Ron Paul: Separation Of Church and State = War On Religion

Posted by Pile (13653 views) Add this story to MyYahoo Add this article to del.icio.us Submit article to Reddit Add story to Furl Add story to StumbleUpon [E-Mail link]


In the midst of Ron Paul mania, much of what this guy stands for seems to have been swept by the wayside if it doesn't fit into the idealistic agenda promoted by his online army. Well, let's hear the man's own words on an important issue such as the separation of church and state which Ron Paul considers to be "a war on religion" and not a Constitutional ideal...

The War on Religion

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD, December 30, 2003

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.


Unfortunately, Dr. Paul is not anywhere near accurate in his characterization of the United States founding fathers, most of which were not Christian at all. There's overwhelming evidence to indicate America was not founded as a Christian nation


 

Additional Ron Paul positions...
Posted by Independent on 2007-11-16 15:35:13
* Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality.. Which is (should be) a key issue for all anti-fascist free speech supporters. (Since, these corporations didn't build the Internet, Public money did..)

* And he is against Universal Health-Care..

* Further, Paul is anti-abortion rights and wants to Eliminate Roe V. Wade. Saying "let states decide" which is not good enough for human-rights issues

* He is also bat-shit insane about building the Border Fence, and against "Path to citizenship" for (more than 11 million) illegal aliens.

* He is for destroying the Alaskan wildlife reserves by Oil Companies..

* He is for elimination of vital Federal agencies like FEMA, EPA etc.. These agencies worked fine before Dubya appointed his friends to run them.. Trusting the profit-seeking corporations to respect the environment or free speech (Net Neutrality) is Idiocy!

* As for his "Free trade, small gov. no welfare state"-position.. Ron Paul...(source for following votes: http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm)

o Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
o Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
o Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
o Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
o Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
o Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
o Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
o Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
o Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
o Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
o Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
o Voted NO on raising CAFE (MPG) standards for vehicles; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
o Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
o Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
o Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
o Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
o Voted YES on deploying SDI. (mega-expensive, never-worked missile defense system) (Mar 1999)
o Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
o Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
o Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
ROFLMAO!
Posted by BS_ALERT_ON_YOUR_BS_ALERT on 2007-11-16 15:35:37
"human-rights issues"

How can you advocate 'human-rights issues' by allowing women to kill unborn children?
Posted by Independent on 2007-11-16 15:35:46
It's arguable whether a fetus is a "human". It's a collection of cells depending upon how far along.

The Bible's own definition of life says it doesn't start until a baby takes its first breath, and any children under 30 days old were not counted in early census taking.

Also, it seems arbitrary what "life" you people think is worth protecting, and what other life is perfectly OK to murder, dip in bread crumbs, fry in oil and serve on a bun.
Undecided ---
Posted by Bravo on 2007-11-17 01:48:27
I was undecided about my choice for candidate for the presidency, however, after reading your fine article I can see exactly why I should support Dr Ron Paul. Due to your excelent work I have continued my research on Dr. Paul and found quite a bit that I really like about this man. I really like that his positions have remained constant throughout his ten term tenure as a Congressman from Texas. This displays a high degree of integrity in my opinion that is not found in any of the other candidates I have investigated. Because of your article I have decided to donate several hundred dollars to Dr Pauls campaign during his next fundraiser which I hear is to be held on the 16th of December. The 16th of December is the aniversary of the Boston Tea Party in which the colonists dumped tea into the boston harbour in protest to the British rule sparking the first American revolution. Thank you so much for the good work you are doing. Keep it up. Sincerely,
Bravo...
Posted by THUORN (thuorn@yahoo.com) on 2007-11-18 02:46:57
i'll take Paul's pro-constitution religious views over everyone else's anti-constitution religious views...

lets be honest, w/ the choices we have we ARE getting a "religious" person in the office. whether they really are or just lying about it. but f*ck, its one battle at a time.

i'll be voting for Paul in the primaries and i have contributed to his campaign both financially and w/ my time in south florida. w/ the dollar in its death throes and a disgusting murderous war. rampant civil liberty abuses, domestic spying, illegal taxes, militarized police, nation building, false flag events, fear mongering.... if the worst we can say is that he is religious, in a country w/ mostly religious people... dam, i can live w/ that for now.
Posted by THUORN (thuorn@yahoo.com) on 2007-11-18 02:52:18
oh yeah, for the sake of full disclosure. i am an anti-theist...

I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

but i am also a constitutionalist. and sadly according to my government that damn near makes me a terrorist. the sad thing is that they are the terrorists...

let me stop know before i summon the spirit of Alex Jones... LMAO!
Cool....Make up your own mind
Posted by Pile on 2007-11-18 14:33:57
Hey, I think it's great if anything we do here encourages you all to do more research and make more-informed choices. That's wonderful.

I'm not suggesting Ron Paul is a bad choice. I'm simply suggesting we need to examine all sides of the issues.

I said the same thing in our Libertarian Podcast.
Why the misunderstanding?
Posted by Gliscameria on 2007-11-18 22:39:35
When did Americans get so sensitive? I understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but part of living in America is tolerating other peoples' beliefs and customs, even if that makes you uncomfortable at points. If you believe strongly in something, you are going to feel uncomfortable around someone that feels differently, but accepting this, and letting that person express their beliefs is part of being an American.

Because we are a nation of mostly Christians, the easiest way to impose restrictions on Christians expressing themselves is by referring to our country as a "Christian Nation". We are bred to be wary of letting religion run the government, as we should be, and letting a STRONG majority coming from one religion, openly expressing religious beliefs in public speaches, DAMAGES everyone's right to express themselves by implying that there is a specific religion's agenda making itself present in the government, which is the final step towards a church state.

If you want to strip citizens of their right to express themselves, let public figures abuse it first.
WTF?
Posted by ccannizzaro on 2007-11-19 22:50:58
You've spent nearly seven years under the presidency of someone who makes no bones about the fact that he has pursued the most powerful, secretive, and subversive executive branch that this country has ever seen... and even though that president, with all that power, would unabashedly denounce the separation of church and state, the separation is still there. Not as defined as it was before he took office, but congress gave him all that power, and he ran with it.

And now you want to tell me that a man like Ron Paul is someone to fear when it comes to this???? GTFO!
Freak
Posted by HereticChick on 2007-11-20 05:56:48
I agree with the "batshit insane" comment. I always knew there was something quirky going on inside that mans "so-called" brain.
At least he can read
Posted by DC on 2007-12-09 10:51:18
I may or may not vote for Dr. Paul. I will say, at least he READS what he is signing. I will say, to take away a persons right to choose is a bad thing and goes against what I feel our AMERICA's values. Regardless of what the person chooses, whether it be abortion, owning a gun, or which imaginary friend they call their god, they as a citizen SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT. We are loosing so many of our 'freedoms' these days, I think if Dr. Paul is elected, he would do a lot more to change the direction this country has been steered into.
Or not. Its all a game anyhow, as the next ruler has already been picked....and she is even more scary than Dr. Paul could ever be.
Thanks for the Info!
Posted by Ed Smithers on 2007-12-20 02:46:57
After reading this I have changed my mind! I am dumping Mitt Romney and voting for RON PAUL!

Thanks for posting this!

I think he is our only hope!
Posted by sexie corndog on 2008-02-25 14:11:02
that's a pretty sexy picture. he's pucker'n up just 4 me!!! Ooooo! Chills!! old men r sexy!! JK!
do some research.
Posted by brucerhee on 2011-12-19 02:20:36
and no, reading someone else's blog or rants on some forum do not count as research. that whole list of things a commenter above reposted from the internets that reveal ron paul's voting record is so misleading and ignorant, i don't know where to start.

we all know that these bills written by congress are never what they purport to be, and almost always without exception, end up doing the exact opposite of what they are titled. can we agree on that? no child left behind, clear skies act, patriot act, etc. the bills being proposed are rarely simple and cut and dry and are always plagued with ulterior motives and sneaky provisions buried in the wording. so why are we making such baseless conclusions that are so fallacious and naive?

i know you liberals have a hard time understanding his stance on liberty and wanting less government. you falsely assume that government is good, and that corporations are bad. well, i got news for you, they are in bed together, and they are two heads of the same beast. so understand that when ron paul is trying to limit government, you can be damn sure that those restrictions are going to limit corporate influence. if he was so pro-corporate like you claim, then why the hell are they not funding him and getting behind him? it's because they hate him. they can't stand him, and so has been hell bent on discrediting him and undermining him at every chance they can get, through every avenue whether tv, radio, internet, anything status quo or mainstream has been fully utilized to ridicule him, dismiss him, and undermine him. some of you who are so against ron paul really need to re-evaluate their positions and ask themselves if their opinion is really that of your own, or whether you have been a victim of somebody else's propaganda. because if you are of the position that he is loony, senile, or batshit crazy, or that he has some good ideas but is unelectable, or you like his economic views, but his foreign policy is crazy, i got news for you. you didn't come up with that insight on your own. you've been programmed. i suggest you take the time out to read for yourself what he said, from his own words instead of taking the word of some other opinion, and then form an educated opinion using your own judgement. critical thinking. it's actually good for you. you should try it some time.
Go ronald
Posted by Jaded moderate on 2012-01-22 14:27:51
I have always been a fan of Ron Paul, while there is no policy a person can make that everyone will agree with, he is a stand up man with good morals (not talking about religion) and mostly logical veiw points. He's old school, not some pussy whipped asshole that would sell his own country out. So I encourage anybody who reads this do some searching and find the right person ib politics based not on party lines or childish labels, but rather common sense.

To life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).
 

Comments

 
Name: (change name for anonymous posting)
Title:
Comments:
   

1 Article displayed.

Pursuant to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230), BSAlert is a user-contributed editorial web site and does not endorse any specific content, but merely acts as a "sounding board" for the online community. Any and all quoted material is referenced pursuant to "Fair Use" (17 U.S.C. § 107). Like any information resource, use your own judgement and seek out the facts and research and make informed choices.

Powered by Percleus (c) 2005-2047 - Content Management System

[Percleus 0.9.4] (c) 2005, PCS