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

[Kade]

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.

Wow.... There's the root of the matter...

Nice...

We haven't see abuse yet. Get us one more executive lapdog in the court and see what happens.

You've said this many times, and I can understand it is your milk and butter... but those last 50 years, in the next 50 years could become common canon of freedom... this is your opinion on the matter only.

 

[Kade]

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.

This is what you said earlier too, and it was where I might has misread your religious leanings... because this is opinion. The first amendment protects religious expression, which has been defined as also freedom not to be fed religious doctrines in tax funded institutions. You define expression as the freedom to lead others in your beliefs, and in this case, as an authority figure, in a public school.

I disagree with you on this.

 

[Spirit of '76]

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.

I would argue that yours is depressingly oppressive, in that it prohibits the free exercise of religion.

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?

The prohibition is clearly not non-existant, as you have just admitted, with the obfuscational caveat that it is ok to prohibit the free exercise of religion in places you deem "succinct".

I do not disagree that Ron Paul's bills would undo the finding that voluntary prayer in a classroom is not a freedom; what I disagree with is the improper, unconstitutional finding that voluntary prayer in a classroom is not a freedom.

 

[barcop]

So is everyone going to be ok... when a muslem science teacher uses the Koran as referrence while teaching your christian child?

Or will you have him fired for expressing his freedom of religion?

What about when a history teacher who follows scientology tells your kids that they should look up to Tom Cruise because he believes Ron L. Hubbard???

That's the door freedom of religion opens in a public school.

Now I don't believe the government should have any regulation over a school... but just cheering for "freedom of religion" in school is not going to work.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Wow.... There's the root of the matter...

Nice...

We haven't see abuse yet. Get us one more executive lapdog in the court and see what happens.

You've said this many times, and I can understand it is your milk and butter... but those last 50 years, in the next 50 years could become common canon of freedom... this is your opinion on the matter only.

I could just as easily argue that it is only your opinion that voluntary prayer in schools is not a freedom, and that it is also merely your opinion that Ron Paul's bills would usher in a theocracy.

I would also maintain that your opinion on these matters is clearly and utterly incorrect.

 

[Kade]

I would argue that yours is depressingly oppressive, in that it prohibits the free exercise of religion.



The prohibition is clearly not non-existant, as you have just admitted, with the obfuscational caveat that it is ok to prohibit the free exercise of religion in places you deem "succinct".

I do not disagree that Ron Paul's bills would undo the finding that voluntary prayer in a classroom is not a freedom; what I disagree with is the improper, unconstitutional finding that voluntary prayer in a classroom is not a freedom.

Several generations of Supreme Court Justices disagree with you, as do I.

Voluntary prayer will always be legal. Leading a class of children you are suppose to educate into spirituality is not when tax payer money is involved.

The caveat is that the places it is prohibited are places that are supported by tax payer money... what are you missing here?

 

[Kade]

I could just as easily argue that it is only your opinion that voluntary prayer in schools is not a freedom, and that it is also merely your opinion that Ron Paul's bills would usher in a theocracy.

I would also maintain that your opinion on these matters is clearly and utterly incorrect.

but that would be going overboard....

 

[hard@work]

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

lol, no.

 

[Spirit of '76]

The first amendment protects religious expression, which has been defined as also freedom not to be fed religious doctrines in tax funded institutions. You define expression as the freedom to lead others in your beliefs, and in this case, as an authority figure, in a public school.

No, I simply say that it is not the place of the federal government to prohibit the voluntary expression of religion. I believe that the very text of Congressman Paul's bills puts to rest your assertion that they could be used to compel participation in a given religion, as that is clearly proscribed within the text of those bills.

 

[Kade]

So is everyone going to be ok... when a muslem science teacher uses the Koran as referrence while teaching your christian child?

Or will you have him fired for expressing his freedom of religion?

What about when a history teacher who follows scientology tells your kids that they should look up to Tom Cruise because he believes Ron L. Hubbard???

That's the door freedom of religion opens in a public school.

Now I don't believe the government should have any regulation over a school... but just cheering for "freedom of religion" in school is not going to work.

When schools are all privatized, as it seems Ron Paul leans towards... I have no problem at all with whatever religious nonsense is taught in specified places...

But I agree completely, while tax payers are supporting the education system, it is not a right for a teacher, principal, or any other school official to lead public school children in any spiritual practice... neutrality.

 

[hard@work]

Leading a class of children you are suppose to educate into spirituality is not when tax payer money is involved.

The argument against this is that "tax payer money" cannot be used to restrict freedom of religion.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Several generations of Supreme Court Justices disagree with you, as do I.

Voluntary prayer will always be legal. Leading a class of children you are suppose to educate into spirituality is not when tax payer money is involved.

The caveat is that the places it is prohibited are places that are supported by tax payer money... what are you missing here?

What I am missing is the supposed connection between non-compulsory, voluntary, extracurricular moments of prayer and "leading a class of children into spirituality".

Again, the text of Congressman Paul's bills would prohibit the establishment of official school prayers, official school religions, and compulsory participation in any given religious expression.

 

[Kade]

No, I simply say that it is not the place of the federal government to prohibit the voluntary expression of religion. I believe that the very text of Congressman Paul's bills puts to rest your assertion that they could be used to compel participation in a given religion, as that is clearly proscribed within the text of those bills.

Amendment. He was advocating an actual amendment to the constitution... as if it weren't already setup correctly.

The very text will allow state's to throw out federal laws that prohibit publicly funded schools from allowing prayer and spiritual matters to be undertaken by teachers...

You are simply using the expression of religion over the anti-establishment clause of the first amendment.... the compromise made by the federal government is fair.... and doesn't impose radical prohibition of rights like you think it does.

 

[Kade]

What I am missing is the supposed connection between non-compulsory, voluntary, extracurricular moments of prayer and "leading a class of children into spirituality".

Again, the text of Congressman Paul's bills would prohibit the establishment of official school prayers, official school religions, and compulsory participation in any given religious expression.

The text throws the laws out...

If a Principal leads a school in prayer in the morning... no law stops him.

 

[Kade]

The argument against this is that "tax payer money" cannot be used to restrict freedom of religion.

It isn't.

 

[hard@work]

It isn't.

Is too.

 

[Spirit of '76]

So is everyone going to be ok... when a muslem science teacher uses the Koran as referrence while teaching your christian child?

Or will you have him fired for expressing his freedom of religion?

What about when a history teacher who follows scientology tells your kids that they should look up to Tom Cruise because he believes Ron L. Hubbard???

That's the door freedom of religion opens in a public school.

Now I don't believe the government should have any regulation over a school... but just cheering for "freedom of religion" in school is not going to work.

In cases like that, then I as a parent should have recourse to discuss the matter with school officials and the teacher himself in order to assure that a.) my child is not being compelled to believe as the teacher does or to participate in a given religion, and b.) that while the teacher's academic freedom is respected, he/she makes it abundantly clear what is his/her personal beliefs and what is part of the established curriculum.

Let me ask you this:

If teacher who happens to be a muslim encounters the problem that his class time is scheduled during a mandatory muslim prayer time, should he be prohibited from taking a few minutes to pray quietly? What if he invites (but does not compel) students to join him?

Should he be dismissed for exercising his religion during class time or for inviting students to join him? Or does this religious antipathy and denial of freedom extend only to Christians?

 

[Spirit of '76]

You are simply using the expression of religion over the anti-establishment clause of the first amendment.... the compromise made by the federal government is fair.... and doesn't impose radical prohibition of rights like you think it does.

That is merely your opinion, and I disagree with it most completely.

 

[Spirit of '76]

I must go. I've been sitting in front of this computer all day, and I need to get some fresh air before night falls.

This has been entertaining, to say the least. Thank you for the debate.

I surely hope that this one issue won't prevent you from voting for the man who is more sure to guarantee your right to speak out on such issues and question even his own policies than any other candidate would.

 

[hard@work]

www.ronpaullibrary.com