Ron Reagan, Jr. Lies about Founding Fathers and Religion

Ron Reagan, Jr. announces that he's an "unabashed atheist" and "unafraid of burning in hell," but also erroneously states that the Founding Fathers (of the USA) were supportive of "freedom FROM religion" (emphasis added).  Sorry Mr. Reagan, but the Founding Fathers actually actually supported "freedom OF religion."  THAT is what is protected by the US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and other founding documents.
From the Bill of Rights:

Amendment One: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

John Adams, our second president:

1788 - A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America: The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians.

1798 - Address to the militia of Massachusetts:  We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention Delegate and signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence:

1787 - Address at the Constitutional Convention:  I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

Alexander Hamilton, first US Secretary of the Treasury,

1802 - Letter to James Bayard:  In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.

Patrick Henry, Member of First Continental Congress; Governor of Virginia,

Letter to Archibald Blair:  The great pillars of all government...[are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. 

George Washington, First President of the United States, Commander of the Revolutionary Army,

1796 - Farewell Address:  Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

In short, completely contrary to what Mr. Reagan, Jr. attests to!   The Founding Fathers were quite fond of supporting religion!  What they not support was a state established religion and there are some out of context quotes which people like Ron Reagan, Jr. like to cite, but in context the Fathers are saying there was to be no "Church of State" as in the European model.  The American experiment was founded upon laws which protect religion, specifically Christian religion, and officially opposes ANY restriction of the free exercise thereof.  If the people wish to assemble, even on "public" ground, and recognize God - the First Amendment absolutely protects that RIGHT.  What Mr. Reagan, Jr. supports is the creation of laws which are in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights.  Does Mr. Reagan, Jr. believe that the majority of Americans are so stupid they would just accept him at his word?  Sorry "Little Ronny," but you're only fooling the foolish and those who want your paradigm to be true.

I would not be so proud to announce your lack of fear of burning in Hell, while you may not believe in it - that does not change the reality of it.  May God have mercy on your soul and give you the grace to see the folly of your ways.


Scott Windsor<<<

Governor Brewer Vetoes SB1062

Thank you, Governor Brewer!  The SB1062 legislation was not well written being too broadly expressed, which you nailed exactly when you announced the veto of the bill.  While I do support religious freedom, this bill was the wrong thing at the wrong time - and - the way it was written could have led to serious discrimination issues.  It took some courage to veto a bill put forward by fellow Republicans, but really - all it took was common sense, and you showed that.  Thank you again.

Scott Windsor

Right To Health Care?

An interesting topic posted from Facebook...

"You have a 'right' to pursue the best health care you can afford to get for yourself.  Beyond that, there is not, and can not be a "right" to something that involves the labor of other people. "Health Care" is the labor of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technnology engineers, etc. And claiming a 'right' to their labors is to regard them as slaves. Neither can a 'right' be determined to the labors of other people (in the form of their money) to pay for one's health care. The very concept defies logic and that is the very simple argument we should all make when confronted with this garbage. The same goes for Welfare and any other 'right' that imposes upon other individuals to provide the benefit."

While I could not find the exact quote put in quotes above, I believe I found an article which sums up his point to a "T":  

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=13873

Another added this comment:

"I agree with your stance on government subsidized healthcare, but I'm curious how you would address the tax benefits afforded to churches and religious organizations using the same logic. My inkling is there would be a bit of a double standard."

To which I responded:

First off, you conceded the initial point - but then changed the subject. While getting a tax benefit can be seen as a subsidy, that was not the original point. The point was that calling healthcare a "right" (Constitution of the United States) when it is chiefly the labors of those in the healthcare industry is in reality taking the "rights" (Constitution...) of those who provide the services away from them. It is to take *ownership*, or "making slaves" of those persons and/or their skills. With that in mind, your question has pretty much hijacked the original discussion point.
The further (original) point is that this is the same as any *welfare* system which demands that others pay for the *wants* of others. I hesitate to call it *needs* anymore, for no one "needs" a cell phone, yet we're paying for cell phones for those who cannot afford them. We subsidize the food for many individuals who turn around and use money on drugs which they could have spent on food. I have no problem being there for an individual or family who needs help in an extra-ordinary situation, and that was the original purpose for welfare. It is not intended to be a "cradle-to-grave" (Adams, Henry) subsidy, or in other words - it was not to become the *ordinary* which it has become.
Now, to sort of tie-in the diversive point... The traditional role of providing for these *needs* of individuals and families *was* and to a large part *still is* the responsibility of religious organizations! Catholic Social Services and the St. Vincent dePaul organizations, to name a couple, are huge *providers* to those *in need.*
The REAL problem here, and more on the original point, "using the same logic,"  such *welfare* has become the expectation and the norm for many in society. It has gone beyond a temporary means of assistance to this "cradle-to-grave" (Adams, Henry) mentality. It has become to be thought of as a "right" (Constitution...) which has essentially takes the will of those caught up in this system, and breaks it, "broken, as the colt dies in harness, taking a new nature in becoming tame...” (Adams, Henry).

The person who wrote the (what I called "hijacked") point responded to me stating:

I've never seen someone go to such great lengths to miss the point. Congratulations. I didn't "hijack" his discussion point. I spoke to the core of the issue. Even with Obamacare enacted, those in the healthcare field will still be paid for their labor. A far cry from slavery. More to the original point is the undue hardship it puts on the entire system and more importantly the taxpayers who have to pay to subsidize the income of the healthcare worker. To be clear, I'm a proponent of smaller government, much smaller. 

Then we should put the breaks on and even repeal "Obamacare."   You claim to speak to "the core of the issue" - but the original point had nothing to do with religion.  To say I "missed the point" is a bit humorous, since I brought the discussion BACK to the original point AND incorporated the additional topic you brought up!  That being said, I believe what you've just said puts us in agreement!  "The undue hardship it puts on the entire system and more importantly the taxpayers who have to pay to subsidize the income of the health care worker."  THAT statement is completely in line with the original point of this discussion!
  
Footnotes:

Adams, Henry qtd. on: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/240528-from-cradle-to-grave-this-problem-of-running-order-through

Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights http://constitutionus.com/

Addendum, 5/13/2013:

> How can you reconcile your stance on subsidized
> healthcare with your stance on subsidized
> religious organizations without some mental
> gymnastics?

Simple, you're comparing apples to oranges.  Health care organizations (I work for one) are getting literally millions of dollars, per organization, in direct subsidy.  Can you name a religious organization which is getting DIRECT subsidy, especially in the millions of dollars?  Each hospital is getting funded, dollar for dollar, for everything they are spending on converting to electronic health records; and the catch is they HAVE to do this - for if they don't then soon comes the penalty phase of the EHR - where if you DON'T have a viable one in place, you will LOSE millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements!  There is no such thing going on in religious organizations.  The minor percentage of what a hospital MIGHT have to pay taxes on (and there ARE "for profit" hospitals which DO file taxes) would be easily countered by what they "write off" as uncollectable from the uninsured and under-insured.  In the end, they'd pay no significant taxes, if any, even as "for profit" hospitals.

Actually, some religious organizations, namely the Catholic Church, are being forced by the government to subsidize things (like abortion and contraception) which are completely contrary to their doctrines.  Veiling it as "their insurance companies pay for it, not them," is a joke - whom do you think pays the premiums to the insurance companies?!  How about those who self-insure?

> Sorry for taking the conversation in a
> different direction. I had no idea it would be
> this hard for you to follow.

1) Thank you for admitting you took it in a different direction!  That's ALL I was saying when I said you "hijacked" the topic.  It was hijacked too, because Jr., et. al., followed you down the rabbit trail.

2) It wasn't hard to follow at all.  I followed it perfectly - I merely pointed out that it was a different direction from the original topic.  Well, I also have been pointing out the differences between direct and indirect government subsidy.

> For me it seemed a much more interesting tangent
> seeing as how we already agreed on the healthcare
> issue.

Interesting, but as you say - a tangent.