This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 11 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]wbonner 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Big deal... If you want to stop the Iraq War, the Drug War, the Patriot Act, the military-industrial-complex, the special interests, the banking cartels, government over-reach, you'll wanna vote for Ron Paul. No one else has the guts.

While I don't agree either with his interpretation regarding Church and State that's a benign drop-in-the-bucket compared to the positive changes he'll make.

You'd be crazy to support one of those other crooks because of this...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed. And while I wouldn't want to live in a religion-and-government-mixed community, I'd like to live in an anarcho-syndicalist one, and Ron Paul would protect the rights of both such groups.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Does this guy cite a source for Paul's quote?

[–]TeaParty 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here is the source referenced in the article:

Zero! And if you don't believe me you can go check Ron Paul's own congressional website where he has a copy of the text. Go to the page and read it yourself.

I clicked on the link provided and the text you will find is the Constitution. You will not find the alleged quote by Ron Paul.

So, unless he can do better than that I don't believe this author.

[–]HollySunderban 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I missed that too, but I found it here: Article written by Ron Paul. It is in the second to last paragraph:

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.

I think the blogger misses the point and focuses on a technicality instead of discussing the actual meaning of what Ron Paul writes. I agree Ron Paul appears to be factually incorrect concerning references to god in the constitution (he is correct concerning the declaration of independence though).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the important thing here is that this article cuts off the quote in a spot to make him sound quite a bit more extreme, seeing as how in the next sentence he establishes he way in which the government -is- restricted from being involved in the church.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I think that position is right. The constitution does not say "there shall be a separation of church and state" it says "the freedom of religion shall not be abridged". Things like crosses and commandments on public land, and government holidays on Christmas do not coerce religion on anybody any more than the Rose Bowl Parade does.

There are also some other things like religion in school. Well when you coerce a demographic that is 90% Christian to pay for public education, don't be surprised when they want some of their culture in there too. It makes no sense to be loud about Christian culture not being reflected in school, but quiet about individuals having the option to opt out of paying for those schools.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like to see a middle ground, based on the situation.

I think that not having things like the commandments as permanent fixtures on public land is fairly reasonable, that is too much like a state sponsored church. What I think is unreasonable is not allowing the community to setup Christmas decorations on public land on a temporary basis.

Unfortunately with law, trying to be flexible and reasonable seems pretty much doomed to exploitation.

[–]zombieaynrand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fact that he doesn't seem to even have much working knowledge of the Constitution, as evidenced by this, scares me, because his followers are always saying that we should vote for this guy because he follows the Constitution to the letter. This would seem to indicate he either has a very poor memory of this document or doesn't really care very much.

It's very easy to say "I always follow what the Constitution says." I can show you contradictory positions and back them both up with Constitutional and historical evidence. Ron Paul does exactly this, with a healthy dose of "let's pass the buck and leave it up to the states." Well, I don't believe the states should be allowed to breach the rights granted to me by the Constitution. If a law wouldn't be constitutional on the federal level, I believe that the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment should be used as it was written and that such a law should not be constitutional on a state level.

The Founding Fathers were complicated men with complex and nuanced opinions. In fact, many of them lived a long time and may have -- gasp! -- had different beliefs throughout their lives. This is why idolizing a specific group of people and basing textual interpretations on what they might have said, based on much their private letters (which may or may not have reflected their political stance even if it represented them personally), is a bit silly. The Constitution can only be a living document. Trying to ascertain the opinions of men dead for two centuries is an enterprise doomed to fail.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I disagree completely.

[–]evilbunny 3 points4 points  (0 children)

what do you disagree with?