Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Ron Paul's glaring downfall Ron Paul's glaring downfall

11-16-2007 , 08:25 AM
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.
I do not think this says what you think it says.

In fact, it doesn't say anything controversial at all.
"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?
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.
11-16-2007 , 08:27 AM
[x] adds nothing to the op, is not even relevant! Yes it is a Taso post! [sic]
11-16-2007 , 08:41 AM
touche.

Midge, which candidate do you want to win anyways?
11-16-2007 , 08:43 AM
Obama! Without a shadow of a doubt! If not Obama, then any democrat.
11-16-2007 , 08:46 AM
Ok. Just so you know, Obama voted to fund the Iraq war. Ron Paul didn't.
11-16-2007 , 08:57 AM
Quote:
Ok. Just so you know, Obama voted to fund the Iraq war. Ron Paul didn't.
Here is Obama voting record and here is Paul's voting record. I stand by my choice! [sic]
11-16-2007 , 09:08 AM
Sweet, awesome website, thanks for the link.


(I'm switching to Obama by the way)
11-16-2007 , 10:14 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education
Amazing from someone who benefited from it!

How?
11-16-2007 , 10:16 AM
Alex...Midge doesn't know. Don't pressure him!
11-16-2007 , 10:18 AM
Quote:
Alex...Midge doesn't know. Don't pressure him!
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.
11-16-2007 , 10:19 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education
Amazing from someone who benefited from it!

How?
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.
11-16-2007 , 10:20 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Alex...Midge doesn't know. Don't pressure him!
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.
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.
11-16-2007 , 10:23 AM
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.
11-16-2007 , 10:25 AM
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.
you and I, sir, are in complete agreement.
11-16-2007 , 10:31 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Alex...Midge doesn't know. Don't pressure him!
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.
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.
11-16-2007 , 10:33 AM
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.
I had no idea. Where did this phrase come from?

Do you believe, that if schools were fully funded through property taxes, i.e citizens in the school district, that neither the state nor the federal government would have any say as to whether they pray or honor the flag/country in home period (start of the day) if that school district, by vote of its citizens, chose to do so?
11-16-2007 , 10:37 AM
Quote:
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.
Jesus!!! You're talking about giving billions of dollars to church leaders (who molest children & buy 23k marble toilets) to distribute to those in need.

And I thought I needed help.
11-16-2007 , 10:37 AM
Quote:
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.
I had no idea. Where did this phrase come from?

Do you believe, that if schools were fully funded through property taxes, i.e citizens in the school district, that neither the state nor the federal government would have any say as to whether they pray or honor the flag/country in home period (start of the day) if that school district, by vote of its citizens, chose to do so?
Thomas Jefferson
11-16-2007 , 10:47 AM
Quote:
Quote:
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.
I had no idea. Where did this phrase come from?

Do you believe, that if schools were fully funded through property taxes, i.e citizens in the school district, that neither the state nor the federal government would have any say as to whether they pray or honor the flag/country in home period (start of the day) if that school district, by vote of its citizens, chose to do so?
Thomas Jefferson
Thank you for the link!

Here is his quote I like the most, that references the 1st Amendment:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God , that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

[/quote]

Based on that quote, I can answer my own question about prayer in school. It has no place in that type a public setting, because if 51% of the citizens in the school district vote in favor of prayer in school, the other 49% are denied the opportunity to exercise Jefferson's beliefs.
11-16-2007 , 10:49 AM
Quote:
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.
you and I, sir, are in complete agreement.
I would also agree, in whole, if it were not for the fact that many churches are just as, if not more, corrupt than government.
11-16-2007 , 11:04 AM
Quote:
Quote:
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.
you and I, sir, are in complete agreement.
I would also agree, in whole, if it were not for the fact that many churches are just as, if not more, corrupt than government.
I wouldn't say many. But I agree, there would be corrupt charities/churches that might squander the money instead of helping out the poor, etc. The whole point though, is that because your donations to the church/charity would be volountary, if a church/charity didn't help as it said it would, you could donate to a different church/charity, instead of being forced to "donate" (taxes) to one single government, that if corrupt, could take years to fix.

^Right ACists?

I'm not entirely in line with that way of thinking, but I'm somewhere near it. Don't qoute me on any of that stuff though, this whole way of thinking is very new to me.
11-16-2007 , 11:06 AM
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!
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
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.)
11-16-2007 , 12:08 PM
Quote:
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.
you and I, sir, are in complete agreement.
please never stop posting here.
11-16-2007 , 12:13 PM
I think his summary is probably correct (although it doesn't hold for Jefferson). That said, what the Founding Fathers felt about a robustly Christian America should have no effect on what our society should think about religion's place in America today. And I would worry about a man who thinks it should.
11-16-2007 , 12:16 PM
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Jesus!!! You're talking about giving billions of dollars to church leaders (who molest children & buy 23k marble toilets) to distribute to those in need.

And I thought I needed help.
No, he's not talking about giving billions of dollars to church leaders. It's not like taxes will be collected the same way as they are now, then handed over to churches to distribute.

The status quo inovolves "giving" billions of dollars to state leaders who molest children and buy $400M bridges to nowhere, $2,000,000,000,000 wars in iraq, etc.

      
m