PDA

View Full Version : Religion: Separation of Church and State




Teenager For Ron Paul
02-14-2012, 09:18 PM
I'd just like to know where Dr. Paul really stands on this, since I've heard controversy about it.

GunnyFreedom
02-14-2012, 09:23 PM
Ron Paul believes that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a church, nor abridging the freedom of speech.

Teenager For Ron Paul
02-14-2012, 09:28 PM
Thought so. Just checking :)

Black Mamba
02-15-2012, 12:34 AM
What that means is basically congress shouldnt be the ones writing these types of bills, they should be left up to local governments to handle.

GunnyFreedom
02-15-2012, 09:44 AM
What that means is basically congress shouldnt be the ones writing these types of bills, they should be left up to local governments to handle.

Fortunately, pretty much every State in the union has similar in their respective Constitutions. Therefore you don't even need the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine.

cstarace
02-25-2012, 11:36 AM
How do we counteract arguments laid out in videos such as the following? And I don't mean the abortion or economic stuff, focusing solely on separation of church and state.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYaujnR_8NE&feature=related

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

Origanalist
02-26-2012, 09:58 AM
I think that guy did a fine job of making himself sound like a clueless foulmouthed blowhard. The guy is equating human life to bacteria and cancer while ranting and raving on a swing in his moms backyard.

The quote at the bottom of your post does a pretty good job of answering his rant. People like him somehow find that the constitution forbids any public discussion of religion instead of forbiding a state santioned religion.

cstarace
02-26-2012, 04:37 PM
I think that guy did a fine job of making himself sound like a clueless foulmouthed blowhard. The guy is equating human life to bacteria and cancer while ranting and raving on a swing in his moms backyard.

The quote at the bottom of your post does a pretty good job of answering his rant. People like him somehow find that the constitution forbids any public discussion of religion instead of forbiding a state santioned religion.
That's why I said ignore the abortion part of it. But I'm not so sure I agree with Dr. Paul's quote. Jefferson certainly didn't:

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. - Thomas Jefferson

Sola_Fide
02-26-2012, 05:29 PM
I think that guy did a fine job of making himself sound like a clueless foulmouthed blowhard. The guy is equating human life to bacteria and cancer while ranting and raving on a swing in his moms backyard.

lololol

Origanalist
02-27-2012, 12:01 AM
Thomas Jefferson is certainly right that priests from every age have abused their position, it's not even debatable. However there have also been just as many if not more who practiced their religion with a good and humble heart.

And while all the authors of the Constitution were not Christian, it's plain the majority were. And it seems plain from the language used that the Congress would not be allowed to establish a State religion, but not keep religion out of all public discussions and policy. They themselves certainly did no such thing.

LibertyEagle
02-27-2012, 12:04 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

cstarace
02-28-2012, 06:06 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Yeah, that's where I got the quote from. I'm not so sure I agree with this. If government isn't endorsing any one particular religion, then it makes sense to me to be a completely secular nation.

Brett85
02-28-2012, 07:24 PM
Yeah, that's where I got the quote from. I'm not so sure I agree with this. If government isn't endorsing any one particular religion, then it makes sense to me to be a completely secular nation.

We've never been a "completely secular nation." We've always been a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. People shouldn't be forced to attend any Christian church or follow the Christian religion, but religious expression in the public realm should not be banned by the government.

PierzStyx
02-28-2012, 07:45 PM
"Congress shall make no law" is pretty clear. Even one law that interferes in religion in any way sets up a state religion. It declares the state has a bias for one expression of faith, or of no faith, over another, and forces that view on those it does not favor. This is and of itself is a de facto state church.

Johnny Appleseed
02-28-2012, 08:08 PM
Logically if you look at it the dollar says "In God We Trust" if that was the case we wouldn't need an Army so its pretty much just a saying anyway like, "Where's the Beef?"
The ten commandments say do not kill but we have glossed over that paint by number picture so much it looks almost pleasant.

otherone
02-28-2012, 10:04 PM
Logically if you look at it the dollar says "In God We Trust" // its pretty much just a saying anyway like, "Where's the Beef?"


lol...that SHOULD be written on our fiat currency!

heavenlyboy34
02-28-2012, 10:11 PM
Logically if you look at it the dollar says "In God We Trust" if that was the case we wouldn't need an Army so its pretty much just a saying anyway like, "Where's the Beef?"
The ten commandments say do not kill but we have glossed over that paint by number picture so much it looks almost pleasant.
It says do not murder, but the point is still valid. /nitpick

JohnM
03-01-2012, 08:31 AM
... it makes sense to me to be a completely secular nation.

What exactly does it mean to be a "completely secular nation"? Does it mean banning religion from public discourse? If you want to have a completely secular nation, you are going to need to do plenty of banning. It seems to me that the desire to make a nation completely secular is as inconsistent with libertarianism as the desire to make a nation completely Christian. To start with the question "How can we make the nation truly Christian?" or "How can we make the nation truly secular?" is to start by asking the wrong question. The correct approach is to start with the question "How can we ensure that people have liberty to do what they please as long as they do not harm others?"

True libertarians believe in the separation of church and state, just as they believe in the separation of welfare and state or the separation of education and state. But seeking to make that separation absolutely complete is, in my opinion, a sign of fanaticism.



If government isn't endorsing any one particular religion . . . ,

If we are being strict constitutionalists, then we would, of course say "If the Federal government isn't endorsing any one particular religion . . . ."

;)

germanyt
03-02-2012, 08:58 AM
they should be left up to local governments to handle.


Ummm. No!

germanyt
03-02-2012, 09:02 AM
It seems to me that the desire to make a nation completely secular is as inconsistent with libertarianism as the desire to make a nation completely Christian.
;)

I've a libertarian athiest so what you claim makes no sense whatsoever. IMO a secular nation would be one in which people kept their religion to themselves. Especially in regards to governance. No candidate who wants to impose his religious views on the nation, be it economically or socially should even be electable. It's one thing to be a public official with faith. It's a whole other thing for him/her to think that their doctrine is the model their constituents should live by.

Origanalist
03-02-2012, 09:12 AM
Short, sweet, and to the point.
What exactly does it mean to be a "completely secular nation"? Does it mean banning religion from public discourse? If you want to have a completely secular nation, you are going to need to do plenty of banning. It seems to me that the desire to make a nation completely secular is as inconsistent with libertarianism as the desire to make a nation completely Christian. To start with the question "How can we make the nation truly Christian?" or "How can we make the nation truly secular?" is to start by asking the wrong question. The correct approach is to start with the question "How can we ensure that people have liberty to do what they please as long as they do not harm others?"

True libertarians believe in the separation of church and state, just as they believe in the separation of welfare and state or the separation of education and state. But seeking to make that separation absolutely complete is, in my opinion, a sign of fanaticism.




If we are being strict constitutionalists, then we would, of course say "If the Federal government isn't endorsing any one particular religion . . . ."

;)

KMX
03-02-2012, 09:12 AM
That guy in the video has no clue what he is talking about. Hints why he has to go outside in mommy and daddys back yard b/c he can't cuss inside he might get a spankin!

I like/LOVE All Ron Paul views.