Originality Rating for this thread: 2.2/5 (5 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 2.2/5 (5 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 2.2/5 (5 votes cast) |
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Post #53301
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
Posted: Fri 2008-02-15 21:49
|
 |
| Politics: Libertarian-Socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Ron Paul on Seperation of Church and State |
Post Rating: 2.5/4 (6 votes cast) |
|
|
This is an actual essay from Paul's site that I found via FSTDT and it is so fucking insane that only ONE person on FSTDT was willing to try to defend it.
the original find
here's the essay, off his campaign site!
| From External Site |
| summary wrote: |
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.
|
Last week, a divided Supreme Court declined to hear a potentially landmark case that has tremendous significance to religious believers in this country. The small town of Elkhart, Indiana, has a granite stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments in front of a city building. Predictably, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the city seeking to have the decades-old stone removed. City officials fought the case in federal court, but lost at the appellate level. Although Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas disagreed, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case and let the ruling stand. The fate of the stone now lies with a lower federal judge, who undoubtedly will order it removed despite the wishes of Elkhart city officials and local residents. Ironically, the same Ten Commandments deemed so objectionable by the ACLU are depicted in the very Supreme Court building where the decision not to consider the Elkhart case was made! How tragic that our courts have accepted the myth that religious beliefs cannot be represented in any public setting, even when religious symbolism adorns courthouses across the country.
The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. 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. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
Moreover, there is ample evidence that most of our Founders were deeply religious men who never imagined a rigid separation between religious beliefs and governance. Indeed, our national documents, symbols, currency, and buildings are replete with religious symbolism. Our national motto, "In God We Trust," is an obvious example. These symbols are entirely inconsistent with the religion-free government supposedly mandated by the First amendment.
The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression. The Elkhart case is a classic example of the courts ignoring this fundamental distinction between federal and local action. Bluntly, the use of Elkhart city government property is none of the federal government's business. Yet respect for state rights and enumerated powers, not to mention the property rights of the citizens of Elkhart, is nonexistent in our federal courts. The unchallenged assumption is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over all religious matters.
The sad result of this misinterpretation of the Constitution is a legal and political landscape which is unnecessarily hostile to religion. Popular culture and media mirror this hostility in their inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The message is always the same: conservatives want to force their religious beliefs upon society. The truth is that secular humanists have forced their beliefs upon a largely religious nation. In schools, in government, and in the courts, secular values dominate. Secularism, wrongly characterized as neutral toward religious faith, has become the default philosophy for our society. The Supreme Court, by refusing to consider the Elkhart case, has furthered the cause of those who wish to see religion eliminated from American life.
Keywords: Constitution, Religion |
Now to debunk some of his claims
| Quote: |
How tragic that our courts have accepted the myth that religious beliefs cannot be represented in any public setting, even when religious symbolism adorns courthouses across the country.
|
The appelate court said that? Really? Where? or are we punching at shadows?
| Quote: |
| The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. |
so if the constitutuion wasto be interpreted only as originally written, why did the founders include an amendment process? and why does he ignore part of the constitution (the part about taxes in the articles and the 14th amendment)? Oh ad Marbry v.s Madison expanded the powers of the supreme court Irrevocably, giving them the power to interpret the constitution. that was in 1803 by the way.
| Quote: |
| 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. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall. |
this seems to hinge on the first point that this keeps people from celebrating their religion in public places. As previously noted, the courts didn't say that.
| Quote: |
| Moreover, there is ample evidence that most of our Founders were deeply religious men who never imagined a rigid separation between religious beliefs and governance. |
treaty of tripoli, bitch
| Quote: |
| Indeed, our national documents, symbols, currency, and buildings are replete with religious symbolism. Our national motto, "In God We Trust," is an obvious example. These symbols are entirely inconsistent with the religion-free government supposedly mandated by the First amendment. |
never mind that the words, "in god, we trust" were added to money during the 50's
| Quote: |
The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression. The Elkhart case is a classic example of the courts ignoring this fundamental distinction between federal and local action. Bluntly, the use of Elkhart city government property is none of the federal government's business. Yet respect for state rights and enumerated powers, not to mention the property rights of the citizens of Elkhart, is nonexistent in our federal courts. The unchallenged assumption is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over all religious matters.
|
Supremacy clause, necessary and proper clause, and treaty of tripoli, bitch.
| Quote: |
The sad result of this misinterpretation of the Constitution is a legal and political landscape which is unnecessarily hostile to religion. Popular culture and media mirror this hostility in their inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The message is always the same: conservatives want to force their religious beliefs upon society. The truth is that secular humanists have forced their beliefs upon a largely religious nation. In schools, in government, and in the courts, secular values dominate. Secularism, wrongly characterized as neutral toward religious faith, has become the default philosophy for our society. The Supreme Court, by refusing to consider the Elkhart case, has furthered the cause of those who wish to see religion eliminated from American life.
|
treaty of tripoli and Marbury vs Madison bitch
Paul is scaring me more and more and more.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Azazel
Committee Leader
Post #59676
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
 
   
|
|
Posted: Wed 2010-06-09 08:47
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (5 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I have to take back my statement on Libertarians, why should Judeo-Christianity deny its very heritage and see it destroyed by its own hand? |
now lets take back the thousands of other posts...
why are you still posting? there's no one left to listen, you and meph have driven all of the quality posters away, you have stomped on any hope of ever bringing this forum back to life, if you truly love this forum, you will never post here again, if you stopped posting I guarantee this forum would come back to life and quality discussion would return as it stands now no sane person would post.
carl I think you may be sick, you've had a picture of a person you have never met, that you only know from the internet as your avatar for years think about the significance of this, you have written hundreds, even thousands of incoherent posts, directed at any member that disagrees with you
I believe that you are mentally disturbed based on the above information so I am not angry with you I'm just asking you to evaluate yourself, what are you getting out of this? why are you yelling at people you don't know and who's lives you cannot effect? what could you possibly be getting out of posting here? its definitely not making you any smarter, your posts from years past had much more quality and creative thought that posts like these:
| Quote: |
aspergie faggot central visit demsoc.net, where mental cripples kiss each other arses. |
'
this is nothing but duckspeak, it combines a bunch of words you think are bad that have nothing to do with each other, nor do they describe anyone.
even if its true that Meph killed the forum, you are doing everything in your power to make sure it never comes back, your irrational anger is stopping us from rebuilding change your behavior or face the consequences[/i]
_________________
"that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
