Santorum attacks the separation of church and state

[FargoBison]

Rick Santorum on Sunday took on of separation of church and state.

"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."

The GOP candidate was responding to comments he made last October. He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.

Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/2 ... 02246.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a quote from Kennedy's speech....

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -in-texas/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SDHornet]

Just another reason why this guy would have no chance against Obama.

[AZGrizFan]

Wow.

The microscopic chance he had of getting my vote just evaporated.

Looks like it's Ron Paul for me...

[BDKJMU]

How many Santorum threads has Fargo started in the last week? 4? 5?

[FargoBison]

I have started three in the past week, his attack against higher education, separation of church and state and his comments about Satan taking over American and our schools.

I also started a thread about his attacks on Libertarians a few weeks ago.

Lets just say I can't stand the man's ideas, he is the worst choice for president and that is counting Obama. People like Santorum are why I will never register as a Republican, I can not stomach their social views and how they want the gov't entangled in them.

[D1B]

I have started three in the past week, his attack against higher education, separation of church and state and his comments about Satan taking over American and our schools.

I also started a thread about his attacks on Libertarians a few weeks ago.

Lets just say I can't stand the man's ideas, he is the worst choice for president and that is counting Obama. People like Santorum are why I will never register as a Republican, I can not stomach their social views and how they want the gov't entangled in them.

Religion ruins everything.

[Skjellyfetti]

Wow.

The microscopic chance he had of getting my vote just evaporated.

Looks like it's Ron Paul for me...

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.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

Wow.

The microscopic chance he had of getting my vote just evaporated.

Looks like it's Ron Paul for me...

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.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But he doesn't lead from that position. Santorum does. Big difference.

[grizzaholic]

Wow.

The microscopic chance he had of getting my vote just evaporated.

Looks like it's Ron Paul for me...

GOOD

[Skjellyfetti]

But he doesn't lead from that position. Santorum does. Big difference.

Touche.

[citdog]

Wow.

The microscopic chance he had of getting my vote just evaporated.

Looks like it's Ron Paul for me...

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.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ron Paul is CORRECT.

[BDKJMU]

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are 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 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."

"separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

I'll break what he said down:

1. "There is no absolute separate of church and state": Well Santorum is right there, and every Republican candidate would agree with that, and a lot of donks would too. Separation of church and state ISN'T in the Constitution.

2. "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." When he said state he meant society. Well, Santorum is right there. Of course the church can have influence & involvement in the operation of society. An example would be govt delegating charity work to faith based charities.

3. Disagreeing with the notion that people of faith have no role in the public square. Santorum is absolutely right.

4. "separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision." Santorum is 100% correct. Most of the founding fathers, including the 1st 6 US Presidents, were more vocal about religion than Santorum is being:
http://christianity.about.com/od/indepe ... athers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Santorum is correct in everthing he has said, and the other Republican candidates, if asked on each statement, would agree.

[JohnStOnge]

Once again Santorum is right but people of today are so ignorant with respect to the original idea of the first Amendment and have become so programmed to believe that a "Separation of Church and State" as we know it was intended that they think he's off the wall.

Another manifestation of the problems we've got because we've allowed the Supreme Court to run amuck.

Again: The Contitution of the United States, as far as its language goes, does not contain a separation of church and state. It containes a narrow, specific prohibition against the Congress of the United States making a law with respect to the establisment of religion. That's it. It wasn't about prohibiting lawmakers' religous beliefs playing a role in legislation. It was about saying that the Congress couldn't do something like make a law saying that the official Religion of the United States was Assembly of God.

And, again, Christian Church services were being held in the House Chamber shortly after the first Amendment was ratified. It is obvious...OBVIOUS...that nobody of the time construed the first Amendment as the Supreme Court started construing it (or, I should say, started distorting it) during the 20th Century.

[JohnStOnge]

And I am gratified to see that a number of posters before me said basically the same thing.

[Ibanez]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But he doesn't lead from that position. Santorum does. Big difference.

Rick is batshit crazy. I'm really hoping all of this come to end after Super Tuesday. He is too out there.

[BDKJMU]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ron Paul is CORRECT.

Agreed. Ron Paul has the same viewpoint on this as Santorum.

[kalm]

So we can all at least agree that the teachings of the Koran should be a part of the public school curriculum now, right?

[Ivytalk]

So we can all at least agree that the teachings of the Koran should be a part of the public school curriculum now, right?

Why not? The Oscar for the best foreign film went to the Iranians this year. Just surprised that little fucker Ahmanuttajob didn't show up to accept.

[JohnStOnge]

So we can all at least agree that the teachings of the Koran should be a part of the public school curriculum now, right?

That should depend on what the local community of the school system wants. Maybe there might be some local communities that would want that. But I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority...if not all...would not.

[citdog]

So we can all at least agree that the teachings of the Koran should be a part of the public school curriculum now, right?

That should depend on what the local community of the school system wants. Maybe there might be some local communities that would want that. But I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority...if not all...would not.

i knew you didn't know pie when you saw it

[FargoBison]

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are 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 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."

"separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

I'll break what he said down:

1. "There is no absolute separate of church and state": Well Santorum is right there, and every Republican candidate would agree with that, and a lot of donks would too. Separation of church and state ISN'T in the Constitution.

2. "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." When he said state he meant society. Well, Santorum is right there. Of course the church can have influence & involvement in the operation of society. An example would be govt delegating charity work to faith based charities.

3. Disagreeing with the notion that people of faith have no role in the public square. Santorum is absolutely right.

4. "separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision." Santorum is 100% correct. Most of the founding fathers, including the 1st 6 US Presidents, were more vocal about religion than Santorum is being:
http://christianity.about.com/od/indepe ... athers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Santorum is correct in everthing he has said, and the other Republican candidates, if asked on each statement, would agree.

He is absolutely right about #3, people of faith can play a role in the public square and thusly we have many people of faith in our government. I'm not even sure why he brought that up.

I do think you can find examples for arguing about some kind of separation or wall between the church and state from the founders. I don't think what we have today is exactly their vision or maybe even close to it but to say it wasn't a part of their vision at all is misguided.

[Skjellyfetti]

3. Disagreeing with the notion that people of faith have no role in the public square. Santorum is absolutely right.

Who the fuck is saying that "people of faith have no role in the public square"?

~98% of people in the public square are "people of faith."

It's an invented controversy. Like the War on Christmas, War on Marriage, colleges brainwashing students, etc.

[D1B]

I'll break what he said down:

1. "There is no absolute separate of church and state": Well Santorum is right there, and every Republican candidate would agree with that, and a lot of donks would too. Separation of church and state ISN'T in the Constitution.

2. "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." When he said state he meant society. Well, Santorum is right there. Of course the church can have influence & involvement in the operation of society. An example would be govt delegating charity work to faith based charities.

3. Disagreeing with the notion that people of faith have no role in the public square. Santorum is absolutely right.

4. "separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision." Santorum is 100% correct. Most of the founding fathers, including the 1st 6 US Presidents, were more vocal about religion than Santorum is being:
http://christianity.about.com/od/indepe ... athers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Santorum is correct in everthing he has said, and the other Republican candidates, if asked on each statement, would agree.

He is absolutely right about #3, people of faith can play a role in the public square and thusly we have many people of faith in our government. I'm not even sure why he brought that up.

I do think you can find examples for arguing about some kind of separation or wall between the church and state from the founders. I don't think what we have today is exactly their vision or maybe even close to it but to say it wasn't a part of their vision at all is misguided.

Even if it wasn't their vision, that shit was 200 years ago. There is no need for religion in government. Religion is also a poor moral and ethical guide. Just look at the tyranny of catholic church over the centuries and their current systemic abuse of children.

They knew the danger of organized religion and did an admirable job keeping it out of government.

Religious fucks can do whatever they want, just keep jesus and the other stupid shit out of it.

[youngterrier]

Ah yes, the Founders believed that Religion was an excellent source for a moral code among other things. Afterall, We knew so much more about science, sociology, psychology, etc in the 18th century. We should most certainly base our society on the values of which people of the 18th century lived upon! Let's bring back slavery, revoke women's rights to vote, abolish all state-sponsored education, and repeal the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment.

But in all seriousness:
The process by which the constitution operates on is almost perfect, as are the Bill of Rights, etc. However this whole business of "what the founders wanted" is often trumped by reality. To act as if there's been a consensus on what the government has the power to do is laughable to say the least. After all, it's clear on what it can NOT do, but the elastic clause kind of gives free reign of the people to pass whatever the people want (in theory of course). It's clear that Franklin and Jefferson were most certainly not Christians themselves, but they clearly had sympathies toward the faith as a moral code, regardless they did not think it was justified to implement laws promoting religion in anyway (and the whole house of representatives thing with the churches and what not isn't necessarily unconstitutional, but it wouldn't fly in today's world as certain groups would want "equal time"). This whole concept of rejecting secular or non-Christian values, yet maintaining that we're the "home of the free" and the "melting pot" is contradictory.

There's nothing wrong with voting for someone because they are Christian or because their faith motivates them to make what they perceive to be moral. The problem is that often those motivations and laws proposed promote or at least are based on premises of religious belief, and those premises contradict with reality or are bold statements that can't be scientifically supported (at least at this time).

[houndawg]

I welcome Santorum's talk; I think he's batshit, but I respect his telling us who he is, and the Democrats must be coming down their collective leg at the thought of being given the gift of Santorum as the nominee.

Founding fathers aside I think it's pretty clear how the majority feels about mixing government and religion officially.