Ron Paul is most likely running

[fusion]

Define state level theocracy. If you mean the literal term, I'm confused. Where are you getting that idea from? Where has Ron Paul ever said anything about the clergy leading the states and not the government?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ron+paul+theocracy

Do I think they'd be alright with powers not assigned to the Federal government by the Constitution to be left to the states? Uhm. Yeah.

The question was in relation to Ron Paul not the founders in general.

[Casper]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ron+paul+theocracy

First link: "Ron Paul isn't going to use the Federal government to ban gay marriage or abortion, or to set up a Theocracy. Period." The rest of the links are blogs.

The question was in relation to Ron Paul not the founders in general.

Who is they in your question then? You asked, "What principals would those be? So you believe they would have been alright with state level theocracies?". The principals are as I defined. The theocracy idea is debunked.

[fusion]

First link: "Ron Paul isn't going to use the Federal government to ban gay marriage or abortion, or to set up a Theocracy. Period." The rest of the links are blogs.

Who is they in your question then? You asked, "What principals would those be? So you believe they would have been alright with state level theocracies?". The principals are as I defined. The theocracy idea is debunked.

You missed the video's of him supporting a theocratic constitution and a Theocratic Constitution candidate? or his constant religiously biased speeches including one of his latest calling anti-abortion a Libertarian stance stating....

"Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

Liberty from creator, therefore, the governments purpose is...

You didn't define any principals. You made a broad statement about what you think our founders believed. They also believed we shouldn't have a standing military, can't wait for that to make it to the ballot.

[Casper]

You missed the video's of him supporting a theocratic constitution and a Theocratic Constitution candidate? or his constant religiously biased speeches including one of his latest calling anti-abortion a Libertarian stance stating....

"Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

Liberty from creator, therefore, the governments purpose is...

You didn't define any principals. You made a broad statement about what you think our founders believed. They also believed we shouldn't have a standing military, can't wait for that to make it to the ballot.

History refresher:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[fusion]

History refresher:

You realize that "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "their Creator" doesn't mean Christian god right? You know that is a generic statement to merely reflect popular beliefs for politic's sake right?

Or are you saying you think it's OK for religion to dictate politics and the direction of this country?

Wow nice edit...

[Casper]

You realize that "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "their Creator" doesn't mean Christian god right? You know that is a generic statement to merely reflect popular beliefs for politic's sake right?

Or are you saying you think it's OK for religion to dictate politics and the direction of this country?

Wow nice edit...

Nice edit? I simply removed the first paragraph, and obviously before you replied. I can put it back in if you'd like. It really makes no difference.

You quoted Ron Paul as saying, "Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

I quoted the Declaration of Independence as saying, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Where's your issue with this?

[fusion]

Nice edit? I simply removed the first paragraph, and obviously before you replied. I can put it back in if you'd like. It really makes no difference.

You quoted Ron Paul as saying, "Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

I quoted the Declaration of Independence as saying, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Where's your issue with this?

They didn't mean a Christian God directing government....Ron Paul does.

And since you apparently don't know...the Declaration of Independence isn't the US Constitution.

[Casper]

They didn't mean a Christian God directing government....Ron Paul does.

Show me where Ron Paul has said that and I'll admit defeat. Creator has always meant each's own Creator. I'm Christian, therefore my Creator I believe is God. If you're agnostic, then the universe and evolution is your creator. Muslim, Allah. Flying spaghetti monster? Whatever. Show me where Ron Paul has said he believes the Christian God should be directing the Federal government.

And since you apparently don't know...the Declaration of Independence isn't the US Constitution.

I said founding fathers. Apparently you didn't know... Thomas Jefferson is one of the founding fathers.

[Disclaimer]

Holy crap! Words have meanings!?

[Casper]

Damn computer crapped out while typing.... There was more in my last post, but I lost it all. Oh well. I don't care now. Now I'm pissed at my laptop.

[fusion]

Show me where Ron Paul has said that and I'll admit defeat. Creator has always meant each's own Creator. I'm Christian, therefore my Creator I believe is God. If you're agnostic, then the universe and evolution is your creator. Muslim, Allah. Flying spaghetti monster? Whatever. Show me where Ron Paul has said he believes the Christian God should be directing the Federal government.

I said founding fathers. Apparently you didn't know... Thomas Jefferson is one of the founding fathers.

His stuff is filled with pro-Christian state type speech.

This wasn't the one I was thinking of but the first I ran across of more direct type statements:

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance...."

He very much believes that the Christian church should play more of a role in government. You want him to come out and literally say he wants a Church run government? That would be political suicide. He's playing people just like every politician does.

...and Yes Thomas Jefferson was just one, although a key one, of the 55 or so 'founding fathers'; very good Ben.

[Casper]

His stuff is filled with pro-Christian state type speech.

This wasn't the one I was thinking of but the first I ran across of more direct type statements:

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance...."

He very much believes that the Christian church should play more of a role in government. You want him to come out and literally say he wants a Church run government? That would be political suicide. He's playing people just like every politician does.

...and Yes Thomas Jefferson was just one, although a key one, of the 55 or so 'founding fathers'; very good Ben.

The only thing I've heard him say is that churches (all religions) should do more in the way of charity, and the government should do less (I agree) and that religion should not be wiped from schools/government but that all religions should be accepted. As for him saying the founding fathers were mostly Christian, uhm, they were. That was a point of contention with England. That's why religious tolerance was such a huge part of the founding of America. But that's just it, religious tolerance, for all religions. I've definitely heard him speak about that before.

I know I don't normally reference Wikipedia, but this is a good breakdown of his views on religion in government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_religion

[fusion]

The only thing I've heard him say is that churches (all religions) should do more in the way of charity, and the government should do less (I agree) and that religion should not be wiped from schools/government but that all religions should be accepted. As for him saying the founding fathers were mostly Christian, uhm, they were. That was a point of contention with England. That's why religious tolerance was such a huge part of the founding of America. But that's just it, religious tolerance, for all religions. I've definitely heard him speak about that before.

I know I don't normally reference Wikipedia, but this is a good breakdown of his views on religion in government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_religion

He isn't saying most of the founding fathers were Christian in that quote...

[Disclaimer]

The only thing I've heard him say is that churches (all religions) should do more in the way of charity, and the government should do less (I agree) and that religion should not be wiped from schools/government but that all religions should be accepted. As for him saying the founding fathers were mostly Christian, uhm, they were. That was a point of contention with England. That's why religious tolerance was such a huge part of the founding of America. But that's just it, religious tolerance, for all religions. I've definitely heard him speak about that before.

O rly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion

How Christian Were the Founders?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html

[NinjaN8]

Well, it's still too early for me to decide, especially since he hasn't actually said he is going to run yet. However, after doing a little research, Ron Paul seems to actually be one of the few good ones out there. Unless someone better enters the picture, he gets my vote.

[Casper]

O rly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion

How Christian Were the Founders?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html

Are you arguing for or against my statement? I'm confused.

"Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics."

Protestants are Christians (I'm non-denominational Protestant).

[fusion]

Protestants are Christians (I'm non-denominational Protestant).

No they aren't, just ask any real Catholic.

[drc32-0]

Oh brother,another re-puke claiming to be a christian to get votes.From the new testement that I read all these guys (Bush,Kasich,Ray-gun,etc,etc) line up much closer to the pharisees than they do Jesus.Jesus was always with,and helping the downtrodden,not licking the boots of the rich.As for Ron Paul,time will tell.

If you're looking for God or his people in politics,good luck.Politicians weren't on the side of Jesus in the bible,and they aren't now.

[jhaag]

His stuff is filled with pro-Christian state type speech.

This wasn't the one I was thinking of but the first I ran across of more direct type statements:

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance...."

He very much believes that the Christian church should play more of a role in government. You want him to come out and literally say he wants a Church run government? That would be political suicide. He's playing people just like every politician does.

...and Yes Thomas Jefferson was just one, although a key one, of the 55 or so 'founding fathers'; very good Ben.

to complete his thought:

Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility.

he's talking about morality and civility. you cant write policy to force morality, it has to come from a typically moral source like religion, in his example (predominantly Christianity here and the argument of organized religion aside). i dont agree with his opinion that that is what the founding fathers envisioned, but they were mostly christian. thats the most extreme example i've seen from him and read that as more of an opinion although not devout in his verbiage. and its a huge stretch to say "he very much believes...". he clearly supports the separation of church and state in the context of state sponsored religion or a religion establishing a state. your argument is a stretch.

[fusion]

to complete his thought:

he's talking about morality and civility. you cant write policy to force morality, it has to come from a typically moral source like religion, in his example (predominantly Christianity here and the argument of organized religion aside). i dont agree with his opinion that that is what the founding fathers envisioned, but they were mostly christian. thats the most extreme example i've seen from him and read that as more of an opinion although not devout in his verbiage. and its a huge stretch to say "he very much believes...". he clearly supports the separation of church and state in the context of state sponsored religion or a religion establishing a state. your argument is a stretch.

It's no stretch and in no way completes his thought. The statement I posted was him trying to justify his beliefs as claiming they were also a stance of our founders. He then makes the statement, which you posted, as another statement that is his merely opinion and has zero support to also support his beliefs.

He is doing nothing more than trying to build a premise for his argument that the church should play larger role and why 'the left hates it'. If anything it does nothing but support what I said.

He consistently has the theme that something isn't the role of government (and if he stopped here he would be fine often), but is rather the role of the church.

[Casper]

It's no stretch and in no way completes his thought. The statement I posted was him trying to justify his beliefs as claiming they were also a stance of our founders. He then makes the statement, which you posted, as another statement that is his merely opinion and has zero support to also support his beliefs.

He is doing nothing more than trying to build a premise for his argument that the church should play larger role and why 'the left hates it'. If anything it does nothing but support what I said.

He consistently has the theme that something isn't the role of government (and if he stopped here he would be fine often), but is rather the role of the church.

So don't vote for him. Vote to re-elect Obama.

[fusion]

So don't vote for him. Vote to re-elect Obama.

[Cheech]

oh goody, another religious debate!

Are you arguing for or against my statement? I'm confused.

"Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics."

Protestants are Christians (I'm non-denominational Protestant).

Wrong, you're a Protestant, which is a denomination of Christianity. A true example of a non-denom would be a mega-church, 99% of those are non-denom to not exclude possible revenue sources, err, people.

to complete his thought:

he's talking about morality and civility. you cant write policy to force morality, it has to come from a typically moral source like religion, in his example (predominantly Christianity here and the argument of organized religion aside)

I think I'll just stop you right here. First, you are dead-on in that it's completely impossible for any government, anywhere, at any time to attempt to legislate ethics/morality. Following the Enron bullshits, the government thought they could and made Sarbanes-Oxley, which companies do cartwheels around every day. Can't legislate ethics.

However, religion as a moral source? Really? Scientology is a religion, would you consider them moral? Would you hand your kids over to a group of Scientologists for day-care 5 days a week? Morality is a hugely, MASSIVELY subjective term. Ethics is moderately standard, right and wrong, stuff like that. Morality is all over the place. You can't force your morals onto people that don't accept them, or create a legal definition of morality that usually involves tying it to a religion. This is one of the major reasons by the separation of church and state.

The true source of morality has been and always will be from your parents or whoever is responsible for your upbringing. Once the kid reaches the age of reason, it's up to them to think for themselves. If nothing else, this last part is what's missing from our society as a whole.

[GESEXER]

Ummm, I am voting for Ralph Nader, wether he runs or not. He seems to be my only form of confidence with the green party...you know what, scratch that, I'm voting for Donald Trump (Comb over and all)!

[jhaag]

It's no stretch and in no way completes his thought. The statement I posted was him trying to justify his beliefs as claiming they were also a stance of our founders. He then makes the statement, which you posted, as another statement that is his merely opinion and has zero support to also support his beliefs.

He is doing nothing more than trying to build a premise for his argument that the church should play larger role and why 'the left hates it'. If anything it does nothing but support what I said.

He consistently has the theme that something isn't the role of government (and if he stopped here he would be fine often), but is rather the role of the church.

let me digress, i took your post to wholly disregard RP because he seemed to want to push Christianity on the people through govt. but, you can also see his strong stance in support of the constitution. he can be a Christian all he wants, but the constitution prohibits him from forcing any of his views on the people; nor would he if he could, IMO. what i got from your POV is that he wants more Christianity in govt. what i read is that he would like to see citizens, as individuals, get back to religion, in general, as a means to gain morality. the FF recognized that all/most religions shared the same morals at their base, not the extremes, and so made it an integral part of the constitution to prevent religious persecution and/or state sanctioned religion, like in England. he's speaking out against how politicians rally to get the word "God" out of govt, altogether. because, like you said, the word is not mutually exclusive to Christianity. i guess what i'm saying is, with regard to RP wanting to allow Christianity to influence govt and considering his stance regarding the Constitution, that all evidence is clearly to the contrary.

I think I'll just stop you right here. First, you are dead-on in that it's completely impossible for any government, anywhere, at any time to attempt to legislate ethics/morality. Following the Enron bullshits, the government thought they could and made Sarbanes-Oxley, which companies do cartwheels around every day. Can't legislate ethics.

However, religion as a moral source? Really? Scientology is a religion, would you consider them moral? Would you hand your kids over to a group of Scientologists for day-care 5 days a week? Morality is a hugely, MASSIVELY subjective term. Ethics is moderately standard, right and wrong, stuff like that. Morality is all over the place. You can't force your morals onto people that don't accept them, or create a legal definition of morality that usually involves tying it to a religion. This is one of the major reasons by the separation of church and state.

The true source of morality has been and always will be from your parents or whoever is responsible for your upbringing. Once the kid reaches the age of reason, it's up to them to think for themselves. If nothing else, this last part is what's missing from our society as a whole.

first off, you cant stop me, you can only hope to contain me........

anyway, organized religion, in many cases, is treated as a business and is a clusterfuck. however, like i wrote above, each religion, not church (mind the difference), shares many of the same core values. that is to what i was referring, and so tried to express. if someone is a Scientologist i aint mad at em, its not my thing, but i'm certainly in no place to judge. now, if they can provide good care to my children (that i dont have) without including their religious beliefs, then i wouldnt deny them as a care taker. the key being that they can differentiate between their job and their beliefs. i couldnt agree more the degree of subjectivity when it comes to morals, i was just trying to express my agreement with Dr Pauls opinion, the way i understood it, that people are more morally bankrupt than ever before. much of which, i feel, is based on lack of understanding and language translation, as the Bible was not written in English and, as is commonly the case, many things get lost in translation.