Christian theocrats love to cherry-pick quotes from the Founding Fathers. An especially common tactic is to take deistic statements and present them as theistic ones. The sites to which I linked explain this in greater detail.

The claim that secularists are fascists who want to forcibly eradicate all vestiges of religion from public view is ludicrous. What we secularists (whether atheists like myself or theists like Rev. Barry Lynn) want is to eliminate all instances in which the government uses public property (funds, land, or any other resource) to promote religion.

If you want to set up a nativity scene on your lawn, go for it. I’m entitled to my opinion that it would be a silly shrine to an imaginary deity. You are entitled to use your resources (land, money, and time) to promote your worldview. I’d never attempt to use the force of government to intrude upon your use of your property.

Public property, however, is a whole ‘nother ball game. Government buildings, town squares, etc. are financed through taxation. They belong to all of us. You have no right to force me to financially support your delusion.

If you’re going to claim that I “want to restrict the rights of people to worship just because [I] disagree with religion”, you need to back up that claim with evidence. Christianity’s delusions of grandeur are bad enough, but its delusions of persecution are downright absurd.

You can go to your churches, sing to your invisible friend, put money in offering plates, pray for people, support missionaries, or engage in any other religious activity which doesn’t infringe upon my rights. You just can’t use my tax dollars to do it.

I plan to write up and publish my analysis of the candidates once the Republicans and Democrats have made their official nominations. I don’t want to spend too much time speculating about everyone in the field at the moment.

Personally, I’m starting to think that there are only two ways to end the tyrannical rule of our corrupt two-party system:

1. Get the electorate to ignore Lindsay Lohan and American Idol for three [expletive] seconds and actually become responsible, informed voters.

2. Revolutionary War II. ‘Nuff said.

I suppose it’s a fuzzy line. The article points out the 1962 that changes the word “church” to “public religious activity”, which is clearly not the same. Maybe you think it should be changed to do that. Either way, that’s not what the constitution says, and I think Ron Paul is just clarifying this. After all, there are clergy in the military for the troops, and religion smattered throughout government programs. Surely, denying such things as christmas trees and menorahs in airports is not liberty but Facism. I think this is the hostility Ron Paul is talking about.

In conclusion, it seems strange to reject Ron Paul when you agree with so much that he has to say. It seems stranger that as a libertarian you want to restrict the rights of people to worship just because you disagree with religion. What is it that you’re scared of? A Ron Paul government would not have your kids be born into a state church like the anglican church, and they can’t force you to join or give money to churches. He voted no on Bush’s faith based initiative calling it “a neo con project [that] repackages and expands the welfare state”. Finally, you shouldn’t reject Ron Paul because he has a very thoughtful, shared, and orthodox reading of the Founding Fathers. If he did use the word Christian, perhaps that was out of line since your comment on theist/deist was correct from my understanding, but perhaps I’m wrong because I’m not the “Champion of the Constitution”.