Ron Paul is his Own Man

Sue,

I hope you are sitting down and I don't want to frighten you but I agree with everything you wrote in this post. (You might want to circle this date on your calendar. :-) )

Too funny, Larry. Thank God, I was sitting down when I read that.

Seriously, whether you believe it or not, the only reason we're not still connected on my end at least, is because i like you so much. When we were, your comments were constantly in my feed and I couldn't help myself not to respond to lots of things you write here that seem a little less than practical, shall we say. I think that your heart is so much in the right place that you go overboard with the great ideals you represent, but I'm so glad you're here and I want you to know that.

Ron Paul calls himself a Republican,but hasn't forgotten his Libertarian roots. Although I agree with a lot of things he champions,he's also an isolationist,and he wants to leagalize drugs; Ron Paul will not be nominated for President.

Yeah, you're right, Norman, he won't get the nomination. We'll have another 4 years of the same, no matter who it is. (if we last through it, but I doubt we will)

When people say that Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs, I sort of get a wry chuckle. What I cannot understand is that the same people who are against legalization of illegal drugs are often the very same people who will endorse a candidate like Rick Perry who has not only had political campaigns funded by a company like Merck with drugs that are maiming and kllling people legally, but who has chosen to make one of Merck's vaccinations mandatory in his state. Perry was only driven to offering an opt-out of these grave risks and endangerment to children's health because there was so much dissension from concerned parents and he might lose a constituency that he depends on to fool with other of his plans like eminent domain enforcement under the guise of economic benefit, but not for this country. He doesn't care because the money goes in his pocket either way. In the meantime, homes are taken from people at a fraction of what they're worth, but when they live on the street, at least they'll be protected from the big bad dopers, or will they? Any candidate who is involved with drug companies is not a candidate to be trusted.

Just because these drugs are legal does not make them any better than the ones that are not. In fact, they are worse because their over-prescription and addictive properties are one of the biggest reasons for our health care costs to rise and the reason health care will never be affordabe. Ir's candidates like Perry and drug companies like Merck who will make sure it's never affordable because it's not as big a profit for them.

The other thing I might add (if you'll excuse my soapbox) is that Conservatives used to rail against eminent domain when the land was taken for government purposes under the guise of benefit and "the greater good" of humankind to that area affected. We didn't have any problem seeing through that hoax. Now, however, they've extended the domain of eminence to include economic reason for benefit in the area for that "greater good." We don't hear so much about the evils of eminent domain from conservatives anymore.

The biggest difference between entrepreneurial elitists and intellectual elitists is that when their propaganda trickles down to their followers in the masses, the conservatives aren't as stupid as to make issues of what they're guilty of. The mass followers of intellectual elitists don't understand what they're talking about anyway, only what it means to them personally, so they blow their cover and blatantly expose the contradictions and the hypocrisy. In the meantime, both intellectual elitists and entrepreneurial elitists are bleeding everyone dry while they live the high-life and leave the masses to argue about who's to blame. It's a three ring circus with the masses in the center ring, but the only ones entertained are the bleeders.

Thanks for sharing :-))

"In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, this provision would purportedly permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery and whether to ban atheists from public office, but would not interfere with the application of relevant federal law." source

There is a lot people do not know or understand about Ron Paul. Paul is not directly connected to Christian Reconstructionism, that I know of, but he has emphasized his preference for the "laws of god" ...not just above, but in place of the laws of man. He claims a prohibition of non believers from holding office is justifiable if a (local) majority agree. This discrimination of minorities by the majority is not legal nor is it ethically defensible.

Let's look at this from another perspective. Suppose that atheists become the majority in this country. Would that majority be within its rights to ban from public office, any person who believes that there is a god? OR...has Paul designed a Christian only exercisable method of excluding those who hold different religious opinions from holding public office?

I like most of what Paul has to offer....and I like the fact that he believes we MUST radically redesign many functions and practices of our government. But when I pay close attention to what Paul advocates, reading between the lines and examining the fine print...Ron Paul begins to look like a bigoted, self righteous, Dominionist menace.

Sure, Slim, and why wouldn't he draft such a proposal? He's a strict constitutionalist, preserving rights of individuals and rights of states.

As long as you want to believe that the Consitution says what it doesn't say, you're going to argue this. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If states wish to allow people to freely exercise their religion with imagery (as a Christian, I might add, that I do not condone all this imagery, but if people want to do it, they can.) it is their right under law to be able to do so. This in no way is a violation of the first clause because there is no establishment of any religion by such display. Any other religion also has the right to display their own imagery. He's right that it should be something left up to the states too.

If you see any connection to Ron Paul and religion, it is in the context of which I mentioned below, John Adam's quote, in my response to Ian. it is not any specific religious people to whom John Adams refers, but to a moral and religious people who uphold the same principles. That is the only way this Constitution can serve the people.

As far as banning atheists from public office, I could argue that to be in tandem with the Adams quote too, and Ron Paul wanting to uphold the Constitution, fearing that if atheists were in control, there would not be a way to uphold the Constitution. However, I also think that the individual rights they have to run for office as any other law-abiding citizen, supercedes that fear. Perhaps he doesn't see it that way, and I said I am not going to agree with him on every aspect of his platform or any other candidate's, but as long as he is leaving that decision up to states, although I may not agree with the idea, it's far from some kind of totalitarian type of dominionism that you are contending it is.

"Sure, Slim, and why wouldn't he draft such a proposal? He's a strict constitutionalist, preserving rights of individuals and rights of states. "

You mean the rights of SOME individuals don't you? In this case it would be those who believe a god exists and the rights that would be suppressed (specifically to hold public office) are those of the individuals who do not believe a god exists.

"If states wish to allow people to freely exercise their religion with imagery (as a Christian, I might add, that I do not condone all this imagery, but if people want to do it, they can.) it is their right under law to be able to do so. "

Yes it is their right under law. So you think I am contesting this?

"This in no way is a violation of the first clause because there is no establishment of any religion by such display. Any other religion also has the right to display their own imagery. "

Oh...I see...you mean display their imagery in/on a public owned facility. You are right, there is no establishment of any specific religion, but in the case of the display of Christian symbols or Bible passages, the endorsement of or the favoritism towards the Christian religion is apparent and although this establishes no formal Christian/government relationship, the sponsorship by the state/government establishes a preferential policy towards Christians and a non preferential policy towards all others.

"As far as banning atheists from public office, I could argue that to be in tandem with the Adams quote too, and Ron Paul wanting to uphold the Constitution, fearing that if atheists were in control, there would not be a way to uphold the Constitution."

If Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution...he would not advocate the suppression of the rights of anyone...even those with whom he does not agree or approve.

"However, I also think that the individual rights they have to run for office as any other law-abiding citizen, supercedes that fear."

I do too...but we are talking about what Ron Paul believes.

"I said I am not going to agree with him on every aspect of his platform or any other candidate's, but as long as he is leaving that decision up to states, although I may not agree with the idea, it's far from some kind of totalitarian type of dominionism that you are contending it is."

Perhaps it's more than you are contenting it is. The specific illustration (the restriction of the rights of atheists) isn't the point, but rather an example of the kind of compromise that Paul is willing to make in order to meld Christianity with our government.

No, Slim, in that first part of my response, I was referring to the imagery and that display is not just the rights of some to display, but of all to display, as I made clear. I didn't allude to the other part of the "We the People" proposal, the part that says that atheists cannot hold public office in that section of my response. It wasn't until the third and final paragraph of that response that I referred to the atheist exclusion for holding political office.

But then you seem to refer back to what I was speaking of, the imagery, when you continued and said, "You are right, there is no establishment of any specific religion, but [On what page is it in Whyte's book that explains how "the but" causes the logical fallacy by negating the first clause? :)] in the case of the display of Christian symbols or Bible passages, the endorsement of or the favoritism towards the Christian religion is apparent and although this establishes no formal Christian/government relationship, the sponsorship by the state/government establishes a preferential policy towards Christians and a non preferential policy towards all others." There would only be favoritism shown to the Christian religion so it is not at all apparent. If only Christians were allowed to display such images then it would be apparent. if I really wanted to, according to what you contend is a violation, I could say that as a Bible-believing Christian, when I see crucifixes, holy pictures of Jesus and the like, it is against my religion and I have a problem with it too, but I wouldn't do that because it is the lawful right of any religion to display such images if they so choose and no one is saying that a picture of Buddha cannot be placed adjacent to it. My belief is according to Exodus 20:4: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" I'm certainly not going to withhold another's right to display holy images just because what I believe says they should not. It may not suit me to see them, but that's not the deal according to law here.

As far as passages from the Bible, the same could be said that anyone who might have a problem with that has no recourse unless also was denied the right to post passages from holy books of other religions. There is no favoritism in either of these areas.

Then you go back to the atheism issue. I stand by what I said about his fear that the Consitution would not be upheld and for which he is such a staunch supporter, not because he doesn't like atheists, but because he fears that since the Constitution is only meant for a religious and moral people and is wholly inadequate for any other people, that it would not be upheld if someone against religion were to hold office. You don't accept that this trumps reasoning to uphold individual civil liberties and that is your concern. I thought it might be and that's why I asked Matthew for his input. As Matthew implied in what was stated from that quote, the original document, applying only to the Federal government, does not specifically apply to the states and their rights but only in that the states must always comply with the Constitution. From Matthew's comment as a for instance: "It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches." However, if you go on to read, certain states did make it against their states' charters to do so unless churches paid for that right and the worship would also be voluntary unless they did pay for it.

Then we see how the 14th amendment muddled the whole idea of what the first amendment really meant even though it never mentioned reiligion at all. The Everson case was an attempt to interpret Constitutional law in a way it was never meant to be interpreted as judges who were not moral or religious made their way into the judicial system.

But let's take a look at this from another angle. I'm not a Constitutional attorney, of course, but the amendments to the Constitution have never been meant to change the original document, only to specify with legislation particulars of that Constitution that are issues of the day and need to have clearly defined laws that can be interpreted in the courts. There is no law, no provision, no city ordinance that can be made in violation of the Law of the Land. If then, amendments are added to that original document, each and every amendment must also be in accordance with the original document. It would follow then, that every single successive amendment must also be in agreement with any prior amendment as well. If this were not the case, law would be not just complicated, but irrational, and there would be no need for any Constitution because judges would be able to interpret Constitutional Law any way they saw fit to do so. In reality, that is what has happened to a great extent, and I think Ron Paul, if anyone at all, is the one to help us rectify that.

No, there is no way that Ron Paul even intimates that he is a dominionist with his proposal for states to decide whether or not they want atheists to hold office. As it states here,"... "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns--and there is no consensus on when that might be. That, in a nutshell, is the idea of 'dominionism.'" You want to tell me that a candidate like Rick Perry is a dominionist, I might agree, but just because Ron Paul has made a proposal for states to keep atheists out of public office at their discretion, it doesn't equate to dominionism.

I answered your comment in the order in which you presented it.

You may post Bible passages, pictures of Jesus, crosses and the ten commandments anywhere you have the control of the property....your yard for example...a rented billboard...a poster, a flyer....little chrome fish for the back of your SUV. You can stand on a soapbox and bloody scream religious slogans and you can pray anytime you like. But you cannot post your Bible passages and pictures of Jesus in or on property that is owned by the state (by the people). You have not made this distinction as you argue your right to display what you want to display as long as others can do the same.

""You are right, there is no establishment of any specific religion, but [On what page is it in Whyte's book that explains how "the but" causes the logical fallacy by negating the first clause? "

Not if the "but" is a clarification.

"...if I really wanted to, according to what you contend is a violation, I could say that as a Bible-believing Christian, when I see crucifixes, holy pictures of Jesus and the like, it is against my religion and I have a problem with it too, but I wouldn't do that because it is the lawful right of any religion to display such images if they so choose and no one is saying that a picture of Buddha cannot be placed adjacent to it. "

Then you have misunderstood what I contend is a violation.

"No, there is no way that Ron Paul even intimates that he is a dominionist with his proposal for states to decide whether or not they want atheists to hold office."

If he wants to make it legally permissible to deny certain people the right to hold public office....(regardless of if he personally wants to deny these rights) based on no belief in the existence of a god..he is advocating a government run by majority vote even if the majority vote (will) leads to a violation of the Constitution. In the specific instance of denying atheists the right to hold public office, the government would then be in the hands of believers only and this is a step...not the full effort of Christian reconstructionism. *I'll follow up on this in a minute. And our government is not run by majority vote...our form of government operates by law. This is exactly the reason that we were founded as a constitutional republic rather than a pure or true democracy...to save the minority(s) the possibility of being denied equal rights by the majority.

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
JAMES MADISON

*More about Christian reconstructionism....
This is a general term and many interpretations have been made as to the specific method and practical implications of a believer only government. But there are several denominators that are common to the effort to gain control of our government and therefore the laws and regulations that serve as our limits to what we may or may not legally do.

One is that god himself is recognized as the head of the state and that gods laws supersede man's laws. And there is no "we just want a stronger say about stuff"...the Christian reconstructionists want complete control.

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ—to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness,” wrote George Grant, the former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, which has since changed its name to Truth in Action Ministries. “But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice ... It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time ... World conquest.”

Hey Sue...remember Ellenbeth "Sex Noise" Wach and the Christian sheriff drama?
Here is an update...http://www.theledger.com/article/20110825/NEWS/110829629

"You may post Bible passages, pictures of Jesus, crosses and the ten commandments anywhere you have the control of the property....your yard for example...a rented billboard...a poster, a flyer....little chrome fish for the back of your SUV. You can stand on a soapbox and bloody scream religious slogans and you can pray anytime you like. But you cannot post your Bible passages and pictures of Jesus in or on property that is owned by the state (by the people). You have not made this distinction as you argue your right to display what you want to display as long as others can do the same."

""No, I didn't have any intentions of making such a distinction because I am also a taxpayer who pays for that public property. If a person who chooses to live in this country where there is freedom OF religion accordiung to the Constitution and not freedom FROM religion according to those who would sully the words of the Constituion, I have a right to do all those things publicly and so does anyone else of any other religion. If I pay taxes and I don't have the freedoms that are outlined in the Constitution on that public property to which goes my money, then freedom of religion is worth nothing. So America to you is ruled by money and freedom is dictated by the same, and what someone can buy privately to afford the freedom. Then if a Christian version of Donald Trump wanted to plaster every billboard in your town and the nearest major city with biblical passages, it wouldn't bother you or at least you'd find it Constitutional, but if one small sign with a Bible passage were placed in a public area for which a minute fraction of your tax dollars support, that would bother you and that would be unconstitutional. That doesn't make much sense to me and that's not what the constitution means. It doesn't specify any particular area, private or public property, but anywhere in the USA is where these freedoms are. I could understand if there were no private property in colonial days and it was some new thing that needed to be defined, but no difference needed to be defined because there was no intention of making a difference.

(On what page is that, "only if the but is a clarification"?)

Well, if I have misunderstood it, then please don't just tell me I've misunderstood what you meant, but tell me why because I don't see any difference at all in the violation of my faith to have to endure graven images in public areas where I pay taxes and you not wanting to see bible passages in public areas where you pay taxes.

"In the specific instance of denying atheists the right to hold public office, the government would then be in the hands of believers only and this is a step...not the full effort of Christian reconstructionism." Why do you just mention Christian all the time? It's only atheists he's talking about who may be excluded, people supposedly with no religion, and only in states that vote to do so. This doesn't mean that Mormons, JWs, Muslims, or Jews would have the same option to be refused. They can hold public office. Still, you keep saying it's a step to Christian dominionism. I'm not saying it's a good idea to exclude atheists even if it's a state decision, but if this proposal is your only problem with Ron Paul, it isn't a very big problem and certainly not for the reason you say it is, Christian dominionism.

"And our government is not run by majority vote...our form of government operates by law." That's fine for you to say until a referendum gets voted on to initiate legislation.

Then you go on to talk about Christian reconstructionism which has no place in this discussion because Ron Paul is not excluding any other religions. If he said that it's going to be a state's rights to decide whether or not only Christians could hold public, then you might have a case, but that's not what he proposed at all.

Yeah, I remember that whacko you posted about. Sounds as if it got resolved pretty fairly to me. Thanks for the update.

Sue...
Then if a Christian version of Donald Trump wanted to plaster every billboard in your town and the nearest major city with biblical passages, it wouldn't bother you or at least you'd find it Constitutional...

Many of our billboards are already plastered with biblical passages...paid for by various interested parties...and yes...it is constitutional. And no, I don't like them but if someone wanted to post a religious slogan on a billboard and was denied this right...I would defend that persons right just as if what he wanted to post was something with which I agree.


...but if one small sign with a Bible passage were placed in a public area for which a minute fraction of your tax dollars support, that would bother you and that would be unconstitutional.

Yes.

That doesn't make much sense to me and that's not what the constitution means. It doesn't specify any particular area, private or public property, but anywhere in the USA is where these freedoms are.

Yes it is what the Constitution means. Research this Sue. Read the thought processes and the debates....the controversy, the arguments and the reasons the founding fathers structured this republic to show no religious favoritism.

Re the god test for elected officials.

"The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation of support to the Constitution, indicating that the requirement of such a statement does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine. The option of giving an "affirmation" (rather than an "oath") can be interpreted as not requiring any metaphysical belief or as a nod to Mennonites and Quakers who would not swear oaths but would make affirmations." (HERE)

"And our government is not run by majority vote...our form of government operates by law." That's fine for you to say until a referendum gets voted on to initiate legislation.

Yes...when a referendum gets passed to initiate legislation...the majority has facilitated the legislation...which must be legal and must be constitutional. But if the legislation is not constitutional...it will be overturned by the standard (law). This is the insurance that the majority does not...cannot rule. And this is an essential component of our constitutional republic form of government....essential.

"The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10)."

This is why, Sue, that prop 8 was overturned in CA. This is an example of a majority exercising its will and whim by restricting a minority of the same rights the majority enjoys and this is unconstitutional by specific design.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Thomas Jefferson

I looked at this excerpt from the Proposal again. Since you copied the portion here that you were speaking of, I didn't go to the Wiki source you provided to read the rest. I have now, and I think that I see what he has done. I did say that I did not agree with what he had done, but now that I see why he did it, I'm not so sure I disagree with it anymore. The link is in your comment:

"In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed 'any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion' from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[144] If made law, this provision would purportedly permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery and whether to ban atheists from public office, but would not interfere with the application of relevant federal law.

Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools."

That we have a Republic is correct, and I never said we didn't, but we get right back to the meaning of Adams' quote. You cannot have a working Republic when the laws that are supposed to govern that Republic have been tainted by erroneous interpretation with intentions to limit or eradicate the freedoms that those laws intended as they were intended. Just as you say that democracy of majority rule is tyrannical, so too is the rule of minority over the majority, but that is much more insidiously implemented through the court system. When protection of minority turns into rule of minority, that's when people like Ron Paul who see what is happening, propose legislation like this.

It's because you and other atheists like you (and you know I like you) do not understand that our freedom is not something we need to buy. It is a freedom that is applicable anywhere in the country, on private or public property, and this holds true for all religions.

It's pretty obvious to me now that Ron Paul sees how atheists have infringed on the rights of the majority to exercise their freedom of religion, and there is no other way to rectify the problem but to let the states determine whether atheists who want to take away those freedoms will hold public office in their states. Whether it's the best way to handle this, I don't know, but something needs to be done about it, and it appears that Ron Paul understands this and is at least trying.

You're in my thoughts today, Slim. Hope all is well down there, or as well as can be expected.

Thanks for the concern, Sue...we are many miles inland and the storm didn't even provide us with any rain...which we could use right now.

from the wiki article...
"Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools."

I just KNOW that both you and Paul understand that private prayer in schools has never been "not allowed" and it isn't "not allowed" now. There is no need for a Constitutional amendment to allow something which isn't "not allowed".
Prayer in School - A Review of Current Case Law & Constitutional Principles

Just as you say that democracy of majority rule is tyrannical, so too is the rule of minority over the majority, but that is much more insidiously implemented through the court system. When protection of minority turns into rule of minority, that's when people like Ron Paul who see what is happening, propose legislation like this.

The protection of the minority can't become the rule of the minority through the sanction of the courts because the minority never gains rule. (we are ruled by law, not by man or men or at the whim of man or men) The ruler is the Constitution and the SCOTUS decisions that have necessarily followed. In other words, challenges to a majority popular vote must be based on law or they will not be heard by the courts.

It's because you and other atheists like you (and you know I like you) do not understand that our freedom is not something we need to buy. It is a freedom that is applicable anywhere in the country, on private or public property, and this holds true for all religions.

Whew...okay...
First...this issue isn't between us (atheists) and you (believers), Sue. There are many, and I do mean MANY, believers/theists/religious persons...however you want to distinguish between atheists and everyone who believes that a god exists...who understand that the absolute separation of church and state is necessary for the PROTECTION of religious freedoms...and is not a method of suppressing religious freedoms.

Jimmy Carter...
"I believe in the separation of church and state and would not use my authority to violate this principle in any way." (Jimmy Carter, 39th U. S. President [1977-1981], in a letter to Jack V. Harwell, August 11, 1977

Rev Barry Lynn (executive director for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State)
“Thou shalt not merge religion and government. Promoting religion is the job of houses of worship, not government. Our legal system especially must avoid even the appearance of bias on the basis of religion.”

There is a very good primer HERE on the ACLU website that provides a brief legal history and our current legal policy concerning the establishment clause and schools.

It's pretty obvious to me now that Ron Paul sees how atheists have infringed on the rights of the majority to exercise their freedom of religion, and there is no other way to rectify the problem but to let the states determine whether atheists who want to take away those freedoms will hold public office in their states.

Again...atheists have not infringed on the rights of the majority nor do atheists (as a group) want to take away anyone's rights.

To my knowledge...there has NEVER been a atheist or non theist SCOTUS justice....has there? And yet the SCOTUS decisions that serve to define our current policy with regards to government and religion are being challenged by you as having been implemented as a result of some kind atheist power or atheist only effort to suppress religion.
Your argument suggests that atheists have somehow managed to cause the court justices (who are ALL theists...ALL of them... now and historically) to render decisions that both violate the Constitution in order to accommodate atheists and an atheist agenda of suppressing religion. ?????

Also, Ron Paul hasn't conceived a (new) way to "do something" about what you allege is the suppression of religious freedoms by eliminating the possibility that atheists hold public office (at the whim of individual states) . There are currently six states, I believe, that already ban atheists from holding public office. This doesn't mean that these bans are enforceable so I suppose Paul has an agenda of legalizing non legal or unenforceable (constitutionally) .
But he can't do this... it is not possible to pass (enforceable) laws that are not themselves lawful. The law MIGHT actually get passed but it will not be truly enforceable.

Sue....I really enjoy conversation about Constitutional issues...not just those pertaining to church and state. One of the best methods, I think, of understanding the current Constitutional opinions of the courts is to read the history of decisions that precede the most current decisions. This offers perspective of both the reasons that challenges have been made and the thought processes that have led to the decisions and opinions by the courts that have followed. In the case of school prayer, the legal history begins, for the most part, with Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

I really enjoyed this hurricane and reading and writing by candlelight was fun to me. I had everything prepared so nothing was a huge problem, just a different way to live for a while. I was outside in some of it. It was so beautiful. The damage is nothing that can't be fixed or that is not insured.

I've started a couple of new projects during this time and I'm going to be out of commission on Gather for a while. Something like this hurricane can put things in perspective for me and give me new goals with different meaning and priority. I want to pursue other things without interruption other than what is absolutely necessary. Not only that, but I'm really not interested in this Presidential campaign in Internet discussions about it. You candidate has been selected and that's the name of that tune.

I always enjoy discussions with you, and I'll have to miss those for a bit. You take care, Slim.

I'm not very active on Gather at the moment either Sue. Have fun with your new projects!

I've got a little bit of time here now, so if you want to pick up where we left off, I can oblige for a bit. Where were we?


It seems you've brought us into the "not allowed" mode. I said that Paul was tryng to ensure that atheists would not be allowed not to allow that others of faith would be allowed to exercise their freedom of religion by enacting a law that states would have the rights to decide whether or not atheists could hold office in their states. I also said I didn't know whether or not this would be the best way to esure that guaranteed right, but that the guranteed right that is explicitly stated in the second clause of the first amendment has been violated by atheists who would wish to annihillate that right through erroneous interpretation of the first amendment in the adjudication of cases within the judicial system.

I think we were at the point where you were advising me to read history. Yes, the Engels v. Vitale case set precedent for the future adjudication of cases brought before the courts to decide those cases based on separation of church and state. This is a major problem.

Whether or not the separation of church and state was Jefferson's intention, Jefferson was not the only person who constructed the Constitution. if, indeed, it had been the intentions of those who did construct the 1st amendment and who wanted to make that separation of church and state applicable in the Law, it wouldn't have been a feat of any great magnitude to specify such wording. It just didm't happen to be the case that it was ever their intention to do so and you and others like you cannot accept the cold, hard fact that it was not the intention, so you try to call upon one man's ideas in a letter to some small group, and make it the law. That's not the way it works, though.

If you're going to bring a peanut farmer into the discussion, I can bring in a Skull and Bones guy into the discussion, but let's not go there. We're talking about the Constituion, not elected officials of the peanut gallery who didn't even have peanuts for brains.

I've got to go work on one of my projects now before she falls asleep. She's a very sweet lady, and it's not all that altruistic because she thinks I'm so beautiful and I have to say I do like that idea. I know she's probably far from 20/20, but anyone who thinks I am these days is worthy of my time.

Sue,
I have to admit I enjoyed Ross Perot's first campaign. I knew of him before that of course, his name was well known (almost legendary) in my industry. Now I didn't agree with much of what he said politically but you hit the nail on the head when you said principled.
In Brtiain a politician with principles is a rarity these days, Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat. And those who do have some principles are pressured by the Politically Correct Thought Police into toeing the party line.

I know nothing of Ron Paul (that will not stop the Obamessiah cult from hating me for not hating him of course) but if he is coming across as a man of principle he will do well.

Yeah, he was an interesting character. I didn't support him, probably cinched by the fact that I tried to get a contract in place with his tech company to no avail, and that pissed me off. (See what I mean about no one being that altruistic?) I doubt very much his company used outside headhunters because it would have gone against his self-sufficient grain, spending tens of thousands for something he felt he could do without.

If you do wish to learn about Ron Paul and his platform, all you need to do is go to his Campaign for Liberty website. I do think that as John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If there is anything major that would make me think twice it's that his laissez-faire approach may be less practical than can be realized because this country is neither moral nor religious, and seems to become less so every day. That infringes on liberty for the sake of order. i do, however, think he is prudent and he realizes this so he would make necessary adjustments, not to our civil liberties which I do not believe he would compromise, but to ensuring that his ideals are also practical.

John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Sue, this belief is central to understanding the problems in America today,
for only the virtuous are worthy of self-government.

The only catch is that many think they are worthy, but are not...

I don't see it as any catch but I see how you can see it as a catch because rationalizaton of morality has become the norm. It's also NOT saying that only the virtuous are worthy of self-govenment at all. John Adams' quote has nothing to do with worthiness at all. It has to do with workability because it is not feasible that a people who are not moral and religious can sustain constitutional law. They are going to instead interpret that document the way they see fit to interpret it rather than what it says under law is what is lawful to do. That's why we have such problems now. Every little minority wants to superimpose their sense of self into the law, and that's not what the Constitution was designed to do.

I've always thought, perhaps due to ignorance that the minority were also protected, and upheld under that same Constitution, as the majority, and, as well, protected from the majority, in some cases, should said majority take to mind that, due to it's larger population, it can muscle law onto a minority population. That being said, I understand that the minority in population, being also proyected under the Constitution, should likewise, never think they've been given license, under the constitution to impose upon the majority.

Minorities are protected, Dorothy, just not every minority with a hangnail at any given moment and every minority with a toothache at any given moment, and every minority with a reading disability at any given moment.

You’re never going to find a candidate with whom you agree on all issues

Really Sue, that is a serious memory lapse. It is not that long ago you, I and others were regularly told if we would just take off our racist blinkers we would realise Obama was right about everything. LOL

:) How could I forget that?

You’re never going to find a candidate with whom you agree on all issues

That is true - we all have some differences- but I recall being (and still am, somewhat) surprised that I agreed with a politician nearly 100%, when I first discovered Dr. Paul a number of years ago.

I am interested in what you think of that part of the "We The People" proposal where Ron Paul suggested that t is up to the states whether or not they want to ban atheists for public office, Matthew. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I think you might be able to shed some more light on this than I was able to do.

No problem. You are right "He's a strict constitutionalist, preserving rights of individuals and rights of states."

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution. In other words- in this case- the first amendment only applied to the federal government, not the states.

The We the People Act reverses some of this incorporation. That means a state technically could ban an atheist from public office, as far as I know.

Thank you, Matthew. That's very interesting that his basis as a state right may be on the original document as it stood, applying to the Fed only.

Some more information, very interesting:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4] (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.[citation needed]) As of 2010, Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."[5]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion. See school prayer for such a controversy in contemporary American politics.

All current State constitutions do mention a Creator,[citation needed] but include guarantees of religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment. The constitutions of eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.[6][7] However, these clauses were held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with the religious test prohibition in Article 6 Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

I think the fourteenth amendment confused things or at least the SCOTUS did... were I to try and improve the Constitution, I'd either want to repeal or modify the 14th with a new amendment.

That's great info, Matthew. Yes, the 14th amendment did make the law nebulous and paved the way for such liberal to erroneous interpretation of separation of church and state into the Everson case. Repeal or radical modification of the 14th would be in order, I think. Thanks again.

Your welcome ;-)

"I have principles,and if you don't like them, I have others"--Groucho Marx

I vaguely remember that. As a kid, I used to think he was so funny to watch on that show he had. I used to try to make my styrofoam, Mr. Potato Head look like him.

I think his program was called "You bet your life" He said things that I don't think you could get away with today. BTW Mr Potato head is still being sold.

Uh huh, that's the show! No, he wasn't one for political correctness.

Yep, I saw that it was still available in a toy department looking for a gift recentaly and was kind of surprised it was.

Well, for right now I am still voteing for my Husband. =) SeanB " ikedacat.gather.com
YES HE CAN!!! =)

Oh, Sean B. is your husband, Cindy? I think I didn't know that, and I have to find that friend request he must have sent me a million years ago and accept it. :) i want to be connected to the next President.

I don't have it anymore. I'll have to find him and send him one.

The System is rigged, RP will never be allowed to be in the real running.

The term (or even the concept) of a "lukewarm" Christian is only found in one verse of the entire Bible....Revelation 3:16....and it is not used in reference to a single believer, but to an entire church of believers in Laodicea in ancient Asia Minor....

Thanks, Berf. And it also says, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot." So it doesn't say that I know thy words, but I know thy works.

Right about now, I'm just trying to make some sense of how Rob Appell is showing up in my recently signed in friends' list. Unless someone else has his username and password, I'm rather creeped out.

Do you people have jobs? Or families?

I invite everyone of you over to my house to help dig trneches to divert rain water. Only have two shovels, don't worry, I'll use the one dedicated to the septic system.

Gotta go to work, enjoy yourselves...

The best thing I can do for you today is direct you to read Steve Bachman's comments here.