Ron Paul: the Constitution builds no Wall!?

If someone else already posted along the same lines I am, sorry for the repetition but the amount of posts here are too many to read.

Anyway, I find this is very often a very misunderstood part of the law. Paul is right on the money. I am not religious. I mean I don't even care about it one way or the other. But the ideas and laws that make up the constitution just mean one thing about religion. It means the federal government cannot legislate towards religion in anyway whatsoever. That is it. The rule of law does not require protection for or against religious things or anti-religious things. In other words, the rule is designed so that religion is treated as if it is just another section of a bookstore. Ideas are ideas. The rule does not care what people do with religion, whether that person is in the federal government or not, as long as those actions don't oppress another person in the country.

For example, if someone wants to put in a building a piece of marble that has engraved in it the ten commandments or the 10 first amendments or the seven dwarfs or the first 50 pages of Moby DIck, there is nothing the federal government can do about it. Legislation is not permitted. The federal government cannot legislate expression.

Now remove this contention with expression and maybe there are options. Either way, the ability for people to decide who work in the building I am sure was always an option.

Nevertheless, if the contention is within the realm of the legality of what is being expressed, the federal government has no say and cannot legislate. This is how it's suppose to be.

http://www.webcastgroup.c...

You know what the hardest thing about supporting Ron Paul is?

Trying to help the dumbed down American public understand the Constitution applies to the Federal Government.

The Founding Father documents are filled with references to God and the necessity of religion in society to promote morality. The Thomas Jefferson letter was referencing keeping the government out of religion, not keeping religion completely out of government.

But that's not what makes it wrong.

First, I just want to say that I'm very impressed with your responses as they have forced me to reconsider the purpose of Paul's article and the meaning of the First Amendment .

I am no longer convinced that putting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is unconstitutional. Nonetheless, it might be helpful for me to explain why a member of the "elitist, secular Left" such as myself doesn't want them there.

Consider this summary of the first half of the Ten commandments:

1. Do not worship any other gods.
2. Do not make any idols.
3. Do not misuse the name of God.
4. Keep the Sabbath Holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.

(To drive home # 2 the KJV adds in 20:5, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me")

It is all well and good when "devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state." But judges and juries need to appreciate the crucial distinction between the laws of God and the laws of the state. It would rightfully cause a secular humanist great concern to be a defendant in a courtroom that displays the Ten Commandments where the Bill of Rights should be. If the defendant didn't get his morals from those tablets, he probably doesn't have any. Surely there would be nothing to stop him from committing the crime of which he is accused!

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law..." So it's clear that no laws were supposed to be made at the federal level. But the state legislatures and local governments aren't restricted by the First Amendment, with regards to the establishment and free exercise clauses.

Dr. Paul did err in saying that the US Constitution refferences God, it doesn't. But there isn't any phrase which reads "The seperation of church and state".

I'm an Athesist, but I'll admit that the courts have made some absurd rulings. The courts have ruled against things like designated prayer times in public schools. As long as congress doesn't pass a law either requiring or prohibiting prayer in public schools, nothing unconstitutional has happened.

Religious liberty is important, but if you read your state constitution, you'll likely find that there is a clause in there which garuntees freedom of religion.

No legislative body should impose a particular religion on the people, but that being said it is not a civil rights violation when a city puts up a christmas display or when a kid prays in school.

"America's Godly Heritage," authored by David Barton of Wallbuilders (ironic, I know, but it comes from the Old Testament book of Nehemiah), goes into all this in some detail. Barton shows that the modern "separation" mythology dates back only to about 1947.

You can procure the DVD from the Wallbuilders website. I'd highly recommend it.

If there is anything I feel after reading this post and comments currently is that RP supporters are excellent thinkers and aware citizens...contrary to what MSM claims that we are a bunch of robots!

Keep the dialog and questions coming. We need to sort through the facts and align our priorities. We are sensient and should be able to think and decide for ourselves.

Great bunch of people!

We also need to make sure we temper our replies and comments elsewhere and try to win others over in a civilized way and stop name calling, even though someone has a strong dissenting opinion rightly or wrongly. After all, we all want a free society like RP advocates.

This was a hard one for me to swallow, but in reality RP is right. The Constitution forms a Federal government over sovereign states. So the first amendment applies to the ability of a Federal government to dictate to state governments on matters of religion.

As someone pointed out, there were several states that DID have state-sponsored churches at the time of the ratification. They weren't about to give some federal government power to tell them how to govern their own state. It was actually the supreme court that took Jefferson's statement out of context as a pretext to expand federal power.

This is also why Jefferson and Madison addressed it at the state level in Virginia via the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

I will prefix this with the fact that I am an athiest.

The old Republican viewpoint is that the only seperation of church and state that exists in the constitution is there to protect church's from the state, not the other way around.

By this definition, the government may not impose on or restrict any religious activity of any person for any reason.

Furthermore, anyone taking issue with the 10 commandments on a government building wall, should also burn all of their money lest they be offended.

The one right that we are NOT guaranteed by our creator, our government or anyone is .... the right to not be offended... and further their is no ammendment to to the constitution that says, "you have the right to never hear different beliefs"...

I'd read all the comments but am barely awake.

very impressive though!

I've been a tax expert for over 25 years, and a few weeks ago, answered a question on a public message board erroneously (on one detail of a tax law). Someone corrected me online, but then couldn't resist adding that it would be a good idea for the questioner to get an EXPERT opinion next time. You're right: Paul's holiday letter has a couple of factual errors.

Actually, I'd say Thomas Jefferson also made an error, as the various states did include some with a state church, and the Constitution only forbids Congress from establishing a national religion or prohibiting one. So it is clear that the Constitution did NOT create the wall he said it had created. Time to stop respecting Jefferson, as well. ;)

Paul, or whichever of his staff members typed and edited this piece, made an error in referring to both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution containing multiple references to God. We know the former does. I could see the newsletter editor reading a Paul draft that mentions the Declaration of Independence and thinking he should add the Constitution to strengthen the sentence, either believing personally that the latter referenced God or just not paying close enough attention to the sentence. The Founders and Framers, in general, did seem to have a positive attitude toward religion, and saw no problem in politicians praying (Albert Fall to Woodrow Wilson when he was ill: "I'm praying for you, Mr. President." "Which way, Al?")

Most of what Paul said is true about churches taking the lead in public life, education, and charity in the early American history, and about the prohibitions on nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments reaching the point of absurdity. I think the point of the letter was that the government has been treated as a substitute for the community, compassion, and mutual aid whose expression often came through churches (although I think it only fair to include many of the lodges and fraternal organizations that also provided such a foundation for many). Okay, and a little bit of designing the argument to appeal to the audience.

The man has been a Congressman for 20 years, so we know how he interprets the Constitution without relying on a holiday letter to constituents. However he (or, very possibly, a staffer) worded it, unless it advocates some legislative activity that contradicts the Constitution as you interpret it, I don't think it should cause you any concern about whether you can trust him to follow the Constitution. I'm guessing the newsletter editor is to blame, but even if Paul wrote it, neither the letter, nor any of his votes, nor any of his campaign positions, suggests that he has any desire to put the church in control of the government in any way.

But he really does need better oversight over the stuff his staff writes. Maybe he is returning too much of his staff budget to the taxpayers. ;)

The multitude of the constitutions writers where actually "Deists".
What does this mean? I quote from Wikipedia:

"Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience, in contrast to theism (with religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam) which relies on revelation in sacred scriptures or the testimony of other people. Deism became prominent in Great Britain, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries and continues to this day in the form of Classical Deism and Modern Deism.
Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most Deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources."

Sounds good to me. Now - my guess is that Dr. Paul is a Deist too.

As this country struggles is last free breaths, this is not the battle.

RP in no way shape or form wants to impose religion by way of the gov't on people nor force there to be none. It is merely a "personal" observation. For 200+ years it was ok to have the things he described ... now its not. And it is sad. My best friend in grade school way back was Jewish, so my class was the only class to celebrate Hanukkah and Christmas. Now there is nothing. And that is sad..... and now We teach classes in Spanish because the kids don't speak English.

For me this is like the house being on fire and arguing about Creamy or Chunky peanut butter.

I have all faith in the good Dr. You cant be so blinded by one aspect that you miss he is a honest,principled man with great integrity.

And one more thing to keep in mind , RP is allowed to have personal views on things, and because he does, doesn't mean he will impose them on the people.

Ex: Paul is pro-life but would null Roe v. Wade because the Const. makes it a states right. I can understand this as I personally am pro-life , but agree with the pro-choice camp that I have NO right to tell another person what is right for them.

What you believe and what you do are 2 different things , and the Dr. has 30 years of proof to back him doing the right thing.

**edit** LOL and manystrom it's not me .... I didnt't make it wide ....it's down near the bottom :)
____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______ _____ ___
"The time is near at hand which we must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."

George Washington
First President of the USA.

One key to understanding his integrity in this article is the conclusion:

"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."

In my opinion, the poisonous philosophy here is the one that says your employer or the government "owns" you and then tells you what you get to keep, particularly with respect to religious expression.

I've made a lifelong commitment to live within the truths I have discovered in my life. This, in combination with the moral framework of my religion has mostly kept me out of trouble, off welfare, safe from drug addiction, safe from AIDS/HIV/STD's, abortion was never even an issue in my life, I'm out of debt (knock on wood), and I've been taught over the pulpit many times to be self-reliant and prepared for anything.

So I really believe that living my religion is helping end misguided federally funded "wars" against immorality, in a similar way that living by the Constitution is the key to ending the misguided war in Iraq.

In that light, it is particularly bitter to be rewarded for my efforts by having the government tell me I can't have sacred symbols and reminders of my religion in certain places. It's wrong to use tax payer money for such symbols, but it's going too far to say someone can't have it with them at all in certain places.

Over 10 years ago, a special hand made nativity decoration was sewn for me by someone I care for very much who had no money to buy me a present during the holidays. It became a special tradition to put this up near my desk during the holidays as a reminder to me of how much more that kindness means to me than the commercialism of the holidays.

2 years ago, my employer instituted a new policy prohibiting any type of religious symbols at work, which would fall into this category since it's a nativity scene. It was never a problem before, I kept it very discrete, but I value my continued employment and now leave it at home. It does hurt a little since having it near me during the day was a tradition that really meant a lot to me.

I don't know about the fire fighters referenced here, but something the public doesn't often see is how backstage, the station is their second home. They sleep there, they cook meals, etc. This type of restriction would hit even harder for someone who sees people so close to death every day, and then comes "home" to an environment where a symbol of their faith might be something that gives them inner strength.

In my opinion, the poisonous philosophy here is the one that says that before anything else, the government "owns" you and then tells you what liberties you get to keep.

Flip that around, and we get closer to the truths we hold to be self-evident, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Ron is right. What it means is, the government shall not force anyone to be of any particular religion. It does NOT mean that all religious references need to be taken out of government, such as having the Ten Commandments posted on the court walls or taking Christmas out of the schools.

He is saying people should have religious freedom whether it is in our out of government and that the Constitution did not allow for banning of all religion from government institutions. That's what he meant by a 'wall'.

Not sure how so many self described Constitutionalists could be so far off base.

Ron Paul's expertise in this area is matched by few. However even for the rest of us, it should not be difficult to understand.

The first amendment prevents only Congress from establishing religion or restricting the same. IT DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT the states from doing so. In point of fact, many states had exactly that in the days of the founders - State Established Religion. We should have all learned that in 9th grade history.

As far as the referenced quote. The entire basis of the rights granted to us by the Constitution as explained by the Declaration is that they do not come from governement but from God. They framers knew that in asserting this point, we would always have a foundation whereby we could challenege those who may try to usurp our rights.

Ron Paul is a champion of those rights and no constitutionalist should be alarmed by his statement. Ron Paul understands fully the federal governement has no authority whatsoever with respect to religion. Some argue that his position that the federal governenment should ban abortion is a religious position, in fact its not. I spoke in person with Dr. Paul over the weekend. He argues this from a medical standpoint as a Doctor who has delivered more 4000 babies and therefore as a human rights issue. Not religious at all. And I certainly do not wish to challenege his medical or constitutional expertise.

So no need for anyone to be alarmed. There is only one candidate for President that fully understands the Constitution - and we all know that candidate is Ron Paul.

I have heard this said before and I've come to understand what people are saying when they say this to mean that your religion does not have to separate itself from the state, but rather the state must not endorse or enforce a religion such that one can not practice the one of their chosing. For instance, there is nothing in the Constitution that says a church can not endorse a candidate, yet that is how people sometimes understand it. Also a candidate can be religious, they just can never be required to be so. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but that's the way I understand it.

Of course, this gets tricky, because if people vote to their religious morals and given the chance to vote on something that might not be constitutional, like same sex marriage, then I would say that is stepping over the line of not making a law that dictates religion. In those cases, I dont think that is something that should even be allowed to be voted upon.

Another debate is prayer in school. This does not and should not prevent students or faculty from praying in school, but it should prevent public school officials from leading a school prayer at enforced gatherings. My reasoning is that public school is a required attendance, so if the officials lead the students in prayer, they are enforcing a religion on the students. Anyone that says that should be allowed should be asked if that means they would be okay if one of the teachers led their child in Islamic prayer before class.

I've always understood our Constitution to be inspired of God, thus our forefathers acknowledgement of God was purposeful in establishing, although they never intended the Church to run the State, the presumption our rights and laws were given to us by God rather than men, or a church, etc...

Today's interpetation.

Thank you God for giving us the victory over the enemy, and from here on out we as people will seek you personally rather than nationally under a church state for any old king to distort for his own wicked reasons.

That's why I myself don't care for organized religion although I'm deeply "religious" or a believer in Jesus Christ.

Men are falliable in any group whether a religious state or a police state.
Neither should ever grow bigger than a personal God in the hearts and mind of a nation.

"But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

-Matthew 22:18-22

I believe Ron is just following Jesus's commandment. Give to the constitution what is the constitution's and to give God what is God's. Ron can separate church and state, much better than those pandering idiots on stage with him.

No man is perfect...it just is impossible. Dr. Paul may have said those things...and maybe it was a mistake on his part or maybe he was blinded slightly by his faith. Either way, he has proven time and time again that his personal feelings will not dictate his vote or decision making. That is about as perfect as we can hope to get. AND further more, when considering the opposition....they are blatantly worse about pushing forth their personal agendas.
The man is human....if this is your one concern with him, you should rest assured..his record shows he has no personal agendas.