"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers...The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." - Dr. Ron Paul
Name:
doctor woot2007-07-21 14:47 ID:FPzH2NPS
wow, apparently....what an idiot. If it weren´t for separation of church and state, there would be no point to come here in the first place.
I note that no one keyed on the word "rigid". That's typical 4chan faggotry to assume Ron Paul is a religitard. "OH NOES!11!one! PRESIDENT PAUL WOULD PASS A LAW MAKING US KISS CRUCIFIXES!!!11!eleven!1!"
Religious feelings did form a strong foundation for the culture of the American Republic. Unfortunately, people just started to worship money instead, which is socially damaging. (Of course, worhipping an imaginary, giant alien space monster is also fairly damaging to a thinking culture, but I digress.)
STFU namefag. He wants the United States to recognize Jesus Christ as its official national savior. He doesn't want the US to be "Catholic" or "Protestant" nation, but he wants it to be a "Christian" nation. A non-denominational theocracy satisfies separation between church and state for Ron Paul.
Gonna need a link for that assertion, #5. Ron Paul well knows that using the power of government to establish a religion is against the US Constitution. Prove it!
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 23:32 ID:fvo9yHDp
Libertarian "Jesusland" is still better than what we've got going now. #5, are you the kind of person that sees the Ten Commandments in public and whimpers in a corner, for fear that ten little clauses will make you Christian, or, Hashem forbid, a Jew?
Grow a pair. Judges have to rule on the basis of law, not religion. And by the way, the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall not have the power..."
I suppose the president could sign an Executive Order...
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 6:16 ID:9Sp5tPVE
Whatever you think about the superstitious, Jesus was still a swell guy. He allowed himself to be captured and tortured to death horrifically because he believed it would save the rest of humanity from being destinned to eternal damnation for christ's sake, give him a break.
Name:
Thelema2007-07-22 7:27 ID:+4nwZDpo
>>8
I think I speak for every Jew when I say 'what an idiot'
>>10
Because it was against their religion, as usual. Just like Jesus' followers. >>8
What an idiot.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 17:46 ID:9Sp5tPVE
>>11
We're not talking about Jesus' followers. Anyway zionists at least must also take responsibility for killing Jesus as they have assumed the axiom that what belonged to their ancestors belongs to them, this must include crimes their ancestors committed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 18:55 ID:IywoObqe
So what if they killed jesus he was no savior shure he was a great guy and all but no savior. So they simply killed an ordinary man. BIG DEAL!
>>20
Does anybody outside the inbred libertarian cluster use the term necessitarianism about determenism, ie is it a description of Marx philosophy recognized by general academia? If not, gb2 your sect which craves strawmen to seem rational. Marxian determenism does not exclude free will, it just assumes people as groups are driven by materialistic needs.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 15:48 ID:0vDRqjDA
>>21
apparently it was used in a book by a professor called Richard Surabji, seems like a fine fellow, and then buttfucked by libertarians ever since. Most of his works have been on aristotle. *shrugs*
Name:
Blitzkrieg2007-07-24 8:12 ID:YJy30lMg
I hope he wins the election.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-24 10:29 ID:h1dqfqLZ
>>21 >>22
Marx was Hegelian, he studied under him.