Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

[eduardo89]

How anybody thinks this guy could beat Obama in the general is beyond me. The Bible-thumping stuff won't fly at all. He's probably the least electable out of the 4 guys left, yes even Gingerich.

Except he's completely right on this issue...

 

[raider4paul]

It's funny how people take quotes out of context.



I agree with him, there is no reason why faith has to be prohibited from tr public sphere. The 1st Amendment was put into place to protect the churches from the state. It makes me want to throw up when I see prohibitions against prayer in school or the display of the 10 Commandments on public property.

I agree with this, that's what I got out of what he said.

I don't think Frothy is implying that he would support an official religion or laws forcing people to go to church or anything like that. He's simply saying it's ridiculous that religious people should have to hide their faith in order to be in the public eye, and I tend to agree. There's nothing wrong with somebody using their religious value to determine policy so long as it doesn't force anybody to do something they are objected to.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Santorum has already attacked "mainline Protestants". We know he doesn't like Muslims. No doubt he makes snide remarks about Mormons. There's no way he would tolerate Rastafarians or Pagans. Who is next on his hit list? Hindus? Buddhists? Sikhs? Zoroastrians? As President of the Holy American Empire, when would he turn on his Jewish backers?

I hear ya. This is why I like Dr. Paul's approach to not pandering to religious groups. I think he should let it be known he is a very religious man in principle, but reassure that his religious beliefs are not going to be imposed upon other Americans and their individual liberties. We all know this about Dr. Paul, but many Americans who are fearful of overly zealous religious candidates may not know this about his ideals and principles. If they did he would rob Santorum of the support he has and the support he is losing with this kind of campaign strategy.

 

[Evangelical_Protestant]

Separation of church and state protects the church. I agree with Ender. In public schools a group of kids wanting to pray, or erect a banner at a football game does not violate separation of church and state contrary to the rules that are imposed upon us by the state today.

My issue with Santorum's comment is ; even if santorum got his wish and the "church" and the state were unified, what if his "church" elected a pope who suddenly changed his mind and decided to worship satan [just trying to make a point], but then the church and state are already unified, therefore all the people who used to be a part of santorum's "church" by choice and no longer want to be because their leader has embraced satan are still bound by this satanic church because this new satanic church is ingrained within our state forcing everyone to be a part of it.

My point is, just because you currently support a certain church with a good leader at one point in time, does not mean that in the future this same certain church will continue to have a good leader. The founding fathers were very much aware of this fact because they and their grandparents/parents had recently been under the persecution of the church of England which said at the time that it was impossible to be saved if you were not a member of the church of england. It was not that the founding fathers were not religious, they were, but they wanted to sing a song in a different key, or play a certain musical instrument when giving praise to the Lord and the church of england said "NO, our way or NO WAY" if the citizenry felt the Holy Spirit and wanted to give glory to God, they could not without approval of church leaders.

This is why the founding fathers of America decided to take religion out of government all together. They knew if they ruled with a state church, that it would be fair and fine, but it was what they learned through history that lead them to make the wise decision of expelling politics from religion.

END GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF EDUCATION
END GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF RELIGION
END GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL DEFENSE WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS, TRANSPORTATION, COLLECTION OF TAXES [WHICH ARE ONLY TO BE COLLECTED TO SUPPORT VALID INFRASTRUCTURE], AND LOCAL POLICE FORCES WHICH ARE ENTIRELY TRANSPARENT AND BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT WHOSE AGENTS HAVE NO MORE AUTHORITY THAN THE COMMON MAN UNDER THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION.

AMEN

 

[Yieu]

I realize the quote was taken out of context, but I feel it is important to make a point here regarding the thread's title and not the actual quote:

A lack of separation of church and state means giving special favors to one group over everyone else. That means oppression and tyranny toward the non-favored class.

The separation of church and state means the State cannot tell you what religion to be, or what religious symbols you can bear or where you can bear them.

The separation of church and state means that people of all religions are treated equally under the law, and that there is no favored class that is treated better.

A lack of separation of church and state means tyranny through collectivism. It means there being laws on the books designed against people not in the favored religion. It means killing people or locking people up based on their not belonging to the favored religion.

A proper understanding of this would send anyone who cares about liberty running screaming from a lack of separation of church and state.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Except he's completely right on this issue...

And, whether we like it or not, it does cause people who feel threatened to rally around Santorum. Not enough people to win a general election, but enough people to box out Ron Paul, perhaps.

People who attack Santorum openly on this issue would do well to realize that Christianity has been on a decline in the U.S., and strategically, Santorum is doing exactly what he needs to do to win—find that threatened group and exploit them for votes. I hate it that those Christians are going to be used and then cast aside after Santorum is in office, but, that happens to the Christian right every election.

 

[Voluntary Man]

i'm thinking he should move to vatican city.

Maybe if he told his clueless evangelical supporters (the ones who don't even know he's Catholic) that he plans to put the Pope in his fantasy cabinet, they'd say the same thing.




...actually though, if the Pope were otherwise Constitutionally qualified for the US Presidency, there is no legal impediment to prevent him from holding both offices simultaneously -- the unlikelihood of his election aside.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

I realize the quote was taken out of context, but I feel it is important to make a point here regarding the thread's title and not the actual quote:

A lack of separation of church and state means giving special favors to one group over everyone else. That means oppression and tyranny toward the non-favored class.

The separation of church and state means the State cannot tell you what religion to be, or what religious symbols you can bear or where you can bear them.

The separation of church and state means that people of all religions are treated equally under the law, and that there is no favored class that is treated better.

A lack of separation of church and state means tyranny through collectivism. It means there being laws on the books designed against people not in the favored religion. It means killing people or locking people up based on their not belonging to the favored religion.

A proper understanding of this would send anyone who cares about liberty running screaming from a lack of separation of church and state.

Now this is also the way I would see it as well. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Evangelical_Protestant]

I think he should let it be known he is a very religious man in principle, but reassure that his religious beliefs are not going to be imposed upon other Americans and their individual liberties.

If Ron Paul continues to speak the truth. He already has imposed his religion on the nation. The thing with Ron Paul is, is that he serves the one and only God of truth as far as I can tell. The irony of the non-religious, or people of other religions, is that if they receive Ron's message and understand it, they become filled with hope and awe of what the man has to say. But nothing he says contradicts his faith. People who love Ron's message also often unknowingly love the message Jesus. Peace, Truth, Love, Compassion, Humility, Life, Understanding, these are the core of Paul's message. This core represents the truth, and the truth always wins. Liars delay the victory, but truth ALWAYS wins. Truth cuts deep, and once one hears it, it is impossible to return to a lie, absolutely impossible. This is the reason why you hardly ever hear of a former Ron Paul supporter, but the other candidates percentages of support fluctuates between them daily.

Read the story of David and Goliath in the book of first Samuel starting in chapter seventeen. Win you read it, remember truth always wins, the devil is very large and imposing, and you cannot do it alone, you need a Rock, the Rock of Truth, and in order to defeat lies and satan, you need to insert this Rock of Truth in their heads.

Glory is to God. The Truth.

 

[affa]

It's funny how people take quotes out of context.



I agree with him, there is no reason why faith has to be prohibited from tr public sphere. The 1st Amendment was put into place to protect the churches from the state. It makes me want to throw up when I see prohibitions against prayer in school or the display of the 10 Commandments on public property.

can we put an atheistic statement next to those 10 Commandments? How about something nice and Muslim?

 

[flightlesskiwi]

And, whether we like it or not, it does cause people who feel threatened to rally around Santorum. Not enough people to win a general election, but enough people to box out Ron Paul, perhaps.

People who attack Santorum openly on this issue would do well to realize that Christianity has been on a decline in the U.S., and strategically, Santorum is doing exactly what he needs to do to win—find that threatened group and exploit them for votes. I hate it that those Christians are going to be used and then cast aside after Santorum is in office, but, that happens to the Christian right every election.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance153.html

Should Christians be concerned about the views of candidates for public office? Certainly. Are they justified in trying to find candidates who are pro-life and favor traditional values? Of course. But they should also be interested in how candidates stand on liberty, the Constitution, and limited government.

Christians should strive to be accurately informed about the views of candidates on issues of importance. Unfortunately, the Christian Coalition's voter guides fall short. They merely serve to perpetuate the myth that the Republican Party is the party of God instead of the party of interventionism, militarism, debt, deficits, the military-industrial complex, corporate welfare, crony capitalism, and compromise after compromise when it comes to more liberty and less government.

 

[Evangelical_Protestant]

can we put an atheistic statement next to those 10 Commandments? How about something nice and Muslim?

This might actually be a good idea. The truth does seem to stand out more clearly when it is surrounded against a backdrop of lies. Very interesting, thank you for bringing this up, everyone should have the freedom to make as many statements as they want. Since I am not ashamed of the Truth, or nervous that the Truth will never prevail, I welcome any and all statements from people of different beliefs.

I wish the government would cease restricting the beliefs of the people, whether they are truthful or lying. Although I would encourage people not to lie, as long as truth is held in equal regard we will be ok. God Bless.

 

[No Free Beer]

Theology.

Where is Beaven?

 

[PatriotOne]

And just to remind those who may of forgotten or didn't know:

Rick Santorum traveled in 2002 to Rome to speak at a centenary celebration of the birth of Saint Josemaría Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei.[139][183] He and his wife were invested as Knight and Dame of Magistral Grace of the Knights of Malta in a ceremony at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York on November 12, 2004.

also known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

 

[Emperius]

Santorum is a perfect example of how there are still people who are living out there who still live in the stone age.

 

[Sola_Fide]

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "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 vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

Notice what he says? The idea that "the church" can have no influence on the state makes him sick? This is the wrong, Roman Catholic view of this issue.

As a Christian, I want "Christians" to have influence in governing, but not "the church" (whatever Rick Satonrum thinks that is).

 

[LibertyEagle]

It's funny how people take quotes out of context.



I agree with him, there is no reason why faith has to be prohibited from tr public sphere. The 1st Amendment was put into place to protect the churches from the state. It makes me want to throw up when I see prohibitions against prayer in school or the display of the 10 Commandments on public property.

I agree. It appears that Ron Paul does too.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

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. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

 

[LibertyEagle]

Notice what he says? The idea that "the church" can have no influence on the state makes him sick? This is the wrong, Roman Catholic view of this issue.

As a Christian, I want "Christians" to have influence in governing, but not "the church" (whatever Rick Satonrum thinks that is).

I agree if he is talking about declaring an official church. But, that's not clear to me that this is what he is talking about.

 

[eduardo89]

Notice what he says? The idea that "the church" can have no influence on the state makes him sick? This is the wrong, Roman Catholic view of this issue.

As a Christian, I want "Christians" to have influence in governing, but not "the church" (whatever Rick Satonrum thinks that is).

I don't think he's referring to the Catholic Church...you're just using that as an excuse to inject your anti-Catholic/anti-non-Calvinist views into this conversation like you usually do.

 

[mczerone]

It's funny how people take quotes out of context.



I agree with him, there is no reason why faith has to be prohibited from tr public sphere. The 1st Amendment was put into place to protect the churches from the state. It makes me want to throw up when I see prohibitions against prayer in school or the display of the 10 Commandments on public property.

The two things you just listed would use social funds and state power to push a religious viewpoint.

I won't stop you for Personally praying or displaying the X commandments, but I also won't stand for the state to promote those actions.

Here's a simple solution: stop state provision of schools, courts, and town squares.