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

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




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.



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.



*Yawn*

fearmongering isn't even a word... You know that right? Yet, you have used it at least 12 times already...

My argument is that there was no reason for the Ron Paul amendment clarifying the first amendment...

My argument is that state institutions fall under the jurisdiction of the first amendment.

Savvy?
 
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:



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.

Did I say they would USHER IN a theocracy? You have got to stop using that word.. fearmongering... it is the only thing you have and it is getting old.
 
Alright so back to the original point about Ron. I agree replete was a poor word choice, however, there are references to God/a Creator in other writings outside of the Declaration/Constitution. Many, many of them. The people who wrote the bill of rights made reference after reference to the Almight God in their writings as well. As far as Ron's actual views on the matter and on school prayer, his view is that the government should not endorse, nor should it prohibit, school prayer. If a teacher wants to lead a prayer group, they are private individuals, and those who do not share beliefs with that teacher are not forced to pray along.



The point of religion clause of the 1st amendment is that there should be no state coercion with reguards to religious practice, whether it is suppression of the practice or endorsement of the practice. When ron talks about there being no "rigid wall" of seperation of church and state, he simply referring to the fact that the church was intended to play a very important role in American life, free from government involvement. However, congress may also write not law respecting an establisment of religion, thus giving that establishment any political power or favoritism over any others. Lets face it, the majority of American's are christian of some form (including LDS), and the church is a dominating institution. That is what Ron talks about when he says the founders (There were more founderst han jefferson, and even Ben Franklin concedes that religion is a very important moral institution) envisioned a robustly christian america. However, just because it is a dominant institution, does not mean it has any political power (though it does in many cases in an indirect way, but that is the fault of individual politicians) nor is anyone forced/coerced into conforming or following or even respecting and acknowledging that institution.

As for thomas jefferson, he had excellent ideas but even he often failed to execute them or live by them. That does not diminish his character nor his ideas, but just because he believes there should be a rigid wall of separation of church and state (which implies force used to keep that wall up), does not mean it was the sentiment of every founding father. Madison was responsible for most of the bill of rights and he was certainly not the deist jefferson was (though i thikn later in his life, madison did reject the divine nature of christ).
 
Last edited:
There's obviously a need for a clarification of the First Amendment, since people like you have erroneously interpreted it to mean that the federal government should be used as a cudgel to browbeat anyone whose religious expression offends you.

I see that your lack of substantive argument has reduced you to nitpicking over my omission of a hyphen. I've got better things to do than argue with a teenager who has just discovered atheism and thinks that the establishment clause mandates state enforcement of his own irreligion.

I don't speak for Ron Paul by any means, but quite frankly if this issue causes him to lose your vote, you weren't worth it in the first place. I'm done.

Call me what names you will. The last word -- shrill, hyperbolic, and empty as it will inevitably be -- is yours. Savor it.
 
There's obviously a need for a clarification of the First Amendment, since people like you have erroneously interpreted it to mean that the federal government should be used as a cudgel to browbeat anyone whose religious expression offends you.

I see that your lack of substantive argument has reduced you to nitpicking over my omission of a hyphen. I've got better things to do than argue with a teenager who has just discovered atheism and thinks that the establishment clause mandates state enforcement of his own irreligion.

I don't speak for Ron Paul by any means, but quite frankly if this issue causes him to lose your vote, you weren't worth it in the first place. I'm done.

Call me what names you will. The last word -- shrill, hyperbolic, and empty as it will inevitably be -- is yours. Savor it.

Spirit. Listen... what protects you from religious freedom if your state, West Virginia, decides to ban your Religious Expression?
 
There's obviously a need for a clarification of the First Amendment, since people like you have erroneously interpreted it to mean that the federal government should be used as a cudgel to browbeat anyone whose religious expression offends you.

I see that your lack of substantive argument has reduced you to nitpicking over my omission of a hyphen. I've got better things to do than argue with a teenager who has just discovered atheism and thinks that the establishment clause mandates state enforcement of his own irreligion.

I don't speak for Ron Paul by any means, but quite frankly if this issue causes him to lose your vote, you weren't worth it in the first place. I'm done.

Call me what names you will. The last word -- shrill, hyperbolic, and empty as it will inevitably be -- is yours. Savor it.

The last word is, it didn't just lose a vote... it made me someone who will use the platforms I have, which are many, to demonstrate what exactly clarification we atheists need when it comes to Ron Paul... and don't think I'm as useless in this end.. .you have done nothing but argued a belligerent dominionist point of view that had absolutely no bearing... none. congrats.

You are a martyr for your candidate.. .seriously... get people flaming mad at you and everyone on these boards, and make outspoken critics instead of simply giving me good reasons to believe that the intent of Ron Paul isn't backdoor theism.
 
Alright so back to the original point about Ron. I agree replete was a poor word choice, however, there are references to God/a Creator in other writings outside of the Declaration/Constitution. Many, many of them. The people who wrote the bill of rights made reference after reference to the Almight God in their writings as well. As far as Ron's actual views on the matter and on school prayer, his view is that the government should not endorse, nor should it prohibit, school prayer. If a teacher wants to lead a prayer group, they are private individuals, and those who do not share beliefs with that teacher are not forced to pray along.



The point of religion clause of the 1st amendment is that there should be no state coercion with reguards to religious practice, whether it is suppression of the practice or endorsement of the practice. When ron talks about there being no "rigid wall" of seperation of church and state, he simply referring to the fact that the church was intended to play a very important role in American life, free from government involvement. However, congress may also write not law respecting an establisment of religion, thus giving that establishment any political power or favoritism over any others. Lets face it, the majority of American's are christian of some form (including LDS), and the church is a dominating institution. That is what Ron talks about when he says the founders (There were more founderst han jefferson, and even Ben Franklin concedes that religion is a very important moral institution) envisioned a robustly christian america. However, just because it is a dominant institution, does not mean it has any political power (though it does in many cases in an indirect way, but that is the fault of individual politicians) nor is anyone forced/coerced into conforming or following or even respecting and acknowledging that institution.

As for thomas jefferson, he had excellent ideas but even he often failed to execute them or live by them. That does not diminish his character nor his ideas, but just because he believes there should be a rigid wall of separation of church and state (which implies force used to keep that wall up), does not mean it was the sentiment of every founding father. Madison was responsible for most of the bill of rights and he was certainly not the deist jefferson was (though i thikn later in his life, madison did reject the divine nature of christ).

I thought you folks rejected "other writings"...

Other writings include such things as Paine's Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Age of Reason.

The founding fathers, ALL of them, save maybe Patrick Henry and John Jay, were hostile towards Christianity...

This whole thing has gotten out of hand, and nobody has answered any of the simplest questions... specifically with application of the amendment to the states.. and the proposal of Ron Paul's amendment IMPOSED ON ANY STATE?!
 
So this is what Ron Paul supporters are about?

Obvious troll.

You have done more harm for his campaign then you will ever know my friend...

Obviously a troll.

honestly, your version of liberty is untenable dominionism in my opinion

Funny I pretty much said the same of you, of course you mirror it because you are a ... troll.


You are truly ignorant.

Troll.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Troll.

You're an ass.

Troll.
 
That said, healthy debate for the rest of us.

A debate that wouldn't even had been, if I weren't here... where the hell do you get off calling me a troll?

some of your "senior" members here were introduced to Ron Paul through me... you really need to stop... seriously. Think.

That is all I'm asking. Think.
 
Did you do this for Spirit too?

Yes, I did it for Spirit. Because he obviously needs my support with someone who wants to initiate and maintain a flame war or whatever. Sorry you needed to be called out for what you are. The good people here are spirited (no pun) and enjoy debate and discussion. Great forum which deserves respect even in a heated argument.

We have no room for trolls, there are other candidates for them.
 
A debate that wouldn't even had been, if I weren't here... where the hell do you get off calling me a troll?

some of your "senior" members here were introduced to Ron Paul through me... you really need to stop... seriously. Think.

That is all I'm asking. Think.


Stop acting like a troll then. I could care less if a "senior" message was introduced by someone behaving like a forum troll. Behave. Maybe read a book on debate. As for "thinking" - lol? No, u.
 
Yes, I did it for Spirit. Because he obviously needs my support with someone who wants to initiate and maintain a flame war or whatever. Sorry you needed to be called out for what you are. The good people here are spirited (no pun) and enjoy debate and discussion. Great forum which deserves respect even in a heated argument.

We have no room for trolls, there are other candidates for them.

Again, I am not a troll. I am real person, of considerable influence in large organizations... my concerns are legitimate, and they have not been answered...
 
Stop acting like a troll then. I could care less if a "senior" message was introduced by someone behaving like a forum troll. Behave. Maybe read a book on debate. As for "thinking" - lol? No, u.

If I go back and look at your original posts, you started with this:

One verse Charlie, single issue voter. All the same to me.

;-)

Great debate though.

Is this your idea of debate?
 
Again, I am not a troll. I am real person, of considerable influence in large organizations... my concerns are legitimate, and they have not been answered...

I'm not impressed by whoever you are without real credentials (which likely wouldn't impress me no matter who you were). Your concerns are legitimate yes. Your inability to accept difference in opinion or answer with solutions is why they have not been "answered". Think, right?
 
Page 17 post 168, welcome to the forums.

:)

Those were responses to Spirit, you didn't seem to make the distinction with him... as post after post was an insult... pompous prick, thick skull, fearmongerer... etc..etc..
 
I'm not impressed by whoever you are without real credentials (which likely wouldn't impress me no matter who you were). Your concerns are legitimate yes. Your inability to accept difference in opinion or answer with solutions is why they have not been "answered". Think, right?

Difference in opinion? Your opinion appears to be insane actually.
 
Back
Top