Ron Paul quotation - Is it a hoax?

[lehighguy]

No. You are making this up. He has stated many times he doesn't believe in forced school prayer. How [censored] obvious can the constitution get on this matter:

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

Congress should not be telling to they have to practice religion or that they can't practice religion. How hard is this to understand.

[Taso]

forced school prayer is different from school prayer. Ron Paul supports the latter - the ability of a student to pray, not the forcing of all students to pray.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who hear thinks Ron Paul is going to use his posistion as president to enact religously motivated legislation forcing his morality on others?

Any takers? What laws do you believe he would propose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who believes he might appoint judges who are more willing to allow religion into the public square than what we have now --- judges that will move away from the standards we have in place now --- judges that might, for example, allow school prayer?

Any takers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he's very likely to appoint judges that make rulings based on what the Constitution says instead of what they want it to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then you agree with me...it matters. Saying it's irrelevant or suggesting that Paul couldn't/wouldn't do anything about those beliefs if president is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wasn't the one who said it was irrelevant, but no, I'm not agreeing with you. It is irrelevant. He will appoint those judges because he believes in the Constitution and his religion is irrelevant. I'm very anti-Christian myself and I would appoint the same judges as he would. Yes, he will appoint judges that might FORCE school prayer to take place, but it will have absolutely nothing to do with his religious views.

So yes, he would stop people like you from forcing your morals on others. I would too.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hypocritical, DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, he wouldn't be forcing his morals on anyone, he would keep the federal government from doing just that.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
So, it's in our genes? Some of us have better genes than others? Those with the better genes, being those who do not have tainted cash in their freezer and are not professional assassins?

Or, would an atheist consider being a professional assassin, if, he only had to accept contracts to kill people he believed deserved it; such as someone else who has committed or ordered murder, such as a drug kingpin?

Can you name one non-believer who has devoted their life to the less fortunate as Mother Theresa did?

And don't go off on me, I have no respect for the Catholic Church, only Mother Theresa. Did she just have really good genes? Because I know a preacher man who has a $23,000.00 toilet made out of marble, while thousands are starving to death all over the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's probably somewhat 'easier' to do good things if you think there's an invisible wizard in the sky constantly tallying everything you do, but the belief in the absence of said sky wizard doesn't turn people into raging nihilists. I'm not putting you down, because this is a legitimate 20'th century philosophical question, but it's been answered quite a bit from many different perspectives. And yes, of course, genetics and upbringing are the two things that likely matter most; it doesn't take a bad childhood to be a serial killer (although it sure helps), and it does not take a good one to turn out to be Mother Teresa (who, BTW, was no doubt a great person, but did have a few skeletons in her closet). But nothing inherent in the perceived absence of an invisible sky wizard makes people into monsters; there are a few hundred million Chinese out there right now that aren't really any different from us.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, it's in our genes? Some of us have better genes than others? Those with the better genes, being those who do not have tainted cash in their freezer and are not professional assassins?

Or, would an atheist consider being a professional assassin, if, he only had to accept contracts to kill people he believed deserved it; such as someone else who has committed or ordered murder, such as a drug kingpin?

Can you name one non-believer who has devoted their life to the less fortunate as Mother Theresa did?

And don't go off on me, I have no respect for the Catholic Church, only Mother Theresa. Did she just have really good genes? Because I know a preacher man who has a $23,000.00 toilet made out of marble, while thousands are starving to death all over the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's probably somewhat 'easier' to do good things if you think there's an invisible wizard in the sky constantly tallying everything you do, but the belief in the absence of said sky wizard doesn't turn people into raging nihilists. I'm not putting you down, because this is a legitimate 20'th century philosophical question, but it's been answered quite a bit from many different perspectives. And yes, of course, genetics and upbringing are the two things that likely matter most; it doesn't take a bad childhood to be a serial killer (although it sure helps), and it does not take a good one to turn out to be Mother Teresa (who, BTW, was no doubt a great person, but did have a few skeletons in her closet). But nothing inherent in the perceived absence of an invisible sky wizard makes people into monsters; there are a few hundred million Chinese out there right now that aren't really any different from us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I ask is I sometimes wonder why my willingness to help others is limited, even though it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when I do. I do not, however, send half of a windfall profit for instance, to UNICEF to help the poor, when I didn't need the windfall to reach my retirement objectives. I hardly give any thought to harsh conditions people live under throughout the world.
I do, however, donate to local charities, so long as my retirement goals are on track, and no windfall profits go to the local ones either.

Other people, however, will be quick to pass off a good part of that windfall to those in need in local charities. I give x amount to two homeless shelters in my area and that's about it, other than the humane society, and food bank drives.

You know, I am one of those who stops giving long before it hurts.

I guess my genes are neutral, and Maslow was right and we all strive to belong in some way feel as if we are a contributor to at least our local society.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, wow, amazing to see haters jump all over Paul for one minor misstatement. Yes, the Constitution isn't replete with references to God, but the writings of the Founders in general are. His point in that article is that the people who created this country were very much God-fearing types, and he's completely correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is misleading, if not flatly wrong. Many of the founding fathers, if not most, did not accept the idea of a "personal God" who intervened in events, in the way that is normally associated with Christianity today by non-Christians who have no idea what they're talking about. They were spiritual in a much looser sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, Alex you are extremely misinformed here!

First and foremost our founders where children of the enlightenment, without an understanding of ancient greek philosophy, logic, reason, the writings of voltaire, rejection of the mystical and spiritual the constitution simply could not exist.

More importantly to understand why they were Deists, it must be acknowledged that this was BEFORE DARWIN. The Design/Designor argument was not only the leading philosophy of the time but with the collective knowledge of the time it was the correct one. However, Darwin changed all that, that Design/Designer argumet has been proven false now. So it would be an accurate statement to state that if alive today our founders such as Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Payne etc would be ATHEISTS. WHich of course is ironic considering that they would thus be unelectable.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

oaf/affirm + excluding sunday = practical

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think excluding sundays was just an accident and not an observation of the christian sabbath then you are just delusional.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

More importantly to understand why they were Deists, it must be acknowledged that this was BEFORE DARWIN. The Design/Designor argument was not only the leading philosophy of the time but with the collective knowledge of the time it was the correct one. However, Darwin changed all that, that Design/Designer argumet has been proven false now. So it would be an accurate statement to state that if alive today our founders such as Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Payne etc would be ATHEISTS. WHich of course is ironic considering that they would thus be unelectable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Jefferson: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

Washington to Delaware Indian Chiefs: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

So in 2 minutes of googling, I disproved 2 out of 4 of your claims. Presumably those 2 would be among the more debatable of the dozens of Founding Fathers.

Furthermore, assuming Darwin has any kind of relevance is the most insane random assertion I've seen this week. Society as a whole certainly has a great deal of influence, and it's probable that some of the men in question would be agnostics if they were around today (probably not atheists though), but attributing this shift entirely to Darwin is... well... almost worshipful. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

More importantly to understand why they were Deists, it must be acknowledged that this was BEFORE DARWIN. The Design/Designor argument was not only the leading philosophy of the time but with the collective knowledge of the time it was the correct one. However, Darwin changed all that, that Design/Designer argumet has been proven false now. So it would be an accurate statement to state that if alive today our founders such as Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Payne etc would be ATHEISTS. WHich of course is ironic considering that they would thus be unelectable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Jefferson: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

Washington to Delaware Indian Chiefs: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

So in 2 minutes of googling, I disproved 2 out of 4 of your claims. Presumably those 2 would be among the more debatable of the dozens of Founding Fathers.

Furthermore, assuming Darwin has any kind of relevance is the most insane random assertion I've seen this week. Society as a whole certainly has a great deal of influence, and it's probable that some of the men in question would be agnostics if they were around today (probably not atheists though), but attributing this shift entirely to Darwin is... well... almost worshipful. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819


I got google to you know.
Again he was a deist, but he DID believe in Christianity in some convoluted sense. He did not believe Jesus to be devine however, his beliefs where somewhat strange to be quite honest. Basically he thought Jesus was a pretty cool dude, like some Americans are Budhists in some convaluted sense.

]
To your second assertion, an understanding of the enlightenment and the philosophical works of the time, my assertion is not random but dead accurate. Jefferson is noted as being quite taken with the watch in a field metaphor, or whatever version of it was being peddled at the time.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

oaf/affirm + excluding sunday = practical

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think excluding sundays was just an accident and not an observation of the christian sabbath then you are just delusional.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should all sue the post office for being closed on sunday, thereby imposing religious values upon us.