Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Ron Paul echoes Fox News: Churches should "eclipse" state

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    simuvac Guest

    Ron Paul echoes Fox News: Churches should "eclipse" state

    One of many reasons I don't trust Ron Paul. An essay by Paul from 2003:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

    The War on Religion




    As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

    Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

    This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

    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.
    December 30, 2003

    Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

  2. #2
    werther Guest
    This article was in response to over-the-top political correctness that had/has been permeating within our country.

    However, there are many flawed agrugments withing this essay:

    1. "Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God,"

    - this is inherantly false.

    2. "
    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"

    - ummm the first amendment. It is not possible to have freedom of religion if the state or federal government insists on one particular religion or denomination. Such a governement would by definition be infringing on the rights of the people.

    3.
    "On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs"

    - Madison, you know the 'father of the constitution' was a diest, as was Franklin, Jefferson*, Monroe and arguably Washington.

    4.
    "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view."

    - this is exactly how Jefferson would have wanted it and intended it to be. Religion is personal and the state should stay out of it.

    I read this article a long time ago, and though I still root for Paul, this article is always in the back of my mind. How could someone who considers himself an advocate and defender of the constitution get it so wrong?

    * Jefferson, though not at the constitutional convention of 1787, had more to do with its creation and ideals than just about anybody else with the exception of Madison; and Madison was his protege. One example: When the convention was over Madison, Franklin, and Washington all sent a copy to Jefferson who was at the time Ambassador to France. Upon reading it he wrote to Madison that they failed and must reconvene, and that the constitution by itself was like a "fox guarding the hen house" since it contained no bill of rights.

  3. #3
    werther Guest
    "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?"

    -James Madison

  4. #4
    simuvac Guest
    I think all of your criticisms are correct, werther. It's especially important to note the founding fathers were Diests. It's incorrect to say the founding fathers were simply "Christians". They were more diverse than that. For example, see the competing answers to this question here:

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_relig...unding_Fathers

    Most important, though, is that at heart Paul is not simply a strict constitutionalist (and neither is Alex Jones). Their worldview is deeply affected by Christian millennialism.

    Thanks, but I've had enough of that occupying the White House.

  5. #5
    Uber Commandante Guest
    I would also add to that the weird idea that Liberal Secularists somehow want to chip away at god, in order to replace the authority figure with the 'state'. We have clearly seen in the last 6.5 years that it is the religious conservatives who have put their entire faith into GW Bush, vaulting him from governer to Messiah. A king who they will followl, regardless of truth, justice, or the American way.

    It is the "liberal secularists" who have been trying to get us back to reality.

    "when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross"
    Sinclair Lewis, 1935

  6. #6
    simuvac Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Uber Commandante
    I would also add to that the weird idea that Liberal Secularists somehow want to chip away at god, in order to replace the authority figure with the 'state'. We have clearly seen in the last 6.5 years that it is the religious conservatives who have put their entire faith into GW Bush, vaulting him from governer to Messiah. A king who they will followl, regardless of truth, justice, or the American way.

    It is the "liberal secularists" who have been trying to get us back to reality.

    "when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross"
    Sinclair Lewis, 1935
    Yeah, and "liberal secularists" were largely responsible for laws supporting labor rights, gender equality, racial equality, environmental protections, etc.

    Shouldn't "people of God" be in the streets fighting for these things?

  7. #7
    BASE701 Guest
    Yes Ron Paul is a Christian. And yes, in being so, he has an opinion about how the Christian faith is demeaned in this country by secularists. Big deal.

    What have any of you witnessed by Dr. Paul that would lead you to think he is anything more than who he says he is? It's fine to disagree with his opinion, but to say he is untrustworthy is a ludicrous. He has a twenty year record in congress that proves who he is. His fifty year marriage proves who he is. If his record is untrustworthy, then who do you trust?

  8. #8
    simuvac Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BASE701
    Yes Ron Paul is a Christian. And yes, in being so, he has an opinion about how the Christian faith is demeaned in this country by secularists. Big deal.

    What have any of you witnessed by Dr. Paul that would lead you to think he is anything more than who he says he is? It's fine to disagree with his opinion, but to say he is untrustworthy is a ludicrous. He has a twenty year record in congress that proves who he is. His fifty year marriage proves who he is. If his record is untrustworthy, then who do you trust?
    First, I think what he wrote here is more than just "an opinion about how the Christian faith is demeaned" by secularists. He is making much stronger statements than that.

    Second, you're right: Perhaps I spoke too strongly when I said he is untrustworthy. A more accurate description would probably be: I think he exaggerates when he claims to be a strict constitutionalist.

    As I've said elsewhere, I would support Paul as a lesser evil, if only because he is anti-neocon. Otherwise, I don't support his libertarian ideal of letting corporations run amok, which is what would happen if he accomplished his goals of dismantling the public sphere and privatizing it.

    But, as others have said, I'm not worried about Paul winning anything. His candidacy, as admirable as it is, is just a diversion. He will never come close to winning anything. The corporate media will not allow it. They will crucify Paul if he gets anywhere near 15% or 20% support, just like they did with Howard Dean, and just like they'll do with anyone who even APPEARS to represent populist politics.

  9. #9
    werther Guest
    Take a look at who voted against that absurd and frivolous House Resolution 847.....-You know the one "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith (Vote On Passage)"

    vote

    spoiler: Ron Paul

  10. #10
    werther Guest
    Sorry to double post but let me add that this was voted on December 11th 2007. The reason I point this out is to highlight that it was in his run for presidential candidacy. Principled.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-30-2010, 04:45 PM
  2. Ron Paul: After "CIA Coup," Agency "Runs Military"
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-21-2010, 09:17 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-25-2007, 11:37 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2007, 07:04 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 08:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •