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.

 

Ron Paul's take on the 1st Amendment

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
He does not think there should be any seperation between Church and State he only thinks it means that there should not be an official church of the State. But read it for yourself.


In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote, "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 putting 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."[


If I were a non-believer I would be a bit concerned. Here is the wording of the first amendment for comparison.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


jonathanerber.blogspot.com...

There is the link
edit on 16-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Why do you have this impulsive tendency to try and take Ron Paul apart?

Your statement is nonsense. RP supports TRUE freedom of speech. He doesn't think we should censor a church to preserve "separation of church and state". That separation refers to government operations, not social.

The church can say whatever the hell they want, in the same way you can. You cannot oppress someone just because they are affiliated with organized religion, that is tyrannical.

I am a "non-believer" by the way. I'm not so sensitive, however" that I cry every time I see a cross.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Sir, you are the epitome of a conflict of interest. You try to slander the champion of the Constitution yet you have a picture of it as your avatar...how? How can that possibly be, does that make any sense to you? You're trying to go against a man who has voted for the Constitution 100% of the time, with every bill and piece of legislation that has come his way.

I ask you please to either change that avatar or change your stance on him because both are not working for you.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Now
 


Yeah seriously...

It seems like a typical "non conformist for the sake of it" thing...



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
i agree with paul

kill religion and replace it with government

the first ammendment and the us constitution protects pauls right to free speech as well as anyone elses right to disagree with that and say their piece.

the seperation of church and state has become religion is bad government is good which we all know if total crap.

freedom and independence mean saying what you want to and beleive in what you want to and not dictated by anyone else.
edit on 16-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 


The OP is a paid CIA troll, just flick back through his previous posts. In every instance he comes on here and parrots establishment talking points word for word. Even writing pro CIA threads and linking to actual CIA web pages to back up his arguments.

But back to the point... this thread is malicious but sad attempt to twist the facts to support your agenda. so... you fail.
edit on 16-8-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Well,if one were to actually take a moment and read the text of the Constitution, Paul is 100% correct. Jefferson had personal writings that discussed SEPARATION of Church and State rather than simply preventing Government from favoring one over another to create an official state religion.

I've never quite understood the need some people have to read entirely new things and meanings into a document they bent over backwards to make as plain and impossible to misunderstand as they could manage. If anything has our founding fathers resting in something less than peace, I think that would be it. All that work, and some have still managed to butcher it in the name of "following it".



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Can you link the source of your information? I find it interesting that after being raked over the coals about who you used as a source in a previous thread, I find it very interesting that you would fail to link your source in this new thread.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 


The OP is a paid CIA troll, just flick back through his previous posts. In every instance he comes on here and parrots establishment talking points word for word. Even writing pro CIA threads and linking to actual CIA web pages to back up his arguments.

But back to the point... this thread is malicious but sad attempt to twist the facts to support your agenda. so... you fail.
edit on 16-8-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)


suspicious much? lol

Kro should really have "devil's advocate" as an under title though.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 


The OP is a paid CIA troll, just flick back through his previous posts. In every instance he comes on here and parrots establishment talking points word for word. Even writing pro CIA threads and linking to actual CIA web pages to back up his arguments.

But back to the point... this thread is malicious but sad attempt to twist the facts to support your agenda. so... you fail.
edit on 16-8-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)


suspicious much? lol

Kro should really have "devil's advocate" as an under title though.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

I rest my case ...
edit on 16-8-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
External content quotes require a link. Thread locked until member can supply one.




top topics



 
1

log in

join