I apologize for removing the body of text from the quote, but given the amount of text in it, it seemed cumbersome.

I applaud the significant digging you must have done to come up with a collection of significant quotes. It's well travelled ground to be sure, but it's nice to have more meat for the discussion.

Having read your post, I feel it is worth adding some additional details. I feel it not a surprise at all that the founding fathers and friends make a great many references to God and religion in their many discussions. During this age, the vast majority of Americans did subscribe to one of several Christian denominations. Thererfore, the most significant part of the body of your message, to me, is the incorporation of Christinanity into state-level law.

This would seem completely contrary to our current interpretation of the establishment clause, right? I assume that is where you were going. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding.

Yes, you are correct. This was the point I was trying to make that, in light of what the founders said and did, that the way the establishment clause has been interpreted in recent decades could not be accurate. The founders had no issue with government endorsement of Christianity; in fact they frequently endorsed it. On that point the evidence is overwhelming.

I think you are right. I think those laws are in direct conflict with the our view of establishment clause. I would not be surprised if they were in some significant part responsible for the drafting and ratification of that same clause. You see they came first. Furthermore, they are at the state level, not the federal level. Directly applying those same laws to the states themselves didn't come around for quite a time after that, and very possible was neither expected or intended by those same signers.

I don't think the founders intended any of this. The constitution was written 11 years later, after many of those state constitutions were written. Written by the same people who had written the state constitutions. Considering that there was no action to enforce the interpretation we have today, but that we see quite the opposite, I don't see any justification for thinking they did intend it. The establishment clause was never actually applied this way until the 1960, which in itself was based on a supreme court decision in 1947 involving a school district using public funds to transport kids to a private religious school.

Maybe there's a completely different way to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I honestly haven't heard another one put forward. Certainly they wrote these words down for a reason though. If they had meant it to apply only to non-christian religions they would have said so.

My personal suspicion is that the clause was added so as to be able to overlook the religious differences between states when running the federal government. They didn't want the federal government to discriminate based on religious denomination. Take it with a grain of salt though, as I'm certainly no constitutional scholar. The wall of separation thing really is a red herring which occupies no space in law, and far too much space in discussion.

I think it's important to understand that it wasn't written out of fear of Christian theism, as some people are trying to say today. It was understood that Christian theism was the default doctrinal state religion. Neither did the founders write it to be inclusive of other doctrinal religions, like Islam and Hinduism, or something like atheism. They wrote it, as you are saying, to prevent any federal takeover of a particular denomination of Christian theism. It was written for denominational religion, not doctrinal religion. A fight between denominations could have torn this country apart. It scarcely needed to said though that Christian theism was the default doctrinal religion of this country.

>> ^Barbar:

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

I apologize for removing the body of text from the quote, but given the amount of text in it, it seemed cumbersome.

I applaud the significant digging you must have done to come up with a collection of significant quotes. It's well travelled ground to be sure, but it's nice to have more meat for the discussion.

Having read your post, I feel it is worth adding some additional details. I feel it not a surprise at all that the founding fathers and friends make a great many references to God and religion in their many discussions. During this age, the vast majority of Americans did subscribe to one of several Christian denominations. Thererfore, the most significant part of the body of your message, to me, is the incorporation of Christinanity into state-level law.

This would seem completely contrary to our current interpretation of the establishment clause, right? I assume that is where you were going. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding.

I think you are right. I think those laws are in direct conflict with the our view of establishment clause. I would not be surprised if they were in some significant part responsible for the drafting and ratification of that same clause. You see they came first. Furthermore, they are at the state level, not the federal level. Directly applying those same laws to the states themselves didn't come around for quite a time after that, and very possible was neither expected or intended by those same signers.

Maybe there's a completely different way to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I honestly haven't heard another one put forward. Certainly they wrote these words down for a reason though. If they had meant it to apply only to non-christian religions they would have said so.

My personal suspicion is that the clause was added so as to be able to overlook the religious differences between states when running the federal government. They didn't want the federal government to discriminate based on religious denomination. Take it with a grain of salt though, as I'm certainly no constitutional scholar. The wall of separation thing really is a red herring which occupies no space in law, and far too much space in discussion.

>> ^shinyblurry:

...

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"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."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't.



>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.
Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:
1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?
2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?
"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington"
3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?
4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?
5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?
7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?
>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.

Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:

1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?

2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?

"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington"

3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?

4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?

5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?

7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?

>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

This video shows Santorum doesn't even know what "separation of church and state" means. He's acting as if it means religious persons are not allowed to run for office or participate in political campaigns. Nothing could be further from the truth. The establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits any kind of religious test for public office (redundantly to Article IV's explicit No Religious Test clause).

>> ^lantern53:

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.


Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.

The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.

Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.

You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.

As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.

Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.

And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.

What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"

Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.

Try again.

>> ^lantern53:

The mention of God is all over the writings of the founding fathers, so...
if you have a problem with that you're simply not understanding.
The founding fathers were interested in prohibiting gov't from establishing a state religion, as they did in England.
They wanted to keep the gov't out of religion. They did not want the gov't sponsoring or imposing a religion as that would be a restriction on freedom.
What Santorum said here was that people of faith should be able to influence public policy, which is another way of saying that we have freedom of religion.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand this? Why take a soundbite and interpret it in such a way that the meaning is turned totally backwards?


I think you are missing Santorum's point, as he is missing the point of the Establishment clause.

You are correct in so far as what the founding fathers intended with the separation of church and state. Where I think you are mistaken is Santorum's intent. He is interpreting valid criticism of religion's role in government as potential limitation of free speech.

It's a matter of degrees. He can say he believes in god and thinks we should all follow god's teachings until the cows come home (or until Jesus returns, whatever). But, when he states, as an elected official, that government should create and enforce policy based on specific religious ideas, that's where he's wrong. And, I don't think I'm stretching too much when I say this is a common Republican (at least during campaign season) tactic. Look at how they are running to the far right with the contraception/healthcare issue. This time around, Santorum is the most outspokenly religious of the bunch.

Santorum has said "sex is supposed to be within marriage."
He has stated that his views on why homosexual marriage are informed by the bible.

Like it or not, not many Americans can justify a pro-life stance, anti-homosexual policy or even war in the middle east without invoking the Christian god. Politicians still do it and are successful but that doesn't mean it's how our government is supposed to run.

Oh, and a side point on the founders' god. It's a generic god, a deist god, not necessarily Christian. While some may have been what we consider "normal" Christians, in the Constitution they invoked god in such a way that it wasn't connected to any one dogma. I think if you understand the intent of the Establishment clause, that's the only way those references make sense.

@xxovercastxx

As for nativity scenes on government property, the commandments in courthouses, "God" on money and in the pledge, etc. Whether these are forbidden by the establishment clause or not, why should the government be proselytizing? Isn't that big government authoritarianism?

>>> Yeah, in a sense it's BS that any of that happens. I was an atheist for one half of my life and I resented the hypocrisy. Religion and law are like a double helix so the degree of freedom we have is amazing.

And finally, in what I hope might help to illustrate my point, I pose this question to you three: How would you feel about a law banning blood transfusion? It's a serious sin, you know.

Only to Jehovah's Witnesses.

The ACLU was never a well-meaning organization, IMO. They've done 'some' good, but as you here at least are indifferent to the God/Trust on money, etc., those guys are, by comparison, radical and intolerant.

@quantumushroom @shinyblurry @bobknight33

"Freedom from religion" is a phrase that's often misinterpreted or misunderstood, sometimes intentionally. In honesty, I took it the wrong way when I first heard it.

People who "preach" FFR generally are not saying they have the right to never be exposed to religion. They are simply saying that they must not have laws imposed upon them which are based in religious belief if they are to be free to practice their own beliefs.

Irreligion is afforded the same protections as religions are. I have just as much right to live my life religion-free as you do to live your life religiously.

I hope I’ve made it clear that I’m perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and to share them with other people who come around and play with the toys.

They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Do not bring the toys to my house. Don’t say my children must play with these toys. Don’t say my toys are not allowed by their toys.

FFR might not be mentioned explicitly in the 1st Amendment (or anywhere else) but it is required in order to uphold freedom of religion.

As for nativity scenes on government property, the commandments in courthouses, "God" on money and in the pledge, etc. Whether these are forbidden by the establishment clause or not, why should the government be proselytizing? Isn't that big government authoritarianism?

And finally, in what I hope might help to illustrate my point, I pose this question to you three: How would you feel about a law banning blood transfusion? It's a serious sin, you know.

This idea of "a wall of seperation" of church and state came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a baptist association while he was in France. It has been misinterpreted in recent times as a principle of exclusion of religion from government, but is this really what Jefferson intended? If he did, you might want to ask yourself why Jefferson attended church every sunday..in the house of representitives. You might want to ask why Jefferson closed presidential documents with "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ", or why he negotiated treaties that used federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the indians. You also might want to ask why public education was teaching the scripture in schools, and why nearly every state had its own church..and why many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.

This idea of "freedom from religion" has no basis in history, or in the intentions of our founders. The secular community apparently feels that they can move in to this house that Christianity built and evict the ones who built it. It would be a bit like you inviting me to stay at your house and then I tell you that I am going to redecorate it the way I please and would you please stay in your room and never come out again.

Consider the words of William Rehnquist in a supreme court ruling about this issue:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts


>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

@dystopianfuturetoday's list seems somewhat biased to me. I also appreciate him taking the time to provide links to his objections, kudos for that.

This is how I would honestly try to answer each of them, I think most can be dismissed, but some should be looked into.

Abortion

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Evolution

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

Does not believe in separation of church and state

Sounds like total BS to me. That is just a very biased interpretation of the linked article. Libertarians understand separation of church and state because having them together is even more dangerous than fascism (corporations and state together). It threatens many liberties they hold dear, including free speech, religious freedom, sexual freedom and not using laws to impose morality.

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools

Correct, unconstitutional, against libertarian ideals. Even though he'd like to privatize them all, he would have to stop at the Federal level and let states choose whether to run their own schools or privatize.

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones

Correct, probably because it would encroach on guns rights, besides, it's in accordance with the point above: Federal government has no business educating children anyway, and should not impose gun restrictions on state-run schools, that's up to the states themselves.

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters

Correct about FEMA being dispensable, but "we" means the Federal government. States can help. Private charities can help. Churches can help. Concerned individuals can help. Insurance companies can help.

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border

Wierd, I mean, it's in accordance with defending our borders, but seems like a costly idea.

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy

I don't know what to say about that, sorry.

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US"

He presented more than one reason to pull out of the UN. I personally agree that the UN is not in alignment with american values. I wish the UN all the best in whatever they want to achieve, but I don't think they should do it with the US' money and military, specially since we're broke and fighting too many wars as it is.

Disband NATO

Link is not working. NATO is a remnant of the Cold War era, it costs us money to outsource our military protection to other countries, disbanding NATO makes sense to me.

End birthright citizenship

Sounds like a reasonable position to me. He's in favor of immigrants entering the country, but birthright citizenship is a legal shortcut that is often abused and imposes an unnecessary burden on American citizens and the welfare system.

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"

If he had his way, a lot of federal funding to all non-essential organizations would be denied, period. When it comes to the issue of homossexuality, regardless of his personal opinions, he seems to be arguing against using taxpayer money to promote or impose lifestyles taxpayers themselves might not approve of.

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign

I don't know, that's a tough one. That might reflect poorly on Ron Paul if this person was hired for being an anti-gay activist. Maybe he's just a good campaign director? I don't think Ron Paul is against homossexuals politically, and he's allowed the same level of homophobia as any other straight christian guy, as long as he doesn't project it into active anti-gay policies.

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard

Correct, even though he mostly talks about commodity-based currencies. He doesn't want to impose the gold standard, but allow competing currencies, in which case, I'm sure many people will prefer to use gold as money since it has been historically preferred for millenia.

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan

I don't understand that sentence and the link is broken, could you elaborate on it, please?

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys

Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal

Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.

Is against the popular vote

Correct, it's a libertarian thing. Libertarians like to protect minorities, namely the smallest and most numerous minority, which is the individual. That's why they always talk about individual rights. Democracy sometimes ignores and tramples over individuals in favor of the majority, so libertarians don't always regard democracy as this unquestionable improvement for civilization.

Wants the estate tax repealed

Correct, it's a useless tax in terms of revenue, most people waste as much money avoiding it than paying it, so it's destroying resources, and its not morally justified. Why would someone have to pay taxes when they die? Why pay taxes to inherit what someone rightfully gives you when they die?

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States

Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website

This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.

Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,
But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,
And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."
...
Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

He didn't write it and they already found the guy responsible for the offensive content. Move on.

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...
Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.
However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts
AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War

Ouch, I don't know what to say, at first it seems inconsistent. Maybe he doesn't have a perfect voting record after all. I'll look into that. I don't buy that he's against Rosa Parks or that there is any race issues involved.

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

Bullshit, an exageration of guilt by association. Thomas Woods is not the founder, he was present at the founding. He contributed in a limited capacity and is no longer involved with that group. He also publicly admits to being a textbook neoconservative before changing his mind and becoming a Ron Paul supporter. I only expect Ron Paul to be consistent, not everyone who works for him or endorse him, people can change their minds and their ways.

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

Bullshit, exagerated guilt by an even more distant level of association. The Mises Institute is about austrian economics, most likely they're associated only in regards to their opinions on economics.

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Earmarks

I see it as Ron Paul making the most to get money back to the states and local communities using a flawed system.

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

Can be considered a testament to his innefectiveness, or as a testament to his backbone, and how screwed up Congress and Washington is.

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

And the guy who wrote that article is an Anti-Ron Paul nut.

Want more? Go here.

Maybe Slanderpedia.com would be more appropriate, btw I checked and the domain name is available!

Why so many people are choosing not to endorse Ron Paul (from reddit)

Ron Paul's beliefs and positions.

He defines life as starting at conception,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Lies to maintain FUD regarding Abortion by claiming he "saw doctors throwing a live baby away to let it die"...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/03/say-anything-to-take-us-out-of-this-gloom/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/29/the_ron_paul_fetus_rescue_test.html
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/01/why-iowa-caucus-is-about-abortion

Denies evolution, "At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter ... I don't accept it as a theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q @ 2:45
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2007/12/22/ron-paul-backs-creationism-denies-evolution/

Does not believe in separation of church and state,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.html

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD8rJCbEVMg

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2613ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2613ih.pdf

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters,

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ron-paul-you-dont-deserve-fema-help-also-im-running-for-prez-video.php
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/14/ron-paul-%E2%80%98why-not%E2%80%99-abolish-fema-since-helping-victims-of-disaster-is-compounding-our-problems/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6YQYhk3GRE

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border,

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/ron-paul-announces-new-run-for-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ArUoyuDd74
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-05-25/ron-paul-defend-the-constitution-not-the-u-n-security-council/

Disband NATO,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm

End birthright citizenship,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/140490/ron-pauls-views-on-immigration-do-you-agree-or-disagree
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtDZZHrT8mY

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign,

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/anti-gay-hate-group-chair-is-now-ron-pauls-iowa-state-director/politics/2011/12/29/32460

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys,

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-House-votes-to-ban-lead-from-toys-1774056.php

He believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

He's against gay marriage,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

Will even legislate against gay marriage on a federal level and attempted to CRIMINALIZE efforts to overturn such a measure,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/274704/20111230/ron-paul-proposal-severely-curtail-supreme-court.htm

Has even made it a point to base his campaign on Religion and being against Gay Marriage,

http://imgur.com/11Q77

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal,

http://www.politicususa.com/en/ron-paul-sexual-harassment

Is against the popular vote,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html

Wants the estate tax repealed,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:

Believes that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control,

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website,

http://www.freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/RonPaulStormfront.jpg

Keeps their donations,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/

And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white-supremacist-founder-of-stormfront-says-his-followers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-campaign/

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,

http://www.vice.com/read/ron-paul-is-a-racist-leprechaun
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-denies-writing-coming-race-war-letter-he-signed/46622/

But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWXnI97DwE

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-573

However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5872

AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War,

(Archive.org Mirror) http://web.archive.org/web/20090604122724/http://www.theseminal.com/2007/12/30/ron-paul-lets-spend-240-million-on-commemorative-medals/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_Victory_Medal
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3417ih/html/BILLS-107hr3417ih.htm

But didn't bother to repeat his previous argument those times that such an act would be unconstitutional as he had with the Rosa Parks Medal.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/ron-paul-no-on-rosa-parks-yes-on.html

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

http://www.revolutionpac.com/advisory-board/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Faculty_and_administration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Criticisms

Is against Hate Crime laws,

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-02/ron-paul-collectivist-hate-crimes-bill-a-serious-threat-to-freedom-of-speech/

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/
http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2011/05/ron-pauls-position-against-civil-rights-act-of-1964-and-against-segregation-laws/

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/ron-paul-suggests-basic-freedoms-come-second-to-property-rights/

He also believes The Civil Rights Act destroyed Privacy,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

Despite always "voting against earmarks," he was only one of four House Repubs to request earmarks in 2011 for over $157mil. (And in FY 2010, was one of the leading House members in requesting earmarks for a total of $398mil.)

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1033&Itemid=68

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-not-civil-libertarian-last.html

Want more? Go here.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Ron_Paul

Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/

@enoch
I'm gonna respond as I run through your comments.

To talk about fundamentalism, you have to have a foundation (something holy) to be fundamental about. Secular fundamentalism is a misnomer, but I do know what you mean - militant, head-in-the-sand atheists, who are right no matter what, with nothing to back up their case. Those do exist. Heh, I guess the establishment clause or the constitution might be regarded as sacred in some circles.

I am constantly surprised when otherwise very smart people attest to a faith, or indeed a religion. It's not that they are stupid, but they don't apply critical thinking to their faith, for whatever reason, some say "it's meant to by mysterious", "it can't be analyzed with critical thinking", "it's beyond reason". It is like an alcoholic justifying his addiction.

Of course, the word "faith" may mean different things to different people, so to preemptively judge someone before they've said anything about what it means to them is unfair. "I have faith in love".. well la di dah, that so nice.

Stubbornness is the death of discovery, I completely agree there. "The sun revolves around the earth.. because... YOUR FACE that's why!"

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

I would love to purge you of your faith, enoch, but I don't want to do it by fire. I want you to essentially do it yourself by looking at the world in amazement, looking at how things work, and so on and so on in the same way as I came to this conclusion myself.

I would agree with Harris that all other things being equal, the world would be better without religion than with it. Not a heaven on earth at all, but better.

Harris and Hitchens do go at religion from different angles. Hitchens attack religion, while Harris is attacking faith. You have to remember their background as well, Hitchens was a historian and journalist, while Harris is a neuroscientist. From a neuroscientist standpoint faith is the interesting part, while from an observational position like a journalist the results of faith and religion is the interesting part. So they go after what they think is interesting.

Daniel Dennett also goes against faith, because he's a cognitive scientist (and a bloody brilliant one at that).

Like arguing about God, arguing about Faith requires a definition of the word, otherwise we all just talk about different things.

"the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value."
This cannot be proved either way, but that does not at all mean the two sides are equal. The argument is a waste of time until someone who claims X exists brings some evidence to the table to back up the claim, until that time the discussion is moot.

Why someone has faith, religion etc. is far more interesting, agreed.

Faith carries a stigma, because it implies a whole lot of things, which is why it is judged very quickly.

I'll concede that I may simply not understand people of faith, I don't see the allure of it. I don't have it and I don't miss it, and essentially I see it as a breach of an otherwise floating reasonable boat. heh. I've still not really seen good results of anyone having faith.