The New Hampshire Primary Approaches!

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Romney is the Manchurian Candidate.

The good news is that he won't become President. The bad news is that Obama will.

[Wumbologist]

I think calling him crazy is an unfair characterization. In some areas, he's the smartest person in the room, generally.

Fair enough. Crazy is unfair. Dangerous is more apt. His stance on evolution is murky at best. He opposes separation of church and state. He is vehemently opposed to Roe v. Wade. As a socially conscious atheist I cold never vote for Ron Paul.

It's not horseshit because there have been instances where voluntary prayer has been stopped by public schools, and there have been times when students had to be vindicated via lawsuits. It's not in the least bit "horseshit."

You can't legislate away the stupid and misinformed. Instances in which voluntary prayer was stopped by public schools are clearly in the wrong under current laws.

Look - after the adoption of the Constitution, there were still official state churches in various States, and Jefferson's view that the Establishment Clause created a wall of separation was not the only view. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that: "the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. (Article III)"

This "establishment of religion" period in Massachusetts was not abolished until 1833, 50 years after the First Amendment was adopted, and it wasn't held unconstitutional. It was just abolished by Massachusetts.

Much of what Ron Paul said is very detail oriented and legalistic, and very nuanced in terms of Constitutional interpretation. He's right about a lot of it, and much of what I don't think he's right about is at least arguable from his point of view.

Connecticut had an establishment of religion. Its citizens did not adopt a constitution at the Revolution, but rather amended their Charter to remove all references to the British Government. As a result, the Congregational Church continued to be established, and Yale College, at that time a Congregational institution, received grants from the State until Connecticut adopted a constitution in 1818 partly because of this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... onnecticut

Jefferson was one founding father. Yes, he did "make clear" that it should create a "wall of separation." However, his view was not the only view.

I've always believed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights should have been (and still should be) incorporated into the states from the beginning, and unfortunately this was not the case. However, on the federal level the Establishment Clause still exists, and still prohibits Congress from respecting an establishment of religion. Madison (you know, that dude who introduced the Bill of Rights) and Jefferson were clear on that.

It's my understanding of his view, not apologetics. I was a Huntsman supporter, not a Paul supporter. Now that Huntsman is out, I am not sure who I am going to vote for in the primary, if anyone. I am not an apologist for Paul, as he is not really my cup of tea on a number of issues. Again, I am merely explaining what I think his view is on the topic, and I do not feel the need to adopt any rigid "anti-Paul" stance. I try to give each candidate a fair chance.

Huntsman was the most reasonable Republican candidate left in the field, but that's not exactly saying much.

[Wumbologist]

Romney is the Manchurian Candidate.

The good news is that he won't become President. The bad news is that Obama will.

Obama will become president? 4 years ago, this would have been interesting news.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think calling him crazy is an unfair characterization. In some areas, he's the smartest person in the room, generally.

Fair enough. Crazy is unfair. Dangerous is more apt. His stance on evolution is murky at best. He opposes separation of church and state. He is vehemently opposed to Roe v. Wade. As a socially conscious atheist I cold never vote for Ron Paul.

Meh. He agrees with the science of evolution, but opposes one or the other current theories of it as the final word. That is the correct scientific standard. It's not the same as "I believe in evolution" which is what people want to hear, but Paul often speaks above people. It's o.k. to oppose a theory of evolution, as the proponents of punctuated equilibrium and its competing theories know full well and do all the time.

His opposition to Roe v Wade is not an opposition to abortion per se. It's an opposition to the rationale of used -- i.e. - he doesn't object to the end, he objects to the means. Again, that's a nuance.

I also explained his position on separation of church and state, which is on a Constitutional ground, and he is not in favor of the government funding or involving itself in religion. Everything he has said in that regard evinces government neutrality.

It's not horseshit because there have been instances where voluntary prayer has been stopped by public schools, and there have been times when students had to be vindicated via lawsuits. It's not in the least bit "horseshit."

You can't legislate away the stupid and misinformed. Instances in which voluntary prayer was stopped by public schools are clearly in the wrong under current laws.

Only under current law as established by court precedent, which had to be legislated. There are still instances of schools stopping voluntary prayers and infringing on Free Exercise rights, as well as free speech rights. These are still being litigated.

Look - after the adoption of the Constitution, there were still official state churches in various States, and Jefferson's view that the Establishment Clause created a wall of separation was not the only view. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that: "the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. (Article III)"

This "establishment of religion" period in Massachusetts was not abolished until 1833, 50 years after the First Amendment was adopted, and it wasn't held unconstitutional. It was just abolished by Massachusetts.

Much of what Ron Paul said is very detail oriented and legalistic, and very nuanced in terms of Constitutional interpretation. He's right about a lot of it, and much of what I don't think he's right about is at least arguable from his point of view.

Connecticut had an establishment of religion. Its citizens did not adopt a constitution at the Revolution, but rather amended their Charter to remove all references to the British Government. As a result, the Congregational Church continued to be established, and Yale College, at that time a Congregational institution, received grants from the State until Connecticut adopted a constitution in 1818 partly because of this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... onnecticut

Jefferson was one founding father. Yes, he did "make clear" that it should create a "wall of separation." However, his view was not the only view.

I've always believed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights should have been (and still should be) incorporated into the states from the beginning, and unfortunately this was not the case. However, on the federal level the Establishment Clause still exists, and still prohibits Congress from respecting an establishment of religion. Madison (you know, that dude who introduced the Bill of Rights) and Jefferson were clear on that.

It couldn't have been incorporated as against the States from the very beginning because it was the Constitution organizing the federal government and the bill of rights was a limitation on FEDERAL power, not state power. It required the 14th Amendment after the Civil War to operate as limitations on State power. That's black-letter Constitutional law and not debated by liberal or conservative Constitutional scholars.

It's my understanding of his view, not apologetics. I was a Huntsman supporter, not a Paul supporter. Now that Huntsman is out, I am not sure who I am going to vote for in the primary, if anyone. I am not an apologist for Paul, as he is not really my cup of tea on a number of issues. Again, I am merely explaining what I think his view is on the topic, and I do not feel the need to adopt any rigid "anti-Paul" stance. I try to give each candidate a fair chance.

Huntsman was the most reasonable Republican candidate left in the field, but that's not exactly saying much.

Whatever. Obama isn't saying much either.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Romney is the Manchurian Candidate.

The good news is that he won't become President. The bad news is that Obama will.

Obama will become president? 4 years ago, this would have been interesting news.

Well, if he wins the Election he won't become Pope will he?

and he will still be the best President that America never had - "Yes we can - errrrrr, no I couldn't"