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

[Spirit of '76]

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?

Well, this is the key. While I whole heartedly agree that no teacher should use the lecture podium as a pulpit, I still don't see why anyone should be prevented from discussing their religion in the context of their personal beliefs.

I too think you and I are not too far apart on this, it's just that I think that as long as a teacher isn't forcing children to agree with their beliefs, there's nothing wrong with them making their beliefs known -- particularly if it enhances a discussion engendered by the curriculum.

 

[Spirit of '76]

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.

You still don't get it, do you? Drop the bombastic, pompous posturing long enough to get this through your skull:

An individual discussing their beliefs, making it clear that those are their beliefs and not part of a state-sponsored curriculum, and refraining from compelling others to believe or act similarly has NOTHING (ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH) to do with "separation of church and state".

What you are arguing here, no matter how you slice it, is for a federal restriction of an individual's right to freely express their own beliefs on matters of religion. Your argument is inherently anti-Liberty, and it is predicated on your own antipathy to particular religions and the desire to enforce ignorance of the plurality of spiritual traditions in this world.

It's sad that you can't see that.

 

[Kade]

You still don't get it, do you? Drop the bombastic, pompous posturing long enough to get this through your skull:

An individual discussing their beliefs, making it clear that those are their beliefs and not part of a state-sponsored curriculum, and refraining from compelling others to believe or act similarly has NOTHING (ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH) to do with "separation of church and state".

What you are arguing here, no matter how you slice it, is for a federal restriction of an individual's right to freely express their own beliefs on matters of religion. Your argument is inherently anti-Liberty, and it is predicated on your own antipathy to particular religions and the desire to enforce ignorance of the plurality of spiritual traditions in this world.

It's sad that you can't see that.

Again, wrong. Please re-read http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education/Opinion_of_the_Court

Or better for both of us, stop trying to tell me what it is I stand for... no matter how I slice it? You are so utterly ignorant of law, that I don't know where to start....

Just one example.. answer this in anyway you please...

If a state passed a law that banned Christianity, would that be unconstitutional?

Insult me one more time Spirit... please I beg you.

 

[Kade]

You still don't get it, do you? Drop the bombastic, pompous posturing long enough to get this through your skull:

An individual discussing their beliefs, making it clear that those are their beliefs and not part of a state-sponsored curriculum, and refraining from compelling others to believe or act similarly has NOTHING (ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH) to do with "separation of church and state".

What you are arguing here, no matter how you slice it, is for a federal restriction of an individual's right to freely express their own beliefs on matters of religion. Your argument is inherently anti-Liberty, and it is predicated on your own antipathy to particular religions and the desire to enforce ignorance of the plurality of spiritual traditions in this world.

It's sad that you can't see that.

Also, it should be noted that your completely redefining the "discussing and anti-compelling" horse manure has no bearing whatsoever on the problem I have with an amendment re-clarifying the first amendment. The amendment would allow completely the preaching to children of all state officials. You haven't refuted that... Just because you don't think it will doesn't mean that the opportunity to abuse, especially by your beloved majority, isn't a common trend.

 

[barcop]

Well, this is the key. While I whole heartedly agree that no teacher should use the lecture podium as a pulpit, I still don't see why anyone should be prevented from discussing their religion in the context of their personal beliefs.

I too think you and I are not too far apart on this, it's just that I think that as long as a teacher isn't forcing children to agree with their beliefs, there's nothing wrong with them making their beliefs known -- particularly if it enhances a discussion engendered by the curriculum.

There in lies the problem. Children are children and being that... they are very impressionable. They might not have a good home life, they might not have any friends, whatever the reason that makes kids turn to something they can believe in. It doesn't take any forcing for an adult to make a child believe in something they want them to. Subtle comments here and there to get a kid interested. Then it turns to more in depth private discussions and so on.

Without strict regulation by the school, the freedom for teachers to express their religious beliefs in the classroom can't be controlled. I'm not concerened about the majority of students, it's the small few that need something to believe in. And with the wrong guidance.. that is a dangerous proposition. Adam Gadahn comes to mind.

I guess my main concern is... you never know what the intention is of another, and to think that there won't be teachers who abuse that freedom would be a major mistake.

 

[hard@work]

Ahh good, a real position I can attack! :-D

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.

Really, you're against freedom. You are against liberty and you're here attempting to redefine it in order to meet your personal beliefs. What you have directly asked for here is the imposition of your political beliefs through a state implemented system. This is the core of statism, this is the core of authoritarianism, this is the antithesis of liberty and against the very will of our form of government. Whether or not a man or a woman is a muslim and is required by their religion to pray in the mornings is not only none of your business, but it is none of the state's business either as long as they do not harm another individual. You may attempt to define harm as being the impression of religion against ones impressionable mind or against the will of their direct family, but that would only work if we lived in a country where involvement of the parent was restricted as well.

You are stating very clearly and without dispute no matter how you may attempt to divert or paint otherwise that in order to maintain what you consider a seperation of church and state we must enforce a restriction on the rights of the individual to practice their religious beliefs. Not merely restrain but entirely violate their rights to their religious beliefs and doctrines. Completely unwilling to step back from fear or perhaps agenda, in your quest to stop the abusive nature of intolerant religions you have become the very same enemy. What we need in this country is an open dialogue between the peoples who interact with each other, and the free choice to make decisions based on those interactions. We cannot tell one man he cannot pray because he works for the state anymore than we can tell another that they must pray because they are held by the state.

Whether or not in education a religious belief interferes with the position and performance of an educator is a completely seperate issue. Your issue is with liberty itself, and so I find you in error by your own circular arguments. I would implore you to rethink these positions and consider the personal liberty of those whom you may disagree with spiritually. And to envision a world where freedom of religion truly has meaning, without the idea that one must either impose or restrain religious thought and activity.

That's what I am fighting for.

@

 

[Kade]

Ahh good, a real position I can attack! :-D






Really, you're against freedom. You are against liberty and you're here attempting to redefine it in order to meet your personal beliefs. What you have directly asked for here is the imposition of your political beliefs through a state implemented system. This is the core of statism, this is the core of authoritarianism, this is the antithesis of liberty and against the very will of our form of government. Whether or not a man or a woman is a muslim and is required by their religion to pray in the mornings is not only none of your business, but it is none of the state's business either as long as they do not harm another individual. You may attempt to define harm as being the impression of religion against ones impressionable mind or against the will of their direct family, but that would only work if we lived in a country where involvement of the parent was restricted as well.

You are stating very clearly and without dispute no matter how you may attempt to divert or paint otherwise that in order to maintain what you consider a seperation of church and state we must enforce a restriction on the rights of the individual to practice their religious beliefs. Not merely restrain but entirely violate their rights to their religious beliefs and doctrines. Completely unwilling to step back from fear or perhaps agenda, in your quest to stop the abusive nature of intolerant religions you have become the very same enemy. What we need in this country is an open dialogue between the peoples who interact with each other, and the free choice to make decisions based on those interactions. We cannot tell one man he cannot pray because he works for the state anymore than we can tell another that they must pray because they are held by the state.

Whether or not in education a religious belief interferes with the position and performance of an educator is a completely seperate issue. Your issue is with liberty itself, and so I find you in error by your own circular arguments. I would implore you to rethink these positions and consider the personal liberty of those whom you may disagree with spiritually. And to envision a world where freedom of religion truly has meaning, without the idea that one must either impose or restrain religious thought and activity.

That's what I am fighting for.

@

So freedom to use my money to allow religious instruction in state-run schools is a freedom I should allow you to have?

 

[Kade]

Ahh good, a real position I can attack! :-D

Really, you're against freedom. You are against liberty and you're here attempting to redefine it in order to meet your personal beliefs.

I didn't redefine anything...

You hope the federal government will mandate your freedom of expression in your state... right? Or ban slavery? Or the plethora of other things...

I used language that you obviously can jump on...

Can we remember here that I am mostly on your side... You are not arguing with an enemy... I am a separatist, and I believe in the anti-establishment clause.... you guys are making an enemy out of a potential supporter..


and It's not just me... I am a vocal voice of many, many people... that's why I am asking you to keep pushing this.. especially with the insults... (just got out of Constitutional law class, thick skull, etc etc etc..)

It's really pissing me off.

 

[Kade]

I'm getting really tired of the mentality of "If your not for us, your against us."

How dare any of you decide with your limited understanding of freedom that you have it all figured out...

So what if I don't believe in your god and desire it to be removed from the government... most people understand this is a BASIC FREEDOM.

You are all arguing from a complete and utterly bias perspective. I would not be here if I did not agree with Ron Paul's stances... instead of clarification, I get activated goals to change my opinion of what Freedom means...

I think that redefining the constitution is bad idea... you mostly think it is a good idea...

Nothing in past and present supports the idea that states should establish a religion.

sorry folks.

 

[Jon S]

hello,
i haven't really had time to read through every post on this forum but enough to figure out its about stopping people from praying in schools and separating any religion from a public school system

here is my opinion on the subject, based on my experiences in the high school that i go to.

schools should not be allowed to finance or fiscally support any religion of any kind. teachers are paid with school money and as such should not discuss their religious beliefs in front of students, i have had teachers do this and while they are not specifically saying "support my religion" they ARE putting religious ideas in the minds of the students they are teaching. this should not be school or state sponsored. BUT their are also kids who stand in front of the school in the mornings and pray, while i personally am not a religious person i will defend their right to pray in front of the school vehemently. this is not a school sponsored event and these kids are doing it of their own choice, the school has no right to ban what they are doing yet also has no right to enforce others to do the same. if you believe in the ideas of "being free as long as it does not impose upon the freedoms of others" then i implore you to look at this in the same light. These kids are actively religious and in some aspects i respect them for their "courage." They are not preaching to others and are not telling me how to think or believe, and thusly are not imposing on my freedoms. For this i support them wholeheartedly. as a matter of fact many of them are my friends.

on the other side their is the problem of teachers preaching their religious views in school. while their is no problem with a teacher speaking religiously OUTSIDE of school, while they are in school preaching to student about their religion is imposing on MY freedom of choice and it should not be allowed.

my two cents

 

[barcop]

hello,
i haven't really had time to read through every post on this forum but enough to figure out its about stopping people from praying in schools and separating any religion from a public school system

here is my opinion on the subject, based on my experiences in the high school that i go to.

schools should not be allowed to finance or fiscally support any religion of any kind. teachers are paid with school money and as such should not discuss their religious beliefs in front of students, i have had teachers do this and while they are not specifically saying "support my religion" they ARE putting religious ideas in the minds of the students they are teaching. this should not be school or state sponsored. BUT their are also kids who stand in front of the school in the mornings and pray, while i personally am not a religious person i will defend their right to pray in front of the school vehemently. this is not a school sponsored event and these kids are doing it of their own choice, the school has no right to ban what they are doing yet also has no right to enforce others to do the same. if you believe in the ideas of "being free as long as it does not impose upon the freedoms of others" then i implore you to look at this in the same light. These kids are actively religious and in some aspects i respect them for their "courage." They are not preaching to others and are not telling me how to think or believe, and thusly are not imposing on my freedoms. For this i support them wholeheartedly. as a matter of fact many of them are my friends.

on the other side their is the problem of teachers preaching their religious views in school. while their is no problem with a teacher speaking religiously OUTSIDE of school, while they are in school preaching to student about their religion is imposing on MY freedom of choice and it should not be allowed.

my two cents

Your two cents says a lot. I concur.

 

[hard@work]

So freedom to use my money to allow religious instruction in state-run schools is a freedom I should allow you to have?

I'm not participating in circular arguments at this point in the debate.
Government has no place in religion, regardless of where the religious person is at the time. Arguing for oppression of religion in any form is an argument against liberty. For education you've already stated if it was "private" then that's "fine". It is also "fine" if a religious person happens to be a teacher in a taxpayer funded government institution. You do not have the right to say they do not have the right in this case no matter how you spin it.

Your concerns are separate from this, you should separate them. If you want to support statism then do so, but do not hide it in the guise of liberty. If you are concerned with Ron Paul's belief (and obviously mine) that religion is the domain of the individual to be practiced by that individual in having a negative effect in the rights and liberties of others then provide the solution.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Again, wrong. Please re-read http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education/Opinion_of_the_Court

What on earth does a ruling that the courts cannot prevent the state of New Jersey from extending the same tax credits for transportation to all parents, whether those parents send their kids to public schools or parochial schools, have to do with your argument here?

Or better for both of us, stop trying to tell me what it is I stand for... no matter how I slice it? You are so utterly ignorant of law, that I don't know where to start....

You should start with the Constitution, which you haven't seemed to figure out yet, though it's really quite simple.

Insult me one more time Spirit... please I beg you.

Ok. You're a pompous prick.

 

[Kade]

hello,
i haven't really had time to read through every post on this forum but enough to figure out its about stopping people from praying in schools and separating any religion from a public school system

here is my opinion on the subject, based on my experiences in the high school that i go to.

schools should not be allowed to finance or fiscally support any religion of any kind. teachers are paid with school money and as such should not discuss their religious beliefs in front of students, i have had teachers do this and while they are not specifically saying "support my religion" they ARE putting religious ideas in the minds of the students they are teaching. this should not be school or state sponsored. BUT their are also kids who stand in front of the school in the mornings and pray, while i personally am not a religious person i will defend their right to pray in front of the school vehemently. this is not a school sponsored event and these kids are doing it of their own choice, the school has no right to ban what they are doing yet also has no right to enforce others to do the same. if you believe in the ideas of "being free as long as it does not impose upon the freedoms of others" then i implore you to look at this in the same light. These kids are actively religious and in some aspects i respect them for their "courage." They are not preaching to others and are not telling me how to think or believe, and thusly are not imposing on my freedoms. For this i support them wholeheartedly. as a matter of fact many of them are my friends.

on the other side their is the problem of teachers preaching their religious views in school. while their is no problem with a teacher speaking religiously OUTSIDE of school, while they are in school preaching to student about their religion is imposing on MY freedom of choice and it should not be allowed.

my two cents

A light emerging in the darkness... common sense ftw.

 

[Spirit of '76]

The amendment would allow completely the preaching to children of all state officials. You haven't refuted that...

No, you have simply claimed that to be the case, and when I asked you to demonstrate how, using the text of the bills, you could or would not.

 

[Kade]

What on earth does a ruling that the courts cannot prevent the state of New Jersey from extending the same tax credits for transportation to all parents, whether those parents send their kids to public schools or parochial schools, have to do with your argument here?




You should start with the Constitution, which you haven't seemed to figure out yet, though it's really quite simple.





Ok. You're a pompous prick.

You didn't answer the question...



So this is what Ron Paul supporters are about? You have done more harm for his campaign then you will ever know my friend... honestly, your version of liberty is untenable dominionism in my opinion and you have dodged whatever you can to make vapid and often useless points and attacks...

You are truly ignorant. Seriously... if you think that the Everson decision was something to be idly tossed aside...

Why don't we throw out all the court decisions? Is that okay with you? Do you even know what you are talking about?

You're an ass.

 

[Kade]

No, you have simply claimed that to be the case, and when I asked you to demonstrate how, using the text of the bills, you could or would not.

It isn't the case? What forbids it?!

 

[Spirit of '76]

You didn't answer the question...

I've asked you plenty of questions you have failed to answer.

So this is what Ron Paul supporters are about? You have done more harm for his campaign then you will ever know my friend... honestly, your version of liberty is untenable dominionism in my opinion and you have dodged whatever you can to make vapid and often useless points and attacks...

From my perspective, it is your version of "liberty" that amounts to the state restricting people's freedom of religious expression.

I have made cogent arguments for this position. All you have done is provide endless fearmongering about how allowing the free expression of religion in the public sphere will usher in a "new theocracy", but you have failed to back any of this up.

You are truly ignorant. Seriously... if you think that the Everson decision was something to be idly tossed aside...

Who said anything about tossing it aside? I agree with the decision, which found that the courts could not prevent the state of New Jersey from extending the same tax credits for transporting children to accredited school to all parents, whether those schools are public schools or parochial schools teaching Catholic doctrine.

I just don't see what that decision has to do with your argument.

You're an ass.

*Yawn*

 

[Kade]

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

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

Oops. Caught up, like a fool.

Remember that?

I've shown that this is not to be true.. and you've been silent.


Please, seriously. Give me a question you have asked, and I will show where I answered it, or I will answer it if I haven't.

 

[Spirit of '76]

It isn't the case? What forbids it?!

We went over this yesterday, but I'll repeat myself for your benefit, since you're obviously a bit slow on the uptake.

It is the text of the bills themselves that prevent your bogeyman fearmongering predicts:

"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."

I asked you yesterday to point to how the text of those bills would usher in a "new theocracy", and you couldn't do it. You simply repeated your shrill, hyped-up fearmongering replete with catchy and ominous phrases like, "a new theocracy".

I'm still waiting for you to say something of substance, but so far all you're giving us is the anti-Christian crusader's version of the "islamofascism" bogeyman.