Religion: Separation of State and Church?

[RonPaul4President]

Does anyone have a link to Ron Paul's views on the separaton of state from church? I personally find the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" engraved on the wall over the house speaker on Capitol Hill very facetious and offensive. It is almost as if our current government takes pleasure in mocking our forefathers intentions.

 

[gravesdav]

Check out this video almost 2 minutes into it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=frtQ51TA3PY

 

[RonPaul4President]

It bothers me that he wants the states to decide on their own something that is already a Constitutional matter. If allowed, this will create pockets of unconstiutional behaviour that will violate the rights of those said behaviour is imposed upon. Religion MUST be kept out of government. What government officials do on their own time is their own business but as representatives of our government they are bound to the laws and rules of conduct therein prescribed.

 

[Bloody Holly]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Is it that hard to understand?

I'm not religious but am not intolerant towards those that are. Suppression is a form of prohibiting and spreads the message of intolerance.

 

[RonPaul4President]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Is it that hard to understand?

No, it is not hard to understand at all. For our government to support or include any aspect of any religion violates the rights of those that do not subscribe to those religious ideals.

 

[Bloody Holly]

Congress shall make no law


Give examples. I just want to make sure I am understanding where you are coming from.

 

[Broadlighter]

Separation of Church and State

I don't understand what is meant by 'pockets of unconstitutional behavior.' The Constitution was written to define the scope and purpose of the federal government and set limitations on it. Specific matters affecting individuals were left to the local areas and states to decide. The 'respecting establishment of religion' clause was intended to prevent the creation of a national religion and laws that favor the aims of one religion at the expense of another or individuals who do not believe in that religion. For example Congress could not enact a law that requires everyone to attend Catholic Mass. I think the Catholic Church would think that's a nifty idea, but no one else would.

'Prohibit the free exercise thereof' is just that. Congress will not pass any laws prohibiting anyone to follow and practice the religion of their choosing. The prayer in school thing is a local matter. If the federal government were to take over all public education in every state, then it would be more of a constitutional matter, but schools derive their primary funding and administration from the states. People should take that fight to their state governments.

 

[foofighter20x]

Yeah, but don't forget the 1st applies to the states via the 14th.

 

[Korey Kaczynski]

Does anyone have a link to Ron Paul's views on the separaton of state from church? I personally find the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" engraved on the wall over the house speaker on Capitol Hill very facetious and offensive. It is almost as if our current government takes pleasure in mocking our forefathers intentions.

Damn, I'm King Atheist and I couldn't care less what my money says. It's not a big deal. Sure, I suppose, ideologically, I'd rather not have it there, but how can someone be so worked up over it to be offended?

 

[RonPaul4President]

I don't understand what is meant by 'pockets of unconstitutional behavior.'

If left solely to each state to decide, say, if they're going to say grace before eating in the cafeteria. Now, if that school is funded by state taxes that are derived from the people of that state then this is unethical and infringes upon the rights of those that are not religious. OTOH, if that school is privately owned, they can do whatever the hell they want. In the first case the church is meddling in the state business. In the second case, the state does not apply so anything goes.

By "pockets", I was referring to a group or community that sees no problem requiring all students say grace before eating their lunches. As they say, one thing leads to another. Within time this "behaviour" will become dominant and the standard.

Scenario: An aethiest family moves to this community unbeknownst to thier fate and is ostricized by the community for their beleifs. Now you have the exact same situation the Puritans left England for.

Insight.

 

[Broadlighter]

Pockets of unconstitutional behavior

I'm no Christian, but my understanding of constitutional behavior applies to persons functioning as representatives, justices, executives and agents of the federal government. The Constitution doesn't impose rules of behavior for individuals who are not acting under the auspices of the federal government. However, I did see instances where certain rules are imposed on states.

Am I missing something here? I understand how groups of people in local areas can resort to mob-rule and force individuals to do things they don't want to do, but how is this addressed in the Consitution as it pertains to respecting the establishment of a religion?

 

[Bloody Holly]

If left solely to each state to decide, say, if they're going to say grace before eating in the cafeteria. Now, if that school is funded by state taxes that are derived from the people of that state then this is unethical and infringes upon the rights of those that are not religious. OTOH, if that school is privately owned, they can do whatever the hell they want. In the first case the church is meddling in the state business. In the second case, the state does not apply so anything goes.

By "pockets", I was referring to a group or community that sees no problem requiring all students say grace before eating their lunches. As they say, one thing leads to another. Within time this "behaviour" will become dominant and the standard.

Scenario: An aethiest family moves to this community unbeknownst to thier fate and is ostricized by the community for their beleifs. Now you have the exact same situation the Puritans left England for.

Insight.

Yeah but the founding fathers were not all atheists. There were some who were religious and some that were atheists. What they escaped from was persecution for your beliefs and persecution for your non beliefs.

As far as school goes. Would you have a problem if there were a 15 minute break, a quiet time for those who are religious to pray and atheists to do their own thing? The exploit I can see with this is perhaps religious gangs or people bullying each other but if you have a smart teacher who teaches kids about why there are different religions, how that plays into our dreams in America and why you should respect those different than you, it should help ease tension but kids can be cruel. It can be because of your hair, the clothes you wear, the music you listen to, your parents are weird anything really.

Teachers are a disgruntled bunch now. They have so much weight on their backs.

I do think there should be an exception however. If there is a religion that is meant to harm others like sacrificing them (lol), anything like that then of course that shouldn't be practiced.

The problem with laws and regulations is that people always find a way to exploit them. That is why people have to think about this before and literally spell it out. It starts out fine at first until someone twists up the words to suit their own goals leaving all others out who have rights too.


Also, Martin Luther King was African American. Does that mean that he only wanted equal rights for African Americans??

 

[CJLauderdale4]

Sorry to break the news to everyone...

I just flipped through my copy of the Constitution, and....couldn't find the phrase "separation of church and state".

Other than a letter from our third President who signed legislation with "In the Year of our Lord and Savor Jesus Christ", and in a Supreme Court ruling in 1947, can't find it anywhere else.

The references on Capitol Hill weren't sneakily placed there after the Founders all died. They were put there at the request of the Founders. So what was there intent?

Same thing with gun-control - if the Founders meant only soldiers should have firearms, why didn't they go roundup all of them up after the Bill of Rights were ratified??

 

[RonPaul4President]

Sorry to break the news to everyone...

I just flipped through my copy of the Constitution, and....couldn't find the phrase "separation of church and state".

Other than a letter from our third President who signed legislation with "In the Year of our Lord and Savor Jesus Christ", and in a Supreme Court ruling in 1947, can't find it anywhere else.

The references on Capitol Hill weren't sneakily placed there after the Founders all died. They were put there at the request of the Founders. So what was there intent?

Same thing with gun-control - if the Founders meant only soldiers should have firearms, why didn't they go roundup all of them up after the Bill of Rights were ratified??

Correct. Nor is there anything in there about Congressional bribery. Hopefully someone with some balls will step forward and do the right thing by legislating laws to outlaw both.

 

[foofighter20x]

Sorry to break the news to everyone...

I just flipped through my copy of the Constitution, and....couldn't find the phrase "separation of church and state".

Other than a letter from our third President who signed legislation with "In the Year of our Lord and Savor Jesus Christ", and in a Supreme Court ruling in 1947, can't find it anywhere else.

The references on Capitol Hill weren't sneakily placed there after the Founders all died. They were put there at the request of the Founders. So what was there intent?

Same thing with gun-control - if the Founders meant only soldiers should have firearms, why didn't they go roundup all of them up after the Bill of Rights were ratified??

The intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights was made pretty clear in the committee reports and records from the 1st Congress.

 

[mikelovesgod]

"I'm for what the founders of this country wanted..."

Baloney you do. They are the ones that promoted all currency with "In God we Trust" and framed all rights as endowed from our Creator. I'm almost stupified that people don't know their own countries policies from the founders and blame others.

Hey, if you don't believe your rights are not endowed by your Creator you are against the framing of this country on the basis of God and human dignity. Without God there is no human dignity; we have our independence because we are dependent on God. If not there is no reason to have inalienable rights if God didn't create us and give us souls which reflect God in creation.

I don't care if you disagree with that, it's how the framers of this country believed.

 

[mikelovesgod]

The Constitution nor the framers never taught separation of God and state, but separation from formal institutionalized religion and state. People confuse the 2 and Ron Paul explains this beautifully.

This idea that there is a separation between God and state is a lie based on the desires of the framers of the country themselves. You should read Ron Paul's great position, and frankly the historical American version which perfectly coincide with each other.

 

[mikelovesgod]

Here's Dr. Paul's position by his own words:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

 

[foofighter20x]

Mike,

I read you loud and clear, bud, but you have to understand that taking a religious approach can turn some people off, no matter how sound your argument. This is why instead of saying God, i say 'natural law.' For who else made and ordered the laws of nature than God? They often don't realize the craftiness in that approach; you get them to agree with you without having to either use or reject God.

 

[mikelovesgod]

foo, I hear you... good approach... I have to think more about it, but I see the wisdom in what you are saying. The real travesty is that we have to be afraid of saying God.