U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | religion |
religion
Access To Energy
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 19:15
Now, virtually all of our technology is under serious attack. From our lumber mills, farms, and ranches to our dams, power plants, and factories, all are under assault. Our enemies belong to a peculiar form of pagan religion. Petr Beckmann called it the “green religion.” This is not a new religion. The animal, plant, and earth worship ascendant today (partially at the expense of animals, plants, and the earth, which are, on balance, actually harmed by this mania) is fundamentally the same as that which arose periodically among the ancients, as chronicled, for example, in the Old Testament.
religion
Access To Energy
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 19:16
This religion is now preached in our schools, our press, and our political institutions. It is, primarily, a religion of death. Technology, in the view of these zealots, has committed a terrible sin. It has made possible the lives of billions of human beings — human beings whom they believe to be alive at the expense of worshiped plants and animals. (The fact that technology enhances the lives of plants and animals is suppressed by the professional enviro religious agitators.)
religion
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:12
Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly closed in 1971. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)
religion
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:4
Those who attack religious values are, unfortunately, not doing it in the defense of constitutional liberty. Secular humanism, although equivalent to a religion, is passed off as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs, and yet too often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs.
religion
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:7
This amendment opens the door for further abuse. Most of those who support this amendment concede that, quoting the authors of the amendment, “Because government is today found everywhere, this growth of government has dictated a shrinking of religion.” This is true, so the solution should be to shrink the government, not to further involve the Federal Government on how States and school districts use their property.
religion
Head Start Program
14 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 99:7
Another provision in S. 2206 that should be of concern to believers in a free society is the provision making “faith-based organizations” eligible for federal funds under the Community Services Block Grant program. While I have little doubt that the services offered by churches and other religious institutions can be more effective in producing social services than many secular programs, I am concerned that allowing faith-based organizations’ access to federal taxpayer dollars may change those organizations into lobbyists who will compromise their core beliefs rather than risk alienating members of Congress and thus losing their federal funds. Thus, allowing faith-based organizations to receive federal funds may undermine future attempts to reduce federal control over social services, undermine America’s tradition of non-establishment of religion, and weaken the religious and moral component of the programs of “faith-based providers.” It would be a tragedy for America if religious organizations weakened the spiritual aspects that made their service programs effective in order to receive federal lucre.
religion
Rights Of The Individual
14 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 119:5
“Hate-crime” laws mandate increased penalties for defendants found guilty of committing crimes inspired by certain categories of prejudice. In 21 states and the District of Columbia, the categories are: race, religion, color, national origin and sexual orientation. Nineteen additional states have hate-crime laws that do not cover sexual orientation. Ten states, including Wyoming, have not passed categorical hate-crime laws. There is also a federal law, which covers race, religion, color and national origin but not sex or sexual orientation.
religion
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:10
We are bound and determined to write more rules and regulations dealing with the first and the second amendment, and I do not see this as a good trend. It is said today that those who want to undermine the first amendment, that it is already established that pornography is not protected under the first amendment. And today the goal is to make sure that the depiction of violence is not protected under the first amendment. But do my colleagues know that the major cause of violence in the world throughout history have been abuse of religion and the abuse of philosophy?
religion
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:11
So, therefore, the next step will be, if we can limit the depiction of pornography and then violence, be the limitation of the depiction of a philosophy that deals with religion or political systems such as Communism or other fascism.
religion
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:12
Some will argue the Constitution does not protect freedom of expression; it protects freedom of speech, and this is not speech, this is ugly expression. But the Constitution does, does protect freedom of expression. That is what speech is. What about religion? To express one’s religious beliefs. What about one’s property, the right to go in and express what one believes? That is what freedom is all about is the freedom of expression and belief. I do not see how this country can become greater by having an amendment written that is in some ways going to curtail the freedom of Americans to express themselves. We have not had it for 212 years, and here we are going to change it.
religion
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 65:7
We are dealing with a few deranged individuals that were willing to challenge the spirit of the Constitution. They say this is not free speech, but it is indeed expression, just as religion is, just as the study of philosophy is, just as our personal convictions. To say that this is not protected under the Constitution, the current Constitution, I think is quite wrong. I think we do protect that.
religion
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:2
Mr. Speaker, as a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. Despite citing the general welfare and commerce clause, the purpose of H.R. 1691 is obviously to “protect religious liberty.” However, Congress has been granted no power to protect religious liberty. Rather, the first amendment is a limitation on congressional power. The first amendment of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet H.R. 1691 specifically prohibits the free exercise of religion because it authorizes a government to substantially burden a person’s free exercise if the government demonstrates some nondescript, compelling interest to do so.
religion
Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century
27 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 98:4
Intuition would suggest that countries with the most government planning, places where you’re taken care of, would be the best places to live. But in fact the opposite is true, countries with the most planning are the most poor. Several organizations rank countries by economic freedom. At one end are places with lots of government planning. Invariably, these are the worst places to live. At the other end on the list — Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. The best places to live are places with the fewest rules. Freedom isn’t everything. Climate matters. Religion, geography, even luck can make a difference. But nothing matters as much as . . . Liberty.
religion
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:71
We find ourselves at the close of this century realizing all our standards have been undermined. A monetary standard for our money is gone. The dollar is whatever the government tells us it is. There is no definition and no promise to pay anything for the notes issued ad infinitum by the government. Standards for education are continually lowered, deemphasizing excellence. Relative ethics are promoted and moral absolutes are ridiculed. The influence of religion on our standards is frowned upon and replaced by secular humanistic standards. The work ethic has been replaced by a welfare ethic based on need, not effort. Strict standards required for an elite military force are gone and our lack of readiness reflects this.
religion
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:133
And there are others with equally good intentions that insist on writing even more laws and regulations punishing nonviolent behavior in order to teach good manners and instill character. But they fail to see that tolerating nonviolent behavior, even when stupid and dangerous to one’s own self, is the same as our freedom to express unpopular political and offensive ideas and to promote and practice religion in any way one chooses.
religion
ON PRESENTING CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO JOHN CARDINAL O’CONNOR
February 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3557. At the same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, the work of Cardinal O’Connor. Cardinal O’Connor is a true hero as he labors tirelessly on behalf of the most needy and vulnerable in our society; promotes racial and religious harmony; advocates the best education for all children regardless of race, religion, or financial status; ministers to the poor, sick, and disabled; all the while standing up for that which he believes even in the face of hostility.
religion
Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools
6 February 2001 2001 Ron Paul 6:4
Therefore, even though Congress intends to honor the ways Catholic schools help fulfill a secular goal, the fact is Congress cannot honor Catholic schools without endorsing efforts to promulgate the Catholic faith. By singling out one sect over another, Congress is playing favors among religions. While this does not compare to the type of religious persecution experienced by many of the founders of this country, it is still an example of the type of federal favoritism among religions that the first amendment forbids.
religion
Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools
6 February 2001 2001 Ron Paul 6:5
What is the superintendent of a Baptist private school or a Pentecostal home schooler going to think when reading this resolution? That Congress does not think they provide children with an excellent education or that Congress does not deem their religious goals worthy of federal endorsement? In a free republic, the legislature should not be in the business of favoring one religion over another. I would also like to point out the irony of considering government favoritism of religion in the context of praising the Catholic schools, when early in this century Catholic schools where singled out for government-sanctioned discrimination because they were upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church.
religion
Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools
6 February 2001 2001 Ron Paul 6:6
Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to preform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding.
religion
Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools
6 February 2001 2001 Ron Paul 6:7
Of course, the idea that politicians should bestow favors on religions based on how well they fulfill the aims of the politicians is one that should be insulting to all believers no matter their faith. After all, despite what a few of my colleagues seem to think, Mr. Speaker, we in Congress are neither omnipotent nor divine.
religion
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:5
* Miss Parker points out that the founding fathers recognized the danger that church-state entanglement poses to religious liberty, which is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids the federal government from establishing a national church. As Miss Parker points out, the most effective and constitutional means for Congress to help those in poverty is to cut taxes on the American people so that they may devote more of their resources to effective, locally-controlled, charitable programs.
religion
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:14
It is worth noting that although the founders declared this; they then prohibited, in the very first amendment to the Constitution, the establishment of religion by government. Clearly, they did not make haste to keep government out of religion because they were not religious men or because they were opposed to religion or religious activity. They did this because they understood that faith, freedom, and choice cannot be separated and that it is critical to preserve and protect these core elements of our society.
religion
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:16
A true faith-based initiative is one defined by freedom and not one defined by politics. Humankind already has a tragic history of incidents where governments and politicians have gotten into the business of defining faith and religion.
religion
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:12
Physical desecration. Physical, what does it mean? If one sits on it? Do you arrest them and put them in jail? Desecration is a word that was used for religious symbols. In other words, you are either going to lower the religious symbols to the state or you are going to uphold the state symbol to that of religion. So, therefore, the whole word of desecration is a word that was taken from religious symbols, not state symbols. Maybe it harks back to the time when the state and the church was one and the same.
religion
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:9
Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.
religion
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause
29 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 2:4
Therefore, even though Congress intends to honor the ways Catholic schools help fulfill a secular goal, the fact is Congress cannot honor Catholic schools without endorsing efforts to promulgate the Catholic faith. By singling out one sect over another, Congress is playing favorites among religions. While this does not compare to the type of religious persecution experienced by many of the founders of this country, it is still an example of the type of federal favoritism among religions that the first amendment forbids.
religion
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause
29 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 2:5
What is the superintendent of a Baptist private school or a Pentecostal home schooler going to think when reading this resolution? That Congress does not think they provide children with an excellent education or that Congress does not deem their religious goals worthy of federal endorsement? In a free republic the legislature should not be in the business of favoring one religion over another. I would also like to point out the irony of considering government favoritism of religion in the context of praising the Catholic schools, when early in this century Catholic schools were singled out for government-sanctioned discrimination because they were upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church.
religion
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause
29 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 2:6
Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to perform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding.
religion
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause
29 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 2:7
Of course, the idea that politicians should bestow favors on religions based on how well they fulfill the aims of the politicians is one that should be insulting to all believers no matter their faith. After all, despite what a few of my colleagues seem to think, Mr. Speaker, we in Congress are neither omnipotent nor divine.
religion
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
religion
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:3
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
religion
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. 2003 Ron Paul 43:2
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
religion
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:31
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people’s churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.
religion
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:71
He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.
religion
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:11
All the great religions teach honesty in money, and the economic shortcomings of paper money were well known when the Constitution was written, so we must try to understand why an entire generation of Americans have come to accept paper money without hesitation, without question. Most Americans are oblivious to the entire issue of the nature and importance of money. Many in authority, however, have either been misled by false notions or see that the power to create money is indeed a power they enjoy, as they promote their agenda of welfarism at home and empire abroad.
religion
Don’t Meddle With Religion In Vietnam
19 November 2003 2003 Ron Paul 119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this ill-conceived and ill-timed bill. I would like to remind my colleagues that according to our own Constitution, Congress is prohibited from making any law “respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.” Yet are we not doing that today — albeit in a country some 10,000 miles away? Why on earth are we commending one particular church in Vietnam in the name of “religious freedom”? At the risk of being blunt, what business is the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam of the United States Congress? The answer, of course, is that this legislation is of a much more political than a religious nature: this bill tells the Vietnamese government how it should enforce its own constitution, commits the United States government to promoting religious freedom in Vietnam, and tells the U.S. embassy staff in Vietnam to “closely monitor” religious issues in Vietnam. It is an attempt to meddle in the affairs of Vietnam and force them to adopt the kinds of laws we think they should have. Mr. Speaker, as much as we value our own religious liberty, we must realize that setting the example of the benefits of a society that values such liberty is much more effective than demanding that other countries pass the kinds of laws we want them to pass. The unintended consequences of this otherwise well-meaning legislation is that relations with the Vietnamese government will likely suffer, making it less likely that Vietnam’s leaders look favorably upon our own history of religious liberty.
religion
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:9
Conservatives Who Spend: Conservatives for years have preached fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. Once in charge, they have rationalized huge spending increases and gigantic growth in the size of government, while supporting a new- found religion that preaches deficits don’t matter. According to Paul O’Neill, the Vice President lectured him that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Conservatives who no longer support balanced budgets and less government should not be called conservatives. Some now are called neo-conservatives. The conservative label merely deceives the many Americans who continuously hope the day of fiscal restraint will come. Yet if this deception is not pointed out, success in curtailing government growth is impossible. Is it any wonder the national debt is $7 trillion and growing by over $600 billion per year? Even today, the only expression of concern for the deficit seems to come from liberals. That ought to tell us something about how far astray we have gone.
religion
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:35
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution. There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my proposed legislation, the We the People Act.
religion
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:24
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination such as that which led to the incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race or religion. But we are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The Federal Government should not be involved in local law enforcement and has no right to discriminate.
religion
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:14
Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.
religion
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:29
A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers-- not the warmongers.
religion
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:36
Since we are not fighting the war to defend our homeland and we abuse so many of our professed principles, we face great difficulties in resolving the growing predicament in which we find ourselves. Our options are few, and admitting errors in judgment is not likely to occur. Moral forces are against us as we find ourselves imposing our will on a people six thousand miles from our shores. How would the American people respond if a foreign country, with people of a different color, religion, and language imposed itself on us to make us conform to their notions of justice and goodness? None of us would sit idly by. This is why those who see themselves as defenders of their homeland and their way of life have the upper hand regardless of the shock and awe military power available to us. At this point our power works perversely. The stronger and more violent we are the greater the resistance becomes.
religion
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:21
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people’s churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.
religion
SUICIDE TERRORISM
July 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 84:6
The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire ”to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland.“
religion
The Iraq War
18 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 104:5
The enemy, they claim, is simply a group of radical Islamic fundamentalists who have hijacked the Muslim religion and declared war against our values for no legitimate or logical reason.
religion
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:10
The toughest task is analyzing what we do from their perspective. We should try harder to place ourselves in the shoes of those who live in the Arab countries where our efforts currently are concentrated. We are outraged by a Muslim country that would even consider the death penalty for a Christian convert, but many Muslims see all that we do as a reflection of Western Christianity which, to them, includes Europe and America. They see everything in terms of religion.
religion
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:11
When our bombs and sanctions kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, they see it as an attack on their religion by Christians. To them our actions represent a crusade to change their culture and their political systems. They do not see us as having noble intentions. Cynicism and realism tell them that we are involved in the Middle East to secure the oil that we need.
religion
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:70
Some are angry because the war is being fought out of Christian duty, yet does not have uniform support from all Christians. Others are angry because they see Christianity as a religion as peace and forgiveness, not war and annihilation of enemies.
religion
Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
11 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 53:8
But what about political ideas? What about religious fanaticism? Are we going to get rid of those? I can think of 1,000 things worse coming from those bad ideas. But who will come down here and say, Just think of the evil of these bad ideas and distorted religions, and therefore we have to regulate the Internet?
religion
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:31
We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.
religion
Is it freedom from religious persecution?
11 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
In the name of making the world safe from religious persecution, Congress will consider legislation which the politicians hope will make the planet safe for religion around the globe, at the American taxpayer's expense. The legislation is the "Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997."
religion
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
The politically correct religion of our nation has become Secular Humanism; although equivalent to a religion, it is incorrectly passed off by our courts and schools as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs and is often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs.
religion
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
Our respect for private property goes to the root of our other freedoms: freedom of speech, of religion, to own weapons, to gather peaceably, and on. Much is made that one should not "yell fire in a crowded theater." And while that is true in a moral sense, it is equally true that the property owner should have the right to disallow people from saying or doing anything in their theater, or even being there in the first place. But today the government dictates not only how we can use the land, but in many cases forces us to allow others to use our property in ways to which we object.
religion
Contentious debate produces rubber-stamp of Kosovo
15 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
In an effort to appease the new federal religion of bipartisanship (I prefer non-partisanship), Republicans agreed to introduce a measure offering complete support to the president and any decision he may make regarding troops in Kosovo. Oddly, though, the measure had no binding legal effect, though it erroneously claimed to "authorize" such actions -- so much for even the notion of congressional oversight! Some Republicans -- including myself -- tried unsuccessfully to change the measure so that it would forbid, not approve, the use of troops.
religion
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Still another provision would ban the sale of "violent" or "sexual" materials (including movies, books, sculptures, games, etc.) to young persons. But how does one reconcile such action with the freedom of press and religion? With difficulty, since "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" though perhaps states could. One might easily imagine a parent taking umbrage at their child being allowed to purchase such scandalous materials as those found in Genesis 19, Joshua 6 or the Samuels. What might prevent a federal judge from banning the sale of Bibles to youth at local bookstores? Or classic literature, such as the "Iliad" or "Hamlet"? All in the name of limiting violent images, right? Chipping away at the First Amendment, in a misguided attempt to protect children by usurping parental responsibility with new federal laws and bureaucracies, is nothing short of dangerous.
religion
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Usually, half of the Congress is quite capable and anxious to defend the First Amendment, and that is good. The First Amendment states plainly that "Congress shall make no laws" to limit free speech, the press, the practice of religion, or the ability of Americans to assemble in protest of their government.
religion
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
Some claim, in the vernacular of political-speak, that it is "marginalizing" for an elected official to hold strongly to the tenets of our Constitution. If it is a political sin to consistently defend free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and freedom from unlawful search and seizure, then perhaps we need more political sinners and fewer political saints.
religion
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Of course it does. For much of our history, we had a more proper understanding of the correct balances in regards to the Constitution. After all, the First Amendment begins with a very important phrase, "Congress shall make no laws…." This phrase was always understood to mean that while the federal government could not create federal laws restricting religion, or use federal monies to give preference to one religious order over another, it specifically does not apply to the state and local governments. In other words, under a correct reading of the Constitution, a state or local government can allow -- or prohibit -- religious expression in public places.
religion
Our Foolish War in the Middle East
20 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 November 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The result of our actions has been a growing resentment of America, for obvious reasons. Sadly, our policies make our soldiers across the globe more vulnerable. No one should be surprised by the terrible USS Cole tragedy. If the administration understood the history of the region, it would see the total folly of anchoring a war vessel in an enemy port. This lack of understanding of Middle Eastern history and religion, combined with our policy of aggression and empire building, has led to a dangerous interventionist attitude.
religion
Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations
05 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The ABC expose aired just days before President Bush announced his plan to allow private charities and religious organizations a greater role in delivering social services currently provided mostly by the federal government. He certainly is correct in his assertion that private groups do a better job of running food banks, day care centers, drug treatment centers, and other social programs. I applaud his desire to transfer funds away from government agencies and into the private sector. I certainly disagree with critics who misunderstand the First amendment and view the President's proposal as a sinister endorsement of religion. Bush especially should be credited for offering an alternative to the status quo, because federal agencies simply do a terrible job of providing social services.
religion
Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations
05 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Second, religious organizations risk the sanctity of their faith when they involve themselves with government. The government will have to decide what religious organizations qualify for federal funds, which puts it in the untenable position of deciding which faiths are legitimate. Would the pro-abortion Health and Human Services department ever surrender funds to a strongly pro-life Catholic charity? Would American taxpayers support funding for an organization viewed by many as a cult, if it ran an efficient soup kitchen? These uncomfortable questions suggest that some faiths would be tempted to change their message to win favor with the government. The liberal collectivists have the argument against the President's proposal all wrong: the danger is not that government will be influenced by religion, but rather that religion will be influenced by government.
religion
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
religion
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Moreover, there is ample evidence that most of our Founders were deeply religious men who never imagined a rigid separation between religious beliefs and governance. Indeed, our national documents, symbols, currency, and buildings are replete with religious symbolism. Our national motto, "In God We Trust," is an obvious example. These symbols are entirely inconsistent with the religion-free government supposedly mandated by the First amendment.
religion
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
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. Bluntly, the use of Elkhart city government property is none of the federal government's business. Yet respect for state rights and enumerated powers, not to mention the property rights of the citizens of Elkhart, is nonexistent in our federal courts. The unchallenged assumption is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over all religious matters.
religion
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The sad result of this misinterpretation of the Constitution is a legal and political landscape which is unnecessarily hostile to religion. Popular culture and media mirror this hostility in their inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The message is always the same: conservatives want to force their religious beliefs upon society. The truth is that secular humanists have forced their beliefs upon a largely religious nation. In schools, in government, and in the courts, secular values dominate. Secularism, wrongly characterized as neutral toward religious faith, has become the default philosophy for our society. The Supreme Court, by refusing to consider the Elkhart case, has furthered the cause of those who wish to see religion eliminated from American life.
religion
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine. The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never intended a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
religion
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths. The collectivist left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. The collectivist left is threatened by strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. People of faith tend to put their religious convictions ahead of any allegiance to the government, particularly when that government displays such hostility towards religion in general. In other words, the collectivists fear that some Americans' deeply held religious beliefs will stand in the way of the continued growth of secular big government. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
religion
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment. It 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.
religion
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
I previously introduced legislation entitled "The First Amendment Restoration Act" to address this kind of judicial overreach and reassert true First amendment religious freedoms. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid expressions of religion, including the Ten Commandments, in either public or private life.
religion
What Really Divides Us?
23 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 December 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.
religion
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law”- a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.
religion
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
religion
Christmas in Secular America
29 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
religion
Christmas in Secular America
29 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
religion
Christmas in Secular America
29 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
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. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
religion
Christmas in Secular America
29 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
religion
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.
religion
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The electoral college threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states- derided as “flyover” country-- tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.
religion
Pro-Life Politics?
28 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 March 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Morality is inherent in law, no matter what the secularists might say. But morality is not inherent in politics. As law professor Butler Shaffer explains, politics is about obtaining power over the lives of others through government force. Thus politics is a rejection of the sanctity of life. So it is a mistake to assume that a pro-life culture develops through political persuasion or government power. Respect for human life originates with individuals acting according to their consciences. A pro-life conscience is fostered by religion, family, and ethics, not government. History teaches us that governments overwhelmingly violate the sanctity of human life rather than uphold it.
religion
Theology, Not Politics
11 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for refusing to accept that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope’s positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.
religion
Theology, Not Politics
11 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 11 ... Cached
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.
religion
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
But what exactly constitutes political activity? What if a member of the clergy urges his congregation to work toward creating a pro-life culture, when an upcoming election features a pro-life candidate? What if a minister admonishes churchgoers that homosexuality is sinful, when an initiative banning gay marriage is on an upcoming ballot? Where exactly do we draw the line, and when does the IRS begin to violate the First amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion?
religion
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine.
religion
Government and Racism
16 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.
religion
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
07 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”
religion
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
07 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.