my kids to a diverse school that would expose them to religion, but not preach it as authority.

I don't see where a law prohibits individuals from praying at their graduation. Allowing the majority to impose religion on such an event, a government institution no less, is a blatant and aggressive breach of the first amendment protecting people from established religious rule. The idea has been expanded upon endlessly, the idea that the government should remain neutral in this... I understand that you would see the restriction of school led prayer a violation, but the concept is aggravated by role reversals, for instance if you can imagine what it would be like if in every home room of your own children's school, a Wiccan Prayer was said... or worse to you I imagine, a manifesto claiming that God does not exist, and no person should believe in it if they are not delusional...

I imagine you opinion changes fast on the subject.

Neutrality in this is the best standard. The first amendment allows for the complete separation of church and state, and allows for the freedom of expression of the individual. None of those two things should be taken from this country. You have not given an example how they are...

 

[Gilby]

I fear that blind loyalty to Ron Paul has made people see Anti-secularism as tolerant, if not appropriate stance in the fight for the return to liberty in this beautiful country.

I think what you are missing, and I pointed out in my first response, is that the government is not allowed to be involved in many of the things that it is right now. The whole idea of "public" this and "public" that is the real issue.

 

[micahnelson]

Welcome to the forums.

 

[Wendi]

I believe that my tax money should be completely and utterly separated from the union of religious doctrine and faith and state. I believe that I have the right to teach my children at home about religion and that schools have enough problems without invoking a specific religion in context to allegiances to the country and leading children in denominational prayer. The founding father's would be delighted with our "hostility" towards religion, because it is the separation of church and state that has made this country so powerfully diverse, and has allowed the many faiths and non-faiths to flourish.

So does Ron Paul. But unlike other candidates, he also believes that people who happen to be Christian have the SAME rights that you do

 

[Kade]

State institutions, like public schools, are simply that: state institutions.

They are not part of the federal government, and are thus not subject to the restriction that "Congress shall make no law..."

The fact is that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a state church. At the same time, it prohibits the federal government from preventing the free exercise of religion, even if people like you do not like that religion.

What is "creative" here is your bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause to read that the federal government has the obligation to prohibit the free exercise of religion because you personally find it offensive.

What you are promoting here is the tyranny of the minority, with the federal courts as a cudgel used to browbeat people into hiding their religious convictions because you disagree with them.



I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you that those slogans (one being found, by the way, on private bank notes issued by the privately-owned Federal reserve) are in violation of the establishment clause.

That is only a strawman argument, though, to distract us from your unfounded criticism of Congressman Paul's very constitutional stance on the free exercise of religion.



I am not angry. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your specious reasoning.

The case is very clear: Under Congressman Paul's very constitutional stance on the free exercise of religion, you are free to pray as you like, where you like, when you like. If you can convince others to pray with you, that is fine. If you can convince others not to pray at certain times or locations, that is also your right. You do not, however, have a right to use the federal government to bully people and prevent them from freely practicing their religion.

State constitutions ban certain people from holding office, and deny rights altogether. You believe those laws should be upheld?

My bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause comes from the 200 years of Judicial understanding... you know the same kind that freed slaves, allowed women to vote, and ultimately gave to states the rights to create their own laws not specified under the constitution?

Keep reading the first amendment until you see that word RESPECT again. A clarification of the first amendment to include state run institutions of religion will lead to a theocracy in this country. Period. Your ignorance of the current trend of this country is what is most prominent to me. It is apparent that Ron Paul supporters are daydreaming about what a theocracy might look like.

Yes, I am offended by your religion, and others. I would never desire anything to prohibit your practice and worship, ever, and would actively fight to defend those rights... What is clear to me, is that you are only willing to interpret freedom of conscience when it involves forcing your beliefs through whatever government institutions to impressionable minds. Allowing official school prayer is not freedom, it is totalitarianism.

 

[Kade]

Welcome to the forums.

This isn't at all what I expected... You should mention to your friends here Micah a good way of presenting this argument, instead of trying to change my mind.... or just mentioning many people I actually represent might be a better way of bringing back a sensical approach to this debate.

I can feel my blood pressure rising....

 

[Kade]

And others would prefer that the school lead in prayer and teach other religious principles. Forcing either preference on all is bad. The amendment proposed would simply allow that to happen by putting the power back in to the people's hands through their local community. You could send your kids to a school that doesn't allow religion to be discussed, the Christian right could send their kids to a Christian school, and I could send my kids to a diverse school that would expose them to religion, but not preach it as authority.

Micah mentions this scenario... what guarantee exists that these types of laws would be passed... Ron Paul can pick the Supreme Court Justices, but he can't pass laws that allow me to ignore my districting and zoning laws...

 

[Kade]

So does Ron Paul. But unlike other candidates, he also believes that people who happen to be Christian have the SAME rights that you do

In Texas, with all due respect, I don't have the same rights as you.

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

 

[micahnelson]

This isn't at all what I expected... You should mention to your friends here Micah a good way of presenting this argument, instead of trying to change my mind.... or just mentioning many people I actually represent might be a better way of bringing back a sensical approach to this debate.

I can feel my blood pressure rising....

OK OK

If you cherry pick Ron Paul's statements it is possible that you can find a man who is a racist by his attacks of affirmative action, a protectionist by his attacks on NAFTA and the WTO, or maybe even a religious zealot by his support for school prayer.

At most, this amendment should be unnecessary. Lets remember though, the Bill of Rights was originally thought to be unnecessary- but the more cynical of the framers thought to put it in to establish specific lines that could not be crossed by a tyrant. Now it seems that those enumerated rights are all we have left- and even those are slipping.

I don't believe anyone would want a national government or an entire state prescribing school prayer. By writing this amendment, Ron Paul proves once again he is not a statist. Since education is out of the hands of the Federal Government, these sort of amendments should not be necessary- but as we have seen with No Child Left Behind, the federal government often oversteps its bounds. His intention was to legislate that the first amendment, specifically religious expression in this case, still applies in schools. Call it unnecessary, but when Alabama starts using state funds to print up school prayer cards, remember that this amendment would have prevented it.

It is important to remember that Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should have any business with schools. Schools are mostly paid for by property taxes and as such should be left to local communities. If a group of people want a school that teaches xyz, why shouldn't they have it.

Lets use the Jefferson model "Why should I be Concerned if my neighbor worships one God or twenty, it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket." If federal money isn't used for schools, and attendance in religious schools is not compulsory, then it should be treated like any other establishment.

 

[barcop]

This isn't at all what I expected... You should mention to your friends here Micah a good way of presenting this argument, instead of trying to change my mind.... or just mentioning many people I actually represent might be a better way of bringing back a sensical approach to this debate.

I can feel my blood pressure rising....

I understand your concerns. I am an athiest, non believer... whatever the label is today.

I have a daughter in 7th grade who takes after me and is a free thinker. A lot of her friends are very christian. I would much rather have my daughter listen to them pray in the morning at school for a minute (and she could come up with her own free thinker speech to say in return) than for her to face the horror this country will be in 10, 15, 20 years from now if something doesn't change.

If your biggest fear is worrying about having to hear some God talk if Ron Paul is president... I'd say that's a pretty good trade off considering the other options.

Just saw... your last comment... my supreme being would be the atom