| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jackass_Philosopher
Forum Leader
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Posts: 1114
Local time: 2:26 PM
Location: Georgia
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | I can understand objections to the first two, but objections to McCain-Feingold are pure gold.
That bill was written to exclude 3rd parties and to make it easier for incumbents to achieve re-election. One of the names critics gave it is "incumbent protection act." Say what you want about his religious stands, free speech is still very important, and that includes political speech.
If I donate to a candidate, that is an act of political speech. |
I'd be interested to see Paul elaborate more on why he opposes Campaign Finance Reform on a point-by-point analysis. There are some aspects of the McCain-Feingold law that I disagree with, but on the whole I believe the money should be monitored and the ability of PACs to influence elections restricted.
And does money really equal free speech? If I have more money than you do I therefore have more free speech? As it is, you can donate to a candidate, but there is a limit so as to ensure that everyone has an equal amount of free speech in the process and no one individual can drown another out by spending incredibly large sums of money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12826
Local time: 6:26 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jackass_Philosopher wrote: | I was starting to really lean towards Ron Paul also. However, several of his stances bother me. For instance, on Separation of Church and State:
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.
That's from December 30, 2003.
He also mentions that marriage should only be defined as between a man and a woman here:
Federal judges have flouted the will of the American people for too long, acting as imperial legislators instead of jurists. The definition of marriage- a union between a man and a woman- can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries.
He was also against the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill here:
The damage this bill does to the First amendment is certainly a sufficient reason to oppose it. However, as Professor Titus demonstrates in his analysis of the bill, the most important reason to oppose this bill is that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring.
It's hard to get a picture of him so far based on past snippets, some several years old. However, he prides himself on consistency, so it's safe to assume he continues to hold these same beliefs. He's definately a smart man with some interesting ideas, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. |
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and these things don't seem like that big of a deal. Especially since he's not advocating church/state integration. In fact, it sounds like he's advocating church/state separation, with the personal hope that people will choose to go to church and grow that institution. That's a personal belief and holds no merit as far as his fitness to leading America.
Almost every other candidate is far worse in almost every way. Ron Paul is still the best thing going right now, IMHO.
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12826
Local time: 6:26 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jackass_Philosopher wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | I can understand objections to the first two, but objections to McCain-Feingold are pure gold.
That bill was written to exclude 3rd parties and to make it easier for incumbents to achieve re-election. One of the names critics gave it is "incumbent protection act." Say what you want about his religious stands, free speech is still very important, and that includes political speech.
If I donate to a candidate, that is an act of political speech. |
I'd be interested to see Paul elaborate more on why he opposes Campaign Finance Reform on a point-by-point analysis. There are some aspects of the McCain-Feingold law that I disagree with, but on the whole I believe the money should be monitored and the ability of PACs to influence elections restricted.
And does money really equal free speech? If I have more money than you do I therefore have more free speech? As it is, you can donate to a candidate, but there is a limit so as to ensure that everyone has an equal amount of free speech in the process and no one individual can drown another out by spending incredibly large sums of money. |
Suppose I have no disposable income, thus I CAN'T donate. Does that then mean that I have less free speech, or even NO free speech?
It seems to me that if politicians are ONLY allowed to use a given dollar amount for their campaigns, provided by the government, then everyone has the same amount of free speech. Let's also say that only politicians who can generate at least 5% of the popular vote can qualify to run. It seems to me that this would level the playing field for 3rd parties. The 2 party system stays in power largely because they generate far more money then all of the other 3rd parties put together, and then some. This plan would allow the LP, Green Party, Reform Party, etc., to actually gain some momentum and break the current political duopoly.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FacetoFace
Forum Plebian
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 177
Local time: 12:26 AM
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | Ummm...I don't think you've read Tom DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln.
However, give the--wink, I think--you might just be joking some. |
Well the author of that book makes the easily defensible argument that Lincoln is a statist and didnt care much for the constitution.
However reading the comments it seems he makes fallacious and exagerated claims beside the above; Mostly in the line of 150 year old idlylic pictures of the south and consequent apologetics, takin' tha "y'all were bad too" approach. And fundamental misunderstandings of emancipation and slavery in the American context.
Not that I like Lincoln, just hate bullshit artists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9212
Local time: 11:26 PM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
RuPaul for president!!!!
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BarkAtTheMoon
O Captain, my Captain
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 4890
Local time: 10:26 AM
Location: Wilmington, DE
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: |
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and these things don't seem like that big of a deal. Especially since he's not advocating church/state integration. In fact, it sounds like he's advocating church/state separation, with the personal hope that people will choose to go to church and grow that institution. That's a personal belief and holds no merit as far as his fitness to leading America.
Almost every other candidate is far worse in almost every way. Ron Paul is still the best thing going right now, IMHO. |
He's apparently never actually read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, though.
| Jackass_Philosopher wrote: | I was starting to really lean towards Ron Paul also. However, several of his stances bother me. For instance, on Separation of Church and State:
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. |
Both replete with references to God? 
The only mentions of "God" in the Declaration are in the first two paragraphs:
| Quote: | When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. |
"Nature's God" and "their Creator" would clearly not be specifically referring to Christianity, especially the Nature's God part. And a 2 second google search would get you enough information to realize that the primary author, Jefferson, was, at best, a deist and certainly not pro-Christianity.
There's no mention of God in the Constitution, and the only two times religion is mentioned it is to limit it's influence in the government. Obviously with the establishment clause and in Article VI:
| Quote: | | The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. |
And this clause has been shit on more than any in the past 10 years or so. I'd love to hear a candidate in any election rattle this off when asked about religion.
This is all, at the very least, mildly alarming in regards to Ron Paul. Shouldn't we expect, nay, demand better from a candidate for the fucking President of the United States? Shouldn't they be required to have at least a cursory knowledge of basic US history and an accurate, working knowledge of the history and contents of the documents our nation was founded on and that define our government?
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12826
Local time: 6:26 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BarkAtTheMoon wrote: | | CET wrote: | There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and these things don't seem like that big of a deal. Especially since he's not advocating church/state integration. In fact, it sounds like he's advocating church/state separation, with the personal hope that people will choose to go to church and grow that institution. That's a personal belief and holds no merit as far as his fitness to leading America.
Almost every other candidate is far worse in almost every way. Ron Paul is still the best thing going right now, IMHO. |
He's apparently never actually read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, though. |
Got a better candidate? I'm not 100% in line with this guy (I'd say I'm about 75% in line with him), but that's more then I can say for any other single candidate.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jackass_Philosopher
Forum Leader
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Posts: 1114
Local time: 2:26 PM
Location: Georgia
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | Jackass_Philosopher wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | I can understand objections to the first two, but objections to McCain-Feingold are pure gold.
That bill was written to exclude 3rd parties and to make it easier for incumbents to achieve re-election. One of the names critics gave it is "incumbent protection act." Say what you want about his religious stands, free speech is still very important, and that includes political speech.
If I donate to a candidate, that is an act of political speech. |
I'd be interested to see Paul elaborate more on why he opposes Campaign Finance Reform on a point-by-point analysis. There are some aspects of the McCain-Feingold law that I disagree with, but on the whole I believe the money should be monitored and the ability of PACs to influence elections restricted.
And does money really equal free speech? If I have more money than you do I therefore have more free speech? As it is, you can donate to a candidate, but there is a limit so as to ensure that everyone has an equal amount of free speech in the process and no one individual can drown another out by spending incredibly large sums of money. |
Suppose I have no disposable income, thus I CAN'T donate. Does that then mean that I have less free speech, or even NO free speech?
It seems to me that if politicians are ONLY allowed to use a given dollar amount for their campaigns, provided by the government, then everyone has the same amount of free speech. Let's also say that only politicians who can generate at least 5% of the popular vote can qualify to run. It seems to me that this would level the playing field for 3rd parties. The 2 party system stays in power largely because they generate far more money then all of the other 3rd parties put together, and then some. This plan would allow the LP, Green Party, Reform Party, etc., to actually gain some momentum and break the current political duopoly. |
Which is not a bad idea. I don't find the argument that money is a form of political or free speech very convincing. This is not to say that the McCain-Feingold act is all good, though. There are other, actual restrictions on free speech in it, such as restricting candidates and supporters from running negative campaigns involving other candidates less than a couple months before an election.
This is why I would like to see a point-by-point rebuttal from Paul. Does he agree with capping political expenditures of PACs and candidates but disagree with the other forms of restricting free speech in it? Or does he just think that the whole thing should be torn down? Does he want to replace it with something else?
Paul also voted against the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq.
_________________
"'All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BarkAtTheMoon
O Captain, my Captain
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 4890
Local time: 10:26 AM
Location: Wilmington, DE
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | BarkAtTheMoon wrote: | | CET wrote: | There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and these things don't seem like that big of a deal. Especially since he's not advocating church/state integration. In fact, it sounds like he's advocating church/state separation, with the personal hope that people will choose to go to church and grow that institution. That's a personal belief and holds no merit as far as his fitness to leading America.
Almost every other candidate is far worse in almost every way. Ron Paul is still the best thing going right now, IMHO. |
He's apparently never actually read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, though. |
Got a better candidate? I'm not 100% in line with this guy (I'd say I'm about 75% in line with him), but that's more then I can say for any other single candidate. |
That's irrelevent. We're discussing his views, not whether he's slightly less shitty than the other candidates. But I certainly don't want a President who's apparantly unfamiliar with the Constitution and uses a religious right talking point to (incorrectly) describe what's in it. We've already had 6 and a half years of that, and I've had enough of that shit. As it stands, unless one party's winner really impresses me before November next year, I'll most likely "throw my vote away" and vote third party. I refuse to be responsible for four more years of incompetence in the White House. I'm fucking sick and tired of voting for the candidate who's a little less evil and worthless than the other guy. I'd rather not vote or vote third party. Best case scenario for me is that the White House and Congress stay split after the '08 elections so that neither party can really fuck anything up too bad.
But to answer your question, right now Biden's probably the only one on either side I'd vote for, since he's from my home state, I know the most about him, and I respect him even if I don't always agree with him, although I seriously doubt he'll get the party nomination. I'm reserving judgement on a couple others for now, like Obama and Giuliani, until probably a year from now when it's closer to the election, and I know more about them and if they'll even win their party's nomination. Of the other front runners, there's no way in hell I'm voting for Clinton, McCain has completely lost my respect in the last year or so, and if one of the three assclowns that raised their hand when asked who doesn't believe evolution is true so much as wins the Republican nomination I'm moving out of the country.
Personally, I'm just sick of hearing about it already a year and a half before the election. Sweet, merciful crap! One election ends and the next day a new set of morons are infecting my tv with campaign commercials and constant news attention for the next one. Somebody make it stop, please!!!! 
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 8:26 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | Ummm...I don't think you've read Tom DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln.
However, give the--wink, I think--you might just be joking some. |
| FacetoFace wrote: | Well the author of that book makes the easily defensible argument that Lincoln is a statist and didnt care much for the constitution.
However reading the comments it seems he makes fallacious and exagerated claims beside the above; Mostly in the line of 150 year old idlylic pictures of the south and consequent apologetics, takin' tha "y'all were bad too" approach. And fundamental misunderstandings of emancipation and slavery in the American context. |
Ummm...no, he doesn't do any of those things. What makes you say that he does?
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 8:26 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: |
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and these things don't seem like that big of a deal. Especially since he's not advocating church/state integration. In fact, it sounds like he's advocating church/state separation, with the personal hope that people will choose to go to church and grow that institution. That's a personal belief and holds no merit as far as his fitness to leading America.
Almost every other candidate is far worse in almost every way. Ron Paul is still the best thing going right now, IMHO. |
| BarkAtTheMoon wrote: | | He's apparently never actually read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, though. |
What makes you say that? Look: I'll grant you that the church shouldn't meddle in the state and vice-versa, but the problem with a lot of people vis-a-vis the separation is they want the theists to do some Rawlsian veil-of-ignorance thing wrt their voting tendencies. That's not the way humans work.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12826
Local time: 6:26 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BarkAtTheMoon wrote: | | CET wrote: | | BarkAtTheMoon wrote: | | CET wrote: | There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and these things don't seem like that big of a deal. Especially since he's not advocating church/state integration. In fact, it sounds like he's advocating church/state separation, with the personal hope that people will choose to go to church and grow that institution. That's a personal belief and holds no merit as far as his fitness to leading America.
Almost every other candidate is far worse in almost every way. Ron Paul is still the best thing going right now, IMHO. |
He's apparently never actually read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, though. |
Got a better candidate? I'm not 100% in line with this guy (I'd say I'm about 75% in line with him), but that's more then I can say for any other single candidate. |
That's irrelevent. We're discussing his views, not whether he's slightly less shitty than the other candidates. But I certainly don't want a President who's apparantly unfamiliar with the Constitution and uses a religious right talking point to (incorrectly) describe what's in it. We've already had 6 and a half years of that, and I've had enough of that shit. As it stands, unless one party's winner really impresses me before November next year, I'll most likely "throw my vote away" and vote third party. I refuse to be responsible for four more years of incompetence in the White House. I'm fucking sick and tired of voting for the candidate who's a little less evil and worthless than the other guy. I'd rather not vote or vote third party. Best case scenario for me is that the White House and Congress stay split after the '08 elections so that neither party can really fuck anything up too bad. |
Yeah, I usually cast a "protest vote" as well. In fact, I've never voted for a major party member in a presidential election. I've always voted 3rd party. Of course, EVERYONE I know blames me for "the other guy" getting elected. 
| BarkAtTheMoon wrote: | | Personally, I'm just sick of hearing about it already a year and a half before the election. Sweet, merciful crap! One election ends and the next day a new set of morons are infecting my tv with campaign commercials and constant news attention for the next one. Somebody make it stop, please!!!! |
I was talking about that last night. It's worse then Christmas creeping into September.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2138
Local time: 9:26 AM
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still want Ron Paul to win but the more I'm looking at it I think a democratic win is inevitable.
Ron Paul won't get the Republican nomination, and once Juliani or any of those other idiotic assholes wins it, dems have sealed the deal. After watching the GOP there are no candidates worth looking at other than Ron Paul.
the only way I envision a republican in the white house for the next four is ..
Step 1) A miracle occurs
Step 2) Get underpants
Step 3)
Step 4) Ron Paul gets rich from the underpants, and can fund a more aggressive campaign, enabling him to win the Republican nomination...
Step 5) All the "Dems for Ron Paul" outnumber the amount of theistic republicans who would run screaming from a candidate who postures to severely reduce the governments power... that is to say... it's power to legislate the Christian morality into Laws. Somehow I think this ration would heavily favor the Dems even in the event of the aforementioned miracle...
It would be a strange turn of events if the democrats were affected by "the religious vote" in a positive way, because RP won't outlaw all the heathen activities of the "seculars" science! By religious vote I mean fundy vote, I know tons of dems are tongue and cheek christians.
It's so fucking amazing how close this guy is to being a perfect candidate and I talk about him at work and people don't know who he even is. When people talk about the founding fathers and presidents like Lincoln they talk about them like they're great, but when a man in office like RP is running for president they just wanna shit in his mouth about acknowledging "blow back" and verbally stating that he would investigate the motivations of our enemies and use that in an attempt to shape foreign policy. Drives me absolutely insane how people are.
So I think scenario 1: Ron Paul loses the republican nomination, and since everyone hates him he is no one's VP. Dems win by default.
Scenario 2: Ron Paul wins the republican nomination and the majority of the party votes democratic for religious reasons and RP loses.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12826
Local time: 6:26 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This election primary has basically started almost a year early. I wonder if this is going to be another "Garfield" election. The primary candidates are all shunned for a last minute, unknown dark horse candidate. Someone who can get the vote, because no one hates him yet.
This may go for both parties.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerard
Old World Shadow
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 3986
Local time: 2:26 PM
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paul seems to be prone to the same misunderstandings about the term "separation between church and state" that theists who claim separation of C&S isn't in the constitution or wasn't intended by the US founding fathers, are also prone to.
| Quote: | | 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. |
| Quote: | | On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. |
The first has nothing to do with the second. These items are not in contradiction with eachother
| Quote: | | Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, |
replete?
| Quote: | | 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. |
"State" doesn't equal "public life". Separation of C&S simply implies that a church is not an institution of the state (anymore). That's all.
The First amendment speaks of religion and not of church though. That goes a little bit further. It would seem to mean that religion cannot be a function or an institution of the state. It doesn't say that religion shouldn't play a role in public life or even in politics however.
In1947 (I believe) the Surpreme Court took this to mean also that no tax money can be used for the advancement of religion. That is to say proselytizing.
What's in the US Constitutiun is clearly "Separation of Church and State".
Gerard
_________________
The Historical Atlas of Europe
But as man exists in nature, I am not authorized to say that his formation, is above the power of nature.
Paul Henri Thiry Baron d' Holbach, (1723-1789)
Not collecting stamps is my hobby.
Gerard, (1962-*) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
