Ron Paul and Religion

[wbbgjr]

Hey guys. I've been a big Ron Paul supporter. Spreading the word and donating to the campaign.

I agree with him on a lot of the issues and admire him for his principles, however, I'm starting to have my doubts of supporting him because of the whole religion issue.

I'm not part of any organized religion. Personally, I see that as "separating people into groups" and whenever we do that history has shown it is a potential to conflicts.

I understand Ron Paul's view on Religion as not being a Federal issue, however, I know his personal view on religion is that states can allow religious items to be displayed in public places such as school and courthouses. And it's his personal support of states allowing that, that i oppose. It is very difficult for some religious people to understand, but for an agnostic or atheist, when a courthouse is decorated with religious symbols, it is hard for us believe we will be given a fair and impartial trial. How can you blame us when most religions say "be a part of us or you are a sinner and going to hell"?

Anyone can clear this issue up for me? or maybe that is how Ron Paul feels and if so then I will have to reluctlantly stop supporting him.

[nullvalu]

Just because it will be a state issue doesn't mean it's going to happen. If the issue comes up in your state, it will only give you more power to voice your opinion/opposition to it. If everything is left at the federal level, individual voices are drowned out. I go back and forth between athiest and agnostic.. and I am all for putting these decisions at the state level.

[UCFGavin]

i don't mind either, but i am a christian. i think they can have whatever symbols they want, because it should not change the laws and what people are permitted and not permitted to do.

[Duckman]

I am also an atheist and this is a hard issue to swallow for me as well. Several things Ron has written concerning religion are troubling to me. However, I believe it is evident that Ron is very driven by the liberty philosophy, and I have full confidence that Ron will not restrict my freedom to practice atheism. And no candidate will ever be 100% of what you would like to see.

[Slugg]

The Federal Government shouldn't handle the issue, like you said. The reasons you gave are exactly why he holds that position. His personal beliefs should not interfere with your right to worship (or not).

If the state chooses to put religious symbols in there schools, then you support a governor who will remove them. It's easier for you and prevents blanket mistakes. I don't know his feelings on heaven and hell...I don't see how they matter (to me).

All in all, this is the one issue I hear most people 'upset' about. But few choose not to support him because of it. The simple fact that he's honest, intelligent, and an 'outsider' outweighs the religious implications for most. I hope you stick around.

[jpa]

He supports states rights to decide (and obeys the constitution) for themselves how much religion courtrooms & government offices can display, etc.
This has the following effects:

- some states are going display religous items, and some states are going to display zero. You are given the freedom of choice of living in an area that you are most comfortable in, no matter what your views are. (vs. a blanket federal regulation that forces everyone into same system)

- it is much easier for a concerned group of citizens to change something at the local level vs. federal level. To change something at the national level, you need millions of dollars and huge campaign. To change something at the local level, you need a few dozen concerned citizens. If this issue is important to you, you *can* have an impact on it, only if our President obeys the consitution and ensures the states of control of issues like these.

[mdh]

Hey guys. I've been a big Ron Paul supporter. Spreading the word and donating to the campaign.

I agree with him on a lot of the issues and admire him for his principles, however, I'm starting to have my doubts of supporting him because of the whole religion issue.

I'm not part of any organized religion. Personally, I see that as "separating people into groups" and whenever we do that history has shown it is a potential to conflicts.

I understand Ron Paul's view on Religion as not being a Federal issue, however, I know his personal view on religion is that states can allow religious items to be displayed in public places such as school and courthouses. And it's his personal support of states allowing that, that i oppose. It is very difficult for some religious people to understand, but for an agnostic or atheist, when a courthouse is decorated with religious symbols, it is hard for us believe we will be given a fair and impartial trial. How can you blame us when most religions say "be a part of us or you are a sinner and going to hell"?

Anyone can clear this issue up for me? or maybe that is how Ron Paul feels and if so then I will have to reluctlantly stop supporting him.

If you would stop supporting him for something that doesn't even effect his policies as a federal presidential candidate, then all I can say is 'wow'. You must not hold very strongly to any other principles! Maybe you're an evangelical atheist, and feel that followers of religious ought be "saved" by your superior ideology. Maybe you saw "freedom of religion" in the constitution and saw "freedom from religion" instead. Who knows.

This is silly, though.

[lynnf]

Hey guys. I've been a big Ron Paul supporter. Spreading the word and donating to the campaign.

I agree with him on a lot of the issues and admire him for his principles, however, I'm starting to have my doubts of supporting him because of the whole religion issue.

I'm not part of any organized religion. Personally, I see that as "separating people into groups" and whenever we do that history has shown it is a potential to conflicts.

I understand Ron Paul's view on Religion as not being a Federal issue, however, I know his personal view on religion is that states can allow religious items to be displayed in public places such as school and courthouses. And it's his personal support of states allowing that, that i oppose. It is very difficult for some religious people to understand, but for an agnostic or atheist, when a courthouse is decorated with religious symbols, it is hard for us believe we will be given a fair and impartial trial. How can you blame us when most religions say "be a part of us or you are a sinner and going to hell"?

Anyone can clear this issue up for me? or maybe that is how Ron Paul feels and if so then I will have to reluctlantly stop supporting him.


I don't agree with RP on everything, either. And I don't see that there would be any candidate that I agreed with 100% (except me, maybe). The stakes are too great to fall out on one little issue. The most important thing that would come from a RP presidency would be a step toward restoration of the republic that we were given. Do you realize that the founding fathers were Christians and that worship services were held in Congress (and not just prayers) and that that is part of the republic? If you have been told anything else, you have been lied to.

So I hope that you can stay with us. Let us know if you need more information.

lynn

[Duckman]

Well, before we get too caught up saying this should be handled by the states, I want to point out that there is a constitutional question here...

The first amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The question is... does putting religious symbols of one particular religion in government buildings, or allowing prayer in schools, or things of that nature, qualify as an "establishment" of religion? Or does banning them constitute a prohibition of the free exercise?

As an atheist (although not a rabid one), and a constitutionalist, my opinion is that the first amendment means that the government should be NEUTRAL when it comes to religion.

In my opinion, that means:

1) Government buildings should not contain religious displays, however I would argue that holiday displays (Christmas trees, etc.) have lost their religious meaning and are OK.
2) Voluntary religious events (voluntary school prayer, voluntary after-school religious groups) on government property are OK. But there should be zero negative repercussions if you choose not to participate.

Ron's intepretation of the establishment/free exercise clauses differs from mine. I will accept that and vote for him anyway.

[wbbgjr]

If you would stop supporting him for something that doesn't even effect his policies as a federal presidential candidate, then all I can say is 'wow'. You must not hold very strongly to any other principles! Maybe you're an evangelical atheist, and feel that followers of religious ought be "saved" by your superior ideology. Maybe you saw "freedom of religion" in the constitution and saw "freedom from religion" instead. Who knows.

This is silly, though.

I don't understand the hostility. I never mentioned "saving" people from religion. You did and i can't help but be reminded about how the same type of spin is used on Ron Paul.

You bring up a good point though, that does any of this have to do with the policies if he were president, but it's very hard to concentrate on your good points when the natural reaction is to insult you back.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Just because it will be a state issue doesn't mean it's going to happen. If the issue comes up in your state, it will only give you more power to voice your opinion/opposition to it. If everything is left at the federal level, individual voices are drowned out. I go back and forth between athiest and agnostic.. and I am all for putting these decisions at the state level.

Exactly! We have so much more power on the state level than on the national level.

[ZackM]

Hey guys. I've been a big Ron Paul supporter. Spreading the word and donating to the campaign.

I agree with him on a lot of the issues and admire him for his principles, however, I'm starting to have my doubts of supporting him because of the whole religion issue.

I'm not part of any organized religion. Personally, I see that as "separating people into groups" and whenever we do that history has shown it is a potential to conflicts.

I understand Ron Paul's view on Religion as not being a Federal issue, however, I know his personal view on religion is that states can allow religious items to be displayed in public places such as school and courthouses. And it's his personal support of states allowing that, that i oppose. It is very difficult for some religious people to understand, but for an agnostic or atheist, when a courthouse is decorated with religious symbols, it is hard for us believe we will be given a fair and impartial trial. How can you blame us when most religions say "be a part of us or you are a sinner and going to hell"?

Anyone can clear this issue up for me? or maybe that is how Ron Paul feels and if so then I will have to reluctlantly stop supporting him.


You're problem is not with Ron Paul. Your problem is with his strict interpretation of the constitution. So many of us were turned on to the message for this exact purpose. Even though we have many different political ideologies, we can all unite in restoring the Constitution and the rule of law coming first.

The founders wanted to ensure there would never be a "Church of the United States". In that effort they succeeded in removing the opportunity for the US to slide into a religeous monarchy like they had just escaped.

Constitution first, personal beliefs 2nd. Lobby to ammend the Constitution, but never argue to undermine it.

If there is question as to who has the authority, that authority is automatically granted to the states and the people.

[wbbgjr]

If you would stop supporting him for something that doesn't even effect his policies as a federal presidential candidate, then all I can say is 'wow'. You must not hold very strongly to any other principles! Maybe you're an evangelical atheist, and feel that followers of religious ought be "saved" by your superior ideology. Maybe you saw "freedom of religion" in the constitution and saw "freedom from religion" instead. Who knows.

This is silly, though.

Well, I thought about it.. and yes it does concern him as a President. Let's just say the Constitution allows religious symbols in courthouses (that's disputed), then a President can still lead the charge to have the Constitution amended. So yes, it does concern his presidency. The President's greatest asset is that he can influence the opinion of the people with all that media air time (look at the pre-Iraq war propoganda).

I understand that I'll never be in agreement with one candidate 100% of the time. I just have to weigh whether or not this issue is too important for me to ignore. I have to say even if I drop my fanatical support of Ron Paul, I will probably still vote for Ron Paul since I do respect him too much.

[SeanEdwards]

i don't mind either, but i am a christian. i think they can have whatever symbols they want, because it should not change the laws and what people are permitted and not permitted to do.

So does that mean you'd have no worries about going to trial in a court covered with satanic imagery?

[Phil M]

Do you realize that the founding fathers were Christians and that worship services were held in Congress (and not just prayers) and that that is part of the republic? If you have been told anything else, you have been lied to.


A lot of them were deists, though, Jefferson and Thomas Paine being the greatest examples. Many of the were also Unitarians, which is basically the closest thing to agnosticism while still remaining religious.

[maiki]

So does that mean you'd have no worries about going to trial in a court covered with satanic imagery?

It depends... is the satanic imagery offensive to other religions (i.e. implies discrimination or wish to quash other religions or religious people), explicitly sexual or overtly violent? Those things bother me. The first because it implies that they are preventing the free exercise of religion by force, and the latter two because it is improper.

It doesn't bother me if it is a angry goat head or a pentagram. Neither does a crescent moon, a pentacle, a spaghetti monster picture, a statue of shiva or a darwin fish make me think justice will not be served. But that is just me.

Such things in local governments and state legislatures have always been up to the local governments and state legislatures. I don't understand these sad faces (:( ) directed at Dr. Paul. It isn't like he is going to start mandating that your local courthouse be filled with pictures of Jesus.

[ThePieSwindler]

Hey guys. I've been a big Ron Paul supporter. Spreading the word and donating to the campaign.

I agree with him on a lot of the issues and admire him for his principles, however, I'm starting to have my doubts of supporting him because of the whole religion issue.

I'm not part of any organized religion. Personally, I see that as "separating people into groups" and whenever we do that history has shown it is a potential to conflicts.

I understand Ron Paul's view on Religion as not being a Federal issue, however, I know his personal view on religion is that states can allow religious items to be displayed in public places such as school and courthouses. And it's his personal support of states allowing that, that i oppose. It is very difficult for some religious people to understand, but for an agnostic or atheist, when a courthouse is decorated with religious symbols, it is hard for us believe we will be given a fair and impartial trial. How can you blame us when most religions say "be a part of us or you are a sinner and going to hell"?

Anyone can clear this issue up for me? or maybe that is how Ron Paul feels and if so then I will have to reluctlantly stop supporting him.

If you are going to stop supporting him based on this issue (which isn't really even an issue if you actuall examine what he writes in depth), then while they are taking the ten commandments out of the courthouses to appease you, they will also be taking away your guns, your privacy, and your freedom of speech (yes, certainly democrats have even called for limits on speech!), and your money. So enjoy that!

People on both sides of the arguement misunderstand the concept of seperation of church and state. The first amendment says congress shall write no law respecting an establishment of religion OR prohibiting thereof. This means that religion shall have no say in public policy or affairs of the state, but otherwise shall be free to do as it will, and that government should not intervene. As far as religious symbols like the ten commandments in courtrooms, well - as long as it is not directly afffecting the due process of law, why does it matter? They are just symbols. If you want them removed, do it through local means, not through a federal government ban.

Ron Paul is not advocating that religion should affect public policy, and that the state should not intervene in religion just as it should not intervene in the marketplace and in the lives of individuals. He is advocating that religion should be given just as much freedom as individual liberty, because religion is participatory. Seperating people into groups, or collectivism, only applies to groups where the "membership" is not participatory. People who join religions freely choose to associate with that group. It is not collectivism because, again, the membership in the group is of a participatory nature. When ron talks about allowing prayer in schools, he means allowing individuals to pray freely based on their own decision. He is not saying we should go back to the days of mandatory prayer.

Probably the phrase that Ron Paul has written that gets most miscontrued is when he writes in the "War on Religion" piece, is that the "church would eclipse the state in importance". Think about that for a second. Importance in what? In lawmaking? thats what the 1st amendment prohibits! No, he means everyday life of the majority of the population. Who is more efficient and effective at giving relief and helping the poor, the state bureaucracy or the churches who genuinely care because it is part of what they believe in? Who is a more important (voluntary) cultural component, the state or the church? Well its the state because they have infiltrated every aspect of our lives. But it should be the voluntary organization, the church. It does not mean the church (or synogogue, mosque, etc) will take over society and impose its will upon people, it simply means it will be a more important cultural component to society overall.

This really is not an issue that should make or break Ron paul for you... but i don't even see why its an issue at all. He simply believes government intervention should be out of free practice of religion. If you feel a religious organization has exploited you or infringed upon your liberties in any way you take them to court and settle it in the courts. Religion in america is a freely practiced, particpatory institution, at least, thats what the founders and Ron Paul envision.

[maiki]

Many of the were also Unitarians, which is basically the closest thing to agnosticism while still remaining religious.

Nowadays (since 1961) the Unitarian Church joined with the Universalist Church, and they are like you describe. However, before, Unitarians were more of a "in between" religion between Trinitarian Christianity and strict monotheism like Judaism. So don't assume old-time Unitarians were anything like today's Unitarian Universalist Church. They were probably more like Christians who denied the doctrine of the Trinity (thus the term Unitarian vis a vis Trinitarian).

[Phil M]

Nowadays (since 1961) the Unitarian Church joined with the Universalist Church, and they are like you describe. However, before, Unitarians were more of a "in between" religion between Trinitarian Christianity and strict monotheism like Judaism. So don't assume old-time Unitarians were anything like today's Unitarian Universalist Church.

I stand corrected. So now all I have to work with is Paine and Jefferson...

[mdh]

I would like to push for Baphomet imagery in courthouses locally, and would do so given freedom from evangelical atheists.

Discuss.

[mdh]

I stand corrected. So now all I have to work with is Paine and Jefferson...

Actually many of them described themselves as "Deists"; believers in God but not in a central authoritarian church.

[DeadheadForPaul]

As some who switches between agnostic and deist, I also don't care too much for Dr. Paul's religious beliefs, but I deeply respect him and know that he will not infringe on our rights as individuals. He has his own personal beliefs, and I have my own. As long as he does not seek to legislate morality or use government as a tool to enforce his religious beliefs, then I am behind him.

Over 10 terms, Dr. Paul has not once let his religion get in the way of his defense of liberty. He could honestly be a scientologist for all I care

[Phil M]

Actually many of them described themselves as "Deists"; believers in God but not in a central authoritarian church.

Wikipedia says that "Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, James Wilson, and James Madison" were all influenced by deistic thought, but remained traditional Christians. I think that is the heart of the debate between secularists and Christians over the religion of the Founders: they were heavily influenced by deism, yet still religious, hence all the contradictory statements by them.

[Phil M]

As an atheist, there are only two things I care about when looking at a candidate's religion:

1. They won't be like some people advising Bush right now and think that they need to fulfill prophesy and
2. They don't wear their religion on their sleeves. I don't mind a candidate like Huckabee being open and candid about his religion, but now all of a sudden all the frontrunners have religious advisers and are pandering to religious voters just to get elected.

Dr. Paul is fine on both of those questions, and his words on the separation of church and state at the last debate were good enough for me.

[ThePieSwindler]

A lot of them were deists, though, Jefferson and Thomas Paine being the greatest examples. Many of the were also Unitarians, which is basically the closest thing to agnosticism while still remaining religious.

Thomas Paine was really the only true deist who disparaged religion, and even Ben Franklin called him out on it by retorting that the morals of men are better of because of religion. Jefferson was a "deist" in the sense that he had doubts about the divine nature of christ, but he was also fairly active in religious life and believed religion to be a much better institution than the state. He certainly did not seek to limit it from society, only to take out its influence on the lawmaking process. He did seek to limit the state.

[aravoth]

Sigh... this issue will be beaten down forever. Everyone syas they like the constitution until it comes to something like this where it says "congress shall write no law". Same thing when people whine about the second amendment. "Yeah I'm all for the bill of rights, except for guns, we shouldn't have guns".

Anyway. We don't need our federal overlords telling us what we can and can't do. Its rediculous. Wether it be religion or anything else. I don't care for prayer in school. I don't think it's nessescary. But you can't stop a kid from praying before the football game. He's gonna do it no matter what peice of paper says he can't. He can pray to christ, satan, or Lord Aravoth! :D . The point is, why can't people just leave others alone? So you don't like prayer in school, that doesn't give you the right to tell 300 million people (wether or not they agree with you) that becuase you got your little feelers hurt they can't do something that people have been doing for thousands of years.

Personally I think everyone is full of crap when it comes to this kind of stuff. Of all the things we need to be worrying about. Church and state is by far and away the lowest priority. You might think it's not, you might think it's some kind of huge indoctrination machine, I don't care. We are nearing 4000 dead soldiers in Iraq now, the civilians casulaties are immense, and we are about to run into the largest entitlement deficit in history. Keep argueing about little distracting crap like church and stae, and we're going to wake up in World War 3, completely broke, and unable to fund the schools you worked so hard at keeping religion out of.

Point is, we've got bigger fish to fry right now. If abortion can survive President Bush, church and state will survive Ron Paul.

[wbbgjr]

Sigh... this issue will be beaten down forever. Everyone syas they like the constitution until it comes to something like this where it says "congress shall write no law". Same thing when people whine about the second amendment. "Yeah I'm all for the bill of rights, except for guns, we shouldn't have guns".

Anyway. We don't need our federal overlords telling us what we can and can't do. Its rediculous. Wether it be religion or anything else. I don't care for prayer in school. I don't think it's nessescary. But you can't stop a kid from praying before the football game. He's gonna do it no matter what peice of paper says he can't. He can pray to christ, satan, or Lord Aravoth! :D . The point is, why can't people just leave others alone? So you don't like prayer in school, that doesn't give you the right to tell 300 million people (wether or not they agree with you) that becuase you got your little feelers hurt they can't do something that people have been doing for thousands of years.

Personally I think everyone is full of crap when it comes to this kind of stuff. Of all the things we need to be worrying about. Church and state is by far and away the lowest priority. You might think it's not, you might think it's some kind of huge indoctrination machine, I don't care. We are nearing 4000 dead soldiers in Iraq now, the civilians casulaties are immense, and we are about to run into the largest entitlement deficit in history. Keep argueing about little distracting crap like church and stae, and we're going to wake up in World War 3, completely broke, and unable to fund the schools you worked so hard at keeping religion out of.

Point is, we've got bigger fish to fry right now. If abortion can survive President Bush, church and state will survive Ron Paul.

I dont' see this issue as a freedom of expression issue, but the right for a minority to receive a fair and impartial trial or an equal education. Just as I believe the question in the abortion shouldn't be "does the woman have a right to choose?", I believe the question is "At what point should the fetus be considered a human life?"

I agree with you though, currently, this isn't the most important issue since we have such a horrible situation in other areas.

I'm going to drop this issue for now. Ron Paul is the last candidate I would fear to take away my liberties so I'm definitely still voting for him.

by the way aravoth, love your videos. they are by far the best out there. one friendly opinion.. Please give the viewer more time to read the texts and maybe have a first time Ron Paul viewer version where you cut down on the long text. I love the text but I believe for the average person we are trying to convert they love seeing visual and hearing audio.

[PaleoForPaul]

I know his personal view on religion is that states can allow religious items to be displayed in public places such as school and courthouses. And it's his personal support of states allowing that, that i oppose. It is very difficult for some religious people to understand, but for an agnostic or atheist, when a courthouse is decorated with religious symbols, it is hard for us believe we will be given a fair and impartial trial. How can you blame us when most religions say "be a part of us or you are a sinner and going to hell"?

People should be free to do as they like on the local level. If Jesusland, Alabama wants to put a cross in their courtroom, they should be able to. If you are a resident, and you don't like it, you can lobby to have it removed. If San Francisco wants to shape their court entrance like it's a gaping butthole, they should be able to do so to.

Freedom might offend you sometimes, but at least if these things are decided on the local level you can change things, or in the worst case, move.

Personally, I don't want the federal government telling my local government what they can and can not display. When a local atheist gets the federal government to tell my town government they can't put up a christmas tree, that is just as bad as having a federally sanctioned religion stuffed down my throat. They are using the federal government to force their values and wants upon other people.

I'd like to see different laws in towns, states and cities. Especially laws on 'culture war' type issues. It would be like a free market approach to law, people could move and live under whatever system they wanted.

It feels like sometimes people are willing to endorse freedom until it offends them, then they must run to the government to force their morals on other people.

I'm sorry if this came off a bit rude or blunt.

[wbbgjr]

People should be free to do as they like on the local level. If Jesusland, Alabama wants to put a cross in their courtroom, they should be able to. If you are a resident, and you don't like it, you can lobby to have it removed. If San Francisco wants to shape their court entrance like it's a gaping butthole, they should be able to do so to.

Freedom might offend you sometimes, but at least if these things are decided on the local level you can change things, or in the worst case, move.

Personally, I don't want the federal government telling my local government what they can and can not display. When a local atheist gets the federal government to tell my town government they can't put up a christmas tree, that is just as bad as having a federally sanctioned religion stuffed down my throat. They are using the federal government to force their values and wants upon other people.

I'd like to see different laws in towns, states and cities. Especially laws on 'culture war' type issues. It would be like a free market approach to law, people could move and live under whatever system they wanted.

It feels like sometimes people are willing to endorse freedom until it offends them, then they must run to the government to force their morals on other people.

I'm sorry if this came off a bit rude or blunt.

Ok. I promise this is my last reply, cuz i think i should get back to actions that will help Ron Paul.

I don't think this is a moral issue, it is protection of our liberty and rights issue. I believe if it is a private organization then they can discriminate or be as biased as much as they want, but I'm talking about our government (whether it be federal or state or local). If our government is endorsing a particular religion (which I believe putting up religious symbols is), then how can they protect the minorities liberties and freedoms and guarantee to act impartially?

[lynnf]

Ok. I promise this is my last reply, cuz i think i should get back to actions that will help Ron Paul.

I don't think this is a moral issue, it is protection of our liberty and rights issue. I believe if it is a private organization then they can discriminate or be as biased as much as they want, but I'm talking about our government (whether it be federal or state or local). If our government is endorsing a particular religion (which I believe putting up religious symbols is), then how can they protect the minorities liberties and freedoms and guarantee to act impartially?

Please don't regard this as an invitation to reply.

Also, please don't forget that we have the liberties and freedoms precisely
because of the religion of the founders. And that is why, in a perfect world,
the minority would be protected as you suggest. If Christianity were practiced more perfectly by those in government, the protection would follow.

lynn

[lynnf]

A lot of them were deists, though, Jefferson and Thomas Paine being the greatest examples. Many of the were also Unitarians, which is basically the closest thing to agnosticism while still remaining religious.


I've heard that the assertion that "they were deists" is a myth, propagated by those that want to promote the "wall of separation" myth which only comes from a Jefferson quote.

lynn

[lynnf]

Nowadays (since 1961) the Unitarian Church joined with the Universalist Church, and they are like you describe. However, before, Unitarians were more of a "in between" religion between Trinitarian Christianity and strict monotheism like Judaism. So don't assume old-time Unitarians were anything like today's Unitarian Universalist Church. They were probably more like Christians who denied the doctrine of the Trinity (thus the term Unitarian vis a vis Trinitarian).

Thanks for pointing that out. Also, the Unitarians were limiited to largely Boston
and the close surrounding area at the time of the Revolution even up to the turn of
the century. So, there weren't many of the founding fathers that were Unitarian, if
even a handful.


lynn

[rich34]

Hey guys. I've been a big Ron Paul supporter. Spreading the word and donating to the campaign.

I agree with him on a lot of the issues and admire him for his principles, however, I'm starting to have my doubts of supporting him because of the whole religion issue.

I'm not part of any organized religion. Personally, I see that as "separating people into groups" and whenever we do that history has shown it is a potential to conflicts.

I understand Ron Paul's view on Religion as not being a Federal issue, however, I know his personal view on religion is that states can allow religious items to be displayed in public places such as school and courthouses. And it's his personal support of states allowing that, that i oppose. It is very difficult for some religious people to understand, but for an agnostic or atheist, when a courthouse is decorated with religious symbols, it is hard for us believe we will be given a fair and impartial trial. How can you blame us when most religions say "be a part of us or you are a sinner and going to hell"?

Anyone can clear this issue up for me? or maybe that is how Ron Paul feels and if so then I will have to reluctlantly stop supporting him.

The only thing I can tell you about this is that Ron Paul will be the head of the executive branch of government. It's the judical branch that would sort something like this out by interpreting the constitution. I HIGHLY doubt that Ron Paul would be pushing for this kind of thing with all the other big things we have to worry about. So imo, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about it. He's a constitutionalist and will let the system work itself out. If all these signs are not in the courthouses now under Bush then I doubt they'll ever be there.

Personally, I believe in Christ, but I'm not going to take the Bible and beat you over the head with it. I understand fully where your coming from. Look at it this way at least he's already told the religous groups that under his administration our federal government will not be giving handouts. That's a positive right? He also will not be funding the zionist of Israel. Again, another positive. Come on man stay onboard! We need people from ALL walks of life!