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.

[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

[Sholar]

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).

[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.

[Taso]

[ 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 ]

[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!