PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul echoes Fox News: Churches should "eclipse" state



simuvac
11-13-2007, 12:32 PM
One of many reasons I don't trust Ron Paul. An essay by Paul from 2003:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


The War on Religion


by Rep. Ron Paul, MD (http://www.house.gov/paul/mail/welcome.htm)


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

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

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 Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.”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

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

December 30, 2003


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

werther
11-13-2007, 01:06 PM
This article was in response to over-the-top political correctness that had/has been permeating within our country.

However, there are many flawed agrugments withing this essay:

1. "Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God,"

- this is inherantly false.

2. "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers"

- ummm the first amendment. It is not possible to have freedom of religion if the state or federal government insists on one particular religion or denomination. Such a governement would by definition be infringing on the rights of the people.

3. "On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs"

- Madison, you know the 'father of the constitution' was a diest, as was Franklin, Jefferson*, Monroe and arguably Washington.

4. "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."

- this is exactly how Jefferson would have wanted it and intended it to be. Religion is personal and the state should stay out of it.

I read this article a long time ago, and though I still root for Paul, this article is always in the back of my mind. How could someone who considers himself an advocate and defender of the constitution get it so wrong?

* Jefferson, though not at the constitutional convention of 1787, had more to do with its creation and ideals than just about anybody else with the exception of Madison; and Madison was his protege. One example: When the convention was over Madison, Franklin, and Washington all sent a copy to Jefferson who was at the time Ambassador to France. Upon reading it he wrote to Madison that they failed and must reconvene, and that the constitution by itself was like a "fox guarding the hen house" since it contained no bill of rights.

werther
11-13-2007, 01:11 PM
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?"

-James Madison

simuvac
11-13-2007, 01:19 PM
I think all of your criticisms are correct, werther. It's especially important to note the founding fathers were Diests. It's incorrect to say the founding fathers were simply "Christians". They were more diverse than that. For example, see the competing answers to this question here:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_religion_were_the_Founding_Fathers

Most important, though, is that at heart Paul is not simply a strict constitutionalist (and neither is Alex Jones). Their worldview is deeply affected by Christian millennialism.

Thanks, but I've had enough of that occupying the White House.

Uber Commandante
11-13-2007, 03:27 PM
I would also add to that the weird idea that Liberal Secularists somehow want to chip away at god, in order to replace the authority figure with the 'state'. We have clearly seen in the last 6.5 years that it is the religious conservatives who have put their entire faith into GW Bush, vaulting him from governer to Messiah. A king who they will followl, regardless of truth, justice, or the American way.

It is the "liberal secularists" who have been trying to get us back to reality.

"when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross"
Sinclair Lewis, 1935

simuvac
11-13-2007, 03:58 PM
I would also add to that the weird idea that Liberal Secularists somehow want to chip away at god, in order to replace the authority figure with the 'state'. We have clearly seen in the last 6.5 years that it is the religious conservatives who have put their entire faith into GW Bush, vaulting him from governer to Messiah. A king who they will followl, regardless of truth, justice, or the American way.

It is the "liberal secularists" who have been trying to get us back to reality.

"when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross"
Sinclair Lewis, 1935

Yeah, and "liberal secularists" were largely responsible for laws supporting labor rights, gender equality, racial equality, environmental protections, etc.

Shouldn't "people of God" be in the streets fighting for these things?

BASE701
11-13-2007, 09:25 PM
Yes Ron Paul is a Christian. And yes, in being so, he has an opinion about how the Christian faith is demeaned in this country by secularists. Big deal.

What have any of you witnessed by Dr. Paul that would lead you to think he is anything more than who he says he is? It's fine to disagree with his opinion, but to say he is untrustworthy is a ludicrous. He has a twenty year record in congress that proves who he is. His fifty year marriage proves who he is. If his record is untrustworthy, then who do you trust?

AuGmENTor
11-13-2007, 09:32 PM
I think everyone has an angle, and this is just his. He is appealing to time worn values. Look at what our current President has done in the name of his relationshit with his God! Personally, I don't trust ANY politician. I think perhaps his intentions are pure, but surely he must realize what a futile effort reform of the existing government would be. So then why get in there. Not like I am worried about that happening. He has NO CHANCE of winning. He pull down the numbers of one of the pre-selected choices, but that's about it.

BASE701
11-13-2007, 09:40 PM
I think everyone has an angle, and this is just his. He is appealing to time worn values. Look at what our current President has done in the name of his relationshit with his God! Personally, I don't trust ANY politician. I think perhaps his intentions are pure, but surely he must realize what a futile effort reform of the existing government would be. So then why get in there. Not like I am worried about that happening. He has NO CHANCE of winning. He pull down the numbers of one of the pre-selected choices, but that's about it.Well man, we may as well put the barrel to our collective heads and pull the trigger.

I'm just so f'n sick of partisanship I can't see straight anymore. It's as though even intelligent people think that by voting for or against a certain party makes any kind of difference.

I don't agree with every thing the man says but at least he isn't bought and paid for by the corporations. And yeah, because this country is run by the corporations, we will have another fake election with either Hillary or Rudy picking up where Bush left off. What's funny is that some folks will have renewed hope that things will get better cause their guy or gal got elected.

dMole
11-13-2007, 11:10 PM
I was raised non-partisan, but I WAS expected to vote in every election. I don't remember one of "my" candidates EVER winning a major election, so AuGgie is probably right about elections. I've also alienated many of the local Dr. Paul activists by referring him as the "lesser of the evils"- there are several points of his that I strongly disagree with, but he remains one of the only candidates with an anti-war voting record (and he APPEARS to be pro-Constitution).

As far as "separation of church and state"- go see how politics in rural ID, UT, WY, some suburban parts of AZ, much of the Midwest, rural Texas, and much of the South is actually run. I contend that I was raised in a theocracy established in 1847. Family matters brought me back "home" though. I've also seen Mill Ave (ASU campus) in Tempe, AZ on any given weekend, and it gives Mardis Gras a serious run for its money from what I hear.

I would prefer NOT to raise children in places like Phoenix, Kansas City, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, ESPECIALLY Los Angeles or Las Vegas, or any other major metropolis for that matter. It appears to me that there are both strong benefits and strong drawbacks to living in a "polarized" culture.

I'm just not convinced there has EVER been true separation of church and state in much of the United States. Remember the "under god" part of the Pledge we used to recite in grade school, and the "In God We Trust" that used to be on our coins and fiat currency?

simuvac
11-13-2007, 11:24 PM
Yes Ron Paul is a Christian. And yes, in being so, he has an opinion about how the Christian faith is demeaned in this country by secularists. Big deal.

What have any of you witnessed by Dr. Paul that would lead you to think he is anything more than who he says he is? It's fine to disagree with his opinion, but to say he is untrustworthy is a ludicrous. He has a twenty year record in congress that proves who he is. His fifty year marriage proves who he is. If his record is untrustworthy, then who do you trust?

First, I think what he wrote here is more than just "an opinion about how the Christian faith is demeaned" by secularists. He is making much stronger statements than that.

Second, you're right: Perhaps I spoke too strongly when I said he is untrustworthy. A more accurate description would probably be: I think he exaggerates when he claims to be a strict constitutionalist.

As I've said elsewhere, I would support Paul as a lesser evil, if only because he is anti-neocon. Otherwise, I don't support his libertarian ideal of letting corporations run amok, which is what would happen if he accomplished his goals of dismantling the public sphere and privatizing it.

But, as others have said, I'm not worried about Paul winning anything. His candidacy, as admirable as it is, is just a diversion. He will never come close to winning anything. The corporate media will not allow it. They will crucify Paul if he gets anywhere near 15% or 20% support, just like they did with Howard Dean, and just like they'll do with anyone who even APPEARS to represent populist politics.

werther
01-07-2008, 09:46 PM
Take a look at who voted against that absurd and frivolous House Resolution 847.....-You know the one "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith (Vote On Passage)"

vote (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1143)

spoiler: Ron Paul

werther
01-07-2008, 09:53 PM
Sorry to double post but let me add that this was voted on December 11th 2007. The reason I point this out is to highlight that it was in his run for presidential candidacy. Principled.

simuvac
01-07-2008, 10:22 PM
Take a look at who voted against that absurd and frivolous House Resolution 847.....-You know the one "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith (Vote On Passage)"

vote (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1143)

spoiler: Ron Paul

If I'm reading this correctly, it says he didn't cast a vote. Why didn't he vote "NO"? That would have been more principled, don't you think?

werther
01-07-2008, 10:26 PM
I don't post much and it seems there is good reason for it. Damn it. I read that wrong. Thanks for pointing that out .....seriously, I would've hated to have further made an ass of myself.

simuvac
01-07-2008, 11:43 PM
No big deal.

Here you go: Ron Paul supporters chase Sean Hannity from a restaurant to his hotel in New Hampshire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMrHorlOB0k