PDA

View Full Version : After reading this I'm liking Ron Paul a little more


BigCatDaddy
07-20-2007, 12:54 PM
The War on Religion

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

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 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.


December 30, 2003

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Fishpicker
07-20-2007, 01:09 PM
2 of his brothers became minsters (Lutheran I think, maybe Episcopal)

CHIEF4EVER
07-20-2007, 02:17 PM
Ron Paul is teh shiznit dawg.

listopencil
07-20-2007, 11:20 PM
"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"

That's a lie. Unless Thomas Jefferson isn't considered a Founding Father, even though he signed the Declaration Of Independence.


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

That's not true either. The Founding Fathers knew of the horrible religious persecution of a National Church and made sure that one couldn't be started here. They also weren't all Christians by any means.


"...chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage"

This reads like something Bush2 would have said before the last election to sway a few million sheeple into his corner. Slippery language like this makes me wonder if this is really an article by Paul at all. The speeches I've heard out of him are full of specific language. These types of sentences have absolutely no meaning.

Taco John
07-21-2007, 12:37 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

ClevelandBronco
07-21-2007, 01:29 AM
...Unless Thomas Jefferson isn't considered a Founding Father, even though he signed the Declaration Of Independence...

He didn't just sign it, listo. He wrote it. That's impressive stuff.

Still, don't confuse the Declaration with the Constitution. The Declaration is a letter to a king. The Constitution is a contract that binds equal men together.

It's not wise to take the intent of either of those documents and superimpose it on the other.

The Declaration is a dream, a prayer and a threat. The Constitution is a contract. The Declaration is immaterial in matters of law that govern the U.S., while the Constitution always holds trump.

BucEyedPea
07-21-2007, 08:31 AM
"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"

That's a lie. Unless Thomas Jefferson isn't considered a Founding Father, even though he signed the Declaration Of Independence.

True, Jefferson felt more strongly about how this would be than some other Founders. Founders were a mix of Masons, Christians and a few agnostics.
Don't forget Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention.
This only referred to the Federal govt at that time as some states had official churches.


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

That's not true either. The Founding Fathers knew of the horrible religious persecution of a National Church and made sure that one couldn't be started here. They also weren't all Christians by any means.

Now what does that line mean?
Paul is saying NOTHING about any National Church here.
He refers to churches as "vital institutions." Not all are public. Paul doesn't say govt founded and I KNOW he doesn't mean funded. Paul is simply referring to churches playing a role in this country....but it's a private role that underpins the country. Just like strong families.



"...chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage"

This reads like something Bush2 would have said before the last election to sway a few million sheeple into his corner. Slippery language like this makes me wonder if this is really an article by Paul at all. The speeches I've heard out of him are full of specific language. These types of sentences have absolutely no meaning.

So what does "heritage" mean?
It's practices that are handed down from the past by tradition.
This has nothing to do with the govt per se. Paul is addressing the culture of the country. This country is 80% Christian.

No this is NOT Bush—at all! That's a misinterpretation. Paul would not fund "faith based" initiatives, start wars to defend Israel or bring about "end times" to convert the Jews. He is simply referring to the underlying culture of this nation. He does not support an official govt church. He probably is not against a Chaplain in congress opening with a prayer, or taking "In God We trust" off our money, God out of the Pledge or references to God in public.

Sorry listo, but you're misinterpreting Paul.
Paul would reduce the public sector which would allow churches to be a bigger role in charity and social work....as it once was. He is a federalist and would allow states to conduct some of these matters on their own which WAS the original intent of the Founders.

BucEyedPea
07-21-2007, 08:39 AM
He didn't just sign it, listo. He wrote it. That's impressive stuff.

Still, don't confuse the Declaration with the Constitution. The Declaration is a letter to a king. The Constitution is a contract that binds equal men together.

It's not wise to take the intent of either of those documents and superimpose it on the other.

The Declaration is a dream, a prayer and a threat. The Constitution is a contract. The Declaration is immaterial in matters of law that govern the U.S., while the Constitution always holds trump.
Declaration shows the fundamental underlying philosophy and purpose behind the founding of our nation. This is ONE document that needs to be taken out of it's glass casing in DC, dusted off and re-read by the very disatisfied people of America to both our Congress and Exec branches.

And don't forget that the original Constitution Convention was also a runaway convention. The Articles of Confederation were also a signed contract and were written to be permanent and only amended later.

Today, the Constitution is virtually ignored: lawyers are trained that the Tenth Amendment is a dead letter and are trained to accept dubious precedents contributing to a slow erosion of our form of govt. Even congressmen like Henry Hyde say parts of it are "archaic" and Bush referred to it as "just a piece of paper." We no longer declare war.

So much for contracts and the Constitution "always holding trump."

listopencil
07-25-2007, 12:44 AM
He didn't just sign it, listo. He wrote it. That's impressive stuff.

Still, don't confuse the Declaration with the Constitution. The Declaration is a letter to a king. The Constitution is a contract that binds equal men together.

It's not wise to take the intent of either of those documents and superimpose it on the other.

The Declaration is a dream, a prayer and a threat. The Constitution is a contract. The Declaration is immaterial in matters of law that govern the U.S., while the Constitution always holds trump.


I'm not confusing anything, I'm referring to his letter to the Danbury Baptists Association.

listopencil
07-25-2007, 01:03 AM
True, Jefferson felt more strongly about how this would be than some other Founders. Founders were a mix of Masons, Christians and a few agnostics.
Don't forget Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention.
This only referred to the Federal govt at that time as some states had official churches.


This is what he 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"

It's simply not true. It's a lie. Jefferson was one of our Founding Fathers and he coined the phrase "separation of Church and State".



Now what does that line mean?
Paul is saying NOTHING about any National Church here.
He refers to churches as "vital institutions." Not all are public. Paul doesn't say govt founded and I KNOW he doesn't mean funded. Paul is simply referring to churches playing a role in this country....but it's a private role that underpins the country. Just like strong families.

The Founding Fathers didn't envision a robustly Christian anything. They weren't all Christian themselves. When considering religion they contemplated the horrors of a National Church and took steps to avoid having one here. Pretty straightforward.


So what does "heritage" mean?
It's practices that are handed down from the past by tradition.
This has nothing to do with the govt per se. Paul is addressing the culture of the country. This country is 80% Christian.

The fact of the matter is that nothing is being "chipped away". Laws are being enforced. His statement has no semantic value.

No this is NOT Bush—at all! That's a misinterpretation. Paul would not fund "faith based" initiatives, start wars to defend Israel or bring about "end times" to convert the Jews. He is simply referring to the underlying culture of this nation. He does not support an official govt church. He probably is not against a Chaplain in congress opening with a prayer, or taking "In God We trust" off our money, God out of the Pledge or references to God in public.


This crap that has been spouted sounds a lot like the crap Bush2 spouted when he pandered to Christians to get elected the second time around.

Sorry listo, but you're misinterpreting Paul.
Paul would reduce the public sector which would allow churches to be a bigger role in charity and social work....as it once was. He is a federalist and would allow states to conduct some of these matters on their own which WAS the original intent of the Founders.

I agree that some of what he has said is open to interpretation but you can't change the fact that this:


"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"


...is a lie.

Ultra Peanut
07-25-2007, 03:00 AM
Funny. My previously moderate to high respect for him just dipped to an all-time low.

WAH CHRISTIANS ARE BEING PERSECUTED WAH

Jesus Christ.