Separation of Church and State

[SWPitcher42]

I've never come across The Good Doctor's opinion on the separation of Church and State, does anyone know what it is?

 

[Dsteenbock]

He believes In seperation of church and state.

 

[ProtusMose]

The Ron Paul Library has some information on this:

From: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=694

"In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state'' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states."

More at:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=religion&op=and

 

[Kade]

The highest viewed topic in all of Ron Paul forums.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=17370&page=20

 

[Deborah K]

He believes In seperation of church and state.

You would be mistaken.

 

[Kade]

You would be mistaken.

Agreed. However, I think you agree with Ron Paul on that issue. I don't... that is why I gave him the link to that topic.

 

[Kade]

The Ron Paul Library has some information on this:

From: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=694

"In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state'' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states."

More at:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=religion&op=and

Did Ron Paul actually say that? That's a new one to me, and surprisingly inexcusably ignorant. His religion blinds him.

 

[Deborah K]

Inexcusably ignorant? How so? This country was founded on judeo-christian principles. The exclusion of religious principles in public forums is a recent practice (circa 1964) brought on initially by Engle v. Vitale (circa 1946). He is absolutely right when he states that the federal intrusion on the first amendment right to freely exercise one's religion is unconstitutional.

Read the first amendment, there are two clauses that pertain to freedom of religion. One is being falsely interpreted and used to preclude the other.

 

[Deborah K]

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear."

Kade, something else you might want to consider; if there is no God, then where do our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from? If they come from the government, then the government can take them away.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Our forefathers clearly did not believe our unalienable rights come from the government.

 

[Kade]

Inexcusably ignorant? How so? This country was founded on judeo-christian principles. The exclusion of religious principles in public forums is a recent practice (circa 1964) brought on initially by Engle v. Vitale (circa 1946). He is absolutely right when he states that the federal intrusion on the first amendment right to freely exercise one's religion is unconstitutional.

Read the first amendment, there are two clauses that pertain to freedom of religion. One is being falsely interpreted and used to preclude the other.

Here we go again. The government should support my religion, and if it doesn't I'm being persecuted, right?

Give me a break. This country was found on Judeo-Christian Principles of freedom? Which freedoms are these? The right to own slaves? The right to choose hell? The right to worship only one god? The right to receive tithes? The right to sell my daughter into slavery? The right to stone unbelievers to death?

The separation of church and state was not some misquoted, out of context slur by Jefferson. It was his explanation.

Why don't you shape this argument in terms of freedom? I have a right to not support religious worship of any kind. This includes a religious endorsement from a government that extracts money from my pocket. I should never be compelled to support your insanity. THAT was at the core of the revolution, and THAT is what is the core of my own take. Neutrality. I don't care if you wash other people's feet, I don't care if you roll around in snakes, I don't care if you drink the symbolic blood of a deified human. I don't care. But I will be damned to all versions of eternity if my money should forcibly go to it.

Seriously though, I promise you, if you are going to sit back and tell me to read the Constitution, as is some kind of odd mantra here, you have no idea what you are talking about. It's not even good enough to read it, you also need to read a few history books, a few court cases, a few commentaries on both sides... perhaps then you will spare me the self-righteous single sentence admonition, like it were some fire-forged cloak of unquestioning authority. You want textualism? Start with the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of that sacred document...

"Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING the establishment of religion. "

I am going to make my living on "reading" the Constitution, as you so callously expect of me... if you even knew how insulting that is to me.

Alright, and now I've opened the floodgates again for the hordes of Theocrats to come...

I'm sure "The Ghost of 1276" (Spirit of 76) will make his presence known with some cute comment about one trip ponies and what not.

But you know what? I care about religious freedom for all, not just some select special elite group, even if they think they are the majority. The truth is, no two Christians agree on anything, period, so even that argument is useless.

Bring it.

 

[Kade]

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear."

Kade, something else you might want to consider; if there is no God, then where do our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from? If they come from the government, then the government can take them away.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Our forefathers clearly did not believe our unalienable rights come from the government.

Any secular document can solidify our rights, and if our rights are simply declared to be from some unseen authority, than someone who pretends to speak for that authority can rip them from under us...

Our rights come from knowledge of rights. Too much has been written and dreamed of, too much has been bled for... if our rights are innate from a natural source, if our rights are given by some celestial spirit, the knowledge of those rights means that someone will fight for them... You cannot tell me my rights come from anywhere, I am convinced by Paine, Jefferson, Hobbes, Hume, Strauss, Locke, Rand, and others that those rights exist, regardless of their source, natural or divine. I am awakened in the short time of my life to what I am and what I could become, and what I should be... Your blindness to this only encourages me to protect others from you, and if when you need it, protect your rights as well.

If you get your freedoms from the Bible, demonstrate to me where is says that I am free to be a non-believer, or that I am free to speak my mind, free to think anyway I will, or that I am free to love who I will, or that I am free to discover science and nature as I see fit, free to protest, free from torture, show me that I am free from supporting other people's convictions....

 

[Deborah K]

You go too far. You don’t need to be so hostile.

I know history, Kade. I have a copy of the letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury baptist church where it clearly shows his words are taken out of context. I know the court cases that have led this nation into the direction of secularism and the demonisation of religious practices and beliefs.

You write:"I have a right to not support religious worship of any kind." Give me an example of supporting religious worship.

Does this mean you are against the Congress Chaplin opening each session with a prayer? Are you against "under God" and "in God we trust"?

Seems to me, people with your point of view are just as, if not more, intolerant of religious people given the FACT - not myth, that religious practices were part of public forums for a major part of this country's history and are only just NOW (last 40 years or so) being systematically removed.

Look, don't get me wrong, I agree with you about the intolerant views of many so-called religious - shall we say- fanatics. They drive me up the wall too.

But it is hypocritical to exercise the same intolerance that you are railing against.

As for your taxes being spent on "religious worship of any kind". By the same token, the religious, (who happen to still be the majority in our country - via a belief in God) are also taxpayers. And anyway, you shouldn't even be paying an income tax in the first place. It is unconstitutional.

The clause, "Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING the establishment of religion. " is in regards to a government sanctioned religion. It has to do with England sanctioning one religion for all. It is a major reason why the English fled in the first place. Only now, through clever wordsmithing, that clause is used to REMOVE religion from the public forum and to supercede the other clause: "free exercise thereof". It doesn't state: "Free to exercise in your home or church and nowhere else".

Who are the "select special elite group" you are referring to?

 

[Deborah K]

Kade writes: "Your blindness to this only encourages me to protect others from you,"

You are intolerant.

And your explanation does not resolve the fact that the Declaration of Independence refers to a creator. Although you will never concede to that, you will never be able to deny it, or my right to believe and freely practice my beliefs however hard you may try.

Do not attempt to put words in my mouth: "If you get your freedoms from the Bible, demonstrate to me where is says that I am free to be a non-believer".

I believe in individual liberty. I believe in the Constitution and its ORIGINAL intent.

 

[Kade]

You go too far. You don’t need to be so hostile.

I know history, Kade. I have a copy of the letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury baptist church where it clearly shows his words are taken out of context. I know the court cases that have led this nation into the direction of secularism and the demonisation of religious practices and beliefs.

You write:"I have a right to not support religious worship of any kind." Give me an example of supporting religious worship.

Does this mean you are against the Congress Chaplin opening each session with a prayer? Are you against "under God" and "in God we trust"?

Seems to me, people with your point of view are just as, if not more, intolerant of religious people given the FACT - not myth, that religious practices were part of public forums for a major part of this country's history and are only just NOW (last 40 years or so) being systematically removed.

Look, don't get me wrong, I agree with you about the intolerant views of many so-called religious - shall we say- fanatics. They drive me up the wall too.

But it is hypocritical to exercise the same intolerance that you are railing against.

As for your taxes being spent on "religious worship of any kind". By the same token, the religious, (who happen to still be the majority in our country - via a belief in God) are also taxpayers. And anyway, you shouldn't even be paying an income tax in the first place. It is unconstitutional.

The clause, "Congress shall make NO LAW RESPECTING the establishment of religion. " is in regards to a government sanctioned religion. It has to do with England sanctioning one religion for all. It is a major reason why the English fled in the first place. Only now, through clever wordsmithing, that clause is used to REMOVE religion from the public forum and to supercede the other clause: "free exercise thereof". It doesn't state: "Free to exercise in your home or church and nowhere else".

Who are the "select special elite group" you are referring to?

Again, you are pretending that you are talking to one of your church friends.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

I couldn't have said it better myself... I don't see how that is taken out of context...

Was the Treaty of Tripoli, voted on by Congress, also taken out of context?

"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 of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."

Was Jefferson out of context when he wrote in the Virginia Statute of Religous Freedom:

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

You ask for an example of my tax money supporting worship?

I can name hundreds, but the the biggest example to date is the Faith Based and Community Initiatives, which usurps millions from general appropriation funds to pass out bibles in prisons and promote Christian programs in detention centers.

I am not intolerant of religious beliefs. I am perfectly open to discussing them in the public sphere... I love it. The Connecticut Valley Atheists had a display and it demanded to be taken down, and when it wasn't they stuck two Christmas trees in front of it... is that the intolerance you speak of, of "people with [my] point of view" whatever that means...

I'm well aware of what the establishment clause means. I've been over this a thousand times. Any endorsement of a belief over a non-belief is an establishment. A motto that declares that this is "One Nation Under God" is an endorsement of belief over non-belief, religion over non-religion, an establishment. You have demanded that this country be recognized as a Religious Organization, promoting of a ceremonial God, and you have ostracized 30 million adults and children who don't believe in any god or many gods. Then you have the audacity to pretend that you don't actually mean the Christian God by that merit... it is the most ardent example of dishonesty and religious bigotry since time forgotten. The intent was religious freedom, not coercion. The fact that the current non-Christians in this country are as angry, and as adamant about this destruction of the separation of Church and State should make any of you, believers alike, rational people worried... not for us, not about us, but that this language has been allowed, that this country is one of faith, not one of all faiths and non-faiths, that people believe that someone like myself, who has never even left the country, born in the state that has given birth to more Presidents than any other, must be compelled to believe in some sort of monotheistic god against my will, must have my children recite a pledge of national unity and allegiance under this same god, and then must be compelled to watch as society demonizes me because of my LACK OF BELIEF of all things... that some even speak of bringing back mandatory prayer in schools, and pushing more faith based programs to every state...

When we go back to hiding, you will turn against yourselves, denomination against denomination, church against church, whoever can demand loudest that they are the represent of this great deity, will rule you all. And I will just pretend, in order to live free and without punishment, that I believe the nonsense you do.

 

[Kade]

Kade writes: "Your blindness to this only encourages me to protect others from you,"

You are intolerant.

And your explanation does not resolve the fact that the Declaration of Independence refers to a creator. Although you will never concede to that, you will never be able to deny it, or my right to believe and freely practice my beliefs however hard you may try.

Do not attempt to put words in my mouth: "If you get your freedoms from the Bible, demonstrate to me where is says that I am free to be a non-believer".

I believe in individual liberty. I believe in the Constitution and its ORIGINAL intent.

You openly demanded that I acknowledge that my rights came from some celestial boogey man, and I refused. The Constitution makes no mention of God, and the Declaration of devoid of any demand of acceptance of rights that couldn't equally be applied to natural laws. I'm intolerant of theocrats, yes. I'm intolerant of tyrants and single sentence admonitions. I'm intolerant of oppression and verbal spin. Doesn't mean I'm still not going to protect those freedoms if the time ever came...

The Constitution guarantees certain rights. We, as the living generation can demand more rights. As the Government becomes more entwined with our money, and your religion, and war, we are losing grasp that we are not to be tied down by previous generations or their original intent. The original intent was a Republic, that would eventually lead to more freedoms.

Many good things have come from the demand of more freedoms. We have ended slavery, we have ended persecution, torture. We have full suffrage. We have freedom of reproduction.

No, they are not all guaranteed in the original Constitution. But we are not slaves to older generations. We have a right to demand freedoms in this generations, the ones promised to us, and the ones that we believe are etched in divine or natural law.

 

[Deborah K]

Your hypocrisy, hostility, and intolerance astound me. Your argument is full of vitriol and not worth the time it would take to debate your points one by one.

You come off like someone who is speaking out of a painful experience and letting his emotions overrule his logic as is the case with most people who resort to condescension and insults.

It is beyond me why you would support Ron Paul. Your stance on this is out of touch with reality and history, and your attempt at making other people's words your own is pathetic. Definitely not worth my time and effort any longer.

 

[Kade]

Your hypocrisy, hostility, and intolerance astound me. Your argument is full of vitriol and not worth the time it would take to debate your points one by one.

You come off like someone who is speaking out of a painful experience and letting his emotions overrule his logic as is the case with most people who resort to condescension and insults.

It is beyond me why you would support Ron Paul. Your stance on this is out of touch with reality and history, and your attempt at making other people's words your own is pathetic. Definitely not worth my time and effort any longer.

Actually I was quite logical and straightforward. The last breath of a dying ideal whose time has come to an end. Theocracy is not the way. I'm sorry.

I hold no respect for hypocrisy, intolerance... hostility is a vice too often suppressed in the cloud of political correctness. I can always belay my hostility when you drop your passive aggressive denouncements. Labeling me as emotionally hurt is a very common, and grossly overused cliche of the Religious towards non-religious, how DARE we not agree with you, we must not have had fathers! You don't know me, and you happen to be the only one to make this personal. My insults are directed to your ideas, not you. I don't believe this is a Christian Nation, because I am a non-Christian who also considers himself a patriot.

You don't have to argue point by point. Your position is espoused only by closed--minded religious leaders and people who want to pander to extremist religious voters, I believe my position, that the separation of church and state should be absolute is the extension of many brilliant men and women before me, including many of the founding fathers.

I don't blame you for being upset. I would be upset too if someone told me the government shouldn't be giving lipservice to my worldview only...

Oh wait, they don't.

I wonder if we could agree that neutrality is a better compromise than fighting amongst patriots? Notice that I have no intention of stripping that label from you, based on what you believe... unlike certain leaders of this country...

George H.W. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

 

[JaylieWoW]

Quick question, do non-Christians have a problem with Christians praying in public schools? Is that seen as an expense by the taxpayer to fund religion?

This isn't a trick question, I'm curious. I've never really given the church and state thing much consideration. Most of my focus, and the cause that brings me to Ron Paul, are family rights or more specifically the LACK of rights for non-custodial parents.

I think you guys have a very thought provoking debate going on here...

 

[Sey.Naci]

Did Ron Paul actually say that? That's a new one to me, and surprisingly inexcusably ignorant. His religion blinds him.

I'm an atheist and I disagree with you. The feds have no authority to legislate what can and cannot be said or believed or practiced when it comes to religion, spirituality, etc.

 

[ClassicalLiberal]

Quick question, do non-Christians have a problem with Christians praying in public schools? Is that seen as an expense by the taxpayer to fund religion?.

Actually, your question is several questions kind of twisted together.

Do I have a problem . . .? As a matter of personal preference, as a non-Christian of the atheistic variety, I find it objectionable, dis-enlightening, and a colossal waste of time to subject children to magical incantations uttered to that imaginary ego maniacal desert demon the bible refers to as God. However, raising my opinion to the level of law is a different matter. More on that below.

I don't see any reason to exclude student groups from using public school facilities for voluntary prayer groups or bible studies just as the facilities are available to other student groups.

Does the US Constitution have a problem . . . ? When it comes to the US Constitution, I find it says "Congress shall make no law . . .," not "the state shall make no law," not "the school board shall make no law" . . . etc. At the time the Constitution was ratified, some states still had established religions and that was not considered unconstitutional. So I find it difficult to reach the conclusion that the national Constitution forbids organized prayer in public schools. That's not to say it's OK to force kids to participate in prayer if they don't want to, or their parents don't want them to, but to have a period of time organized by the school administration for the purpose of prayer doesn't violate the First Amendment.

So, the next question is, what state are we talking about and what does that state's constitution say? Some states add more detail to their religious (dis)establishment clauses.

Another question is what constitutes an "establishment" of religion, anyway? Clearly, the Constitution at least precludes the establishment of some denomination as a national church. But does it mean no "In God we trust" on the money or no "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? I'm not a lawyer or an expert, so this is just my take on the matter. It seems to me for a religious expression to be an establishment of religion there must be some law requiring support or compliance and some penalty for rejection or noncompliance. I am free to say "under God" when saying the Pledge, or to simply take a breath, which is what I do. For that matter, I am free to not say the Pledge at all if I don't care to. There is no penalty assessed. I am required to accept money with a religious slogan printed on it as payment for debts. But I am under no compulsion to agree with the slogan and I face no penalty for saying that I think it is bull$h!t. I don't like having "In God we trust" on the money, but I don't think it qualifies as an establishment of religion.

As a general rule, at any level of government, I don't think every expression of religious sentiment or every acknowledgment of religion in connection with government activity constitutes an establishment of religion. I think the key question is whether such an expression of religion comes with any compulsion of law.

What about being taxed to pay for something you don't like, like a manger scene on the front lawn of city hall, or that portion of the school day when the prayer is being said? Well, that's one of the problems with taxes being used for so-called public purposes. Until we're living in an anarchist utopia, I just accept the fact that some portion of my tax dollars goes to stuff I'd rather not spend it on. It may not be a desirable situation, but everybody is faced with the same problem to one degree or another. It's not as if I, as an atheist, am being singled out with a special tax on unbelievers to pay for the activities of believers.