Santorum says separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[jgreer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_1302246.html?

I want to talk about this. After all this time I thought it was obvious that America is about the freedom of religion. Having one person in charge who pushes his religion on everyone doesnt seem right plus I think it would be against the Constitution

[Mister D]

What did you want to talk about? What he actually said or the spin Huffpost put on it that you swallowed whole?

[Mainecoons]

You're putting words in his mouth. No where does he suggest that one person who pushes his own religion should be in charge. Go back and read what the man said.

You liberals may not like it, but there was a very strong influence of Christian beliefs and morality on the Founders and their vision of government. The Constitution was carefully written to prohibit the state from favoring individual sects or churches. Liberals have perverted that into a blanket prohibition on any philosophical influence on government by religious people.

The results of this are plain to see and they aren't very pretty. A government that has no bedrock of ethics and morality will have no respect for the Constitution. And gues what, this one doesn't. The U.S. Federal government is so outside of the Constitution, we may as well be living in a foreign country.

[Mister D]

It's amazing how many drones can be mobilized with a headline. Sheeple.

[Chris]

What he said was ""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.""


Makes me want to throw up. Where in the objectives and vision of this country, specifically the Founding document, the Declaration or Constitution, does he find this? He's as much a social con statist as Obama is a social lib statist. Both are antithetical to liberty of conscience, as expressed in the BOR.

[jgreer]

Yea I agree. Plus imagine if it were a muslim saying this. Catholics maybe ok with this but only because theyre catholic too.

[Mister D]

Where does he find what, Chris?

[Chris]

"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"

Where is that in the founding docs?

No problem with "to say that people of faith have no role in the public square". That's protected.

[Mister D]

"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"

Where is that in the founding docs?

No problem with "to say that people of faith have no role in the public square". That's protected.

The question should be where in our founding documents is "the idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state". The answer is no where and the founders had no objection whatsoever to religion in the public sphere. Santorum is right and his supposed statism is irrelevant.

[Chris]

We're talking about Santorum and what he said. His claim is false.

We agree on people in public square, which I already said.

[Mainecoons]

What he said was ""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.""


Makes me want to throw up. Where in the objectives and vision of this country, specifically the Founding document, the Declaration or Constitution, does he find this? He's as much a social con statist as Obama is a social lib statist. Both are antithetical to liberty of conscience, as expressed in the BOR.

You're putting words in his mouth too. Look at what he says and the context he is saying it in. Christian principles and ethics are core to the Constitution. For much of the country's history there was most definitely a Christian influence and involvement with the state. Total secularization is a very recent development. Again, look at the state the country is in now and see if you two can connect the dots. The Federal government is immoral to the core now. Is this a positive development in your minds?

Don't take this as any endorsement of Santorum. Basically I agree with your assessment of him. But he is making a very valid point here and liberals are deliberately distorting it.

As usual.

[Chris]

You're putting words in his mouth too. Look at what he says and the context he is saying it in. Christian principles and ethics are core to the Constitution. For much of the country's history there was most definitely a Christian influence and involvement with the state. Total secularization is a very recent development. Again, look at the state the country is in now and see if you two can connect the dots. The Federal government is immoral to the core now. Is this a positive development in your minds?

Don't take this as any endorsement of Santorum. Basically I agree with your assessment of him. But he is making a very valid point here and liberals are deliberately distorting it.

As usual.
Those were his words I cited, maine.

"Christian principles and ethics are core to the Constitution."

Not even God is mentioned. And that's a first principle of Christianity. But if you can show us these principles and ethics, and show us they are uniquely Christian, in the Constitution...well, I wish you luck.

'For much of the country's history there was most definitely a Christian influence and involvement with the state."

Christian people. But that's not all of what Santorum claimed, he made claim the church was, contrary to the first amendment.

"Total secularization is a very recent development."

Not arguing for that.

"The Federal government is immoral to the core now."

Yes, it has lost is moral bearings, those set for it in the Declaration and Constitution.

[Peter1469]

That Constitution has an Establishment Clause that prohibits the government from establishing a religion.

The Separation of Church and State comes from a letter from Jefferson to a Baptist Church written a decade or more after the Constitution was ratified. The point of the letter was for the Church to not entail itself with government, because government would soon control them.

[Chris]

"That Constitution has an Establishment Clause that prohibits the government from establishing a religion."

Doesn't say "a religion". Says "an establishment". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".


"The Separation of Church and State comes from a letter from Jefferson to a Baptist Church written a decade or more after the Constitution was ratified."

Jefferson got it from Roger Williams, "When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World."

This was the prevailing principle at the time.

And it's beside the point.


Santorum is a social con statist who wants government to promote his personal religious beliefs. His statement, "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", is antitheitical to founding principles.

[Mainecoons]

As I said, we agree on Santorum. We don't agree that his statement is antitheitical to founding principles which have Christian morality and ethics at the core.

[Chris]

As I said, we agree on Santorum. We don't agree that his statement is antitheitical to founding principles which have Christian morality and ethics at the core.

And these core principles are uniquely Christian? What are they? Liberty of conscience, for all, wasn't a core principle till after Roger Williams.

"Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;..." [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

[Alias]

The left twists and perverts everything it touches. The idea of the so called "separation of church and state was to keep govt our of our free lives, not to keep our free lives out of govt. A free people cannot help but influence their govt with their personal beliefs. That's the idea. We need a free people with civilized beliefs, or else we will be slaves to a govt that will force it's will on us. The American people are the Govt, not a ruling class of elites.

[Chris]

Here again is what Santorum said: ""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.""

As stated several times, no one here is arguing "people of faith have no role in the public square". The question is does the church, any church? Should it, then that, imo, is an establishment of religion, and Congress is prohibited from that, is it not?


"A free people cannot help but influence their govt with their personal beliefs. That's the idea. We need a free people with civilized beliefs, or else we will be slaves to a govt that will force it's will on us."

Agree 100%. Only a free people can be moral and only a moral people can be free. In every respect, including liberty of conscience.


"The American people are the Govt, not a ruling class of elites."

Disagree on that, society and government are two different things. We the people created our government and granted it certain powers, and when it goes beyond those powers, we the people can disband it: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Alias]

Here again is what Santorum said: ""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.""

As stated several times, no one here is arguing "people of faith have no role in the public square". The question is does the church, any church? Should it, then that, imo, is an establishment of religion, and Congress is prohibited from that, is it not?


"A free people cannot help but influence their govt with their personal beliefs. That's the idea. We need a free people with civilized beliefs, or else we will be slaves to a govt that will force it's will on us."

Agree 100%. Only a free people can be moral and only a moral people can be free. In every respect, including liberty of conscience.


"The American people are the Govt, not a ruling class of elites."

Disagree on that, society and government are two different things. We the people created our government and granted it certain powers, and when it goes beyond those powers, we the people can disband it: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We do agree. You said it far more eloquently.

[Chris]

Let me ask some of you then, doesn't religion, or at least religious belief, flourish all the more because our secular government cannot impose neither religious nor even anti-religious beliefs on us? Most here posting I imagine make some claim to being religious, even Christian, but you each believe differently, freely.

Santorum, by his own words, doesn't appreciate that.

[Mister D]

Let me ask some of you then, doesn't religion, or at least religious belief, flourish all the more because our secular government cannot impose neither religious nor even anti-religious beliefs on us? Most here posting I imagine make some claim to being religious, even Christian, but you each believe differently, freely.

Santorum, by his own words, doesn't appreciate that.

Which words were those?

[Alias]

Let me ask some of you then, doesn't religion, or at least religious belief, flourish all the more because our secular government cannot impose neither religious nor even anti-religious beliefs on us? Most here posting I imagine make some claim to being religious, even Christian, but you each believe differently, freely.


Santorum, by his own words, doesn't appreciate that.

Can you be a little more specific and give a quote. Thanks.

[Chris]

Here again is what Santorum said: ""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.""

This has been posted many times.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lLOi2DdV44

[Mister D]

Yes, it has but he's asking for a quote that backs up your assertion.

[Chris]

Just gave it D. Gave it another thread on Santorum as well.

[Alias]

What I want is a something specific that Santorum said that is against the principles of American values.

[Alias]

Just gave it D. Gave it another thread on Santorum as well.

Do you have one or two sentences from Santorum that you object to?

[Alias]

""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."

I see nothing objectionable in that quote.

[Mister D]

Just gave it D. Gave it another thread on Santorum as well.

Sorry, I see nothing objectionable in that quote either. That is to say, there is nothing there that supports your assertion.

[Mister D]

""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."

I see nothing objectionable in that quote.

I'm actually beginning to have a more favorable view of Santorum precisely because of the irrational hatred he inspires.

[Alias]

I'm actually beginning to have a more favorable view of Santorum precisely because of the irrational hatred he inspires.

They sure get all wee wee'd up when he speaks clearly and coherently. Reminds me of the way Reagan made them all pee their pants. They should read some of George Washington's speechs. That would make them change their diapers at least twice in one reading.

[Elibe]

catholics like santorum but they would have a huge problem with romney pushing his faith the way santorum does

it is a double standard

[Chris]

""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."

I see nothing objectionable in that quote.

The question is not what's objectionable but what's constitutional.

"to say that people of faith have no role in the public square" is constitutional, all people have a role. "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" is unconstitutional, the church has no place.

Think not? First tell us where you find such a vision and objective in the founding documents? You won't. You will find the opposite of what Santorum believes in the first amendment.

[Alias]

catholics like santorum but they would have a huge problem with romney pushing his faith the way santorum does

it is a double standard

Santorum is pushing "freedom", not his faith. Sometimes people get confused when people speak about religious "freedom" and think they are pushing their faith.

[Mister D]

The question is not what's objectionable but what's constitutional.

"to say that people of faith have no role in the public square" is constitutional, all people have a role. "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" is unconstitutional, the church has no place.

Think not? First tell us where you find such a vision and objective in the founding documents? You won't. You will find the opposite of what Santorum believes in the first amendment.

What church do you think Santorum is talking about?

[Chris]

Doesn't matter.

[Chris]

Santorum is pushing "freedom", not his faith. Sometimes people get confused when people speak about religious "freedom" and think they are pushing their faith.
Explain how you find freedom in government intervention into freedom.

[Mister D]

Doesn't matter.

Sure it does and what you mean to say is that you have no idea what church he's referring to. That's because he's not referring to any specific church or sect etc. at all. He's referring to people of faith in government and the values/influences said persons bring with them.

[Mainecoons]

That's how I took it. OTOH, if you look at Santorum, Chris may have a point.

I can't believe anyone takes this statist POS seriously.

[Chris]

Sure it does and what you mean to say is that you have no idea what church he's referring to. That's because he's not referring to any specific church or sect etc. at all. He's referring to people of faith in government and the values/influences said persons bring with them.
Where'd I say all those things, D? All I said is it doesn't matter. He clearly said the church in one assertion, and the people of faith in another. Let's stick to what he said, and if you want to discuss what I said, stick to what I said.

[Alias]

Explain how you find freedom in government intervention into freedom.

Can you explain what you mean by "freedom in government intervention"?

[Chris]

That's how I took it. OTOH, if you look at Santorum, Chris may have a point.

I can't believe anyone takes this statist POS seriously.
Again, what he said about people of faith is constitutional, what he said about the church is not.

Someone will have to explain how the church can be part of government when Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion? Doing so would not increase but decrease freedom. Wasn't that what people left Europe for, freedom from collusion between the government and the church? They came here for freedom from that, freedom to choose whatever faith they saw fit.

[Mister D]

That's how I took it. OTOH, if you look at Santorum, Chris may have a point.

I can't believe anyone takes this statist POS seriously.

That's how any objective person would take it.

Mind you, I'm no fan of Santorum or of any GOP candidate but the Santorum hatred is off the wall in some cases.

[Alias]

Again, what he said about people of faith is constitutional, what he said about the church is not.

Someone will have to explain how the church can be part of government when Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion? Doing so would not increase but decrease freedom. Wasn't that what people left Europe for, freedom from collusion between the government and the church? They came here for freedom from that, freedom to choose whatever faith they saw fit.

I didn't see anything in what Santorum said that would make me think he wants me to become a Catholic.

[Mister D]

Where'd I say all those things, D? All I said is it doesn't matter. He clearly said the church in one assertion, and the people of faith in another. Let's stick to what he said, and if you want to discuss what I said, stick to what I said.

All what things? That you don't know what church he is referring to? Do you know? If you refuse to answer I can only conclude that you don't know.

People of faith and "the church" in this context are the same thing, Chris.

[Alias]

That's how I took it. OTOH, if you look at Santorum, Chris may have a point.

I can't believe anyone takes this statist POS seriously.

Off topic. I have a Maine Coon also. He's 20 lbs and still growing.

[Mister D]

I didn't see anything in what Santorum said that would make me think he wants me to become a Catholic.

As if Santorum wants a theocracy.

[Mister D]

Again, what he said about people of faith is constitutional, what he said about the church is not.

Someone will have to explain how the church can be part of government when Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion? Doing so would not increase but decrease freedom. Wasn't that what people left Europe for, freedom from collusion between the government and the church? They came here for freedom from that, freedom to choose whatever faith they saw fit.

What church, Chris?

[Alias]

As if Santorum wants a theocracy.

The dems want everyone to believe Santorum is going to put the pope in charge of social affairs, string up abortion doctors, have mandatory bible classes after school, and everyone has to attend church or go to jail.

[Peter1469]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_1302246.html?

I want to talk about this. After all this time I thought it was obvious that America is about the freedom of religion. Having one person in charge who pushes his religion on everyone doesnt seem right plus I think it would be against the Constitution

It would be unconstitutional for the government to favor a religion. I would think talking about it doesn't rise to that level.

[Mister D]

The dems want everyone to believe Santorum is going to put the pope in charge of social affairs, string up abortion doctors, have mandatory bible classes after school, and everyone has to attend church or go to jail.

I'm genuinely surprised by how many otherwise intelligent people fall for this stuff.

[Alias]

I'm genuinely surprised by how many otherwise intelligent people fall for this stuff.

That's why we need an intelligence test for voters. Basic questions. You know, like...."Do you believe conservatives want to force you to believe in God and force you to take the stud out of your tongue and use acid to remove your tattoos." You know, simple stuff.

[Mister D]

That's why we need an intelligence test for voters. Basic questions. You know, like...."Do you believe conservatives want to force you to believe in God and force you to take the stud out of your tongue and use acid to remove your tattoos." You know, simple stuff.

:laugh:

[Chris]

Conservatives don't, social con statists like Santorum do.

I would base the franchise on something like proportional to how much taxes you pay.

[wingrider]

for those of you who think that this country was not founded on faith based principles I off as exhibit 1 the Declaration of independance which according to Abraham Lincoln should be used as the foundation for interpreting the Constitution,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness).

This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"[4] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-3), containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history."[5] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-4) The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln), who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Constitution) should be interpreted.[6] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-McPherson126-5) It has inspired work for the rights of marginalized people throughout the world.


Lincoln's view of the Declaration (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Declarationism) as a moral guide to interpreting the Constitution became influential. "For most people now," wrote Garry Wills in 1992, "the Declaration means what Lincoln told us it means, as a way of correcting the Constitution itself without overthrowing it."[171] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-170) Admirers of Lincoln, such as Harry V. Jaffa (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Harry_V._Jaffa), praised this development. Critics of Lincoln, notably Willmoore Kendall (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Willmoore_Kendall) and Mel Bradford (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Mel_Bradford), argued that Lincoln dangerously expanded the scope of the national government, and violated states' rights (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/States'_rights), by reading the Declaration into the Constitution.[172] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-171)





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Thomas_Jefferson_rev.jpg/170px-Thomas_Jefferson_rev.jpg (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/File:Thomas_Jefferson_rev.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.18/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/File:Thomas_Jefferson_rev.jpg)
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration

Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
—Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775[7] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-6)
now I am not in any way implying that Santorum is anywhere near the statesman or politician that Jefferson, Madison or Lincoln were, but in the regards to our government basically telling the american people that Faith has no part of the Political arena is ludicrous, without the faith that these men held in our Creator, the United States would not be in existance, nor would it afford us the liberties which we currently enjoy .There is No separation of Church and State listed anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, only the misinterpretation of a letter sent to the Dansbury Church by Jefferson that has been wrongly applied to the interpretaion of the First amendment. but if you read the full context of the First amendment people of faiths freedoms have been interferred with and in some cases abrogated by the incursions of secular organizations whos sole purpose is to abolish any and all refferences to God, Jesus, Christianity and any public display of that faith.

[Chris]

Agree that the Declaration states the moral foundation of the nation. But where are those faith, especially Christian, specifically uniquely Christian based principles?

[Alias]

Agree that the Declaration states the moral foundation of the nation. But where are those faith, especially Christian, specifically uniquely Christian based principles?

It's right there. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

We get our rights from our Creator, not Govt. Govt "Protects" our rights. At least it's supposed to.

[Chris]

It's right there. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

We get our rights from our Creator, not Govt. Govt "Protects" our rights. At least it's supposed to.
Right, we created our government to protect our rights, but what does "the Creator" refer to? "the" requires a referent, look for it a little earlier in the document.

[wingrider]

Right, we created our government to protect our rights, but what does "the Creator" refer to? "the" requires a referent, look for it a little earlier in the document.


try the bible it is the source of all the founding fathers values when setting up this nation.

[Chris]

try the bible it is the source of all the founding fathers values when setting up this nation.
Again, love to see that backed up.

[Alias]

Right, we created our government to protect our rights, but what does "the Creator" refer to? "the" requires a referent, look for it a little earlier in the document.

"Creator" and "Nature's God" is a reference to Deism. Thomas Jefferson. A clear reference to God.

[Chris]

Yes, the Laws of Nature, an Enlightenment view of God, defined scientifically, as Newton did in physics, Locke in politics, without recourse to a Deus Ex Machina mechanism--here I refer to the English/Scottish Enlightenment, not the French.

The Declaration is concerned with natural rights derived by Locke and others from natural law--natural moral law.

[Captain Obvious]

Santorum is a fundamentalist, theocratic whackjob.

He's Christianity's OBL.