100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Ron Paul | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I wanna know what the "experts" say about the FED and why we need it... So far i haven't heard a logical argument for it yet. I would think it would be stupid to make the only source of income bank loans. For instance. Instead of a job you can only borrow money from a bank. You must borrow enough to make payments, plus the cost of expenses. The loans must get bigger and bigger every time. In the bigger picture i know inflation is supposed to offset the costs of the payments... But isn't it dangerously unstable to have a monetary system dependent on inflation? Also the national debt payments acounts for about a third of the U.S. budget. I wonder how much more money people could spend if they didn't have to pay income tax, and the poor could stop paying inflation tax. You try to simplify something that cant be done. Ron Paul tries to ignore the history beyond the Depression of the 30's. You cant do that either, but he knows that if he examined the reasons for creating the FED RESERVE his arguments would be contradictions. The Fed Reserve is not the only Rhetoric that comes from his camp anyway. Ron Paul wants to dissolve almost the entire US Gov. He is against a woman's right to choose. He wants to dissolve the Dept of Education. He wants to dissolve the Dept of Health. The CIA, the FBI, etc, etc. He wants to dissolve all these Depts and make it legal for everyone to own fully automatic weapon sytems??? LMAO! That is unacceptable to me. Do you even know why? Yes. I don't have the time to go into right now - child to feed. Our government has flaws. That doesn't mean that is has to be dissolved. It can be repaired. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am all for a separation of church and 'Planet'.
Driven, I am not going by speeches I am reading what he is actually saying in HIS OWN WORDS: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html If you can't see it your way to close to it. And Driven, I am no body's supporter. I won't agree with everything one president does or says. In fact I think Obama is just as indoctrinated in Christianity as the next guy, so I don't expect him to have views that are in line with my own, nor did I expect if of Bush of Clinton or Reagan or the first Bush. And frankly with the domination of the Christian church in politics I don't expect any president to be honest about how they really feel about Christianity or religion of any kind. You can bet that no wanna be president will ever say he is agnostic or atheist and win, because people would freak out. Does this mean I don't like other things that Paul has said, no, but there aren't enough for me to vote for him as a president. If that makes me the other side, so be it, to me it just means I see thing differently than you guys that like Paul exclusively. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the fact that he wants people to be allowed to freely express their religion means that he is bringing religion into politics? I ask, should muslim children not be allowed to pray at school when his or her religion requires? All Ron Paul was asking for is tolerance. Did anyone else see anything different? Tolerance for Christianity is no longer acceptable to many people. I know more than a few people who will not be happy until Christians are forced to worship in basements after dark with only a few very trusted friends and family. Want an example? Check out the General Religion forum on Mingle. If you post anything about Christianity, there will be a bunch of posts attacking the religion and the person within a few minutes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am all for a separation of church and 'Planet'.
Driven, I am not going by speeches I am reading what he is actually saying in HIS OWN WORDS: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html If you can't see it your way to close to it. And Driven, I am no body's supporter. I won't agree with everything one president does or says. In fact I think Obama is just as indoctrinated in Christianity as the next guy, so I don't expect him to have views that are in line with my own, nor did I expect if of Bush of Clinton or Reagan or the first Bush. And frankly with the domination of the Christian church in politics I don't expect any president to be honest about how they really feel about Christianity or religion of any kind. You can bet that no wanna be president will ever say he is agnostic or atheist and win, because people would freak out. Does this mean I don't like other things that Paul has said, no, but there aren't enough for me to vote for him as a president. If that makes me the other side, so be it, to me it just means I see thing differently than you guys that like Paul exclusively. Separation of Church and State does not actually appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a limitation on government power. The Constitution forbids government from endorsing any one religion. Basically what Ron Paul is saying is that communities that want a Saint Patrick's Day parade should be allowed to have one. However, the government should not be mandating such a parade, and it should not be forcing people (or even bribing them) to participate. If a different community wants to celebrate some other religious holiday, they should be allowed to do so without coming under attack from the government. At the same time the government should not be forcing everyone to participate in that celebration. This is the real tolerance of the Constitution. While it may not have always been enforced, trying to use the concept of 'separation of church and state' to prevent religious people from practicing their faith in public is not tolerant. (and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, I am just explaining what I believe in, and in this case what Ron Paul supports). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the fact that he wants people to be allowed to freely express their religion means that he is bringing religion into politics? I ask, should muslim children not be allowed to pray at school when his or her religion requires? All Ron Paul was asking for is tolerance. Did anyone else see anything different? Tolerance for Christianity is no longer acceptable to many people. I know more than a few people who will not be happy until Christians are forced to worship in basements after dark with only a few very trusted friends and family. Want an example? Check out the General Religion forum on Mingle. If you post anything about Christianity, there will be a bunch of posts attacking the religion and the person within a few minutes. It is often the other way around as well. Makes for some interesting reading actually. It would seem that tolerance of others who are not Christian is also a problem. so it goes both ways. It would appear that while Paul is supposedly asking for tolerance, at the very same time he is saying that there is a war on Christianity. He's right, in fact. When Christianity try's to dominate, there will be a problem, just as if any other religion tried to do the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am all for a separation of church and 'Planet'.
Driven, I am not going by speeches I am reading what he is actually saying in HIS OWN WORDS: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html If you can't see it your way to close to it. And Driven, I am no body's supporter. I won't agree with everything one president does or says. In fact I think Obama is just as indoctrinated in Christianity as the next guy, so I don't expect him to have views that are in line with my own, nor did I expect if of Bush of Clinton or Reagan or the first Bush. And frankly with the domination of the Christian church in politics I don't expect any president to be honest about how they really feel about Christianity or religion of any kind. You can bet that no wanna be president will ever say he is agnostic or atheist and win, because people would freak out. Does this mean I don't like other things that Paul has said, no, but there aren't enough for me to vote for him as a president. If that makes me the other side, so be it, to me it just means I see thing differently than you guys that like Paul exclusively. Separation of Church and State does not actually appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a limitation on government power. The Constitution forbids government from endorsing any one religion. Basically what Ron Paul is saying is that communities that want a Saint Patrick's Day parade should be allowed to have one. However, the government should not be mandating such a parade, and it should not be forcing people (or even bribing them) to participate. If a different community wants to celebrate some other religious holiday, they should be allowed to do so without coming under attack from the government. At the same time the government should not be forcing everyone to participate in that celebration. This is the real tolerance of the Constitution. While it may not have always been enforced, trying to use the concept of 'separation of church and state' to prevent religious people from practicing their faith in public is not tolerant. (and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, I am just explaining what I believe in, and in this case what Ron Paul supports). If your first paragraph is suppose to be helpful to your beliefs, it is not. In this country Christianity in all it's forms has participated and empowered our government from the beginning which was against what was in the constitution. If we are to be correct with the constitution the government has to be "religiousless" in order to be respectful to all religions. Right now the battle is to even the ground and sometimes in evening the ground it will appear intolerant to those who were given undue power previously but that does not make it wrong. Ron Paul and those other politicians like him who combine religion into politics are part of the problem. I disagree with any religious book used for the swearing in ceremonies and it should not have ever been done to agree with the constitution. It is showing favor to one religion. Also in court, using a bible to swear on is showing favor to one religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Separation of Church and State does not actually appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a limitation on government power. The Constitution forbids government from endorsing any one religion. Basically what Ron Paul is saying is that communities that want a Saint Patrick's Day parade should be allowed to have one. However, the government should not be mandating such a parade, and it should not be forcing people (or even bribing them) to participate. If a different community wants to celebrate some other religious holiday, they should be allowed to do so without coming under attack from the government. At the same time the government should not be forcing everyone to participate in that celebration. This is the real tolerance of the Constitution. While it may not have always been enforced, trying to use the concept of 'separation of church and state' to prevent religious people from practicing their faith in public is not tolerant. (and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, I am just explaining what I believe in, and in this case what Ron Paul supports). With all due respect I don't see anyone saying to prohibit holidays parades or gatherings designed for a specific group. And personaly, when you say: Separation of Church and State does not actually appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a limitation on government power. The Constitution forbids government from endorsing any one religion. ~~~~~~~~~~ Limitation of government power which forbids endorsing any one religion, that appears to be seperation to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that there are Christians who behave in an intolerant way. All religions are made up of imperfect people who behave badly.
Big Government Liberals both Christian & Anti Christian, by using the Federal government to promote their agenda and philosophy, force their opponents to use the Federal government to battle for their agenda and philosophy. Only with a small Federal government is it possible for people with differing religious and philosophies to freely practice their beliefs. That is a great example of why the Federal government power was limited by the Constitution. Once the Federal government power extends into the daily lives of the people, then the people will fight over how that power should be used. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Mon 04/06/09 04:34 PM
|
|
I agree that there are Christians who behave in an intolerant way. All religions are made up of imperfect people who behave badly. Big Government Liberals both Christian & Anti Christian, by using the Federal government to promote their agenda and philosophy, force their opponents to use the Federal government to battle for their agenda and philosophy. Only with a small Federal government is it possible for people with differing religious and philosophies to freely practice their beliefs. That is a great example of why the Federal government power was limited by the Constitution. Once the Federal government power extends into the daily lives of the people, then the people will fight over how that power should be used. Big government liberals....???!!!!  It has always been the right wing pushing religious doctrine into the government and onto the citizens.
The size of government has absolutely nothing to do with keeping religion out of the government. We can keep religion out of the government very easily, remove all traces of it and keep it that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this country Christianity in all it's forms has participated and empowered our government from the beginning which was against what was in the constitution. If we are to be correct with the constitution the government has to be "religiousless" in order to be respectful to all religions. This is the problem with those who want to specifically exclude Christians from government. We all have philosophical beliefs which influence our actions, the key is to keep the power of government limited so that the beliefs of the majority do not provide a means to destroy the minority. If we specifically exclude Christians, then it will be Christians who are persecuted by the government. It is much more tolerant and open to restrict the power of the Federal government, than for the government to specifically endorse or attack a religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am all for a separation of church and 'Planet'.
Driven, I am not going by speeches I am reading what he is actually saying in HIS OWN WORDS: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html If you can't see it your way to close to it. And Driven, I am no body's supporter. I won't agree with everything one president does or says. In fact I think Obama is just as indoctrinated in Christianity as the next guy, so I don't expect him to have views that are in line with my own, nor did I expect if of Bush of Clinton or Reagan or the first Bush. And frankly with the domination of the Christian church in politics I don't expect any president to be honest about how they really feel about Christianity or religion of any kind. You can bet that no wanna be president will ever say he is agnostic or atheist and win, because people would freak out. Does this mean I don't like other things that Paul has said, no, but there aren't enough for me to vote for him as a president. If that makes me the other side, so be it, to me it just means I see thing differently than you guys that like Paul exclusively. Separation of Church and State does not actually appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a limitation on government power. The Constitution forbids government from endorsing any one religion. Basically what Ron Paul is saying is that communities that want a Saint Patrick's Day parade should be allowed to have one. However, the government should not be mandating such a parade, and it should not be forcing people (or even bribing them) to participate. If a different community wants to celebrate some other religious holiday, they should be allowed to do so without coming under attack from the government. At the same time the government should not be forcing everyone to participate in that celebration. This is the real tolerance of the Constitution. While it may not have always been enforced, trying to use the concept of 'separation of church and state' to prevent religious people from practicing their faith in public is not tolerant. (and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, I am just explaining what I believe in, and in this case what Ron Paul supports). 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the fact that he wants people to be allowed to freely express their religion means that he is bringing religion into politics? I ask, should muslim children not be allowed to pray at school when his or her religion requires? All Ron Paul was asking for is tolerance. Did anyone else see anything different? Tolerance for Christianity is no longer acceptable to many people. I know more than a few people who will not be happy until Christians are forced to worship in basements after dark with only a few very trusted friends and family. Want an example? Check out the General Religion forum on Mingle. If you post anything about Christianity, there will be a bunch of posts attacking the religion and the person within a few minutes. You are so right.... Go Melaschasm!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Mon 04/06/09 04:40 PM
|
|
In this country Christianity in all it's forms has participated and empowered our government from the beginning which was against what was in the constitution. If we are to be correct with the constitution the government has to be "religiousless" in order to be respectful to all religions. This is the problem with those who want to specifically exclude Christians from government. We all have philosophical beliefs which influence our actions, the key is to keep the power of government limited so that the beliefs of the majority do not provide a means to destroy the minority. If we specifically exclude Christians, then it will be Christians who are persecuted by the government. It is much more tolerant and open to restrict the power of the Federal government, than for the government to specifically endorse or attack a religion. No one is specifically targeting Christians, Christians feel it because they were eroneously the participataries in the government from incept. All religion needs to be removed from the government so that the government will be showing no favor to one religion over others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am all for a separation of church and 'Planet'.
Driven, I am not going by speeches I am reading what he is actually saying in HIS OWN WORDS: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html If you can't see it your way to close to it. And Driven, I am no body's supporter. I won't agree with everything one president does or says. In fact I think Obama is just as indoctrinated in Christianity as the next guy, so I don't expect him to have views that are in line with my own, nor did I expect if of Bush of Clinton or Reagan or the first Bush. And frankly with the domination of the Christian church in politics I don't expect any president to be honest about how they really feel about Christianity or religion of any kind. You can bet that no wanna be president will ever say he is agnostic or atheist and win, because people would freak out. Does this mean I don't like other things that Paul has said, no, but there aren't enough for me to vote for him as a president. If that makes me the other side, so be it, to me it just means I see thing differently than you guys that like Paul exclusively. Separation of Church and State does not actually appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a limitation on government power. The Constitution forbids government from endorsing any one religion. Basically what Ron Paul is saying is that communities that want a Saint Patrick's Day parade should be allowed to have one. However, the government should not be mandating such a parade, and it should not be forcing people (or even bribing them) to participate. If a different community wants to celebrate some other religious holiday, they should be allowed to do so without coming under attack from the government. At the same time the government should not be forcing everyone to participate in that celebration. This is the real tolerance of the Constitution. While it may not have always been enforced, trying to use the concept of 'separation of church and state' to prevent religious people from practicing their faith in public is not tolerant. (and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, I am just explaining what I believe in, and in this case what Ron Paul supports). If your first paragraph is suppose to be helpful to your beliefs, it is not. In this country Christianity in all it's forms has participated and empowered our government from the beginning which was against what was in the constitution. If we are to be correct with the constitution the government has to be "religiousless" in order to be respectful to all religions. Right now the battle is to even the ground and sometimes in evening the ground it will appear intolerant to those who were given undue power previously but that does not make it wrong. Ron Paul and those other politicians like him who combine religion into politics are part of the problem. I disagree with any religious book used for the swearing in ceremonies and it should not have ever been done to agree with the constitution. It is showing favor to one religion. Also in court, using a bible to swear on is showing favor to one religion. Your first paragraph doesn't exactly support you case either. The seperation of Church and state you speak of is written in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You see, congress cannot approve free exercise of religion. This includes religious ceremonies. This also means that government cannot endorse a religion. In plain English. Ron Paul does not bring religion into politics. He only tries to endorse tollerance of a religion. You know, they are all equal so should be allowed and we should all be respectful towards them? Prohibiting the practice there of isnot only unconstitutional, but its forcing atheism on people wouldn't ya think? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Melaschasm
on
Mon 04/06/09 04:52 PM
|
|
I agree that there are Christians who behave in an intolerant way. All religions are made up of imperfect people who behave badly. Big Government Liberals both Christian & Anti Christian, by using the Federal government to promote their agenda and philosophy, force their opponents to use the Federal government to battle for their agenda and philosophy. Only with a small Federal government is it possible for people with differing religious and philosophies to freely practice their beliefs. That is a great example of why the Federal government power was limited by the Constitution. Once the Federal government power extends into the daily lives of the people, then the people will fight over how that power should be used. Big government liberals....???!!!! It has always been the right wing pushing religious doctrine into the government and onto the citizens.
The size of government has absolutely nothing to do with keeping religion out of the government. We can keep religion out of the government very easily, remove all traces of it and keep it that way. There are Christian Big Government Liberals who want to use the power of the Federal Government to impose their Christian beliefs. There are also Anti Christian Big Government Liberals who want to use the power of the Federal Government to attack Christians. The wonderful thing about limiting the power of the Federal Government, is that neither side can subjugate the other side. That is why I agree with Ron Paul, that we should not have such a dominate imposing Federal Government. The reason why I refer to Christians who want to use the Federal Government to impose their beliefs, as Big Government Liberals, is because it is the left leaning liberal philosophy which supports Federal government power, while conservatives, and to a greater extent libertarians oppose giving the Federal government the power to decide people's religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am done with talk on religion. Who cares. This doesn't help me with my personal knowledge.
What i want to know is Why do we NEED a central Bank. Why do we NEED big government? To have our government centralized? Why do we need the Department of education? Why do we need a fiat currency? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am all for a separation of church and 'Planet'.
Driven, I am not going by speeches I am reading what he is actually saying in HIS OWN WORDS: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html If you can't see it your way to close to it. And Driven, I am no body's supporter. I won't agree with everything one president does or says. In fact I think Obama is just as indoctrinated in Christianity as the next guy, so I don't expect him to have views that are in line with my own, nor did I expect if of Bush of Clinton or Reagan or the first Bush. And frankly with the domination of the Christian church in politics I don't expect any president to be honest about how they really feel about Christianity or religion of any kind. You can bet that no wanna be president will ever say he is agnostic or atheist and win, because people would freak out. Does this mean I don't like other things that Paul has said, no, but there aren't enough for me to vote for him as a president. If that makes me the other side, so be it, to me it just means I see thing differently than you guys that like Paul exclusively. Separation of Church and State does not actually appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a limitation on government power. The Constitution forbids government from endorsing any one religion. Basically what Ron Paul is saying is that communities that want a Saint Patrick's Day parade should be allowed to have one. However, the government should not be mandating such a parade, and it should not be forcing people (or even bribing them) to participate. If a different community wants to celebrate some other religious holiday, they should be allowed to do so without coming under attack from the government. At the same time the government should not be forcing everyone to participate in that celebration. This is the real tolerance of the Constitution. While it may not have always been enforced, trying to use the concept of 'separation of church and state' to prevent religious people from practicing their faith in public is not tolerant. (and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, I am just explaining what I believe in, and in this case what Ron Paul supports). If your first paragraph is suppose to be helpful to your beliefs, it is not. In this country Christianity in all it's forms has participated and empowered our government from the beginning which was against what was in the constitution. If we are to be correct with the constitution the government has to be "religiousless" in order to be respectful to all religions. Right now the battle is to even the ground and sometimes in evening the ground it will appear intolerant to those who were given undue power previously but that does not make it wrong. Ron Paul and those other politicians like him who combine religion into politics are part of the problem. I disagree with any religious book used for the swearing in ceremonies and it should not have ever been done to agree with the constitution. It is showing favor to one religion. Also in court, using a bible to swear on is showing favor to one religion. Your first paragraph doesn't exactly support you case either. The seperation of Church and state you speak of is written in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You see, congress cannot approve free exercise of religion. This includes religious ceremonies. This also means that government cannot endorse a religion. In plain English. Ron Paul does not bring religion into politics. He only tries to endorse tollerance of a religion. You know, they are all equal so should be allowed and we should all be respectful towards them? Prohibiting the practice there of isnot only unconstitutional, but its forcing atheism on people wouldn't ya think? You did not prove your point with this. Religion, a certain religion, has been included and favored by our government erroneously since it's incept. It has to be removed. In order to be in consistency with the constitution removal of all religious references need to be removed from the government at all levels. Tolerance is not the problem here, reversal of oppression or advantage is the problem here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that there are Christians who behave in an intolerant way. All religions are made up of imperfect people who behave badly. Big Government Liberals both Christian & Anti Christian, by using the Federal government to promote their agenda and philosophy, force their opponents to use the Federal government to battle for their agenda and philosophy. Only with a small Federal government is it possible for people with differing religious and philosophies to freely practice their beliefs. That is a great example of why the Federal government power was limited by the Constitution. Once the Federal government power extends into the daily lives of the people, then the people will fight over how that power should be used. Big government liberals....???!!!! It has always been the right wing pushing religious doctrine into the government and onto the citizens.
The size of government has absolutely nothing to do with keeping religion out of the government. We can keep religion out of the government very easily, remove all traces of it and keep it that way. There are Christian Big Government Liberals who want to use the power of the Federal Government to impose their Christian beliefs. There are also Anti Christian Big Government Liberals who want to use the power of the Federal Government to attack Christians. The wonderful thing about limiting the power of the Federal Government, is that neither side can subjugate the other side. That is why I agree with Ron Paul, that we should not have such a dominate imposing Federal Government. The reason why I refer to Christians who want to use the Federal Government to impose their beliefs is because it is the left leaning liberal philosophy which supports Federal government power, while conservatives, and to a greater extent libertarians oppose giving the Federal government the power to decide people's religion. Big government is not an issue here in the country. That is a right wing rhetoric that gets pushed around to cover almost all issues that do not sit right with the right wing of politics. Not even valid here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am all for a separation of church and 'Planet'.
Driven, I am not going by speeches I am reading what he is actually saying in HIS OWN WORDS: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html If you can't see it your way to close to it. And Driven, I am no body's supporter. I won't agree with everything one president does or says. In fact I think Obama is just as indoctrinated in Christianity as the next guy, so I don't expect him to have views that are in line with my own, nor did I expect if of Bush of Clinton or Reagan or the first Bush. And frankly with the domination of the Christian church in politics I don't expect any president to be honest about how they really feel about Christianity or religion of any kind. You can bet that no wanna be president will ever say he is agnostic or atheist and win, because people would freak out. Does this mean I don't like other things that Paul has said, no, but there aren't enough for me to vote for him as a president. If that makes me the other side, so be it, to me it just means I see thing differently than you guys that like Paul exclusively. Separation of Church and State does not actually appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a limitation on government power. The Constitution forbids government from endorsing any one religion. Basically what Ron Paul is saying is that communities that want a Saint Patrick's Day parade should be allowed to have one. However, the government should not be mandating such a parade, and it should not be forcing people (or even bribing them) to participate. If a different community wants to celebrate some other religious holiday, they should be allowed to do so without coming under attack from the government. At the same time the government should not be forcing everyone to participate in that celebration. This is the real tolerance of the Constitution. While it may not have always been enforced, trying to use the concept of 'separation of church and state' to prevent religious people from practicing their faith in public is not tolerant. (and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, I am just explaining what I believe in, and in this case what Ron Paul supports). If your first paragraph is suppose to be helpful to your beliefs, it is not. In this country Christianity in all it's forms has participated and empowered our government from the beginning which was against what was in the constitution. If we are to be correct with the constitution the government has to be "religiousless" in order to be respectful to all religions. Right now the battle is to even the ground and sometimes in evening the ground it will appear intolerant to those who were given undue power previously but that does not make it wrong. Ron Paul and those other politicians like him who combine religion into politics are part of the problem. I disagree with any religious book used for the swearing in ceremonies and it should not have ever been done to agree with the constitution. It is showing favor to one religion. Also in court, using a bible to swear on is showing favor to one religion. Your first paragraph doesn't exactly support you case either. The seperation of Church and state you speak of is written in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You see, congress cannot approve free exercise of religion. This includes religious ceremonies. This also means that government cannot endorse a religion. In plain English. Ron Paul does not bring religion into politics. He only tries to endorse tollerance of a religion. You know, they are all equal so should be allowed and we should all be respectful towards them? Prohibiting the practice there of isnot only unconstitutional, but its forcing atheism on people wouldn't ya think? You did not prove your point with this. Religion, a certain religion, has been included and favored by our government erroneously since it's incept. It has to be removed. In order to be in consistency with the constitution removal of all religious references need to be removed from the government at all levels. Tolerance is not the problem here, reversal of oppression or advantage is the problem here. It seems you have been so oppressed by christians you fail to grasp the concept of personal liberties... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that there are Christians who behave in an intolerant way. All religions are made up of imperfect people who behave badly. Big Government Liberals both Christian & Anti Christian, by using the Federal government to promote their agenda and philosophy, force their opponents to use the Federal government to battle for their agenda and philosophy. Only with a small Federal government is it possible for people with differing religious and philosophies to freely practice their beliefs. That is a great example of why the Federal government power was limited by the Constitution. Once the Federal government power extends into the daily lives of the people, then the people will fight over how that power should be used. Big government liberals....???!!!! It has always been the right wing pushing religious doctrine into the government and onto the citizens.
The size of government has absolutely nothing to do with keeping religion out of the government. We can keep religion out of the government very easily, remove all traces of it and keep it that way. There are Christian Big Government Liberals who want to use the power of the Federal Government to impose their Christian beliefs. There are also Anti Christian Big Government Liberals who want to use the power of the Federal Government to attack Christians. The wonderful thing about limiting the power of the Federal Government, is that neither side can subjugate the other side. That is why I agree with Ron Paul, that we should not have such a dominate imposing Federal Government. The reason why I refer to Christians who want to use the Federal Government to impose their beliefs is because it is the left leaning liberal philosophy which supports Federal government power, while conservatives, and to a greater extent libertarians oppose giving the Federal government the power to decide people's religion. Big government is not an issue here in the country. That is a right wing rhetoric that gets pushed around to cover almost all issues that do not sit right with the right wing of politics. Not even valid here. Your arguements are not valid... |
|
|
|
|
