Ron Paul sees a war on Christianity?

[American]

Need I say we need some support over here.? Someone has already said, "here comes the paul supporters....." lol


One of Ron Paul’s selling points as a presidential candidate is his willingness to reject Republican orthodoxy. As the theory goes, the modern-day GOP has been taken over by neocons and religious extremists, and Paul’s libertarian-brand conservatism rejects both. Given that most liberals have a similar disdain for the Podhoretz and Dobson crowds, Paul has picked up a few fans on the left, too.

But what I did not realize is that when it comes to the religious right’s theocratic worldview, Paul is surprisingly in line with TV preachers like Pat Robertson. An alert reader emailed me this Ron Paul commentary from December 2003, in which the Texas Republican laments “the ongoing war against religion” in general, and Christianity in specific.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13566.html

[hard@work]

The same war against non-Christians is applied to Christians. It's all the same thing. They're invading the rights of every American from every demographic.

[JMann]

Not knowing Paul's philosophy on this issue but I would think it has to do with the constant Constitutional farce of a 'seperation of church and state' which isn't anywhere in the Constitution. Personally, I'm not a religious person but I find it disgusting that a HS football team in rural Texas can't say a prayer before a game lest it piss off one sandal clad minion at the school.

[Original_Intent]

I believe he was referring to the culture war within the United States, via political correctness...

[10thAmendmentMan]

Not knowing Paul's philosophy on this issue but I would think it has to do with the constant Constitutional farce of a 'seperation of church and state' which isn't anywhere in the Constitution. Personally, I'm not a religious person but I find it disgusting that a HS football team in rural Texas can't say a prayer before a game lest it piss off one sandal clad minion at the school.

Even as a staunch atheist, I have to agree with this assessment. As long as everything's voluntary, the government is hardly "establishing" a religion. Separation of church and state is important, but that doesn't mean that people should be barred from their own free expression.

[sparebulb]

Not knowing Paul's philosophy on this issue but I would think it has to do with the constant Constitutional farce of a 'seperation of church and state' which isn't anywhere in the Constitution. Personally, I'm not a religious person but I find it disgusting that a HS football team in rural Texas can't say a prayer before a game lest it piss off one sandal clad minion at the school.

Agreed.

[Fyretrohl]

Even as a staunch atheist, I have to agree with this assessment. As long as everything's voluntary, the government is hardly "establishing" a religion. Separation of church and state is important, but that doesn't mean that people should be barred from their own free expression.


This is one of the best things I have read today. You have it on what I believe was KEY to the Constitution and seperation of Church and State. The issue they were addressing was making sure we did not end up with a Church of the United States. I have had no problem with prayers before events, even including other religions to have the opportunity to lead in their own way.

[JMann]

Even as a staunch atheist, I have to agree with this assessment. As long as everything's voluntary, the government is hardly "establishing" a religion. Separation of church and state is important, but that doesn't mean that people should be barred from their own free expression.

What is more important in the amendment in my view is that Congress shall pass no law preventing the free exercise of religion. Using the Supreme Court as a way of not allowing people that want to pray the opportunity to do so at any time is limiting free speech as well as the free exercise of religion, whether in a government building or not.

[ronpaulyourmom]

Even as a staunch atheist, I have to agree with this assessment. As long as everything's voluntary, the government is hardly "establishing" a religion. Separation of church and state is important, but that doesn't mean that people should be barred from their own free expression.

As an atheist, I also agree.

[fcofer]

I think that the best thing for religious people to do to gain support for secularists is to re-iterate, honestly: "We do not want a theocracy. We do not want to legislate the tenets of our faith into law. We do not want to force you to pray or do homage to God."

If a secularist hears (and believes) that, then morally, he can't have a problem with allowing those people to practice their faith, wherever, and whenever.

[jamesmadison]

If i worship the sun, which gives us all life and which without we cannot survive, that is my own perogative. If you worship jesus, that is yours as well. And if our friend, the athiest, chooses not to worship anything - let the sun brighten his day.

[Goldwater Conservative]

I agree with him, and I'm not even religious. What sets Paul apart from the others is that he doesn't equate Big Theocratic Government with saving Christianity... in fact, just the opposite. He probably thinks a socialist state replaces the need for family, community, and faith.

[steph3n]

It is a war on freedom of expression and speech in every form, religious or not :)

[fcofer]

Evangelicals, I have a question for you. I alluded to a Heinlein quote in my earlier post.


It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

This statement has always perturbed me. After spending much time on these forums, I've found that strongly religious people really aren't necessarily desirous of a Christian-based government.

Do you think that, among strongly religious Christians, you guys here are the exception or the rule?

EDIT: Sorry for hijacking the thread.

[sugaki]

Even as a staunch atheist, I have to agree with this assessment. As long as everything's voluntary, the government is hardly "establishing" a religion. Separation of church and state is important, but that doesn't mean that people should be barred from their own free expression.

I agree. The essence of Christianity is coming to God under a person's free will. Problem with the way the govt is heading towards now is it's either moving towards a theocracy (neocon Repubs) or secularism (Dems).

It should be neither. People should be free to bring their beliefs into whatever, be it school, govt. Separation of church in state was implemented to prevent the govt from running church (aka the Anglican church, Lutheran church), not from preventing ppl to express their religious beliefs within the govt. The founding forefathers didn't hide the fact that their faith in God dictated their actions.

Which is why I like Ron Paul's stance. As far as values go I'm basically a neoconservative. But I believe that people should have the freedom to exercise whatever worldview they hold, be it atheism, agnosticism or theism.


Evangelicals, I have a question for you. I alluded to a Heinlein quote in my earlier post.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

This statement has always perturbed me. After spending much time on these forums, I've found that strongly religious people really aren't necessarily desirous of a Christian-based government.

Do you think that, among strongly religious Christians, you guys here are the exception or the rule?

I think that's a rather crass overgeneralization. Suppressing oposition, "seize early the minds of the young"? The quote makes it sound as though that's reserved only for religious people, which is not only degrading but a cheap shot.

Secularists can do the same. Heck, hence schools wanting to teach sex ed to 1st graders, to ingrain them with certain moral values early on. Children's books talking about homosexuality to kids too young to even understand. Now if that's not "subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young", I don't know what is. Whether you're in support of that or not, it's obvious both sides--both neocons and secularists--can be guilty of this. I know I'm presenting an oversimplified dichotomy of sides, but for argument's sake bear with me on that.

"Killing, locking up, or driving underground" is obviously not a Christian value. Nor is suppressing opposition. Now can evangelicals push for laws consistent with their beliefs? Well, they should. Any politician inevitably brings their own beliefs into the process of lawmaking. That's not only exclusive to "any sect, cult, or religion."