So you think with more Christianity there will be less greed and corruption in government? Isnt there already too much Chrisitanity in government? The founding fathers were Deist, there strongly believed in the seperation of church and state. They also didnt get thier ideas from the Bible.
There is Christianity in government, but really no Christians. If you wanted to get elected, you damn well better be a Christian, and politicians know that. If our politicians followed a strict Christian code (basic 10 commandments shit), I don't think it would be nearly as bad as it is now. JMO
The only problem with the concept is there would be virtually no way of guaranteeing that politicians follow a moral code of any kind, hence our current situation.
I just have a problem with people of power preaching morals and then gettting caught doing exactly what they were preaching against. Hypocrisy is what i cant stand.
I completely agree. Its one thing to do something wrong, but to chastise someone else for doing the same thing is mind-boggling.
It should go both ways, church out of government and government out of church. As soon as government intervenes in church, you open the door for intervention to flow the other direction. From what you quoted, it sounds nothing like Ron Paul wants government intervening in church or church intervening in government. It sounds to me like he's saying that if government wasn't constantly putting its nose in religious affairs, that Christianity would be a powerful institution, compared to our federal government which is meant to have limited power, especially on a local scale. What he means by powerful is the same way we've allowed our fed government to become as powerful it is today. In other words, he's saying that without the government intervening to undermine the societal impact of religions, things like 'welfare' would and could realistically be dealt with my voluntary charitable donations, based on the impact that religious values and morals have on the society. Additionally, he thinks Christian values have a positive role in influencing government policies, such as the value of tolerance. Keep in mind, he says Christian and religions, not Roman Catholic. Christianity encompasses many different religions and he keeps it even more broad by mentioning religion in general too.
Let's read the actual article instead of drawing conclusions from out of context quotes. And you can also read this, this, this, this and this. I particularly enjoy these quotes: "The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state", although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall....The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression. The Elkhart case is a classic example of the courts ignoring this fundamental distinction between federal and local action (Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court, Ron Paul, June 4 2001). "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state'' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school! (Restoring First Amendment Protections of Religion and Religious Speech, Ron Paul, June 13 2002) "Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II (Theology, not Politics, Ron Paul, April 11, 2005). "[The First Amendment] does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it....It's important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with "Congress shall make no law..." This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts. The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony "incorporation" doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business" (What Does the First Amendment Really Mean?, Ron Paul, July 1, 2002). From what I'm reading his position is that the federal government is prohibited from making any rulings whatsoever about religion. I can't seem to find anything where he says he wants religion to be more involved in government. He wants government to be less involved with religion.
I can't believe so many people are arguing about that statement from Dr. Paul. Excuse me but churches are voluntary community organizations. They unite followers to do good (generally) and support one another. This is a good thing, as opposed to the government which takes your money and gives it to people who have absolutely no concept of what it means to participate in a community. I can't believe people are arguing that having churches be more important than the state would be a bad thing, and I don't believe at any point was Dr. Paul saying that the church needs to be part of the state more so or even at all. Again, he merely stated it was supposed to be more important than the state, which I agree with. I'm also pretty much 100% sure that what he said was exactly what the founding fathers wanted. Separation of church and state, religious acceptance, and more importance based on community than on state. So fuck all of you who disagree with the doctor. I'm an atheist by the way, just to let all of you know that there is no religious bias behind my statements, that is just how it should be.
Fundamentalist, Roman Catholics and Christians are totally different. Christianity encompasses many religions who only share a belief in Jesus Christ's divinity. Some are more extreme (Roman Catholicism for example) than others in their beliefs. A strict adherence to the bible, especially the New Testament, and specifically the principles championed by Jesus calls for tolerance. Nothing about these pictures you posted displays a value of tolerance. You seem to not know what Christianity means. Let me help you out. Christian The anti-Christian institute known as the church is what has spouted and endorsed these anti-homosexual views. Again, the bible teaches us that the temple is each and every individuals own body, not some fucken old looking goth building on the corner of the street, nor the vatican. Christian text also doesn't account for the existence of the pope, who is really just another political figurehead used to promote twisted views and repackage them as 'good' 'right' 'religious' 'holy' and 'Christian'. You seem to be confusing politics with religion, but that's understandable seeing as the lines have been deliberately fudged to create internal struggle and dissent. That's Ron Paul's entire point. I concede that most religious people today feel the need to impose their beliefs, but I guarantee you that this is a perversion of true Christian ideals, as Christianity, as I already mentioned advocates tolerance. This perversion has come about due to political and corporate interests acting through the church, facilitated by a governmental policy on religion that creates more opposing factions who adopt extremist views. This is exactly the kind of situation that Ron Paul is opposing by defending the concept of religion as it relates to government.
That is HIGHLY debatable and varies wildly from church to church and pastor to pastor. I've got an idea, how about the church has no fucking importance at all outside of whatever voluntary participation its members choose to partake in, and the state is reduced in size to only the most absolute necessities (roads, etc.). Most importantly, keep your church out of my life.
No shit, that was the point. Of course not every "christian" is the same. The point I'm making is that the majority of your so-called "christians" at best adhere to whatever cherry-picked bigoted nonsense their religious shepherd feeds them and ignore and misinterpret and twist whatever tenets don't fit their preconceived notions. Of course there are exceptions to that, but these individuals are very few and far between, and not even a hundredth as vocal as their bible-thumping peers. Gandhi said it best; "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Edit: I'm not confusing politics with religion, it is the religious (right) who have made a mess of that. It is when you take YOUR religion and YOUR beliefs and force ME to conform to YOUR moralistic ideals that I've got a problem.