And no, I don't believe the Christian right (all denominations) have people's attention because they are loud. Muslim radicals are just as loud, not that I would even put the two on the same level. I think more people lean to the right than we think, whether they want to admit it or not.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The "loud" Evangelicals
I thought about this video during our last class when we were all discussing about the Evangelical right and why they got everyone's attention. The consensus was because they were the loudest and they drowned everyone else out. I believe Ron Paul (and his supporters) is more than adequately loud but the media seems to want nothing more than to drown this guy out. Is he sillier than Michelle Bachmann? I think not, but everyone whose not a Ron Paul fan seems to treat him like a mental patient. The media is taking Michelle Bachmann more seriously than him, a 12 term congressman (surely the basis of being reelected alone should serve some merit?).
And no, I don't believe the Christian right (all denominations) have people's attention because they are loud. Muslim radicals are just as loud, not that I would even put the two on the same level. I think more people lean to the right than we think, whether they want to admit it or not.
And no, I don't believe the Christian right (all denominations) have people's attention because they are loud. Muslim radicals are just as loud, not that I would even put the two on the same level. I think more people lean to the right than we think, whether they want to admit it or not.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Ron Paul on the First Amendment
Ron Paul on the "seperation of church and state"
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 2, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. 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. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state" metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "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. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the "gradual and silent encroachment" of the courts upon our nation's religious liberties by supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. 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. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state" metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "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. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the "gradual and silent encroachment" of the courts upon our nation's religious liberties by supporting this bill.
Original link to speech: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c4_1221710685
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a libertarian who has now served over a total of 12 2-year term in congress, is a firm believer in the people's right to choose and the free market. He and I believe that the First amendment has been woefully misunderstood. The words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...."", were intended for liberty of the people and to encourage religion, not to make religion disappear from the lives of the people. The people should be allowed to freely express whatever they believe in, and the government should rightly not interfere in this freedom of expression. The federal government shall not favour one religious domination over another, nor can they forbid the mention of religion. So why then, is the display of the 10 commandments on public buildings frowned upon so badly, while the federal appeals court, on taxpayers money, takes the time of day to consider the use of Sharia law in state court?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/federal-appeals-court-considers-sharia-law/
America's founding fathers would flip over in the graves several times if they ever read that article. My first thought on this is, should the state not be given the full rights to decide whether or not they want to accept Sharia law? The federal court intervening in the use of religious laws is itself unconstitutional, because the federal government should not have the right to do so. I then thought, is political correctness killing us? Everyday I wake up, I find that there are lesser and lesser things that I can say that will not offend some one. What happened to liberty and freedom of expression? Religious tolerance and religious acceptance are two different things; you could force people to tolerate other religions, meaning we all extend the same courtesy in letting others freely expresss their religious views, but we cannot be forced to accept that religious beliefs and practices. Government intervention in this matter, allowing certain religions to force their laws upon the people is unconstitutional and should never be accepted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)