Ron Paul and Separation of Church and State

RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul and Separation of Church and State

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm

 

I am really disappointed to find this out. I have been following his message and campaign for the past month and I have been finally excited about a candidate. Of course most of his speeches on on the war, economy, and civil liberties. I am torn, as I don't like any of the other candidates, except maybe Bill Richardson.  I don't think anybody else has any sensible ideas about our foriegn policy and the economy. Although they differ on views it will be business as usual in Washington no matter who is elected. Ron Paul seems to want to change that, but then he also wants my kid to be taught the ten commandments in public school.

Thoughts??

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I am consistently reminded

I am consistently reminded of how good it is that I am not American and that I don't inhabit the US.  The political stage in America is, in my opinion, analogous to the Just for Laughs stage in Montreal, Quebec.  If I ever need laughs during the off season of the festival I can catch the American political debate year round and I am guaranteed a laugh.  I don't think I've ever come across an American politician I would support were I able to.  I had considered Ron Paul to be of a better grade than the rest of the runners for the 2008 election, but I'd noticed, perhaps the news I receive is never flattering of American politicians, that he was as religiously minded as the rest.  It's extremely discerning to live so near to a country that can't have a candidate for presidency who isn't ridiculously religious in some sense.  To lend to my view that he is in some way ridiculously religious, he is strongly anti-abortion (though apparently he would allow states to regulate that?), and he has voted to deny homosexuals the right to adopt (based on opposition to unmarried couples adopting), and he intends to reinforce the don't ask/don't tell policy, a feature of the American military that I find reprehensible.  Regardless of the reasons he admits for his beliefs and opinions on the issues I've stated, he's aligned himself by them with the religious right (I think that'd how it's called).  I expect that he is a protestant Christian and 'fundamental' in his religious beliefs, though I don't know this, and I highly suspect that his beliefs have some effect on his stance on the issues above.  I can hardly see the difference between this candidate any any others, as they all seem to allow their religious beliefs at least some control over their political agendas.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: I am

Thomathy wrote:
I am consistently reminded of how good it is that I am not American and that I don't inhabit the US.  The political stage in America is, in my opinion, analogous to the Just for Laughs stage in Montreal, Quebec.  If I ever need laughs during the off season of the festival I can catch the American political debate year round and I am guaranteed a laugh.  I don't think I've ever come across an American politician I would support were I able to.  I had considered Ron Paul to be of a better grade than the rest of the runners for the 2008 election, but I'd noticed, perhaps the news I receive is never flattering of American politicians, that he was as religiously minded as the rest.  It's extremely discerning to live so near to a country that can't have a candidate for presidency who isn't ridiculously religious in some sense.  To lend to my view that he is in some way ridiculously religious, he is strongly anti-abortion (though apparently he would allow states to regulate that?), and he has voted to deny homosexuals the right to adopt (based on opposition to unmarried couples adopting), and he intends to reinforce the don't ask/don't tell policy, a feature of the American military that I find reprehensible.  Regardless of the reasons he admits for his beliefs and opinions on the issues I've stated, he's aligned himself by them with the religious right (I think that'd how it's called).  I expect that he is a protestant Christian and 'fundamental' in his religious beliefs, though I don't know this, and I highly suspect that his beliefs have some effect on his stance on the issues above.  I can hardly see the difference between this candidate any any others, as they all seem to allow their religious beliefs at least some control over their political agendas.

I hear what you are saying. American politics is so frustrating, which is why so many of our citizens are apathetic to the whole process. I would disagree with you slightly on some points. I don't think the majority of politicians on the left talk about their religion as a selling point in their campaign. They may be asked about their faith (in this case you are dead on) and will have to either lie about it or exaggerate how much impact it has on their life. That is how ridiculously important religion has become to some of the citizenry here. 

 Also, I think the case of Ron Paul is a perfect example of two things that have been pointed out in Theists. 1) Some of them are able to think and behave rationally in other aspects of their lives. 2) Some of them pick and choose what aspects of religion they like. Here are the examples of Paul.

1) He is completely rational and reasonable about his positions on the war, civil liberties, and the economy while being irrational about church and state.

2) He is very much against the war on drugs but pro life.  

 

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Zombie
RRS local affiliate
Zombie's picture
Posts: 573
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul to me represents

Ron Paul to me represents the theory that you should vote for whom you think will do the least damage to the nation overall. Not saying that I would vote for him if i lived in america mind you.

Morte alla tyrannus et dei


DanielC
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Zombie wrote: Ron Paul to

Zombie wrote:
Ron Paul to me represents the theory that you should vote for whom you think will do the least damage to the nation overall. Not saying that I would vote for him if i lived in america mind you.

You're absolutely right.  People want him to limit any crap that Bush has gotten us into and to make sure it doesn't happen again.  It's sad that I live in this country, I've bled on this soil, I've studied it's history, and now, I just want to get the hell out.  Really, it makes me incredibly unhappy.

Atheists agree: Adults should not have imaginary friends.


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Your quote at the end is

Your quote at the end is hysterical.


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul - False Libertarian God

RationalSchema wrote:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm

I am torn, as I don't like any of the other candidates, [aside from Ron Paul] except maybe Bill Richardson.

Thoughts??

There's a big difference between 'left' or Liberal Libertarianism [also known as anarchism or liberal socialism] and the Randian capitalist right wing version that came to America as Neo-Libertarianism as you can see in the multi-dimensional political ideology chart here

I suggest you take a few political orientation indicator surveys for a better understanding of your own political viewpoints. I'm quite sure most Americans view their own political orientation as well as that of US politicians to be on the simplistic and misleading 'left to right' continuum of left vs right or liberal vs conservative.

This naive approach to political orientation or ideologies by Americans isn't improved to a more proficient level by buffonish authors with a right wing political agenda like this one seen on Daily Show the other night. The book Liberal Fascism is written by right wing 'Zionist' author, Goldberg who is nothing other than a "loyal foot soldier in the Republican Noise Machine."

Fascism by its very definition is opposed to liberalism and as John Stewart identified this title last night, liberal fascism is an oxymoron. Fascism is even defined as "right wing authoritarian" in American Heritage Dictionary. Fascism is defined as a system of government exercising authoritarianism by the extreme right, typically through merging state & business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

The fact is Ron Paul isn't even a right wing libertarian or NeoLibertarian. His public statements, manifestos, interviews and, most importantly voting records, all taken into consideration in a political orientation indicator, [similar to a personality type indicator in form and function] show his political orientation or ideology residing fully in the Right Wing Authoritarian [RWA] quadrant populated by other well known RWA Fascists like Hitler and Bush. You'll also see there that Kucinich and Gravel are the sole candidates residing fully in the left libertarian quandrant because they're genuine liberals or progressives unlike moderate conservatives such as Hillary and Obama..

The most comprehensive multi-dimension political orientation 'type indicator' going far beyond the rather naive left to right wing continuum I've found is here on Political Compass. Here are 2 excellent political orientation indicators exclusively for this election found by clicking on "Pick Your Candidate" and "The Presidential Candidate Selector" found on Select Smart. Taking both should verify the results of each political indicator. I'd also advise you to take the Myers-Briggs and even the EPQ Personality Analysis. a personality indicator I put into easy auto scoring java script format on my anti-theofascist 'Veritas et Ratio' web site. Both personality type indicators will give you further indications to your genuine political orientations as they relate to other personality traits and variables.

RationalSchema wrote:
I don't think anybody else has any sensible ideas about our foriegn policy and the economy.

That of course would be a matter of opinion and you know what they say about opinions. So here's mine on Ron Paul: Paul's antiquated 19th century laissez faire version of non-intervention taking a Randian 'virtue of selfishness' stance toward capitalist corporate greed will only result in more obcene forms of predatory capitalism we've seen since Bush 'took' office.

RationalSchema wrote:
Although they differ on views it will be business as usual in Washington no matter who is elected. Ron Paul seems to want to change that, but then he also wants my kid to be taught the ten commandments in public school.

He wants change alright, the kind of change any 'committed' evangelical like himself would that is supported by other Christian Identify NeoNazi racists and bigoted Christian Reconstructionists [Dominionists] calling for an authoritarian bible based theocracy. GOP's Huckster Huckabee sounds like GOP's Ron Paul because both are anti-secular GOP bible belt Right Wing Authoritarian [RWA] Dominionists seeking to install a full on Christian Theocracy.

More on Ron Paul that his cultish Paulites, reminicent of Bush supporting Dittoheads of a few years back, strongly need to consider before continuing on their Paulite bandwagon:

  • He’s ardently anti-choice, which makes me question whether he’s even a real Libertarian. He has managed to concoct a rationalization around the rights of fetuses, but it strikes me as labored (and his invocation of Terri Schiavo doesn’t help here, either)..
  • He’s earned a 76% rating from the Christian Coalition. I hate to get too ad hominem, but this is an organization that makes a point of opposing all things socially progressive.
  • He voted NO on allowing embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) This doesn’t tell you all you need to know, but it tells you a lot that it’s helpful to know.
  • Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
  • Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) Because, you know, he’s worried about corporatism.
  • Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) Because he’s terribly concerned about politicians being in bed with the big money.
  • Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
  • Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted NO on increasing the minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007) You can really begin to sense his rage at exploitative big business here, can’t you?
  • Voted NO on “network neutrality.” (Jun 2006)
  • Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)
  • He supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. Because there’s nowhere left in America where you can go to pray, I guess.
  • YES on “protecting” the Pledge of Allegiance.
  • YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
  • He’s rated at 5% by the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a strongly anti-environment record.
  • NO on raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and incentives for alternative fuels.
  • NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
  • (Source for ALL THE ABOVE)

The country has moved so far to the right that even its liberals are putting False Hope in False Fascist Gods like Ron Paul...

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, frankly, I'm upset

Well, frankly, I'm upset Paul is associated with the libertarians, save for what I consider superficial issues, he certainly does not represent me.

Hell, I call myself libertine, quite often, but I feel nobody really understands what that means.

So here would be MY platform, were I running:

1) End the drug war. It is clear at this point prohibition doesn't do a fucking thing except created violent black markets. Eliminate the need for said markets and eliminate the violence that they entail.

2) Drasticly reduce our military. Cut our losses, bring our men and women home. Now, not later.

 And in the future, stay the fuck out of other people's business.

If we have a military at all, it should be for DEFENSE, not bombing people we disagree with.

IOW we stay out of business that does not concern us - for example, we STOP giving bling supportr to Israel.

The Department of DEFENSE should focus on just that, not wage petty wars.

3) Taxes on personal property should be done away with. It is insane that I NEVER truly own my house or my car. After I'm done paying the bank or creditor for my property, I STILL owe the state, and for what?

I paid off my car this year, but I STILL don't OWN it. Every year, I MUST pay TAX on it, because is live in Boston. The same logic applies to property taxes - as long as you must PAY each year to maintain the property you "own", you NEVER really own it.

4)Open our borbers, then open ALL borders. It says right on a big gigantic piece of copper in Manhatan's harbor, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

We were founded as a nation of opportunity, yet we deny just that left and right.

We were BUILT by immigrants and the influx of culture and ingenuity they brought with them, now we deny it and send our own citizens to be tortured in Guantanomo Bay.

Open borders are REQUIRED to elevate the human species, this means unfettered trade and exchange of ideas. The two go hand in hand. Open borders necessitate democracy and communication, I firmly believe that open trade fosters lasting peace.

 

Now compare that to the candidates up fo elecion, and ask if they have even CONSIDERED such things.

I feel that what I posted above are things ALL libertarians would stand for, and I feel they are prudent, just, and logical steps we must take as a society and human race.

 I give a fuck what Ron Paul says. He represents libertarians about as well as Hillaray represents Democrats or Bush represents Republicans.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


munky99999
munky99999's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1) End the drug

Quote:
1) End the drug war.
I agree. I dont agree with legalization of drugs. As Canadian we dont have a big war on drugs. 

Quote:
2) Drasticly reduce our military. Cut our losses, bring our men and women home. Now, not later. And in the future, stay the fuck out of other people's business.

Yes and no... certainly there's no reason to be in iraq... but afghanistan trying to get bin laden is valid. Now bin laden isnt there and we have no idea where he is. The main force in aghanistan than shouldnt be there... general peacekeeping is a good thing.

Quote:
3) Taxes on personal property should be done away with.

Taxes need to happen to fund the things which are necessary and good. Instead of taxing ur car.. they can move that same% to something else.

Quote:
4)Open our borbers, then open ALL borders. 

Now I'm honestly ignorant here... but a big influx of people with no skills moving to the country which is the idea of immigration... to keep unemployment down.

 I honestly can understand this idea while the economy is strong... but you may see more problems.


bmehilos
bmehilos's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul is right about

Ron Paul is right about separation of church and state. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. That is the establishment clause, and the only limit on the federal governments power in regards to religion. Having the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not in violation of that, and nor does having an invocation at the beginning of each in session day down on Capitol Hill.

Now does that mean it should happen? No. The government should be governing based on facts. You lower speed limits because logic and evidence provide that lower speeds equal less deadly auto accidents. The government should not let blind faith write it's policy, and on that count I would love to see all of religion blasted out of Washington DC.

But all of Ron Paul's decisions are based on the Constitution. He votes NO on minimum wage increases because Constitutionally, the federal government has no authority over wages. Should it? Yes. Does it? it didn't the last time I read the Constitution. All of his votes can be rationalised based on that. The Constitution is his compass.

 I think America as a whole has gotten it into their heads that the Constitution is just some damn piece of paper to forget about and reference in speeches to sound patriotic. But forgetting it is just idiotic, because it gives an undeserving institution large amounts of power. I think that is why the standard of living has gone down so much in this country and why the government, elections, and everything else seems so pointless, because it all boils down to a system that is mostly bloatware and has the amazing ability to annihilate enormous sums of money and generally not get anything done.

 And I don't want the Drug War to end because it has made it really easy for me to get weed. Smiling 

the price of too much freedom is never as great as the cost of too little


Rob P
Rob P's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-02-09
User is offlineOffline
^True. I'm not voting for

^True. I'm not voting for Ron Paul, but I love the fact that he actually understands the rule of law and opposes the way the government has ignored it.

not about to see your light...


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
RationalSchema

RationalSchema wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
I am consistently reminded of how good it is that I am not American and that I don't inhabit the US. The political stage in America is, in my opinion, analogous to the Just for Laughs stage in Montreal, Quebec. If I ever need laughs during the off season of the festival I can catch the American political debate year round and I am guaranteed a laugh. I don't think I've ever come across an American politician I would support were I able to. I had considered Ron Paul to be of a better grade than the rest of the runners for the 2008 election, but I'd noticed, perhaps the news I receive is never flattering of American politicians, that he was as religiously minded as the rest. It's extremely discerning to live so near to a country that can't have a candidate for presidency who isn't ridiculously religious in some sense. To lend to my view that he is in some way ridiculously religious, he is strongly anti-abortion (though apparently he would allow states to regulate that?), and he has voted to deny homosexuals the right to adopt (based on opposition to unmarried couples adopting), and he intends to reinforce the don't ask/don't tell policy, a feature of the American military that I find reprehensible. Regardless of the reasons he admits for his beliefs and opinions on the issues I've stated, he's aligned himself by them with the religious right (I think that'd how it's called). I expect that he is a protestant Christian and 'fundamental' in his religious beliefs, though I don't know this, and I highly suspect that his beliefs have some effect on his stance on the issues above. I can hardly see the difference between this candidate any any others, as they all seem to allow their religious beliefs at least some control over their political agendas.

I hear what you are saying. American politics is so frustrating, which is why so many of our citizens are apathetic to the whole process. I would disagree with you slightly on some points. I don't think the majority of politicians on the left talk about their religion as a selling point in their campaign. They may be asked about their faith (in this case you are dead on) and will have to either lie about it or exaggerate how much impact it has on their life. That is how ridiculously important religion has become to some of the citizenry here.

Also, I think the case of Ron Paul is a perfect example of two things that have been pointed out in Theists. 1) Some of them are able to think and behave rationally in other aspects of their lives. 2) Some of them pick and choose what aspects of religion they like. Here are the examples of Paul.

1) He is completely rational and reasonable about his positions on the war, civil liberties, and the economy while being irrational about church and state.

2) He is very much against the war on drugs but pro life.

 

 

I always thought Ron Paul (and no offense to the political majority on this forum, but the Libertarian Party Platform in general) to be antithetical in practice to the separation of church and state. This isn't meant as an "I told you so," more of a comment generally. Earlier today, on another thread, I stated that I felt Ron Paul's position on the war on drugs was something akin to the manipulation of the religious vote. I want to clarify something: I have another belief, which is about surveillance and law enforcement. I have a problem in general with any groups that self-segregate, and a more specific problem with religious sects that prescribe facial coverings. I feel this infringes on my civil rights, and here's why: suppose I were assaulted by someone wearing a black Berka (spelling?), the typical head-to toe covering of many American converts to Islam. Regardless of the motivation of the assault, regardless even of the identity of the person under the hood, how am I to identify my assailant in a lineup? More abstractedly, I don't want to have to say that members of a particular group all look alike to me, and likewise I think it is self-sabotage when a group goes so far in its self-segregation as to hide their faces in public. Whether or not we think 24 hour surveillance is ethical, if we're going to be under surveillance virtually all day then we should all be watched equally. I say, if you want to participate in American society, you show your face in public. Now, this is not merely an indictment against religious groups. I have the same problem with Anarchists, in theory. I think there should be a federal law that prohibits wearing garments that intentionally obscure one's facial features in public. This is one reason I'm not a libertarian.

 

The other reason is, frankly, I believe in a strong, central government. I just want that strong, central government to be on my side of the culture war. I think the American intelligentsia deserves a seat at the political table in order to protect its own stakes, and I distrust most notions of pluralism and populism on these grounds: anti-intellectualism is a pervasive and dangerous mode of thinking, and in a marketplace of ideas, not all ideas can be of equal value. Astrology and intelligent design are tin foil simulacra next to the shiny gold coinage of modern evolutionary theory. If fascism came to America (and some say an institutionalized variant of it already has) the intellectuals and the atheists would be the first ones they'd come for, knowing the common man wouldn't miss the left-wing liberal atheist college professor or the know-it-all in the front row of the bio-anthro class (yours truly).

 

I plan to vote for whoever will do the least harm to me and my interests, and the interests of those like me. If this seems selfish, at least I'm not taking advantage of weakly defined religious freedoms (at the expense of freedom from religion) by obscuring my face in public. I urge the Libertarians here to reconsider their party affiliations until the American public is less hostile the atheist and intellectual minorities. If this sounds elitist, maybe it is. I just don't trust the common man, and by extension I don't trust the notion of increasing state autonomy.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


bilabrin
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Thank you.

bmehilos wrote:

Ron Paul is right about separation of church and state. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. That is the establishment clause, and the only limit on the federal governments power in regards to religion. Having the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not in violation of that, and nor does having an invocation at the beginning of each in session day down on Capitol Hill.

Now does that mean it should happen? No. The government should be governing based on facts. You lower speed limits because logic and evidence provide that lower speeds equal less deadly auto accidents. The government should not let blind faith write it's policy, and on that count I would love to see all of religion blasted out of Washington DC.

But all of Ron Paul's decisions are based on the Constitution. He votes NO on minimum wage increases because Constitutionally, the federal government has no authority over wages. Should it? Yes. Does it? it didn't the last time I read the Constitution. All of his votes can be rationalised based on that. The Constitution is his compass.

I think America as a whole has gotten it into their heads that the Constitution is just some damn piece of paper to forget about and reference in speeches to sound patriotic. But forgetting it is just idiotic, because it gives an undeserving institution large amounts of power. I think that is why the standard of living has gone down so much in this country and why the government, elections, and everything else seems so pointless, because it all boils down to a system that is mostly bloatware and has the amazing ability to annihilate enormous sums of money and generally not get anything done.

And I don't want the Drug War to end because it has made it really easy for me to get weed. Smiling

 

 

 

 

 

I am heartened to hear at least one other person who can correctly state Ron Paul's position. I am really surprised that such a rational group as athiests aren't better informed. Ron Paul is not one to push his religion onto others.

Frankly, Ron Paul is the greatest man We've ever had the opportunity to vote for. As a devout athiest, my rational belief tells me that Human Life begins at conception not some magical barrier between a woman's legs which one must pass to be suddenly "Alive." The only other difference between RP and a "Libertarian" is the immigration issue and his position is based on rational though not blind allegiance to party.

You know, all you Anti-Paul people are just as bad as the evangelicals, You've swallowed some kind of liberal Kool-aide and you refuse to take the antidote.

You know, I was actually glad to have found this site. In concept, I'm home. Others who are tired of having Jesus crammed down their throughts. Tired of pretending we're not living in a country of delusional maniacs who must rely on invisible friends to be able to wake up in the morning. But to have to read ignorant attacks on the greatest political figure of the 21st century is almost too much. If I have to read this garbage from so-called free-thinkers, I may just delete my profile and not return.

The man above is the only one in this whole thread who understands that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will make all our lives better in a real and tangible way.

Do I personally want government sanctioned religion-HELL NO! and neither does Ron Paul! So he personally is a christian and does not believe in evolution, fine, but he never pushes for ID in schools. I'm sorry but I'm not here to bash all people of faith. I'm here to bash those who want to affect a change in society towards their "holy" goals. Those that claim to be the knowers of the truth and have closed their mind to reason. As such I find your criticisms of Ron Paul here inappropriate and offensive. Imagine how this is going to affect new people to this site who are intelligent and well researched about Ron Paul's positions?

I just singed up tonight and was excited to read about most athiests leaning Libertarian. These posts seem to imply that if you are Pro-life and Anti-illegal-immigration then you are not a Libertarian. This is exactly the kind of narrow mindedness I came here seeking to avoid. So get your facts straight about Paul or don't post!

 


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
From Ron Paul's

From Ron Paul's Website

 

 

Christmas in Secular America

by Ron Paul, Dr.

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.

Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court

by Ron Paul, Dr.

The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any “separation of church and state”, although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.

What Does the First Amendment Really Mean?

by Ron Paul, Dr.

The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony “incorporation” doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business.

The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech

by Ron Paul, Dr.

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

Statement of Faith

by Ron Paul, Dr.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

 

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
 Paul doesn't have to push

 Paul doesn't have to push regressive policies. He'll free up the states to do that.


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Paul doesn't

magilum wrote:

 Paul doesn't have to push regressive policies. He'll free up the states to do that.

Exactly!

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
I think...

Magilum... I think we killed libertarianism.


David Corpus
David Corpus's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Does Ron Paul need a

Does Ron Paul need a crusifix tattooed to his forehead before he is seen for what he is?

I love the idea of throwing out the majority of laws, but not if done by someone who can't think morally and logically without considering their religious or other bias beliefs. Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is that of someone who believes in his little heart that we are a Christian Nation.

The Federal Government will always need to play a role in matters of Church and State.  If it does not, we will have individual States deciding they are Christian.  Big Cities will have science while the bible belt will be waging war on those sinners.

Someone on here posted that it is acceptable for the ten commandments to be posted in a courthouse. Would it be acceptable to post a pentagram in a courthouse? Perhaps a "Golden Compass" because it sees truth?

The Ten Commandments do not represent moral foundation, they represent the basis for religious opression- Not in their words, but in their means of delivery. They are images of a book of fiction, equally fictional to pentagrams and golden compasses. If you give an inch, Christians will take a mile and tell you it isn't Religious Opression, just freedom of expression.

Seeing the post count of the two Pro-Paul posters has me thinking I've been had...


Neverfox
Neverfox's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-07-01
User is offlineOffline
David Corpus wrote:Does Ron

David Corpus wrote:

Does Ron Paul need a crusifix tattooed to his forehead before he is seen for what he is?

I love the idea of throwing out the majority of laws, but not if done by someone who can't think morally and logically without considering their religious or other bias beliefs. Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is that of someone who believes in his little heart that we are a Christian Nation.

The Federal Government will always need to play a role in matters of Church and State.  If it does not, we will have individual States deciding they are Christian.  Big Cities will have science while the bible belt will be waging war on those sinners.

Someone on here posted that it is acceptable for the ten commandments to be posted in a courthouse. Would it be acceptable to post a pentagram in a courthouse? Perhaps a "Golden Compass" because it sees truth?

The Ten Commandments do not represent moral foundation, they represent the basis for religious opression- Not in their words, but in their means of delivery. They are images of a book of fiction, equally fictional to pentagrams and golden compasses. If you give an inch, Christians will take a mile and tell you it isn't Religious Opression, just freedom of expression.

Seeing the post count of the two Pro-Paul posters has me thinking I've been had...

Here is a good experiment for anyone considering Paul: find a fundamentalist Christian forum and register there. Then hang around and read the posts for a few days. You will find that they are absolutely gaga over Ron Paul. People think that fundies are Republicans but the real hardcore fundies are for Ron Paul. Maybe it's the homeschooling thing. It certainly doesn't prove anything but it gives one pause. I'm just sayin'...

Instead of a Blog

Think this can't work? - Think again.

"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased...And if socialism really is better...then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Neverfox wrote:David Corpus

Neverfox wrote:

David Corpus wrote:

Does Ron Paul need a crusifix tattooed to his forehead before he is seen for what he is?

I love the idea of throwing out the majority of laws, but not if done by someone who can't think morally and logically without considering their religious or other bias beliefs. Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is that of someone who believes in his little heart that we are a Christian Nation.

The Federal Government will always need to play a role in matters of Church and State.  If it does not, we will have individual States deciding they are Christian.  Big Cities will have science while the bible belt will be waging war on those sinners.

Someone on here posted that it is acceptable for the ten commandments to be posted in a courthouse. Would it be acceptable to post a pentagram in a courthouse? Perhaps a "Golden Compass" because it sees truth?

The Ten Commandments do not represent moral foundation, they represent the basis for religious opression- Not in their words, but in their means of delivery. They are images of a book of fiction, equally fictional to pentagrams and golden compasses. If you give an inch, Christians will take a mile and tell you it isn't Religious Opression, just freedom of expression.

Seeing the post count of the two Pro-Paul posters has me thinking I've been had...

Here is a good experiment for anyone considering Paul: find a fundamentalist Christian forum and register there. Then hang around and read the posts for a few days. You will find that they are absolutely gaga over Ron Paul. People think that fundies are Republicans but the real hardcore fundies are for Ron Paul. Maybe it's the homeschooling thing. It certainly doesn't prove anything but it gives one pause. I'm just sayin'...

 

And trust me, those of us who don't want to euthanize the Federal Government appreciate it. I don't understand how any non-theist can support Ron Paul.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


dixon103
dixon103's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-11-24
User is offlineOffline
Forget ron paul

I have no idea what candidate you all are talking about here but i have a post on the lack of separatation of our state and the church.  I have read documents that are written by a group on the disscusion of religious minorities in our head government.  And you would not be surprised what their take on religious freedom is and who they are focusing on.

This group is like any other in this government and pointed in the direction of the boss. Like his faith based initiatives this is a focus on the christian faith and how it can be further spread across the globe.  In a country that prided its inception on the freedom of religion, which so many take as meaning you should belive to be american, it is like a power arm for the church. The most recent document was about the concern of belivers being tageted in foreign countries. this group isn't worried about religious minorities here as the name might suggest but how christianity is the monirity in a few contries, about how they are treated.  in this document if blatently states god-given rights to believe not our human right to believe as we want.  in a world where we have no oil independence, were at war, we can't defend against an invasion of immigrants, and lets face it we pry into other countries with the bleeding heart liberals crying about myrnmar (it's thier dam country, let them run it) but we can't even feed house and employ our own masses.  people are voteing "oh he's christian",  "oh he's roman catholic" when did religion become a political party? The current administration is run by church dogma and influenced by the church country the vatican. 

 

In the country where the minority is king, and lets face it the public is so stupid they bend to the will of an organization instead of thinking for them selves and special interest groups such as the ACLU, NAACP, LULAC...... control how we percive law and fair treatment (why cant cops carry semis when the criminals do?).  Why is it when someone is a non beliver we are prejudeced against, or even non christian for that matter.  In the national scheme the athiest aliance doesn't carry the power that NAACP or ACLU, but we are mistreated and misrepresented as bad as any other minority.  Kids forced to pray, or listen to prayer, but let the same kid stand up and denounce god and he is sent to the priciples office, suspended or beaten.  sounds like the same as the slaves were doesn't it?  a christian and stand on the street and hand out papers saying stay home, think for yourself, and he may be asked to leave the area by business owners, but yet there are christian stores and people coming to your homes profitising and evangelizing? in the military they hold paryer during ceremonies, if you don't belive well bow your head and pretend, Like the rest of the sheep just conform.  In a ceremony i was in i took the chance to look around at the non belivers who did the same,  there are more than you might think.

 

So i guess i'm asking when did the church become a political party and the identification of a good leader,  come on he listens to an imagionary freind to talks only to him.  and i'm going to die because those hethens don't belive in his god?  I actually sighed in relife when huckabee dropped out.  That amendment was valid when the constitution was written denouncing the creation of a church of amarica, but it didn't stop the vatican and the christians from grabbing ALL the power and enslaving minds ever since.   i wonder what would happen if i took a sandwich board and stood infront of the local church or religious stor denouncing god infront of the sheep? because thinking about it they want sheep because "god is their shephard i shall not want"   ummm sheep?


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
dixon103 wrote:why cant cops

dixon103 wrote:

why cant cops carry semis when the criminals do?

I know that is is off topic, but I don't think you wrote what you meant there. Every police officer that I have ever seen carries a semi-automatic pistol. There are only two options for police handguns: semi-automatics or revolvers (in Europe a few get fully automatic pistols, but I'm guessing you mean US only). Somewhere there must be police that use revolvers, but I have as yet to see them. Also I have seen cops with AR15s and shotguns. The AR15 will clear up any problems of firepower the police have.

 

dixon103 wrote:

Kids forced to pray, or listen to prayer, but let the same kid stand up and denounce god and he is sent to the priciples office, suspended or beaten.  sounds like the same as the slaves were doesn't it?

People who play the victim make me a little sick to the stomach. In the US us atheists don't have it that bad. We are not like slaves. That is an insult to the people who really were slaves. This kind of hyperbole will make us seem like wimps who pretend life is so much worse that it is. Back when I was in high school people knew that I was an atheist but no one really cared. People disagreed and a few were in almost disbelief that I didn't believe in their god, but there were no suspensions, beatings or me being treated like a slave.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:dixon103

Jormungander wrote:

dixon103 wrote:

 

Kids forced to pray, or listen to prayer, but let the same kid stand up and denounce god and he is sent to the priciples office, suspended or beaten.  sounds like the same as the slaves were doesn't it?

People who play the victim make me a little sick to the stomach. In the US us atheists don't have it that bad. We are not like slaves. That is an insult to the people who really were slaves. This kind of hyperbole will make us seem like wimps who pretend life is so much worse that it is. Back when I was in high school people knew that I was an atheist but no one really cared. People disagreed and a few were in almost disbelief that I didn't believe in their god, but there were no suspensions, beatings or me being treated like a slave.

Just like the US military, there was a relatively small period of respite from the dangers of Christian indoctrination in US public schools after the 1950s until everything changed in the 21st century when the Christian Right helped their born again Bozo seize control of the nation. It sounds like Jurmungander went to High School during these short few decades of respite from religious recidivism in America or more likely didn't even go to public schools in the US from the context of his statement claiming ''in the US us atheists don't have it that bad". Compared to what -  Islamic indoctrination in middle east public schools? Christian indoctrination is the very reason Germans recently put a ban on their country's home-schooling that Psychotic US Christians predominantly use to indoctrinate their own children.

Going to High school after the 50s and before the 21st century has apparently left Jormungander feeling this OH Pseudo-Science ID Teacher burning Christian Crosses into the arms of his student victims is a but a mere hyperbole or extravagant exaggeration by newspapers citing his religious crimes of torturous Christian indoctrination.

Or more recently perhaps this Fed Judge scolding a Floriduh HS principal for his 'relentless [Christian] crusade' against gay teens calling it a 'witch hunt' is just an extravagant exaggeration of Christianized public school policy in the mind's eye of Jomungander?

Not taking the radical religious right seriously for what they are as bigoted, hateful murderous Christian Fascists, or comprehending these authoritarian religious lunatics as only 'jesting' or joking' about their threats like this on bumber stickers towards atheists and liberals seems to have left quite a few Unitarian Liberals [unitarianism stresses individual freedom] gunned down in their own church....

Perhaps Jomungander has been watching too much Fox Faux News?

Germans in the 1930s didn't take Hitler's Fascist form of Christian Nationalism seriously either...

 

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].


dixon103
dixon103's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-11-24
User is offlineOffline
I love your links and how

I love your links and how they show that the right has gotten even more brazen with thier institutionalism.  I agree that the reference to the cries from those in DC about guns was off the religious but my point was that the nation has bowed to the power of irrationality.   I was out and i googled faith based, and there was a link to a dep of state page that had a video of answering religions call.  I am amazed that the ACLU will cry about civil liberties but i won't touch religious liberties.  when the government is blowing billions at religious organizations to support community outreach.  and then i read about rev. rick warren who wants to "turn every single christian church on earth into a provider of local health care, literacy and economic development, leadership training and spiritual growth."  (times aug 18 08)  This scares me because that is what the government should be focusing on.  instead of paying a church to do this, why not pay a hospital, and school?  and then leave the De education out of our children. Many of us were born without a choice,  and if it were to these leaders i feel that it may not be a choice,  the government only claims that 16 percent are non-belivers/non practicers. but this was a telehpone servey and thus inacurate.  They say we are a small part of the the religious makeup, but as more people are allowed to think and make choices and ask the questions no matter the age we will increase in numbers.  My 70 year old grandpa just told me he made the realization about 3 years ago that religion just wasn't right.  Maybe in a few decades we will be a stand alone majority and able to work, live and truely educate without the looming of the religious right.  It is sad that they have gone as far as de educating in schools.  I love the irony that the local christian store is called educate and celebrate,  when they just teach them myth and lies.

 

some day at least we may be able to serve without the overwlming presence of religion.  There are atheists in the fox holes. who wants to go to church on sunday morning when that is you only day for extra sleep and relaxing from convoys.


Augustus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I would just like to put

I would just like to put this out there.

Who else advocates Ludwig Von Mises? The ultimate economic libertarian scholar there is? Ron Paul thats who.

One other thing I might want to spell out to my fellow atheists whom are the brightest of the bright:

 

--) How much support do you think Ron Paul would receive if he was an atheist? What chances would he have of changing anyone's mind if he was agnostic? Christianity from what I can see, is almost mandatory for any politician-especially as a republican. How many VOTES would Ron get?

 

Think about it.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
aren't there jewish

aren't there jewish politicians? and I think there's at least one muslim one.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Ciarin wrote:aren't there

Ciarin wrote:

aren't there jewish politicians? and I think there's at least one muslim one.

 

Several, including many of the big names. Lieberman, Boxer, Schumer, Levin, Waxman, Giffords, Frank and Cantor. And that is just off the top of my head. I am sure there are many more, I don't think being jewish is a negative in many states. Also, you have Congressman Pete Stark from California who is an open atheist and certifiable dumb ass. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
No lifelong politician will

No lifelong politician will ever be worth a shit. I liked Ron Paul's "going back to the constitution" idea, some of his fiscal idea's and his idea to make marijuana legal even though I don't smoke it. He is likely a racist and probably a bible hugger but he wont win anything anyway, the media says no.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Ciarin

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

aren't there jewish politicians? and I think there's at least one muslim one.

 

Several, including many of the big names. Lieberman, Boxer, Schumer, Levin, Waxman, Giffords, Frank and Cantor. And that is just off the top of my head. I am sure there are many more, I don't think being jewish is a negative in many states. Also, you have Congressman Pete Stark from California who is an open atheist and certifiable dumb ass. 

Ethnic Jews or practicing Jews?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:Beyond Saving

Kapkao wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

aren't there jewish politicians? and I think there's at least one muslim one.

 

Several, including many of the big names. Lieberman, Boxer, Schumer, Levin, Waxman, Giffords, Frank and Cantor. And that is just off the top of my head. I am sure there are many more, I don't think being jewish is a negative in many states. Also, you have Congressman Pete Stark from California who is an open atheist and certifiable dumb ass. 

Ethnic Jews or practicing Jews?

I know that Lieberman, Waxman, Frank and Cantor are all practicing. I'm not 100% sure about the others. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Ciarin

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

aren't there jewish politicians? and I think there's at least one muslim one.

 

Several, including many of the big names. Lieberman, Boxer, Schumer, Levin, Waxman, Giffords, Frank and Cantor. And that is just off the top of my head. I am sure there are many more, I don't think being jewish is a negative in many states. Also, you have Congressman Pete Stark from California who is an open atheist and certifiable dumb ass. 

Stark an atheist who was a board member of star king school of ministry according to his website.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin