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

[Kade]

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint.

I am a classical liberal, often simply referring to myself as a liberal. I have been reading these forums for some time now, and I've thought to join and start a discussion on my own issues with Ron Paul.

I would rather not start a religious debate here, but I want to know why a citizen who honors the founding father's ideals on secularism should support Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has shown a very anti-separation of church and state stance, and his voting record on the matter dips significantly when you consider the types of laws he has supported in breaching the social contract of secularism.

His own words seem to mock the precedence of our judicial system, and the thoughts and meanings of the founding fathers and the constitution:

"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."

Replete: 1. Abundantly supplied; abounding.
2. Filled to satiation; gorged.

References to God in Constitution: 0
References to God in Declaration of Independence: 1 (Literally, "Nature's God")
References to Creator in Constitution: 0
References to Creator in Declaration of Independence: 1
References to Lord in Constitution: 1 (under the signed Date; "Year of our Lord")
References to Lord in Declaration of Independence: 0
References to Supreme Judge of the World in the Declaration of Independence: 1
References to Supreme Judge of the World in the Constitution: 0
References to Jesus in either document: 0

Replete was a very poor word choice.


I believe that my tax money should be completely and utterly separated from the union of religious doctrine and faith and state. I believe that I have the right to teach my children at home about religion and that schools have enough problems without invoking a specific religion in context to allegiances to the country and leading children in denominational prayer. The founding father's would be delighted with our "hostility" towards religion, because it is the separation of church and state that has made this country so powerfully diverse, and has allowed the many faiths and non-faiths to flourish.

I don't see Ron Paul supporting that position, even though it is a libertarian and civil right concern.

[Gilby]

I believe that my tax money should be completely and utterly separated from the union of religious doctrine and faith and state.

Yes, but under Ron Paul, what tax money? The constitution does not allow taxes on your property or the fruits of your labor. Only privileged acts that are granted by the government's power are taxable, which means you would be able to choose to avoid all taxes under a constitutional government.

In the first couple minutes of this video he mentions religious freedom, and I think he is saying what you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVnZERC9OFs

I'm not seeing the same thing when I read the quote you gave. What we have seen is the government limiting what can be done in public view, such as in education, public events, churches, businesses, etc. The problem is that the government should not be involved in any of those, which would allow religion to be in them and allow people to choose for themselves from those available in the free market.

[BillyDkid]

You are not correct about Dr. Paul. He is personally a Christian, but has no interest in turning you or anyone else into a Christian. I have heard him more than once state he his has no business enforcing his personal/religious views on others. He recognizes that this is a pluralistic society and tolerance - both tolerance for religion and for non-religion is fundamental to a free society. Do not confuse Dr. Paul's personal beliefs and faith with his public policies. Some point to his position on abortion. First, while he may oppose abortion on religious ground his main objection has to do with protecting the civil liberties of the unborn. In many states you will be charged with two murders if you kill a pregnant women. We can't have it both ways - it can't be murder when an unborn child is killed on an attack on the mother and not be murder when the unborn child is aborted. My personal opinion is that it is a matter of timing - that there should be window of opportunity near the beginning of pregnancy when a woman can decide to abort, but after a certain point - when the fetus is clearly a human, when it shouldn't be allowed. Dr. Paul has state that he recognizes there is room for honest disagreement about this issue. For the record, I am an atheist and am no fan of religion at all, but I support Ron Paul because he believes that atheists are citizens too (unlike GHWB).

[Kade]

Yes, but under Ron Paul, what tax money? The constitution does not allow taxes on your property or the fruits of your labor. Only privileged acts that are granted by the government's power are taxable, which means you would be able to choose to avoid all taxes under a constitutional government.

In the first couple minutes of this video he mentions religious freedom, and I think he is saying what you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVnZERC9OFs

I'm not seeing the same thing when I read the quote you gave. What we have seen is the government limiting what can be done in public view, such as in education, public events, churches, businesses, etc. The problem is that the government should not be involved in any of those, which would allow religion to be in them and allow people to choose for themselves from those available in the free market.

I anticipated this sort of response. The removal of income tax does not remove your contribution to the government. Taxation on purchases and other items under the constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" mean that I should have more say on their use...

Consider the idea of school prayer, for which Ron Paul supported an actual AMENDMENT to the constitution to help "clarify" the first amendment...

"H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

This language is establishment. Every person knows what group led prayer at the local educational hole will be provided. I would prefer that my child in a public institution remain free of any school official led prayer, or graduation prayer upon completion of his/her education through 12 years. This amendment takes the right to educate my children on religion away from me and instead allows the "RIGHT" of the majority to come together in spiritual matters on tax payer funds. No law prohibits the expression of individual worship on public property or institutions. There is no need for clarification on this... the law allows public officials to lead children in daily prayer, or else "they can leave the room." The differences in our children are many already without ostracizing the unbeliever, or the many other faiths in this country.

Turn this law around in another way, imagine your child was graduating from a school where a student was to lead the group in a prayer from the Church of Satan, perhaps the Lord's Prayer backwards... There would be an uprising, and a call for laws banning the speech, from the same people who would have been smiling happily if it were of their religion.

I don't see why current law in this matter can't remain as a standard and why a Constitutional Amendment is required to clarify the establishment clause. Children should not be introduced to religion as authority, by authority in schools. Period.

"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, and 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 and state."
-Jefferson

[Kade]

You are not correct about Dr. Paul. He is personally a Christian, but has no interest in turning you or anyone else into a Christian. I have heard him more than once state he his has no business enforcing his personal/religious views on others. He recognizes that this is a pluralistic society and tolerance - both tolerance for religion and for non-religion is fundamental to a free society. Do not confuse Dr. Paul's personal beliefs and faith with his public policies. Some point to his position on abortion. First, while he may oppose abortion on religious ground his main objection has to do with protecting the civil liberties of the unborn. In many states you will be charged with two murders if you kill a pregnant women. We can't have it both ways - it can't be murder when an unborn child is killed on an attack on the mother and not be murder when the unborn child is aborted. My personal opinion is that it is a matter of timing - that there should be window of opportunity near the beginning of pregnancy when a woman can decide to abort, but after a certain point - when the fetus is clearly a human, when it shouldn't be allowed. Dr. Paul has state that he recognizes there is room for honest disagreement about this issue. For the record, I am an atheist and am no fan of religion at all, but I support Ron Paul because he believes that atheists are citizens too (unlike GHWB).


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?

[Spirit of '76]

What part of this do you not understand?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You have a constitutional right to practice whatever religion you wish, or none if that is your choice. You do not have a constitutional right to prohibit other people from practicing theirs, even if it might personally bother you.

[Kade]

What part of this do you not understand?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You have a constitutional right to practice whatever religion you wish, or none if that is your choice. You do not have a constitutional right to prohibit other people from practicing theirs, even if it might personally bother you.

That's creative. Invoke the establishment clause. State institutions are part of the government and should be religiously neutral. That is what the establishment clause means... what part of that don't you understand?

What part of "One Nation Under God" is not an establishment of Monotheism?

What part of "In God we Trust" is not an establishment of Monotheism?

I'm voicing a legitimate concern. Getting angry and insulting me is not going to convince me, and many other people like me that Ron Paul is a candidate who would protect the non-believers religious freedoms as well as the Christians.

[Gilby]

I would prefer that my child in a public institution remain free of any school official led prayer, or graduation prayer upon completion of his/her education through 12 years.

And others would prefer that the school lead in prayer and teach other religious principles. Forcing either preference on all is bad. The amendment proposed would simply allow that to happen by putting the power back in to the people's hands through their local community. You could send your kids to a school that doesn't allow religion to be discussed, the Christian right could send their kids to a Christian school, and I could send my kids to a diverse school that would expose them to religion, but not preach it as authority.

[Kade]

I fear that blind loyalty to Ron Paul has made people see Anti-secularism as tolerant, if not appropriate stance in the fight for the return to liberty in this beautiful country.

[Spirit of '76]

That's creative. Invoke the establishment clause. State institutions are part of the government and should be religiously neutral. That is what the establishment clause means... what part of that don't you understand?

State institutions, like public schools, are simply that: state institutions.

They are not part of the federal government, and are thus not subject to the restriction that "Congress shall make no law..."

The fact is that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a state church. At the same time, it prohibits the federal government from preventing the free exercise of religion, even if people like you do not like that religion.

What is "creative" here is your bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause to read that the federal government has the obligation to prohibit the free exercise of religion because you personally find it offensive.

What you are promoting here is the tyranny of the minority, with the federal courts as a cudgel used to browbeat people into hiding their religious convictions because you disagree with them.



What part of "One Nation Under God" is not an establishment of Monotheism?

What part of "In God we Trust" is not an establishment of Monotheism?

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you that those slogans (one being found, by the way, on private bank notes issued by the privately-owned Federal reserve) are in violation of the establishment clause.

That is only a strawman argument, though, to distract us from your unfounded criticism of Congressman Paul's very constitutional stance on the free exercise of religion.



I'm voicing a legitimate concern. Getting angry and insulting me is not going to convince me, and many other people like me that Ron Paul is a candidate who would protect our religious freedoms as well as the Christians.

I am not angry, nor did I insult you. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your specious reasoning.

The case is very clear: Under Congressman Paul's very constitutional stance on the free exercise of religion, you are free to pray as you like, where you like, when you like. If you can convince others to pray with you, that is fine. If you can convince others not to pray at certain times or locations, that is also your right. You do not, however, have a right to use the federal government to bully people and prevent them from freely practicing their religion.

[Kade]

And others would prefer that the school lead in prayer and teach other religious principles. Forcing either preference on all is bad. The amendment proposed would simply allow that to happen by putting the power back in to the people's hands through their local community. You could send your kids to a school that doesn't allow religion to be discussed, the Christian right could send their kids to a Christian school. And I could send my kids to a diverse school that would expose them to religion, but not preach it as authority.

I don't see where a law prohibits individuals from praying at their graduation. Allowing the majority to impose religion on such an event, a government institution no less, is a blatant and aggressive breach of the first amendment protecting people from established religious rule. The idea has been expanded upon endlessly, the idea that the government should remain neutral in this... I understand that you would see the restriction of school led prayer a violation, but the concept is aggravated by role reversals, for instance if you can imagine what it would be like if in every home room of your own children's school, a Wiccan Prayer was said... or worse to you I imagine, a manifesto claiming that God does not exist, and no person should believe in it if they are not delusional...

I imagine you opinion changes fast on the subject.

Neutrality in this is the best standard. The first amendment allows for the complete separation of church and state, and allows for the freedom of expression of the individual. None of those two things should be taken from this country. You have not given an example how they are...

[Gilby]

I fear that blind loyalty to Ron Paul has made people see Anti-secularism as tolerant, if not appropriate stance in the fight for the return to liberty in this beautiful country.

I think what you are missing, and I pointed out in my first response, is that the government is not allowed to be involved in many of the things that it is right now. The whole idea of "public" this and "public" that is the real issue.

[micahnelson]

Welcome to the forums.

[Wendi]

I believe that my tax money should be completely and utterly separated from the union of religious doctrine and faith and state. I believe that I have the right to teach my children at home about religion and that schools have enough problems without invoking a specific religion in context to allegiances to the country and leading children in denominational prayer. The founding father's would be delighted with our "hostility" towards religion, because it is the separation of church and state that has made this country so powerfully diverse, and has allowed the many faiths and non-faiths to flourish.

So does Ron Paul. But unlike other candidates, he also believes that people who happen to be Christian have the SAME rights that you do :rolleyes:

[Kade]

State institutions, like public schools, are simply that: state institutions.

They are not part of the federal government, and are thus not subject to the restriction that "Congress shall make no law..."

The fact is that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a state church. At the same time, it prohibits the federal government from preventing the free exercise of religion, even if people like you do not like that religion.

What is "creative" here is your bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause to read that the federal government has the obligation to prohibit the free exercise of religion because you personally find it offensive.

What you are promoting here is the tyranny of the minority, with the federal courts as a cudgel used to browbeat people into hiding their religious convictions because you disagree with them.



I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you that those slogans (one being found, by the way, on private bank notes issued by the privately-owned Federal reserve) are in violation of the establishment clause.

That is only a strawman argument, though, to distract us from your unfounded criticism of Congressman Paul's very constitutional stance on the free exercise of religion.



I am not angry. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your specious reasoning.

The case is very clear: Under Congressman Paul's very constitutional stance on the free exercise of religion, you are free to pray as you like, where you like, when you like. If you can convince others to pray with you, that is fine. If you can convince others not to pray at certain times or locations, that is also your right. You do not, however, have a right to use the federal government to bully people and prevent them from freely practicing their religion.

State constitutions ban certain people from holding office, and deny rights altogether. You believe those laws should be upheld?

My bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause comes from the 200 years of Judicial understanding... you know the same kind that freed slaves, allowed women to vote, and ultimately gave to states the rights to create their own laws not specified under the constitution?

Keep reading the first amendment until you see that word RESPECT again. A clarification of the first amendment to include state run institutions of religion will lead to a theocracy in this country. Period. Your ignorance of the current trend of this country is what is most prominent to me. It is apparent that Ron Paul supporters are daydreaming about what a theocracy might look like.

Yes, I am offended by your religion, and others. I would never desire anything to prohibit your practice and worship, ever, and would actively fight to defend those rights... What is clear to me, is that you are only willing to interpret freedom of conscience when it involves forcing your beliefs through whatever government institutions to impressionable minds. Allowing official school prayer is not freedom, it is totalitarianism.

[Kade]

Welcome to the forums.

This isn't at all what I expected... You should mention to your friends here Micah a good way of presenting this argument, instead of trying to change my mind.... or just mentioning many people I actually represent might be a better way of bringing back a sensical approach to this debate.

I can feel my blood pressure rising....

[Kade]

And others would prefer that the school lead in prayer and teach other religious principles. Forcing either preference on all is bad. The amendment proposed would simply allow that to happen by putting the power back in to the people's hands through their local community. You could send your kids to a school that doesn't allow religion to be discussed, the Christian right could send their kids to a Christian school, and I could send my kids to a diverse school that would expose them to religion, but not preach it as authority.

Micah mentions this scenario... what guarantee exists that these types of laws would be passed... Ron Paul can pick the Supreme Court Justices, but he can't pass laws that allow me to ignore my districting and zoning laws...

[Kade]

So does Ron Paul. But unlike other candidates, he also believes that people who happen to be Christian have the SAME rights that you do :rolleyes:

In Texas, with all due respect, I don't have the same rights as you.

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

[micahnelson]

This isn't at all what I expected... You should mention to your friends here Micah a good way of presenting this argument, instead of trying to change my mind.... or just mentioning many people I actually represent might be a better way of bringing back a sensical approach to this debate.

I can feel my blood pressure rising....

OK OK

If you cherry pick Ron Paul's statements it is possible that you can find a man who is a racist by his attacks of affirmative action, a protectionist by his attacks on NAFTA and the WTO, or maybe even a religious zealot by his support for school prayer.

At most, this amendment should be unnecessary. Lets remember though, the Bill of Rights was originally thought to be unnecessary- but the more cynical of the framers thought to put it in to establish specific lines that could not be crossed by a tyrant. Now it seems that those enumerated rights are all we have left- and even those are slipping.

I don't believe anyone would want a national government or an entire state prescribing school prayer. By writing this amendment, Ron Paul proves once again he is not a statist. Since education is out of the hands of the Federal Government, these sort of amendments should not be necessary- but as we have seen with No Child Left Behind, the federal government often oversteps its bounds. His intention was to legislate that the first amendment, specifically religious expression in this case, still applies in schools. Call it unnecessary, but when Alabama starts using state funds to print up school prayer cards, remember that this amendment would have prevented it.

It is important to remember that Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should have any business with schools. Schools are mostly paid for by property taxes and as such should be left to local communities. If a group of people want a school that teaches xyz, why shouldn't they have it.

Lets use the Jefferson model "Why should I be Concerned if my neighbor worships one God or twenty, it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket." If federal money isn't used for schools, and attendance in religious schools is not compulsory, then it should be treated like any other establishment.

[barcop]

This isn't at all what I expected... You should mention to your friends here Micah a good way of presenting this argument, instead of trying to change my mind.... or just mentioning many people I actually represent might be a better way of bringing back a sensical approach to this debate.

I can feel my blood pressure rising....

I understand your concerns. I am an athiest, non believer... whatever the label is today.

I have a daughter in 7th grade who takes after me and is a free thinker. A lot of her friends are very christian. I would much rather have my daughter listen to them pray in the morning at school for a minute (and she could come up with her own free thinker speech to say in return) than for her to face the horror this country will be in 10, 15, 20 years from now if something doesn't change.

If your biggest fear is worrying about having to hear some God talk if Ron Paul is president... I'd say that's a pretty good trade off considering the other options.

Just saw... your last comment... my supreme being would be the atom :)

[Gilby]

Micah mentions this scenario... what guarantee exists that these types of laws would be passed... Ron Paul can pick the Supreme Court Justices, but he can't pass laws that allow me to ignore my districting and zoning laws...
If they are unconstitutional and infringe on your inalienable rights, he can. In other words, you would not be forced to send your children to a certain school with specific policies. The choice is yours on your children's schooling and choosing a school that has the policies that you want.

[Spirit of '76]

State constitutions ban certain people from holding office, and deny rights altogether. You believe those laws should be upheld?

The US Constitution likewise prohibits certain people from holding office based on their national origin, age, and/or state of residence.

I do not see how any of that relates to your argument that the federal government should prohibit the free exercise of religion.



My bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause comes from the 200 years of Judicial understanding... you know the same kind that freed slaves, allowed women to vote, and ultimately gave to states the rights to create their own laws not specified under the constitution?

The right for the states to create laws not specified under the Constitution is explicitly granted within the text of the Constitution itself.

Again, your argument -- which is in fact only based on about fifty or so years of "judicial understanding" -- would have the federal government used as a cudgel to bully people and prevent the free exercise of religion. That is patently unconstitutional.



Keep reading the first amendment until you see that word RESPECT again.

I see the word "respecting", and it is used in the following context:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The New Oxford American dictionary defines the word "respecting" as follows:

"respecting |ri?spekti ng | preposition dated or formal
with reference or regard to :
he began to have serious worries respecting his car."

In other words, the Constitution clearly states that the federal government shall not make any law in reference or regard to an establishment of a state religion, nor shall it make any law prohibiting anyone from freely exercising their religion.

The latter is clearly what you want it to do, due to your own prejudices against certain religious beliefs; however, the Constitution explicitly prohibits the federal government from doing so.



A clarification of the first amendment to include state run institutions of religion will lead to a theocracy in this country. Period. Your ignorance of the current trend of this country is what is most prominent to me. It is apparent that Ron Paul supporters are daydreaming about what a theocracy might look like.

Your fearmongering here is as baseless and inane as that of the people who say that if we don't fight the "terrorists" in Iraq, the streets of America will flow with blood. It's silly, it's not true, and all it does is make you look like an alarmist, using bogeyman fears to promote your own anti-Christian agenda.

Not only that, but you are absolutely mischaracterizing the bills Congressman Paul introduced, which do not in any way establish "state run [sic] institutions of religion", but merely clarify that the federal government shall not in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion, even in the public sphere.



Yes, I am offended by your religion, and others.

You don't even know what my religion is, nor if I even subscribe to one, yet it offends you?


I would never desire anything to prohibit your practice and worship, ever, and would actively fight to defend those rights... What is clear to me, is that you are only willing to interpret freedom of conscience when it involves forcing your beliefs through whatever government institutions to impressionable minds. Allowing official school prayer is not freedom, it is totalitarianism.

This is absolutely, unequivocally false. Again, you are assuming that you know something about my religious beliefs -- if I even have any -- based on the fact that I argue the indisputable fact that the Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

You are attacking me for religious beliefs that you presume I hold, simply because I disagree with you that the federal government should be used to bully people into hiding their religious beliefs, no matter what those religious beliefs might be nor how personally offensive I might find them.

You are the one promoting totalitarianism here, barely disguising a vehemently anti-Christian agenda under the guise of fairness. Your knowledge of the Constitution and of the classical liberalism you claim to support is sorely lacking, though your personal biases and deep antipathy toward certain religions clearly are not.

[micahnelson]

In Texas, with all due respect, I don't have the same rights as you.

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

I guess Scarlett Johansen doesn't count?

In honesty though those laws are on the books because they haven't been challenged.

[Kade]

It is important to remember that Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should have any business with schools. Schools are mostly paid for by property taxes and as such should be left to local communities. If a group of people want a school that teaches xyz, why shouldn't they have it.


This is a valid point, but the scenario laid out requires that this sort of thing comes to pass... what happens if School Prayer is allowed, and then tax supported schools stick around... the more likely situation. The loosening of separation is not a good thing... unless you happen to be whatever denomination will ultimately take over...

Ron Paul can't rid the entire government of its' over burdening and severe intrusion, but he can make important moves toward loosening the stranglehold. Things that protect the rights of citizens by proxy should be left alone...

Again, I emphasize, that NOBODY is prohibiting from praying... seriously, that persecution complex needs to stop. I am simply advocating the intended removal of official government business and undertakings, wherever they may remain under government control, removed from faith based issues... period.

I see nothing unconstitutional about that...

[hard@work]

One verse Charlie, single issue voter. All the same to me.

;-)

Great debate though.

[BillyDkid]

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 feel like you didn't even read what I wrote. First, Dr. Paul has stated that he as President would have no role in determining whether or not abortion would be legal. It should not be a federal issue. Second, I stated clearly that RP has said that there is room for honest discussion about this issue. You are arguing against things I never said. You seem to be saying that child is not a person until after it is born, which is clearly and obviously nonsense - particularly when you consider that a fetus can live independent of the mother well before the typical 9 month gestation period. I never argued anything like blastocyts are babies or have the same rights as you and I. I think you do have to address this issue of someone being charge with two murders for killing a 4 months pregnant woman and yet a doctor can abort a 6 month old fetus and its not an issue. Both you and the right to lifers refuse to address these issues except in the most extreme way. It's all or nothing for people on the extreme of both ends. I support the use of "morning after" pills and yet find abortion of a six or seven month old fetus (except under special circumstances) appalling. Is that honestly a contradiction to you? You don't see a difference between the two? Like I said and like Dr. Paul as said, there is room for honest disagreement and it is dishonest for both extremes to pretend there is not.

[Kade]

The US Constitution likewise prohibits certain people from holding office based on their national origin, age, and/or state of residence.

I don't not see how any of that relates to your argument that the federal government should prohibit the free exercise of religion.

I don't see how any of that relates to the prohibition of the free exercise of religion.





The right for the states to create laws not specified under the Constitution is explicitly granted within the text of the Constitution itself.

Again, your argument -- which is in fact only based on about fifty or so years of "judicial understanding" -- would have the federal government used as a cudgel to bully people and prevent the free exercise of religion. That is patently unconstitutional.


So disregard recent judicial findings because you disagree with them? 50 years ago that mentality would have been right up there with those that wanted to keep people of certain origins and sexes from voting. Nice.



I see the word "respecting", and it is used in the following context:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The New Oxford American dictionary defines the word "respecting" as follows:

respecting |ri?spekti ng | preposition dated or formal
with reference or regard to :
he began to have serious worries respecting his car.

In other words, the Constitution clearly states that the federal government shall no make any law in reference or regard to an establishment of a state religion, nor shall it make any law prohibiting anyone from freely exercising their religion.

The latter is clearly what you want it to do, due to your own prejudices against certain religious beliefs; however, the Constitution explicitly prohibits the federal government from doing so.


I again emphasize that you have not given an example of a violation of this principle. You are imagining a system that does not exist at the moment... when, and if it does, I agree completely.




Your fearmongering here is as baseless and inane as that of the people who say that if we don't fight the "terrorists" in Iraq, the streets of America will flow with blood. It's silly, it's not true, and all it does is make you look like an alarmist, using bogeyman fears to promote your own anti-Christian agenda.


Ooooh, everyone fear my anti-Christian Agenda... any examples of that yet? You can't explain my seriousness on this matter as pro-liberty in anyway?



Not only that, but you are absolutely mischaracterizing the bills Congressman Paul introduced, which do not in any way establish "state run [sic] institutions of religion", but merely clarify that the federal government shall not in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion, even in the public sphere.


The bills allow the majority to impose in the current system state run institutions of religion. Not that anyone actually follow the laws that prohibit it anyway.




You don't even know what my religion is, nor if I even subscribe to one, yet it offends you?


This is absolutely, unequivocally false. Again, you are assuming that you know something about my religious beliefs -- if I even have any -- based on the fact that I argue the indisputable fact that the Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.


As obvious as my beliefs are, I imagine.



You are attacking me for religious beliefs that you presume I hold, simply because I disagree with you that the federal government should be used to bully people into hiding their religious beliefs, no matter what those religious beliefs might be nor how personally offensive I might find them.


I wasn't attacking you. I was explaining my concerns.




You are the one promoting totalitarianism here, barely disguising a vehemently anti-Christian agenda under the guise of fairness. Your knowledge of the Constitution and of the classical liberalism you claim to support is sorely lacking, though your personal biases and deep antipathy toward certain religions clearly are not.

There's those baseless claims. Can I get some more please?

[Kade]

One verse Charlie, single issue voter. All the same to me.

;-)

Great debate though.

If single issue means my liberty. I suppose you are right.

[Kade]

I feel like you didn't even read what I wrote. First, Dr. Paul has stated that he as President would have no role in determining whether or not abortion would be legal. It should not be a federal issue. Second, I stated clearly that RP has said that there is room for honest discussion about this issue. You are arguing against things I never said. You seem to be saying that child is not a person until after it is born, which is clearly and obviously nonsense - particularly when you consider that a fetus can live independent of the mother well before the typical 9 month gestation period. I never argued anything like blastocyts are babies or have the same rights as you and I. I think you do have to address this issue of someone being charge with two murders for killing a 4 months pregnant woman and yet a doctor can abort a 6 month old fetus and its not an issue. Both you and the right to lifers refuse to address these issues except in the most extreme way. It's all or nothing for people on the extreme of both ends. I support the use of "morning after" pills and yet find abortion of a six or seven month old fetus (except under special circumstances) appalling. Is that honestly a contradiction to you? You don't see a difference between the two? Like I said and like Dr. Paul as said, there is room for honest disagreement and it is dishonest for both extremes to pretend there is not.

Why an amendment then?

[hard@work]

In order to protect freedom of religion we must stop those who are religious from practicing it wherever the government resides. This is anti-Christian and many other religions. How is it not?

[Kade]

I come here you know, because I want to support Ron Paul... not make an argument... these are my concerns... and to be really honest, I am much more worried then I originally was...

[Kade]

In order to protect freedom of religion we must stop those who are religious from practicing it wherever the government resides. This is anti-Christian and many other religions. How is it not?

Did I say that?

[nayjevin]

Allowing official school prayer is not freedom, it is totalitarianism.

it is not 'official' if it is merely allowed. it is official if it is mandated.

there is currently no mandate for prayer in schools from the federal level. it is allowed, as it should be, to be enforced at the local level.

of course, these 'state run' schools should be private, voluntary, or parents should be able to opt out. but in the current system, feds should stay entirely out of it. each state should decide for their schools.

[Kade]

The whole one horse charley is going to unnerve me, I support Paul in many respects, because I disagree with his views on secularism, that makes me a one issue voter? The same as apparently people who have disagreed with the mighty Ron Paul before?

Where is the discourse, where is the engagement, the debate... is it truly freedom to simply claim righteously that a certain view is ultimately and utterly correct...

If I generally feel my liberties are being infringed on, in many respects by the potential of Constitutional Amendments proposed by Ron Paul, isn't that worth discussing... are you simply going to dismiss as a troll, and a one issue voter?

[hard@work]

I come here you know, because I want to support Ron Paul... not make an argument... these are my concerns... and to be really honest, I am much more worried then I originally was...

Then perhaps you should look elsewhere? If this is what you base all of your ethics on, this singular issue, then perhaps you have not truly done your homework? Not that a healthy controversial debate is not a good thing but this reaction is precisely what we do not need.

Make your decision based on your sum of morals and beliefs and I would call you friend.

http://www.RonPaulLibrary.com

[hard@work]

Did I say that?

Implication is what I had read, but please feel free to correct me. I am not trying to attack you.

[Kade]

it is not 'official' if it is merely allowed. it is official if it is mandated.

there is currently no mandate for prayer in schools from the federal level. it is allowed, as it should be, to be enforced at the local level.

of course, these 'state run' schools should be private, voluntary, or parents should be able to opt out. but in the current system, feds should stay entirely out of it. each state should decide for their schools.

There is other ways of MANDATING school prayer.

In school, a public authority, such as a principle, a teacher, is equivalent to mandating for a child. You can give an option to "leave the room" or "don't attend graduation ceremony" but anyone with half a brain knows most children won't just decide to leave on grounds they can't possibly understand yet...

[hard@work]

There is other ways of MANDATING school prayer.

In school, a public authority, such as a principle, a teacher, is equivalent to mandating for a child. You can give an option to "leave the room" or "don't attend graduation ceremony" but anyone with half a brain knows most children won't just decide to leave on grounds they can't possibly understand yet...

So this justifies restricting the right of prayer to ones God?

[Kade]

Then perhaps you should look elsewhere? If this is what you base all of your ethics on, this singular issue, then perhaps you have not truly done your homework? Not that a healthy controversial debate is not a good thing but this reaction is precisely what we do not need.

Make your decision based on your sum of morals and beliefs and I would call you friend.

http://www.RonPaulLibrary.com

I have done too much homework apparently...

If we have learned anything in the experiment that is America, it is that people don't cherish freedoms as much as they should...

I study law, and I study history, and I study many, many other things... I promise you, I understand, on each level the points you make... my concern is not being addressed...

What if the majority becomes the oppressor... and we have lost the ability in this instance, to defend basic human rights not guaranteed by the constitution?

[jblosser]

If you are a student of classical liberalism you should be aware that there is both a theist and a non-theist origin for the same conclusions, whether they are called Natural Law or Inalienable Rights from the Creator. This country has a rich history of people form both sides of that discussion managing to agree to work for the same Liberty, even if they don't want it for the same reasons. Some limit government with arguments for Social Contracts and Individual Sovereignty, others limit it due to a belief in Human Depravity.

Ron calls himself a Classical Liberal too, for what it's worth, and the first book on his recommended reading list is still _The Law_. I assume you have read that and know there is no room in Bastiat's view of Negative Law for anything that doesn't just keep people from harming each other, and also know that Bastiat starts this argument from a belief in the Divine, though it has certainly been adopted by others as well.

[Spirit of '76]

I don't see how any of that relates to the prohibition of the free exercise of religion.

You were the one who brought those laws up, not I, so the onus is on you to explain how they relate to this argument.

The clear fact is that the Constitution of the United States of America clearly prohibts the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, despite your clear desire for it to do so.


So disregard recent judicial findings because you disagree with them? 50 years ago that mentality would have been right up there with those that wanted to keep people of certain origins and sexes from voting. Nice.

Again, you are offering a strawman argument to distract us from the fact that the judicial activist notion that the federal government should be used to prohibit the free exercise of religion is neither constitutional nor, as you claimed, grounded in "200 years of Judicial understanding".


I again emphasize that you have not given an example of a violation of this principle. You are imagining a system that does not exist at the moment... when, and if it does, I agree completely.

But that is blatantly what you arguing for. You have most clearly stated your position here, which by all appearances is that the federal government should prohibit the free exercise of religion in the public sphere because you personally find certain religions to be offensive.



Ooooh, everyone fear my anti-Christian Agenda... any examples of that yet? You can't explain my seriousness on this matter as pro-liberty in anyway?

No I cannot, especially when you have clearly stated that my religion -- which you obviously assumed to be Christianity -- "offends" you, and when you have used ridiculous, non sequitur scaremongering over the establishment of a theocracy, which you falsely assume would result from requiring the federal government to obey the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


The bills allow the majority to impose in the current system state run institutions of religion. Not that anyone actually follow the laws that prohibit it anyway.

No, they do not. They allow for the free exercise of religion, even in the public sphere, despite the fact that some people might not approve of that free exercise of religion.



As obvious as my beliefs are, I imagine.

I do not know, nor do I care, what your religious beliefs are, if you have any. Nor are mine, if I have any, relevant to this discussion, though you have clearly presumed to know what they are and have already proclaimed that they are "offensive" to you.

The fact remains: I am arguing from a constitutional standpoint. You are arguing from a standpoint of bias against one or more specific religions which you deem offensive.

The fact also remains: The Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from interfering in the free exercise of religion, despite your personal desire for it to do so.


I wasn't attacking you. I was explaining my concerns.

You presumed that you knew what my religious beliefs are, if I have any, declared them "offensive" to you, and then accused me of using the Constitution to force them down others' throats. This is clearly an attack based on your presumption of my religious beliefs and bolstered by your obvious lack of understanding in regards to the Constitution.


There's those baseless claims. Can I get some more please?

In what way are they baseless? You have clearly demonstrated an anti-Christian bias here, referring to "the current system" as a "theocracy" waiting to happen and declaring that (what you presumed to be) my religious beliefs are "offensive" to you in a lame attempt to discredit my clearly constitutional argument.

What is truly baseless here is your fearmongering about theocracy and your moronic presumptions about my religious beliefs because I disagree with your interpretation of the constitution as a tool to prevent the free exercise of religion.

[Kade]

So this justifies restricting the right of prayer to ones God?

I didn't say that... please stop assuming this is my stance... Please.

I would never restrict prayer.

What laws restrict teachers now from telling kids that drinking Clorox when they get home is a good idea...

When schools are all privatized... fine.. I understand. Perfect. Right now they are not... this Amendment was proposed in an arena that is unfamiliar with the separation of government and education.

[hard@work]

What if the majority becomes the oppressor... and we have lost the ability in this instance, to defend basic human rights not guaranteed by the constitution?

Excellent point right here however your concerns are being expressed to those who feel this has already been done. So disagreement will be had here if you do not adjust your position. I would say why should you ask them to adjust theirs?

:)

I would also say that freedom of religion has already been restricted. Whether or not our education system is state mandated that does not give any right to the government to force a secular belief system on the participants in the education system. Of course it could be argued that this would be removed by returning education into the hands of the communities. But even if you would argue that we will continue with "tax payer funded" education this does not justify stopping people from excercising their religious beliefs.

[Kade]

If you are a student of classical liberalism you should be aware that there is both a theist and a non-theist origin for the same conclusions, whether they are called Natural Law or Inalienable Rights from the Creator. This country has a rich history of people form both sides of that discussion managing to agree to work for the same Liberty, even if they don't want it for the same reasons. Some limit government with arguments for Social Contracts and Individual Sovereignty, others limit it due to a belief in Human Depravity.

Ron calls himself a Classical Liberal too, for what it's worth, and the first book on his recommended reading list is still _The Law_. I assume you have read that and know there is no room in Bastiat's view of Negative Law for anything that doesn't just keep people from harming each other, and also know that Bastiat starts this argument from a belief in the Divine, though it has certainly been adopted by others as well.

Yes... .I have instead switched by leanings towards the Natural Rights expanded on by Strauss.

[hard@work]

I didn't say that... please stop assuming this is my stance... Please.

I would never restrict prayer.

What laws restrict teachers now from telling kids that drinking Clorox when they get home is a good idea...

When schools are all privatized... fine.. I understand. Perfect. Right now they are not... this Amendment was proposed in an arena that is unfamiliar with the separation of government and education.

Then what are you saying? Your third statement here is not clear as to what you believe should be done.

[barcop]

There are good arguements on both sides of the fence... All I know is that there won't be any time for actual learning in school after each different religion takes there equal alloted time to pray. Unless of course all pray is silent.

[jblosser]

Yes... .I have instead switched by leanings towards the Natural Rights expanded on by Strauss.

Which is fine. I'm just pointing out where he comes from. Whether you agree with his beliefs or not, hopefully you understand that there is a very rich historical tradition of Christians who believe in limited government partly because of, and never in spite of, their religious beliefs. I.e., his Christianity is part of what makes him respect individual liberty and property and demand limited government, it is not a hinderance or threat to that liberty.

Ron has said repeatedly that the primary responsibility of the President is not to use power, it is to resist the call of power. No, he is not likely to take steps to push a liberty agenda on the states, be that agenda secular or otherwise. He will not break the law to restore the law. He will act as a Constitutional President and in that regard he'll get the National government off the States' backs, we the citizens of those States will need to take it from there.

[Spirit of '76]

There is other ways of MANDATING school prayer.

In school, a public authority, such as a principle, a teacher, is equivalent to mandating for a child. You can give an option to "leave the room" or "don't attend graduation ceremony" but anyone with half a brain knows most children won't just decide to leave on grounds they can't possibly understand yet...

One can stand in a room where some people are praying and not pray oneself. I have done so many times.

The concept of other people freely practicing their own religions is not so abhorent to me that I must run screaming from the room when they begin to do so.

I cannot for the life of me understand why some people feel compelled to do so -- or worse, to launch into an anti-religious crusade to prevent them from doing so. That indeed is anti-Liberty.

[Kade]

You were the one who brought those laws up, not I, so the onus is on you to explain how they relate to this argument.

The clear fact is that the Constitution of the United States of America clearly prohibts the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, despite your clear desire for it to do so.


Again, you are offering a strawman argument to distract us from the fact that the judicial activist notion that the federal government should be used to prohibit the free exercise of religion is neither constitutional nor, as you claimed, grounded in "200 years of Judicial understanding".


But that is blatantly what you arguing for. You have most clearly stated your position here, which by all appearances is that the federal government should prohibit the free exercise of religion in the public sphere because you personally find certain religions to be offensive.


No I cannot, especially when you have clearly stated that my religion -- which you obviously assumed to be Christianity -- "offends" you, and when you have used ridiculous, non sequitur scaremongering over the establishment of a theocracy, which you falsely assume would result from requiring the federal government to obey the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


No, they do not. They allow for the free exercise of religion, even in the public sphere, despite the fact that some people might not approve of that free exercise of religion.



I do not know, nor do I care, what your religious beliefs are, if you have any. Nor are mine, if I have any, relevant to this discussion, though you have clearly presumed to know what they are and have already proclaimed that they are "offensive" to you.

The fact remains: I am arguing from a constitutional standpoint. You are arguing from a standpoint of bias against one or more specific religions which you deem offensive.

The fact also remains: The Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from interfering in the free exercise of religion, despite your personal desire for it to do so.


You presumed that you knew what my religious beliefs are, if I have any, declared them "offensive" to you, and then accused me of using the Constitution to force them down others' throats. This is clearly an attack based on your presumption of my religious beliefs and bolstered by your obvious lack of understanding in regards to the Constitution.


In what way are they baseless? You have clearly demonstrated an anti-Christian bias here, referring to "the current system" as a "theocracy" waiting to happen and declaring that (what you presumed to be) my religious beliefs are "offensive" to you in a lame attempt to discredit my clearly constitutional argument.

What is truly baseless here is your fearmongering about theocracy and your moronic presumptions about my religious beliefs because I disagree with your interpretation of the constitution as a tool to prevent the free exercise of religion.

You haven't answered any concerns, and I suddenly realize that I'm going to get dragged into some flame war with you...

Suffice to say, as long as I keep from summing up your positions, you can continue to look like you are making points.

You are right, the Constitution does prohibit the prohibition of free exercise of religion.. It also prohibits the establishment, even if that establishment is found to be at the state level. There is a LONG history of judicial interpretation to protect people's rights under the first amendment, going back farther than 50 years.


If I am bias, I am bias on the side reason...

[Kade]

There are good arguements on both sides of the fence... All I know is that there won't be any time for actual learning in school after each different religion takes there equal alloted time to pray. Unless of course all pray is silent.

This is where more sense is being made here... by the time the Zoroastrians are done with their prayers...

Hah...

[Kade]

One can stand in a room where some people are praying and not pray oneself. I have done so many times.

The concept of other people freely practicing their own religions is not so abhorent to me that I must run screaming from the room when they begin to do so.

I cannot for the life of me understand why some people feel compelled to do so -- or worse, to launch into an anti-religious crusade to prevent them from doing so. That indeed is anti-Liberty.

I agree... but there is an abuse that has been and will be continued... in pure defiance... what scenario do you paint to prevent these kind of abuses?

[Spirit of '76]

You haven't answered any concerns, and I suddenly realize that I'm going to get dragged into some flame war with you...

Suffice to say, as long as I keep from summing up your positions, you can continue to look like you are making points.

You are right, the Constitution does prohibit the prohibition of free exercise of religion.. It also prohibits the establishment, even if that establishment is found to be at the state level. There is a LONG history of judicial interpretation to protect people's rights under the first amendment, going back farther than 50 years.


If I am bias, I am bias on the side reason...

I am indeed making points -- clear ones, and they are as follows:

The Constitution prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, despite your obvious desire for it to do so.

The Constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion in the public sphere, despite your obvious desire for it to do so.

The free exercise of religion in the public sphere is not tantamount to the establishment of a official religion, despite your patently false assertion that it is.

You have made it abundantly clear that you are less concerned with people's Liberty and their constitutional right to freely practice their religion than you are with using the federal government as a tool to keep people from freely exercising their religion somewhere where you might witness it.

Your argument here is clearly anti-Liberty and unconstitutional, though I doubt you will ever admit that to be the case.

[Spirit of '76]

I agree... but there is an abuse that has been and will be continued... in pure defiance... what scenario do you paint to prevent these kind of abuses?

You outline the "abuse" as you see it in clear terms, and I will tell you how I would deal with it in a constitutional way.

[ChooseLiberty]

Never really got the extremist atheists. If you absolutely don't believe in something what affect does it really have on you other than mis-spent tax $. It always seemed they were really just upset at the believers.

It's like getting upset whenever you see Wiley Coyote on a Roadrunner cartoon because he doesn't really exist or misrepresents the coyote population. Sure, if your tax dollars are supporting the cartoons, but otherwise?

Do they also resent the Flying Spaghetti Monster (TM)? ;)

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."

[Kade]

I am indeed making points -- clear ones, and they are as follows:

The Constitution prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, despite your obvious desire for it to do so.

The Constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion in the public sphere, despite your obvious desire for it to do so.

The free exercise of religion in the public sphere is not tantamount to the establishment of a official religion, despite your patently false assertion that it is.

You have made it abundantly clear that you are less concerned with people Liberty and their constitutional right to freely practice their religion than you are with using the federal government as a tool to keep people from freely exercising their religion somewhere where you might witness it.

Your argument here is clearly anti-Liberty and unconstitutional, though I doubt you will ever admit that to be the case.

Alright, I'll work from here:

I don't desire prayer be taken from the public sphere... I desire it to be taken out of the government sphere.

I only like using the federal government to protect rights, protect people liberties... as you call them. The federal government, when uncoupled with religious doctrines, becomes an even greater oppressor... in a limited government role, I understand the position... however, advocating for Amendments in a government like ours is not fearmongering... as you call it... it is a very REAL concern of mine, and many, many people like me...

Where is that backlash coming from then?

Also, please stop defining my desires. I want freedom... and I fear what "freedom" may mean when you undo some of the protections of liberties affirmed in the findings of our judicial branch....

[Kade]

Never really got the extremist atheists. If you absolutely don't believe in something what affect does it really have on you other than mis-spent tax $. It always seemed they were really just upset at the believers.

It's like getting upset whenever you see Wiley Coyote on a Roadrunner cartoon because he doesn't really exist or misrepresents the coyote population. Sure, if your tax dollars are supporting the cartoons, but otherwise?

Do they also resent the Flying Spaghetti Monster (TM)? ;)

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."

Extremist atheist. Nice.

You have made this into a cascade of misrepresentation... You have also caricatured a position so absurdly, that one could argue you have no understanding of what you are talking about...

I could go into a long list of "affects"... but I want to discuss Ron Paul, and I want discuss what would happen if some of his policies were implemented.

[hard@work]

Also, please stop defining my desires. I want freedom... and I fear what "freedom" may mean when you undo some of the protections of liberties affirmed in the findings of our judicial branch....

So what do you define as our freedom to practice religion within a government sphere? Can you cite examples of what we can and cannot do in schools or in employ of the government?

[Kade]

You outline the "abuse" as you see it in clear terms, and I will tell you how I would deal with it in a constitutional way.

How about a girl who is kicked off her high school basketball team because she refuses to join the teammates in prayer?

[hard@work]

I could go into a long list of "affects"... but I want to discuss Ron Paul, and I want discuss what would happen if some of his policies were implemented.

Please give some scenarios then. Let's stop with the semantics and get down to logical debate.

:cool:


edit -


How about a girl who is kicked off her high school basketball team because she refuses to join the teammates in prayer?

That is an infringement of her rights and should not be allowed.

[Kade]

So what do you define as our freedom to practice religion within a government sphere? Can you cite examples of what we can and cannot do in schools or in employ of the government?

I think that Civil Service should be seen as just that... duty and service.

I think the Lemon test is a good one to go by for establishment clause violations...

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

[Spirit of '76]

Alright, I'll work from here:

I don't desire prayer be taken from the public sphere... I desire it to be taken out of the government sphere.

I only like using the federal government to protect rights, protect people liberties... as you call them. The federal government, when uncoupled with religious doctrines, becomes an even greater oppressor... in a limited government role, I understand the position... however, advocating for Amendments in a government like ours is not fearmongering... as you call it... it is a very REAL concern of mine, and many, many people like me...

Where is that backlash coming from then?

Also, please stop defining my desires. I want freedom... and I fear what "freedom" may mean when you undo some of the protections of liberties affirmed in the findings of our judicial branch....

No one here is suggesting that the federal government take a hand in religious doctrines. Just the opposite is true. We are suggesting that the federal government stay out of religious matters, as it is constitutionally required to do.

Again, clarifying the text of the first amendment to make it easier to understand the fact that the Founders did not intend for it to be used as a tool to prohibit the free exercise of religion will not in any way "undo some of the protections of liberties affirmed in the findings of our judicial branch. Just the opposite is true, in that it will restore to people the religious liberties of which they have been deprived by a judicial branch operating on a misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Whatever your stated desires, what you are arguing for is depriving people of their constitutional right to freely practice their religions because other people might find those religions offensive.

[Kade]

Please give some scenarios then. Let's stop with the semantics and get down to logical debate.

:cool:


edit -



That is an infringement of her rights and should not be allowed.

What right? The state (Oklahoma) has no legislature protecting her from the school's decision.

[hard@work]

I think that Civil Service should be seen as just that... duty and service.

I think the Lemon test is a good one to go by for establishment clause violations...

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

All this is good stuff. I see no issue with Ron Paul here.

[hard@work]

What right? The state (Oklahoma) has no legislature protecting her from the school's decision.

She has a right to practice her beliefs in the way she chooses. This was a violation of that right. If it was abused that does not change anything about the violation.

[Spirit of '76]

How about a girl who is kicked off her high school basketball team because she refuses to join the teammates in prayer?

I would certainly agree that that is an abuse, and she should have recourse in the courts.

Conversely, would you support firing a high school basketball coach who asks - but does not require -- the team to join him/her in prayer before a game?

[Kade]

Then what are you saying? Your third statement here is not clear as to what you believe should be done.

I think as long as the government is entangled in education, official prayer should be restricted in schools, (not individual).

Ron Paul's Amendment would allow teachers to lead children in classrooms in prayer.


Is that clarity?

[Kade]

I would certainly agree that that is an abuse, and she should have recourse in the courts.

Conversely, would you support firing a high school basketball coach who asks - but does not require -- the team to join him/her in prayer before a game?

I wouldn't support firing someone for that offense, and I would defend that person in court. I would argue that the school should set a policy that prohibits teachers from encouraging such an thing, one way or another... especially to other people's children.

[hard@work]

I think as long as the government is entangled in education, official prayer should be restricted in schools, (not individual).

Ron Paul's Amendment would allow teachers to lead children in classrooms in prayer.


Is that clarity?

Ah. Yes indeed. So, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to do so if they believe this is the proper thing to do? I believe the real concern is what if this is abused, am I correct? Or do you believe teachers should not be allowed to do this act at all?

[Kade]

She has a right to practice her beliefs in the way she chooses. This was a violation of that right. If it was abused that does not change anything about the violation.

However, the school was allowed to kick her off the basketball team, I'm asking what would be done, if in this case, the state law does not prohibit the action taken?

Her beliefs were not violated. She was simply kept from joining the sports team because she did not acknowledge god.

[Spirit of '76]

I think as long as the government is entangled in education, official prayer should be restricted in schools, (not individual).

Ron Paul's Amendment would allow teachers to lead children in classrooms in prayer.


Is that clarity?

Not really. If the teacher and some of the students share a common religion, why should they be prohibited from freely exercising their religion, so long as they do not prohibit others from practicing theirs, or from not practicing a religion at all.

If the teacher is mandating that everyone pray his or her way, then that could be easily be viewed as problematic; however, if the teacher invites the students to join him/her in prayer, this is the free exercise of religion.

[Kade]

Ah. Yes indeed. So, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to do so if they believe this is the proper thing to do? I believe the real concern is what if this is abused, am I correct? Or do you believe teachers should not be allowed to do this act at all?

I think, and I imagine I'll get flak for this, that it is not within someone's right as an authority of the government to encourage or teach their religious leanings to other people's children. I'm saying nothing of their own personal beliefs, or even public expression... I would argue that currently, classrooms are not PUBLIC places where teachers can freely lead entire classrooms in prayer....

[hard@work]

However, the school was allowed to kick her off the basketball team, I'm asking what would be done, if in this case, the state law does not prohibit the action taken?

Her beliefs were not violated. She was simply kept from joining the sports team because she did not acknowledge god.

Then your core issue is not in regards to Ron Paul's beliefs on the matter but the beliefs of others and those who would abuse our natural rights.

:)

I agree, and I believe Spirit would as well!

[Kade]

All this is good stuff. I see no issue with Ron Paul here.

The current system and the proposed amendment of Ron Paul violates this.

[Spirit of '76]

I would argue that the school should set a policy that prohibits teachers from encouraging such an thing, one way or another... especially to other people's children.

Emphasis added.

And you would have a legitimate argument there; but what is the role of the federal government in this matter, and how do the bills Congressman Paul introduced prevent schools from implementing such a policy?

[Kade]

Then your core issue is not in regards to Ron Paul's beliefs on the matter but the beliefs of others and those who would abuse our natural rights.

:)

I agree, and I believe Spirit would as well!

Ron Paul, in my opinion, would shrug his shoulders and say oh well. It's the state's choice... right?

[Kade]

Emphasis added.

And you would have a legitimate argument there; but what is the role of the federal government in this matter, and how do the bills Congressman Paul introduced prevent schools from implementing such a policy?

He proposed an Amendment that would strip the ability to even make this policy a reality...

[barcop]

Ah. Yes indeed. So, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to do so if they believe this is the proper thing to do? I believe the real concern is what if this is abused, am I correct? Or do you believe teachers should not be allowed to do this act at all?

Absolutely not at all... period. If you have freedom of religion.... then you can't have an adult in school taking the stance of forcing one religion on all children.

If the school wants to allow a silent praying time in the morning for all students then that is one thing... but to follow one religion is wrong and not freedom of religion at all.

I would have to all religions or none at all. Unless of course it is a designated "Christian" school, and so on.

[hard@work]

I think, and I imagine I'll get flak for this, that it is not within someone's right as an authority of the government to encourage or teach their religious leanings to other people's children. I'm saying nothing of their own personal beliefs, or even public expression... I would argue that currently, classrooms are not PUBLIC places where teachers can freely lead entire classrooms in prayer....

Well you are partially correct in my view. However where I diverge from this is the parents. I believe it is their decision and their interaction with the educators of their children that counts here. And ultimately their ability to choose where their child is educated is paramount to preventing others from infringing on your rights as a parent. I also do disagree with you on the state of a classroom. It is a concept of statism to believe that a classroom is anything less than a public place. And from the standpoint of liberty, statism has no place.

:-D

[hard@work]

Ron Paul, in my opinion, would shrug his shoulders and say oh well. It's the state's choice... right?


The communities.

[Kade]

Not really. If the teacher and some of the students share a common religion, why should they be prohibited from freely exercising their religion, so long as they do not prohibit others from practicing theirs, or from not practicing a religion at all.

If the teacher is mandating that everyone pray his or her way, then that could be easily be viewed as problematic; however, if the teacher invites the students to join him/her in prayer, this is the free exercise of religion.

The judicial system has clarified this perfectly, in my opinion, by not allowing schools to decide either way, making it a federal mandate that they remain neutral. I would argue that this does not prohibit expression of religion at all, only in the cases we have aligned as encouragement and mandating of prayer. A teacher can still prayer whenever she is "off duty", and students are allowed time to pray, and are easily accommodated if more time is needed....

[Spirit of '76]

He proposed an Amendment that would strip the ability to even make this policy a reality...

So you say, but can you please demonstrate what makes your assertion true?

Please show how the text of the bill can be construed to mean that schools and school districts cannot set a policy prohibiting teachers from encouraging a particular religious view to their students.

[Kade]

The communities.

This community ended up setting on fire the family dog, and then arresting the father of the girl and put him on trial for a false crime...

It wasn't until national attention was given that they freed him on all the accounts...but that is not part of the example.

[Kade]

So you say, but can you please demonstrate what makes your assertion true?

Please show how the text of the bill can be construed to mean that schools and school districts cannot set a policy prohibiting teachers from encouraging a particular religious view to their students.

H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

[Spirit of '76]

The judicial system has clarified this perfectly, in my opinion, by not allowing schools to decide either way, making it a federal mandate that they remain neutral. I would argue that this does not prohibit expression of religion at all, only in the cases we have aligned as encouragement and mandating of prayer. A teacher can still prayer whenever she is "off duty", and students are allowed time to pray, and are easily accommodated if more time is needed....

I disagree. Clearly this is federal prohibition of the free exercise of religion in certain times and places.

[nayjevin]

There is other ways of MANDATING school prayer.

In school, a public authority, such as a principle, a teacher, is equivalent to mandating for a child. You can give an option to "leave the room" or "don't attend graduation ceremony" but anyone with half a brain knows most children won't just decide to leave on grounds they can't possibly understand yet...

'being highly suggestive' and 'mandating' are assumed to be two different things, for purposes of definition, in my argument.

you make a good point that this sort of pressure exists in reality.

this is a tough issue, but i just believe that the harder the issue, the more locally it should be resolved.

and I trust RP -- more than I trust the last minister I heard, the man who confirmed me, or even my grandfather -- to protect my spiritual freedom from the executive branch.

by staying the heck out!

[hard@work]

This community ended up setting on fire the family dog, and then arresting the father of the girl and put him on trial for a false crime...

It wasn't until national attention was given that they freed him on all the accounts...but that is not part of the example.

They also lynched a man for the color of his skin, stoned to death a woman who was not pure on her wedding day, and were lead by a man who called himself "sherrif" but was also known as "murderer".

All in defiance of liberty.

[Kade]

Absolutely not at all... period. If you have freedom of religion.... then you can't have an adult in school taking the stance of forcing one religion on all children.

If the school wants to allow a silent praying time in the morning for all students then that is one thing... but to follow one religion is wrong and not freedom of religion at all.

I would have to all religions or none at all. Unless of course it is a designated "Christian" school, and so on.

EXACTLY. Wow, the threads of insanity are loosening and I can breath...

[hard@work]

EXACTLY. Wow, the threads of insanity are loosening and I can breath...

You know it is ok for people to agree or disagree. Just sayin.

:cool:

[Spirit of '76]

H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

Yes, I have read the text of the bills.

What I am asking you to do is show how that text supports your assertion that these bills would prevent school districts from implementing a policy that prevents teachers from requiring students to participate in their religion, when in fact the very text of those bills explicitly states that no person shall be compelled to participate, nor shall any state prescribe official school prayers.

[Kade]

I disagree. Clearly this is federal prohibition of the free exercise of religion in certain times and places.

Time and places they have decided are succinct. Look them up....

[Kade]

Yes, I have read the text of the bills.

What I am asking you to do is show how that text supports your assertion that these bills would prevent school districts from implementing a policy that prevents teachers from requiring students to participate in their religion.

Because it counters the first amendment, and the findings of previous courts that have found that STATES cannot make laws restricting religious freedom... what will happen is that this little loophole will be used to safeguard the already out of control policies regarding religious doctrine in tax funded school systems.

[Spirit of '76]

Time and places they have decided are succinct. Look them up....

Whether certain judges have decided those times and places are "succinct" or not, prohibiting the free exercise of religion in even "succinct" times and places is still prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

[Kade]

They also lynched a man for the color of his skin, stoned to death a woman who was not pure on her wedding day, and were lead by a man who called himself "sherrif" but was also known as "murderer".

All in defiance of liberty.

I would argue it was within the state's rights at the time to do so...

[hard@work]

I would argue it was within the state's rights at the time to do so...

That's a terrible argument. I can't respond to the right to lynch a man for color, murder a woman for sex, or allow a murderer to hold tyranny over man.

*shrug*

[Kade]

I think that I should make the point that many of the ideas that seem like a good idea to protect on the state level, got that way by federal mandate, including the freeing of the slaves...


I want less government... trust me... I just want dialogue on this issue as well, don't be so closed minded about the endless possibilities of communities to right wrongs...

I am from the dirty, deep south... I was taught illegally many abhorrent disastrous things, and I didn't pay for it as hard as some of my peers did... I am trying to weigh the protection of liberties and the oppression of potentially harmful communities.

[Spirit of '76]

Because it counters the first amendment, and the findings of previous courts that have found that STATES cannot make laws restricting religious freedom... what will happen is that this little loophole will be used to safeguard the already out of control policies regarding religious doctrine in tax funded school systems.

Please demonstrate how the text of these bills is counter to the first amendment. Furthermore, please demonstrate how the text of these bills is counter to the finding that the states cannot make laws restricting religious freedom, when in fact the text of these bills very explicitly states just that very thing: that neither the federal government nor the states shall make laws restricting religious freedom, nor shall they compel anyone to participate in any sort of religion.

Have you even read the text of these bills, or did you just have a knee-jerk reaction when you saw the word "religion" because you know that Ron Paul is personally a Christian?

[Kade]

That's a terrible argument. I can't respond to the right to lynch a man for color, murder a woman for sex, or allow a murderer to hold tyranny over man.

*shrug*

The argument is one many of you are making...

[Kade]

Please demonstrate how the text of these bills is counter to the first amendment. Furthermore, please demonstrate how the text of these bills is counter to the finding that the states cannot make laws restricting religious freedom, when in fact the text of these bills very explicitly states just that very thing: that neither the federal government nor the states shall make laws restricting religious freedom, nor shall they compel anyone to participate in any sort of religion.

Have you even read the text of these bills, or did you just have a knee-jerk reaction when you saw the word "religion"?

No, I read them... it is against a backdrop of many things, including the reasoning for their existence...

If the constitution already allows this under the first amendment, why would this amendment be needed... I thought long and hard on this, and I realized it was to battle the clarification of the first amendment from the judicial branch...

That is its' only function... it would in fact "re-clarify" the constitution... by undoing 200 years of proceedings.

[Spirit of '76]

No, I read them... it is against a backdrop of many things, including the reasoning for their existence...

If the constitution already allows this under the first amendment, why would this amendment be needed... I thought long and hard on this, and I realized it was to battle the clarification of the first amendment from the judicial branch...

That is its' only function... it would in fact "re-clarify" the constitution... by undoing 200 years of proceedings.

Or perhaps it is to save the First Amendment from about fifty years of abuse at the hands of judicial activists. Perhaps a clarification is needed because the First Amendment has misinterpreted to mean that the federal government can be used as a cudgel to bully people and prevent them from freely exercising their religions.

[Kade]

Whether certain judges have decided those times and places are "succinct" or not, prohibiting the free exercise of religion in even "succinct" times and places is still prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Yelling FIRE in a crowded room is also illegal, but I should win that battle because its' protecting free speech... .

We have an evolution of these freedoms that has been more progressive then regressive... in my opinion.. I would offer that your interpretation of this specific tenet is depressingly regressive. The prohibition you talk about is non-existent, we have discussed this already... leading kids in prayer in a tax funded institution was found to not be a freedom, Ron Paul's amendment will undo those findings...Disagree?

[Kade]

Or perhaps it is to save the First Amendment from about fifty years of abuse at the hands of judicial activists. Perhaps a clarification is needed because the First Amendment has misinterpreted to mean that the federal government can be used as a cudgel to bully people and prevent them from freely exercising their religions.

Wow.... There's the root of the matter...

Nice...

We haven't see abuse yet. Get us one more executive lapdog in the court and see what happens.

You've said this many times, and I can understand it is your milk and butter... but those last 50 years, in the next 50 years could become common canon of freedom... this is your opinion on the matter only.

[Kade]

Or perhaps it is to save the First Amendment from about fifty years of abuse at the hands of judicial activists. Perhaps a clarification is needed because the First Amendment has misinterpreted to mean that the federal government can be used as a cudgel to bully people and prevent them from freely exercising their religions.

This is what you said earlier too, and it was where I might has misread your religious leanings... because this is opinion. The first amendment protects religious expression, which has been defined as also freedom not to be fed religious doctrines in tax funded institutions. You define expression as the freedom to lead others in your beliefs, and in this case, as an authority figure, in a public school.

I disagree with you on this.

[Spirit of '76]

We have an evolution of these freedoms that has been more progressive then regressive... in my opinion.. I would offer that your interpretation of this specific tenet is depressingly regressive.

I would argue that yours is depressingly oppressive, in that it prohibits the free exercise of religion.


The prohibition you talk about is non-existent, we have discussed this already...leading kids in prayer in a tax funded institution was found to not be a freedom, Ron Paul's amendment will undo those findings...Disagree?

The prohibition is clearly not non-existant, as you have just admitted, with the obfuscational caveat that it is ok to prohibit the free exercise of religion in places you deem "succinct".

I do not disagree that Ron Paul's bills would undo the finding that voluntary prayer in a classroom is not a freedom; what I disagree with is the improper, unconstitutional finding that voluntary prayer in a classroom is not a freedom.

[barcop]

So is everyone going to be ok... when a muslem science teacher uses the Koran as referrence while teaching your christian child?

Or will you have him fired for expressing his freedom of religion?

What about when a history teacher who follows scientology tells your kids that they should look up to Tom Cruise because he believes Ron L. Hubbard???

That's the door freedom of religion opens in a public school.

Now I don't believe the government should have any regulation over a school... but just cheering for "freedom of religion" in school is not going to work.

[Spirit of '76]

Wow.... There's the root of the matter...

Nice...

We haven't see abuse yet. Get us one more executive lapdog in the court and see what happens.

You've said this many times, and I can understand it is your milk and butter... but those last 50 years, in the next 50 years could become common canon of freedom... this is your opinion on the matter only.

I could just as easily argue that it is only your opinion that voluntary prayer in schools is not a freedom, and that it is also merely your opinion that Ron Paul's bills would usher in a theocracy.

I would also maintain that your opinion on these matters is clearly and utterly incorrect.

[Kade]

I would argue that yours is depressingly oppressive, in that it prohibits the free exercise of religion.



The prohibition is clearly not non-existant, as you have just admitted, with the obfuscational caveat that it is ok to prohibit the free exercise of religion in places you deem "succinct".

I do not disagree that Ron Paul's bills would undo the finding that voluntary prayer in a classroom is not a freedom; what I disagree with is the improper, unconstitutional finding that voluntary prayer in a classroom is not a freedom.

Several generations of Supreme Court Justices disagree with you, as do I.

Voluntary prayer will always be legal. Leading a class of children you are suppose to educate into spirituality is not when tax payer money is involved.

The caveat is that the places it is prohibited are places that are supported by tax payer money... what are you missing here?

[Kade]

I could just as easily argue that it is only your opinion that voluntary prayer in schools is not a freedom, and that it is also merely your opinion that Ron Paul's bills would usher in a theocracy.

I would also maintain that your opinion on these matters is clearly and utterly incorrect.

but that would be going overboard....

[hard@work]

The argument is one many of you are making...

lol, no.

[Spirit of '76]

The first amendment protects religious expression, which has been defined as also freedom not to be fed religious doctrines in tax funded institutions. You define expression as the freedom to lead others in your beliefs, and in this case, as an authority figure, in a public school.


No, I simply say that it is not the place of the federal government to prohibit the voluntary expression of religion. I believe that the very text of Congressman Paul's bills puts to rest your assertion that they could be used to compel participation in a given religion, as that is clearly proscribed within the text of those bills.

[Kade]

So is everyone going to be ok... when a muslem science teacher uses the Koran as referrence while teaching your christian child?

Or will you have him fired for expressing his freedom of religion?

What about when a history teacher who follows scientology tells your kids that they should look up to Tom Cruise because he believes Ron L. Hubbard???

That's the door freedom of religion opens in a public school.

Now I don't believe the government should have any regulation over a school... but just cheering for "freedom of religion" in school is not going to work.

When schools are all privatized, as it seems Ron Paul leans towards... I have no problem at all with whatever religious nonsense is taught in specified places...

But I agree completely, while tax payers are supporting the education system, it is not a right for a teacher, principal, or any other school official to lead public school children in any spiritual practice... neutrality.

[hard@work]

Leading a class of children you are suppose to educate into spirituality is not when tax payer money is involved.


The argument against this is that "tax payer money" cannot be used to restrict freedom of religion.

[Spirit of '76]

Several generations of Supreme Court Justices disagree with you, as do I.

Voluntary prayer will always be legal. Leading a class of children you are suppose to educate into spirituality is not when tax payer money is involved.

The caveat is that the places it is prohibited are places that are supported by tax payer money... what are you missing here?

What I am missing is the supposed connection between non-compulsory, voluntary, extracurricular moments of prayer and "leading a class of children into spirituality".

Again, the text of Congressman Paul's bills would prohibit the establishment of official school prayers, official school religions, and compulsory participation in any given religious expression.

[Kade]

No, I simply say that it is not the place of the federal government to prohibit the voluntary expression of religion. I believe that the very text of Congressman Paul's bills puts to rest your assertion that they could be used to compel participation in a given religion, as that is clearly proscribed within the text of those bills.

Amendment. He was advocating an actual amendment to the constitution... as if it weren't already setup correctly.

The very text will allow state's to throw out federal laws that prohibit publicly funded schools from allowing prayer and spiritual matters to be undertaken by teachers...

You are simply using the expression of religion over the anti-establishment clause of the first amendment.... the compromise made by the federal government is fair.... and doesn't impose radical prohibition of rights like you think it does.

[Kade]

What I am missing is the supposed connection between non-compulsory, voluntary, extracurricular moments of prayer and "leading a class of children into spirituality".

Again, the text of Congressman Paul's bills would prohibit the establishment of official school prayers, official school religions, and compulsory participation in any given religious expression.

The text throws the laws out...

If a Principal leads a school in prayer in the morning... no law stops him.

[Kade]

The argument against this is that "tax payer money" cannot be used to restrict freedom of religion.

It isn't.

[hard@work]

It isn't.

Is too.

[Spirit of '76]

So is everyone going to be ok... when a muslem science teacher uses the Koran as referrence while teaching your christian child?

Or will you have him fired for expressing his freedom of religion?

What about when a history teacher who follows scientology tells your kids that they should look up to Tom Cruise because he believes Ron L. Hubbard???

That's the door freedom of religion opens in a public school.

Now I don't believe the government should have any regulation over a school... but just cheering for "freedom of religion" in school is not going to work.

In cases like that, then I as a parent should have recourse to discuss the matter with school officials and the teacher himself in order to assure that a.) my child is not being compelled to believe as the teacher does or to participate in a given religion, and b.) that while the teacher's academic freedom is respected, he/she makes it abundantly clear what is his/her personal beliefs and what is part of the established curriculum.

Let me ask you this:

If teacher who happens to be a muslim encounters the problem that his class time is scheduled during a mandatory muslim prayer time, should he be prohibited from taking a few minutes to pray quietly? What if he invites (but does not compel) students to join him?

Should he be dismissed for exercising his religion during class time or for inviting students to join him? Or does this religious antipathy and denial of freedom extend only to Christians?

[Spirit of '76]

You are simply using the expression of religion over the anti-establishment clause of the first amendment.... the compromise made by the federal government is fair.... and doesn't impose radical prohibition of rights like you think it does.

That is merely your opinion, and I disagree with it most completely.

[Spirit of '76]

I must go. I've been sitting in front of this computer all day, and I need to get some fresh air before night falls.

This has been entertaining, to say the least. Thank you for the debate.

I surely hope that this one issue won't prevent you from voting for the man who is more sure to guarantee your right to speak out on such issues and question even his own policies than any other candidate would.

[hard@work]

www.ronpaullibrary.com

:)

[ChooseLiberty]

;)

It's pretty obvious you just got back from your Con Law class and want to argue. Maybe some issue you missed on a test?

If you were really interested in Dr. Paul's position you could simply look it up. Maybe it's on Lexis. Or submit it to the campaign.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the looming police state in which all your arguments will be moot.

All hail the FSM!



Extremist atheist. Nice.

You have made this into a cascade of misrepresentation... You have also caricatured a position so absurdly, that one could argue you have no understanding of what you are talking about...

I could go into a long list of "affects"... but I want to discuss Ron Paul, and I want discuss what would happen if some of his policies were implemented.

[Corydoras]

is it truly freedom to simply claim righteously that a certain view is ultimately and utterly correct...

A question: You don't believe your OWN view of religion and government is ultimately and utterly correct?
:eek:

[nayjevin]

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

It all rests on interpretation of the word 'recognize'.

If 'recognize' is interpreted as 'brief solo silent prayer', we're good.
If 'recognize' is interpreted as 'perform an act of recognition out loud in front of class, every day, with the suggestion that it should also be performed in unison by the class', no good.

To me, a good teacher, walking in the forest with my child, will find and share 'God' concepts with my child, but endorse no religion.

In fact, any time a human being -- especially one who has dedicated their lives to teaching children -- decides on their on volition to share their beliefs about God, or their conception of truth in that regard, I don't mind my child present -- given I'm part of the process in monitoring that person (I.E. I can be involved in her school, parent-teacher conferences, etc). It is my responsibility for my child to be prepared enough to realize -- even if not explicitly told by that teacher -- that not everything they hear in school will be what they eventually believe.

Unfortunately, there's no hard and fast age at which the child becomes adequately guarded from runaway impressionability, and becomes capable of defending against those who would move to abuse the child through manipulation of religious falsehoods.

But that can be combatted through communication with the child. Don't believe everything that you hear. Besides, in my case, a teacher would have a hard time out-doing what the grandparents and others already have -- 'Does Jesus live in the sky?'

The greater the frequency and degree of communication with your kids, the less the potential effect of one teacher to abuse your child's intellectual freedoms.

[Kade]

;)

It's pretty obvious you just got back from your Con Law class and want to argue. Maybe some issue you missed on a test?

If you were really interested in Dr. Paul's position you could simply look it up. Maybe it's on Lexis. Or submit it to the campaign.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the looming police state in which all your arguments will be moot.

All hail the FSM!

Actually.. I was at work....

[Kade]

A question: You don't believe your OWN view of religion and government is ultimately and utterly correct?
:eek:


No, I don't actually... not on this issue. I believe what I have experienced and studied so far has not been refuted.

[Kade]

It all rests on interpretation of the word 'recognize'.

If 'recognize' is interpreted as 'brief solo silent prayer', we're good.
If 'recognize' is interpreted as 'perform an act of recognition out loud in front of class, every day, with the suggestion that it should also be performed in unison by the class', no good.

To me, a good teacher, walking in the forest with my child, will find and share 'God' concepts with my child, but endorse no religion.

In fact, any time a human being -- especially one who has dedicated their lives to teaching children -- decides on their on volition to share their beliefs about God, or their conception of truth in that regard, I don't mind my child present -- given I'm part of the process in monitoring that person (I.E. I can be involved in her school, parent-teacher conferences, etc). It is my responsibility for my child to be prepared enough to realize -- even if not explicitly told by that teacher -- that not everything they hear in school will be what they eventually believe.

Unfortunately, there's no hard and fast age at which the child becomes adequately guarded from runaway impressionability, and becomes capable of defending against those who would move to abuse the child through manipulation of religious falsehoods.

But that can be combatted through communication with the child. Don't believe everything that you hear. Besides, in my case, a teacher would have a hard time out-doing what the grandparents and others already have -- 'Does Jesus live in the sky?'

The greater the frequency and degree of communication with your kids, the less the potential effect of one teacher to abuse your child's intellectual freedoms.

This amendment, as I've been arguing since the start of this thread, is useless, and in the economic status we now have, a violation of the constitution as defined by years of judicial progress.

[barcop]

In cases like that, then I as a parent should have recourse to discuss the matter with school officials and the teacher himself in order to assure that a.) my child is not being compelled to believe as the teacher does or to participate in a given religion, and b.) that while the teacher's academic freedom is respected, he/she makes it abundantly clear what is his/her personal beliefs and what is part of the established curriculum.

Let me ask you this:

If teacher who happens to be a muslim encounters the problem that his class time is scheduled during a mandatory muslim prayer time, should he be prohibited from taking a few minutes to pray quietly? What if he invites (but does not compel) students to join him?

Should he be dismissed for exercising his religion during class time or for inviting students to join him? Or does this religious antipathy and denial of freedom extend only to Christians?

I think he has all the right in the world to pray... during any scheduled break that he has during the day. But no... if a mandatory prayer time is during a class period then tough luck. He's being paid to teach... not to pray.

I do not think any adult... no matter what their religion should have any discussion with a child about religion UNLESS it is a "insert religion here" school and that is part of the teachings.

I am an athiest and as an adult, I would never express my views on a child that was not mine. It's not the teachers place to discuss religion (any religion) in a public school.

[barcop]

I would also like to say... there are way bigger issues in this country to worry about. But good debate... alot of good opinions from both sides.

[jmarinara]

I would rather not start a religious debate here, but I want to know why a citizen who honors the founding father's ideals on secularism should support Ron Paul.

Founding Father's ideals of SECULARISM??? Ok, I think we've found the problem. . . you're severely misinformed.

Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, I'll gladly give you as having ideals of secularism, but only because they held a heritical view of Christianity.

However, I'm sorry, if you think that George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Adams, John Jay, etc. were not religious, or for that matter, Christian, you are severely misinformed.

Sorry, I know it's the cardinal sin in America to say that someone is wrong, but simply put, history and facts do not support your position. And you can count as many words as you want in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, it still doesn't change the facts that these men argued for Biblical ideas in government.

Some proof for you:

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams 6th US President and son of John Adams

"Without a humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay

"Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." - Samuel Adams

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." - John Jay

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." - John Qunicy Adams

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." - Noah Webster

"I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me." Alexander Hamilton

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!" John Adams

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge to Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor." George Washington

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence (In bold are two references you left un-counted. . . one can only wonder why)

[jmarinara]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence

Since that is the thesis statement of our country, let me explain to you why this is a profoundly Christian statement.

The idea of rights being a self-evident truth was an idea first proported by a man named John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. Although Locke did not right as a Theologian, but rather a philosopher, he had to acknowledge that since it seems that natuarl law dictates that man is born with inherant rights, then these rights must come from an intelligence higher than himself.

So when forming the civil government now known as America, our founders had to follow Lockes logic that our rights had to come from somewhere. And since, as Locke pointed out to Hobbes (in the famous Locke/Hobbes debates), that our rights could not be truely given away or taken, but rather, simply go unused, they knew that we weren't granted our own rights by principalities or powers that were on the earth. Rather, they had to, as Locke's logic dictated, come from something greater than ourselves.

This is why they say that we are CREATED with INALIENABLE rights. We have to be made (because we can't inject these rights into ourselves) and because we are made, the rights within us are therefore unable to be alienated.

Now examine those rights. . . LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Life: God is firmly on the side of life. Now, since he created life and is soverign holy and just, he can determine who lives and dies. Yet His law is full of protection of life, and it is from this gift HE gives us, that all of our rights proceed.

Liberty: If you study Biblical civil law closely, you notice a profound libertarian streak. God is not concerned with government micromanaging our lives. Why? Because kings and presidents are as sinful and as prone to error as Cain, and this freedom to sin stems from a free-will that God grants each of us.

God instituted civil government not to rule over the people, but to protect the people. Make sure people aren't being murdered, make sure the scales are honest, make sure theirs isn't lawlessness in the streets, but leave their souls to Him.

Pursuit of Happiness: God is not all that concerned with out "happiness" (He instead would rather us be filled with Joy. . . there's a difference) but He doesn't prevent it either. The idea here is that HE created unique creatures with different strengths/weaknesses/likes/dislikes and we should be free to follow who we are and how He created us to fulfill our own happiness. Now true joy only comes from salvation and assurance in Him, but that's another story.

One last thing: The completion of this thought, not quoted here, is: "and when Governments become destructive of these goals, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish them."

This is a long post, but this is a profoundly protestant, namely puritan, idea. The puritans rebelled against the specific idea that the Bible was being used for selfish ends, and not to the ends of glorifing God. In the realm of civil Government, many Catholics liked to point to Romans 13 to show the kings had a divine right to be tyrants. These puritan minded founders knew that when government had ceased to act in the way God designed it, that it was their duty, and ours, to rise up, show fidelity to God, and to make sure our Government didn't stand in our way of serving the Most High God.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[barcop]

Since that is the thesis statement of our country, let me explain to you why this is a profoundly Christian statement.

The idea of rights being a self-evident truth was an idea first proported by a man named John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. Although Locke did not right as a Theologian, but rather a philosopher, he had to acknowledge that since it seems that natuarl law dictates that man is born with inherant rights, then these rights must come from an intelligence higher than himself.

So when forming the civil government now known as America, our founders had to follow Lockes logic that our rights had to come from somewhere. And since, as Locke pointed out to Hobbes (in the famous Locke/Hobbes debates), that our rights could not be truely given away or taken, but rather, simply go unused, they knew that we weren't granted our own rights by principalities or powers that were on the earth. Rather, they had to, as Locke's logic dictated, come from something greater than ourselves.

This is why they say that we are CREATED with INALIENABLE rights. We have to be made (because we can't inject these rights into ourselves) and because we are made, the rights within us are therefore unable to be alienated.

Now examine those rights. . . LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Life: God is firmly on the side of life. Now, since he created life and is soverign holy and just, he can determine who lives and dies. Yet His law is full of protection of life, and it is from this gift HE gives us, that all of our rights proceed.

Liberty: If you study Biblical civil law closely, you notice a profound libertarian streak. God is not concerned with government micromanaging our lives. Why? Because kings and presidents are as sinful and as prone to error as Cain, and this freedom to sin stems from a free-will that God grants each of us.

God instituted civil government not to rule over the people, but to protect the people. Make sure people aren't being murdered, make sure the scales are honest, make sure theirs isn't lawlessness in the streets, but leave their souls to Him.

Pursuit of Happiness: God is not all that concerned with out "happiness" (He instead would rather us be filled with Joy. . . there's a difference) but He doesn't prevent it either. The idea here is that HE created unique creatures with different strengths/weaknesses/likes/dislikes and we should be free to follow who we are and how He created us to fulfill our own happiness. Now true joy only comes from salvation and assurance in Him, but that's another story.

One last thing: The completion of this thought, not quoted here, is: "and when Governments become destructive of these goals, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish them."

This is a long post, but this is a profoundly protestant, namely puritan, idea. The puritans rebelled against the specific idea that the Bible was being used for selfish ends, and not to the ends of glorifing God. In the realm of civil Government, many Catholics liked to point to Romans 13 to show the kings had a divine right to be tyrants. These puritan minded founders knew that when government had ceased to act in the way God designed it, that it was their duty, and ours, to rise up, show fidelity to God, and to make sure our Government didn't stand in our way of serving the Most High God.

I look forward to your thoughts.

First, we should clarify and point out that the Founding Fathers did not all share one single set of beliefs. However, from my reading (actual writings that is, not just quotes and snippets) and research, I think it's pretty clear that most of the important founders (Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison et al.) would have little in common with fundamentalist/evangelical Christians. Whether they were deists or "rational Christians" (a term Jefferson used) I cannot say, but they certainly would not be described as anything like fundy-type Christians, and in some cases it really is questionable as to whether they could accurately be labeled as Christians at all, at least in the traditional sense.

But to the heart of the matter, i.e., where this debate invariably leads, there's nothing at all about Christ, Christianity, God, or religion for that matter (other than proscriptions on government's involvement with it) in the U.S. Constitution, any of which would have been easy enough for them to include had they wanted to. So no matter what their personal beliefs may or may not have been, they did want a secular government. If you try to deny this simple fact then you are either severely misguided or just plain being dishonest.

[dc74rp]

Kade,

First, sorry if this post is a bit long, but there is alot to address and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood.


Yes, I am offended by your religion, and others. I would never desire anything to prohibit your practice and worship, ever, and would actively fight to defend those rights... What is clear to me, is that you are only willing to interpret freedom of conscience when it involves forcing your beliefs through whatever government institutions to impressionable minds. Allowing official school prayer is not freedom, it is totalitarianism.

I think we're getting different interpretations of Paul's Amendment. Seems to me nothing in this text grants those acting as representives of government institutions any power to force beliefs on individuals. It protects private individuals and groups from being prevented free exercise. Seems to me you would agree with the meaning of Paul's Amendment, but maybe it was misunderstood because of how it's worded?


"H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

In no way does the wording here seem to me to allow any person acting on behalf of government to plan, initiate, or lead prayer in schools. It seems in every instance where a right is protected, it is the rights of the people, individuals, or groups. In every instance where the government is mentioned, it's refering to what it's not allowed to do.

I am a Christian, but I believe in Freedom of Religion, and would object also if I believed this Amendment granted government control over religion. I agree with you, the First Ammendment is suppose to make clear the the Federal Government doesn't hold any authority over our Freedom of Concience.

I'd guess many non- or anti- religious people might not notice, but there are incidents where students, as private individuals and groups, have been prevented from exercising thier religion, outside of class at school. The school's used the justification of "Separation of Church and State". Seems a pretty twisted interpretation of the First Amendment to me. The wording of Paul's Amendment seems to me directly responding to some specific cases. Just ask if you want me to cite them and I'll look them up.

My reading of Paul's Amendment is, the government shall neither endorse or prevent private citizens or groups from praying, meditating, or other form of reasonable practicing religion in public places as long as they aren't breaking the law. A group of students decide to get together to discuss religion and pray during free time outside class. The school shouldn't be allowed to use the fact they are practicing religion on public property as a reason to make them stop.

"Freedom of Religion" is based on "Freedom of Conscience". Meaning freedom to believe what you want. The First Amendment is suppose to prevent the Federal Government endorsing, discouraging, rewarding, or punishing people based on what they believe. Just as "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean protection from hearing other people's speech, "Freedom of Religion" doesn't mean protection from hearing about or seeing other people's religions.


First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, if you believe the Federal Government should have the authority over the States to interprete and enforce the First Amendment, this is where it seems Paul's Amendment supports your cause and I disagree with it. The wording of the First Amendment was clearly not originally intended to apply to the States, but to the Federal Government. Paul's Amendment adds the words "any State", and I'm against that. But I'll support Paul anyway, because he is the only candidate that seems to honestly care about making the government obey the Constitution. So far, that outweighs everything else I disagree with him on.

The Constitution of the United States was intended to be a delegation of powers to the Federal Government by the People. It was intended that the Federal Government would have no rights not granted in the Constitution. Nothing in the Bill of Rights restricted any powers held by the Federal Government. It was added only to clarify specificly powers the Federal governmet didn't have.

As can be seen in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:


Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But Supreme Court precedents have twisted the meaning of Amendments, turning the Bill of Right from it's original purpose into a list of areas of Federal Authority over the States.

States are also granted power in thier State Constitutions, which we would hope all reiterate freedom of religion. I don't believe it correct for any State Government to hold more power over religion than the Federal Government. After all, if private individuals and groups don't have the right to control what I believe, how can they delegate that right to government?

But just as the battle over the proper powers of the Federal Government belongs to the People of the United States, the battle over what powers a State Government holds belong to the Citizens of that State.

Again, although no government should have the power to endorse or force people to participate in religion, the First Amendment was not originally intended to grant the Federal Government any authority over State Governments in the area of Religion. Far from it. It was to clarify the Federal Government was specifically not granted authority in this area.

Thanks for your patience with my long-winded reply.:D

[Corydoras]

It's wrong for parents to allow their kids to view their teachers as authorities. I think parents fail when they let their kids assume that just because someone with a different belief system practices it near them, they have to think likewise.

Prayer in schools necessarily means exposure to people you don't agree with, and in a non-privatized public school system, that's a good thing worth paying taxes for, because this is a diverse country and citizens need to learn how to cope with citizens of various belief systems. American life necessarily means exposure to people you disagree with on the most profound issues; the person next to you may have abhorrent beliefs.

For a minority in some communities, most of the people around are going to have abhorrent beliefs, and any kid of theirs had better learn how to deal with the majority, since their parents chose to live in that community rather than moving somewhere where people with similar beliefs are more numerous.

Tolerance does not mean affirmation, and parents fail who do not teach the difference. Forbidding exposure to competing belief systems in schools is like forbidding sports because kids might get dirt in cuts or forbidding math and reading because kids might get headaches or forbidding kids from socializing with people from other cultures because they might pick up some kind of brain cooties. Bleach all the kid's toys, wouldn't want the little precious actually developing an immune system, right?

[jmarinara]

First, we should clarify and point out that the Founding Fathers did not all share one single set of beliefs. However, from my reading (actual writings that is, not just quotes and snippets) and research, I think it's pretty clear that most of the important founders (Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison et al.) would have little in common with fundamentalist/evangelical Christians. Whether they were deists or "rational Christians" (a term Jefferson used) I cannot say, but they certainly would not be described as anything like fundy-type Christians, and in some cases it really is questionable as to whether they could accurately be labeled as Christians at all, at least in the traditional sense.

But to the heart of the matter, i.e., where this debate invariably leads, there's nothing at all about Christ, Christianity, God, or religion for that matter (other than proscriptions on government's involvement with it) in the U.S. Constitution, any of which would have been easy enough for them to include had they wanted to. So no matter what their personal beliefs may or may not have been, they did want a secular government. If you try to deny this simple fact then you are either severely misguided or just plain being dishonest.

Well thats a fine beliefs, but you offer little to prove your point, and further, you offer little to refute the idea you quoted from me, that the type of government our founders created was overwhelmingly inspired by Biblical Christian ideals.

My thesis: (a)Our founding fathers, although not all properly in line with right doctrine, were mostly men of God who sought after glory for Christ Jesus. (b)Thus, when excercising their Biblical right to alter and abolish government, they founded a nation upon the values, moral precepts, and practical guidance found within Holy Writ. (or the Bible, if you prefer).

The outline for my proof of part (a) is in the plethora of statements made by nearly all of the founders regarding this nation as being a Christian nation and founded upon those principles, as well as their personal devotions and statements of personal faith, trust and repentance, added to the fruit their lives produced being in line with Godly character. You can find a small sample of those statements in my first post here, and any serious research on some of the founders will produce proof of the second and third part of what I'm saying.

The outline for my proof of part (b) is post you quoted.

Also, I'm so sick of this idea of our founders being deist or "rational christians". Ben Franklin was the only confirmed deist and Thomas Jefferson was the only founder who ever referred to himself as a "rational christian". Both of these men's philosophies are widely regarded to be heresy by anyone who takes a serious look at orthodox christianity. I hate to besmirch such important founders, but the truth is the truth. It doesn't mean that all the founder believed this way, and in fact we can prove in many cases that most didn't. Good grief, two of the founders were puritan ministers.

This notion of them not really being Christians is the influence of the Godless communist influenced public school system, and it's big sister, the university system. Open your minds people, freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, if you'd like to deal with my thesis, I'm happy to chat. If you're going to further ignore the points I make, the proof I offer, and the logic I follow, please don't bother. (Not trying to be mean, just trying to get you to think. . . iron sharpens iron after all.)

[Spirit of '76]

I agree wholeheartedly with those who say that the responsibility here lies with the parents. It it falls on the parents to communicate with their children, inculcate a healthy skepticism of authority figures in their children, stay on top of what their children are learning in school, and take an active role in the educational process.

Again, it seems like some people want the state to take the active role here by censoring religious expression in the public sphere, which seems like wholly improper use of the state. The idea, suggested earlier, that no adult should be allowed to discuss religion while children are present is absolutely ludicrous to me.

I was always taught to be respectful, if skeptical, of other people's religious beliefs. I am neither vocally religious, nor am I phobic toward those who are. Sure, there have been times that I've had to gently tell people not to shove it my face constantly, but I don't get spastically intolerant every time someone mentions God, as I have seen other people do.

I for one want my children to learn about the variety of religious beliefs and traditions out there, so they can better understand world events, societal developments, and historical trends. I have learned so much about human nature and faith from talking openly with people who hold different religious convictions whether I agree with their beliefs or not, and I'd hate to think that I intentionally kept my children ignorant by denying them those same opportunities.

[barcop]

Well thats a fine beliefs, but you offer little to prove your point, and further, you offer little to refute the idea you quoted from me, that the type of government our founders created was overwhelmingly inspired by Biblical Christian ideals.

My thesis: (a)Our founding fathers, although not all properly in line with right doctrine, were mostly men of God who sought after glory for Christ Jesus. (b)Thus, when excercising their Biblical right to alter and abolish government, they founded a nation upon the values, moral precepts, and practical guidance found within Holy Writ. (or the Bible, if you prefer).

The outline for my proof of part (a) is in the plethora of statements made by nearly all of the founders regarding this nation as being a Christian nation and founded upon those principles, as well as their personal devotions and statements of personal faith, trust and repentance, added to the fruit their lives produced being in line with Godly character. You can find a small sample of those statements in my first post here, and any serious research on some of the founders will produce proof of the second and third part of what I'm saying.

The outline for my proof of part (b) is post you quoted.

Also, I'm so sick of this idea of our founders being deist or "rational christians". Ben Franklin was the only confirmed deist and Thomas Jefferson was the only founder who ever referred to himself as a "rational christian". Both of these men's philosophies are widely regarded to be heresy by anyone who takes a serious look at orthodox christianity. I hate to besmirch such important founders, but the truth is the truth. It doesn't mean that all the founder believed this way, and in fact we can prove in many cases that most didn't. Good grief, two of the founders were puritan ministers.

This notion of them not really being Christians is the influence of the Godless communist influenced public school system, and it's big sister, the university system. Open your minds people, freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, if you'd like to deal with my thesis, I'm happy to chat. If you're going to further ignore the points I make, the proof I offer, and the logic I follow, please don't bother. (Not trying to be mean, just trying to get you to think. . . iron sharpens iron after all.)

You make no points worth debating other than the usual fundamental christian stance, trying to shove your fundamental views down others throats, with a closed mind about anyone elses point of view. Taking partial quotes from a few founding fathers and then giving your personal "Thesis" isn't proof of anything.

As I said above, show me in the Constitution where it says anything about Christ, Christianity or God.... you can't. It doesn't matter what each founding fathers view on religion was, they did not include religion in the constitution, because they wanted the government to be secular. And anyone with an open mind can understand that.

Do you have any opinion about the topic of this thread at all?

[barcop]

[QUOTE=Spirit of '76;183706]
Again, it seems like some people want the state to take the active role here by censoring religious expression in the public sphere, which seems like wholly improper use of the state. The idea, suggested earlier, that no adult should be allowed to discuss religion while children are present is absolutely ludicrous to me.
QUOTE]

I'm not sure if you were referring to me in this part. I think our opinions are really on the same line for the most part, only I feel that religion in school should be regulated. NOT by the state, but by each individual school. To give teachers in a public school the ok... to freely preach their religious views during a class that is not about religion is not right. You said it yourself in your post; you have at times had to tell people not to shove their views in your face. Why do you think kids in school should have to endure that from some of their teachers?

I don't care if my daughter's history teacher is Muslim, her science teacher is Buddhist, her math teacher is Wiccan and her English teacher is Christian. But each one should teach strictly from the curriculum and not add their personal beliefs into the classroom. There is a time and place for everything.

I have no problems with my daughter learning about different religions, if:

A) It is taught under the curriculum, like every subject, by an unbiased teacher.

B) EVERY religion is discussed and compared, not just one or two.

C) It starts at an age where she is old enough to understand the information, so when she comes home we can discuss what she learned logically.

I also have no problem with allowing a few minutes of prayer in school, If:

A) It is a silent prayer, that allows children of all religions to pray on their own and those that do not wish to participate do not have to.

B) Does not take away from class time or the curriculum.

Honestly, when it comes to our public school systems, I think that the topic of religion is the least of our worries.

And GO Ron Paul!!!!!

[Kade]

Founding Father's ideals of SECULARISM??? Ok, I think we've found the problem. . . you're severely misinformed.

Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, I'll gladly give you as having ideals of secularism, but only because they held a heritical view of Christianity.

However, I'm sorry, if you think that George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Adams, John Jay, etc. were not religious, or for that matter, Christian, you are severely misinformed.

Sorry, I know it's the cardinal sin in America to say that someone is wrong, but simply put, history and facts do not support your position. And you can count as many words as you want in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, it still doesn't change the facts that these men argued for Biblical ideas in government.

Some proof for you:

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams 6th US President and son of John Adams

"Without a humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay

"Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." - Samuel Adams

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." - John Jay

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." - John Qunicy Adams

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." - Noah Webster

"I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me." Alexander Hamilton

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!" John Adams

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge to Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor." George Washington

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence (In bold are two references you left un-counted. . . one can only wonder why)

This isn't worth responding to, seriously, you have single handily revised American history to fit into your world view... shame on you. Shame on your view of what liberty is as well. I could go into each quote, and I could go into the more important body of work that is the governance of this country, the Constitution... unfortunately, people like you are what I fear, and this is exactly what I was afraid of... Are you advocating a breach of separation in this wrangling? This is not fearmongering... you are demonstrating exactly what I, and at least 10,000 college atheists fear in this country.

Quote mining... shameful. Are you advocating that atheists have no place in this country... keep pushing bro.. keep pushing.

[Kade]

Kade,

First, sorry if this post is a bit long, but there is alot to address and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood.



I think we're getting different interpretations of Paul's Amendment. Seems to me nothing in this text grants those acting as representives of government institutions any power to force beliefs on individuals. It protects private individuals and groups from being prevented free exercise. Seems to me you would agree with the meaning of Paul's Amendment, but maybe it was misunderstood because of how it's worded?


I have argued hear that his amendment is reactionary, and it obviously, to me and others, was made to "clarify" what 200 years of judicial process has found against establishment. The amendment is unnecessary, as the first amendment already protects the expression of religion, and as the courts have found, to keep in constant with the establishment clause, your right to expression stops only at the joining of your duty in the state, when you are employed or are in acting orders from the tax funded, people elected state. What reason is there for this amendment? If you argue that expression has always meant that the state should allow teachers to lead their students in prayer, I would argue that our progressive view of tolerance and diversity in this case defies that simple and questionable freedom of enforcement for the freedom FROM religious encouragement, especially even when impressed upon by tax paid officials.



In no way does the wording here seem to me to allow any person acting on behalf of government to plan, initiate, or lead prayer in schools. It seems in every instance where a right is protected, it is the rights of the people, individuals, or groups. In every instance where the government is mentioned, it's refering to what it's not allowed to do.



The wording is actually not about allowance, it is in general restrictive, and it would effectively put into question the Lemon test.



I'd guess many non- or anti- religious people might not notice, but there are incidents where students, as private individuals and groups, have been prevented from exercising thier religion, outside of class at school. The school's used the justification of "Separation of Church and State". Seems a pretty twisted interpretation of the First Amendment to me. The wording of Paul's Amendment seems to me directly responding to some specific cases. Just ask if you want me to cite them and I'll look them up.


This is a violation of the first amendment, and I have been extremely vocal in protecting the right of the students and the student groups in these cases...

AND so has the ACLU, for which I am a member (Oh no not a liberty lover!)

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) filed a a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade student who was forbidden from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The only restriction on the student's selection for the talent show was that it be "G-rated." The case, filed in federal court, is Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al. www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

The ACLU of Oregon (2004-05) filed suit on behalf of high school basketball players from an Adventist school against the Oregon School Activities Association, which administers competitive athletic and artistic competitions in Oregon high schools. The ACLU argued that the Adventist basketball players who have made it to the state tournament should not be required to play tournament games on Saturday, their Sabbath. The case, argued in Oregon courts, is Nakashima v. Board Of Education. www.aclu-or.org/litigation/portlandadventacademy/PAA.html

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district. Students who were suspended include Daniel S. Souza, Stephen J. Grabowski, Sharon L. Sitler and Paul Sitler. www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2002) publicly supported a group of Christian students who filed a lawsuit against Davenport Schools asserting their right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time. The ICLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the suit on behalf of the students. www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html

And many, many others... you guys are making the wrong kinds of enemies with the continued assault on this definition of Freedom..

Keep pushing.






"Freedom of Religion" is based on "Freedom of Conscience". Meaning freedom to believe what you want. The First Amendment is suppose to prevent the Federal Government endorsing, discouraging, rewarding, or punishing people based on what they believe. Just as "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean protection from hearing other people's speech, "Freedom of Religion" doesn't mean protection from hearing about or seeing other people's religions.



Now, if you believe the Federal Government should have the authority over the States to interprete and enforce the First Amendment, this is where it seems Paul's Amendment supports your cause and I disagree with it. The wording of the First Amendment was clearly not originally intended to apply to the States, but to the Federal Government. Paul's Amendment adds the words "any State", and I'm against that. But I'll support Paul anyway, because he is the only candidate that seems to honestly care about making the government obey the Constitution. So far, that outweighs everything else I disagree with him on.



It amounts to "any state" must not infringe on the constitutional right of teachers and officials to lead their class in their type of prayer, even if your tax payer money pays these folks, even if you can't change your school because of districting...

Nice.



The Constitution of the United States was intended to be a delegation of powers to the Federal Government by the People. It was intended that the Federal Government would have no rights not granted in the Constitution. Nothing in the Bill of Rights restricted any powers held by the Federal Government. It was added only to clarify specificly powers the Federal governmet didn't have.



Apparently, I am the last person here that I can see who needs a history lesson... but if you think I'm missing something, enlighten me please.

You are not converting someone to limited government, you are trying to convince me that we need a re-clarification of the first amendment and the findings of the courts against state enforced establishment.




But Supreme Court precedents have twisted the meaning of Amendments, turning the Bill of Right from it's original purpose into a list of areas of Federal Authority over the States.

States are also granted power in thier State Constitutions, which we would hope all reiterate freedom of religion. I don't believe it correct for any State Government to hold more power over religion than the Federal Government. After all, if private individuals and groups don't have the right to control what I believe, how can they delegate that right to government?


Sadly, I agree with you and at the same time believe that this was a necessary evil. In cases that demand the federal government enforce the states to protect freedoms, I support the federal government. This was because states were abusing, openly and without warrant, constitutional rights. It was decided upon, EXTREMELY early, even by the unfavorable court before the 19th century, that the establishment clause applies to the States as well... If you think it doesn't that is a different argument. IF it does, then the federal government has the right to step in in order to "untangle" any power the church might have over that state... Tax payers money to church related activities is establishment. State officials, like teachers and principals, preaching to homeroom, is establishment.



But just as the battle over the proper powers of the Federal Government belongs to the People of the United States, the battle over what powers a State Government holds belong to the Citizens of that State.


Agreed, as one of these "people" in the United States, I would like to see far less government interaction in economic and civil liberties, stepping in only to enforce those rights that have been progressively understood to be applied... namely the right to privacy, the right to conscience, and the right for my tax money to stay out of the pockets of religious organizations.



Again, although no government should have the power to endorse or force people to participate in religion, the First Amendment was not originally intended to grant the Federal Government any authority over State Governments in the area of Religion. Far from it. It was to clarify the Federal Government was specifically not granted authority in this area.

Thanks for your patience with my long-winded reply.:D

I disagree. This is the ultimate and most debatable opinion yet... it all comes down to this...

Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights included provisions binding the States, as well as the Federal Government, from an establishment of religion. The house did not pass it...

Ironically, part of the decision came when the courts ruled to outlaw Polygamy. Reynolds vs. US, gave us the clearest view of the federal ruling on what constitutes establishment and the states abilities to foster those establishments...

Jefferson drafted a bill against the court finding... rightfully so... It was an example of over judicial boundaries in my opinion...

The test came with the Constitution of Massachusetts, in a period literally known as "The Establishment of Religion in Massachusetts". Connecticut also had an establishment of religion...

It would have to be decided here if the establishment clause extended to the states, the abuse was apparent then, as it should equally be now, and the idea was born that the first amendment applies to the states as well, it goes both ways my friend... if a state can establish religion, because it is not congress, it can also bar religion completely.... Since congress has no hand in the state law, you could not hold the state accountable for violating any constitutional rights...

The first amendment had to be expanded in these test cases to include the state governments establishment of religion. Otherwise, a state can also simply BAN religion altogether (disagree, read the first amendment again).

The fourth amendment firmly established the bill of rights as a stamp on the States, no states can deny the rights in the bill of rights now... and that is good law... including establishment. Local tax payer money, state tax payer money... any tax payer money mixed with any religion is establishment.

You have all failed in your arguments, but keep pushing please.

[Kade]

I agree wholeheartedly with those who say that the responsibility here lies with the parents. It it falls on the parents to communicate with their children, inculcate a healthy skepticism of authority figures in their children, stay on top of what their children are learning in school, and take an active role in the educational process.

Again, it seems like some people want the state to take the active role here by censoring religious expression in the public sphere, which seems like wholly improper use of the state. The idea, suggested earlier, that no adult should be allowed to discuss religion while children are present is absolutely ludicrous to me.

I was always taught to be respectful, if skeptical, of other people's religious beliefs. I am neither vocally religious, nor am I phobic toward those who are. Sure, there have been times that I've had to gently tell people not to shove it my face constantly, but I don't get spastically intolerant every time someone mentions God, as I have seen other people do.

I for one want my children to learn about the variety of religious beliefs and traditions out there, so they can better understand world events, societal developments, and historical trends. I have learned so much about human nature and faith from talking openly with people who hold different religious convictions whether I agree with their beliefs or not, and I'd hate to think that I intentionally kept my children ignorant by denying them those same opportunities.

Wrong again Spirit. While my money supports schools now, I want the state government to be mandated to enforce a separation of church and state in all matters.

Try again.

[Spirit of '76]

I think our opinions are really on the same line for the most part, only I feel that religion in school should be regulated. NOT by the state, but by each individual school. To give teachers in a public school the ok... to freely preach their religious views during a class that is not about religion is not right. You said it yourself in your post; you have at times had to tell people not to shove their views in your face. Why do you think kids in school should have to endure that from some of their teachers?

Well, this is the key. While I whole heartedly agree that no teacher should use the lecture podium as a pulpit, I still don't see why anyone should be prevented from discussing their religion in the context of their personal beliefs.

I too think you and I are not too far apart on this, it's just that I think that as long as a teacher isn't forcing children to agree with their beliefs, there's nothing wrong with them making their beliefs known -- particularly if it enhances a discussion engendered by the curriculum.

[Spirit of '76]

Wrong again Spirit. While my money supports schools now, I want the state government to be mandated to enforce a separation of church and state in all matters.

Try again.

You still don't get it, do you? Drop the bombastic, pompous posturing long enough to get this through your skull:

An individual discussing their beliefs, making it clear that those are their beliefs and not part of a state-sponsored curriculum, and refraining from compelling others to believe or act similarly has NOTHING (ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH) to do with "separation of church and state".

What you are arguing here, no matter how you slice it, is for a federal restriction of an individual's right to freely express their own beliefs on matters of religion. Your argument is inherently anti-Liberty, and it is predicated on your own antipathy to particular religions and the desire to enforce ignorance of the plurality of spiritual traditions in this world.

It's sad that you can't see that.

[Kade]

You still don't get it, do you? Drop the bombastic, pompous posturing long enough to get this through your skull:

An individual discussing their beliefs, making it clear that those are their beliefs and not part of a state-sponsored curriculum, and refraining from compelling others to believe or act similarly has NOTHING (ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH) to do with "separation of church and state".

What you are arguing here, no matter how you slice it, is for a federal restriction of an individual's right to freely express their own beliefs on matters of religion. Your argument is inherently anti-Liberty, and it is predicated on your own antipathy to particular religions and the desire to enforce ignorance of the plurality of spiritual traditions in this world.

It's sad that you can't see that.

Again, wrong. Please re-read http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education/Opinion_of_the_Court

Or better for both of us, stop trying to tell me what it is I stand for... no matter how I slice it? You are so utterly ignorant of law, that I don't know where to start....

Just one example.. answer this in anyway you please...

If a state passed a law that banned Christianity, would that be unconstitutional?

Insult me one more time Spirit... please I beg you.

[Kade]

You still don't get it, do you? Drop the bombastic, pompous posturing long enough to get this through your skull:

An individual discussing their beliefs, making it clear that those are their beliefs and not part of a state-sponsored curriculum, and refraining from compelling others to believe or act similarly has NOTHING (ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH) to do with "separation of church and state".

What you are arguing here, no matter how you slice it, is for a federal restriction of an individual's right to freely express their own beliefs on matters of religion. Your argument is inherently anti-Liberty, and it is predicated on your own antipathy to particular religions and the desire to enforce ignorance of the plurality of spiritual traditions in this world.

It's sad that you can't see that.

Also, it should be noted that your completely redefining the "discussing and anti-compelling" horse manure has no bearing whatsoever on the problem I have with an amendment re-clarifying the first amendment. The amendment would allow completely the preaching to children of all state officials. You haven't refuted that... Just because you don't think it will doesn't mean that the opportunity to abuse, especially by your beloved majority, isn't a common trend.

[barcop]

Well, this is the key. While I whole heartedly agree that no teacher should use the lecture podium as a pulpit, I still don't see why anyone should be prevented from discussing their religion in the context of their personal beliefs.

I too think you and I are not too far apart on this, it's just that I think that as long as a teacher isn't forcing children to agree with their beliefs, there's nothing wrong with them making their beliefs known -- particularly if it enhances a discussion engendered by the curriculum.

There in lies the problem. Children are children and being that... they are very impressionable. They might not have a good home life, they might not have any friends, whatever the reason that makes kids turn to something they can believe in. It doesn't take any forcing for an adult to make a child believe in something they want them to. Subtle comments here and there to get a kid interested. Then it turns to more in depth private discussions and so on.

Without strict regulation by the school, the freedom for teachers to express their religious beliefs in the classroom can't be controlled. I'm not concerened about the majority of students, it's the small few that need something to believe in. And with the wrong guidance.. that is a dangerous proposition. Adam Gadahn comes to mind.

I guess my main concern is... you never know what the intention is of another, and to think that there won't be teachers who abuse that freedom would be a major mistake.

[hard@work]

Ahh good, a real position I can attack! :-D


Wrong again Spirit. While my money supports schools now, I want the state government to be mandated to enforce a separation of church and state in all matters.

Try again.




Really, you're against freedom. You are against liberty and you're here attempting to redefine it in order to meet your personal beliefs. What you have directly asked for here is the imposition of your political beliefs through a state implemented system. This is the core of statism, this is the core of authoritarianism, this is the antithesis of liberty and against the very will of our form of government. Whether or not a man or a woman is a muslim and is required by their religion to pray in the mornings is not only none of your business, but it is none of the state's business either as long as they do not harm another individual. You may attempt to define harm as being the impression of religion against ones impressionable mind or against the will of their direct family, but that would only work if we lived in a country where involvement of the parent was restricted as well.

You are stating very clearly and without dispute no matter how you may attempt to divert or paint otherwise that in order to maintain what you consider a seperation of church and state we must enforce a restriction on the rights of the individual to practice their religious beliefs. Not merely restrain but entirely violate their rights to their religious beliefs and doctrines. Completely unwilling to step back from fear or perhaps agenda, in your quest to stop the abusive nature of intolerant religions you have become the very same enemy. What we need in this country is an open dialogue between the peoples who interact with each other, and the free choice to make decisions based on those interactions. We cannot tell one man he cannot pray because he works for the state anymore than we can tell another that they must pray because they are held by the state.

Whether or not in education a religious belief interferes with the position and performance of an educator is a completely seperate issue. Your issue is with liberty itself, and so I find you in error by your own circular arguments. I would implore you to rethink these positions and consider the personal liberty of those whom you may disagree with spiritually. And to envision a world where freedom of religion truly has meaning, without the idea that one must either impose or restrain religious thought and activity.

That's what I am fighting for.

@

[Kade]

Ahh good, a real position I can attack! :-D






Really, you're against freedom. You are against liberty and you're here attempting to redefine it in order to meet your personal beliefs. What you have directly asked for here is the imposition of your political beliefs through a state implemented system. This is the core of statism, this is the core of authoritarianism, this is the antithesis of liberty and against the very will of our form of government. Whether or not a man or a woman is a muslim and is required by their religion to pray in the mornings is not only none of your business, but it is none of the state's business either as long as they do not harm another individual. You may attempt to define harm as being the impression of religion against ones impressionable mind or against the will of their direct family, but that would only work if we lived in a country where involvement of the parent was restricted as well.

You are stating very clearly and without dispute no matter how you may attempt to divert or paint otherwise that in order to maintain what you consider a seperation of church and state we must enforce a restriction on the rights of the individual to practice their religious beliefs. Not merely restrain but entirely violate their rights to their religious beliefs and doctrines. Completely unwilling to step back from fear or perhaps agenda, in your quest to stop the abusive nature of intolerant religions you have become the very same enemy. What we need in this country is an open dialogue between the peoples who interact with each other, and the free choice to make decisions based on those interactions. We cannot tell one man he cannot pray because he works for the state anymore than we can tell another that they must pray because they are held by the state.

Whether or not in education a religious belief interferes with the position and performance of an educator is a completely seperate issue. Your issue is with liberty itself, and so I find you in error by your own circular arguments. I would implore you to rethink these positions and consider the personal liberty of those whom you may disagree with spiritually. And to envision a world where freedom of religion truly has meaning, without the idea that one must either impose or restrain religious thought and activity.

That's what I am fighting for.

@

So freedom to use my money to allow religious instruction in state-run schools is a freedom I should allow you to have?

[Kade]

Ahh good, a real position I can attack! :-D

Really, you're against freedom. You are against liberty and you're here attempting to redefine it in order to meet your personal beliefs.


I didn't redefine anything...

You hope the federal government will mandate your freedom of expression in your state... right? Or ban slavery? Or the plethora of other things...

I used language that you obviously can jump on...

Can we remember here that I am mostly on your side... You are not arguing with an enemy... I am a separatist, and I believe in the anti-establishment clause.... you guys are making an enemy out of a potential supporter..


and It's not just me... I am a vocal voice of many, many people... that's why I am asking you to keep pushing this.. especially with the insults... (just got out of Constitutional law class, thick skull, etc etc etc..)

It's really pissing me off.

[Kade]

I'm getting really tired of the mentality of "If your not for us, your against us."

How dare any of you decide with your limited understanding of freedom that you have it all figured out...

So what if I don't believe in your god and desire it to be removed from the government... most people understand this is a BASIC FREEDOM.

You are all arguing from a complete and utterly bias perspective. I would not be here if I did not agree with Ron Paul's stances... instead of clarification, I get activated goals to change my opinion of what Freedom means...

I think that redefining the constitution is bad idea... you mostly think it is a good idea...

Nothing in past and present supports the idea that states should establish a religion.

sorry folks.

[Jon S]

hello,
i haven't really had time to read through every post on this forum but enough to figure out its about stopping people from praying in schools and separating any religion from a public school system

here is my opinion on the subject, based on my experiences in the high school that i go to.

schools should not be allowed to finance or fiscally support any religion of any kind. teachers are paid with school money and as such should not discuss their religious beliefs in front of students, i have had teachers do this and while they are not specifically saying "support my religion" they ARE putting religious ideas in the minds of the students they are teaching. this should not be school or state sponsored. BUT their are also kids who stand in front of the school in the mornings and pray, while i personally am not a religious person i will defend their right to pray in front of the school vehemently. this is not a school sponsored event and these kids are doing it of their own choice, the school has no right to ban what they are doing yet also has no right to enforce others to do the same. if you believe in the ideas of "being free as long as it does not impose upon the freedoms of others" then i implore you to look at this in the same light. These kids are actively religious and in some aspects i respect them for their "courage." They are not preaching to others and are not telling me how to think or believe, and thusly are not imposing on my freedoms. For this i support them wholeheartedly. as a matter of fact many of them are my friends.

on the other side their is the problem of teachers preaching their religious views in school. while their is no problem with a teacher speaking religiously OUTSIDE of school, while they are in school preaching to student about their religion is imposing on MY freedom of choice and it should not be allowed.

my two cents

[barcop]

hello,
i haven't really had time to read through every post on this forum but enough to figure out its about stopping people from praying in schools and separating any religion from a public school system

here is my opinion on the subject, based on my experiences in the high school that i go to.

schools should not be allowed to finance or fiscally support any religion of any kind. teachers are paid with school money and as such should not discuss their religious beliefs in front of students, i have had teachers do this and while they are not specifically saying "support my religion" they ARE putting religious ideas in the minds of the students they are teaching. this should not be school or state sponsored. BUT their are also kids who stand in front of the school in the mornings and pray, while i personally am not a religious person i will defend their right to pray in front of the school vehemently. this is not a school sponsored event and these kids are doing it of their own choice, the school has no right to ban what they are doing yet also has no right to enforce others to do the same. if you believe in the ideas of "being free as long as it does not impose upon the freedoms of others" then i implore you to look at this in the same light. These kids are actively religious and in some aspects i respect them for their "courage." They are not preaching to others and are not telling me how to think or believe, and thusly are not imposing on my freedoms. For this i support them wholeheartedly. as a matter of fact many of them are my friends.

on the other side their is the problem of teachers preaching their religious views in school. while their is no problem with a teacher speaking religiously OUTSIDE of school, while they are in school preaching to student about their religion is imposing on MY freedom of choice and it should not be allowed.

my two cents

Your two cents says a lot. I concur.

[hard@work]

So freedom to use my money to allow religious instruction in state-run schools is a freedom I should allow you to have?


I'm not participating in circular arguments at this point in the debate.
Government has no place in religion, regardless of where the religious person is at the time. Arguing for oppression of religion in any form is an argument against liberty. For education you've already stated if it was "private" then that's "fine". It is also "fine" if a religious person happens to be a teacher in a taxpayer funded government institution. You do not have the right to say they do not have the right in this case no matter how you spin it.

Your concerns are separate from this, you should separate them. If you want to support statism then do so, but do not hide it in the guise of liberty. If you are concerned with Ron Paul's belief (and obviously mine) that religion is the domain of the individual to be practiced by that individual in having a negative effect in the rights and liberties of others then provide the solution.

:)

[Spirit of '76]

Again, wrong. Please re-read http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education/Opinion_of_the_Court


What on earth does a ruling that the courts cannot prevent the state of New Jersey from extending the same tax credits for transportation to all parents, whether those parents send their kids to public schools or parochial schools, have to do with your argument here? :rolleyes:




Or better for both of us, stop trying to tell me what it is I stand for... no matter how I slice it? You are so utterly ignorant of law, that I don't know where to start....

You should start with the Constitution, which you haven't seemed to figure out yet, though it's really quite simple.




Insult me one more time Spirit... please I beg you.

Ok. You're a pompous prick.

[Kade]

hello,
i haven't really had time to read through every post on this forum but enough to figure out its about stopping people from praying in schools and separating any religion from a public school system

here is my opinion on the subject, based on my experiences in the high school that i go to.

schools should not be allowed to finance or fiscally support any religion of any kind. teachers are paid with school money and as such should not discuss their religious beliefs in front of students, i have had teachers do this and while they are not specifically saying "support my religion" they ARE putting religious ideas in the minds of the students they are teaching. this should not be school or state sponsored. BUT their are also kids who stand in front of the school in the mornings and pray, while i personally am not a religious person i will defend their right to pray in front of the school vehemently. this is not a school sponsored event and these kids are doing it of their own choice, the school has no right to ban what they are doing yet also has no right to enforce others to do the same. if you believe in the ideas of "being free as long as it does not impose upon the freedoms of others" then i implore you to look at this in the same light. These kids are actively religious and in some aspects i respect them for their "courage." They are not preaching to others and are not telling me how to think or believe, and thusly are not imposing on my freedoms. For this i support them wholeheartedly. as a matter of fact many of them are my friends.

on the other side their is the problem of teachers preaching their religious views in school. while their is no problem with a teacher speaking religiously OUTSIDE of school, while they are in school preaching to student about their religion is imposing on MY freedom of choice and it should not be allowed.

my two cents

A light emerging in the darkness... common sense ftw.

[Spirit of '76]

The amendment would allow completely the preaching to children of all state officials. You haven't refuted that...

No, you have simply claimed that to be the case, and when I asked you to demonstrate how, using the text of the bills, you could or would not.

[Kade]

What on earth does a ruling that the courts cannot prevent the state of New Jersey from extending the same tax credits for transportation to all parents, whether those parents send their kids to public schools or parochial schools, have to do with your argument here? :rolleyes:




You should start with the Constitution, which you haven't seemed to figure out yet, though it's really quite simple.





Ok. You're a pompous prick.


You didn't answer the question...



So this is what Ron Paul supporters are about? You have done more harm for his campaign then you will ever know my friend... honestly, your version of liberty is untenable dominionism in my opinion and you have dodged whatever you can to make vapid and often useless points and attacks...

You are truly ignorant. Seriously... if you think that the Everson decision was something to be idly tossed aside...

Why don't we throw out all the court decisions? Is that okay with you? Do you even know what you are talking about?

You're an ass.

[Kade]

No, you have simply claimed that to be the case, and when I asked you to demonstrate how, using the text of the bills, you could or would not.

It isn't the case? What forbids it?!

[Spirit of '76]

You didn't answer the question...

I've asked you plenty of questions you have failed to answer.




So this is what Ron Paul supporters are about? You have done more harm for his campaign then you will ever know my friend... honestly, your version of liberty is untenable dominionism in my opinion and you have dodged whatever you can to make vapid and often useless points and attacks...

From my perspective, it is your version of "liberty" that amounts to the state restricting people's freedom of religious expression.

I have made cogent arguments for this position. All you have done is provide endless fearmongering about how allowing the free expression of religion in the public sphere will usher in a "new theocracy", but you have failed to back any of this up.


You are truly ignorant. Seriously... if you think that the Everson decision was something to be idly tossed aside...

Who said anything about tossing it aside? I agree with the decision, which found that the courts could not prevent the state of New Jersey from extending the same tax credits for transporting children to accredited school to all parents, whether those schools are public schools or parochial schools teaching Catholic doctrine.

I just don't see what that decision has to do with your argument.



You're an ass.

*Yawn*

[Kade]

State institutions, like public schools, are simply that: state institutions.

They are not part of the federal government, and are thus not subject to the restriction that "Congress shall make no law..."

Oops. Caught up, like a fool.

Remember that?

I've shown that this is not to be true.. and you've been silent.


Please, seriously. Give me a question you have asked, and I will show where I answered it, or I will answer it if I haven't.

[Spirit of '76]

It isn't the case? What forbids it?!

We went over this yesterday, but I'll repeat myself for your benefit, since you're obviously a bit slow on the uptake.

It is the text of the bills themselves that prevent your bogeyman fearmongering predicts:


"H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

I asked you yesterday to point to how the text of those bills would usher in a "new theocracy", and you couldn't do it. You simply repeated your shrill, hyped-up fearmongering replete with catchy and ominous phrases like, "a new theocracy".

I'm still waiting for you to say something of substance, but so far all you're giving us is the anti-Christian crusader's version of the "islamofascism" bogeyman.

[Kade]

I've asked you plenty of questions you have failed to answer.




From my perspective, it is your version of "liberty" that amounts to the state restricting people's freedom of religious expression.

I have made cogent arguments for this position. All you have done is provide endless fearmongering about how allowing the free expression of religion in the public sphere will usher in a "new theocracy", but you have failed to back any of this up.



Who said anything about tossing it aside? I agree with the decision, which found that the courts could not prevent the state of New Jersey from extending the same tax credits for transporting children to accredited school to all parents, whether those schools are public schools or parochial schools teaching Catholic doctrine.

I just don't see what that decision has to do with your argument.



*Yawn*

fearmongering isn't even a word... You know that right? Yet, you have used it at least 12 times already...

My argument is that there was no reason for the Ron Paul amendment clarifying the first amendment...

My argument is that state institutions fall under the jurisdiction of the first amendment.

Savvy?

[Kade]

We went over this yesterday, but I'll repeat myself for your benefit, since you're obviously a bit slow on the uptake.

It is the text of the bills themselves that prevent your bogeyman fearmongering predicts:



I asked you yesterday to point to how the text of those bills would usher in a "new theocracy", and you couldn't do it. You simply repeated your shrill, hyped-up fearmongering replete with catchy and ominous phrases like, "a new theocracy".

I'm still waiting for you to say something of substance, but so far all you're giving us is the anti-Christian crusader's version of the "islamofascism" bogeyman.

Did I say they would USHER IN a theocracy? You have got to stop using that word.. fearmongering... it is the only thing you have and it is getting old.

[ThePieSwindler]

Alright so back to the original point about Ron. I agree replete was a poor word choice, however, there are references to God/a Creator in other writings outside of the Declaration/Constitution. Many, many of them. The people who wrote the bill of rights made reference after reference to the Almight God in their writings as well. As far as Ron's actual views on the matter and on school prayer, his view is that the government should not endorse, nor should it prohibit, school prayer. If a teacher wants to lead a prayer group, they are private individuals, and those who do not share beliefs with that teacher are not forced to pray along.



The point of religion clause of the 1st amendment is that there should be no state coercion with reguards to religious practice, whether it is suppression of the practice or endorsement of the practice. When ron talks about there being no "rigid wall" of seperation of church and state, he simply referring to the fact that the church was intended to play a very important role in American life, free from government involvement. However, congress may also write not law respecting an establisment of religion, thus giving that establishment any political power or favoritism over any others. Lets face it, the majority of American's are christian of some form (including LDS), and the church is a dominating institution. That is what Ron talks about when he says the founders (There were more founderst han jefferson, and even Ben Franklin concedes that religion is a very important moral institution) envisioned a robustly christian america. However, just because it is a dominant institution, does not mean it has any political power (though it does in many cases in an indirect way, but that is the fault of individual politicians) nor is anyone forced/coerced into conforming or following or even respecting and acknowledging that institution.

As for thomas jefferson, he had excellent ideas but even he often failed to execute them or live by them. That does not diminish his character nor his ideas, but just because he believes there should be a rigid wall of separation of church and state (which implies force used to keep that wall up), does not mean it was the sentiment of every founding father. Madison was responsible for most of the bill of rights and he was certainly not the deist jefferson was (though i thikn later in his life, madison did reject the divine nature of christ).

[Spirit of '76]

There's obviously a need for a clarification of the First Amendment, since people like you have erroneously interpreted it to mean that the federal government should be used as a cudgel to browbeat anyone whose religious expression offends you.

I see that your lack of substantive argument has reduced you to nitpicking over my omission of a hyphen. I've got better things to do than argue with a teenager who has just discovered atheism and thinks that the establishment clause mandates state enforcement of his own irreligion.

I don't speak for Ron Paul by any means, but quite frankly if this issue causes him to lose your vote, you weren't worth it in the first place. I'm done.

Call me what names you will. The last word -- shrill, hyperbolic, and empty as it will inevitably be -- is yours. Savor it.

[Kade]

There's obviously a need for a clarification of the First Amendment, since people like you have erroneously interpreted it to mean that the federal government should be used as a cudgel to browbeat anyone whose religious expression offends you.

I see that your lack of substantive argument has reduced you to nitpicking over my omission of a hyphen. I've got better things to do than argue with a teenager who has just discovered atheism and thinks that the establishment clause mandates state enforcement of his own irreligion.

I don't speak for Ron Paul by any means, but quite frankly if this issue causes him to lose your vote, you weren't worth it in the first place. I'm done.

Call me what names you will. The last word -- shrill, hyperbolic, and empty as it will inevitably be -- is yours. Savor it.

Spirit. Listen... what protects you from religious freedom if your state, West Virginia, decides to ban your Religious Expression?

[Kade]

There's obviously a need for a clarification of the First Amendment, since people like you have erroneously interpreted it to mean that the federal government should be used as a cudgel to browbeat anyone whose religious expression offends you.

I see that your lack of substantive argument has reduced you to nitpicking over my omission of a hyphen. I've got better things to do than argue with a teenager who has just discovered atheism and thinks that the establishment clause mandates state enforcement of his own irreligion.

I don't speak for Ron Paul by any means, but quite frankly if this issue causes him to lose your vote, you weren't worth it in the first place. I'm done.

Call me what names you will. The last word -- shrill, hyperbolic, and empty as it will inevitably be -- is yours. Savor it.

The last word is, it didn't just lose a vote... it made me someone who will use the platforms I have, which are many, to demonstrate what exactly clarification we atheists need when it comes to Ron Paul... and don't think I'm as useless in this end.. .you have done nothing but argued a belligerent dominionist point of view that had absolutely no bearing... none. congrats.

You are a martyr for your candidate.. .seriously... get people flaming mad at you and everyone on these boards, and make outspoken critics instead of simply giving me good reasons to believe that the intent of Ron Paul isn't backdoor theism.

[Kade]

Alright so back to the original point about Ron. I agree replete was a poor word choice, however, there are references to God/a Creator in other writings outside of the Declaration/Constitution. Many, many of them. The people who wrote the bill of rights made reference after reference to the Almight God in their writings as well. As far as Ron's actual views on the matter and on school prayer, his view is that the government should not endorse, nor should it prohibit, school prayer. If a teacher wants to lead a prayer group, they are private individuals, and those who do not share beliefs with that teacher are not forced to pray along.



The point of religion clause of the 1st amendment is that there should be no state coercion with reguards to religious practice, whether it is suppression of the practice or endorsement of the practice. When ron talks about there being no "rigid wall" of seperation of church and state, he simply referring to the fact that the church was intended to play a very important role in American life, free from government involvement. However, congress may also write not law respecting an establisment of religion, thus giving that establishment any political power or favoritism over any others. Lets face it, the majority of American's are christian of some form (including LDS), and the church is a dominating institution. That is what Ron talks about when he says the founders (There were more founderst han jefferson, and even Ben Franklin concedes that religion is a very important moral institution) envisioned a robustly christian america. However, just because it is a dominant institution, does not mean it has any political power (though it does in many cases in an indirect way, but that is the fault of individual politicians) nor is anyone forced/coerced into conforming or following or even respecting and acknowledging that institution.

As for thomas jefferson, he had excellent ideas but even he often failed to execute them or live by them. That does not diminish his character nor his ideas, but just because he believes there should be a rigid wall of separation of church and state (which implies force used to keep that wall up), does not mean it was the sentiment of every founding father. Madison was responsible for most of the bill of rights and he was certainly not the deist jefferson was (though i thikn later in his life, madison did reject the divine nature of christ).

I thought you folks rejected "other writings"...

Other writings include such things as Paine's Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Age of Reason.

The founding fathers, ALL of them, save maybe Patrick Henry and John Jay, were hostile towards Christianity...

This whole thing has gotten out of hand, and nobody has answered any of the simplest questions... specifically with application of the amendment to the states.. and the proposal of Ron Paul's amendment IMPOSED ON ANY STATE?!

[hard@work]

So this is what Ron Paul supporters are about?

Obvious troll.


You have done more harm for his campaign then you will ever know my friend...

Obviously a troll.


honestly, your version of liberty is untenable dominionism in my opinion

Funny I pretty much said the same of you, of course you mirror it because you are a ... troll.



You are truly ignorant.

Troll.


Do you even know what you are talking about?

Troll.


You're an ass.

Troll.

[hard@work]

That said, healthy debate for the rest of us.

[Kade]

Obvious troll.



Obviously a troll.



Funny I pretty much said the same of you, of course you mirror it because you are a ... troll.




Troll.



Troll.



Troll.

Did you do this for Spirit too?

[Kade]

That said, healthy debate for the rest of us.

A debate that wouldn't even had been, if I weren't here... where the hell do you get off calling me a troll?

some of your "senior" members here were introduced to Ron Paul through me... you really need to stop... seriously. Think.

That is all I'm asking. Think.

[hard@work]

Did you do this for Spirit too?

Yes, I did it for Spirit. Because he obviously needs my support with someone who wants to initiate and maintain a flame war or whatever. Sorry you needed to be called out for what you are. The good people here are spirited (no pun) and enjoy debate and discussion. Great forum which deserves respect even in a heated argument.

We have no room for trolls, there are other candidates for them.

[Mises.org]

I'm sorry, but how is Kade being a troll?

[hard@work]

A debate that wouldn't even had been, if I weren't here... where the hell do you get off calling me a troll?

some of your "senior" members here were introduced to Ron Paul through me... you really need to stop... seriously. Think.

That is all I'm asking. Think.


Stop acting like a troll then. I could care less if a "senior" message was introduced by someone behaving like a forum troll. Behave. Maybe read a book on debate. As for "thinking" - lol? No, u.

[Kade]

Yes, I did it for Spirit. Because he obviously needs my support with someone who wants to initiate and maintain a flame war or whatever. Sorry you needed to be called out for what you are. The good people here are spirited (no pun) and enjoy debate and discussion. Great forum which deserves respect even in a heated argument.

We have no room for trolls, there are other candidates for them.

Again, I am not a troll. I am real person, of considerable influence in large organizations... my concerns are legitimate, and they have not been answered...

[hard@work]

I'm sorry, but how is Kade being a troll?

Page 17 post 168, welcome to the forums.

:)

[Kade]

Stop acting like a troll then. I could care less if a "senior" message was introduced by someone behaving like a forum troll. Behave. Maybe read a book on debate. As for "thinking" - lol? No, u.

If I go back and look at your original posts, you started with this:


One verse Charlie, single issue voter. All the same to me.

;-)

Great debate though.

Is this your idea of debate?

[hard@work]

Again, I am not a troll. I am real person, of considerable influence in large organizations... my concerns are legitimate, and they have not been answered...

I'm not impressed by whoever you are without real credentials (which likely wouldn't impress me no matter who you were). Your concerns are legitimate yes. Your inability to accept difference in opinion or answer with solutions is why they have not been "answered". Think, right?

[Kade]

Page 17 post 168, welcome to the forums.

:)

Those were responses to Spirit, you didn't seem to make the distinction with him... as post after post was an insult... pompous prick, thick skull, fearmongerer... etc..etc..

[Kade]

I'm not impressed by whoever you are without real credentials (which likely wouldn't impress me no matter who you were). Your concerns are legitimate yes. Your inability to accept difference in opinion or answer with solutions is why they have not been "answered". Think, right?

Difference in opinion? Your opinion appears to be insane actually.

[hard@work]

Those were responses to Spirit, you didn't seem to make the distinction with him... as post after post was an insult... pompous prick, thick skull, fearmongerer... etc..etc..

Then be the bigger man (or woman)? Your legitimate concerns may be addressed in a different manner? Do not fall down into troll-isms? Address the other sides concerns with sincerity and show understanding of the position then re postulate your opinion in a manner that may show compromise? Offer a direct solution? Do something aside from fan the flames and argue?

Don't troll.

[Kade]

Then be the bigger man (or woman)? Your legitimate concerns may be addressed in a different manner? Do not fall down into troll-isms? Address the other sides concerns with sincerity and show understanding of the position the re postulate your opinion in a manner that may show compromise? Offer a direct solution? Do something aside from fan the flames and argue?

Don't troll.

Have you done this at all?

My argument again:

Ron Paul proposed and supported an AMENDMENT to the constitution that would enforce states to ignore the establishment clause while tax payer money continued to support education.

The First Amendment applies to State Institutions since the turn of the 19th century.

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

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

[hard@work]

Circular arguments from incredibly important people who fan flame wars are still circular arguments from incredibly important people who fan flame wars. You've given your concerns. I've given my position. Many others have as well. Good, we have discussion.

So then, if you are so just as to share with us your opinion what then is your ideal solution? Can this be a framework for us to follow? Should this be a common theme among at least some of us that we should use to petition Ron Paul? What other ideals do you share with Ron Paul? Which of those is greatest and most likely to supersede your legitimate concerns?

If you're not a troll let's get crackin.

[Jon S]

Have you done this at all?

My argument again:

Ron Paul proposed and supported an AMENDMENT to the constitution that would enforce states to ignore the establishment clause while tax payer money continued to support education.

The First Amendment applies to State Institutions since the turn of the 19th century.

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

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

now im not speaking directly for ron paul but my interpretation of this is that no one has the right to tell you that you can't practice religion publicly. i don't see him saying that those who aren't religious are wrong but that they do not have the right to ban people from publicly worshipping. he's not saying that it should be state or even federally sponsored, just that it should not be outlawed, which i wholeheartedly agree with.

just my interpretation of it

[Spirit of '76]

While I stand by my statement that I'm done with this debate (or what it has descended into), let me say a few things more.

To hard@work:

I don't think Kade is a "troll". I think he/she has legitimate concerns, even if I think his/her fears are unfounded. He/she and I both traded insults and flames, and we both engaged in some grandstanding and chest-thumping. This is why I dislike trying to have such political debates online; discussing these things face to face is usually so much more productive and civil.

To Kade:

As I have stated several times, I do not speak for Ron Paul. Do not mistake my opinions and views for his, or for that matter anyone's but my own. Again, I think your fears of "dominionism" and "theocracy" are unfounded, and I don't think your interpretation of the bills you mentioned here is an accurate one.

If you want a clarification of Ron Paul's official position, this is not necessarily the place to get it. Yes, we here are grassroots supporters of Congressman Paul, but we cannot speak for the man or his campaign, and as you have seen, we here have a variety of our own opinions on this matter.

If you want absolute clarification of where Ron Paul stands on these issues, and if you want your concerns addressed in a truly substantive and official way, you're in the wrong place. I would suggest that if you want your concerns addressed by Congressman Paul, you write to him directly at his congressional office.

The Honorable Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
203 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4314

[Rastis McNastis]

State institutions, like public schools, are simply that: state institutions.

They are not part of the federal government, and are thus not subject to the restriction that "Congress shall make no law..."

The fact is that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a state church. At the same time, it prohibits the federal government from preventing the free exercise of religion, even if people like you do not like that religion.

What is "creative" here is your bizarre interpretation of the establishment clause to read that the federal government has the obligation to prohibit the free exercise of religion because you personally find it offensive.

What you are promoting here is the tyranny of the minority, with the federal courts as a cudgel used to browbeat people into hiding their religious convictions because you disagree with them.



Might I interject?

Perhaps this has already been brought up, for I have not yet read the entire thread.

... but is the tyranny of the majority you support much better than the supposed tyranny of the minority you decry?

Even if the Constitution does not explicitly ban promotion of religion at the state level in the establishment clause, the Bill of Rights most certainly protects the right to practice religion how you see fit. With public monies being spent on various churches, it is impossible to have freedom from such religions, and undeniably the liberty to lack is integral to the liberty itself.

[Mesogen]

Yes, but under Ron Paul, what tax money?
I've got news for you. Under Ron Paul you will still pay income taxes.

First off, he couldn't abolish the IRS as president if he tried. Second, I've heard him in interviews where he said "before we can dismantle the IRS, people have to change they way they think about the role of government in their lives, the government has to stop spending, etc."

no Ron Paul. You have to abolish the IRS first. You have to eliminate the very things that enable the spending, the IRS and the Fed.

edit: oops, didn't realize this thread was 19 pages long. oops.

[Kade]

now im not speaking directly for ron paul but my interpretation of this is that no one has the right to tell you that you can't practice religion publicly. i don't see him saying that those who aren't religious are wrong but that they do not have the right to ban people from publicly worshipping. he's not saying that it should be state or even federally sponsored, just that it should not be outlawed, which i wholeheartedly agree with.

just my interpretation of it

By spirits strict interpretation of the constitution for words only, technically, you do not have a right to practice religion publicly...

Since he went down that path...

[hard@work]

I don't think Kade is a "troll". I think he/she has legitimate concerns

Same here, I just like to challenge people to break free from that.

;-)

Evil little troll that I am.

[Kade]

While I stand by my statement that I'm done with this debate (or what it has descended into), let me say a few things more.

To hard@work:

I don't think Kade is a "troll". I think he/she has legitimate concerns, even if I think his/her fears are unfounded. He/she and I both traded insults and flames, and we both engaged in some grandstanding and chest-thumping. This is why I dislike trying to have such political debates online; discussing these things face to face is usually so much more productive and civil.

To Kade:

As I have stated several times, I do not speak for Ron Paul. Do not mistake my opinions and views for his, or for that matter anyone's but my own. Again, I think your fears of "dominionism" and "theocracy" are unfounded, and I don't think your interpretation of the bills you mentioned here is an accurate one.

If you want a clarification of Ron Paul's official position, this is not necessarily the place to get it. Yes, we here are grassroots supporters of Congressman Paul, but we cannot speak for the man or his campaign, and as you have seen, we here have a variety of our own opinions on this matter.

If you want absolute clarification of where Ron Paul stands on these issues, and if you want your concerns addressed in a truly substantive and official way, you're in the wrong place. I would suggest that if you want your concerns addressed by Congressman Paul, you write to him directly at his congressional office.

The Honorable Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
203 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4314

I came here Spirit, because 5 of my hand written letters have been ignored. I appreciate the sudden change in tone though.

[Kade]

The Constitution has been interpreted to apply the first amendment to the state institutions... in both ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Claiming that the state has the right to make a law, which puts tax payer money in religious indoctrination, is also saying the state has the right to outlaw Religious expression altogether... does anyone else see that?

[Mises.org]

Kade, we go back a ways and I have to say that I agree that some of Paul's views on religion turn me off.

However, when compared to the horrors of all the other candidates out there, I don't see how there is a better choice.

All of the other major candidates have pandered to the religious right, even the socialists... I mean, Democrats... and I needn't remind us all of the problems with the Republican party being hijacked by the religious right.

However, I don't think that Ron Paul would really allow that

Lately I've read a flurry of secular articles which have decried Ron Paul, such as this one:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259335.htm

While I normally enjoy Austin Cline (and am even a regular subscriber to his articles), this recent article disappointed me. He took many quotes out of context and seemed to employ a slippery slope too much for my tastes.

(And for the record, my views are more in step with Edward Tabash on the First Amendment issue):



From what I've seen from Paul though, I still think that he's the best chance we have for attaining the 'seperation of' and 'seperation from' that we're seeking, while still getting the other benefits that Paul will bring with him.

[Spirit of '76]

Might I interject?

Perhaps this has already been brought up, for I have not yet read the entire thread.

... but is the tyranny of the majority you support much better than the supposed tyranny of the minority you decry?

Man, I really don't want to be dragged into this again, but this is a total mischaracterization of my argument. I in no wise support a "tyranny of the majority"; I support the right of all individuals to free expression of their religious beliefs, even if I personally find those beliefs odious.

I was raised to be respectful of other people's religious convictions and to be firm enough in my own that I am not unduly frightened when they express them.

I'm sure whatever forum or organization you guys are coming from has already decided that I'm a militant christian advocating "dominionism", but you couldn't be further from the truth. If you want further clarification on where I stand on this issue, please read the remainder of the thread.

Thanks, and please don't drag me back into this mess. ;)

[Kade]

Might I interject?

Perhaps this has already been brought up, for I have not yet read the entire thread.

... but is the tyranny of the majority you support much better than the supposed tyranny of the minority you decry?

Even if the Constitution does not explicitly ban promotion of religion at the state level in the establishment clause, the Bill of Rights most certainly protects the right to practice religion how you see fit. With public monies being spent on various churches, it is impossible to have freedom from such religions, and undeniably the liberty to lack is integral to the liberty itself.

We've been over this... some here don't think tyranny by the majority is at all worrisome.

[Kade]

Man, I really don't want to be dragged into this again, but this is a total mischaracterization of my argument. I in no wise support a "tyranny of the majority"; I support the right of all individuals to free expression of their religious beliefs, even if I personally find those beliefs odious.

I was raised to be respectful of other people's religious convictions and to be firm enough in my own that I am not unduly frightened when they express them.


What right have you, if your state bans it Spirit?

[Kade]

Kade, we go back a ways and I have to say that I agree that some of Paul's views on religion turn me off.

However, when compared to the horrors of all the other candidates out there, I don't see how there is a better choice.

All of the other major candidates have pandered to the religious right, even the socialists... I mean, Democrats... and I needn't remind us all of the problems with the Republican party being hijacked by the religious right.

However, I don't think that Ron Paul would really allow that

Lately I've read a flurry of secular articles which have decried Ron Paul, such as this one:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259335.htm

While I normally enjoy Austin Cline (and am even a regular subscriber to his articles), this recent article disappointed me. He took many quotes out of context and seemed to employ a slippery slope too much for my tastes.

(And for the record, my views are more in step with Edward Tabash on the First Amendment issue):



From what I've seen from Paul though, I still think that he's the best chance we have for attaining the 'seperation of' and 'seperation from' that we're seeking, while still getting the other benefits that Paul will bring with him.

I know bro, but I fear the kind of person willing to re-clarify the first amendment because they believe this is a robustly Christian nation... it is not... I don't know... it scares me.. but I don't have a better choice. What kind of supreme court justice will this man choose?

One willing to define human life at conception, impose a state mandatory re-clarification of anti-establishment? religiously tolerant? I feel hated..

[Mises.org]

I know...


But to be perfectly honest... I fear an America run by a Hillary Clinton or an Obama more than I do an America run by someone as ridiculously fundamentalist as Pat Robertson... well, maybe not quite that much.

[Rastis McNastis]

Man, I really don't want to be dragged into this again, but this is a total mischaracterization of my argument. I in no wise support a "tyranny of the majority"; I support the right of all individuals to free expression of their religious beliefs, even if I personally find those beliefs odious.

I was raised to be respectful of other people's religious convictions and to be firm enough in my own that I am not unduly frightened when they express them.

I'm sure whatever forum or organization you guys are coming from has already decided that I'm a militant christian advocating "dominionism", but you couldn't be further from the truth. If you want further clarification on where I stand on this issue, please read the remainder of the thread.

Thanks, and please don't drag me back into this mess. ;)


Well, your argument seems to be that the only reason obvious promotions of religion should be allowed is because they are not occurring at the state level.

Then it is not the religious nature that makes such promotion illegal, and the religious rights of the minority have no protection from the States.

Ohio, the state of my residence, could therefore ban the practice of Christianity, Judaism, or require belief in a deity. Since apparently I have no Constitutional protections, what is to stop a law that will make it a capital crime to be a scientologist?

Would you support this... or, more importantly.... might the majority support such legislation?

[Kade]

Also, on this very forum, this post:

********************************************

Dr. Paul's weak theological statement
I'm a Christian and when I think of a statement of faith I don't think of what Dr. Paul has laid out as his statement of faith. I think of something theologically substantive. I rarely criticize Dr. Paul, however as a Christian I like to think that I ought to have a theological basis laid out for myself which I can explain if called upon to explain. I understand the importance for a politician to avoid being "distasteful" by pandering and using the word Jesus every other word (ahem... Brownback) however I think it would be impressive to Christian voters (even if some might disagree with him on certain points) if he laid out his beliefs better.

For Example I believe:

There is one God with three persons ... the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Sin is disobedience to God's Law, available through natural and specific revelation.
That Jesus Christ died as a propitiation for sins so that sinful man might receive freely by grace salvation and eternal life.
That the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant in original form, and the sets out a model for the way human beings ought to live their lives.
That the punishment of sin is to spend eternity in Hell.


....
This is just a little bit of what I believe. I think something that is this simplistic in form would be sufficient for many (especially evangelical) believers to find impressive. Most who call on the name of Christ haven't even thought this deeply about their theology, even if these statements are relatively simple theological statements. Dr. Paul isn't afraid to be criticized for what he believes, nor lose his voting base, or compromise in any way so I'm wondering why he has been so vague on what he means when he says he's a Christian. It is self-evident that he lives a life consistent with Christian values and votes accordingly. In a world where a Mormon can run for President under "Christian Values" this clearly shows that too many people don't really understand what it means when you claim the name of Christ. Dr. Paul attends a southern Baptist church in Texas, and the SBC has in one way or another affirmed the short statement of faith I have listed above so I'm guessing he does believe these things. I just wish he would publically affirm them.

************************************

Yikes!

[Spirit of '76]

Damn, you guys have your meathooks in me deeper than the Truthers. :p




Ohio, the state of my residence, could therefore ban the practice of Christianity, Judaism, or require belief in a deity. Since apparently I have no Constitutional protections, what is to stop a law that will make it a capital crime to be a scientologist?

Ron Paul's proposed amendment would:


H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

[Kade]

Damn, you guys have your meathooks in me deeper than the Truthers. :p



Ron Paul's proposed amendment would:

They already have those rights, except when you work under the authority of an official government role... there is no need for the amendment, unless you are willing to say the first amendment, as it has been defined, does not apply to state governments...

And please... don't compare me to a truther.....

[Mises.org]

Agreed, there's no need to throw that comparison around.


That's the last thing we need is to have secularism affiliated with truthers and other 9/11 people like Rosie or someone.


But seriously... did you know that the Titanic wasn't really hit by an Iceberg?

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

[Rastis McNastis]

Though the amendment is not really necessary, there is always an advantage to being more explicit.

Regardless, when publicly owned space is used for religious reasons, there will most certainly be religious bias.

[Mesogen]

Ron Paul cannot be all things to all people. I'll vote for him. But if he actually makes it into the White House, you can bet your ass that I'll very vocally criticize everything he does that I don't agree with.

But let me also add this. Someone earlier said that reference to a Creator was very Christian. Well, it was also very Native American. I tend to believe that those who wrote the Declaration of Independence were "Enlightened" and "Rationalists" of the day and were very intellectual. I'll bet they were very much influenced by some Native American ideas and philosophy.

Read these Native American creation myths and see that there are lots of similarities to that of the Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
http://www.crystalinks.com/nativeamcreation.html


In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent). These two sat together and thought, and whatever they thought came into being. They thought Earth, and there it was. They thought mountains, and so there were. They thought trees, and sky, and animals etc, and each came into being. But none of these things could praise them, so they formed more advanced beings of clay.

Anyway, if you listen to a modern Native American describing something spiritual they will often refer to "The Creator."


In the beginning nothing existed, only darkness was everywhere. Suddenly from the darkness emerged a thin disc, one side yellow and the other side white, appearing suspended in midair. Within the disc sat a small bearded man, Creator, the One Who Lives Above. When he looked into the endless darkness, light appeared above. He looked down and it became a sea of light.

Lots of different tribes, lots of different creation myths, but all tend to reference "Creator."

Anyway, I don't see why reference to a Creator must necessarily be Christian.

[Spirit of '76]

They already have those rights, except when you work under the authority of an official government role...

But again, I maintain that there is a tremendous difference between a government employee freely expressing his own religious beliefs and the establishment of a state church. Provided that government employee does not use his office to compel others to believe a certain way or to deny equal treatment on the grounds of religion, I do not see a problem or a First Amendment conflict with their personal expression of their religious beliefs.



And please... don't compare me to a truther.....

Insofar as you've both managed to get me hooked into an ongoing debate over a topic that isn't really of major concern to me, the comparison is apt, but that says as much about me as it does about you or the adherents of the 9/11 Truth religion.

[Spirit of '76]

But let me also add this. Someone earlier said that reference to a Creator was very Christian. Well, it was also very Native American. I tend to believe that those who wrote the Declaration of Independence were "Enlightened" and "Rationalists" of the day and were very intellectual. I'll bet they were very much influenced by some Native American ideas and philosophy.

Of course. The Constitution itself was influenced to some degree by the charter of the Iroquois League.

[Rastis McNastis]

Though the amendment is not really necessary, there is always an advantage to being more explicit.

Regardless, when publicly owned space is used for religious reasons, there will most certainly be religious bias.

[Mesogen]

Of course. The Constitution itself was influenced to some degree by the charter of the Iroquois League.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Government

Interesting.

[Kade]

But again, I maintain that there is a tremendous difference between a government employee freely expressing his own religious beliefs and the establishment of a state church. Provided that government employee does not use his office to compel others to believe a certain way or to deny equal treatment on the grounds of religion, I do not see a problem or a First Amendment conflict with their personal expression of their religious beliefs.


The current system allows anyone to freely express their religious beliefs, and in state institutions, like the current school system, there is no need for teachers to lead the class in prayer. The amendment would allow teachers to do so by clarifying that the state could not stop them, as long as the state did not write the prayer... but the courts have shown that this will be abused... allowing teachers to compel students to prayer in a public institution is unconstitutional on the establishment side...

Again, there was no reason for the Amendment.

[ThePieSwindler]

I thought you folks rejected "other writings"...

Other writings include such things as Paine's Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Age of Reason.

The founding fathers, ALL of them, save maybe Patrick Henry and John Jay, were hostile towards Christianity...

This whole thing has gotten out of hand, and nobody has answered any of the simplest questions... specifically with application of the amendment to the states.. and the proposal of Ron Paul's amendment IMPOSED ON ANY STATE?!

Your debating style is Aristotalean to be sure, and thats fine, you bring up alot of good points, but here you are just begging the question, and in this case, the implication you make is false. If we consider founding fathers the ones who signed the declaration of independance, the shakeup looks like this:

Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian

Franklin, Jefferson, and arguably madison were all deists, NOT atheists, but deists - they rejected the divinity of christ but did not reject his existence, nor even the existence of a Supreme being. Yet they all acknowledged that religion was an important institution, even if they didn't actually believe everything a religion taught. If im reading you correctly, your thesis in this entire thread is that Ron Paul does not believe in separation of church and state, or at least that it exists under the constitution. However, other major founding fathers were professed believers, such as Adams and Washington, at least rhetorically. From a page off the library of congress, is this paragraph:


The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

another excerpt about Franklin:


Franklin Requests Prayers in the Constitutional Convention
Benjamin Franklin delivered this famous speech, asking that the Convention begin each day's session with prayers, at a particularly contentious period, when it appeared that the Convention might break up over its failure to resolve the dispute between the large and small states over representation in the new government. The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth--that God governs in the Affairs of Men." "I also believe," Franklin continued, that "without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel." Franklin's motion failed, ostensibly because the Convention had no funds to pay local clergymen to act as chaplains.

Then of course, there were numerous "lesser" founding fathers, and John Jay and Patrick Henry, the evangelists.

Kade, my understanding of your thesis on this page is that Ron would not uphold separation of church and state as a rigid notion, or at least that is implied by the fact that you cite 2 pieces of evidence - his motion to allow public school prayer, and his Christmas-time piece. He may not have chosen the best wording, but he is not really wrong when he says the founders did give credence to religion as an important institution. He never said the founders were dedicated christians - some of them were, some were not, some were a mix - especially Franklin (who was a professed deist but was "fond" of the instution of religion in many aspects). I think his take on separation of church and state is correct - and even Barack Obama has talked about religion being a very important institution, but neither should intersect each other in how the other runs. Under a Ron Paul presidency, none of your beliefs (or lack thereof) would be infringed upon. Speeches he has given on this topic (he especially talks about how he finds religious pandering distasteful, and use of religion as a false justification for many acts) affirm that he is certainly religious, but he is also not a theocrat by any stretch of the imagination.

Ron paul's amendment actually states thing very clearly, and from a very libertarian stance. By the very fact that government cannot give preferential treatment to a religion by law, there cannot be a case where religion directly influences lawmaking or policy. Essentially, this amendment affirms that the government should be lassez faire with respect to religion, both at the state level and federal level. The first amendment should be explicit enough, but this amendment only makes it more-so. And by religion/beliefs, atheism is included as well. It is all-inclusive.




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

Anyways, this is a good debate to have, certainly.

[hard@work]

Claiming that the state has the right to make a law, which puts tax payer money in religious indoctrination, is also saying the state has the right to outlaw Religious expression altogether... does anyone else see that?

I do. I find myself for some reason in need of fighting for the rights of those who wish to practice their religious beliefs however paradoxical it is to my secular dogmatism. This is where the divergence is which is what I would propose we analyze to find a compromise in belief.

So my question to you would be what can we do to ensure the protection of religious freedoms of the individual? I understand the concerns of the oppression of others through majority rule very well. I find it ironic that the conversation here is coming from two sides of the same coin however and I think you may have missed that. Your lines of questions were good but I don't think the expression of understanding came from either side so far.

So I'll ask you directly then: do you believe we can protect the right of the religious individual who is operating or employed in a "state" function while at the same time preventing oppressive behavior based on the same religion from becomming dominate or dominating?

If so, what are you thoughts on the proper structure of governance here? If not, why not?


Also, thanks for resetting the debate you gaiz. Sorry for the harsh words but flame wars =/= construction.

<3

[Spirit of '76]

allowing teachers to compel students to prayer in a public institution is unconstitutional on the establishment side...


Yes, and Congressman Paul's proposed amendment clarifies this:



"H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

I would think that would be a comfort to you.

[Kade]

Your debating style is Aristotalean to be sure, and thats fine, you bring up alot of good points, but here you are just begging the question, and in this case, the implication you make is false. If we consider founding fathers the ones who signed the declaration of independance, the shakeup looks like this:

Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian

Franklin, Jefferson, and arguably madison were all deists, NOT atheists, but deists - they rejected the divinity of christ but did not reject his existence, nor even the existence of a Supreme being. Yet they all acknowledged that religion was an important institution, even if they didn't actually believe everything a religion taught. If im reading you correctly, your thesis in this entire thread is that Ron Paul does not believe in separation of church and state, or at least that it exists under the constitution. However, other major founding fathers were professed believers, such as Adams and Washington, at least rhetorically. From a page off the library of congress, is this paragraph:



another excerpt about Franklin:



Then of course, there were numerous "lesser" founding fathers, and John Jay and Patrick Henry, the evangelists.

Kade, my understanding of your thesis on this page is that Ron would not uphold separation of church and state as a rigid notion, or at least that is implied by the fact that you cite 2 pieces of evidence - his motion to allow public school prayer, and his Christmas-time piece. He may not have chosen the best wording, but he is not really wrong when he says the founders did give credence to religion as an important institution. He never said the founders were dedicated christians - some of them were, some were not, some were a mix - especially Franklin (who was a professed deist but was "fond" of the instution of religion in many aspects). I think his take on separation of church and state is correct - and even Barack Obama has talked about religion being a very important institution, but neither should intersect each other in how the other runs. Under a Ron Paul presidency, none of your beliefs (or lack thereof) would be infringed upon. Speeches he has given on this topic (he especially talks about how he finds religious pandering distasteful, and use of religion as a false justification for many acts) affirm that he is certainly religious, but he is also not a theocrat by any stretch of the imagination.

Ron paul's amendment actually states thing very clearly, and from a very libertarian stance. By the very fact that government cannot give preferential treatment to a religion by law, there cannot be a case where religion directly influences lawmaking or policy. Essentially, this amendment affirms that the government should be lassez faire with respect to religion, both at the state level and federal level. The first amendment should be explicit enough, but this amendment only makes it more-so. And by religion/beliefs, atheism is included as well. It is all-inclusive.




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

Anyways, this is a good debate to have, certainly.

I should have clarified Founding Fathers to PEOPLE MAGAZINE's Founding Fathers...

heh, You are correct. Many of these people were "robustly" christian.. many were also slave owners, many were also federalists and statists...

The spirit behind the bill of rights, by its' most vocal adherents would demand that rigorous secularism, while tolerant, should be the status quo, not robust Christianity, while tolerant.

[Kade]

Yes, and Congressman Paul's proposed amendment clarifies this:




I would think that would be a comfort to you.

The courts already agreed with this my friend. Why did Ron Paul propose the amendment?

[Rastis McNastis]

I can see that amendment being construed in such a way that public monies could promote religion, and as such cannot support it.

While I see no harm an amendment clarifying the separation of church and state, the wording of Ron Paul's proposed amendment is itself not explicit enough to prevent abuse.

[Kade]

So my question to you would be what can we do to ensure the protection of religious freedoms of the individual?


From what I understand, every major civil rights organization will fight for your right in court, under the constitution, and under the first and fourteenth amendment to express yourself religiously in any way... (except in the poor Mormon's case.)

As a religious observer, you have the right to take off religious holidays from work, and receive pay. You have the right to prayer at any time of day, anywhere, anytime...You have the right to observe any cultural practices, and observances, to acknowledge publicly your god... etc..

The law has decided that in accordance with the anti-establishment clause, certain artifacts of the former understanding of the separation of church and state need to be re-assessed because of a growing number of people who were not monotheists in general... when those people brought up claims, the courts listened and responded. The most important aspect of these finding, the lemon test, was born:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.


Under these guidelines, yes, people have lost the right to have the Ten Commandments in the courthouse alone (but not with other monuments) you have lost the right to lead prayer at a graduation ceremony (but not if other prayer is allowed) you have lost the right to open homeroom with a bible reading (unless you are in bible history) and you have lost the right to teach creationism and intelligent design.

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

[Spirit of '76]

The courts already agreed with this my friend. Why did Ron Paul propose the amendment?

Yes, but many people have tried to skirt around it. The Congressman's proposal is a step toward preventing that by clarifying the language and intent of the First Amendment.

As to why he proposed it, again I do not speak for him, but it seems to me that his clarification will protect both the rights of individuals to express their personal beliefs and the right of individuals to be free from government-sponsored coercion/discrimination on the basis of religion.

The language as it stands obviously leaves huge gaps for interpretation, as our own debate here shows. As Rastis said, there is always an advantage to being more explicit.

[Spirit of '76]

I can see that amendment being construed in such a way that public monies could promote religion, and as such cannot support it.

While I see no harm an amendment clarifying the separation of church and state, the wording of Ron Paul's proposed amendment is itself not explicit enough to prevent abuse.

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

[ThePieSwindler]

I should have clarified Founding Fathers to PEOPLE MAGAZINE's Founding Fathers...

heh, You are correct. Many of these people were "robustly" christian.. many were also slave owners, many were also federalists and statists...

The spirit behind the bill of rights, by its' most vocal adherents would demand that rigorous secularism, while tolerant, should be the status quo, not robust Christianity, while tolerant.

Do you mean in government or in public life? The two are not the same. Ron paul is talking about a robustly christian america as in, a social institution. In his piece, he says nothing about christianity directly affecting government, although he does talk about references to a God/creator in the dec of independance (and the constitution too, though he is essentially wrong there, not sure if he meant that or mistyped and never fixed it). He says the founding fathers envisioned a robustly christian America in public life. Based on many direct quotes from some of the founders, this holds to be true. The arguement put forth here (at least by me in defense of Ron's words) does not affirm an absolute truth, namely, that America SHOULD be a robustly christian America - that is a whole different debate altogether, one that is making this thread unnecessarily long but is essentially tangiental to the point. The arguement i) whether or not Ron is right about the founding father's sentiments. He is, as long as "founding fathers" is not assumed to be completely inclusive in all cases. and ii) would Ron honor freedom of religion in public life (or lack thereof). I think the evidence also points to a yes on that case.

The bill of rights is different from the constitution in a fundamental way - while the constitution enumerates propositions/powers/rights/jurisdiction o fthe GOVERNMENT, the bill of rights simply reserves already-existing rights of the people. It has no "spirit" really, other than to MAKE EXPLICIT rights that the people retain, and then add on that so many rights exist (it acknowledges this in the 9th amendment) that basically every right that does not infringe on the rights of others should not be infringed upon by government. It does not even imply anything about a status quo of religious/secular thought in the united states, it leaves the rights to peculiar beliefs to the people.

The central argument that is at the core of this whole debate is about the nature of religious freedom, and what it entails in relation to government. The first amendment makes that very clear - government shall not respect nor prohibit religion. Period. It says Congress in the first amendment, and an amendment to include the states would be fine if states are retarded enough to play religious favoratism in lawmaking and in relation to holding of political office. Again ,a very lassez-faire approach to religion in government. A theocracy by its very nature respects an establishment of religion... so too does a government like England and many governments of europe in the 18th century. Without respect for an establishment of religion, there cannot and should not be any favoritism in the law. How are laws executed/enforced? Through force. Thus the crux of the debate revolves around force. A government cannot force a person to adhere to a belief or follow in a religious ritual, but it cannot force private citizens or local entities to NOT practice their religious in a certain way (unless it violates the religious freedom of other). Praying in a classroom might offend you and make you worry for your children.. but it does not actually infringe on your right to freely practice your dissent of religion.

So yeah...

Oh let me also pre-emptively address the concern about public prayer in terms of "publicly funded venues" like public schools. An infringement upon the rights of people of other beliefs does not occur when a lone teacher decides to pray in front of his or her class. That is the private individual's decision to do so, and it should not be infringed. If you retort "well, they are working for a public institution, they shouldnt do that when they are in public" i simply respond that if you believe that, then you believe the state owns the right to censor privite individuals. These private individuas, while they work for the government, are not actual members of the government, and their personal opinions or actions need not reflect the actual position/affiliation of the state institution. What WOULD be an infringement upon your rights to freely practice your religion would be a daily, scheduled PA prayer where all are asked to pray aloud - essentially at that point it is the INSTITUTION mandating prayer, NOT a private individual freely practicing their religion.

[Kade]

Yes, but many people have tried to skirt around it. The Congressman's proposal is a step toward preventing that by clarifying the language and intent of the First Amendment.

As to why he proposed it, again I do not speak for him, but it seems to me that his clarification will protect both the rights of individuals to express their personal beliefs and the right of individuals to be free from government-sponsored coercion/discrimination on the basis of religion.

The language as it stands obviously leaves huge gaps for interpretation, as our own debate here shows. As Rastis said, there is always an advantage to being more explicit.

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

[Kade]

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

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

[Rastis McNastis]

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


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

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

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

[hard@work]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kade]

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

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

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

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

The amendment is not necessary in my opinion...

[Kade]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rastis McNastis]

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

The amendment is not necessary in my opinion...


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

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

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

[Kade]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kade]

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

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

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

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

[Spirit of '76]

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

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

[Kade]

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

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

[Rastis McNastis]

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


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




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


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

[Kade]

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

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

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

[Kade]

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






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

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

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

[Rastis McNastis]

Indeed, that is all I am arguing for.

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

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

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

[Kade]

Indeed, that is all I am arguing for.

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

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

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

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

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

[hard@work]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are all of us.

Take care, and welcome to the revolution.

@

[Nefertiti]

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

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

[Rastis McNastis]

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

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


Secularism != atheism.

[Nefertiti]

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

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

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

[Nefertiti]

Secularism != atheism.

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

[Rastis McNastis]

It was meant for you, and you obviously understood it.

Regardless, if you wish me to elaborate:

Secularism does not equal atheism.

[Nefertiti]

[QUOTE=Spirit of '76;183706]


I also have no problem with allowing a few minutes of prayer in school, If:

A) It is a silent prayer, that allows children of all religions to pray on their own and those that do not wish to participate do not have to.

!

Then you don't support it. Because in my religion, prayer is not silent. Why if we are allowed to pray on our own do we have to keep quiet? If you set standards for what kinds of prayers are allowed then you are not allowing religious freedom.

[Nefertiti]

A question: You don't believe your OWN view of religion and government is ultimately and utterly correct?
:eek:

All of us know we are right, everyone else just believes that they are right. :D

[Nefertiti]

It was meant for you, and you obviously understood it.

Regardless, if you wish me to elaborate:

Secularism does not equal atheism.

And secularism certainly doesn't equal any other religion either, but atheists believe they can get their rights under secularism. Any truly religious person's rights will be violated under state sponsored secularism. Take for example Catholics. Two Catholics who marry under Catholicism cannot remarry in the case their marriage ends. This helps to preserve marriages. Certain Orthodox sects can't divorce at all. However, secularism violates the rights of the party who wishes to continue the marriage to not lose their spouse or lose them to another person. Their children may wind up being raised by a stepparent, against their religion's tenets.

Secular government-sponsored marriage is a violation of many American's religious beliefs. The government's own criteria on who can marry who and the responsibilities of both parties before, during and after marriage are in direct contradiction of my own religion's tenets, but because they are the law of the land I could not get a court to enforce them. Ron Paul is right in that he believes marriage should be a contract between two people-however the fact that it is a contract between just two people would then mean that the wronged party could sue the other party for breach of contract in the case where the other party's actions were in violation of the religiously based contract they previously drew up between them.

[Rastis McNastis]

[QUOTE=barcop;183861]

Then you don't support it. Because in my religion, prayer is not silent. Why if we are allowed to pray on our own do we have to keep quiet? If you set standards for what kinds of prayers are allowed then you are not allowing religious freedom.


If you pray out loud you are most likely going to be disruptive. If your religion requires silent meditation for three hours it will likewise render you unable to function in the student body.

If you have such special needs, public schooling is not for you.

[Rastis McNastis]

And secularism certainly doesn't equal any other religion either, but atheists believe they can get their rights under secularism.


Everyone gets their rights under secularism.



Any truly religious person's rights will be violated under state sponsored secularism.


As long as their religion does not infringe upon the rights of others, then their religious rights will remain intact.



Take for example Catholics. Two Catholics who marry under Catholicism cannot remarry in the case their marriage ends. This helps to preserve marriages. Certain Orthodox sects can't divorce at all. However, secularism violates the rights of the party who wishes to continue the marriage to not lose their spouse or lose them to another person. Their children may wind up being raised by a stepparent, against their religion's tenets.


I hope you are joking. Forcing one to remain in a relationship against his/her wishes is certainly a violation of rights! Just because the other has religious convictions does not give them leave to dictate how ANOTHER person must live! You might as well say secularism violates the religious rights of those who wish to practice compulsory human sacrifice!



Secular government-sponsored marriage is a violation of many American's religious beliefs. The government's own criteria on who can marry who and the responsibilities of both parties before, during and after marriage are in direct contradiction of my own religion's tenets, but because they are the law of the land I could not get a court to enforce them.


We are almost close to being in agreement on this. As marriage is a religious function, it should not be government sponsored at all, thus NO RELIGION gets preferential treatment from the state, and private organizations can hold such ceremonies as they wish.




Ron Paul is right in that he believes marriage should be a contract between two people-however the fact that it is a contract between just two people would then mean that the wronged party could sue the other party for breach of contract in the case where the other party's actions were in violation of the religiously based contract they previously drew up between them.


An excellent reason, perhaps, for why religious ceremonies should not lend themselves to contracts binding under US law?

[jmarinara]

You make no points worth debating other than the usual fundamental christian stance, trying to shove your fundamental views down others throats, with a closed mind about anyone elses point of view.

No. I laid out a very logical stance showing how the IDEAS found within our founding documents are profoundly Christian, and I'm backing that point up with reasoning and facts. I'm not shoving anything down anyones throat, I am merely arguing for my interpretation, and as I see it, the correct interpretation, of history. You are free to believe what you want, I simply ask that you listen to a reasonable argument.


Taking partial quotes from a few founding fathers and then giving your personal "Thesis" isn't proof of anything.

Well for one thing, you seem to imply that quoting our founders is somehow spurious to which I respond: How else am I supposed to evaluate the views of historical figures unless I study what they said, wrote, and did?

Also, you're argument about these quotes being partial (and that being somehow intellectually dishonest) is ludicrous on it's face, and I'll prove it. Go back to my quotes and find one where I quoted a founder out of context and twisted the whole meaning of what he was saying. If you could do that, you're argument would be proven. But I notice you didn't do that at all, you simply leveled an accusation. . . kind of makes me wonder why.

Lastly, how am I supposed to express my ideas and my interpretation of this history without telling you what I believe? I chose to do this through a thesis, and then give you an outline of how my thesis is backed with evidence. YOu can disagree with my method, sure, but you can't say that making a thesis statement and backing it up isn't an attempt to prove anything. You think I'm wrong, fine. . . I'm open minded, but only to facts, truth, things you can prove. Give me facts. Prove your point. Show me the truth, I'm happy (thrilled even!!! I love to discuss these matters) to listen.


As I said above, show me in the Constitution where it says anything about Christ, Christianity or God.... you can't.

Sure I can. But I don't have to. When you study the history of political theory to that point, you come up with two distinct ideas. A humanistic theory (really a mixture of many theories, somewhat distinct, but in the end the same) exposed by Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. And a Biblically based theory exposed by Locke, Aquianas, Augustine (to an extent), Smith, etc. Now when you compare the founding documents to these two theories, you find that the documents measure up to the Biblical idea, and abundantly reject the humanist idea. But don't believe me, go read Alexis de Tocqueville (http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Alexis-Tocqueville/dp/0226805360/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-2037249-4616868?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189652149&sr=8-2), he says exactly what I say here, and he even goes further to attribute the ideas to the puritan denomination of Christianity.

But like I said, you can find references to God in the Dec. Of Ind. and the Constitution. "We are endowed by our creator. . . " "Nature and Nature's God. . ." Come on, to say their is no reference is an intellectually dishonest statement. And to say that they weren't referring to Christianity, when we can see the vast majority of the founders were ultra-conservative Christians, is a leap of faith I don't think one can rationally make.




It doesn't matter what each founding fathers view on religion was, they did not include religion in the constitution, because they wanted the government to be secular. And anyone with an open mind can understand that.

Fine. That sounds like the makings of a great thesis statement. I assure you my mind is open. Now please, prove you point.


Do you have any opinion about the topic of this thread at all?

Well I was of the understanding that this was the topic of this thread:


I would rather not start a religious debate here, but I want to know why a citizen who honors the founding father's ideals on secularism should support Ron Paul.

My response was that I think the pre-supposition that this is was intended to be a secular nation was an incorrect pre-supposition. I have since making that statement, and am now, attempting to prove my position.

[jmarinara]

This isn't worth responding to, seriously, you have single handily revised American history to fit into your world view...

Ok, that's a fine point of view. Now prove it.


Shame on your view of what liberty is as well.

I'm really not sure what you are referring to here, could you elaborate.


I could go into each quote, and I could go into the more important body of work that is the governance of this country, the Constitution...

GREAT!!!!! WONDERFUL!!!!!!! :) :)

Please do go into each quote. . . show me where I'm wrong. Tell me why I'm wrong. I promise I'll listen with a very open mind. Being proven wrong is the greatest thing that can happen to a philosopher. It's how he learns, how he grows, how he matures, how he becomes smarter. I welcome you going into what I say with an opposing viewpoint. If you don't want to go into it here, e-mail me. (Private message me and I'll give you my e-mail) My mind is wide open to your ideas.


unfortunately, people like you are what I fear, and this is exactly what I was afraid of...

Ok, I'm not real sure why you fear me exactly, but I assure you you have nothing to fear. I don't want to run your life, I don't want to tell you what to believe. I want to share the truth as I see it and more importantly as I believe I can prove it to be. If you are truely open minded, you have nothing to fear in a pursuit of the truth.

Also, what you should really fear is a man in the oval office, or in the capital, or on the bench who truely hates your freedoms and wants to remove them. They can harm you far more than this lowly servant of God can. I wish you nothing but the best, and I gladly defend your right to believe as you wish, despite my disagreements with you. I simply ask, as a fellow human being, that you open your mind to the fact you may be wrong.


Are you advocating a breach of separation in this wrangling? This is not fearmongering...

I'm really not sure what you mean by that. Please explain.


Quote mining... shameful.

Unless you can show me where I took someone out of context, you can't level this charge. If the quotes I showed accurately depict the beliefs of who said it, it is quoting someone accurately. Please prove this accusation or stop making it. (Not just you Kade, all of you)



Are you advocating that atheists have no place in this country... keep pushing bro.. keep pushing.

And when exactly did I say that? Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I'm happy to allow you to practice your religion, or lack thereof, anyway you choose. Please, own property, vote (preferably for Ron Paul), speak freely, assemble with whomever you choose, and go to a church of your choosing. No one is asking you to leave this country. . . least of all me.

[Kregener]

Not going to read through multiple pages to see if it has already been posted, but:


The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

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.

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

United States Constitution, September 17th, 1787

[Kade]

Not going to read through multiple pages to see if it has already been posted, but:



United States Constitution, September 17th, 1787

You have got to be kidding me...

and I mentioned this, I think on PAGE ONE!!!

Also, that was the convention, as they duly noted. Wow... seriously.