When people say "Ron Paul thinks Christianity is under attack, he thinks the churches and state should be merged" etc etc, a lot of the time they might link http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html or quote "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."

------------------------------------------

Here is a transcript from an interview where Paul recently talks about 'attack on religion', no theocracy, freedom of religion, and not legislating morality.

 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW_y-3y8YxQ 3mins 5 seconds ) :

---------------------------------------

**Cooper:** I want to play for our viewers a response you had when you were asked about the role of faith in public life, I want to play for our viewers your response:

---- playing clip from debate -----

**Paul:** I think faith has something to do with character of the people [who] represent us and laws should have a moral fibre to it and our leaders should. We shouldn't expect us to try to change morality, you cant teach people how to be moral, but the constitution addresses this by saying literally... says **no theocracy**, but it doesn't talk about church and state. **The most important thing is the 1st amendment**, the congress shall write no laws, which means, congress shall never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.

---- clip ends ---

**Cooper:** In the last part you said there you said congress should never prohibit the expression, or no laws should ever prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public space. Do you think Christianity is under attack in the United States?

**Paul:** I think to some degree.. but ah..

**Cooper:** How so?

**Paul:** There are certain pressures put on Christians, and made fun of ahhh, just subtlety. I don't think in a legislative sense, but ahh.. **The one point I was trying to make there is that you can't legislate morality** and you know, that is what a lot of people want to think we do, we will take our morality and we will... legislate it and make you morally better people, I think that is impossible. But I said what has to have a moral fibre to it is that the law has to have a moral basis to it, and also the people who represent us should have moral character. That's how I think our faith should influence them, but the use of force to make people live better... see, I apply that in economics, I apply that to personal things, and I apply that in foreign policy. It'd be nice if we could remake Afghanistan and maybe improve it, but it doesn't work. The blowback is much... is so painful, that it's much better for us to set a good example, men who have character, men who believe in, in principals and other people may want to emulate us.


-----------------------------------------

**Another Point:**

People either don't understand the word 'rigid', or they are militant about having no religious symbols on public land or spaces, for example, a Christmas tree in a park, or a government worker who has decorations on her desk. Paul correctly says that this absolute (RIGID), meaning no religious symbols anywhere, was never intended.

**Paul fully supports freedom of religion.**