It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationist Ron Paul on Secularism: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Creationist Ron Paul on Secularism: "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."

www.godandstate.com...

Found from:
www.reddit.com...

Erm? What??? I'm not even sure where to start with this, I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be the king of the constitution, how does this make any sense?




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RubberBaron
Creationist Ron Paul on Secularism: "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."

www.godandstate.com...

Found from:
www.reddit.com...

Erm? What??? I'm not even sure where to start with this, I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be the king of the constitution, how does this make any sense?


Actually any separation between church and state was not to protect the state but protect religion from a state sponsored religion. This means it is not intended to keep religion out of the state, but to keep the state out of religion….make sense?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Actually any separation between church and state was not to protect the state but protect religion from a state sponsored religion. This means it is not intended to keep religion out of the state, but to keep the state out of religion….make sense?


Not really, why would the founders want to allow religion in the state? I thought the whole point of founding the USA was to get away from all that nonsense in England. Once you allow religion in the state, you just end up with the same old problems they were trying to get away from.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RubberBaron

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Actually any separation between church and state was not to protect the state but protect religion from a state sponsored religion. This means it is not intended to keep religion out of the state, but to keep the state out of religion….make sense?


Not really, why would the founders want to allow religion in the state? I thought the whole point of founding the USA was to get away from all that nonsense in England. Once you allow religion in the state, you just end up with the same old problems they were trying to get away from.


Your founding fathers were not perfect,stop putting them on some omniscient pedestal...they were crap and wrong 90% of the time just like the rest of us.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RubberBaron
 


If you were to read some of the things the founders of the constitution said you may realize there whole idea was to take government out of god, but not god out of government. They wanted all religions to be able to worship here in the US.

England has the Church of England; the founders did not want a Church of America. But they also did not want got to be taking out of public life. Hence, the reasons when you read the constitution you see God in it, and references by the founders of the constitution refer to god all the time.

Does this make since?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
That might sound nice to some, but just wait when Islam becomes the number one religion in this country lol, then we'll be like "ohh crap...".

But in my view, religion should have nothing to do with many of these moral issues. If religion is solely an inner experience, I wonder what effect it could even have on government.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The separation of Church and State is the understanding and practice of western democracies, and its very interesting that now this is being pushed, a "change" in understanding the constitution for most people. Because they are going to attempt to DESTROY modern cilization and bring in an ancient serfdom.
But really folks, the ball IS in your hands.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Nobody can deny the constitution forbids the government from establishing a single official religion. In the late 1700's, the rule was made so none of the various Christian churches that existed in America at the time would get any special treatment.

Today, the rule is still relevant. Today, one group of Christian Churches is trying to have the government foist its dogma on the entire country. They are trying to have schools endorse their views by teaching creationism. They are even having members of our military use the military as a vehicle to proseletyze muslims.

There is not difference between the government supporting evangelical Christian groups today and the government supporting the Quaker church 200 years ago. This is not to say that members of our government who happen to be members of particular religious groups cannot participate in government. This is to say that the government should not be endorsing any relgious belief like evangelical christianity, creationism, etc.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I don't think Ron Paul's views have anything bad to do with his opinion on a matter. I don't think its a bad one though; if government gets involved where it shouldn't then things will get ugly from that point. I don't trust any government official but he seems nice enough.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RubberBaronNot really, why would the founders want to allow religion in the state? I thought the whole point of founding the USA was to get away from all that nonsense in England. Once you allow religion in the state, you just end up with the same old problems they were trying to get away from.


You forget that the colonies were populated to a great extent by religious "fringe groups", from both ends of the spectrum in Europe. They were "escaping" from the Church of England, the Lutheran Reformation AND from the Catholic Church.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


That's right. The Catholic Church is very specific and they are corrupt. So no doubt they would want to get out of there.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Say what u will Robber Baron a man can have a deep conviction to religon and still perform according to the Constitution. I havent seen anything to convince me other wise of Ron Paul. but I did see theese links on the original article

anatheist.net** New
The Angry Philistine** New
State of Protest** New
The Daily Mull** New
The Atheist Jew** New
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster** New
Nullifidian
Verbal Razors
Agnostic Universe Blog
heaving dead cats
eAtheists.com
Life Without Faith
Mixter's Mix
The Atheist Camel
Just a whisper in the wind
A Division by Zer0
A different part of the cow
Anything But Theist
Sans God
Ian's Brain
My Single Mom Life
Phoesune - My DeConversion
God is Pretend
Cure Faith
The Random Fish

Resources
About.com - Atheism
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Andrew Sullivan
Atheist Revolution
Christopher Hitchens
Cult News
Drudge Report
No God Blog
Pharyngula
Richard Dawkins

Iam not religous in any way only times Ive been to church is for weddings and funerals (hmmm). But the site may seem a bit biased.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by RubberBaron
 


I believe the pilgrims came here to avoid supression of religon. even though IMHO the qaukers and shakers were F'd up a little bit.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


That's right. The Catholic Church is very specific and they are corrupt. So no doubt they would want to get out of there.


The Puritans, the Quakers, the Amish, etc., all came here to escape "backsliding" in the religious establishments of Europe. Those on the other end of the "religious spectrum" also came. It was a very mixed bag.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Either way, you're asking for problems. If you let politics into religion, you get monstrosities like the council of Nicea. If you allow religion into politics, you develop a theocracy, which is never good.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
The problem is of course.. If you let God into the state, then laws based on religion start getting written in. Then that sort of violates that first ammendment part about "Congress shall make no law..."



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Separation of church and state means that nobody can do anything in government that promotes or enforces a religion. As mentioned already, it is done in order to protect religion from the state, because if the state gets involved in religion then nobody will have freedom of religion.

What he is talking about is that it doesn't mean people within government aren't allowed religion. For example, there is nothing wrong with a government official wearing a religious symbol or anything like that.

Some people try to use separation of church and state as a way of using the state to stamp out religion. At which point, the state is actually making choices in regards to religion, and that is in itself unconstitutional.

The constitution say that no laws may be made to establish religion etc. But if you are making laws against religion, then you are in effect doing exactly that.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


As much as I dislike IDers I'd fight any law that tried to shut them up. For one thing, I'd loose my favorite chew toys.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
The separation of Church and State is the understanding and practice of western democracies.......


I could have chosen any to respond with, but yours may best suit my Line of thought on this matter.

The Seperation of Church and State has aboslutely nothing to do with what any of you have indicated so far.

The Seperation of Church and State revolves around the issue of President, and ensuring he is also not the HEAD of an ORGANIZED religion.
Example would be the Defender of the Faith, and Queen of England. She is both the Head of the Church, as well as figure head of the State, (or once was more directly).

This is the Seperation the Founders sought to instill in America. They did not wish to have edicts issued from the Oval Office in respects to Religious
affairs.

As you note Mystiq, the problem is with understanding. Point is, you, (collectively speaking) are not supposed to understand. That is what Goverment does for you now. All your thinking.

And this brings the matter being discussed full circle. It is my contention, Goverment has become a Religion. They look after you, tell you what to do, where to Go, what to learn, how to live, collect your tithes. They just now need to unmasked their Gia god and her High Priest, (Al Gore), and everything the Founding Fathers meant to protect America from, is what America has become.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RubberBaron
Not really, why would the founders want to allow religion in the state? I thought the whole point of founding the USA was to get away from all that nonsense in England. Once you allow religion in the state, you just end up with the same old problems they were trying to get away from.


Our founding fathers were religious...duh...

They came from a country that had a state sponsered religion and they wanted the freedom to practice any religion theychoosed.

It actuality when the state dictates what religion you will practice is when it is wrong.

"In god we trust" and many other religious saying are all through our goverment and our forefathers.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Xtrozero]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join