You know, I’ve gone back to read Ron Paul’s speech before the Congress on the subject of the separation of church and state, and I have to ask in all sincerity:
Is Ron Paul simply playing a doddering fool, or is he the real deal?
Look, here’s the meat of his speech:
For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. 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. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
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. This “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
Ron Paul begins by simply getting his facts wrong. There simply are no laws or court rulings in effect that “ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games.” Children can pray in school. Courthouses can display the Ten Commandments. Citizens can pray before football games. These actions are not only legal, but sanctioned by the federal courts.
Children have the ability and the right to pray in school. The prohibition is not on student prayer, but rather on school leaders, who are forbidden from sponsoring or endorsing such prayers, since that would involve the use of government resources and power to prioritize one set of religious beliefs over another. As the Supreme Court made clear in two cases dealing with courthouses in Kentucky and Texas, courthouses can indeed display the Ten Commandments, so long as the purpose of such a display is not to promote a set of religious beliefs such as the thoroughly Judeo-Christian religious beliefs of the Ten Commandments. When, as in Texas, a courthouse display of the Ten Commandments is historical in nature and is not designed to advocate for one religion, the Supreme Court ruled that there’s no problem with such a display remaining. And finally, as with school prayer, citizens of course can pray before football games. The school just can’t broadcast school-sanctioned prayers for a particular religion over its loudspeaker system, shoving it down the ears of everybody else, as the Supreme Court clearly ruled in 2000, when Catholic and Mormon students sought relief from having Protestant school-sanctioned prayers blasted in their ears. That’s using the government to promote a particular set of religious beliefs, and that’s what it means to establish a religion.
Nobody has stopped or is stopping kids from praying in school, or citizens from praying before football games, or courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments in a non-proselytizing manner — as long as there’s no government body being used to promote religion, these are fine. Ron Paul is just plain simply factually wrong on this issue. “Prayer and religious speech in a public area” are, similarly, just fine, so long as you don’t have a government body or government official doing it. Has Ron Paul visited any public schools lately? Gideon’s Bibles are handed out all the time by independent organizations. Students and student-athletes pray before all sorts of events all the time. But it’s their business, and that’s the way it should be according to the Constitution and the good sense of any civil libertarian who doesn’t want government shoving mandates down citizens’ throats.
It’s the last step in his speech that’s a real kicker. To “solve” the non-problem of kids being able to pray just fine in school, citizens being able to pray just fine before football games, and non-proselytizing Ten Commandments being able to be displayed at courthouses, Ron Paul proposed a bill, H.R. 4922, which would have emptied all cases pertaining to the first amendment religious establishment clause from the court system and prohibited the federal courts from considering or ruling on any more of them.
Ron Paul’s bill, if passed, would have removed judicial review from all laws having to do with the use of government resources to proselytize for particular religions. In order to solve a series of fictions that do not correspond with observable fact, current law or Supreme Court rulings, Ron Paul would have removed the only vehicle for religious minorities to check the power of the government to shove the religious agenda of religious majorities down their throats.
And Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian? Oh, I completely get that Ron Paul is an economic libertarian who doesn’t think the government is good for doing anything positive. But when it comes to using the resources of government to shove particular religious agendas down the throats of our nation’s kids, Paul seems to be completely at ease. Would he feel the same if he were not, conveniently, a member of the American Protestant majority?
Ron Paul’s comfort with the use of government for majoritarian bullying is very disturbing to me, and it’s not isolated to this one instance: See here for his similar reflections in December of 2003, for another instance. Ron Paul’s statements indicate either an ignorance of the current state of American law, in which case Ron Paul is a doddering fool who isn’t fit for the presidency, or a willingness to misrepresent it in order to enable big government proselytization, in which case Ron Paul is a dangerous demagogue.
(Sources: Ron Paul, Speech Before the House of Representatives, 2002; Christian Science Monitor June 28 2005; ACLU Briefing Paper #3 on Church and State; Supreme Court ruling on Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe; Ron Paul VoteSmart Profile; Ron Paul, Christmas in Secular America, 2003)
He is right.
Just because he wants to remove it from the federal level, does not mean he will get rid of it completely. That goes for everything. Read the 10th amendment. Things NOT given to congress is passed down to the state and local levels.
I don’t even know where you get that he is looking for majority bullying. By following the constitution, you get the opposite of that. Right now you get the majority of Americans making decisions for the entire country. By not allowing anything in any area to fit the entire country, you end up with no allowing anything and nobody has freedom. Read up on Franklin a bit.
The whole premise of this article is sophistry. Yes, there have been times when it has been decided by the courts that a display of the ten commandments in courthouses is ok, but there have been others, such as in Kentucky and Alabama, where it was ruled that it was not appropriate to have them displayed. You are only using the examples where it is allowed as the basis for saying Ron Paul is wrong, even though he was obviously only addressing instances where the first amendment has been used to prevent their display.
Please stop resorting to such transparent tactics to try and discredit someone you disagree with and just present your opinion as opinion, not fact.
*boggle*
Has our government run so roughshod over our constitution that we are all hallucinating? The federal government has no business with religion. Period. 10th amendment. All ron is doing is terminating the fed involvement in anything religious. Not in its jurisdiction. Going to the supreme court for a dispute about religion is like going to 7-11 to buy a car. Relax.
EEKman, did you read the legislation?
Because in Kentucky and Alabama, it was clear that the Ten Commandments were being used to PROSELYTIZE for the Christian religion. The government can’t proselytize for a religion.
No, it appears EEKman hasn’t read the legislation, and neither has badmedia. When you can’t appeal a law’s constitutional appropriateness, it can say anything, it can do anything. Funny, guys, but I kind of thought that unleashing big government power like that would make a libertarian blanch. Perhaps libertarians really don’t care about big government. Or are you more a Paulitarian — if he says it, it must be right?
“When you can’t appeal a law’s constitutional appropriateness, it can say anything, it can do anything.”
Cuts both ways. If that law were ever anything more than a pipe dream, it would prevent the religionists from taking any of their claims to the USSC as well. BOTH sides are barred from taking their cases to the USSC.
This laws would benefit neither those who want to appeal laws that prevent them from imposing their religion on others, nor those who want to be free from such imposition.
It does seem kind of strange, however. Is there any other legislation out there that prevents other laws from being appealed to the USSC?
(At least you didn’t claim “separation of church and state” was in the Constitution.)
The words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution, but the concept is implicit in the combination of the original body of the Constitution itself, which states that there shall be no religious test for public office, and the very first amendment to the Constitution, which states that there shall be no government establishment of religion.
“This laws would benefit neither those who want to appeal laws that prevent them from imposing their religion on others, nor those who want to be free from such imposition.”
Only if the composition of state and federal legislatures were perfectly balanced in terms of religion and respect for secularism. They’re not. There are lots of people interested in religious fundamentalism in the Congress. The first ever member of Congress to openly state he does not believe in a God just identified himself this year. Still, in this day and age, not one open atheist has been elected to Congress.
The Constitution is designed to ward off majorities who think that freedom is for them, but not for others.
“The Constitution is designed to ward off majorities who think that freedom is for them, but not for others.”
Finally! Somebody who recognizes how and why we are a REPUBLIC and not a DEMOCRACY.
Thank you. I take back everything bad I ever wrote or even thought about you.
Please teach your fellow members of the left this lesson, and I would -almost- be tempted to become a liberal.
We have a Republican form of Democracy.
I think very few people on “the Left” (which is a fictional abstraction covering for a lot of variance) think we live in a pure direct democracy, which is presumably what you’re referring to when you say the U.S. is “not a DEMOCRACY,” so that’s kind of a red herring. I think everyone writing for Irregular Times would agree we live in one of the many possible forms of democratic political systems that are out there, so I don’t know who on “the Left” you’re referring to who needs to be reeducated.
But thank you for the nice pat on the head anyway. Shall I run along and get me an ice cream cone?
There was a change somewhere in US history when people stopped using the exact phrase “republican” and started using “democratic.” That’s because there was an idea shift.
Ask people why they want to do away with the Electoral College, they will most likely say, “It’s more democratic.”
Earlier, the 17th Ammendment changed the selection of Senators from the role of State legislatures to direct election – pretty much (but not entirely) making a bicameral house a waste of time.
Compare these two in a survey:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.”
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote…”
…and I expect most people will say the second one is more “democratic.”
The anecdote about Benjamin Franklin has his response to the question of what kind of government was drafted into the USC as, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Why not, “a democracy, if you can keep it”?
I don’t know many people who would think “Democracy Now!” is a news program put on by the Democratic Party, but if you were to remind someone, “that’s a republican ideal,” most people will hear it as “Republican ideal.”
Ask the citizen on the street what kind of government we have, and they will say, “a democracy.” Then ask them to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and when they get to, “…and to the republic, for which it stands…” their eyes glaze over in confusion.
Finally, ask most people what “democracy” means, and the vast majority will say, “majority rule.”
That was a very nice description of what you think most people think.
It doesn’t change that our republic is a form of democracy.
This discussion is all over the web. Ed Brayton, who blogs for PositiveLiberty.com and for ScienceBlogs.com posted about this very thing on Monday.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/madison_and_majoritarian_tyran.php#more
One of his responders had this to say:
“I’m a political scientist, so let me throw in my two cents. First, Ed has seriously blown it here in two ways (sorry, Ed, I really do like you, but…). First, he’s using dictionary definitions. Second, Madison did not insist on a “liberal democracy”–the phrase wouldn’t have made any sense to him, as it’s a much more contemporary construct.
The term democracy as used by Madison meant pure majority rule, whereas by a republic he meant a system in which the public was sovereign, but the majority did not always have a free hand to do as they wished. In this sense, a republic could be considered any system in which those in power are constrained from holding to power perpetually, and so using it only for their own ends. Regular selection of representatives through a lottery would do the trick.
So why is it important that we’re not a democracy, but (as one of the early commentors said, a constitutional republic)? Because the majority is all too frequently composed of those whose interest is to harm others (as Madison said).
The contradiction at the heart of our system is that you need to let the public rule, to prevent tyranny, but the public–as a group–may be no wiser or generous than any tyrant.
So to paraphrase Madison, “Democracy bad, republic good.”
Posted by: JHanley | July 24, 2007 09:00 PM”
If you believe I am wrong about what most people think, Master Jim, you could always test it for yourself. Are you willing to report the true results? Random sampling must be conducted.
If you disagree with my assessment of what most people think, you can test it for yourself.
Check out this site for more discussion:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/madison_and_majoritarian_tyran.php#more
This is also good:
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
republic
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Ha, that’s a good one. Like I’ve got the bucks to run a nationally representative survey. Hey Spanky, the moon is made of purple cheese. If you want to prove me wrong, why don’t you send up a space probe? Please cut the transparent silly stuff.
The etymology of the word “Democracy” is Greek, and it literally means Rule by the People. How that happens is up for debate.
They wouldn’t call direct democracy “direct democracy” if all democracies were direct democracies, would they? They wouldn’t call simple majoritarian democracy “simple majoritarian democracy” if all democracies were simply majoritarian, would they?
The United States is a representative democracy with a constitution. It’s a republican form of democracy. It has the structure of a republic for implementing rule by the people. It’s not a simple majoritarian variety. It’s mediated by constitutional boundaries agreed upon by supermajorities, most importantly. But that doesn’t change that the American political structure is a way of implementing democracy. Rule by the people.
If you want to play dueling citations, how about the U.S. State Department’s description of the American political system for international dissemination?
Sorry to be so cut-and-pasty, but you started.
I’m not particularly interested in what a majority of Americans think a word means. A majority of Americans at one time thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Didn’t make it true.
Sorry about the multiple posts. Id din’t see my posts, so I thought they had gone to la-la land.
If anyone is still paying attention to this thread:
I was wondering, if demcracy = republic, does that make the People’s Republic of China a democracy?
What about Plato’s republic? Plato considered democracy to be worse than oligarchy.
What about a republic wherein the legislative body selects the executive, the judiciary, writes the laws and selects their replacements? Is that a democracy?
I didn’t say “republic” and “democracy” were equal. “Terrier” and “dog” aren’t equal. But a Terrier is a kind of a dog. Similarly, a representative constitutional republic like that in the United States is a form of democracy.
The China example is silly. If I call the moon the Republic of the Moon, it doesn’t make it a Republic. Democratic Kampuchea wasn’t democratic because it had the word “democratic” in it. George W. Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative wasn’t environmentalist because it had the words “Clear Skies” in it.
Plato was an aristocrat, so it’s probably not a surprise that he considered democracy to be worse than oligarchy. But I don’t see what your point is beyond that.
Pardon my ignorance, but why does it matter? This is basically an eighth grade civics lesson.
The ancient Greek idea of government would have included only the elite in their “democracy”. Letting the riff raff and huddled masses participate in the civil process would have been unthinkable.
Jim,
The analogy is not between Terrier and Dog, but between Dog and Cat. Democracy and republic are forms of government that sometimes share certain characteristics, but that doesn’t make one a subset of the other.
The People’s Republic of China has a republican government that is not democratic.
Plato’s republic would be very undemocratic.
The last example I cited is a republic that has not elements of democracy in it.
Iroquois,
If you were taught in 8th grade civics that a republic is a form of democracy, or that the USA is a democracy, then you were taught wrong.
I repeat, why do you even care? Didn’t you exhaust your attention span for this subject in the eighth grade? What makes it such a burning question?
Cheesus. Context, Spanky. I wrote “a representative constitutional republic like that in the United States is a form of democracy” and “our republic is a democracy.”
Let’s just note for the record that Spanky knows what he’s talking about better than the U.S. State Department and political scientist Robert Y. Shapiro of Columbia University published in the Academy of Political Science. When you claim that that there isn’t such a thing as a republican democracy, or that the USA isn’t a democracy, you sure do show them. It must be a conspiracy by the government itself and the academics to hide the real truth.
What I’m really interested in is why you’re so determined to say that the United States isn’t a democracy. What’s your agenda? I’m guessing it has something to do with your statement, “Earlier, the 17th Ammendment changed the selection of Senators from the role of State legislatures to direct election – pretty much (but not entirely) making a bicameral house a waste of time.”
The Founding Fathers wrote that one of their express goals was to avoid, in their words, “the EVIL of Democracy.”
Prior to the 17th Amendment, the only aspect of even representative democracy in the entire Federal Government as defined by the Constitution was the House of Representatives. Only they were elected by the people. Of the entire Executive Branch, only the President had even the ILLUSION of being elected by the people (actually by the Electoral College). The Vice President was originally whoever came in second (thus nobody actually voted for Vice President), or, as Amended, is now little more than just another Presidential appointee, albeit one who is announced by each Presidential candidate before the election (and so can perhaps influence the vote). Everyone else in the entire Executive Branch is appointed, as is the entire Judicial Branch. Since the Senators were also appointed, albeit by the State Legislatures, prior to the 17th Amendment, that left only the House.
½ of one branch representing only a representative form of democracy doth not a democracy make.
The way things are supposed to work is this:
• The House represents the Will of the People (the only aspect of even representative democracy).
• The Senate represents the States (not the People thereof, prior to the 17th Amendment — now changed to representing the Will of the People of the States, which is insufficiently different from the House and a MAJOR corruption of the intended form of our government).
• The Executive Branch represents the Good of the Nation as a whole.
• The Judicial Branch represents the Law of the Land.
These are all to be equal in power, but with different responsibilities, and with checks and balances between them.
I just go with what Maidson wrote, since he was one of the chaps who developed the USC in the first place.
Do you have proof of a conspiracy? I’ve never heard of one.
Regarding the 17th Ammendment, if both houses are popularly elected, what’s the difference between a Senator and a US Rep? The only difference I can see is that the Reps have to spend more money on campaigning, since they have to do it 3x as often.
Iroquois,
OK, Buh-bye.
If not conspiracy, Spanky, how do you account for the fact that your definition of democracy is different from both the U.S. government definition and the definition of nationally recognized political scientists? Those are some pretty definitive authorities.
Why does it matter? You didn’t answer that.
What is the difference between a senator and a rep? You would have learned that if you had been paying attention in eighth grade civics class. First, representation. Senators represent geographical areas, so a sparsely populated state like South Dakota has the same representation as a more densely populated state like Illinois. Reps are assigned on the basis of population, and represent more of a popular vote. Reps do not have so much job security so they must very closely follow the will of the people, even when the people are fickle. Senators have a longer term, so they can afford to be more statesmanlike and try to provide some stability instead of changing policies every two minutes. Yet they too are eventually accountable to the voters, so they cannot stay out of line with popular opinion forever.
Case in point, remember when the Iraq war started and every house and every car had a flag hanging from it? All the sweatshops in China were working three shifts to try to keep up with the flag production. I’m old enough that I have seen that before and the occasion was Vietnam, so I knew what was coming next. Remember John Prine’s song “Your flag decal won’t get you into heaven anymore, they’re already overcrowded from your dirty little war”? Or maybe it was Kristoferson, whatever. Any politician that did not follow the public into whatever war would be declared would very quickly be looking for a new gig. Now the public has very conveniently forgotten it was they who pushed the politicians in to some, any, kind of action and they are busy looking for some presidential candidate statesmanlike enough not to have listed to them.
So you see with one election, the anti-war sentiment is gaining, and eventually will win out, but not with a sudden change in policy. It will come with deliberation, giving the world a little breathing room to adjust to its superpower’s latest whim.
That’s the difference between a senator and a rep.
“If not conspiracy, Spanky, how do you account for the fact that your definition of democracy is different from both the U.S. government definition and the definition of nationally recognized political scientists? Those are some pretty definitive authorities.”
How do you account for the fact that their definition is different from that of James Madison, one of the primary authors of the Constitution? How do you account for the fact that the meaning of words change over time, and what was once known as a republic is now being called a democracy, even though when this republic was developed, there was a recognition that the two were different, even when they may have similar characteristics?
“Senators represent geographical areas,” They used to represent the States themselves. That is why they were selected by the State legislatures, because, when the USC was written, the authors recognized that the States were nearly sovereign entities that would have different ideas, sometimes, than their citizens. So the Senate was set up to represent the States to the Federal government, and the House was set up to represent the citizens to the Federal Government. At that time, the role of the Federal government was much more limited than it is now; it acted more as a referee between the States and the people and between the several States. It was never intended to be the major power in running the Union, as it has since become.
These days, the States and the people have almost zero power and the federal government has almost all of it. That’s mostly because those elected to Federal office are not doing their job of representing the people or the States.
The only thing preserved from the original intent of the USC after the 17th A. is the longer terms for the Senators. That protects some of the nature of the republic and prevents this from being more of a democracy. Are the Senators more circumspect than the Reps? Obviously not: Otherwise we wouldn’t be in this war at all. If the Senators were selected as originally intended, then they would have felt no pressure to cave in to popular sentiment as you described. Their accountability to the people is what did us in.
Your last paragraph is completely opposite in meaning from the one preceding it.
Maybe you drop the attitude of, “Everything I need to know about US government I learned in 8th grade civics.â€
I haven’t even started on the ninth grade yet, Spanky. We have quite a few years left to cover. It really would have saved you some time to have paid attention in those classes.
Where are your links to your supposed James Madison sources? If James Madison liked horses, would you insist that everyone else has to ride a horse now? Kinda reminds me of that al-Qaeda bunch that wants to restore the Caliphate and return to some non-existent historical Golden Age.
States ARE geographical areas. Have you looked at a map lately?
You also need to look up the Articles of Confederation (that preceded the constitution), which was little more than a voluntary agreement between sovereign states. It didn’t work, of course.
What is all this about? Why do you continue to blather about dictionary definitions of democracies and republics? Are you just trying to prove you are out of step with the rest of the world?