[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Is freedom of and from religion possible to maintain when the government sponsors religion?

Is freedom of and from religion the goal? Should it be the goal? That is certainly not what the founding fathers intended, in my opinion. The only thing mentioned in the Constitution is that Congress can't make a law respecting the establishment of a religion. The separation clause can't be taken to mean that the founding fathers meant for there to be freedom from religion, because the outlawing of religious symbols on State property is in itself a law respecting the establishment of a religion: secularism. At least, that's what it seems like to me.

[JerryLove]

well no, because China has laws restricting the religion you practice and I'm sure Saudi Arabia has laws about what religions you can and cannot practice (not real sure about Saudi Arabia)

Both China and Saudi Arabia allow Christianity and neither tells you what religion you should be.

So, according to the definition of adequate freedom you gave earlier, thse are religiously free countries and no one has cause to complain otherwise.

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

Is freedom of and from religion the goal? Should it be the goal? That is certainly not what the founding fathers intended, in my opinion.

Most of the original imagrants fled from Europe for the ability to practice as they saw fit. I'm not aware of the Quakers trying to force the Puritans to conform.

Certainly, many of the founding fathers wanted just that. The quote is from one of them. Ben Franklin, Araon Adams, George Washingon, and Thomas Jefferson come to mind.

The only thing mentioned in the Constitution is that Congress can't make a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

That and the proscription against religious oath... that sounds pretty seperate to me; especially in light of zero statements to the contrary.

The separation clause can't be taken to mean that the founding fathers meant for there to be freedom from religion, because the outlawing of religious symbols on State property is in itself a law respecting the establishment of a religion: secularism. At least, that's what it seems like to me.

That seems to be one of the great myths propigated by members of the religious, particularly CHristian community... that a failure to endorse something is opposition to it.

It's like saying that an absence of proof is proof of absence.

You don't have any stars of David up, and don't celebrate Chaunnika; therefore you are an anti-Semite?

When there's a pledge of allegence that says "there is no God". When Congress opens with a disavowing of religion. When the political candidates talk about getting rid of Christian values.. THEN there will be an anti-religion bias. Until then, an attempt to move fram a very pro-Christian bias to a neutral position which does not address the issue at all is most certainly *not* an attack on a religion... only on the power of that religion to be imposed on others.

[Ax]

Jerry, I think what most of the people in here, and you, are confused on is that it is not Congress or the government pushing Anti-religion, but rather society and a few individual candidates. Even as far as that goes, to think that they want to outlaw religion is ludicrous.

Anti-Christian sentiments grow from the idea that the world is in such a mess because the majority of those in office and in high society ever since Charlemagne have been Christian, and the world is undeniably ****ed up. But those who are doing the ****ing are those who are the biggest hypocrites and run off on Crusades and besmirch the good names of the faithful.

It's a sad world we live in, but it's true. Christianity, to the dismay of televangelists, however, is not the only one targeted either. It's a common practice among Americans to make fun of Arabs believing 1. That they are all Muslim; and 2. that All muslims are terrorists; these sentiments only reflect society and television when the truth is that the common muslim and the teachings of the Koran are actually peaceful.

It is obvious from looking at this that the actions of a few, in society eyes, define the heart of the masses, and that is why society has become anti-religion. (And I would be too if every Christian were like G-dub, Falwell, Robertson,. and Fred Phelps, and Every Muslim a Jihadist, Osama-loving, suicide bombing, card carrying member of Al-Qaida).

[slap_j]

Well, I don't know if the short essay he wrote is all that relevant. The platform he's running on doesn't include any constitutional amendments other than one to clarify on birthright citizenship. And the office of president isn't a dictatorship. Moreover Paul wants to greatly reduce the power of the executive branch. Thus, more responsibility moves to the other branches.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Didn't the libertarians want to yank social security

Maybe some hardcore Ayn Rand types. As far as Paul is concerned he wants to allow people the option of opting out. But he claims to recognize the need to continue to help people who currently depend on some of these types of programs and says he won't "throw anyone out in the street." He says he's the greatest protector of social security since he's never voted to spend any of the money.

[Ax]

Kablam! All off topicness has been bahleeted.