I don't know the quote, but it is possible he was trying to say that the drafters of both made references to God that could only suggest they were not as hostile towards religion as many atheists (constitutional noobs) are today.
I found one "GOD" in The Declaration of Independence. ... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ... What document is more important?
wow..cherrypickers. lol u people make me laugh...communism(socialism) is evil. mike badnarik said it maybe you should learn about liberty...or move to russia
"Replete with reverences to God" is certainly a strange statement when taken literally. God is referenced in most state constitutions though. I like Jefferson's version of Christianity, which is expressed in the Jefferson Bible. He got rid of everything except the actual teachings of Jesus. The result is practically secular Christianity. As other people have mentioned though, Ron Paul's voting record says much more than this little statement. However, I would like to hear his answer.
The other question is, how do you take the beliefs out of the man? Must all be humanists before they can be in politics? Then, where, and from whom, do the established morals come?
But, in the end, Dr Paul is the best one to answer your question.
You are absolutely correct! No one has found any wavering on that issues, yet. The constitution says we have the right to our chosen religion, to paraphrase it. Atheist, Christian, or whatever.
But, the writings of the founding fathers had a lot of references to God, as well as the separtion of church and state (Jefferson, I think it was). When the government starts changing the celebration of each religion's holidays, they have stepped over the line. They are "establshing " something that affects the "free practice thereof" That is how a republic prevents the tyranny of the democracy. The religions in this country cannot be oppressed by anyone.
And by the way- what a stupid question. It boils down to that at worst he would have to say- "Oh did I say both documents? I meant the first." WOW- you've really got him up against the wall now. I think he just lost the race!! What a hypocrite!! What a bad person he is!! He's trying to make us all Christian!!! This proves it!! NOOOOOooooOOOoOOOOoO!
Hey, the guy just asked an honest question and if Paul answers it satisfactorily then great. Nobobdy wants someone who "is perfect in all ways" for president anymore. They just want an honest guy and fiscal responsiblity and open mind.
But he accuses him in the question. He doesn't ask for clarification in a nice way- he is calling him an idiot implied in the tone. As in "Just who the hell do you think you are Ron Paul? I'm a 20 yr old twerp and I'll tell YOU what's what." I admit I'm overdoing it- I got pissed off by a piss ant. Sorry to you all (but not to him, I'm not that grown up yet).
But the quote includes the Declaration and the drafters are one and the same!!!! So he got one word wrong- "both"? If it's even wrong. My god- you know nothing about the real world, you're tone is so condescending to this man and you don't have the wisdom to know how much you should be paying him your respect. All I'm asking is ask a question- leave out the accusational tone and condescension.
These documents define UNALIENABLE rights. These are rights granted by "the creator" and are rights that cannot be taken away by the government. That's the main point of these documents- to make sure we know god gave us our rights so they cannot be taken away. Do more research and get your facts straight. You're question isn't a question at all, its an accusation. You're not asking this to learn- you're mind is made up- and you're WRONG!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That is a quote from the Declaration of Indepence, not the Constitution. The laws of the US are based upon the Constitution, not the Declaration of Indepence. My question is asking him to explain his statement that the US Constitution contains "replete" references to a god.
Actually the article says "Declaration of Independence and the Constitution". The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. Even if it wasn't, are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights mentions a god?
Don't take me literally on the god thing- as in any god written down in any book. I'm not a moron. By God I mean the creator- whatever thing person being or energy blast that gave us life- gave us our unalienable rights.
No, I am going to take you literally on it because all of the references to a god are in the Declaration of Independence, *not* the Constitution. The legal system of the US is not based upon the Declaration of Independence, it's based upon the Constitution...there's a difference.
sure whatever guy. I explain more in other comments. But I think it must have been a huge effort for you to read this one, so I won't ask for more mental effort on your part. You might get hurt, break a vessel in your brain.. well, small brain.
but this comment lent a lot to the conversation? "Is this the best you can do? I think pu8l1u5 schooled you." You didn't reference a single point. I couldn't respond because I don't know what your issue is with what I said. That means this is an insult and serves no other purpose. Your hypocrisy makes you look, well, foolish.
ok I see what you were saying. You no likey my masterbation comment. whoops. Still I answer his point down below. If you would read the whole thread you'll know.
I guess this goes to show why most politicians don't speak their minds. If they do, people can pick though hundreds of articles for any mistakes made, years or decades afterwards.
Saying the US Constitution is "replete with references to God" is not just any little mistake. Anyone who has honestly read the document knows the only reference to a god is in the date. Therefore, he has either not read the Constitution or he is intentionally misrepresenting facts by substituting his own interpretation. I think the latter is the case.
No matter how much you want to nitpick about one or two words can you tell me one action in the 20+ years of service that has he taken that has ever infringed upon anyones religion? You're whole point is totally pointless. He will always protect your right to live your life in any way you want. Give me a break- stop trying to be so intellectual and look at the facts on the ground.
Dr. Paul has been in congress for 10 terms! And for 10 terms he has not imposed his religious views. Please find ONE legislation that he voted for or wrote that he promoted his religion over 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."
yeah... did you stop to think that nobody can challenge the government on any issue, religious or otherwise? But that it shouldn't matter, because the government was given no explicit power regarding religion? Did you know that the bill of rights is completely redundant? Take a look at the ninth amendment. If you don't want religion in schools, take it out of the curriculum, just like you would with any material you don't like
Its not his own interpretation; its a literal error, and one easily disproved. I seriously doubt he was somehow trying to fool people by that error. He probably made the common mistake assuming "so help me god" was part of the presidential oath, when it is actually added by people speaking the oath.
Paul actually makes factual errors when speaking pretty often, though his overall themes are usually always correct.
Obviously, Dr. Paul was thinking about the Declaration of Independence with its replete references to God. As far as the establishment clause, if you read jefferson's letters, you find out the establishment clause was just against establishing a Church of the USA. One again the atheists/marxists are intolerant of others beliefs.
Making an honest mistake and then quickly correcting it is not the same as leaving a factually incorrect article on your official website for 3.5 years.
What does the Establishment Clause have to do with any of this?
This isn't "speak[ing] [his] mind", this is trying to validate his own religious fanaticism by citing a respected source for support (i.e., the Constitution). Thus, it is highly relevant that he has gravely misquoted the source.
Uhh.. no it isn't. You are totally wrong. Again, look at his voting record for 20 years. Never has he gone against the constitution therefore never has he tried to impose a religion on anyone- ever. That's a pretty weak attempt at spreading disinfo. Actions speak louder than lame comments on youtube.
I don't know the quote, but it is possible he was trying to say that the drafters of both made references to God that could only suggest they were not as hostile towards religion as many atheists (constitutional noobs) are today.
dquijano 4 years ago
and what about the Declaration of Independence? put the bong down and read it. then you can share your pseudo-collegiate wisdom.
FrankySlims 4 years ago
I found one "GOD" in The Declaration of Independence. ... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ... What document is more important?
WhiteWidowMaker9 4 years ago
nice question...nice hair
pierpointcove 4 years ago
wow..cherrypickers. lol u people make me laugh...communism(socialism) is evil. mike badnarik said it maybe you should learn about liberty...or move to russia
WiiPlusPoketeam1 4 years ago
ok dumb ass, why don't you just go live your life under the control of the government. have fun.
marco114 4 years ago
Excellent Video -- He wants to combine Church and State?!!! Bloody Idiot. Can't believe you Americans live in this sort of a country.
rahdisas 4 years ago
well said!
jonnystranger 4 years ago
"Replete with reverences to God" is certainly a strange statement when taken literally. God is referenced in most state constitutions though. I like Jefferson's version of Christianity, which is expressed in the Jefferson Bible. He got rid of everything except the actual teachings of Jesus. The result is practically secular Christianity. As other people have mentioned though, Ron Paul's voting record says much more than this little statement. However, I would like to hear his answer.
theuniverseas 4 years ago
The other question is, how do you take the beliefs out of the man? Must all be humanists before they can be in politics? Then, where, and from whom, do the established morals come?
But, in the end, Dr Paul is the best one to answer your question.
mlang52 4 years ago
It's simple- just follow the constitution. And he has for over 20 years, without fail.. ever.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
Tbag4U
You are absolutely correct! No one has found any wavering on that issues, yet. The constitution says we have the right to our chosen religion, to paraphrase it. Atheist, Christian, or whatever.
mlang52 4 years ago
But, the writings of the founding fathers had a lot of references to God, as well as the separtion of church and state (Jefferson, I think it was). When the government starts changing the celebration of each religion's holidays, they have stepped over the line. They are "establshing " something that affects the "free practice thereof" That is how a republic prevents the tyranny of the democracy. The religions in this country cannot be oppressed by anyone.
mlang52 4 years ago
Great question. Hope he answers it
SatwaDude 4 years ago
And by the way- what a stupid question. It boils down to that at worst he would have to say- "Oh did I say both documents? I meant the first." WOW- you've really got him up against the wall now. I think he just lost the race!! What a hypocrite!! What a bad person he is!! He's trying to make us all Christian!!! This proves it!! NOOOOOooooOOOoOOOOoO!
Tbag4U 4 years ago
seriously
lojpre 4 years ago
now how's THAT for foolish? :D
Tbag4U 4 years ago
heh
lojpre 4 years ago
although upon reading your foolish comments i better distance myself from you
lojpre 4 years ago
poop
Tbag4U 4 years ago
Hey, the guy just asked an honest question and if Paul answers it satisfactorily then great. Nobobdy wants someone who "is perfect in all ways" for president anymore. They just want an honest guy and fiscal responsiblity and open mind.
SatwaDude 4 years ago
But he accuses him in the question. He doesn't ask for clarification in a nice way- he is calling him an idiot implied in the tone. As in "Just who the hell do you think you are Ron Paul? I'm a 20 yr old twerp and I'll tell YOU what's what." I admit I'm overdoing it- I got pissed off by a piss ant. Sorry to you all (but not to him, I'm not that grown up yet).
Tbag4U 4 years ago
But the quote includes the Declaration and the drafters are one and the same!!!! So he got one word wrong- "both"? If it's even wrong. My god- you know nothing about the real world, you're tone is so condescending to this man and you don't have the wisdom to know how much you should be paying him your respect. All I'm asking is ask a question- leave out the accusational tone and condescension.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
These documents define UNALIENABLE rights. These are rights granted by "the creator" and are rights that cannot be taken away by the government. That's the main point of these documents- to make sure we know god gave us our rights so they cannot be taken away. Do more research and get your facts straight. You're question isn't a question at all, its an accusation. You're not asking this to learn- you're mind is made up- and you're WRONG!
Tbag4U 4 years ago
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That is a quote from the Declaration of Indepence, not the Constitution. The laws of the US are based upon the Constitution, not the Declaration of Indepence. My question is asking him to explain his statement that the US Constitution contains "replete" references to a god.
pu8l1u5 4 years ago
And by the way- the quote says Constitution and bill of rights. You don't even have your facts straight. You're a tool.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
Actually the article says "Declaration of Independence and the Constitution". The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. Even if it wasn't, are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights mentions a god?
pu8l1u5 4 years ago
Don't take me literally on the god thing- as in any god written down in any book. I'm not a moron. By God I mean the creator- whatever thing person being or energy blast that gave us life- gave us our unalienable rights.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
No, I am going to take you literally on it because all of the references to a god are in the Declaration of Independence, *not* the Constitution. The legal system of the US is not based upon the Declaration of Independence, it's based upon the Constitution...there's a difference.
pu8l1u5 4 years ago
WOw- you are just sooo smart. Do you look at your own pictures when you masturbate? I think you do.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
Is this the best you can do? I think pu8l1u5 schooled you.
PrepeiNaSasPw 4 years ago
sure whatever guy. I explain more in other comments. But I think it must have been a huge effort for you to read this one, so I won't ask for more mental effort on your part. You might get hurt, break a vessel in your brain.. well, small brain.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
hey, hey, now, don't get all worked up...these kinds of insults don't lend much (anything) to your argument and make you look, well, foolish.
PrepeiNaSasPw 4 years ago
but this comment lent a lot to the conversation? "Is this the best you can do? I think pu8l1u5 schooled you." You didn't reference a single point. I couldn't respond because I don't know what your issue is with what I said. That means this is an insult and serves no other purpose. Your hypocrisy makes you look, well, foolish.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
ok I see what you were saying. You no likey my masterbation comment. whoops. Still I answer his point down below. If you would read the whole thread you'll know.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
I guess this goes to show why most politicians don't speak their minds. If they do, people can pick though hundreds of articles for any mistakes made, years or decades afterwards.
glbeaty 4 years ago
Saying the US Constitution is "replete with references to God" is not just any little mistake. Anyone who has honestly read the document knows the only reference to a god is in the date. Therefore, he has either not read the Constitution or he is intentionally misrepresenting facts by substituting his own interpretation. I think the latter is the case.
pu8l1u5 4 years ago
No matter how much you want to nitpick about one or two words can you tell me one action in the 20+ years of service that has he taken that has ever infringed upon anyones religion? You're whole point is totally pointless. He will always protect your right to live your life in any way you want. Give me a break- stop trying to be so intellectual and look at the facts on the ground.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
Dr. Paul has been in congress for 10 terms! And for 10 terms he has not imposed his religious views. Please find ONE legislation that he voted for or wrote that he promoted his religion over the constitution.
Aggie254 4 years ago
"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."
Source: house.go v/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr061302.htm
He's not promoting his religion over the Constitution. He just doesn't want anyone to be able to challenge the government on religious issues.
pu8l1u5 4 years ago
yeah... did you stop to think that nobody can challenge the government on any issue, religious or otherwise? But that it shouldn't matter, because the government was given no explicit power regarding religion? Did you know that the bill of rights is completely redundant? Take a look at the ninth amendment. If you don't want religion in schools, take it out of the curriculum, just like you would with any material you don't like
lojpre 4 years ago
Its not his own interpretation; its a literal error, and one easily disproved. I seriously doubt he was somehow trying to fool people by that error. He probably made the common mistake assuming "so help me god" was part of the presidential oath, when it is actually added by people speaking the oath.
Paul actually makes factual errors when speaking pretty often, though his overall themes are usually always correct.
glbeaty 4 years ago
Obviously, Dr. Paul was thinking about the Declaration of Independence with its replete references to God. As far as the establishment clause, if you read jefferson's letters, you find out the establishment clause was just against establishing a Church of the USA. One again the atheists/marxists are intolerant of others beliefs.
doctorbonkers 4 years ago
Making an honest mistake and then quickly correcting it is not the same as leaving a factually incorrect article on your official website for 3.5 years.
What does the Establishment Clause have to do with any of this?
Who says I'm an atheist or a Marxist?
pu8l1u5 4 years ago
This isn't "speak[ing] [his] mind", this is trying to validate his own religious fanaticism by citing a respected source for support (i.e., the Constitution). Thus, it is highly relevant that he has gravely misquoted the source.
PrepeiNaSasPw 4 years ago
Uhh.. no it isn't. You are totally wrong. Again, look at his voting record for 20 years. Never has he gone against the constitution therefore never has he tried to impose a religion on anyone- ever. That's a pretty weak attempt at spreading disinfo. Actions speak louder than lame comments on youtube.
Tbag4U 4 years ago
Wow, you are really cute. I love your hair.
Good question.
DblOSmith 4 years ago
umm...thanks
pu8l1u5 4 years ago