The supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul claim that, as a philosophical libertarian, Ron Paul defends the Constitution and works to protect liberty. That claim is plainly contradicted in the Congressional Record.
On June 12, 2002, Ron Paul gave a speech declaring his intent to introduce legislation to the House of Representatives that would forbid federal district courts and federal claims courts from hearing the cases of citizens who claim to have had their religious freedom violated by government bodies. Why would Ron Paul do such a thing? Why would he block people whose religious liberty had been trampled by the government from seeking legal recourse?
The answer is sadly simple. Ron Paul opposes the separation of Church and State. He even calls the separation of Church and State “infamous”.
No kidding. Read more about it, in the Irregular Times article, Ron Paul Opposes Separation of Church and State.
Actually, Paul’s precise opinion is that the federal government cannot prevent the expression of religious belief anywhere on public property, which is an extreme but reasonable reading of the 1st Amendment and the establishment clause.
The way to keep this from resulting in practitioners of the dominant religion from saturating the community with their religious message is to shrink the area of public space down to the bare minimum. Without our outsized and overbearing concept of the public space, this would not be an issue. You don’t have to worry about creches on the town green if towns don’t have greens.
Well, neither writer posted any links, did they. And both statements are so outlandish they are pretty hard to believe. I guess we’ll never know for sure what RP really thinks.
Of course, I could spend the next two hours googling and trying to find out what what the libertarian position really is and how much ron paul buys into it. but these guys who are trying to pass themselves off as being well-informed on the political scene don’t want to post links for some reason. They don’t want to demonstrate that they are well-informed. They expect the readers to inform themselves.
If RP had really called the bill of rights “infamous”, these guys would be linking like crazy and posting the quotation all over every time some RP fanatic said RP supports the constitution.
Iroquois, the full article provides a clear citation to the Congressional Record that would take a person less than a minute to find – not two hours: (Source: Congressional Record, June 13, 2002)
Please read in detail, Iroquois. Ron Paul didn’t call the Bill of Rights infamous. He called the separation of Church and State infamous. There’s a difference.
In the congressional record, “Fluffy”, Ron Paul asserts the right of government bodies to sponsor the religious rituals of majority groups, and to grant the majority’s sacred texts a privileged status in courts of law. Your description of what Ron Paul thinks doesn’t match what he’s said, on the record.
Shrinking the government down to size will only allow the remaining domains, such as religion and business, to exert their power against cultural minorities and individuals with even greater zealotry.
here’s what i found in two minutes:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Congressional+Record%2C+June+13%2C+2002&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
must be in one of these 1,900,000 hits
Your “link” claims he said
Is separation of church and state not in the bill of rights anymore? Sort of like Pluto not being a planet?
You know, Iroquois, one of the things that happens when you search for information yourself is that you learn what makes a good search and what doesn’t. If you’d just put Ron Paul’s name in the search, you’d get right there in less than 30 seconds, and you’d find links to a lot more about Ron Paul as well.
Well, J Clifford, you have now used more words to defend your uncharacteristic lack of documentation than you used in the original piece. You have also spent more time to defend your non-posting of a link than it would have taken to have actually posted a link.
I do hope you will not start following the unfortunate example of the more careless and undisciplined writers on this site.
And we’re still not any closer to figuring out whether the bill of rights is a “metaphor” or just “infamous”.
No, Iroquois. You’re still not reading carefully. Ron Paul wasn’t talking about the Bill of Rights as a whole. He was talking about separation of Church and State specifically, which he describes as a metaphor and infamous.
Yeah, yeah, just like it says in the link. Oops, no link.
I think that government property from the Federal to the municipal should be devoid of most references to religion, unless it is treated as a public forum where any and all monuments to religion should be allowed. I also think that any member of Congress or any civil employee should not be stifled in expressing their religious sentiments at any time. I believe that any legislation or ordinances that address religious matters and expression of religion should be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that it is not a de facto endorsement of religion, but freedom of speech, including religious speech, should be protected, even in schools, so long as the expresser is not using their position in government or as a government employee to impose their religious views on others, or prevent others from expressing their own religious beliefs.
I also disagree with the Irregular Times author who typed this bit of hyperbole, which I will dissect line by line (>> introduce the writer’s comments):
>>Ron Paul Seeks to Destroy Separation of Church and State
How does he “seek to destroy” church state separation? The only evidence we are given is one speech from five years ago. No legislation he introduced, no campaigning, nothing. If Ron Paul is seeking “to destroy separation of church and state,” he’s not seeking with much vigor.
>>Ron Paul, as a libertarian, claims to value liberty and to be dedicated to the protection of the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.
He does so claim.
>>In truth, however, Congressman Paul has worked to devalue the liberty guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.
This is not the same claim as the author purports to support with the quote below, and I will show why further down.
>>Ron Paul has worked to hobble the freedom of religion, claiming that there should be no separation of Church and State in American government. In a speech in 2002 explaining his introduction of legislation that would forbid American federal district courts and federal claims courts from hearing cases in which citizens claim to have had their religious freedom violated, Representative Paul complained,
>>”In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous ‘Separation of Church and State’ metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty.”
Ah, the author does refer to a resolution introduced by Ron Paul on June 12, 2002. That was H.R. 4922 and a link to that resolution is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.4922:
>>Ron Paul further complained in that speech that the government ought not to be blocked from establishing official prayers in schools and at public events, and promoting the Old Testament as the source of American law in courthouses through the exclusive display of the Ten Commandments.
He never did any such thing. His words were:
“The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …..” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games.”
Someone is going to really have to show how Ron Paul’s words above “official prayers in schools and at public events,” or promote, “the Old Testament as the source of American law in courthouses through the exclusive display of the Ten Commandments.”
>>In doing so, Ron Paul sided with radical right wing Christian zealots who seek theocracy, like Judge Roy Moore from Alabama.
Wow! That’s a big load of BS that the author has done nothing to support.
>>Ron Paul’s legislation, if enacted, would have enabled a two-class system of rights in America, with members of majority religious groups able to establish special rights to enforce their beliefs through the power of government institutions, and others unable to protect their right to not participate in the majority’s religious rituals through the constitutionally-guaranteed access to the courts.
Again, in looking at H.R. 4922, one really has to wonder how this legislation, if enacted (it never was and Ron Paul has done nothing to reintroduce it or anything like it since) would lead to the abrogation of the rights the writer claims would inevitably follow.
Looking at Ron Paul’s wording of H.R. 4922 regarding the First Amendment, one can find citation after citation to support his claim that the courts have gone too far in relying on the language of the letter to the Danbury Baptists for the language of ‘wall of separation of church and state.’ Along the way, many of the cases cited by Ron Paul have since been rendered moot by better interpretations that show that kids should be allowed to practice their religion in school, that elected officials have every right to express their religious beliefs, and that only –exclusive- displays of the Ten Commandments on public property are necessarily violations of The First Amendment (and Ron Paul never at any time expressed a desire for –exclusive- displays of the Ten Commandments). (Further information regarding over-zealotry in trying to enforce a separation of church and state to the detriment of freedom of speech can be found at PositiveLiberty.com.)
>>The separation of Church and State is not, as Ron Paul claims, infamous. It is celebrated by those who truly cherish liberty.
I agree with this statement, but not based on the spurious reasoning the author relies on.
>>The separation of Church and State has been invaluable in protecting the citizens of the United States of America from the establishment of a tyrannical theocracy of the sort envisioned by many of Ron Paul’s Republican political allies. (Source: Congressional Record, June 13, 2002)
More exaggeration.
The problem I have with these writers and jclifford and his ditto-heads is that their claims are not supported by the evidence they refer to. Nothing in H.R. 4922 would have led to theocracy.
Could you Irregular Times writers practice a little journalistic integrity and logical reasoning by ensuring that your conclusions are actually supported by the evidence you cite?
I’d hope your fellow Progressives don’t look to you as intellectual leaders of the movement.
Finally a link. And it doesn’t say “infamous” anywhere.
But what a crackpot resolution, Ron Paul’s H.R. 4922. As I read it, the bill–once you get past the dreary recitation of legal opinion that Paul likes–would have made it impossible for someone who thought their religious freedom had been denied to take it to a court of law, in effect taking the enforcement out of the amendment.
This Ron Paul seems to have a good sense of humor, though. He calls his bill the “First Amendment Restoration Act”, when in fact the result would have been to destroy the first amendment. He’s certainly a master of Newspeak.
“As I read it, the bill–once you get past the dreary recitation of legal opinion that Paul likes–would have made it impossible for someone who thought their religious freedom had been denied to take it to a court of law, in effect taking the enforcement out of the amendment.”
How so?
ROn seams like a dern good guy to me!!!
I’m tired of websites that smear RP in order get more viewers.
i think protecting our country and its constitution is a very important issue. Havent you read up on the American union from the white house or its currency being tossed around. Mmmmm seems to me you better drink some coffee and WAKE UP this country is heading down a very slippery slope and pretty soon we will be known as a borderless country called the North American Union merged with Canada and Mexico. So you can keep slammin ron paul all you want or you can set aside your difference and help save this country. Seriously the alarm clock is going off and your not waking up…
Help America
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote in a 1802 letter regarding the 1st amendment, “…….BUILDING A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.”
Ron Paul, wrote in his 2003 “War on Religion” that “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.”
Do we want to give up our liberal democracy? Ron Paul writes, “The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.”
Ron Paul, the American Ayatollah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwoK5HQ39_0 @ 4:09
Q: Do you feel like there should be a separation of church and state?
A: Oh, absolutely. There’s… I mean the constitution is very clear. there’s to be no organized religion.
Case closed.
No, case not closed, Daniel. Ron Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Sometimes he says he’s for separation of church and state, and sometimes he says he’s against it. It depends on who he thinks he’s talking to. Ron Paul is playing you, Daniel.
Besides, Ron Paul has supported legislation to make the separation of church and state functionally meaningless.
Actions speak louder than words.