Question about One of Dr. Paul's Statements...

[nexalacer]

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

from http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html (emphasis mine). I'm worried about this quote because I did a quick look through the constitution and there was NO reference to God, then I looked at the DoI and only found the ONE reference to the Creator... nothing replete about it. As a candidate who is basing his campaign on the Constitution, this could be mistaken as not having much knowledge of it.

[foofighter20x]

Technically, the Constitution has a reference to Christianity in Article VII, but it's of no legal weight or significance.

[Gee]

Yeah, he was incorrect there. Many people add "so help me god" after the presidential oath, but thats not in the constitution either.

[foofighter20x]

Yeah, he was incorrect there. Many people add "so help me god" after the presidential oath, but thats not in the constitution either.

Correct... They'ze just copyin' Washington, them copycats...

[nexalacer]

This is disconcerting because separation of church and state, while not a constitutional issue, is very important to many would be supporters. I, personally, don't give a rats ass, because I am quite sure Ron Paul does not want to spread his beliefs onto me, however, how can we re-frame this to make it not as damaging?

[foofighter20x]

Let me also say... The Dr ain't a robot. He's not goint to get everything correct 100% of the time.

Still, 99.9999999999% is pretty dang good! ;) :D

[specialkornflake]

For someone who is religious, there are a bunch of words that have religious connotation. For example, when he may read the word Liberty, he may directly think: Rights our creator gave us.

I think there is also a reference to the "Year of our Lord" something or other somewhere.

[nexalacer]

Is it possible that God or the Creator was replete in the federalist or anti-federalist papers? I have a pretty full reading list atm so I don't have time for those.... can anyone who has read them extensively comment on this?

[specialkornflake]

Perhaps he meant to say that the writings of the founding fathers are replete with references, not the Constitution and Declaration specifically.

[foofighter20x]

You can search the Federalist Papers here... (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm)

[Kregener]

I believe he meant to say The Founders WRITINGS were replete with references to God, no the Constitution itself.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Kregener]

For every document you can show secularism, I can show one that shows Christianity.

Carry on.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[idrake]

how can we re-frame this to make it not as damaging?

I'm not sure this can be "re-framed". I disagree with RP's view on this matter. It's not the first time I've disagreed with his writings or statements, but I still support his candidacy because these are small issues that won't even register during his 8 years as president.

If it makes a difference, I'm an atheist and I'm still not to concerned about this.

RP is right on the important issues that are within presidential authority; I can overlook our philosophical differences.

[Gee]

The guy has 700 or so articles he's written over the years.

700.

No other political candidate comes close, and for good reason. Most people are a bit crazy (e.g. Rudy in a dress), and have ideas others would consider weird, so they know its in their best interest to only say something when they know they have to. RP doesn't do that, so of course he is going to have a few statements that are un-PC. Big deal.

[Kregener]

No, what you showed me was a TREATY we were signing with an Islamic nation. Do you really believe they were beyond saying what the Moslem's needed to hear to get it done? The Treaty was written by Joel Barlow:


"In 1796, in Washington's second term, Barlow resolved our first hostage crisis. He was sent to Algiers as consul to help with implementation of our peace treaty with that state and to secure the release of more than 100 American seamen some of whom had been held captive by the Algerian corsairs since 1785. It required great patience and diplomatic skill on his part not to mention payment of substantial sums to local officials, but he succeeded where others had failed. He stayed on as consul for a year after the hostages departed and returned to Paris in 1797."

We even used BRIBERY to secure the release of our citizens.

The "separation of church and state" has been used like a cudgel by the Godless...to the detriment of our nation.

[BarryDonegan]

Ron Paul has never suggested the American government was CHRISTIAN. he said it was inspired by some Christian theological background such as humanism. his core argument is that the FEDERAL govt should protect the rights of individuals within the states whereupon they are infringed, but if the entire state of alabama consists of christians, and they want to make christian ideology available at a courthouse for a reminder or want to use christian teachings as a basis for law, so be it, so long as it doesn't restrict the practices of another person in any way.

same could be said if Oklahoma wanted to be a Wiccan state, or NJ consisted of a majority who wanted more Islam in their government.

he is stating that there is no clause in these documents that forceably removes religion as being a basis of state authority, that the ability for religion to be an excuse for persecution IS protected against, while being thoughtful of it in lawmaking is not. and this is true, humanism itself, which is the base paradigm behind even political correctness, is DEFINATELY judeo-christian. its a judeo-christian paradigm, mirroring the rules passed down to man in that religion. before that you could just worship a God of murder, and go on a killing rampage and be serving your God. so a total seperation of church and state means that valuable lessons learned philosophically by religious teachers cannot be used, which is absurd.

the point here is that the government protects your individual rights. the federal government is not empowered to establish a church, so it can't be an official religion, and the state governments are the ones that might want to make religious teachings involved in legislation, so long as they dont infringe on civil liberties, and represent the feeling of the majority. state religiou holidays are a PERFECT example of this.

[idrake]

The "separation of church and state" has been used like a cudgel by the Godless...to the detriment of our nation.

This is interesting. Can you explain how godless people are bringing down our nation? For example, can you list the behaviours of godless people is detrimental?

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[jj111]

Let's all get UNITED by the Constitution, not divided.....

[Nash]

I'm not sure why it matters how devoutly religious Paul is. He could be a Hare Krishna for all I care. His beliefs are moot to me because he's not going to pass laws at the federal level that impose them. So I don't care.

His personal religious views or his interpretation of what the founders thought in terms of religion are completely irrelevant in terms of he would govern.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[jj111]

Given how emotional some people can be when it comes to religion, I think this discussion, if it's going to be continued, should be moved to "hot topics."

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[micahnelson]

I have had some friends with questions about this as well. I would like an answer as well. Considering the abuses of the faith based initiatives, etc, it is important to know that we support a candidate who realizes that there is no state religion in America, and that the government should not interfere in the affairs of the church.

[Kuldebar]

Let's not confuse the distinction between Christianity as a religion and the philosophical teachings of Christianity. You can be motivated from the philosophical value system of Christianity, i.e. Just War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war), without involving the dogmatic or spiritual practice of the religion itself.

Natural rights or God given rights, it's the same damn thing, but it is left up to the individual to frame it they way they wish.


Also, consider the foundation of democratic process back in Classical Greece, this doesn't make us pagans, but we need to be honest and acknowledge the well springs of our philosophical underpinnings.

[BarryDonegan]

lets not take this debate too literally. you need to study much longer scope of history to see what is being perceived as Christian principles. you live in a society that is swimming in them, even when you don't see them.

Christian/Islamic/Jewish principles you think are Christian/Jewish/Islamic principles but are less unique to the religion:

holidays
Ten Commandments
Church/temple
judging ethical actions of others(not a christian principle)
sexual ethics(debateable, only really show up in lev. and deut. which are of questionable origin)

Christian/Jewish/Islamic principles people DONT credit to Christianity/Judaism/Islam:
charity
just war
humanism(anti murder/suicide/etc)
the belief that man is both potentially good and potentially wicked

most people see Christianity for the political spin that it holds, whereas those who have read all the various religions see it for the message. the political spin is judging others, imperialism, hate,... the actual message, ACTUAL message, isn't actually a religion necessarily. Jesus was Jewish, and sometimes talked about what you should do as a Jew, he also talked about his philosophy on life, there was never an official edict that all these things had to happen at once, and Christianity was given to the gentiles too, the MAJORITY of early christians were Arians, and possibly weren't Jewish. This was the TOLERANCE PHILOSOPHY which was followed so hardcore it became sortof a supplement to religion, like you dont get hamburgers without condiments, God was the meat of the sandwich, but Jesus was the dressing that gave it all its flavor. you weren't by any means required to worship the Jewish God to be cool with Jesus.

obviously, the guy rolled with prostitutes and stuff.

[BarryDonegan]

the point of that whole statement is, you don't have to have a ammendment to the constitution that says

AMMENDMENT 2.5: BTW, WE ARE ALL CHRISTIANS, PRETTY MUCH. for christian fundamentals to be a part of the law.

the very idea that all men are created equal under God, in the image of God, is the MAIN THESIS of Christianity, and that for you to unjustly harm another man, is to unjustly harm an image of God, and is wrong.

this did not exist prior to Christianity as a paradigm, there were peaceful people, but it was not generally accepted that a pious or deeply religious person should value ALL humans as a part of God. most religions had a type of person who it was OK to kill in the name of God.

[Kregener]

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. ~ U.S. Constitution

Lord....satan? Lord Byron? Jack Lord?

Right.

Nothing calls for America to be a Christian nation, just as NOTHING calls for it not to be.

The intent was that the government NOT establish a "state religion", not be assured, via onerous laws, rules and regulations, to be FREE of Christianity.

http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/seals/images/seal_ca.jpg

Athena is pictured here, but Jesus Christ has to be removed from California schools.

http://www.humanevents.com/story-images/god13.jpg
A painting of the Roman goddess of war in the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/phm-2-dvic069-s.jpg
USS Pegasus, as in, Greek mythology.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/tafs-5-concord-s.jpg
USS Mars, as in, Roman god of war.

Double standard? Agenda?

My tax dollars go toward building, equipping and maintaining these ships and buildings, yet I am not so....what is an appropriate term here...oh yeah...ANAL as to actually call for the removal of all "religious symbols", you know, like secular humanists.

Double standard? Agenda?

If the shoe fits...

[bygone]

from http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html (emphasis mine). I'm worried about this quote because I did a quick look through the constitution and there was NO reference to God, then I looked at the DoI and only found the ONE reference to the Creator... nothing replete about it. As a candidate who is basing his campaign on the Constitution, this could be mistaken as not having much knowledge of it.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22:


“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.”

One definition of the word reference in the American Heritage Dictionary is:


A work frequently used as a source.

The creation of these documents was heavily influenced by the Bible in many cases. In that sense I can justify his statement. Many of the things in these two documents have their origin in the beliefs held by people of the time, which were heavily influenced by God, Christianity, etc.

In fact, he may have a greater understanding of these documents than you.

I do realize that there were non-religious contributions to the creation of these documents. However, to say that there is no reference to God, or even to say that God is not referenced heavily in these documents, would be to interpret the meaning of the word reference as literally making mention of the word "God".

I don't think that is what he meant. Perhaps it was, but given the context of the article and surrounding statements it does not appear likely.

[Capitalism]

I'm not sure this can be "re-framed". I disagree with RP's view on this matter. It's not the first time I've disagreed with his writings or statements, but I still support his candidacy because these are small issues that won't even register during his 8 years as president.

If it makes a difference, I'm an atheist and I'm still not to concerned about this.

RP is right on the important issues that are within presidential authority; I can overlook our philosophical differences.

Agreed. I am an atheist too.
If Ron Paul were president, government would be too small to provide any tangible support to religion. Ron Paul has opposed things the religious right supports like faith-based initiatives and massive foreign aid to Israel to prepare for the rapture. Hopefully he opposes subsides to the Boy Scouts of America. I might disagree with him on issues like school prayer, but they are relatively minor compared to war, civil liberties and spending.

[ThePieSwindler]

Agreed. I am an atheist too.
If Ron Paul were president, government would be too small to provide any tangible support to religion. Ron Paul has opposed things the religious right supports like faith-based initiatives and massive foreign aid to Israel to prepare for the rapture. Hopefully he opposes subsides to the Boy Scouts of America. I might disagree with him on issues like school prayer, but they are relatively minor compared to war, civil liberties and spending.

What is there to disagree about on school prayer? He simply says people should be allowed to pray - there have been movements to try to keep children from being able to pray out loud in school. Ron paul believes freedom of religion means people should be free to practice their religious beliefs anywhere. He never said anything about MANDATING school prayer.

[BarryDonegan]

the atheists have made the practical point here.

ron paul is antigovernment in general, meaning that the government will be disabled under his administration, from persecuting you for a variety of reasons, religion included.

his own feelings about religion pretty much just make it possible to market him to people that you need to excite in order to win a majority.

[nexalacer]

whoa, whoa, whoa.... too much thread hijacking going on here. I wasn't trying to start a religious debate, but as religion is often a very contentious topic, the mere mention of God has started a bunch of off-topic posts. I wanted an answer to what I saw as a non-truth in Dr. Paul's statement, and thank you bygone, you provided a fantastic answer! If anyone else wants to answer THE MATTER AT HAND, please do, but please don't go off on a religious debate and have this moved to hot topics!

The fact is, Ron Paul's government would be so small, there is no threat to ANYONE'S religious beliefs when he becomes president!

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Duckman]

Nothing calls for America to be a Christian nation, just as NOTHING calls for it not to be.

Nothing perhaps except the fact that many key founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Ethan Allen, possibly Franklin) were Deists, which is not Christianity because it does not recognize Christ as anything but a philosopher like other ancient philosophers. Or the fact that the constition explicitly forbids government preference or opression of a religion, and it was NOT specified that the religion had to be a form of Christianity to get such treatment. Or the fact that the constitition really does not contain reference to a god.


The intent was that the government NOT establish a "state religion", not be assured, via onerous laws, rules and regulations, to be FREE of Christianity. [Yet depictions of pagan art or god names are permitted.] Double standard? Agenda?

Well, I agree that the complete banning of religious symbology is unnecessary and unwarranted. Religious people should be free, as people with natural rights, to show their religious affiliations. I think Christmas is so divorced from Christianity that there is little reason for atheists to object to it. But just as depictions of Jesus and other religious symbology has artistic or historical value, other religious symbols such as the ten commandments in or on a courthouse may give the impression, I would argue, that decisions inside are going to be influenced by the Christian religion. If the ten commandments are shown in an artistic piece containing depictions of other religions, then it would not be objectionable to me. However, I don't have much of an objection to the former either and I think the intolerance many atheists have towards religious displays is not in the spirit of a free nation.

[Kuldebar]

nexalacer,

To return to the observation in your original post, the Declaration contains, in addition to one reference to the "Creator," one reference to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

"Nature's God" is an interesting term as it suggests that Jefferson was invoking something other than the Judeo-Christian God. This could almost be seen as a premonitory hat tip to Watson and Crick.

As for religion being a contentious subject, this is apparently true. The Founders said that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," but many folks have trouble digesting the statement.

Absolutely.

But, one must not take the above and try to wipe religion out of all public notice or place as some wish to do.

To me extremism on such matters is a two way street.

You have some who wish to use the government (unlawfully) to force religion upon others and you have the opposing side of extremists who wish to wipe every vestige of religion from the public eye.

This is what is so important about returning control back over to individuals and local governments.

There can and will never be perfection, but the will of the people, as such there is, is far better served locally via common interests.

People should live in communities that share their values, this makes for strong communities and maximizes freedom.

[foofighter20x]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22:

Um, no.

He got that from the work of the French Baron de Montesquieu, Charles II , who wrote the The Spirit of the Laws. Look it up. ;)

The Isiah hypothesis is false due to the fact that it gives three jobs to one person, God: King, Lawmaker, and Judge.

I don't see any office in America where one office contains all three of those roles, nor where we have any king anywhere in the U.S.

It was the Baron Montesquieu that first proposed the idea of separating these functions of government to independent and equal branches.

[bygone]

I wanted an answer to what I saw as a non-truth in Dr. Paul's statement, and thank you bygone, you provided a fantastic answer!

You're welcome.



Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
--Albert Einstein

[Duckman]

Nothing calls for America to be a Christian nation, just as NOTHING calls for it not to be.

Nothing perhaps except the fact that many key founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Ethan Allen, Franklin and Washington) were Deists, which is not Christianity. Or the fact that the constition explicitly forbids government preference or opression of a religion, and it was NOT specified that the religion had to be a form of Christianity to get such treatment. Or the fact that the constitition really does not contain reference to a god.


The intent was that the government NOT establish a "state religion", not be assured, via onerous laws, rules and regulations, to be FREE of Christianity. [Yet depictions of pagan art or god names are permitted.] Double standard? Agenda?

Well, I agree that the complete banning of religious symbology is unnecessary and unwarranted. Religious people should be free, as people with natural rights, to show their religious affiliations. I think Christmas is so divorced from Christianity that there is little reason for atheists to object to it. But just as depictions of Jesus and other religious symbology has artistic or historical value, other religious symbols such as the ten commandments in or on a courthouse may give the impression, I would argue, that decisions inside are going to be influenced by the Christian religion. If the ten commandments are shown in an artistic piece containing depictions of other religions, then it would not be objectionable to me. However, I don't have much of an objection to the former either and I think the intolerance many atheists have towards religious displays is not in the spirit of a free nation.

[bygone]

Um, no.

He got that from the work of the French Baron de Montesquieu, Charles II , who wrote the The Spirit of the Laws. Look it up. ;)

The Isiah hypothesis is false due to the fact that it gives three jobs to one person, God: King, Lawmaker, and Judge.

I don't see any office in America where one office contains all three of those roles, nor where we have any king anywhere in the U.S.

It was the Baron Montesquieu that first proposed the idea of separating these functions of government to independent and equal branches.

Rather than hijack the thread to argue this paticular point, I will let it pass. You may very well be right, but it matters not in the larger picture of the point.

The point is there was considerable influence of religous belief in the creation of both documents. I would think that the reference to God is implied by the ideas therein many times.

I know that many see religion as an evil. It can be used for evil, but that is not its only purpose. A great many people during that time believed in God, even many of those who had a part in forming these documents. You need look no further than the words these men have left behind that we quote them on today to find numerous references to their belief.

While Madison may be a poor example, I think you can make the case of implied reference easily.

As I said before not all of them believed in God. Nor am I advocating a combination of church and state. I am merely saying that the Dr. has a point, even if he stated it in a way that isn't easy to understand.

[bygone]

Nothing perhaps except the fact that many key founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Ethan Allen, Franklin and Washington) were Deists, which is not Christianity. Or the fact that the constition explicitly forbids government preference or opression of a religion, and it was NOT specified that the religion had to be a form of Christianity to get such treatment. Or the fact that the constitition really does not contain reference to a god.


This is an excellent point, and I would add:


Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God

It would be different if he had said "replete with references to Christianity". I too often mix "religion" with "God" in my words, forgive that if you took that meaning from my words earlier.