- Sound Money
- Taxes
- National Defense
- Border Security
- Israel
- Civil Liberties
- Health Care
- Abortion
- Education
- War on Drugs
- Global Warming
- Earmark Reform
Stay in Touch
Gallery
Promote Freedom
Ron Paul’s Books
  |
  |
Campaign for Liberty
Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.
Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke, the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke. According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution. Indeed such was Locke’s influence, Thomas Jefferson stated: “Bacon, Locke and Newton..I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the physical and moral sciences”
The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.
The Treaty of Tripoli
Main article: Treaty of Tripoli
In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; …
Supporters of the separation of church and state believe this article confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. Drafted by George Washington’s administration with Thomas Jefferson’s help, they claim it becomes, with the Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land” — as Article VI-2. of the US Constitution says it must.
Use of the phrase
The phrase “separation of church and state” is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State.
Jefferson was also asked about meaning of the constitution later. He did not mince words but plainly spoke of its meaning not being twisted by those who would seek to either undermine its original meaning or invent that its clearly defined statements meant something they did not. Once more, Jefferson in his own words:
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”
Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a recorded conversation surrounding the meaning of the 1st Amendment being offered the following was said:
August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts…He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether…Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that “no religious doctrine shall be established by law.”…Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.”…[T]he State[s]…seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution…it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might…establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended…Mr. Madison thought if the word “National” was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen…He thought if the word “national” was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
Madison contended “Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body.” Several years later he wrote of “total separation of the church from the state.” “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States,” Madison wrote, and he declared, “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.” In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, “We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.” This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.
… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.
The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.
The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term has been used and defended heavily by the Court, but is not unanimously held. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[40]
The “Christian Nation” concept is contradicted by:
“Jesus answered (Pilate), ‘My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight (to defend him), …’ ” – John 18:36 — there are only Christian people, possibly in Christian communities. Beyond that are the “things which are Caesar’s” – Matthew 22:21
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Thank God John Stossel is on TV, now more people can be exposed to the lunacy of Libertarianism.
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
[...] open your ears to what Ron Paul is saying. Do you think it’s an accident that he lead in the recent CPAC poll? Absolutely not. He is [...]
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I like a lot of Ron Paul’s policies, and wish him the best. There are of course things I disagree with him about (as a registered Dem), but by and large if he won the White House I’d still be proud to call him my President. What Mr. Paul can do to sway some of us ‘lefties’ out there to his court, would be to keep his policies out of our private lives. This includes legislating ‘morality’, such as abortion, gay rights etc. If he left that stuff off his agenda, I’d be firmly behind him.
I LOVE his view of the Fed. I too believe it (and the IRS) to be an illegal organization, whereas the tax act was never ratified by all states required for the bill to pass (yet the Gov’t somehow honored the law anyway and gave us unfair taxes).
I want a President that wants the American people to be free, not enslaved by corporations just to live in a small apartment, and struggle day to day doing tasks no CEO would dream of dirtying their hands with. That being said, Mr Paul, please keep up your effort to return our currency to something more substantial. For this, you should be applauded.
While Mr Paul has also shown a lot of independence in Congress, as far as what he publicly says, his support still remains FIRMLY in the GOP rank-and-file, and that is incredibly worrisome. While the GOP are FAR better than the dems at organization, and passing legislation, quantity is NOT quality. The last 8 years has made me loathe to vote for any GOP candidate, and the Dems have been very disappointing in their two years in power (only to squander it all).
Mr Paul, If you ran as an independant, and acted like one, I truly believe you would be a shining example for the Independant ticket, and perhaps bring some actual pull to the party.
I would seriously consider casting my vote in your direction, should you choose to start really supporting our rights… but as long as there is an (R) next to your name, I will think twice. Keep up the good work sir, and may your life bring you, and America, the success it so desperately needs.
-Matt, San Diego, CA
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Hello friends,
I am a bit of an amateur when it comes to politics.
I am a fiscal conservative and pro-social liberty. I like a lot of positions that Dr. Ron Paul presents. I struggle with one issue….as humans, are we selfless enough to care for our less fortunate brothers and sisters if Dr. Paul could implement Libertarian policies in our government? If government money (from taxes) does not pay to help the mentally ill, the abused, the hurt, and people that need some help…can we rely on humans to do this. I find most people rather selfish…I am selfish for the most part. Selflessness is revolutionary and uncommon. I do not think there is a private monetary benefit in carrying for the mentally ill for instance….can we really expect selfless Americans to replace government assistance programs???
Thanks,
michael
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We survived before all the government assistance programs which are a fairly recent development in American history. We’ll survive after they are reduced. Government should help with the disabled and elderly and that’s about it in my opinion. maybe also temporary needs if someone hits it hard due to no fault of their own. I have no sympathy for epople who keep having children after they already cannot afford the first and need assistance. Family and charities and self reliance should take care of the rest. We shouldn’t have to pay for someone elses bad choices.
As Matt Allen, a radio host often says, Dependence is Slavery.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
So is slavery slavery, which you Libertarians are proponents of.
American Libertarians are intellectually Confederates mixed in with some weird social liberalism.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
It becomes increasingly clear that you have zero clue what a libertarian represents.
Where did your definition come from?
Also, would you point out a source for your ‘libertarians are proponents of slavery’ theory?
Something else that may help in your quest for knowledge … lmao …. (sorry couldn’t help the giggles there), Libertarians are not necessarily libertarians. If that was confusing, libertarians are not necessarily Libertarians.
Thx 4 the laughs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The US dental industry is LAWLESS. There are a group of dentists in this country using a root canal material that contains FORMALDEHYDE as its active ingredient. These dentists have for decades falsely claimed some form of FDA approval, including full Phase III in 2003. It was REJECTED in 1993. The FDA and our dental community, including our state licensing boards, have known about this for 3 decades and strongly disagreed but look the other way until a patient shows up injured. By then it is too late and they have life altering and even threatening harm. In a recent email from a high ranking Am Dental Association boar member they acknowledged – “The ADA, AAE, and the FDA have already concluded that Sargenti Paste is not demonstrated to be safe, cannot be commercially produced and promoted, and should not be used. The problem is that enforcement authorities are not pursuing those who compound it for the dentists who are using it.” My reply was “then tell the American public about it”… no surprise, I never received a response and have yet to see a news release about it. The proponents who falsely claim approval and continually changing success rates – 98%, 95%, 95% (pick a number any number) have no scientific data to prove that it is safe. Because of that it was REJECTED for approval by the FDA in 1993. They (Am Endodontic Society, not be fooled by the official sounding name) have only self serving testimonials to claim success and never tell their patients that they are using them as guinea pigs, sometimes even after they injure them. They frequently claim nerve damage is caused by nicking the patient’s nerve with the novacaine injection. The main supporter, ALvin Arzt, recently claimed a NYUniversity study said that conventional endodontics (ie no formaldehyde) is only 80% successful. The study actually said 5-7% of people have pain 6 months after the root canal and said nothing about the material used. He makes up this information to suit his cause. The material is known widely by the name Sargenti Paste but also Sargenti Cement, N2, RC2B, RC2W. Two injured patients started a website to tell the Am public what we can’t count on our dental community to tell us and to pressure our regulators to get off their duffs and put a stop to this. Watch the NBC video at their website…
http://www.worstrootcanalever.com . We need help pressuring the FDA to do the job they are paid to do and protect the public from rogue dentists who permanently seal formaldehyde, lead and mercury in their patients mouth without their knowledge or consent. Apparently we are all guinea pigs in the dental world. This is an unbelievable story and one that there is no excuse for. We just want people to know what we wish we had known before that dental appointment that changed our lives. Injuries can range from chronic sinus problems, permanent nerve damage, chronic bone infections (that have eaten away entire jaw bones, anaphylactic shock and even death). INEXCUSABLE….the keystone cops are running our state dental boards and policing our dentists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good men driven by a desire for benevolence encourage the centralization of power. The corruptive temptation of power is made worse when domestic and international interventions go wrong and feed into the hate and envy that invade men’s souls when the love of liberty is absent.
Those of good will who work to help the downtrodden do so not knowing they are building a class of rulers who will become drunk with their own arrogance and lust for power. Generally only a few in a society yield to the urge to dictate to others, and seek power for the sake of power and then abuse it.
Most members of society are complacent and respond to propaganda, but they unite in the democratic effort to rearrange the world in hopes of gaining benefits through coercive means and convince themselves they are helping their fellow man as well. A promise of security is a powerful temptation for many.
A free society, on the other hand, requires that these same desires be redirected. The desire for power and authority must be over one’s self alone. The desire for security and prosperity should be directed inward, rather than toward controlling others. We cannot accept the notion that the gang solution endorsed by the majority is the only option. Self-reliance and personal responsibility are crucial.
But there is also a problem with economic understanding. Economic ignorance about the shortcomings of central economic planning, excessive taxation and regulations, central bank manipulation of money, and credit and interest rates is pervasive in our nation’s capital.
A large number of conservatives now forcefully argue that deficits don’t matter.
Spending programs never shrink, no matter whether conservatives or liberals are in charge.
Rhetoric favoring free trade is canceled out by special-interest protectionist measures.
Support of international government agencies that manage trade, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and Nafta politicizes international trade and eliminates any hope that free-trade capitalism will soon emerge.
The federal government will not improve on its policies until the people coming to Washington are educated by a different breed of economists than those who dominate our government-run universities. Economic advisors and most officeholders merely reflect the economics taught to them. A major failure of our entire system will most likely occur before serious thought is given once again to the guidelines laid out in the Constitution.
The current economic system of fiat money and interventionism (both domestic and international) serves to accommodate the unreasonable demands for government to take care of the people. And this, in turn, contributes to the worst of human instincts: authoritarian control by the few over the many.
We, as a nation, have lost our understanding of how the free market provides the greatest prosperity for the greatest number. Not only have most of us forgotten about the invisible hand of Adam Smith, few have ever heard of Mises and Hayek- two individuals who understood exactly why all the economic ups and downs of the 20th century occurred, as well as the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But worst of all, we have lost our faith in freedom. Materialistic concerns and desire for security drive all national politics. This trend has sharply accelerated since 9/11.
Understanding the connection between liberty, prosperity, and security has been lost. The priorities are backwards. Prosperity and security come from liberty. Peace and the absence of war come as a consequence of liberty and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and restraints on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a civilized society can only be achieved through a contractual arrangement between the people and the government — in our case, the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution was the best ever devised for releasing the creative energy of a free people while strictly holding in check the destructive powers of government. Only the rule of law can constrain those who, by human instinct, look for a free ride while delivering power to those few, found in every society, whose only goal in life is a devilish desire to rule over others.
The rule of law in a republic protects free-market activity and private-property ownership and provides for equal justice under the law. It is this respect for law and rights over government power that protects the mainspring of human progress from the enemies of liberty.
Communists and other socialists have routinely argued that the law is merely a tool of the powerful capitalists. But they have it backwards. Under democracy and fascism, the pseudo-capitalists write the laws that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens. They fail to realize it is the real law, the Constitution itself, which guarantees rights and equal justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing progress.
Arbitrary, ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators. Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution is a living document, and that rigid obedience to ideological purity is the enemy we should be most concerned about. They would have us believe that those who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the defense of liberty are wrong merely because they demand ideological purity. They fail to mention that their love of relative rights and pure democracy is driven by a rigid obedience to an ideology as well.
The issue is never rigid beliefs versus reasonable friendly compromise. In politics, it’s always competition between two strongly held ideologies. The only challenge for men and women of good will is to decide the wisdom and truth of the ideologies offered.
Nothing short of restoring a republican form of government with strict adherence to the rule of law, and curtailing illegal government programs, will solve our current and evolving problems.
Eventually the solution will be found with the passage of the Liberty Amendment. Once there is serious debate on this amendment, we will know that the American people are considering the restoration of our constitutional republic and the protection of individual liberty.
You have just read:
AN ADDRESS TO THE U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS ENTITLED, Sorry, Mr. Franklin, “We’re All Democrats Now”
January 29, 2003
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
look at the american ONE DOLLAR BILL the EYE OF HORIS
the illuminati the masons the jews control the federal reserve
they KILLED ALL THE PEOPLE on the titanic ON PURPOSE
the captain was ORDERED BY THE BLACK POPE
Canada PRIME MINISTER HARPER IS A MASON… See More
old man bush said we have a OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A NEW WORLD ORDER
the words on the masonic ONE DOLLAR AMERICAN BILL
around the Pyramid says THE BIRTH OF
THE NEW WORLD ORDER ONE WORLD ORDER
its been on the bill since FDR who was A MASON
they worship LUCIFER
can you figure this out ITS ALL REAL
wake up
masonic LUCIFERIAN LODGES are all over the world
ITS A WORLD WIDE TAKEOVER
no leader thats running a thing comes out and talks to the people
THEY ALL sit around with their POLICE GRID IN PLACE
and yet RON PAUL goes everywhere telling people about the FEDERAL RESERVE
cant you figure this out
THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS JEWISH CONTROLLED
the SKULL AND BONES AND BOEHEMIAN GROVE are all the same dam people
wake up
gigisup.net
henrymakow.com
infowars.com
canadafreepress.com
goodnewsaboutgod.com against the NEW WORLD ORDER
Like or Dislike:
2 
0