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

[Kade]

This I can certainly agree with. Further clarification stating that government moneys shall not be used for the promotion of religion would be desirable in this amendment.

Stating that government's money shouldn't be used would mean making a law on the books that does in the end, limit expression... no need for the amendment.

 

[Rastis McNastis]

People try to step around many, many things... Amending the constitution to bypass the courts in one failed swoop is sickening... especially an amendment that is state restrictive.

Though precedence is clearly on your side, do you see the possible risk of right-wing, fundamentalist judges actually granting state-supported religion based on the argument that the Constitutional amendment only applies to the federal?

If such a risk exists, in what way would it be wrong to clarify that such legislation respecting religion may not be passed at ANY level, be it federal, state, county, etc.

What I wish to know is if you are opposed to an amendment to clarify separation of church and state, or if you are merely opposed to the one Ron Paul presented?

 

[hard@work]

I don't see where you have lost any "rights". You can still do all those things, outside of publicly funded establishments...

I think in this case where our major difference of opinion lies is within our consideration of the public funded establishment in question. You cite various abuses or potential abuses, but for sake of argument I'd like to leave those for now. I would say that I share your concerns there anyways. You state that your "tax dollars" are funding the school system therefore making it a state institution which should be separate from the church.

Now I believe the education system in America is incorrectly associated as a direct government function, regardless of any prerequisite legislation or established court precedent. It is a public function and a publicly participated system directly related to the American family, of which are certain rights and beliefs. My opinion on this matter is that in order to be an educator or to be (generally) educated we are for the most part limited to this single option. As such is the case the threat of religious oppression is not limited to religious beliefs held by the individual but also by the state itself in banning the expression of religious belief. In my view, this is as negative and unconstitutional as state sponsored morning prayer. Same ideal different side of the coin.

I would suggest that forcing the teacher to go against their religious beliefs is also a violation of their rights, the same as you would say forcing students to engage in prayer violates theirs. I would hope you would agree with me here at least on some level. Additionally I would suggest that it lies not with the state to determine how this should be handled, but with the parents and faculty. If the state should have any involvement in this area it should be only in a series of prohibitions that forbids the abuses you previously cited as examples.

Basically, the state may have mandated or created the education system but this in no way regulates the decisions of the individuals forced or coerced into that system. I would love some thoughts on that.

 

[Kade]

Though precedence is clearly on your side, do you see the possible risk of right-wing, fundamentalist judges actually granting state-supported religion based on the argument that the Constitutional amendment only applies to the federal?

If such a risk exists, in what way would it be wrong to clarify that such legislation respecting religion may not be passed at ANY level, be it federal, state, county, etc.

What I wish to know is if you are opposed to an amendment to clarify separation of church and state, or if you are merely opposed to the one Ron Paul presented?

Because we honestly want to limit how much oversight the federal government has... protecting liberties is one thing, demanding the states follow certain guidelines... is another...

The amendment is not necessary in my opinion...

 

[Kade]

I think in this case where our major difference of opinion lies is within our consideration of the public funded establishment in question. You cite various abuses or potential abuses, but for sake of argument I'd like to leave those for now. I would say that I share your concerns there anyways. You state that your "tax dollars" are funding the school system therefore making it a state institution which should be separate from the church.

Now I believe the education system in America is incorrectly associated as a direct government function, regardless of any prerequisite legislation or established court precedent. It is a public function and a publicly participated system directly related to the American family, of which are certain rights and beliefs. My opinion on this matter is that in order to be an educator or to be (generally) educated we are for the most part limited to this single option. As such is the case the threat of religious oppression is not limited to religious beliefs held by the individual but also by the state itself in banning the expression of religious belief. In my view, this is as negative and unconstitutional as state sponsored morning prayer. Same ideal different side of the coin.

I would suggest that forcing the teacher to go against their religious beliefs is also a violation of their rights, the same as you would say forcing students to engage in prayer violates theirs. I would hope you would agree with me here at least on some level. Additionally I would suggest that it lies not with the state to determine how this should be handled, but with the parents and faculty. If the state should have any involvement in this area it should be only in a series of prohibitions that forbids the abuses you previously cited as examples.

Basically, the state may have mandated or created the education system but this in no way regulates the decisions of the individuals forced or coerced into that system. I would love some thoughts on that.

Many cases illustrated this I believe... if a case could be made that not allowing a teacher to lead her class in prayer is against her beliefs, then perhaps you have a point, albeit one that will be refuted when the job description of an educator is understand completely.

Remember, praying on her own time is fine... it is the idea that a teacher would lead a class in prayer that law forbids... if this is a violation of her right to religious expression, I would understand this person to be unsuitable to the job of educator outside a private function.

 

[Rastis McNastis]

Because we honestly want to limit how much oversight the federal government has... protecting liberties is one thing, demanding the states follow certain guidelines... is another...

The amendment is not necessary in my opinion...

Perhaps, but having been personally acquainted with someone using the very argument (that the first amendment does not apply to states) in order to promote banishment of homosexuals, I see a valid concern.

Where there is a lack of clarity there is danger of oppression. You yourself imply that this country is increasingly becoming theocratic, so if that trend were to continue long enough such an action by a fundamentalist judge is not really an impossibility.

I feel an amendment is proper, though the one presented by Ron Paul fails. I agree that the rights of the States should not be limited where possible, but the rights of citizens must come first.

 

[Kade]

I would suggest that forcing the teacher to go against their religious beliefs is also a violation of their rights, the same as you would say forcing students to engage in prayer violates theirs. I would hope you would agree with me here at least on some level. Additionally I would suggest that it lies not with the state to determine how this should be handled, but with the parents and faculty. If the state should have any involvement in this area it should be only in a series of prohibitions that forbids the abuses you previously cited as examples.

Basically, the state may have mandated or created the education system but this in no way regulates the decisions of the individuals forced or coerced into that system. I would love some thoughts on that.

The federal government views the establishment clause as secularism. Which simply means removal from religious doctrine.

Consider the inverse, that educators could use the class time to teach kids the many reasons why they shouldn't believe in a god...

I see this as wrong... even though, on this side of things, I would argue it is her/his right to do so...

By simply affirming your belief, it is the equivalent of affirming to the class everyday there is no god... Educators who are paid by the state should be neutral in this regard. Completely neutral... not one way or the other... and because curriculum falls under these same laws, there is no room outside the philosophy class for shenanigans... kids learn from their peers, and using the first amendment as a cop out to say your rights are being taken away as an educator is just not true, and most teachers should know this... The teacher knows her job is to remain neutral, affirmation of god, or skepticism of god out of context of class material is unacceptable from both angles... regardless of whatever right she has outside of her duties..

She also has a right to bear arms, does that mean she can bring a gun to school?

 

[Kade]

Perhaps, but having been personally acquainted with someone using the very argument (that the first amendment does not apply to states) in order to promote banishment of homosexuals, I see a valid concern.

Where there is a lack of clarity there is danger of oppression. You yourself imply that this country is increasingly becoming theocratic, so if that trend were to continue long enough such an action by a fundamentalist judge is not really an impossibility.

I feel an amendment is proper, though the one presented by Ron Paul fails. I agree that the rights of the States should not be limited where possible, but the rights of citizens must come first.

I have argued very belligerently here that the first amendment, through the courts, is vigorously applied to the states! My fear was that Dr. Paul's re-clarification of the first amendment, with another amendment, would allow states to openly ignore the establishment clause.

 

[Spirit of '76]

My fear was that Dr. Paul's re-clarification of the first amendment, with another amendment, would allow states to openly ignore the establishment clause.

It seems to me that it applies it more stringently and clearly to the states than does the current wording of the First Amendment.

 

[Kade]

It seems to me that it applies it more stringently and clearly to the states than does the current wording of the First Amendment.

Agreed... but without the provision that taxes levied by that state government could not go to educators and schools who openly start each class period, expressing lovingly and openly their great Christian heritage...

 

[Rastis McNastis]

I have argued very belligerently here that the first amendment, through the courts, is vigorously applied to the states!

I have not denied the correctness of this argument. As I have acknowledged, all precedence is on your side.
However, precedence is not all. If there is any argument over whether it applies to states or not (as there clearly seems to be) then a grave risk exists. This argument is not respected by the courts... yet. Still, the potential violation of rights justify clarification.

My fear was that Dr. Paul's re-clarification of the first amendment, with another amendment, would allow states to openly ignore the establishment clause.

I oppose this reclarification as it is not explicit enough in some regards, while it is in others, thus implying that the former might be allowable.
As for this other amendment you allude to, I will oppose that as well when (and if) I see it.
We both fear the same thing, tyranny by the majority.
The only point of contention is whether clarification of religious rights would help safeguard those liberties or jeopardize them. I argue the former.

 

[Kade]

If this is a Christian nation, then the concept violates the Establishment Clause...

If this is a Christian nation in social institution only, then no law can further that ideal, it is at the whim of the social institution... consider that there are almost 20% non-religious in this country, whose kids right now are mandated by social norms to say "One Nation Under God" in a pledge of allegiance to this beautiful free country...

If freedom resonates with you, you know that people should not have to justify their belief, their conscience to pledge their sacred honor in protection of this country.

 

[Kade]

I have not denied the correctness of this argument. As I have acknowledged, all precedence is on your side.
However, precedence is not all. If there is any argument over whether it applies to states or not (as there clearly seems to be) then a grave risk exists. This argument is not respected by the courts... yet. Still, the potential violation of rights justify clarification.






I oppose this reclarification as it is not explicit enough in some regards, while it is in others, thus implying that the former might be allowable.
As for this other amendment you allude to, I will oppose that as well when (and if) I see it.
We both fear the same thing, tyranny by the majority.
The only point of contention is whether clarification of religious rights would help safeguard those liberties or jeopardize them. I argue the former.

I see... perhaps. This is an interesting twist... you are saying that a re-imagined amendment of Ron Paul's caliber would actually safeguard any infringement by a conservative court to allow the first amendment to lapse against the state.... very interesting...

I agree... a rewording of the amendment would be worth another look...

 

[Rastis McNastis]

Indeed, that is all I am arguing for.

Perhaps reclarification would not even be the best means, but just make it more general.

Instead of "Congress shall pass no law" how about "no law shall be passed in the United States"?

Thus it becomes undeniably clear that it is applicable to all levels of government, but at the same time implies nothing that the former amendment did not.

 

[Kade]

Indeed, that is all I am arguing for.

Perhaps reclarification would not even be the best means, but just make it more general.

Instead of "Congress shall pass no law" how about "no law shall be passed in the United States"?

Thus it becomes undeniably clear that it is applicable to all levels of government, but at the same time implies nothing that the former amendment did not.

The re-wording might piss off the closet dominionists here...

j/k... seriously though... they are here.

 

[hard@work]

Many cases illustrated this I believe... if a case could be made that not allowing a teacher to lead her class in prayer is against her beliefs, then perhaps you have a point, albeit one that will be refuted when the job description of an educator is understand completely.

Remember, praying on her own time is fine... it is the idea that a teacher would lead a class in prayer that law forbids... if this is a violation of her right to religious expression, I would understand this person to be unsuitable to the job of educator outside a private function.

It would depend on who defines the job description, and in my view it is time for the state to remove itself from the definition. I'm open for debate there but not much at this time. As for prayer separate from his or her own time I am suggesting that all the time in the classroom is their time. It is not a question of if they should or should not lead the class in bible study for seven hours a day and only this, it is a question of what the community asks of them. I'm sure we could get into semantics on this extreme here but that's not my intent as I do care for the general welfare of the populace. But I do want to bring across again my philosophy that the time spent in a "public" education system is only "state" because it was near mandated as a requirement; a system we are born into as in many cases the only option.

So in with this belief, how could I not want the expression of religion (or anything else for that matter) to be completely free and open? It is a violation of our liberty outright from birth to be forced into this indoctrination and this needs to change. Sure, abuse is a possibility but that is where the state does belong in it's involvement and that involvement needs to be limited. Otherwise it is our right and civic responsibility to protect against religious discrimination and support an open discussion into the freedom of choice in the matter. But we cannot allow this ideal to be enforced so strictly that we wind up doing the very thing that we protest against.

As for Dr. Paul's amendment, no comment. I am not familiar enough with his reasoning behind it. I would guess he knew very well where that piece of legislation would end up and his reasons for authoring the amendment were purely political in nature. He was making a statement as he often does through the pen. I would hope that this would not be a limitation on your choice in supporting him for the presidency. If anything the Ron Paul supporters are not only incredibly diverse in the spectrum they are passionate and ready to fight for all their beliefs ... even those which they disagree with him fervently on.

What binds us "crazies" together is a mutual respect for liberty, and a respect for Dr. Ron Paul's ethical political life. Personally his open arms approach to dialogue and debate is one of my primary reasons for sponsorship. If I disagreed with him on twice the amount of issues I would still back him merely for the fact that he not only supports my right to vote against him he would encourage the debate as to why. In my perspective more than any other candidate.

This is why in my eyes you should not hang on this particular issue, at least as described so far. As for who the Ron Paul supporters really are ... heh...

They are all of us.

Take care, and welcome to the revolution.

@

 

[Nefertiti]

The federal courts have determined atheism to be a religion, therefore it must be kept separate from the state:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

 

[Rastis McNastis]

The federal courts have determined atheism to be a religion, therefore it must be kept separate from the state:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

Secularism != atheism.

 

[Nefertiti]

What reasons do an atheist, like myself, have for supporting someone who believes:

"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."

If you can't find a reason to support Ron Paul, I suggest you move to France. I think you will feel right at home with their version of separation of church and state. Or perhaps that should be called suppression of church by the state.

 

[Nefertiti]

Secularism != atheism.

You know something, I am sure there are people who read these forums who aren't computer programmers. Why don't you write in English so that people can understand you?