Woo Hoo! Can I quote this to someone?
Ron Paul: Why should those that honor religious freedom support him?
- Thread starter Kade
- Start date
Woo Hoo! Can I quote this to someone?
I think Separation of Church and State are taken totally out of context. I believe, if my history is correct, that Jefferson came up with this to calm a congregation that feared the State was going to institute a mandated religion much like the Church of England. Jefferson, emphasizing the illegality of it writes about the Separation of Church and State.
I also think it is important to note Jefferson attended Church at the US Capitol building, so I think we can get a clear view of how Jefferson felt about the true meaning of "Separation of Church and State."
In reality, prohibiting people of the public from using public property, even if it is for their religion is discrimination. Just my thoughts.
driller80545
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,697
Why don't we simply practice religion at home and in church, educate in the schools, and conduct the business of government in its place. Why is so important to mix all of them together in one pot. Seems to me that someone wants to use public facilities to further their personal beliefs. No
danberkeley
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,243
Where in the constitution is the "Seperation of Church and State"????
Sarah
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 73
This is a good topic and a good debate by many.
I've read every post until I came to this one...which added a little needed humor to my night.
Aside from the headache I now have...and I offer my Excedrin to Spirit who has held on for so long with out really losing it....I just can't continue to read on.
I do want to say to Mises though...I agree with you here.
"But seriously... did you know that the Titanic wasn't really hit by an Iceberg?"
I never believed it was...in fact...I always felt that the Titanic itself... hit the iceberg.
Mises...don't take that as an insult...it really did make me smile. I knew what you meant.
Go Ron Paul!!!!
2008...we need change in this country and only you can bring it on!!
Last edited:
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
Where in the Constitution does it say this is a Christian nation and we should make ignorant policy based on ancient mythology?
In years past I'd of been first attracted to the Evangelical leader in the race, all else being equal.
Now, though, after more than a few disappointments, here's what I consider most important in a President to best assure my personal religious freedom and a public arena unfettered to freely promote my beliefs to others for their consideration, too.
#1 - In exercising his oath of office duties as President, I want a President that is foremost focused and dedicated to supporting, defending, and upholding the Constitution.
#2 - If he does #1, then my religious freedom to worship as I see fit without interference will be most assured and protected and prone to flourish, regardless of the Presidents' own religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
#3 - A candidates religious beliefs and practices are of interest to me only to the degree that they might help illuminate or reveal his character and integrity to be, and remain, steadfastly committed to embrace #1 above, if elected.
Make sense?
- Shane
Now, though, after more than a few disappointments, here's what I consider most important in a President to best assure my personal religious freedom and a public arena unfettered to freely promote my beliefs to others for their consideration, too.
#1 - In exercising his oath of office duties as President, I want a President that is foremost focused and dedicated to supporting, defending, and upholding the Constitution.
#2 - If he does #1, then my religious freedom to worship as I see fit without interference will be most assured and protected and prone to flourish, regardless of the Presidents' own religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
#3 - A candidates religious beliefs and practices are of interest to me only to the degree that they might help illuminate or reveal his character and integrity to be, and remain, steadfastly committed to embrace #1 above, if elected.
Make sense?
- Shane
so why do you try this hard to be offensive??
if you dont believe in your creator, then fine, but it doesnt mean you have to go all out to demean others beliefs.
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
Sorry. I guess I don't recognize enough that some people take offense to the truth. I suppose if I met someone who believed truly in the events of the Odyssey I would try to avoid pointing out that it is taught as a myth.
To be perfectly honest, my being offensive is predicated on the simple fact that many here are equally, if not more, offensive in their responses.
I'll give you an example:
Yea. Very offensive. Do you even recognize this? You are implying that you have some knowledge that I lack... that you are above me in your ability to proclaim that I am unable to believe in MY creator. As if it were so obvious to be wrought of perfection. No. Unthinking offends me. Willful ignorance offends me. YOUR "creator" is not mine, and knowing what previous examples of this iron-clad willful denial of reality professes, I can guarantee that I wouldn't want your "creator" having a damn thing to do with me.
Your unlettered response is a perfect example of offensive, and I believe I respond fairly to the insults. In this case, perhaps not.
But humor me.
Does MY "creator" have a long white beard? Is MY "creator" a male or female or neither? Does MY "creator" have a family, perhaps a son, maybe a father, a mother perchance? Does this "creator" sit above us, and if it does, at what time? Parallel to the sun at a horizontal bearing or is it below in a vertical bearing, and at which star alignments should I be looking? At what point in human history did this creator let the it's presence known by the hominid species? Was it before them? Perhaps it only favors Homo Sapiens Sapiens, does that mean it isn't the same creator as Homo Sapiens Idaltu, or Homo floresiensis? What does this "creator" look like? Does it look like me, or you, or does it contain the well defined jaw of Homo Habilis? Where does this "creator" get it's powers from? Can this "creator" intervene in human affairs? Is it evil or good or neither? If it is good, why does it not intervene to prevent the large amount of unnecessary suffering?
I have more questions about MY "creator" when you satisfactorily answer those.
Let me know, thanks.
Crowish
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 370
H. Con. Res. 145
CONDEMNING TALIBAN REGIME OF AFGHANISTAN REQUIRING HINDUS TO WEAR SYMBOLS IDENTIFYING THEM AS HINDU
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a member of our Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It gives
us an opportunity to at least condemn the Taliban in forcing the
wearing of these symbols.
Sometimes I think, though, that this type of legislation is more
feel-good legislation, makes us feel better, but does not do a whole
lot to solve our problems. I think it would be more important to take
this opportunity to think about our policy of foreign interventionism.
We have been involved in Afghanistan now for more than two decades,
and have spent over $1 billion. Last year we spent $114 million in
humanitarian aid. This year it is already $124 million.
It is said that it is not sent to the Taliban, but the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is a bit of an expert on Afghanistan,
just revealed to us earlier that indeed some of this money and some of
this aid was designated to go to the Taliban-controlled areas.
I think more important is that regardless of the intention of where
we send the aid, the aid is beneficial to the government in charge. The
Taliban is in charge. They can get control of aid, of food and other
commodities, and use it as weapons, and they do.
The point that I would like to make is after these many, many
millions of dollars and over $1 billion have been spent, we have come
to this. They are in worse shape than ever. Yes, we can condemn what
they are doing, but we should question whether or not our policy in
Afghanistan has really served us well, or served the people well. It
may well be that when we send aid, that it literally helps the Taliban,
because they do not have to then buy food. They can take their money
and use it to enforce these rules and to be a more authoritarian
society, to buy weapons.
We do know that when we sent weapons in the eighties, those weapons
actually ended up in the hands of the violent Taliban, and they are
still in their hands to some degree. Yes, our policy is well-intended.
We would like to do good and save all the suffering that is happening
in this country. But quite frankly, it has not worked very well.
We should question this. I believe we should assume some
responsibility in the sense that our aid does not always do what it was
supposed to do and actually ends up helping the very people that we
detest. I think that is exactly what has happened here. It has been
specifically pointed out that some of this aid has gone into the area
where the Taliban has been helped and strengthened.
All I am suggesting is, why not question this a little bit? Why
should we go on decade after decade after decade expanding aid and
getting these kinds of results that we all detest?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul). While I am pleased he is supporting the resolution, he needs to
gain some historical perspective. It was billions and billions of
dollars of Marshall aid which resulted in the rebuilding of Western
Europe and in creating our allies in NATO, and providing us with a
prosperous Europe as our single most important trading partner.
So this melancholy call for isolationism is not supported by the
historic evidence. The historic evidence shows clearly that in
Republican and Democratic administrations, overwhelmingly United States
participation in Europe and elsewhere contributed in a major way toward
building democratic and prosperous societies.
I was present at the end of the Second World War, as my friend knows,
when Europe was in ruins, and it was the farsightedness of a group of
Republican and Democratic leaders in this country, from Harry Truman to
Senator Vandenberg, who created a framework which allowed the countries
of Europe to rebuild themselves to become our powerful NATO allies, our
democratic friends, and our most significant trading partners.
There is no evidence for the statement that the previous
administration directed aid to go to the Taliban. This is an
unsubstantiated statement. What we voted for and what I think we will
vote again is to provide humanitarian assistance to the destitute
people of Afghanistan. It is most unfortunate that the bulk of
Afghanistan today is in the hands of this despicable regime.
But I think it is important to realize and to be true to historic
facts that the bulk of our economic aid since the end of the Second
World War has succeeded in creating prosperous and democratic societies
ranging from Taiwan to Denmark. These were destroyed societies, poor
societies, destitute societies, and American aid was critical in
building them up as democratic and prosperous allies.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have time to get into the Marshall Plan, but
there is a pretty strong case to indicate that the major part of the
rebuilding of Europe came from private capital and not specifically
from the immigration plan.
But the point that I would like to answer to is the term
``isolationism.'' I am not a protectionist. I am not an isolationist. I
am for openness, travel, trade. I vote consistently that way, so the
term ``isolationist'' does not apply to the policies that I am talking
about, because I am probably for more openness in trade and travel than
most anybody in this body.
{time} 1545
So the term is not isolationism.
CONDEMNING TALIBAN REGIME OF AFGHANISTAN REQUIRING HINDUS TO WEAR SYMBOLS IDENTIFYING THEM AS HINDU
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a member of our Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It gives
us an opportunity to at least condemn the Taliban in forcing the
wearing of these symbols.
Sometimes I think, though, that this type of legislation is more
feel-good legislation, makes us feel better, but does not do a whole
lot to solve our problems. I think it would be more important to take
this opportunity to think about our policy of foreign interventionism.
We have been involved in Afghanistan now for more than two decades,
and have spent over $1 billion. Last year we spent $114 million in
humanitarian aid. This year it is already $124 million.
It is said that it is not sent to the Taliban, but the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is a bit of an expert on Afghanistan,
just revealed to us earlier that indeed some of this money and some of
this aid was designated to go to the Taliban-controlled areas.
I think more important is that regardless of the intention of where
we send the aid, the aid is beneficial to the government in charge. The
Taliban is in charge. They can get control of aid, of food and other
commodities, and use it as weapons, and they do.
The point that I would like to make is after these many, many
millions of dollars and over $1 billion have been spent, we have come
to this. They are in worse shape than ever. Yes, we can condemn what
they are doing, but we should question whether or not our policy in
Afghanistan has really served us well, or served the people well. It
may well be that when we send aid, that it literally helps the Taliban,
because they do not have to then buy food. They can take their money
and use it to enforce these rules and to be a more authoritarian
society, to buy weapons.
We do know that when we sent weapons in the eighties, those weapons
actually ended up in the hands of the violent Taliban, and they are
still in their hands to some degree. Yes, our policy is well-intended.
We would like to do good and save all the suffering that is happening
in this country. But quite frankly, it has not worked very well.
We should question this. I believe we should assume some
responsibility in the sense that our aid does not always do what it was
supposed to do and actually ends up helping the very people that we
detest. I think that is exactly what has happened here. It has been
specifically pointed out that some of this aid has gone into the area
where the Taliban has been helped and strengthened.
All I am suggesting is, why not question this a little bit? Why
should we go on decade after decade after decade expanding aid and
getting these kinds of results that we all detest?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul). While I am pleased he is supporting the resolution, he needs to
gain some historical perspective. It was billions and billions of
dollars of Marshall aid which resulted in the rebuilding of Western
Europe and in creating our allies in NATO, and providing us with a
prosperous Europe as our single most important trading partner.
So this melancholy call for isolationism is not supported by the
historic evidence. The historic evidence shows clearly that in
Republican and Democratic administrations, overwhelmingly United States
participation in Europe and elsewhere contributed in a major way toward
building democratic and prosperous societies.
I was present at the end of the Second World War, as my friend knows,
when Europe was in ruins, and it was the farsightedness of a group of
Republican and Democratic leaders in this country, from Harry Truman to
Senator Vandenberg, who created a framework which allowed the countries
of Europe to rebuild themselves to become our powerful NATO allies, our
democratic friends, and our most significant trading partners.
There is no evidence for the statement that the previous
administration directed aid to go to the Taliban. This is an
unsubstantiated statement. What we voted for and what I think we will
vote again is to provide humanitarian assistance to the destitute
people of Afghanistan. It is most unfortunate that the bulk of
Afghanistan today is in the hands of this despicable regime.
But I think it is important to realize and to be true to historic
facts that the bulk of our economic aid since the end of the Second
World War has succeeded in creating prosperous and democratic societies
ranging from Taiwan to Denmark. These were destroyed societies, poor
societies, destitute societies, and American aid was critical in
building them up as democratic and prosperous allies.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have time to get into the Marshall Plan, but
there is a pretty strong case to indicate that the major part of the
rebuilding of Europe came from private capital and not specifically
from the immigration plan.
But the point that I would like to answer to is the term
``isolationism.'' I am not a protectionist. I am not an isolationist. I
am for openness, travel, trade. I vote consistently that way, so the
term ``isolationist'' does not apply to the policies that I am talking
about, because I am probably for more openness in trade and travel than
most anybody in this body.
{time} 1545
So the term is not isolationism.
Flash The Cash
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 90
Separation of Church and State for Dummies
Never mind.
Never mind.
Flash The Cash
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 90
Separation of Church and State for Dummies
The Constitution of the United States established a limited government in the name of the American people. The government was granted no powers except those enumerated in the document. The government was granted no power whatsoever over religion. It was granted no power to use force and violence or even reason and persuasion to attempt to influence religion.
The framers didn't define the word religion. The word is ambiguous. The common law rules of construction should be used to ascertain the meaning of words of the Constitution. According to the third rule of construction, the meaning of the word "religion" in the First Amendment is "the duty which we owe to our Creator."
The government has no legal authority to place "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins, because it has no authority over the duty we owe the Creator to trust him.
Flash The Cash
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 90
No he's not. One would have to interpret the Constitution very liberally to find that it granted the federal government even a shadow of a right to any authority over religion.
.
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
An interesting stance, and ultimately correct. As a non-believer, I simply believe that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
bucfish
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,067
People should be free to pray anywhere they want as long as they do not force others to. It is a matter of allowing it but also allowing others to not participate. In other words prayer should be allowed in schools as long as they are not forced to pray and it is done voluntarily among whomever chooses to particpate. I.E. let's have a moment of silence. Then everyone chooses whatever they want to do in that timeframe.
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom
Flash The Cash
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 90
That would seem to leave the door to advisory power over religion.
Similar threads
