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.
With all due respect, I think that you are utterly misreading the ABC News article. The ballot initiative in question had nothing to do with the separation of church and state, and everything to do with a reactionary Islamophobia that has gripped this country for far too long.
ReplyDeleteJustices should be free to look to the legal systems of all other nations for guidance, including ones with explicitly or implicitly theocratic judiciaries. This is not an endorsement of the religion in question unless those theocratic policies are actually put into place here; the Oklahoma justice who blocked the initiative is merely ensuring that judges aren't needlessly constrained in the sources they consult.
The initiative is the equivalent of telling a student he can't cite Locke in a paper just because 70% of the student body hates Locke's guts. It is unconstitutional and outright racist, and I applaud Judge Miles LaGrange for recognizing that.
Now, this is a very different case from, say, forbidding the placement of the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse. Consulting the Commandments as one of many resources in a judicial decision (so long as it isn't a deciding factor in any way) would be the proper analogue, and fine to my mind; of course, given that maybe three of them have anything whatsoever to do with actual laws I would consider them a less-than-useful source of information, but I digress.
Placing a statue of their tablets in the courthouse, however, is a permanent and enshrined endorsement of their influence over local/state law, over the precepts of any other religion. The display of religious symbols is a private matter, and should not be brought into our public government, whatever Dr. Paul might say.
Thank you for your time.
- Kevin Chafe
Thanks for sharing the speech and article! I think that your interpretation of the blog post is somewhat flawed; the court is not trying to have sharia law be in place, rather it is about consideration in judgements about other cultures. I'm not sure where you have the idea that "certain religions to force their laws upon the people is unconstitutional" is happening through the court. Government displaying the ten commandments shows that the government prefers certain religious beliefs, which is not even-handed and alienates people who have different beliefs.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is passionate about religious freedom, however, in some speeches he states the First Amendment applies to Christian religions (the same as the Founders). Thus his beliefs are based on defending a Christian faith mainly and I have not seen Ron Paul defending enough other religions right to freedom of practice to counter this.
ReplyDeleteThe use of Sharia Law when considering court cases is just as much about culture as it is religion. That being said law and justice in the judicial system is not subjective; it is suppose to be objective and everyone is suppose to be treated equally no matter their culture or religion. In my mind, this means abiding by the same laws and court rulings, not changing or correcting laws and punishments based on each defendant's background. This equitable justice only applies to the public sector. If a community collectively agrees to adjudicate private matters based on their culture's beliefs (as a growing amount have, out of the eye of the federal judicial system), then they can do so in their as they choose.