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

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.

Fine. Not replete. But prominent. Anyway not a bone I'm wanting to fight over. In a recent radio interview the host received an email claiming that Ron Paul was an "atheist". He reaffirmed his Christianity, but then when on to say that he didn't think America was a "Christian nation" if "by Christian you mean having an official religion".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015885.html

As for your position on abortion, I have a question. You keep focusing on the early part of pregnancy. What about the middle and end? As Ron Paul has pointed out repeatedly (partial birth abortion law notwithstanding) if someone puts a baby born after 7 months in a dumpster they go to jail. If they abort a baby at 7 months they get paid. What's magical difference does being outside of the womb make? And if you accept (the truth) that there is no difference, where in the gestation of a human child do you make the difference between "not human" and "human"? If you can agree that this is a complex issue with no cut and dry answers, might it not be best answered at the state rather than the federal level?

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
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.

This is historical revisionism gone wild. To suggest that the founding fathers wanted a godless, secular state just because the Constitution and DOI don't contain more references or allusions to God or faith is absurd, not to mention misleading. For one thing, the poster omits the fact that the Constitution recognizes the Christian Sabbath.

It's also misleading to quote one critical statement by Thomas Jefferson and to ignore all the others he made, not to mention his regular attendance at church for years, his approval of taxpayer dollars for Bibles, and his authorizing government buildings to be used for Sunday church services. Some other facts:

* Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes.

* In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.”

* When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building. President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.

* Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services.

* Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government."

* Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto.

* While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, “In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson.”

If one looks at the writings and speeches of the rest of the founding fathers, one immediately sees that they certainly did not think they had founded a godless, secular government. Let's start with George Washington, from his farewell address to Congress and the nation:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?" (Farewell Address, 1796)

Benjamin Franklin:

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?"

"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of a primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world"

"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." (Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

When the framers were at an impasse at the constitutional convention, they stopped for three days with the recommendation that the time be used for prayer and reflection. Most of the framers attended church services during that three-day break.

In 1854 the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said the following in an official report:

"Whereas, the people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty."

If you want to know the truth about your own country's religious heritage, take 45 minutes and watch this online video:

http://www.webcastgroup.com/client/start.asp?wid=0820929073668

Or, read the following:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...rs_intended_a_christian,_not_secular,_society

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=100

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=121

Mike Griffith
Real Issues Home Page
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/
 
Last edited:
Founding Fathers Were Conservative, Not Liberal

A conservative values his heritage. For a conservative in the Western world, liberalism forms a part of that heritage. It does not constitute the whole of it.

The Founding Fathers were, on the whole, conservatives. The War of Independence was a conservative revolt against the usurpation of long-standing English liberties: habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, the right to keep and bear arms, and many others. It was not a revolution of Enlightenment rationalism led by Deists, agnostics and atheists, as the current public-school mythology teaches.

If you want that kind of revolution, you need fast-forward a few years to 1789 and see what the French did. So much for the triumph of reason.

I close with the following quote from John Jay (1745-1829), one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, a key member of the Constitutional Convention and this nation's first Chief Justice (1789-1794):

Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers: and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, in our Christian nation for our people to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
 
Fine. Not replete. But prominent. Anyway not a bone I'm wanting to fight over. In a recent radio interview the host received an email claiming that Ron Paul was an "atheist". He reaffirmed his Christianity, but then when on to say that he didn't think America was a "Christian nation" if "by Christian you mean having an official religion".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015885.html

As for your position on abortion, I have a question. You keep focusing on the early part of pregnancy. What about the middle and end? As Ron Paul has pointed out repeatedly (partial birth abortion law notwithstanding) if someone puts a baby born after 7 months in a dumpster they go to jail. If they abort a baby at 7 months they get paid. What's magical difference does being outside of the womb make? And if you accept (the truth) that there is no difference, where in the gestation of a human child do you make the difference between "not human" and "human"? If you can agree that this is a complex issue with no cut and dry answers, might it not be best answered at the state rather than the federal level?

Regards,

John M. Drake

My personal view on the matter differs greatly than what I think should be the legal view.

I believe that when a child develops the pain receptors, around 7 months, it is well past the time to have thought about and made an appropriate decision either way...

There is a vast philosophical difference, to me at least, of a person who ends a pregnancy in the short time they find out, signifying that it was never the intent to become a mother, and someone who waits until 7 months...

I see the distinction you make, and I think that partial birth abortion ban has fixed that problem.
 
A conservative values his heritage. For a conservative in the Western world, liberalism forms a part of that heritage. It does not constitute the whole of it.

The Founding Fathers were, on the whole, conservatives. The War of Independence was a conservative revolt against the usurpation of long-standing English liberties: habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, the right to keep and bear arms, and many others. It was not a revolution of Enlightenment rationalism led by Deists, agnostics and atheists, as the current public-school mythology teaches.

If you want that kind of revolution, you need fast-forward a few years to 1789 and see what the French did. So much for the triumph of reason.

I close with the following quote from John Jay (1745-1829), one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, a key member of the Constitutional Convention and this nation's first Chief Justice (1789-1794):

Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers: and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, in our Christian nation for our people to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

John Jay was one of the few fundamentalists, and I find it extraordinarily convenient that you would of course go to him first...

Your understanding of what is taught is wrong. The public school, for which I am a product, does not teach anything in history but consensus history. The beliefs of the Presidents, varying greatly, was relatively negligible to the fact that they were in open rebellion to an what they deemed an oppressive rule.

Nothing, nothing about the founding fathers was "conservative" and I do believe that you win the new award for most ignorant statement on this thread, previously held by TexasChristian.

The founding fathers were RADICAL. Liberal, SECULAR, progressives. To argue this point is to ignore what they were fighting.

Spend some time reading legitimate history on the subject.... and enjoy the plethora of quotes I can add to this fire.

Thomas Jefferson:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."
-in his private journal, Feb. 1800

"The priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, are as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore."
- to Story, Aug. 4, 1820

"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
"Notes on Virginia"

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever."
-Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
-letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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."
-letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT

John Adams:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-letter to Thomas Jefferson

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."
(That appears relatively damning)

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

Thomas Paine:

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

James Madison:

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."
James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty",

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
- "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
-1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

George Washington:

.
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason.

Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]

Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15]

Benjamin Franklin:

"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
- letter to his father, 1738

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."


"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-in Poor Richard's Almanac

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)



Had Enough? I have more. Please, all I ever ask of you Theocrats is that you pick up a book.
 
This is historical revisionism gone wild. To suggest that the founding fathers wanted a godless, secular state just because the Constitution and DOI don't contain more references or allusions to God or faith is absurd, not to mention misleading. For one thing, the poster omits the fact that the Constitution recognizes the Christian Sabbath.

It's also misleading to quote one critical statement by Thomas Jefferson and to ignore all the others he made, not to mention his regular attendance at church for years, his approval of taxpayer dollars for Bibles, and his authorizing government buildings to be used for Sunday church services. Some other facts:

* Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes.

* In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.”

* When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building. President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.

* Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services.

* Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government."

* Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto.

* While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, “In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson.”

If one looks at the writings and speeches of the rest of the founding fathers, one immediately sees that they certainly did not think they had founded a godless, secular government. Let's start with George Washington, from his farewell address to Congress and the nation:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?" (Farewell Address, 1796)

Benjamin Franklin:

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?"

"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of a primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world"

"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." (Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

When the framers were at an impasse at the constitutional convention, they stopped for three days with the recommendation that the time be used for prayer and reflection. Most of the framers attended church services during that three-day break.

In 1854 the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said the following in an official report:

"Whereas, the people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty."

If you want to know the truth about your own country's religious heritage, take 45 minutes and watch this online video:

http://www.webcastgroup.com/client/start.asp?wid=0820929073668

Or, read the following:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...rs_intended_a_christian,_not_secular,_society

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=100

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=121

Mike Griffith
Real Issues Home Page
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/


Again, let's continue to celebrate ignorance.

They wanted a religious tolerant state, one which, considering the number of belligerent Christians stomping on non-believers, does not exist.

I said nothing about "GODLESS" state... they wanted neutral...

A godless state would say "In God We Do Not Trust"...

Seriously.. please, books.
 
This is historical revisionism gone wild. To suggest that the founding fathers wanted a godless, secular state just because the Constitution and DOI don't contain more references or allusions to God or faith is absurd, not to mention misleading. For one thing, the poster omits the fact that the Constitution recognizes the Christian Sabbath.

It's also misleading to quote one critical statement by Thomas Jefferson and to ignore all the others he made, not to mention his regular attendance at church for years, his approval of taxpayer dollars for Bibles, and his authorizing government buildings to be used for Sunday church services. Some other facts:

* Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes.

* In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.”

* When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building. President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.

* Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services.

* Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government."

* Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto.

* While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, “In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson.”

If one looks at the writings and speeches of the rest of the founding fathers, one immediately sees that they certainly did not think they had founded a godless, secular government. Let's start with George Washington, from his farewell address to Congress and the nation:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?" (Farewell Address, 1796)

Benjamin Franklin:

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?"

"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of a primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world"

"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." (Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

When the framers were at an impasse at the constitutional convention, they stopped for three days with the recommendation that the time be used for prayer and reflection. Most of the framers attended church services during that three-day break.

In 1854 the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said the following in an official report:

"Whereas, the people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty."

If you want to know the truth about your own country's religious heritage, take 45 minutes and watch this online video:

http://www.webcastgroup.com/client/start.asp?wid=0820929073668

Or, read the following:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...rs_intended_a_christian,_not_secular,_society

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=100

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=121

Mike Griffith
Real Issues Home Page
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/

Also, you should be aware that I am very aware of the extreme bias of your sources.. .Townhall? Give me a break.

The "real issue" is your ignorance of the subject. The church has become nearly irreparably tangled with the state, in a way that is decisively damaging... the mere fact that I bring it up in such a way should be enough to warrant consideration... but it is enough. Instead, you feel that I am attacking your faith, something that was once considered private and personal, when in truth, I am demanding that my money not be taken from me and used for things against my conscious, as written and understood by our founding fathers... I should never be compelled to practice your religion, and I should never be compelled to put my money towards it...

This is gone... as I write, my money is providing bibles to criminals in several states, and my little baby nephew has to pledge allegiance to a country under the Christian God, a country he was born supposedly free in...

You should step back and review what you are trying to tell me.
 
I completely agree with you that the separation of church and state is essential. I also believe that the constitution is clear about that. If you believe that Ron Paul is willing to alter this part of the constitution to fit his personal preferences, then everything that he says about constitutional law is to be ignored. The man strikes me as having more character than that and I will vote for him believing that he will honor the constitution as he claims. It also seems a little contradictory to me to think that a man who's main platform expounds smaller government, less government intervention, and constitutional law would turn around and threaten to amend the constitution in order to force God on us. I just don't believe that. Steve
 
If the government were to sanction a religion such as Christianity, how would that be different than the government sanctioning Wal Mart over K Mart, etc. Have your religion, practice your religion, but leave me out of it. You have no right or obligation to force it on me or my family as I have no reason to force you to believe whatever I decide to believe about life and death. And I certainly don't want you trying to teach my children your chosen ideas. You might be wrong, and no matter how much you might believe that you are right, you don't know. I don't care what the bible tells you to know, you don't know. You must die to know, and you haven't died yet. So don't tell anyone that you know what God wants for them!
 
RP's stance on this is not satisfying, but given that I agree with him _everywhere_ else, I let him slide on this one.
 
Yelling FIRE in a crowded room is also illegal, but I should win that battle because its' protecting free speech... .

We have an evolution of these freedoms that has been more progressive then regressive... in my opinion.. I would offer that your interpretation of this specific tenet is depressingly regressive. The prohibition you talk about is non-existent, we have discussed this already... leading kids in prayer in a tax funded institution was found to not be a freedom, Ron Paul's amendment will undo those findings...Disagree?

I'm still reading through the thread and wanted to reply to this point. Yelling fire in a crowded room is NOT illegal if there is in fact a fire. The reason you can't inadvertently yell fire in a crowded room where there is no fire is because you have a responsibility to the people in that room if say they get hurt or trampled on by the people trying to leave that room. It has nothing to do with free speech. All rights come responsibilities, and you can't misuse your rights to infringe on other people's rights.
 
I'm still reading through the thread and wanted to reply to this point. Yelling fire in a crowded room is NOT illegal if there is in fact a fire. The reason you can't inadvertently yell fire in a crowded room where there is no fire is because you have a responsibility to the people in that room if say they get hurt or trampled on by the people trying to leave that room. It has nothing to do with free speech. All rights come responsibilities, and you can't misuse your rights to infringe on other people's rights.

That was my point actually.

One is not prohibited from praying in school. They made a law to enforce that responsibility, much like the law that prohibits school officials from leading classrooms in prayer. Being led in prayer in school has nothing to do with freedom of religious expression.
 
Of all the candidates running, including democrats, Paul seems by far the least likely to impose theocracy or tyranny. Even democrats have thier own sort of religion, similair to that of Mao or Lenin. Instead of an other worldy Father they have the national Father, and instead of a clergy they had the party.

I'm not in the least bit worried about Paul. It seems that Paul may actually be my only hope to get back some of the things I've lost to the Christians over the last few years, as neither party seems interested in giving them back. Take something simple like censorship. Republicans are pro-censorship of "violent" videogames. So is Hillary Clinton. In fact, the only person not jumping on the censorship is great religion bandwagon is, guess who, Ron Paul. I could bring this to so many other personal freedoms I've had taken away because of religion. Do you see any other politician arguing that gambling, drugs, or prostitution should be legal? No, all the other politicians are being "good Christians" by telling us how to live our lives. Not Ron Paul.
 
Last edited:
This is a rather enormous thread. I read a large section of it, but not all. The misunderstanding that people are clearly making is that when you are discharging the responsibilities of the government, you are for that time, no longer a private citizen. You are the government. In this case, the teachers take on the role of government. It is entirely inappropriate for the government, in the form of the teacher, to encourage his students to do anything of a religious nature. To do so would be to tacitly establish a religious doctrine.

Further examples:

If a police officer is on duty discharging the powers of the government, he may not encourage or discourage any religious activities. Once he's off the clock, he may do whatever he pleases.

A politician must not encourage or discourage any religious activity while he is fulfilling his duties as an agent of the government. He may do whatever he wishes on his own time. To reference divinity in his speeches as a Senator, regarding public government issues, would be inappropriate. If he wants to be a public religious speaker on the weekends as a private citizen, he may do so.

To further clarify, students are not an agent of the government during their education. If they so choose to spend their free time praying, say during lunch or before class, they are fully free to do so. If, however, the faculty, in their role as representatives of the government, allot special time for these students to pray, then they have encouraged that religious activity.
 
I have grave fears of the theocracy also. Read "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" Chris Hedges. I shudder at the idea of Pat Robertson endorsing the campaign as i thought he was a Dominionist like Dobson...Shudder shudder and thrice shudder.
But i was heartened by RP's feisty reference to Sinclair Lewis's alleged cross wrapped in the flag quotation. I'm a Buddhist (non-theistic as opposed to a-theistic) and feel comfortable with RP's form of Christianity. I don't think he has a fanatical bone in his body.

Whereas when i saw the floating cross of one Huckabee, (I thought it was the beginning of a migraine until i blinked) well then i really did have a full-blown, creepy, deeply chilled shudder.
And you have the other alleged Christian, Romney, backing enhanced interrogation techniques. EGAD!

Looking at these matters from the perspective of a continuum seems to work for me. I have our esteemed RP bang in the middle of my continuum, which seems to be a sensible place to be in the prevailing extremist, us v. them, cowboys v. Indians, climate.

I guess if he began salivating in a rabid kind of Lincolnian way, you the people, would be able (with the help of the powers he would re-establish if he was elected) to de-throne him.

I think y'all need to stop nit-picking, watch Naomi Wolf's ten points and hit the streets.
 
The reason those who honor religious freedom should support Ron Paul is because he will attempt to end our occupation of Iraq and other countries, reestablish goodwill with other nations, cut wasteful government spending, balance the budget, reduce taxes, protect personal privacy and liberty and try to save this failing nation from financial collapse. What other candidate offers something better?
 
Ron Paul is a religious person's best friend, regardless of what religion they are. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and Ron Paul stands behind The Constitution.
 
This whole debate is confused on both sides. With the exception of our money and pledge to the flag, our government is pretty much secular. On the other hand there is nothing stopping someone from praying to themselves in school. What is forbidden is schools organizing an ordained prayer time. So it seems to me that both sides should be pretty much happy with the status quo. Enlighten me, whats the problem?
 
Back
Top