-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sees a war on religion being waged by the elitist, secular Left. Paul claims the “separation of church and state” is a phrase taken out of context from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. According to Paul, courts have misread and distorted the meaning of the first amendment so that children are banned from praying in school, courthouses are prohibited from displaying the Ten Commandments, and citizens are prevented from praying before football games.
From Paul’s congressional website, he claims that the “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.” Taking a phrase out of context from a letter containing only five sentences is going to be a tough argument to support. Jefferson wrote:
… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
This seems straightforward and self-contained. Jefferson is saying that the establishment and free exercise clauses build a wall of separation. The “taken out of context” argument is not supported. The “taken out of context” argument is simply a dismissive, throw-away line to a devastatingly inconvenient historical fact.
In The War on Religion, Paul writes:
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.
Besides Jefferson, the writings of other founding fathers have expressed similar sentiments regarding the separation of church and state. In Detached Memoranda, James Madison wrote:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
In a letter to Edward Livingston, Madison wrote:
Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
In The War on Religion, Paul continues:
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 number of references to God in the Constitution: zero. Paul must use a different definition of “replete.” The references to “Nature’s God” and “their Creator” in the Declaration of Independence appeal to Deists, Unitarians, as well as Christians.
In The War on Religion, Paul also writes:
Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility.
The moral support of slavery, provided by Southern churches, gives lie to this statement. Churches don’t teach morality, they exist to support their parishioners who, in turn, support the church.
In 1773, Rev. Isaac Backus, a Baptist preacher and leading orator of the American Revolution, advocated for the separation of church and state by saying:
And where these two kinds of government [ecclesiastical and civil], and the weapons which belong to them, are well distinguished. and improved according to the true nature and end of their institution. the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued;
There is a war, but it is not a war on religion, it is a war on the separation of church and state. Those who want to impose religious law, be it sharia or Mosaic, on all citizens must first tear down the wall of separation. They are chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s heritage of separation.
While Glenn Greenwald highlights several admirable Paul policy positions and, while any candidate is a compromise with our own personal policy concepts, the separation of church and state is up near the top of my can’t-compromise list. Religion limits civil liberties for imaginary reasons. The surest way to lose many of our cherished civil liberties is to end the separation of church and state and let religious leaders determine the rules.
H/T: Theocracy Watch.
surest was SB surest way…. (last sentence)… and if you want to delete this comment, I’m fine with it…
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011948160923228.html Aljazeera picked up on this in September. The three candidates that have ties to “Dominionism” are Ron Paul. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Most do not associate religious extremism with Ron Paul, but he is every bit as extreme as Bachmann and Perry. Great post, nal.
(Yes… a great article, Nal.)
From the following link, including an update by Greenwald:
“It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President.
UPDATE: Also, President Obama today signed the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions into law (a law which Paul vehemently opposed); the ACLU statement — explaining that “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law” and “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today” – is here.”
( http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/ )
http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/12/aclu-statement-on-obamas-signing-of.html
The civil rights battles of the early 21st century will revolve not around religion, but government intrusion. We must work to put back the protections between us and government. Repeal the Patriot Act and Authorization of Forces. Overturn Citizens United. End the Drug War. Stop this notion the President can stow you away indefinably once the “T” word comes out. End the use of credit scores to shut you out of housing, employment, and insurance, none of which has anything to do with the lending of money. As this score can only increase by giving ever more money to banks — not by remaining debt free — it remains a horrible poison in our society, what some religious people would call the mark of the beast.
Any GOP wanna-be can right the ship overnight by championing all these American issues. It will take attacks on all fronts at once, and require setting aside quaint notions of authoritarianism. Any Democrat who brings it up risks alienation from the C&C, so the high ground remains unclaimed.
Agree anon, but they are all crooks of the same road. Mr. Turley seems to be one and the same with them. He talks s great game about freedom, but WILL NOT touch on the hoax of it all from 1776.
Nal,
Paul addresses these points, both in terms of his personal religious beliefs, separation of church from state, and prohibitions on a theocracy / state religion in an interview I link below.
For example, Paul argues that the federal government simply does not have the authority to ban children from praying in public schools (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”) and that while “imperfect”, the decisions about how to handle prayer in schools should be done at the local level. This is consistent with so many other areas where Paul has said that the federal government is exceeding its authority on what should be state or local activities and decisions.
This clip is from the Concord Monitor (New Hampshire) interview in September of this year. Scroll to 1:08:00 and the discussion begins there. This topic goes for 4 – 5 minutes.
puzzling,
The argument that we should leave it up to the states and local level is oe of the arguments used to keep Jim Crow laws on the books.
Jefferson being an Episcopal…which has its roots in the Anglican Church which was the Established Religion in England at the time of the writing of the letter was probably more sensitive to force and domination of the crown than others….
So if we allow the 10 Rules….and Cross’s…to the exclusion of others are they not endorsing a particular brand of professional fleecing….What if there were areas that were predominately Jewish…could they have the Magen David to the exclusion of the Cross or crescents…How about Dearborn, MI….could they by definition exclude these symbols as they are the largest concentration of Muslims outside the middle east…..
How about the Confederate Flag….Could it fly over the Atlanta Courthouse again….It is a seriously held belief….for some….why not..people don’t have to look at it if it offends them…
What you all are arguing is that the religious organizations should stay out of state affairs.
And that cannot be supported by
a) the constitution, since the constitution defines state powers and state powers only, of necessity;
b) laws passed by congress, since congress is restrained from passing laws aimed at promoting or restricting churches. Would you argue that the Catholic Church, say, has less right to be concerned with public policy than say Monsanto or Citi Bank? And if so, on what grounds?
c) a court decision, since a court cannot make a judgement except one based in law.
All your talk about a “wall” is an attempt to prevent religious organizations from exercising rights enjoyed by all other organizations.
Or tell me that I misjudge your impulses.
The best way to bring this to the forefront would be to have some students carry signs stating: The Sixth Amendment: Thou Shalt Not Kill. They can carry these signs on the courthouse plaza when there is a jury trial going on where the government is seeking the death penalty. I would bet that Ron Paul would be with the students and that Bush, Perry, Bachmann Overdrive, Willard Romney, Newton McPherson (Gingrich), and Santo Rum would be in favor of the state and the People violating the Sixth Commandment, and in favor of running the students off the plaza with their religious, political and righteous sign.
The issue is not praying in school.
I think it is well decided that children can pray in school, and also that teachers can pray in school — if they want to.
The issue is mandatory prayer, and the mandate coming from the state, from people acting under the mantle of the state.
puzzling:
The federal government has not banned children from praying in public schools. It has banned organized prayer supervised and sanctioned by school officials. It is precisely organized prayer, with its inherently coercive characteristics, that the religious right wants.
Well researched well written article, Nal. Many of the religionists who would tear down the wall of separation are using some of the same arguments found in research on psychopaths and criminal personalities. What Dr. Stanton Samenow called, “Victimstance.” They claim victimhood while trying to take advantage of every opening to take advantage of others. Lies and dissimulation are part and parcel of the package. Forbidding organized prayer services as a part of the public school curriculum becomes, “forbidding children to pray.” Refusing to put up monuments to a single religion on the courthouse lawn becomes, “forbidding people to display the ten commandments.” All lies, which to me seems to be curious.
I remember listening to an interview with the magician/illusionist Randi on the radio. One of the callers told Randi that since he was an atheist he had no moral compass and had no way to tell right from wrong. That seems curious to me in view of the lies told by the religious right about not allowing kids to pray or that not letting religious displays on the courthouse being the same as not allowing you to put it on your front lawn or on a bumper sticker. We won’t even get into the sex scandals, pedophilia or ‘pay for prayers’ operations.
As I said last night, Ron Paul scares me. He scares me because he is an extremist in the guise of a charming man who is, down deep, a snake oil salesman. And Glenn Greenwald is not helping any.
I posted this link last night, but for those who missed it, Adama Brown pulls a lot of information together in one place. Some really smart bloggers are doing the jobs reporters used to do before multinational corporate media took over what we are allowed to read and see.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/31/1050321/-Meet-the-real-Ron-Paul-?detail=hide
“All your talk about a “wall” is an attempt to prevent religious organizations from exercising rights enjoyed by all other organizations.”
Churches are tax-exempt, though many still engage in demonstrably political speech. Monsanto and CitiBank? Not so much. They simply find non-religious ways not to pay their taxes.
Even non-religious non-profits must remain apolitical or loose tax-exempt status. These are, you know, laws passed by legislatures. What concerns they have regarding public policy must exist within these walls.
So your criticism of “wall-talk” is not terribly well-founded.
“Or tell me that I misjudge your impulses.”
An uninteresting invitation down a likewise uninteresting path.
I have read and watched Dr. Paul very closely since 2007, and have never heard him argue for more church involvement. He only advocates people being free to practice their faith as they see fit, as I have also heard him denounce theocracy. It seems to me taking a couple of points about letting people pray in school, or allowing the to show faith in school is taking Ron out of
context.
martin,
Are you hard of reading or just hard of understanding the words of Jefferson and Madison?
“All your talk about a “wall” is an attempt to prevent religious organizations from exercising rights enjoyed by all other organizations.”
Not rights, martin. Power. Individuals have rights, organizations for profit (until recent history) do not. Our Founders were men of reason and knew from history that reason was a better way to formulate states and laws than a belief. Beliefs are demonstrably arbitrary, reason is not. And if all of our Founders were as wise and thoughtful as Jefferson, Monsanto and Citi Bank would have no “rights” to manipulate our government – a government that is supposed to be of and by We the People – as in ALL of us, no matter their religious beliefs or lack thereof. The corporation comparison is facile and if anything illustrates the wisdom of not allowing any large organization with interests in controlling people for profit (and you’re not very bright if you think religion is anything other than a business) to use the government’s power to their own ends. A key component of the government they set up is its secular nature. That you constantly whine about this tells me I haven’t misjudged your impulses in the slightest – you value beliefs over reason to the point you think government should be allowed to force belief on people thus imposing a religious tyranny that is every bit as vile as the economic tyranny corporations have grown to exercise. The Foundation of this country is based on the escape from tyranny of all sorts, but it religious tyranny is explicitly addressed in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, your attempts to rewrite history notwithstanding. Practice whatever religion you wish, but learn to keep it to yourself. Not only do other citizens not share your beliefs, by in large they have no interest in your beliefs being forced upon them by public policy. Separation of Church and State is not only a historical and legal fact with boundaries well established by jurisprudence, it was a good first step. Next We the People need to build a Separation Doctrine for Corporations and State by limiting the ever expanding “personality” of that legal fiction. When religion and religious organizations control the mechanisms of state, it is a theocracy. When corporations control the mechanisms of state, it is a corporatistic (usually fascist) state. This is a democracy, martin, albeit one under attack by fascists and would-be theocrats such as yourself. Either be a part of the solution in shoring up democracy or get the Hell out of the way. Of course, you could always continue to simply be part of the problem.
This is a good point to bring up, but the article cuts the issue short. Once everybody is going to public schools, living in public housing, and working at public jobs, “separation of church and state” is going to be the slogan used for “sorry you can’t do that anymore–so put away that Bible, take down that Christmas tree, and get rid of that cross around your neck.”.
Gene,
Amen to what you said!
“sorry you can’t do that anymore–so put away that Bible, take down that Christmas tree, and get rid of that cross around your neck.”.
Ridiculous. You are free to do these things in your home, in your church, and in any private organization you wish to form. You are also free to pray in public or read your bible in public. You can even start Speaking about your bible on any street corner you fancy.
And, we aren’t going to permit these notions to be the basis of our shared public policy. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
And what Gene said, preferably in 123 point bold font on billboards across the country.
Now We could put a couple of more articles of faith and fact into the scenario where school kids are carrying signs which say: Thou Shalt Not Kill on the courthouse square where there is a jury trial going on. Lets put the trial in Texas and the state is trying to convict a man for arson and killing his wife in the fire in their home and wants the death penalty. Rick and Ron perk up its your home state. Where do the candidates stand on the killing of the guy by the people for allegedly killing his wife by fire? Now what if the trial was about a defendant doctor charged with killing one month old fetus by an abortion procedure and the state did want the death penalty. Whose ox is gored.
I should point out that Rick Perry as Governor said yes to killing a man for arson where it is proven that the fire was an accident not arson. Rick was off at his N —lodge killing innocent birds and didnt stay the execution.
Makes for some hair splitting on the issues of killing, limits on powers of states, children and the right to protest and express freedom of religion, and abortion.
If you folks up in Iowa could corner the candidates and posit these questions we all would enjoy the show.
David,
A brilliant post and it highlights the problem with Paul that is ignored by many, including Glenn Greenwald.at their peril. This is a very, radical conservative whose support for certain policies make him attractive to civil libertarians, even though his true stated beliefs fall far short of the mark of a protector of civil liberties.
Abortion – It is easy for some to dismiss this anti-libertarian aberration of Paul’s simply because it does reflect his religious beliefs, but Paul should not be allowed to get away with this. The intrusion into the choices a female makes with her body violates the most personal of civil liberties. It allows the state to define at best, months of a females life and how they should be spent. It also can guarantee for many females a single parenthood that statistics show is marginal economically.
Religion – His view as shown in this is not only incorrect, it is dishonest. By throwing it to a State level, he is in truth stating the the individual states can impose beliefs antithetical to those of a minority (possibly a large one) of its citizens. Raff and AY addressed this well.
These are civil liberties issues that are equally important as any others because their range can subsume the other issues such as selective detention. Jim Crow, justified by Southern Baptist preaching, enabled the Southern States to limit the Constitutional freedoms of black people. It was a form of selective detention and was enforced as such. It was justified by church teachings. The powers that be in Utah speciously deny any hold LDS has upon the governance of that state, yet given the obedience expected by LDS of its members, this is mere posturing. The Catholic Church has shown what is possible in lands where their members predominate. A struggle has arisen in Israel by the attempts there of religious extremists to impose their will and the difficulty their government has with assuring the rights of all. Shall I add the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran to the mix in the repression of women and non-muslims?
Paul is a dominionist and represents a greater danger to us than much of those anti-civil liberties actions of Bush and Obama. This is true simply because the fear of God is not only a powerful motivator, but it represents a belief that of necessity demonizes non-believers and in the process limits their ability to speak out.
John sez: “Once everybody is going to public schools, living in public housing, and working at public jobs, “separation of church and state” is going to be the slogan used for “sorry you can’t do that anymore–so put away that Bible, take down that Christmas tree, and get rid of that cross around your neck.”.”
******************************************
I am not sure if this is snark or if John actually believes this. I will go on the basis of the latter, since this is the meme being pushed by the religious right wing.
What is there about “wall of separation” these people do not understand? If there is a firewall against government sponsorship of a religion, they apparently do not understand that all firewalls have two sides. If the government cannot promote it, then neither can it prevent it. You can wear whatever icon you want and engage in all the personal prayer you wish. Did you know that Native Americans, for example, are exempt from the prohibition against owing or displaying eagle feathers, since that is part of their own religious heritage?
I found it amusing, in a sick kind of way, that the same types of persons who were so incredibly outraged at the art display of a crucifix in a container of urine, saw nothing wrong with the public desecration and burning of copies of the Qur’an.
“Would you argue that the Catholic Church, say, has less right to be concerned with public policy than say Monsanto or Citi Bank? And if so, on what grounds?”
Martin,
Yes I would argue that. The right of the Catholic Church, a money making organization, is deemed by the Government to be able to operate tax free.
It follows that because of this status the RCC has been able to build up huge funds with which to influence the governance in this country by funding projects simply concerned with promoting Catholic religious beliefs, while at the same time being able to suppress for many decades felony sexual abuse within its’ ranks. It helped defeat Proposition 8 in California and today continues (with other Christian denominations) to finance the fight against abortion, with tax free dollars.
Now as far as Monsanto and Citibank goes you bring up another issue of equal importance the buying of government by the wealthy. This make reformation of campaign finance a primary issue. Mr. Paul of course equates wealth with “free speech” and is therefore against any restriction of campaign financing. Another reason he is not the “savior” of our civil liberties some make him out to be.
“The issue is mandatory prayer, and the mandate coming from the state, from people acting under the mantle of the state.”
Nicely framed for your purposes but incorrect. The issue is coercion, which can either be mandatory or voluntary, the distinction is merely verbiage. When I was in Public School in NYC in the 50′s there were no laws making prayer in school mandatory, just as there were no laws banning it. As a seven year old Jewish kid, in a school that had about 50% Jewish student, with a Christian faculty of about 80% we had Christian prayers daily. Now a Jewish student could refuse to participate, but if that student did he/she would be marked as a troublemaker. The celebration of Christmas, exchange of gifts and singing of Carols was also voluntary, but a the peril of
the young Jewish students and the opprobrium of the faculty.
Our Founders were educated English subjects certainly well versed in the damage done to England and the Crown through persecutions, civil wars, etal., as a result of religion being associated with the state. To suggest they did not intend and design a distinct seperation is pure wishful revisionism and total bunk to be ignored.
“The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …..’ would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games.”
Every time I hear crap like this I try to get a picture of some 18 year old high school senior quietly praying in class, or a football fan praying before a game, and getting arrested because of “courts that misread and distort the First Amendment”. Or a class full of kids being given lessons and homework on how Monsanto makes the best food and Citi-Bank is the best credit card. Are these people serious? They never seem to understand even what it is they’re whining about.
Courts have decided corporations are individuals and handed over to them all the rights of real individuals. IANAL; are religions legally considered individuals who pay no taxes?
OS,
Thank you for the DailyKos article by Adama Brown, which is a concise refutation of the work of Greenwald and others progressives, who have let their disdain for Obama, over rule their common sense. When will people understand that under our current system of campaigning for office, no politician is heroic, since they all have to make deals, to get money, to even run in the first place. We have allowed a system of legal bribery to take effect in this country and we have become no different from the countries we decry where “baksheesh” is how you get things done.
Politics, like most human endeavors where power is the goal, has no room for “holier than thou attitudes”. While in times past the race to be on the top of the power structure was always about weaponry/troops, today money represents a “cleaner” form of deadly warfare. In war one is forced to make choices between possible allies who may be distasteful in some aspects and that is the difference between winning and losing. Unfortunately, too many on the Progressive side put purity and adherence to their particular party line over pragmatism and then claim to have been “cheated” when they lose. We have a battle going on for the welfare/rights/lives of the 99% and frankly I have little patience with those who ca’t find a hero to save them. There are o and never have been heroes. That some people at times behave heroically is a fact, but all of us humans have as many faults as we have goodness.
Paul has shown himself to be more lacking than others in his belief system and to think that somehow all of his nasty deficits are erased by his putative beliefs about war and civil liberties is a naivete unsupported by the facts.
From everything we are learning about him, now that the spotlight shines, we can see a pathology that is only hinted at by the “craziness” in his eyes.
“The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
– James Madison, ‘Detached Memoranda’
The foregoing concept necessitates complete separation between religion and state.
Well said Gene, Mike S. and OS.
Bob,Esq.
I loved your short and concise response!
One other thing. The separation of church and state also provides for the unconditional non-discrimination against those who would try to suppress the religion of others. We have seen that in the recent attempts by so-called Christians to prevent Muslims from building mosques. At the same time, they do not see anything wrong with building mega-churches in the middle of predominately Jewish, Muslim or Native American areas.
Gotta spread the Word of the Lord to the infidels, y’know. Nothing wrong with that. Just as long as the infidels don’t try to spread THEIR word.
OOPS, mangled sentence. Should read:
“The separation of church and state also provides for the unconditional non-discrimination and protection from those who would try to suppress the religion of others.”
Therein lies the rub … “let their disdain for Obama, over rule their common sense” (Mike S)
“For in that sleep of death we know not what dreams may come….” (Shakespeare – Hamlet)
Let us not forget that membership within the different organized, and even disorganized, religions is declining and thus losing political power. Those religious leaders and the politicians like Paul who have long been their partners are desperate to regain that which they’ve lost.
That scrap of paper we call the Constitution means little to these politicians in the battle they are now waging. They’d burn it in a minute if it meant 2, 4, or 6 more years in office.
Paul’s pretense of “misread and distorted” is simply camouflage disguising his willingness to say or do whatever it takes to gain the support of the desperately religious in order to advance his never ending quest for power and a seat at the desk in the Oval Office.
Nal … a superb post … thank you
Blouise,
I think you are right that Rep. Paul is doing and saying these things to get the backing of the religious right.
I, too, has to endure the lord’s prayer every day in the ’50s. I didn’t say the prayer nor make a big deal of it, but I did feel alienated from my classmates.
Students or others displaying words from their religion in opposition to a death penalty case have every right to express their views. If the powers that be were chase them away, they would be suppressing the students right of free speech and their right to make religious speech in the public arena. Actually, I use many of those religious references in my own activism in hopes of making contact with those making the decisions.
Paul may be good on foreign policy (no wars) and the fed, but he would be a disaster on so many domestic issues.
John said “This is a good point to bring up, but the article cuts the issue short. Once everybody is going to public schools, living in public housing, and working at public jobs, “separation of church and state” is going to be the slogan used for “sorry you can’t do that anymore–so put away that Bible, take down that Christmas tree, and get rid of that cross around your neck.”.”
John’s example is a wonderful summation of what is happening now, that Christianity is supposed to be the predominant religion and that it is christians who now face the most discrimination. John, This is America, where freedom of religion means any and all, whether it is yours or not.
BettyKath, We had a mandated prayer where a kid stood in front of the class and read from the Bible (years ago but was school Bible (public school btw). Each day different kid, including me and my Jewish buddies (since school was probably 60 – 70% Jewish) What is did for me was make the Bible and religion no different then the world news, read by the kid standing next to the one with the Bible or school news and announcements, rwead by the kid standing next to the kid reading the news. The result was Faith and religion became meaningless for me for many years. Compulsory prayer became nothing more then another boring waste of my time.
No surprise about Paul. He will say whatever he thinks will get the right on his side, liberty from the federal government but invade a woman’s body and her doctors office. No dissonance there. (Then there is the religion question – is this stance because of his religious beliefs, further bringing them into the behavior of the state and ultimately the federal government from which he believes we should be liberated?) At the end of the day a polititcian is a politician is a politician and staunchly held beliefs be damned.
Mike S.
I’m going to take you on about your statement here while first complimenting Nal and others who will state what Paul is saying is not a correct understanding of the Constitution.
You write: “When will people understand that under our current system of campaigning for office, no politician is heroic, since they all have to make deals, to get money, to even run in the first place. We have allowed a system of legal bribery to take effect in this country and we have become no different from the countries we decry where “baksheesh” is how you get things done.” I for one do not expect my politicians to be heroic. I do expect them to refrain for illegalities that undermine my system of govt. and that cause immense harm to other human beings. You write about anyone criticizing Obama, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. You need to explain how you think Obama is the good. He isn’t.
I am going to ask you to watch this video of a man whom our govt. decided by executive fiat, was a terrorist. They arrested this man and rendered him via the CIA to a prison in Afghanistan where he was tortured. They let him rot there for months, even when they had discovered within a few days that he was entirely innocent. Your “good” guy Obama has never allowed this man his day in court. Your “good’ guy Obama has now signed into law, his own contention that he may do this to anyone at anytime on his say so.
If you can watch this video. If you can countenance the power to indefinitely or even for a short term imprison another human being without trial, then you must explain how you have come to believe these are “good” things and that Obama is a “good” man for taking up these “powers”.
IMO no person should ever give their consent to the imprisonment of others without trial. I cannot see why that is less bad than anything Ron Paul would do to our Constitution and other human beings. I will search to find this video and ask that you watch it. In it, you will see what the NADA law just codified against other human beings.
http://docuvideop.blogspot.com/2011/09/wikileaks-and-el-masri-case-innocent.html
I will add one more example-a boy. Tell me how Obama is “good”. (from andy worthington “This Christmas, when so many of us spend time with our families, my thoughts are with Omar Khadr, a scapegoat in the “war on terror” for two countries — not just the United States, which has held him at Guantánamo for over nine years, but also Canada, his home.
Seized at the age of 15 in Afghanistan, where he had been taken by his father, who was allegedly a fundraiser for al-Qaeda, Omar was abused by the US authorities at Bagram and then Guantánamo, and was then put forward for a war crimes trial, and he has also been neglected throughout his long ordeal by the Canadian government. Neither country cared that he was a juvenile prisoner when seized, and should have been rehabilitated rather then punished, as stipulated in the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, even though Canada, in particular, has stood up for the rights of child soldiers in other countries.
In October 2010, the Obama administration reached a particularly low point in its respect for the law, when Omar was obliged to agree to a plea deal in his trial by Military Commission in exchange for a promise that, as a result, he would serve an eight-year sentence, with just one more year at Guantánamo followed by seven years back in Canada.
In the plea deal, Omar accepted that he had thrown a grenade that killed a US soldier during the firefight that led to his capture in July 2002 (even though that may not have been true), and also agreed that he was an “alien unprivileged enemy belligerent,” who was guilty of war crimes because he was not entitled, under any circumstances, to be engaged in a combat situation with US forces, even though he was captured in a war zone in a country in which the US was at war.
This whole saga is disgraceful, but for the last two months what has been particularly distressing and disturbing is that Omar is still held at Guantánamo, even though, according to the terms of the plea deal, he was supposed to have been transferred to Canadian custody.
As the Globe and Mail reported this week, John Norris, a member of Omar’s Canadian legal team, said of his client, “He’s frustrated, he wants to get on with his life.” The article also noted that both the US and Canadian governments are still claiming, as they did when the deadline passed on October 31, that “the delays are just part of a complicated process, that there is no willful foot-dragging,” as though they haven’t had a year to prepare.
Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale pointed out that, due to legislation passed by Congress, one problem is that the US defence secretary Leon Panetta “must ‘certify’ to Congress that Canada is a fit place to send a convicted terrorist, a nation not likely to permit him to attack the United States, and one that has control of its prisons.” The Globe and Mail added, “That hasn’t happened and Mr. Khadr can’t go anywhere until it does.” Lt. Col. Breasseale also explained that the Congressional imposition “restricts our ability to transfer detainees from GTMO for 30 days after we inform Congress of our intent to transfer the individual, but levies no requirements after the 30 days.”
This is a ridiculous situation, of course, as Canada can hardly be regarded as an unsafe country by all but the most paranoid and unhinged members of Congress, but the Globe and Mail claimed that this might be embarrassing for Leon Panetta, and described “the odd, and potentially embarrassing, requirement of formally certifying to Congress that a close ally could be trusted not to allow a convicted terrorist to attack American again.”
Ironically, the new National Defence Authorization Act, which has caused great consternation because of its deranged provision for the mandatory military custody of all terror suspects, “allows for transfers without certification in cases where a pre-trial agreement was signed,” as the Globe and Mail explained.
In the most alarming passage in the article, it was claimed that Omar’s plea deal “allowed for repatriation to Canada but didn’t explicitly guarantee it” — which strikes me as a rather casual revisionism, when the whole purpose of the plea deal was to guarantee Omar’s return to Canada — and this was followed by a quote from an unnamed US official, who stated bluntly, “Your country doesn’t want him back.”
Sadly, Omar’s lawyers are in the dark about his future. “I wish I knew, I wish they would tell us,” John Norris said. “So far we have received no word about a transfer date.”
Since the First Amendment prevents congress from doing anything at all concerning religion, it follows that, under the Tenth Amendment, such matters are left to the people and the states.
If people are offended by school prayer, they should take it up with the school board, not the federal courts.
By the way, letters to Baptists do not have force of law.
Dominionism = Christian Taliban.
The intention of the founders for separation of Church and State was reiterated again by Adams in the Treaty of Tripoli.
Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Monroe – all left extensive writings on this subject. As did the Virginia legislature.
There is simply no foundation for these Dominionist lies.
Ken C., your lack of understanding of two hundred years of Constitutional law and case law following is most impressive.
In 2000, I moved to LA and immediately encountered a beast known as Landmark, a codified way of uplifting your inner spirit, written in, like, you know, Angeleno, and was for a time a miraculous and effective method of parting suckers from dollars. As I dug into it, I saw true believers were manning call centers 4 of 5 days a week, from after work until 11pm, calling other Landmarkers and giving them the “Brother so-and-so, when was the last Landmark class you took?” and taking payment information. When confronted, they would claim “the money didn’t matter, it’s the courses, and since you haven’t been to one, you are not in a position to comment.” Descriptions of the “courses” sounded like a cross between tent revivals and office therapy, complete with group humiliation. At least there is music in church.
This is what our politicians must face for 23.9 hours of their actual days: get on that blasted phone and raise money. The amounts which now must be raised to accommodate the new ceilings doom anyone entering politics into simply manning a call center phone.
The measure of power becomes how many people you can get to make those calls for you.
And all of it –every inch of it — is treated as a game by those who play it most.
If you do not like it, we always have the Credit Score, and failing that, the “T” word.
James,
That’s for politicians to worry about. We the people need to grow a conscience and a spine and stop supporting sock puppets of billionaires.
We still have one person, one vote in this nation. We should use that and vote for people who reflect our actual values. If a person does not reflect those values, they are not entitled to our vote, our time, our words of support or donations. They should receive nothing except our repudiation of them and everything they stand for. Withdraw consent. Then join with other people who do share your values for social and environmental justice, for the rule of law. Put your time, money and heart there. It’s the best chance we have.
Omar Khadr was picked up by US forces in 2002.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/ron-paul-says-victim-sex-harassment-bears-some-responsibility-for-resolution/fyCUfBYPwVLj4eLcE4YnPI/index.html Paul also defended his criticism of AIDS patients on Fox News Sunday.
Swathmoremom, Appalling, a doctor ignorant about some of the causes of AIDS and a lack of basic decency in his position(s)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39698_Ron_Paul-_AIDS_Patients_Are_Victimizing_Innocent_Citizens He repeated this today, Carol.
Otteray Scribe,
Perhaps your understanding of the constitution would be enhanced if you actually read it.
Meaning doesn’t change because you want it to.
This is from Glenn’s column today. It needs to be read in its entirety: “The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.
Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed “a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes.
The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that — things liberalism has long held to be pernicious. I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality. All of these facts — like the history laid out by Stoller in that essay — negate that desired self-perception. These facts demonstrate that the leader progressives have empowered and will empower again has worked in direct opposition to those values and engaged in conduct that is nothing short of horrific. So there is an eagerness to avoid hearing about them, to pretend they don’t exist. And there’s a corresponding hostility toward those who point them out, who insist that they not be ignored.
Ken,
What is “Understanding also requires context”?
Such as the context that the Due Process Clause and the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States, specifically the 1st Amendment, according to Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). See also, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) and Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) for cases dealing specifically with the Establishment Clause (Everson) and the Free Exercise Clause (Cantwell).
As a matter of Constitutional law, you won’t be moving on to Final Jeopardy, Ken.
I’ll take “Specious Constitutional Reasoning Often Used by Originalists and Libertarians” for $1000, Alex.
mike – mandatory or coerced. i agree. the presumption of official support. that is what i meant.
I can understand that when viewed by a politician, the first amendment may look like a wall. However walls have two sides, and there is no corresponding other side.
Ken, I refer you to Gene’s response to you just above.
We can try to explain it to you, but we cannot understand it for you.
Jill – I had to look and see who was mentioning Andy Worthington. He is going to be in DC in the next few days with No More Guantanamos and the Witness Against Torture group in DC for their trial.
Right on, Jill. Well said.
Is the “wall” that separates the church and state different from the “wall” that separates the press and state?
Jill,
I’m glad you don’t have political heroes, though you misunderstood the way I was using the term. I’m sorry if my imprecision misled you only. thoughts. My meaning is that given the corruption of the system by money, no politician can be trusted to always do the right thing. As to
Obama’ s bad policies wouldn’t you guess from my own copious commentary on them that I’m fully aware of his misdeeds? If not you do me a disservice.
Where I stand on this coming election is that I won’t waste my vote on someone without a reasonable chance of victory. I get it that you believe both parties are the same in that they both answer to their corporate masters. I believe that is true also, but they are different corporate masters, with different agendas. The Republican masters are commited to a feudalist corporate setup, using religious fear and oppression, to control the 99% as serfs. The Democratic masters understand that the 99% needs some benefits to keep America as a consumer society, supporting a military/commercial empire.
Both are bad choices, but until the aspirations energized by OWS reach the next level of fighting the corporate encroachments I’ll use my vote and my voice to stave off a totally repressive society. That society will come about if any of the present Republican field takes power along with congressional control this year. If that happens we will see repression that many of us have never dreamed possible. As bad as these past 3 years have been, my guess is we wouldn’t have been able to be writing now had McCain won in 2008.
Old news, but…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/us/27patriot.html
“I want to deliver a warning this afternoon: When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry,” Mr. Wyden said. He invoked the public’s reaction to the illegal domestic spying that came to light in the mid-1970s, the Iran-contra affair, and the Bush administration’s program of surveillance without warrants.”
“Another member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, backed Mr. Wyden’s account, saying, “Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out.”
Perhaps there will be a leak. Perhaps it will be a game-changer.
anon nurse,
I hope you are right about a leak. I am not too high on Wyden after his recent cave-in to Rep. Ryan on Medicare.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/ron-wyden-useful-idiot/
(Thanks for the heads-up, rafflaw. I was down with the flu for a week and missed a lot of news…)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/competition-hasnt-worked-in-health-care/2011/08/25/gIQAyvXPyO_blog.html (from the Krugman link)
martin sez, “I can understand that when viewed by a politician, the first amendment may look like a wall. However walls have two sides, and there is no corresponding other side.”
Politicians got nothing to do with it, slick. It’s all about the law. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses operate to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. When you seek to promote your religious ideology through the organelles of government, you are seeking to force your religion on someone else who probably isn’t interested in your religion or they’d already practice it – i.e. the 1st Amendment protects other people’s religious practice or lack thereof from people like you using the government to force your religion upon them. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause also protects other people from doing that same thing to you. Wall . . . other side. End of story.
The only one-sided wall here, martin, is your faulty reasoning seeking to rationalize your theocratic bent. Not only is it faulty reasoning, it violates the laws of physics. Keep your religion out of government and we’ll keep the government out of your religion. Why? Because it’s the law, martin. If you want a theocracy, feel free to move to Iran or Vatican City. Otherwise? You’re stuck with a secular government here by the express terms of the Constitution.
Deal with it.
More lovely pronouncements from Paul . . .
Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act of 1964 ‘Destroyed’ Privacy
What an incredible douche bag with absolutely no understanding of sociology, history and the function of law under Equal Protection.
Great link Gene!
Guys, the sad part is there are still all too many people around who agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. I see that David Duke has handed out his endorsement.
http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul-locks-up-coveted-david-duke-endorsement-video/
I had missed this interview. Probably because I don’t watch much teevee and second, I don’t watch Fox when I do. But this interview with Chris Wallace yesterday is worth noting.
Seems that Ron Paul believes it is the responsibility of a person being sexually harassed to quit their job rather than making harassment illegal. The part relevant to this comment starts at about the 5:35 mark.
Blogger Vyan analyzes Ron Paul’s statements.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/01/1050619/-Oh,-and-Ron-Paul-opposes-Sexual-Harrasment-Laws-too?detail=hide
Way to go Doc. Your daughter is harassed by a thug at work. Solution is simple. Willie the thug keeps his job but your daughter must quit her job at a time there are anywhere from nine to a hundred applicants for every job. Heaven forbid that a government agency might make Willie’s actions illegal. Respondeat infirmior at work in Ron Paul’s libertarian utopia.
OS,
Great catch!
raff, the hits just keep coming. If I were a fiction writer, I would dismiss the entire Republican field of candidates as not good material. Good fiction requires believable characters and a coherent storyline. Good luck on making either of those happen with this bunch.
I particularly liked the piece on Ron Paul snagging the much coveted David Duke endorsement. That reminds me of the fellow who could not wait for the elevator doors to open.
Superb, Nal!
Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
(…)
Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed “that Christian forbearance, love and chairty,” which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
~James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785)
Nope, no other Founder ever suggested erecting that Wall of Mr. Jeferson’s invention.
By the way, David, I would be remiss if I didn’t say that I think this is your finest column to date. A job well done, sir.
Gene, you say
“Keep your religion out of government and we’ll keep the government out of your religion. Why? Because it’s the law, martin.”
—
The first part of your statement is Keep your religion out of government, which is the imperative mood. The implied subject in the imperative mood is “you”. By “you”, you mean “me”. And you claim that “it’s the law.”
—
But nothing in the first amendment is directed at “me”.
You have demonstrated my point.
I think a better image than a wall would be a handcuff.
The first clause of the first amendment cuffs the right hand of the government and the left hand as well.
What point is that exactly, martin?
That you make piss poor rebuttals and commit the fallacies of argumentum ad nauseam and argument from ignorance? Repetition and willful denial of facts backed by evidence is not a sound rebuttal. It’s the equivalent of a child stomping his feet and shouting “Uh uh!”
That you generally don’t know what you are talking about regarding the law?
That you are a theocrat bent on inserting your religious agenda into government?
That you’re too dense and/or willfully ignorant to understand the 1st Amendment and the words of the Founders and Framers that a secular state was their express intent in drafting the Constitution and the 1st Amendment? And that this separation doctrine is backed by a long line of precedent? Evidence that backs the contention you are wrong?
I say all of the above.
You have been presented with cites to black letter law, case law and the direct words of the Framers that say you’re wrong. They have a word for that in court. Evidence.
Your counter argument is no more cogent than Jennifer Keeton’s argument about her beliefs. You have presented no evidence of any sort. Just repeated your belief that the Separation of Church and State doctrine doesn’t exist. Sorry! Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true.
Everything in the 1st Amendment is directed at you, slick. It’s directed at every citizen. All citizens have a right to a government free from your (or anyone else’s) religion – i.e. you can’t use the mechanisms of state to force your religion on others (the Establishment Clause) – and all citizens have a right to practice their religion (or lack thereof) free from government interference (the Free Exercise Clause).
Keep your religion out of government, martin.
I don’t “claim” it’s the law.
It IS the law. Whether you like it or not or whether you believe it or not. A preponderance of evidence has been presented showing that the Separation of Church and State is the law. A preponderance of evidence means that the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil lawsuit for the trier of fact to decide in favor of one side or the other has been presented, martin. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy as it is backed by black letter law (the wording of the 1st Amendment), case law (Gitlow, Everson and Cantwell – there even more cases than that addressing it issue, I might add) and even the words of the Jefferson and Madison themselves. The evidence has been presented and to a standard of judgement that any rational person or trier of fact would say is conclusive. The Separation of Church and State is the law in the United States. It has been proven to exist to a level sufficient to win in court.
Yet you persist in your claim – over and over again – that there is no separation of church and state. That means the burden of proof to disprove my (and others) assertion that there is a separation doctrine rests on you. You provide evidence that we are wrong.
Prove it. Don’t opine. Don’t regurgitate your belief. Prove it. With cites to black letter law and case law supporting your contention.
Otherwise, you lose this argument.
It’s really that simple, martin.
Put up or shut up. And by shut up, I mean feel free to continue to display your willful ignorance of the law and history. You are free to say what you like. You are not free, however, to be free from being challenged when you are spouting bullshit.
To all of you: I wonder if you have ever considered this;
Take dutiful time to think completely about the answers to these questions.
It is through these questions You will see Your life or death error.
Did You choose or vote for the constitution to begin with, state or country?
Did You agree at any specific time, or on any specific note, to social security?
Did You agree at any specific time, or on any specific note, to your birth certificate registration?
Were Your Parents given clear documentation of the terms and function of its purpose?
Does money have any formal value?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, think again.
Do You know the details and conditions of any of these instruments?
If You answered yes to this You are deliberately delusional.
The law says anyone who enters an agreement without knowing the details is insane.
To your advantage, the law says one who is insane cannot be held responsible.
America has been a nation that functions on bonds; resulting in its inhabitants being put into bondage. Your bond is your word. No one else’s, yet, is this the case with You? If You are honest, You find yourself doing much You don’t choose to do. You endure what is not your burden that has come about by others choices.
Final question, How is that working for you?
After reading the above, still scratching my head, am I. To be rhetorical questions with a libertarian bent these appear. If something to say or a point to make, the writer has, enlightenment, we await enlightenment.
Law DeSchilde,
Consider this:
Have we as humans constructed societies, cultures and governments to raise us out of the mire of “might makes right” that was the condition of most of our history and pre-history?
Are these cultural constructs an advantage to us in allowing many of us to escape lives that are harsh, brutal and short?
Shall we as humans revert to a status as totally self interested individuals, with no limits or structure to guide us?
If the answer to the above is yes, then wouldn’t you also believe that all you have to keep me from taking all you’ve got is your brawn and your weaponry?
Finally, is this the life you want yourself and all of us to lead?
Based on your above comments, I would think that the logical extension of what you might propose is a society that would make the myths of the “Wild West” tame in comparison. If that is the case then, in the end your life, your families lives and all you possess are subject to the whim of others more powerful who might covet them. Humanity would be ruled by the law of the jungle and unless you have great resources, are a mighty warrior and have excellent weaponry, you become somebody elses’ bitch.
You’re kinda missing the point. By over-interpreting the separation of church and state concept (which, by the way, is NOT literally in the constitution), people feel they cannot make any religious or spiritual expressions publicly anymore. This is really counter to our Bill of Rights which allows such expressions. But the new Political Correctness mandates that we replace such expressions of faith with generic meaningless express (for example, everyone now says “Happy Holidays” around Christmas time). I believe separation of church and state is an important component of our legal system. However, we should interpret it to mean that secularism, agnosticism or atheism should be forced on people either. For example, look at the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public (i.e. government-operated) primary and secondary schools. I believe such a law is an overreach of the government into people’s fundamental rights of religious expression and such a law should never be enacted in the US. Similarly, if students want to pray in school they should be allowed to but not forced. This, actually, is Ron Paul’s position as well.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/how-ron-paul-won-over-iowas-evangelicals.php?ref=fpa
Mike S.,
you are right about Mr./Ms. Law DeSchilde. What the commenter is suggesting is anarchy.
Gene,
I wish you wouldn’t beat around the bush!
OS, I do not know what libertarian means to You. I don’t choose to hold a definition of My own.
In point, the record is what matters, always has, and always will. And Nature tells the Law, this is obvious. Responsible Am I to both(and You also). (Not to be confused that I Am a catholic.LOL)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350781-503544/the-overhyped-unrepresentative-iowa-caucuses/
“The media focus on Iowa can be misleading. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee won the caucuses on the back of born again and evangelical voters, then faded in the long slog to the nomination. (The eventual nominee, John McCain, finished in fourth.) In 1988, George H.W. Bush, who would go on to win the GOP nomination, lost Iowa to both Bob Dole and Pat Robertson; in 1980, Mr. Bush edged eventual nominee Ronald Reagan in the caucuses.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/01/opinion/avlon-iowa-countdown/index.html
“Conventional wisdom states that the top three finishers in the Iowa caucuses are all winners, with a chance to win the nomination, especially if they exceed expectations. But jowly former Sen. Fred Thompson came in third in Iowa and dropped out of the campaign. John McCain gained the endorsement of the Des Moines Register in 2008 as well as the nomination, but he didn’t finish in the top three in ’08 or ’00. In fact, since 1980, the only Republican nonincumbent who has won the caucuses and gone on to win the presidency is George W. Bush.”
Mike, no thank You. I cannot consider that, and mainly because it is highly speculative at best.
Nal,
I’ll echo what a number of others posters have said–excellent and thoughtful article.
“everyone now says “Happy Holidays” around Christmas time”
hextarski,
I always say Happy and/or Merry Christmas to those I perceive to be non-Jews and I’m Jewish. When it is said to me I say thank you and return the salutation, eve though it is not my holiday. I think some Christians make themselves out to be victims as a means of rallying their troops. Christianity is hardly a victim in this country and many times it is a bully.
“Mike, no thank You. I cannot consider that, and mainly because it is highly speculative at best.”
Law DeSchilde,
Sometime “Da Nile” is a river in Egypt, other times it’s a means of not recognizing the destruction of one’s propositions.
This battle of the clowns seems to have demolished yet another “front runner” pumped up by a news media concered only with the “horse race”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/02/iowa-poll-paul-romney-santorum_n_1179412.html
Sic transit Newt?
“You’re kinda missing the point. By over-interpreting the separation of church and state concept (which, by the way, is NOT literally in the constitution), people feel they cannot make any religious or spiritual expressions publicly anymore.”
First, wrong. The doctrine of Separation of Church and State is literally in the 1st Amendment. How it is applied is further refined by case law (as mentioned above).
Second, what people feel and what is reality can be vastly different. This is one of those times. People are free to make all the religious or spiritual expressions they like as long as
1) they don’t use government monies to do so and
2) they don’t force their beliefs upon other via the mechanism of government and the law.
There is a reason that both the Jennifer Keeton case and the Schultz v. Medina School District case (both of which have the would-be theocrats panties in a bunch) failed on the basis of free speech arguments: this isn’t a free speech issue. You are free to say what you like on your own dime and your own time, but you are not free to use the government to force your beliefs on others.
Mike, proposition or prediction? Do You deny what You propose would happen is a prediction based upon conquest as basic. Is that the choice you make?
“Mike, proposition or prediction? Do You deny what You propose would happen is a prediction based upon conquest as basic. Is that the choice you make?’
Law DeSchilde,
What are you talking about? Could you please flesh out whatever point it is you are making, because frankly it is not clear to me.
Mike Ok,
what I Am talking about should be obvious to any who know, whatever we are doing isn’t working.
I will take each paragraph you wrote:
“Have we as humans constructed societies, cultures and governments to raise us out of the mire of “might makes right” that was the condition of most of our history and pre-history?”
We? Did you? or did you think you hired a third party for the tasks you say here?
And, history? Pre-history? Were you there? If you weren’t you would be a liar to confirm any of it based on here-say.
“Are these cultural constructs an advantage to us in allowing many of us to escape lives that are harsh, brutal and short?”
Constructs are to no advantage to all if they are constructed to chiefly benefit the constructor. The balance of your statement is based on speculation, and therefore has no possibility for application.
“Shall we as humans revert to a status as totally self interested individuals, with no limits or structure to guide us?”
This is a great question, if applied to the self. There can only be One answer. And that answer is obvious to any who sees themselves when they see another.
The answer to the next paragraph is solely dependent on the answer to the previous.
“Finally, is this the life you want yourself and all of us to lead?”
This question is not applicable.
“Based on your above comments, I would think that the logical extension of what you might propose is a society that would make the myths of the “Wild West” tame in comparison.”
Speculation.
“If that is the case then, in the end your life, your families lives and all you possess are subject to the whim of others more powerful who might covet them.”
This is already the case. The travesty in what is, at this point, is the ability for “others more powerful” to do it legally.
Humanity would be ruled by the law of the jungle and unless you have great resources, are a mighty warrior and have excellent weaponry, you become somebody elses’ bitch.
Speculation. Or is it? Who are you? Do you have a purpose that is true? Or are you a part of the fiction ?
I don’t expect you to answer this question, or the others, as my “opinion” is you are the latter.
I want to be wrong about that.
Thanks Mike,
While I do disagree with Dr. Paul’s position on abortion, I dont think there is a blanket gov’t solution, different people believe different things. If some states prevented it via legislation, people can move or go to a state that allowed it. I think all he is advocating is state choice. As I said I do not agree with Dr. Paul’s position on this matter, isn’t the non aggression axiom the fundamental tenet of libertarians?
Next, I fail to see where your drawing these conclusions? I have read and watched much of Dr. Paul, and the only church matters o have ever heard him espouse are marriage should be a church matter/civil unions or that before the government, health care was provided by churches. As for a dominionist, if you have an interview of Dr. Paul saying things that even lend to these views, I’ve never seen it. Having said that I would lose a lot of respect for him if you do have said info.
Lastly, is there a candidate out there now who would do as much for liberty as Paul? Obama just signed that disgrace “NDAA”, and is no less a neo-con than Bush was. On the republican side the same can be said except for Ron.
Ron Paul Is No Friend to Progressives
Great link Gene. One scary article.
rafflaw, That’s what I have been saying for months and months. lol
Swarthmore,
I know you have.
raff,
I could have told you that….Good link Gene…
His views on religion a deal breaker? Actually, indefinite detention by the government without charge, drug policies that have turned our nation into a war zone, a military industrial complex that strangles our government, along with crony capitalist monopolies, actually scare me a lot more than the threat of a theocratic takeover in the US. As someone else pointed out, Paul is not advocating a theocracy or the imposition of religious views on anyone, which is contrary to libertarianism. But Paul is right on the issues that matter most in terms of civil liberties and national war spending, and while I disagree with his view that a week old fetus is a “person” (which incidentally he couches in rational rather than religious terms – certainly worthy of debate) as well as his take on government’s role in maintaining social safety nets, his Republican opponents have correctly pointed out that he would have trouble implementing those, while he would be most able to end our longstanding (and insane) foreign policy and dampen down the associated state security apparatus.