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

[Bittle]

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." - George Washington

 

[Kade]

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." - George Washington

Unbelievable. I cannot believe in my heart and mind that people continue to promote this kind of ignorance. George Washington NEVER said those words. The fact that a few Christian sites around the internet spout off revisionist history does not make something fact.

The most religious thing Washington EVER said was his proclamation of Thanksgiving:

"In such a state of things it is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience.
 Deeply penetrated with this sentiment, I, George Washington, President of the United States, do recommend to all religious societies and denominations, and to all persons whomsoever, within the United States to set apart and observe Thursday, the 19th day of February next as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, and on that day to meet together and render their sincere and hearty thanks to the Great Ruler of Nations for the manifold and signal mercies which distinguish our lot as a nation..."

...and it was still non-sectarian and non-Christian.

This country is not a Christian Nation. If it were, it would be necessary to change that fact. Luckily for us, it's not. Please.... please stop the revision of history!!


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington

Scroll down to section entitled "spurious quotations".


I don't get this. It should be considered the highest form of defamation to put the words in the mouth of our founders. Free speech is one thing, revisionism of history is inexcusable. The admins allow this sort of thing, but are willing to ban people who have dissenting opinions... the message is, as long as you support Ron Paul with vigorous and belligerent defenses, rewriting history, you can say whatever you want... but don't you dare question anything that could be hurtful to the campaign. Oh, but let us moan and cry about being banned from Hannity Forums...

It amazes me, it really does.

 

[budafied]

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 like this quote due to its stupidity.

The fact is that a citizen can be convicted for killing an unborn baby of an endangered species, such as a bald eagle. Is a human being not more important than any animal, even an endangered species? The funny part about Kade's statement is that the life of an unborn animal is already valued higher than an unborn human being.


Also, the moment of life's beginning is either birth or conception, no other argument is scientifially sound. There are all chromosones, dna, and blueprints present at conception. So between conception and birth, what wins? Well, due to the fact that babies can be born 3 months premature and live, i think one would logically have to conclude that conception is the only way to ensure a human life is not murdered.


And now to the real reason abortion is legal in today's society. Outlawing abortion after the moment of conception makes nearly every type of chemical contraceptive illegal because they abort a fertilized egg. The world has become so dependent on the so-called 'freedom' of sexuality, that the outlawing of contracpetives based on no abortion would be unacceptable....

What do you guys think of this argument? I've heard it many times and think it is a sound, non-religious argument.

 

[Kade]

I like this quote due to its stupidity.

The fact is that a citizen can be convicted for killing an unborn baby of an endangered species, such as a bald eagle. Is a human being not more important than any animal, even an endangered species? The funny part about Kade's statement is that the life of an unborn animal is already valued higher than an unborn human being.


Also, the moment of life's beginning is either birth or conception, no other argument is scientifially sound. There are all chromosones, dna, and blueprints present at conception. So between conception and birth, what wins? Well, due to the fact that babies can be born 3 months premature and live, i think one would logically have to conclude that conception is the only way to ensure a human life is not murdered.


And now to the real reason abortion is legal in today's society. Outlawing abortion after the moment of conception makes nearly every type of chemical contraceptive illegal because they abort a fertilized egg. The world has become so dependent on the so-called 'freedom' of sexuality, that the outlawing of contracpetives based on no abortion would be unacceptable....

What do you guys think of this argument? I've heard it many times and think it is a sound, non-religious argument.

I'll tell you what I think.

You spelled "Scientifically", "contraceptives", and "chromosomes" wrong.
You jumped in a dead conversation in an argument that had more than one point.
You clearly don't understand the point being made.

Murder is the killing of a human with malice aforethought. So using emotional appeal, is always a great way to turn around the minds of people who like to think.

If the concept of life is so sound "scientifically" why is there such an overwhelming of support of abortion from scientists?

Do you really just stand back and think that those that support abortion are evil people? Surely there must be some reason why these large number of educated and informed citizens have come to this decision?

 

[Kade]

I like this quote due to its stupidity.

The fact is that a citizen can be convicted for killing an unborn baby of an endangered species, such as a bald eagle. Is a human being not more important than any animal, even an endangered species? The funny part about Kade's statement is that the life of an unborn animal is already valued higher than an unborn human being.


Also, the moment of life's beginning is either birth or conception, no other argument is scientifially sound. There are all chromosones, dna, and blueprints present at conception. So between conception and birth, what wins? Well, due to the fact that babies can be born 3 months premature and live, i think one would logically have to conclude that conception is the only way to ensure a human life is not murdered.


And now to the real reason abortion is legal in today's society. Outlawing abortion after the moment of conception makes nearly every type of chemical contraceptive illegal because they abort a fertilized egg. The world has become so dependent on the so-called 'freedom' of sexuality, that the outlawing of contracpetives based on no abortion would be unacceptable....

What do you guys think of this argument? I've heard it many times and think it is a sound, non-religious argument.

And you only have two posts at that.

Including this piece on a different thread:

"Last i checked, murder is most definitely an issue that was outlawed on a national basis...


o wait, this is murder of a baby, so i guess thats seen differently *rolls eyes*


i guess killing a baby is ok if the girl who got herself pregnant (dont worry, i am sympathetic to rape cases) decides she doesnt want to use the gift of sex to bring life into this world...so lets just kill the baby...or the cases when the woman who gets pregnant decides to kill her baby so she wont look bad in a bathing suit for the summer......what has this world come to?"

*lulz*

Did you join to just post about your concern for blastocysts?

And where is the rest of the Ron Paul Forum-Court jesters to pounce on you?

Carcass? Sandy? Evadmurd? OptionsTrader, ... anyone... a great chance to prove you're not all hypocrites.

 

[Jeremiah]

Public education

This is a rather enormous thread. I read a large section of it, but not all. The misunderstanding that people are clearly making is that when you are discharging the responsibilities of the government, you are for that time, no longer a private citizen. You are the government. In this case, the teachers take on the role of government. It is entirely inappropriate for the government, in the form of the teacher, to encourage his students to do anything of a religious nature. To do so would be to tacitly establish a religious doctrine.

Further examples:

If a police officer is on duty discharging the powers of the government, he may not encourage or discourage any religious activities. Once he's off the clock, he may do whatever he pleases.

A politician must not encourage or discourage any religious activity while he is fulfilling his duties as an agent of the government. He may do whatever he wishes on his own time. To reference divinity in his speeches as a Senator, regarding public government issues, would be inappropriate. If he wants to be a public religious speaker on the weekends as a private citizen, he may do so.

To further clarify, students are not an agent of the government during their education. If they so choose to spend their free time praying, say during lunch or before class, they are fully free to do so. If, however, the faculty, in their role as representatives of the government, allot special time for these students to pray, then they have encouraged that religious activity.

This is one reason, among others, why RP wants to eliminate the DOE. "Congress shall make no law...". Making laws about school prayer is unconstitutional. Forbidding any religious expression in schools is unconstitutional. Only Congress is tasked with making federal laws so the federal courts cannot apply laws that do not exist.

Your argument about public and private declaration of religious beliefs, though commonly held, is based upon a faulty understanding of the First Amendment. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. Freedom of religion and speech means "anyone" may expess publicly any belief, pray to any god or no god, hold any opinion, think any thought without fear of being silenced. Do not fall into the trap of denying rights to anyone for spurious reasons to appease your own belief system.

 

[Kade]

This is one reason, among others, why RP wants to eliminate the DOE. "Congress shall make no law...". Making laws about school prayer is unconstitutional. Forbidding any religious expression in schools is unconstitutional. Only Congress is tasked with making federal laws so the federal courts cannot apply laws that do not exist.

Your argument about public and private declaration of religious beliefs, though commonly held, is based upon a faulty understanding of the First Amendment. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. Freedom of religion and speech means "anyone" may expess publicly any belief, pray to any god or no god, hold any opinion, think any thought without fear of being silenced. Do not fall into the trap of denying rights to anyone for spurious reasons to appease your own belief system.

"Forbidding any religious expression in schools is unconstitutional."

Not if we ignore the application of the first amendment to the states. The second you ignore the establishment clause in state government, then state's can just outright ban whatever expression they want... Congress Shall Make No Law... remember?

Why do the same people who spout off about the "lack" of a separation of church and state in the Constitution, fail to see that it was the intent.

By your understanding of the first amendment, the State of California could just ban religious expression period, and you have no say. As long as Congress doesn't make the law prohibiting, everything is golden.

Seriously, can we stop and think about this... and stop using the same rehashed, refuted, revisionist nonsense.

 

[Jeremiah]

Unbelievable. I cannot believe in my heart and mind that people continue to promote this kind of ignorance. George Washington NEVER said those words. The fact that a few Christian sites around the internet spout off revisionist history does not make something fact.

The most religious thing Washington EVER said was his proclamation of Thanksgiving:

"In such a state of things it is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience.
 Deeply penetrated with this sentiment, I, George Washington, President of the United States, do recommend to all religious societies and denominations, and to all persons whomsoever, within the United States to set apart and observe Thursday, the 19th day of February next as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, and on that day to meet together and render their sincere and hearty thanks to the Great Ruler of Nations for the manifold and signal mercies which distinguish our lot as a nation..."

...and it was still non-sectarian and non-Christian.

This country is not a Christian Nation. If it were, it would be necessary to change that fact. Luckily for us, it's not. Please.... please stop the revision of history!!


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington

Scroll down to section entitled "spurious quotations".


I don't get this. It should be considered the highest form of defamation to put the words in the mouth of our founders. Free speech is one thing, revisionism of history is inexcusable. The admins allow this sort of thing, but are willing to ban people who have dissenting opinions... the message is, as long as you support Ron Paul with vigorous and belligerent defenses, rewriting history, you can say whatever you want... but don't you dare question anything that could be hurtful to the campaign. Oh, but let us moan and cry about being banned from Hannity Forums...

It amazes me, it really does.

I went to the wikipedia article you referenced and found the following sourced quotations from George Washington:

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. "

"The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die." (This may also fit into the abortion debate)

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. " (This may also address the question of religious action in the public square performing public duties.)

"If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. "

"Happy, thrice happy shall they be pronounced hereafter, who have contributed any thing, who have performed the meanest office in erecting this stupendous fabrick of Freedom and Empire on the broad basis of Independency; who have assisted in protecting the rights of humane nature and establishing an Asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations and religions. "

"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

"The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned. " (This may be used to oppose the idea of democracy which was specifically rejected by the signers of the Constitution but embraced by the Illuminati and the Jacobins.)

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. "

"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? "

Misattributed:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. "

This statement was made by an official representative of the U.S., but is actually a line from the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, initially signed by a representative of the US on 4 November 1796 during Washington's presidency, approved by Congress 7 June 1797 and finally signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797. Article 11 of it reads:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,— as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,— and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Joel Barlow, who had served as Washington's chaplain, and was also a good friend of Paine and Jefferson was the representative in charge of the translation."

(This speaks eloquently to the present animosity between Islam and the United States.)

It must be clear from all of the above that while Washington was a religious man (in the best sense of the word), he was no religious, or irreligious, bigot. The United States was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, welcoming people of any religion (or, by inference, none) to be citizens. However it is also clear that Washington recognised the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men, that he was not attached to the doctrines of the Illuminati (as has been alleged)or the Jacobins, and had a great respect for the Christian faith, properly understood.

 

[Jeremiah]

"Forbidding any religious expression in schools is unconstitutional."

Not if we ignore the application of the first amendment to the states. The second you ignore the establishment clause in state government, then state's can just outright ban whatever expression they want... Congress Shall Make No Law... remember?

Why do the same people who spout off about the "lack" of a separation of church and state in the Constitution, fail to see that it was the intent.

By your understanding of the first amendment, the State of California could just ban religious expression period, and you have no say. As long as Congress doesn't make the law prohibiting, everything is golden.

Seriously, can we stop and think about this... and stop using the same rehashed, refuted, revisionist nonsense.

Strictly speaking the First Amendment does not apply to the states except in principle. Every state has its own constitution which should reflect the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. As I understand it, establishment of religion was the norm in the states. e.g. I believe that Pennsylvania was a Quaker State. However it is up to the people who are residents of the states to determine their religious, or irreligious, character, while observing the rights of others to worship as they will. The Federal government should have no overriding interest in which religion, or no religion, is practiced in any state. Therefore if California decided to be secular/atheist then that would be OK. However, residents of California would be permitted to practice any faith and speak publicly about it. The only issue then would be the extent of the reach of government intrusion into personal and family life.

 

[idrake]

Kade, I haven't read every post on this thread, but as an Atheist, I agree with your secular inclinations.

School prayer and prayer in school are two different things to me though. I don't think individuals should be prevented from praying in school. It is not the government's place to make its citizens suspend their beliefs during the school day.

However, there are TWO very important aspects to this. First, I don't think it should be a school (i.e. government) led prayer. Second, I think we need to make sure the Rastafarians can smoke herb in class, the Muslims can roll out the prayer rug and chant at times during the school day, and Atheists can get together and do our secret thing that we do. That is what constitutional school prayer looks like.

Finally, all this bickering is pointless. Ron Paul has his priorities straight and we should too. If you can get past these small differences (like I have) let me be the first to welcome you to the revolution.

 

[hypnagogue]

Your argument about public and private declaration of religious beliefs, though commonly held, is based upon a faulty understanding of the First Amendment. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. Freedom of religion and speech means "anyone" may expess publicly any belief, pray to any god or no god, hold any opinion, think any thought without fear of being silenced. Do not fall into the trap of denying rights to anyone for spurious reasons to appease your own belief system.

Needless to say I disagree. It would be equally easy for me to accuse you of holding your positions to "appease" your belief system. In fact, I'd wager I could pile more weight onto my accusation than you could. I won't do that though. Let's deal with the issue at hand rather than make blind stabs at our individual motives.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the Constitution, this is true, but it was named as the principal behind the statement, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," by none other than Thomas Jefferson. The intent of the 1st amendment was to create a separation of church and state.

It is important to recognize that the government may do nothing which they have not authorized by law. The Congress did not create the Department of Education to encourage religious activity. To do so would be unconstitutional. Therefore, the Department of Education may not encourage religious activity. Therefore, teachers, being the agents of the Department of Education may not encourage religious activity.

When you are acting as a public servant you agree to act in accordance with the powers of government. You may do nothing which you are not authorized by law to do.

 

[jm1776]

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the Constitution, this is true, but it was named as the principal behind the statement, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," by none other than Thomas Jefferson. The intent of the 1st amendment was to create a separation of church and state.

The intent was to prevent a National religion, such as the Church of England, leaving the States free to do as they please.

This exhibit from the Library of Congress might be of interest.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

A quote from Part II

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.

 

[Kade]

Kade, I haven't read every post on this thread, but as an Atheist, I agree with your secular inclinations.

School prayer and prayer in school are two different things to me though. I don't think individuals should be prevented from praying in school. It is not the government's place to make its citizens suspend their beliefs during the school day.

However, there are TWO very important aspects to this. First, I don't think it should be a school (i.e. government) led prayer. Second, I think we need to make sure the Rastafarians can smoke herb in class, the Muslims can roll out the prayer rug and chant at times during the school day, and Atheists can get together and do our secret thing that we do. That is what constitutional school prayer looks like.

Finally, all this bickering is pointless. Ron Paul has his priorities straight and we should too. If you can get past these small differences (like I have) let me be the first to welcome you to the revolution.

I'm already part of the revolution, a long standing part. I want to emphasize strongly and without missing a beat: Nobody is stopped from praying in school. Only school led prayer is prohibited.

 

[Kade]

I went to the wikipedia article you referenced and found the following sourced quotations from George Washington:

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. "

"The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die." (This may also fit into the abortion debate)

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. " (This may also address the question of religious action in the public square performing public duties.)

"If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. "

"Happy, thrice happy shall they be pronounced hereafter, who have contributed any thing, who have performed the meanest office in erecting this stupendous fabrick of Freedom and Empire on the broad basis of Independency; who have assisted in protecting the rights of humane nature and establishing an Asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations and religions. "

"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

"The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned. " (This may be used to oppose the idea of democracy which was specifically rejected by the signers of the Constitution but embraced by the Illuminati and the Jacobins.)

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. "

"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? "

Misattributed:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. "

This statement was made by an official representative of the U.S., but is actually a line from the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, initially signed by a representative of the US on 4 November 1796 during Washington's presidency, approved by Congress 7 June 1797 and finally signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797. Article 11 of it reads:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,— as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,— and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Joel Barlow, who had served as Washington's chaplain, and was also a good friend of Paine and Jefferson was the representative in charge of the translation."

(This speaks eloquently to the present animosity between Islam and the United States.)

It must be clear from all of the above that while Washington was a religious man (in the best sense of the word), he was no religious, or irreligious, bigot. The United States was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, welcoming people of any religion (or, by inference, none) to be citizens. However it is also clear that Washington recognised the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men, that he was not attached to the doctrines of the Illuminati (as has been alleged)or the Jacobins, and had a great respect for the Christian faith, properly understood.

So you, in essence, agree with me.

I was jumping on this kid for misquoting Washington. It was absolutely inexcusable.

 

[Kade]

The intent was to prevent a National religion, such as the Church of England, leaving the States free to do as they please.

This exhibit from the Library of Congress might be of interest.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

A quote from Part II

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.

I've gone through the Library of Congresses screeds on religion, and I have found less bias consideration on Christian Fundamentalists sites...

If the Library of Congress were truly unbias, it would have shown the original copies of many of Jefferson's letters as well... not just the Danbury Baptists letter... for instance, In Jefferson's famous oath: :

"I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny imposed upon the mind of man"

The "god" has always been lower case... but you wouldn't know that if you ever visited Jefferson's memorial.

The Library of Congress picture also demonstrates it, but without bringing it up... why?

Because it is run and controlled by theocrats. Sorry.

http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/022/0400/0440.jpg

 

[Feelgood]

I get so utterly sick of this whole "separation of church and state" horseshit. Makes me sick. Everytime I hear it uttered, I immediately know Im dealing with someone that is clueless and ignorant. There is no such thing as separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution, its amendments or the Bill of Rights. It simply says in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" nothing about the separation of church and state.

The only time the mention of the separation of church and state comes up, is in the Federalist Papers, which preceded the Constitution. This is a typical ignorant liberal stance. Those of us that are actually informed and knowledgeable dont fall for this.

Since Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist, this discussion really does not belong here.

 

[Xenophage]

I am an atheist and I support Paul's amendment. If you want to say grace before you eat your lunch in High School you should be able to do that. Likewise, if you want to wear a t-shirt in school that says "Jesus stole my hubcaps" I think you should be able to do that. The amendment makes it clear that these are free speech issues, and simply *allowing* religious discussion or demonstration by voluntary participants in a public school does not mean an endorsement by the school itself.

 

[Xenophage]

I get so utterly sick of this whole "separation of church and state" horseshit. Makes me sick. Everytime I hear it uttered, I immediately know Im dealing with someone that is clueless and ignorant. There is no such thing as separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution, its amendments or the Bill of Rights. It simply says in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" nothing about the separation of church and state.

The only time the mention of the separation of church and state comes up, is in the Federalist Papers, which preceded the Constitution. This is a typical ignorant liberal stance. Those of us that are actually informed and knowledgeable dont fall for this.

Since Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist, this discussion really does not belong here.

This is quite clearly a separation of church and state. Congress cannot pass or enforce laws that have anything at all to do with religion. If you're Evangelical, and Congress was predominantly Mormon, you'd be quite glad there was a separation of church and state.

 

[Flash The Cash]

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the Constitution, this is true, but it was named as the principal behind the statement, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," by none other than Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was wrong! The First Amendment didn't separate church and state or religion and civil government. Religion was separated, or excluded, from the cognizance of the U. S. Government by not granting the government any power whatsoever over religion in the unamended Constitution.

The intent of the 1st amendment was to create a separation of church and state.

Show me where the church was ever attached to U. S. Government.

 

[Kade]

I get so utterly sick of this whole "separation of church and state" horseshit. Makes me sick. Everytime I hear it uttered, I immediately know Im dealing with someone that is clueless and ignorant. There is no such thing as separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution, its amendments or the Bill of Rights. It simply says in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" nothing about the separation of church and state.


Since Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist, this discussion really does not belong here.

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution"

There is also no such thing as freedom of religious expression either... what's your point?

Freedom's go beyond a piece of paper. Many here wonder why I am angry... it is because people like you, a believer, show this kind of attitude on a daily basis....

If Ron Paul is solely a strict Constitutionalist, than any person could sit here and claim that a state could ban the religious worship of any person or group... since the Constitution only specifies Congressional limitations on the matter...

The only time the mention of the separation of church and state comes up, is in the Federalist Papers, which preceded the Constitution. This is a typical ignorant liberal stance. Those of us that are actually informed and knowledgeable dont fall for this.

Now this is ignorant. Where were you educated? Were you educated? Do you ever know what you are talking about? How can anyone take you seriously?


Federalist Papers?


Anyway, just tell me what a government that does not have a Secular purpose looks like... and we can go from there. Fair?