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

[Spirit of '76]

He proposed an Amendment that would strip the ability to even make this policy a reality...

So you say, but can you please demonstrate what makes your assertion true?

Please show how the text of the bill can be construed to mean that schools and school districts cannot set a policy prohibiting teachers from encouraging a particular religious view to their students.

 

[Kade]

The communities.

This community ended up setting on fire the family dog, and then arresting the father of the girl and put him on trial for a false crime...

It wasn't until national attention was given that they freed him on all the accounts...but that is not part of the example.

 

[Kade]

So you say, but can you please demonstrate what makes your assertion true?

Please show how the text of the bill can be construed to mean that schools and school districts cannot set a policy prohibiting teachers from encouraging a particular religious view to their students.

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.

 

[Spirit of '76]

The judicial system has clarified this perfectly, in my opinion, by not allowing schools to decide either way, making it a federal mandate that they remain neutral. I would argue that this does not prohibit expression of religion at all, only in the cases we have aligned as encouragement and mandating of prayer. A teacher can still prayer whenever she is "off duty", and students are allowed time to pray, and are easily accommodated if more time is needed....

I disagree. Clearly this is federal prohibition of the free exercise of religion in certain times and places.

 

[nayjevin]

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...

'being highly suggestive' and 'mandating' are assumed to be two different things, for purposes of definition, in my argument.

you make a good point that this sort of pressure exists in reality.

this is a tough issue, but i just believe that the harder the issue, the more locally it should be resolved.

and I trust RP -- more than I trust the last minister I heard, the man who confirmed me, or even my grandfather -- to protect my spiritual freedom from the executive branch.

by staying the heck out!

 

[hard@work]

This community ended up setting on fire the family dog, and then arresting the father of the girl and put him on trial for a false crime...

It wasn't until national attention was given that they freed him on all the accounts...but that is not part of the example.

They also lynched a man for the color of his skin, stoned to death a woman who was not pure on her wedding day, and were lead by a man who called himself "sherrif" but was also known as "murderer".

All in defiance of liberty.

 

[Kade]

Absolutely not at all... period. If you have freedom of religion.... then you can't have an adult in school taking the stance of forcing one religion on all children.

If the school wants to allow a silent praying time in the morning for all students then that is one thing... but to follow one religion is wrong and not freedom of religion at all.

I would have to all religions or none at all. Unless of course it is a designated "Christian" school, and so on.

EXACTLY. Wow, the threads of insanity are loosening and I can breath...

 

[hard@work]

EXACTLY. Wow, the threads of insanity are loosening and I can breath...

You know it is ok for people to agree or disagree. Just sayin.

 

[Spirit of '76]

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.

Yes, I have read the text of the bills.

What I am asking you to do is show how that text supports your assertion that these bills would prevent school districts from implementing a policy that prevents teachers from requiring students to participate in their religion, when in fact the very text of those bills explicitly states that no person shall be compelled to participate, nor shall any state prescribe official school prayers.

 

[Kade]

I disagree. Clearly this is federal prohibition of the free exercise of religion in certain times and places.

Time and places they have decided are succinct. Look them up....

 

[Kade]

Yes, I have read the text of the bills.

What I am asking you to do is show how that text supports your assertion that these bills would prevent school districts from implementing a policy that prevents teachers from requiring students to participate in their religion.

Because it counters the first amendment, and the findings of previous courts that have found that STATES cannot make laws restricting religious freedom... what will happen is that this little loophole will be used to safeguard the already out of control policies regarding religious doctrine in tax funded school systems.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Time and places they have decided are succinct. Look them up....

Whether certain judges have decided those times and places are "succinct" or not, prohibiting the free exercise of religion in even "succinct" times and places is still prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

 

[Kade]

They also lynched a man for the color of his skin, stoned to death a woman who was not pure on her wedding day, and were lead by a man who called himself "sherrif" but was also known as "murderer".

All in defiance of liberty.

I would argue it was within the state's rights at the time to do so...

 

[hard@work]

I would argue it was within the state's rights at the time to do so...

That's a terrible argument. I can't respond to the right to lynch a man for color, murder a woman for sex, or allow a murderer to hold tyranny over man.

*shrug*

 

[Kade]

I think that I should make the point that many of the ideas that seem like a good idea to protect on the state level, got that way by federal mandate, including the freeing of the slaves...


I want less government... trust me... I just want dialogue on this issue as well, don't be so closed minded about the endless possibilities of communities to right wrongs...

I am from the dirty, deep south... I was taught illegally many abhorrent disastrous things, and I didn't pay for it as hard as some of my peers did... I am trying to weigh the protection of liberties and the oppression of potentially harmful communities.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Because it counters the first amendment, and the findings of previous courts that have found that STATES cannot make laws restricting religious freedom... what will happen is that this little loophole will be used to safeguard the already out of control policies regarding religious doctrine in tax funded school systems.

Please demonstrate how the text of these bills is counter to the first amendment. Furthermore, please demonstrate how the text of these bills is counter to the finding that the states cannot make laws restricting religious freedom, when in fact the text of these bills very explicitly states just that very thing: that neither the federal government nor the states shall make laws restricting religious freedom, nor shall they compel anyone to participate in any sort of religion.

Have you even read the text of these bills, or did you just have a knee-jerk reaction when you saw the word "religion" because you know that Ron Paul is personally a Christian?

 

[Kade]

That's a terrible argument. I can't respond to the right to lynch a man for color, murder a woman for sex, or allow a murderer to hold tyranny over man.

*shrug*

The argument is one many of you are making...

 

[Kade]

Please demonstrate how the text of these bills is counter to the first amendment. Furthermore, please demonstrate how the text of these bills is counter to the finding that the states cannot make laws restricting religious freedom, when in fact the text of these bills very explicitly states just that very thing: that neither the federal government nor the states shall make laws restricting religious freedom, nor shall they compel anyone to participate in any sort of religion.

Have you even read the text of these bills, or did you just have a knee-jerk reaction when you saw the word "religion"?

No, I read them... it is against a backdrop of many things, including the reasoning for their existence...

If the constitution already allows this under the first amendment, why would this amendment be needed... I thought long and hard on this, and I realized it was to battle the clarification of the first amendment from the judicial branch...

That is its' only function... it would in fact "re-clarify" the constitution... by undoing 200 years of proceedings.

 

[Spirit of '76]

No, I read them... it is against a backdrop of many things, including the reasoning for their existence...

If the constitution already allows this under the first amendment, why would this amendment be needed... I thought long and hard on this, and I realized it was to battle the clarification of the first amendment from the judicial branch...

That is its' only function... it would in fact "re-clarify" the constitution... by undoing 200 years of proceedings.

Or perhaps it is to save the First Amendment from about fifty years of abuse at the hands of judicial activists. Perhaps a clarification is needed because the First Amendment has misinterpreted to mean that the federal government can be used as a cudgel to bully people and prevent them from freely exercising their religions.

 

[Kade]

Whether certain judges have decided those times and places are "succinct" or not, prohibiting the free exercise of religion in even "succinct" times and places is still prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Yelling FIRE in a crowded room is also illegal, but I should win that battle because its' protecting free speech... .

We have an evolution of these freedoms that has been more progressive then regressive... in my opinion.. I would offer that your interpretation of this specific tenet is depressingly regressive. The prohibition you talk about is non-existent, we have discussed this already... leading kids in prayer in a tax funded institution was found to not be a freedom, Ron Paul's amendment will undo those findings...Disagree?