Ron Paul's glaring downfall

[ata]

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.

[AlexM]

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!

[Claunchy]

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.

[AlexM]

[ 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.

[Taso]

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.

[Taso]

[ 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.

[DcifrThs]

[ 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

[Mr_Moore]

[ 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.

[AlexM]

[ 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!

[elwoodblues]

[ 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 ]

Very early in Constitutional interpretation the word "Congress" in the first amendment was interpreted to mean "Federal Government."

After the passage of the 14th Amendment, courts began interpreting the Due Process clause (i.e. that no person shall be denied by the states "liberty" without due process of law) to incorporate some of the protections of the Bill of Rights. This process began in the 20's (if I remember correctly.)
-----------------
There is heated debate about whether the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause should apply the liberty protections of the Bill of Rights to the States. Personally, I think the best argument against the liberty interests described in the 14th Amendment being inclusive of the Bill of Rights is found not in original intent/meaning, but in the text of the document itself.

The argument goes something like this:
*None of the text of the Constitution should be read to be unnecessary (i.e. all of the clauses should have independent meaning/value.)
*The same language used in different parts of the Constitution should mean the same thing.
*The Due Process Clauses of the 5th Amendment (applied to the federal government) and the 14th have the same language and should, therefore, have the same meaning.
*If the "liberty" interests in the 5th Amendment included, for example, the right to Free Speech then the Free Speech clause of the 1st Amendment would be unnecessary. Thus, "liberty" in the 5th Amendment cannot include the right to free speech (as it is already protected elsewhere.)
*Because the "liberty" clause of the 5th Amendment does not include Free Speech and the 14th Amendment liberty clause has the same meaning as the 5th Amendment liberty clause, then the 14th Amendment liberty clause cannot include the right to free speech.


I think the courts would have been on stronger ground had they read the Priviliges and Immunities clause to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. The P&I clause reads: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Unfortunately, that clause has little meaning today because of an early court decision limiting its scope (the slaughterhouse cases.)