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

[Spirit of '76]

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

You were the one who brought those laws up, not I, so the onus is on you to explain how they relate to this argument.

The clear fact is that the Constitution of the United States of America clearly prohibts the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, despite your clear desire for it to do so.

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.

Again, you are offering a strawman argument to distract us from the fact that the judicial activist notion that the federal government should be used to prohibit the free exercise of religion is neither constitutional nor, as you claimed, grounded in "200 years of Judicial understanding".

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.

But that is blatantly what you arguing for. You have most clearly stated your position here, which by all appearances is that the federal government should prohibit the free exercise of religion in the public sphere because you personally find certain religions to be offensive.

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?

No I cannot, especially when you have clearly stated that my religion -- which you obviously assumed to be Christianity -- "offends" you, and when you have used ridiculous, non sequitur scaremongering over the establishment of a theocracy, which you falsely assume would result from requiring the federal government to obey the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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.

No, they do not. They allow for the free exercise of religion, even in the public sphere, despite the fact that some people might not approve of that free exercise of religion.

As obvious as my beliefs are, I imagine.

I do not know, nor do I care, what your religious beliefs are, if you have any. Nor are mine, if I have any, relevant to this discussion, though you have clearly presumed to know what they are and have already proclaimed that they are "offensive" to you.

The fact remains: I am arguing from a constitutional standpoint. You are arguing from a standpoint of bias against one or more specific religions which you deem offensive.

The fact also remains: The Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from interfering in the free exercise of religion, despite your personal desire for it to do so.

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

You presumed that you knew what my religious beliefs are, if I have any, declared them "offensive" to you, and then accused me of using the Constitution to force them down others' throats. This is clearly an attack based on your presumption of my religious beliefs and bolstered by your obvious lack of understanding in regards to the Constitution.

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

In what way are they baseless? You have clearly demonstrated an anti-Christian bias here, referring to "the current system" as a "theocracy" waiting to happen and declaring that (what you presumed to be) my religious beliefs are "offensive" to you in a lame attempt to discredit my clearly constitutional argument.

What is truly baseless here is your fearmongering about theocracy and your moronic presumptions about my religious beliefs because I disagree with your interpretation of the constitution as a tool to prevent the free exercise of religion.

 

[Kade]

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

I didn't say that... please stop assuming this is my stance... Please.

I would never restrict prayer.

What laws restrict teachers now from telling kids that drinking Clorox when they get home is a good idea...

When schools are all privatized... fine.. I understand. Perfect. Right now they are not... this Amendment was proposed in an arena that is unfamiliar with the separation of government and education.

 

[hard@work]

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?

Excellent point right here however your concerns are being expressed to those who feel this has already been done. So disagreement will be had here if you do not adjust your position. I would say why should you ask them to adjust theirs?



I would also say that freedom of religion has already been restricted. Whether or not our education system is state mandated that does not give any right to the government to force a secular belief system on the participants in the education system. Of course it could be argued that this would be removed by returning education into the hands of the communities. But even if you would argue that we will continue with "tax payer funded" education this does not justify stopping people from excercising their religious beliefs.

 

[Kade]

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.

Yes... .I have instead switched by leanings towards the Natural Rights expanded on by Strauss.

 

[hard@work]

I didn't say that... please stop assuming this is my stance... Please.

I would never restrict prayer.

What laws restrict teachers now from telling kids that drinking Clorox when they get home is a good idea...

When schools are all privatized... fine.. I understand. Perfect. Right now they are not... this Amendment was proposed in an arena that is unfamiliar with the separation of government and education.

Then what are you saying? Your third statement here is not clear as to what you believe should be done.

 

[barcop]

There are good arguements on both sides of the fence... All I know is that there won't be any time for actual learning in school after each different religion takes there equal alloted time to pray. Unless of course all pray is silent.

 

[jblosser]

Yes... .I have instead switched by leanings towards the Natural Rights expanded on by Strauss.

Which is fine. I'm just pointing out where he comes from. Whether you agree with his beliefs or not, hopefully you understand that there is a very rich historical tradition of Christians who believe in limited government partly because of, and never in spite of, their religious beliefs. I.e., his Christianity is part of what makes him respect individual liberty and property and demand limited government, it is not a hinderance or threat to that liberty.

Ron has said repeatedly that the primary responsibility of the President is not to use power, it is to resist the call of power. No, he is not likely to take steps to push a liberty agenda on the states, be that agenda secular or otherwise. He will not break the law to restore the law. He will act as a Constitutional President and in that regard he'll get the National government off the States' backs, we the citizens of those States will need to take it from there.

 

[Spirit of '76]

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...

One can stand in a room where some people are praying and not pray oneself. I have done so many times.

The concept of other people freely practicing their own religions is not so abhorent to me that I must run screaming from the room when they begin to do so.

I cannot for the life of me understand why some people feel compelled to do so -- or worse, to launch into an anti-religious crusade to prevent them from doing so. That indeed is anti-Liberty.

 

[Kade]

You were the one who brought those laws up, not I, so the onus is on you to explain how they relate to this argument.

The clear fact is that the Constitution of the United States of America clearly prohibts the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, despite your clear desire for it to do so.


Again, you are offering a strawman argument to distract us from the fact that the judicial activist notion that the federal government should be used to prohibit the free exercise of religion is neither constitutional nor, as you claimed, grounded in "200 years of Judicial understanding".


But that is blatantly what you arguing for. You have most clearly stated your position here, which by all appearances is that the federal government should prohibit the free exercise of religion in the public sphere because you personally find certain religions to be offensive.


No I cannot, especially when you have clearly stated that my religion -- which you obviously assumed to be Christianity -- "offends" you, and when you have used ridiculous, non sequitur scaremongering over the establishment of a theocracy, which you falsely assume would result from requiring the federal government to obey the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


No, they do not. They allow for the free exercise of religion, even in the public sphere, despite the fact that some people might not approve of that free exercise of religion.



I do not know, nor do I care, what your religious beliefs are, if you have any. Nor are mine, if I have any, relevant to this discussion, though you have clearly presumed to know what they are and have already proclaimed that they are "offensive" to you.

The fact remains: I am arguing from a constitutional standpoint. You are arguing from a standpoint of bias against one or more specific religions which you deem offensive.

The fact also remains: The Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from interfering in the free exercise of religion, despite your personal desire for it to do so.


You presumed that you knew what my religious beliefs are, if I have any, declared them "offensive" to you, and then accused me of using the Constitution to force them down others' throats. This is clearly an attack based on your presumption of my religious beliefs and bolstered by your obvious lack of understanding in regards to the Constitution.


In what way are they baseless? You have clearly demonstrated an anti-Christian bias here, referring to "the current system" as a "theocracy" waiting to happen and declaring that (what you presumed to be) my religious beliefs are "offensive" to you in a lame attempt to discredit my clearly constitutional argument.

What is truly baseless here is your fearmongering about theocracy and your moronic presumptions about my religious beliefs because I disagree with your interpretation of the constitution as a tool to prevent the free exercise of religion.

You haven't answered any concerns, and I suddenly realize that I'm going to get dragged into some flame war with you...

Suffice to say, as long as I keep from summing up your positions, you can continue to look like you are making points.

You are right, the Constitution does prohibit the prohibition of free exercise of religion.. It also prohibits the establishment, even if that establishment is found to be at the state level. There is a LONG history of judicial interpretation to protect people's rights under the first amendment, going back farther than 50 years.


If I am bias, I am bias on the side reason...

 

[Kade]

There are good arguements on both sides of the fence... All I know is that there won't be any time for actual learning in school after each different religion takes there equal alloted time to pray. Unless of course all pray is silent.

This is where more sense is being made here... by the time the Zoroastrians are done with their prayers...

Hah...

 

[Kade]

One can stand in a room where some people are praying and not pray oneself. I have done so many times.

The concept of other people freely practicing their own religions is not so abhorent to me that I must run screaming from the room when they begin to do so.

I cannot for the life of me understand why some people feel compelled to do so -- or worse, to launch into an anti-religious crusade to prevent them from doing so. That indeed is anti-Liberty.

I agree... but there is an abuse that has been and will be continued... in pure defiance... what scenario do you paint to prevent these kind of abuses?

 

[Spirit of '76]

You haven't answered any concerns, and I suddenly realize that I'm going to get dragged into some flame war with you...

Suffice to say, as long as I keep from summing up your positions, you can continue to look like you are making points.

You are right, the Constitution does prohibit the prohibition of free exercise of religion.. It also prohibits the establishment, even if that establishment is found to be at the state level. There is a LONG history of judicial interpretation to protect people's rights under the first amendment, going back farther than 50 years.


If I am bias, I am bias on the side reason...

I am indeed making points -- clear ones, and they are as follows:

The Constitution prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, despite your obvious desire for it to do so.

The Constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion in the public sphere, despite your obvious desire for it to do so.

The free exercise of religion in the public sphere is not tantamount to the establishment of a official religion, despite your patently false assertion that it is.

You have made it abundantly clear that you are less concerned with people's Liberty and their constitutional right to freely practice their religion than you are with using the federal government as a tool to keep people from freely exercising their religion somewhere where you might witness it.

Your argument here is clearly anti-Liberty and unconstitutional, though I doubt you will ever admit that to be the case.

 

[Spirit of '76]

I agree... but there is an abuse that has been and will be continued... in pure defiance... what scenario do you paint to prevent these kind of abuses?

You outline the "abuse" as you see it in clear terms, and I will tell you how I would deal with it in a constitutional way.

 

[ChooseLiberty]

Never really got the extremist atheists. If you absolutely don't believe in something what affect does it really have on you other than mis-spent tax $. It always seemed they were really just upset at the believers.

It's like getting upset whenever you see Wiley Coyote on a Roadrunner cartoon because he doesn't really exist or misrepresents the coyote population. Sure, if your tax dollars are supporting the cartoons, but otherwise?

Do they also resent the Flying Spaghetti Monster (TM)?

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."

 

[Kade]

I am indeed making points -- clear ones, and they are as follows:

The Constitution prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, despite your obvious desire for it to do so.

The Constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion in the public sphere, despite your obvious desire for it to do so.

The free exercise of religion in the public sphere is not tantamount to the establishment of a official religion, despite your patently false assertion that it is.

You have made it abundantly clear that you are less concerned with people Liberty and their constitutional right to freely practice their religion than you are with using the federal government as a tool to keep people from freely exercising their religion somewhere where you might witness it.

Your argument here is clearly anti-Liberty and unconstitutional, though I doubt you will ever admit that to be the case.

Alright, I'll work from here:

I don't desire prayer be taken from the public sphere... I desire it to be taken out of the government sphere.

I only like using the federal government to protect rights, protect people liberties... as you call them. The federal government, when uncoupled with religious doctrines, becomes an even greater oppressor... in a limited government role, I understand the position... however, advocating for Amendments in a government like ours is not fearmongering... as you call it... it is a very REAL concern of mine, and many, many people like me...

Where is that backlash coming from then?

Also, please stop defining my desires. I want freedom... and I fear what "freedom" may mean when you undo some of the protections of liberties affirmed in the findings of our judicial branch....

 

[Kade]

Never really got the extremist atheists. If you absolutely don't believe in something what affect does it really have on you other than mis-spent tax $. It always seemed they were really just upset at the believers.

It's like getting upset whenever you see Wiley Coyote on a Roadrunner cartoon because he doesn't really exist or misrepresents the coyote population. Sure, if your tax dollars are supporting the cartoons, but otherwise?

Do they also resent the Flying Spaghetti Monster (TM)?

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."

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.

 

[hard@work]

Also, please stop defining my desires. I want freedom... and I fear what "freedom" may mean when you undo some of the protections of liberties affirmed in the findings of our judicial branch....

So what do you define as our freedom to practice religion within a government sphere? Can you cite examples of what we can and cannot do in schools or in employ of the government?

 

[Kade]

You outline the "abuse" as you see it in clear terms, and I will tell you how I would deal with it in a constitutional way.

How about a girl who is kicked off her high school basketball team because she refuses to join the teammates in prayer?

 

[hard@work]

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.

Please give some scenarios then. Let's stop with the semantics and get down to logical debate.




edit -

How about a girl who is kicked off her high school basketball team because she refuses to join the teammates in prayer?

That is an infringement of her rights and should not be allowed.

 

[Kade]

So what do you define as our freedom to practice religion within a government sphere? Can you cite examples of what we can and cannot do in schools or in employ of the government?

I think that Civil Service should be seen as just that... duty and service.

I think the Lemon test is a good one to go by for establishment clause violations...

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.