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

[ChooseLiberty]

It's pretty obvious you just got back from your Con Law class and want to argue. Maybe some issue you missed on a test?

If you were really interested in Dr. Paul's position you could simply look it up. Maybe it's on Lexis. Or submit it to the campaign.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the looming police state in which all your arguments will be moot.

All hail the FSM!

Extremist atheist. Nice.

You have made this into a cascade of misrepresentation... You have also caricatured a position so absurdly, that one could argue you have no understanding of what you are talking about...

I could go into a long list of "affects"... but I want to discuss Ron Paul, and I want discuss what would happen if some of his policies were implemented.

 

[Corydoras]

is it truly freedom to simply claim righteously that a certain view is ultimately and utterly correct...

A question: You don't believe your OWN view of religion and government is ultimately and utterly correct?

 

[nayjevin]

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.

It all rests on interpretation of the word 'recognize'.

If 'recognize' is interpreted as 'brief solo silent prayer', we're good.
If 'recognize' is interpreted as 'perform an act of recognition out loud in front of class, every day, with the suggestion that it should also be performed in unison by the class', no good.

To me, a good teacher, walking in the forest with my child, will find and share 'God' concepts with my child, but endorse no religion.

In fact, any time a human being -- especially one who has dedicated their lives to teaching children -- decides on their on volition to share their beliefs about God, or their conception of truth in that regard, I don't mind my child present -- given I'm part of the process in monitoring that person (I.E. I can be involved in her school, parent-teacher conferences, etc). It is my responsibility for my child to be prepared enough to realize -- even if not explicitly told by that teacher -- that not everything they hear in school will be what they eventually believe.

Unfortunately, there's no hard and fast age at which the child becomes adequately guarded from runaway impressionability, and becomes capable of defending against those who would move to abuse the child through manipulation of religious falsehoods.

But that can be combatted through communication with the child. Don't believe everything that you hear. Besides, in my case, a teacher would have a hard time out-doing what the grandparents and others already have -- 'Does Jesus live in the sky?'

The greater the frequency and degree of communication with your kids, the less the potential effect of one teacher to abuse your child's intellectual freedoms.

 

[Kade]

It's pretty obvious you just got back from your Con Law class and want to argue. Maybe some issue you missed on a test?

If you were really interested in Dr. Paul's position you could simply look it up. Maybe it's on Lexis. Or submit it to the campaign.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the looming police state in which all your arguments will be moot.

All hail the FSM!

Actually.. I was at work....

 

[Kade]

A question: You don't believe your OWN view of religion and government is ultimately and utterly correct?

No, I don't actually... not on this issue. I believe what I have experienced and studied so far has not been refuted.

 

[Kade]

It all rests on interpretation of the word 'recognize'.

If 'recognize' is interpreted as 'brief solo silent prayer', we're good.
If 'recognize' is interpreted as 'perform an act of recognition out loud in front of class, every day, with the suggestion that it should also be performed in unison by the class', no good.

To me, a good teacher, walking in the forest with my child, will find and share 'God' concepts with my child, but endorse no religion.

In fact, any time a human being -- especially one who has dedicated their lives to teaching children -- decides on their on volition to share their beliefs about God, or their conception of truth in that regard, I don't mind my child present -- given I'm part of the process in monitoring that person (I.E. I can be involved in her school, parent-teacher conferences, etc). It is my responsibility for my child to be prepared enough to realize -- even if not explicitly told by that teacher -- that not everything they hear in school will be what they eventually believe.

Unfortunately, there's no hard and fast age at which the child becomes adequately guarded from runaway impressionability, and becomes capable of defending against those who would move to abuse the child through manipulation of religious falsehoods.

But that can be combatted through communication with the child. Don't believe everything that you hear. Besides, in my case, a teacher would have a hard time out-doing what the grandparents and others already have -- 'Does Jesus live in the sky?'

The greater the frequency and degree of communication with your kids, the less the potential effect of one teacher to abuse your child's intellectual freedoms.

This amendment, as I've been arguing since the start of this thread, is useless, and in the economic status we now have, a violation of the constitution as defined by years of judicial progress.

 

[barcop]

In cases like that, then I as a parent should have recourse to discuss the matter with school officials and the teacher himself in order to assure that a.) my child is not being compelled to believe as the teacher does or to participate in a given religion, and b.) that while the teacher's academic freedom is respected, he/she makes it abundantly clear what is his/her personal beliefs and what is part of the established curriculum.

Let me ask you this:

If teacher who happens to be a muslim encounters the problem that his class time is scheduled during a mandatory muslim prayer time, should he be prohibited from taking a few minutes to pray quietly? What if he invites (but does not compel) students to join him?

Should he be dismissed for exercising his religion during class time or for inviting students to join him? Or does this religious antipathy and denial of freedom extend only to Christians?

I think he has all the right in the world to pray... during any scheduled break that he has during the day. But no... if a mandatory prayer time is during a class period then tough luck. He's being paid to teach... not to pray.

I do not think any adult... no matter what their religion should have any discussion with a child about religion UNLESS it is a "insert religion here" school and that is part of the teachings.

I am an athiest and as an adult, I would never express my views on a child that was not mine. It's not the teachers place to discuss religion (any religion) in a public school.

 

[barcop]

I would also like to say... there are way bigger issues in this country to worry about. But good debate... alot of good opinions from both sides.

 

[jmarinara]

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.

Founding Father's ideals of SECULARISM??? Ok, I think we've found the problem. . . you're severely misinformed.

Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, I'll gladly give you as having ideals of secularism, but only because they held a heritical view of Christianity.

However, I'm sorry, if you think that George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Adams, John Jay, etc. were not religious, or for that matter, Christian, you are severely misinformed.

Sorry, I know it's the cardinal sin in America to say that someone is wrong, but simply put, history and facts do not support your position. And you can count as many words as you want in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, it still doesn't change the facts that these men argued for Biblical ideas in government.

Some proof for you:

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams 6th US President and son of John Adams

"Without a humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay

"Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." - Samuel Adams

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." - John Jay

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." - John Qunicy Adams

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." - Noah Webster

"I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me." Alexander Hamilton

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!" John Adams

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge to Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor." George Washington

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence (In bold are two references you left un-counted. . . one can only wonder why)

 

[jmarinara]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence

Since that is the thesis statement of our country, let me explain to you why this is a profoundly Christian statement.

The idea of rights being a self-evident truth was an idea first proported by a man named John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. Although Locke did not right as a Theologian, but rather a philosopher, he had to acknowledge that since it seems that natuarl law dictates that man is born with inherant rights, then these rights must come from an intelligence higher than himself.

So when forming the civil government now known as America, our founders had to follow Lockes logic that our rights had to come from somewhere. And since, as Locke pointed out to Hobbes (in the famous Locke/Hobbes debates), that our rights could not be truely given away or taken, but rather, simply go unused, they knew that we weren't granted our own rights by principalities or powers that were on the earth. Rather, they had to, as Locke's logic dictated, come from something greater than ourselves.

This is why they say that we are CREATED with INALIENABLE rights. We have to be made (because we can't inject these rights into ourselves) and because we are made, the rights within us are therefore unable to be alienated.

Now examine those rights. . . LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Life: God is firmly on the side of life. Now, since he created life and is soverign holy and just, he can determine who lives and dies. Yet His law is full of protection of life, and it is from this gift HE gives us, that all of our rights proceed.

Liberty: If you study Biblical civil law closely, you notice a profound libertarian streak. God is not concerned with government micromanaging our lives. Why? Because kings and presidents are as sinful and as prone to error as Cain, and this freedom to sin stems from a free-will that God grants each of us.

God instituted civil government not to rule over the people, but to protect the people. Make sure people aren't being murdered, make sure the scales are honest, make sure theirs isn't lawlessness in the streets, but leave their souls to Him.

Pursuit of Happiness: God is not all that concerned with out "happiness" (He instead would rather us be filled with Joy. . . there's a difference) but He doesn't prevent it either. The idea here is that HE created unique creatures with different strengths/weaknesses/likes/dislikes and we should be free to follow who we are and how He created us to fulfill our own happiness. Now true joy only comes from salvation and assurance in Him, but that's another story.

One last thing: The completion of this thought, not quoted here, is: "and when Governments become destructive of these goals, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish them."

This is a long post, but this is a profoundly protestant, namely puritan, idea. The puritans rebelled against the specific idea that the Bible was being used for selfish ends, and not to the ends of glorifing God. In the realm of civil Government, many Catholics liked to point to Romans 13 to show the kings had a divine right to be tyrants. These puritan minded founders knew that when government had ceased to act in the way God designed it, that it was their duty, and ours, to rise up, show fidelity to God, and to make sure our Government didn't stand in our way of serving the Most High God.

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

[barcop]

Since that is the thesis statement of our country, let me explain to you why this is a profoundly Christian statement.

The idea of rights being a self-evident truth was an idea first proported by a man named John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. Although Locke did not right as a Theologian, but rather a philosopher, he had to acknowledge that since it seems that natuarl law dictates that man is born with inherant rights, then these rights must come from an intelligence higher than himself.

So when forming the civil government now known as America, our founders had to follow Lockes logic that our rights had to come from somewhere. And since, as Locke pointed out to Hobbes (in the famous Locke/Hobbes debates), that our rights could not be truely given away or taken, but rather, simply go unused, they knew that we weren't granted our own rights by principalities or powers that were on the earth. Rather, they had to, as Locke's logic dictated, come from something greater than ourselves.

This is why they say that we are CREATED with INALIENABLE rights. We have to be made (because we can't inject these rights into ourselves) and because we are made, the rights within us are therefore unable to be alienated.

Now examine those rights. . . LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Life: God is firmly on the side of life. Now, since he created life and is soverign holy and just, he can determine who lives and dies. Yet His law is full of protection of life, and it is from this gift HE gives us, that all of our rights proceed.

Liberty: If you study Biblical civil law closely, you notice a profound libertarian streak. God is not concerned with government micromanaging our lives. Why? Because kings and presidents are as sinful and as prone to error as Cain, and this freedom to sin stems from a free-will that God grants each of us.

God instituted civil government not to rule over the people, but to protect the people. Make sure people aren't being murdered, make sure the scales are honest, make sure theirs isn't lawlessness in the streets, but leave their souls to Him.

Pursuit of Happiness: God is not all that concerned with out "happiness" (He instead would rather us be filled with Joy. . . there's a difference) but He doesn't prevent it either. The idea here is that HE created unique creatures with different strengths/weaknesses/likes/dislikes and we should be free to follow who we are and how He created us to fulfill our own happiness. Now true joy only comes from salvation and assurance in Him, but that's another story.

One last thing: The completion of this thought, not quoted here, is: "and when Governments become destructive of these goals, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish them."

This is a long post, but this is a profoundly protestant, namely puritan, idea. The puritans rebelled against the specific idea that the Bible was being used for selfish ends, and not to the ends of glorifing God. In the realm of civil Government, many Catholics liked to point to Romans 13 to show the kings had a divine right to be tyrants. These puritan minded founders knew that when government had ceased to act in the way God designed it, that it was their duty, and ours, to rise up, show fidelity to God, and to make sure our Government didn't stand in our way of serving the Most High God.

I look forward to your thoughts.

First, we should clarify and point out that the Founding Fathers did not all share one single set of beliefs. However, from my reading (actual writings that is, not just quotes and snippets) and research, I think it's pretty clear that most of the important founders (Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison et al.) would have little in common with fundamentalist/evangelical Christians. Whether they were deists or "rational Christians" (a term Jefferson used) I cannot say, but they certainly would not be described as anything like fundy-type Christians, and in some cases it really is questionable as to whether they could accurately be labeled as Christians at all, at least in the traditional sense.

But to the heart of the matter, i.e., where this debate invariably leads, there's nothing at all about Christ, Christianity, God, or religion for that matter (other than proscriptions on government's involvement with it) in the U.S. Constitution, any of which would have been easy enough for them to include had they wanted to. So no matter what their personal beliefs may or may not have been, they did want a secular government. If you try to deny this simple fact then you are either severely misguided or just plain being dishonest.

 

[dc74rp]

Ron Paul, Champion of the Constitution

Kade,

First, sorry if this post is a bit long, but there is alot to address and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood.

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.

I think we're getting different interpretations of Paul's Amendment. Seems to me nothing in this text grants those acting as representives of government institutions any power to force beliefs on individuals. It protects private individuals and groups from being prevented free exercise. Seems to me you would agree with the meaning of Paul's Amendment, but maybe it was misunderstood because of how it's worded?

"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."

In no way does the wording here seem to me to allow any person acting on behalf of government to plan, initiate, or lead prayer in schools. It seems in every instance where a right is protected, it is the rights of the people, individuals, or groups. In every instance where the government is mentioned, it's refering to what it's not allowed to do.

I am a Christian, but I believe in Freedom of Religion, and would object also if I believed this Amendment granted government control over religion. I agree with you, the First Ammendment is suppose to make clear the the Federal Government doesn't hold any authority over our Freedom of Concience.

I'd guess many non- or anti- religious people might not notice, but there are incidents where students, as private individuals and groups, have been prevented from exercising thier religion, outside of class at school. The school's used the justification of "Separation of Church and State". Seems a pretty twisted interpretation of the First Amendment to me. The wording of Paul's Amendment seems to me directly responding to some specific cases. Just ask if you want me to cite them and I'll look them up.

My reading of Paul's Amendment is, the government shall neither endorse or prevent private citizens or groups from praying, meditating, or other form of reasonable practicing religion in public places as long as they aren't breaking the law. A group of students decide to get together to discuss religion and pray during free time outside class. The school shouldn't be allowed to use the fact they are practicing religion on public property as a reason to make them stop.

"Freedom of Religion" is based on "Freedom of Conscience". Meaning freedom to believe what you want. The First Amendment is suppose to prevent the Federal Government endorsing, discouraging, rewarding, or punishing people based on what they believe. Just as "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean protection from hearing other people's speech, "Freedom of Religion" doesn't mean protection from hearing about or seeing other people's religions.

First Amendment: 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.

Now, if you believe the Federal Government should have the authority over the States to interprete and enforce the First Amendment, this is where it seems Paul's Amendment supports your cause and I disagree with it. The wording of the First Amendment was clearly not originally intended to apply to the States, but to the Federal Government. Paul's Amendment adds the words "any State", and I'm against that. But I'll support Paul anyway, because he is the only candidate that seems to honestly care about making the government obey the Constitution. So far, that outweighs everything else I disagree with him on.

The Constitution of the United States was intended to be a delegation of powers to the Federal Government by the People. It was intended that the Federal Government would have no rights not granted in the Constitution. Nothing in the Bill of Rights restricted any powers held by the Federal Government. It was added only to clarify specificly powers the Federal governmet didn't have.

As can be seen in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But Supreme Court precedents have twisted the meaning of Amendments, turning the Bill of Right from it's original purpose into a list of areas of Federal Authority over the States.

States are also granted power in thier State Constitutions, which we would hope all reiterate freedom of religion. I don't believe it correct for any State Government to hold more power over religion than the Federal Government. After all, if private individuals and groups don't have the right to control what I believe, how can they delegate that right to government?

But just as the battle over the proper powers of the Federal Government belongs to the People of the United States, the battle over what powers a State Government holds belong to the Citizens of that State.

Again, although no government should have the power to endorse or force people to participate in religion, the First Amendment was not originally intended to grant the Federal Government any authority over State Governments in the area of Religion. Far from it. It was to clarify the Federal Government was specifically not granted authority in this area.

Thanks for your patience with my long-winded reply.

 

[Corydoras]

It's wrong for parents to allow their kids to view their teachers as authorities. I think parents fail when they let their kids assume that just because someone with a different belief system practices it near them, they have to think likewise.

Prayer in schools necessarily means exposure to people you don't agree with, and in a non-privatized public school system, that's a good thing worth paying taxes for, because this is a diverse country and citizens need to learn how to cope with citizens of various belief systems. American life necessarily means exposure to people you disagree with on the most profound issues; the person next to you may have abhorrent beliefs.

For a minority in some communities, most of the people around are going to have abhorrent beliefs, and any kid of theirs had better learn how to deal with the majority, since their parents chose to live in that community rather than moving somewhere where people with similar beliefs are more numerous.

Tolerance does not mean affirmation, and parents fail who do not teach the difference. Forbidding exposure to competing belief systems in schools is like forbidding sports because kids might get dirt in cuts or forbidding math and reading because kids might get headaches or forbidding kids from socializing with people from other cultures because they might pick up some kind of brain cooties. Bleach all the kid's toys, wouldn't want the little precious actually developing an immune system, right?

 

[jmarinara]

First, we should clarify and point out that the Founding Fathers did not all share one single set of beliefs. However, from my reading (actual writings that is, not just quotes and snippets) and research, I think it's pretty clear that most of the important founders (Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison et al.) would have little in common with fundamentalist/evangelical Christians. Whether they were deists or "rational Christians" (a term Jefferson used) I cannot say, but they certainly would not be described as anything like fundy-type Christians, and in some cases it really is questionable as to whether they could accurately be labeled as Christians at all, at least in the traditional sense.

But to the heart of the matter, i.e., where this debate invariably leads, there's nothing at all about Christ, Christianity, God, or religion for that matter (other than proscriptions on government's involvement with it) in the U.S. Constitution, any of which would have been easy enough for them to include had they wanted to. So no matter what their personal beliefs may or may not have been, they did want a secular government. If you try to deny this simple fact then you are either severely misguided or just plain being dishonest.

Well thats a fine beliefs, but you offer little to prove your point, and further, you offer little to refute the idea you quoted from me, that the type of government our founders created was overwhelmingly inspired by Biblical Christian ideals.

My thesis: (a)Our founding fathers, although not all properly in line with right doctrine, were mostly men of God who sought after glory for Christ Jesus. (b)Thus, when excercising their Biblical right to alter and abolish government, they founded a nation upon the values, moral precepts, and practical guidance found within Holy Writ. (or the Bible, if you prefer).

The outline for my proof of part (a) is in the plethora of statements made by nearly all of the founders regarding this nation as being a Christian nation and founded upon those principles, as well as their personal devotions and statements of personal faith, trust and repentance, added to the fruit their lives produced being in line with Godly character. You can find a small sample of those statements in my first post here, and any serious research on some of the founders will produce proof of the second and third part of what I'm saying.

The outline for my proof of part (b) is post you quoted.

Also, I'm so sick of this idea of our founders being deist or "rational christians". Ben Franklin was the only confirmed deist and Thomas Jefferson was the only founder who ever referred to himself as a "rational christian". Both of these men's philosophies are widely regarded to be heresy by anyone who takes a serious look at orthodox christianity. I hate to besmirch such important founders, but the truth is the truth. It doesn't mean that all the founder believed this way, and in fact we can prove in many cases that most didn't. Good grief, two of the founders were puritan ministers.

This notion of them not really being Christians is the influence of the Godless communist influenced public school system, and it's big sister, the university system. Open your minds people, freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, if you'd like to deal with my thesis, I'm happy to chat. If you're going to further ignore the points I make, the proof I offer, and the logic I follow, please don't bother. (Not trying to be mean, just trying to get you to think. . . iron sharpens iron after all.)

 

[Spirit of '76]

I agree wholeheartedly with those who say that the responsibility here lies with the parents. It it falls on the parents to communicate with their children, inculcate a healthy skepticism of authority figures in their children, stay on top of what their children are learning in school, and take an active role in the educational process.

Again, it seems like some people want the state to take the active role here by censoring religious expression in the public sphere, which seems like wholly improper use of the state. The idea, suggested earlier, that no adult should be allowed to discuss religion while children are present is absolutely ludicrous to me.

I was always taught to be respectful, if skeptical, of other people's religious beliefs. I am neither vocally religious, nor am I phobic toward those who are. Sure, there have been times that I've had to gently tell people not to shove it my face constantly, but I don't get spastically intolerant every time someone mentions God, as I have seen other people do.

I for one want my children to learn about the variety of religious beliefs and traditions out there, so they can better understand world events, societal developments, and historical trends. I have learned so much about human nature and faith from talking openly with people who hold different religious convictions whether I agree with their beliefs or not, and I'd hate to think that I intentionally kept my children ignorant by denying them those same opportunities.

 

[barcop]

Well thats a fine beliefs, but you offer little to prove your point, and further, you offer little to refute the idea you quoted from me, that the type of government our founders created was overwhelmingly inspired by Biblical Christian ideals.

My thesis: (a)Our founding fathers, although not all properly in line with right doctrine, were mostly men of God who sought after glory for Christ Jesus. (b)Thus, when excercising their Biblical right to alter and abolish government, they founded a nation upon the values, moral precepts, and practical guidance found within Holy Writ. (or the Bible, if you prefer).

The outline for my proof of part (a) is in the plethora of statements made by nearly all of the founders regarding this nation as being a Christian nation and founded upon those principles, as well as their personal devotions and statements of personal faith, trust and repentance, added to the fruit their lives produced being in line with Godly character. You can find a small sample of those statements in my first post here, and any serious research on some of the founders will produce proof of the second and third part of what I'm saying.

The outline for my proof of part (b) is post you quoted.

Also, I'm so sick of this idea of our founders being deist or "rational christians". Ben Franklin was the only confirmed deist and Thomas Jefferson was the only founder who ever referred to himself as a "rational christian". Both of these men's philosophies are widely regarded to be heresy by anyone who takes a serious look at orthodox christianity. I hate to besmirch such important founders, but the truth is the truth. It doesn't mean that all the founder believed this way, and in fact we can prove in many cases that most didn't. Good grief, two of the founders were puritan ministers.

This notion of them not really being Christians is the influence of the Godless communist influenced public school system, and it's big sister, the university system. Open your minds people, freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, if you'd like to deal with my thesis, I'm happy to chat. If you're going to further ignore the points I make, the proof I offer, and the logic I follow, please don't bother. (Not trying to be mean, just trying to get you to think. . . iron sharpens iron after all.)

You make no points worth debating other than the usual fundamental christian stance, trying to shove your fundamental views down others throats, with a closed mind about anyone elses point of view. Taking partial quotes from a few founding fathers and then giving your personal "Thesis" isn't proof of anything.

As I said above, show me in the Constitution where it says anything about Christ, Christianity or God.... you can't. It doesn't matter what each founding fathers view on religion was, they did not include religion in the constitution, because they wanted the government to be secular. And anyone with an open mind can understand that.

Do you have any opinion about the topic of this thread at all?

 

[barcop]

Again, it seems like some people want the state to take the active role here by censoring religious expression in the public sphere, which seems like wholly improper use of the state. The idea, suggested earlier, that no adult should be allowed to discuss religion while children are present is absolutely ludicrous to me.
QUOTE]

I'm not sure if you were referring to me in this part. I think our opinions are really on the same line for the most part, only I feel that religion in school should be regulated. NOT by the state, but by each individual school. To give teachers in a public school the ok... to freely preach their religious views during a class that is not about religion is not right. You said it yourself in your post; you have at times had to tell people not to shove their views in your face. Why do you think kids in school should have to endure that from some of their teachers?

I don't care if my daughter's history teacher is Muslim, her science teacher is Buddhist, her math teacher is Wiccan and her English teacher is Christian. But each one should teach strictly from the curriculum and not add their personal beliefs into the classroom. There is a time and place for everything.

I have no problems with my daughter learning about different religions, if:

A) It is taught under the curriculum, like every subject, by an unbiased teacher.

B) EVERY religion is discussed and compared, not just one or two.

C) It starts at an age where she is old enough to understand the information, so when she comes home we can discuss what she learned logically.

I also have no problem with allowing a few minutes of prayer in school, If:

A) It is a silent prayer, that allows children of all religions to pray on their own and those that do not wish to participate do not have to.

B) Does not take away from class time or the curriculum.

Honestly, when it comes to our public school systems, I think that the topic of religion is the least of our worries.

And GO Ron Paul!!!!!

 

[Kade]

Founding Father's ideals of SECULARISM??? Ok, I think we've found the problem. . . you're severely misinformed.

Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, I'll gladly give you as having ideals of secularism, but only because they held a heritical view of Christianity.

However, I'm sorry, if you think that George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Adams, John Jay, etc. were not religious, or for that matter, Christian, you are severely misinformed.

Sorry, I know it's the cardinal sin in America to say that someone is wrong, but simply put, history and facts do not support your position. And you can count as many words as you want in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, it still doesn't change the facts that these men argued for Biblical ideas in government.

Some proof for you:

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams 6th US President and son of John Adams

"Without a humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay

"Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." - Samuel Adams

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." - John Jay

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." - John Qunicy Adams

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." - Noah Webster

"I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me." Alexander Hamilton

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!" John Adams

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge to Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor." George Washington

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence (In bold are two references you left un-counted. . . one can only wonder why)

This isn't worth responding to, seriously, you have single handily revised American history to fit into your world view... shame on you. Shame on your view of what liberty is as well. I could go into each quote, and I could go into the more important body of work that is the governance of this country, the Constitution... unfortunately, people like you are what I fear, and this is exactly what I was afraid of... Are you advocating a breach of separation in this wrangling? This is not fearmongering... you are demonstrating exactly what I, and at least 10,000 college atheists fear in this country.

Quote mining... shameful. Are you advocating that atheists have no place in this country... keep pushing bro.. keep pushing.

 

[Kade]

Kade,

First, sorry if this post is a bit long, but there is alot to address and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood.



I think we're getting different interpretations of Paul's Amendment. Seems to me nothing in this text grants those acting as representives of government institutions any power to force beliefs on individuals. It protects private individuals and groups from being prevented free exercise. Seems to me you would agree with the meaning of Paul's Amendment, but maybe it was misunderstood because of how it's worded?

I have argued hear that his amendment is reactionary, and it obviously, to me and others, was made to "clarify" what 200 years of judicial process has found against establishment. The amendment is unnecessary, as the first amendment already protects the expression of religion, and as the courts have found, to keep in constant with the establishment clause, your right to expression stops only at the joining of your duty in the state, when you are employed or are in acting orders from the tax funded, people elected state. What reason is there for this amendment? If you argue that expression has always meant that the state should allow teachers to lead their students in prayer, I would argue that our progressive view of tolerance and diversity in this case defies that simple and questionable freedom of enforcement for the freedom FROM religious encouragement, especially even when impressed upon by tax paid officials.

In no way does the wording here seem to me to allow any person acting on behalf of government to plan, initiate, or lead prayer in schools. It seems in every instance where a right is protected, it is the rights of the people, individuals, or groups. In every instance where the government is mentioned, it's refering to what it's not allowed to do.

The wording is actually not about allowance, it is in general restrictive, and it would effectively put into question the Lemon test.

I'd guess many non- or anti- religious people might not notice, but there are incidents where students, as private individuals and groups, have been prevented from exercising thier religion, outside of class at school. The school's used the justification of "Separation of Church and State". Seems a pretty twisted interpretation of the First Amendment to me. The wording of Paul's Amendment seems to me directly responding to some specific cases. Just ask if you want me to cite them and I'll look them up.

This is a violation of the first amendment, and I have been extremely vocal in protecting the right of the students and the student groups in these cases...

AND so has the ACLU, for which I am a member (Oh no not a liberty lover!)

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) filed a a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade student who was forbidden from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The only restriction on the student's selection for the talent show was that it be "G-rated." The case, filed in federal court, is Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al. www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

The ACLU of Oregon (2004-05) filed suit on behalf of high school basketball players from an Adventist school against the Oregon School Activities Association, which administers competitive athletic and artistic competitions in Oregon high schools. The ACLU argued that the Adventist basketball players who have made it to the state tournament should not be required to play tournament games on Saturday, their Sabbath. The case, argued in Oregon courts, is Nakashima v. Board Of Education. www.aclu-or.org/litigation/portlandadventacademy/PAA.html

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district. Students who were suspended include Daniel S. Souza, Stephen J. Grabowski, Sharon L. Sitler and Paul Sitler. www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2002) publicly supported a group of Christian students who filed a lawsuit against Davenport Schools asserting their right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time. The ICLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the suit on behalf of the students. www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html

And many, many others... you guys are making the wrong kinds of enemies with the continued assault on this definition of Freedom..

Keep pushing.

"Freedom of Religion" is based on "Freedom of Conscience". Meaning freedom to believe what you want. The First Amendment is suppose to prevent the Federal Government endorsing, discouraging, rewarding, or punishing people based on what they believe. Just as "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean protection from hearing other people's speech, "Freedom of Religion" doesn't mean protection from hearing about or seeing other people's religions.



Now, if you believe the Federal Government should have the authority over the States to interprete and enforce the First Amendment, this is where it seems Paul's Amendment supports your cause and I disagree with it. The wording of the First Amendment was clearly not originally intended to apply to the States, but to the Federal Government. Paul's Amendment adds the words "any State", and I'm against that. But I'll support Paul anyway, because he is the only candidate that seems to honestly care about making the government obey the Constitution. So far, that outweighs everything else I disagree with him on.

It amounts to "any state" must not infringe on the constitutional right of teachers and officials to lead their class in their type of prayer, even if your tax payer money pays these folks, even if you can't change your school because of districting...

Nice.

The Constitution of the United States was intended to be a delegation of powers to the Federal Government by the People. It was intended that the Federal Government would have no rights not granted in the Constitution. Nothing in the Bill of Rights restricted any powers held by the Federal Government. It was added only to clarify specificly powers the Federal governmet didn't have.

Apparently, I am the last person here that I can see who needs a history lesson... but if you think I'm missing something, enlighten me please.

You are not converting someone to limited government, you are trying to convince me that we need a re-clarification of the first amendment and the findings of the courts against state enforced establishment.

But Supreme Court precedents have twisted the meaning of Amendments, turning the Bill of Right from it's original purpose into a list of areas of Federal Authority over the States.

States are also granted power in thier State Constitutions, which we would hope all reiterate freedom of religion. I don't believe it correct for any State Government to hold more power over religion than the Federal Government. After all, if private individuals and groups don't have the right to control what I believe, how can they delegate that right to government?

Sadly, I agree with you and at the same time believe that this was a necessary evil. In cases that demand the federal government enforce the states to protect freedoms, I support the federal government. This was because states were abusing, openly and without warrant, constitutional rights. It was decided upon, EXTREMELY early, even by the unfavorable court before the 19th century, that the establishment clause applies to the States as well... If you think it doesn't that is a different argument. IF it does, then the federal government has the right to step in in order to "untangle" any power the church might have over that state... Tax payers money to church related activities is establishment. State officials, like teachers and principals, preaching to homeroom, is establishment.

But just as the battle over the proper powers of the Federal Government belongs to the People of the United States, the battle over what powers a State Government holds belong to the Citizens of that State.

Agreed, as one of these "people" in the United States, I would like to see far less government interaction in economic and civil liberties, stepping in only to enforce those rights that have been progressively understood to be applied... namely the right to privacy, the right to conscience, and the right for my tax money to stay out of the pockets of religious organizations.

Again, although no government should have the power to endorse or force people to participate in religion, the First Amendment was not originally intended to grant the Federal Government any authority over State Governments in the area of Religion. Far from it. It was to clarify the Federal Government was specifically not granted authority in this area.

Thanks for your patience with my long-winded reply.

I disagree. This is the ultimate and most debatable opinion yet... it all comes down to this...

Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights included provisions binding the States, as well as the Federal Government, from an establishment of religion. The house did not pass it...

Ironically, part of the decision came when the courts ruled to outlaw Polygamy. Reynolds vs. US, gave us the clearest view of the federal ruling on what constitutes establishment and the states abilities to foster those establishments...

Jefferson drafted a bill against the court finding... rightfully so... It was an example of over judicial boundaries in my opinion...

The test came with the Constitution of Massachusetts, in a period literally known as "The Establishment of Religion in Massachusetts". Connecticut also had an establishment of religion...

It would have to be decided here if the establishment clause extended to the states, the abuse was apparent then, as it should equally be now, and the idea was born that the first amendment applies to the states as well, it goes both ways my friend... if a state can establish religion, because it is not congress, it can also bar religion completely.... Since congress has no hand in the state law, you could not hold the state accountable for violating any constitutional rights...

The first amendment had to be expanded in these test cases to include the state governments establishment of religion. Otherwise, a state can also simply BAN religion altogether (disagree, read the first amendment again).

The fourth amendment firmly established the bill of rights as a stamp on the States, no states can deny the rights in the bill of rights now... and that is good law... including establishment. Local tax payer money, state tax payer money... any tax payer money mixed with any religion is establishment.

You have all failed in your arguments, but keep pushing please.

 

[Kade]

I agree wholeheartedly with those who say that the responsibility here lies with the parents. It it falls on the parents to communicate with their children, inculcate a healthy skepticism of authority figures in their children, stay on top of what their children are learning in school, and take an active role in the educational process.

Again, it seems like some people want the state to take the active role here by censoring religious expression in the public sphere, which seems like wholly improper use of the state. The idea, suggested earlier, that no adult should be allowed to discuss religion while children are present is absolutely ludicrous to me.

I was always taught to be respectful, if skeptical, of other people's religious beliefs. I am neither vocally religious, nor am I phobic toward those who are. Sure, there have been times that I've had to gently tell people not to shove it my face constantly, but I don't get spastically intolerant every time someone mentions God, as I have seen other people do.

I for one want my children to learn about the variety of religious beliefs and traditions out there, so they can better understand world events, societal developments, and historical trends. I have learned so much about human nature and faith from talking openly with people who hold different religious convictions whether I agree with their beliefs or not, and I'd hate to think that I intentionally kept my children ignorant by denying them those same opportunities.

Wrong again Spirit. While my money supports schools now, I want the state government to be mandated to enforce a separation of church and state in all matters.

Try again.