PDA

View Full Version : Religion: Ron Paul on Separation of Church & State




playpianoking
01-16-2012, 03:33 AM
Reddit is blowing up right now with a lot of anti-Paul sentiment. http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/oifeb/my_reaction_upon_finding_that_ron_paul_does_not/

What is Dr. Paul's position regarding the matter? If a city wants to only put a Christmas tree on public land, isn't that endorsing religion? People are free to exercise their religious freedoms, but most of the lawsuits Paul seems to degrade has to do with the state endorsing religion, which seems to be prohibited by the constitution. This and evolution are some of the things that the young people dislike regarding Ron Paul.

They also give this thumbs up: The same problem as saying "states should decide whether to make laws barring atheists from office." In small local populations (rural communities) there is a lack of international culture (no outsiders/Europeans, Asians, etc.) which can bleed through and influence local curriculums. This is why you generally have more educated populations in cities because you have increased diversities of experience and you don't just have a shit ton of hicks who use religion and "AMERIKUH fuck yea" attitudes to dictate their daily life.

Regarding a thread that Ron Paul's budget would erase billions in research spending I said:
So let me get this straight searine, you think you have a right to threaten me by force and steal the fruits of my labor to fund whatever you want, and if I don't comply you put me in a cage? Ron Paul has principles in which he votes on. If you want to voluntarily spend money on research, please do. Don't steal from me though. If you think it's worthwhile then when I get sick I'll pay you and arm and a leg if I think it's worth it for whatever drug you come up with.

Someone replied: Dude, America was built on the combined efforts of its populace. If you make these cuts, America would no longer be a world leader in science and research.

But I suppose the fruits of your labour are more important than the future of your country. As such, I recommend your anus as a receptacle for said fruits.


I'm getting downvoted while they are getting upvoted. Any opinions?

Alternative 336
01-16-2012, 05:43 AM
Stay off of reddit. If people put something like a belief in evolution over a principled record and the ideas of liberty, then clearly these people aren't the brightest bulbs in the bunch. They want to talk about leaders in research and science? Why aren't they in an uproar over our educational systems and how the access of loans (the student loan bubble) cause the prices to skyrocket. Not to mention the largely redundant money pit the "department of education" is. I am just sick of these people, you either get it or you don't. They just want to put Ron under scrutiny that they would never consider putting Obama under. It's called having an agenda and not wanting to hear the truth or earnestly debate. Avoid it and move on. Your time is more valuable when you convert people elsewhere.

maxxgraphix
01-16-2012, 10:20 AM
Some people don't know how to read. It's Freedom of Religion not freedom from religion. Even Congress issued a King James version of the bible and paid for it. Public schools used to teach religion and have prayer. Churches were used as public meeting places for government. We can thank the Liberal Progressives for distorting the meaning. I have to agree some sites are not worth the time.

ConsideringRonPaul
01-16-2012, 01:38 PM
"Separation of Church and State" is not a Constitutional phrase. It was first used by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that there would be no government encroachment on their religious practices. In the mid-20th century, liberal judges tried to bring back something that never was by saying this meant that all the founders and framers meant for the first amendment to be used to other way around, even though at the nation's onset, as someone already pointed out, that there was prayer and morals taught in school and certain states like Massachusetts even had their own established church for a few decades. This totally tramples on the 10th amendment when activist judges do this. Tell the folks at Reddit to learn their history.

James Madison
01-16-2012, 01:42 PM
The First Amendment specifically refers to 'establishments of religion', ie the Vatican or the Church of England. These were physical institutions that exerted their might on the public via a close relationship with the state. That's what the founders were fearful of, not people putting up a nativity.

jmdrake
01-16-2012, 01:49 PM
Reddit is blowing up right now with a lot of anti-Paul sentiment. http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/oifeb/my_reaction_upon_finding_that_ron_paul_does_not/

What is Dr. Paul's position regarding the matter? If a city wants to only put a Christmas tree on public land, isn't that endorsing religion? People are free to exercise their religious freedoms, but most of the lawsuits Paul seems to degrade has to do with the state endorsing religion, which seems to be prohibited by the constitution. This and evolution are some of the things that the young people dislike regarding Ron Paul.


First off "Christmas" trees aren't religious. Not unless you think Christianity is a pagan religion. The fact that Christians have incorporated pagan symbols into their holiday is a sign of the very "accommodation of multiple religions" that secularists seem to crave so much.

Second, from a libertarian point of view there would be very little, if any, "public land".

Third where in the constitution is the "endorsement of religion" clause? There is a non establishment clause and a free exercise clause. Unless people are actually worshiping the town Christmas tree, there is no way that is an "establishment" of religion. Pull one of those federal reserve notes out of your pocket. Even on of the funny colored new ones. Notice the words "In God We Trust" on the back. How is that less of an endorsement of religion than a town Christmas tree? Oh I forgot. The federal government can do whatever the hell it wants. The bill of rights now only reply to the states, even though originally the exact opposite was intended.

Post this on reddit and see who's ready to give up all their U.S. currency for their "principles".

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kxWnQyHHWxU/TVi6GxronWI/AAAAAAAAApk/8QSUXO3WwbM/s1600/20-dollar-bill-new-front-back.jpeg