Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

From Ron Paul's wikipedia entry:

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom of religion in public life

Paul has consistently advocated that the federal government not be involved in citizens' everyday lives. For instance, he believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at the federal or state level.[92][93]

In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote, "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. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[94]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[95] If made law, this provision would permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to establish a religion.

Paul has sponsored a Constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has some decent ideas, but his position on religion is just baffling. Apparently separation of church and state is just a myth to him.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

It is. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law", not that no one else can. When this country was founded many of the states had state relgions. The primary purpose of keeping the federal government out of religion was to keep any of the different branches of protestantism from gaining supremacy. Some states even required you to be members of that state's relgion in order to vote!

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

Alex,

The 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment (among others) applicable to the states (at least that is how it has been repeatedly interpreted by the Supreme Court). There is absolutely no way a state could constitutionally endorse an official state religion.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
Alex,

The 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment (among others) applicable to the states (at least that is how it has been repeatedly interpreted by the Supreme Court). There is absolutely no way a state could constitutionally endorse an official state religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware of this. I was responding to the OP's apparant belief that Ron Paul's statement of "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance" seemed kinda nutty when in reality it's simply true.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

I think the key, the real reason Ron Paul emphasizes this is because he believes many of the financial burdens placed on the federal government (disaster relief, [federal?] welfare, etc) were intended to be handled by those "vital institutions", the churches - or other charities. I could be wrong though, but I know I've heard him advocate churches helping.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law", not that no one else can. When this country was founded many of the states had state relgions. The primary purpose of keeping the federal government out of religion was to keep any of the different branches of protestantism from gaining supremacy. Some states even required you to be members of that state's relgion in order to vote!

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to be a slight history buff (a few history courses in college w/ some credits after i had enough for my double major and AP US/ AP European history in high school) but i had no idea about this.

how did we get the "separation" interpretation we have today?

was it struck down by some interpretive supreme court (ruling that "congress shall make no law" implies that all govts federal or otherwise shall make no law)?

interesting stuff...if you could take a few moments to expound upon it i'd bea ppreciative.

thanks,
Barron

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

Which states had a religious test for voting? I know of a couple which had religious tests for holding office or the like, but would be curious which or how many states had religious tests for voting.

Also, Article Six gives some protection against religious tests, but not at the state level (or, it has never been held by the Supreme Court to do so and is sort of a moot point now).

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law", not that no one else can. When this country was founded many of the states had state relgions. The primary purpose of keeping the federal government out of religion was to keep any of the different branches of protestantism from gaining supremacy. Some states even required you to be members of that state's relgion in order to vote!

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to be a slight history buff (a few history courses in college w/ some credits after i had enough for my double major and AP US/ AP European history in high school) but i had no idea about this.

how did we get the "separation" interpretation we have today?

was it struck down by some interpretive supreme court (ruling that "congress shall make no law" implies that all govts federal or otherwise shall make no law)?

interesting stuff...if you could take a few moments to expound upon it i'd bea ppreciative.

thanks,
Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Rumor has it you're crazy.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which states had a religious test for voting? I know of a couple which had religious tests for holding office or the like, but would be curious which or how many states had religious tests for voting.

Also, Article Six gives some protection against religious tests, but not at the state level (or, it has never been held by the Supreme Court to do so and is sort of a moot point now).

[/ QUOTE ]

Article Six absolutely does not allow for religious tests to hold office.

[ QUOTE ]
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]

how did we get the "separation" interpretation we have today?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson...d_of_Education

Note that this Supreme Court ruling came 70+ years after the amendment it's using was passed!

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think this says what you think it says.

In fact, it doesn't say anything controversial at all.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]

Article Six absolutely does not allow for religious tests to hold office.

[/ QUOTE ]

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

The governor of say Georgia is under Georgia, not under the United States. This refers specifically to federal officials.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

damn, that's confusing. Is Georgia under the United States?

I'm such a noob [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which states had a religious test for voting? I know of a couple which had religious tests for holding office or the like, but would be curious which or how many states had religious tests for voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having a hard time tracking down specific information on this, although I know it was 2 or 3 New England states. I've found 1810 listed as the last date that any states did this in a couple different places, but then I've also found 1790 and 1830 listed.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think this says what you think it says.

In fact, it doesn't say anything controversial at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

"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"

Does this mean what i think it means?

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think this says what you think it says.

In fact, it doesn't say anything controversial at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, it doesn't even imply that religion should be involved with government. Quite the opposite in fact.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
damn, that's confusing. Is Georgia under the United States?

I'm such a noob [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The states are autonomous entities that are banded together in the alliance known as the United States, very similar to how France, Germany and Italy are part of the European Union. At least that's how it was back then. As such, I interpret that phrase to mean under the federal government. Unlike the "insane" interpretations used for certain other parts of the Constitution though, I accept that that clause is vague enough to be open to debate. OTOH, given that New Hampshire had religious requirements until the 1870s without being challenged on it, it seems likely that the intent of that clause was indeed that it be applied only to federal politicians. Then again, since almost everyone in New Hampshire was likely religious anyway and certainly no one who wasn't religious could realistically be elected, it's possible that no one cared enough to challenge it.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

Ron Paul's only downfall is idiot sheeple who can't understand what he's saying. I don't know if it's because they're really stupid or because they're so used to politicians with no principles saying whatever people want to hear in the most dumbed down way possible.

For example:

RP: I want to abolish the IRS

sheeple: ZOMG the govt can't function without the IRS!

RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education

sheeple: ZOMG RP wants to abolish public schools! How are the poor kids supposed to go to school?????

RP: Religious institutions should be more important than government

sheeple: ZOMG Christian supremecist!


Ron Paul's campaign slogan is "Hope for America." I don't see how anyone could have hope for America when so many of us can't comprehend simple statements.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

Far from being "The Downfall"

This is a mere "tempest in a teapot."

For those wishing to "Downfall" RP, they're are far more important and contentious issues to go after.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
Far from being "The Downfall"

This is a mere "tempest in a teapot."

For those wishing to "Downfall" RP, they're are far more important and contentious issues to go after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your typos/writing problems made it hard to understand what you are saying here.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
RP: Religious institutions should be more important than government

[/ QUOTE ]
Nutty statement


[ QUOTE ]
RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing from someone who benefited from it!


[ QUOTE ]
RP: I want to abolish the IRS

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, all infrastructure is or should be free.


That RP guy sounds like an absolute nut to me! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RP: Religious institutions should be more important than government

[/ QUOTE ]
Nutty statement


[ QUOTE ]
RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing from someone who benefited from it!


[ QUOTE ]
RP: I want to abolish the IRS

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, all infrastructure is or should be free.


That RP guy sounds like an absolute nut to me! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You sir will get this thread going in no time.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Far from being "The Downfall"

This is a mere "tempest in a teapot."

For those wishing to "Downfall" RP, they're are far more important and contentious issues to go after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your typos/writing problems made it hard to understand what you are saying here.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
So much for my great "tuq" experiment in "typing with my balls."


Whet I wassa tryin ta sey wassza dat this XMAS letter bout religiousity is blown out of all proportion and is not a downfall issue.

Though I support RP, he has far more important and controversial positions which intelligent people can debate and form up/down opinions on than this particular silliness.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing from someone who benefited from it!


[/ QUOTE ]

How?

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RP: Religious institutions should be more important than government

[/ QUOTE ]
Nutty statement


[ QUOTE ]
RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing from someone who benefited from it!


[ QUOTE ]
RP: I want to abolish the IRS

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, all infrastructure is or should be free.


That RP guy sounds like an absolute nut to me! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] annoying smileys
[x] excessive exclamation points
[x] writing without any knowledge of topic (apparently what the IRS is)
[x] starting to post right as Taso is going to bed


Yes, it'd a Midge post.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think this says what you think it says.

In fact, it doesn't say anything controversial at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

"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"

Does this mean what i think it means?

[/ QUOTE ]

All the Constitution says about religion is that Congress may not pass a law establishing a State Church, and neither can Congress pass laws that prohibit people from practicing religion.

The words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[x] adds nothing to the op, is not even relevant! Yes it is a Taso post! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [sic]

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

touche.

Midge, which candidate do you want to win anyways?

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

Obama! Without a shadow of a doubt! If not Obama, then any democrat.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

Ok. Just so you know, Obama voted to fund the Iraq war. Ron Paul didn't.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. Just so you know, Obama voted to fund the Iraq war. Ron Paul didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is Obama voting record and here is Paul's voting record. I stand by my choice! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [sic]

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

Sweet, awesome website, thanks for the link.


(I'm switching to Obama by the way)

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing from someone who benefited from it!


[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

Alex...Midge doesn't know. Don't pressure him!

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
Alex...Midge doesn't know. Don't pressure him!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing he's making assumptions about our school system that are false due to him being not from here, but I dunno for sure.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing from someone who benefited from it!


[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think (and it's tough to get into the mindset of midge) that ron paul in fact recieved an education which puts him forever in debt to the department of education. Midge if I'm wrong please correct me.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alex...Midge doesn't know. Don't pressure him!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing he's making assumptions about our school system that are false due to him being not from here, but I dunno for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is what I assumed. If you take out "school system" and replace it with "government" it applies to the majority of his posts.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

The point is that government was envisioned to be very small.

Also, churches can do voluntarily a lot of the things government does coercively, such as raise money for Katrina relief or feed the poor or house the homeless.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the key, the real reason Ron Paul emphasizes this is because he believes many of the financial burdens placed on the federal government (disaster relief, [federal?] welfare, etc) were intended to be handled by those "vital institutions", the churches - or other charities. I could be wrong though, but I know I've heard him advocate churches helping.

[/ QUOTE ]

you and I, sir, are in complete agreement.

Re: Ron Paul\'s glaring downfall
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alex...Midge doesn't know. Don't pressure him!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing he's making assumptions about our school system that are false due to him being not from here, but I dunno for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI MidGe:

Without the Department of Education, there would still be public schools. It would be very similar to what we have today, just without bureaucrats dictating what needs to be studied and how. The Department of Education doesn't actually educate, and without them, we wouldn't have less schools, just less departments.