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

[James Madison]

Separation of church and state IS the Biblical position.

The Reformers intentionally separated these institutions because they were the direct victims of the tyranny that resulted when these institutions were mixed.

Rome wants nothing more than more centralization and more control over America....just like in all the eras of the past.

+1

To my knowledge, Christianity is the only mainline religion that discourages a merger of church and state.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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.

He's stating it in a context that opposes JFK's speech on religion and governance, which is almost exactly the answer Ron Paul gave in a recent Florida debate.

 

[jmdrake]

“That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square,” he said.

Gotta agree with Rick here.

Except that Rick Santorum has made it clear that he wants to impose his values on others.



Santorum has engaged in a dishonest straw man argument. The point JFK was making was to assuage fears of Protestant Americans that He would basically be a puppet of the Vatican. Kennedy's point was that his religious background shouldn't matter because as president he was dedicated to following the dictates of the constitution (not that he actually did consistently) as opposed to the dictates of the pope. Santorum is in your face about how certain Protestant groups are "outside the realm of Christianity" in his mind, and that conservatism in his mind includes the federal government getting involved in people's intimate affairs.

 

[jmdrake]

Except that it isn't in the Constitution.

True. Innocent until proven guilty isn't in the constitution either. Now are you ready to throw that out? The idea of separation of church and state is in the constitution and Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase. (Interesting how people only want to quote the founding fathers when it's convenient). The non-establishment and free exercise clauses were meant to be a separation between church and the federal state. Since Rick Santorum is running for federal office and has made it clear that he doesn't believe in states rights when it comes to cultural issues (unless it's a way to undermine the "liberals" in Washington), the state/federal constitutional difference doesn't come into play.

 

[Brett85]

Except that Rick Santorum has made it clear that he wants to impose his values on others.

People who are state legislators do have the right to impose their views on others. But Rick Santorum just needs to realize that the 10th amendment really means what it says.

 

[Brett85]

The non-establishment and free exercise clauses were meant to be a separation between church and the federal state.

Yes, with federal being the key word there. How exactly does a local school district allowing a kid or a football coach to pray at a football game violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment? Congress passed no law in such a situation. It was simply something that was done at the local levels of government.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

To wish for Rick Santorum to realize anything is "a long wait for a train don't come."

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

People who are state legislators do have the right to impose their views on others. But Rick Santorum just needs to realize that the 10th amendment really means what it says.

They don't have the right to impose their views on others; they have the power to impose their views on others.

 

[rambone]

​

 

[Yieu]

Except that it isn't in the Constitution.

A lack of separation means a degree of tyranny for those not in the Government Favored Religion, and it means passing laws that regulate an individual's expression of faith.

 

[Brett85]

and it means passing laws that regulate an individual's expression of faith.

What law did Congress pass that "regulated" anyone's expression of faith?

 

[Brett85]

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

"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."

Ron Paul

 

[Yieu]

People who are state legislators do have the right to impose their views on others. But Rick Santorum just needs to realize that the 10th amendment really means what it says.

People who are state legislators do not have the right to tell me what religion to be, or treat me differently based on my religion, which is what a lack of separation would involve.

 

[Yieu]

What law did Congress pass that "regulated" anyone's expression of faith?

That is the kind of law that would denote a lack of separation between church and state.

A lack of separation between church and state does not mean people who are religious serving in the government.
A lack of separation between church and state does not mean being able to bear religious symbols and other religious expression.

A separation between church and state means people who are religious serving in the government.
A separation between church and state means being able to bear religious symbols and other religious expression.

A lack of separation could be expressed by oppressing those not in the government favored religion.
A separation means religious freedom.

I think, from the quote you gave, that you may be considering a separation of church and state to mean something else?

 

[Brett85]

People who are state legislators do not have the right to tell me what religion to be, or treat me differently based on my religion, which is what a lack of separation would involve.

They wouldn't have the right to tell you what religion to be, and they wouldn't have the right to force you to attend a certain church. That's correct, but that simply doesn't happen. There's nothing that should prevent religious symbols from appearing in public places, (symbols of any religion) and there should be nothing that prevents students, teachers, and coaches from exercising their 1st amendment rights in public schools.

 

[Yieu]

They wouldn't have the right to tell you what religion to be, and they wouldn't have the right to force you to attend a certain church. That's correct, but that simply doesn't happen. There's nothing that should prevent religious symbols from appearing in public places, (symbols of any religion) and there should be nothing that prevents students, teachers, and coaches from exercising their 1st amendment rights in public schools.

Preventing the actions you described here is an example of a lack of separation of church and state.

When the government regulates those things, it is getting involved in religious affairs -- which means a lack of separation of church and state.

When the government does not prevent any such religious expression, that is a clear separation of church and state.

 

[Brett85]

I think, from the quote you gave, that you may be considering a separation of church and state to mean something else?

I'm saying that I don't agree with the ACLU's definition of the "separation of church and state."

 

[Aratus]

That is the kind of law that would denote a lack of separation between church and state.

A lack of separation between church and state does not mean people who are religious serving in the government.
A lack of separation between church and state does not mean being able to bear religious symbols and other religious expression.

A separation between church and state means people who are religious serving in the government.
A separation between church and state means being able to bear religious symbols and other religious expression.

A lack of separation could be expressed by oppressing those not in the government favored religion.
A separation means religious freedom.

I think, from the quote you gave, that you may be considering a separation of church and state to mean something else?

100,ooo thanx, Yieu! we allow ourselves to be a multicultural meltingpot if we be truely free & universal in our basic truths & inalienable rights.

 

[Brett85]

Preventing the actions you described here is an example of a lack of separation of church and state.

When the government regulates those things, it is getting involved in religious affairs -- which means a lack of separation of church and state.

When the government does not prevent any such religious expression, that is a clear separation of church and state.

Then in that case, you strongly disagree with the ACLU and the secular left's definition of the "separation of church and state."

 

[Yieu]

I'm saying that I don't agree with the ACLU's definition of the "separation of church and state."

I don't believe their definition is correct, and I reject their definition. I believe a separation of church and state means more religious freedom under the definition I described than with the government getting involved.