Rick Santorum Ayatollah Rick says he opposes separation between church and state

Agorism

Banned
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
12,663
Santorum: ‘I Don’t Believe In An America Where The Separation Between Church And State Is Absolute

link


Santorum 'almost threw up' after reading JFK speech on separation of church, state...

I don’t believe in an America where the separation between church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and visions of our country.
-Santorum

But does he believe in the separation of Church and Skate?



For your amusement...

Why the Catholic Church (and Ayatollah Rick) oppose contraception.
 
Last edited:
Why should a Church be barred from expressing political opinions? Why is it ok for a PAC, corporation or union to have political opinions and donate money to candidates, endorse and run ads, but if it's a religious organization they risk losing tax exempt status of they do the same?

It's all manipulation and oppresion through the tax code.
 
Flashback:

"Separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution.

========


Did O'Donnell Read the Constitution Right?



Christine O’Donnell has come under criticism for stating that the language of the Constitution has nothing specific about the “separation of church and state, a phrase popularized by Thomas Jefferson, a “Founding Father,” but not one who was involved in drafting the Constitution.​



Bruce Walker | The New American
20 October 2010


Christine O’Donnell has come under criticism for stating that the language of the Constitution has nothing specific about the “separation of church and state.”

The phrase was popularized by Thomas Jefferson, a “Founding Father,” but not one who was involved in drafting the Constitution. Most of us who actually read the short, clear document that is the foundation of our government know that what the First Amendment does is prohibit Congress from establishing any particular religion.

The Founding Fathers assumed that government would be very limited, which is why the nearly all the enumerated powers of Article I are so specific and the “necessary and proper" clause at the end of the list of enumerated powers relates only to those functions mentioned before, like establishing postal roads or setting standard weights and measurements. Why are there no restrictions in Article II or Article III, which deal with the executive and judicial branches respectively? Because the function of those branches was not to set federal policy or law, but only to carry out those laws passed by Congress.

So the Constitution says nothing about the president proclaiming a national religion or about the Supreme Court finding that America has a national religion. The federal government was intended to be a minor — a very minor — part of our system of government. State legislatures, which originally chose senators and which still, on paper, decide how presidential electors are chosen, were given the lion’s share of governmental power as an absolute check on a rogue federal government.

The Civil War and the rise of “progressives” led to the notion that our governmental system must be absolutely uniform throughout all the land. This would have made the Founding Fathers spin in their graves. At the time the Constitution was adopted, half the states had established state churches. This status ended without reference at all to the First Amendment (which limited only federal power), but by reliance upon the will of the people of these various states.

Likewise the Constitution nowhere grants any individual the right to free speech, free assembly, or free press. It says rather that “Congress shall make no law…” concerning those areas of liberty. State governments had unlimited authority to restrict the press, to limit speech, and otherwise to limit individual liberty. It is a testament to the rewriting of history that we have come to assume that if the federal government did not protect our liberties, we would have no liberties at all. In fact, long before the Constitution was adopted, individual states enacted their own bills of rights which are, more or less, similar to the federal Bill of Rights. But it was state liberty that preceded federal liberty, not the other way around.

Now we have reached the point where the Supreme Court arbitrates how the Constitution — through mythical “incorporation” of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states — permits state governments to do this or that. Instead of the simple language of our foundational document, which Christine O’Donnell correctly notes says nothing about separation of church and state — nothing about state governments at all — and which relates only to a power denied Congress, the pundits of progressive thinking rely upon federal judges, our new lords and kings, to declare what ordinary words really mean. It is almost as if our Founding Fathers had written the liberating documents of American life in Sanskrit and deferred all answers on meaning to an anticipated caste of Brahmins.

Read also: O'Donnell's 'Gaffe' on the First Amendment


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/4951-did-odonell-read-the-constitution-right
 
Rick banning contraception, porn, gay bashing etc is limiting freedoms as well.

When has he called for a federal ban on any of them?

I bet you Ron also personally opposes all of them.


And how does that in any way justify you saying to Constitution should be amended to ban the God-given right to expression if it has to do with religion?
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't. Why would states then have the right to ban drugs or alcohol? States do have the constitutional power to ban certain substances, the federal government does not without a constitutional amendment.

No states don't have the right to ban any commerce what so ever.
 
I'm not sure on that.

,but if it's not in the Constitution, it should be.

The founding fathers disagreed, thats why its not in the constitution. The government shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion or the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Thats what it says. Very clear. Very plain. anti-religious bigots please exit left america is not for you. Thanks.
 
No states don't have the right to ban any commerce what so ever.

Yes they do. Why do you think Ron Paul days drug policy is a state issue? It's because states have the power to ban or legalize drugs. Why were states able to ban alcohol before a constitutional amendment made prohibition nationwide? Why are there still some dry counties? State government does have the power to ban substances.
 
Commerce clause was reinterpreted during the New Deal to allow the government to regulate interstate commerce, which was bad.

Neither states not federal government should get to regulate commerce.
 
Commerce clause was reinterpreted during the New Deal to allow the government to regulate interstate commerce, which was bad.

Update:

Neither states not federal government should get to regulate commerce.

Wait, did you just prove yourself wrong?

You just said the Government took away the power of the states, "which was bad."

I agree... That was bad. The States DO have the authority.
 
Last edited:
Commerce clause was reinterpreted during the New Deal to allow the government to regulate interstate commerce, which was bad.

Neither states not federal government should get to regulate commerce.

Now you're backtracking on your previous argument. States do have the right to regulate intrastate commerce, the federal government does have the power to regulate interstate commerce. The New Deal era, however, grossly distorted the federal government's reach into intrastate commerce.
 
Back
Top