Originality Rating for this thread: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 1.0/5 (2 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: 1.0/4 (2 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 |
|
 |
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #58332
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
  
    
|
|
Posted: Sat 2008-12-20 07:17
|
|
| Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist |
Country: United States |
|
| Ron Paul on Seperation of Church and State |
Post Rating: 1.8/4 (4 votes cast) |
|
|
| Acebrock wrote: |
| insert my point on 'Libertarians' made over the last year 2007-2008. |
In retrospect, Libertarians are Christian Rightists wearing Ludwig Von Mises costumes and masques to the Political Party, to avoid identification as to political alignment and trick their own non-core followers, are libertarians the real suckers in US Politics?
_________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c)
alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com
RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness" |
|
| 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
