Ron Paul: Why should those that honor religious freedom support him?
- Thread starter Kade
- Start date
dc74rp
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 133
Kade,
Ah....... I still stand by my last post......... I don''t see how the text can allow government employed teachers to lead students in prayer.
But it's possible Paul might not have anything to do with the actual text you object to anyway. Looking for Paul's connection with this Amendment I did a search on Google and found:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm
So, www.Ontheissues.org claims Paul sponsered this Amendment. But Paul was never a Sponser or Cosponser according to:
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html
Interstingly enough, while I counldn't find a connection between Paul and H.J. RES 55 (1997), he was a co-author and cosponser of H.J. RES 55 (2005) with Reps. Abercrombie (D-HI), Kucinich (D-OH), and Jones (R-NC). But H.J. RES 55 (2005) has nothing to do with prayer in school. It's titled "Withdrawal of United States Armed Forces From Iraq Resolution of 2005--Homeward Bound", and can be found at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:12:./temp/~c109rNMYIZ::
I could be wrong, but I suspect Paul's affiliation with H.J. RES 55 (1997) might be a rumor started by someone who didn't have his facts straight and didn't pay attention to the year. Or possibly even someone trying to dig up dirt who didn't worry about accuracy, which I'm sure most Paul supporters have seen enough of.
Ontheissues.org claims it's source linking Paul to the proposed Amendments "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" is:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00078:@@@L&summ2=m&
However, checking the source doesn't show Paul to be a sponser of Amendment which includes the language you object to. Instead it only shows Paul as a Co-Sponser of H. J. RES. 78 (1997), which clearly supports "the People's rights" against "the United States" or "any State", and also clearly prohibits the Establishment of Religion.
H.J.RES.78: Sponsor: Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5] (introduced 5/8/1997) Cosponsors (153).................
This time, Paul was among the Cosponsers.
Ah....... I still stand by my last post......... I don''t see how the text can allow government employed teachers to lead students in prayer.
But it's possible Paul might not have anything to do with the actual text you object to anyway. Looking for Paul's connection with this Amendment I did a search on Google and found:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm
So, www.Ontheissues.org claims Paul sponsered this Amendment. But Paul was never a Sponser or Cosponser according to:
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html
Interstingly enough, while I counldn't find a connection between Paul and H.J. RES 55 (1997), he was a co-author and cosponser of H.J. RES 55 (2005) with Reps. Abercrombie (D-HI), Kucinich (D-OH), and Jones (R-NC). But H.J. RES 55 (2005) has nothing to do with prayer in school. It's titled "Withdrawal of United States Armed Forces From Iraq Resolution of 2005--Homeward Bound", and can be found at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:12:./temp/~c109rNMYIZ::
I could be wrong, but I suspect Paul's affiliation with H.J. RES 55 (1997) might be a rumor started by someone who didn't have his facts straight and didn't pay attention to the year. Or possibly even someone trying to dig up dirt who didn't worry about accuracy, which I'm sure most Paul supporters have seen enough of.
Ontheissues.org claims it's source linking Paul to the proposed Amendments "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" is:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00078:@@@L&summ2=m&
However, checking the source doesn't show Paul to be a sponser of Amendment which includes the language you object to. Instead it only shows Paul as a Co-Sponser of H. J. RES. 78 (1997), which clearly supports "the People's rights" against "the United States" or "any State", and also clearly prohibits the Establishment of Religion.
H.J.RES.78: Sponsor: Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5] (introduced 5/8/1997) Cosponsors (153).................
This time, Paul was among the Cosponsers.
Interesting. Thanks for doing all that research.
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
You know what... you might be right... and this would be a major awesome "cool point" to you if it turns out to be the case....
I got this information from here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm
If this is in fact wrong, ontheissues.org credibility drops significantly, and we should force them to correct the error... because this is a major point of contention for religious freedom advocates...
So you know, I take my stance from judicial precedent, and an innate feeling of agreement to the idea that our rights are not up for vote... as found in the
Supreme Court decision of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943:
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.
One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
I agree with this sentiment... and I felt that this proposed Amendment was a violation of this principle... The ACLU also agrees, and their argument against this amendment can be found here:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16039res20020311.html
I also have very strong feeling against Newt Gingrich.
I lived in his district most of my life in Cobb County, Georgia... having moved off to college when he finally left office... I have never trusted that man, or anything he proposes...
He has outlined his views on what this country is in his book: Rediscovering God in American
As a liberty loving, freedom loving, non-believer, I want to believe that Ron Paul does stand for the constitution, even in its' application that this is fact is not "A robustly Christian nation."
Thank you for the change in tone though...
We need to find out if in fact Ron Paul supported this Amendment, he will not answer my hand-written letters to his campaign... If he did support this Amendment, I consider it a mistake, and would like at least some personal understanding of the reasoning behind it...
Last edited:
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
If the first words are asking not to "construe" anything to prohibit the individual in a public institution to lead in prayer... I don't think your analysis holds up... you could be "misconstruing' the definition... This is the problem with the Amendment... it is re-clarifying the first amendment for us... this is unacceptable.
Nothing in the amendment says that a teacher in the presence of students shall be prohibited from praying... nothing. And it is clear you cannot construe it to mean that...
This is an unnecessary entanglement with religion.
So you jump into a thread off topic.... pick an argument for no reason other than to make yourself feel superior as a so called "cristian" who has all the answers... get called out on your pathetic "thesis" and then go hide.... .
Last edited by a moderator:
dc74rp
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 133
Kade,
I'm too caught up in other things right now to be spending time on the computer right now, but I didn't want to make you think I was ignoring you.........
As far as 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:
seems to me www.ontheissues.org even gave the impression that the text of each one was pretty much alike, but looks like they vary quite a bit........ the actual text of each can be checked out at:
thomas.loc.gov
with the correct years from my earlier post you should be able to check the status, to see if any have been voted on yet......... So we can rule out any that haven't even been voted on. The fact that the years weren't given for the bills by Ontheissues makes varification more difficult. Which makes me suspicious, though Ontheissues may have only been repeating information they thought accurate rather than being the creators of it.
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
I totally agree...... My problem isn't with with this statement at all. It's with jurisdiction and the violation of the Rule of Law........
"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment............."
Not only was the Federal Government not suppose to establish....... but was to have no say on establishment one way or the other........ because some States wanted to protect thier established religions.........
also..... Would your interpretation of the proposal you object to prevent the Federal or State Government from stopping a teacher who was leading the class in Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, or Satanist prayers?
When I have more time I'll look into the texts of the bills and if any were voted on, unless you beat me to it...........
Take it easy.
I'm too caught up in other things right now to be spending time on the computer right now, but I didn't want to make you think I was ignoring you.........
As far as 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:
seems to me www.ontheissues.org even gave the impression that the text of each one was pretty much alike, but looks like they vary quite a bit........ the actual text of each can be checked out at:
thomas.loc.gov
with the correct years from my earlier post you should be able to check the status, to see if any have been voted on yet......... So we can rule out any that haven't even been voted on. The fact that the years weren't given for the bills by Ontheissues makes varification more difficult. Which makes me suspicious, though Ontheissues may have only been repeating information they thought accurate rather than being the creators of it.
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
I totally agree...... My problem isn't with with this statement at all. It's with jurisdiction and the violation of the Rule of Law........
"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment............."
Not only was the Federal Government not suppose to establish....... but was to have no say on establishment one way or the other........ because some States wanted to protect thier established religions.........
also..... Would your interpretation of the proposal you object to prevent the Federal or State Government from stopping a teacher who was leading the class in Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, or Satanist prayers?
When I have more time I'll look into the texts of the bills and if any were voted on, unless you beat me to it...........
Take it easy.
Last edited:
I did a check of EVERY SINGLE item available online (source listed below) and did not find Dr. Paul as sponsor or co-sponsor of any item that contained the phrase "group prayer in public schools" or the entire text as listed in "ontheissues" on a single proposed piece of legislation. However, it is possible that he might have been on the subcommittee's that the legislation was subsequently sent through (all civil liberties and constitution related) and thus this would possibly explain why his name might be attached to the above legislation.
Feel free to do your own research: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Major awsome "Cool Point" indeed!
Feel free to do your own research: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Major awsome "Cool Point" indeed!
Last edited:
Further, do a search in "thomas" that contains the phrase "restoring the right of Americans to pray in public " that you disagree with. You will find only two bills that contain that phrase:
HJ.RES.186IH
and
HJ.RES.163IH
both sponsored by Rep. Bill Heffner and with NO co-sponsorship from Rep. Paul.
186 was referred to the "Subcommittee on Constitution" and 163 was referred to "Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights"
163 is listed as related to S.J.RES.3 and S.J.RES16 both sponsored by Sen. Jesse Helms.
Please do more research if you can cite more sources!
OOPS! Check out H.J.RES.78
He did co-sponsor it but later voted no.
Ok, last research and edit for the night. If doing research, note the different proposed changes, the votes and the justification for the amendment as well as the statements made. I think we can fairly state that while Ron did Co-sponsor this amendment, he did so as part of a large group of representatives and in the end voted no.
HJ.RES.186IH
and
HJ.RES.163IH
both sponsored by Rep. Bill Heffner and with NO co-sponsorship from Rep. Paul.
186 was referred to the "Subcommittee on Constitution" and 163 was referred to "Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights"
163 is listed as related to S.J.RES.3 and S.J.RES16 both sponsored by Sen. Jesse Helms.
Please do more research if you can cite more sources!
OOPS! Check out H.J.RES.78
He did co-sponsor it but later voted no.
Ok, last research and edit for the night. If doing research, note the different proposed changes, the votes and the justification for the amendment as well as the statements made. I think we can fairly state that while Ron did Co-sponsor this amendment, he did so as part of a large group of representatives and in the end voted no.
Last edited:
First of all, it's spelled Christian, not cristian. Not making fun here, but it's important. Christian denotes a follower of Christ.
Calling me pathetic, a loser, and telling me I'm full of S**t isn't going to get you a response, other than to say I'm not going to discuss the matter further. I don't converse with people who have no respect for me, nor do I converse with people who have no intention of having a respectful discussion. I'm sorry but so far, You fit both categories.
I'm asking you to please calm down, act maturely, and stop the name calling. When that happens, I'll gladly discuss the issue.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,984
Hello. Thanks for clarifying something. I was concerned about Paul's views on church and state, but you've verified that they actually makes sense (even though I don't think that was your intention.) Are you aware of the fact that the law which you are criticizing is actually in line with current supreme court rulings? Actually these laws aren't necessary. Current law is that schoolchildren HAVE a right to pray provided that the prayer is 1) student initiated and 2) done in a manner that is non disruptive and doesn't infringed on people that don't want to hear the prayer. In other words students can say whatever prayer that they want before or after school or during recess. And yes that includes "prayers to Satan". But teachers aren't allowed to lead out in prayer groups. Also the current court ruling is that if a school allows extracurricular clubs then they MUST allow religious clubs.
Just about every time a school prayer case has actually gone to court it either involves the state writing the prayer, an administrator leading out in prayer, or the prayer being done in a way that infringes on the rights of those that don't want to hear it.
Now I'm not above saying that Dr. Paul might make a mistake. I think him saying that the constitution is "replete" with references to God was a mistake. The Declaration of Independence clearly was. At the federal level the U.S. was NOT supposed to be a Christian nation. The "Treaty of Tripoli", which was negotiated by president John Adams and ratified by the U.S. Senate, clearly verifies this. But the constitution initially didn't apply the non-establishment clause to the states. In the old days states even went so far as to require potential office holders to "swear allegiance" to God. Personally I wouldn't want to return to that period. But I also think the federal government has gone overboard in barring local governments from putting up their own "manger" scenes.
Regardless, I think much of the angst over school prayer could be avoided by better informing people of their religious rights. Children CAN legally pray in school and read the Bible all they want as long as it's on their own time.
On the flip side, since teachers are barred from talking FOR God in school, why aren't they barred from talking AGAINST Him too? I'm not talking about evolution. There are "Christian evolutionists" even though I don't fall in that category myself. I'm talking about teachers that declare "God does not exist". If they have a right to say that then others should be able to say the opposite.
Regards,
John M. Drake
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
John,
Thank you greatly for your response. I made this point throughout the thread. It was my intention to make this point. My concern was with the Amendment attempting to change what we already have as decent law. My concern for Paul's stance on separation is still a concern, as I have not heard from his campaign on clarifying what I deem a mistake unbecoming of a "Constitutionalist". The law will force courts to name a person of government represent as property of the state, or it will allow teachers to lead in prayer. If you have read enough of the cases, you must understand that there was no need for the law, and that the law only attempts to clarify a position that already exists, with the ability to enforce the second part of the first amendment, over the first.
And no.. the Declaration was not replete. Please read it again sir.
The first words of the bill of rights. The very first words... this is what is at stake.
Last edited:
I think there is the mistake in understanding Kade. A constitutionalist doesn't necessarily (or exclusively) believe that the constitution is perfect - a constitutionalist believes in upholding the constitution and changing the document itself when necessary.
In this case, perhaps Dr. Paul saw the future possibility of abuse of that very amendment because the wording is such that it can be influenced by the appointed judge of the party in power. I will try and think of a poignant example by the time I get done with running some errands tonight.
RonPaulIsGood
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 79
The term "constitutionist" has negative connotations and is prejudiced by the public and view that constitutionists believe the constituion is perfect, and constitutionists are "constitutional conservatives" who strictly interpret the constitution like the bible.
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
Or in this case, not perfect, and willing to make broad re-clarifying definitions of our freedoms...
Right.
dc74rp
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 133
Kade,
Again, I'm against this proposed Amendment. But I don't believe it should be interpreted to allow State employed teachers to lead students in prayer at school.
My interpretation is that Government employees, at work, interacting with citizens over which they hold authority, should be considered a part of government.
Please be patient with the campaign. They are a small staff dealing with huge responsibilities. While I understand a candidate's position on our freedoms is important, in this case it seems from everything I've looked at, Paul never supported the specific language you're concerned about. And while I might be wrong, it looks like it's never even made it to a vote.
A person need not be considered government property to be restrained by the limits of governmental power. A person need only be considered an agent of it. If this were not true, law enforcement officers would need to be considered government property for the Fourth Amendment protection of our right to be free from unreasonable search and siezures to apply to thier actions.
Teachers employed by the government considered governmental agents: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985).
When speaking as a government employee, a person doesn't hold the same Freedom of Speech as a private individual: Connick v. Meyers (1983).
In contrast to Connick v. Myers, is Rankin v. McPherson (1987). Governmental employees' individual rights are protected when certain conditions are met, among them: The employee was making private statements to another employee in a room not expected to be accessible to private citizens, and the statements couldn't be considered a reflection on her office since they were not made in public.
Under School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), not only are laws requiring prayer in the classroom a violation of the Establishment clause, but the act of prayer itself is a violation when: A government employed teacher in a government school participates.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you refering to Paul? Or just the proposed Amendment? Even if the wording was interpreted to allow teacher lead prayer he seems to have never supported it.
I understand your concern, and also object to this proposed Amendment. But I made an honest attempt to find any support from Paul for this language and haven't found any yet. Any time this text, or one with pretty similar wording, shows up, it seems to get refered to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, and then dies.
Again, I'm against this proposed Amendment. But I don't believe it should be interpreted to allow State employed teachers to lead students in prayer at school.
My interpretation is that Government employees, at work, interacting with citizens over which they hold authority, should be considered a part of government.
Please be patient with the campaign. They are a small staff dealing with huge responsibilities. While I understand a candidate's position on our freedoms is important, in this case it seems from everything I've looked at, Paul never supported the specific language you're concerned about. And while I might be wrong, it looks like it's never even made it to a vote.
A person need not be considered government property to be restrained by the limits of governmental power. A person need only be considered an agent of it. If this were not true, law enforcement officers would need to be considered government property for the Fourth Amendment protection of our right to be free from unreasonable search and siezures to apply to thier actions.
Teachers employed by the government considered governmental agents: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985).
When speaking as a government employee, a person doesn't hold the same Freedom of Speech as a private individual: Connick v. Meyers (1983).
In contrast to Connick v. Myers, is Rankin v. McPherson (1987). Governmental employees' individual rights are protected when certain conditions are met, among them: The employee was making private statements to another employee in a room not expected to be accessible to private citizens, and the statements couldn't be considered a reflection on her office since they were not made in public.
Under School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), not only are laws requiring prayer in the classroom a violation of the Establishment clause, but the act of prayer itself is a violation when: A government employed teacher in a government school participates.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you refering to Paul? Or just the proposed Amendment? Even if the wording was interpreted to allow teacher lead prayer he seems to have never supported it.
I understand your concern, and also object to this proposed Amendment. But I made an honest attempt to find any support from Paul for this language and haven't found any yet. Any time this text, or one with pretty similar wording, shows up, it seems to get refered to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, and then dies.
LibertyOfOne
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,938
It won't matter. I agree that no amendment is needed, but when Paul is in office there is going to be gridlock. He will be able to pull the troops and that might be the only thing he can do. Oh he could also reverse many of the draconian laws if the democrats in congress will back it. I have my doubts about that considering that some are supportive of oppressive measures like those outlined in the commission report. He would be able to pardon non violent offenders that got nabbed up in the drug war. He could kill all the executive orders that would allow the U.S to become a police state by declaration. He could also kill spending. Which is something we badly need! The amendment is a non issue considering the political sphere the congress will have in 2008.
Last edited:
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
Thanks for your patience and understanding. It is people like you, and your rational and honest discourse with me that steady my hand when it comes to these issues. I am skeptical, and worried, but the situation in America seems increasingly grave in economic concerns, and I believe Ron Paul has potential answers to those growing issues.
Chiefly, my biggest concern should be whether I can afford food for myself and a family in the future. The way things are looking.... yikes...
dc74rp
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 133
Sceptical and worried are pretty smart things to be in my opinion. Sounds like you're feeling the same way as alot of people who are looking at the economic and political course are country is on and are worried about the consequences. I'm there with you. Even if we get someone in the White House that attempts to reverse course, I'm concerned finacially we've already damaged the country too much to avoid a good amount of pain.
Thanks for pointing out the information at www.ontheissues.org. I went there and now realize they've got thier information wrong on more than one issue with Paul. Not only do they state he supports teacher led prayer, they also claim he supports a ban on gay adoption, also false. I have the feeling they either don't check thier sources for accuracy, or that they don't care much about accuracy if they don't care much for the candidate.
Thanks for your replies and honest concern.
Similar threads
