Paul on Separation of Church and StateSubmitted by DJay on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 23:31
Can DP help me address this when trying to explain it to other people? A fellow I know brought this up as the reason he won't vote for Dr. Paul, because he is (I think, he didn't explicitly say) concerned that Ron will use his power to turn the U.S. into Happy-Go Jesus Land.
I conceded that Ron may have made an error in his essay (Jefferson did in fact write about the wall, and was a founding father).
However, as I understand it, Ron is arguing that the wall of separation is not in the Constitution. However, we have Establishment Clause (Shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion).
As I understand it, this means that:
1. Federal government is prohibited from establishing a state religion.
2. If we extend this idea to the states, then states may not establish official religions.
3. We can then reason that states and local municipalities are forbidden from enacting law or policy of the same.
In the essay, Ron goes on to complain about the government sponsored persecution of religion (removal of christmas trees from public and private places, similar things).
Is Ron's intent to simply argue that because government cannot act to sponsor a religion, it cannot either act to persecute a religion, in this case the Christmas situation?
The points my "opponent" brought up:
"As an atheist I can't vote for Paul because of his bible pushing and disbelief in separation of church and state."
" He said the founding fathers didn't want separation of church and state, you are saying he says it's ok for the people in the government to let their religion influence their decisions, and jefferson says there should be a "wall of separation between church and state" so if tehre's a wall of separation then how would church be able to influence the state's decisions? Common sense and morality should influence the state's decisions. Not religion. Romney believes in separation of church and state and he even believes in evolution. It's weird for a "mormon", I know, but it's a step in the right direction when someone's religion does not hold back science. "
As an aside, I strongly suspect we may have been holding two separate conversations at times. Either that or this man's reading comprehension skills are not the best. Not to engage in ad-hominem, but it just struck me that my statements were not being understood 100%...