Constitutional Law, Politics, Religion

Ron Paul And The Separation Of Church And State

-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.

102 thoughts on “Ron Paul And The Separation Of Church And State”

  1. “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.

  3. 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.”.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. “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.

  7. 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

  8. puzzling:

    For example, Paul argues that the federal government simply does not have the authority to ban children from praying in public schools …

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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…

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  20. surest was SB surest way…. (last sentence)… and if you want to delete this comment, I’m fine with it…

Comments are closed.