700 Club feature coming up
Submitted by Tannim on Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:57As much as I can't stand the 700 Club, I got this in my email this morning...
To: "'M S'"
Subject: RE: Dr. Ron Paul
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:03:24 -0400
From: "TheBrodyFile"
Thanks for sending me an email. I try to respond to as many as I can. Ron Paul no doubt has the most rapid supporters out there. Good luck to you and your candidate. I will be interviewing Ron Paul one on one in the next week and I plan to do a full fledged feature on Ron Paul Mania coming up on The 700 Club in the next few weeks. Stay tuned!
J
Thanks again for writing.
David
From: M S [mailto:tannim123@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:04 PM
To: thebrodyfile@gmail.com
Subject: Dr. Ron Paul
OK, so why won't the Christian Right coalesce behind Dr. Paul?
- He's a great-grandfather, married to his only wife for 50 years. How much more pro-family can you get?
- He is pro-life and has delivered more than 4000 babies. How much more pro-life can he get?
- He is a devout Christian and walks the walk. Any problems there?
So why not?
- Is it because he recognizes that religion actually flourishes under the separation of church and state?
- Is it because he thinks most social issues are best left to the states?
- Is it because he doesn't buy into the WASP-y "power politics" that some Christian Right leaders (Dobson, Robertson, Wildmon come to mind immediately) play, contrary to the message of service preached by Christ?
- Is it because he opposes a federal gay marriage amendment to the Constitution and thinks that the state has no business in marriage whatsoever, that it be between a couple and God only?
- Is it because there is still the mistaken pundit position that he is not a top-tier candidate, when in fact all the boots-on-the-ground polls among the rank-and-file GOP membership say he is the frontrunner?
So c'mon, all you folks on the Christian Right, pony up. Tell us why not.
I can't understand why not, myself...
At least Chuck Baldwin is honest enough to admit Dr. Paul's the best man for the job. It would be nice, amid all this war-mania, if some of the Christian right would recall a simple fact: Christ is the Prince of Peace, and His tactics don't always match well with "Blackwater's" tactics.
Imagine how Iraqis feel about the continual "private security firm" incidents. Then imagine how US soldiers -- paid much less for a job that's also dangerous as hell -- must feel about a company whose contractors kill multiple civilians. And remember, these civilians' opinions (the surviving ones, that is) may be critical to your survival. It's no wonder Dr. Paul gets so much military money...
JMR
Separation of church and state?
Since this is not found in the Constitution, I doubt Dr. Paul believes in this. What he most likely believes is what it says - no 'Church of America' run by the Government.
Except that's kind of what we have now... 401C3-whatever it is.
As a Christian, I believe it's pretty clear why many don't appear to be heading Ron Paul's direction (yet) - along with many trying to establish God's Kingdom on earth (as if we can actually hasten the return of Jesus), many thinking this is a Christian nation rather than a nation based on Christian principles (forced morality rather than led by example), it's because the war has been declared as a 'noble war.'
Nobel - killing those we don't like or who are different than us. As opposed to - loving our enemies. Which would be following the words of Jesus.
Oh wait - if we actually loved our enemies, would that make us a Christian nation? (sarcasm intended)
Actually it is, but not explicitly...
A lot of people who make the claim that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution don't get it right.
Legally, it starts with the Jefferson Danbury letter, which was interpretted by the Supreme Court as the proper application of the First Amendment in Reynolds v. U.S. in 1868 and further settled in Everson in 1954.
But the claim that it's not in the Constitution falls short because it tends to focus exclusively on the Establishment Clause and tends to ignore the Free Exercise Clause. Both are needed.
The Establishment Clause states there shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion. In other words, no religion recognized by the state.
The Free Exercise Clause state there shall be no law restricting the free exercise of religion. In other words, no religious practices restricted by the state.
So the state cannot stop it or promote it. Therefore they must be neutral in matters of religion. They must stay out of it. Therefore the separation of church and state. It is based in the combination of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
Almost all wars aren't noble, but all wars are Nobel..pass the TNT. :(
And you make my point about power politics very well. It's misguided and un-Christian.
Baloney
Your "in other words" below might as well been "let me change the words and thus change the meaning thereof."
The Establishment Clause states there shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion. In other words, no religion recognized by the state.
That is incorrect. It doesn't mean that "religion cannot be recognized by the State." It means what it says... that Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion (specific church or faith).
This "establishment clause" is completely misused all day long. It means what it says it means... Congress cannot make laws respecting specific religions. It hasn't anything to do with "recognizing religion." The Declaration of Independence mentions God and thus "recognizes religion."
Other than that, I agree that Dr Paul has it in it's proper context.
Here's the mustard for your Baloney
First of all, when I wrote that I was paraphrasing, not quoting directly. When I quote directly you'll know it, because it will be obvious.
"respecting" means "considering", "giving regard or esteem to", or "concerning." That means, quite clearly, that the state cannot give any consideration to establishing (recognizing, enacting, or to cause to grow) a religion. (See Webster's 9th Collegiate Dictionary)
The Declaration of Independence makes no reference to God in any Christian reference but rather to a Deistic entity that is not explicitly Christian ("Nature's God", "Creator", "Supreme Judge of the world", "Divine Providence" are the specific references). Since more than half of the signers were Deists, including principal author Jefferson, claiming the Declaration recognizes religion is an erroneous jump to a wrong conlcusion. It recongizes a deity, not the religious paths that claim to follow that deity. It is perfectly possible, obviously, to believe in a god but not be religious or not have a religion. So that dog doesn't hunt.
Ist Amendment
The amendment actually reads "an establishment" rather than "the."
"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." James Dale Davidson
"an establishment" means "any establishment"...
...in the absence of listing particular ones.
Nice Davidson, quote, BTW.
It either is or isn't...
... and it isn't. How does a comment in a personal letter written years after the Constitution was signed change the Constitution? Only when the courts decide to rule in such a way. The words used to establish a 'separation of church and state' actually twists what Jefferson believed - that the First Amendment was necessary only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination. Nothing else. How you worship is a right given you by God - not the government.
That is different from neutrality, which removes religion from government entirely, and essentially establishes another religion instead - secularism. And that is moving us in the direction of universalism (we all worship the same god), which is not biblical (in spite of what President Bush claims).
It is a fallacy that government cannot be involved in religion. History shows that our government has greatly been involved in religion. How government can and can't be involved is what is misunderstood.
So much of what Dr. Paul talks about is 'common sense' - as opposed to the 'conventional wisdom of the day.' If common sense is applied when reading the Amendment and the background of Jefferson's comments, I believe it is easy to see that the courts have totally twisted comments - private comments at that - to reinterpret the Constitution.
The phrase typically attributed to Jefferson was in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists, who were concerned that the First Amendment was written in such a way as to suggest that it was the government that gave them their rights to worship. Jefferson - who agreed with the Danbury Baptists that worshipping God was a natural or inalienable right - clarified this in his response. This natural right was never to be considered a government-given right, and that a 'wall of separation' kept the government from claiming that it was something they could grant. That's it.
But what we have today is 'neutrality.' And I believe when you have neutrality, you have one of two things happen - you either have a God-less society, or a society where the government tells us how we can worship. That is what's happening today - and that is the opposite of the First Amendment.
And that is exactly what Ron Paul talks about when he says we don't follow the Constitution. We have ruled without it, we have reinterpreted it, we have made it something it is not. And we now have a much larger centralized government (less local control), which even in its time caused concern for a small group like the Danbury Baptists.
By not understanding the intent of Jefferson's private comments to an individual group, we have made the First Amendment into something it was not intended to be - government is actually telling us how we can worship. This is a perfect example of why we are headed towards a one-world government.
Here's a link that includes Jefferson's letter and some of the statements mentioned above:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123
The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.
Go read the debates from the First Congress, among other things.
Secularism is NOT a religion, and I'm sick and tired of that apologist BS.
Universalism is also the TRUTH that transcends all religions, but those in control of those religions refuse to accept that truth. Those of us who have moved beyond the religion boxes into a more spiritualistic existence understand and accept this and we're better people for it.
But I'm not going to get into a religion discussion here. The argument about a lack of separation of church and state is propgated by pro-theocracy and anti-freedom types that fail to understand the fundamental nature of our Republic, which has to do with religious freedom NOT in government and vice versa, so long as people's rights are not violated.
Don't bother me with the link to the Danbury letter. I have the unabridged set of his writings in my bookcase. Ditto Washington, Adams, and Madison, and working on Dr. Franklin. All right next to Madison's notes on the Convention, the Federalist Papers (and anti-federalist Papers) and the complete works of Thomas Paine. Those are next to de Tocqueville, Locke, Adam Smith, Thoreau, and Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea. The First Amendment is about the freedom of the Soul, to speak, to think, to choose, to act responsibly. Period!
Go read Reynolds and go read Everson. They're easy to find on Findlaw.com. It is settled law. I'm sorry if you can't accept that, and I'm sorry if you can't accept that both church and state flourish and thrive when separate in a free society and not with one controlling the other. It's worked for over two centuries so far here.
If we were not a secular nation, then the Founders could EASILY have put that in the Constitution. BUT they knew firsthand how a religion screwed up a government from the controlling of George III by Canterbury, plus the religion battles between various colonies in the other direction (MA Puritans, PA quakers, and RI Roger Williams are great examples, as was the Philadelphia church riots), and wanted no part of it.
We should concede to the wisdom of that decision.
Your my hero for the day!
Great job, it's hard for me to understand (or at least I wish it was) why they aren't jumping all over Ron Pauls bandwagon. If they were true to their faith, they would be with the candidate that actually TEACHES AND WALKS using the lessons that Jesus taught us. If working your whole life to be "Christ-Like" isn't the Christian thing to do, what exactly is?
Great job! I look forward to watching the 700 Club for the first time in years..haha
Thanks for the compliments!
And separation of church and state issues aside, you hit the point exactly: is their support about the living the teachings of the Christ, or is it about power politics?