The Revolution: A Manifesto

4961 Responses




(If you read the book, please post your review below).

Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto is an educational book that presents valuable lessons from history, economics, and libertarian ethics as a unified philosophy of freedom. While the book is not available as a free PDF download, you can order the Hardcover, Kindle and Audio CD editions at Amazon.com.

Foreign Policy and The Founders

Dr. Paul begins his book with a history lesson about foreign policy in the United States. He quotes the words from Jefferson’s first inaugural address which should be the motto of the State Department: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” As Dr. Paul points out,

Unfortunately, we have spent the past century spurning this sensible advice. If the Founders’ advice is acknowledged at all, it is dismissed on the grounds that we no longer live in their times. The same hackneyed arguments could be used against any of the other principles the Founders gave us. Should we give up the First Amendment because times have changed?

This statement sums up every argument against the case for individual liberty. As Dr. Paul points out, John Quincy Adams had a similar position:

Wherever that standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be furled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. [...] She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

There it is—the almost prophetic vision that these men had when they constructed this country. Paul continues, “This wasn’t ‘isolationism.’ It was a beautiful and elegant statement of common sense, and of principles that at one time were taken for granted by nearly everyone.” He later says,

There are those who condemn noninterventionists for being insufficiently ambitious, for their unwillingness to embrace “national greatness” [...] These critics should have the honesty to condemn the Founding Fathers for the same defect. They wouldn’t dare.

Constitution and the Rule of Law

They may not dare to outright condemn the Founders, but their stark difference in philosophy is evident in the last century of American jurisprudence. In his chapter on The Constitution, Dr. Paul points out that contrary to popular belief, the Constitution is not a living document that could be interpreted according to the political whims of the day. As he says, “If we feel the need to change our Constitution, we are free to amend it.” He continues,

They [advocates of a living Constitution] favor a system in which the federal government, and in particular the federal courts, are at liberty—even in the absence of any amendment—to interpret the Constitution altogether differently from how it was understood by those who drafted it and those who voted to ratify it.

But what about the Framers’ intentions? Should we value them today? What is so bad about a “living Constitution?” Dr. Paul argues that the Constitution is a contract between the government and the people. Contracts are the foundation of civilized behavior. Without a prearranged agreement, all association between consenting parties regresses into a “He said, she said” mess. The Constitution is no different. If the courts can simply change the meaning of its words, there is no true contract; under this current situation, we simply live by the often-irrational caprices of the current regime. As Dr. Paul writes,

If the people agreed to a particular understanding of the Constitution, and over the course of intervening years they have performed no official act (such as amending the Constitution in accordance with their evolved ideas) reversing that original understanding, by what right may government unilaterally change the terms of its contract with the people, interpreting its words to mean something very different from what the American people had all along been told they meant?

Dr. Paul later relates the story of when he proposed that Congress should actually declare war, as the Constitution demands, instead of simply giving the authority to the President. When he proposed the declaration in the International Relations Committee, the chairman responded by saying that, “there are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events [...] We are saying to the President, use your judgment. [What you have proposed is] inappropriate, anachronistic; it isn’t done anymore.”

Perhaps it isn’t done anymore, but it should be. And by the way, what are the things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events? Can we merely pick and choose those things? If the declaration of war is anachronistic, does that also apply to freedom of speech and the separation of powers? It seems that this trend is what creates the monolithic state that the Founders would not recognize. Dr. Paul analyzes the situation thusly:

We have come to consider it normal for nine judges in Washington to decide on social policies that affect every neighborhood, family, and individual in America. One side of the debate hopes the nine will impose one set of values, and the other side favors a different set. The underlying premise—that this kind of monolith is desirable, or that no alternative is possible—is never examined, or at least not nearly as often as it should be. The Founding Fathers did not intend for every American neighborhood to be exactly the same—a totalitarian impulse if there ever was one—or that disputes over competing values should be decided by federal judges. This is the constitutional approach to deciding all issues that are not spelled out explicitly in our founding documents: let neighbors and localities govern themselves.

Economics and Human Action

In his chapter on economic freedom, Dr. Paul does an excellent job of explaining why economic freedom is morally just: “Economic freedom is based on a simple moral rule: everyone has a right to his or her life and property, and no one has a right to deprive anyone of these things.”

Most people would agree with this statement, but somehow the government has convinced almost everyone that it is wrong for one individual to steal from another, but perfectly just for the government to steal from individuals. Not only is taxation and inflation morally wrong, but they are impractical at achieving their results. Dr. Paul gives an example of this in the National Endowment for the Arts. He explains that although the NEA was only created in 1965, many people cannot imagine how the arts could flourish without the agency. Never mind the fact that, according to Dr. Paul, “While the government requested $121 million for the NEA in 2006, private donations to the arts totaled $2.5 billion that year, dwarfing the NEA budget.” He continues,

The NEA represents a tiny fraction of all arts funding, a fact few Americans realize. Freedom works after all. And that money is almost certainly better spent that government money: NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people occupy both categories.

As he says, “People loose their political imagination.” The nation has forgotten how to be responsible, because after all, the ever present, all-knowing government is always here to take care of us. He goes on to say that,

Repealing the new bureaucracy becomes unthinkable. Mythology about how terrible things were in the old days becomes the conventional wisdom. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy itself, with a vested interest in maintaining itself and increasing its funding, employs all the resources it can to ensuring that it gets a bigger budget next year, regardless of its performance.

If a reader only takes one thing away from this book, it should be the aforementioned quote. In three sentences Ron Paul explains exactly how bureaucracy has grown into the corrupt and productivity-looting machine of today. Government expansion over time will take progressively bigger chunks of the nation’s productivity every year until the government sector completely dominates the private sector. The solution that Ron Paul offers to this enormous problem is the elimination of all government programs that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. This basically amounts to the elimination of all executive departments besides Defense, State, and Justice. But this does not have to be done overnight.

As he says, Social Security and other entitlements will go bankrupt without double-digit economic growth for the next seventy-five years; this at a time when most analysts would be excited about a three or four percent growth. His plan for funding the current Social Security obligations is to use the savings that will come from bringing all the troops home from the far reaches of our empire.

Eventually, imperial adventurism in foreign lands and despotic statism at home will spell the end of our Republic. In his closing arguments, Dr. Paul writes,

The empire game our government has been playing is coming to an end one way or another. This is the fate of all empires: they overextend themselves and then suffer a financial catastrophe, typically involving the destruction of the currency. We are already seeing the pattern emerging in our own case. We can either withdraw gracefully, as I propose, or we can stay in our fantasy world and wait until bankruptcy forces us to scale back our foreign commitments. Again, I know which option I prefer.

Thanks to Andy for this great review!


Below is a great video summary of The Revolution: A Manifesto, provided by Chance Litton:


Order The Revolution: A Manifesto now at Amazon.com:

(If you read the book, please post your review below).


Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
69 comments
dldine
dldine

I listened to the audio book. Whether or not you agree with Ron on every issue, the basis of his argument is that we return to the intent of our Constitution. His ideas are refreshing and worth considering. I highly recommend reading this book and considering the ideas presented.

Marcia
Marcia

I disagree with this article, point by point.
1. He is not devaluing equal rights for minorities. He wants equal rights for everyone. When the government steps in to "fix" a problem they usually make a bigger problem.
2. He doesn't agree with abortion and neither do I. He also doesn't feel that the federal government should decide if abortion is legal or not. It should be up to each state to decide.
3. This is all about free markets. I don't believe that setting a minimum wage helps anyone. People work for a wage that they are willing to work for. Also, don't you think that you should be able to choose if you want to participate in Social Security? I do! I don't want to be forced to pay for something that I don't need or will not be able to use. I couldn't find anything substantial about OSHA, but I think he is against OSHA just like he is against FEMA.
4. You wouldn't love 10% income tax? You are probably paying at least 30% now. If you were paying less you wouldn't need so many tax credits. Also, his goal is for 0% income tax. If we are paying less income tax we have more money in our pocket to pay for things that we need. Not everyone has kids in school, yet we are all paying for it.
5. God forbid that we drill for our own oil in America and stop relying on other countries to meet out needs!
6. He believes in America first.
7. Same as #1. Also, what has Obama or any previous president done to help GLBT? Paul feels that people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves and not be forced to live their lives by what the government says is ok or not ok.
8. He strongly believes in the constitution, the foundation of the United States of America. I see nothing wrong with that!
9. See #4, and yes, I think America's education system is deeply flawed! It doesn't make sense to me to bus children from one area to a different area so that the school is properly diverse. Kids should go to the schools nearest their homes or to a private school of their parent's choice.
10. Being an agnostic I would prefer if church and state are separate, but I think what he means is that he wants people to have the freedom to practice their religious beliefs without restrictions imposed by the federal government.

Bob
Bob

Have you ever heard of the Jefferson Bible?

Bob
Bob

I agree the Constitution or any document or company or corporation is not alive. It dose not breath, nor dose it have a heart beat nor dose it think.
But there are those who cast their veil of fantasy and deception. Entraping many into believing a lie. The net of hysteria pulling all that are on the edge into the abyss.

Wayne
Wayne

I have thought for a long time that we are heading for a revolution, and, each day, it appears to me that one is on the horizon. If the "old school" Republicans don't let the new kids on the block take over, it will be business as usual and nothing will get done.

I would really like to see Ron Paul as our President. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. He and his son, Rand, are true Constitutionalists and thank God that Andrew Napolitano now has his own show. The Judge, along with Glenn Beck, are inspiring people to read the Constitution. Their shows are badly needed "history" lessons.

What we need is a younger, dynamic clone of Ron to run, maybe someone within the Tea Party.. someone who Paul would "anoint."

Swanny
Swanny

I really hope for my children's sake that a political revolution can occur before an actual uprising occurs. I 'am 33 yrs old and have been following these issues from a young age. I have always questioned things, but was fortunate enough to have someone awaken me to the patriot/truth movement at a young age. I fear that people are too much like sheep. Generations are being inculcated not to question things! This is done in gov't schools of course. God help us all!!!!! This republic needs God. Ron Paul for President of the United States!!!!

Charles Collom
Charles Collom

TR:AM is a compelling work in the grand tradition of American pamphleteers. Dr. Paul has written an ideological work inspired by a clear political philosophy consistent with the American character. The book is infused with the tripartite spirits of liberty, equality, and the rule of law.
TR:AM is a challenge to the vast majority of ideas within mainstream American political discourse. Critics may write it off as "extreme" or "crazy" because the book's thesis is not easily opposed on the merits. What is manifest is that those who love their liberty should require the challenges to government action set down in this book to be answered.

Sergio
Sergio

I hope you're right, but I can see the path were going down. It would be all to easy to label the patriots as hard core terrorist and pin a major tragedy on them (9/11, Oklahoma city, JFK, ect.) Now that they are the same as Taliban or Al Qaeda, it is OK for our "Armed Forces" and homeland security to engage them, and all individuals they suspect to be involved. This means unconstitutional home searches, harassment anywhere in public, all communications monitored, vehicle check points, accidental killings of civilians, collateral damage, ect. The Americans that go along with this insanity and help pin point "terrorist" will be rewarded and live a better life then the rest of us. The one's who resist will be hunted down and silenced either by death or a prison cell. Prisoners will be tortured and exposed to extreme amounts of stress and mental manipulation. The where abouts of key leaders will be leaked, and executed . The ones that operate underground and avoid detection will be grossly out numbered, and their true targets, the bankers & elite scum, will be hidden 100's of miles away in fortified bunkers and compounds heavily protect. If the military doesn't provide protection than civilian contractors will do the job.

The only way for victory is to 100% convince the general populace, military and police who the real enemy is. By hidden tape or video recordings, hacked emails, classified documents exposed, and by testimonies under oath in court. We must catch them red handed and show the evidence to the world!

When the revolution starts we must come together and steamroll the enemy, before they can gather themselves and sell their story to the masses.

I gather most of these scenarios from what I witnessed first hand in Iraq (2004 and 2009). It's amazing what a little cash and power will do to turn someone against their own people.

sergio
sergio

I honestly belive if he's elected in 2012, he'll be assassinated by a "lone gun man" (CIA). They'll probably pin it on a militia member or homeland terrorist. He's a risk to the elitist and architects of the tyranny we see in America (and the world). There's no way those people will let anyone strip their power from them without a fight. It's like David vs Goliath, except Goliath has connections and the money to hire waves of assassins to do his dirty work while David has a small army of well armed patriots. I don't see this up coming "revolution" as a peaceful one, there will be many years of blood shed, miserable living conditions, famine, and chaos to come.

God FIX the United States of America

Kavita
Kavita

Amazing and concise introduction to Ron Paul, his work, and his representation of THE TRUTH. Dr. Paul is unafraid of dispelling commonly held myths about government and its crimes. For us who have lived through the system and taught of its wonders, or for the diehards who accept it, it's an awakening worth reading.

Very good for those who are low on time or are tired of bogging through endless information.

The "selected reading" list is also excellent- look into lewrockwell.com and mises.org for more ideas!

R. Francis Smith
R. Francis Smith

I didn't really think I'd find Dr. Paul's viewpoints compatible with mine, until I read The Revolution: A Manifesto and found out what they really were. Like others have said, I can't claim that I agreed 100% with what I read -- but what two people agree 100%? -- but I found myself constantly nodding and thinking to myself, "Yes, exactly!" And once in a while, I found that I hadn't thought of something in the same way, but persuaded by his arguments to at least consider changing my mind.

And even if you don't have the same experience, it'll do you much good to read this book of rationally presented arguments; it's about time people considered the body politic using reason and ethic, instead of vitriol and emotional outburst. Well done, Dr. Paul.

R

Dusty
Dusty

Just finished reading it. I didn't agree with Mr. Paul's conclusions 100%, but it was definitely thought provoking. What is interesting is that the both the Left and Right that is outside of the mainstream are coming similar conclusions, such as views on the Iraq War, the WTO and the Fed's destructive policies. I'm glad I picked it up on a whim.

Brian
Brian

It is informative to read the comments of all here. I too am fed up with the current state of our country. I probably like many of you I suppose am a regular working class Joe who is sick and tired of having my liberties taken away, taxes raised and being forced into a situation that I do not want to be in.
As far as I am concerned the government does not represent me or the good of our country or it's population.

I had one of my customers call me last year as they were moving their operation to a new location and they asked me to come and perform some work for them. This particular customer was a manufacturer of outdoor gear for hunters and outdoorsmen. They employed approximately 50 people and manufactured these goods. When I went to their new location I was surprised to see that none of their machinery was there, but there were pallets of the goods that they sold , and they had only 10 employees there.

I was talking to the owner and I asked him where his machinery was and he told me that he was not manufacturing at this location. When I asked him where the items were made he told me China. When I questioned him as to why this is what he told me.

For years he had been buying his materials in the US to manufacture his products. As more US factories began closing so did his suppliers, as a result he was forced to buy from overseas suppliers and in his case it was China.

He started getting his materials from China and had to pay a tariff on those materials, around 15% if I recall correctly. He asked his tax attorney how he could lower his tariff that he was paying and his attorney told him this; "If you can get some of what you sell made overseas then it will lower your tariff/tax, and if you can get it all manufactured overseas then you will pay no tariff/tax."

I was STUNNED! So I said ,"Let me get this straight, if you put people in the US out of work and get everything made overseas then you save money?" He told me that is correct.
So our government has manipulated our laws to benefit everyone else in the world except for the US laborer/worker.

This is totally ludicrous as far as I am concerned! We no longer MAKE anyhting in this country and as far as I am concerned, this will be our downfall. As stated in the discussions on this site approx 50% of the wealth of this country is held by approx 1% of the population. The rich are making the laws benefit them and to hell with the common man.

Most all politicians are corrupt, why you ask, because they have lobbyist and special interest groups giving them "GIFTS", kickbacks that only benefit politicians and their influencial friends and associates, to pass laws to benefit the rich. THIS IS WRONG! This is not how a government for the people is supposed to operate.

It is my feeling that only one thing will change this, and I do not mean to sound crazy when I say this, A REVOLUTION.

The government has dumbed down the majority of our society, and folks are starting to be dependant on the overinflated bureaucracy that is in power, sucking on the teat of pittance that they give us. Politicians need to learn, because obviously they have forgotten that they work for the American People, and not the other way around. We are working for them and their agenda through the current taxing infrastructure that is in place. When you make $1000 a week and 30% of that ,$300 goes to them without my or your say so, then I would say we are working for them.

I am so Pissed Off as I type this, SOMEBODY PLEASE tell me what we can do to put a stop to this form of robbery that we are having imposed on us. It reminds me of a gangster movie that you watch where the gangsters go around to all the shop owners and shake them down for PROTECTION money, PROTECTION FROM WHO!

The same ones who say they are protecting us are putting the screws to us.

Another crazy statement I know, but the only way things will change is by force , because that is what the folks that are in power will do if we defy them and elect not to pay our taxes or go along with the rubbish that they heap on us day in and day out. I for one will not be a sheep! I will vote for Dr. Paul and I will figure out a way to give the government the same @#%^ that they have been giving me, my hope is there are more like me out there.

Good night and God Bless, and for those of you who don't like the God Bless part,so be it. You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.

Steve
Steve

This book was eye opening. I am not sure if I agree 100% with everything, but I just finished it and am still processing a little bit. I will say that everything Dr. Paul laid out makes sense, and should certainly be debated. This will allow everybody to make an EDUCATED decision with ALL options on the table. Assuming he runs in 2012, Dr.Paul has my my vote all but locked up.

GEORGE TOLHURST
GEORGE TOLHURST

IT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE BUT REPITITION IS GOOD. SEPERATION IF CHURCH AND STATE WAS DONE TO KEEP GOVERMENT FROM ESTABLISHING A RELIGION OF ITS OWN.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON JUDICIAL LAW.

PRESENTLY WE ARE LIVING IN THE FREEST AND BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE ALSO LIVING IN THE MOST BRAINWASHED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. SAD IS THE FACT THAT SO MANY PEOPLES DO NOT RELIZE IT.

TO TAKE OVER ONES COUNTRY THEY HAVE TO DUMB DOWN THE PUBLIC AND PUT MORALITY INTO THE BASEMENT. THE INSIDERS KNOW THIS AND ARE DOING A GOOD JOB IN MAKING AN END RUN AROUND TO TAKE OUR CONSITUTION AWAY FROM US. MANY THANKS TO PEOPLE LIKE RON PAUL, JOHN TATE AND OTHER LIKEMINDED PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATING AND WAKING UP THE MAJORITY OF MANY.
RESERCH, READ AND PASS ON THE WORD AND WE MAY SAVE THIS WONDERFUL COUNTRY OF OURS YET.

Andrew
Andrew

Fantastic book! I listened to the audiobook, which I highly reccomend. Check out as many copies as you can from your library and get all your family and friends to read it!

Shaune
Shaune

I come to this site with a feeling of hope, that I may find people of like mind who want to restore this country. Yet I read some of these comments and all I feel is despair. I have to assume that many of the posts are from people that support Dr. Paul and his "novel" ideas. Perhaps I am wrong in my following comments, for which I will surely be corrected. Our thoughts have been so corrupted that we believe rights and privileges are the same thing. That we have different classes of rights: constitutional, personal and civil rights. That we are granted rights by "The Bill of Rights". That such a thing as separation of church and state is what the 1st Amendment is all about. That the 2nd Amendment protects our right to hunt. How have we fallen so far?
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson
God is central to any discussion of politics in this country.
Rights are not given by any group of men or by any piece of paper.

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.

--For the above statement to have any meaning there must be a higher authority than Man, a Creator that gave Man rights which are not capable of being surrendered or taken (unalienable)
I believe that one statement is the core of our system of government and at the core of that statement is a Creator.

Del Kerr
Del Kerr

Chris, It's just as well that you are done with the website. Apparently you don't get it.It's all about personal rights. Did you suffer any damage from their opinion? You expect others to follow your ideals thought for thought? Dr. Paul's message is about the freedoms we are given by the founding fathers. I didn't see any part of any message that tried to "ram" any opinion down anyone's throat. You on the other hand, Take it upon yourself to control, and dictate to others what opinion is allowed on this site. Perhaps you would be happier watching CNN, or MSNBC, or FOX, since you try to inflict bias on others.
As to Michael Alfano, The separation of Church and State applies only to Making laws based on a particular belief, or religion, and has nothing to do with personal expression. In simpler words Michael...The Government may not ENACT a law that forces you to become Catholic, or Protestant,etc...,nor can they ENACT a law that allows a particular belief any legal advantage over another. However, ANYONE may declare their beliefs anywhere, and any time.

Chris
Chris

Please keep your religion and god this and god that to church on not on this board. This is a place to discuss what is going on with our country and government not IT'S GOD WILL or anything like that. If you really feel the need to continue rambling about god go to your local church and preach all you want.

I'm done with this site can't stand people trying to push their religious crap down everyones throats. Good luck to Ron Paul but with nuts like this on here he doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting taken seriously.

Julia Mallen
Julia Mallen

Lose your rights, have your life stalked by the rich and think they are powerful. Then let's all see how quickly everyone in this nation looks up for a divine intervention before their own rights have been melted away by the paws of greed and corruption.

The Right Message
The Right Message

I haven't read this book yet but it's been enthusiastically added to my list. As for religion in politics, it's a volatile mixture that almost always results in the deprivation of both. Please confine your religious testimonies to religious forums and respect the fact that Dr. Paul intends for a political dialogue about the good governance of a nation - not a religious revival concerning the proper conduct of one's personal affairs.

we the people
we the people

okay there's no need to insult people about there religious views. point well taken, im personally an agnostic so i understand completely what would happen if people associate their paradigm shift with a message from some divine entity. it would completely undermine Ron's logic and put him in a class similar to George w, was in. before people even have a chance to listen to what the man has to say.

Julia Mallen
Julia Mallen

Leaving God out of it undermines everything this nation was founded upon, but thanks for your choice of a sad and honest response.

One nation Under God...would you like to debate that stance with God? me thinks not
Have a great day~~

Wayne
Wayne

Wow.. a woman who thinks like me. Will you marry me? LOL

David
David

I'd bet money on it Sergio, unless we the people can first destroy the power which needs to assassinate him and any other who would pose a threat to their power so that they can survive to act in our interest.

It's not a small army of patriots anymore, but an entire population who is sick to death of the theft, fraud, power and control which has been inflicted on them, and if enough collective action can be motivated from them to pose the threat and destroy the power it can indeed be defeated.

Anyway, this is one attempt to do so, if enough participate in it, it may be the last necessary or there may be more needed as well.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve/comment-page-68/#comment-139472

As stated its 350,000,000 of us against 1/2 dozen banking families and this is the first population in the entire world who figured out who their enemies were while they still had a chance to do something about it. The solution may be peaceful, i hope so, and it may not be, but it does need to be accomplished and it can be accomplished as well.

Fred the Protectionist
Fred the Protectionist

Boy for someone who claims to be the "Great Defender of the Constitution", you sound like a liberal with all those liberal unConstitutional beliefs like "separation of church and state" that doesn't exist in the Constitution and is neither implied in the Constitution.

Michael Alfano
Michael Alfano

Man those guys who founded this country where smart. Thank you for the seperation of church and state .Hopefully we won't loose this gem also.

Chris
Chris

Are you serious? You don't even know your history very well then do you? Our founding fathers weren't all christians. Many had very different views on religion.

One nation Under God was added in our current history and not by our original founding fathers.

Why do so many of your religious whacko's feel the need to always bring god into everything along the way trying to make yourselves important and your, It's Gods Will, or by the Grace Of God ect, ect, ect....

How about you just treat others good cause it's the right thing to do period.

I agree the last thing Ron Paul needs is religious whacko's always professing how the Good Lord gave them a message on this and that. Please save your religious nonsense for church and other like minded individuals.

We are here to support Ron Paul and his political views on our corrupt government and seek change not here the voice of God.

FreePerson
FreePerson

Actually, in the Bill of Rights, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That congress should "make no law respecting...or prohibiting the exercise thereof" Decrees that congress can neither embrace, nor oppress, any religious practice...hence, a separation is implied..hello.

Berg
Berg

How is that liberal? This country was founded on freedom of religion.

Matt Pileggi
Matt Pileggi

You mean guys like Benjamin Franklin who said: I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages. – Benjamin Franklin (Speech to the Constitutional Convention 1787)

It is your right to not believe in God, but you are a fool to think that respect for God, Man, and Law did not all work together in the founding of this great country.

Julia Mallen
Julia Mallen

My history?? not even close, it is not my anything it is Gods everything. HISTORY.... HIS-TORY we are all merely the players in his script acting out our parts by the freedom of choice he freely gave to all mankind.
You know the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. It begins in the book of Genesis greatest story ever shared,I highly recommend it to you.

Speaking of God given freedom, try and click on my sight http://www.recoveryforthesoul.com
You will get an error message that says FORBIDDEN. That is taking away the rights of the people, by the people, for the people. Now that my friend is as scary as it gets!!

Grace is unmerited favor and I for one am so thankful to know that by Gods grace none of us, not a one of us gets what we as a humanity gone wild deserve.

dangermw
dangermw

I mean this in the nicest most non pushy way. Please don't confuse Christianity in the sense that some use it to mean that Jesus Christ supported their ideas. There are many types of religion out there that actually have taken pieces of the Holy Bible and used it to their own gain and benefit and they call it Christianity. I would propose that you seek answers about God direct from the Bible and not from organizations that think they know all there is to God. :-)

Julie Mallen
Julie Mallen

Matt..you are my hero beautifully worded brother!!
God Bless our America!!
Time to bring our troops safely home
Time for Ron Paul to re-introduce The Money Reform Act so that this time it will pass unanimously!!
It is time for us united here at home to become the change the world needs to see!!!
Unity is our saving grace!!!
Many Blessings~
'-)

Matt Pileggi
Matt Pileggi

Sean:

Aha! We were just coming at the same argument from different sides. I had thought you were claiming there was no room for talk of God in our History, though it's clear that influence came from all sides. It's truly a testament to the vision, dedication, and ultimate brilliance that the framers were able to come up with something so remarkable and wisely framed as our national Government! I love how John Jay describes it:

"This Convention, composed of men, who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool uninterrupted and daily consultations: and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions, except love for their Country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous counsels."

Can you think of any political meeting in our lifetimes that you would describe in such a way?!

I'm glad we have reached the same page on that, and hopefully we of different beliefs can again work together solely out of love for our Country. I think we can all agree that we are in dire need of a more limited, less energetic, and less expensive government starting right now!

Lindsey
Lindsey

Matt: Nothing gets Sean more irate than talking to a Christian. Don't worry about it though. You, I'm sure, are aware of the "trials and persecutions" (2 Thessalonians 1:4) of being a Christian.

Sean: You can receive the good news if you wish? Have you ever heard the gospel?

sean
sean

Just because someone believes in God, doesn't mean that they are heavily influenced by God. Yes we had religious founding fathers, but like I said.. Our government was based off of good philosophical morals, not God's word.

Ya I was confused. I thought you were saying that we should have God involved in politics...

I know all about John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, but James Madison who wrote the articles of the confederation was directly inspired by Thomas Paine.

Matt Pileggi
Matt Pileggi

I suppose it may be I who am confusing you, so I will summarize my stance.

#1 We are a government of laws, that are designed to provide equal protection of rights

#2 Separation of power provides us with optimal protection from oppression, be it religious or otherwise

#3 Our Representative form of government was designed to nullify sects and other factions in the best possible way

That being said, we should be protected from religious ideals becoming law - since it is fairly obvious that not one religion (or absence of religion) would fit everyone and would therefore result in oppression of those on either side. It does not, however, preclude religious men/women from holding office or having influence in our laws.

Distrust in human government does not mean that we ignore the law. Nor does distrust in organized religion mean we ignore God. It does mean that neither should prevent you or I from exercising our free will so long as it is not injurious to the rights or property of others. Can we agree on that much at least?

Thomas Paine was just one of many influential persons during that momentous time. If you want to see a clear example of other influences go read John Locke - namely the second treatise on government. He is almost directly quoted in many documents important to our History. There is also traces of Cicero, Plato, and Montesquieu to name a few. Each of whom had different backgrounds and religious beliefs.

For you to completely discount the effect of God and/or the religious beliefs of anyone involved in the drafting of the Constitution, Declaration, and their follow-up documents is not telling the whole story. We are very fortunate to have had so many men fully devoted purely to liberty, but we are also fortunate that virtue was...well, a virtue - since it is apparent today what we get when it is missing.

sean
sean

Our founding fathers were influenced by Thomas Paine, not god. I suggest you read a common sense.

sean
sean

First of all, you did not state this in your post.

enacting the will of the majority without infringing upon the rights of the minority.

2nd, that has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

It sounds like you are making up stuff as we go.

sean
sean

I'm sorry, i thought the argument was about the separation of church and state. That still seems to be the case, it is pretty clear.

Did you not reply to this post?

"Man those guys who founded this country where smart. Thank you for the seperation of church and state .Hopefully we won’t loose this gem also."

Matt Pileggi
Matt Pileggi

Sean: You seem to enjoy making up your own arguments and allow your own anti-religious sentiments to quickly lead you to debate. I am not aware of a single thing I've stated that has asked for laws to be made regarding religion - and I am among those who are grateful for a government of this devising. The founders were fully aware of the evils of a governing body coupled with a religious doctrine. They had seen their share of oppression from the Catholic monarchy, and had studied enough history to recognize the dangers. You also seem to forget that the Christians, Catholics, Jews, and Protestants have just as much a right to meet as do the atheists, agnostics, and environmentalist. That's the beauty of this system.

The catch phrase "separation of church and state" has been a fun debating point for a century, but all we need to know about our country is in our Constitution. It has allowed one's own religion to remain between a man and his God, even though certain sects are almost always under scrutiny. We can all be thankful that the authors of our Constitution were enlightened enough to keep God out of Politics, but we can only hope that God remains in the men and women of the United States.

But I will state again, that the key is - and always has been - enacting the will of the majority without infringing upon the rights of the minority. That can be applied to religious beliefs, health care debates, "green" movements, etc. So I'm not too sure what you are trying to say here that has any relevance or is even debated (except that maybe you don't believe in God and I do). However, that neither picks your pocket nor breaks your arm.

sean
sean

First amendment to the Constitution..

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." - James Madison (author of the constitution)

sean
sean

"Believing 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." - Thomas Jefferson

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents" - Thomas Jefferson

Matt Pileggi
Matt Pileggi

The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. -- Thomas Jefferson

I have no fear but that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. Could the contrary of this be proved I should conclude either that there is no God, or that He is a malevolent Being. -- Thomas Jefferson

God did not sign the Constitution. But the freedom that you and I have been lucky enough to enjoy is here only because those who did sign it respected both God and Natural law. You can decide to disdain Christianity, or any organized religion for that matter. Yet as well as it has been documented that religion has been the catalyst for many a war - both our experience and history teach us that it is also responsible for morality and happiness. The key is preserving individual liberty by not infringing the rights of others, in both your political and religious application.

'Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation deserts the oaths which are administered in courts of justice? Nor ought we to flatter ourselves that morality can be separated from religion. Concede as much as may be asked to the effect of refined education in minds of peculiar structure, can we believe, can we in prudence suppose, that national morality can be maintained in exclusion of religious principles?' - George Washington (in his farewell address, as drafted by Alexander Hamilton)

sean
sean

oh did god sign the constitution? i forgot he was there.. or was it just good moral principles? I'm pretty sure our founding fathers came here to separate church and state.

“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man” - Thomas Jefferson

Lindsey
Lindsey

Matt: Amen to your post. I couldn't have said it any better!!!!!!!!

Matt Pileggi
Matt Pileggi

403 Forbidden is an HTTP response code, not an encroachment on your rights.

One nation under God was added later, but the God-respecting principals of our Founders is woven all throughout their works. The presence of a Higher authority is the only thing that makes certain rights unalienable, otherwise they are simply granted, and denied, by the laws of man.

The founders recognized the importance and favor of God, and they also understood that all men are free to choose. Liberty was originally God's idea, and neither religion nor politics has any right to take that away. This is a case where both of your arguments are wrong. From the view of our Federal Government our religious opinions carry no weight. However, it has been made very clear to us that the moral fiber - the virtues or lack thereof - of US citizens is ultimately what will maintain, or sink, this ship.