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

[Gilby]

Micah mentions this scenario... what guarantee exists that these types of laws would be passed... Ron Paul can pick the Supreme Court Justices, but he can't pass laws that allow me to ignore my districting and zoning laws...

If they are unconstitutional and infringe on your inalienable rights, he can. In other words, you would not be forced to send your children to a certain school with specific policies. The choice is yours on your children's schooling and choosing a school that has the policies that you want.

 

[Spirit of '76]

State constitutions ban certain people from holding office, and deny rights altogether. You believe those laws should be upheld?

The US Constitution likewise prohibits certain people from holding office based on their national origin, age, and/or state of residence.

I do not see how any of that relates to your argument that the federal government should prohibit the free exercise of religion.

My bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause comes from the 200 years of Judicial understanding... you know the same kind that freed slaves, allowed women to vote, and ultimately gave to states the rights to create their own laws not specified under the constitution?

The right for the states to create laws not specified under the Constitution is explicitly granted within the text of the Constitution itself.

Again, your argument -- which is in fact only based on about fifty or so years of "judicial understanding" -- would have the federal government used as a cudgel to bully people and prevent the free exercise of religion. That is patently unconstitutional.

Keep reading the first amendment until you see that word RESPECT again.

I see the word "respecting", and it is used in the following context:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The New Oxford American dictionary defines the word "respecting" as follows:

"respecting |ri?spekti ng | preposition dated or formal
with reference or regard to :
he began to have serious worries respecting his car."

In other words, the Constitution clearly states that the federal government shall not make any law in reference or regard to an establishment of a state religion, nor shall it make any law prohibiting anyone from freely exercising their religion.

The latter is clearly what you want it to do, due to your own prejudices against certain religious beliefs; however, the Constitution explicitly prohibits the federal government from doing so.

A clarification of the first amendment to include state run institutions of religion will lead to a theocracy in this country. Period. Your ignorance of the current trend of this country is what is most prominent to me. It is apparent that Ron Paul supporters are daydreaming about what a theocracy might look like.

Your fearmongering here is as baseless and inane as that of the people who say that if we don't fight the "terrorists" in Iraq, the streets of America will flow with blood. It's silly, it's not true, and all it does is make you look like an alarmist, using bogeyman fears to promote your own anti-Christian agenda.

Not only that, but you are absolutely mischaracterizing the bills Congressman Paul introduced, which do not in any way establish "state run [sic] institutions of religion", but merely clarify that the federal government shall not in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion, even in the public sphere.

Yes, I am offended by your religion, and others.

You don't even know what my religion is, nor if I even subscribe to one, yet it offends you?

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.

This is absolutely, unequivocally false. Again, you are assuming that you know something about my religious beliefs -- if I even have any -- based on the fact that I argue the indisputable fact that the Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

You are attacking me for religious beliefs that you presume I hold, simply because I disagree with you that the federal government should be used to bully people into hiding their religious beliefs, no matter what those religious beliefs might be nor how personally offensive I might find them.

You are the one promoting totalitarianism here, barely disguising a vehemently anti-Christian agenda under the guise of fairness. Your knowledge of the Constitution and of the classical liberalism you claim to support is sorely lacking, though your personal biases and deep antipathy toward certain religions clearly are not.

 

[micahnelson]

In Texas, with all due respect, I don't have the same rights as you.

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

I guess Scarlett Johansen doesn't count?

In honesty though those laws are on the books because they haven't been challenged.

 

[Kade]

It is important to remember that Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should have any business with schools. Schools are mostly paid for by property taxes and as such should be left to local communities. If a group of people want a school that teaches xyz, why shouldn't they have it.

This is a valid point, but the scenario laid out requires that this sort of thing comes to pass... what happens if School Prayer is allowed, and then tax supported schools stick around... the more likely situation. The loosening of separation is not a good thing... unless you happen to be whatever denomination will ultimately take over...

Ron Paul can't rid the entire government of its' over burdening and severe intrusion, but he can make important moves toward loosening the stranglehold. Things that protect the rights of citizens by proxy should be left alone...

Again, I emphasize, that NOBODY is prohibiting from praying... seriously, that persecution complex needs to stop. I am simply advocating the intended removal of official government business and undertakings, wherever they may remain under government control, removed from faith based issues... period.

I see nothing unconstitutional about that...

 

[hard@work]

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

;-)

Great debate though.

 

[BillyDkid]

Will Ron Paul support the Civil Liberties of skin cells as well? The abortion debate is a religious one as well, as those who are so adamant about civil liberties, myself included, would see the argument for protection of liberties to the unborn child, if it were clearly a human, is a strong one. The problem with this debate is that if you don't believe in a soul, then an unborn fetus is really not a human child by any standard, and the value of the right to choice is vastly greater than the value of lawfully enforced pregnancy. Defining life at conception for instance, is a violation of the establishment clause since the only thing that would make any sense for conception is the concept of soul... without that religious concept, cytoplasm, blastocysts, and non-developed fetuses are simply growing cells, equivalent to the many types of animal embryonic stages. Deciding that an embryonic stem cell is life, is deciding that many, many animals, who are actually developed at higher stages, deserve the same liberties as us... if you will extend the right to life to an un-developed fetus, why not extend the right to life to a fully grown pig?

I feel like you didn't even read what I wrote. First, Dr. Paul has stated that he as President would have no role in determining whether or not abortion would be legal. It should not be a federal issue. Second, I stated clearly that RP has said that there is room for honest discussion about this issue. You are arguing against things I never said. You seem to be saying that child is not a person until after it is born, which is clearly and obviously nonsense - particularly when you consider that a fetus can live independent of the mother well before the typical 9 month gestation period. I never argued anything like blastocyts are babies or have the same rights as you and I. I think you do have to address this issue of someone being charge with two murders for killing a 4 months pregnant woman and yet a doctor can abort a 6 month old fetus and its not an issue. Both you and the right to lifers refuse to address these issues except in the most extreme way. It's all or nothing for people on the extreme of both ends. I support the use of "morning after" pills and yet find abortion of a six or seven month old fetus (except under special circumstances) appalling. Is that honestly a contradiction to you? You don't see a difference between the two? Like I said and like Dr. Paul as said, there is room for honest disagreement and it is dishonest for both extremes to pretend there is not.

 

[Kade]

The US Constitution likewise prohibits certain people from holding office based on their national origin, age, and/or state of residence.

I don't not see how any of that relates to your argument that the federal government should prohibit the free exercise of religion.

I don't see how any of that relates to the prohibition of the free exercise of religion.

The right for the states to create laws not specified under the Constitution is explicitly granted within the text of the Constitution itself.

Again, your argument -- which is in fact only based on about fifty or so years of "judicial understanding" -- would have the federal government used as a cudgel to bully people and prevent the free exercise of religion. That is patently unconstitutional.

So disregard recent judicial findings because you disagree with them? 50 years ago that mentality would have been right up there with those that wanted to keep people of certain origins and sexes from voting. Nice.

I see the word "respecting", and it is used in the following context:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The New Oxford American dictionary defines the word "respecting" as follows:

respecting |ri?spekti ng | preposition dated or formal
with reference or regard to :
he began to have serious worries respecting his car.

In other words, the Constitution clearly states that the federal government shall no make any law in reference or regard to an establishment of a state religion, nor shall it make any law prohibiting anyone from freely exercising their religion.

The latter is clearly what you want it to do, due to your own prejudices against certain religious beliefs; however, the Constitution explicitly prohibits the federal government from doing so.

I again emphasize that you have not given an example of a violation of this principle. You are imagining a system that does not exist at the moment... when, and if it does, I agree completely.

Your fearmongering here is as baseless and inane as that of the people who say that if we don't fight the "terrorists" in Iraq, the streets of America will flow with blood. It's silly, it's not true, and all it does is make you look like an alarmist, using bogeyman fears to promote your own anti-Christian agenda.

Ooooh, everyone fear my anti-Christian Agenda... any examples of that yet? You can't explain my seriousness on this matter as pro-liberty in anyway?

Not only that, but you are absolutely mischaracterizing the bills Congressman Paul introduced, which do not in any way establish "state run [sic] institutions of religion", but merely clarify that the federal government shall not in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion, even in the public sphere.

The bills allow the majority to impose in the current system state run institutions of religion. Not that anyone actually follow the laws that prohibit it anyway.

You don't even know what my religion is, nor if I even subscribe to one, yet it offends you?


This is absolutely, unequivocally false. Again, you are assuming that you know something about my religious beliefs -- if I even have any -- based on the fact that I argue the indisputable fact that the Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

As obvious as my beliefs are, I imagine.

You are attacking me for religious beliefs that you presume I hold, simply because I disagree with you that the federal government should be used to bully people into hiding their religious beliefs, no matter what those religious beliefs might be nor how personally offensive I might find them.

I wasn't attacking you. I was explaining my concerns.

You are the one promoting totalitarianism here, barely disguising a vehemently anti-Christian agenda under the guise of fairness. Your knowledge of the Constitution and of the classical liberalism you claim to support is sorely lacking, though your personal biases and deep antipathy toward certain religions clearly are not.

There's those baseless claims. Can I get some more please?

 

[Kade]

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

;-)

Great debate though.

If single issue means my liberty. I suppose you are right.

 

[Kade]

I feel like you didn't even read what I wrote. First, Dr. Paul has stated that he as President would have no role in determining whether or not abortion would be legal. It should not be a federal issue. Second, I stated clearly that RP has said that there is room for honest discussion about this issue. You are arguing against things I never said. You seem to be saying that child is not a person until after it is born, which is clearly and obviously nonsense - particularly when you consider that a fetus can live independent of the mother well before the typical 9 month gestation period. I never argued anything like blastocyts are babies or have the same rights as you and I. I think you do have to address this issue of someone being charge with two murders for killing a 4 months pregnant woman and yet a doctor can abort a 6 month old fetus and its not an issue. Both you and the right to lifers refuse to address these issues except in the most extreme way. It's all or nothing for people on the extreme of both ends. I support the use of "morning after" pills and yet find abortion of a six or seven month old fetus (except under special circumstances) appalling. Is that honestly a contradiction to you? You don't see a difference between the two? Like I said and like Dr. Paul as said, there is room for honest disagreement and it is dishonest for both extremes to pretend there is not.

Why an amendment then?

 

[hard@work]

In order to protect freedom of religion we must stop those who are religious from practicing it wherever the government resides. This is anti-Christian and many other religions. How is it not?

 

[Kade]

I come here you know, because I want to support Ron Paul... not make an argument... these are my concerns... and to be really honest, I am much more worried then I originally was...

 

[Kade]

In order to protect freedom of religion we must stop those who are religious from practicing it wherever the government resides. This is anti-Christian and many other religions. How is it not?

Did I say that?

 

[nayjevin]

Allowing official school prayer is not freedom, it is totalitarianism.

it is not 'official' if it is merely allowed. it is official if it is mandated.

there is currently no mandate for prayer in schools from the federal level. it is allowed, as it should be, to be enforced at the local level.

of course, these 'state run' schools should be private, voluntary, or parents should be able to opt out. but in the current system, feds should stay entirely out of it. each state should decide for their schools.

 

[Kade]

The whole one horse charley is going to unnerve me, I support Paul in many respects, because I disagree with his views on secularism, that makes me a one issue voter? The same as apparently people who have disagreed with the mighty Ron Paul before?

Where is the discourse, where is the engagement, the debate... is it truly freedom to simply claim righteously that a certain view is ultimately and utterly correct...

If I generally feel my liberties are being infringed on, in many respects by the potential of Constitutional Amendments proposed by Ron Paul, isn't that worth discussing... are you simply going to dismiss as a troll, and a one issue voter?

 

[hard@work]

I come here you know, because I want to support Ron Paul... not make an argument... these are my concerns... and to be really honest, I am much more worried then I originally was...

Then perhaps you should look elsewhere? If this is what you base all of your ethics on, this singular issue, then perhaps you have not truly done your homework? Not that a healthy controversial debate is not a good thing but this reaction is precisely what we do not need.

Make your decision based on your sum of morals and beliefs and I would call you friend.

http://www.RonPaulLibrary.com

 

[hard@work]

Did I say that?

Implication is what I had read, but please feel free to correct me. I am not trying to attack you.

 

[Kade]

it is not 'official' if it is merely allowed. it is official if it is mandated.

there is currently no mandate for prayer in schools from the federal level. it is allowed, as it should be, to be enforced at the local level.

of course, these 'state run' schools should be private, voluntary, or parents should be able to opt out. but in the current system, feds should stay entirely out of it. each state should decide for their schools.

There is other ways of MANDATING school prayer.

In school, a public authority, such as a principle, a teacher, is equivalent to mandating for a child. You can give an option to "leave the room" or "don't attend graduation ceremony" but anyone with half a brain knows most children won't just decide to leave on grounds they can't possibly understand yet...

 

[hard@work]

There is other ways of MANDATING school prayer.

In school, a public authority, such as a principle, a teacher, is equivalent to mandating for a child. You can give an option to "leave the room" or "don't attend graduation ceremony" but anyone with half a brain knows most children won't just decide to leave on grounds they can't possibly understand yet...

So this justifies restricting the right of prayer to ones God?

 

[Kade]

Then perhaps you should look elsewhere? If this is what you base all of your ethics on, this singular issue, then perhaps you have not truly done your homework? Not that a healthy controversial debate is not a good thing but this reaction is precisely what we do not need.

Make your decision based on your sum of morals and beliefs and I would call you friend.

http://www.RonPaulLibrary.com

I have done too much homework apparently...

If we have learned anything in the experiment that is America, it is that people don't cherish freedoms as much as they should...

I study law, and I study history, and I study many, many other things... I promise you, I understand, on each level the points you make... my concern is not being addressed...

What if the majority becomes the oppressor... and we have lost the ability in this instance, to defend basic human rights not guaranteed by the constitution?

 

[jblosser]

If you are a student of classical liberalism you should be aware that there is both a theist and a non-theist origin for the same conclusions, whether they are called Natural Law or Inalienable Rights from the Creator. This country has a rich history of people form both sides of that discussion managing to agree to work for the same Liberty, even if they don't want it for the same reasons. Some limit government with arguments for Social Contracts and Individual Sovereignty, others limit it due to a belief in Human Depravity.

Ron calls himself a Classical Liberal too, for what it's worth, and the first book on his recommended reading list is still _The Law_. I assume you have read that and know there is no room in Bastiat's view of Negative Law for anything that doesn't just keep people from harming each other, and also know that Bastiat starts this argument from a belief in the Divine, though it has certainly been adopted by others as well.